It seems that abortion rights advocates are up in arms about the term, “partial birth abortion.”
I suppose they think it ought to be impartial.
Speaking of which, and coming back to a topic which I’ve not spoken on in a while, but which is close to my heart, I’ve once again been attacked by a friend from academia (a dwindling cluster of whom remain) on the grounds that my politics derive from my father, because he is Catholic, and because he is a physician.
Let me clarify here. It is true that my father was a pathologist before he retired. It is true that he is Catholic, and it is true that he became a conservative while I was still rather young. It is also true that he was raised in an Irish family from Chicago, that his father was a fire chief, and that his family were largely hard-core Democrats, including his sister Joan, with whom he was extremely close, and who had a distinguished career with the Chicago Tribune. It is true that he went to Notre Dame, and it is true that he went to Loyola Medical School. So, what turned him into a Republican? Johnson, and his service in the Air Force, and his association with my mother’s father, who was a Lincoln scholar and staunch conservative who nevertheless called Adlai Stevenson a friend and substantively supported his presidential ambitions.
The idea that, in two of the cases in question, the accusers have fathers in the academy on liberal campuses, is especially galling, in view of the fact that they deny such influence in their own cases.
Well, here’s the story. Dad wanted me to go to ND, and perhaps I would have been better served there. But in order to forge my own identity, and because the skiiing is better, and because all my high school friends from Wisconsin were going west, if they were leaving the state, I went to Dartmouth. There, having been given a rather good head start in high school at home, I became radicalized, but then realized that it was no good, philosophically. I pointed out to one of my professors that his deconstruction of “phallogocentrism” could be turned upon itself, and he responded, when I laid out how, “Yes, but why would you want to do that?” My systematic sickening with this line of thought continued in graduate school. I had attempted to find better ways than that which I knew, but I found that knowing had some value. I also found that study of the history of my faith showed me something of its depth and variety.
So, where are my friends from the academy? Have they defended gays, men and women, as I have, to the tune of a broken nose and black eyes? Have they done service abroad? Have they taken in the mentally ill? Have they advocated for them? Does not their sympathy for the other extend to me, with whom they have drunk and joked and broken bread? Am I so terrible for what I believe?
Here’s a hint: when at the NIH, undergoing tests related to the schizophrenia of my son, it was found that my pre-frontal cortex and amygdala showed signs of having been subjected to prodromal schizophrenic damage. Perhaps that is why I think as I do? And yet, and despite the drugs, my friends, I am saner than you.
The left has about as much right to get upset about the use of phraseology to change political perspective as Germans have getting upset over the whole, you know, Nazi thing. Maybe in a few decades, guys.
Not in thirty years, and yes, you are that terrible because you refuse to fit their templates.
What’s your friend’s point?
Father influence bad; Chomsky influence good?
Intact dilation & extraction is used in a whopping 0.17% of abortions, and even then, usually to extract an already dead fetus due to miscarriage.
“Partial birth abortion” is a term invented by politicians, not doctors (see IDX, above). The “victory” is therefore a hollow one, a cheap political stunt at the expense of grieving mothers.
Family values.
{{{boggle}}}
Your politics are suspect because your father is a physician???
Physicians are a bad political influence???????
Given that this post starts with abortion, this strikes me as like trying to impeach someone’s Global Warming™ skepticism because his father is a climatologist.
Which, it actually wouldn’t surprise me…
I had coffee last night with a friend who is liberal – he said he had not followed news for 6 weeks. He said he no longer had any confidence that the “news was the news.” That’s one guy, a balanced and smart guy, but I think your liberal friends might be lashing out a bit cause all the media-generated validation of their views is oddly not as satisfying as a conservative-minded person might think it would be. They need, these people, on a scale that control of congress, mere political momentum, doesn’t begin to touch. So while we’re speculating on matters of the mind, think how truly disorienting it will be for them when Bush leaves office, unbowed and unrepentant.
You see the problem with your theory, theo?
Okay. Now what about it is inaccurate or biased?
And I don’t know what the hell that smiley is doing in that definition, I did not put it there.
