My Position (Part 3) What is the Meaning of Life?

To summarize:  we individually must come to grips with when life begins, and the value we place on that life.  The state (in this sense I use state as the term for institutionalized government, whether it be at the local, regional, national or international level) cannot determine for us when life begins.  It may try, but it does so without the moral authority necessary to justify it.  This brings us to what I think is a central question.

What is the meaning of life, or what makes life meaningful?

How can you place a value on something if you don’t understand its meaning or its purpose?  I suspect this is why so many struggle with the question of abortion and choice and why there is a divide between the traditional religions, non-traditional practices, and the non-religious.  Even within the traditional religions we see disagreement over the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus. 

What is the meaning of life is a central question in philosophy and religion.  Why are we here?  What are we meant to do, or be, or achieve? If I was to even attempt to enter into the philosophical discussion I would move quickly in the academic and perhaps arcane world of people who debate the meaning of words, or as William Jefferson Clinton once said, “it depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.”  I think this link lays out the discussion much better than I could;  The Meaning of Life, written by Thaddeus Metz, and included in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  He does a very nice job outlining in understandable terms the major principles and underlying basis for definition as well as the weakness in the several major philosophies.

So again we come, as I said in the beginning, to a question with no clear right or wrong answer, at least as far as we humans are able to discern.  We are left to form our own answers based on our life experiences, our education and our belief system.  But if we believe life is important and special there must be purpose and direction in that life.  Can life have meaning if we are not perfect?  I think a simple to look around us and we see so many examples that lead me to believe it can be.  There is example, after example of those who inspire us beyond the ordinary.  Should we value life less if we know that life will be filled with pain from physical defect?  Should we assign a reduced value to someone whose mental capacity is not as high as someone else?  In historical times some societies have taken the weakest and left them to die.  We know in China female children are valued less and may be left to die if a couple is seeking a male heir.  Is this natural and acceptable?  How do we explain segments of society where the very same people who believe abortion is acceptable condemn cruelty to animals?

Were we to kill those with physical defects we never would have known Helen Keller.  Steven Hawking has inspired the world with his battle with ALS while continuing to expand our understanding of the universe.  Beethoven, when learning he was going deaf voiced his desire not to live through this tragedy.  Thankfully for the world he did carry on for another 25 years.  Now that we know all about genetic disorders should we prevent life for those who will suffer them?  We would lose the art of Henri Marie Raymond de Toulouse-Lautrec-Monfa if we had done that in 1864.  This does not even begin to touch on the stories of those who have over come their physical limits to achieve greatly.  If we believe we should kill those with limitations what will we lose in the future?

When the Nazi’s attempted to create a pure Aryan race at the cost of millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others why didn’t the world cry out?  It was only after the war, when we saw the scale of horror that we condemned the inhumanity.  Even today there are those who would have us rewrite the history to mask this evil.

For us, as individuals, how we find meaning in life and fulfillment seems to be a critical outcome from how we view our self-worth and the relationships with society around us.  If we look to those who have set before us wonderful examples of how a purposeful life can change the world what do we find?  Mother Teresa, Helen Keller, Steven Hawking, Randy Pausch, and hundreds of others show us that self awareness, confidence, love of mankind and joy in the giving back are truly central to finding the practical meanings of life.  Dr. Kevorkian does not rate high on my list of inspirational lives.

Can impoverished lives have meaning?

On the face of it this is a stupid question, but it seems to me to be one of the underlying premises for the liberal position the state must pay for abortions for the poor.  Clearly the poor have the same potential for fulfillment and self-determination as any of us.  Our history is rife with examples of the poor growing to be the next generation of wealthy.  But somewhere along the line we have decided we need to treat today’s poor minorities as victims and provide them with the rational it is better to end life before birth, reduce the burden of responsibility and let them continue as they were than it is to seek to change their status.  Some have the wisdom to see this trap for what it is and grow beyond the status quo.

Unfortunately far too many don’t and they repeat the same mistakes time and time again.  They are always the victims, and always the state is there to clean up after them.  This provides for the proponents of abortion the perfect cliental and rationale why the government needs to fund it. 

MC-130J

The first four MC-130J Combat Shadow II were presented to AFSOC today in a roll out ceremony at Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Georgia facility.  Fittingly the weather was gray and overcast.  The kind of weather the aircraft will thrive in when put to operational use.  It is kind of nice to see something you had a hand in actually materialize

Lockheed Martin Roll Out of MC-130J, 29 March 2011

MC-130J

Life of a Balloon, Update 4

Inflated on 6 January 2011

Clearly a happy disposition goes a long, long, long way...

Eleven Weeks... will this balloon ever surrender to gravity?  The Float continues!

Public Service

There is an interesting movement in this country.   Today more and more tax payers are questioning why they should pay taxes to support what they view as wasteful government spending.

My awareness started in the early 1980's  with the California Initiative process when several propositions were placed on the ballots to reduce taxes and support for the school system.  At the time California's educational system was viewed as the best in the nation, where is it today?

