I’d never heard of Andrew Sullivan until a friend recently sent me an article by him entitled “Gay Rights and the Limits of Liberalism.” In it, Sullivan—a political commentator and former gay rights activist who’s largely shunned by the LGBTQ community today—takes a systemic approach to the issue of gay and trans rights, something which is incredibly rare today when it comes to
I really appreciate this article! It articulates a lot of the "real" issues we face on a higher level. Separation of culture and state is an excellent approach to these thorny issues and "live and let live" has always been a good motto (we've forgotten the 'let live' part). We cannot be "live and force everyone else to live like us." Thank you and Andrew Sullivan.
Yeah, it's the 'let live' part that's so difficult (and really for all of us, at least I also find it challenging). I thought Andrew really opened it up nicely and I'll be interested to see if any readers feel there's a better solution...
You say it brilliantly! “Really what’s needed is to separate culture and state, just as we once separated church and state.” Many thanks. Been struggling with how to put this we-need-it-so- badly thought into words ... succinctly. 🙏
Thanks so much Joan. Yeah, I find the writing to be such a good opportunity to bring this stuff down, which otherwise can feel like it's just floating. And it's so important that there are actually people reading it, it creates the ground for it. Thanks so much for all the support!
Thanks for picking up and commenting on this article by Andrew. Is there a reference for it? I would like to read it all. Or have you quoted the complete thing here?
I much appreciate and agree with most of your comments on it. I fully believe the only solution to the problems we face in Education here in NZ, and likely also in the US, is to hand the funding back to parents either by way of tax relief or by giving parents vouchers that can be taken to the school of their choice, or used to support home schooling, or something similar. This would return the decisions about the education of their children to where it belongs - with the parents.
I am concerned about your placing of abortion in the realm of freedom of choice along with choosing a religion or whether to have a certain medication. I do not agree that abortion is personal issue. Rather I see it belonging to the realm of rights along with all other areas where the conflicting rights of humans need legal regulation (eg contract law, property rights, freedom from physical abuse, the taking of life etc). At least the rights of the mother, the father, and the unborn child have to be considered and given legal protection. As regards the unborn child, if life begins at conception (clearly the new organism is living, not dead, or inorganic), and it is generally considered that no one has the right to take human life except in extreme circumstances (eg self defence, or if one had to choose between the life of an unborn child and its mother), then it is wrong in almost all circumstances to abort the child at any moment after conception (the unborn is clearly human and not some other species).
I recall from an earlier article that you do not consider that the unborn child should have the status of being legally a 'person', and thus is not protected by law, but my argument is not based on the law as it stands at present, but rather what I consider it should be.
I may have mischaracterized your view on this and I would be interested to hear your response.
Hey John - thanks for your thoughts on this. Yeah, abortion is a tricky topic and I'm not totally resolved on it, though I do believe it should be the mother's choice as I've written. Here's how I see it:
The unborn is not yet a member of the community, it's still a part of the mother. While it lives in her, it's her gift, her burden, her responsibility, and so it should also be her decision as to whether she brings it to term or not.
To say that at conception the child is alive, and therefore a member of the community, and therefore the community (in the form of the state) should have ultimate authority over its wellbeing and safety (as it has authority to ensure the safety of all born children in the community) is an overstep in my mind. The community doesn't carry it like the mother carries it, both inwardly and outwardly. For instance, if the mother aborts or miscarries early on in the pregnancy, there's a very good chance no one in the community will know about it or be outwardly affected (though how it spiritually affects the community is another question). So can we really say that the community should have a greater role in something that they don't even know about and that doesn't outwardly affect them? The mother is deeply, deeply affected in every way - she is merging her being with the being of another - do we really want to take the decisions about that process out of her hands and put them in the hands of voters and politicians who will almost certainly never even know her?
And how far are we willing to go in that direction? Do we think that the results of home pregnancy tests should be automatically reported to the government and that the government should 'oversee' the mother during the pregnancy in order to give the greatest chance of a healthy birth? And what if there is a miscarriage? Should the government be able to investigate if it it was natural? And if it wasn't natural, should the mother be charged with a crime? Perhaps these though experiments are a bit crude - they're new to me - but I think they're worth contemplating in order to try to see the bigger picture and the consequences of our thoughts.