I had been wondering what a crazed Fenian rebel was doing at Dartmouth. Now I see that you were just rejecting your fathers values,-
No, hang on.
Some children reject their parents’ philosophies and some follow them. I think in general it depends on how quickly native intelligence overcomes the adolescent impulse to rebel.
Most lefties grow up at about the age of 35. Most conservatives begin to see through the socialist lie at about 15.
People like Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Jon Pilger, Robert Fisk, never grow up. They live in a weird world of half-truths and hobgoblins. Which is OK, but you wouldn’t want your daughter to marry one.
“Miscarriage” also implies the death of the fetus in the womb, and the longer along the baby is in the term when it dies, the more likely it requires medical assistance to “expel” it – which rarely and unpleasantly requires IDX.
You see the problem with your post, B Moe?
“Partial birth abortion†is a term invented by politicians
Which politicians, Theo? Can you name ‘em?
Or has the term been picked up because it is layman descriptive of the procedure
DO tell how many other lay terms need to be pushed aside because doctors don’t use them professionally?
“Miscarriage” is not a medical term. Or “heart attack”.
And no one I know objects to D&X when used on a still-born fetus
However, it is used on viable, healthy fetuses… it is infanticide by inches.
Ah, the old Churchill ditty Churchill never actually said.
In truth, political affiliation has a lot more to do with education and intelligence than age – the less you have, the more likely you’re a conservative.
As axioms go, “Democrats can’t get elected, Republicans can’t govern” is much more apt.
Theo—I was holding out for “baby-hooking,” we could always go back to that…
lmao
roflmao
How in the fuck are we supposed to take this asshat seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction#Terminology
The non-medical term “Partial-birth Abortion” was coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles Canady (R-Fla) and is primarily used in political discourse  chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. The term’s first use may be from the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which circulated in discussion through the first half of 1995 and was formally introduced by the congressman on 14 June 1995. Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill’s language, says the term developed in early 1995 in a meeting between her, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson. “Partial-birth abortion” was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill…
A more explicit non-medical term, “Brain-suction Abortion”, was used in a 1995 Ohio bill that sought to ban the procedure.
And just to clarify, if the fetus is already dead it is not a fucking abortion, Einstein.
Well, duh. Liberalism depends on indoctrination.
How about answering this question:
If only I could stun my opponents by using internet acronyms and f-bombs to make my points. Oh, well.
Theo: there is no rhetorical question too tough for me to answer.
As I didn’t refer to Churchill and as you say he never said it, I’m not sure what point you think you are making here.
So: The less education you have and the less intelligence you have, the more likely you are to be a conservative-
This explains the conservative majorities which dominated the Soviet Union and China through the 20th century, presumably.
And how do we explain you, Theo?
I am skipping over all of you and addressing this directly to Dan: what is your investment in this issue? Sorry, I am not gathering that with your account of your son, bless him. Please clarify; you can call me a fuckwit if that helps.
To fucking further fucking clarify, Einstein, the fucking medical term for fucking miscarriage is spontaneous abortion – but “miscarriage” is most certainly fucking used by fucking doctors to avoid association with fucking elective fucking abortions.
lmao
rotflmao
If the fetus is already dead, it is not an abortion and is not covered under this or any other ruling regarding abortion. There. Since I avoided any of those nasty old profanities were you able to focus on the topic? And why won’t you answer this question, which relates directly to the topic of the thread:
Abortions are abortions, friend; the end result is to terminate the pregnancy – so banning a procedure done 0.17% of the time is a political wedge, not a real issue.
If you believe abortions are wrong, it’s simple – don’t have one. That isn’t the issue, anyway; it’s about the right for a woman to control her own body.
OK. Theo’s education consists of a limited capacity for mimicry. The old “Shakespeare and monkeys” axiom. Still working on the intelligence bit, although the monkeys may cover that too.
I see furriskey is from the Don Rickles school of political debate; insults – because he’s got nothing of substance to contribute, the hockey puck.
Well see, some would argue it is about the woman’s right to terminate the life of another viable human being, that is why definition of terms is important in a discussion like this. Why is it an educated, enlightened one such as you keeps dodging any serious discussion of definition of terms?
