I read an interesting blog entry a little while ago and wanted to share it with you, for reasons which will be obvious. But first, I wanted to describe its author, one James M. Branum. Here are some excerpts from his "Who is J.M. Branum?" writeup:

A 31 year old guy who lives in the Lincoln Terrace Neighborhood of Oklahoma City. Like most native-born Okies, he is a mix of white and American Indian ancestry.

He works as a solo practice attorney with his own firm... He is also still licensed as a pedicab driver in Oklahoma City (working with Bricktownpedicabs.com but doesn't have time to get to ride that much anymore).

Religiously, he is a member/lay minister at Joy Mennonite Church but before that was part of several charismatic/non-denominational churches (including Hope Chapel, Hope in the City and Shekinah Fellowship) as well as the Churches of Christ (where he grew up)...

Educationally, he graduated from Newcastle High School in 1994, from the Institute for Christian Studies (now Austin Graduate School of Theology) with a B.A. in Bible with an emphasis in Christian Ministry in 2000, and from Oklahoma City University with a Juris Doctorate in 2005.
...
He is currently a religious studies major at Tulsa Community College.
...
Current interests of the moment include: activism, organic gardening, latchhook, , watching movies, reading and blogging.

He is member of the Green Party of OKlahoma, the Industrial Workers of the World, the National Lawyers Guild, the Oklahoma Food Coop and the Oklahoma Committee for Conscientious Objectors.

That's some resume, eh? And what makes it even more interesting is that Branum doesn't mention here the specifics of his political odyssey. You might focus in the above on his apparent religiousness; you might also see the references to the Greens, the IWW, conscientious objectors, and so on, and come up with an entirely different guess about his stance on the beginning of human life, abortion, and so on.

As we can learn from OkInsider.com's guide to the most recent (2006) election cycle, Branum ran for Congress last year, as an independent endorsed by the Green Party. But look where he started out, and where he's headed, and why (emphasis added):

Prior to his membership in the Green Party, he was a Libertarian from 1999-2001 (during which he received over 17% of the vote as a candidate for Constable in Travis County, Texas), and was a Republican from 1994-1999.

J.M. Branum says his evolving political philosophy has been primarily shaped by his faith and by life experience. "As a college student I first was involved with the Republican party because of the hot button issue of abortion and because of my admiration of their small-government philosophy. Later as I discovered that the teachings of Jesus were pacifistic, I became a Libertarian, and then after I discovered that Jesus was most definitely not a capitalist I became a Green.

"Today as a Green, I share much common ground with both liberals and conservatives. I share common ground with many liberals on the issues of civil rights and their concern for the poor, while I share common ground with many conservatives in their belief that government should best be done at the local level. It has been said that Greens are neither left or right but rather out in front, and I think that is true."

In short, in almost 15 years he's been all over the map politically. So what does somebody like him think about the issues which we've been dealing with here? It's quite a post (and you were wondering when I'd link to it, weren't you?):

As I see it, I find the following propositions to be true on the issue of abortion . . .

1. My #1 guiding principle is that of valuing human life. Any ideology that devalues human life is flawed.
2. Women should have the right to control their own bodies and to be free to take control of their own destinies. Women have the right to the best information available so that they can make informed decisions. No decision is more sacred than the right ton control one’s own medical decisions.
3. The beginning of human life is a mystery. I think that a person becomes a “person” long before birth, but I’m not convinced that it becomes a “person” at conception either.
4. I believe that every human life is sacred and should be protected. No one should be seen as “disposable,” whether be poor, disabled, or not yet born.
5. I believe that any economic system that leaves mothers in poverty if they choose to not have an abortion is immoral. “Choice” within such an economic system is a fiction.

So where does that leave me… definitely not on the extreme of the pro-life side of the argument. I do not feel it is right to interfere in the most basic of decisions about one’s own body and autonomy, and I certainly don’t think a woman should be forced to have a child which is the result of rape or that might endanger her own life. I also think that a woman should not be doomed to a life of poverty if they choose to have a child, yet that is the reality for many women, both here and in other countries.

I also can’t embrace the extreme of the pro-choice side of the argument. I cannot embrace the idea that there are no ethical concerns over the question of abortion. No one except God knows when human life truly begins (in the sense of the existence of a soul and spirit), but I do know that at some point it does begin and at that point, a person’s life is at stake and should be protected.

