Abortion

[dazzleman]

I think abortion should be decided by state legislatures and/or congress, not the courts.

Whatever the will of the people is, I would accept.  I am against abortion in principle but recognize that in practice it can possibly be the best of several bad options, under certain circumstances.  

It's not a black and white issue, but I think the logic behind the Roe vs. Wade decision is specious.  I don't believe we're talking about the woman's body, but a separate body growing inside of her, something that was created by a man AND a woman.

I think abortion as currently structured does not provide men with equal rights as a parent, and I think in concept that that's wrong.  A man cannot prevent a woman from aborting his child, even if he's willing to accept sole responsibility for the child.  By the same token, he can't force the mother of his child to have an abortion, even if he doesn't want the child.  But he must abide by her choice whatever it is, including paying child support.  So the  man is assigned full responsibility for whatever decisions the woman makes, but no legal standing to participate in those decisions, even within marriage.  Come to think of it, that's the ideal world as conceived by the feminists.

One sickness of our society is a heavy reliance on the legal system to fix the screw-ups we create in our personal lives.  Americans don't seem to realize that the legal system can't make everything right.  There is no substitute for responsible behavior, on the part of men and women, when it comes to activities that could result in pregnancy.  Abortion and laws to force men to pay support to the illegitimate children that they're not involved in raising are not the answers.

[dazzleman]

I don't agree.  Conceiving a child is a joint action, and so should raising the child be.  It should be joint decision making and joint responsibility.  Plenty of men support their kids, and I don't buy into this argument that only women raise kids.  I was raised by a father and a mother, with only my father providing financial support, since my mom didn't work.  If a woman gets pregnant with a man who's not interested in the child, that's one thing, but a woman should not be able to unilaterally override the wishes of the child's father in my opinion, provided that he has accepted his share of responsibility for the child.

I think the feminist paranoia on the whole abortion issue shows the weakness in the left's strategy of remaking society through judicial decisions rather than through the democratic process.

States were beginning abortion laws before Roe vs. Wade.  Had those favoring abortion worked through the democratic process and gotten legislatures to liberalize abortion, their precious right would be a lot more stable, and they wouldn't be sweating bullets over every judicial nomination.

[dazzleman]

I'm sorry to hear that, dude.  I'm sure that contributes to your view of the woman as the primary parent, and in reality, a heavy responsibility does fall on women when a father is not involved.

I have also seen other cases where mothers have walked away, and left the whole job to the father, but that is far less common.

But I don't think the law should be crafted with the assumption that only the mother will do the child-rearing, and that the mother should have all the decision-making authority simply because she bears the child.  I think that both parents should have equal rights and equal responsibilities, and that childbearing and childrearing should be as much as possible a private arrangement between two people.

The feminist logic in general is a major bone in my throat.  I have seen so many injustices perpetrated in the name of feminism, and I don't believe that two wrongs make a right.

By the way, I'm surprised to hear that you didn't get an education past high school; you come across as well educated.

[dazzleman]

I oppose parental notification. I believe that it has the unhelpful effect of involving adversarial parents into a situation which could be potentially explosive. I also concur with the findings of the Florida Supreme Court that such a law violates what they term a right to privacy, by infringing upon a girl's reproductive freedom and physical autonomy.

So it makes sense that a minor girl can't be given an aspirin legally without her parents' permission, but an abortion is perfectly OK?

[dazzleman]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

Lack of moralt responsibility can be very damaging to a society. We're seeing that in Sweden and, believe me, it isn't nice.

Gustaf, you are so correct, and that's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with abortion.  The whole philosophy behind it is one of evading responsibility for your actions by making somebody else pay for them.

It's very refreshing to hear a European talk that pay, because so many of our liberals look to Europe as an example of the direction we should move in.  I don't agree at all, and I hope to see the US resisting the push from the liberals to embrace ideas in vogue in Europe like moral relativism.

[dazzleman]

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

[dazzleman]

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

I think implementing a cradle-to-grave welfare state inevitably snuffs out personal and moral responsibility, and Europe is further along in doing this than the US.

[dazzleman]

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

Well, to a certain extent, obviously. That's what is called "social capital", and has been measured by someone as the number of choirs per capita. Apparently, the more choirs in a society, the better off it is! I was talking more in economic terms, the welfare states of Europe are collpasing due to faltering ethics.

That's an interesting theory about choirs per capita!  I must admit I had never heard of it before.