Whereas Theo is from the Socratic school.
Your contribution to this discussion so far has been cretinous, Theo. You don’t answer questions, you don’t substantiate your professions, you descend to precisely the techniques you claim to abhor and you think that you can lower the whole debate over the right to life by postulating a view that this overridden by
. Which is a meaningless pabulum.
I don’t need to call you a fucking asshat for everyone to see that you are one, so I won’t bother.
it’s about the right for a woman to control her own body
Hey, Theo, who elected YOU to decide what is a woman’s right or not?
Since you’re obviously of the the Left Cult, then you must bow before my obvious moral authority since I’m the one with the uterus and vagina, not you.
BTW, the “right to control our own bodies” is not unqualified before the law for either sex … we cannot ingest certain subtances nor can we contract out our bodies nor sell bits and pieces of it.
In the case of elective abortions, we are not talking about just a woman’s body, but of a separate and distinct individual housed within her.
All debate about abortion is about how best to balance the competing rights of two individuals.
If there is “terminology” that is truly a cheap political stunt, it is the language of NARAL, NOW, and other pro-abortion-on-demand-at-any-time-under-any-circumstance that refuses to address the life that is terminated.
Every legitimate poll done on abortion shows the majority of Americans do indeed uphold a woman’s right to choose abortion unfettered – but only under limited circumstances … ie in the first trimester and by an adult woman.
It’s a position I deem as “reluctant pro-choice” and the position I take. However, even as I don’t want the majority of abortions that take place between 6-10 weeks gestation made illegal, I don’t pretend convenience abortions are anything but immoral and involve the choice to stop nascent human life.
Just as Planned Parenthood was first established as a eugenics program, so D&X was invented as a way to save abortion doctors the embarrassment of delivering a life baby after late term saline abortion (several survivors of such an attempted abortion have testified before Congress).
Me no go too skool. Me dum. This why me am Repubbykkkan.
Actually, individual sovereignty (or “self-ownership”) is the founding principle of libertarianism, which most conservatives claim to prize.
If putting yourself in a woman’s place is too difficult for you, just imagine the state outlawing the treatment of, say, gonorrhea.
Sorry, but Lil’ Furriskey is going to hurt in the worst possible way, and there’s nothing you can do about it, because those bacteria are alive, goddammit!
If putting yourself in a woman’s place is too difficult for you, just imagine the state outlawing the treatment of, say, gonorrhea.
Theo, so a baby is a disease?
but, in a round about way it is about age isn’t it? I mean, if we accept your statements about education. Someone with more education has spent more time in school thereby delaying entry into adulthood. maybe. it’s just a thought and I’m stupid.
For some reason, little Theo, it doesn’t surprise me thatyou would try to equate a foetus with a sexually transmitted disease.
Keep going, and one day you yourself may grow up to be a tertiary syphilis.
I love this one. I really wonder where the statistics come from. I assume it has something to do with the fact that the majority of college students are liberal and the measure of intelligence is taken from the public record. It’s an easy “fact” to pull off because smart people who don’t go to college don’t end up being counted.
I would venture an “educated” guess, and I could be wrong but I’m probably not, that smart people who don’t go to college are overwhelmingly conservative. They’re the type of self-motivated people who seek knowledge out of genuine interest, which generally doesn’t coincide with a high school or university curriculum. Someone like me, for instance, who by Cal State standards had a college-level education when I was 12.
Furthermore, conservatives tend towards endeavors of self-interest; things that are financially or personally rewarding. If you already have the knowledge, and you already know your goals, why go to college (assuming you don’t need a degree to accomplish your goals)?
Finally, conservative and libertarian types are independant, they are not interested in camaraderie or the approval of peers, or the attempted indoctrination into a progressive worldview (that they already know to be a dishonest trade in human emotions).
Anyway, my point is that Chomsky sucks and that fact is wrong
So at what point in life does one assume ownership, Theo? Why does an individual with a heartbeat and fully active brainwaves not qualify?
