â€œBut a case such as that of the Kurds, a stateless people who have suffered under Turkish, Iraqi, and Syrian sovereignty without any moral acceptance of that rule, shows how sovereignty often plays out merely as a recognition of power, not an acknowledgment of just power.â€
The sovereign waters are necessarily murky. This article concerns itself mainly with sovereignty among nations but anti-abortion advocates often use the argument from sovereignty to justify their position. I consider this tenuous, at best, precisely because in these arguments the term â€œsovereignâ€ never seems to get pinned down. Iâ€™m not sure we can pin the term down (to the extent that all parties are satisfied), which doesnâ€™t end all debate regarding abortion, but may be an indicator that anti-abortion proponents might want to a) define all terms as they will use them in their arguments or possibly, b) try another tack in defending their views. Obviously, this applies to anyone using sovereignty in their arguments.
â€œYet too many participants in public debate fail to scrutinize sovereignty, just as they fail to dissect most political concepts more abstract than an oil pipeline.â€
I agree with the authorâ€™s conclusion â€“ Let the public debate begin over what constitutes a sovereign nation. I would add to that – Let that debate also include what constitutes a sovereign individual.
In other news,
Part of the hunt for grad schools is collecting (usually 3) letters of recommendation that universities ask to accompany your application. Iâ€™ve got a joint letter coming from my two big bosses, and a few more in the works by old professors. I need to get those things nailed down before monthâ€™s end because I want to begin applying by the end of next month. Have to start editing my personal statement as a next step. Iâ€™m not much a fan of this part of the process.
That’s it for now, kiddies. Enjoy your afternoon.