Sunday, October 26, 2008

Questions of Rights and Wrongs

There are three propositions on the California ballot that, to my mind, deal with what is right and what is wrong.

Proposition 2 deals with (institutional) cruelty to animals, and whether or not economic expediency justifies it. It's interesting to me that the argument in opposition to it centers on egg production and I suspect that's (at least partly) because (almost) everybody likes eggs and (almost) nobody likes chickens, but it includes calves raised for veal, and pregnant pigs as well as egg-laying hens. The prospective standard is that these animals must be confined only in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, stretch their limbs and turn around. Exceptions are made for transportation, rodeos (!?!), fairs (although the pens at county fairs I've been to exceed these standards), 4H programs (!?!), slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.
The poultry industry argues that if this passes then all eggs will have to be trucked in from Mexico because this is an impossible standard for them to meet, and then we'll all die from salmonella (Mexican salmonella in contrast to the California salmonella that affected the folks around here early this month). They contend that California birds are much healthier and happier in their 8 inch by 8 inch cages (only slightly less plausible than the "happy cows" ad campaign).

Proposition 4 is on the ballot again to require notification of a pregnant unemancipated minor's parents 48 hours before an abortion. I write about this before every election because it gets put on the ballot for every election. To soften the blow this time, they don't seek parental consent - only notification; but it's interesting to me that the measure speaks of a pregnant unemancipated minor. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably sure that California law still recognizes pregnant minors as emancipated with respect to their pregnancies which would leave California physicians liable for their breach of the doctor-patient privilege in complying.

Proposition 8, of course, is the measure seeking to override the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and ban same-sex couples from marrying. I've written about this enough, and there have been plenty of rulings against "separate but equal" to bolster the argument against it. Someone give me an argument that doesn't begin with "It says in the Bible..." and we can talk.

2 Comments:

Blogger Kay Dennison said...

Is there something wrong in the water out there? Maybe a humanoid mutation that hasn't been noticed? This all makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Then again, I think it's visited here. There's a Vegas type who is trying to tell (sell?) us that casino gambling will save Ohio. There's a cute lil' thang in the deal that allows him to take his profits and go home sans taxes. What I wanna know is how this piece of you-know-what got on the ballot. Never mind -- I think I know. Sigh.

12:48 PM  
Blogger Rain said...

Good for you on Prop 8. Your logic is again right on

2:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home