Time to turn it over to George Carlin:
Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if the fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come if there’s a miscarriage there isn’t a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say “we have 2 children and 1 on the way†instead of saying “we have 3 children� People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it’s a continuous process!
See the really hard-core people will tell you that life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg…But even after the egg is fertilized, it’s still 6 or 7 days before the egg reaches the uterus, and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far! 80% of a woman’s fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs! So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who’s had more than 1 period is a serial killer!
Unbelievable.
You two are meant for each other.
I mean it; I smell love connection.
Because there’s no greater authority on the subject of partial birth abortion.
Well it’s not like it’s some crazy politician just making shit up, Sean.
come if there’s a miscarriage there isn’t a funeral?
Least I hurt your feelings by mocking your attempt to appeal to authority by citing a standup-comic whose work includes “Wonder World of W.I.N.O” and doing cartoon voices (hey, he was PERFECT in the roll of Filmore in Cars, the addled aging hippie VW van!)…but people who lose their unborn children due to miscarriage DO have funerals for them.
And you’ve obviously never read Roe v Wade which does says the government can limit – even ban – 3rd trimester elective abortions when the fetus is viable.
I’m not sure why I feel the needto refute this but… Pew Research doesn’t seem to agree with you.
<a href=”http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95=”_blank”>
This actually shows Democrats and Republicans relatively even in upper education levels with Democrat party affiliation far more likely at lower education levels. Most surveys I have seen give edge to Republicans in all education levels highschool and above except PHDs. Go figure.I thought all the Womyn’s Study Profs would be Republicans.
Sean M
80% of a woman’s fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has.
And George “W.I.N.O.” Carlin is both a physician and statistician!
That’s compelling, mike, but I’d definitely want to check to see what George Carlin has to say about it before I completely buy into that.
George Carlin is a smart funny and very liberal guy. He is also a high school drop-out.
BTW – His routine on “stuff” ispure comedy gold.
He had a pretty funny bit about faggots, too. Something about a faggot being someone who wouldn’t go downtown and beat up queers with you, can’t remember the whole thing.
You seem a bit confused about liberals.
Let me clear it up for you: liberals don’t DO anything. They may bitch about things. They may protest and march and carry signs.
But DO things? Serve abroad and take people in and all that?
Hardly. That’s not liberalism. Liberals critique those of us who do things.
I’m still trying to figure out this bizarre idea that liberals are smarter. I know they think they’re smarter, and I have had former fellow grad students question my faith and political leanings when they discovered them.
I guess liberals have decided that they are smart, and that smart people must think like they do, so every who is smart thinks like they do. Sillogisms(sp?) are fun!
My graduate degrees must indicate that I’m a liberal. Whatever shall I do with my jackboots and brown shirts?
The truth is, most people don’t like to speak up in college because the party line forced down their throats is liberalism, and speaking up can cost them their grades. I’m pretty sure my speaking up hurt me a few times, but luckily most of the time it didn’t, because in IT, you talk about facts, not politics.
Mike –
Thanks for the link. It’s enlightening. It’s from 2004, and I wonder how much has changed since then, but we’re better represented that I expected. Serves me right for drawing conclusions based on what the media says.
a 4% advantage among college grads
a 1.3% advantage among those who have attended college
Then HS grads and drop-outs are 2 to 1 liberals.
That definitely paints a different picture.
And Wow! a 5% advantage among white people.
Liberals have a 14% advantage among those that call themselves moderates….We’ll teach those fence sitters what for!
And every time Theo jerks off into his sock, a billion little Theos are snuffed out before they have the chance to grow into useful sphincters.
Ain’t life a bitch, Theo?
Anybody else notice how scarce Theo got after that comment was posted?
Aw, hell, he’s probably off searching through his video library for the HBO special where George Carlin proved that the more educated one is, the more liberal one becomes.
Take it easy on the Theo. It’s never been pregnant with a life kicking and screaming to get out.
It’s a good thing.
All righty! So we can stop talking about the non-issue, and the law can stay just as it is.
George Carlin is either unaware that many women who have had more than one period are still virgins, or a bit confused about what a fertilized egg is. (Can I say “fertilized egg”, or is there correct medical jargon I should be looking up?)
