Post #150: On Abortion

I would like to, for a brief moment, talk logically about the act of abortion.

Do we mass exterminate billions of insects and vermin with vicious poisons? Do we kill millions of cows and chickens a year for food? Have hundreds of thousands of people not been killed in Darfur and the Congo? Have 64.000 people not died as a result of our actions in Iraq? Does the United States not kill hundreds of people a year under the premise of "capital punishment" even if any number of them are innocent?

Don't we kill a whole lot of things? But not the children. Oh hell no not the children! But, wait, wait, there are millions of starving children in this country and billions more across the globe. Aren't we, by not helping them, also killing them indirectly just as laws allowing abortion are allowing fetuses to be killed?

It's all semantics isn't it. We don't REALLY mind killing each other so long as we can justify or ignore it. So what are a few more.

Seriously, any one of the categories of people we kill/let die mentioned above are more pressing than abortion. These are conscious beings. There is a distinction, granted between human murder and animal murder. FDR once said that "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." He was right. It is the fear of certain death and the fear of having the power to kill that makes murder morally objectionable, not the actual killing. It's the difference between court ordered murder and getting shot in the head at random. The fear in lieu of immediate death.

Fear then begs the question: What is moral? Perhaps we should substitute moral with empathetic. We are not empathetic towards cattle because we are addicted to the slow death of fatty meats. Starving people starve because they refuse to help themselves in this nation of infinite opportunity. And the criminal did wrong and deserves to die. All these justifications are just ways to suppress our empathy for the person.

Again, when it comes to fetuses and animals, who are ambivalent of their impending death, we install our own empathy into their situation. That is, our own fear of death and fear of the power to kill puts us in their position. We feel sorry for them on some level. Obviously, this is not logical thought, it is emotional.

Logically, fetuses, as well as cattle and plants too I suppose, are not conscious of their impending deaths therefore do not have the heightened sense of fear that we automatically associate with death. They will continue to exist up until the point where they don't. Nothing more and nothing less.

So why are abortion rights increasingly eroding? Man feels guilty because of misplaced feelings of empathy. They give consciousness to something that doesn't have one.

Therefore, I say we have to correct this hypocrisy. Either we stop all "killing." We learn to coexist, stop eating meat, and feed the poor or we leave abortion well enough alone because really in the grand scheme it is one of the smallest "human rights" issues facing this world today. Or we can learn to identify the difference between killing something with a consciousness and fear with something that clearly doesn't like fetuses and cattle and then stop killing those who are conscious.

There is something we can do though. The US government could throw off the binds of sexual Puritanism and provide comprehensive sex education to all children so that the need for abortions will decrease. We could stop treating the symptoms and start treating the disease, ignorance.

Pointless Existence

The following is a conversation I've had with a Professor of Commonwealth College (Com-Col) at the University of Massachusetts- Amherst following my rather, that is completely in every sense of the word, harsh end of the year review of the Dean's Book course (DBC).

Quoting their email:

Dear [Me],

If you would like to meet with me to discuss your dissatisfaction with the
Dean's Book Course and Commonwealth College, please let me know. Though I
have classes and meetings scheduled next week, I do have some open times
next Thursday and Friday.

Yours,
(Dr. X), Ph.D.

***************************************
And my early morning response...

Good early morning Dr. X,

Please let me say two things at the outset. First, I am happy that someone actually looked at the response forms for all those people who believe that their comments will actually be taken to heart and I will indulge you with a response which you will undoubtedly find very unsatisfactory. Second, for a few reasons of which I will elaborate on below, I do not desire a meeting to discuss my dissatisfaction regarding the Dean's Book course or Commonwealth College as a whole.

To begin, DBC is not a bad course. I find it irritating, however, that DBC is required for me and a vast majority of people to take the course when it has little to do with my major.

There exists the argument that DBC foments you with skills "from clear, persuasive writing and speaking to accurate, attentive reading and listening." However, I wager that such skills are first needed to be able to gain entrance into the institution itself (and if they are not, then why would one care to be part of it at all?). And, quite honestly, by this level if we've yet to master attentive listening, we might as well go home and save tens of thousands of dollars.

Second comes the main "argument" for the existence of said DBC, to "lead us beyond our chosen discipline and into dialog with colleagues from academic areas outside our own". I don't know about the rest of us, but I call that life and don't particularly need a course to teach me that. Most of us do live in dorms unsegregated by major (as of late, segregated by class, though I digress). As I said, I don't think it is a bad course, I think that it's a poor choice to force someone to take it if they desire to graduate with honors.

