Politicians rarely vote for or against a specific issue, not because they don't want to make their stance on the issue clear, but because the items they vote on are based on the combination of many issues. I doubt that anyone, at this point, would dare say anything against technology, so everyone is pro-technology. That helps. Is pure research more important than cutting taxes, or health-care? These are the questions we want the answers to, especially since they don't have yes or no answers. Simply being For or Against something usually doesn't mean much. When views are put at odds against one another, how are the conflicts going to be resolved? We want to have some idea as to how our politicians are going to respond to various stimuli, right?
The way I see it, specific stances on issues are not as important as the logic a candidate uses to arrive at his/her conclusion. Reading GWBush/Gore's webpages, all the information I can find regarding issues is a stance, and what they plan to do about it (complete with specifics). While this is nice, the webpages give no information as to what the candidate is willing to compromise to ensure the bills passage. They tell me what and how, but not why. In essence, both candidates are using a formula, that you don't get to see, then giving you sample output based on input that doesn't show up in the real world. Thanks, but no thanks. I want to know why you came to those conclusions.
Even though every issue supposedly has two sides (why else would it be an issue?), you may believe that there is only one acceptable stance. That is to say, you can't even begin to understand the opposing viewpoint. In this case, knowing that a candidate holds the opposing view makes it easy for you, since you can just cross them off your list. With false premises, who knows what other wrong conclusions they can reach. I may have one belief in regards to abortion, but I can understand the otherside. I cannot begin to understand the arguments regarding the death penalty. How could I ever vote for someone that finds these arguments valid?
For the most part, I see no reason to get hung up on issues. Issues are similar to colors used in a painting. Being for or against an issue says whether or not a painting does or does not contain a specific color. You can't approximate a painting simply by the colors it uses, which is all you can learn by looking at the issues. You don't vote for issues, or buy paintings based simply on which colors it uses. You vote for a candidate like you choose a painting, based on actually seeing the painting. For the most part, the presence or absence of a specific color doesn't make that big of a deal. As long as people can hide behind the issues, how can you figure out what/who they are?
Anything that has the ability to choose should have the right to choose. That is to say, you do not make decisions for me(unless I say its ok for you to do so). Euthanizing a child, with this reasoning, is wrong(in most cases). Thats probably a bit too idealistic for more than a handful of people to swallow. I assume everyone agrees there are cases that children should be euthanized, and cases where they should not be. The extreme case where most people, i believe, will agree would be an all but brain-dead child being born in some form of coma. Assuming that case belongs to the set of acceptable euthanizable babies, one should try and find the boundary points. Where do you(most people will differ...) draw the line? I believe the ability to think is what makes us human. If there was a baby that would not ever be able to think, it would not be "murder." Its ok in my eyes for someone in such a situation to euthanize. A baby that is not mentally able to make this decision for him/herself does not need to be guaranteed life.
How different of a question is this from abortion/contraception? Both regard uprooting a plant before it has a chance to grow. Its just a question of when and under what conditions its ok to do so. All the abstraction in the world won't allow us to plug some information into a formula and decide what is right.
There are cases where it is ok, and even right to euthanize a baby. The question is under what circumstances should we, as a society, decide a baby is euthanizable.
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians rarely vote for or against a specific issue, not because they don't want to make their stance on the issue clear, but because the items they vote on are based on the combination of many issues. I doubt that anyone, at this point, would dare say anything against technology, so everyone is pro-technology. That helps. Is pure research more important than cutting taxes, or health-care? These are the questions we want the answers to, especially since they don't have yes or no answers. Simply being For or Against something usually doesn't mean much. When views are put at odds against one another, how are the conflicts going to be resolved? We want to have some idea as to how our politicians are going to respond to various stimuli, right?
The way I see it, specific stances on issues are not as important as the logic a candidate uses to arrive at his/her conclusion. Reading GWBush/Gore's webpages, all the information I can find regarding issues is a stance, and what they plan to do about it (complete with specifics). While this is nice, the webpages give no information as to what the candidate is willing to compromise to ensure the bills passage. They tell me what and how, but not why. In essence, both candidates are using a formula, that you don't get to see, then giving you sample output based on input that doesn't show up in the real world. Thanks, but no thanks. I want to know why you came to those conclusions.
Even though every issue supposedly has two sides (why else would it be an issue?), you may believe that there is only one acceptable stance. That is to say, you can't even begin to understand the opposing viewpoint. In this case, knowing that a candidate holds the opposing view makes it easy for you, since you can just cross them off your list. With false premises, who knows what other wrong conclusions they can reach. I may have one belief in regards to abortion, but I can understand the otherside. I cannot begin to understand the arguments regarding the death penalty. How could I ever vote for someone that finds these arguments valid?
For the most part, I see no reason to get hung up on issues. Issues are similar to colors used in a painting. Being for or against an issue says whether or not a painting does or does not contain a specific color. You can't approximate a painting simply by the colors it uses, which is all you can learn by looking at the issues. You don't vote for issues, or buy paintings based simply on which colors it uses. You vote for a candidate like you choose a painting, based on actually seeing the painting. For the most part, the presence or absence of a specific color doesn't make that big of a deal. As long as people can hide behind the issues, how can you figure out what/who they are?
my idealism will be the death of me
Anything that has the ability to choose should have the right to choose. That is to say, you do not make decisions for me(unless I say its ok for you to do so). Euthanizing a child, with this reasoning, is wrong(in most cases).
Thats probably a bit too idealistic for more than a handful of people to swallow.
I assume everyone agrees there are cases that children should be euthanized, and cases where they should not be. The extreme case where most people, i believe, will agree would be an all but brain-dead child being born in some form of coma. Assuming that case belongs to the set of acceptable euthanizable babies, one should try and find the boundary points. Where do you(most people will differ...) draw the line?
I believe the ability to think is what makes us human. If there was a baby that would not ever be able to think, it would not be "murder." Its ok in my eyes for someone in such a situation to euthanize. A baby that is not mentally able to make this decision for him/herself does not need to be guaranteed life.
How different of a question is this from abortion/contraception? Both regard uprooting a plant before it has a chance to grow. Its just a question of when and under what conditions its ok to do so. All the abstraction in the world won't allow us to plug some information into a formula and decide what is right.
There are cases where it is ok, and even right to euthanize a baby. The question is under what circumstances should we, as a society, decide a baby is euthanizable.
You just don't get do-overs with human lives.