But seriously, what many people don't appreciate is that the economic and social health of a society are linked.  Lack of personal and moral responsibility will lead to declining social health in a society -- out of wedlock births, high crime, etc. and this ultimately undermines the economic health of a society.  If people look to the government to solve the problems created by the lack of moral responsibility, that saps the wealth of a society.

I think the lessons are:

(1) in the long run, government cannot maintain a society's social health, as many liberals seem to expect.  Only individual people can do that; and
(2) in the long run also, a society can't have good economic health coupled with poor social health.

Many Democrats in the US say they are economically conservative and socially liberal, the reverse of traditional Democrats, who were socially conservative and economically liberal.  Neither combination works in my opinion.  

Economic liberalism, if not very carefully applied, eventually undermines personal responsibility to the point that social liberalism becomes seen as a "solution" to all the problems that people are creating.  Welfare programs, which led to an explosion of out-of-wedlock births, are a perfect example of this.  Now of course, these kids don't have the right guidance, can't be educated properly, etc. and more government programs are "needed" to "fix" these problems.

On the other hand, it is not tenable to have a system which allows and encourages the type of behavior that leads to dependency, and then say we're going to have low taxes and limited government programs.

Europe has been both socially and economically liberal for quite some time now, but that combination falls apart eventually too, because it become too expensive to keep adding "programs" to "fix" the problems created by social irresponsibility.  The problem with the entitlement mentalities that are bred by this combination of policies is that somebody has to provide the money, but the more people fall into an entitlement mentality, the fewer people there are to provide the money, which eventually causes the whole thing to collapse.

[dazzleman]

The paradox is that government cannot create higher moral standards; only individuals can do that.

But government can effectively undermine moral standards, by rewarding irresponsible behavior, and sending out the message, as you said, that those who behave responsibly will be punished, while those who behave irresponsibly will be rewarded.

In both the US and in Europe, this is the main problem with left-party politics -- the reward of irresponsible behavior, and the resulting decline in moral and personal responsibility.  It is a very slippery downward slope, and very hard to climb back up.

The problem is that left-wing policies produce immediate benefits, but the problems they create take a lot longer to become obvious.  And even when they do, liberals deny any connection between their policies and the problems they have created.

The world constantly changes, and the reason for that is that yesterday's solution becomes today's problem.  Welfare was originally conceived as a solution to the problem of poverty, and eventually welfare itself became the problem.  Public education, as presently constituted, is also going through a crisis for a number of reasons, including the view of it as a cash cow by teacher's unions, and the belief, in many quarters, that the existence of public education relieves parents of their responsibility as their child's primary educator.  Large government entitlement programs throughout the western world are in grave danger as they have grown so big that more and more people are collecting on them, while fewer are paying.

To keep the world in good working order, people must always be a step ahead, working to solve today's problems and anticipate tomorrow's problems, rather than focused on yesterday's problems.  I think that today, the left is focused on yesterday's issues, and their thinking is outdated.

[dazzleman]

Yes, I agree. In Sweden we have vouches schools, why don't you try that to solve the problems of oublic education?

Btw, I am feeling less and less Democratic by the post...

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

[dazzleman]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

I thought you were in charge?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that simple.  Republican majorities are slim in both the Senate and House, and committed Democratic opposition makes it very difficult to pass it.  Not every Republican supports it, but Democratic opposition is vehement.

The one thing that would make it pass is if black voters, who disproportionately suffer from failing schools, made it clear to the Democrats that they would vote against them unless they end their opposition to vouchers.  Black voters favor vouchers, but once again place ethnic identification ahead of actual issues in determining their votes.  Black "leaders" are vociferiously opposed to vouchers, largely because they have money and have already chosen to put their own kids into private schools.  So the failing public schools are only for poor blacks, not those who are better off.

The US has much less of a party-based system than the typical European country, in any case.  Legislatures are elected independent of the executive branch, unlike the parliamentary system, and each legislative body has its own set of procedures for passing laws that can effectively prevent a small majority from having absolute control.

[dazzleman]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

That's really not true
I am very against school vouchers because it is the public education system that needs to be improved.  School vouchers are like giving up on the public education system.
In MS, all of the private schools were founded in the 1960's to avoid integration.  Vouchers for those schools would be horrible.
As a public school student, I can say that vouchers are NOT what is necessary.

People have been talking about improving public schools for 40 years, and for liberals, that has meant two things:  forced integration, which would somehow magically solve the disparity between black and white education (it didn't) and more money into a system that is failing.