I contend that instead of helping one hone the skills they will need, DBC and Commonwealth College courses as a whole, though not inclusive, detract from the learning process insofar as they divert attention and time away from one's major even in cases in which honors classes themselves are designed towards the major itself! I've taken some 4 honors courses not including Dean's Book 191 and 291 and in my experience I find that I, as a history major, learn less from said honors courses (for example: Hist 141H- Europe Since 1815 and Eng 115H- American Experience) than I do from their non-honors counterparts.

[...The prior which was taught by a nervous, twittering man who throughout the term I would contend spent more time talking about how far behind we were than actual course material. In all, courses such as these, and others, focus primarily on the reading of primary sources or novels and analyzing them, which when set against the plethora of other work one has to do becomes not only irritating and time-consuming, though not because of the amount of work or difficultly, but also forgettable quickly after the fact. When the focus of material is on documents and not also on context, the course's novelties of "seminar" or "free discussion" negate themselves and worst of all detract from one's focus on their major with nothing to show from it, the course material that they're actually paying to come here for.]

But I digress and expand my criticism to Com-Col as a whole. It exists solely to serve its own existence. Com-Col is a stick with a carrot on the end held out temptingly for a few busybodies and fools to snatch at in a vain attempt to add one more credit to their over-packed schedule. If it weren't for the fact that one needs to be in Com-Col to gain honors, few if no one would bother with it at all as few if no one would have the time. This is especially true for those with science majors or double majors that wish to graduate on time, those who cannot afford to remain here an extra year to pick up a few extra credits needed for their major. These people are alienated by Com-Col and unfairly restricted from graduating with honors even if they manage a 3.x or a 4.0 because they don't have the time to take even one more class a semester, DBC, honors, or otherwise.

To sum up my reasoning and before I ramble on too long... In an ideal world, I would have to spend as little of my concentration and evidently superior intellect (I am in Com-Col after all) on matters which do not pertain to my career path and for that reason I will not be seeking you or anyone out in the Com-Col department (through absolutely no fault of your own). I, as a member of Com-Col, was able to achieve a level of success in my past studies that would not have been possible without good writing, research, or interpersonal skills that Com-Col purports to garnish us with, rendering it's palatable usefulness bitter and tasteless to me. I, as a history major at UMass Amherst, find it absurd that I should be forced to take classes that I neither desire to take nor even find the slightest interest in, but find I must take solely so that I may graduate with honors. I, as a logical person, see no reason for the existence of Com-Col or its requirements. They exist solely to exist. And, the department itself is by its very design discriminatory against those whose chosen career paths and finite monetary worth prohibits them the leisure time in which to take axillary classes.


Thank you most sincerely for your time and undeserved interest,

[Me]

*********************************************

Well needless to say, I've yet to receive a response, now more than three weeks later.

Cheers,
FLYFREEFOREVER

Spring

I love springtime. It reminds you that the world's still turning.

A Place to Call My Own II

Everyone should have a place to (pardon the pun) call there own. An ancient mechanism of the human mind that dictates possession, hearkening back to a time when man had to scrounge for roots and berries and hunt for food. "Mine" was a survival tactic.

But we must realize that civilization is now able to move beyond the "mine" mentality when it comes to food and survival. Thus, evolution in the human psyche manifests personal possession a vestigial impulse. It is no longer necessary, in the most highly advanced parts of our society, to maintain this impulse because these lucky people don't have to worry about finding food or true survival in it's original sense.

(The evolution of man is all around us. Yet because it happens so slowly, and so progressively, that we rarely realize it for what it is.)

In this case, we have two choices. Either we scrap the idea of personal property or we reassign the impulse to something else. It is the latter that I believe best for the continued success of man, at least in the short run. We must find a new thing to possess. It was survival. It was other people. It was property. It was gold and riches. But now?

We all need a place to call our own. Something to possess in the truest sense of the word. Something that is ours and no one else's and most importantly something that when owned completely isn't detrimented or harmed by it. I seek a different kind of possession. Land costs money and, really, you never get exactly what you want. Either you can't afford that "perfect" house in that "perfect" little town or city, the neighborhood goes sour, or some other injustice befalls your dreams.

My ideal possession is not property, or gold, or riches, or titles, or people. It is this right here. My mind. My words. Myself. Of course people can drop by from time to time, sign the guest book, call me and leave a message, it's all possible. And it's free. It's also whatever I make it. It is always perfect, because just as my idea of ideal changes, it changes.

What is the difference between a house and a home but the memories held within? What is the place I call my own but the ideas and words that I put it in? Nothing. And mine, free thought, is free.