Growing Up While Getting Old

     I find it quite amusing how the baby boom generation and their natural offspring, the generation X crowd look at the state of age and the aging process in general. The whole attitude seems to revolve around the fear of being considered old or perhaps, the very reality of getting old itself. That's why we hear of these new axioms like " 40 is the new 30" and so on, and so forth. The thing that strikes me as funny is that there is this palpable disconnect to what these boomers and X-ers are saying and selling now, compared to the time when they were younger. In their days of youth, especially for the boomers, there was this very visible aura of contempt on their part for their elders' rather staid and somewhat autocratic generation. That said, history tells us that it was indeed the boomers themselves that laid the very foundation of our  own open-minded and fast-progressing modern free society.

     I am 47 years old today. Too young to be a boomer but too old for the genX crowd. I guess I'm what you call an In-Betweener. To my son and his generation, and certainly to the Xers, I'm an old fart. But do I really feel that old ? More importantly, do I consider myself as old ?

     I would be lying if I say I don't feel old. At least physically, I do. I feel it every morning when I wake up and try to get up from my bed. The toll of existing for 47 years is very real to me. But besides the aches and pains that I have to endure with my morning drive and coffee, I don't really feel that much different from say, ten years ago. Or maybe even 20 years ago. I know I'm getting old but the real question is have I grown up ? Have I reached the zenith of maturity ? And is it all downhill from here ? I know the answer to the last question. Heck, I think the downward spiral began right after high school. But the first two, I am not quite sure.

     I remember the time when my own dad turned fifty. I woke up especially early that day, so I could be the first one to greet him on that monumental morning. I found him sitting in his usual chair, reading the obituaries section. He told me that when people reach a certain age, one can't help but look at the "numbers index" on the everyday death notices. Try and see if death was getting close to your own doorstep, I suppose. And to me, I think that's the very thing a lot of these boomers and Xers and everybody else thinks and fears about. That every year you add up to your age, the closer you get to the inevitable. So some people just simply refuse to admit that 40 is actually being 40.  Instead they build this myth around them, that they are still young and there's plenty of time ahead for them.

     There's this new data out that says the marriage rate and the infancy rate is at an all-time high. It suggests that a lot of Xers are bypassing the time-honoured tradition of "the right time to settle down and start a family". With burgeoning careers and the appeal of independent and care-free lifestyles, especially for the women, they choose to put "settling down" and "commitment" on hold for the pleasures of not growing up at all. And who can really blame them ?

     Twenty years ago, I would have hanged myself if faced with the competing pressures of holding down a job so I can keep up with the car and mortgage payments and other expenses while trying to raise a hard-headed teenager at the same time as trying to make a relationship with my wife work. Now, I just call it tuesday. So maybe I have grown up a tad or two ? But is that what you really call growing up ? Or is it just a matter of growing into your life ?

     Personally, I don't really give it much of a thought. Whenever I look back at my life, I can't help but sometimes yearn for the days when I was young. When all I have to worry about was myself and the choices were simple. In my younger years, I used to think what kind of life I would have if I ever reached the age I am right now. Truth be told, I couldn't even imagine myself being this old. Maybe, it was out of lack of creative imagination. Or maybe fear. The fear of growing old. But I have come to accept the reality that there's now less of me going forward and more of what I've left behind. Just like my dad on the morning of his 50th birthday.

     I was 13 years old when I personally witnessed the start of a brand new life for the very first time. My cousin Alexander, born in the afternoon of September 9th, 1977, three weeks before my 14th birthday. I was 17 when I saw the last gasp breath of my great-grandmother, Bernarda on November 25th, 1980. The first death I ever witnessed. I have seen both of my parents at their strongest and at their weakest. I remember the day when I finally got introduced to the very first girl that made my heart beat out of my chest. It was December 16th, 1977. It was at that point, the happiest day of my life. And I remember the night when I had to say goodbye to someone and let her go because we were simply too young to take each other seriously. It was March 7th, 1980. And needless to say, I cried myself to sleep that night.

     I remember being engulfed in fear and anxiety on the morning of my own wedding, June 5, 1993. Ironically, it was the same feeling I felt in the moments before the birth of our son Joey, in the afternoon of March 9, 1994. And all the years in between and the ones leading up to what is now, I've had my own share of ups and downs, tears and laughter, anger and genuine happiness. So the question I should really ask myself is not whether I'm old or grown up ? But rather: "Am I happy with what I've become ?"