I'd also mention that I think there is a difference between killing a person and refusing entry to a soul-spiritual being who wants to incarnate, and that that difference is important. I do think the soul-spiritual being will find another entry if it is refused in this way. I'm not saying that I think that abortion is without consequence - definitely not, I would think it must be hugely, hugely consequential both for the mother and for the soul-spiritual being trying to incarnate - but I think the place to deal with it is through greater education and not through legal enforcement.
That's my take on it at the moment. I'd be interested in how you see it.
Hey John - I just realized that I forgot to respond to your request for the whole article. I didn’t quote it in full. Andrew has it being a paywall on his site but I’m happy to send it to you if you get me your email address.
There are a couple ways to do this. You could reply to this comment and share your email address that way (though it might get picked up by spam bots, so if you do I would separate it with an [at] instead of the normal @) or, if you got my article in your inbox, you could just reply to it via email and then I’d get back to you with it.
Hi Seth, thanks for forwarding the full article. I agree that it is a valuable to the current 'tragic situation' - I was going to call it a 'debate' but it is unfortunately way beyond that - of children having bodies physically modified/mutilated before they are of an age to really make such far reaching decisions about there futures. And that some of those who are responsible for them encourage them to make such choices is really beyond what I believe should be lawful. I consider that this is an area where parental discretion must be balanced out by legal protections for those who are not yet of an age where they are ready to take responsibility for making fully informed rational judgements for themselves.
Hey John - thanks for your thoughts on this. My feeling is that we should only resort to making laws, which is a kind of collective coercion of the individual, in the last resort. To have the larger community, in the form of the government, step in and say to a parent "here we will step in and take responsibility for the child, because you can't be trusted" is a very serious act in my mind.
I know that many who were strongly against the vaccine mandates during Covid felt that the government was violating their rights by creating laws that allowed their children to get vaccinated without their consent. They felt that their child's health was their responsibility and the government was taking that away from them. Of course, on the other side, many people felt that the children were in serious danger and so it was warranted, parents be damned, and they were in the majority so they could make the laws...
I imagine there were always be things that people think are dangerous and will want to outlaw regardless of what the parent thinks is right for their child. For instance, I think all of the states have laws that outlaw tattoos and piercing up until a certain age (I think tattoos is 16 in most places?). After that they can do it with parental consent or wait until they're officially an adult. Even those laws make me a little uneasy. What if there are cultural groups in the US where tattooing is a part of their culture? Should they not be able to practice this aspect of their culture with their children because the government knows better than they do?
With all these things I'd rather that we strove to have a really robust cultural life where all these things were discussed and where individuals were left free to make their own decisions, to really take as much responsibility for themselves (and in this case, their children). I much prefer education to legislation. Of course, in many cases laws will still be necessary, but I think we should be working to make fewer laws that restrict our personal choices, not more.
That's the direction I think we should be working in. And if we do I think we'll find that people will become more thoughtful, more capable and responsible, and not less.
I guess that you and I hold views at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to abortion. If I have it right you believe abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, when suddenly the state has a role to play in the protection of the developing individual's physical, etheric and astral bodies. Probably though it seems you may not agree with what is now being proposed that parental right to choose extends to the very next moment after birth as is now being proposed by some. (And I would assume then that you would agree that once born the parents should not have the right to agree to an underage child having medical intervention with the aim of a change of sex - which I consider impossible anyway).
"With all these things I'd rather that we strove to have a really robust cultural life where all these things were discussed and where individuals were left free to make their own decisions, to really take as much responsibility for themselves (and in this case, their children)." I think taking responsibility by the very word used includes taking responsibility for decisions made. In this case to have a sexual encounter which by its very nature invites pregnancy (except in the exceedingly rare case of rape) means taking responsibility for that very outcome. To ignore this decision and to wish to avoid the consequences by destroying the resultant fetus/embryo is to me a rejection of true freedom (which would accept that consequence), and is simply selfishness (many decisions to end pregnancy are taken on very selfish grounds, like 'it will interfere with my career or studies' for example. Both the father and the unborn child are individuals with a strong interest in this decision. I believe that this is not something that the mother should shoulder all the responsibility for and that in a caring society there should be huge support for anyone in this situation to help find a way through that does not involve abortion.
