A couple of letters in today’s PD refer to stories previously commented on here.
Bridge champs dealt fair hand in free-speech controversy
Connie Schultz’s Nov. 16 column takes the U.S. Bridge Federation to task for moving to discipline the U.S. winners of the women’s world bridge championship in Shanghai, China, last month for their unauthorized display of a Bush-demeaning placard during the award ceremony.
Schultz’s point seems to be that a U.S. citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech gives that citizen the right to speak freely without regard to other laws, rules or norms of behavior. I beg to differ, because the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides only that “Congress [the federal government directly and the state governments indirectly by application of the l4th Amendment] shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The amendment does not prevent nongovernmental entities and associations from restricting the speech of their members and associates in appropriate circumstances, and they should enjoy the freedom to do so in the service of their reasonable needs and desires.
In this case, the U.S. women usurped the U.S. Bridge Federation venue or auspices to make an unauthorized personal political statement that no doubt offended many of the federation’s members.
In my view, they should not have played that card.
William J. Kerner Sr., Avon Lake
This sounds like it was written by a employer’s attorney! Well played Mr. Kerner but I would be remiss if I didn’t note that we don’t really know what was an “unauthorized personal political statement” under the rules of the Bridge Federation.
I mean if its there in black and white in the bylaws, I would understand the point. But if there are no written restrictions against individual members holding up signs at international competitions, well, where’s the infraction?
And nowhere in any story did I see any specific reference to such bylaws.
And let’s really cut to the chase here, Mr. Kerner: if these ladies had held up a sign that said “We support our troops” or “God Bless America” do you think there would be any such outrage, feigned or otherwise?
And if the Bridge Federation DID censure these ladies for holding up such a sign, you and your fellow travelers would be the first to write outraged letters defending these women. Right?
Sure.
So it’s not really a ’speech’ issue, is it? It’s a ’speech I don’t like’ issue.
And it’s a little more than that, isn’t it? It’s about what kind of country we really are as opposed to what we say we are. If we are to respect the freedom of speech, its a little cheesy to keep screaming about ‘private’ speech vs. public speech when all you have is really the expression of words and ideas that scare and anger certain segments of the public.
Tell me what the harm is in merely saying ‘those women are nuts’ and letting it go? Why does the Bridge Federation feel the need to crush these women by taking away their ability to earn a living playing bridge? Why the vindictiveness? Why the insecurity?
Answer me that, please.
Connie Schultz is guilty of her own brand of self-righteousness
Connie Schultz provides a glaring example of liberal sanctimony in her column Tuesday about Sayda Umanzor. Schultz acknowledges that Umanzor was an illegal immigrant, but decries the treatment Umanzor suffered as a result of the enforcement of the law. On that score, Schultz’s point can be defended. Where I take issue with her rant is in her condescension and sanctimony toward opponents of abortion, some of whom, Schultz assumes, disagree with her “compassionate” support of Umanzor.
It takes remarkable gall for one who believes it is morally acceptable to crush the skull of a living, fetal human being, or to vacuum it, dismembered, from its mother’s womb, to then attack those who advocate enforcement of immigration law, despite the unfortunate suffering of this mother and child.
How is Schultz’s own self-righteousness morally superior to that with which she charges opponents of abortion? I challenge her to make an intellectual case - as opposed to this purely emotional appeal - in defense of a woman’s so-called right to abort a fetus.
James M. Pier, Fairview Park
OK Mr. Pier, you’re angry, I can understand that. But if we were to admit all of our shortcomings one of the things we’d have to agree with is that self-righteousness in (1) endemic to all closely held beliefs and (2) in the eye of the beholder. So charges of ’self-righteousness’ generally fall flat in serious debates because both sides are equally self-righteous. So make the argument based on comparative moral principles and you’ll do much better.
Looking at comparative moral principles, one could say:
If you support the absolute right to life which would force pregnant women to conceive to full term under penalty of law,
and you believe in the inherent right of every fetus to become a living human being,
and you believe that said bond of mother and child in all ways both emotionally and physically is absolutely necessary for the well-being of said mother and child,
then why would you celebrate an act of completely avoidable cruelty to said mother and child?
This is, I believe, what Schultz was trying to get across. You couldn’t get past the ‘how dare she’ gag reflex most ‘pro-life’ conservatives get when they’re faced with their own moral shortcomings about the lworth of the lives of ’some babies’ as opposed to the life of ’some others’ which may not share the same racial and ethnic characteristics as yourself.