     I'll answer it this way. Everyday that I come home from work, I dash through the side door. I would find my son, who in every which way is the younger version of me, in the basement, doing whatever the hell it is he's doing. And whatever it is, it's not even remotely close to schoolwork. In fact, I feel a certain air of disappointment if he's not down there or if he's doing something else outside of the ordinary. My wife would  be doing the finishing touches for supper. Or paying the household bills. Or moping or sulking and worrying about the future. Sometimes we'd talk. Sometimes we'd argue. Sometimes we'd fight. But most of the time we'd just smile at each other. Glad that were both there for each other and for our child. Glad that we've made it inspite of it all. Glad that we're still alive. And maybe that's what life is all about, afterall. It's not about growing up or getting old. It's about living. And I live my life because I have something to live for. So to answer my own question: Am I happy ? As my favourite clown, Sarah Palin would say, "you betcha".

     So, despite the constant yearning for more, let me just end in saying; "I am one content old fart".

     HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME.

When Life Begins: an ethical look at the history of the abortion discussion

     To fully understand the magnitude of the abortion debate, we must first look at it's history leading up to our modern times. The social discourse regarding abortion have been linked historically to issues involving family planning, state population control, religious and moral ideology and human rights. In ancient times, the practice of allowing or disallowing pregnancy terminations rested on a number of issues, including population and rape. Sometimes abortion was recommended in cases involving health complications or emotional immaturity for women.
     It wasn't until the middle of the twelfth century that the moral implication of abortion procedure began to take root in social thinking. In 1140,  the monk John Gratian completed the Concordia Discordantium Canonum which became the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the Vatican. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded that the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide. The next century saw Pope Innocent III declare that when "quickening" has occurred, then abortion was homicide. As the centuries passed by,  denunciations against abortion increased, including accusations involving witchcraft and the occult, that in 1588, Pope Sixtus V, aligned church policy with St. Thomas Aquinas' belief that abortion was a sin against God and a crime against nature.

     The political response to the religious outrage against abortion came some 200 years later, when the Parliament of England, in 1803 enacted the Malicious Shooting and Stabbing Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime. This law was further reinforced some 60 years later in 1861 when Parliament passed the Offences Against The Person Act, outlawing abortion altogether. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that abortion under any circumstance is a mortal sin and anyone who in any way participates in the act excommunicated him/herself. The same year saw the Parliament of Canada unify criminal laws in all provinces banning abortion.

     In the United States, the passage of the Comstock Law of 1873 made it a crime to sell, distribute or own any abortion-related product and illegal to publish information on how to obtain them. By the early 1900s, through the efforts of legislators and the American Medical Association, abortion was effectively outlawed throughout the United States.

     But the progressive strides taken toward the advancement of greater individual and social freedoms by the mid to late 20th century created an easing of people's attitudes toward abortion. Coupled with the declining influence of the church and religion on social policy caused a societal rethink on matters concerning abortion and human reproduction. With more and more women joining the workplace, it became increasingly obvious that due to economic necessities, the role of women in society should be redefined. And with the birth of the modern feminist movement and the clamour for increased independence among women, the social structure was forever changed.

     The aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the resulting polemical discussion on abortion have created a kind of historical battlefield among ideological combatants on both sides of the argument. The forward-looking "Pro-Choice" movement, which I affiliate myself with, looks to safeguard not just women's emancipation rights but general individual freedoms that have taken centuries to achieve while engaging various religious and political interests in the fight for people's minds. The "Pro-Life" movement, a collection of religious and social organizations have spearheaded the fight against abortion rights and by default or ideological principle, aim to take back the social progress that have been made in the last 50 years. Aided by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the two movements have waged a war of principle with two very different agendas as a battle cry. The legal argument for pro-choice, backed by the language of the fundamental law, the moral argument for pro-life, with the long historical tradition of religious philosophy on it's side.

     And central to this discussion is the question that has been centrifuge of this heated debate. "Where does life begin ?"

     Last spring, I became engaged in an open-ended discussion (via the Facebook message board) with a Facebook friend, Vancouver pro-rights activist Meghan Cleary. The topic was a simple question. "Do we consider the fetus as life ?" My answer was no. Meg's answer, to my surprise was yes. Her definition was this: "A human fetus is life potential in embryonic form". The same way we look at bacteria as a life form, therefore a fetus is also a life form. After a slew of vehement protestations coming from me, Ms. Cleary responded that "there are people in Pro-Choice who are hesitant to concede the moral high ground to the other side, so as to hide this moral insecurity they deny this indisputable biological fact". Which generally meant that I was in denial.

