|
Political Discourse as it once was. Quotes from the Lincoln/Douglas
debates:
"If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation
of an able debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous
conclusion."
- Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858
"I desire to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and
your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm."
- Stephen A. Douglas, 8/21/1858
"But I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then
he must show how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is
not satisfactory to me that he may be 'conscientious' on the subject."
- Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858
Scoring
Form letter reply or no reply at all. It is not clear
that anyone has even read the correspondence beyond possibly noting
the topic. A complete disregard of a constituent's specific questions
especially after repeated attempts. A complete lack of engagement
in the democratic process.
Attempts to address the specific points raised by the constituent
but in a demonstrably unreasoned manner, whether sincere or through deliberate
rationalization.
A valid, rational argument that places truth above
politics and partisanship. Fully engaged in the democratic process.
Contribute?
Do you have some correspondence with your representative that
you would like to contribute to EngageTheDebate.com?
Please send it to
info@EngageTheDebate.com
"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the
first and only legitimate object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson, 3/31/1809, in a letter to the Citizens of Washington County,
Maryland
|
"I
have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show
how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory
to me that he may be 'conscientious' on the subject." - Abraham
Lincoln debating Stephen Douglas, 8/21/1858
 |
Recalled Governor
Gray Davis, CA
The office of Governor Davis
fails to live up to the Governor's own stated principle on
engaging with citizens. Governor Davis stated that, "an
informed and engaged citizenry is essential to the democratic
process" and yet his own Constituent Affairs Department
repeatedly agreed that it is perfectly sufficient for the
Governor to take a position and offer absolutely no justification
for it. Governor Davis, if you believe what you say about
the essence of Democracy then please live up to your words
and engage this debate. (9 contacts)
|
Summary of Contacts:
|
Contact
|
Summary |
|
|
Initial contact. Trying to engage
the debate. |
|
|
Interesting auto-response e-mail
about the necessity of an engaged citizenry. |
|
|
Form
letter reply that is not even related to the topic and simply
plugs the Governor's web site. |
|
|
Another attempt to engage the
debate. |
|
|
I called and left a message for the Policy
Dept. |
|
|
After a month of no reply I called and spoke
to Constituent Affairs. |
|
|
I left a message for the Director of Constituent
Affairs who had not returned my call after a month. |
|
|
Another month had passed without contact
and I again spoke to Constituent Affairs. |
|
|
The Governor does not have to justify any position that he takes
according to his very own Constituent Affairs Department. |
First contact: To Governor
Gray Davis from a private citizen.
November 6, 2002
Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Gray Davis,
As my Governor, I would like to better understand
your pro-choice position
by getting answers to just a few specific questions. These
questions are
straightforward and I would prefer answers to these questions
rather than a
general form letter response so that I may better understand
how you
represent me, your constituent.
As a rational person who is pro-life, I
can find no Constitutional basis for
one person’s ‘right’ to legally kill an innocent
person. The 14th amendment
of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all persons, regardless
of
citizenship, are to be protected equally by the laws. This
argument
presumes:
1) the pregnant woman is two individuals
and not one
2) the second individual is also a person entitled to rights
3) all persons are included by the equal protection clause
of the 14th
amendment of the U.S. Constitution
If you accept these three statements then
there is no other rational
position but to be pro-life. As a pro-choice person you must
disagree with
at least one of these three statements. In summary, I would
like to know
which and why.
The first statement is based on the fact
that our lives as individuals begin
at conception/fertilization. There is overwhelming evidence
to support this
fact. According to U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee testimony
given by
numerous internationally known biologists and geneticists,
the answer is
clear:
“Conception (fertilization) marks the
beginning of the life of a human being
... There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless
medical,
biological and scientific writings."
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158,
97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p.7
Further testimony was given by Jerome Lejuene,
the Father of Modern
Genetics, who told lawmakers, “To accept the fact that
after fertilization
has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer
a matter of
taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence.”
Opposing testimony to these points was invited
but none was received because
to do so is profoundly contrary to scientific knowledge.
One does not need a degree in biology to
accept this position as fact for if
a new individual did not exist after conception/fertilization
then a
pregnancy must at some point conclude by the mother splitting
into two
individuals, an act of asexual reproduction. Since we each
have two parents
who created us at conception/fertilization, if we are not
independent beings
from that point on then human beings must reproduce asexually
which is
absurd.
My first question for you is do you believe
that conception/fertilization
marks the beginning of a human being’s existence? If
no, please explain
when this occurs and why you believe this is so.
The second statement is that unborn human
beings are in fact persons
entitled to rights. Being a person is not a subjective matter,
as some
seemingly believe; it is a matter of objective fact. Africans
are persons
and have always been persons even though they were not treated
as such
during the days of slavery. Dred Scott was factually incorrect
by not
recognizing the objective fact of the personhood of Africans.
Those today
who claim that while the unborn are human beings they are
not persons are
making a similar arbitrary, subjective assertion. Upon serious
examination,
I have never found a rational argument to support this pro-choice
conclusion. Let me explain why.
You and I are persons because we are each
inherently capable of thought,
feeling, emotion, reason, and all of those other attributes
commonly
associated with persons. The unborn are also persons because
they are
beings that have this same inherent capacity. While they do
not have the
immediate capacity to demonstrate these abilities, neither
do you or I while
unconscious. You and I retain our personhood while unconscious
because we
are beings with these inherent capacities. It’s that
simple. Unborn human
beings are persons for the same reason that you and I are;
we all have
inherent capacities that distinguish us from all non-persons.
We all have
the being of persons so we all are persons.
While one could perhaps argue that only
those individuals with blue eyes are
persons, one would be hard pressed to explain why this position
would not be
arbitrary since it has nothing to do with being a person.
The only
non-arbitrary place for assigning personhood is the beginning
of that
individual’s existence which is conception/fertilization.
Any other place
ignores the inherent capacities of that being which is what
defines the
being for what he/she truly is, a person.
My second question is do you believe that
unborn human beings, while living
members of the species homo sapiens, are also persons? If
no, when do they
become persons and why at that time?
The third part of my position comes directly
from the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th amendment clearly states that all persons are to
have equal
protection of the laws. Since you swore an oath to uphold
the Constitution
I doubt that you have an issue with the 14th amendment. Do
you have a
different reading of this amendment?
I have given a lot of thought to this issue
and have found no rational
pro-choice arguments that address this fundamental issue of
the personhood
of the unborn. Even Roe v. Wade specifically avoids it which
is absolutely
inexcusable; You can’t argue that there are no victims
simply by dodging the
point.
In today’s political climate, being
pro-choice is easy. Given the
rationality of pro-life arguments that I have heard, I think
that someday
arguments for the choice of abortion and the choice to own
slaves will be
held in the same regard. The arbitrary denial of the most
fundamental
protections, called by our founders the “unalienable
right to life and
liberty,” in order to achieve one’s own ends against
an innocent person is a
crime against humanity. There is no Constitutional right to
kill an
innocent human being for one’s own benefit. (Again, Roe
v. Wade
specifically avoided this point and therefore can not be used
as a defense.)
I am very open to a rational pro-choice
argument but I’m having some
difficulty finding one. Thank you for your time and I look
forward to your
reply so that I may better understand just how you are representing
me.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
*** Please don't reply with a form
letter as I am seeking very specific
answers to very specific questions. Thanks! ***
|
Second contact: Auto-Respond
e-mail from Governor Gray Davis about the necessity of an engaged
citizenry.
|
[emphasis
added]
November 6, 2002
Thank you for your email. I appreciate
you taking the time to keep me informed of your opinions and
the issues that are important to you. Your comments help keep
me informed as we strive to make California a better place
in which to work and live.
Your email has been directed to members
of my staff who assist constituents and report ideas and concerns
daily. If your concern is best handled by a specific department,
your correspondence will be forwarded for action and response.
So that we can keep track of correspondence
and ensure that we are able to respond to California residents,
please be sure to include your name and address when you communicate
with the Governor's Office or any state agency. Please note
that we do NOT accept email attachments, so your correspondence
should be included within the text of your email.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
An informed and engaged citizenry is essential to the
democratic process, and I appreciate your willingness
to write me.
Sincerely,
Governor Gray Davis
|
Third contact: E-mail from
Governor Gray Davis to a private citizen.
|
The Governor's actual response
is simply to plug his web site. This form letter is not
even related to the topic and it is totally unclear that
anyone has read the original message. |
November 06, 2002
Dear Private Citizen,
Thank you for your correspondence. The Governor
appreciates
hearing from you.
The Governor is constantly involved with
a wide variety of issues.
You can access current press releases and speeches by selecting
"the Press Room" on the Governor's Homepage at www.governor.ca.gov.
In addition, you may wish to access the State of California
homepage
at www.ca.gov. On this website you will find additional information
dealing with many of the issues concerning the State of California
and links to various State agencies.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Maree Diego
Constituent Affairs
|
Fourth contact: E-mail
to Governor Gray Davis from a private citizen.
|
November 07, 2002
Maree,
When I submitted my questions I received
a generic bounce letter from the Governor stating that, "An
informed and engaged citizenry is essential to the democratic
process." I agree completely but if I receive non-answers
to my questions I can hardly be an engaged citizen and I'm
quite certain that these questions are not answered on the
web site. I'm am trying to be engaged! Please have someone
with authority to speak for the Governor reply to my questions.
From your reply it is unclear as to whether
anyone has actually read my correspondence. Thank you.
A Private Citizen
|
Fifth contact: I called
and left a message for the Policy Dept.
January 3, 2003
I called and tried to contact the Policy Dept. but they
were not answering their phones so I left a message with
Alena along with contact information.
|
Sixth contact: After a
month of no reply I called and spoke to Constituent Affairs.
February 5, 2003
After over a month with no reply I spoke with Judy in the
Policy Dept. who determined that the most appropriate persons
to answer my questions would be in Constituent Affairs since
they had received my initial questions. I then spoke with
Amber in Constituent Affairs who could not answer any of
my questions but would only repeat Governor Davis' position
rather than his justification for holding this position.
Amber said that she would refer my questions to Kelly, the
Director of Constituent Affairs and I left contact information
for a return call.
|
Seventh contact: I left
a message for the Director of Constituent Affairs who had not returned
my call after a month.
March 7, 2003
I left a message for Kelly, the Director
of Constituent Affairs, who had not returned my call after
a month. I again left contact information.
|
Eighth contact: Another
month had passed without contact and I again spoke to Constituent
Affairs.
April 11, 2003
After another month had passed without
any contact from Governor Davis' office, I called Constituent
Affairs and again spoke with Alena. She again could not
answer any of my questions and simply restated Governor
Davis' position rather than answering my questions as to
the basis of his position. She said that all information
available on this topic is available on Governor Davis'
web site which is another way of saying that he does not
wish to engage this debate even with those that he claims
to represent. My cell phone connection dropped at this point.
|
Ninth contact: The Governor does not have to justify any position
that he takes according to his very own Constituent Affairs Department.
April 11, 2003
After my dropped cell phone connection
I again called Constituent Affairs and spoke with Amber.
She also simply repeated his position and could not answer
the question as to when/why Governor Davis believes that
personhood begins. I mentioned that even Justice Blackmun
argued in Roe that if the unborn are persons then there
is no right to an abortion but she still made no effort
to any this most central question of Governor Davis' position.
When asked, "Is it sufficient
for the Governor to take a position and offer no justification
for it?" she said, "Yes." I repeated the
question and received the same answer.
I said that this was a far cry from
the Lincoln/Douglas debates where they debated the issue
of slavery for more than 20 hours concerning "settled"
law. She had no reply and simply repeated the Governor's
position.
I asked her if she felt that Lincoln
was wrong in opposing the "settled" law of slavery
and she could not answer. I asked that if the unborn are
persons are they not also covered by the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment. She could not answer and yet
fetal personhood is central to this issue.
She essentially said that there would
be no more information available on this topic for me.
Governor Davis' own e-mail to me stated,
"An informed and engaged citizenry is essential to
the democratic process" and yet the policy of his Constituent
Affairs Department is clearly opposed to the Governor's
own stated principle. An engaged citizenry is only possible
if both parties will engage.
Governor Davis, please follow through
on your own stated principle and engage the debate.
|
Please send your comments and
questions to
info@EngageTheDebate.com
|