That’s what really frosted your cap Mr. Pier, isn’t it?
But if you want to make an intellectual case for forced full-term pregnancies, what we could do is enlist people like yourself to follow a pregnant women around with a shotgun to make damn sure she doesn’t run off to some back alley abortionist and make a mockery of the kind of society you truly want. Would you volunteer to do your pro-life duty in this case?
Of course, we could go after doctors too, which would be forced to watch desperate women take desperate measures so they wouldn’t lost their livelihoods or freedoms.
No I don’t like the whole idea of abortion at all Mr. Pier. But I’m a man and I don’t get pregnant. I also don’t want to live in the kind of world we would need to make sure all women were forced to bring pregnancies to full term. We have enough burgeoning fascism in this country already.
5 responses so far ↓
Mr. Pier // November 27, 2007 at 3:18 am
You claim to know me quite intimately for having read my two-paragraph letter. You are so wrong it is fairly impressive. Where to start?
No, self-righteousness is not endemic to a closely held belief. One can still appreciate the other position and respect the other person. It was Schultz who alleged self-righteousness on the part of anti-abortionists, and my letter was in response to that. She took what could be a serious debate and made it tawdry and melodramatic. I, for one, do not believe public policy should be based on emotions.
I did not at all “celebrate an act of totally avoidable cruelty.” In fact, I admitted that her position was defensible on that score. I did not have a gag reflex, nor was I faced with my own moral shortcomings–I have no such difficulty with respecting every life as equally valuable. That is a problem for bigots of every stripe, not just conservative bigots. Ms. Schultz was conflating two very different arguments for her dramatic purpose.
Your caricature of me as a fascist springs out of whole cloth from your imagination. If abortion is the killing of a (developing) person, then to make it illegal is the only right thing to do. Enforcement would not require draconian–or ludicrous, like your shotgun–measures. In 2007, when it is as easy as falling out of bed to prevent pregnancy, what is appalling is pro-abortionists claiming the moral high ground because of the inconvenience, expense, and pain that women would no longer be allowed to excuse themselves from, or from their misguided and desperate attempts at self-induced abortion. There was a day when almost everybody understood what it meant to be personally responsible. That is all that is being “forced” when abortion is against the law. And I would be right there with charitable or social support for those mothers. Ms. Schultz should expect more of women (and men), and take an honest look at what is being asked of a mother. It is not a death sentence, and in many cases no doubt it will be–as it is millions of times each year–celebrated as the miracle it is.
To not permit legal abortion is not the same as to force a mother to carry to term; that, rather, is the natural consequence of the mother’s actions. Are we forcing a mother to raise her child when we don’t allow her legally to abandon it in a dumpster? The difference is only definition: when is that baby a person, and thus protected by the Constitution? I say at conception. What do you say?
The point of my letter, which you clearly failed to understand, was that I was not willing to let stand unchallenged her characterization of those of us who oppose abortion. My challenge is very straightforward: present an intellectual argument in favor of legal abortion. Now, please do not misconstrue me–I am not interested in your doing that. The illustrious Ms. Schultz, however, should be about as capable as anyone of presenting that case, and furthermore has a platform from which to do so. Of course, I would be happy to accept her argument “off-line,” as it were, if she does not want to go there in her lighter column.
In the meantime, I will look forward with bated breath to that intellectual argument from Connie Schultz.
Mr. Pier // November 27, 2007 at 3:27 am
As I understand it, you claim not to agree with either left or right. Yet, you have a category, of which my letter is a proud member, called ‘right wingnuttery.’ Where is the ‘left wingnuttery’?
kegbot1 // November 27, 2007 at 11:43 am
Last first: oh there’s lots of left wingnuttery and to be fair I should start a category about it. It tends to fall into utopian arguments such as yours about personal responsibility.