     So what does this all mean ? Do I cede the moral and ethical ground to a pro-lifer ? And stick to the legal status of abortion as my only argument ?

     Meg's answer was no. Besides mentioning the competitive rights argument which legally holds the woman's interest ahead of the fetus in International Law regarding Reproductive Rights, she had this to say:

     "Since we are all conceived, we do NOT have the Right of Choice with regards to our existence. And since we renounce our right of first choice, we must defer to the interest of our maternal host".

     To which I concurred. This is the ethical argument for a woman's right to obtain an abortion if she so chooses. A fetus in the womb is in the exclusive domain of the owner of the womb. The woman. Legally, ethically and morally. And the fundamental law dictates protection, not on existential right but on individual right. And the woman as an individual is sovereign in the eyes of the law.

     By legal definition in Canada and the United States, the right to an abortion is a fundamental right. And by extension and due to biological and natural reality, abortion is solely a woman's decision. Both from an ethical and moral standpoint.

     Thank you, Meg.

A Question of Choice

     The discussion regarding the right to an abortion has long been a controversial subject in several societies around the world. Largely due to the fact that it involves questions of moral and ethical considerations. In the North American continent, it is in itself a political issue. In the United States, ever since the landmark Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in January 1973 (which effectively legalized procedural abortion), the abortion question has caused a firestorm within the political divide. In Canada, the Supreme Court in 1988 deemed the existing abortion law unconstitutional and struck it down thereby removing federal restrictions on abortion rights. The abortion question has also been a primary focus point on the issue of gender equality and the advancement of the independence of women in society.

     The political wedge created by the abortion issue has been drawn between the lines that divide conservatism and liberalism. It would be foolhardy to think that the dividing line is clear, as there are several politicians in the realm of liberalist policy that argue against as well as there are prominent conservatives that are in favour. Yet the general rule of thumb is that, if you are a conservative, you are against and if you're a liberal, you're in favour. That is why there are deep political repercussions about the abortion issue, especially with regards to national identity politics. Particularly in the U.S., where the issue plays a huge part in the litmus test on presidential aspirations. Polarity is visible in canadian politics, too, although distinctly different. Canada, being a more moderate country often lacks the vitriol and venom which is representative of american political debate on abortion.

ROE v. WADE

     Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) was the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the question of abortion rights. It stated that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to obtain an abortion and that it is deemed a fundamental right, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to resrict and regulate it to a standard of strict scrutiny. Based on the Due Process principle found in the 9th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution requiring the government to respect all legal rights owed to a person in accordance with the law, the Court reserved the right of private citizens with respect to choice, free from coercion and intimidation by others.

R v. MORGENTALER

     In 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court declared Section 287 of the Criminal Code (containing the abortion provision) to be of no force or effect because it was held to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived therof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

     In a separate court decision R v. Sullivan 1991 (1 SCR 489), the court confirmed that a fetus is not a person until it is born and fully outside the woman's body, thereby muting the anti-abortion rights movement's argument that the unborn are viable to the "right to life" language of Section 7 of the Charter.

     Hence, Canada is one of the few nations in the world with no legal retrictions and regulations on medical access to abortion procedure.

     I support abortion rights. Not because I consider myself a liberal. Not because I blatantly disregard anyone's religious, spiritual or moral apprehension with abortion procedure. I have my own moral reprehensions on the issue. But I can't let my own standard stand in the way of someone else's decision with regards to personal choice. I can't let my own moral trepidation infringe on another's freedom to think for herself.

     I refuse to see the issue on abortion rights as simply a "woman's issue". To me, it is a question of fundamental rights, as supported by the words of the fundamental laws of both the U.S. and Canada. And the question is simple. "Would you rather have someone else ( the government, the church or some other entity) decide for you ? Or would you rather think, feel and speak for your own self ?"

     It's your CHOICE.

A Socialist Perspective

     Socialism, by general definition is the theory of cooperative ownership/management of the means of production. My limited education interprets it in as much as the state taking over the land, not for the motivation of profit, but for the use of it's people. In reciprocation, it's the people's responsibility to sustain the land to preserve the state. In clear terms, the state takes a resource in the name of the people, by the people and for the people. In the same terms do we define social democracy. A government of the people, by the people and for the people. So what is so wrong with the principles of socialism ?