"I much prefer education to legislation. Of course, in many cases laws will still be necessary, but I think we should be working to make fewer laws that restrict our personal choices, not more. "
I agree with this viewpoint, but laws that protect the innocent are to me the kind of law that is fully justified (as against those that simply wish to regulate the personal behaviour of consenting adults). We have laws that protect animals from cruelty, that protect human individuals from torture or wrongful imprisonment, that say a 10 year old should not drive on the road, etc. I wonder if you would wish to remove these from the statute books.
"That's the direction I think we should be working in. And if we do I think we'll find that people will become more thoughtful, more capable and responsible, and not less." I agree with this to a degree, but I don't see that it can be an either/or. I think regulating social life as in the examples above is an important function of the middle sphere of a healthy threefold social organisation.
I much appreciate your readiness to enter into dialogue and look forward to further examination of these issues.
Cheers,
John.
PS, the inclusion of the reference to abortion in your article has meant that I have perhaps not made clear that I very much appreciate it on the whole.
Hey John - thanks for the continued dialogue. It's helpful in trying to make sense of some very difficult questions. Touching on a few of the things you mentioned:
I agree that society should do everything in its power to make it possible for mothers to raise children, to offer support so that mothers don't feel impelled to abort because they don't feel they have the resources necessary to raise a child. And I agree that the father and unborn child both have a very strong interest in what happens and should therefore definitely be considered, but I also think this is what usually happens (I don't think most women make this decision lightly and without consideration). But ultimately, I don't think the father's or unborn child's interest should take precedence over the mother's.
I also agree with what you're saying about freedom and responsibility - that to be truly free means that one also takes responsibility for one's actions - but again I don't think this can be forced. If it is, than it negates freedom. You can't take responsibility out of yourself, and in a free way, if the law forces to take some action.
I wouldn't remove those laws that you referred to - animal cruelty, torture, and children driving. The first two both have cruelty involved, an excessive and drawn out harming of another. I don't think abortion consists of this. I assume it's trying to do it in the most humane way possible, and if not, then it should (and I would fully support laws that reduce cruelty to the fetus). But I don't think the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's right over her own body. We have laws protecting prisoners from being both killed and tortured, and laws that protect animals from being tortured, but not killed. I think that's right for where we are today. I'd rather see far less animal killing, especially factory farming - it is a kind of huge genocide going on - but I wouldn't make laws about it. I'd try to educate people. I think it's the same with abortion. I think the third law has to do with excessive recklessness that directly endangers other people, and therefore I'd maintain that law as well. Where it doesn't seriously endanger others - say when it concerns children driving vehicles on a farm - I'd probably create exceptions.
I also agree that the role of the middle sphere is to regulate society as a whole (the "middle sphere" in this example being the government between culture and economy) but that, nonetheless, there should be major limits on this (it should never determine things that require cultural and economic expertise), and most importantly, I'd rather see these things regulated informally rather than formally - between the parties involved based on their relationships and mutual understanding, and not based on government dictates. I think both of these things - what I'm calling the formal and informal - are an expression of the middle sphere, but one lives directly between people and one lives in abstract laws.
Thanks for expressing your appreciation for the article. I definitely appreciate your interest in trying to engage in dialogue and further understanding, as opposed to just trying to be right, which is such a powerful temptation for all of us (I can say that from experience, as I think we all probably can :)
Thanks for that offer Seth. My email is j_s[at]tutanota[dot]com. I seem to have a lot on at present and will pick up your response to my thoughts as soon as I find a good space.
In the meantime it could help me to respond relevantly if you let me know at what point you think a developing human life becomes appropriately subject to the protection of the law. This seems to be the nub of our different approaches. It is probably a tricky question to formulate a definitive answer on.