As for me, John, here on Jack Sisson's site, I don't want to point out anything I agree or disagree with in Branum's conclusions. All I want to draw attention to is the nature of his struggle to reach those conclusions. You can think about this stuff all day -- think hard about it -- and you can spend years or even decades arriving at something like a conclusion. And when you get there, you suddenly realize the conclusions are messy and ragged. It must be nice to be 100% clear-eyed on these issues, to be able to take a stand firmly on one side or the other without hesitation. I haven't made that leap yet, and neither has James M. Branum. And (I suspect) neither have the majority of Americans, no matter what you might forecast from their political and religious affiliations (or lack of them, as the case may be).

Labels: Abortion, beginning of human life, morality, politics

Came across this "editorial" (courtesy of Google) on a site called opinioneditorials.com, a branch of something called "Frontiers of Freedom." FoF appears to be a conservative site, hyping the usual conservative issues. This particular editorial is so rife with mis-statements and weak arguments that it's tempting to deconstruct it one argument at at time. But I'll leave that exercise to someone else. I just want to give you a few examples, and then you can visit the site and read the column in its entirety. (Caveat: I didn't spend a lot of time at opinioneditorials.com, so I have no idea if they ever publish anything from a more liberal (or at least "less conservative") point of view.

Kevin Roeten, August 14, 2007--Recently Bush vetoed federal monies for Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). From the response, one would believe that he dumped all hopes for curing diseases down the commode. But this demonstrates just how misinformation can provoke a visceral emotional reaction that almost borders on irrationality. With nothing to gain except eternal life, Bush seems to have demonstrated courage under fire...

...hype from actors such as Christopher Reeve(Superman) and Michael J. Fox(actor) teases a possible cure for their diseases. But no cure has been found. The fallacy that ESCR shows the most promise is a false hope. [Er, maybe no cure has been found because researchers have been too busy scrambling for funding since the federal government (and most states) have all but shut them down?]

... it’s said that with so many fertilized embryos slated to be disposed of, it’s acceptable to use them for research. Being ‘trapped’ in liquid nitrogen shouldn’t affect our decisions. Consider a radical case in which a group of children are permanently trapped in a schoolhouse. It would not be morally acceptable to send in a remote control robotic device to harvest organs and kill the children. [If they're permanently trapped, are they going to die? Sooner rather than later? Still, I'd have to say no, killing them probably wouldn't be morally acceptable. Be we are talking about living, breathing, developed, functioning children. Not a cluster of cells the size of this period.]

There's lots more. Why don't you check it out for yourself. And if, by chance, you agree with Kevin Roeten, please take just a minute to leave a comment and tell us why. Or if you disagree with him, let us know that, too.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, ethics, morality

I just found this site, "dedicated to promoting the thoughtful discussion of difficult moral issues." The welcome message says:

Ethics Updates is designed primarily to be used by ethics instructors and their students. It is intended to provide resources and updates on current literature, both popular and professional, that relates to ethics.

The content at the site is grouped by category: Ethical Theory; Resources; and Applied Ethics. For those interested in the beginning of human life and related issues, probably the items in the Applied Ethics category will be of highest interest. Sub-categories there include abortion; bioethics and reproductive technologies; environmental ethics; death penalty and punishment; euthanasia; and so on.

The site doesn't seem to be updated regularly (a cursory search turned up articles and resources dated no more recently than 2003). On the other hand, it's been around a long time -- first established in 1994. So it's important historically (at least in "Internet time"). And it's also a terrific source of information about larger issues -- those covered in the Ethical Theory category, for example, which address much of the history of the philosophy of ethics (Aristotle, utilitarianism, egoism, and so on).

Thinking about ethics and morality -- today, anyhow -- has been triggered by today's column by Leonard Pitts, Jr. As is often the case with Pitts's writing, today's version begins with a timely issue and steps back from there to ask, in a reflective way, "Hey, wait a minute..." In this case, recent remarks by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, provided Pitts his fodder for rumination:

I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

Whether you accept General Pace's comment as a given or not, it might be worth considering the take which Pitts has on it. To wit:

After all, to admit that a response is visceral is to admit you haven't thought it through. Ergo, frame it as a ''moral'' issue. As a practical matter, it comes out the same, but it sounds more high-minded. And never mind that it makes no sense.

Labels: beginning of human life, ethics, General Pace, Leonard Pitts, morality