Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That….

If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.

What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.

The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.

The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.

The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.

As with other issues discussed recently, removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share their life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.

The Abortion Debate

First, it is important to understand that nobody enjoys abortion. If there is one thing in all the discussions about abortion that can be agreed upon, it is this fact. I state this clearly and right out front so that there can be no misunderstanding on this issue. Religious conservatives do not like abortions. Secular liberals do not like abortions. Rich people do not like abortions. Poor people do not like abortions. Nobody likes abortions. It may seem like a simple point from which to start, but it is from common ground that common sense springs. It should be no different in the debate about abortion.

As with many touchy moral questions, the debate regarding abortion has been framed in mostly religious terms. While that is understandable to a degree (because of the theological implications of pregnancy held by most religions), it has the unfortunate aspect of ignoring the historical, medical, and societal impacts, and reduces the freedoms and responsibilities of individuals. But as with many moral choices, the reasons behind abortions can’t be summed up in a few catchy phrases like Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. These words are ridiculous when the implications of the conversation are considered in full. Let’s be real for a minute…isn’t the whole idea of freedom about being “pro-choice?” Isn’t the whole concept of happiness “pro-life?” As with many ideas in today’s political/social/religious arena, these phrases smack of politically correct nonsense, their only purpose to divide and demonize.

So if we agree that no one likes abortion, we can probably agree on a few other points as well. From a medical standpoint, let’s accept the notion that it is better to not have an abortion than to have one, if only because internal medical procedures are inherently harmful to the body. (FOR THE RECORD: I am not referring to any studies from any institution or any study results that purport any physical findings related to abortive procedures. This is just a general statement regarding invasive procedures.) We must also agree to accept scientific evidence regarding the viability of human life when considering public policy. And we must agree that any legislation should have the intended goal of reducing then number abortions.

The first major hurdle to overcome in the abortion debate is still the religious one. As with many religious doctrines, the table is split on this issue as well. But while most Christians (and we will use Christianity as our religious example since it is the predominant religion in America) hold the creation of new life as a gift from god, there is no consensus as to whether this belief is largely metaphorical or strictly factual. This division among the main group of opponents, when coupled with the non-religious opinions of other citizens, necessitates the reliance upon a judgment from the secular social structure to ensure that religious dogma does not become public policy, thus foisting its ideals on a non-believing citizen. At its heart, the issue of abortion is a personal one, made by a woman and her heart and her mind. It is among the most individual choices a woman will ever have to make in her life, and it should be left to her, and those she is close to, and whatever religious beliefs she may or may not have. Society does not have to condone the act of abortion, but it does have the obligation to allow women the option.

This does not mean that abortions should be unregulated, because as we earlier agreed, abortions are not really desirable. So the questions left to us are: what restrictions, if any, should be placed on abortions; how can we reduce the number of abortions; why should we reduce the numbers of abortions; and, how can we deal with the religious concerns of those who oppose abortions?

First, abortion, even though it should be allowed, should have some national legal restrictions in place. The reason for this necessity is simple: abortion should be an option of near last resort, not a regular form of birth control. As such, legal abortions should follow these common sense guidelines:
1) Scientific evidence should determine the stage at which a human embryo is capable of sustaining life outside of the mother’s womb. This evidence should take into account such factors as physiological viability, structural integrity, and neural development. Religious conceptions of when humanity begins are not applicable in this determination due to their widely varying estimate.
2) Once the time frame is established, abortions should be not be allowed for an embryo that has passed that stage, except in the case of possible fatality or severe mental incapacitation of the woman.
3) Abortions performed in cases of rape or incest should be reported to the authorities under conditions of anonymity.
4) Abortions performed due to deformities of the embryo detected in utero should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
5) Women seeking abortion should have the right to privacy, regardless of age, with the exception that legal authorities be notified in cases of minor pregnancy resulting from unlawful sexual behavior under conditions of anonymity.
6) Abortive methods should be as benign as possible, encouraging natural methods for abortion before clinical methods are considered.
7) Women seeking abortion should be educated fully regarding the medical consequences of the procedure, if any. They should also be counseled on the other options regarding unwanted pregnancy without interjected religious morality.
8) Women seeking abortion should be counseled regarding methods to prevent pregnancy and should be limited to the number of abortions they can legally obtain in a given time span.
No other legal guidelines should be placed upon women seeking to obtain an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. The law’s purpose is to clarify how abortions can be done legally. But it does nothing to reduce the number of abortions. For that part of the equation, we need to rely on education.