Hey John - Thanks for your question. I currently see birth as the moment that a child fundamentally separates from the mother and becomes a part of the larger community, and therefore I think that's when the community should to be able to step in and protect the child from harm. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, so do send a message when you have the time. All the best.
Hey Erin - thanks for your comment. I touched on this topic a couple times in John's comments above, so you might want to look there to see my thoughts on it at present.
One thing I'd add though: I think it's quite difficult to see what's a human rights abuse and what isn't, mostly because it comes out of our collective feeling of what's right for people in our time. I don't agree with the idea of "natural" rights - that they're preordained by god or nature - I think rights are always born of the existing community, they're what the community agrees is right for the community in the moment. But that isn't to make them entirely relative - they're still rooted in our development (in the development of our soul life, of our feelings) and there are certain things that we can see about that development. So, for instance, individual freedom - freedom of thought and conscience - is something that is strongly alive today in people (though of course it still differs widely from community to community and person to person). Another thing is simply harming others. We don't think that people should be able to do violence towards another.
But it's tricky when someone wants to do something to themselves, something that others consider harmful. If they're not in their "right mind," if they're on drugs or just mentally unstable, then it's understandable that the community would step in and try to help them before they do self-harm that they'd clearly regret later. But what if everyone involved is lucid and is making the decision with as much clarity and intentionality as possible?
This seems to be the case with assisted suicide, which is why I think it should be lawful. And it seems to be at least somewhat the case with transgender surgery. Yes, it is born out of a certain discomfort that the child is having - gender dysphoria is by it's nature a kind of instability, so one could say that the child isn't in their right mind (though all of adolescence is pretty uncomfortable by nature) - but presumably the parents are lucid and intentional.
Yeah, it's hard... I mean, the younger the child is, the less they are able to make a decision with clarity and intentionality. So I would definitely encourage young people to wait until adulthood before making such a momentous decision. And it would be great if the issue wasn't so polarized. There are so many other forces at work that are pulling and pushing on the child and adult in making this decision. It would be so much better if people could really weigh the options without politics playing such a huge role in it.
I really appreciate this article! It articulates a lot of the "real" issues we face on a higher level. Separation of culture and state is an excellent approach to these thorny issues and "live and let live" has always been a good motto (we've forgotten the 'let live' part). We cannot be "live and force everyone else to live like us." Thank you and Andrew Sullivan.
Yeah, it's the 'let live' part that's so difficult (and really for all of us, at least I also find it challenging). I thought Andrew really opened it up nicely and I'll be interested to see if any readers feel there's a better solution...
You say it brilliantly! “Really what’s needed is to separate culture and state, just as we once separated church and state.” Many thanks. Been struggling with how to put this we-need-it-so- badly thought into words ... succinctly. 🙏
Thanks so much Joan. Yeah, I find the writing to be such a good opportunity to bring this stuff down, which otherwise can feel like it's just floating. And it's so important that there are actually people reading it, it creates the ground for it. Thanks so much for all the support!
Thank you!!
Hi Seth
Thanks for picking up and commenting on this article by Andrew. Is there a reference for it? I would like to read it all. Or have you quoted the complete thing here?
I much appreciate and agree with most of your comments on it. I fully believe the only solution to the problems we face in Education here in NZ, and likely also in the US, is to hand the funding back to parents either by way of tax relief or by giving parents vouchers that can be taken to the school of their choice, or used to support home schooling, or something similar. This would return the decisions about the education of their children to where it belongs - with the parents.
I am concerned about your placing of abortion in the realm of freedom of choice along with choosing a religion or whether to have a certain medication. I do not agree that abortion is personal issue. Rather I see it belonging to the realm of rights along with all other areas where the conflicting rights of humans need legal regulation (eg contract law, property rights, freedom from physical abuse, the taking of life etc). At least the rights of the mother, the father, and the unborn child have to be considered and given legal protection. As regards the unborn child, if life begins at conception (clearly the new organism is living, not dead, or inorganic), and it is generally considered that no one has the right to take human life except in extreme circumstances (eg self defence, or if one had to choose between the life of an unborn child and its mother), then it is wrong in almost all circumstances to abort the child at any moment after conception (the unborn is clearly human and not some other species).
