Abortion

The credo of the liberal mind is a single question: "Who is it hurting?"

If you've ever cornered someone with a series of tough questions on subjects like same sex marriage or the legality of smoking marijuana, more often than not you've heard this question. "If two men want to get married, who does it hurt? How does it affect you?"

The dispute over abortion is whether or not the fetus growing in a woman's womb is a living human being. If it is, then there is a clear answer to the question, "You're hurting a defensless human baby." But the liberals frame the argument in a different way. They choose to make the argument about the rights of the mother, because if they didn't they would have no case. As more and more scientific research comes out, it is more and more clear that the unborn fetus is indeed a human being, from the very moment of conception. But wait, we don't want to hear this. The ability to abort a fetus allows us to engage in all manner of sexual escapades as often as we like with as many partners as we like, and we don't have to face any responsibilities for such actions. Sounds rather selfish, doesn't it?

"Wait a minute, you chauvinist, conservative jerk!" You scream at me sharply, irritated at my arrogance as I try to take away your charished right as an American to do whatever you want, "what about rape? Or when the mother's life is in danger?" These are good questions. I'm not saying abortion in all its forms should necesarrilly be outlawed completely. I'll tell you right now if I was forced to choose between my wife or our baby, I'd choose my wife. However, these cases make up something like 3% of all abortions in this country, so that isn't much of an argument to stand on.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a guy, right? I don't have to carry the thing for nine months. I don't know how terrible it can be, both physically and emotionally, to be pregnant for the better part of a year. Funny though, bringing a baby into this world used to be a beautiful thing, perhaps the greatest thing any woman could ever hope to accomplish. But that's so old-fasioned and oppressive of me to say, woman are much more than just baby-making machines and housewives...of course, that isn't what I said, is it?

You want to know who you're hurting, fine, I'm telling you. If you choose not to listen, that isn't my fault. I only have one question for you. If there was even the smallest possibiltiy that the lump of flesh growing in your womb is a living person...a person with a soul...would you really take the chance? As you protest this war in Iraq because innocent people are dying everyday, think about how important human life really is to you, and what it's worth.

Tolerance

So as it turns out, there is a crucial element to the idea of "Tolerance" that modern culture has failed to understand (or in some cases it has simply been ignored).

You see, there is a HUGE difference between being tolerant of a person and being tolerant of an idea. This means that I can disagree with your oppinion all I like, without disrespecting or degrading you as a person. Or look at it like this: If someone agrees with your stance on the war in Iraq, need you be tolerant of that person? Of course not. You don't tolerate people who agree with you, you're on the same side. So by its very definition you can only be tolerant of people you disagree with. This idea seems to be missing in our modern understanding of tolerance. If I want to engage in civil discourse with someone who has an opposing view to my own (let's say on abortion or Iraq) I can do so, all the while still being tolerant of the person himself or herself.

The problem today is that as soon as I open my mouth and say something like, "I don't believe abortion is morally right because..." I am immedately labeled as being intolerant (or perhaps some other ad hominem is thrown my way, but they all basically lead back to me being intolerant). Just because I disagree with your opinion, that doesn't mean I'm being intolerant of you as a person.

The sad truth is that this intolerance insult is really little more than a cover for moral cowerdice. People no longer wish to engage in any sort of conflict, even if it is the most civil of intelligent discourses, either because they are unable to defend their point of view or because they are simply unwilling. Thus we are left with a society where "progress" in the area of "tolerance" is ultimately inhibiting our progress everywhere else and leading us straight to moral relativism.

The bottom line is this: If we are to take the idea of "tolerance" to mean that we must be tolerant of all ideas, then no one is truly tolerant (especially the "enlightened" liberal, who hates everything that the Christian right stands for, and is thus intolerant of their ideas) and the idea of tolerance becomes self-defeating. So the next time someone calls you intolerant, ask them to explain their definition of tolerance and then point out the self-defeating nature of their own definition.

If you're just being a hateful jerk (or you're a card-carrying member of the KKK), then yeah, you're intolerant. :P