Why can’t we just say it?

I’ve had an article published at NewsBlaze.  Here’s an excerpt:

I must confess that one of my guilty pleasures is the often outrageous FX show Nip/Tuck.  Last night I was catching up on my pre-holiday DVR-ing, and was rather intrigued by the last episode of the season’s handling of a sensitive topic.  One of the (many) over-sexed characters found herself pregnant, and the father, with whom she is quite enamoured, insisted that he would not stick around if she kept it.  After a great deal of garment renting, she, well, . . . she opted out.  She made her choice.  She had it taken care of. 

At the, well, “place,” she called another character to pick her up.  They discussed “it,” and it was revealed that the other character had been “through it” before.  Finally, after she had had “it” done, the other character finally manged to say what had occurred to the father.  Both this character and the father were doctors; even so, she prefaced it with a “you know” and a trail off before she could finally bring herself to say the word: “abortion.

Please visit NewsBlaze to check out the rest of this article, and let me know what you think.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. “Maybe, just maybe, there’s a reason that we as a nation are still so uncomfortable with the idea of killing unborn babies.”

    I found your post to be most interesting, and your final paragraph conclusion acceptable.

    I also find that a seared conscience is a horrible human condition. It lends itself quite nicely to the degradation & depravity depicted in ‘entertainment’.

    It also lends itself to the mindset which allows one to kill an unborn baby. It all seems to be wrapped up together, although, maybe, the producers of this ‘nip tuck’ scatology still possess one shred of decency in *not* taking glee in killing the unborn.

    Still, an audience for this type of degradation & depravity is what keeps it on the air. So why would an otherwise intelligent, obviously educated , conservative woman facilitate these purveyors of perversity?

    I just don’t understand.
    .

  2. Thanks for commenting, Locomotive Breath. I’m glad that you found it interesting. With regards to your question, I think you are looking at it too deeply.

    I look to my entertainment to, above all, entertain. Nothing more. Nip/Tuck is an incredibly entertaining show; it is creative, well written and acted, and presents interesting issues. It is also patently absurd, and every character is a psychopath, but these things, once recognized, do not detract from the entertainment value.

    Would I show this show to kids? Not on your life; it’s not even appropriate for teens or college students, IMO, but my house is just my husband and me. We’re old enough to appreciate the absurdity.

    For what it’s worth, you described me as a conservative, but I generally identify as a conservative liberatarian.

    Since I addressed your question, I’d like to ask you one. You said my conclusion was “acceptable.” Why did you choose that wording? I used to have a teacher that warned us against “damning with faint phrasing”- it seems like you did that there? Might I ask why my conclusion was only “acceptable” to you?

  3. “Maybe.” Four times in the final paragraph.

    Too uncertain and flaccid for such a brutal business as killing the unborn. The abolitionists of centuries past would never have dared been so timid concerning such immorality.

    I can appreciate your ‘conservative libertarian’ mindset, but at what point does your innocuous entertainment become another’s malignant turpitude?

    Most of us have an internal moral compass that keeps us from the abyss. Many others do not. It’s why women are raped, men murdered, money stolen, babies aborted, children brutalized.

    Thoughts proceed actions. At what point do we become our brother’s keeper? Or, at the very least, take a moral stand to say I will not facilitate the degradation & depravity depicted in ‘entertainment’.

    We are all engaged in a social contract for the general welfare. I believe many of us had our conscience seared under the guise of ‘entertainment’ – seared to the point that we cannot see the rot in the fabric of our social contract, yet we decry the vulgar & violent results, then scratch our heads as what to do.

    The producers of these execrable productions have made it plain their glee in perversion. The one will not stop till he depicts ‘rear door action’ on broadcast TV. Parental concerns and community standards be damned?

    We must pull ourselves back from abyss. We can start by saying ‘No, I will not facilitate the degradation & depravity with my time and money.’
    .

  4. Thanks for your response. Re: the conclusion, I think that you misunderstand my intent to some degree (as the writer, I take responsibility for that). While I agree that forceful conclusions have their places, my intent here was more to raise questions in the mind of someone who had not thought of things that way before. It seems like it is very common for people who are pro-abortion to still realize that they feel uncomfortable with it; I was hoping that I could inspire them to confront that discomfort and consider why it is. In my experience, when a person considers a position and arrives at their own conclusion, they generally are better able to adhere to it and explain it to others than when they are just told that position. In other words, I am looking to start discussion.

    I see now, that by taking that lighter, more open to discussion route, maybe I left my own position unclear. (One of the fallbacks of writing is that one is constantly wanting to re-write in one’s head, when at some point you just have to let what you wrote stand).

    Re: Your criticisms of my choice in entertainment, I’m sorry, I do doubt that we will see eye to eye on this. You mention that we are engaged in a social contract for the general welfare. I don’t believe this. In law, a contract is something that requires the agreement and “meeting of the minds” of all parties. I have not consented to be responsible for another’s welfare, and even if I had, it would be impossible for us to agree on what that means. The “social contract” language is a myth pushed by collectivists and statists to attempt to encourage us to turn over any number of rights, particularly those of property and speech, for their ideas of the “greater good.”