While it is true that an outright ban on abortion would also reduce the number of abortions, it would also have the effect of increasing the number of needless deaths caused by underground abortionists and an increase in the amount of unwanted or uncared for children thrust upon society. So education becomes the key…specifically, education regarding the cause of pregnancy and the ways to avoid pregnancy. This is not necessarily an education in all sexual topics, rather a factual account that sexual activity is the only cause of naturally occurring pregnancy, and that there are many ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy, including abstinence and contraception. The curriculum should also include the responsibilities associated with having a child and the commitment necessary to raise that child to live within society. These lessons should be taught to our children, beginning at an age just before pregnancy becomes physically possible. Our schools should be responsible for teaching the factual information and some of the practical information. The parents should teach their children about the practical information too, and also impart upon them their family’s religious feeling on the matter. Then, test the hell out of these kids to make sure they got the message. Don’t expect that this education will keep kids from having sexual relations sooner or later. Just expect that they will make informed choices that will prevent pregnancy in the first place, or if pregnancy does occur, that they have they tools to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Another way to reduce pregnancy is the restriction regarding the number of abortions a woman can receive in a given time period. Enforcement of this type of policy could range from mandated counseling all the way to mandatory sterilization. There is no reason why a woman, once educated to the factual nature and preventative measure of pregnancy, should have the need for multiple abortions. It can be said that everyone makes a mistake once, and maybe even a second time, but the third time isn’t a mistake anymore, it’s just plain carelessness or callousness. Women who abuse the abortion system should be made to carry future babies to term and then place them in adoption centers or agree to get sterilized. When faced with this choice, some women may try to be more careful. But we must realize that pregnancy is not just a female issue. It takes a man to make a baby too. For that reason, we should institute a system for identifying the man responsible for impregnating any woman who gets an abortion. With that information, we could mandate the same counseling, plus financial obligations, and finally sterilization for men who callously get women pregnant. This would cause men to stop and take notice to their responsibility as well.

If we are to allow abortions, why should we care about reducing the number of abortions? From a strictly non-religious standpoint, the reduction in abortions is desirable because we still all agree that we don’t like abortions. But on a more practical level, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are disruptive to the development of young women’s lives and can steer them away from becoming productive contributors to society. Also, the excess of abortions offer too easy a way for men to shed their responsibilities as a potential father, and encourages them towards selfish behavior. This becomes a pattern that follows them into eventual fatherhood, and perpetuates itself ad naseum. An ever-growing population of irresponsible men and half-fulfilled women does not serve society. Reducing the number of abortions logically means that fewer unwanted pregnancies have occurred, pointing to a more responsible class of individuals and thus are more likely to be better citizens.

As for the religious objections regarding abortion, like other issues, simply legalizing an action does not mean that you have to do it. There is no reason for you to fear the ability of others to get an abortion. Remember, you are responsible for teaching your kids your religious beliefs regarding pregnancy and abortion. You will be the one who really molds the choices they will make when they become sexual beings. Your religion is not encroached upon the legalization of abortion. Your values are not lessened by factual information. Your beliefs and your faith are surely stronger than that.

The Right to Die

If there is one thing that we can count on in life it is that someday we will die. For most people, this is not a thought that is dwelt upon; it is simply a fact of existence. We know that someday, somehow, our life will come to an end. In most cases, the time and manner of our demise is not something which we can foretell, nor is it something that we spend a great deal of time thinking about. Rather, we go through our lives attempting to enjoy as many moments as we can without worrying about its ultimate end, assuming it is sometime far off in the future. Most of us yearn for a long, healthy life filled with unique experiences, or at least one with little strife. And we attempt to structure our lives so that they offer enjoyment and satisfaction not only for ourselves, but for our families as well.

