I’m not going to make any friends with this essay; I already know that. Emotions run high on the abortion issue and I’m going to say things that people on both sides of the debate are likely to find intolerable. But someone‘s gotta say it, so it might as well be me.
First off: I’m pro-choice. Sorry, that ain’t gonna change. I’ve heard every pro-life argument repeated countless times and none of them have changed my views yet, and are unlikely to do so in the future. But I definitely understand the pro-life position, and I acknowledge that many people are pro-life on solidly grounded moral principles. I have no beef with that, and I have no interest in trying to convince anyone to change their minds.
Recently, Sharron Angle, Nevada’s Republican nominee for Senate, was savagely criticized by the Harry Reid campaign (her Democratic opponent) and by liberals in general when she reaffirmed her belief that even rape victims who become pregnant should carry their babies to term and not have abortions:
Interviewer: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let’s say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?
Angle: I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I’ll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said ‘I know what you did thank you for saving my life.’ So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life.
Now, the Reid campaign and left-leaning bloggers went ballistic upon hearing this, either intentionally misconstruing Angle’s statement to imply that she is in favor of rape, or at a minimum denouncing her position as cruel and fundamentally immoral.
But, despite being pro-choice myself, I had the opposite reaction. Angle’s unwavering philosophical consistency was a rare treat to behold in this nation of fickle politicians. Because Angle’s hardline stance is to my mind the only valid pro-life stance.
We’re All Lying
I think both sides of the abortion debate are lying and have been lying since the argument first arose. Anyone who wants to forbid abortion “except in cases of rape or incest” is, frankly, full of crap. And here’s why:
If you truly are “pro-life” in that you believe abortion is murder because the unborn child is a full-fledged human being, then you wouldn’t so casually allow the child to be murdered simply based on its parent’s misbehavior.
Most people who are anti-abortion adopt the label “pro-life” based on the shared notion that the zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what its stage of development, is an undiminished human being with full human rights. And that’s a principled position which I can respect — if you stick to it consistently. But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed. Because if you really and truly believed that an embryo was a full human being, then you wouldn’t allow it to be murdered simply because its father was a bad man.
Say, for example, a man goes out and robs a store. Do the police then go to that man’s house and throw his son in jail as punishment for the father’s crime? Of course not. Not only would that be unconstitutional, it would be illogical as well. Well, what if a man goes out and rapes someone, and gets sentenced to life in prison. Do we as a society then go to the man’s family and also throw his children in jail for life? Again, that would seem insane.
Why then, if we are to accept the supposition that unborn children have full human rights, would we sentence a (pre-born) baby to death (abortion) simply because the baby’s father is a rapist? How does that make any more sense than the scenarios I described above?
Allowing a rape-and-incest exception to any abortion ban essentially means we are willing to punish the children for the sins of the father. And that’s not the way our society works.
Hidden Rationale?
That is, unless there was a hidden rationale behind the abortion ban which had nothing to do with the belief that embryos are children. If the “pro-life” stance was sometimes nothing but a ruse, a false front to disguise the real reason for being anti-abortion, that would explain why some “pro-lifers” are willing to murder unborn babies under certain circumstances.
And I have always believed that the hidden rationale is obvious: It’s all about sex.
Many politicians and regular folks feel (accurately, in my opinion) that allowing unfettered legal access to abortion will encourage promiscuity among young people. That if we intentionally make sex consequence-free, then more casual sex will happen, and more sex will lead to more babies out of wedlock, which will lead to any number of well-documented social ills. And furthermore, many feel, pre-marital and extra-marital sex is fundamentally immoral, in that it is explicitly forbidden by the three main monotheistic religions and by many other faiths as well.
You are certainly correct in the beginning; writing about abortion will not earn you any friends.
As for me, I’m a libertarian and don’t like legislating opinion. I think abortion should be available yet rare. Either way, I just don’t see this as a hot-button issue. Though if you have found an honest politician, we should definitely make a note of it; it unfortunately doesn’t happen very often.
Kind of like “Slavery should be available yet rare” huh. After all, what is the moral objection to owning a human… if murdering one is acceptable?
Fantom,
If you’ve ever used a condom or diaphram, or birth control pills for that matter, you’re just as much of a murderer as anyone who’s had an abortion. That’s my opinion. Which isn’t to say that I think you, or they are murderers. You’re just people excercising your inalienable right to control your own life without the government, or someone like you, poking your nose in.
Zombie’s article is well reasoned and an interesting fresh look at the abortion issue. Also, I live in Nevada and Sharon Angle would make a far better representative for the State than Harry Reid has. Well done Zombie.
“If you’ve ever used a condom or diaphram, or birth control pills for that matter, you’re just as much of a murderer as anyone who’s had an abortion.”
Uh, you might want to Google haploid gamete, do a little reading, and then go find your college biology prof and smack him or her for letting you walk around in public so stupid…
JD…. you missed the point…. perhaps it’s because you are the “stupid” one.
KarenW, Frank and Fantom are pretty slow on the uptake as well. And I wasn’t really trying to direct the discussion to abortificents…. but thanks for the sideshow.
The point is that sperm, and eggs, are not so much “parts” (Frank) that make up a life, as that they are, in fact, “alive”. The broader point, which seems to have zipped right past you biological geniuses, is: preventing the sperm and egg form joining (and thereby dooming them to destruction) has a whole lot more in common with abortion in the first trimester than either of them have with the abortion of a viable fetus in the third trimester…. and certainly nothing in common with murder. Are any of you Eiensteins really familiar with the human fertilization and development process? The big lie here is in separating masturbaters and birth controllers from those who abort in the first Tri, and labeling one responsible and the other a murderer. You pro-lifers, as I assume you all are, get so hung up on that “Moment of Conception” ploy, the one your religious leaders have used for decades to make you feel guilty, you can’t see the big picture. Try thinking for yourselves for a change.
I’m waiting anxiously to hear how condoms cause abortions.
Reid is going to win hands down because of this , Angle should have saved this until after the election
Yeah, wrong, buddy. Before the sperm fertilizes the egg, they are just parts. Or are you saying every man who ever masterbated is a murderer?
A human being is not created until the parts come together into a new whole. Before that, they are just parts. A piece of wood and a nail aren’t a house, and if I destroy that piece of wood I’m not destroying a house. Plan B pills are murder. Diaphragm/Condom and pills that prevent the sperm from fertilizing the ovum are not murder.
What about all those poor poor eggs that die each and every month? Don’t they deserve to live? What about all the sperm who die inside the woman who has received them? How can we save them too? They deserve to live… I hope everyone recognizes how stupid it is to suggest using condoms equals abortion.
Well, looks like this kook was adequately covered. Specially kudos to Frank, I can just hear wayne’s mother now… pounding on his bedroom door…. “Stop that you murderer”… what a picture.
And to think, my Mom just thought I would go blind. Truly dread must be being a liberal.
Slavery and abortion are hardly comparable. Thanks for chiming in so quickly with such a colourful false analogy.
People become unhinged when this subject comes up. Wayne’s comment hits the nail on the head; birth control pills are an abortificient. Check the package.
“‘birth control pills are an abortificient. Check the package.”
WRONG. Birth control pills are NOT an abortifacient — what they do is PREVENT CONCEPTION in the first place by preventing ovulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pill#Studies_of_progestins_to_prevent_ovulation
Abortifacients do exist, but they are in a different category from normal birth control pills.
Wikipedia on abortifacients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient
What you’re thinking of are “morning after pills” like RU-486 — a totally different kind of product from standard once-a-day birth control pills, which do NOT induce abortions but rather prevent ovulation.
All hormonal birth control is intended to prevent ovulation, but they also carry the side-effect of hardening the uterine wall, which impairs the ability of a fertilized egg to implant (as the egg may have already been released before the contraceptive was taken, or may have been released despite the contraceptive). That is an abortifacient effect.
Mythbuster is correct. It is usually even listed as a side effect on birth control pills. (It is listed on the insert that comes with my wife’s b.c.p., but then, we are in Germany where abortion is NOT a divisive social issue.) The main purpose is to prevent ovulation. Ovulation does sometimes occur anyway, as does fertilization. In the event of fertilization, birth control pills make it difficult for the fetus to attach to the wall of the uterus. This is not what most people consider an abortion but is somewhat similar to the thinning of the uterus wall caused by the m.a.p. The only reason that this is an issue is because some people have such a deep seated hatred of abortion that they would not take birth control pills. (See #58 Carmen.)
When the politics is removed from this situation, it is clear that the birth control pill may act as an abortifacient.
I have to go with Zombie on this one.
“hardening” of the uterus walls or notwithstanding. NOTE: poster presented no factual linkage.. not even wiki(as weak as such is).
Let us consider what a abortion is not.
It is not masturbation, or contraception, it is not oral sex, it is not eating apple pie under a clear blue sky.
What IS “IS” you might ask?
Abortion is the termination of a human connected to its mother(hopefully human.. although there are liberals ….so maybe…) via a normal(Zygot- uterian) pregnancy. That is about as scientific as this bricklayer can get with some of you numbnuts.
I would add, that willfully creating a human life in a test tube via science, morally requires the same strict respect of that life as any normal pregnancy.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, .. “
Kudos Sir!!! You got one thing right. Abortion and Slavery are not really comparable.
Slavery is just the ownership of a human.
on November 3, after Harry Reid wins in Nevada, we can all look back to this essay, and others like it, and say “Huh–maybe that wasn’t the way to go?”
folks, if we do not turn back the tide of Democrat policies in 2010, and Obama himself in 2012, this country is lost. and “ideological purity” and hard-right positions on social issues is exactly NOT the way to accomplish this.
Nevada should have been an easy win–Reid is enormously unpopular. but because he now faces the “tea party candidate” he has a good shot at holding on to his seat. I also fear that Rand Paul was a bad choice in Kentucky. that’s two seats we CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO HAVE.
with all due respect to my evangelical cousins, abortion-for-rape-and-incest is simply not the most critical issue facing us right now. the Democrats are utterly hapless, but I’m afraid the Republicans are going to make it easy for them to remain in power. that’s more than sad: it’s tragic.
Sharron Angle and Rand Paul ran an open and honest campaign about who they were and what they supported and/or opposed. The voters in the primary chose them based on that information. Keep you strategic advise to yourself and let the voters of those two states decided on who they want to represent them.
Given that the vast majority of the American electorate agrees with Angle to one degree or another I’d suggest perhaps you are wrong.
Patrick
Ried is in self-destruct mode, his gaffe prone soundbites are biting his hard. The last jewel proclaiming there are no illegals working in the Nevada constuction industry was jaw-dropping. His son has dropped using his last name in his campaign……….one can try reading tea-leaves or one can look at common sense clues. When his own son distances his campaign because his father is so toxic to Nevado voters one need not look too deep at polling data.
Ruth, Sharron Angle was asked a question and she answered it. This isn’t making abortion the centerpiece of her campaign; it’s being honest. Since that’s so unusual in politics, and I’d bet especially in Nevada politics, brava for Mrs. Angle. You’re fretting over a ghost.
To be succinct, you are dead-on.
In all 3 positions– pro-life, pro-choice, and Angle’s honesty/integrity– you are absolutely correct.
Bravo.
Just wondering michiganruth, that IF (and I’ll grant you it’s a big if) Harry Reid does still lose to her will you say, “Well maybe it wasn’t the wrong way to go?”
Honestly Neveda is my neighbor state (grew up on the CA, NV, AZ border) and I don’t see a hard Pro-Life stance as being a total deal breaker in the State. Will it lose her some votes? No doubt. But it might make her some others. It’s a crazy election year.
you can take the argument one step further.
I am anti-abortion. Like Angle, I do not support an exception in the case of rape. The actions of one immoral person should not give a free pass for another immoral act.
However, I do support an exception if the life of the mother is at risk. If you want to translate that into a moral equivalency, it is the same as Christians believing that Jesus died so others could live.
I don’t base my views on some deep seeded religious ideology. Or political ideology. I just think it is the appropriate thing morally. And I don’t think it is the job of government to legislate morality.
I agree that endangerment of the life of the mother is a completely different scenario than rape or incest — which is exactly why I didn’t mention mother-endangerment in the essay.
Even though it has already become a unitary mantra — “Except rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother” — those three exemptions are not equivalent and should not be lumped together.
Rape or incest: No valid rationale to allow abortion if otherwise denied on the basis that the embryo is a human being (as discussed in the essay).
Life of the mother at risk: Abortion may may allowable here because to ban abortion in this instance may cause either one death (the mother) or even two death (mother + child anyway) in order to possibly save one life. Thus, allowing an exception to save the life of the mother is morally consistent with a pro-life stance.
I was wondering about your thoughts when the life of the mother is in danger. My original position was that abortion should never be allowed. But after thinking about it more, I came to the conclusion that the life of the mother is no less valuable than the life of the child. But in many cases, the threat to the life of the mother is only an excuse, because while a small threat exists, the actual probability is quite small. In fact, all pregnancies carry a certain amount of risk to the life of the mother. So the question becomes “When is the threat to the life of the mother substantial enough to sufficiently warrant an abortion?”
Now it so happens that there is a real life example of this in my brother’s group of friends. Two of his closest friends married, and had two children. The mother then developed cancer. She was treated for cancer and it went into remission. Then, she became pregnant with her third child. While pregnant, her cancer reappeared. She had a choice to make. Treatment for the cancer would kill her unborn child. Failing to treat the cancer would almost certainly mean death for her.
She chose to carry her baby to pregnancy, both because she believed her unborn child had its own inherant right to life, and also because even if she aborted the baby, there was no guarantee of her own survival. She died not long after delivering her third, healthy child, leaving behind a grieving husband, family, and 3 healthy children.
So the choice is not an easy on even when the life of the mother is in danger. This mother, reasoning that her child had a right to life, and even if she died, at least her child had a better chance of survival than her, chose to sacrifice her own life for the life of her child. I also have three children, and would sacrifice my life for any one of them. But unlike that mother, I had the chance to get to know and love them. They are now 20, 17, and 15. This mother loved her child, and made a non-theoretical decision to sacrifice herself for her child even before she had a chance to know her. That is real love.
Very well said, Scott! I was especially touched by your real-life example of the woman who carried her third baby to term even though aborting it might have helped her save her own life. I agree that she showed real love by making the choice she did.
I agree that the life of the mother is probably the trickiest of the cases for justification of abortion.
I am Canadian and I still remember when abortion first became legal in this country in the 1970s. The “life of the mother” argument was – or so it seemed to me – the most persuasive in winning over the public to the side of abortion. But a funny thing happened in the subsequent years. It was my impression that “the life of the mother” was very quickly watered down and soon came to mean “the life or health of the mother”. And then the “health” of the mother came to mean not just health in the narrow sense of absence from serious disease but health in the sense of “not having any physical, emotional or financial stress”. Well, you can imagine how such a loose definition could apply to a great many more people than just “the life of the mother”. Suddenly anyone who faced the prospect of having to spend money on a child – and what child does not cost money, whether for food, clothing or whatever? – could claim that this responsibility was causing them stress which was then diminishing their health. Bingo! They immediately qualified for an abortion!
One of the most disturbing articles I ever read on the subject was one written by a woman in her early 20s who found she had become pregnant shortly after she had ended a relationship. After some very heavy soul-searching, which she described and seemed sincere about, she reluctantly decided that she wasn’t ready to have the baby and opted for an abortion. She went to a hospital that did abortions and sat in the waiting room waiting for her appointment. She said she was still very distressed and that it was apparent on her face. A sixteen year old girl in the same waiting room saw her and came over in an apparent attempt to put her at her ease. She assured the writer of the article that the procedure was a piece of cake and virtually painless. The 16 year old girl assured her this was so because she knew from first hand experience: she was planning to have her FOURTH abortion that very day! The woman who wrote the article, to her credit, was absolutely appalled and furious, as was I. (I wish I could remember what the writer ultimately did but I truly don’t recall. Perhaps she decided against abortion, perhaps not. I don’t remember.) But the key point is that is abortion is too easy to get it simply won’t be taken seriously and that is a real tragedy.
Surely, however you feel about abortion, you should think about it VERY seriously and not just have an abortion as frivolously as you would pop a zit.
For what it’s worth, I found Zombie’s article one of the very best – meaning most persuasive – I have ever seen on this hugely emotional subject. Well done, Zombie! And, even if I can’t vote for Sharron Angle, I have to say I am impressed with her moral consistency. I hope a lot more people like her win office and go on to reform government in a positive direction.
Wrong, you use a strawman known as the absolute. Which is to say that a position is only valid if held in the utmost absolute purity. Like the Second amendment… the absolute reductio ad absurdum requires that someone who upholds RKBA must also allow that an individual can own nukes. To use my slavery analogy further, your strawman would require anyone who opposes slavery to oppose all taxes.
Rape and incest are such a morally repugnant act that allowing the abortion from such is actually the lessor of two evils.
True in the purest sense, one who holds this as a truth is a Pro-Life(innocent life) hypocrite. But if we apply your strawman to your position. Then you are a hypocrite if you have a problem with someone aborting you .. say now, or whenever they find you .. ah inconvenient in their life.
“Life of the mother” is another emotionally-charged wedge, exactly like abortion and incest. It is solely intended as a way of forcing the acceptance of abortion in one instance, so that exception can then be expanded.
If a mother’s liver is failing, we wouldn’t allow a doctor to take her child’s liver and use that to keep her alive. If we (as pro-lifers) accept that a fetus is (potentially) a living human being, why would we treat it any differently?
In the extremely uncommon situation where the mother’s life is really at risk and the only way to save it would be to abort the unborn child, then standard triage rules apply – save both if possible, and failing that, give priority to whichever is more likely to live. A codified exception to a ban on abortion is not only unnecessary, it’s potentially damaging in the long run.
Dane, you are mistaken or at least overbroad when you say “It is solely intended as a way of forcing the acceptance of abortion in one instance, so that exception can then be expanded.” Jewish law permits abortion only to save the mother from the risk of death (and certain severe permanent conditions that Jewish law considers the equivalent), end even then only until the baby’s head emerges, after which the mother’s life and the baby’s are deemed equivalent. We have taken this position for thousands of years, at a time when surrounding cultures considered abortion and even infanticide to be no big deal, and ridiculed us for opposing them.
Yes, there is always risk associated with child birth, then more than now. But Jewish law does not permit abortion based on that; more is required.
I can assure you that Judaism did not and does not intend the exception for the mother’s life as a way of forcing the acceptance of abortion in one instance, so that exception can then be expanded. And it has not been expanded by anyone who considers Torah to be eternal. Sadly, due to our long and bitter exile, there are Jews who do not know this and who advocate for broader exceptions, but they are not basing their position on Jewish law no matter how hard they try to fool themselves that they are.
WAIT! First, you said “We are ALL lying”, then by your own admission you left out all of us who are NOT lying!!! Many pro-life people would allow abortion if the mother’s life were in danger. After all, we are not the unreasonable monsters the pro-choice crowd makes us out to be! Not everyone who would allow the “mother’s life” exemption would also add the “rape & incest” exemption. This is a false assertion.
On the other hand, thank you for echoing what I’ve been saying for years! Abortion on-demand, like divorce on-demand is all about free sex on-demand. All three are morally reprehensible and repugnant to God and His people. To a large extend, these are the same people you left out of your essay!
PS – You sound like you would fit right in with us pro-lifers, if you were to quit lying that is! /sarc
Agreed. Our common law tradition does not require a person to sacrifice his or her life in order to save another’s. Jewish law, incidentally, also allows this exception to its ban against abortion. I personally would advocate abortion’s being illegal under any other circumstances, with penalties differing based on mitigating circumstances (here is where the issues of rape and incest would be addressed); but since upholding the Constitution is a higher priority, I reluctantly agree that the issue should be determined by the political processes of each state.
You were wrong about one thing. The article did make a friend out of me. I am hard pro-life and I appreciate your intellectual honesty dispite the fact that we disagree on the issue at hand. You argument that we should not visit the sins of the father upon the child is an excellent one and one grounded in Biblical Christianity.
I oppose abortion because it is murder – pure and simple. I will also be the first to take the stance that “Sex outside of marriage is bad for the soul and bad for society, so we should discourage” it not promote it. My opposition to sex outside of marriage has noting to do with my condemnation of abortion. I would oppose a married couple having an abortion.
I do not support laws prohibiting sex outside of marriage. However, as a society we should not glorify an action that is destroying the foundation of our society and the lives of individuals who engage in the activity. Nor should socity seek to lessen the consequences of those who engage in such behavior. Actions have consequences and consequences are not entirely negative as they often teach a good lesson.
sigh…i am prolife in my life and am libertarian/tea party/conservative.
BUT..the gov should stay out of this whole mess….so that makes me prochoice in the political realm.
Who am I or you or anyone to decide for others what is best?
Personally, I do not believe a man should walk out into the street and gun down his fellow man in cold blood. But…who am I or you or anyone to decide for others what is best? The government should stay out of the whole mess.
Your OP is that murder in the street is the same as abortion so therfore should be outlawed.
There in lies the problem……many/most prochoice people do NOT see it like you do.
Since there are way way too many people NOT believing as you we need to keep the Gov out of it.
Murder in the streets however, seems like almost all people are against it so the Gov outlaws it.
Again, this whole issue is way to contentious and too evenly split…i would air on the side of keeping both options available. Thus the Gov should stay out.
Your ultimate argument is that morality is relative and is not based on any solid foundation but upon the whiim of the populace. You stated that because “many/most prochoice people do not see it like” I do then the issue should be kept from the realm of government. What exactly is that magic number where the issue becomes decided and government is allowed to exercise control? Is it 51%? 75%? Or, 100%? What if 51% of the people decided that it was okay to murder Jews or to enslave others based upon race? Do numbers really determine morality? What if 51% decide that a law should not be enforced in a particular case? Do we then abandon the rule of law?
Your position is not a neutral one. Your philosophy removes the issue from the realm of government but the outcome is for the government to allow the practice to continue. Social conservatives are not trying to introduce a new power to the federal government but to return the government to the pre Roe v. Wade decision. Most libertarians accuse social conservatives of wanting to use government to enforce morality but in reality we are trying to stop the social liberals from enforcing their own morality via judicial fiat. Those libertarians play right into the hands of the social liberals and do more to harm the conservative cause than the social conservatives who are actually trying to conserve something.
lol this whole discussion is why the Gov should stay out of it. “conserving” pre roe v wade??? ok ok..life isnt fair or balanced…however i still find your arguments that social conservatism isnt more gov rings false.. pre roe v wade dosnt make it right or good(it IS more gov regulations), Having the most options to the poeple means allowing people to Choose. When you try to convince me that social conservatism in gov isnt more govnt …you sound like progressives. At least in how you argue.
We could go on and on here..around and around…but again my OP is that the Gov should stay our it. So be it….
I have not and can not see myself voting for anyone because of there stance on abortion. Its SOOOOOOOOOOOO far down the list of things i am worried about from our politicians that if it ever becomes a major issue for me we shall have had a massive upheaval in Washington.
To steve4libertyinsc: Libertarians believe that government is the greatest evil and that freedom of choice is the greatest good. Conservatives, and the Founding Fathers, believe that government is a necessary evil and that true liberty is not the freedom to do whatever one wants but rather the freedom to do what is right and moral. The Founding Fathers described the freedom to do whatever one wanted as licentiousness, not as liberty. Please see Middlekauff’s “The Glorious Cause.”
Libertarians use an all or nothing tactic to press their case. They argue that certain government regulation is bad so therefore all government regulation is bad. Please not that you do not draw any distinction in your comments you just make the flat implication that government regulation is bad and thus to be avoided. Would you then remove all the Food and Drug Administration standards? Would you go back to the meat packing days before government regulation? Where is your discernment?
wow dude! I am part Libertarian part tea party and part conservative. Nice little rant about Libertarians. I am finding with every rant that you sound more and more like the Liberal Progressives. Going on and on about how your version is so better for all us.
I am NOT repeat NOT all along libertarian party lines. Yet in the case of abortion i STILL think the gov should stay out of it. You have given me zero reason to change my mind(doubt i changed yours..no biggie)…esp since i find your comments to be more and more from what i hear from my progressive friends.
Anywhoo…god speed but it is clear that social conservativism that is “good for us” is your path…so be it.
No rant, just fact. Feel free to check out the libertarian website to confirm my general observation. As to your personal beliefs, I can only go by what you have said in this particular incident so please forgive me if I over generalized.
You keep claiming that I speak like a progressive but you have offered no evidence, no comparisons. At no point have I said that government is always the answer or even an answer. The belief that government is there to restrain evil is at least as old as Romans 13. As to progressivism, I do not believe in the idea of progress as meant by them. My call is not to progress but to go back and reclaim that which we lost.
Slavery was contentious and evenly-split. Was abolishing that abomination morally just, despite pissing off half the country and causing untold death and destruction?
The logical conclusion of your argument is that you should abstain from voting.
rofl
Umm nice thoughtful response. so due to my thoughts and OP i shouldnt vote? sounds like Obama nation!!
The abortion issue wont matter in the long run unless we get our Gov back on track. This whole issue needs to be tabled till we get our house in order. Plus this is NOT an issue that will help get us to win..oh wait..since you dont want me to vote that is one less conservative! Doh!
Wrong Steve, because our house is in disorder because of sin. When you tolerate the slaughter of over 50 million people, bad stuff happens. The stuff you say we must resolve first is the poisoned fruit brought forth by this Wickedness.
Comments like these is why most independents are scared of the far right(indies are who make the difference now a days). We are a center right country for the most part. So, you see the rise of the tea parties and the libertarian party growing in power, they dont like the far right or far left.
You believe abortion is murder…i do not…along with much(not all obviously) but much of the country.
Far right and far left are equally bad in my OP.
ohh and btw…when i said “Who am I or you or anyone to decide for others what is best?” i meant about the subject on hand..which i thought would have been assumed but appears not.
So let me repeat:
Who am I or you or anyone to decide for others what is best for others on THIS ISSUE(ABORTION), which is the subject of this whole blog.
Why does the moral relativism you espoused in your comment – “Who am I or you or anyone to decide for others what is best?” – only apply to the abortion issue? It would appear to me that once you accept the premise that morality is relative and that there are no absolutes then the door is open on all issues.
It “only” applies since this is what this blog was about, so i tried to stay on topic. The “door is open” to me, however i still dont buy or agree with your stance that the gov should get involved in abortion…heck i dont think gove should be involved in marriage either. This is my OP on how “much” gov we should have, you OP differs, thats all good. Thank god we can still have debates in this counrty..for now!
Again, I could go around and around with you but this isn’t my idea of fun, i have done this with progressive and social conservatives and its amazing how far apart yet so close you all are. This is one reason the tea party movement and libertarian parties are growing…just one reason, there are of course many more.
Besides, we do need some form of govt, how much is the question….now thats just my OP vs yours. Its all good!!
To steve4libertynsc: So you are open to moral relativism on all issues?
Well said, and yes you’ll probably tick off a lot of people. I’m one of those crazy people like Angle. If abortion is murder, which I believe it is, it’s always murder. You can’t say it’s ok to murder just because of rape or incest.
In the case of saving the mothers life, it’s a choice of do we kill one person to save the other. My only concern is that the pro-choice people will use that excuse to allow unrestricted abortions, i.e. every unwanted pregnancy will become a threat to the mothers life.
Pro-choice people already do use that excuse to justify unrestricted abortions — i.e. that to carry a baby to term might endanger the woman’s quality of life, that is to say she won’t be able to go out partying and sleeping around like she used to, if she has a baby in tow. Her lifestyle is in danger! Abort! Abort!
Well said. “Life of the mother” (which includes, “I can’t take it–I’ll kill myself”) is a frequent excuse, especially for late-term abortions. If a woman’s life is actually in danger late in her pregnancy, any competent OB could deliver her baby by C-section practically immediately & at least the baby has a chance. Late-term abortion has nothing to do with saving the life of the mother & everything to do with ensuring the death of the child which, at that late stage, is the outcome “mom” really wants…right?
As they say about “Hell” – while one lawyer remains alive – there is room for one more occupant.
All life is a blessing, gift or advancement to this world – there is always room for one more.
When a society or species kills its young, or its unborn, how long would you say it will, or should, survive.
I only ask the question. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I have always wondered how anyone can be halfway there on abortion. If it’s wrong, don’t allow it. If it’s not wrong, why limit it? Is there a ‘sort of wrong’ moral category?
It doesn’t take a religious person to know that ‘murder’ is wrong. It is morally wrong to take a human life for unjustified reasons (justification includes self-defense, execution after fair public trial, etc). That is to say, one person doesn’t have the right to choose to end the life of another person. It’s fundamental to humanity in all of history. All societies, not just the ones that were aware of the commandment “thou shalt not murder”, knew this and admitted it. The most ancient of societies, some much older than biblical Israel, have left writings indicating that the Old Testament injunction against murder was not a NEW idea.
So, the singular question in the issue is NOT “women’s rights” or even “risk to the mother”. Risk to one person is not accepted as a reason to kill another, after all.
No, the question is this– “is an unborn human baby a person?”
I don’t mean to be vague. I mean a person, no different morally than you and me. There are not any ‘halfway stages’ between non-personhood and personhood. Either it is, or it isn’t. Those who make the argument that ‘personhood’ arrives at some unspecified point after fertilization are MORALLY REQUIRED to explain how that ‘personhood’ arrives, and WHEN.
If they cannot, then the default position stands. A fertilized egg means a new and entirely unique DNA code exists, whereas it did not exist prior to fertilization. The code is there, and all that is necessary is time and good biological fortune, and the code will result in a screaming infant, a toddler, an adolescent, an adult, a mature adult, and so forth. It is literally written out in advance, in a language with the letters A, T, C and G. Barring bad luck, the outcome is inevitable. An embryo coded for brown hair and olive skin does not become a transparently pale-skinned freckled redhead suddenly at age 2.
If you wish to claim that an unborn child is not a person, then explain when personhood arrives, and how, and why on earth you would even WANT to put any limits on what is a simple medical procedure, simpler than an appendectomy and no more morally significant.
The issue is personhood. When does a human being get the ‘moral protection’ of the common rules of morality?
Answer that, libertarians. Answer that, leftists. There is no half-measure available here. If you cannot give an answer that fits your argument or position, the default to conception is morally mandatory. If a hunter has a patch of brown fur in his scope, and doesn’t know if it’s a deer or a man wearing a buckskin jacket, he does not shrug and pull the trigger. He gives the benefit of the doubt for moral reasons.
You must do the same.
I support Sharron Angle, not because of religion but because there has been no sensible argument made contrary to the position that ‘personhood’ begins at conception.
To expand even further on your argument: Some argue that since an unborn child cannot survive without the mother, then it is not fully human. But you can also argue quite logically that a fully born child that is six months old cannot survive on its own either. So is a 6-month old baby fully human? It is not just the time inside the mother’s womb that a child is fully dependent upon someone else to survive. We are not tadpoles. It takes more than nine months inside the womb to turn a fertilized egg into a self supporting human being. It takes quite of few years of nurture and care outside the womb as well. So your point of determining when someone becomes fully human is spot on.
Scott,
Peter Singer, Princeton bio-ethicist/philosopher, animal liberation hero, and all-around liberal intelluctual leader, has stated that he’s in favor of allowing parents and their physicians to kill newborns since, like embryos, they lack some Singer-defined essential elements of personhood.
Once someone defines personhood other than moment of inception, you can rationalize taking that life at anytime. Life begins at fertilization.
It was widely believed, in the past, that the soul entered the body upon first breath. That would be when the ‘personhood’ arrived. Prior to that the unborn wasn’t quite a person.
The truth is that it is not known when the human brain moves from instinctive to non-instinctive thought. Since memory rarely includes the first year of life–much less the womb, it may be that the human brain does not engage in non-instinctive thought until it has aquired enough experiences to introduce the possibility of choice.
That would, of course, place the aquisition of ‘personhood’ well outside the womb.
Jewish and Christian Scripture clearly point out, at least in those traditions, that “personhood” and the soul came prior to birth.
When a scientist cannot explain how a creature knows what to do, when to do it or how to do it, he uses the word “instinct” as a way of concealing his failure to understand what he sees.
Likewise your distinction between “instinctive and non-instinctive thought” is enormously vague and assumes much understanding that isn’t there. You are, in essence, choosing an arbitrary point in the developmental timeline, a point so ephemeral as to defy even an estimation of its position on that timeline, and pinning an entire argument about the nature of personhood on it. And along the way, you’re inviting a large number of persons who already exist but suffer some condition or illness preventing an evaluation of their capacity for ‘non-instinctive thought’ to be euthanized on the grounds that they do not have, or no longer have, personhood.
Needs some work.
kipling: the fact that you think abortion is murder means you cannot POSSIBLY understand my very pragmatic view of this. (also dude, please don’t tell people to “keep their advise [sic.]” to themselves; that’s actually what comment boards are for.) because you’re a zealot on the subject, you’re not willing to compromise to ensure Republican victory. I think that is short-sighted.
Gozer: if I’m wrong I will be delighted! I hope Angle wins. But I’m worried. we MUST appeal to independents and probably a few Democrats even if we’re going to be able to end the Obama regime. if we can’t even gain control of the House, we won’t be able to do anything. that’s my only point.
as far as being hard-pro-life in Nevada, I would tend to think you’re right, that it wouldn’t hurt…except that those people have been reelecting Harry Reid for the past zillion years!
Comments and advice (thanks for the correction) are fine and you are correct to point out that comment boards are the appropriate place for such advice.
The problem I have is that your comment if very condescending. The voters in Nevada and Kentucky chose Angle and Paul in an open contest. The two candidates ran openly on who they are and the positions they support and oppose. Why do you advocate they should abandon the positions that got them through the primary? Would you have intentionally betray who they are and the people who voted for them? Do you really know better than the voters of those states who should represent those states?
I am always pro choice and I have been subjected to the fury of 3 avid pro-lifers and the baby of one who tried to convince me that I was wrong and a terrible person. The more I am hammered by such zealots, the more I am convinced that I am correctr.
I could never vote for that woman and am glad I don’t live in Nevada where I would just have to abstain from voting for senator.
I believe that the “baby” is just a cluster of cells and abortion is not taking the life of a viable “person”.
I wish the abortion plank would be left off the Republican platform and that I had never heard that word mentioned in regard to politics.
My oldest daughter was born at 6 months and could legally have been aborted. I can testify that she was not just a cluster of cells but a viable person. She fought hard for her survival. I suggest you get your facts straight and visit a neo-natal intensive care unit to see first hand those clusters of cells that you would condemn to murder. Choosing to vote for or against something to spite someone else is very childish.
Right on, Kipling. My wife gave birth to triplets (2b, 1g) at 31 weeks; they weighed 3lbs 1oz, 3lbs 3oz, and 3lbs 5oz. They weren’t and aren’t just a “cluster of cells”. They are individual, unique, living, breathing human beings. All of them fought like the dickens to survive. They are now almost 20 lbs each and doing great. We spent over a month in the NICU and saw babies who were born even earlier and weighed less. They, too, each fought to keep breathing, keep their hearts pumping, hanging on, sometimes by a thread, clinging to, life.
Elinor, if an unborn baby is just a “cluster of cells” as you claim, then the same thing could be said of you, the only difference being your age. How about if a doctor takes a probe, jams it into the back of your neck, up into your brain, & twists it until you stop breathing? You tell me the difference? Is that murder but doing the same thing to an unborn baby isn’t? Are you somehow “superior” to an unborn baby? A human life is a human life, period. What if your mother had decided to abort you? Would the world be a better or worse place without you in it? An unborn baby has just as much right to be born and live as you.
To RockThisTown: Congrats on the growth of your triplets. I remember how we were so relieved when our daughter reached 5 lbs.
Elinor’s comment reminds me of something an actress said recently: “it’s just a bunch of cells–it’s not like, ya know, a real baby.” She then went on to say: “Of course, I don’t eat eggs. That would be killing baby chicks.” Well like, ya know, it’s hard to argue with those “facts.”
These types of statements do nothing to further your argument.
Either you are lying or the persomn in question was an idiot. Chicken eggs are unfertilized–they cannot become chicks.
Since this ‘conversation’ turned from discussing fertilized human eggs to and unrelated idiocy, I suspect it never happened.
Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers are not, in general, morons. I wish each would stop insisting that the other is.
Yes, and a Black is only 3/5ths human.
Nice company you keep.
I have to point out that the “3/5th of a person” strawman was a compromise regarding congressional apportionment. The slave states wanted the slaves to be counted as “full persons” for the purpose of allotting the number of seats in the House of Representatives even though they were chattel (property) and could not vote. The free states wanted to restrict the census count to free persons only even if they could not vote (since voting was often restricted to property owners). Indeed, I have been told that there were people who wished to specify that only voters would be counted.
The compromise increased the power of the slave states and sowed the seeds of revolt that led to the Civil War.
I believe that the “baby” is just a cluster of cells and abortion is not taking the life of a viable “person”.
Except the fact you once were a “cluster of cells” (what, like a wart?). Add to the fact, the “cluster of cells” has a unique genome different from the mother, capable of differentiating into any kind of tissue, and results in a baby.
Please answer Dave’s question. If the fetus is just a cluster of cells, then when does it become a human being? If you were to reply “at birth,” then you are saying that personhood is nothing more then a matter of location: the baby that has just been delivered is the exact same being that was in the uterus just minutes before.
Well, you haven’t made a friend here, but then I wasn’t a friend of yours to start with, so nothing is lost. I agree with your assessment of the problem with those who allow exceptions, and, like you, I’d like to put the “risk to mother’s life” argument aside for the moment, although it is the only legitimate reason for abortions where I live. You’d be amazed at how many women’s lives are at real risk from pregnancy in these parts.
The problem of pro-lifers who allow the exceptions you mentioned is not generally one of intellectual dishonesty, so much as one of intellectual muddiness caused by all the murkiness thrown up in the argument by the emotional issues of rape and incest. Most people are driven into unfortunate corners by their emotional reactions to things. That’s why the emotional narrative is destroying the ability of western societies to provide independent news coverage. There’s no better way to overthrow logic. Others who take this position are accepting a pragmatic imperative, controlled by the emotionalism of the “debate.’ They fully understand both the logical incoherence and the political limitations. So the take the position that saving one life is better than saving none, and that saving many is better still. No baby who is not already destined to die under the open abortion licence will die under a restricted licence, and many will be saved. You may not accept that as a valid argument, but it is intellectually coherent.
You have not stated your own position; except that from what you _have_ said I am assuming that it is not the desire for consequence-free sex. If you have spelled it out elsewhere, please provide a link.
The pro-abortion position is riven by contradictions. Calling itself “pro-choice” is flagrant intellectual dishonesty, for starters. It presumes its conclusion – that the unborn child has no interests in this issue at all, that the foetus is a non-person, and that, therefore, the endless series of choices that comprise a lifetime can be denied to the non-person.
My favourite pro-abortion advocate is Peter Singer. He’s the only one who has ever displayed intellectual honesty. He understands the inherent continuity of human life from the blastocyst to death from ripe old age. He wants the abortion option, so he proposes that the “value” of a human life is not inherent in the organism, but is a function of the self-consciousness of the organism. Only such self-aware organisms deserve the appellation “person”, and the rights and protections that go with it.
This position is honest. This position is rigorous. And the inevitable conclusion is that there is no difference between early-term abortion, partial-birth abortion (D & X) and infanticide. I have heard no other coherent argument for the current abortion licence. Do you also applaud Singer’s honesty?
Well, my personal opinion about abortion is pretty irrelevant to the essay, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their minds, so I decided in the interest of clarity and concision to leave my opinion out of it.
But since you asked, here is the VERY short version:
Peter Singer may be honest, but he’s being honest about his anti-human philosophy. I think he has grotesque beliefs.
I myself have come to the “compromise” agnostic opinion that “ensoulment,” the moment at which a sperm+egg becomes a full-fledged human being with all attendant rights, happens at the undefinable moment of “viability” — that is to say, the moment at which a fetus could conceivably survive as a separate entity disconnected from its mother. Modern science places that moment somewhere in the 5th or 6th month, depending on various circumstances. Thus, I am strongly opposed to “late-term abortion,” which I do believe is the equivalent of killing a human being.
But abortion prior to viability? Well, that’s not so clear, at least to me. I simply think that a single egg plus a freshly implanted sperm is not yet conscious, is not viable on its own, and as yet has no “soul” separate from its mother. You may disagree with me on this, but like I said, I’m not trying to change your mind — just stating my opinion.
When the fertilized egg divides in two, is it a person? Not yet. Four cells? Nope. Eight. No. And so on an so on. Obviously, at birth the cells have become a baby. Even at 8 months. Even at 7, it is a child. But somewhere, somehow, a cluster of cells becomes a baby, and it is beyond my ken to say the exact moment. I’d estimate at the 5th month, but that’s just me, and I can see how people might argue for slightly earlier.
Should we “err on the side of life?” Perhaps. But where do we draw the line. “Every sperm is precious?” It’s a tough call.
And then there is the social side. I’m no eugenicist, and loathe the concept of forced abortion, but if certain groups — liberals, to be precise — want to voluntarily abort themselves to extinction, I won’t be the one standing in their way.
I strongly urge that we err on the side of life. If I am wrong then we have a few more babies. If you are wrong then we have a modern genocide on our hands. The every sperm is precious argument is a strawman. A sperm will never deveop into a human on its own. A sperm and an egg, when joined, may develop into a human. Therefore, we should always give life chance.
Not to be hardnosed but what you think or anyone else thinks does not matter in the absence of hard data. We do not know that a fertilized egg does not have consciousness and we have no data to go on about when a being receives a soul. In the absence of any clear indication, why not side with life. Are we not innocent until proven quilty? Should the benefit of the doubt not go to the positive? If a human egg fertilized by a human sperm is not a human then what is it?
I hope I’m linking to the comment that I wanted to… here goes.
I’m so touched by the comments regarding this very honest and well written submission and it all takes me back years to the early seventies when i was a hapless and naive medical student. This was before neonatology was a specialty.
Coming from a college that was ‘liberal arts’ and trying to fit into the new way of thinking, I found the issue of abortion a dilemma.
After ‘pithing’ frogs in college biology and spending months on my cadaver… using animals in lab experiments, I was somewhat inured to the processes involved akin to what abortion might entail.
Then… I found myself on a rotation that involved staying up night after night with these tiny babies… so premature that I can’t even imagine their birthweights… and suctioning them, feeding them… and being totally awed by their struggles simply for their own lives… were experiences that moved me beyond what I had heretofore been able to fathom.
The struggle for their lives would have shaken the hardest heart… and it forever changed mine.
I would strongly err on the side of life… and the association of Ezekiel Emmanuel with Peter Singer’s lack of medical ethics equally chills me to think of this debacle of a health plan.
I won’t compromise again and vote for a candidate like a John McCain out of fear for the alternative… I will forevermore be intellectually honest… and vote my conscience.
I happen to be pro-life, but that is not relevant in my following opinion. Zombie, you are remarkably honest and fair in your opinions, and that is something that is extremely rare these days, wherever one looks. You have earned my sincere respect.
Jewish Law also has the concept that the first forty days after conception, the fetus is “just water”. I should point out that the term “forty days” is often used as an indefinite period of time and indicates the fact that it is impossible to determine absolutely what the dividing line is. That is why the “health of the mother” exception is discussed in terms of the baby “chasing” the mother in order to kill her. The “mental health” argument is often a strawman because, unless it is a real risk to cause the mother to kill herself or to become completely nonfunctioning, I do not see how it applies. It is usually used in current terms as an excuse to allow the mother to murder the baby.
Zombie,
I appreciate your intellectual honesty.
Please have a look at Robert George’s recent book “Embryo.” I think you’ll find it poses a formidable challenge to your no-personhood-before-viability stance – and it does this completely exclusive of religious faith. George debunks the concept of “dualism” – that the physical human body at any stage of development can exist apart from personhood. I would be very interested to hear whether you find George’s argument to be persuasive.
A lot of abortions are performed where the fetus has distinct head, arms, and legs. If this is the test, then many abortions would not be performed.
Zombie,
“should we err on the side of life?”
Yes. If we truly do not know when it’s a human being, and truly admit we do not know, then we are in the same position as a hunter staring at a patch of brown fur in his scope. If he honestly does not know whether it’s a deer or a guy wearing a deerskin jacket, does the hunter shrug and pull the trigger?
No. He gives the potential human being THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
If there is genuine uncertainty as to whether something is human, the HUMAN thing to do is to NOT KILL IT.
I am astonished at how many otherwise decent people take the position that “killing it is okay, because we don’t really know whether it’s a person”. It is indefensible in common sense and moral terms.
You ask, “How far do we take this?” “every sperm is sacred” etc.
No. That is clearly before fertilization and the creation of the unique DNA code of the new person. If we all agree on anything, it is that the DNA of a new person marks at least the beginning of the possibility of a new person. Nothing before the formation of the DNA is relevant to these arguments. The “twinkle in your daddy’s eye” thing is for humor, not serious consideration.
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back on this. Thanks for your reply; it is much appreciated. However, I think your position is problematical.
Let’s take “ensoulment”. Am I right to assume that you align consciousness and ensoulment? I ask because you seem to also be aligning “consciousness” and “viability.”
Assume that consciousness does not come into this association. Why should viability mark ensoulment? The unborn infant is designed to be dependent until term; any other outcome is less than optimal. I don’t know exact figures, but for the purpose of argument, let’s say that some babies will survive at 19 weeks, while others will die at 24. It varies from case to case. For the purposes of legislation, where do we place the boundary? 19 or 24, 25, 26? In this case, wouldn’t we give life the benefit of the doubt?
But this means that the process of ensoulment is highly indeterminate, and varies from individual to individual, just like every other observable characteristic of human beings – except their humanness.
It is conceivable that technology will extend this limit downwards. If, in 30 years’ time, it is common for infants to survey at 15 or 16 weeks, has anything changed about the nature of human beings? Not a thing, but “viability” has been redefined. Is ensoulment, and the right to life, dependent on neonatal technology?
If you do associate consciousness with ensoulment, other problems arise. If one is a materialist, the problems are acute. For starters, you cannot explain consciousness, let alone abstract rational thought. The only consciousness we know is our own, and by extension, that of our fellow human beings. Experiments can tell us about physical events that can interfere with or falsify consciousness, but not about how it becomes our experience. Our experience, our consciousness, is a logical, not a physical, question, and is as deep a mystery today as it ever was. In this situation, how can we rely on science to tell us about the consciousness of the unborn?
The consciousness argument leads down Singer’s path. Who’s to say that ensoulment is not delayed to that point where a baby is evidently aware of the separation between itself and others? If ensoulment depends on attributes, other than inherent humanness, what are those attributes to be?
Incidentally, the Schoolmen, taking their lead from the Greeks, saw the soul as the form of the body, that which ensured its integrity and drive its growth. Consequently, every living organism had a soul. The soul in this sense is inherent in the body from the moment it is formed. Spirit is that which carries the astonishing property of rational thought. As with consciousness, a map can be made of the areas of the brain that seem to be necessary to this spiritual functioning. That map, however, can no more explain rationality than it can the will by which I determine to raise my arm, and have my arm raise as a result.
At the moment of conception there is brand new human DNA created, DNA that has never existed up to this point in history. If that DNA is not tampered with, it will grow into a human and live a human life. So by tampering with that DNA, by aborting it, you are ending a human beings chance at life.
It is murder. Killing the innocent. Not colleral damage. Intentionally targeting and killing the innocent. There is no compromise with the moral imperative that that not be tolerated in a civilized society. No matter what the circumstances of the conception. No matter whether the father (or mother) is a bad person. Pretty much sums up my personal feelings on the matter. I believe that the law should forbid abortion and treat it as homicide.
A pregnancy going to term and then endangering the life of the mother presents a difficult moral dilemma, but only for the mother, not society. If it is only the mother’s health at risk, and not the child’s, then it is the mother’s choice and the law should view it as they do self defense. If the endangerment cannot be dealt with by a caesarian section earlier than term, AND, the likelihood of the child not surviving along with the mother is high, I would have to come down on the side of the life of the mother.
I especially find the idea of the government funding abortion as morally repugnant as the holocaust. I believe that future historians looking back on our age will see both the holocaust and abortion on demand as defining the madness the progressive left has injected into the human experience under the guise of communism, fascism, or liberalism.
And right you are, Just Passing Through — very good comments that get close to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem, of course, is theological — but that’s a topic for another thread.
I don’t think there is a valid logical path to the the opinion concerning Zombie’s notion of the particular rationale of “some “pro-lifers” [who] are willing to murder unborn babies under certain circumstances”. The connection is not entirely superficial, but it seems…I don’t know…tawdry and covertly lame, to put forward an accusation that says, “you really don’t care about Life, because you’re really a prude”.
Now, Zombie can also argue that he/or she means those “some” who REALLY ARE what his opinion is suggesting, but, for me, it shows more about the person fomenting the opinion. Zombie has some kind of hang-ups about prudes.
It is more likely that people who indeed have the belief and motive of diminishing promiscuity in society consider all abortion murder (or the death of an innocent), but make such compromises based on the workable politics for the Times.
Also, as I understand it, Biblically, a person who rapes a woman is worthy of death. Now, if a woman is Christian she would, nevertheless, keep the pregnancy, but if she is not what are we to do? Force the woman to who she may very well hate to continue his progeny and hers? Only a Christian can overcome the obstacle here.
“But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26″But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27″When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her,” Deuteronomy 22.
(Where it comes to Christian salvation it is in the course the acceptance of all of the precepts of God. The underpinning logic is NOT that all of God’s salvation must be accepted in an instant. I suppose some could argue against this, but most believe in a walk, a certain struggling, learning and correction that comes with following Christ. Therefore, a woman who is raped may believe the man who raped her is guilty of death and refuses to have his child. She may not understand that the child is innocent yet, whether she be Christian or not. How can you force her?)
Note: “there is no sin in the girl worthy of death” is the way to reach a Christian towards that greater salvation, but to another non-Christian how can you force her? All parties agree a crime was committed, and maybe that is all you agree on. Are we to throw that away? Our one thing we agree upon.
Also, someone may say, well this ties into the very beginning of the issue, namely the beginning of life, and life’s sanctity, but in my opinion that is to diminish the talk.
I do enjoy your work, Zombie.
It also says in the Law, and again in the Prophets that “You shall not put the son to death for the crimes of the father, nor the father for the crimes of the son.” God also swears on Himself that He shall not condemn a man for the sin of his father or son, nor shall the righteousness of the father or son save the wicked from death. You shall be judged according to your own works.
Mythbuster, Where in my comment did I condone a Christian having an abortion? I didn’t. My point was that it is not possible to force a woman who was raped to have an abortion in a Legal sense, and that pro-lifers who allow for abortion after rape are probably realists. Consider, if a non-Christian goes to the Supreme Court in order to terminate her pregnancy caused by rape and the prosecution brings before the court that the abortion is “punishing the child for the wrongdoing of the father”. That is a statute from God. The prosecution would lose. The court could say that there is no surety in that the child is being punished for the father, but that the mother was raped and DOES NOT DESIRE motherhood, nor can be compelled to carry out the pregnancy if such be the case. There is simply no reach. Surely, this is an instance where the mother may have a choice simply because of the limitations of the law (only God’s law is perfect). Human laws do not have the power to protect the sons from their fathers, apparently.
The American Constitution, sorry to break it to you, is not perfect, and that means you cannot fight for that document forever; it was created by men and will die with men. It made the best government the world has known. It may have been good for a little while, and surely America was blessed because of her Christians, but the fact is that the American Constitution has left Ways for Evil to overcome, by overcoming the people. It is happening now. The Founders, however, did no wrong in writing it, but were faithful to God and the people; because they trusted that men would make the right choice. Obviously, that is not happening. But I do not know what will happen.
As for righteousness, I would say generally this does not apply to Christians, because they are under God foremost. Abortion is murder.
Also, though all Sin is worthy of death, not all things weigh on the conscience the same, and therefore there is a difference in the Judgment before God (“by your own words will I judge you”) towards a woman who had an abortion after being raped compared to a woman who has an abortion through infidelity. Both lead to death for the woman, but their relative ability to answer God is key (for your understanding, but the actual answer is a secreted in God for that time).
Note: Do not think the fallacy that I am also allowing in my thinking for atheists to go before God and simply say, “gee, I really didn’t believe in you”, because God has outright called them liars, “when they knew God they glorified him not”.
I did a text search through the article and all the comments finding occurrences of the word “god”. I appears that only two commenters (Carmen and KevinB) have even come close to suggesting that the ultimate truth on this issue is that God needs to be involved (although others have quoted the Bible). Whatever legislative measures are adopted should not deprive a thoughtful, truthful, caring woman (and her partner if there is one) of the right to choose whatever options might be selected after careful and prayerful deliberation with God and/or whoever she may choose as God’s representative for her.
You can’t legislate involvement with God on any issue, but you can sure consider whether a law or policy under consideration will end up encouraging or discouraging or precluding such involvement. We spend a lot of time debating what should be decided about abortion but there’s not enough consideration of who an individual should go to as the real authority. If you believe that God made it possible for you to have a child, why would you only rely on your own judgment to decide the fate of that child ?
God’s involvement shouldn’t begin and end with the decision to abort or not abort. Imagine how things would be different if people would allow God to give his guidance in selection of friends and partners and what we choose to do with those friends and partners.
If you say that God doesn’t communicate with you, I think that is a matter of personal responsibility.
I so far have thought you were a good writer, and a wild soul. I do not agree that most pro-lifers oppose abortion as a means of stopping sex, as in, ‘go ahead, kids, bleep your lights out; afterwards you’ll have to raise the little human.’
My opinion is that most are firmly, passionately against abortion because of religious and ethical beliefs. They believe it is G-d’s wish and will that fetuses become human. I agree with them. It is obvious, and natural.
I believe the corollary belief is also decisive, though it is a criticism of those who believe as you do. That is, they see the demand to give a woman or couple the right to terminate the fetus as a violent, anti-moral act. As part of a larger world of moral relativism and the replacement of ethics – dictated by the lessons of humanity over thousands of years – with ‘personal choice.’ Here I think they are also mostly right – to the extent that most pro-choicers are in fact deeply passionate about the issue.
It is one thing to reluctantly favor abortion in some circumstances and another to believe that choosing to abort a fetus is some sort of natural and moral right. That is the flapping red flag that reinforces the sense of wanting to do as ethics, G-d, etc., seem to require.
A open letter to Shannon Angle If you can answer this simple question you have my vote and my respect. So unless I’m mistaking here is the Republican party if your a human vegetable like Terri Schiavo they will justify millions of dollars to keep you alive. If your a rape victim and want a abortion they will say it’s wrong because human life is sacred. (to which I actually agree). I think all life is sacred unborn or born. Yet they can send millions of jobs over seas and then tell the unemployed to just get off their asses. I guess they consider life worth saving only if brings about human misery?? I can’t believe anyone would listen this logic unless I’m wrong which is why I would love a answer.. Here is a funny side note I’m pro life but does not freedom really mean giving people the choice. Thus my own believes are simply mine. But for the Republican party to say all life is sacred and then tell 4 million people we can’t help you. Here is what I guess you need to see. Those of you that are unemployed with no families or kids stage a hunger strike. Post your wasting away on Youtube and compare it Terri Schiavo and if they do not help you then throw it in there faces show the public their Hypocrisy. Well I’m waiting. Also please note I’m a healthy man so I can work hard labor and will I will take a fast food job I will stand in front of home depot and have I don’t need your help. But people that are in their late 50′s that have lost everything. Only to see wallstreet bailed out and be told to get a job. One last side note if AIG,fanny Mae, GM, ect ect had not been bailed out I would not have much ground to stand on. So lets here it.
Your argument is not logical. You argue that freedom is about choice but what choice did Terri Schiavo have regarding her death? You also equate unemployment with death, which is highly offensive and illogical. We all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but nowhere are we quaranteed employment. If you choose to go on a hunger strike then it is your choice but Terri Schiavo had no choice in the matter so your comparison is gruesome and insensitive. How can you even blame the Republicans for the long string of bailouts?
Guess what, your right. 100% percent. Wow how hard was it for me to say such. But how hard is it to say such and react. So I once again ask you, should corporations be treated more humanely by our government than it treats it’s own citizens. You see much as Terri Schiavo had no choice, and I’m so glad you said such. Nor did the people that lost everything, And Aha! your right the Rep’s had nothing to do with the bail outs. LOL but if they cared about humanity would they not care about the millions that are suffering due to no fault of there own
I am sure the pro-life movement could make advertisements showing ugliness that would turn most people off to abortion.
If it is not right to kill a child conceived by rape post term, why would it be any more right to kill it than any other child before birth?
Zombie,
I’m not hear to argue this position with you, nor to offend because I generally like your articles. But you said you appreciate honesty, so I am going to be honest with you.
I always hated the passion concerning people like you about the debate of “partial birth abortion.” To me, your position is as big a cop out as “safe, legal and rare” and cheapens the real debate. Because frankly your opinion based on your subjective judgment is meaningless when it comes to matters of terminating a life. You are not qualified to decide when a baby endowed a soul. And someone who believes themselves logical like I’m sure you do, would take the most prudent approach to abortion if they really believed a baby provided with something as valuable as a soul.
But I do agree with Ms. Angle’s position. If you are legitimately ‘pro-life’ like I am, it’s the only logical position of allowing abortion – when the choice truly between mother and child. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Defining terms. There is no one way to define “human being”. From a genetic reference, the fertilized egg is the beginning of what we call a person. But there are difference in this development throughout pregnancy. And what defines a person, protected by rights, is subjective. We all agree after birth.
But we don’t agree before birth. IT is noteworthy in the US and I think in West Civ, never has the mother who aborted on her own or paid someone to do it ever charged with with murder; there is no such law and there was no such law prior to Roe. Why is that? Because we don’t see it as quite the same as killing a borne human being. Nothing to do with science.
WE go to war and kill not just in self-defense of our lives but to protect our way of life. That was the point of “Give me liberty or give me death”. The British were not to exterminate us; we killed to protect our way of life. Similarily in the Civil War, we thought expansion of slavery was detrimental to a free society–not particular threat to our physical lives. So in abortion, it is done to protect our way of life. Now, we can agree that are trivial reasons to do this and serious reasons to do this just in in going to war. The whole argument about the war in Iraq where we were no immediately threatened turns on whether one thought the misbehavior of Iraq was a serious threat to the eventual security of the US. There is no scientific answer to this.
On a personal level, I find having abortion for trivial reasons uncomfortable; I don’t have the same discomfort re rape, or 13 year olds.
In addition, reality tells us that if you have money, you will have no trouble obtaining an abortion; either in the US or flying somewhere else. So in reality, it is only people who are poor who will be affected by tough anti-abortion laws. That is life. But that is unfair.
I wonder if the writer of the article would feel the same way, if Angle proposed the death penalty for mothers who abort; after all, that is quite consistent with wanting to label abortion murder. I doubt she would propose that which proves my point that what is inside the utereus is not quite same subjectively as what is outside in our experience.
First, not all agree that humans are indeed humans after birth. Please see the comments regarding Peter Singer in some of the above posts. Second, the comparison of war to the slaughter of the most innocent among us to protect our way of life is very sick. Wars are conducted for various reasons but I have never heard of one launched so that the antagonist can have consequence free sex. Nor does the United States conduct wars simply to make life easier for the United States. You have significantly diminished the concept of “protecting our way of life.” Patrick Henry and the other Founding Fathers faced a threat to their very existence. The ability to levy taxes without representation is the ability to arbitrarily deny people the fruit of their labor and thus to enslave them. The comparison is flawed.
Another real reason for opposing abortion is to protect the father’s interest in his prospective child. The rape and incest exceptions are the two cases where the father’s interest is forfeit.
I disagree with Zombie on two points:
1) The exclusion for rape and incest is not about sex. It’s about responsibility for your choices. The victim of rape or incest was robbed of her free will, and had no choice to prevent the pregnancy, and so she should continue to have that choice. A normal pregnancy was a failure of personal responsibility and you don’t get to take the life of a fetus just as a simple do over. You already made your choice.
2) An absolute position that a microscopic zygote is equal to a full term child or even a living person is not principled – it’s just a subjective judgment that defies logic for me. Zygotes are spontaneously aborted all the time without any concern or ceremony. We usually don’t even know when it happened. We don’t have a funeral because we can see the intrinsic difference from a human being.
I’m both pro-choice and pro-life in that order.
1) Merely requiring a choice isn’t a morally-defensible position. No one gave me the option to choose whether or not I was born with $100 billion, either, but I don’t see the force of law defending my becoming a bank robber to remedy such an obvious failure of choice and chance.
2) I may defy logic “for you,” but that’s a personal problem, not a problem with the logic and the science. The science is simple enough: the zygote is genetically human, it’s genetically unique, and, so long as it continues to grow and metabolize energy, it’s biologically living. The self-terminating zygotes that you mentioned fail the last test, that’s all. That example doesn’t in turn mean that all zygotes are not living. That suggestion is the one that defies logic.
From your rather flippant suggestion of holding a funeral for a miscarriage, I take it you’ve never experienced it. Consider yourself lucky. It’s not exactly a walk in the park for anyone involved.
I’m the flippant one? Getting raped and forced to have a child forever is like getting rich?
So you do have a funeral with every failed 4 cell zygote. Like the rest of us, they don’t only die because they are inviable. When they do die, we -including you- don’t pretend a human just died. Even you don’t really accept your position.
We don’t mourn them because we never knew they were there. An embryo that fails to implant leaves no trace that it was ever conceived. Like the unknown soldier, it is buried unmarked and known only to God.
It’s pretty flippant to say that a woman can kill another human because she didn’t have any choice in the creation of that human.
I didn’t have a choice in the creation of you. Of course, I didn’t have to carry you to term. But I have to put up with you on the internet. Both of us are using completely subjective logic; I’m just a little more out there than you.
I have two daughters. When discussing sexual activity I have always told them behavior has consequences. I am pro-choice, but I believe the choice happens when you take your clothes off, not when you find out you’ve gotten “caught” by the consequences.
I am also pro-life. Since I can’t tell you specifically when a sperm and an egg encompass a soul, I choose to err on the side of caution.
I have not experienced incest or been endanger of dying due to pregnancy. But I have been raped. Its a terrible experience fraught with emotional turmoil that cannot be adequately addressed in this forum.
I was pregnant and I seriously considered abortion, in spite of my core belief that life is precious and its not MY job to decide who lives and who dies. That decision was taken out of my hands due to a spontaneous abortion. And, though I will forever wonder about that child, I can admit to being incredibly relieved that I didn’t have to make the decision to end that pregnancy.
Because of this experience I share Ms. Angle’s assertion that two wrongs don’t make a right. For me the more hypocritical issue is not “no abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or harm to the mother” but more “if life is precious then it is always precious, therefore if you are pro-life concerning abortion how can you possibly be pro-death penalty?”. Life is not precious because we have done something to make it so. It is precious because God has seen fit to create us. It doesn’t become worthless because we do heinous or terrible things.
So, I agree with Zombie that he probably made a lot of people unhappy with his article, but his premise works for me: Politicians should tell the truth and let the people decide. It saves a lot of back tracking and trying to remember all the lies later. It can also help keep you from tripping up over your own campaign promises should you get elected.
It is because life is so precious that the death penalty must be enforced. Some crimes are so heinous that nothing short of the death of the perpetrator satisfies justice. When we support the death penalty for premeditated murder, we are saying that we value human life so highly that the only atonement for the malicious taking of it is that the murderer’s life is forfeit.
I have to also chime in here and differentiate between pro-life and pro-death PENALTY positions.
The word “penalty” is clearly the difference. A child which hasn’t been born yet cannot be GUILTY of anything, whereas in an imperfect nation we nevertheless abide by the best of the imperfect systems of justice. Death is a valid penalty for certain atrocious behavior. It is entirely MORALLY possible for a person to forfeit his right to be alive, for example by violating another person’s right to be alive.
The difference between innocence and guilt make it entirely morally CONSISTENT to be against abortion and for the death penalty.
Which I am.
Perhaps I”m biased. in 1991 my wife of one year was carjacked, raped, shot in the head and shoved naked out of a car in the snow to die. They caught him with her blood literally on his hands. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That man forfeited his right to be alive. He was given the death penalty on two counts, and I’d have gladly killed him twice.
But 18 years later it was overturned by ACLU types. Having given back that man’s right to be alive, it was only fair for me to ask these lawyers where Amy could go and get HER life back.
They didn’t do me the courtesy of a response.
I come by my preference for the death penalty through experience. Abortion, not so much. Just clear thinking. That’s not the kind that usually drives this argument.
My heartfelt condolences to you.
How do you enforce pro life legislation?
And do you even care?
I would argue that most pro choice people are pro choice because of the reality of how a ban on abortion will be enforced.
It’s like having a bans on alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, doping etc. No matter how morally correct, huge numbers of people will brake those laws and in essence threaten the foundation of the rule of law itself. If we are all criminals all the time anyway, what’s the purpose of obeying the rest of the laws?
I’m just not ready to live in a society were illegal and dangerous abortion practices are widespread and available everywhere like illegal drugs and prostitution.
JL, you raise a good point.
I think a lot of the problem with the abortion debate isn’t so much that the policies of this nation are “pro choice” but that they are pro abortion. We give hundreds of millions of tax dollars to abortionist and then give them privileges (i.e. no need for parental notification in many states) that honest medical professionals don’t get.
And then there is the constitutional abomination of Roe v Wade that prohibits the concerns of the pro-lifers from being addressed via the principles of representative republicanism.
Our course, all the while our academic and media institutions blatantly lie about pro life motivations and distort the consequences of the act to the young ladies who would be subject to it.
If I were king I would send anyone who accepts money for performing an abortion to jail, but I would not turn the girls I’ve known who had abortions into criminals. They have enough pain.
Once again we have the same old libertarian argument that moral laws are unenforceable or at least not 100% enforceable and so we need to keep them off the books. The argument ignores two important points. First, all laws seek to enforce a moral position. Even the absense of a law enforces a moral position. Second, no law is completely 100% enforceable.
You also seem to conclude without any factual foundation that most people would disregard the anti-abortion laws. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortions were rare. The feminist movement simply made up the numbers on illegal abortions to support their position.
“Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortions were rare. The feminist movement simply made up the numbers on illegal abortions to support their position.”
Do you have evidence of this?
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws, later admitted that he and his cohorts had simply fabricated the number of women who died from illegal abortion in order to make their argument more persuasive.
Prior to Roe v Wade abortions were rare
They were? How do you know? Is there some repository of records that illicit abortion providers kept?
Abortion has been with the human race since it figured out how to accomplish it. And it will stay with the human race as long as there’s a ‘need’ for it. Whatever laws pass, abortion will persist. The djinn is out of that particular bottle.
Unless the ‘need’ is removed.
The pro-choice people have a saying, ‘every child a wanted child’–that is where this needs to head. Conception should be volitional, not incidental.
Contraception helps with this…but not perfectly…and the ‘need’ persists. Worse, some in the pro-life community oppose contraception(which puts them right in the position Zombie conjectured–they’re really against consequenceless sex).
And, as far as laws go, a law that causes more problems than it solves….is that an immoral law? Why not?
As to statistics, please see my response to Eli above. I would also point out that your point about statistics go both way. If no such depository exists then how can supporters of legal abortions argue statistically that they occured prior to Roe v. Wade.
Other forms of murder have existed since the dawn of time as well. Should we then repeal all the laws against murder?
Your argument of “every child a wanted child” is frightening. Does this mean all unwanted children should be killed? Should the maxim only apply to childrend. How about “every old person a wanted old person”? That way we can get rid of those pesky old people once their tax paying days are over.
Any use of the phrase “every child a wanted child” other than as an analogue to “love the one you’re with,” that is, want every child you have, is nothing short of an endorsement of genocide.
The same way you enforce murder. You don’t allow it, condone it, or encourage it, and when someone is proven to have committed it, they are locked up and ostracised.
Your basic proposition can be boiled down to “since anything may happen, there is no point in legislating against anything.”
There will always be rapists in the world, so why outlaw rape?
There will always be murderers in the world, so why outlaw murder?
There will always be theft. I don’t agree with it but hey, someone else feels they have the right to relieve others of their property without permission, and who am I to judge?
Your illogic is laughably pathetic.
I will not seek to change anyone’s mind nor will I engage in a debate about the morality of abortion. I appreciate having the chance to participate one of the first civil debates regarding abortion I have witnessed, and I appreciate having the opportunity to see the other side of the argument without all of the hot emotional tension that normally accompanies such a discussion topic.
With that said I am curious. If the goal is to reduce and eliminate abortions, why is it that many of the very same people who oppose abortion also oppose preventative birth control? I know that there are religious reasons for said opposition. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state so a religious based argument holds little sway with me. I am curious if there are other reasons why someone would oppose abortion and oppose preventative measures that help stave off unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Briefly, no.
Opposition to abortion on rational grounds is a sensible position, as Zombie points out, and as I have laid out in other comments here. One need not make that case from a specifically religious foundation. If you believe murdering human beings is wrong, then the core issue of abortion is “when does it become a human being?” If you can answer that, then the normal rules apply at the point at which it becomes a human being. If you cannot, then ‘benefit of the doubt’ is also a NORMAL RULE.
But the banning of birth control in order to influence personal sexual behaviors is essentially religious. It is not about the death of what might be a human being. It is about the behaviors of the potential fathers and mothers BEFORE the arrival of the human being. That is a totally different argument, not at all related to the core issue of whether abortion kills a human being.
Excellent article on this topic.
And I have always believed that the hidden rationale is obvious: It’s all about sex.
I think that’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet. It’s not about sex but the consequences of sex namely that it is an act that leads to the creation of someone else’s beating heart and active mind and sensitive-to-pain neural system and that this person deserves protection, as we all do, solely because he exists and in fact deserves special protection because he is weak and helpless.
Without the creation of someone else’s life part, the major material reason against promiscuity disappears. Granted there are spiritual reasons as well but they are generally parallel — and not inherent to — the abortion debate.
Sean Hannity has made this argument many times. In discussing abortion, he has said, “Your actions should have consequences.”
Speaking of rape, it turns out all those left-wing activists going on flotilla ships and flying into the Middle East to help the poor, innocent Arabs, have a dirty little secret that they don’t want us to know.
Their women are being raped by the Palestinians.
And what is worse, the Palestinians are telling them to keep their mouths shut so as not to ruin their image.
http://jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/palestinians-rape-us-peacenik-tell-her-to-shut-up/
The rape exception is equally credible on much the same grounds as saving the mother’s life.
The now-classic scenario supposes that you are abducted and soon find yourself in a hospital room with a maze of tubes and wires attaching you to a person in the next bed. You are informed that this person is someone of incalculable value to mankind, e.g., a scientist who is hot on the trail of a cure for cancer, the greatest violinist ever, etc. You were abducted as the only person suitable, for medical reasons, to keep this great person alive by virtue of some specific factor in your blood. All you have to do is to remain attached for the next 9 months, and everything should be fine—barring some comparatively rare problems that might, unfortunately, result in your death, at the end of the term.
IMO, there is no obligation whatsoever between you and the person whose life has, by force, been put into your care, let alone placing you at (possible) risk of death. The worth of the other person creates no obligation on you to make certain that he or she survives. In short, this is not even your brother, and you are in no way his keeper.
Fantom “Yes, and a Black is only 3/5ths human. Nice company you keep.”
When the time came to determine the number of representatives for Congress prior to the civil war, abolitionists were concerned that the South would have an inordinate number of representatives because of the large plantations with numerous slaves who would be counted as population and therefore influence the numbers. They felt this would give the South undue influence in the abolitionists attempt to end slavery. So they compromised with the south and said that they would count 3/5ths of the slave population to determine numbers of representatives.
Your statement is one of the lies the Democrat party continues to trumpet as you are doing here.
You are right on the money about the only consistency position for those who believe the infant is a human being is to be against the rape exception. I’m pro-life and I’m only for abortion in the case to save the life of the mother. In that situation a choice needs to be made by the family with the expertise of the Doctors as to which life they should attempt to save instead of possibly letting both die.
I think the real reason for rape exception by a lot of pro-lifers is that they don’t think they will win the debate by going against that exception. The number of abortions for rape are extremely low so many do not want that exception to carry the day.
However, I don’t think it is about “sex” for either side. People want the easy way out. They want to have an option when they get pregnant so they don’t give up their freedom and do not have to do the hard work of raising a child. It is a very selfish reason. Check the stats on why most people have abortions and they are mostly selfish reasons.
You miss a major alternative explanation for why pro-lifers would allow exceptions for rape and incest:
It’s a way to call the bluff of the those employing the language of “choice”. Or, to put it more charitably, it’s a way of finding common ground in a contentious debate.
If it’s not rape or incest, then the choice was already made by the woman and the man.
From Dave (#10): If it’s wrong, don’t allow it. If it’s not wrong, why limit it? Is there a ’sort of wrong’ moral category?
Herein lies the rub in this entire debate. Many in our country have this perspective: If I agree with it – the federal government should make it mandatory. If I disagree with it – the federal government should prohibit it. This mind set is completely antithetical to the idea of limited government – the foundation of our country and the source (to date) of the longevity of our form of government. The constitution does not give the federal government the right to do all the things we believe are right and prohibit all the things we believe are wrong. “Need” or “wrong” do not in and of themselves form the basis for constitutional federal law.
Roe v. Wade is obviously bad constitutional law. There is nowhere in the constitution that a reasonable person could find a guarantee to abortion on demand. HOWEVER an opposite decision (a complete federal prohibition on abortion) would be equally bad constitutionally. The constitution simply does not speak to the issue. To my pro-life friends who would argue, “But abortion is murder!” I would respond that for the most part I agree with you (I am personally totally no exception pro life) BUT (and here comes the entire point of my post) murder is (for the most part) NOT a federal crime. The constitution of the United States does not speak to murder either. That clearly does not make murder “OK”, it is not an endorsement of murder – it simply acknowledges that this issue (like most issues) is the purview of the states. Returning this issue to the states would do more to limit this barbaric practice than any attempt at another unconstitutional federal law.
We (in the pro life camp) have to make a decision. Do we actually want to reduce, and make steps toward eliminating this barbaric practice OR do we simply wish to pontificate and publicly support prohibitions that are never going to happen? Which is more important: what we “stand for” or what we actually get done?
And perhaps more importantly – when we return to power (and we will) will we demand that the federal government do this thing for us (at thing for which there is no constitutional basis)? Because if we do – we will concede that there are no limits to the power of the federal government. The era of limited constitutional government will be over.
Can we believe strongly about an issue, can we use the bully pulpit to seek to influence others about an issue and yet recognize that the federal government has no constitutional power over that issue? Do we have the courage of our limited government convictions? I personally believe that the long term survival of our country depends on this.
Or we can treat it like slavery- put in into the Constitution via the Amendment process.
So if a state decides murder is ok and shouldn’t be within the purview of the law, that’s “ok”, because the state decided it? 10th amendment and all that!
“It is impossible to speak in such a way
that you cannot be misunderstood. ”
- Karl Popper
Your excellent essay brings out the misunderstandings,
and the states of denial, in those who commented on it.
The United States of America has a _secular_ government;
It may not write laws based on religious requirements,
or ‘moral feelings’ as those in denial mislabel RR.
Laws are written for the greater good of society as a whole,
with the understanding that they will _necessarily_ inflict
lesser evils on individuals.
Laws which must choose to favor one individual over another
may compare the relative value of those two individuals when
making the choice.
Excellent essay as usual, Zombie. While you and I must part ways on abortion, you make some very excellent points. I wish all differences of opinion were so reasonably discussed, both within the conservative ranks, and among liberals and conservatives. It’s almost as if you are using logic instead of emotion to consider issues.
This is by far one of the best articles on the subject of abortion I’ve ever seen, and the comments have been very though-provoking as well. Zombie, it’s interesting that you call yourself “reluctantly” pro-choice. I guess I’m reluctantly pro-life; I’m strongly opposed to abortion, but I find that I have very little in common with the radical anti-abortion groups. I could never call myself pro-choice because that would imply that I consider abortion a valid choice, which I don’t. But I am becoming less and less interested in making abortion illegal, which I see as the ultimate goal of the pro-life groups. First of all, after almost 40 years, I believe it is not very realistic. Second, even if abortion were to become illegal, it would not really stop abortions from happening. The best way to eliminate abortions is by providing better alternatives to the women facing unwanted pregnancies, and also by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and access to birth control.
By the way, most pro-life people that I’ve known are opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest for the very reasons mentioned in this article. I think that many pro-life politicians make this compromise because, after all, abortions from rape and incest are a very small percentage of all abortions. For those whose ultimate goal is making abortion illegal, it’s a matter of sacrificing a few to save the lives of the majority. Definitely a morally questionable stand.
Also, you are correct that some (certainly not all) pro-life individuals are more anti-sex than anti-abortion. I see no other way to explain those who are also against both abortion and birth control.
zombie you gained a friend here. i agree with you on the need for honesty in politics. their can be no moral relativism. you are or you aren’t for or against something. as yoda says “do or do not,there is no try”. be for it or against it. don’t qualify.
You are right Joe – but there are two separate issues here:
1. Are you for it or against it? Yes or no.
2. What should the federal government do about it?
These are two separate and distinct issues. What do you think/feel about an issue AND where do you believe the limits to federal government power lie in relationship to this issue?
The passions associated on both sides of this issue provide a test of our willingness to exist as a limited government republic. I believe that this question is at the core of the potential for our survival: Can you feel passionately about an issue and AT THE SAME TIME recognize that there is no constitutional mandate for the government to act in support of that passion. Do we want the limited government as given to us by the founders – or do we want a totalitarian government (as long as that totalitarian government supports what we want)? If we choose the latter – we will loose control of this monster of our own creation very soon and the great American Experiment will be over.
well myself i am thoroughly against it. as far as the government getting involved in it,it should be prosecuted as the crime it is, murder in the 1st degree. and i will comment no further on this subject. thank you.
I also disagree with Zombie’s idea that pro-lifers are against sex and that we’re dishonest about being against sex. Sex is how humans create more humans. Margaret Sanger’s idea that people should be able to indulge in sex with anyone anytime without the consequences of children is what’s wrong. People do need to be more choosy about sex because it leads to the conception of children. We also need to use self control for all the other emotional reasons that irresponsible sex is harmful (not to mention STD’s.). We should enjoy sex because it is a wonderful experience, but too often in human society sex is misused and people are getting hurt by that. I see that it’s misused, but that doesn’t equate with being against sex. Zombie is just plain wrong on that point.
Zombie: once again you have posted a meaningless article. abortion should be used as a tool not a mean. what do you mean liberals like to have abortion so the can have casual sex. what planet are you coming from that you are making such a statement… you and the rest of the sex starved and sexually frustrated neo con and Ms. Angel included, think that having casual sex is for for all. I have casual sex all the time. that does not mean that I am not careful to protect myself and the person with whom I am having sex. do you get it. waht we need here is education which is a taboo in this country regarless of your politacl views. people are going to have casual sex. like it or not. it is human nature. so get real. Ms. Angel like the rest of the politicians is full sh…. here we like to keep this topic under the rug.. instead of talking to our kids, educationg them we just operate hush, hush. hush. then there is a poor 16 year old gets pregnent and is going to get an abortion. where as she had been educated this would have never happened. who the hell is Ms. Angel telling a rape victim to carry the baby to term? whta if the victim is 14 yeeras old. she does not her a… from a hoile in the groung!! great idea Ms. Angel!! now we have two lives destroyed, a young innocent 14 year old and brand new infant. Zombie you see now where your head is? the same place as Ms. Angel’s
And abortion is any better? Abortion leaves one dead baby and one woman who will spend the rest of her life knowing she killed her own flesh and blood.
A few question to pro-lifers:
What would be the right penality for the woman for abortion?
Because there can not be prohibition without a penalty.
If life and personhood start at conception, are you willing to give citizenship to all embrios conceived in the US by illegal aliens? Or do you want change the law about citizenship before banning abortion?
In a few years (I don’t know how many, but surely not more than a couple of decades) we will have artificial uterus able to gestate a zygote until a healthy birth. What would you do if I create 10.000 zygotes, then put them in these artificial uterus and then turn all of the laboratory to the government because I have not the money to gestate all of them for the full nine months? Or I have not the money to raise them as my children? Do you feel your duty to pay for them?
What about the teenaged girl described before, that had four (and maybe more) abortions?
Do you want her give birth to the babies and then turn them to the social services?
What prevent unprincipled people from having babies and, after the delivery, disowning them?
Do you support social services for teen mothers with babies out of the wedlock?
If not, are you punishing the babies with their mother?
Is it the government job to fund, with taxes, the upbringing of babies? All babies or only some?
We can figure out the penalty, but it should be similar to that of murder.
The anchor baby thing is a whole nother issue. Life begins at conception. I don’t think all embryos conceived by illegal immigrants should be considered citizens, because I don’t believe there should be such thing as anchor babies. It’s two different issues and this is a sly instance of deflection from the abortion issue.
The 10,000 zygotes question is another deflection. If any of those are wasted, a life has been ended. No one is obligated to pay for them; we can out of the goodness of our hearts, but it’s the person who created them who is guilty of murder. Another sly deflection.
Your next argument is basically implying that because a child may have an unhappy life in foster care or whatever, it’s ok to kill them. Sickening.
We can figure out how to take care of the babies. Nothing you said justifies killing them, which is what I know you are getting at.
Every argument you put forth here boils down to “children can be inconveniant, so why shouldn’t we be able to kill them?” You are an evil person.
Ah, Miriam, once again you impress. I had thought you had a partner? Or do you consider relationships to be casual? At any rate, you utterly, completely, and thoroughly missed the point of the column. Zombie (pro-choice) was impressed that the candidate (pro-life) was consistent in her morals about abortion- ie, she considers it equal to killing, and therefore wrong even on the counts that most people give it a pass (no mention on her stance about endangerment of the life of the mother). No where in the article was sex education touched upon- heck, they may both be for a rigorous education on sex, sexuality and the good and bad consequences of it- or they may be completely opposed- who f-ing knows, since it’s not at all mentioned?
“whta if the victim is 14 yeeras old. she does not her a… from a hoile in the groung!! ”
So- if you believe this stance, do you also believe a child who doesn’t know her bleep from a bleep should have the right to get an abortion without her parents knowing? This has been proposed, if not enacted (MA? Did that pass and go into effect there?). Do you trust her judgement to do the right thing, meaning- do you believe this girl, who according to you “does not her a… from a hoile in the groung!!” has the capacity to make that choice? Or should her rights be restricted due to her lack of maturity? Can she understand and make a decision that will have an impact on her long-term physical and mental health? Does she just trust the doctor? Her planned-parenthood advocate, or should her parents be informed and part of the choice? To go further, if the parents are removed from that choice, does that remove them from the legal obligations to protect the health and welfare of their child? I’m not asking to poke at you- I’m asking because this is a topic that comes up- some pro-choice people are absolutists that there be no restrictions at all, including parently consent.
The other reason I took and went after your example is that this is the kind of thing a congressional officer may have to consider. That’s what gives her the right to make that statement, that’s what demands she makes that statement. As a person participating in the creation of laws, Mrs. Angle would have to have a point of view, and at least hers is clear, whether you agree with it or not, and again (I know, I’m being repetitive), that’s the point of Zombie’s post. If you can’t understand that without getting so upset, why do you keep reading here?
To miriam rove, you say that if a girl at age 14 were to be raped and carry the child to term, that it would be throwing away both the girl’s life and the baby’s. Although I can’t speak for all girls, I’m fifteen and if I were to be raped and conceive a child, I would never consider abortion. I know many couples who have never been able to have children of their own and would happily adopt a child, no matter how it had been conceived. Why is that not an option for that girl? If it were your mother who had been raped, would you tell her to terminate her pregnancy even though it would mean that you would never be given a chance to have a life? Also, you say that a girl at 16 would be uneducated about sex and pregnancy. In the world that we live in, is that even possible? At my public school, sex ed starts at fourth grade and continues up to seventh grade. To not know that by having sex a child can be conceived, she would have to grow up almost entirely blocked off from the public.
It seems to me that when a pregnant woman wants her child, it is not a fetus but a baby that is growing inside of her. If she were to lose that child before it was born because of another person’s actions, she would say that her child had been murdered. But another woman can choose to end her unwanted pregnancy and we are to solemnly say that it is her own choice? Is that right? How can the latter be fine and the former be a crime? Should we stand back and say to the first woman that her baby was not technically a human being and therefore we can do nothing in justice? Perhaps I’m young and uninformed but seriously, but by now I at least feel that I know the difference between what is morality and what is, in truth, sin. ED
Abortion rights were decided by Roe v Wade. It was stupid and self indulgent for Angle to let this one issue hijack her campaign. She may be too stupid to hold office after all. And it is stupid and near moronic for you posters to slap her on the back for honesty.
The country is going broke, we’re being fleeced to oblivion by taxes, offshore competition has almost eliminated American manufacturing jobs, our offshore oil production is being damaged by an indefinite moratorium, the Senate is itching to pass cap and trade–a kick to the groin of whats left of our manufacturing– Harry (“The War is lost”") Reid is up for re-election, and . .and….Angle decides to make her PERSONAL beliefs about abortion an issue.
That’s just great. Terrific. Just what Nevada voters need to dwell on right now. Someone’s personal beliefs that have been foreclosed by the US Surpreme court for the first three months. All she had to do is say “The issue has been settled by the US Supreme Court and I am not going to be drawn into a debate over settled law.”
But no. She was effortlessly drawn, with all the ease of eliciting a dumb remark from Barney Fife, into a non-issue, and now will be held aloft as a kook, a religious nut, a one-issue candidate and Harry Reid’s chances of squeaking by just got better.
Maybe she can offer her opinion on UFO’s! After all, what are trillion dollar deficits and defense readiness, when we can discuss her personal views on abortion? Maybe she can weigh in like Rand Paul and criticize some aspect of the 1964 Civil right Act too!
She has now made the campaign a discussion of HER personal beliefs on what ought to be a non-issue.
I detest brocoli, cats annoy me and I believe all men have an inalianable right to 5 Blonde Wives. But I am not going to say so if I am running for office. Not when vital things are at stake.
Angle deserves censure for stupidity, not praise for honesty. The country needs people in congress who don’t want to tax us to death, alienate our allies, coddle our enemies, who will restore the F-22, buy the Queen something bigger than an ipod next time, and cut spending in D.C. We won’t get there by insisting that voters take up the abortion issue again, or volunteer that “you know maybe we ought to revoke the Miranda opinion.”
All anti-abortion right-wongers, please be quiet!! You’ve done enough damage to the US by making this one issue a litmus test for candidates and a basis for losing elections.
Let’s be clear, though: You’re lying if you think Angle’s position doesn’t make women less than fully vested with human rights.
There is a trade off. We can treat abortion as murder, if we agree that women are less than human. I refuse to make that bargain, and I think it is monstrous, sinful and evil to claim that a victim of rape does not have the right to abort a pregnancy.
Rape in war is a war crime. Adding to the crime is also a crime.
You all seem to forgotten that there are no exceptions for babies WHO WON’T LIVE. And the fact that abortions are ONLY carried out when the mother’s life IS IN DANGER. There’s no exception when 10 doctors tell the mother, “If you don’t have an abortion, your life will be in danger.” I’d like to see this as part of the debate–babies with lethal defects and their mothers who are risking death while they wait for their lives to be at risk enough to qualify for an abortion that their insurance will cover.
Why? BECAUSE IT ALL HAPPENED TO ME! And yet the rest of the world wants to make it a simple black/white issue as if all abortions are the result of careless and irresponsible sex. My son was planned, wanted, and much anticipated.
I used to be pro-life until it happened to me. When I realized that my physicians and the rest of the world were more concerned wtih the letter of the law than with my life, my baby, or what my family was going through for the 10 weeks before my son died. I don’t like that abortions happen as a result of care-free sex, but by legislating who does and does not qualify for an abortion puts a situation like mine in the “elective” category. I did not stand up and volunteer for my son to have lethal birth defects. I did not have irresponsible sex. I will never understand why I had to risk my life for a baby who was never going to live anyway while the doctors waited for me to bleed heavier.
If you suffocate a terminally ill patient, you are a murderer. Therefore, nonviability does not justify abortion. In the case of life of the mother, it is wrong for a doctor’s hands ever to intentionally kill. Make every effort to save both lives- attempt to set a world record for youngest surviving premie if need be, and then hold your head up knowing that you either saved two lives or fought to the bitter end.
A terminally ill patient is viable, under the law. You confuse the circumstances.
But you also make me shudder. I presume you also oppose “do not resuscitate” orders? You refuse to let the dying die a graceful death without pain and humiliation?
People who focus on absolutes forget that life is uncertain. There are too many possibilities to properly cover all possible options. That’s why limited regulations are the best to allow the individuals affected to make the decisions.
Too many that insist life begins at conception and insist a fetus is equivalent to a live baby refuse to admit that not all pregnancies end happily. I have some idea what your situation must have been like since my daughter was stillborn and I know how traumatic that was. It’s still hard to imagine what it must have been like to know your unborn child had no chance of surviving but having to continue the pregnancy until there was no choice. For some women that might have been the best course but I also understand how that would be extremely traumatic for others as well as an unnecessary risk. I hope you’ve been able to find peace with what you went through.
Yes, a fetus is a potential life, but a woman is more than an incubator that must give up all rights to her life and well being for that potential life.
1. People have sex … and in America, 95% of us have pre-marital sex. Some feel more conflicted about it than others. Obviously, how people feel about abortion does not determine their sexual actions.
2. To be fair, you should also note that Harry Reid is also pro-life, has always voted against abortion funding and access, and has always been completely honest and up front about it.
I can’t wait for November and the chance to vote for Sharron Angle. You go girl. Reno can’t get much worse right now.
I agree with your analysis that religious sanctions on sexuality are an important and often semi-conscious factor in the abortion debate. I would venture further that this factor also enters into many of the current predictions of the demographic demise of the West. The present problems of Europe, for example, are the result of foolish political decisions on immigration and social welfare, and merely having more babies will not solve anything if these policies are not reversed. Rather than understanding the complex interaction of politics, economics, technology, and population, many conservatives seem to have embraced an iron law of demographics because of its moralistic simplicity.
Excellent article Zombie. The fundamental difference over when a human becomes a human dictates that the two sides can’t simply compromise, you can’t solve that in a debate if it’s a first principle. But I do agree that whatever position you take, consistency should follow. If you believe it’s just a clump of cells
- There is no justification for charging someone who kills a pregnant woman with two homicides if it’s within the period of legal abortion
- There is no justification for homicide if an assualt/actions on a pregnant woman results in the death of a foetus (sp?) within the period of legal abortion.
- Abortion for sex selection of the foetus is as valid as any other reason
- Abortion of hair/eye/skin color is as valid as any other reason
- Assuming someone identifies a gay gene/right wing conservative gene/left wing liberal gene/etc. etc. etc. abortion for that reason is as valid.
- The male should be able to offer to pay for the abortion/morning after pill and then be free of any and all financial obligations if the woman declines.
(If your actions resulted in damage to a person (even a medical condition) they could repair with a $1,000 procedure today vice an 18 year procedure costing hundreds of thousands, no court would hold you liable for the higher cost procedure.)
- There’s no moral reason from a foetus’s perspective for saying abortion should be rare… (There are practical reasons,
- Male should be able to dictate that their is either an abortion or opt out of obligations based on the impact of allowing it to become human based an the impact to his quality of life/mental condition etc. Isn’t his life as important as the female’s?
No. Woman and children first you cad.
But, be the definition above, i.e. it’s just a clump of cells so there are no children involved.
what you are saying is: women first… the male’s quality of life is subordinate and secondary to the female’s quality of life.
When you put it like that, it reveals just how selfish the entire concept of abortion is.
It depends on your first principle of when life truly begins. I was just trying to point out some more inconsistencies in the law/handling of abortion. I would have no regret at cutting off a wart. So, if you sincerely believe that it’s a clump of cells like a wart- it’s inconsistent to say a woman can insist the mancommit to 18 years of their life and finances to deal with a forseeable consequence of an agreed upon activity. A consequence that can be dealt with cheaply and easily right now- again, assuming it’s just a clump of cells.
I think for many radical feminists (not all) abortion is really more a power issue relative to men.
Selfish? IDK, in the year my 14 year-old was born there were 1,221,585 legal abortions. Which was a ratio of 314 abortions per 1,000 live births. No biggee if it’s just a clump of cells.
Reply to kipling: You are subjective as can be without realizing. You thought my quoting PAtrick Henry was irrelevant because liberty trumps killing. Well, what about the liberty of poor 14 year old or 21 one year old borne to poverty who wants out of it. One can just as well argue that for some people having an unwanted child deprives one of liberty just as heavy taxation as in the Rev war affects liberty. As the Declaration states, one does not go for revolution and war and killing unless the reasons are grave. Well, grave is subjective. Get that subjective not to be imposed by you or me.
Now, there is general agreement that in rape etc that is reasonable. You can’t prove it. And that is what you miss in your dismissal of the judgement of others who otherwise are decent law abiding moral citizens.
I have lent money to two people who were on welfare and in school trying to get out it to have abortions. I don’t like the idea of lending money to reward irresponsible behavior(unplanned pregnancy is for the most part, irresponsible). However, I did it because being well off; very educated–I knew that if my children wanted to have an abortion regardless of my feelings, they could get one; they had money and the smarts. And so I thought it quite unfair that my children and myself having made it; educated etc and that for the luck of draw those girls on welfare did not have the cultural background etc to make it easy to escape poverty of money and spirit; and hence, I lent them the money. Getting educating, finishing school, not being burdened with a child as a single mother is deprivation of liberty just has heavy taxation is.
What you miss is that much of this is subjective. What you miss if that those who support pro-choice are not fanatical nazi’s; death worshippers.
What you miss is that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not collateral damage; but purposely done–purposely done—to end the war and to protect our way of life. IT was done to save lives–american and japanese. Tough decisions. You just dont like the decision of let us say a 13 year old who gets raped to abort to avoid painful experience and possibly limitation of her moving forward. Sure if she is the daughter of millionare, no big deal; but most are not.
I find you smug.
Your problem is not my own subjectivity but the fact that your judgment is so subjective and your moral compass so distorted by relativism that you have lost an solid foundation for moral judgment. For proof, I submit the following:
1. You equate an unwanted pregnancy with paying taxes. An unwanted pregnancy is the result of an activity openly and purposefully engaged in by the person experiencing the consequences. I noted the exception of rape and incest that you will raise but more than 90% of abortions have nothing to do with either. Taxes, in the instance I referenced, were imposed from above by a tyrannical government which denied the colonists representation. One was the product of a choice the other was not. Your comparison is invalid.
2. The bombing of Hiroshima in no way equates to abortion. The United States bombed Hiroshima to end a war started by Japanese aggression not just to protect our way of life. Abortions have been performed for the mere reason that a pregnant girl wanted to look good in a prom dress. These are hardly comparable.
As to your other comments, they drip with moral relativism based upon your own perceptions of reality – very subjective. Life is hard and often has conflict and misery. It is not the role of government to try and remove such misery. Nor is it benefical to individuals to remove the consequences of their actions. This used to be a clear point of principled conservatism.
What you term as smug I would call confident. I know in what I believe and in who I believe. My judgments are not subject because they are not personal but rather a recognition of an absolute standard.
A Proposal for Common Ground between Libertarians and Social Conservatives on the Abortion Issue:
Since many libertarians will not agree with their social conservative allies on the need to prohibit abortion, let me propose a series of actions to immediatel take to achieve common ground.
1. No public funding for abortion in the United States or abroad. (If you want to keep the government out of a women’s reproductive system then let us remove government funding as well.)
2. No public funding for groups that oppose or advocate abortion.
3. No special exemptions or protections for the abortion industry. (If it is simply a medical proceedure then it should be treated as all medical proceedures are in the United States. This means no protections against lawsuits and full compliance with disclose laws. It also means that parental consent must be given. You would not remove a teen’s appendix without parental notification so why a fetus?)
What do you say my libertarian friends?
I must say that if we had public officials or even candidates for office that discuss issues as you do, we’d all be measurably better off. I don’t know that I agree with all you have said, but it would be a pleasure to lose an argument or even an election to you.
Thank you Smith. Those are very kind words.
I don’t have a problem with your plan. Would this compromise be acceptable to all prolifers? I’m not sure it would fly with a fair number. Also, if we are viewing this as another procedure, would one’s insurance be allowed to cover it?
I would never personally classify it as simply another medical proceedure. My argument is that the left does not classify it as simply another medical proceedure even though they claim to do so. Instead, they have elevated abortion to a special status with special priveleages and exemptions. What I propose is that we, at the very least, take that status away and take the pro-abortion argument at its word when it calls it simply another medical proceedure.
I would agree to the insurance proposal with some conditions. 1. The insurance is privately funded and receives no government funding. 2. Insurance companies are not mandated by the government to fund abortions. 3. Insurance companies which do elect to cover that proceedure make it clear that those who purchase their policies are helping to fund the proceedure by contributing to the general fund from which the company then pays for that proceedure. (Does that make sense?) For example, I know that the premiums I pay for my insurance go toward paying for someone else’s proceedure. I would not want to buy insurance that funded abortions because it would involve the use of my funding in that proceedure. I should have the choice of walking away and finding another form of coverage.
Yes, it might be hard to move the prolife movement in that direction but I think it would be a good first step toward their ultimate goal.
well hot damn…i can live with your solutions!
And wow…you are more open minded than i thought..i apologize!
This would suit me perfectly!!
lol
You made my day! : )
BRAVO. Great article. I also agree that to be consistent pro-lifer the rape/incest exception makes no sense if you belive that he soul attaches the moment of coneption and we do not punish the chldren for the sin/crime of the parent.
I also want to congratulate you on looking at the pro-choice side. I have said for years that the problem with pro-choice is that they make abortion out to be a no biggie, that if you get pregnant then you just abort. I saw this in an ethics course I taught in a reform synagogue. The students refused to acknowledge tht the fetus/baby had any relevance and their biggest argument was the size of a first trimester fetus. How could something no bigger than a quarter be as important as me? I was asked. (By the way, I quickly changed the subject as I did not think it was my place to give lessons in sex education to someone else’ 13 year old. I did report it to the principal of the school and of course nothing came of the matter. Of course because the children were annoyed with the ethics class, though they stopped it and decided to let them study something else)
I also realized that the public school in teaching sex education does not dwell on the consequences of sex beyond the use and need for birth control and the spread of AIDS. There is no discussion anywhere of the consequences of sex and the purpose of sex. In my home it is a major theme (along with the acknowledgement that everything you do has consequences good and bad. You have to accept responsibility and deal with the consequences) but I fear not in society and it is not PC to even appraoch it that way.
I believe that it is part of self-centeredness of society that everything is all about YOU and no consequences should have to be accepted or tolerated. It is truly a sad mark on society that under the guise of ethics no one is taught to accept responsibility for their actions for anything anymore.
Zombie: A very thought provoking entry, thank you.
For an orthodox Jewish perspective, I invite you to read:
http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/feldman_abortion.pdf
f47, the link you posted did not take me to a site dealing with Orthodox Judais; it took me to the proceedings of the Rabbinic Assembly of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Conservative Judaism takes an approach to Jewish law that differs radically from that of Orthodox Judaism.
try -
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion#Orthodox_Judaism
As with all things Jewish, it is not difficult to find an authority to back your opinion either way. Did hashem know us before we were formed in the womb, or is negligence in causing a miscarriage punishable similarly to the loss of property instead of the loss of life? Rashi certainly didn’t consider the embryo to be a separate entity apart from the mother, but most orthodox Jews frown on abortion with some exceptions.
Since the US is not a Jewish country, no matter how much David Duke or the NOI claim, this is irrelevant in the vast majority of political forums.
It is relevant in the sense that western civilization owes much to Jewish thought and history.
Of course the West owes a lot to Jewish thought. I wasn’t saying that it didn’t. I just don’t think that Jewish views on abortion are necessarily relevant in political debates in American society in general. Take for example the fight a few years ago about posting the 10 commandments on public property, such as courthouses. I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that far less than 1% of people in support of posting the commandments observe number 4; זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, לְקַדְּשׁוֹ. or Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy. In order to observe the Shabbat one must refrain from Melachot (including no lighting or extinguishing of fire including electricity, no schlepping, no building, no tearing down, and especially, no winnowing); applying this to modern day America is not feasible or desirable. How many people who were adamant about the place of the 10 commandments at a courthouse even understand them fully? My guess would be very, very few.
Religious views can guide personal choices, but they should NEVER be legislated. That is what I was saying. I’ve lived in the US as well as several countries where religious observance is legislated by the government and it is no secret that I prefer the government to stick to building roads and stay out interpreting matters of faith.
Morality always derives from faith – whether it is faith in God, faith in oneself, faith in humanity, or faith in a chicken. And, whether we like it or not, certain issues of morality must always be legislated – murder, theft, etc. Even to not legislate morality is to essentially legislate morality.
My point is that western civilization has – until the past century – always had a certain degree of respect and responsibility for the unborn. Western civilization was until recently the product of the Jewish and Christian worldview and elements of that worldview still linger in our society, our laws, and our judicial system. Hence these worldviews are relevant to the discussion.
They are also relevant if an individual bases their sense of morality on these worldviews and thus argues from that position.
Thank you for the link to Aish HaTorah. Like most of their material, this summary was excellent. The other link that you posted was from Wkipedia, which of course is a better guide to popular opinion than it is to fact, given the open editing feature.
Two key issues, of course, are those cited by Aish at the end– that individual guidance must be sought in any given case, and at the beginning — that the moral position of Orthodox Jewish law regarding abortion does not fit neatly into any one political category. But it also makes clear that the concern for the life and welfare of the mother is neither a blanket permission to abort in any but rare cases posing a legitmate danger, nor a fig leaf intended to make people more used to abortion as a precursor to removing all restrictions.
I also agree that if you think killing a fetus is murder, then it doesn’t matter how the fetus was conceived, you should want to save it. However, should we wait until all abortion is outlawed? Or should we try to save as many as we can by allowing for rape and incest. I think an analogy is smuggling as many Jews as possible out of Nazi Germany or doing nothing until the Third Reich was defeated. I believe we have to work on both simultaneously.
I have been thinking about this issue all day and eventually came to the surprising conclusion that I am pro-life. I think that if we can somehow make the pro life arguement mor humane and reasonable, it would make that side of this issue more appealing. However, that is where is ends. I am not anti-birth control or anti family planning; its just that abortion is personnally disgusting for me. Nice article, thanks.
What a refreshing essay. Thank you.
A Fourth Proposal for Common Ground between Libertarians and Social Conservatives on the Abortion Issue:
Would libertarians join with social conservatives in the repeal of Roe v. Wade – through either judicial or legislative means? Most libertarians and social conservatives argue that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision based on unconstitutional reasoning. Why not join together and overturn it? We could then send the issue back to the states and/or to the people themselves to decide. The repeal of Roe v. Wade does not necessarily mean that abortion will be made illegal. It only means that the power is returned to the people.
I would be all for returning the power of this over to the states or even more locally governed. It will never happen that way but im all for it. Besides i wouldnt trust it being overturned then have a turn around it becomes illegal.
but i can agree on this as well..
all those posts u and i did before and we are on the same page it appears, at least we can compromise well
I think in the end libertarians and social conservatives are a lot closer than we believe and the left would like us to be.
There is one aspect of this debate that always gets side-stepped by our politicians and most of the “pro-choice” side, namely:
When does life begin?
This has been discussed a bit above, but notably tends to drop out of focus.
The question needs to be answered but is largely ignored.
When does life begin? It’s wrong to kill a baby one minute AFTER its birth. Is it ok one minute BEFORE?
If not, then you’ve made a distinction: it’s not just about location or the “choice” of the mother. It’s something intrinsic about that entity, that baby/fetus itself.
Now, trace that backwards from one minute. Can you “terminate” it two minutes before its birth? Three minutes? And so on. Is it ok at four months prior?
Is the issue then about the *stage of its development*? Again, we’ve already done away with “choice” now as an absolute, inviolable category.
So the question becomes: at what stage would such a “procedure” become acceptable?
Here, people talk about viability and clusters of cells. But in the absence of certain knowledge (i.e. this cell cluster became a human on August 25, 2005), is it not the humane thing to err on the side of preserving life?
Anyone arguing the “pro-choice” side needs to:
(1) take a clear, definitive stand on when he/she thinks life begins and
(2) account for how any agnosticism about the specific moment life begins (as he/she traces development backwards from birth) leads him/her to think the MORE ethical thing to do is to presume the “fetus” is not alive rather than alive.
Carl Sagan wrote a very thoughtful piece that answers this question from a scientific reasoning perspective. http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Life is life is life. There are only two forms of existence, and one can say it like this: LIVE OR DEAD (ANIMATE OR INANIMATE). Babies are alive. This is true b/c dead things don’t grow.
I recently learned that birth control pills may “abort” a pregnancy spontaneously upon conception (by creating a hostile environment), which means I could’ve unknowingly aborted a child at some point in my younger days. This new information upset me so badly I was physically ill. I prayed to God to forgive me if I had done something so horrible to one of his little ones.
Abortion does not make you “un-pregnant”; it simply makes you the mother (or father) of a very DEAD baby. May God forgive us all.
You were misled. Stop worrying. Birth control pills do NOT “abort a pregnancy spontaneously upon conception” — what they do is PREVENT CONCEPTION in the first place by preventing ovulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pill#Studies_of_progestins_to_prevent_ovulation
No ovulation = no egg = no fertilization = no pregnancy.
You were upset for no reason. Someone fed you misleading information.
There are “morning after pills” but they were only approved recently and you definitely would have known if you took one because you only take one after thinking you are already pregnant.
Carmen may have been misled, and she may have suffered more guilt than was warranted, but what is *right* about her attitude is that she cares deeply about human life and about her relationship with God. And *that* does not come naturally, it can only be taught by *others* who care deeply.
That’s not entirely correct. There’s still a lot of debate as to whether or not the endometrial effects of the pill can prevent implantation if conception occurs. (Some info on this is there in the wikipedia link you provided, under “Mechanism of Action).
Z,
Are you pro abortion because you don’t consider preborn a human or because you don’t think that s/he should not have the same rights? Or is there some other reason?
Just curious.
This prolifer thanks you for some very clear thinking and writing. A rarity these days.
Actually, the only thing unclear to me now is why you remain pro-choice. You’ve laid out the arguments for the prolife position better than most – certainly better than most prolife politicians, whose positions, as you say, make no sense regarding rape and incest.
Well-reasoned, well-written. Honesty and candor in a politician are absolutely bracing refreshment when they can be found, especially these days. Agree 100%.
So much for pissing me off.
Well said. If only we could get to the real motivations behind so many other divisive issues.
Since we’re dealing with the issue honestly today, I’ll add this: We need to both ban abortion encourage more sex because, as a society, we need more babies.
Babies are the engines of economic growth and the revenue fodder we need to survive the baby boom’s retirement.
So let a hundred flowers bloom, so to speak.
“No one is willing to stand up and declare, ‘Sex outside of marriage is bad for the soul and bad for society…’”
No one? I know many people whose sole sexual partner was his or her spouse and, in general, they are the most principled, moral, honest, kind, and generous people I have ever known.
I would caution people to be skeptical of any author or politician who uses the phrases “no one,” ” everyone,” “all of them,” “none of them,” etc. Such statements are rarely true, and tend to be a manipulative way of convincing people to accept an argument. (Obama uses the technique frequently.)
That is not to say that I do not agree with many of the author’s points – just his main point (that sex is the driving factor in a typical person’s abortion opinion.) I agree that there is a considerable amount of nonsense masquerading as logic on the abortion issue. For example, the argument that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare” is nonsensical. If abortions are not inherently wrong or immoral, then there is no need to insist that they be rare. And if abortions are in fact inherently wrong or immoral, then it is worth questioning why the procedure should be legal. If there is nothing wrong with having an abortion, why do so many women regret having them? I suspect it has more to do with concerns over “snuffing out a life” than guilt over “casual sex.”
I can understand questioning how a person might be opposed to all abortions except in cases of rape and incest. But I can also understand questioning how someone can support abortions even in the eight or ninth month of pregnancy. (The baby is positioned in the birth canal and partially delivered to facilitate making an opening in the skull. A vacuum device is then used to suck out the infant’s brains. The baby is then conveniently and “officially” a “non-viable fetus” which can be discarded like a used Kleenex. The baby feels pain during the procedure; the infant is essentially murdered.) Had the late-term abortion not been performed, the baby could have been delivered and breathing on its own. The “pro-choice” (pro-abortion) people argue that the process is acceptable as long as the baby has not been fully delivered. That is, it is okay to kill a baby as long as it is still in the birth canal, but not if it makes it out.
The acceptance of late-term abortions is the beginning of the slippery slope toward eugenics. How long will it be before, under ObamaCare, society is willing to accept pulling the plug on old people? Or aborting those fetuses that have a genetic predisposition toward diabetes or cancer that the federal government cannot afford to treat?
It isn’t simply about sex… although the author may use that argument to assuage his guilt over his support of an abominable practice.
Since we’re being honest about the issue, we need to both ban abortion and encourage more sex because, as a society, we need more babies. Babies are the engines of economic growth and the revenue fodder we need to survive the Baby Boom generation’s retirement.
Procreate, America!
Thanks for an excellent article, Zombie.
I have lately wondered why it is that the US Supreme Court believes that it is un-Constitutional to execute a man for the crime of rape, yet believes that the Constitution guarantees a right to execute the rapist’s offspring (so long as the execution takes place before that offspring is born)?
Not up to a full on abortion debate today, but I want to add something to the idea of being ‘anti-sex’. I’m a moderate conservative and I’m not ‘anti-sex’, I’m “anti-STUPID-sex”. It’s literally stupid (not foolish, reckless, or ill-advised) to just hook up with everyone that you fancy. Young teens have no business getting laid, at all when they haven’t lived long enough to even know what they truly believe yet, and have no real grasp of the consequences of their behavior. Older teens are probably going to do it for the wrong reasons, and if those reasons aren’t the same as their partner’s, look out here comes heart ache. Young people treating oral sex like it’s a handshake is about denial, not about a belief system. When you treat it as meaningless, eventually when you might want it to mean something, it won’t. Then you can add in older adults who fool themselves that ‘open relationships’ actually can be life long and all of that rot…or the very real ramifications on spouses, children, family and friends with marital infidelity…
None of the above has anything to do with the possibility of getting pregnant or the prevelance of STDs, some of which are life threatening or potentially damaging to future reproduction.
So yeah, there IS such a thing as ‘stupid sex’. There is a whole boatload of stupid sex happening these days. You don’t even have to go moralistic about it, you can just talk about the ramifications and have enough ammunication to vote no for it.
Thing is, it was always considered stupid and ill-advised, and that is why societies and cultures over the millenia have come up with laws and prescrptions and rules as to an individual’s behavior in this area. It wasn’t just to please a ‘god’ in the sky, it was also all about just not engaging in stupid rutting that wasn’t life enhancing in the long run.
There is nothing new under the sun, what is new is the jargon that we use to discuss it. But you can call stupid anything that you want to, but given the limitations of the human response, it’s still stupid.
Zombie_chan, this is sillie.
Abortion is a dead issue, and Angle is just using it to flame up the ‘slines.
You won’t be able to strike down Roe until 2016 at the earliest…..you cannot change the court composition.
And by then we will buying bene tleilax hostwombs from the Japanese….the j-neticists have been doing full term goat embryos for years.
Full term human ectogenesis! think of it! all those unwanted fetuses can be saved and adopted into good xian families!
So good conservative xian families can adopt all those late term genetic anomalies and incest fetuses and rapist spawn, raise them to full term in a host womb, and take them home and integrate them into their loving families.
you know that reproductive choice is the beating heart of feminism, mei mei.
if we can’t have control over our own bodies, we are slaves.
epic brilliance!
Not only a very interesting essay, but a fascinating discussion following. I myself am very reluctantly prochoice for the first trimester – very sadly, in recognizing the reality of the individual experiences I’ve come to know.
Amazingly, there are those who really believe that whatever is “sacred” only exists after the first breath is taken. I have not had the opportunity to ask them what they think about partial-birth abortion – something I find so repulsive and brutal I can hardly stand to think about it.
It was only touched on, but I’m also very interested in the correlation between pro-life attitudes and yet pro-capital punishment (please, I do already know the guilty vs. innocent argument).
I’ll weigh in. Abortion in any form for any reason is not murder. It is justified killing. And can be justified only by the mother, by virtue of being the one who must bear the burden. Should she? 100000 times yes Yes, we must go on as a species. Must she ? no.
So, re my comments above. The male gets no say? If you allow him to opt out of raising or supporting the child, I have no problem with your statement. However, if you are going to insist that he shares the financial burden, then I disagree with you. Your position is that a woman can remove the clump of cells for her convenience, yet insist on imposing an 18 year burden on the male.
“I’m one of those few people who know the difference between having an opinion and wanting my opinion forced on others against their will.”
I don’t know if you’ll ever read this, but Thank God! There are so few out there. I am also personally anti-abortion, but I do not wish to make it illegal for this specific purpose: I do not know of an appropriate punishment for breaking the law.
And a law without consequence for its breaking is detrimental to the notion of the Rule of Law, so therefore, it should not be illegal. Despite it being, in my opinion, morally and ethically wrong.
But yes, great article, thank you for elucidating this particular point. I’ve had trouble with it myself.
Hmmm, never thought about the sex angle before, I suppose it could hold true for some “pro-lifers”.
However I think the majority of “pro-lifers” that support abortion with the rape/incest clause are doing so mainly for political or social reasons.
1.They think it will “sell” better to their constituents/friends or
2.they are afraid of coming off as harsh and uncompromising to their more liberal friends.
Quite frankly they lack the cajones to say “this is an unborn child in all circumstances, including rape and incest”.
I for one am the latter, however I went thru the first two I mentioned because I was trying not to offend or “appear” more resonable to my pro-choice friends.
It took getting older and more mature and braver for me to tell it like it is, at least from my standpoint, I child is a child, no matter how small or what their origins are.
So, while your arguement regarding sex as a driving factor may include some of the pro-lifers (that would exclude rape/incest), I do not think it covers the majority who are politically willing to sacrifice a few for the majority, or who are simply to scared to voice their real opinion: that abortion is always the killing of a pre born child.
” Allowing a rape-and-incest exception to any abortion ban essentially means we are willing to punish the children for the sins of the father. ”
It is statements like the above that over simplify a complex issue.
Abortion is always a tragedy. On that most would agree. Saving the life of the mother, under real circumstance, is also something most would agree upon.
In cases of rape where a woman may experience such extreme mental anguish that she herself is unable to go on living, where her existing family and children are made to suffer a burden that is too much for them, where a woman must live with the experience of her attack facing her daily or live knowing she has been robbed of her ” selfness ” and her attackers face will be forever combined with her own, who has the right to demand that such suffering go on?
In cases of incest much the same may apply.
While it is easy to ask others to sacrifice for ones owns ideals its is inhuman to demand that of them.
The most sane and realistic approach to abortion is to understand that abstract arguments can not overwhelm individual circumstances.
Just think of some of the hot-button political issues and social problems that would not even *exist* if sexual attraction between people did not exist. Scratch:
Sex education in the schools
Condoms in schools
Unwanted pregnancies
Abortion & Parental notification
Gay marriage
Discrimination based on “sexual orientation”
The load on the court system, correctional, and psychiatric institutions would be greatly reduced. Society could be more focused on positive things. The only point I am making is that it’s pretty much impossible to say that “it’s not about sex”. It’s more about a society that places *way* too much importance on sex.
But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed.
Zombie, this is false.
It is not dishonest to say a) abortion always kills an innocent human fetus,
b) abortion is always morally wrong (when the life of the mother is not unduly at risk),
c) abortion should usually, but not always, be illegal,
d) abortion should always be counseled against, but sometimes the woman should be allowed to choose it. Adoption is always a better option.
Not everything wrong should be equally made illegal.
Lying is wrong, it shouldn’t usually be illegal.
Any pro-life politician, faced with the current culture, can make the calculation that it is politically better to get 90% of the abortions made illegal or much more difficult, and win an election, rather than lose because of being too “pure.”
Science says YOU began your life at conception, when the DNA of your father combined with the DNA of your mother.
It’s up to politics to say how much human rights should a very small, young, human fetus enjoy.
I favor human rights for every human fetus.
And the UN is doing terrible in Darfur, allowing genocide — but calling it not-genocide.
Reply To kipling
Put up or shut up. Since you are a moral relativist as you call me, then you should support the death penalty or life imprisonment for any woman who aborts on her own or pays the one to do it.
That is the only position that follows from your absolute morality. So, either own up to it or explain why this kind of murder is an exception.
I will answer your question if you will please demonstrate where, in any of my posts, I have exercised moral relativism.
Moral relativism means that there are no absolute standards of morality and that standards of moraliy are relative to each individual. It does not mean that one does not draw distinctions based upon the situation or circumstances. For example, it is not moral relativism to draw a distinction between cold bloodied murder and the killing of an enemy during war. It is moral relativism to say that abortion is okay for those who believe in it and not okay for those who don’t. Based upon your posts, you seem confused about the differences.
Let me go ahead and answer your question so that you will not claim I am dodging you and thus refuse to answer my question.
Yes, I do support a criminal penalty for those who have an abortion or commit an abortion. Do I think that punishment should be a mandatory death penalty or life imprisonment as you claim? No.
In your post, you accuse me of being a moral relativst and of following a concept of absolute morality. It is logically impossible to do both. So which is it?
man my head is spinning:
“Yes, I do support a criminal penalty for those who have an abortion or commit an abortion.”
but you also proposed some very sensible solutions where it wouldnt be against the law, at least federally?
Soooo which is it?
It is both. Politics is often the art of the possible.
Let us look at it this way. You and I both have a series of five changes that we would like to see occur in regard to abortion and the role of governmnt. We both agree on the first three changes but not on the remaining two. I am willing to go with the first three to advance both of our positions and to move the debate away from the liberal / leftist position. If I do not get all 5, at last I have 3 out of 5. It is not a compromise of my belief but a willingness to move forward together.
It also puts the lie to the left’s claim that it just another medical proceedure when in fact they treat it as a priveleaged medical proceedure.
soooo you are willing and able to compromise but its not “your” ideal end result.
Ok then..that is much the way i think.
We have an ideal but willing to compromise. Plus i dont see it so much as a compromise but a very reasonable and sensible solution. It just makes “sense” lol..which may confuse many!
Many times on blogs like these we post our most “ideal” way of thinking and our ability to “compromise”(read:sensible solutions) donst bleed into our discourse.
Once again..i am ALL for your solution you posted before.
You are right. It is not compromise if we agree on the initial steps and take those steps. Even if neither one of us reaches our desired end goal, we are closer to it and further from the leftist position.
“…..you should support the death penalty or life imprisonment for any woman who aborts on her own or pays the one to do it.
That is the only position that follows from your absolute morality. So, either own up to it or explain why this kind of murder is an exception.”
Len,
speaking for myself, my desire is for the public to come to understand the dreadful nature of abortion. It is a woman’s decision as long as there is public doubt about the nature of the ‘fetus’, ‘unborn child’, however each side refers to it. While there is doubt, those who know that it is a human child are at various levels of outrage and sorrow over the many millions of human deaths we have WILLINGLY visited upon ourselves through policy, much of which btw is dreadfully racist and genocidal. Look up Margaret Sanger and ask yourself why most PP ‘clinics’ are in inner cities.
For myself, my ‘absolute morality’ does not include demanding the most severe punishment (penalty for murder, etc) of someone who does not know, honestly does not understand, that she has done something wrong. My morality is what informs me that an unborn child is a person, and it took me years of considering it and many experiences at various distances from it in order to fully ‘get it’. Not everyone does.
The sad part is, there are many millions of dollars to be made in this industry, even MORE now that government is wading into the stream and committing tax dollars directly to it as ‘health care’. as long as money is made from doing it, there is an incentive to misinform, distract and be disingenuous about it. Honesty in the public discussion is thus hard to find.
As a Christian man, I believe God has a special place in hell for those who deliberately misinform in order to make money from killing children. For the true believer in the right to abortion, not so much. But in my experience it’s hard to make it through your whole life as a believer. I was once married to a woman who took her doctor’s advice and terminated a pregnancy that ‘came too quickly after the previous one’, and thus somehow threatened the development of the fetus or some such. Sounded rational to her, except years later she’d see a school playground and start crying. She’d say ‘my kid would be that age about now’. And I KNEW that in her heart she had understood that she made a decision to kill her own child, that it was clear to her and caused her great sorrow, and great guilt as well. She believed she did what was right, but her own heart and soul convicted her of the crime in the end. Her business, not mine, except I was in a relationship scarred by this, and it harmed us, and we didn’t make it.
You learn from your time as a human being. Many women regret abortions which were honestly chosen out of a firm belief in their rightness at the time. Guilt creeps in later, along with wisdom. It’s not about the punishment, it’s about making people UNDERSTAND.
I just wanted to say thank you for very publicly stating something I have been attempting to make clear to friends who are keen on exceptions to the rule so to speak. I am an abortion is 100% murder in any and all cases no if’s, and’s, or but’s. However, I always appreciate anyone who can clearly and honestly state their opinion whether I agree or not. In this instance, while I may not agree with Zombie politically, I can’t count my “exactly’s” or thoughts of someone who gets the frustration with “my kind.”
I “preached” abortion is murder in all instances for years, and never thought my views would be challenged. However, in spring 2005 during my sophomore year of college I learned I was pregnant. I was 2 years into my pre-med program…fulfilling my lifelong dream of becoming a cardiothoracic surgeon. It was certainly the last thing I needed or wanted in my life at that time.
I had plenty of challenging experiences thrown at me-more than the typical 20 year old including but certainly not limited to watching my dad slowly die for nearly 10 years of constant heart problems. I can still say to this day and probably until the day I die holding to my personal convictions was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I nearly failed out of college because of how emotionally, mentally, and physically miserable I was. I had to give up on medical school because not a school in the nation would take me with the grades I accumulated those semesters. I constantly had a war going on in my head of what to do. To my at the time boyfriend for months I called the baby a parasite-anything to keep it impersonal. I was bitter.
However, on December 22 Jaxon was born. December 26, in an open adoption, some of the most loving and joyful people I know got one of the best Christmas presents a person could ask for. I don’t write this with the intention of changing minds but to remind people in this never ending debate not to forget one of the most wonderful alternatives available. Furthermore, on a much larger scale, always make sure no matter what side of any issue you stand, make sure you know why you’re there. When you least expect it, one of your deepest held convictions could be put to the test in the most extreme way.
One last thought to make you go “hmm.” My boyfriend at the time was adopted himself with just about the same situation-2 college kids that didn’t mean to get pregnant and not in the proper place in their life to try to take care of someone else. Without his biological parents making the choice to give him up for adoption instead of abortion, most obviously he wouldn’t be alive but the potential for Jaxon’s life would be impossible.
zombie, as a fellow pro-choicer, I agree 100% and I’ll go you one better: It is hypocritical of so-called pro-lifers to demur on prosecuting the mothers in their proposed anti-abortion laws. As of now, they scrupulously avoid this, making it illegal to perform an abortion and pointedly insisting that no one means to lock up a teenage girl or a mother of six who has an abortion.
Why? By the pro-lifers’ logic, these women not only qualify as murderers; their crime has the special circumstances of premeditation and abduction. They should be subjected to capital punishment.
arhooley,
again, the emphasis is on the wrong thing here.
I know that women who have abortions do not KNOW they are “killing, murdering their own children”. Most believe is is right and not immoral and not a crime against anyone.
But part of the REASON they believe this is because immoral people are playing them to make the money from the abortion mills. The argument is not honestly conducted. Instead, like you, people go to the worst possible outcome point and stand there pointing fingers saying “you want all these 17 year old scared girls to go to prison for life or go to the electric chair, you !@#$%^&s!!!”
No.
What I’d like to see is an honest extended public discussion, absent the financial interests and the political grandstanding, of whether an unborn child is a human being. That would entail studying what a human being IS, what it means to be a person who has the right not to be murdered, and it would require an explanation from the pro abortion side as to when ‘personhood’ arrives in the process and what that arrival IS, so that science can witness it, experiments can repeat it, and humanity can relax and say “it’s not human until XXX so we can keep doing abortions without being guilty of murder”.
We all have the right not to be murdered. Our founders put it in the papers. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
The only question is, when is a fetus part of “we”? When is it a person?
I have encountered no rational argument that personhood arrives at some later date than the day the unique DNA code is created. Few people even TRY to make that argument, which is why it’s clouded in ‘women’s rights’, as if a woman has the right to MURDER A SEPARATE PERSON. The question is “IS IT A PERSON?”.
The formation of the unique DNA is a very finite moment, before which nothing new exists and after which the code for the entire life of the organism is written and being executed each day.
Those who insist that personhood is something different are welcome to step up and explain it. But they don’t. And because they don’t, the default rational position should be to give the benefit of the doubt and not kill the POSSIBLE person.
Killing it is a decision that can be made only by someone CONVINCED it is not a person. that conviction should come with an argument that person understands and will defend. Often, though, we learn the conviction is just a parroting of what that person has heard other people say, and if you follow the parrots, you get to politicians and medical types who are funneling money to each other.
I’m just sayin’.
P.S. zombie, you’ve either been reading my mind, or my blog!
http://maltesegirls.blogspot.com/2009/12/kill-trig.html
That was a mistake of calling you a moral relativist(whatever that means)–typo error-you are the absolutist; i am the relativist supposedly. It should have had “not” before it.
Abortion is murder, you say. More accurately, you would like it to be murder. Murder is a legal term and is decided in a country like ours by the voters thru the legislative process. I would like you try to get any legislature in this country or any western country to define it as murder; never in the past was it deemed murder.
So it would accurate for you to say that abortion should be considered murder under the criminal law and then go about convincing your fellow citizens. So from now on, don’t call it murder; say, it should be considered murder. You get the difference.
We have the term infanticide which was practiced way back under conditions of insufficient food supply. IF we take your absolute position, that should have been called murder and the family which did so should have been punished. That is what is wrong with absolutist position; you can’t judge act without looking at the motives etc. In the case of infanticide where food is in short supply, it is chosen at least worst alternative; that is one death vs many deaths because of insufficient food.
You miss the point about rape and incest. Yes, this accounts for a very small per centage of abortions. And the point you miss is that about 90% give a pass for abortion in those cases. And yet these same people would not approve of killing the borne child of rape or incest. That should tell you something. And that something is that for 90 per cent or so, what is inside the womb is not quite same value what is outside. IT does not mean it has no signficant value, but just not the same value as outside the womb. You are arguing it should have the same value. And you will base your position on having the same genetic material and stuff like that. That is an argument. But that kind of argument in and of itself does not necessarily to how we assign value. After all, the value of liberty is not based on science; it is based on the experience of particular culture which led them to these concepts. It evolved.
Tskr the case of Terry Shiavo and others similarily situated. They have the same genetic material before they came into the vegetative state. In a triage situation, she goes to the bottom of list.
Take the situation of a fire in a hospital where at one end you have embryos ready to be implanted and assume 100% that they will take and eventuate in borne children; and on the other side of the hospital, you have just borne babies in good health; and time is such that you can only save on wing of the hospital; which do you choose. Do you flip a coin. My guess is that most choose to save the borne babies. All that says is that there is a different value for most of us on being borne and not being borne. IT does not mean there is no value to embryos; it is just not the same value.
So for a moral point of view there should a good reason, not willy nilly, to abort. What is a good reason. That is hard to define. Views will differ.
THe more important point that you avoid is that strict abortion laws only impact the the poorer people; the less educated. Those with money and smarts will also have an abortion option as was the case before Roe.
So here you are. You can’t convince any state to make it a crime for a woman with even a month in jail. WE have a situation where decent people disagree. The pro-choice people as is the author of the post are not monsters in their everyday life. And when you have such a disagreement it is a matter of conscience in which the state should not impose itself. Fair enough for you and others who think like you to convince others and when you do that such that it is no longer in dispute, then fine/
Abortion and liberty. I live in a big city–Philadelphia. A week does not go by when you pick up the paper and someone is shot including our police. 99% of the time the culprits come from dysfunctional families; single parent families on the dole. The situation is such that most white people do not use the public schools; if they have money, private schools; not much money, catholic schools. Much better from my point of view and my liberty if people who are not equiped to raise good citizens would abort. By not aborting, my liberty is affected in higher taxes to pay for irresponsible behavior; extra police, private schools. I should make itclear I am not advocating force abortion nor am I saying that being poor per se is the problem; it is a culture of dependence and a culture that does allow for good citizenship. And choosing to abort when you cannot raise children properly not only may help those to get out of the dependence and dysfunctional life style but it will lower the cost of govt; increase public safety and hence increase the liberty of other citizens.
Let me take your points one at a time.
1. I am not an absolutionist. At least not in the sense that I think you are defining the term. I do believe in an absolute standard of morality (right and wrong) that applies to everyone, everywhere. As I mentioned in my previous response, I do believe that distinctions can be made based on circumstances, i.e. cold blooded murder is not the same as killing the enemy in a time of war.
2. I define it as murder because that is how Scripture defines the wanton killing of the innocent. Since Scripture predates the U.S. legal system, I have a prior claim on the term. The problem is not that the standard of Scripture does not line up with the U.S. legal system but that the U.S. legal system does not line up with the standard of Scripture.
3. It has been deemed murder in the past and it has been called murder recently. In the Scott Peterson trial, he was convicted for the murder of the mother and her unborn child.
4. Infanticide is still with us today. It is practiced in China when the infant is a girl. It is practiced in the United States in the form of abortion. The reason for infanticide today has nothing to do with necessity but whether or not the child is wanted. Does the fact that someone wants or not wants someone else determine the value of that person?
5. The value people place on a fetus does not determine the value of the fetus. We are not talking about the market principle of how to determine the price of beef in Texas. We are talking about human life. What if the elderly become less valuable to a majority of the people? Does that mean we will go to euthanasia? It is already a means test in Obamacare so don’t tell me it cannot happen.
6. Your comparison in the Terri Schiavo case, to hospital triage, and to a hospital fire are far-fetched at best. Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive. Her parents were willing and able to foot the bill. Instead, for reasons of his own, the husband had her murdered. Are we in a hospital situation where we have to triage patients to determine life and death? Please note that triage does not intentionally assign people to death but makes a judgment on priority of treatment. The goal is to treat them all if resources and time allow. Are we out of resources and time? Hospital fire? Really? The judgment in triage and your hospital fire scenario has nothing to do with the value of the individual but the allocation of resources in a time of crisis.
7. Funny how the weak and defenseless always get the short end of the stick. I thought we as a society and a civilization had moved beyond the survival of the fitest. I thought civilization protected us from jungle law and the natural state of man.
8. If abortion is wrong what does it matter if it only impacts the poor. And since when can someone not be charged with a crime committed outside a specific legal jurisdiction? Does the fact that someone evades the law mean that the law itself is flawed or that the morality behind it is flawed? If so then please name for me a law that everyone agrees with and that no one tries to evade.
9. For something to no longer be in dispute, how many people do I need to convince? 100%, 51%, or somewhere inbetween? Does this standard apply to all laws or just to those that might restrict abortion?
10. You last paragraph marks you as a liberal. You show no recognition of personal responsibility but blame the environment. Yes, 100% of criminal were once children and if we abort 100% then there will be no crime in the future. Hardly an acceptable solution. How about we attack the flawed judicial and educational system rather than trying to abort the problem?
Reply to Kyle–the above post also a reply to kyle.
Let me put you to the test of your absolute position. So here you are working in some Islamic country where as you desire for the US, abortion is a crime. Murder as you would like. Information comes into your hands that a moslem woman next door to you in your hotel had an abortion. You have solid evidence. Pictures.
So, now being the absolutist that you are, do you go the authorities to report this murder. Suppose the punishment; death. Suppose the punishment 1 year in prison. Suppose the punishment, 100 lashes.
Put your absolutism to the test.
The same exact scenario happened to me last week and twice on July 1. Where do you get this stuff?
Your philosophical problem is that you start from that absurd extreme and then work your way back to the foundational truths. Now either you have adopted this as your mode of thinking to support your own moral relativism or it is an intellectual trick. I have used the trick myself in trying to get students to think through possible eventualities. I have however not went to the extremes you go.
If it is your mode of thinking, then you are going to have serious problems because you ignore the foundations for the statistically improbable. It is like asking a father who opposes infanticide which child will he eat first if stranded on a desert island without food. You also touch issues that you yourself fail to consider. For example, do I consider the Islamic regime to be a legitimate government? Am I required to report the findings? Etc.
Besides, I have already said that I do not support mandatory death sentences or life imprisonment for the crime of abortion. I do however think it needs to be outlawed and carry a criminal penalty.
This was a very thought provoking article and comments. The point about respecting an honest politician even if you disagree with them is important. It’s much easier to deal with someone if you know where they stand than to deal with someone whose positions change with the political wind.
I’ll agree with Zombie that I’m reluctantly pro-choice. Abortion is never a good option but I don’t feel I have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own body. A fetus is a potential human being but until it reaches viability it is totally dependent on one woman and that woman is directly affected by it. A woman is more than an incubator and has the right to weigh all her options and make the best choice for her particular circumstances and then live with her decision.
Morality can’t be legislated. Forcing someone to do the right thing doesn’t make them moral. Until we strengthen the morality of our society we won’t reduce the number of abortions. Only by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies will we do that. I agree with comments above that there should be no special funding or other considerations for abortion. If women have to take responsibility for that decision at least some will think twice. But that should be the conservative/libertarian view anyway that people should be responsible for their actions and not dependent on the state.
Absolute restrictions will not stop those who don’t care about the moral issue but it will create unnecessary pain and risk for those who do care but find themselves in bad situations. Yes, many abortions are performed due to carelessness or for frivolous reasons. But many others are performed after much consideration and/or for medical reasons. Every attempt should be made to offer support and alternatives but ultimately I don’t see how anyone can make the final decision except the pregnant woman.
Focusing on the abortion issue is the wrong debate anyway. We need to refocus the discussion on individual rights and responsibilities so people, especially young people, think more about how their choices affect the rest of their lives so they make better choices. Also, if they’re taught to have more respect for themselves and their potential they may be less likely to depend on sexually affirmation or dependency.
Having experienced a full term stillbirth I fully understand the idea that an unborn child can be considered a living human being. However it also means I fully appreciate that until a child is born and takes it’s first breath there are no guarantees and it’s still only a potential human being. It’s that dependency of the fetus on the mother that makes me feel it’s ultimately her decision and certainly not some regulation that should make that decision.
” Morality can’t be legislated. ”
There are Ten Commandments not Ten Suggestions.
” Forcing someone to do the right thing doesn’t make them moral. ”
Making moral choices is learned not natural. Sometimes force is absolutely required. I do not mean at gunpoint although that is sometimes necessary. More often than not it is societal or familial influences. Morality is manifested by action.
“Morality can’t be legislated.” Then we need to remove all the laws against murder, theft, etc.
”Forcing someone to do the right thing doesn’t make them moral.” The purpose of the law is not to promote the good but to restrain the evil. Churches, religion, philosophy, etc, deal with moral reformation. The law is designed to put the hammer down when someone crosses the line.
The goal of anti-abortion laws is not to make pro-abortion people moral but to keep them from killing the unborn.
You may not be able to legislate personal peity but you can morality.
Indiscriminate use of the word “lying” is, in and of itself, a form of lying. I appreciate the need for exaggeration to get people’s attention, but our political discourse is poisoned by rampant misuse of such terms. “Being disingenuous” is a great phrase that describes what goes on with individuals and groups who feel the need to justify or rationalize abortion, but I guess that doesn’t make for good press.
Applying the term “murder” to abortion falls in the same category, it’s a great inflammatory attention-getter, but this does not provide for serious discussion of serious issues. There are plenty of other nouns and verbs that can accurately describe the act and associated motivations when a person decides to end a pregnancy.
Zombie, this is an excellent essay and you have completely failed to make an enemy out of me. We’re on opposite sides of the abortion debate, but in this essay, you laid everything out logically and sensibly. I don’t think there’s much point in politicians talking about abortion, unless asked a question about it. The issue is so emotional that I don’t think there’s a way to come up with a political solution. I think it will take persuasion because it is a moral question and those can’t generally be settled with shouting.
Abortion is emotional for pro-lifers because seeing people get away with murder is bound to cause some blood pressures to raise.
Abortion is emotional for pro-choicers, because they make it emotional, because they don’t base their positions on logic. If they kept it factual, they would be destroyed. So they twist it around like good little leftists.
Prospective mothers who have an abortion are not murderers, they are co-victims of a society that doesn’t support them.
No, you demean them by calling them victims because, by doing that, you deny they are rational sentient beings capable of understanding the possible consequences of their chosen course of action.
They chose to participate in an activity where one of the possible consequences is pregnancy. Period. That doesn’t make them a ‘victim’ of anything. It makes them human beings who made a choice. Deliberately. That choice had consequences.
Now, whether they are murderers or not goes back to when does the clump of cells become a human being.
Take us back to the time when pregnancy was a privilege and not a “consequence”.
Depends on your paradigm. For some, it is not just a privilege, but an almost miraculous gift and blessing, cautiously sought after with trepidation contemplation of the responsibility.
If sex is simply a recreational activity that people have every right to engage in thoughtlessly, with no expectation of restraint- than pregnancy is a consequence.
If sex is the furthering of an intense bond, a cementing of commitment to a carefully developed relationship between two people, who approach sex almost reverentially in acknowledgement for it’s potential to create human life. And therefore another bond and enduring commitment between those two people in their concern for and care for that created life. Then yes, pregnancy is not simply a privilege it is an honor and a joy.
Well said. “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” — Psalm 127:3
BTW, in keeping with your prior post, I thought consequence was a nice non-judgemental term? My apologies if it came off as insensitive or offensive in some way.
Zombie, I’m a hard-line pro-lifer and agree with Angle. It may cost her or gain her a few votes but I don’t think this election is about abortion. The next few elections are all going to be about fiscal issues. While I myself would like to see more politicians like Angle with their stance on abortion, correcting the fiscal issues I think is more urgent at this point.
‘dependency of the fetus on the mother that makes me feel it’s ultimately her decision’
No. I unconditionally reject this. It is not her personal right to choose to abort the life of her dependent fetus any more than it is to drown her dependent one month old. If there is not proof that her own life is threatened by carrying a fetus to the gestational status of surviving outside the womb – in which case she has the right to choose to exercise the legal position of self-defense – then it is pre-mediated murder no different from drowning her one month old.
And after reading through the thread I think it’s also time to chime in with my rejection of the distinction between a full human being and the fetus as a potential human being. That is a false dichotomy and one of the most repellent ethical obfuscations that has been injected into the debate about abortion on demand. There is nothing ‘potential’ about a fetus. A growing and thriving human being is no different as a fetus than as a growing thriving one month old baby other than the developmental stage. Both are entirely dependent on other human beings for sustenance, protection, and maintenance with the only difference being degree. Either would die without those efforts being provided on their behalf.
So what is the difference between a mother choosing to kill an inconvenient one month old – indisputably considered a horrendous crime – and choosing to abort a inconvenient fetus – the pro-choice right to an unfettered lifestyle that a progressive morality believes she should have?
Is the difference that the fetus doesn’t visibly struggle and cry out against it’s murder for convenience by it’s mother’s choice like a one month old would?
“So what is the difference between a mother choosing to kill an inconvenient one month old – indisputably considered a horrendous crime – and choosing to abort a inconvenient fetus – the pro-choice right to an unfettered lifestyle that a progressive morality believes she should have?”
The mother is not the only one who could possibly take care of a one month old. The baby can be given up for adoption. A one month old baby is no longer physically a part of her body. Trying to equate killing a one month old with an abortion is being dishonest. Your beliefs may value that fetus just as highly as the one month old but realistically their conditions for survival are not the same.
We should do everything possible to discourage abortion and most importantly encourage behavior that reduces the number of people put in the position of having to make the decision. That’s where the real battle should be but it’s a lot easier to just outlaw abortion so that’s where the battle has focused.
If we can force a woman to carry a baby to term against her will when do we start forcing people to donate blood or kidneys to save the lives of those in need? If rights of the fetus, which cannot survive outside it’s mother’s womb, trump that mother’s right to decide what she considers is best for her situation, why can’t someone who needs blood or a kidney demand that someone else donate to save their life?
I’d love to live in a world where no woman ever felt the need to have an abortion. But the reality we face is that in addition to those that use abortion as birth control and a way to avoid being inconvenienced, there are also those that end up facing that decision despite doing their best to avoid it or facing serious medical issues.
If I believed that every woman that has an abortion does so solely to live an unfettered lifestyle free of inconvenience I might agree to a ban on abortion. Unfortunately life is not that straightforward and there are too many cases that blur the lines. Having dealt with the tragedy of stillbirth I’m familiar with too many things that can go wrong during the time when a fetus is considered at least possibly viable outside the mother’s womb. During early pregnancy when there is no chance of a viability outside the mother’s womb there are even more uncertainties. Therefore I can’t help but recognize the difference between the two situations.
I respect individual rights and recognize that with those rights come responsibilities. I don’t feel I have the right to tell someone else what they can do with their own body. I don’t feel I have the right to force someone to donate a kidney or bone marrow or part of their liver to a family member or other individual that happens to be a genetic match even if that’s the only way to save their life. I would hope they would be willing to take the risk and help of their own accord, but I won’t force them to do it. Therefore, I don’t feel I can force a woman to use her body to carry a baby to term. Again, I would hope she would make that choice and would encourage her to do so but I don’t feel I can force her.
My husband is alive today only because a stranger was willing to donate bone marrow so he could receive a bone marrow transplant. Although donating bone marrow is relatively safe, there are risks involved, just like there are risks involved in pregnancy. Neither my husband nor myself would have been willing to force someone to donate that bone marrow and put themselves at risk for his sake. But we’re extremely grateful that someone was willing to take that risk.
‘The mother is not the only one who could possibly take care of a one month old. The baby can be given up for adoption. A one month old baby is no longer physically a part of her body. Trying to equate killing a one month old with an abortion is being dishonest. Your beliefs may value that fetus just as highly as the one month old but realistically their conditions for survival are not the same.’
Their conditions for survival is not the issue. The point is that both are wholly dependent on nurturing for survival. The ethical question is whether it is the right of the mother to choose whether a viable human being lives or dies. There is no adoption option for the fetus.
One after another I read the pro-choice advocates bring up that a fetus is only a collection of cells and so may be disposed of when inconvenient. What the hell are we? When are we ‘inconvenient’. Or, the fetus is ‘only a potential human being’, and so not subject to homicide. Or, the societal impact of unwanted babies brought to term justifies the mother choosing to abort a life. And so on. All the pro-choice arguments and not once do they acknowledge the ethical void that extinguishing a growing, viable human being entails. The mother chooses to abrogate responsibility, the fetus has no choice but to die.
Living ethically either as an individual or as a society is not conditional. It does not allow for exceptions when it is convenient.
I said it up above and I will repeat it here. Societal acceptance and governmental encouragement of abortion has and will set the stage for a holocaust where the numbers will dwarf the numbers in the holocausts committed in the 20th century. And the historians of the future who look back on our age will condemn abortion on demand as vigorously as they will every other holocaust against the innocent that the progressive left has perpetrated, whether it be under the guise of communism, fascism, or liberalism.
Does the left believe that we should be able to CHOOSE how to allocate and invest our retirement savings? No, they force us to to pay into a failing social security system. Does the left believe we should be able to CHOOSE how or where to educate our children? No, they force us to pay taxes to support mediocre public schools while offering no vouchers to use our tax dollars for schools of our choice. Does the left believe we should be able to CHOOSE how to select and pay for our own medical care? No, they force us into government-run Obamacare, since clearly the elites know what we need better than we do. No, the left is not pro-choice. They are, however, very much pro-abortion. It is sinful how the left has co-opted the language to mask their true intentions.
By the way, why don’t pro-lifers couple every mention of abortion with the destruction of embryos in IVF? These labs are embryo killing fields, no?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_inco.htm
Emma: I am glad you will choose to keep your baby. it is very clear to me that a 15 year old blogging on a site like this instead of tweeting and facebook… must be very smart and mature. but not ebveryone is as smart or as responsible as you and from what I gather you seem to come from a home with excellent family values and that too is not the case for others.as I live very close to Newark,NJ whose scools are the worst in the country and the family values are non existant. However what is good for you may not be good for someone else.
Christopher: this whole notion of pro abortion or anti abortion is nothing but a bunch of political bull s… for politicains and a abunch of over zealot religious people whose only mission is to see whose C…is in whose mouth and who is f….ing who..abortion is simply a medical procedure just like any other medical procedures. niether the states, nor federal government nor any f……ing religoin or legislator or any courts has the right to force this issue down in a woman’s throat. as for sex education, if this is firmly in place we would not be having this conversation now, would we. and I can see all these young women pregnant in and around Newark, NJ, Irvington, NJ who live in some of the poorest and beleeagured neigberhoods in the country with no job, who do you think is going to pay for it. let’s take a guess? states and federal government. which means your and my tax $$$$. since all of you neo cons are against wefare and social spending and want smaller government, then wake the f….up to reality and stop getting into peoples ppants and promote eductation not legislation. so to that matter Zombie’s article is meaningless..
Miriam Rove, all I can say is that your position on abortion is completely consistent with your position on the middle east — premised solely on what is convenient and devoid of any respect for life or truth.
Since you claim abortion is simply a medical proceedure like all other medical proceedures, I assume you support the removal of all the special priveleages surrounding the proceedure. If it is a simple medical proceedure, then we should 1) enforce full disclosure laws on abortion clinics like all other clinics; 2) require parental notification because no other medical procedure can be performed without parental consent; 3) and refuse federal funding or at least conduct it on the same basis as other proceedures. Do you support all these things?
I reiterate my questions for the Pro-Life side, hoping someone have the testicles to answer to them:
What would be the right penalty for a woman aborting?
Because there can not be prohibition without a penalty.
If you ban abortion and, for some miracle, women start to give birth all of their unwanted children, do you force them to take care of their children or allow them to leave them to the care of the government?
If life and personhood start at conception, are you willing to give citizenship to all embrios conceived in the US by illegal aliens? Or do you want change the law about citizenship before banning abortion?
Because I see a huge loophole opening here.
In a few years (I don’t know how many, but surely not more than a couple of decades) we will have artificial uterus able to gestate a zygote until a healthy birth. What would you do if I create 10.000 zygotes, then put them in these artificial uterus and then turn all of the laboratory to the government because I have not the money to gestate all of them for the full nine months? Or I have not the money to raise them as my children? Do you feel your duty to pay for them?
What about the teenage girl described before, that had four (and maybe more) abortions?
Do you want her give birth to the babies and then turn them to the social services?
What prevent unprincipled people from having babies and, after the delivery, disowning them?
Do you support social services for teen mothers with babies out of the wedlock?
If not, are you punishing the babies with their mother?
Is it the government job to fund, with taxes, the upbringing of babies? All babies or only some?
Ok. I’ll play
1. Penalty for abortion would be sterilization for both the man and woman involved (unless man could prove he was unaware of the pregnancy or of the plan for and obtaining an abortion.)
2. Given your assumption that they give birth vice changing their conduct, allow them the choice of raising their children or putting them up for adoption.
I believe if abortion was not an option folks would change their conduct.
3. Consitution defines citizenship in terms of ‘born’ within the United States. So conception doesn’t qualify (Consistent with current practise that if they’re conceived in a foreign country but born in the US they are US citizens)
4. I would have made your lab scenario illegal; however treat the result people as any other people.
5. As far as teen girls, this situation already exsists to a large extent given the prevalance of single mom’s from the disintegration of the family. Many are supported by government programs.
Your last few lines aren’t as much about abortion as the more significant issue of individual responsibility vice state responsibility. The real answer to most of our ills is for individuals to take on responsibility for their actions. I.E. don’t screw around and have kids if you can’t afford to raise them. When society steps in and provides taxes to ‘save the victims’ from their decisions, we end up subsidizing stupidity and get more of it. I would point to the rounds of bailouts we’ve just gone through and the lack of change in institutional behavior. For example, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack again lowering loan standards…
Let us take your questions and scenarios one at a time.
1. Penalty: Why do you only want to penalize the woman and not the doctor and whole abortion industry that makes a fortune off the proceedure? For a doctor performing or assisting in the proceedure – except expicitly to save the life of the mother – the penalty should be loss of medical license and $20,000 fine. For the second offense, imprisonment for five years. For the woman, I advocate mandatory counseling, a fine, and a punishment suitable to circumstances for the first offense. For the second offense, imprisonment and/or a fine.
2. I recommmend a complete review of all adoption proceedures and a reduction in the red tape and cost involved. Right now we have an adoption system which actually discourages adoption and intentionally creates a greater problem than it solves. We should also remove all governmental support for child rearing and thus eliminate the welfare mom who collects a check for each child.
3. What does conception have to do with citizenship? However, I recommend a revision of the law to end the anchor baby problem. Simple solution: Born to an illegal = illegal.
4. You forgot the cyborg scenario. WHAT ABOUT THE CYBORG SCENARIO? How about we wait on the extremely improbable scenarios and deal with the situations that create 99.9% of the problem.
5. The penalty decided in #1 should minimize the repeat offenders.
6. Teen mothers with children out of wedlock: First, we need to stop encouraging sex outside of marriage. Second, institute mandatory testing to determine the father and then garnish the wages of both the mother and father to pay for the social services. Reduce restrictions to allow the church and other charitiable institutions to help solve the problem.
7. No it is not the job of the government to raise children or to fund the raising of children. However, the government already does this. I recommend we take steps to get the government out of the baby business.
Zombie, this was such an excellent essay that I had to break my rule of not posting to express my regard. (I’ve appreciated your earlier writings, just not enough to reply.)
I also want to express regard for most of the respondents for polite and erudite posts. I’d like to reiterate two points that have been made and ask a somewhat rhetorical question:
1) It’s obvious that many pro-lifers regard abortion as murder. You may disagree with them. You may use arguments such as, “murder is a societal definition,” or “what then is your position on [insert anything here],” but you will not dissuade them from their antipathy to the act.
2) GDT raises a great point: “What should the *federal* government [emphasis mine] do about it? … Can you feel passionately about an issue and AT THE SAME TIME recognize that there is no constitutional mandate for the government to act in support of that passion.”
Question for those of you who are pro-choice but want to exclude federal funding and be allowed to opt out of insurance plans that cover abortions:
Suppose half the women who now choose abortion decide instead to carry to term and put the child up for adoption. One can imagine that in a few years this “glut” of adoptable babies might overwhelm the number of qualified folks wanting to adopt. Would you favor federal funding of the care of these babies? By the same token, would you favor federal funding of the social workers who would explain to expectant mothers what their alternatives to abortion are?
I have a gut reaction that is opposed to federal funding of abortion. But I have a nurse friend who passionately argues that society pays a far higher financial and social cost for unwanted/unplanned babies.
Personally, I don’t like how the SCOTUS created a “right” to abortion by finding a right to privacy somewhere in the Constitution. If I were President I would demand that Congress enact legislation that repudiated Roe V. Wade *and* prohibited states from making abortion illegal. Said legislation must be in plain simple English, not longer that 3 pages. States would then be free to fund/not fund, determine when it is “too late” to abort, etc. I realize that wouldn’t “solve” anything, but at least the legislature would be saying to the SCOTUS, “Hey! *We* make laws, not you.”
(I also realize this would anger those who believe abortion is murder. Well, there are those who believe the death penalty is murder. Our society *has* to make choices. I strongly believe that a large majority of Americans would support the legislation I propose – at least, I believe a large majority of Americans would NOT want to see abortion made illegal. Like it or not, it seems to me that the legality of abortion is now a federal issue.)
I agree that the rape/incest exception doesn’t hold sway considering that a human life is involved, but that doesn’t mean that those who hold such a position are motivated by a desire to control other people’s sex life.
I know several people who hold such a view because they believe that EVEN THOUGH abortion kills a human being, such homicide may be justified if continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman to be retraumatized by the rape.
It’s very hard to overcome the emotional response that says that a woman who’s just been raped should have to carry the rapist’s child for 9 months and then go through the pain of an adoption or raise the child with the memory of his conception.
If we are intellectually honest we acknowledge that regardless of how horrific such a situation might be for the woman, the alternative is the intentional killing of a human being. Thus, the child’s right to life still supercedes the mother’s right to autonomy. It is counter-intuitive and doesn’t make for a great policy statement.
Though logic is on the 100% pro-life side, emotion is often with the compromise
“What would be the right penalty for a woman aborting?
Because there can not be prohibition without a penalty.”
As was the case prior to Roe, the penalty would rest with the doctor performing the abortion. It could range from losing his medical license to jail time depending on the individual state’s wishes.
“If you ban abortion and, for some miracle, women start to give birth all of their unwanted children, do you force them to take care of their children or allow them to leave them to the care of the government?”
Again, as was the case prior to Roe, and as is the case currently, a woman could relinquish her paternal rights.
“If life and personhood start at conception, are you willing to give citizenship to all embrios conceived in the US by illegal aliens? Or do you want change the law about citizenship before banning abortion?
Because I see a huge loophole opening here.”
I honestly don’t think that someone who can’t scrape up money to legally immigrate can afford the 20K it cost for IVF. Far easier to get knocked up by your boyfriend and hop over to El Paso. Sorry, this is really a non-issue.
“In a few years (I don’t know how many, but surely not more than a couple of decades) we will have artificial uterus able to gestate a zygote until a healthy birth. What would you do if I create 10.000 zygotes, then put them in these artificial uterus and then turn all of the laboratory to the government because I have not the money to gestate all of them for the full nine months? Or I have not the money to raise them as my children? Do you feel your duty to pay for them?”
You do realizet that this is impossible, right? The average IVF cycle only results in 3 embryos.
“What about the teenage girl described before, that had four (and maybe more) abortions?
Do you want her give birth to the babies and then turn them to the social services?
What prevent unprincipled people from having babies and, after the delivery, disowning them?”
Nothing. Of course, nothing prevents that from happening as the law currently stands. For the most part people don’t get pregnant for kicks just so they can turn around and abandon their child.
“Do you support social services for teen mothers with babies out of the wedlock?
If not, are you punishing the babies with their mother?”
I support any service that is used to help the mother out of poverty. All of our social programs need reform to better fit this model, but abortion has nothing to do with it.
“Is it the government job to fund, with taxes, the upbringing of babies? All babies or only some?”
No, it is the parent’s job to fund the upbringing of babies. If they can not perform these duties, adoption is always an option.
I charge you with being an intellectual coward! Look, I gave the scenario of you having evidence in a moslem country where abortion. You avoid the issue. Take a stand. Okay, you dont think the death penalty is called for; what about 100 lashes; suppose the penalty 10 lashes. Stop avoiding the issue. State the punishment you think appropriate. Anyone who is a murderer should not have children. Suppose the husband and wife conspired for the abortion and they already have 5 children.
We lock them and put the children in foster homes. After all it is murder. You avoid the concrete and I assume because it makes you look foolish and out of sync.
You vocabulary reminds me of hitler’s last words that German people were not worthy of him, hence, destroy the country. Absolutism at its best.
The other thing I fault you with is living in Plato’s caves. You have all these abstract notions that don’t contact with everyday living.
Then you go scripture. Which one. I suppose the OT and NT. So do you want to punish masturbation because scripture says so. Scripture says, dont eat pork.
I made a simple point which you can’t handle. And that was abortion is not murder until a legislature passes such a law; the assumption being that the legislature is responding to the common feelings of the people it represents. Right now smoking a joint in Ca is a crime; if the intiative passes it won’t be a crime.
You are a coward. Come out say it should be murder and the penalty should be ?. Say it. Say it, that if the wife and husband cooperate in the abortion, both should go to jail; and if grandmother cooperates, she should go to jail. And further if they already have children, tough luck; they are to foster homes or adoption.
After all it is murder. Don’t throw words like a polliticians. If you believe what you say, then go for it. I don’t think you have the courage of your verbal convictions; emphasis on verbal.
I believe in individual responsiblity. What does that have to do with with an uneducated, potential incompetent parent being forced to continue a pregancy assuming she has some smarts to want to abort. I end up and you end up paying for crime; the terrible schools etc. So by preventing abortion for this class of people you end up promoting irresponsiblity in that you and me pick up the tab for the crime; for the extra police, for increased cost of our schooling because the schools are not safe or good places. By preventing abortion for that class of people we are encouraging irresponsiblity and decreasing our own safety etc.
You don’t care. Fine. But dont give the nonsense are responsibility.. Take a trip to Detroit and see what it is like when people who are not like you, produce children.
Thank God, you are only words. Imagine if people like you were in power. You sound like the Islamists.. Scripture and all.
I am still waiting for something concrete. What is the punishment you desire. Come on. Take a stand.
Did you even read the rest of my post? Let me ask you the same question that I asked Mirco. Why are you intent on only punishing the woman involved and not the doctor nor the industry that make a fortune off of the proceedure? Why does the federal government – through its funding of Planned Parenthood – actually counsel people to buy the services of the abortion doctor and the money-making industry that has grown up around it?
As to your question, I have already answered it. I do not support mandatory death sentences or life imprisonment but I do support some kind of criminal penalty based on the circumstances surrounding the case. Much in the same way as our courts draw a distinction between pre-meditated murder and man slaughter. Have I worked up a complete system? No. But it would be a mixture of mandatory counseling, fines, and jail time. The penalty would increase for repeat offenders. Perhaps I am not as harsh as you would like but society created the problem and no one individual should have to bear the brunt of the punishment as we reverse the trend. As to those who profit from the industry: At the first offense, the doctor looses his medical license and is fined $20,000. For the second offense, he goes to jail for 5 years. I am open to harsher punishments from those who profit from murder.
Your comparison to Hitler makes you look very foolish and extreme. You must forgive me for not answering you with the answers you want.
After the scenarios you came up with, I would not rush to accuse others of not being in touch with reality. Otherwise, I find a comparison to Plato to be a compliment. If you really understood his cave analogy, you would see the relationship between the ideal and reality.
As a Christian, Jesus brought an end to the ceremonial and dietary codes. The moral law still stands but not the others. I have to admit that I am not up on the code regarding self-pleasure so I will defer to your knowledge.
Many things which are legal are morally wrong. I hold to a code which predates the U.S. legal system. Nor am I to be swayed by the sentiment of the mob at any particular moment. Nor did the Founders institute a system that immediately changed to gratify the whims of the mob.
How does abortion promote responsibility? How does denying people the right to experience the consequences of their action a boon to promote responsibility? Why do you consider abortion the only option? What about adoption and personal charity? Society created this mess by promoting sex outside of marriage, by promoting consequence free sex, and then it found out that sex outside of marriage has huge consequences. Now it literally wants to throw those consequences in the trash. Aboriton is about not being held responsible for actions. It does not promote responsibility.
You accuse me of being like the Islamists but it is you who want to conduct a genocide based on who has the financial means to raise their children. I worked in the innercity for 5 years and I have seen first hand the distruction of the family in those areas when social liberals come to help by asking them to destroy their babies. You would have the poor slaughter their own children and yet you claim to fear me. It is you who advocate genocide to protect your own financial resources.
Since you raise the financial aspects, should we also slaughter the mentally challenged who live off the support of the state. After all, we would really had to impose upon your financial resources. What about the aged? The chronically sick? I think someone else – perhaps in German – made these same arguments.
I didn’t think to the doctor, because now the women can abort without the direct or indirect help of a doctor / nurse / whatever. For example, I know that Chinese women illegally in my country use large quantities of a legal and common drug to obtain an abortion. It is a bit more dangerous than the legal way to obtain it, but they take the risk anyway.
I would not support public finance of Planned Parenthood or any Pro-Choice or Pro-Life private group.
OK for the not mandatory death or life imprisonment sentences, but what penalty do you would meet?
I do support some kind of criminal penalty based on the circumstances surrounding the case. Much in the same way as our courts draw a distinction between pre-meditated murder and man slaughter. Have I worked up a complete system? No. But it would be a mixture of mandatory counseling, fines, and jail time. The penalty would increase for repeat offenders.
This imply, for what I understand, that you are unwilling to equate the killing of a born human and the killing of an unborn one. What is the difference from the two, apart from the born-unborn, that warrant a different treatment? I would like a rational explanation, not hand waving, because you are calling for the government to hold a very large power on the people.
What if the mother cause herself an abort because she is reckless? E.G. She drive U.I. of alcohol or other drugs, or she use drugs (legal or illegal, whatever) that cause the fetus or the embryo to abort, or the reverse, she don’t follow medical advice and don’t take the drugs that prevent her from having an abort?
I can understand the position of people that say “the human being and person start at conception”, but from this logically follow that whatever you do to a fetus or an embryo is punishable in the same way if you do it to a born individual (whatever is his/her age). So, if the mother take drugs that cause malformations and the death of the baby, she is responsible for aggravated bodily damage, neglect killing and so on.
I think you would need, at least, to put in the book a law that mandate the punishment of women that abort abroad as much as women that abort in the land. Then, what about the risk that a woman abort abroad? Do you prevent them from going abroad until they deliver?
This is like the affirmative action laws. You know what the proponent say this or that interpretation of the law will not happen, then the judges in real cases do what they think is right.
I can agree that abortion is wrong, from a moral point of view, but I think the laws needed to prevent women from aborting are a bigger moral wrong and, more important, are a bigger threat to the freedom of the people.
It is like prohibiting the alcohol or drugs. You allow the government the power to meddle with the reproductive choices of people.
Do you think people aborting is doing something wrong? Shun them. Refuse to have anything to do with them. This I support. But leave them alone. Let them think to their children alone and affirm your right to think to yours alone. The time will sort the good from the bad and the right from the left. When Jesus talked about “the blind leading the blind and both will fall in a ditch” he never talked about to forcedly intervene to bring them to the right path and to a secure ground.
Their actions will reward and punish them accordingly. Give time to the time.
A woman aborting her child do not damage anyone. The child being unborn have not any right per se. Even if he has them, the woman keep the right to sever the connection with him. What will happen after, as they are two distinct individuals, is another matter. From the moment the embryo/fetus is out/disconnected from the woman he is an independent individual from the mother. So, others can step in and do what they want to help him, at their expenses.
In my opinion, abort is only responsibility of the woman, as you can not do it without the woman assent to touch her body.
I think people willing to pay (with their money) for the upkeep of abandoned children (or aborted embryo and fetus when the technology will be available – and will not be more than a couple of decades) are doing a good thing, but I strongly disagree with this help be made mandatory (E.G.no money from taxes).
In my opinion, a woman raped (and made pregnant) must be encouraged to abort. I’m not interested in the baby, but I want negate the advantage to have a descendant in this way. And, being so many personality traits hereditary, I don’t want these traits to be transmitted to anyone.
For the people talking about “sons don’t pay for the sins of the fathers”, I want remember that God promises Moses that for what Amalek did, He would deliver them all to the hands of Israel to be exterminated anyone and all of them (and anything they owned). And when Saul didn’t do it (he spared Agag king of Amalek and the good stuff) God abandoned him.
When you cite the Bible law, for the raping outside the city, the law is moderate, because it suppose the woman cried but no one was able to hear her and help her. But, if the same happened in a city, and the woman don’t cried immediately, the man and the woman would be put to death. This because her cry for help would not go unheard.
The child born from a rape, for the Jews, is a Jews as are all the children of a Jewess. So aborting or killing him is not allowed for this reason. If they considered the child the child of an enemy, they would have much less moral problems to kill him or abort him. In the OT it is done many times, on order of God, for good reasons I suppose.
You talk of the Founders and the whim of the mob. But the system you advocate satisfy the whim of a mob, your mob.
The question about the cyborg scenario? It is to show that your solution is not based on a rationale, but on gut feeling and hand waving. It is a patch on a hole. But like often it is said where I live, “This patch is worse than the hole”.
The mandatory working to pay for the social security of the child of the mother and the father (after gene testing of all the local population, I suppose) is not different from mandatory slavery at the whim of the government. They decide if you are a good or nor parents, then they collect money from you. Not differently from the laws that mandate the husband to pay money for the children of the wife, even if the children are not his. Then you decry government intervention in this or that. Not exactly coherent, in my opinion.
The majority of abortions are preformed in clinics under the supervision of a doctor or other medical professional and it is done for money. Please do not try to avoid the fact that you gave the doctors and the industry a free pass why attacking the woman.
You totally miss my point on punishment. Murder is murder whether you are murdering the unborn or the born. I have never claimed otherwise. You claim that I treat the two differently but I do not. It is you who misrepresent the punishments meted out for the murder of the born. When a person kills another already born person, the district attorney has to decide what charges to level – first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaugher, unintentional homicide, etc. Whichever charge he levels also determines the possible punishments. These charges also take into account intention, mental state, etc. I am simply arguing that the same type of system would be introduced to handle abortions. Hence, I cannot say that all those who abort would receive ___. Just as no one can say that all who kill a born person should recieve ____. The problem is in your failure and the failure of lenf to perceive the true nature of the criminal justice system.
The problem with you and lenf is that you start from these highly improbable scenarios and then try to construct a moral foundation. Between the two of you, you have stretched the perimeters of science and introduced every possible scenario except abduction by space aliens. Let us deal wiht the 99.999% of what will happen and then look at the impossible scenarios.
Freedom is a great thing but it is not a god and it is not the ultimate objective. I do not have the freedom to kill my fellow man. In your argument, freedom appears as the greatest good but you would deny me the freedom to go on a killing spree. Why would you do that?
Let us take your contention: “A woman aborting her child do not damage anyone. The child being unborn have not any right per se. Even if he has them, the woman keep the right to sever the connection with him. What will happen after, as they are two distinct individuals, is another matter. From the moment the embryo/fetus is out/disconnected from the woman he is an independent individual from the mother. So, others can step in and do what they want to help him, at their expenses.”
Now the same logic could be applied to a two month old. If a mother chooses to starve the child to death, I assume you would find it okay because that two year old is a distinct individual, an independent individual.” That two month old has every right to get up and call for help. Perhaps the two year old should stop being a dead beat and get a job. You work out the specifics on that one.
Once again we have the libertarian all or nothing parlor trick. The government is always bad and thus the govenrment should not be involved in anything. Conservatives assign government a rightful place in society. It is to restrain evil. The position is at least as old as Romans 13 and it is a position I would like to perserve. Libertarians argue that because government can become tyrannical then government should not be involved in anything. Government may be bad but anarchy – the ultimate end of a truly libertine society – is much worse.
You may equate holding people accountable for their actions as slavery but I do not.
Please show me where I support the rule of the mob.
As to the patch analogy, let us just say there is a reason it remained a local saying.
Zombie, you say you understand the pro-life arguments but you don’t agree with them. Perhaps there’s a semantic misunderstanding on my part between “understanding” and “acknowledging,” but in my view, to understand the argument (the correct one, based on science and logic, not emotionalism) is to be powerless to refute it. I can’t really elaborate on this unless I know what it is you base your disagreement on. What is it about the argument that abortion is taking a life that you “disagree” with?
What I disagree with is the conviction that early-stage embryos count as full-fledged human beings. Yes, they will grow into human beings. But until they develop a significant brain and nervous system, they have no consciousness, no self-awareness, and hence I (in my opinion) no “soul” or whatever term you want to use to identify what makes a human a human.
Since ANY cell can now be made to be “pluripotent”, we have the ability to clone life from scratch. Thus a flake of dandruff could be made to grow into a human, a fingernail could be deemed just as “precious” as a fertilized egg, since both have the same DNA and both could become full human beings.
So, to address your question, I both “acknowledge” the pro-life stance in the sense of granting it validity, and I also intellectually “understand” it, and I also can grasp how a reasonable person may be convinced of its correctness. But me personally, I just have not been convinced, despite many years of pondering the matter, that an early-stage embryo is the equivalent of a human being. Sorry. I’m not trying to change your mind, just answering your question and stating my opinion.
I define murder as unjustly ending a human beings chance at continuing to live life. The only time killing another person is justified is in self-defense. For the record let me state now that I am a hard atheist and do not believe in a soul.
At the moment of conception, brand new human DNA is created. If that DNA is not tampered with, it will grow into a fully functioning human being. By aborting that DNA, you are preventing a human being from growing and living a full human life. If this is not done in self-defense, it is murder.
You live in a make believe world and are as dangerous as liberals and socialists who also live in a world of abstractions devoid of reality. If we leave it to you, there is no difference between abortion and mass genocide of the holacost, armenians, Rwanda etc. You can’t use your new testament religion as an argument in a country like ours. Where does that leave us: civil war between what jesus and what Moh. said.
Morality is much more nuanced then you make it. You missed the point of my reference to infanticide way back or even now when there is not enough food to supply a family. A decision has to be made. You can’t live in abstractions. Where there is famine as was the case way back and maybe even now, what does one do with a new born. You have a problem just we had with the Titanic: not enough life boats, hence, one chooses who lives and dies. The point being of course that you have to weigh the circumstances that make for difficult decisions. I am much more uncomfortable let us say with a well off family having an abortion then someone in poverty with 5 kids already. Not quite like the infanticide, but similar in the sense that one takes into consideration the motives and the circumstances.
Then you beat around the bush when I ask to describe the punishment with stating that you have to take into consideration what the factors are. IF I kill you to steal your money, there should be no mercy. Death penalty or life. And so since you argue that abortion should be murder, then some young girl who aborts, murders in cold bold, your words, her fetus, embryo, whatever, so she can finish her college years with no financial burden, then how is she any different than someone who murders for money. From your rhetoric, she deserves the worst. Let us assume she not mentally retarded or disturbed.
And if you had your way, and your very sane sister aborted because she already had 2 children and wanted her career and another child would interrupt, then you would have no trouble following your moral code in reporting her to the authorities and having her have the punishment–10 years–one year.
Get away from your abstract rhetoric and face the concrete consequences of what you propose. IT is very easy to post all kinds of rhetoric where one does not have to pay a price for the rhetoric. What I am trying to do re you, is force you to come down to the nitty gritty.
The problem with utopianism and that is the jist of the pro-life movement regarding law(as opposed to trying to influence people) is that it is impossible as with drugs to stop abortion. And at the most, you will only stop the poorer people and force them to back alley abortions.
You accuse me of promoting genocide. I don’t get it. I am no hero; I had two children; I could have adopted others; I did not. HAve you. IF you have even tho you had your own children and did it for altruistic reasons, then I commend you. Social liberals have clearly destroyed the family but not by facilitating abortion. They have done by creating dependence on welfare; by dumbing down responsiblity. I would argue that when you realize your limitations in raising a child, then aborting is a responsible act. You could argue it would be more responsible to carry to term and then opt for adoption. Not easy to get adoptions for black families; and secondly, not easy once you have a child to adopt him out; and further, when you get paid via welfare to have children, there is incentive to have at everyone’s else expense. Is that responsible?
You worked in the inner city. So, you and your wife are going away for a month; would you leave your children in the care of marjority of those in live in Detroit other kind of impoverished environments and I dont mean only money, but in culture and and morals. Not I.
Maybe what you should advocate is that govt give $10,000 to everyone under the poverty line not to abort , and then the govt take that child and give it our for adoption and pay the adoptee family another $10,000. This would decrease abortion and increase adoption; of course, one wonders about a family taking money to adopt a child. I am joking. BUt your solution to our inner city ghettos is to stop abortion. Please explain how will solve the cultural problem. as for people with money, you have no solution; they will alway find away to have abortions regardless of the law.
Not so simple.
First, abortion is genocide.
Second, you base your morality and understanding of life upon your own reason and feelings. I base mine upon one of the foundations of western civilization. Mine has withstood the test of times and outlived countless empires. Yours began and will end with you.
Third, I can use Scripture in an argument in a country like ours, especially in a country like ours. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence when the 13 colonies made an appeal to God? Have you read the writings of the Founders? I think my use of Scripture is in very good company.
I have no idea where you are pulling some of the other things from.
I never said the solution to the problems of the innercity was to end abortion. The problems of the innercity are very complex. Your solution to is to abort as many potential innercity children as possible. I simply do not see that as a solution or as a lesson in personal responsibility.
As to reality, you construct these scenarios that have .001% chance of happening and then try to build a philosophical framework out it. Where is the reality in that.
You are a moral relativist because you yourself argue that the morality of abortion is different between the rich and the poor. The murder of a child is not justified regardless of the financial situation, espcially in a country where adoption is an option.
As to being evasive, you have yet to respond to any of the questions I raised in previous posts. Yet, I have addressed your questions point by point.
Should we slaughter mentally disabled. No. But I dont consider it slaughter to abort such anymore than I consider abortion equivalent to genocide in Rhwanda etc.
I don’t get that feeling of horror nor do most.
WE protect dogs and cats in the USA. In korea and china they eat dogs. We dont protect rats, mice, cockaroaches. Why should a dog be protected over a rat or a cockaroach. Nothing to do with abstract morality about respecting all life. IT has to do with how we experience these creatures. We experience a dog in human terms. We experience a chimp or dolphin in very human terms. The key word is experience. And in the same we experience what is inside the womb differently than what we experience outside the womb. And the further along what is inside the womb, the more we experience it as like us.
it is how we experience the world that leads to law protecting this that. And your problem is that you have to convince others to experience an embryo the same we experience a born child. No easy task as the history of the human race demonstrates.
I am not even going to address the idiocy of comparing an unborn child to a dog or cat.
As to experiencing the unborn, I challenge you to go to a neo-natal intensive care unit and take a look at the children born at 6 month, at 32 weeks, etc. They are not a ball of cells or a dog that we could eat. They are human and they fight to live. Yet you would have them slaughtered. You brought up experience. Now go and get some experience.
The trouble with this discussion between me and you is that we at different levels. When I talk about dogs, chimps, cockaroaches as in the above, I am trying to make a point about how we come to moral conclusions as if we were philosophy of morals class. And that has to do how we can to make judgements. If I am an idiot so is Thomas Acquinas and all other philosophers who take pages and pages to establish a way of reasoning.
The point with the dog or chimp vs a cockaroach is that the reason we give value to one has to do with how we experience such; not some abstract principles. Clearly,
the embryo at one week is different than a borne human being; clearly, it is also similar in having the same genetic material. Those are facts. The issue is not the facts, but how we experience such. You don’t seem to understand that. And what counts in the differences in viewpoints about abortion is not science or that genes begin at conception; rather is how we experience it.
The absolute pro life position is saying that they experience based on genetics the embryo in the same way they experience the borne. The pro choice does not.
And there are variations. Such as some may experience the fetus as equivalent to borne when the heart starts beating etc.
Those countries in Europe in which abortion law is decided by legislature instead of the courts have all sorts of rules when you can have abortion; not after some time period save exceptional circumstances.
And the point I am trying to make which you seem not to get is that this a moral issue; it is moral issue in which those of us in the Western tradition(europe and USA) have come to conclusion that the fetus has the value but not the same as a borne child; and further, the further along the development, the more value.
People like yourself disagree. For you it has the same value as a borne human being at the moment of conception.
What you don’t get is that it is a value question. There is no answer except of course if you are religious bigot and insist in imposing your view by force as do radical Islam.
You are not willing to admit that those who support pro choice like the author of the article we are commenting on are otherwise decent people; they dont promote
genocide etc.
Maybe another way of putting it, is that it is a matter of conscience; i put as how we ascribe value.
How do we resolve this when there is such disagreement. The same way we resolve religious differences. Live and let live; separation of church and state;
we even respect conscientous(sic) objectors in times of war.
We dont have laws stating that you must believe in jesus christ or practice christianity in some specific way; we recongize that is a matter of belief and conscience.
You can scream all you want that it should be murder; you will only turn off people. Most people dont think of abortion as some pleasant experience to be promoted; on the other most people think the govt should be out it. Clearly, if that were not the case, we could have a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Forget all the noisy people in women;s so called rights; it is the average person who is not convinced that abortion is murdere or should be totally banned.
Stop insulting them by calling them murderers. You dont win friends that way.
Now, to respond to your telling me to look at neo natal clinic etc. Dont be such a smart alec. Along time ago, my wife had prolapsed chord; the fetus was about 5 months. It took long time to get it out. And the Doctor showed to me; It was formed like a human being; arms; legs. Now, I didnot have a sustained emotional reaction as I would have if it were a child let us say of 3 months who suddenly died. No carrying on. No funeral or service. What is the point? I will try.
I dont value your wife or your children the way you do; in some absract sense yes; and neither do you value my children as I do. HUman nature so to speak.
And that is why I would support the death penalty in the Scott Peterson case; i would not call it murder; i would treat like we treated horse thieves back in the day where there was death penalty for such. You know why? Because if you stole a farmer’s horse, you robbed him of his livelihood and for me that is worth the death penalty. And carrying a child which the mother wants is essential to being human; emphasize, which the mother wants. It is such an assualt like horse thieves in the past to warrant the death penalty. And I would also support the death penalty for someone who robs an 80 year old woman of her social security check even if he does not beat her. That is my morality.
You also have not dealt with the fact the law prevents the govt from forcing people to use their body for others. So, if a soldier is ordered to give blood to save a dying soldier, this is illegal; of course, the other soliders will shun him. In an operating room if someone is dying for want of a pint of blood and there is no blood availabel, the Doctor cannot order the nurse who has the right blood type to donate. The only exception for the govt to invade the body is in criminal cases
where one extract only a drop of blood for evidence. And so there is an argument that you cannot force a woman to sustain the life of another by the use of her own body. Think about it; we can’t order a doctor or a nurse to give one drop of blood to save a patient; a pregnant woman under your rules is forced to use her body to sustain the life of another inside her but once that child is borne, the govt cannot force her to give one drop of blood to save the borne child.
Deal with that. It is more complicated that you make it.
IT boils down to a matter of conscience; that is how one views what is inside vs outside. And we generally protect conscience in such kinds of things. After all,
it is matter of my values, my conscience of whether I will donate my kidney to save by brother’, neighbors, etc life. The govt cannot force me under our rules.
Alot for you to think about.
It does not matter how many pages you take to establish your reasoning, it does not compare to that of Thomas Aquinas for one simple reason. You argue based upon experience – “the reason we give value to one has to do with how we experience such; not some abstract principles” – and Aquinas argued based upon the foundation of abstract principles.
Experience is always subjective and differs from one person to another. Experience based analysis leads to moral relativism, which you have clearly demonostrated. I find the fact that you value animals more than unborn humans rather frightening but not surprising. Your comments about the Peterson case reveal that you consider the ultimate value of the unborn child to be determined by whether or not it is wanted.
As to screaming murderer at people, I have not. I was asked a simple question and I responded. As to winning friends, it is not one of my top priorities.
I have not commented at all on the decency or lack thereof in people who hold a pro-choice position. As per your questions, I have dealt with those who abort an unborn child and those who profit from it. I am sure that many pro-choice people are decent just as many decent people have apathetically accepted evil in thier day.
Sorry to disappoint but you have raised no points that I have not considered. Your own secularism has blinded you and you have constructed such wierd scenarios to reaffirm what I suspect your own conscience declares against.
Not that I usually acknowlege adhominum attacks but your comparison to radical Islam is somewhat misplaced. Until Roe v. Wade in the United States and the 20th century in the rest of the western world, western civilization opposed abortion. Not since the fall of the Roman empire has any country accepted infanticide or abortion as the norm. I stand in that tradition. It is your secularism and moral relativism that has changed the status quo. It is your secularism that has returned us to the barbarism of the ancient world and what still exists in many parts of the oriental world. You must be proud to be so cutting edge that you have set humanity back to the 2nd century.
If I am barbaric so is Laura Bush; so is her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush; why don’t you write them a letter and tell them they are such. Again, you are not very serious. IT is not a question of any nation promoting infanticide. You are not able to deal with the complexities. All I said was that in times of famine, people have practiced infanticide in the same sense that choices had to be made on who got into the life boats when the Titanic hit the iceberg. And the point is those kinds of situations your absolutism breaks down. A very simple point which you refuse to address. Why don’t you try it. You cannot judge an act without taking into consideraton many factors. You call that relativism. You are wrong.
You say you have not commented on the decency of people who are pro-choice. Yes, you have, When you call abortion murder, you are saying that pro-choice peoole support murder. That is quite the same as Christians who state you are doomed to Hell unless you accept Jesus. The only difference in that statement that of Isalmist is the Islamist use force and will kill people who violate the islamic code. Secularism has evolved that religion is in the private sphere and cannot enforce the nonsense it enforced 200 years ago.
Then you state state that I consider the ultimate value of child whether it is wanted. I am only stating the obvious and that is how those who abort or who are pro-choice view the situation including people like laura bush and Barbara Bush and of course, the vast marjority of americans; remember, 90% of americans approve of abortion in rape and incest which means that the value of unborn is not taken as is the same value of the borne. So get off your high horse and stop the ad hom when all I am doing is reporting a fact. You don’t like that fact; hence, so you accuse me of setting back humanity; then tell it to the 90 per cent who support abortion in rape and incest; it is irrelevant that such accounts for small per centage; what is relevant in that statistic is that the vast marjority don’t give the same value to what is inside and outside the womb, It does not mean they don’t give it signficant value, but they just dont give it the same value as the borne child. Nothing controversial with that; i am only reporting a factual situation. So when you attack me as some monster for stating the obvious you are attacking 90 per cent of the american people who don’t give what is inside the same value as what is outside. So except for the 10% absolutists, everyone else according to you is a monster; or in your words “set humanity back to the 2nd Century”
Interesting that Islamists which want to go back to the 7th century are pro-life and have servere punishments. So you might feel more comfortable in that society
where they agree with you.
you can’t get away with calling me such without calling the 90$ the same. All I have done is explicated it.
Stop the business of calling doctors who do abortions as some kind of criminal who illegally profits from it. They don’t see themselves as doing some illegal or immoral act anymore than do people like laura and barbara Bush see it. They get paid like any person who performs a service. THe only reason Doctors do abortion is because our society has chosen abortion to be legal. The doctors did not bribe the Supreme Court nor did they bribe the legislatures in Western Europe.
An interesting fact that might make you think. After communism was defeated in Poland, the govt, influenced very strongly by the catholic church passed very strong anti-abortion laws absent making it a criminal offense for the mother. But they had to modify it. They added an exception. And the exception had to with housing shortage in Poland. People were living in one or 2 bedroom apts in the cities. And one could not get more or afford more. Hence, the exception was that if you already had 2 children and of meagre means, and living in cramped quarters, abortion was now permissable. They had other exceptions==the usual, detrimental to the health of the mother. Another deviation from the absolutist position of a country very influenced by religion. So, according to you they have set humanity back to the 2nd century.
The absolutist postion cannot stand except in Moslem countries and maybe Ireland. So the only question is not to totally ban abortion, but what rules to apply. This means that absolutist position is dead for all intents and purposes. I mentioned Ireland. Check it out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
But note there, that the govt cannot prevent a person, a woman, from traveling to England to get an abortion as they had done. Again, what happenned to absolutism. Of course. only those with sufficient income to buy a plane ticket can do such. So ireland with the toughest abortion laws says: if you have money, perfectly okay to have an abortion–just buy a plane ticket to England. Very fair, would you not say. If it were up to you, such woman would be prosecuted; apparently even the strongest anti-abortion country is not absolutist enough. IF it were in the 2nd century, then of course, such people who be prevented from going; so you are in favor of the 2nd century rules.
Then you state my conscience is against abortion. You are wrong. I find abortion a difficult thing. I am not sure I am equiped to pull the lever for the electric chair. That does not mean, I do not support the death penalty. There are lot of things I am uncomfortable about; but that in of itself, does not require me to take a position one way or the other. I am uncomfortable cleaning up vomit; i did it.
I think there are good reasons for having an abortion and trivial ones. BUt since I see it equivalent to religious choice–a matter of conscience, then it is not for the law to willy nilly crimnalize for the doctor since it does not have the courage to criminalize it for the woman; even in Ireland. And the fact except for an insignifcant minority like yourself, no one wants to prosecute the mother or the family who helps to procure an abortion. That should tell you something about the absolute position and that is, that it does not resonate with anybody except a few like yourself; for if it did, then there would an overwhelming call in the pro life community for criminal sanctions on the mother, assume sane, which most are; and you wont find that. That tells that even the pro life people except for people like you, don;t make the equivalence between aborting and killing a borne child. Those are facts. Not opinions.
OF course, who knows, maybe they will be punished in the next world. So being a man of scripture as you are, have no fear, they will get their due when they die; that is the mother will burn in hell. So you win.
I must have hit a nerve somewhere in there because you sure do run on considerably in your last post.
I think it best we end our discussion as I do not think either one of us will budge. Nor do I wish to submit to any more adhominum attacks with no clear objective in sight.
Some things we know that are clear from your own words.
1. You consider the value of unborn human life relative.
2. You rely upon experience over abstract principles to determine your morality.
3. You are uncomfortable with the act of abortion but would rather permit it than not.
4. Financial concerns are enough of a reason to have abortion and you do not consider adoption a viable option (or at least you have not acknowledge it as such).
5. You have no idea the difference between an absolutist and someone who believes in an absolute standard of morality.
6. You take comfort that your opinion on abortion is supported by a certain percentage of people or by famous people.
7. You equate belief in an absolute standard of morality with radical Islam.
8. You equate me with radical Islam even though I have refused to support a mandatory death sentence for women who have an abortion and even though I have questioned the legitimacy of Islamic governments. In fact, you were the one who got upset because I did not endorse mandatory death sentences.
Let me say one more thing on the Islamic comparison. The difference is that Christians do not force their beliefs upon other people. We work to change opinion and to be salt and light. We do not blow up buildings or murder our enemies. Nor can you find any Scripture to support those who do. If abortion once again becomes illegal, it will be because the prolife movement has convinced the American people.
As to barbarism, I am not the one who argues that the unborn can be slaughtered for financial reason or because my apartment is too small. The value of human life has decreased indeed. In this regard, secularist who support abortion are more like Islamist who consider the lives of certain humans to be cheap. Please note that radical Islam is not prolife. They are pro-male-islamist. They treat woman and non-muslims horribly. Either you do not understand the difference or you are just trying to be incendiary.
Let me add just one more thought.
I think it bothers you that I am not some flaming eyed fanatic who screams murderer, wants a mandatory death sentence for those who have an abortion, and routinely condemns people to hell. Otherwise, why have you tried so desperately to get me to say those things – note how often you demanded I call for the punishment of women who had an abortion. Then, when I did not say those things, you attempted to put words into my mouth by accusing me of doing it in your response. Please note that you are the one who mentioned hell and eternal judgment – not me.
Why does a reasoned response founded on the belief in absolute moral standards bother you so much? Why are you intentionally incendiary in your rhetoric – initial comparison to Hitler followed by the comparison to radical Islam?
I think it is you who have a lot to think about.
Because so long as religious fundies are the ones opposing him, he can maintain the fantasy that his position is grounded in logic. The fact that you are not like John Salvi or Clayton Waagner obliterates his fallacious pre-conceived notions of those who comprise the anti-abortion camp.
I just want to say I would jump in a foxhole with anyone on this site (even skeewhat, dont ask me why).
I hope it doesnt come to foxholes, but I.m cool with that too. seems easier at some level.
remember you are dealing with p_ssies at heart (excuse me Z. et al, apologies). know this. it is there ultimate vulnerability. they cant handle life.
You are someone who avoids issue. You stated implicitly that you are better than the Catholic Polish govt which allows abortion for financial reasons as I illustrated above. You are better morally better than Ireland which has the most restrictive abortion laws but allows someone to go England to kill(or is it murder) the unborn; of course, if the Irish govt knew someone was going to England to kill their borne child who was in English boarding school, the Irish govt would arrest right away charge with attempted murder.
You get lost in your abstractions. I did not say you were Islamist, but there is similarity in that you want to punish a mother criminally; not as harsh as them. Although if is murder than why not the uusual penalty for murder that we use in this country. Are there different kinds of murder? Not so bad if murder is abortion?
You refuse to get down to brass tacks. I asked what you do if penalty for mother was 2 years in prison for an abortion and you discovered your sister did it for financial reasons. You refuse to get down to the concrete; and that is where the rubber meets the road.
You evaluate people not by their words; words are cheap; and that is why I put you to the test with concrete situations. You chickened out. So, how can one take you seriously.
You are also a coward. The only reason I mentioned the Bush ladies was not their opinion impressed me; I mentioned because you would not dare to call them
immoral or words to that effect. Here you are anonymous so blast off your moral superiority to me by calling me immoral.
You are not a good student. When I gave the percentage that 90% approve of abortion for rape, that was not to support what I think but only to point that the very vast marjority clearly make a distinction between what is the womb and outside and give lesser value to what is inside. That is not my opinion. IT is what the data shows. You don’t like the data.
You don’t even understand my position. My position is very simple; see if you can get it. When you have an issue such as abortion in which there is no consensus to the value of unborn child, then it is a matter of individual morality or conscience. In fact, there is a consensus that value inside is not quite same as outside the womb. Evidence. 90% approve of abortion for rape yet dont approve of killing the borne child of rape. That should tell you whether you like it or not, that vast marjority do equate inside and outside. That is not opinion. The data is clear. IT is only you and the other 10% who see it as equal. Fine. So what do we do in our kind of democracy when there is no agreement on such a matter; we leave to the individual conscience as we do with religion; as we do with conscientious objectors.
By the way, I used the rape percentage to make my point; when you list other reasons for abortion, you will get varying percentage of approval.
What you don’t seem to get is that the reason there is abortion is not because of some consipiracy etc. As night follows day, with emanicipation of woman as 2nd class
citizens; only housewives to the present situation, both here and in Western countries, like night follows day, abortion would become legal.
Even the author of the article who understands the pro life position and has sympathy for it, is pro-choice. One last chance to get you to think out of the box.
1, I sign a contract –an agreement of sale to buy a house for $20,000. The seller changes his mind and thinks he can get $50,000. He breaks the agreement. In our system I can take him to court, and court will honor the contract.
2. I sign a contract to donate my kidney to my neighbor who is on dialysis one month from now, I renege for no good reason. I just change my mind. This contract is not enforceable; he cannot go to court and have the judge order me or use force to get me to do it. I cannot be fined. This is not enforceable contract.
What does #2 tell you. IT should tell you that you cannot force some by punishment to use their own body to sustain the life of another. Right now if a mother has a borne child who will not live unless a bone marrow transplant and she is the only one who has a match, she cannot be ordered or punished for not doing so.
So our laws give the highest respect to owing your own body. What the pro-life crowd wants to do when they propose punishment is make an exception for abortion.
After all, the fetus is utilizing the body of the mother to survive.
So, you either have to throw away the concept of owning your own body or you to make the argument why abortion should be the exception.
Let see if you can take a stab at it.
Another thing for you to comment. Assume a homicidal maniac killed a whole family with one survivor. IT happens. Not fantasy. He is sentenced to death.
However, that one survivor had its kidney damaged and this murderer has the perfect match. Under our law, common law, and the Constitution, we cannot take his kidney upon his execution unless he agrees. He does not agree so the kid dies. Terrible.
Should we make an exception here. My heart so to speak says yes, but you see you have to be careful of the slippery slope;
I only bring this up to point out that there is principle that you own your body and that govt cannot force you to use your body to benefit someone else. The govt can draft you into army and put in harm’s way, but it cannot order you to give a pint of blood to save another soldier. Of course, 99% of us would do it, but that is voluntary or out of shame.
Something for you to think about because a central argument of the pro-choice group is what I have just written about above. It is not easily dismissed. Give it a try.
Once again you miss the entire point and you failed to address the points I raised about anything. You simply repeat yourself and construct yet another far-fetched scenario from which to make moral decisions. I will try to address you points one more time and keep it basic.
1. Laura Bush and Barbara Bush are morally wrong to support abortion. So is anyone who supports abortion or apathetically lets it remain the law of the land. Does that make you feel better?
2. If someone breaks the law, they should go to jail. It is called the rule of law and I support it even if it applies to my family. Would it pain me greatly? Yes. Would I rejoice in the law breaking or the punishment? No.
3. I base my morality on Scripture and the Christian worldview. My morality is not based upon the whim of experience which is not only subjective but ever changing. My morality is not based upon human reasoning, which is highly flawed and also subjective. I base it upon the solid word of God – the foundation of western civilization.
You consider my belief in an absolute standard as an indication that I think I am superior to others. I do not think I am superior but I know that my moral standard is superior because it is the Word of God.
4. I do not get lost in abstractions. You just cannot except the fact that an absolute standard of morality applies no matter how many far-fetched scenarios you come up with in the discussion.
5. The committent to an absolute standard of morality means that I do not bow to subjective analysis no matter how many statistics you cite. In fact, it is rather pointless to cite them since by definition a standard is the standard and standards do no change via the whim of the public.
It is hard to build a system of morality on experience and/or public opinion (consensus) since these are ever changing. Would you be okay if public opinion changed and we accepted and participated in the destruction of the Jewish race? Would you be okay if public opinion changed and we enslaved African Americans once again? By your own reasoning, you can not condemn these pratices if a majority of the people accept them. Nor can you condemn Islamists because their consensus and experience tells them to degrade women.
I can condemn these actions because my standards are not ever changing but fixed.
6. The law does not consider the human body as something totally under the control of the person. For example, you cannot take certain drugs without proper permission and you cannot commit suicide legally in most places. In some places they have even established “Good Samaritan Laws” to make bystanders assist their fellow man.
7. There is no standard punishment for murder in the United States. The punishment differs depending on jurisdiction, motive, circumstances, etc. Why can you not accept the same system for those who commit an illegal abortion? I have not evaded this issue, I have addressed it countless times in the past.
8. On the issue of evasion, you have never addressed directly the quesions I have raised to you in my posts. Please review and do so before you charge me with being an intellectual coward and evading the issue.
I will only address scenarios that have a 2% or more chance of happening.
“And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Exodus 21:22-25
This is the penalty for someone that attack a woman and cause a miscarriage. It is in the Bible.
And look at this: the fine can not be more than the woman husband ask and less than the Judges decide.
From this we can deduce that:
1) Women without a husband can not ask any compensation and no one is punished;
women that are pregnant out of the wedlock can not ask for compensation and no one is punished;
husband causing a miscarriage to their women can not be fined for this and can not be punished;
the damaged here is the man, not the woman.
2) Who are you for advocating an harsher penalty that the Bible?
If it is a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver.
Leviticus 27:6
I didn’t find where they set the value for children under one month. Do you? No reparation for children younger than one month. Do you want change the US laws with this law of the Bible?
3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.
Numers 3:15
Here God ask to count the children, but only the children older than a month. Why? Maybe they had not so much value for Him.
8And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But(A) there was no breath in them. 9Then he said to me,(B) “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy,(C) son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from(D) the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” 10So I prophesied(E) as he commanded me, and(F) the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
Ezekiel 37:8-10
Here God revive the dead, those that have no breath. So, until the child breath it is not really alive.
The Bible, the Word of God.
Who are you to negate these?
You either misunderstand these Scritures and their context or you intentionally distort these Scriptures and ignore their context to support your own agenda.
Let us take a look at the passages you mentioned.
Exodus 21:22-25 according to the New American Standard Version, which many consider the most faithful to the Hebrew. The interpretation is also supported by the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New King James Version.
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury [to the woman or child], he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if thre is any further injury [to the woman or child], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
The literal translation of “gives birth prematurely” is “her child comes out.” It does not imply the child is dead.
The fine by the husband, approved by the judges, is for causing a premature birth in which the wife and the child are not harmed. If the wife or child dies or is harmed then the stiffer penalties of v. 23-25 apply. As you can see, God treats the death of unborn children seriously. This also contradicts your subsequent interpretations that God only counts children over a month old.
Your deduction from these verses is also flawed. Exodus 22:22-24 “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and htey cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry, and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” In these verses God himself claims to the protecter of the fatherless.
A woman who was preganant out of wedlock would have been represented by her father or a kinsmen redeemer. If the Father was willing, then the father had to marry the woman and/or pay for the defilement (Exodus 22:16-17).
The verse does not exempt the husband from the same penalty.
Leviticus 27:6 and the surrounding verses in chapter 27 discuss how to redeem persons and property dedicated to God. We know from other Old Testament law and examples that the unborn could be dedicated to God – as in the example of Samuel. We also know that all first borns were considered dedicated to God from the womb (Exodus 13:11-16). In Jeremiah 1:5, God tells Jeremiah that He knew him before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Other passages clearly indicated the value of the child in the womb. For example, John the Baptist leaping in the womb of his mother when Mary the mother of Jesus approached.
The first month of birth is a time of uncleanliness and ceremonial cleansing for the Jews. The woman had to present an offering at the tabernacle for her cleansing at the end of the period of her purification, which for a male child was 33 days or roughly one month.
The passage has nothing to do with reparations or with assigning punishment of any kind.
Numbers 3:15 deals with a census taken of the tribe of Levi. The Levites were considered dedicated to God and had to be numbered in order to be apportioned among the tribes and cities of refuge. The other eleven tribes of Israel were not numbered either. Does this mean that God valued them less?
Ezekial 37:1-14 is a prophesy made by Ezekiel that God will one day regather his people Israel from amongst the nations and pour out His spirit upon them. You cited v. 8-10. If you read v. 11-14, God makes it clear that the vision concens “the whole house of Israel.” (v. 11) In v. 14 God makes it clear that the breath mentioned in the prophesy is “My Spirit.” The passage has nothing to do with the value of life or the abortion debate. God is not talking about physical life here but spiriual life.
Now, my question to you is did you truly misunderstand these passages or are you trying to intentionally distort the Word of God?
Kipling, the reference is, I beleive, to miscarriage, not to premature birth. But do not fall into the same trap as Micro.
It is impossible to learn Jewish law on any topic from looking at the words of the Bible alone (especially in English, but that’s another discussion) without consulting the explanations given by the Talmud, the commentators and the legal codes.
Micro overlooks, among other things, that there is a huge difference between accidentally causing a miscarriage to a bystander and deliberately aborting a fetus. As to the latter, cf. the command given to Noah “He who sheds the blood of a man that is in a man, by man shall his blood be shed.” Commenting on the apparently superflous words “that is in a man” (how can you shed human blood that is no longer in the body, after all), the Talmud in Tractate Sandhedrin asks “How do we know that a descendant of Noah who aborts a fetus is subject to the death penalty? From the verse ‘He who sheds the blood of a man that is in a man.’ What is the ‘blood of a man that is in a man?’ This is the fetus.”
Now, you can believe (as Orthodox Jews do) that the Sages of Blessed Memory who compiled the Talmud got it right, or you can believe otherwise. But you cannot disregard their conclusion and claim that what you are advocating is Jewish law. So regardless of how Micro interprets these verses, from the standpoint of the people to whom these laws were given, he is misinterpreting them.
As to the valuation he cites, that’s easy. They refer to one who dedicates himself (i.e. the value he would bring on the open market at that time if he were to sell himself as an indentured servant for a term of 6 years) to the Holy Temple. Fetuses were not sold as indentured servants.
To ahad ha’amoratsim: Thank you for the additional information.
And Genesis 38:24
24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”
Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”
Interesting he will burn her to death for prostitution and will give a damn about the child.
Maybe his life was not worth so much anyway?
You cite Genesis 38:24. Please read the entire context of the story in Genesis 38. Judah is not acting justly here in the story. To cite him as an example of morality is like quoting Charles Manson as a humanist. Judah wants to kill her to get rid of her. He has already sinned by having sex with her when he thought she was a prostitute. When confronted with his own sin in v. 25, Judah acknowledged that she was more righteous than he in v. 26. The punishment was not carried out because it was wrong. Nowhere does Scriture advocate that an unborn child be punished with death for the sins of the parents.
It is interesting that Tamar is one of the few women mentioned in the geneology of Jesus in Matthew.
You either misunderstand these Scriptures and their context or you intentionally distort these Scriptures and ignore their context to support your own agenda.
Exactly what I think of you.
Let us take a look at the passages you mentioned.
Exodus 21:22-25 according to the New American Standard Version, which many consider the most faithful to the Hebrew. The interpretation is also supported by the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New King James Version.
All new and Politically Corrected, I suppose.
My CEI version ( Italian catholic ) say “aborto”, do you need any translation? And the Nuova Diodati version (protestant) say the same.
Other older versions (Diodati around 1600 AD for example) write about “coming out” but nowhere they say “alive”.
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury [to the woman or child], he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the woman or child], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
The literal translation of “gives birth prematurely” is “her child comes out.” It does not imply the child is dead.
The fact that the child come out don’t imply he is alive, also.
But the words used are not the words used in any other place of the Bible to describe a birth, only the act of coming out.
So the can and were used to describe an abort.
Why a man must be fined for hitting a woman and causing her to give birth (how do they know prematurely?) if there is no harm to the woman or the child? You are using your 20° century sensibilities to evaluate what was the mind of people living near 3500 years ago. It is silly.
Then the passage say “no other injury”, so there must be an injury. The only injury is in causing an abort, as a premature but happy birth is not an injury. The passage say also “burn”, how a child in the womb can be burn? Apart for burning the mother (see Judah).
The fine by the husband, approved by the judges, is for causing a premature birth in which the wife and the child are not harmed. If the wife or child dies or is harmed then the stiffer penalties of v. 23-25 apply. As you can see, God treats the death of unborn children seriously. This also contradicts your subsequent interpretations that God only counts children over a month old.
I can not see what there is not. But you can use your mind to find justification out of the fine air.
You only need to add something here, something there, that you justify like “implicit”. Unfortunately they are not.
Your deduction from these verses is also flawed. Exodus 22:22-24 “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry, and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” In these verses God himself claims to the protector of the fatherless.
A woman who was pregnant out of wedlock would have been represented by her father or a kinsmen redeemer. If the Father was willing, then the father had to marry the woman and/or pay for the defilement (Exodus 22:16-17).
A woman made pregnant out of the wedlock was to be killed (see Judah and other places in the Bible) apart for rape.
So, illicit relations were a death sentence. The only way out for a man and a woman that willfully slept together (with or without a child as an outcome) was to marry. The only man that could prevent this was the father of the woman, that could reject the offer to marry the woman and ask only for monetary reparations. This only apply if the couple slept together willfully. A raper had not this way out. This is clear in the Genesis with the rape of Dinah.
Anyway, a pregnant widow is not a woman pregnant out of the wedlock.
The same, how do you oppress a child that is not born already?
The verse does not exempt the husband from the same penalty.
If the woman was pregnant with someone else he had the right to kill her immediately.
Surely, if he failed to do so but caused a miscarriage, he would not pay reparations to anyone else. And pay reparations to himself would be absurd.
Given the penalty is paid to the husband (that lose a child, so he is the damaged party, not the woman) it is illogic to ask someone to pay a reparation to himself.
Now, my question to you is did you truly misunderstand these passages or are you trying to intentionally distort the Word of God?
Exactly my questions to you.
Reply to Mirco:
1. The question is not what your traslation says but whether or not it accurately reflects the original Hebrew where the literal translation is “her child comes out.” While the phrase itself may not indicate life or death, the subsequent phrase “yet there is no injury” does.
2. The words used in the passage are not the normal words used for birth because the incident described is not a normal birth. It is a premature birth. The terms may very well apply to the child that is born dead or alive but the put the point of judgment is on the follwoing phrases. There are only two possble scenarios and each have their own consequences.
Scenario One: Man strikes woman and the woman gives birth premature [or the child comes out] but there is no further injury to the woman or child. Consequence = fine.
Scenario Two: Man strikes woman and the woman gives birth premature [or the child comes out] but the child is dead or the child or woman suffer a furhter injusry or death. Consequence = the stiffer punishments of v. 23-25.
A blow severe enough to cause premature birth is a blow that causes an injury thus the phrase “no other injury.”
A premature birth is an injury to both the woman and to the child hence the phrase “no other injury.”
At a time when C-Sections did not exist, any birth before nature took its course was considered a premature birth. People 3500 years ago were not ignorant of the details of child birth, especially that it took around 9 months.
As to the strick penalties, they are standard for many cases but all do not need to apply – i.e. burn. However, premature birth – depending on the extent of the injury – can result in burning from body acids etc.
3. In your original deduction from the text, you claimed that a woman did not have someone to advocate and seek justice for her. I clearly demonstrated through Exodus 22:22-24 and the reference to the role of the father and kinsmen redeemer that your deduction is wrong. As to the rape of Dinah, you are citing an incident that occured before God gave the law. As in the case of Judah, the incident surrounding Dinah should not be considered as normal or even acceptable.
4. As to your discusion of the husband being exempt from punishment, please cite your passage as I have found none the support your deductions. Nor are there any passages that give the husband the right to abuse his wife. All the prohibitions against violence still apply to a man who is a husband and causes injury to his wife. The fine might not be imposed, although the judges might still intervene, but any injury that followed could be prosecuted under the normal laws.
Zombie you are correct. Upon conception is it a life or not.
As a man who is personally pro life, I can’t bring myself to think that my position, as someone who will never have a fetus inside of me, should ever be foisted upon a woman. I think the author brings up a good point about being consistent. If the healthcare bill is an intrusion on the private decisions between a doctor and patient, which it most certainly is, isn’t making abortion illegal also an intrusion on what should be a private decision made by individuals and not by government?
This upcoming election presents an opportunity for fiscal and social conservatives. We need to be smart – I’ll take a Scott Brown over a Martha Coakley every day of the week and twice on Sundays (although Brown in particular has been a bit of a disappointment). Since the economy has been run into the ground by liberal tax-and-spend policies that are completely untethered from economic reality, it would be smart for all conservatives to focus like a laserbeam on it rather than on social differences that will never go away. At the end of the day, a woman’s right to choose is not a threat to national security and besides, richer countries have less abortions and less of just about every other ill that plagues society. Don’t get me wrong, moral erosion is certainly a long term threat to our security, as the history of Rome spells out clearly for us, but we’ll have plenty of time to work on that after we kick these economic illiterates to the curb.
Kipling: I will respond point by point to your last past; right now I am busy.
I will respond point by point to your last post.
1. Laura Bush and Barbara Bush are morally wrong to support abortion. So is anyone who supports abortion or apathetically lets it remain the law of the land. Does that make you feel better?
Me: How do you prove they are morally wrong when so many people do not take the very strong pro-life. It is not like mathematics. How do we come to decision on what is moral. OF course, there are things we all agree about. When you say the pro-choice people are morally wrong how does that differ in a moslem country which finds morally wrong to convert from islam to christianity and enforces such by law. You are not willing to admit that abortion is not a simple issue like rape or knocking down an old lady and stealing her money. You make it as simple as those examples. Those examples are obvious; no disagreement.
Take a hypothetical to indicate the difficulty in coming to moral judgements in difficult situation. Imagine a situation like the Titantic. And on the boat you have the equivalent of an Einstein, a newton. Would it be proper to give them first choice on the grounds they have much to contribute to the human race over others.
I am not going to answer that; I only point there are situations where there are no automatic answers. And abortion is one of those.
2. If someone breaks the law, they should go to jail. It is called the rule of law and I support it even if it applies to my family. Would it pain me greatly? Yes. Would I rejoice in the law breaking or the punishment? No.
Me: So, if you got your way and abortion is now murder and woman is primary culprit and the sentence is what? Normally for murder –first degree murder; that is in which the event is planned, we give the highest sentence at least if the victim is a borne person. So, if understand you correctly, since you state unborn=born, the sentenece should be severe. Not a month or a year, buy many. So, although you would not be happy about it, you would turn your mother in if she aborted;
you would turn your sister; you would turn your neighbor in. Okay. Verbal. We don’t have the law and never will so we won’t have the opportunity to see what you would actually do.
3. I base my morality on Scripture and the Christian worldview. My morality is not based upon the whim of experience which is not only subjective but ever changing. My morality is not based upon human reasoning, which is highly flawed and also subjective. I base it upon the solid word of God – the foundation of western civilization.
ME: “whim of experience”. That is a copout. IT is nothing to do with whims. IT is how we experience the world that defines us. Your experience with christianity as stated in written texts and preachings you have heard define you. There are many ways of looking at things. People you disagree about re abortion share much of your morality on most things be they believers or not. One does have to be christian to dissaprove of stealing, murder of the born, and a host of other things.
So you actually share much with the pro-choice including the writer of article who showed respect for your position to some degree. So the people you disagree with re abortion share your morality regardless of whether they are christians; it is on a few things you disagree with. That should give you pause; we are not talking about cannibals or radical islam with which we are at war. We are talking about your neighbors and country who believe in the constitution and save views on abortion are not very different than you.
You: You consider my belief in an absolute standard as an indication that I think I am superior to others. I do not think I am superior but I know that my moral standard is superior because it is the Word of God.
ME: We can’t get too far when someone like yourself talks to God(i dont mean literally). The argument is closed so as someone says I know it is right because God told me or told me in his writing etc. Don’t you realize that is the same argument the Islamists make. God told them via the Koran and the Hadith to do it.
You have to make your argument in the same way the Constitution was written: No mention of God because every one has their own take on this. IT does not make for common discourse.
I am sure U are aware that there atheists who take one of the positions of the pro-life movement and that is from conception, we have early stages of a homosapien. I take that position. So one does not need your God for that..
However, after accepting that, you will find many variations how to deal with it. A small minority like yourself want to classify the sane mother as a criminal for instigating the abortion; either on her own or using a Doctor or a
back alley abortion. It seems you want it to be same crime as first degree murder since it has all the elements: pre-mediated and then the eventual termination of the life–be it a one day old embryo or further. Others may to ban it and only punish the hired gun but not the one who hired him/her. Others may come to the conclusion that is impossible to enforce this==clearly with people with money will always have it. And further, there are relatively safe “do it yourself” abortion procedures. And there are drugs which always can be gotten on the black-market. And there others who will state that you have a competing principle in that in all other matters we never require by law for anyone to utilize their own body or body parts to sustain the life of another. In that case you have two competing values: one that you have the early stages of a homosapien but is totally dependent at least for 4 to 5 months totally dependent on the mother’s body and this competes with that you cannot force anyone to utilize their body for sake of someone else.(I will get to later on what you consider a contradiction in the govt banning drugs and suicide). As stated a few times,
you cannot by law force anyone to give a drop of blood to save someone else. And once the child is borne, you cannot by law force a parent to donate one drop of blood to save the borne child. So that is principle you have to deal with it. It has been since the ages.
Let us get away from abortion in discussing absolutism. We are taught in culture never to hit your wife. Never? Suppose the house is burning down and the wife is hysterical and stays in the house to collect all the heirlooms, pictures, etc. Then we would accept slapping or knocking her out and carrying her out of the house. What about torture. Never. What if the information would save a thousand lives. I would had no problem torturing those who knew where Daniel Pearl was hidden before he was beheaded. Maybe from your Christian point of view, better not to do so because not so bad; after all Daniel will go to Heaven. However, even there, he was Jewish and did not accept Christ so he would miss that opportunity. The point is that any moral choice is not simple. There are many factors involved.
Apply this to abortion. Even here those like yourself make an exception to save the life of the mother; you bring in self-defense. I don’t know where it says that in the NT. But what about cases where the continuation of a pregnancy
will impair the health of a woman; it happens sometimes. In your stance do you want to equate aborting for preventing permanent damage to the health vs someone getting an abortion for silly reasons. It seems an absolute position drives you in that corner. I think people like yourself are afraid if you give an inch, you will lose the whole battle.
4. I do not get lost in abstractions. You just cannot except the fact that an absolute standard of morality applies no matter how many far-fetched scenarios you come up with in the discussion
ME. You avoid reality. One can say all life is precious. But when something like the Titantic occurs, the captain has to make a choice who to save given not enough life boats. The same thing in medical triage situations where choices have to be made who to treat first. Who should get preference for a kidney==a 20 year old or a 95 year old. An absolute standard means you flip a coin. Or at least the way you have described such.
More on absolute standards. There is on going case which presents the problem clearly. I think In Az, a person saw two guys hitching up his trailer to their pickup truck and driving away with it. He yelled, stop, and shot at them
and wounded one of them. They were eventually apprehended when the guy who was shot went to a hospital. It turned out they were illegal immigrants with a record a mile high. The DA charged the shooter with seven counts of criminal activity. Why? The law is such that you can only shoot someone if your life is threatened; since they were driving away, his life was not threatened. Absolutism at its best. So what would I do if I were on the jury.
I would not convict in that case. I believe that someone steals something significant that will impact you(let us sat $20,000 for trailer is significant, I believe you have every right to stop them and if you wound or kill, tough luck. But I am not absolute on this. If for example, someone stole an apple from my apple tree, I would not shoot him or find someone innocent who did such. My only point one cannot have absolute standards that don’t take into consideration all the factors. This does not make one a relativists in the pejorative sense.
Your absolutism makes no distinction between some girls in our country today throwing her just born infant into with garbage can and way back when there famines, no birth contol and a mother would take her just borne child(having already a few children) to waterfront and letting it die. The circumstances—but you don’t like circumstances–are clearly different. Way back, if the mother did not allow the new born to die, then many more die because not enough food around. And that is the problem with your absolutism; it ignores the surrounding circumstances. Of course, one has to make a judgement what circumstances justify this or that. But that is alway the case. That is why we have the word “judgement”. The way you present your position, there is no need for judgement—it is simple reflex; no thinking.
5. The committent to an absolute standard of morality means that I do not bow to subjective analysis no matter how many statistics you cite. In fact, it is rather pointless to cite them since by definition a standard is the standard and standards do no change via the whim of the public.
Me: IF i were the only one who came up idiosyncratic reason for something, you might call it subjective or solipsism. Since, there are many who have differing view points, I am not spinning my wheels. I mentioned the Bush ladies because they come across as decent people and are representative of many. You insult such people by thinking of them as beneath you–your words “pointless” which means they have nothing worth listening to. You are smarter and have received wisdom. You don’t talk that way, but that is the way
it comes across. You find it difficult to accept there are people who live moral lives and yet have a different take on abortion.
——
YOU It is hard to build a system of morality on experience and/or public opinion (consensus) since these are ever changing. Would you be okay if public opinion changed and we accepted and participated in the destruction of the Jewish race? Would you be okay if public opinion changed and we enslaved African Americans once again? By your own reasoning, you can not condemn these pratices if a majority of the people accept them. Nor can you condemn Islamists because their consensus and experience tells them to degrade women.
I can condemn these actions because my standards are not ever changing but fixed.
Me: You see the holacost, the Rhwanta genocide as the same as abortion. Few others do. Pro-choice people do not kill their borne children. Obama treats his children very well. As I pointed out above, pro-choice agree with you in many things; they don’t believe in murder, stealing, dishonoring your parents willy nilly. After all, some of the animal rights people see those who eat meat as being equivalent to genocide of God’s fellow creatures.
The difficulty you have is not seeing at least the way you write the people who are pro-choice as decent normal people. They are not homicidal maniacs as in the case of genocide.
6. The law does not consider the human body as something totally under the control of the person. For example, you cannot take certain drugs without proper permission and you cannot commit suicide legally in most places. In some places they have even established “Good Samaritan Laws” to make bystanders assist their fellow man.
Me: A little history for you. Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Because, the constitution gave no authority for govt to do so. At the time the constition was written. americans drank to their heart’s content.
The amendment came about because lobbying of groups who pointed out the abuse by many of drinking which led to violence against woman.
But then something happened that conservatives and libertarians are very angry about. There are no constitutional amendments to ban recreational drugs. The govt pulled a fast one and use the ICC, The interstate Commerce clause which gives the federal govt the right to regulate interstate commerce; and it is under that rubric that drugs are outlawed.
But you are missing the distinction I made. The govt outlaws the use of certain drugs on the grounds of public safety. Sufficent number of people on drugs it is said are dangerous to public safety. That is reasonable argument assuming true. But allowing abortion has nothing to do with public safety. I guess one could make an argument if the population dwindled where we could not sustain ourselves, then one could argue to ban abortion so the country will survive. But we are not there. And that is not the argument of people like yourself.
Suicide is not illegal. I think you are thinking of assisted suicide where the doctor gives you medication if you have 6 months to live so you die peacefully. That is legal in 2 or 3 states. But, if you botch your suicide,
you not charged with a crime; it might be that you need mental health help.
You are still not addressing the point. And that point is that the govt is prevented from ordering anyone to utilize their body to help the health of anyone. The Good Sam. laws only insist where applicable that you stop and help.
They don’t insist that you give one ounce of blood to save anyone. A doctor who stops at accident may help, but he is not required to donate his own blood, assuming a match, to save the victim.
Of course, agree or not, you can see that the argument of the pro-choice people fits in with that.
Are you are in favor of changing this. I am afraid you will find few takers even in the pro life movement. So abortion is the one place where you want to make the exception. How strange; once we have a borne child, then the mother cannot be forced that is criminally charged if she refuses to subject herself to bone marrow transplant for her child; and most likely the child will die because it is very difficult to get a match.
A few years ago, an interesting story. This 45 year old mother”s child, age 20 was dying for lack of bone marrow transplant. They could not find a match. So she got pregnant by invitro fertilization on the hope that new child
would have the right match. Bingo. It worked. Very admirable. But voluntary.
7. There is no standard punishment for murder in the United States. The punishment differs depending on jurisdiction, motive, circumstances, etc. Why can you not accept the same system for those who commit an illegal abortion? I have not evaded this issue, I have addressed it countless times in the past.
ME. Pre-mediated murder in almost all jurisdiction exact a heavy punishment. Abortion is pre-mediated. You don’t do on a whim. You have to plan; make appointments. I notice that you don’t even suggest a range.
IF I were on jury, I would vote to acquit; but have no fear, it is pie in the sky; never in the history of US and England was abortion murder. And if you want the end of the influence of the pro-life,movement just let the next repub,\
candidate for president propose that a mother be charged with first degree pre-mediated murder. Goodbye, repub. party; goodbye any influence of the pro life movment/
Closing: The issue is very simple, OF course, what inside the womb is an early stage of what will follow. IT is a beginning homosapien. No argument there. Where the argument comes is one I mentioned prior;; you are not required to utilize your own to preserve the life of another. But that really is second place to fact that most people do not give same value; they don’t see it the same. And that is why they are not repulsed by it as you are. Forget about me. I am only expressing what I observe. I mentioned Ireland which has the strictest anti abortion laws of any country. But here is what proves my point, that what is inside is not seen the same as what is outside. What happened in Ireland is that they do allow now potential mothers to travel to England to get an abortion. Cant get one in Ireland. But note if govt have they information someone was going to England to kill a borne person, she would be locked up and charged with attempted murder. But the mother who goes to England to abort is free and clear; she is allowed to go. That tells me that even in the strictest anti abortion country, they see inside as not quite same as outside. It does not mean that inside does not have value; clearly, they don’t allow abortion in Ireland, but just not the equivalent value of outside.
This is nothing new. Who do you give a kidney to: a 20 year old or 98 year old who is healthy. You choose the 20 year old; it does not mean the 98 year old has not value. So to say that people don’t give equivalent value to what is inside and outside is not to demean what is inside. And of course, the further along the development, the more value. That is way the vast majority experience it where for you the first day fertilized egg is no different in value than you or me.
You are free to convert them to your thinking. But don’t insult them by calling them pointless or immoral.
8. On the issue of evasion, you have never addressed directly the quesions I have raised to you in my posts. Please review and do so before you charge me with being an intellectual coward and evading the issue.
I will only address scenarios that have a 2% or more chance of happening.
Me I will close with this which I hope bothers you. About ten years ago or so, NJ reformed their welfare law such that if mother on welfare with one child, and then had another one, no extra payments. Liberals fought against it, naturally, conservatives supported as I would. Makes sense: Don’t encourage irresponsibility. Don’t encourage people to stay on welfare.
It worked. That is, people did not have the second child.
But there a catch which drove the some conservatives crazy. The abortion rate went up.
For me and society as a whole a very successful policy; it cut costs; it cut down the number of ill raised children; and it no longer made welfare attractive.
That is govt at its best; encouraging people to get off the dole
However, I think people like yourself wont see it as a success and would probably vote to repeal the provision and just willy nilly give extra money for each child. So who is supporting responsibility.
And Lastly, I think the pro life movement is barking up the wrong tree. The frequent use of abortion is a symptom of the lack of middle class values;
and middle class values encompass thinking before you act; thinking of your future in the long term. Such people rarely scew up in their sexual lives and have unwanted pregnancies. So, what conservatives should aim for is creating such and then abortion rates will drop.
I was going to say, you might promote more christianity but I changed my mind because the problem with that is the demand for sexual abstinence until marriage which cannot work in this culture where marriage is postponed; hormones win out. And if hormones win out and you are not trained to think of birth control because of the abstinence demand, many will fall thru the cracks. This rarely ever happens in the culture I come from which does not care about abstinence, but emphasizes thinking and planning before you act so if sex will occur it is 99% without untoward effects.
I have no editor and cannot take the time to edit for typos etc; so forgive.
July 17, 2010 – 11:51 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Frankly, I see nothing new here. You are repeating your arguments. I understood them the first time. I disagreed with them the first time and I still do. However, I will make a few general comments and observations.
1. You still confuse absolutism with holding an absolute standard of morality. I know of no other way to explain it. I have never advocated a absolute punishment for murder. I have constantly pointed out factors that influence the punishment. How can you still claim I am absolutist? Please do not try to answer that because I do not thing you will or can.
2. Regarding the lack of a standard punishment for murder: Heavy punishment does not equal the same standard of punishment but is relative depending on what the jurisdiction considers heavy. Standard means uniform.
3. You do not support the rule of law. By your own words you claimed that you would ignore the AZ law and later claimed that you would acquit someone who had cleary violated the law because you do not agree with it. Does your oath as a jury member mean nothing? Are you allowed to pick and choose which laws to enforce? Moral relativism. And you accuse me of arrogance?
4. Your completely failed to address the following observation and subsequent questions: “It is hard to build a system of morality on experience and/or public opinion (consensus) since these are ever changing. Would you be okay if public opinion changed and we accepted and participated in the destruction of the Jewish race? Would you be okay if public opinion changed and we enslaved African Americans once again? By your own reasoning, you can not condemn these pratices if a majority of the people accept them. Nor can you condemn Islamists because their consensus and experience tells them to degrade women.”
5. Your use of the Titanic disaster is not a good one for your case. In that disaster, healthy important men voluntarily stepped aside to allow women and children to get in the life boats. You advocate reversing the order so the reference is not apt.
Perhaps something else will come to me later. I would be interested to hear your honest thoughts on #4. In your previous post you evaded that issue.
The author makes the bizarre assertion that sex and rape are the equivalent.
I agree with him that to be consistent and pro-life one would not make an exception for abortion in the case of rape. But to claim that if you are not consistent on that point you are anti-sex is beyond illogical.
You avoid complex issues.
1. Above I compared a girl today who throws her new born into trash to infanticide as practiced way back where it was one of famine and dimished lack of food to feed everyone. From your absolute there is no difference morally. Why did you not comment. Too difficult to parade absolute morality?
2. You say I do not support the rule of law. I gather from that you have read much by the Az example. You apparantly are not familliar with time honored concept of jury nullifcation which has an illustratous history. I am not going to go into it since you can read and google it.; I advise you not to sound silly in other posts by informing yourself about such. I guess you would have voted guilty for Jesus if you were on jury for his blashpheming.
3. Inform yourself before you write: Re Titantic: It was woman children who were ordered by the captain to first; sure, some important people stepped aside, but you miss the point.
3. Your comment on on the danger of public opinion. You miss the point. I will give one example. The reason we have a first amendment is to prevent the whims of the time from going overboard and inhibiting free speech. What you miss, is that everyone at the time Constitution agreed on the importance of free speech and separation of church and state. For that matter re abortion, it was assumed that until quickening –movement of the fetus, that life did not begin.
The point is you don’t have kind of agreement about a fundemental principle re abortion that exists about free speech, trial by jury. This is fundmental principle whichever side one comes down. Nothing to with the whims of the time.
By the way, even when abortion for the most illegal in many states(except NY and CA) at the time of Roe, never never never was the author of the abortion,the mother charged with a crime nor the law provide such; and abortionist was never charged with murder–first , second or even manslaughter. So even at that time is was NOT considered a crime for the mother and a relatively minor crime the illegal abortionist. This is way before planned parenthood. IF the mother died during the abortion, then and only then was the abortionist charged with either second degree murder of manslaughter. When it comes to fundmental principle,
you need overwhelming consensus. So to pass a constitutional amendment that you would prefer re abortion, you need the congress to pass such by 2/3; and
3/4 of the states to approve such. So if you can get that consensus, you will be home free. You know very well, you wont get it. There is no consensus on this fundmental principle. That is fact. So your problem is that you are confusing whims of the day with fundemental principle which need a huge consensus.
The point this has nothing to do with the whims of public opionion addressed in par 4 of your above; what we are dealing is a fundmental principle like free speech in which there is consensus. That is what you don’t get.
Let me address your points in the order you raised.
1. I am not sure what you want me to comment on regarding your infanticide analogy. But I will try. Infanticide is murder and cannot be justified. Infanticide has occured due to scarcity. It has more often occured due to gender selection and other issues. Funny how the weak and helpless are the ones who have to make the ultimate sacrifice. I wonder if they volunteer?
2. I am aware of jury nullification. By definition jury nullification means that you do not support the rule of the law since you have just nullified the law. Jury nullification means that you disregard the weight of the evidence and the legitimacy of the law in question. Since we live in a society where laws are passed by representative bodies and the people have a chance to change and repeal the laws, we are not dealing with tyranny here.
3. Titanic. Yes, the general order of the day at the time was women and children first. The Titanic included some of the most rich and powerful men of the day. They did not question the order and actually helped to evacuate the women and children. Since you would like to reverse the order and save the most important, why do you even mention the Titanic? The example clearly does not support your argument.
3.2 Your example makes no sense. The Founding Fathers recognized the danger of mobocracy and put institutional and Constitutional checks in place. You have never acknowledged those before your last post. You have always talked about consensus and public opinion. Now you appeal to higher standard?
The First Amendment says nothing about the separation of church and state. It confirms the free exercise of religion and prohibits the government from interfering. The modern interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase did not even come about until the 20th century.
Prior to Roe v. Wade their was a fundamental agreement that abortion was wrong and should be punished. In Roe v. Wade, judicial activists bypassed the will of the people and violated that fundamental agreement. If you really believe that no fundamental agreement exists, then support the repeal of Roe v. Wade and let the people decide the issue. You should win if the people did not oppose the issue. You cannot call yourself a conservative or libertarian when you support such judicial activism. Why are you afraid to let the people decide? Is it because you really do not believe that public opinion and consensus snake oil you have been peddling?
We do not need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution because their is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that allows for abortion. If there is, then why was it only discovered in the 1970s. Do you really think abortion was a fundamental principle that the Founders enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – on the same level as freedom of speech? If so, then they were sure silent about it. If it has only resently become a fundamental principle, then it is the pro-abortion side that must amend the U.S. Constitution. Why do supporters of abortion not support such an amendment – espeically if consensus and public opinion is in their favor – and thus settle the issue?
You are just blowing smoke. Your ideology is inconsistent. You claim to be a conservative but you are willing to allow judicial activists to rewrite the fundamental document of the United States. You may claim to be a libertarian but how can a government that can rewrite the U.S. Constitution and by judicial fiat decide a moral issue be considered a limited government.
Liberal judicial activism allowed abortion. Not free speech, not public opinion, not even consensus. Move on down the street pal, no one is buying your big government stuff here.
I am pro-life and believe that in cases of rape and incest, the fetus is a living being whose life should be preserved. I do think, however, that there is a rational basis for excluding those instances from a ban on abortion. Oddly enough, it is based on “choice.” A woman who CHOOSES to have sex has made a choice that carries the possibility that she will become pregnant and will have to bear responsibility for that child, at least placing it for adoption. A woman who is raped has not made the choice to have sex and arguably, should not have to bear the brunt of it. I still think she should have the child and place it for adoption, but I can see the basis for the argument that she should be able to have an abortion. It has nothing to do with the child being tainted.
hai zombie_chan.
I think Sharon Angle is still a hypocrite.
If abortion is murder, like she claims, then she must want women who seek and obtain ‘legal-in-america abortion’ to be prosecuted for murder, right?
mei mei, you know this thing.
control over our bodies is a basic human right.
without it we are slaves.
<3
I’m pro-life, and this essay failed to offend me, because your initial point is correct. If one’s belief in the right to life is based on understanding that personhood starts at conception, then Angle’s statement is completely honest and sensible. I am a “bleeding heart conservative, a “reformed” environmentalist, former PETA member- if I get upset about dead baby seals and sea turtles, how can I not be disgusted about murdered children?
As for rape/incest exemptions- most pro life people find the idea of killing an innocent baby- any baby, absolutely horrid. So the support for those exemptions derives not from any sense that such a child is less human, or less deserving of life, than any other- but from a place of pragmatism, and a willingness to compromise. Simply put, if abortion were illegal except in such cases, nearly all of the abortions that are done right now would cease. Rape and incest account for such a small percentage that, to some minds, it’s an acceptable sacrifice. Save 95 percent by surrendering 5. I struggle with the idea myself; if I were in a position to make such a bargain, would I do it? To save most of those lives, could I give up the few? Could I vote for that? I do not know.
Where you lose me in your post, is the insistence that “pro-life” is some sort of euphemism for sex-hating misogyny. I’ve never met a pro-life person about whom I could make such an assumption; yes, we do tend to be socially conservative, eschewing promiscuity. That doesn’t mean we hate sex, or think single women who have it are bad people. I’ll make an example of myself here, because I think a lot of conservative women are a lot like me. Sex is serious business, not just because of the potential for procreation or disease, but because it creates emotional and psychological bonds between people. I think that God wants us to be careful whom we share ourselves with, in order to protect ourselves from being opened up to potential pain. Sex with someone who doesn’t value you properly is painful, emotionally damaging, and dangerous. I have dear friends who are promiscuous, or who have been so- and I’ve seen the chaos such behavior has caused in their lives. I want better for them.
to kipling
1. well, so you have put in Wm Penn in jail or worse; don’t you know, he was quaker in England and was put on trial; according to the law
he was guilty; people like you who are absolutists would have done their duty;people acquitted Penn; the nullified the law; so where do you stand;
one does not want to make this absolute; it depends on the situation.’
Cause you to think: John Brown in his attempt to free slaves In Va and start rebellion claims he was following God’s law; in fact song came out of Brown’s death—Glory Glory; so given you follow God’s words, what you have done if were on the military commissioned him to hang;
I only write this to expose your rigidity; for you life is simple minded at least as you come across; never a doubt
You dissapoint me because if you read upon jury nullification and its history and the importance for religious freedom, you would not have written such a boring reply
what you miss, is that jury nullification if used properly consists of the jury questioning the law; not the facts; and that is why Wm PEnn was let off; go read some more before you pontificate; on the other hand , you might be so rigid that you would have to find PEnn guilty;
who knows
2. Stop beating around the bush. Take a stand. I brought up infanticide to make a point: moral judgements have to take a few factors; you still don’t grasp that; so in case infanticide when there not suffficient food to sustain a population which was very prevalent before modern times, the choices are: let new infant survice and everyone in the family will go down because not enough food for all;
your approach then is let everyone become debiltated and die. So, only people who don’t think would call infanticide in that case, immoral; the other choice was worse.; and you dont get that choices you may have are bad and worse; that is beyond you so far
I kill someone. IS that immoral. You cannot decide without knowing the circumstances and judging where these circumstances allow for killing. That is so basic and you refuse to admit it.
Adultery is immoral? IT depends. Suppose the only way the woman can save her husband’s life is to do such.
IS stealing immoral. IT depends. So, are lost in the woods for days on end with your family; you are starving; you find a clearing and there is a house; you break in to get the food and water so your family does not perish.
Do you get the point.
Even for you, you would not call abortion immoral if necessary to save the life of the mother(I wont get into the convulted catholic doctrine in which abortion okay if as consequence of normal medical procedure and the fetus dies; however, one cannot save the mother from dying by deliberately killing the fetus)
Wake up: Re titanic; I never said how I would decided; i only presented for thought purposes; actually, if i had to make a decision, i would choose that which benefit the most people; so clearly, doctors; scientists still in their prime help humanity; hence, sounds reasonable; you may have other choices; but choices have to be made; that is the point that you miss; you just dont flip a coin;
maybe sometimes you do; the situation that is brought up in philosphy courses; s ship sinks; there are too many men in the life boat for it to survive; fair is to draw lots; but suppose one of the men weight 400 lbs; and everyone else about 200 or less
no simple answers, you have bad choices and worse choices; and that is in the case in many moral dilemnas; and you dont get that;
so you might agree that it is moral for abortion in those rare cases where death of mother seems certain(of course with her agreement)
but , you might not agree it is moral, if abortion is done to prevent some health damage(famous case in Poland, where denied abortion even Drs said she would lose whatever little eyesight she had; and that happenned; she sued in the European court and won a judgement)
so how you do weigh these factors in some mathematical equation; for you, okay, abortion if death would follow; no aborton if blindness will follow; and so forth; you are the dictator in area where is no consensus
Also, notice the post by monc 110 above; logically incoherent; but that is the point; logic has nothing to do with it; this is not a sporting contest who can sound the smartest or the most God like; it is the way so to speak, it hits you in the gut and that is what #110 reflects;
laws against murder or stealing do not come from logic or your bible; they come from social existence where everyone values their life and their property; laws follow when big societies are formed;
abortion is different; there is no automatic shockwave as there is in murder of your neibhors family or having your property stolen;
that is exactly why no consensus on our country like ours
Then you accuse me of allowing judicial activitists. I did not know I have that power. By the way, the Roe decision was 7-2 with conservatives on the bench; i am not sure what my response is if I had the power to go back; on the one hand, the abortion debate has become a nasty single issue for many and cost the conservative movement loss of power in many liberal areas; there are many people in blue states who would vote repub or conservative for eco. reasons, but are turned off by pro life movement; so in that sense, leaving to the states would have been better off; however, I like to think myself a moral person; and what bothers me about his whole abortion is that anyone educated and/or with money will always be able to get an abortion regardless of the law; so any anti abortion laws only discriminate against the poor and uneducated and unfortunately are more burdened by having children they cant raise properly;
that does not bother you , I gather, but it should; when laws only effect one part of the populatoin and not the other, that is also immoral.
Clearly if left to the states, states such CA and NY and other blue states will have liberal abortion laws. So what does a poor person in Missippi do; we know what an educated and person with money does; flies to NY, gets a hotel etc; that is denied the poor person;
she might have to back alley;
you love that; i say that because that is exactly what would happen if Roe overturned and left to states;
so, you are so moral= one law for the well off or middle class; another law for less well off; beautiful justice according to you because that is exactly what would happen if Roe gone; even today, people travel from states where more difficult to places like ny to get abortion;
and those with money and/or educated always get these things; aint fair; does not bother you
you are way out of you leage when you use abortion for evidence of judicial activitism; i wont go into it and if you are a serious scholar,
the worst thing in judicial activitism is not Roe, but use off ICC to expand the role of federal govt; elementary; how come you did not know that.
By the way, did you know by marjority vote the congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the court so it can no longer hear abortion cases;
did you know that?; the president would have to sign it; so that is only a marjority; it wont happen; if it did happen that the states would be free; you cant even get a marjority; i am not gloating; i am just stating the facts
your only hope is to get the revivals of the past which swept the country; or the kind of fervor that led to the prohibition amendment or woman right to vote; right there is no swell for that ; and that is because there is no consensus on the morality of; or maybe better put,
no consensus that the law should get involved in such a personal, and controversial issue which is so divisive
I just don’t think you are reading my replies very well. You accuse me of not answering questions I clearly have answered. You also have a habit of shifting your questions and your stance once the original question was addressed. However, I will try again.
1. Jury nullification: The originial question was not whether I supported jury nullification but whether you supported the rule of law. You clearly do not support the rule of law because you would use jury nullification to nullify a law that you disagree with on various grounds. Hence, you do not support the rule of law.
You also failed to consider the point raised by styrgwillidar @113. Jury nulification appeals to a higher authority, a higher moral standard. Thanks styrgwillidar, I had missed that point.
Please note that Jesus could not have been quilty of blaspheme for claiming to be God because He was God. Thus, not guilty and no need for jury nullification.
2. I already took a position on infanticide. It is morally wrong regardless of circumstances. As to drawing distinctions regarding the killing of others, I have already made those distinctions. They were part of my originial argument on why you could not institute a mandatoy death sentence for abortion. Please review my posts. If I appear boring, it is because I grow tired of having to repeat myself and answer the same questions.
I will also point out that Scripture – the moral standard I appeal to – also makes those distinctions.
3. The Titanic demonstrated the exact opposite of your point. Men who you would consider more valuable to society went down with the ship. It was not a calculated decision based upon who would advance society. It was a moral decision that women and children must be protected first.
4. In your earlier posts you appealed to public consensus. Now you argue that one does not exist regarding abortion. Which is it? Or perhaps you argued that there existed a public consensus that no public consensus existed on the issue?
As to your claim that Roe v. Wade was not a clear case of judicial activism, I can only point to reality.
The poor of Mississippi, can alwasy vote for abortion.
A law is not arbitrary if it is decided by the people that it impacts. Each state has a different form of internal taxation. People who want to avoid taxes can always move but what about those who cannot afford to move? Do you also recommend a universal tax code for all the states to follow. What about other laws that may differ by states? Your argument here basically leads to a takeover of everything by the federal government and negates the 10th amendment.
It is clear that you would abandon all your supposed conservative and libertarian positions in order to keep abortion legal.
LenF,
Interesting conversation between you and Kipling.
You aren’t a moral absolutist yet recognize jury nullification. That is, the jury invalidating an existing law due to it’s recognition that it violates basic morality. That requires that their be a basic and obvious morality to point to as justifaciton for nullification. Which means that at some level there is an absolute morality which trancends laws enacted by the legitimate government.
So if a father rapes a daughter, she should make lemonade out lemons because its gods plan?
reply to 113 and 114
1. I have no idea what a moral absoluteist means. Clearly, if you know someone has killed someone, you cant judge the act without
knowing circumstances. Self-defense or hate or robbery. So, you cant judge any without looking at the circumstances. Hence, judgement; sometimes easy(everyone agrees) and sometimes difficult
That is so obvious. I have to keep repeating. Knowing someone had abortion does not allow you to call her immoral; who knows with you; if the abortion was done to prevent the death or very probable death of the mother, then according to you, that is immoral;
you are very much alone; dont give the nonsense that it rarely occurs; i am making a point about absolutism; you have not good job
in explaining yourself;
and what make abortion so difficult to get consensus on is that people are all over the place; it is okay in this situatin for some not okay
in another; it is okay in the first month but not after;there are too many different takes on it; hence no consensus; or clearly not enought
to pass a constitutional amendment; it is like religion in the US with a plethora of sects; they all have their take on the word of God and how to worship and how to behave
The point is an act in and of itself cannot be judged one way or the other without know circumstances surronding that act;
that is so elementary
2. Now Kipling would make a fool of himself even in christian class if he labels what one does in famines, as immoral. In that situation, the parent is faced with a choice: one dies or many die. Which is worse alternative. By the way, that is the exact reason atom bomb dropped on innocent civilians in Hiroshima; and its justification as a moral acts is that it was least harmful and that it saved lives; very similar to the
infanticide practiced when there is famine. By the way, it was same reason for the fire bombing of Dresden it was thought there it would bring the war to close and save lives; churchill was very ashamed of this, but even there the motive was a good one
3. jury nullification; first, kipling keep religion and God of it; your task is to convince those who dont see your God the way you do; you have to talk to a general audience; and as I pointed atheism does not by itself come down on any one side of abortion debate; check out hitchens and hentoff on abortion
you are wise guy when you support jury nullification in the christ trials; that is your belief that he is the son of God; cant use in an audience
unless you are in your own church; what are you saying, the jews were stupid and ignorant that they did not accept jesus as the messiah;
you are in good company; the jews suffered for many centuries because of the belief that they were christ killers; and worse, refused continually unless a gun at their back to convert; watch yourself
one can believe in the rule of law and at the same think some laws are beyond the reach of the govt; that is what happenned in England
with William penn and other dissenters from the church of England; and juries acquited them for blasphemy; they were not following God’s law; but the idea that religion is a private thing which is secular
also, one may ignore the facts; before the civil rights era, klansman or those like them, could kill blacks with impunity; no jury could convict;
that is immoral because a black man is not a cockaroach and there is no excuse for murder;
now suppose after many situations Joe X, a white klanner has killed number of blacks and was rarely prosecuted and when prosecuted the jury let him off; suppose one good citizen blackman had his fill; and kills the klanner; and I am on the jury; if i came to the conclusion that the black man was an oridinary good citizen and not a pschopatic kill; I would acquit; you might think of that as paying respect to the memory of John Brown;
the point is that man isnot perfect; and law is not perfect; it is the best we can do; but sometimes very unusual circumstances occur
that require novel responses
__________________
Now a challange to your mind since apparantly you only talk to people who think like you; i will give you chance to exercise it free of charge
IT applies so called activist judges
Facts:
1. A and B are foreign students who conceive a child in the US; after 8 and half months of pregnancy, they return to their home country
2. The child comes out of the womb in the home country.
3. A and B come back to the US and state that their child is a US citizen. They are turned down and cases SCOTUS; and you are on it
Here is their argument:
1. When the 14th amendment was passed circa 1868, it stated anyone borne in US is a US citizen. But at the time the country was ignorant of embryology; and now we know that a person, a homosapien, begins when egg meets sperm,; the word “borne” means something new; and that happens at the moment of conception; hence that is when the child started; that when was born; where it resides, in or outside the womb is irrelevant.
2. They make a second argument in case the first one does not convince the the judges.
And that that A and B left the country when infant was 8 1/2 old in the utereus; at 8 1/2 old, a utereus is not required; the child is no longer dependent on the mother’s body; it could come out naturally and survived or labor could have been induced; so basically at 8 1/2
the mother’s utereus is just another box, container like a crib; it is holding device; so it should not make any difference at 8 1/2 months what kind of container the child is in; the container is the US, be it a crib or a utereus; hence, the infant at 8 1/2 is a citizen.
Even in Roe, the court recongized that in the 3rd trimester states could ban abortion save for self defense of mother; that recognized that infant still in the womb could exist on its own; so what is the big deal if it came out and hung out in a crib while in the US or was in another container, the mother’s uterues at time; what counts it was independed; so although the mother left before coming out of her box, that is irrelevant;
SO, the above are your arguements; so how should a judge who is not an activist rule
Let me take your points one at a time – hopefully for the last time.
1. No one ever said that circumstances do not play a role in determining judgment. If you will re-read my earlier posts, you will see that I made that argument in regard to the killing of others: i.e. the killing of someone in cold blood is not the same as killing someone in an act of war or self defense. That is why I did not lay down a firm mandatory sentence for abortion – as you demanded.
2. Regarding infanticide. I can forsee no circumstances that legitimates infanticide. If famine rules the land then don’t have children. If you do have children and times are tough, look for alternatives like adoption or, as in olden days, indentured servitude.
Infanticide cannot be compared to the bombings during WWII. We live in an age of total war when civilian populations contribute to the war effort. Hiroshima and Dresden had military value.
3. Jury Nullification: Your original examples of the trial of Jesus and the trial of William Penn brought religion into it. I am sure that the jury in Penn’s case appealed to a higher authority in refusing to convict him. You brought religion into it so why are you disturbed that I followed suit?
Once again you resort to being incendiary by calling me an anti-semite and comparing me to those who forcibly converted the Jews and to klansman. Nice demagoguery but no substance and not worthy of a response.
4. Regarding the SCOTUS scenario. The case would never make it to the Surpreme Court since the law is clear on citizenship. If that case reached the Surpreme Court it would demonstrate the activism of a judicial system which had advanced the case in order to change the law by judicial rather than legislative means. Any attempt to change the law by judicial rather than legislative means is judicial activism. The Supreme Court and other courts cannot legislate from the bench because it is unconstitutional.
Let us face reality. You are not a conservative nor a libertarian. You are a mixture of different opinions based upon your own reasoing and experience. Otherwise, why would you not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade because it is bad law, bad precedent, and unconstitutional. Leave out your support of abortion and look at the merits of the case itself. Why not submit it to the will of the people in the states or through a fedeal law? Why are you afraid of the people?
Thanks for the discussion but unless you begin to answer the questions I raise and stop your incendiary ad hominum attacks – charges of anti-semitism – then our discussion is at an end.
Are you all there. Look what you said re famine; if famine, don’t have children. Gee Whiz. When famines occurred say back, there was no birth control; no knowledge of the esteus cycle. And this may exist today in some parts of Africa where no birth control(thanks in some areas to the catholic chruch); uneducated people;
we are not talking about you may make a meagre salary and know about birth control; what is the matter with you; you are beginning to sound like a fanatic moslem;
and even with intelligent people, mistakes happen except for you; you are the new jesus
Secondly, you are way off on seeing the analogy between letting a newborn die so the rest can survive and purposely boming civilians. You have learn to abstract.
The similarity in both cases is save more lives. Compare to Hitler slaughter of the JEws; that had no purpose to save lives. In War, you are not suppose to bomb civilians;
sometimes mistakes happen and we call it collateral damage; in the case of Hiroshima that was not a mistake; it was to bring Japan to knees by destroying a city of civilians, I dont beat around the bush as you do; in the Hiroshima, we chose the lesser of two evils. And that is something you dont get; and that is sometimes the choice and that is the moral choice when faced two evils is choose the lesser one; that is being moral instead of spouting nonsense;l you try to slip out of it,
by calling it war; war has rules you know and one is not to purposely target civilians; but unusual circumstances arise in modern warfare where victory is easily
won on the battlefield between soldiers and over in a week; times have changed;
let us get you to think: Abortion is illegal in all cases. You are the cop who has a patrol car for possible crime; you only one patrol car available; you get two calls
within seconds of each; first call is that someone is on their way to illegal abortionist and 6 months pregnant; the 2nd, is someone is one month pregnant about to take RS whatever pill that causes abortion. Both evil; both morally wrong to you; you have to make choice; where do you send the patrol car. Two immoral acts;
you have to make choice which is more immoral; of course, you it might make no different; abolute; so toss a coin; what do you do;
the whole purpose of this is to get you to think that it is not simple
Wm Penn: Get off the higher authority nonsense. IF that happenned today, we appeal to the first amendment. In the time of Wm Penn, appeal freedom of conscience. Start studying. The QUakers did not say :My god better than yours”; and jury was not made up of quakers that acquitted; you like to pull rabbits out of hat
i did not call you an anit-semite; stop being paranoid; i said watch it; i dont know you but I have to assume in your everyday life you are a decent person and not anti-semite or anti black; however, language is important; and if you know the history of Christianity, you will know for centuries, jews were blamed for the death of christ and for rejecting him; 70 years or so, even in Boston full of Irish, when Easter, they would look to beat up jews; those days are gone; current generation abou that althought anti semitism is rising its ugly with moslems and the left; i know you are not part of that; i know you mean well(i am assuming alot not knowing you!)
The problem isnbringing religion as kind of support argument in the US; abortion can argued on its merits; in fact, you have to do that if you want to win; if you bring in your religion to those who dont follow it, they will ignore; you have to make the argument on what we have in common; and as saids atheism or agnosticism do not rule treating the embrtyo as a nascent human being.
The extreme pro-life is simple without God: At conception we have human being; the start of one, etc. And given,that we have no right to kill it save self-defense.
That is all there is to the argument. You dont need god.
My poisition the more intelligent people is not to deny the part that we have the beginning of human being. One can accept that and still see abortion as legal as the author of the article we are commenting on. There will be variations among these people under time limits; and if time limit exceeded, what circumstances justify. And so although one might agree the beginning –conception starts a human being, still as a gut reaction it is not exaclty the same; just I am the same person in some sense as was 20 years ago; yet I am also different. So when I am 95 I dont have the same value for the right to scarce kidneys as does 40 year old.
I cant convince you of that. People like me rarely get abortions yet are not to completely outlaw it. So, your task to make everybody like me and the kind of culture I come from. That is the only way you are going to cut down(never elimiate) abortion.
I am 75; when I was a kid, every boy wanted to have sex, but every boy carried a condom in their pocket; the people I grew up thought of their future, college; making a living; hence would not sacrifice having a child for that. So that is your job; make everyone think like the middle class; that is take future into account before you act. That is only way, you are going to cut down on abortion.
A few more things as I educate you for free–you allowed to smile at that remark.
Scotus: you have no imagination.
However, why do we have a court; when 14th amendment and the 1896 court interpeted separate but equal; overturned 60 years;
so there is room for court to interpety consitution; the question is whether going to far which is matter of judgement;
that is enough of that
Please note that you have addressed none of the questions I have raised. You have not reconciled your support of big government and judicial activism with conservative or libertarian principles. Please do not repeat yourself yet again. Either answer the question or desist.
1. Since the ancient Egyptians practiced birth control, I assume you are now only talking about the ancient civilizations that predated written history.
2. Children are not mistakes. Why will you not admit their are alternatives to infanticide and abortion? Can you say A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N?
3. How is “you are beginning to sound like a fanatic moslem” not an ad hominum attack. Please support your allegations or retract it.
4. Infanticide is the lesser of two evils. I will inform the infants.
5. By the way, have you realized that you now call infanticide evil – which you have not done so before.
6. Your scenario now identifies abortion as an evil. No one disputes that we often have to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. However, until your last post you have not recognized the choices as evil.
7. The jury had to apply to a higher authority even if that authority was their own reasoning.
8. Let me make one thing clear. The Jewish religious authorities in the form of the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Do you dispute this fact? A fact recognized even by Jewish historians of the first century. The Jewish religious authorities, in conjunciton with the Gentile poliical authorities, then had Jesus put to death. How is that fact racist or anti-semitic. If to state that fact is anti-semitic then first century Jewish historians were also anti-semitic.
As to your admonition to “watch it”: is that a threat? I would remind you that atheists have killed far more Jews than Christians. Nor do I like your Alinsky tactics of guilt by association.
9. Without God you have no absolute standards. You simply have people making a guess based upon their own experience which is highly subjective and changes over time. How can someone who is part of the system make an objective judgment upon the system? Philosophy as a discipline gave up the search for truth with Nietzsche and simply settled for hedonism. Way to go human reason.
10. Only the middle class consider the future before they act?
11. Since you are 75, do you support senior-cide or aged-cide in times of famine or economic turmoil. After all, as you argued, we must sometimes choose the lesser of two evils. The aged have lived past their prime, contribute nothing to the family income, and are simply a drag upon society. With Mr. Obama and his medical advisers, these are questions that will soon be raised. Where do you stand? Does that stand coincide with your willingness to kill the underaged before they can vote or will you fight to live?
I do not support aged-cide because God says that all life is valuable – not just life that is convenient or wanted. You however cannot oppose aged-cide because your support of infanticide has already taken us to the brink.
11. Since you are 75, do you support senior-cide or aged-cide in times of famine or economic turmoil. After all, as you argued, we must sometimes choose the lesser of two evils. The aged have lived past their prime, contribute nothing to the family income, and are simply a drag upon society. With Mr. Obama and his medical advisers, these are questions that will soon be raised. Where do you stand? Does that stand coincide with your willingness to kill the underaged before they can vote or will you fight to live?
I will not support killing based on age or sex or other illicit reasons. Look I didn’t say unlawful. There is a difference. And you don’t need God to tell the difference.
What I support is the right to choose if and when and who help.
If there is a famine, I will use my resources to stay alive, to keep alive my family, my relatives and my friends. Busybodies like you don’t decide my priorities on how use the scarce food I have available, the scarce drugs, the scarce housing and so on. They are mine, I decide how use them.
The same is for abort: the mother retain the right to stop to feed the embryo or the fetus in any moment and evict her from her womb. The only thing I would ask to her is to do it in a way that allow to an interested party to take over and take care of the evicted fetus/ embryo/ zygote. Now, there is no difference but in future there could be a way to keep the fetus alive and grow it until it become a child.
This is not so different from what I would require from a woman or a single parent that want to rid him/herself from a born child (whatever reason). Bring him to a place where others will find him immediately and will take care of him (if they so choose). In the past there was the “Wheel of the exposed” where mothers could leave their children anonymously. They put them on a wheel, attached to a wall. From the inside, someone could turn the wheel and take the baby in without seeing the mother.
To Mirco: The post at 119 was a response to lenf at 118. You are welcome to comment on it but do not consider it a response to anything you have posted.
One hundred years ago, someone could have said that we did not need God to tell us to protect the unborn.
Very commendable that you would protect yourself and family during a time of famine. The question was posed to lenf who supports infanticide.
So much for the mother having an obligation to the child. Her rights – if you call it that – now trumps the life of the infant. How long until the rights of the young trump the lives of the old? Abortion devalues human life. It devalues the role, purpose, and priveleage of motherhood. The moral decay it produces will infect all of society as it already has in some cases.
you skull is thick; you say there alternatives to infanticide; you don’t get the point; i have to spell out; we are talking making moral judgements; number 2,
my point is that you cant judge something by the act itself; you have to know all circumstances; get that; now the point I was making about infanticide in places where food diminished was there were 2 alternatives–when infanticide was practiced in ancient times or pre historical times, there were no alternatives; there was no adoption–the whole clan or nomads or whatever were affected by the famine; can you imagine that situation or are you engrossed in the present that you think people could just walk to grocery store; so given that situation, there 2 alternatives; i have already spelled; the whole point of this excercise is very simple;
you cant judge an act just by the act itself; take the catholic church to illustrate the kind of moral reasoning; the woman has a good chance of dying without fetus being removed in someway; removed–another nice term for abortion; so the baby is removed; is that immoral according to the catholic church; it depends;
if the death of the fetus is by-product of another treatment–egs cancer drugs to cure her cancer which happen also kill the fetus, then by church standards, that is moral; but not if fetus is killed directly; i only bring up this up to point that in both cases the fetus is aborted–but notice the moral judgement is not on fhat fact, but how it was done. Have i penetrated your mind.
To beat it into you, moral judgements have to take in many factors.
Now with abortion, people like yourself state since it has all th genetic features and more as it grows, the fetus is nothing more than a young one of us; hence,
one needs a high level of justification for aborting; for you maybe only possible death of the mother; for others, serious threat to health; for others mild threat to health which might be temporary. So, already you notice here that reasonable people can disagree. Who is right? OF course, with you, you will pull God out of that hat. Can’t do that since we accept that everybody is entitled to their view of God–we dont have dictators like you tell us what God says,. That is america. We are not a moslem country. In Communist countries of old, it would not be the christain, but Marx and Lenin as stopper of all discussion. Marx said etc. Dont pull that here.
So reasonable people can disagree what we do. One alternative which you support is overthrow Roe and states decided. Not God, but voters. That is a reasonable alternative. It wont accomplish your goals because in every state rape, and a few others things will give right to abortion; and in many states it will quite liberal.
The people decide is what I described above. That should make you happy since no longer is SCOTUS deciding. But it probably won’t because too many people can travel. Let me ask you this: Suppose your state has strict laws. Would you support a law that makes it first degree felony for anyone leaving the state to go to another state or even country to have an abortion. And the next question, how you would like Scotus to rule on that law.
Getting you to think. Take cannibalism. Let’s compare a tribe that way back practiced such when invaded another territory. Compare to your next door neibhor who kidnaps chlldren and cooks them for his meal,
Are they equivalent re morality. Do we judge them same. No, we say about the cannibals, that social evolution had not taken place; they don’t see themselves nor the ones they attacked as doing something wrong; that is the way it is. It is the same not calling these people stupid because they did not discover geometric proofs; to get somewhere intellectual or morally takes evolutoin–social evolution. Your next door neighbor on the other lives in a society which has evolved; he knows something is wrong; that is why he hides it.
Do you get the point. You are not allowed to make a moral judgement without factoring other factors. OF course, you can do that, but you will fail any philosophy course in a catholic college if you remain that stubborn.
You don’t seem to get that moral judgements depend on consensus. Total consensus on murder, stealing, etc; not so much on the use of recreational drugs; cops in philadelphia at musical event where kids can get rowdy will immediately lock someone carrying alcohol into the place but ignore marijuana; why, drunks throw things; people on joints are laid back. Notice the judgement–a word you dont like in your absolutism–of cops where safety is the concern.
IF you dont want to come across as God’s agent, then the way you should present your case is on embyology; try to get your audience to see it that way; and if you do that, then they may conclude it should be murder; but dont you shove the word murder down their throat; a sure loser.
As to me, the question should it be murder. No. Why, crimes such as murder are agreed by people in a community; in our country, the states. It does not come from high up. It comes from the experience in a community of what is right and wrong. This will vary. Certain things won’t vary such as the wanton random killing of someone–most likely murder everywhere. In our community, the USA and its variatoins in the states, you can’t get more than a handful to make it a crime on the mother; it is her decision that leads to the death of the fetus; if the mother hired someone to kill her husband or her borne child, that is crime.
So, if my neighbors–citizens of my state–cannot see it murder, I am not so bold as you are to tell them they are encouraging murder. They see it differently;
until you convert them–Good luck– dont demonize them. What you do, if you think your community is not up to your standards and you have no hope to convert them, you leave and go somewhere else. That is how the US began; people left England because they were not satisified with the religtious culture there.
age-cide. Sure I support for myself; i intend to kill myself before becoming a parasite on my family and have my wealth dissipated on keeping my parasitical form alive rather going to the next generation. That is an individual decision.
In times of famine, there is not enough food by definition. People are going to die. Dont be so selfish. Learn something from the Eskimos. You are getting a free education from. Way, eskimos were nomadic–traveling to where the food supply was. When someone got old, on his own, he would stop going with them; the trip was difficult and he thought it burden; and he would down and quietly die. That was then and it made sense. Today we have cars, wheel chairs etc so that is not necessary for movement.
Get off your slogans. Let me give you a concrete situation. About 20 years ago a relative had a stroke and was brain dead. About 80. So I went to another City, NY, to visit in the hosptial; she looked like a corpse, and was brain dead; but according to alive, that is fine. So the hsuband told me something that will be new to you;the Dr
told him given the diagnosis, that medicare will only only only pay for 60 days to keep her alive. He had her terminated in about 5-7 days; that is he, husband, had the authority to tell the hospital to stop. IF was up to me, I only allow 7 days in that kind of diagnosis. Money does not grow on trees. Did you know that most of medicare is eaten in last 60 days of someone’ life.
You will end up cursing me as wanting to kill old people. There are no shades of gray for you. I had a hip replacement about 6 years ago; it will wear out eventually maybe when in late 80′s or 90 or so. Now if I am in decent shape, I surely want that done and it is reasonable to be paid for. At least I think so. However, suppose I Am very ill and on my last legs, then it would be silly to allow for it. Everything is not black and white. So age should not be the factor, the chances that it would be useful should be the factor. And clearly, as one gets older one approaches death; as the Bible says there is time to die. I have no objection if people want to some extra insurance to give them everything they want at the end of life; but that should be goal of medicare. EVerything they want?
Life is not fair. President REagan was very wealthy man. So when he Alz, they could hire people to take care of him, night and day, relieving the family of this
tremendous burden. Obviously you and me cant afford this and a heavy burden falls on the family or one ends up nursing homes which are not very pleasant.
Do you propose, medicare allow one to dealt with the way Pres Reagan and others similarily situated. Get off your cliches and get down to reality.
1. Nice resort to ad hominum attack. The only evidence that my head is thick is that I am still having a discussion with a man who repeatedly resorts to ad hominum attacks and who now admits that his standard of morality for infanticide are nomadic tribesmen who lived in ancient or prehistoric times.
2. No one has ever said that circumstances do not play a factor in morality. Please read my previous posts. The point of absolute standards – explained for the 100th time – is that standards apply to everyone and in some cases in all situations. I have already discussed the distinction between cold blooded murder and killing people in a time of war. Why do you keep arguing a point that is not in contention.
3. So now you argue for abortion only in an instance where the life of the mother is threatened? I have never argued against that. If so please quote me directly.
4. I have not tried to push my views upon anyone. The difference between me and Islamist is that I try to persuade and he will kill you if you disagree. You are completely ignorant if you cannot see the difference.
5. So now you support overturing Roe v. Wade and allowing the people either through the state or the federal government to decide? I guess we have made progress after all.
6. No need to comment on your rejection of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. I have a right to both. Interesting how you accuse me of being authoritarian but it is you who have tried to intimidate me with crys of anti-semiism and racism. It is you who tells me to shut up and move along. Yet you are the tolerant one?
7. Regarding agedcide: So you get to decide when to end it all. But the unborn and infants have no choice. Why will you not allow an unelected judiciary to make that decision for you? Who should make the decision for the terminally ill, or the severly disabled? Are they just parasites too, just as you described old people who need care?
8. Moral judgments require consensus: Define consensus. Are we talking 51 to 49 %, 100%, or somewhere inbetween? Be specific and deal with reality not abstractions.
9. No, I do not support cannibalism. Nor do I concider them moral authorities. I would condemn them and my neighbor who eats children. Thanks for expanding my mind with another pointless analogy.
10. As to moral consensus, plenty of people disagree with murder as an aboslute. Many justify the murder of others but would oppose someone murdering them. How do we deal with that double standard? Stop dealing in cliches.
11. In most cases, brain dead = dead, so how does that change anything we discussed.
12. Who determines when a proceedure is useful? Since you support big government abortion, I assume you have no problem supporting big government agedicide.
13. Are you advocating the murder of patients with Alzhemer’s who cannot afford their own care?
14. Please use a semblance of proper grammar. A run-on sentence connected with nothing but a bunch of ;;;;; is frustrating and hard to deal with logically.
I have noticed two trends in your posts. The first is that you gradually shift the debate. When you are refuted on one point you shift to another. The second is that you re-argue points that are not really points of contention.
Pinning you down is impossible. One question to pin you down. In the prior post, I mentioned that under medicare, if you brain-dead, but quite alive, medicare will only pay for 60 days of this. So two questions. Should the govt force medicare to expand this indefinitely. The 2nd question is that is the guardian immoral who
orders that the person be taken off life support prior to the 60 days; and in addition, if after 60 days the guardian, husband, parent whatever, immoral for not depleting all their assests to keep the person alive. Miracles do happen you know. Answer specifically.
The next question, I mentioned the kind care people in the economic status of former PResident received when had the terrible disease of alzheimer’s; terrible not only to him but to those of his family; and this is especially so to those families who don’t have the economic means. So the question is whether in name of being moral
we should raise taxes sufficiently so everyone in the state that Reagan was, gets the same care. Would not that be the moral thing to do; after, all you reject abortion for financial reasons; however, you support paying welfare I am sure for child whose mother turned down abortion but ends up on the dole on your expense; she had control of the situation; a family struck by Alzheimer’s has no control; an act of God or chance so to speak; hence,one might expect from a moral view, yours, that we should be taxed for moral reasons to give everyone the same care Reagan got. Stop with nonsense of my advocating murder for those with Alz.
Man does not live by bread alone. Have you ever been to a nursing home—I have visited one–a good one run by quaker organization; when you the brain damaged, stroke victims, alzheimers, it is a miserable sight to see; they are not getting what people like Reagan got; is this immoral that you and the rest of us are unwilling to spend what it takes to give the kind of care reagan got; it would like money to give these kinds of patients the care that reagan got; so is that the moral thing to do–our govt taxing us for that and of course the voters vote for the govt
What are you going to same to someone who says to you or someonelse: hey, it is immoral for you go on vacatoin while someone else with Alz does not get the care that Reagan got; so forgo your vacation if you are moral, and use to support reagan kind of care for Alz; that is getting down to brass tacks instead of bathing your self in abstractions with no concretization about the essence of morality; it costs you absolutely nothing to be pro-life and for that matter to be pro-choice;
I am not advocating anything; what I am trying to is clarify the meaning of moral and immoral. So I accuse you of being immoral because you can eat much cheaper than you eat(liverwrust instead of steak or chicken) and give that money for care of Alz patients to approach Reagan’s care; stop watching TV or going to movies so you can be moral in taking money saved to bring the care of Alz patients to that of Reagan; that would be more moral than advocating criminal penalties for abortion because that aint going anywhere; but the money you saving by sacrificing some of your life style will do some good and you will be more moral
it aint so simple as you make; you are magic man with words; anybody who is a thinking person knows that you should not deliberately kill civilians in wartime unless it is the less of two evils; how do you handle, hiroshima–”That is okay–it is war”; it was never okay to deliberately target civilians in war; however, in the specific circrumstances at the time, the alternative of not doing so, would have caused more american and japanese lives to die which would have occurred if we invaded japan;
you cant get away with that nonsense that in war okay to kill civilians willy nilly; you make a fool of yourself; and why I bring this up is to illustrate how complex moral decisions are; and there are times where both a and b are not ideal choices; but in certain circumstances you are forced to choose the least evil of the choices for the greater moral effect; and that is beyond you; that is why I advise you take some philosphy of moral courses at some catholic univ.
What is the answer to this question. Your father age 80 is drowning at one side of the river and your 5 year old on the other side. What is the moral choice who to save since you can save one. IF we follow you, they are equal in value; hence, you should not play God, and toss a coin; head for the old man; tails for the young kid. Where I would suggest one can make a decent argument to save the younger child and most likely that would be the consensus.
Why do I bring up these thought questions. It is to clarify how complex moral choices are. And you dont get that. I try.
Once again you employ dishonest discussion tactics. Please allow me to elucidate.
1. Instead of acknowledging the last response and engaging in dialogue, you ignore questions and points raised and simply shift the debate to new ground. You attempt this every time you introduce a new scenario or accuse me of not addressing reality.
2. You accuse me of making statements or raising points that I have never made or raised – i.e. your contention that support welfare when in an earlier post I explicitly argued against it.
3. Ad hominum attacks that do not even fit your own line of reasoning. For example, you claim their is no objective absolute moral standards but then you appeal to one in regards to jury nullification and no in calling me immoral for not contributing more to the financial welfare of others.
4. You introduce topics and then become offended when I address them. For example, you raised the trial of Jesus. When I addressed the question you accused me of bring religion into a religious trial. Then you accused me of being anti-semitic; a point you later retracted.
Problems with your philosophy and your philosophical process:
1. You have no objective absolute moral standard. By your own admission, your morality is based on experience – which is highly subjective – and on public opinion / consensus, which even you are unable to define.
2. Instead of a moral standard and then reasoning forward to address problems, you look at the problems and then begin to reason backwards. You make the situation worse by appealing to far-fetched scenarios and then trying to reason yourself back to a moral foundation.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you wish to avoid the possiblitiy of an objective absolute moral standard at all costs. Otherwise, why would you attack the possible existence of an objective absolute moral standard with so many far-fetched scenarios.
Now let me explain my system from beginning to end. You will not agree but it may help to see my world view.
First, Scripture is the inspired Word of God and provides a definitive word from outside the system about the system thus giving it objectivity and authority. Scripture address the higher story questions of life – Why am I here? Where did I come from? What is human nature? What is the nature of evil? Where does evil come from? How do I treat my fellow humans? Etc. It does not matter if other people believe Scripture since Scripture is truth. You do not have to believe in the law of gravity but that law still applies whether you believe in it or not. In other words, one can ignore the morals of Scripture but those morals still apply.
Second, Scripture does not treat morality as something that is simple or easy. Morality is complex, and Scripture deals with it as such. Morality is also hard and full of difficult decisions. Jesus is quite clear that moral decisions can cost you your life.
Third, Scripture is clear that all human life is precious because men and women are created in the image of God. Therefore, whenever we have a choice, we choose life. More than 90% of abortions today are abortions of convenience. They have nothing to do with famine or choosing the lesser of two evils. Charities, adoption agencies, etc exist to help women who choose life over abortion. The problem is that abortion is cheap and quick way to seemingly avoid the consequences of the actions. Society does not portray abortion as a hard moral choice but rather as a reset button that somehow makes everything better.
A central tenet of conservatism is that a person and a society must deal with the consequences of their actions in order to grow and progress. We must be allowed to fail if we do not want to be perpetual children. Abotion seemingly avoids the consequences by killing what society considers the problem – the child. The problem is not the child but the promiscurity that led to the conception of the child. Instead of dealing with the problem our society allows the killing of the product of the problem.
Fourth, from the moral foundation of Scripture, I can then reason forth – guided by Scripture – and address problems that might arise. Will differences amoung good people occur? Yes, but the existence of a standard helps to minimize and manage those differences.
You look at tough choices that have to be made and then chicken out when it comes to making those choices. Your position is a fraud that allows evil to prevail. Having a child under difficult sitations and circumstances is hard but just because it is hard does not mean it should be avoided. Adversity is not the enemy but the training ground for equipping us. To avoid adversity – which is impossible in the long run – is to avoid equipping ourselves for life and it will catch-up with us eventually.
Fifth, by following a moral standard and reasoning forward, I can avoid the traps that you fall into by your extreme scenarios. For example, the fact that I do not support abortion does not mean that I support welfare babies and the parents who profit from them. Welfare for able bodied men and women is something that is not tolerated in the Bible. Even widows and orphans had to work for their bread. According to Scripture, charity begins in the home and primary responsiblity for the care of the truly needy falls to the family and then to the church. Contrary to what liberal theologians will claim, Scripture does not support the welfare state.
Our discussion has been long and perhaps not unfruitful. However, unless you show a sincere desire for dialogue and answer the points I raise, I am no longer interested in a one sided discussion. Have a good day.
To lenf: Let me put the argument to you another way.
As Jean Paul Sartre once said, and I paraphrase, all points without a fixed reference point are meaningless. The problem with your approach to building a moral philosophy is that it is doomed to failure. You begin by looking at all the scenarios and then try to reason from them. But these scenarios in themselves are meaningless because they are random points. Without a fixed reference point as your starting point, you cannot define, place, or judge the random points.
The approach I take is to start from the fixed point of Scripture and then reason outward to the other points, which are no longer random because the fixed point places them.
Your approach will never result in a moral standard or even a moral system because the points of the system are always influx without the fixed point. Public opinion / consensus changes. You have no choice but to either borrow from my system or accept that all morality is relative.
The writer of the article seems bright enough to understand the ethic of being pro-life, but he apparently lacks the moral maturity to adopt the ethic as his own. I agree whole heatedly that Sharron Angle is praise worthy and courageous in her firm opposition to abortion, no matter the rational. I happen to agree with her.
I agree that abortion is the procreation loophole that facilitates illicit sex. Practicing procreation sex is extremely compelling, but expecting a “right” to destroy the human beings that result is the pinnacle of immorality on any scale, moral or secular. It is also so blatantly and deeply hypocritical that tolerance must certainly carry enormous moral implications in the eyes of a just God.
Anyone on the fence about the issue of abortion might try taking a long look at the remains of the human beings destroyed by a woman’s choice. Then imagine yourself among those cast aside for convenience. Americans once were capable of empathy that would have certainly fought this holocaust with unstoppable determination. This new radical form of slavery comes with radical human costs borne by those who don’t live to speak of it. History will judge us very harshly, I fear.
Have some courage. Stand with Sharron Angle and sleep well.
kipling
1. You have not learned; you think you are in saudi arabia; when I tell you to leave your religion out of it,
it is because we don’t live in a country where everyone shares your religion; if you are trying to make a point it has to be addressed to shared values; what is next, your interpetation of the bible that God told you to knock your neigbhor off; of course, you will the miss the point of my last sentence; dont you get it; once you bring God into that anyone is free to interpret what God meant and that gets nowhere in the public domain; talking about God and your morals is for your church when you attend where all accept your premises; but you are not in church with like minded people; you are in public forum with all kinds of people –those that have ideas about God different than yours etc. So please leave that out; IT adds nothing.
You are lost in abstractions; egs; i have no absolute moral standards. I have no idea what you are talking about. And that is exactly why I tried to force you to answer specific moral situations that I put up; then when I see how you apply your “absolute morality” I will understand; it is very easy to say to someone “I love you”–they are simply words; you have to examine how the person treats the one in many different areas–not just the verbal behavior.
Are you coward; are you afraid; you refuse to answer the specific situations—then you have to take a stand–not just keep utttering “absolute morality”–when you take your stand, I will understand exactly what you mean. For example, I gave the example where one could only save his 5 year old or his 80 year old father. My understanding of your absolute morality is that they are equal in value(in your words equal in the sight of God); since they are equal, and you can only save one, that implies to me from your absolute morality, that you flip a coin;
that is what your absolute morality calls for; it is not for you to judge who has more value in that sitatuion; i dont know if i am right or wrong in how your absolute morality would come down on this; and the fact you refuse to tackle this which will help the readers to know what you exactly mean besides throwing words around would be helpful;
dont be an intellectual coward which so far you have been; let us stick to this situation I have posed—saving the young child or the older man; teach me, how your view morality handles this; Is flipping coin the moral thing to do; is saving the young child the moral thing to do; is choosing to save the 80 year old man, the immoral thing to do. We shall just what the heck you are hecking about. Hope springs eternal; i fear you will cop out; you love words; not making difficult decisions.
stop with the boiler plate politician kind of stuff
another point, you say that 90% of abortoins for trivial reasons; how do we define trivial;
A man and woman with 4 children and age now 42 and trying to send their kids to college, gets preganant unexpecdedly; is that trivial; if that is trivial, what about Obama’s wife, plenty of money having an abortion; are they the same;
and who are you to use the word “trivial”–you consider abortion in rape and incest as murder;
so stop with your trivial; dont you get it; once you use word trivial, you are setting up yourself as the judge; if you can set yourself up as the judge so can others who have a different take.
My own personal is that some reasons are better than others for having an abortion; but it is not for me to make it a crime or for that matter the society—-let you be the jailor; i wonder if you would have courage to do it; words are cheap
the difference between us is that you are full of words; what really counts is what to do; you want to lock them up—the mothers who plan and then carry out an abortion either by themselves or they hire someone; but the people like you are COWARDS because no where do I see the pro-life movement DARE to say that so it becomes seen in the press; that is the defintion of a coward. Words are cheap.
Anyway, forget abortion. And answer my first part so people know what you exactly mean–
not in words–but in action; so explain how you would make the choice I laid out in the thought experiement; by the way, it is not a thought experiment; many times in life we are face with analagous choices
How can you call me an intellectual coward when you have consistently refused to answer any questions I ask or address issues I raise? Instead you shift the debate, choose another random scenario, and launch ad hominum attacks. I have address your scenarios. The problem is that you do not like the answer so you try to dismiss those answers.
Your problem is that I refuse to build a moral system out of a game called “What would you do if ___ ?” Instead I take the philosophical position that I must reason from a fixed point to develop a moral system. You play a Hasbro game intended to impress people at a dinner party.
Your last scenario is a false scenario when it comes to deciding morality. In the drowning scenario you mentioned, the moral thing to do is to try and save both. The fact is that you may not be able to save both or even one – depending on the circumstances. The only immoral choice is to have the opportunity to save both and intentionally decide to let one die.
As to the use of Christian beliefs, they are not open to interpretation. Christian beliefs are guided by Scripture and Scripture can be interpreted properly. One of the characteristics of Scripture is that it is clear and knowable. We are not talking about vague mysticism here but rather the written word of God.
It matters little what you think of Scripture. We live in the United States where freedom still exists and I have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Forgive me if my religion is not the pale version that has no impact upon my life.
The other point I would mention is who are you to judge anyone. By your own admission you have no moral standard and no sense of morality. What does guides you is experience, which is highly subjective, and public consensus, which you have never defined. What is your basis for judging anything? You have no authority to appeal to or anything of substance to stand upon. All you know is what you like and what you do not like. You have not liked anything I have said so you condemn it so you do not have to address it as an intellectual. You then call me a coward.
Quite frankly, you conduct is unbecoming and anti-intellectual. You intellectual bullying and name calling does not suit an adult or anyone interested in open dialogue. I am sorry that you wasted my time.
Please note that Jean Paul Sartre was not a Christian but an atheist.
How do you intend to dismiss his point if you cannot arbitrarlly declare it invalid because it is a religous belief?
kipling says:As to the use of Christian beliefs, they are not open to interpretation. Christian beliefs are guided by Scripture and Scripture can be interpreted properly. One of the characteristics of Scripture is that it is clear and knowable. We are not talking about vague mysticism here but rather the written word of God
Again, are U out of your mind or oblivious to facts. How come so many christian sects that interpret the bible differently. So all those are christians who interpret some things differently than you: stupid, immoral. In the past both Catholic and prot. churches punished heretics by death—and that they did in the name of scripture as they understood it. Time has gone by and they see scripture diffeently and apply differently. Divorce is a sin for the catholic church not for most prost. church;
hence christians read the implications of scripture differently. Are you telling me that the catholic church is stupid because they regard someone who divorced and the remarried is living in sin and cannot go to heaven; Ah!, you know better; because U only can decipher the “true” meaning of scripture.
Now they issue of who do you save when you can only save one is just kind of question you will find that is posed schools of theology and in moral philosoophy to illustrate the complexity of moral decisions and trying to discover rules how to deal with such. Again, you avoid the issue when you save both. OF course, you if you can save both, everyone agree; but there times when the choices not ideal; and so you have to make a choice. So the illustraton I used which you dont grasp is that many times was forced with choices where there is no easy answer. So, what is the moral decision if you can only save one. You go to make a choice. What are you going to do get an F in course for refusing to answer the question and justify your answer. This is not a make believe situation. Kidneys are in short supply. So, when you have a perfect match that could save 2 people; one 20; one 90, what is choice. Again flip a coin or what. This happens every day. Clearly,
if the kidney you have can ONLY work in the 90 because of unique matching, then of course, you give to him. No choice has to be made there. But when you two people who could benefit from this, you have to make a choice. Tell me what rules in that case should be utilized or how you read scripture to tell you the answer.
To tell me all life is precsious does not help the person who has to make that choice. So what kind of teacher are you, if you throw up your hands and refuse to offer help in making that choice.
Since you are expert on scripture–from the word of God revealed in scripture to your brain; hence can be no mistake in what you say. That is the way you come across. So since, you are expert on what God wants, I ask your comment on the follow re abortion. As I explained in a prior post, the catholic church as opposed you thinks seriously in these matters and has worked out specific rules in difficult situations which you refuse to do. And in abortion, they take great pains to excuse one kind of abortion based very sophisticated reasoning. And that is that regardless of how threatening the pregnancy is to the life of the mother, one cannot terminate the fetus–no matter what. However, they make the distinction that if the abortion is by product of treating the mother for a serious illness; cancer for example and chemo’s purpose is to kill the cancer, it is okay to do even if the chemo will kill the fetus. Clearly other christian sects dont make that distinction; for others if it is good bet the pregnancy will lead to death of mother, it is okay. By the way, nothing is very certain. So maybe there is 60^ chance the pregancy will lead to death of mother, is it then okay; or does it have to 100%(which is impossibel –we dont have perfect knolwdge). So how does your reading of the moral law have you come down on this. Again, I am doing this because to understand you by me and others, one has know what decisions based on your grasp of what is moral; it is not enought to know where you stand when you just issue plaltitudes; they have only value when we see how they are applied. So dont chicken out.
So I am immoral because I am guided by experience. Can you tell me who is not guided by experience except you. It is impossible not be guided by experience; and thinking the Bible is the guide book to life is a result of your experience; if you were borne in Burma, China, Sauda Arabia, the chances are very very high you would not be a christian.
IT is the experience of human nature living in groups, that lead to abjuring murder; stealing; that is universal; every society has rules about that. Befpre. Christianity such principles obtained in groups living together. The ultra sound experience of seeing the fetus led some to decide not to have an abortion; not scripture; it was their experience of seeing. 90% of mothers who are told by approximately the 5th month, that the child if borne will be a down’s syndrome child,
elect to abort. And I am sure most of the had seen an ultra sound; in that case the ultra sound did change their mind.
And you dont’ understand the word “sujective”; i were subjective then on monday, it is okay to murder and on tuesday not; the whims of the moment. I dont fall into that class; we call such sociopaths.
The trap you fall into is stating that if you sex and get pregant even if not intended, then tough luck; you had sex and now you pay the price. You call that responsbile. So If I am stupid enought to walk around blind folded and fall into a 20 foot ditch, I should lay there and die, instead of calling for help. So it is only in the case of abortion that you demand people to suffer the consequences. What do we do if someone does not wear a seat belt and as a result has a serious accident which would have avoided if he had worn the seatbelt. Under your reasoning, just like not using birth control, not using a seat belt is irresponsible; hence,
your medical insurance should not kick and you pay the bill yourself. I dont think that is a bad idea; why should my premiums be higher because of someone’s\\
irresponsiblity. You are the one who keeps talking that has to pay the price of being irresponsible.
Some more thoughts. People who abort by using the morning after pill or having an IUD inserted –both of which prevented the fertizlised embryo, a person for you, from going to a full life do not feel the same way as someone aborting after 3 months. According to you they are stupid or something like. /Out of sight, out of mind. But that does only apply to abortion it applies to all experience. We react different if there is a slaugher of all our neigbors on the next block then we to nrews reports of what goes oin the Congo or Darfur. That is built into nature(God’s plan?) What happens down the block is concrete; it hits; what happens to strangers of a different culture thousands of miles away is abstract; it does not effect us in the same way. And similarily with abortion, the earlier, the easier it is on psche. You will see no signicant clamor to outlaw the morning after pill or the UID because what is terminated, killed is noting but a speck even tho it has all the genetic material of borne people. I sm judy describing the facts.
By the way, according to CAtholic church whose authority supposedly comes from St Peter—from the horse’s mouth, states that birth control is contrary to scripture as they interpret it. I assume you don’t see that way. So, how does one determine who is right since the last one who has talked to God was Moh if a moslem, and for you, Jesus. So, how does one know the truth; or you make up as you go along as the many protestant sects demonstrate; they all can’t be correct.
lenf,
Just to clarify- Divorce is not a sin in the Catholic church. It is remarriage or having a sexual relationship after a divorce that is sinful as it is adultery. Divorce is the legal termination of a marriage, the Catholic church recognizes this may happen for a number of valid reasons but this does not end the religious marriage. Hence the teaching that one can be divorced and still receive communion but can not remarry or have a sexual relationship since the religious marriage continues despite the legal termination.
Also, Catholic authority does not come from St. Peter. It comes from Jesus Christ who designated St. Peter as the first head of the church on earth. As well as delegating authority to St. Peter and the apostles and assuring them that what they held bound on earth would be bound in heaven, what they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. So, the Catholic church cites this as their source of authority for things like, well, defining what is scripture and properly interpreting it.
But, as you’ve noted the Christian faith has splintered into numerous sects, all of whom interpret scripture differently. 90 years ago all of the protestant denominations taught that birth control was immoral but many have since shifted their teachings.
In fact, Christian churches don’t even agree on what constitutes scripture. Martin Luther rejected a number of books as well adding a few words here and there. Most notably the word ‘alone’ after ‘saved by faith…’ Which brings us back to what did Martin Luther and later protestants cite as his authority for making the changes.
As to Satre’s quote, I dont have the slighest idea what it means. So explain it; and they you do that if you are a good teacher is give some examples to concrete situations. IF someone has never seen “red”; you cant explain to them in words; you must show exemplars.
The same with moral reasoning; you just can’t make verbal statements without giving exemplars; and in the case of moral precepts they only come to life when people have to make choices; that is why I presented you above with choices; then one understands how these principlas play out in real life; not just words on a page. So far, you have not understood that. So who do you save if you can only savev one and illustrate the reasoning. Dont tell me to save both; you can save one since they are opposite ends of the river and the both cant swim; hence, almost impossible to save both. Accept that. And give us your reasoning for your choice. What would you do, if you a child, HS student, 16, who was given that sssignment had to write what is the best thing to do and defend. The teacher said, you can F if you write save both because it is given that in that example, it is impossible. See if we can move you off your parlysis
Sartre is explained @ 124 and in my response to you @ 123.
As to an example, the examples are your examples. You start from these individual scenarios and then try to reason backwards to a fixed point, which is impossible. The point is to start at a fixed point – a moral point – and then reason outward to address the scenarios.
To lenf @ 127:
1. “How come [there are] so many [C]hristian sects that interpret the [B]ible differently?”
Christian sects and denominations differ on many things, from baptism to whether or not to play instruments in the church. The source of much of this conflict is two fold. Some comes from our own fallen nature that has continually led men into conflict with one another. Some come from false Christians who claim to support Christianity but reject the central tenets of the Christian faith. Jesus warned about the latter in his parable of the tares and the wheat. Paul warned Timothy about these false Christians in two letters and Jude wrote a letter to the churches commanding them to reject the false teachings and contend for the faith.
When talking to the religious leaders of His day, Jesus always took the conversation back to Scripture. He constantly said “Have you not heard?” or “Have you not read?” The problem then as now is that many Christians – including many pastors – do not know their Scripture. Instead they rely upon tradition and flawed human reasoning to decide upon the issues.
Others, including our liberal opponents like Jim Wallis and Barry Lynn, reject Scipture as authority and simply make it up as they go along. They are apostates (term used by Jude) and must be kept from leading others astray.
Another source of conflict is that the American church often preaches and incomplete gospel. It teaches Jesus as Savior but not Jesus as Lord. You will run into plenty of questions who claim to have put their faith in Jesus but live as if their Lord was themselves, the world, or the devil. I run into countless Christians who have been taught stuff in the churches that is not even in the Scritpture or is the Scripture taken out of context. Jesus warned this would happen.
The problem is not the Scritpure itself but the failure of men to know their Bible and then to live up to it. I see divorce as a sin so although I differ with the Catholic church on some of the points, we agree on a lot in principle.
2. Your drowning question.
Just because their is no easy choice does not mean there is no moral choice.
The underlying premise of your drowing question is flawed because you begin with the assumption that some life has more value than other life – i.e. the 80 year old man is worth less than the 2 year old because of the age and proximity to death. The Christian hold that all life is precious so for the Christian he cannot begin with that premise.
Now the kidney scenario has a different twist because here you are enacting policy rather than called upon to make a snap judgment . Medical conditions – likely match, donor compatibility, etc. – will in most cases provide the initial guidelines. Any cases beyond that will then have to be considered differently under diffrent criteria but again the moral issue does not apply. Are you saying it would be morally wrong to save a 20 year old as opposed to a 90 year old? Would it be morally wrong to save a 90 year old rather than the 20 year old? What if you saved the 20 year old and he got hit by a bus two weeks later and the 90 year old had already died? Was your initial choice morally wrong?
The main thing is to establish guidelines and then to follow those guidelines regardless. It would be morally wrong to favor the wealthy over the poor or black over white. In those cases you are not treating life equally but assigning value to an individual based on some nebulus criteria.
What I tell the person making the choice is that an impartial choice based on medical guidelines and an objective list of criteria is not a moral issue?
3. Catholic Church on abortion.
If I recall correctly, you previously condemned the Catholic Chruch as being deceitful in how they dealt with abortion.
I would point out that I have never opposed an abortion if the life of the mother was at stake. I think that is a choice best left to the mother, the father, and the doctors to decide. You cannot establish guidelines here because what if the mother wants to run the risk. Do you then force her to have an abortion?
However, as I pointed out previously, over 90% of abortions have nothing to do with protecting the life of the mother. Someone should not have an abortion simply to fit in a prom dress. Nor should someone have an abortion so they can graduate on time. The termination of life is serious and not trivial.
I would also point out that you are the extremist here because you take the extreme position that abortion should be legal all the time for any reason.
4. Experience.
Our experiences and how we experience things are still subjective and determined by the principles we hold dear. The 90% who choose to abort in the case of a down’s syndrome child do so not because they know of the down’s syndrome but because they see that life as somehow less precious. We have become a utilitarian culture and it has affected our morality. Now the person who decides on the abortion has a lot of reason but in the end it is because they see the child as less deserving of live or more trouble than their life is worth.
As to those who see he ultrasound and decide not to abort, it is not because of the ultrasound but because of what that ultrasound revealed. Before they saw the fetus as nothing but tissue. Now they see a human. The ultrasound was the tool not the basis for their morality or lack thereof.
We all – no matter where we are born – have an inante sense of personal morality. We may justify the killing of others but we do not want to be killed ourselves. We may justify the robbing of others but we do not want to be robbed ourselves. The fact that Burma does not have Scripture has no refletion on Scripture itself. Many natives of Burma probably do not know the law of gravity or thermodynamics but that does not make those laws any less valid.
We live in a culture where the social mores are constantly in flux. The basic belief in moral relativism holds that what may be true for you (in the moral realm) may not be true for me. We are all now allowed to define our own truth. In the 19th century, people who believed that way were considered lunatics. Some could argue that we do live in a sociopathic society in a sociopathic age.
5. The supposed trap I fall into.
Here your basic analogy is flawed by your own beliefs. You equate giving pregnancy and birth to dying in a ditch. The only sure fire path of death is abortion. You also equate abortion on demand as the only help. Insurances already make that distinction or at least mine does. No argument here that our actions should have consequences.
6. Experience
No argument here that an experience can sharpen our perspective. My argument is that experience itself cannot be your guide or moral authority.
7. St. Peter, the Catholic Church, and Authority
The ultimate authority is Scripture. I will quote Martin Luther before he Emperor at the Diet of Worms (1521): Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God…. God help me! Here I stand!”
Was Martin Luther always right? No, the Protestant Reformation had many centers and they all did not agree with one another. But they all looked to Scripture as their guide. They differed for many reasons – much of which I covered in general terms in point 1.
Kipling,
Kipling,
As I pointed out to Lenf, the Catholic chuch doesn’t teach that divorce- the legal termination of a marriage- is a sin. A woman being beaten by her husband is not expected to remain with him and it is quite reasonable to divorce due to the legal aspects of marriage in modern society. However, the Catholic church teaches that the religious marriage which occurred still exists and is not dissolved by divorce. So the Catholic church teaches, that unless the religious marriage is annulled a divorced person can not get re-married or sexually involved with someone.
Authority comes from God, scripture is His Word transcripted imperfectly into Man’s, a guide which men must interpret and apply. Before one can say scripture is their authority you must accept some authority to define what writings constitute scripture. The early church considered and rejected many writings as non-scriptural as they defined the New Testament. Martin Luther eliminated (rightly or wrongly) several books from the bible as well as changing tranlations, even admitting he inserted the word ‘alone’ knowing that it was not in the greek or latin texts he was translating from. The major reason for the different interpretations of the Bible is the rejection of the authority (again, rightly or wrongly) of the Catholic church by the protesters starting with Luther. Now, each sect or sub-sect sets themselves up as the infallible authority. Paul wrote to the faithful to adhere to the Traditions the apostles had passed on by both word of mouth and letter, an acknowledgement that most of the teaching, instruction and knowledge of the early church was oral.
I teach a religion class, however I start it with Jesus account of how the world will be judged at the end of the world. It is to emphasize to my students, should they elect to follow a different christian path, that Jesus himself did not say you had to be a specific religion or simply believe. He says those who fed him when he was hungry, clothed him when naked etc. will join him in heaven. Those sent to hell are those who did not feed him, clothe him, etc. Christianity requires an active faith. Your faith is evident in your persuasions to lenf.
Although we would disagree on many points, I think we would find much agreement on the essentials. Thanks for your support and comments.
I have only a minute right now. Answer question and stop beating arouond bush. Two people are a perfect match and only those 2 for a kidney that just arrived.
They are in reasonable health for their age. One is 20; one is 90. What should the rule be: Flip a coin. Or choose one or the other on some criteria which I leave you to offer. I would choose the 20 year old based on longer life span. What is your rule.
The same thing the 80 year old father drowning on one side of the river and the 5 year old on the other. Can’t save both or highly unlikely. So, what should be the rule
of who to save first and most likely the only one. Do you flip a coin. I chose the younger for the same reason as in number one.
I am not a coward. Being a coward is the refusal to make a choice under presssure as the above are. It is to sit frozen and do nothing; and you are doing by remaining silent. Get some courage. I am trying to discover how put your principle to practical application; i have no idea how you would choose and how you would justifiy. Everyone reading this knows that I am not a coward; I have made a choice and given a reason. One can challange that reasoning; for example, and say,
it is not for me to choose; hence I should flip a coin, That is a reasonable moral poisition. It is not one I would choose. And mine is reasonable. And as I said before these examples are not pie in the sky. There are many times we are faced with decisions in which one choice has its costs; and you have to get off a dime.
Will you.
Teach those who may read this, how you come to your choice; everyone knows how I came to mine. Dont be a sphinx
Stop stalling
To lenf @ 129: You will find your answer @ 128 under point #2.
Your original post @123 read: “What is the answer to this question. Your father age 80 is drowning at one side of the river and your 5 year old on the other side. What is the moral choice who to save since you can save one. IF we follow you, they are equal in value; hence, you should not play God, and toss a coin; head for the old man; tails for the young kid. Where I would suggest one can make a decent argument to save the younger child and most likely that would be the consensus.”
You asked for a moral choice thus implying that to choose one over the other would be immoral. My response is that the choice is not a moral choice because the saving of either one would not be immoral. If neither choice can be immoral then it is not a moral choice. Are there reasons for choosing one over another? Yes, but unless you intentionally allow one or both to drown due to you negligence then it is not immoral to attempt and rescue both and not succeed.
It takes a big man to hurl insults as an anonymous poster. I am sure you do well bullying women and children as well. To any reader interested in intellectual cowardice. I invite you to read our correspondence and see which one of us continually shifts his positions, refuses to answer questions and/or address issues raised, and engages in ad hominum attacks when all else fails.
Let us see if I read you correctly. You seem to be saying in those examples given, that whatever choice one makes, does not come under the realm of moral choice.
Hence choosing on the basis of age is neither immoral or moral in particular examples. And for that matter, flipping a coin to avoid making a conscious choice.
I could see someone religious making an argument that they are equal value, hence, one should not make a choice and flip a coin which some might see leaves it in the hands of God. That is exactly what is done in the well known life boat example where it is too heavy by one; and they draw straws. IF someone is extremely knowledgable about navigation in the ocean, he may be excluded from the draw.
IT is worth mentioning some people have more value than others. For example, the secret service are supposed to put their body in the path of a bullet for the president. The reasoning behind that not so much the person of the president but that the death or immobilization of the president may disrupt the country; so it is done for stability of the country. Your scripture has nothing to say about this one way or other.
And there is the situation in Dicken’s Tale of Two Cities where someone, Darnell takes the place without the authorities knowing of someone destined for the guilotine(sic). Now in that case, that would be suicide. Very similar to assisted suicide in a few states where the patient asks the doctor to give him suicide pills.
So according to you, Darnell’s heroic act in Tale of two cities is is immoral. So the heroic words of darnell–”IT is a far better thing I do…” for you is immoral since he chose to die==suicide by blade cutting off his head or taking a pill or someone jumping in front of moving train.
I bring these up to show how simplistic is your view of morality
Take the case of this recent black woman who worked for the Agric culture and supposedly made racist remarks a segment of her speech taken out of context. Now this woman’s father and possible other relatives were murdered by KKK members; and of course never prosecuted; as we know in the past even if prosecuted, would never be convicted. Now if she or another brother and sister killed this worthless KKK member, then if you are member of jury and think about morality, you have to think. Of course, from what you have written, no thinking; she broke law by shooting the KKK guy who murdered her father and never paid for it.
But I am more moral than you, and I would vote not guilty for moral reasons. The reason we don’t allow vengence is that if we allow it even where it seems apt, we may create chaos in the society. We cant have people willy nilly taking the law into their own hands. But, the law was not enforced against KKK murderers so there was mayhem if you were black. So in that case and not only that case in general when KKK killed blacks, the law was not working; and in giving a message it was okay to kill blacks. So in that case, since the law was not working, I find it okay for family to do what the law would not do; and further, this would any KKK member on notice, that his life would be danger if he willy nilly killed black people.
So, moral decisions in difficult cases taking thinking; and from you a conditioned reflex like palov’s dogs salivating at the bell. So, from you have said, you help the KKK to kill more with impunity by voting guilty for the black person who enforced the law on his own.
Then I am reminded of this story. Someone in the british intelligence in Germany in the 30′s wired to the foreign office that he would have the opportunity to kill Hitler; twice he wired. They answered back like you do: Gentlemen don’t do that. So, we had the slaughter. Very likely if Hitler assassinated the guru’s of the nazi party would squabble for power; ;they did not have charisma of Hitler and the German Army would have got of rid of the nazi party. I only point this out to get from your simplistic thinking. I am sure what help scripture would have been in that situation.
Your post @132 is an excellent example of how you shift the debate:
In your first two scenarios, drowning and the kidney transplant, you ask a thrid party to decided who will live and who will die. In you next three scenarios – the life boat, Secret Service, and Tale of Two Cities – you are talking about people who volunteer to risk or sacrifice their life for another. The first two scearios and the next three are not the same. And you cannot used the second group to comment on the first. Someone in the Secret Service has volunteered to risk his life for the President. It would be different if the President forced people to take a bullit for him. Darnell, like Christ, is heroic because he voluntarily laid down his life in love for another person.
The fact that you try to casually shift the debate is not only intellectually dishonest here but shows how simplistic your view of the issues are in these cases. How can you equate someone who voluntarily lays down his life with the slaughter of the unborn? Is someone who sacrifices her unborn child heroic?
Your post @132 also clearly distorted what I said in my post @ 129 under point 2. In that post I stated that an objective set of guidelines determining which would receive the kidney is acceptable and does not raise moral issues as long as that criteria is objective and not determined on nebulus criteria, i.e. black v. white, rich v. poor, etc.
Your last rant about the black lady who killed the KKK member who killed her father and the guy the British kept from killing Hitler is absolute bunk because I have never argued anything along those lines. Here you are not just distorting what I said. You are making up stuff out of whole cloth. Please demonstrate to me where I have said any of this or stop lying.
Banned.
You still still are an intellectual coward. This whole discussion on my part began with idea that you can judge act(morally or otherwise) by just looking at the act itself.
Hence, re abortion, one must examine the circumstances. And what we find is much disagreement on which circrumstances justify an abortion whereas in the case of killing someone there very is ittle disagreement what should be consider immoral and illegal. And as a result you compare yourself to me; you are the purist and I am the realtivist–whatever that means.
Then when I give you the thought problem to see where you stand in kidney for either the young or older one, you refuse to make a decision. You cop out and say well as long as the decision is made on “objective” grounds and I gather that age is an objective ground from what you wrote but race is not. I call you an intellectual coward because when I gave you the choice re the kidney situation, you could not say: Well, I would choose the younger person. Or that should be the rule. OR say: Well, it is not for me or anyone to decide; hence a flip a coin. GEt off the pot. What would you do or recommend. Say something. Dont get lost. That is why I call you an intellectual coward.
Since you keeping touting that you are better me morally because you an absolutist(I dont mind) I try to put you to the test. Your position is if you break the law,
then pay the price. So I give the KKK example above ask you how would you vote on the jury for a black person who killed a KKK murder who is never prosecuted and was a general problem. I explained how I would vote and reasons. You refuse to take a stand. My point whatever stand you take is quite irrelevant; the whole point is to understand just what you mean besides abstractions that dont say anything to concrete situations where people have to act. So what do you do if you are on the jury in that KKK case and explain you reasoning. This will educate me to how you apply your so called absolutes.
By the way, your dependence on Scripture puts in a hole; remember how Jesus dealth with immoral and illegal sexual behavior: Sin no more. Hmmm. So, if you steal or kill, one might infer, the right thing to do is to say: sin no more, but no punishment. See, one is free to interpet scripture as one wants.
If you would like a judgment in the KKK case then you need to provide more details. Please answer the following questions.
1. Is you basic argument in the KKK murder trial that the woman is shaped by her environment and her experiences and cannot rise above those factors? Do you consider those factors a strong determinent in the fictional lady’s life and thus a excuse for her actions?
2. Did the initial murder and the vengence killing happen close together in time or were they separated by years? Was the event premeditated or a spur of the moment loss of control?
3. Is the woman charged with first degree murder, manslaughter, or what? The charge is important.
4. What if the initial murder was influenced by the fact that the KKK member’s grandfather had been killed by a slave revolt? Does this not speak to presence of mind as much as the other vengence killing?
5. Is the initial murderer’s escape from justice a rare incident or has total anarchy prevailed and the rule of law has long went by the roadside? Would you advocate that every murder who escapes justice be hunted down by the family of the victim or just those based on race? How far are you willing to let vigelantism go? Or, is it like the movie “Man on Fire” where there is no just system to appeal to at all?
6. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would have sided with the rule of law. I refer you to his works “Why we can’t wait.” and “The Letter form the Birmingham Jail” where he argues that those who break the law, even an unjust law, must be willing to pay the consequences – as he did.
Let us have the details man. We cannot base our judgments on a mere thumbnail account of something off the top of your head.
———
Now as to your other comments. Once again you resort to distortion – like a lying coward who cannot face reality. I have never claimed to be a purist – nor have you ever mentioned this until now. Please define what it means. I have also never claimed that holding to an absolute standard means that you do not consider circumstances. If you read the book of Leviticus 21 you will see that the Old Testament moral law makes distinctions on crime based on the circumstances involved. For example, in v. 12-14 God clearly draws a distinction between intentional and unintentional homicide. Your continual accusation that I do not make distinctions is false. I refer you to the original posts about punishments for abortion when you practically argued for a mandatory death penalty or life imprisonment. I disagreed and the abuse began.
As to the kidney transplant, I have answered the question twice. Age will be a factor but is not the determining factor in a transplant. Why would we give a kidney to a 20 year old who is on death row with less than a week to live? Why would we give it to a 30 year old whose general health state is so poor that the other problems will kill him? You want a blanket statement without providing details. For a grown man you are very immature.
I have never touted that I was better than you. You have proved that on you own. As I said before, it takes a big man to hurl insults across the web. Should you not be taking candy from babies or kicking kittens somewhere?
My prediction is that your next post will begin with an insult, an attempt to shift the debate, a refusal to answer the questions I ask, and then a distortion of what I already said. Why did you not comment on the part of the last post where I pointed out your shifting of the debate and your distortion? Not much intellectual courage or a refusal to man up?
As far as I am concerned, the debate is over. I have better things to do than participate in an exercise in futility. Your inability to deal with principled issues is astounding. In the course of our discussion, you have compared abortion to killing the enemy in war, compared the unborn to animals, recommended the aged be allowed to die, compared the disabled and those in need of longterm care as parasitic, and then you have the audacity to claim the moral high ground. You have also refuse to answer questions on Roe v. Wade as judicial activism and the need to repeal it based upon conservative and libertarian principles.
Instead, you want a world where every man does what he sees as best. Where the nebulus “experience” determines everything and there is no rule of law or moral standard. My friend, switch your voter registration to D and join the Obama bandwagon because you are no conservative.
I doubt you have read this far. But here is hoping.
Sorry the Scripture reference should be to Exodus 21 and not Leviticus 21.
As to your misrepresentation of Jesus, you will need to provide a Scripture reference and put that Scripture in the context of the narrative and in the context of the larger Scripture. You must not grab hold of any little thing and whirl it around in a vain attempt at intellectual honesty.
P.S. to lenf: Don’t wimp out on the Sartre quote. Do some research and a little reading. What are you afraid of? Perhaps you can invent an scenario where you actually meet Sartre and he explains it to you.
kipling; you are a wise guy and have an answer for everything– a relativist; i misrepresent jesus re the implication of mary mag incident; i dont have to provide a reference; he said, go and and sin no more. Is that right, yes it is. Then you bring in context; very well; not so clear; context, sounds relativistic; “larger” scripture;
and how many sects interpet this and that differently; and the jews who say jesus blasphemed; and the moslem, who say moh, was the last prophet; take your pick;
i am sorry God has spoken to you; that is what you are left with; you dont put it that way; the way you put is that U know, the NT is the word of God; the jews and moslems are either liars or just plain stupid; and atheists too. But, we must take it from you, that you know the truth.
Leave that aside. The whole point is to flush you out on how you apply your your absolute morality. About all I know, if someone commits abortion, you want a murder charge and the sentence which depends on the judge is to be determined by him; so may be in rape, you want a month; who knows; financial reasons, one year,
because of down’s syndrome , 6 years, So put yourself in place of the judge and tell me what sentence you give for various reasons(excuses in your world) for abortion.
Who knows; and so how do we judge the your application of the revealed thru scripture of your morality; you hide; you hide; I have told what I would do in various situations; so people can judge by my proposed actions; all we can judge you is that you want a murder charge for abortion; i wanted you to go beyond that and look at other difficult situations; and you refuse; answering in abstractions, without making a decision what you would do if asked is a cop out; you are chicken to expose yourself.
So here I go again trying to get you to commit yourself.
Again the kidney situation, where 20 year old and 90 year old are the only match; and one kidney to inserted. You were one who has to make decision in this case What decision you make and explain the reasoning. I told you what I would; based on projected longetivity, I pick the 20 year old. If i took you seriously in that everyone has equal value before God, then it is not for me to judge who gets the kidney, and I establish leaving in God’s hands by flipping a coin. I don’t use God so that is out for me. Iis it out for you.? Who knows. So, tell us if you were the one to make the decision, what would you do. My guess is you will chicken out.
You dont want to expose yourself so others can judge; you will retreat in verbal avoidance.
Again, the drowning situation where a father can only save his son–age 5 or his father age 80 in good health. You know all these people. Before the father jumps in chooses which direction to go to (equally distant), he asks you, where do I go first(knowing well, it spells death for the other one); and what do you tell him.
I tell him go for the younger one, What do you tell him. HE IS frozen with this tough decision; if you remain silent, they both die; so the onus is you to make the decision. What do you tell him so he can unfreeze and save one at least. And what is your rationale for what you do.
Then I give you KKK example where I would vote not guilty which will lead to acquital or hung jury for the black person who killed the KKK(see above for the facts in that matter); my morality, not from God or scriptures, tells me vote not guilty. What would you do and explain.
i gave you the Hitler example, where a foreign officer asked permission from the English Govt during the 30′s to assasinate Hitler; they answered in the absolute morality using secular terms: Gentlemen dont do that. What a mistake that was given what happenned. So, would you have answered. I would answered yes;
everyone knew what happpen but did not want to admit except Chruchill who was out of govt and despised. So what you answer; I would answer, kill him.
What I am doing is to flush the application of moral principles or principles; that is the only you can evaluate the CONSEQUENCES OF someone’s position;
and we know nothing about you since you runaway; except for abortion, where everyone is charge with murder and only sentence may have some discretion;
and even here you don’t come up front; probation is a sentence; for all I know that is all you would give in all cases. How do I know,you are silent.
Satre has nothing to do with this. You like words that say nothing. IT is only by one’s actions; one’s decisions that we know the principles or if you wish the morality of a person. Words are cheap; politicians are good at; and so you are. Get to brass tacks and respond.
I will give another situation to see how you apply your morality. The great Admiral Nimitz of WW 2 fame, committed suicide when old and very decrepit; and he did in concert with his wife who was in the same horrible shape.
Now according to you as I read you with your superior knolwdge of scripture, this is mortal sin;it was immoral he was not saved(he did not believe in God) and hence is going to hell.
Does your absolute morality agree with my interpetation of christianity. My guess is you will chicken and not give a straight answe.
see link about this
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26106
I will give you another one. This is not made up. In ww2, in the battles for these Islands, a guy would be wounded; no chance of help and gettng him to the back lines; he would ask his buddys to shoot him and put out of his agony in the slow death. I am not going to ask you what you would do; you would have to in the situation;
which is hard to imagine; but I hope I would do it The question is, is the buddy who does it acting immoraly according to you. Again, I put you to the test to see exactly where you come down; so far, who hecks knows you; you refuse to make decisions; so go at it.
Once again you resort to distortion when cornered.
1. It is not relativism to ask you to provide a Scriptural reference for the incident you mentioned. It is not relativism to ask you to place the command “to go forth and sin no more” in the context of the passage or of Scripture as a whole. Anyone can pluck a line of Scripture and then present it out of context. I am asking you to be contextual. Nothing relativistic about that.
2. I addressed the sentencing of those who commit an abortion in my response to you @ 96 and at several points thereafter. Why are you still only intent on punishing the woman and not the doctor or the industry that make huge profits from the proceedure? A proceedure that our government uses tax dollars to encourage through Planned Parenthood.
I have never stated that support for a mandatory murder charge or mandatory sentence of death of life imprisonment. Nor would I or have I supported a shorter sentence for those who aborted a fetus that had down’s syndrome or any other health problem. There is no excuse for an abortion short of to save the life of the mother. I have made that clear on several occasions. I support penalties which I have already discussed in my response to you @96.
3. You response to every situation you mentioned is to excuse the behavior, abandon the rule of law, and set yourself up as the final arbiter of right and wrong / life or death. Talk about arrogance.
4. Kidney transplant situaiton already addressed. Please read @ 129.
5. Drowning questions addressed in many of the preceding posts. Please read.
6. KKK Vengence Killing. Please answer the questions posted in my response to you @134. Why are you afraid to give details of a scenario that you have created?
7. Assasination of Hitler. Please advise as to whether the incident occured prior to war with Great Britain.
8. All you are doing is flushing, flushing one scenario after another and then changing the scenario when you do not see the response you want or when I ask for further details on the scenario. I have already answered the first two. I still await your details on the KKK Vengence Killing but you are too afraid to give those details.
9. You are either too dense to understand the point with Sartre or willingly blinded as to its implications. Please answer the questions and stop hiding behind scenarios. Your problem is that you will not come to grips with reality. You create these scenarios and then a knee-jerk response and claim to be moral. What is you basis for such a claim? What is you definition of morality? Why will you not answer these questions? What have you to hide but the emptiness of your own philosophy?
10. So far everything I predicted regarding how you would respond at 134 has been accurate. You are starting to become a one trick pony.
11. Let us deal with the previous 2 scenarios before you attempt to shift debate again.
I eagerly await an intellect, honest response, that addressed the questions I have raised and does not hide behind scenarios or insults.
Stop playing games. Answer. Yes, the idea of assassinating hitler referred to before the war. This issue is to discover how you apply principles; hence, you have to make decisions. OF course, the doctor has to be punished as the hired gun if you make abortion a murder charge. However, as you are well aware, I hope, the one who hires the person to do the killing is just as responsible and receives the same penalty as the hired gun. With abortion it is even worse according to you because the mother is not some faraway town while the killer does her dirty work; she actively cooperates with Dr’s instructions. So, if you get your way and it is murder, the woman, the mother gets the same penalty as the doctor. There was no point in my mentioning the Dr; that was given. But can’t charge the doctor with murder, unless you charge the mother. Very similar to war crimes where the leader who orders the war crimes is held to the most serious charge.
And take the the medication –forget the name Rs something which works up to 3 months; the doctor prescribes; the mother ingests; in that case not only did she pay the doctor for the poison RX, she went to pharmacy, picked it up; an ingested it; that is the same is the doctor actually do the “dirty” work. In fact it is worse than the doctor.
Now answer:
1. Give a range of what the penalty should be for abortion for rape—I have not seen to answer that; what should the range be for aborting a down’s syndrome child; what should be for financial reasons; what should it be if abortion in the 7th month because the Dr informed the mother, the baby would probably not live one or two months after birth and mother says go ahead, abort. This is to flesh out your morality and the consequences of it. That is all.
2. You have not answered what you would in kidney situation; you were one who is assigned responsiblity in that case. What would you do. I told you what I would and rule I would establish in such cases. I have no idea what your morality would dictate in that situation where the onus is on you.
3. You have not answered the drowning situation in which the man is frozen by the choice that he turns to you, someone he knows, and asks you to make the decision. Since, he is frozen with horror of the decision–one of will 100% die since both can’t swim, he is immobile. So the decision is on you. I would say, quick go after the child and then you get the old man, knowing all the while that is impossible but it allows the guy to unfreeze and move. What would you do. I have no idea from all you have written nor does anyone else. Still afraid.
4. I pointed that Hitler thing occurred before war.
If I asked you if you kill your neighbor of his money, you would say NO; you would not give all this nonsense. The above present moral dilemnas; they are way to flesh out ;your morality . They are not easy; that is why I did them. The easy stuff we all agree on; christians, atheists, budhists. IT is the hard stuff that leads to disntinctions,
You sound like Obama; all words. Answer in specifics in what you do. IF you were in classroom and a student asked you that; what would you do, sound like Obama and end up with words but saying nothing useful.
I have no time now. In my next post I will quote Victor Davis HAnsen who I assume you read since he posts here. And that will expose just how empty your words are. How simplistic you are. We will see how you handle that. I will give you a hint out of context: “we are better than they are”; but better does mean we are absolutely moral; very profound; I will flesh out in the next post.
Come on; get some courage, answer; notice I am not afraid a stand and expose myself–not in words, but what I would do in action. Words are cheap; you ought to get that listening to the president who you are mimicking by coming up empty. So have courage.
Answer the questions regarding the KKK Vengence Killing. As to the other questions, you will find the answers to those questions in the posts above that I have mentioned over and over again.
As to killing Hilter prior to the war, you justify the murder based on what you know now. Stuff that you could not possibly know at the time. What is the date, is it prior to the invasion into Czechoslovakia? If so then Hitler had not shown any overt signs of aggression that many in the west considered beyond the pale. What would be your reason for killing him? What action justified the murder: remilitarization of Germany, re-occupation of the Rhineland, the annex of Austria? You can say that his death at any of these points might have adverted war but you cannot say that at the time of the murder. In a time of war, yes. Before the time of war, no. Different rules apply according to the circumstances.
As to the drowing, if I am there with him, then we can save both. As to if I am alone, I have no idea as it would be based on the circumstances. I would make an effort to save them both. I have not set around and ranked my family in the order of who to save first. I would do the best under the circumstances at the time. As I said before, your premise for the question is flawed because you claim some moral choice is made. As long as you did not intentionally allow someone to die and tried to save both, then there is no moral choice.
As to the kidney, serious, I have answered this before. If you cannot read, that is not my problem.
As to the abortion question, if abortion became illegal we would have to change our justice system accordingly. The industry would have to be shut down and the doctors prosecuted. Loss of medical licenses, imprisionment, and even the death penalty should be considered by doctors who performed the proceedure. As to the mothers, yes they are quilty as well. There is no reason to abort a child unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy. There should be no distinction between the abortion of a down’s syndrome child and a normal child. Nor should a distinction be made between the abortion of a girl as opposed to a boy – as currently practiced in China. No one should put a value on innocent human life. In our society, the opportunity for adoption makes abortion unnecessary.
As to specific punishments, as I have said before, the range of punishments would be the same as that for killing a born person. Judges would not have discretion as these would be worked out under the law just as the punishments for the killing of the born have been worked out under the law. The range should not be determined based on some relativistic determination of the value of the unborn child.
Please note that this is the last time I will answer these questions. Five or more times is enough.
As to killing your neighbor, I seem to recall that you have argued for the murder of the unborn and the killing of the aged based on financial reasons. You have some wierd views about who are your neighbors.
As to words being cheap, I have not seen any action on your part but more words. As to having courage, so far you have sided with moral relativism on every issue. You slaughter the unborn and kill the aged. Some courage there. You heroically go back in time to kill Hitler before the war based on information you could not know at the time and you have ranked your family in the order you would save them.
Let me ask you a question regarding the drowning scenario: Would you save you 80 year old father if it would cost you your life or would you value your own life more and simply walk away?
I am still waiting your response to the following points raised in the discussion:
1. The assertion by Sartre that all points must have a fixed reference point in order to have meaning.
2. The citation to the Scripture you mentioned and for its context.
3. The answers to the questions regarding the KKK vengence killing scenario you created.
You have failed to answer other questions and to address other issues raised but let us start with these three and then work up to bigger thing. Since you are the brave courageous one, I cannot imagine why you would have a problem dealing with the issues you raised. Why do you not take your own advice and perform some action by writing more words?
Do you drink? You are exposing yourself as someone is wordy. I present moral dilemnas, and you weasel. So, of course, you would join in save the other person.
You don’t get it, do you. I have to spell out. You can’t swim in the illustation==it should have been obvious. But nothing is obvious to you. Don’t you get it. Do you know what a dilemna is. You are trying to avoid. OF course, the ideal is to save both. But that is not option; if it was an option, then there is no dilemna. Why do you think I presented it. I did not ask you to rate your family members. You are caught in a situation which happens in life, if not for you, then for others; that is the nature of living. So get back to it. You have to make the decision. I am doing this to try to see how you would reason. It is a worthwhile excercise because you never now when such may present itself; hence, worth thinking about. “you take the example personally by bringing your family; gee whiz; be a scholar. So now answer, given you can’t swim; time is of the essence; seconds.
You have not answered the kidney question. You rattled by way back something to the effect that if objective criteria were decided then okay long as not race, sex.
That is not an answer. You are in the situation. You are the doctor. There is no time to consult; the kidney will be no good. Don’t you see what I am trying to do. I am trying to see how you reason in tough situations. That is the whole point. No easy way out. So, what do you do. What is your rationale. That is how we discover how you and I think. I told you mine; the younger gets it based a longer life span. Am I right. I don’t how the answer that. I suppose in the end if a general policy is developed it depends on consensus. But that is not the point. I told you what I would rule. What would you rule. What is your take on use longer life span as a criteria.
IT should have been obvious that it requires an answer. You are expert in interpreting scriptures or what; so what you do or advise; not anyone else You. You have not answered. Referring it to a committe is not an answer. IF you are on the committe,you have to one of them to decide the rule; so how do you come in this
specific incident. There are only 3 ethical choices. You choose the younger one because of longer life span. IF this 80 year old were on the verge because of his special talent in finding a cure for cancer in the next year so, then I would choose because this would save many more lives; very improbable that I would be faced with. And the other ethical choice is to state, either from religious grounds or humanistic grounds, that it not for me or anyone in this case to decide the value of one’s life; hence, flip a coin. Please dont give me the garbage of sending to a committee to make the rule. You are the committee of one; and if not one, then you have to vote on the rule should be in this particular case where age is the only variable. I doubt this will work with you. Be brave. Take a stand.
Re Punishment for murder when abortion is the cause of murder. AGain, who knows what you think. You cop out; famous words, it will be worked out. What do you think. Dont you think. You come up with nonsense. You say it would be the same we have now. Well, if that is the case, then it is the maximum penalty. Why,
because it is pre-mediated. IT is not on the spur of moment. You just wake up; I am going to have an abortion and go refrig and take an abortion pill. It is take planning; making appts; keeping pts. Pre-mediated cold blooded murder of helpless human being gets the worst punishment and more severe negative public reaction. Abortion for whatever reason seems to have all the elements according to you of the worst kind of murder done with planning on the helpless. The difference between us is I don’t play around like you do; dithering; if I really relieved that what is inside the womb is the same as outside, then the punisment has to be the most extreme because it is planned way in advance and it is on helpless human being. I dont see the equivalence of inside and outside. You do; fair enought; well, if you do, then stop playing and explain why you want to be lenient to a pre mediated cold blooded murder of helpless human being. Dont you take yourself seriously. I begin to wonder. And the doctor is irrelevant; we are talking about the cause of the abortion; if not for the mother, no Dr; no abortion. And as I pointed many abortion are done by drugs that mother purchases when getting an RX and puts in her mouth knowing full well it will kill the human being in her; and it is helpless to fightback. Now if that is not a case for life or death sentence, i dont what it is. What a difference between us. I dont dilly dally. You dilly dally.
What do you disagree with above.
Don’t cop out with nonsense. This is not 2nd degree murder; nor manslaughter; why? obvious, planned, pre-mediated; and on a helpless human being according to you. There can’t be anything worse. IT is no different than someone planning to kill his wife for convenience so he can get the insurance or marry someone else because she is not sexy enough; so, while sleeping, he stabs her a few times like in abortion; or he slips poison in her drink just as the mother who aborts takes the ms abortion pill. And to make it even better, the wife is a saint respected by the community for her charity work. You want some easy sentence with this guy; you know as well as I know, that such a crime will the harshest penalties. So stop pussyfooting, if you are serious about calling abortion murder; i cant think of a worse crime if one reallly believes that. So maybe you dont believe except with words.
I think OJ simpson should have been hung; well, i could see be a little lenient, since he did it in a fit of jealousy; but a mother aborts does not do it on the spur of something like jealousy; as I said, you have to plan for it; you have to wait etc; much more cold blooded than even OJ; and you talk about that we have to consider all factors; what kind of garbage is that, relativism?
I will get back to Hitler later
enough for now; i shall point later that you dont know what absolutism means, nor relativism; you throw these words that you have heard. wait, more education coming when I get to Hansen
Still waiting on you to answer to those questions and address the issues I raised earlier.
No other comments until you summon the courage to respond to the questions and issues raised by your own scenarios.
Cool article…I think you restricted the abortion stance to perception of sex. I am conservative, and I think “the more the merrier” as far as sex goes. I am proud of my “notched belt”. I think it comes down to personal responsibility. Abortion is an “easy out” to an unwanted pregnancy. A baby should not be killed because the pregnancy would hurt the mother’s reputation or embarrass her. She should have thought of all of that before she let him “take the plunge” (pun intended). Her easy out should be carry the baby to term and give the baby up for adoption. But thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy in allowing for the exception of rape for pro-lifers. You changed my stance in this article.
No, they are being killed to repel an invasion.
How is it possibly worse than the killing of perhaps hundreds of unborn babies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Unless unborn babies killed by plutonium are somehow less dead than those killed by stainless steel.
This comment explains rationale for the exception perfectly.
Here’s another thought on abortion perhaps not everyone has heard of. This is particularly of interest to those who value a constitutional limited government.
The declaration of independence declares: We hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE…
The Constitution provides that no man shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law.
The allowance of abortion allows the government to set an arbitrary definition of who is a person and who is not, which Americans have Constitutional rights and which do not. It is the essence of a tyrannical government. It fueled the rationale behind the evil of slavery. And it fuels the rationale behind abortion. No one wants to believe they are killing a human.
Even worse, the government is forfeiting the inalienable right to life of those who have done no wrong, of those who’s only crime is existing. In essence, the government is willfully permitting the violation of their constitutional right to due process, allowing doctors (of all people!) to legally execute innocent individuals.
Roe V. Wade was a false win for so called rights. Because made it a protected right to deprive others of their rights. This isn’t all that far in rationale from Obama’s shafting of the bond holders from the bailouts, going in and essentially seizing their private property to give someone else the right to own that company. Only this is life we’re talking about.
The choice is up to hers and we should never criticize that. A baby once formed already has life and we should not be the one to judge if the baby should live or get aborted. It is not the child’s fault for having a rapist as a father. Everyone should respect others to get respected the same way.
——–
Bevo,
expert on Full Term Pregnancy
I thought of giving some ideas of Monotheism as it is used here in some post.
Monotheism (from Greek μόνος, monos, “single”, and θεός, theos, “god”) is the belief in the existence of a single (one) god. Monotheism is characteristic of the Baha’i Faith, Christianity, Druzism, Judaism, Islam, Samaritanism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism.
While they profess the existence of only one deity, monotheistic religions may still include plural concepts of the divine. For example, the Christian Trinity, in which God is a triune spirit of three eternal persons – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). Additionally, most Christian denominations accept the duophysite doctrine that Christ has two natures, being simultaneously divine and human. However, some Christian denominations are unitarian (do not profess the Trinity), while some embrace the monophysite doctrine instead of the duophysite.