The Haves and the Have-It-Nots

[trinityvixen]

Reading the news is depressing me. Watching The Daily Show depresses me. Things I got hooked on during the election campaigns are now biting me at every turn. The only slim relief is to read the Op-Eds at The New York Times and feel like I'm not alone. There's all this stink about how the Democrats are out of touch with the people. Well, excuse me, very much, I'm one of those people that they are in touch with, even if I think their ability to apply themselves is sorely lacking. Basically, it's like being told I'm out of date all the goddamned time, and, even when people doing it rail against Bush, it doesn't fix the problem of me feeling like old news. If tomorrow's moving the way the Christian Right says it must, I would rather be old and fair than new and theocratic.

But I came to a recognition of my own yesterday, something most people already knew but which has really clarified things for me, and reassured me that, yes, I am a Democrat. When I think back on all the things I argued for keeping or protecting, almost none of them are rights or priveleges I would enjoy myself. I am pro-choice, but I almost certainly will never be in a situation where I am pregnant against my will (knock on wood) or inclination, and even still, I'm not sure I would go through with the abortion process. That's just my choice. I'm pro-gay marriage, but I don't intend to get married any time soon if at all, besides the fact that I'm not gay. Doesn't affect me, personally, if gay and lesbian couples can't wed, but it would hurt friends, and in the spirit of equality, I say let them wed, let them unionize, but recognize them, damn it. I'm pro-stem cell research, something which I potentially could benefit from, but most likley not in my lifetime, I would guess. It could be 50 years before that's possible, maybe more. DNA's only 50 years old, and do we know all there is to know about it? Believe it or not, stem cells may be infinitely more complicated, especially as to their clinical application. But I'm for the research. I'm ALWAYS for research. Study twice, decide once, Dubya.

I am fiscally conservative, which, honestly, can be quite selfish--why spend today what I'll have to pay a lot more for tomorrow? But more than that, I'm anti-tax cut right now, in favor of spending the money to arm our troops and protect our nation better, among other, you know, less important things than what brought most people to the polls (you know, stupid things like education, welfare reform, etc). I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security even though, as a younger person, that means I'm less likely to suffer as I will have a lifetime to provide for myself until I retire, versus those who would be older and still under the privatization cut-off. My real concern with that issue is the loss of benefits to people who would otherwise be funded by my generation, now not if we have our own investment portfolios in place of SS. Prescription drugs should be pushed aside for generics to the elderly, too, again, not directly affecting me. Health care, dental, yeah, I care about myself, but I'm pretty healthy and I'm not concerned with my immediate survival on those scores (at least, not now that I have the wisdom teeth out).

I thought about this. The big issues for me--mostly social issues--aren't my fight. They're someone else's rights that I want kept, expanded, protected, guaranteed. And that, to me, is the heart of America, the reason we disengaged from the colonizing empire and based our new nation on principles of freedom for all. If I fight as hard to protect your rights as I do my own, so long as our rights end where the other's begins, that's democracy, that's equality, that's liberty, and that is freedom.

Whereas the problem I have with Republicans is that they're the THOU SHALT NOT HAVE to my 'Have it, if you got it' attitude. It's an incredibly patronizing GOP these days, too, which is my No. 1 pet peeve in just about any situation. If someone talks down to me, tells me things are being done for my own good even though they're precisely what I don't want now or ever and pretends that it's better that I don't have what I want, I get really, really pissed. What's worse is the 'thou shalt not' attitude of the GOP has gone farther right such that when they tell me what I believe is wrong and evil, they add the fires of damnation to my denouncement.

THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS (Aka Republican Joe): they're wrong, and evil, and you're going to go to hell for destroying life!
Me: But I don't believe that something that can't live outside of a woman's body is alive. Talk to me about partial-birth in the third trimester, then I believe you find me more accomodating to this...
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: you're a murderer, and for corrupting others and spreading false word, you will burn in hell and every baby that dies will be on your head.
Me: It's not a baby.
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!
Me: Actually, the egg and sperm were alive before that. Still, the zygote that occurs after can't survive on its own. Therefore, it's an extension of the woman's body, practically a parasite, and hers to choose what she does with it.
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: You're responsible for all the damned souls that go and get abortions! You cannot wash your hands of your sin!
Me: But I don't believe that it is a sin.
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: IT IS! WE WILL MAKE IT SO!

Etc. etc. etc. I might just have to have more of these THOU SHALT NOT v Me mock debates. It's a lot more cheering than, say, talking to an actual Republican. I'm still pissed and I would see smugness everywhere, especially, methinks, in a New York Republican.

Comments

[viridian.livejournal.com]

So you are agreeing with me, yes? I still really can't tell as you seem to be making some odd tangential argument. I agree that it's not the government's business to tell us what to do with our own bodies, but the main argument for doing so comes from the christian fundamentalists/pro-lifers, which is what my argument speaks to.

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

And my point is, despite what those same christian fundamentalists say, and said in point of fact during the whole election provess, pro-choice is not "pro-baby murder" and by "understanding" their point of view, you're just encouraging a view that often goes hand-in-hand with saying "Evolution says we're all descended from monkeys!"

Rather than accept the anti-choice (I believe that pro-life is a horrible misnomer for people who generally support the death penalty, and approved the actions of a war-president who also blocked stem cell research) point of view as "understandable", we need to talk to them and make them realize that generally, the entire concept of "pro-choice" is not "pro-abortion" but rather "anti-anti-abortion-laws". It's an important distinction, it's a critical distinction, and it's one that generally flies completely over the head of the anti-choice groups.

[viridian.livejournal.com]

Without understanding the other side, how you can you POSSIBLY hope to convince them? You honestly do not seem to grasp that the "I'll do what I want with my body" argument is NOT going to fly with someone who unequivocally believes that abortion is on the same level as murder. You're not dealing with a rational belief here, and I feel like you HAVE to try to understand it on some level to be able to argue the opposing point of view.

Being condescended to and told that my understanding is harmful really makes me reconsider whether or not you're a good person to keep as a friend, also. I have no desire to continue this argument further with you.

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, you misread me :-P. I think it's pretty clear that we all understand what the anti-choice movement thinks. I just don't think that we should pander to their belief that pro-choice means pro-murder. I don't think it's a necessary concession to make to get them to talk the matter over.

Stupid LJ network errors...

[xannoside.livejournal.com]

Think of it this way....

An often-repeated radical-liberal rant (just go to Union Square on a Friday) is that if you're pro-war, you're in favor of the widespread slaughter of Iraqi civilians. While there is an underlying truth behind this, it is an overall grossly oversimplified interpretation of the pro-war camp and just generally a ridiculous assertion to make. Likewise to the anti-choice group's interpretation of pro-choice, it is worth no more attention. If the liberals bothered to examine the reasons behind the conservative willingness to go to war, and the conservatives bothered to examine the reasons behind which people actually are pro-choice, then there'd be a lot less tension all-around.

[viridian.livejournal.com]

In fact, I am truly sickened by anyone who would argue that understanding the opposite side's argument is wrong. That's exactly why the country feels like it's on the brink of civil war right now.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm descended from monkeys....