I recall from an earlier article that you do not consider that the unborn child should have the status of being legally a 'person', and thus is not protected by law, but my argument is not based on the law as it stands at present, but rather what I consider it should be.
I may have mischaracterized your view on this and I would be interested to hear your response.
Hey John - thanks for your thoughts on this. Yeah, abortion is a tricky topic and I'm not totally resolved on it, though I do believe it should be the mother's choice as I've written. Here's how I see it:
The unborn is not yet a member of the community, it's still a part of the mother. While it lives in her, it's her gift, her burden, her responsibility, and so it should also be her decision as to whether she brings it to term or not.
To say that at conception the child is alive, and therefore a member of the community, and therefore the community (in the form of the state) should have ultimate authority over its wellbeing and safety (as it has authority to ensure the safety of all born children in the community) is an overstep in my mind. The community doesn't carry it like the mother carries it, both inwardly and outwardly. For instance, if the mother aborts or miscarries early on in the pregnancy, there's a very good chance no one in the community will know about it or be outwardly affected (though how it spiritually affects the community is another question). So can we really say that the community should have a greater role in something that they don't even know about and that doesn't outwardly affect them? The mother is deeply, deeply affected in every way - she is merging her being with the being of another - do we really want to take the decisions about that process out of her hands and put them in the hands of voters and politicians who will almost certainly never even know her?
And how far are we willing to go in that direction? Do we think that the results of home pregnancy tests should be automatically reported to the government and that the government should 'oversee' the mother during the pregnancy in order to give the greatest chance of a healthy birth? And what if there is a miscarriage? Should the government be able to investigate if it it was natural? And if it wasn't natural, should the mother be charged with a crime? Perhaps these though experiments are a bit crude - they're new to me - but I think they're worth contemplating in order to try to see the bigger picture and the consequences of our thoughts.
I'd also mention that I think there is a difference between killing a person and refusing entry to a soul-spiritual being who wants to incarnate, and that that difference is important. I do think the soul-spiritual being will find another entry if it is refused in this way. I'm not saying that I think that abortion is without consequence - definitely not, I would think it must be hugely, hugely consequential both for the mother and for the soul-spiritual being trying to incarnate - but I think the place to deal with it is through greater education and not through legal enforcement.
That's my take on it at the moment. I'd be interested in how you see it.
All the best - Seth
Hey John - I just realized that I forgot to respond to your request for the whole article. I didn’t quote it in full. Andrew has it being a paywall on his site but I’m happy to send it to you if you get me your email address.
There are a couple ways to do this. You could reply to this comment and share your email address that way (though it might get picked up by spam bots, so if you do I would separate it with an [at] instead of the normal @) or, if you got my article in your inbox, you could just reply to it via email and then I’d get back to you with it.
Hi Seth, thanks for forwarding the full article. I agree that it is a valuable to the current 'tragic situation' - I was going to call it a 'debate' but it is unfortunately way beyond that - of children having bodies physically modified/mutilated before they are of an age to really make such far reaching decisions about there futures. And that some of those who are responsible for them encourage them to make such choices is really beyond what I believe should be lawful. I consider that this is an area where parental discretion must be balanced out by legal protections for those who are not yet of an age where they are ready to take responsibility for making fully informed rational judgements for themselves.
Hey John - thanks for your thoughts on this. My feeling is that we should only resort to making laws, which is a kind of collective coercion of the individual, in the last resort. To have the larger community, in the form of the government, step in and say to a parent "here we will step in and take responsibility for the child, because you can't be trusted" is a very serious act in my mind.
I know that many who were strongly against the vaccine mandates during Covid felt that the government was violating their rights by creating laws that allowed their children to get vaccinated without their consent. They felt that their child's health was their responsibility and the government was taking that away from them. Of course, on the other side, many people felt that the children were in serious danger and so it was warranted, parents be damned, and they were in the majority so they could make the laws...
