About Conlon
This would be my first post, so I'd like to reserve a few rights while posting.
1) Firstly, my opinions and my beliefs are a dynamic creature. They are constantly evolving. I describe myself as a liberal simply because I seem to agree with a liberal platform over a conservative one.
2) As such, none of my statements or opinions are set in stone. I reserve the right to take back anything I say. I expect others to find flaws in my argument by using my own statements. But I will change my opinions or statements if I later agree with the opposing argument.
3) I do not presume to know much about politics beyond what I read in class and hear from others. Try to think of my posts as an attempt to simply float a liberal opinion in a pool of conservative ideology.
So, in this post I will address my own liberal social values. I disagree with most socially conservative beliefs, with a few notable exceptions. In general, I do not have one composite opinion for all social values. Rather, I view each issue individually, weighing the pros and cons in my own mind. I classify myself as a liberal socially because I take the liberal side in most issues.
I will give one example: my beliefs about abortion. First and foremost, I do not believe life begins at conception. Biologically speaking, I do proclaim to know a fair amount about biology, this set point to begin a person's life seems arbitrary and perhaps impractical. I am sure it is plainly logical to arrive at this conclusion. However, I can think of many examples when it is better for the mother and better for society to abort. In cases of rape, incest, genetic defect, alcoholism, smoking, poverty, and abuse, we as a collective do better without the pregnancy. I could go on about more reasons I am pro-choice, but I am sure Josh has heard most of them, and he probably agrees with most of them.
I would like to state that I agree with Josh when he says an imposition of tolerance is an imposition of values on the government. This is actually my third attempt at trying to write a paragraph that disputes this point, but every time I run into flaws in my argument. Both liberals and conservatives try to control what society does. But here is where my argument always stops: My argument is flawed when a liberal racial policy prevents colleges and workplaces from discriminating in who they higher. After all, it is the right of that workplace to discriminate in such a manner. It stops when the government stops mandating that a workplace must give healthcare insurance to a the spouse of a gay individual. After all, it is the right of the workplace to discriminate against homosexuals in that manner. And in terms of social welfare - I believe that is an economic issue more than a social issue. Social issues deal with what people can and can not do. It deals with social and civil liberties. So yes, liberals are stopping society from doing different things. In the same way that a social conservative believes it is wrong to encourage sexual activity and murder by allowing abortion, I believe it is wrong to force a teenage mother to have a child that could potentially be subject to abuse, poverty and drugs. In general, I believe that the government should be forgiving, tolerant, fair.
Social values is a hard topic to debate, especially since beliefs are beliefs, usually imbued throughout a person's life. All children are brainwashed by their parents, society, and peers. I think I understand the conservative argument more today than I would have four years ago, but I still believe it is unrealistic, impractical, and perhaps overly idealistic. We live in a time where almost every individual commits social wrongs, and only a portion of society suffers for them.
Anyways, that's my argument. Do what you will with it. I'm pretty sure that almost every opinion in there is subject to change. Josh makes a very valid point in saying that we shouldn't generalize when describing social conservatives. I think the negative generalizations just reflect frustration with what I believe to be ineffective social policy.





















4 Comments:
Ok Conlon, let me get this straight. You think that life does not begin at conception and it seems a completely arbitrary time to state that life starts. But when does it start then? The next less arbitrary point is during birth, however this means that an abortion that still happen mere hours before the child is born even when there is no real threat to the mother. All the other times suggested by liberals seem incredibly arbitrary to me. Hmmm, six months. Sounds good to me! No wait, how about 4 months, two weeks, 4 days, six hours, and 37 minutes! That seems a lot less arbitrary to me than conception. Because at that exact point, life starts.
Give me a break Conlon. It's ok if you don't know what you're taling about, but at least think about it a little before posting.
By
Kassof, at 6:56 PM
And I quote George Carlin when I say, "I think that life began about a million years ago and it's an ongoing process."
By
Conlon, at 9:17 PM
"But when does it start then?"
When a human being can start to suffer, and even after this point there are good reasons to keep abortions legal (3rd trimester abortions= <1% of all abortions, law of unintended consequences, etc.). If you define "conception" as the point that a human being becomes a consciousness worthy of ethical thought, you are really saying that it is the potential, for something to become a human being that makes the thing a human being. If so, to quote Sam Harris "every time you scratch your nose, you are commiting a holocaust of potential human beings".
By
James H, at 9:44 PM
"All children are brainwashed by their parents, society, and peers."
... religious officials most of all...
By
james h, at 9:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home