What confuses me about this movement is the same thing that confused me with the GW Bush approach.  We want to lower taxes but expect to have all the same services, or do all the things we have historically done.  How is that remotely possible?  More efficiencies?  Ya right!  That mentality is why we are where we are.

We complain when the roads are in disrepair, we complain about the long lines at car registration, tax office, or any public service.  We complain when the water system fails to meet our expectations.  Yet we don't want our dollars to go to taxes?

I see the new generation of politicians promising to lower taxes, but I don't see anyone telling the tax payers what they should stop expecting from government.  On one blog I follow, a public employee from a California city wrote in to say he was in the National Guard, a member of the NRA and made something that approached the median salary for his area.  His job was grounds maintenance for the city parks.  The commenters all slammed him for making close to the median salary for his two jobs (both in the city and national guard).

I recognize there is a point beyond which governments become for government and not for the people they serve.  Perhaps we've reached that point, perhaps not.  But with the convergence of a "Me" society and the desire not to pay for anything it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Presidential Power

With the possible exception of George Washington every President of the United States has, at one time or another, pressed against the constitution to expand his power and authority.  Why would we expect President Obama to be different?

My concern is his lack of vision or understanding on the use of the tools available to him.  He leaves us to wonder if he knows what is critical to our nation and where or how to reflect leadership?  I guess that should not be surprising for someone who has really never been in a leadership role, but was brought to office more because he wasn't something than what he was.

My Position (Part 2) When Does Life Start?

This is a continuation of a post first made on 3/20/11.  It is part two of a yet to be determined number.

From before:

Purpose:  This paper is intended to put into solid form my position on the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice debate; it outlines my rationale for that position, and articulates my concerns with the current state.  I will attempt to synopsize the history, the decisions and the smoke screens I see on the part of advocates for both sides.

 BLUF:  I think the pro-choice movement is fundamentally flawed in its position, but once a personal choice has been made the choice is no longer part of the public debate and is an issue between the woman and God, or her conscience.  Advocates for both sides, far too often, fail to consider the consequence of their words or actions on the individual.  I don’t believe I have the right to tell someone else how they should or must live their life.

Part II

The real question is then, what is the value of life to you?  Can you be against war and genocide and be for abortion?  Can you argue that it is immoral for car companies to design cars with defects and say once a fetus is created a woman has the right to kill it?  

When does life start?

When does life start?  That is a basic question linked to the decision we individually make on the value of a life.  In the landmark decision, written by Justice Blackmun for Supreme Court docket 70-18, Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun notes the court was presented with arguments on whether a fetus was a person and therefore protected under the 14^th Amendment.  This hinged on State of Texas' position life began at conception and therefore it was a compelling right of the State to protect that life.  The court took a pass on the argument, citing a lack of consensus among those disciplines where the Court felt a consensus would be found. 

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Justice Blackmun goes on to say,

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [n56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [n57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family.

So the court rejected Texas’ right to impose a singular view on when life began.  Justice Blackmun summarized the courts findings as shown here.

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. [n67]

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [p166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

What strikes me in this decision was the determination that at/before the end of the first trimester the decision rests with the physician and the woman, but after that point the individual states could place increasing restrictions on abortive procedures.  Somewhere along the way, that is now being argued as a presumptive right up to birth.

So here we are, back at the original question, when does life begin?  As I see it, you have three choices:  a) at conception, b) when it may be sustained after birth, c) whenever you feel it convenient to do so.  I don’t think this is a question the state has the right to decide, and I think in Roe v Wade the justices wisely chose not to.  They did though recognize there is a period after which the viability of a human fetus cannot be questioned and it would be capable of sustaining itself as an independent being.  It appears in choosing not to decide, and then defining a physician’s right to primacy in the decision process to the first trimester they acknowledged the states rights to protect life, but only to a degree.

As I consider this problem I am, like the court, drawn to precedent to form my position.  In so much as medicine is an inexact art, and philosophy goes into arcane discussion I am left with the theology of my upbringing.   This is not an area my church dealt with, birthdays were always the day’s we celebrated the start of a new life.  Since I reject the option of choosing an answer that is convenient for my purposes I have but two choices.  At conception, or when a fetus is able to sustain, or be sustained, outside the womb.  Thanks to medical science those two days are getting closer together each year.  When they become the same we will have a whole new debate about the ethics of pregnancy.  If we consider as our choice when life can be sustained I am not sure we can ever come to a universal (right all the time) answer.  Therefore, I conclude life begins at conception, just as Texas argued in its defense.  But as the court points out different religions see things quite differently and in an open society tolerance of differing religious views is a foundation.

Northern Japan

If you're curious about what you don't see on the nightly news, this is what the weather is like in Japan and what your military is doing.  Gas to operate vehicles is in very short supply.  FARP stands for Forward Area Refueling Point.

AFSOC FARP