    You said: “at what point does your innocuous entertainment become another’s malignant turpitude?” My answer is that it does at the point that the other chooses to allow it to. Rape is caused by rapists, murder by murderers, theft by theives, and so on. I will not have you deflect the responsibility of a person who commits the act onto another; it is the actor’s alone,

    “At what point do we become our brother’s keeper?” When we agree to take on that responsibility, or put our brother in a position which requires it.

    You say that this sort of entertainment leads to vulgar and violent results- I disagree. If a person is taking his or her moral guidance from a television show, that person got lost a long time ago. With regards to this show, it is more a cautionary tale then not- it is clear tha the characters are hardly heros.

    “Parental concerns and community standards be damned?” The show comes on at 10:00 p.m. on cable. The community’s and parent’s concerns are to keep it out of their home, if they choose. Any parent not policing what a child watches at that time is a fool. It is their resposibility.

    Abyss? We are not on the verge of one. As I linked above, attitudes against abortion are stronger than they have been in the past. Additionally, violent and sexual crimes have been dropping for years. We’re backing away from the abyss through individual actions, entertainment be damned.

  5. “It all seems to be wrapped up together.”

    You speak as a lawyer and one who’s worldview speaks too much to isolation, and lonely hardship.

    So, I think we shall simply agree to disagree.

    I will leave you with this, though: It is my responsibility to keep my child out of the busy street and out of harm’s way. Anything less would make me negligent (provided the drivers obey laws and behave responsibly).

    But, if my neighbor scatters shards of broken glass across his property, it is my responsibility to keep my child off his property and out of harm’s way. Yet, does my neighbor not bear some responsibility for the hazardous environment he creates in the neighborhood?

    Or am I solely negligent for any injuries sustained by my child on another’s property? Or if that glass gets kicked onto my property?

    If I am solely negligent, then you have saddled me with an unfathomable burden and a seemingly impossible task;

    If my neighbor does bear some responsibility and consequences, then who is it that decides, and when is it determined that he is his brother’s keeper?

    Thank you, young lady. It’s been interesting.
    .

    • “You speak as a lawyer and one who’s worldview speaks too much to isolation, and lonely hardship.”

      Wait, what now? I have no idea where that came from, but I can assure you, you are mistaken.

      **************

      Re; your glass hypothetical- It’s somewhat complicated. Generally speaking, you owe no duty to trespassers other than to avoid affirmatively causing harm (and, of course, that varies when you get into issues of self-defense). There are some variances from that if you know that people will be there, have invited them, or have something on the property that is attractive to children.

      If someone kicked the glass onto your property, then they may be considered negligent for it- this would be up to a jury.

      Either way, this example really doesn’t connect to our situation, unless you’re talking about me watching the show on a jumbo-tron in my yard. I can assure you that children do not run through my house unsupervised willy-nilly.

      You’ve used the phrase “brother’s keeper” twice now. That phrase, a smart remark that a murderer used upon being caught, has always troubled me. I addressed it here..

      “Thank you, young lady. It’s been interesting.”

      You’re welcome, old man. That it has.

  6. lolol, malignant turpitude? I would like to raise the real issue with society today: people are obsessed with sounding smarter than everyone else! Put the thesaurus down!

    But yeah no the broken glass situation isn’t analogous to the cable program, although it sounds like a terrible show, probably not so bad as walking on glass. People have been crying this same garbage for 100s of years now.. Lady Chatterly’s Lover comes to mind.. We didn’t fall into the abyss when Lawrence’s unconscienable (at the time, bannable in 5 countries) depiction of but zeks became available at libraries, I doubt cable will put us there now.

    This discussion sheds some light on the stark differences among ‘conservatives’ like ‘cultural conservative’ and ‘conservatives’ like ‘feds-outa-my-business conservatives’. I think the media is responsible for lumping us all together because they can create more pretend drama when it’s faction v. faction. It’s sort of like how some feminists just honestly want equal rights/pay/cultural equality, but they have the hijackers who insist that abortion/immigration/welfare/healthcare/unions must ride along as women’s rights. Similarly, those who want smaller government have the prayer-in-school/decency-police types hanging by the side stealing our thunder. Dragonbreath’s last post is starting to sound like ‘it takes a village’, yet they infer a ‘conservative’ identity earlier on. Blah. We need to reshuffle. The decency-police types scare younger people away from “conservatism” (yeah still using the word even though we established up there that it can mean a cpl different things) as well, leading to many under 25 being default dems.

    Anywho, the article. It was good! You approached the issue from a depth that national media would never dare (they don’t really want us doing their thinking for us). I had never considered that absolutely none of our favorite fictional characters ever look into aborting. That is a very interesting phenomenon. Are the writers attempting to reflect us, or influence us?

    I’m thinking that this situation relates to the party platform way of thinking that the national media shoves down our throats. As in, of course everyone is for women’s rights! No one is exactly sure what this has to with killing babies, but, yay women’s rights! vote dem! And so something that is clearly unnatural and harmful, likely a distasteful concept to anyone who considers it, gets a free ride on a loftier concept that they would have us believe we just don’t fully understand.

  7. […] my brother’s keeper? No, I am not. Posted on January 5, 2010 by Lyssa A commenter on an earlier post made an argument criticizing my individual choice in entertainment with the question “At what […]

  8. […] Why can’t we just say it? 35.045630 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: