They're going to go to the same subs that were pressured under the Browning contract, and will see the same results. So get your shovel, Byron, but try not to miss too many classes.
...said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Danielle Tierney. "They don't know who they're dealing with."
Sure we do. We're dealing with baby killers.
But is she threatening us? Maybe she intends to puncture our skulls and vacuum out our brains if we continue to encourage a construction boycott.
Posted by Mark Harden at November 11, 2003 04:39 PMEasy there Mark. I agree with you, abortionists have severely deformed consciences, but being hostile in the comments section of this Blog does nothing about the problem, so why antagonize people? It is not a very effective communication technique, and it only fires up the people really against us to go fight all the harder -- not that a fired up TX Dem. party would be capable of winning elections, but still ...
The main reason I am writing, though, is to pose a question to Byron about the issue. "Pro-Choice" advocates always couch their support for abortion in the very libertarian terms of a woman's "right to choose," and not having the government running her life and making her decisions for her. From what I've read of your comments, you and Andrew wholeheartedly agree.
Now I understand why a libertarian would support abortion, and why a conservative would view that the government should keep out of most things, but protecting innocent life is its fundamental purpose.
What I don't understand is why liberals are so passionate about limited government on this one issue, and not elsewhere. You aren't "pro-choice" when it comes to vouchers and educational opportunity, or "pro-choice" when it comes to people making their own retirement decisions and privatizing soc. security. Indeed, on most issues besides abortion, the liberal philosophy calls for higher taxes to pay for a larger government (ignore Bush's lower taxes and more spending for now, I am arguing the philosophy here) so that the government plays a larger role in the life and the choices of the individual, be that medical care, what businesses are invested in, etc. etc. You aren't "pro-choice" when it comes to limiting virtually any other role that the government plays in our life.
So I'd like to know, why the selective libertarianism? Why is the logic of "choice" so compelling when it comes to abortion, but not on just about any other issue?
Sherk
Posted by Sherk at November 11, 2003 05:14 PMActually, Sherk, there are quite a few liberals who support choice in schools and support home schooling.
This limited/expanded government argument, however, is a completely bogus distinction between conservatives and liberals. No one truly believes in expanding government for the sake of expanding it.
In fact, Clinton shrunk the civilian federal government to its smallest since 1960. Reagan and other Republican administrations raised taxes and enlarged government.
Both liberals and conservatives are inconsistent, however. It is nothing new. Tell me why do Christians support free market capitalism, which Milton Friedman points requires thinking about economics before anything else. It's really pretty easy to point out inconsistencies.
I believe in the importance of competition.However, I believe (no, I know) that competition doesn't always result in the best solution, something many conservatives I know personally assume. Many liberals, for example, oppose corporate monopolies because they eliminate choice.
You've created a strawman argument. Choice is hardly foreign to liberals, just as big, interventionist government is hardly foreign to conservatives. You like that federal requirement for more testing in schools?
As Molly would say, "Good on y'all!"
Posted by melior at November 11, 2003 07:15 PMSherk,
Well I could just as easily flip the issue and ask why conservatives are for small government, except they advocate government intervention in the most personal decisions people make (child bearing decisions, sex laws, etc.). I won't ask that, because you do ask a legitimate question.
As for the other issues you mention, I am "pro-choice" in regards to public schools. I think that children and parents should have the choice regarding which school they attend in a district, and if their school is a failing school they should be able to get out. I oppose private school vouchers for several reasons - practically, because they inevitably take money away from public schools, and constitutionally because it's government funding of religion.
I guess my general philosophy that defines my politics is that the government has an obligation to give everyone an opportunity to succeed and to achieve the American Dream. I'm sure that some conservatives feel similarly, but we differ in how we define the statement. For me, it has nothing to do with abortion. A "baby" or "person" is not such and has no constitutional rights in my opinion until it is "born". Until it's "born", even if viable, a fetus is not a person, not an American citizen and in my opinion has no rights. Once the fetus is born, then I believe that the government has an obligation to that child, to ensure that that child has health insurance and has an opportunity to get a quality education and be raised in a loving family. That's where I can't understand Republicans. They feel obligated to prevent women from having an abortion, yet they don't feel that same obligation to ensure quality health care and health insurance for that child. Where was the conservative outrage when the Texas GOP majority cut thousands of Texas children off the CHIP program this spring? Doesn't protecting "innocent life" include an obligation to ensure health care for poor children? I'm confused.
I've rambled a little bit, and I guess after thinking about it, I'll just agree with Tx Bubba. Both liberals and conservatives are inconsisent on choice. And that's not really a bad thing. Libertarians and Authoritarians are the only consisent people out there. Most of us don't feel that government should control people's lives or that government shouldn't exist. We're all somewhere in between.
Posted by ByronUT at November 11, 2003 07:19 PMUmmm, in case that wasn't clear, I was referring to the University Dems, not the fundies. I donated to PPF today!
Posted by melior at November 11, 2003 07:20 PMFundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, and fundamentalist Hindus have far more in common with each other than they do with their moderate co-religionists.
They fanatically attempt to impose their reactionary agendas on society and use
carefully selected excerpts of their scriptures as justification. Since they see themselves as carrying out the will of God, they feel they have the authority to use any means necessary against those they identify as God's enemies.
McVeigh and McNichols are no different from Bin Laden and Atta in their hatred of democratic institutions. Democracy does not grant weighted influence to those who claim to be holy warriors. Therefore, fundamentalists look upon democracy as a hindrance; at best it can be subverted or hijacked to further their own goals.
Posted by Tim Z at November 11, 2003 08:20 PMThanks Tim, I feel the love ... and the pain of doing these Econometrics proofs, but hey, I signed up for this. For the record, I don't support McVeigh/Nichols, or those who bomb abortion clinics. I've also made it clear, or at least I thought I had, that I don't believe the government has the authority to try to outlaw sin. Those who are screwing up and don't repent will answer to a far higher authority than Uncle Sam. Reading through the Bible, it seems pretty clear to me that Christian are not called to establish a theocracy because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world.
But surely you can see the difference between allowing people to mess up their own lives, and ending someone else's. None of you have explained to me why you are justified in imposing your own conception of the moral worth of an unborn child on that child, or why whatever religious/irreligious beliefs that lead you to that conclusion are objectively superior to the religious beliefs of those who would recognize that life. How are we pro-lifers then being any more fanatical than you?
Byron, for the most part, I don't believe that conservatives want government in the bedroom, at least, not exempting the abortion issue. Sodomy, adultery, fornication, whatever, ought to be legal, and I don't know of many conservatives who argue otherwise -- notwithstanding the fact that the SCOTUS's reasoning in Lawrence was badly flawed. Something can be a bad law, and still constitutional.
You are irritatingly correct, though, in that a lot of Republicans support big government policies. I wouldn't say that conservatives are being inconsistent, however, but that Republicans are inconsistently conservative.
I'll leave aside most of the rest of your post for another day, since I have a nasty habit of writing very large comments, for which I apologize, but one thing you wrote really struck me:
"Until it's "born", even if viable, a fetus is not a person, not an American citizen and in my opinion has no rights. "
Do you really believe that? That someone has no rights unless they are a citizen? Surely you don't, not unless you are going to argue that slavery was fine before the 14th ammendment was adopted, or that illegal immigrants make wonderful target practice for a rifle. Come on now, citizenship conveys priviledges and responsibilities, but its presence or absence doesn't deprive you of you inalienable rights.
On what grounds then, I ask, do abortion advocates define personhood as starting at birth, even if the child could survive outside the womb? Geography? The few inches of flesh separating the child from the outside world deprive it of all rights?
Sherk
Posted by Sherk at November 11, 2003 10:21 PMYeah, Byron, I too asked those questions of Bush and his "culture of life" on Kos. Bush is nicknamed Smirk for a reason. He fought to keep Texas kids off insurance (still, 1 of 6 *legal* Texans don't have insurance) so that he could give money to his donors and prepare for his presidential campaign.
No, I don't believe in abortions and I wish they didn't happen. But I support choice because it's like believing in free speech, even though that means allowing hate groups to spew their venom.
I also believe in choice because men don't bear the children. They can and do walk away. People say it's a shame that one reason that women have abortion is because they can't afford the babies.
Yet, when Bush ran for governor, how did he campaign? I saw him in a "town hall" debate say that he would work to lower welfare so that women wouldn't have babies just to get the welfare checks. Nevermind that AFDC payments in Texas hadn't risen in 10 years and was one of the lower payments in the country. Instead, he chose to ride to office on the backs of single mothers, campaigning essentially *against* them.
And before anyone accuses me of father bashing, I have two brothers who raised their kids after separating from their wives, including one who was a "deadbeat mom". I know well that fathers and men are perfectly capable of loving, supporting, and raising children. However, it's conservatives who talk about the "pussification" of men and who applaud those talk that way.
None of you have explained to me why you are justified in imposing your own conception of the moral worth of an unborn child on that child, or why whatever religious/irreligious beliefs that lead you to that conclusion are objectively superior to the religious beliefs of those who would recognize that life. How are we pro-lifers then being any more fanatical than you?
I wish abortions didn't happen. But I support choice because it's like believing in free speech, even though that means allowing hate groups to spew their venom. Tell me how many Republicans are "pro-gun" even though guns are used wrongly. (For those who have problems with comparisons, no, I'm not comparing guns or speech with fetuses. The comparison is the principle of supporting a freedom even though that freedom can do great harm.)
I also believe in choice because men don't bear the children. They can and do walk away, leaving the woman with the responsibility. (I still remember Bush running for governor on the backs of single mothers receiving AFDC payments, which hadn't risen in the 10 previous years.)
A woman should have a choice about abortion in the case of incest or rape. In the case of the health of the baby and the mother. Can we truly delineate all the acceptable and unacceptable instances for abortion? If not, I think choice is what we accept and work to educate and support.
As for when life begins, that is a good question. Is that not part of the reason the Catholic Church bans contraceptives? Are there not those do believe "every sperm is sacred"? What about IUDs? The egg is fertilized, but my understanding is that they do not allow the egg to attach to the uterus. Is that not abortion? Is fertilization conception? You ask when does "personhood" begin. Is that measured biologically, such as the beating of the heart? (Animals have heartbeats but they are not people.) Is it genetically? (Apes and humans are 99% the same genetically.) Is it the soul, which is indeterminant and has been a debating point for years, even centuries. (When does the soul enter the body?) Is it the spirit (which is different than the soul)? Is it reason or intellect? Is it the ability to live independently? (We call some people with serious injuries "vegetables," suggesting that they are no longer human.) Is it that we use language (a more contemporary definition)?
I'm not being dismissive or spurious here: I'm saying that this debate necessarily opens the range of definitions, including the idea that life begins at conception or that sex is procreation, not recreation, and a sacrament. In the stem cell debate, people were arguing that the embryo differed genetically little, if any, from a fetus. But frankly, this discussion of "personhood" is irrelevant.
Do not mistake my questions as an attempt to dehumanize the fetus. Instead, pregnancy is impossible for me to understand as an experience, except as a father. Yet, as the father, I have no doubt that there is life in the womb. But that is far from the experience as a mother. I can certainly talk about it, but in truth I cannot truly understand what it means for pregnant women, who at once and the same time are individuals and are not. The fetus is not a "mass of dependent protoplasm." It is, at least at some point, life. That life within life is a female experience, a complexity that I cannot reduce to my male experience.
I agree with Naomi Wolf: "If we fail to treat abortion with grief and reverence, we risk forgetting that, when it comes to the children we choose to bear, we are here to serve them -- whomever they are; they are not here to serve us."
I disagree that this is a debate about "personhood" and American citizenship. I believe that it is what is: the right of the woman to take a life. You can say that is wrong, just as many say that capital punishment, euthanasia, and war are wrong. But we justify the taking of innocent life for a plethora of reasons, including here in Texas the right to protect your home. But it is nonetheless the taking of life. And women should understand that that is what is happening, while being given the legal right to make that decision. The women I know who have had abortions are well aware of that fact. We justify the taking of life by what our conscience allows. For some Christians, none is allowed while other Christians allow some instances.
I do *not* like the dehumanizing arguments, either of the mother or the baby.
Are the people who claim to be pro-life supporting pre-natal care, particularly among poor women and minorities who are far more likely to have abortions? Are they supporting equal pay for women so that abortions are not based on economics? Are they working to promote sexual education, that include abstinence and contraception? Are they denouncing images of women as sexual objects and inferior to men?
Conversely, are pro-choice advocates working to make abortion a rare thing? Indeed, the rhetoric of the fetus as non-human has probably worked its way into the minds (and conscience) of many, allowing them repeatedly to abort or to abort for reasons of mere inconvenience.
I think both sides are guilty of diminishing what it is to be human.
Posted by Tx Bubba at November 12, 2003 02:21 AMI had some cut and paste errors and so repeated myself. Please disregard everything above Sherk's quote.
Posted by Tx Bubba at November 12, 2003 02:23 AMTxBubba writes
I wish abortions didn't happen. But I support choice because it's like believing in free speech, even though that means allowing hate groups to spew their venom....
Listening to hate speech: annoying
Experiencing an abortion: existence-ending
If you can't see why your comparison (and all others) are so spectacularly inappropriate to the issue of abortion, then there's really nothing I or anyone else could ever say to demonstrate it to you.
I also believe in choice because men don't bear the children....
This is not relevant to deciding the morality of the issue.
A woman should have a choice about abortion in the case of incest or rape. In the case of the health of the baby and the mother. Can we truly delineate all the acceptable and unacceptable instances for abortion? If not, I think choice is what we accept and work to educate and support.
As for when life begins, that is a good question. Is that not part of the reason the Catholic Church bans contraceptives?....
No - the Catholic Church bans contraceptives because using them separates sex from its role in procreation.
You ask when does "personhood" begin. Is that measured biologically, such as the beating of the heart? (Animals have heartbeats but they are not people.) Is it genetically?....
That's closest to the correct answer. Human life begins at conception, because at that point a genetically unique being exists that, assuming normal development, will be born and develop into a mature human over time.
I'm not being dismissive or spurious here: I'm saying that this debate necessarily opens the range of definitions, including the idea that life begins at conception or that sex is procreation, not recreation, and a sacrament. In the stem cell debate, people were arguing that the embryo differed genetically little, if any, from a fetus. But frankly, this discussion of "personhood" is irrelevant.
On the contrary - personhood is the key to this entire debate (and related issues as well).
I disagree that this is a debate about "personhood" and American citizenship. I believe that it is what is: the right of the woman to take a life. You can say that is wrong, just as many say that capital punishment, euthanasia, and war are wrong. But we justify the taking of innocent life for a plethora of reasons, including here in Texas the right to protect your home....
No, we don't. Among the examples you mention, war is irrelevant, because it's not a product of the judicial system. Captial punishment and the example of trespass you mention are responses to positive actions on the part of the injured party. Abortion (and, for that matter, euthanasia), on the other hand, occur to a party through no action of his or her own; the aborted fetus or euthanized patient did nothing to incur the end of his or her life other than just be (more precisely, be inconvenient). It's not permissible to kill a passive agent.
Are the people who claim to be pro-life supporting pre-natal care, particularly among poor women and minorities who are far more likely to have abortions? Are they supporting equal pay for women so that abortions are not based on economics? Are they working to promote sexual education, that include abstinence and contraception? Are they denouncing images of women as sexual objects and inferior to men?
Conversely, are pro-choice advocates working to make abortion a rare thing?
Who knows? None of this is relevant to the issue.
Indeed, the rhetoric of the fetus as non-human has probably worked its way into the minds (and conscience) of many, allowing them repeatedly to abort or to abort for reasons of mere inconvenience.
Every abortion is for the reason of mere inconvenience.
I think both sides are guilty of diminishing what it is to be human.
One side doesn't seem to object to some people never having a chance to experience being a human, not to mention diminshing the human experience.
Posted by Jonathan at November 12, 2003 04:17 AMListening to hate speech: annoying
Experiencing an abortion: existence-ending
I'll let the critics of Al Sharpton refute you on that, folks who have blamed him for the murder of innocents.
That's closest to the correct answer. Human life begins....
I'm glad that you know the correct answer, Jonathon.
No, we don't.
Sorry, Jonathon, but we do. The involvement of the judicial branch is truly irrelevant. How we justify it doesn't affect the fact that we do. If nothing else, a pronounced majority of Americans support abortion in at least specific circumstances. I'm impressed by the dissolution of your absolutism, though, in the dismissal of war because it's not judicial. You've obviously found a way to tell your conscience that war and the killing of innocents is okay.
As for capital punishment, you honestly don't think innocent people are killed? You don't think human judgement is fallible and that people truly innocent of a crime have been convicted and then killed?
Many, if not most, supporters of capital acknowledge that it happens but say that that is the price of doing business.
Every abortion is for the reason of mere inconvenience.
Have a nice life, Jonathon.
Tx Bubba,
Thank you for your candor. Most of the pro-abortion types I argue with aren't willing to concede that the unborn child is morally distinguishable from "mass of dependent protoplasm," and I appreciate your willingness to do so. I have to run to class soon, I can't post much now.
I would just like to quickly point out that while "this debate necessarily opens the range of definitions" there can only be one correct definition, and the proper goal should be to find out what that is, and then act accordingly. Abortion is not simultaneously moral and immoral, depending on how the mother defines life. We humans don't get to decide what constitutes right and wrong.
Secondly, you repeatedly mention that men can't know what it is like to be pregnant, so how dare we intrude into this debate. Granted, we can't know what it is like, but I have many female friends, some of whom have children, who know exactly what it is like and are even more fervently pro-life than I. They make similar arguments, so why does my maleness invalidate the reasoning?
Finally, both you and Byron have repeatedly asked if pro-lifers are willing to help care for the child, etc. I can't speak for all pro-lifers, but among my friends, I know a lot of people who are active with their churches who volunteer at Crisis Pregnancy Centers, helping the mother's through their pregnancy and with raising the child afterwards. Just because someone feels it is innappropriate for the government to do something, that doesn't mean that they don't believe it is necessary and moral and just that that action be taken.
Gotta go,
Sherk
Posted by Sherk at November 12, 2003 12:36 PMThanks, Sherk. I believe too much energy is spent on the "personhood" debate, in part because it leads to all those considerations that I listed.
As my wife put it, "I think the only thing worth saying on that topic is, "What can we do to
reduce the difficulties of women who are considering abortion? What can we offer so that abortion doesn't seem like her best alternative?"
That is the pragmatic answer, folks.
We humans don't get to decide what constitutes right and wrong.
I respectfully disagree. We do it all the time. That was the point of my examples about justified killing.
how dare we intrude into this debate
I didn't say that. Certainly we are part of the debate. The point was an understanding of individuality and identity. As a male, I understand that Byron or you is distinct from me. A pregant woman on the other hand has that distinction extremely muddied--me, she and me, us.I agree that this is a life--but a separate life? A different life? Yes and no. I acknowledge this is nonetheless still an argument about the woman, as well as the fetus. It is not a simple problem.
I also did not say that anti-abortionists don't do anything to help the mothers and the children. Some do. I know some who are actively trying to help women with this decision. But, of the anti-abortionists that I know personally, most like arguing the issue but do nothing about it.
I think I hang a lot of responsibility on advocates of both sides.
Posted by Tx Bubba at November 12, 2003 03:47 PM"Listening to hate speech: annoying
Experiencing an abortion: existence-ending"
I'll let the critics of Al Sharpton refute you on that, folks who have blamed him for the murder of innocents.
I could ask you to think about the moral responsibilities of passvie vs. active agents, but my guess is that I was right previously - having said what you did, there's really nothing I or anyone else could ever say to demonstrate it to you.
"That's closest to the correct answer. Human life begins...."
I'm glad that you know the correct answer, Jonathon. [sic]
Thank you. Do you? I'm trying my best....
"No, we don't." [justify taking the life of innocent]
Sorry, Jonathon [sic], but we do. The involvement of the judicial branch is truly irrelevant. How we justify it doesn't affect the fact that we do.
No, we don't. It is the nature of humanity that at times people will lose their lives at the hands of others. As a society, we need rules that handle these situations. There are times when we believe that homicide is justifiable (e.g., an attack on our persons). The life that is taken in that case is not an innocent one; it's a guilty one. In the case of abortion, however, no one can rationally claim that the fetus is guilty of anything.
Your argument, apparently, is that because people sometimes unavoidably take the lives of others, let's go all out and allow abortions, since we can't avoid all deaths. This is very frightening.
If nothing else, a pronounced majority of Americans support abortion in at least specific circumstances.
An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
I'm impressed by the dissolution of your absolutism, though, in the dismissal of war because it's not judicial. You've obviously found a way to tell your conscience that war and the killing of innocents is okay.
Your ad hominem statement aside, there are a number of differences in the situation of war that are not germane to a discussion of abortion and which make it an entirely different issue.
As for capital punishment, you honestly don't think innocent people are killed? You don't think human judgement is fallible and that people truly innocent of a crime have been convicted and then killed?
There is no credible case of a innocent person having been executed at least since the re-introduction of capital punishment. The safeguards built into the justice system to prevent the innocent from being executed appear to be sufficient.
Many, if not most, supporters of capital [sic] acknowledge that it happens but say that that is the price of doing business.
This is a mischaracterization of their position.
"Every abortion is for the reason of mere inconvenience."
Have a nice life, Jonathon. [sic]
Thank you. I only hope that you would extend this wish to the unborn.
Posted by Jonathan at November 13, 2003 03:50 AMFirst, I apologize for misspelling your name.
An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
Not all appeals to popularity are fallacies. In this case, public opinion was exactly the debated point.
The claim was that we justify taking innocent lives. Showing popular support for such an act is direct evidence.
It's one thing to say creationism is true because millions of people believe in it. What I said is it is true that people justify killing because a majority of Americans approve of abortion.
Your ad hominem statement aside . . . .
Again, sometimes, it is logical to talk about the writer or speaker. In this case, it was very applicable since it was, again, the justification of taking innocent lives. You obviously have found a way to justify it.
It's called an example.
People who don't understand argument and logic really shouldn't pretend to.
I could ask you to think about the moral responsibilities of passvie [sic] vs. active agents
Actually, I did. My examples of war and "Captial punishment" [sic] involve innocents, which I interpret as your "passive agents." Your finding reasons to ignore or badly parsing the arguments hardly means I failed to think about innocence.
There is no credible case of a innocent person having been executed at least since the re-introduction of capital punishment.
Right.
I only hope that you would extend this wish to the unborn.
But I do. "I wish abortions didn't happen." If you had attempted to understand rather than argue, you would see that I believe in keeping abortions legal and in preventing them. So, in this case, don't take words out of my mouth.
Tx Bubba,
I am glad that you view abortion as a necessary evil. Really, the people who are eager to ensure that abortion is as easy to obtain as possible and trash Crisis Pregnancy Centers for not offering abortions disturb me. I agree with you at least that the personhood debate is a waste of energy since the concept of personhood has no meaning. All humans are persons and vice versa. It is merely an attempt to draw a line and say we can kill these people because they aren't really human, and I for one find that quite disturbing.
Now, you argued Tx Bubba, that "... many say that capital punishment, euthanasia, and war are wrong. But we justify the taking of innocent life for a plethora of reasons, including here in Texas the right to protect your home"
(btw, could someone explain how you italicize the quotes. Are you just cutting and pasting into word, or is there a function here on the comments section we can use?)
But in none of those cases you mentioned do we justify (if indeed human justifications matter at all) deliberately taking innocent life. No one would argue we should deliberately execute an innocent man, or that civilians are legitimate targets in war. There is a difference between accidentally killing someone who is innocent but the state believes is guilty, or killing civilians in the attempt to liberate a nation from a dictatorship (think Hitler, if you don't agree with Iraq), and deliberately killing someone who has cannot possibly have done anything wrong (besides original sin, but that's not the point here). Do you have examples, besides abortion, where anyone condones the selective execution of innocents? I doubt it.
It is all the more tragic because there is no *need* for abortion to take place at all. All abortions that are not medically necessary to save the life of the mother are, in some sense, for the sake of convenience. I don't mean to say that the decision is taken lightly, or that it is easy for the woman, or that the problems involved in carrying the child to term are light. I have known women who decided not to abort, after they becoming pregnant unintentionally, and it was not easy for them in any sense of the word. When I say convenience, I don't mean to trivialize what women with an unwanted pregnancy go through, nor to dismiss their situation.
However, it is the right word in so much as a medically unnecessary abortion is taken to make life less difficult and painful for the woman. She doesn't *have* to abort, but she does so because she prefers it to carrying the child to term and either raisng it or giving it up to adoption. However great that convience might be, I don't see how it can possibly compare to the cost to the child of being murdered. Particularly since, except in cases of Rape, the mother knew there was a chance her actions could create a new life. It might be fun, but the human sex drive is a lot more than an enjoyable toy. If you acknowledge that the child is alive, how can the balance possibly come down on letting it be killed? How can whatever benefit the mother might recieve possibly be balanced against the right of the child to its life?
How can a majority possibly have the power or the moral authority to make that decision? If you let the majority decide what constitutes right and wrong, if morality is a matter of personal choice, than you can justify anything. How many times in the past has mankind witnessed the oppression of minority by a majority: Black slavery in America (and in Sudan today), the genocides committed against the Armenians, the Kulaks, and of course the holocaust (not to engage in reductio ad hitlerium).
Let me ask you a different, related question. You accept that the child is alive, but it is sill up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion. What, then, would be so wrong with having an abortion as it were after the child was born? Why does the child gain any special moral status simply because it has been born. It is just as totally dependent on its mother for its survival as before it was born (unless given up in an adoption, but still it is dependent on someone). Would you find it inherently wrong if society came to believe that children under the age of three had no rights and could be "aborted" if their parents no longer wanted to care for them? I hope not, but what I am really asking is why? Based on your justifications for abortion, what basis do you have to draw a line and say: X is murder, but Y is just the woman's choice and ought to be legal, even if it kills an innocent?
This isn't just an abstract question, entirely, on my part. Princeton philosopher Peter Singer (I think his first name is Peter) comes down like you do on letting the woman choose to kill the child, even though it is alive, but he is willing to follow the argument to its logical conclusion and say that parents should be allowed to murder any child under the age of five if they didn't want to care for it, on the basis that children under five are incapable of rational thought and thus have no rights. So why do you disagre with him, beyond "well, thats not what I am saying" or "well, the majority clearly recognizes that is wrong." In short, what basis do you have for drawing any line that says "this is murder and should be illegal" beyond simply "this is what society has decided to do." That isn't a justification for your position, even if it is true.
Regards,
Sherk
Posted by Sherk at November 14, 2003 12:24 AM"An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy."
Not all appeals to popularity are fallacies. In this case, public opinion was exactly the debated point.
The claim was that we justify taking innocent lives. Showing popular support for such an act is direct evidence.
It's one thing to say creationism is true because millions of people believe in it. What I said is it is true that people justify killing because a majority of Americans approve of abortion.
Millions of people may believe in creationism even if the evidence is against it. Millions of people may think abortion is permissable, even though it contradicts a basic tenet of Western thought. Your position seems to be that abortion may be immoral but is still permissable because people want it, which is an appeal to popularity. If this is wrong, please clarify.
Your ad hominem statement aside...."
Again, sometimes, it is logical to talk about the writer or speaker. In this case, it was very applicable since it was, again, the justification of taking innocent lives. You obviously have found a way to justify it.
It's called an example.
People who don't understand argument and logic really shouldn't pretend to.
People who make ad hominem statments while completely ignoring the argument, as you have done, certainly should heed your advice.
"I could ask you to think about the moral responsibilities of passvie [sic] vs. active agents"
Actually, I did. My examples of war and "Captial punishment" [sic] involve innocents, which I interpret as your "passive agents."....
No - let's go back to the original examples:
Hate speech - if a speaker advocates the death of individuals, and others in fact do kill them, the speaker bears moral culpability but is not a murderer.
Abortion - because the act of abortion results directly in the death of another individual, the abortionist is a murderer.
Your analogy between the speaker and the abortionist is thus invalid.
"There is no credible case of a innocent person having been executed at least since the re-introduction of capital punishment."
Right.
Right. As is always the case with advocacy websites like the one you link to, they tend to tell only the half of the story that supports their side of the issue. In terms of evidentiary (not anecdotal) proof of innocence, there is no credible case of an innocent person having been executed since the re-introduction of capital punishment.
"I only hope that you would extend this wish to the unborn."
But I do. "I wish abortions didn't happen."
Well, you could certainly reduce their occurrence by making them illegal.
If you had attempted to understand rather than argue, you would see that I believe in keeping abortions legal and in preventing them. So, in this case, don't take words out of my mouth.
Why would you want to keep something legal that you want to prevent? The fact that you want to prevent it must mean that it's undesirable, so why allow an undesirable action, especially when this undesirable action directly results in the death of an innocent?
Posted by Jonathan at November 14, 2003 04:00 AMPeople who make ad hominem statments while completely ignoring the argument, as you have done, certainly should heed your advice.,/i>
Jonathan, I haven't ignored your arguments at all. I have responded to them at length, instructing on logic along the way. I also pointed out that you didn't understand logical terms enough to apply them correctly. It would be one thing if that is all I had. But I provided far more than that.
It is plainly obvious that you have no interest in parsing correctly what I have said.
Jonathan, I haven't ignored your arguments at all. I have responded to them at length, instructing on logic along the way. I also pointed out that you didn't understand logical terms enough to apply them correctly. It would be one thing if that is all I had. But I provided far more than that.
It is plainly obvious that you have no interest in parsing correctly what I have said.
Actually, you haven't responded to many of my arguments at all (as you can see by how much of my postings are deleted in your replies). If you aren't ignoring them, then you're implicitly conceding the points I make.
Having said that, it'd still be interesting to understand the nature of your argument, which seems to be that, given the impossibility of eliminating all killing in our society, we may as well not restrict abortion. How do you square this view with the fact that one can make a clear moral distinction between the culpability of those who, for example, are sentenced to capital punishment, and the unborn, who clearly cannot be guilty of anything?
Posted by Jonathan at November 15, 2003 04:38 PMI think it rather odd to see men discuss this... however, I guess it is a good thing. I think the words "baby killers" is a piss poor choice in words... had anyone here been raped? I have.
Has anyone here had to wake up in the morning and live with something like that day in, and day out?
I think those words are mean, spiteful, and judgemental. For the record, I don't have a severely deformed conscience, it is in tact, and trash like that is purely conjecture and ignorant.