[analphilosopher] Keith Burgess-Jackson: Twenty Years Ago

[analphilosopher at lists.powerblogs.com]

Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson:
Twenty Years Ago
http://www.analphilosopher.com/posts/1122872941.shtml


   7-31-85 Wednesday. An impartial observer might classify me as a
   =E2Mama=E2s boy.=E2 In our culture, that=E2s a pejorative term. A =E2Mam=
a=E2s boy=E2
   is someone who is inordinately attached to his or her [!] mother, or
   who is shy and withdrawn. I fit the bill on all counts. But I see
   nothing whatsoever wrong with it. My mother is special to me, and
   always has been. She gave the best years of her life to provide a
   stable home life to my brothers and me, and she instilled traits in me
   that remain to this day. Why else would I write to her every week, as
   if on schedule? She=E2s without a doubt the most important person in my
   life. That, however, has made parting difficult. When I moved from
   Vassar to Madison Heights in 1979 [to attend law school], I was lonely
   and heartbroken for days. When I moved from Pontiac to Tucson in 1983
   [to attend graduate school], much the same thing happened. But
   eventually I got over my sorrow and was able to get on with my normal
   activities. One thing is clear: I needed to move out of the household
   before I moved across country. In 1979, I was unprepared, both
   emotionally and psychologically, to be two thousand miles from Mom.
   Living within eighty miles of her for a few years made the longer
   break more tolerable. [I love you, Mom.]

   Of all the moral issues of the day, I=E2m arguably most interested in
   abortion (animal rights is a close second, if not tied for first).
   Abortion raises factual (=E2Can fetuses feel pain?=E2) as well as
   normative (=E2Ought fetuses to have the same moral status as adults?=E2)
   questions and also requires that one consider rights, utility, and the
   claims of feminists in resolving the issue. More than almost any other
   arguments currently making the rounds of public debate, the abortion
   arguments tend to be fallacious. Both liberals and conservatives beg
   the crucial issue of the status of the fetus, and I am constantly
   pleading =E2irrelevant!=E2 when discussing abortion with some friend,
   colleague, or student. It=E2s great fun just to keep the abortion debate
   on track, even if one never takes sides. That=E2s what I attempted to do
   in a recent letter to an Arizona Republic columnist, Ginger Hutton. I
   took up several points that she had raised in a previous column=E2either
   refuting or elaborating on them. It felt good to get back into the
   intellectual fray, if only temporarily. [I missed campus life. Law was
   fun, but not intellectually stimulating.]