I imagine there were always be things that people think are dangerous and will want to outlaw regardless of what the parent thinks is right for their child. For instance, I think all of the states have laws that outlaw tattoos and piercing up until a certain age (I think tattoos is 16 in most places?). After that they can do it with parental consent or wait until they're officially an adult. Even those laws make me a little uneasy. What if there are cultural groups in the US where tattooing is a part of their culture? Should they not be able to practice this aspect of their culture with their children because the government knows better than they do?
With all these things I'd rather that we strove to have a really robust cultural life where all these things were discussed and where individuals were left free to make their own decisions, to really take as much responsibility for themselves (and in this case, their children). I much prefer education to legislation. Of course, in many cases laws will still be necessary, but I think we should be working to make fewer laws that restrict our personal choices, not more.
That's the direction I think we should be working in. And if we do I think we'll find that people will become more thoughtful, more capable and responsible, and not less.
Hi Seth
A few further thoughts on this topic.
I guess that you and I hold views at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to abortion. If I have it right you believe abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, when suddenly the state has a role to play in the protection of the developing individual's physical, etheric and astral bodies. Probably though it seems you may not agree with what is now being proposed that parental right to choose extends to the very next moment after birth as is now being proposed by some. (And I would assume then that you would agree that once born the parents should not have the right to agree to an underage child having medical intervention with the aim of a change of sex - which I consider impossible anyway).
"With all these things I'd rather that we strove to have a really robust cultural life where all these things were discussed and where individuals were left free to make their own decisions, to really take as much responsibility for themselves (and in this case, their children)." I think taking responsibility by the very word used includes taking responsibility for decisions made. In this case to have a sexual encounter which by its very nature invites pregnancy (except in the exceedingly rare case of rape) means taking responsibility for that very outcome. To ignore this decision and to wish to avoid the consequences by destroying the resultant fetus/embryo is to me a rejection of true freedom (which would accept that consequence), and is simply selfishness (many decisions to end pregnancy are taken on very selfish grounds, like 'it will interfere with my career or studies' for example. Both the father and the unborn child are individuals with a strong interest in this decision. I believe that this is not something that the mother should shoulder all the responsibility for and that in a caring society there should be huge support for anyone in this situation to help find a way through that does not involve abortion.
"I much prefer education to legislation. Of course, in many cases laws will still be necessary, but I think we should be working to make fewer laws that restrict our personal choices, not more. "
I agree with this viewpoint, but laws that protect the innocent are to me the kind of law that is fully justified (as against those that simply wish to regulate the personal behaviour of consenting adults). We have laws that protect animals from cruelty, that protect human individuals from torture or wrongful imprisonment, that say a 10 year old should not drive on the road, etc. I wonder if you would wish to remove these from the statute books.
"That's the direction I think we should be working in. And if we do I think we'll find that people will become more thoughtful, more capable and responsible, and not less." I agree with this to a degree, but I don't see that it can be an either/or. I think regulating social life as in the examples above is an important function of the middle sphere of a healthy threefold social organisation.
I much appreciate your readiness to enter into dialogue and look forward to further examination of these issues.
Cheers,
John.
PS, the inclusion of the reference to abortion in your article has meant that I have perhaps not made clear that I very much appreciate it on the whole.
Hey John - thanks for the continued dialogue. It's helpful in trying to make sense of some very difficult questions. Touching on a few of the things you mentioned:
I agree that society should do everything in its power to make it possible for mothers to raise children, to offer support so that mothers don't feel impelled to abort because they don't feel they have the resources necessary to raise a child. And I agree that the father and unborn child both have a very strong interest in what happens and should therefore definitely be considered, but I also think this is what usually happens (I don't think most women make this decision lightly and without consideration). But ultimately, I don't think the father's or unborn child's interest should take precedence over the mother's.
I also agree with what you're saying about freedom and responsibility - that to be truly free means that one also takes responsibility for one's actions - but again I don't think this can be forced. If it is, than it negates freedom. You can't take responsibility out of yourself, and in a free way, if the law forces to take some action.