     Every time I turn on my T.V. these days, I witness the American conservative movement lurching further and farther into the right. It disturbs me quite deeply at the same time it amuses. Taking advantage of the settling despair caused by a crippled economy, these right-wing nut jobs have managed to crawl out of the dark fringes and find a steady place in the mainstream. They have even succeeded in resurrecting an old dormant bogeyman. The red menace. Ask any social, religious or hard right conservative what socialism is, and it might as well be satanism. And the likely reason(s) for their resistance will be as follows: it's un-godly, it's undemocratic, it's un-american. So let's examine those reasons, shall we ?

SOCIALISM IS UNGODLY:

     Since most religious right-wingers are fundamentalist Christians, I would like to quote from the words of the Synoptic Gospels. In the parable of the rich man (Gospel of Luke 18 18: 30) To paraphrase; " a rich man asks Jesus what would bring him eternal life, Jesus replied ' follow God's commandments, give your possessions to the poor and follow me'. The rich man despaired for he is of great wealth. And Jesus proclaimed ' it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."    

     Jesus, as it is written about him in the gospels, championed the inclusion of the poor and the disenfranchised and disavowed hypocritical purity. He favoured pacifism instead of violence, mercy instead of vengeance and consolation over sorrow (Beatitudes). In most of his life's mission, he preached about love and respect for one's neighbour and foregoing personal interest in favour of someone else's. In doing so, a person can expect a just reward in heaven. A philosophy very similar to the socialist virtue of  "my neighbour's best interest is mine as well". So while it's true that social justice principle is skewed towards secular humanist rather than religious philosophy, I can argue that the common good values in socialism is in many ways consistent with Jesus' teachings of moral rectitude.

SOCIALISM IS UNDEMOCRATIC:

     The ideals of socialism do infringe on one freedom. The freedom of opportunity. In other words, the social value system is an impediment to greed. Self-preservation is a natural human instinct. So, as people, we are all prone to look after our own interest. But how much or how many do we really need ? Is it a natural need for a person to gain as much as he can ? Or does a governing body have the moral authority to limit what one can have so there's plenty of resources left for the others waiting in line ?

    Capitalist economists argue that socialist policies are regressive and unsustainable ideas that undermine exponential economic growth.  What they fail to tell us is that they are working on just one side of the economic ledger. The top side. In the top-down world of capitalism, gains and losses only project corporate and investor numbers, consumer indexes and market dividend reports as models for either growth or regression. So, as ordinary peasants, we are held slaves to private sector interests. If Big Oil is losing badly on Wall Street, then those losses gets passed on to the consumers by means of higher prices at the pumps. Is that democracy ?

      Wouldn't it be in the best economic interest of the everybody if we are on top of the list of priorities. After all, we are the ones that power our consumer-driven economies. Wouldn't it be more democratic if we can have voice in determining our own economic destiny rather than have the powerful few who control capital decide for us ?

SOCIALISM IS UN-AMERICAN:

     It frustrates me to no end when I hear someone like Sarah Palin describe the American Revolution as something that was borne out of Americans natural abhorrence to taxation. In her usual ignorant style preaching to her equally ignorant crowd, Palin defines government-specified taxes as evil, failing to note that while governor of her state, she drew her salary from government collected taxpayer money.

     The Revolution did start with a simple tax revolt.  But it was predicated by a number of other events and ideas that combined, led to a social and political insurrection that eventually formed a new republic.

      Chief amongst those were the ideas of liberalism as understood by the virtues of Enlightenment. The motivational philosophy of republicanism, inspired by Rousseau's Enlightenment theory of "social contract" powered the revolution's political thinking on liberty and natural human rights. The revolution rejected the aristocratic oligarchies that dominated the prevailing mercantile economy of the time and championed the right to their own economic destiny.

      John Adams, one of the founding fathers and second president of the United States, in one of his famous letters at the revolution's outbreak wrote: "There must be a public passion for the public good and the public interest. Honour, power and glory must be established in the minds of the people or there can be no republic or any liberty. Men must pride themselves in sacrificing private interests for the public good when they stand in competition with the rights of society ".

     The revolution was founded with the simple idea that freedom is only attainable through social equality. And that perseverance of doctrinal social equality and justice is determined by the realization of the common good. The very doctrine that socialism ascribes to be.

     So I ask the question one more time. What is so wrong with the principles of socialism ?