Human beings, fallible as they are, are not going to be personally responsible no matter how much you will it. Abortion, like it or not and you seemed to miss my point that I’m not a fan of the procedure, has been legal since 1973. There is no way in heaven or hell you will ever make it illegal again - you are making nonsensical argument - without putting more and more people in prison. Do you think we have enough people in prison now for such things as pot smoking? Ah, but its all that ‘personal responsibility’ problem isn’t it? Damn those losers who don’t share your moral or ethical code. Well cheer up, America becomes more and more a police state every day and soon you may get your wish and we can throw people into prison for sodomy and such all over again. 10 million in prison? Maybe 20 million? Hey for prisons its America’s only growth industry (other than security). So get used to abortion being legal Mr. Pier. Your misogyny shows through loud and clear however in your cavalier disregard for women in desperate situations. But then again, since they were so ‘irresponsible’ they should be crushed for their poor choices, at least you should not be forced to pay your hard earned money to support them. Winners and losers in life, right? And the winners shouldn’t have to pay for the losers. Yes in that ‘day when everyone (sure EVERYONE) knew what it was to be personally responsible, young women were ’sent away’ so as not to ’shame’ their reputable families because of their unplanned pregnancies. I believe they were called ‘homes for wayward girls.’ And you’d like to go back to those days?
I wonder what punishment the MEN who are also responsible for these pregnancies would get in your world? Bragging rights around cigars and brandy down at the club?
Your ‘natural consequence’ will result in a lot more grief and suffering than you can ever imagine. But maybe that’s your point - punish.
Mr. Pier // November 28, 2007 at 12:33 am
Misogyny? You are so anxious to dismiss my position that you impute imaginary characteristics. Nothing I said leads to that charge unless you were already inclined to level it simply because of my opposition to abortion.
Your sympathy for women in desperate situations is admirable; why not take that argument to its logical conclusion–a pregnancy resulting from a rape? Is it because of the fact that that accounts for very few abortions? In truth, 2007 is undoubtedly the easiest time in history to do the right thing and bear the child, unplanned or whatever. There is virtually no social sanction for out-of-wedlock pregnancy and childbirth.
The truth is that most abortions are matters of convenience. The time is not right, and with no sanction for it, abortion is an easy out. You may say I am being cold-hearted; I say you are not being honest. And I am definitely not letting men off the hook. If that was the impression you got from me last time, then I was unclear, perhaps due to trying to be reasonably brief, which I failed in doing anyway. No, there is no doubt that not a few abortions are done at the behest of the ‘father.’ Again, out of convenience. Regrettably, there is no way that I can see to charge a father with complicity.
Your claim that it would fill the jails is a straw man, as is the “it’s going to happen no matter what” argument. The pill, condoms, sterilization all make it ridiculously easy to prevent pregnancy. People respond to incentives and disincentives; unwanted pregnancies in such a world would most certainly decline dramatically. Remember how welfare reform was certain–according to many on the left–to lead to widespread starvation and homelessness? Well, what really happened? The facts on the ground showed that the conservative case was correct as usual.
Here’s what disappoints me the most about your response: you make no attempt to answer my challenge to argue for when the fetus becomes a ‘person’ if it is not at conception. Why not give it a shot?
kegbot1 // November 28, 2007 at 9:50 am
So the ‘father’ in this case gets an out. Bottom line - its the woman’s problem. Then its a woman’s solution.
Again, you make a serious case for defending the life of a fetus at the moment of conception but again, the kid is fair game for the capitalist state and all its injustice, as soon as its born and woe to the fetus if she is a woman! She’d better carry to term in your world or else! As for all those grown up fetusus slaughtered in Iraq, well they’re collateral damage, I guess.
My characterizations of your stances stands - your own words convict you. The fact you cannot see that is an indication that you have constructed a very tight little world in your head which is fine - that’s your right. You can’t fathom that anyone would disagree with you and would codify your stances in law. Again, your right, mine to disagree.
By the way, I love how you hate others bringing in non-related issues into an argument but you can bring in welfare reform and - just because you can’t see the misery that is hidden - you claim it a success.
The next thing you will be advocating is for a return of the workhouses. You probably see Scrooge (prior to the visits of the three spirits) as the epitome of enlightened capitalism.
Abortions are legal in the first trimester when a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. Do I consider that a person? Yes. Do I consider abortion regrettable - absolutely. Unlike you, I do believe that going back to the days of the back alley butchers is not progress. You can consider the aborting of a fertilized zygote a murder if you want, I see no workable solution other to allow the woman, whose pregnancy it is, the decision to do what she feels is right - a decision you will never have to make nor ever know the mental process involved.
At this point we should probably agree to disagree.
Leave a Comment