The central question is, with respect to inner city schools, can anything be worse than what we have right now?  In my opinion, the answer is no, and I'm therefore willing to try something outside the box, like vouchers.  Right now, we are consigning virtually ALL inner city people, except for the lucky few who win a lottery and get to go to a magnet or suburban school, to a violent and substandard education.  A way has to be found to separate the wheat from the chaff, because it is unconscionable to lump all inner city people togeter, and condemn them en masse, and that's what we're doing now.  If we could save 20, 30, 40, 50% of them, we could create some positive momentum in the urban culture with respect to the benefits of education, and change some attitudes, as welfare reform did.

But if we just say we're going to improve the public schools, well , that will never happen under the circumstances that exist in inner city communities.

[dazzleman]

We seem to have changed the topic completely, but that's OK.
Here's the deal in MS:
Many people at private schools are there because they don't want to be with black people.  Some aren't.  But that is the sole reason that a lot of people have at private schools.
Most inner city schools in Jackson aren't good at all.  However, vouchers will not solve the problem.  The private schools are nowhere near the inner city.  If a black person recieved a voucher to go to one, he would have to get his own transportation to get there.
JPS (Jackson Public Schools) has a policy that anyone can go to another schoool in the district.   If he could get that transportation to a private school, he could simply go to a higher quality JPS school (there are about 3) and go there.  He would receive the same quality education, and half the student body wouldn't hate him just because of his race.
Perhaps the situation is different in other regions of the country, but until I see some examples of them working well, I can say that I do not believe vouchers are the way to go,.

You raise some good points.  Clearly, race is central to the education issue, because disproportionately, those trapped in failing public schools are black.  We have a de facto policy in this country that you can get a good education as long as your parents have enough money to buy in a good community, or failing enough, can afford private school.

Integration was supposed to be the answer, but it failed.  It failed because it didn't address the right issue, which is, what is the best way to enhance a child's educational potential, and what are the variables that contribute to that?  Sitting a black kid next to a white kid does not automatically enhance educational potential; it is somewhat racist and condescending to think that it would.

Integration generally consisted of attempting to mix poor black kids with middle class white kids.  The middle class opted out through their financial means, leaving only poor white kids to integrate with poor black kids.  And let's be honest -- the middle class had good reason to opt out of such an ill-conceived plan.  The sad fact is that heavily black schools are prone toward violence, and deliver a very poor education, for a number of reasons that many people are not prepared to acknowledge or address.  BLACK parents who are interested in their childrens' education are desperate to get their kids out of those schools; why in the world would white parents submit to sending their kids there?  In addition, liberal court rulings have enshrined the "rights" of the most violent and disruptive students, and made it nearly impossible for the schools to deal with them effectively.  This policy also disproportionately harms schools with large black populations.

The real answer is to forget about integration for the time being, and focus on educational alternatives.  First and foremost, discipline must be restored.  Those who are not interested in education, and who are violent and disruptive, must be removed.  This is the only way to give the other kids any chance at education, since no learning can take place in the chaotic and violent environment that exists in urban public schools.  Integration will happen on its own when the social gap between blacks and whites is sufficiently narrowed, and education is a big part of this.  But forced integration, which was really an attempt to short-circuit a more organic assimilation process, will never work.

Vouchers would give parents with kids trapped in these failing schools other alternatives, which I think they deserve.  In addressing the Jackson situation, I think that alternative schools will develop in the areas needed if the demand is there for there, and the means exists to pay the tuition.  That is the free market, something we have shut out of education.  It won't be perfect; there will be lots of problems, but nothing could be worse than what we are doing to bright inner city children now.

I would also add that the situation in Mississippi is not unique; it's a national trend.  Maybe it's more severe there, maybe not, but I live in racially enlightened Connecticut, and the situation is the same.  The heavily black cities, with violent, failing public schools, are surrounded by lily white suburbs.  Whites who live in the cities send their kids to private schools.  Middle class whites were forced out of the cities by, among other things, forced integration in the 1970s.  So really, the situation is not so different.  The biggest difference is the availability of private schools.  There are many Catholic schools here, some operating below capacity, who could take in public school refugees if the parents had some help in paying the tuition.

I think this is one area where there could be a huge improvement over the current abysmal situation if we could defeat the narrow interests of the teachers' unions, and the false and destructive idealism and perfectionism of some liberals.  I heard a great saying that the enemy of the good is not the bad, but the perfect.  Striving for absolute perfection prevents a lot of good things from being done, and the attitude of liberals toward school vouchers is a perfect example of this in my opinion.