The religions that guide humanity tend to teach us that life is sacred, something to be cherished and protected. These religious beliefs hold that life is a gift from God and it is only God that can determine when a life should end. For many religious individuals, the concept of taking ones own life is usually looked upon with great disdain, and the act of suicide promises eternal damnation in the ever after. There are no exceptions to this rule, no provisions for those whose quality of life has been degraded by health concerns or by circumstances that delete all happiness from life itself. (Readers may note that some forms of religion are currently encouraging suicide as a means of political expression, with their goal to take as many “infidels” to the grave with them as they can. I assert that the people who commit these types of suicidal acts are not doing so to relieve their own suffering, but rather are murderers.)

Despite modern advances in medical technology, there are people among us who’s lives become either too painful to continue living or that are, due to an unrecoverable illness, not worth waiting for the inevitable, at least in their estimation. Shouldn’t those individuals have the right to choose an end to their lives that would afford them the least amount of continued pain? According to the laws of society, the answer would be no. But does the prohibition against suicide, in all forms and under any circumstances, truly represent the values of a society based on the concepts of personal freedom and personal happiness? Does society even have the right to determine what constitutes happiness? Provided that the ending of ones own life does not also cause the end of another’s, what right has society to dictate when an illness renders life unlivable?

While it may be true that for cases of depression, suicide is often less a desire to end life than it is a cry for attention, for those suffering from a fatal illness, the desire to end life on ones own terms is often a well thought out decision to reduce the pain that their illness is causing themselves and their family. Society has the duty to respect these desires and to allow the suffering individual a legal option for ending their life, without punishing them or their survivors through punitive or criminal means. Society has the obligation to allow individuals, their families, and their physicians the option of bringing an end to their suffering in a way that is acceptable to them. With that in mind, laws prohibiting suicide for the terminally ill should be amended or abolished altogether.

Terminally ill people, should they decide to end their lives in order to spare themselves the increasing physical pain of illness or their families the mental pain of watching a loved one deteriorate before their eyes or their survivors the financial ruin often associated with the long term medical costs of prolonging a painful illness, should be allowed the option of ending their lives in a manner of their choosing, if they so decide. There should be counseling programs available that educate these folks on the least painful methods of ending their lives as well as offering ways to mitigate the anguish of their survivors. With the diagnosis of terminal illness, a person has many choices to make, and the fear of financial or legal retribution for themselves or their survivors if they decide to end their lives should not be among those that dictate what path they choose to take. This decision should rest with the affected person, their doctor, and their family.

Similarly, removal of legal restrictions regarding this kind of suicide would prevent the actions of disinterested parties (government) or non-nuclear family relatives from artificially prolonging the life of someone rendered incapable of making the final choice to end their life. Today’s Living Will provisions could be strengthened to include the circumstances whereby a person could assert the desires of a loved one to end life in cases of severe incapacitation, provided those directions were clearly set out prior to the cause of permanent injury, regardless of the religious prohibitions of other family members or the possible future medical remedies that may be years or decades away, if they ever appear at all.

Opponents of the concept of the right to die most often insert their religious doctrines into their reasoning for their objections. But just as often, opponents cite fears of suicide or euthanasia becoming just a means to rid society of the elderly and the infirm. They claim that terminally ill individuals will be pressured into prematurely ending their lives to spare their families the financial costs associated with long-term terminal care. However, due to the religious beliefs that are held by so many, the instances of this kind of practice would likely be only a small percentage of those suffering from terminal illness. Just as with other relaxations of so-called morality based legislation, the mere legalization of an act does not mean that many millions will choose this as a course to follow. In fact, Oregon’s Death with Dignity law (the nation’s first legal assisted suicide law) shows statistics of only 129 cases of this kind of suicide from 1998 to 2002. Surely, many more than 129 people were diagnosed with terminal illness in Oregon in those years. The argument is hollow when the facts are revealed. Simply making this option available does not mean that it will become the preferred choice for those facing imminent death.

Suicide is never an easy decision, and in cases not related to terminal illness, society has the obligation to try and treat those whose suicidal thoughts stem from depression or temporary malcontent. But for those whose time has run out, or is running out, due to disease, properly crafted laws that allow them to choose death on their terms would go a long way towards ensuring that the right to die is included in the other “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”