I wouldn't remove those laws that you referred to - animal cruelty, torture, and children driving. The first two both have cruelty involved, an excessive and drawn out harming of another. I don't think abortion consists of this. I assume it's trying to do it in the most humane way possible, and if not, then it should (and I would fully support laws that reduce cruelty to the fetus). But I don't think the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's right over her own body. We have laws protecting prisoners from being both killed and tortured, and laws that protect animals from being tortured, but not killed. I think that's right for where we are today. I'd rather see far less animal killing, especially factory farming - it is a kind of huge genocide going on - but I wouldn't make laws about it. I'd try to educate people. I think it's the same with abortion. I think the third law has to do with excessive recklessness that directly endangers other people, and therefore I'd maintain that law as well. Where it doesn't seriously endanger others - say when it concerns children driving vehicles on a farm - I'd probably create exceptions.
I also agree that the role of the middle sphere is to regulate society as a whole (the "middle sphere" in this example being the government between culture and economy) but that, nonetheless, there should be major limits on this (it should never determine things that require cultural and economic expertise), and most importantly, I'd rather see these things regulated informally rather than formally - between the parties involved based on their relationships and mutual understanding, and not based on government dictates. I think both of these things - what I'm calling the formal and informal - are an expression of the middle sphere, but one lives directly between people and one lives in abstract laws.
Thanks for expressing your appreciation for the article. I definitely appreciate your interest in trying to engage in dialogue and further understanding, as opposed to just trying to be right, which is such a powerful temptation for all of us (I can say that from experience, as I think we all probably can :)
Thanks for that offer Seth. My email is j_s[at]tutanota[dot]com. I seem to have a lot on at present and will pick up your response to my thoughts as soon as I find a good space.
In the meantime it could help me to respond relevantly if you let me know at what point you think a developing human life becomes appropriately subject to the protection of the law. This seems to be the nub of our different approaches. It is probably a tricky question to formulate a definitive answer on.
Hey John - Thanks for your question. I currently see birth as the moment that a child fundamentally separates from the mother and becomes a part of the larger community, and therefore I think that's when the community should to be able to step in and protect the child from harm. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, so do send a message when you have the time. All the best.
Hi Seth, I have only just noticed this reply from you. Thanks. I will attempt a reply to your response of the 26th soon. John.
Hey Erin - thanks for your comment. I touched on this topic a couple times in John's comments above, so you might want to look there to see my thoughts on it at present.
One thing I'd add though: I think it's quite difficult to see what's a human rights abuse and what isn't, mostly because it comes out of our collective feeling of what's right for people in our time. I don't agree with the idea of "natural" rights - that they're preordained by god or nature - I think rights are always born of the existing community, they're what the community agrees is right for the community in the moment. But that isn't to make them entirely relative - they're still rooted in our development (in the development of our soul life, of our feelings) and there are certain things that we can see about that development. So, for instance, individual freedom - freedom of thought and conscience - is something that is strongly alive today in people (though of course it still differs widely from community to community and person to person). Another thing is simply harming others. We don't think that people should be able to do violence towards another.
But it's tricky when someone wants to do something to themselves, something that others consider harmful. If they're not in their "right mind," if they're on drugs or just mentally unstable, then it's understandable that the community would step in and try to help them before they do self-harm that they'd clearly regret later. But what if everyone involved is lucid and is making the decision with as much clarity and intentionality as possible?
This seems to be the case with assisted suicide, which is why I think it should be lawful. And it seems to be at least somewhat the case with transgender surgery. Yes, it is born out of a certain discomfort that the child is having - gender dysphoria is by it's nature a kind of instability, so one could say that the child isn't in their right mind (though all of adolescence is pretty uncomfortable by nature) - but presumably the parents are lucid and intentional.
Yeah, it's hard... I mean, the younger the child is, the less they are able to make a decision with clarity and intentionality. So I would definitely encourage young people to wait until adulthood before making such a momentous decision. And it would be great if the issue wasn't so polarized. There are so many other forces at work that are pulling and pushing on the child and adult in making this decision. It would be so much better if people could really weigh the options without politics playing such a huge role in it.