In order to abort doesn’t the abortion doctor partially birth the human being by pulling him or her halfway out the birth canal so that the abortion doctor is able to reach the nape of the human being’s neck in order to suck out the human being’s brain?
It seems to me that the term partial birth abortion is calling like it is.
And once again, Theo demonstrates the use of snark as a substitute for having an actual point to argue.
This is what you’re reduced to when Don Rickles/George Carlin references and your intellect fail you.
In truth, political affiliation has a lot more to do with education and intelligence than age – the less you have, the more likely you’re a conservative.
A gratuitous assertion. No it doesn’t.
That is obviously a politial question, and has more to do with ability to count that medicine.
There are.
If it isn’t a human being, why don’t people say “We have two, and I’m suffering with an unviable tissue mass right now”? “One on the way” is a celebratory term, for those of us who still consider preganancy something to celebrate.
And I have NO idea what the celebrated Dr. Carlin is attempting to say here. He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a fertilized and unfertilized egg.
How about we count them as 5/8s of a human? Seems appopos.
Why would you want to?
I also am puzzled by those above that say they have friends that are Liberal. What’s the point?
Of having friends who are liberal? Or admitting it?
Having friends that are liberal. Mind you, I’m not saying you can’t have friends who may disagree with you politically. I do as well. But the entire mindset of these clowns. The cynicism, hatred of country, negativity, etc. I find it poisonous. I see no reason to personally engage them at all really.
And as Paul Z. hints, so is trying to prevent banning a procedure done 0.17% of the time. If it’s of so little consequence, then it’s of little consequence to either side. Yet the pro-abortion types froth at the mouth over the fact Congress and many states have banned this virtually never-used procedure.
You’d think they’d be snickering at the anti-abortion types’ wasting their time on such non-issues, if it really were so inconsequential to abortion supporters as they claim it should be to abortion opponents.
Which leads me to conclude they’re full of shit.
Well, if the fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them?
Here’s a sample of leftist thought: if the government doesn’t officially recognize something it isn’t true. Gotta love that kind of “logic.”
Hey, when you ask a woman when she’s going to give birth, do you refer to the unborn baby as a fetus?
“How’s your fetus doing?”
“Is it a healthy lump of unwanted tissue?”
“Is your enslavement to the parasite going well?”
“Haven’t you ever considered an abortion in self defense?”
Here, in a nutshell, is one of the thornier problems for libertarians. How do we reconcile the competing and incompatable rights of two individuals? I’ve never read a very satisfying libertarian argument for or against abortion, as you must ultimately argue that somehow the rights of one outweigh the rights of the other.
Or you must argue that one of the two has fewer rights, or no rights as yet, usually by invoking “viability”, wherein at some point the fetus becomes viable outside the uterus, or has “a heartbeat and fully active brainwaves” and is thus indowed with a right to life. This argument is going to become ever more difficult as medical science pushes back the stage of viability. What happens when a fertilized egg can be raised in vitrio or in a genetically engineered non-human host? Does that push the stage of viability back to conception?
Do the rights with which we’re endowed depend somehow on the quality of our brainwaves? (Now there’s a thought that ought to scare hell out of alphie!) And what of the “viability” of someone on life support who no longer has a heart to beat? Should they be treated as a lifeless hunk of protoplasm to be discarded at will?
Difficult, difficult issues and, while science can define the parameters of the argument—we know at what stage of development the fetus’ heart starts to beat and brain starts to wave—it’s more difficult to say why any of those factors should matter. Ultimately the arguments seem to defy rationality and devolve to emotion and individual religious beliefs, not a very fertile ground for libertarian thought.
Probably why debates on abortion tend to devolve into shit-flinging monkey fights too, no?
@syn-
“In order to abort doesn’t the abortion doctor partially birth the human being by pulling him or her halfway out the birth canal so that the abortion doctor is able to reach the nape of the human being’s neck in order to suck out the human being’s brain?”
It’s been described as this…. “ that procedure of delivering a living fetus up to its head, evacuating the contents of the skull, and then removing the body, so to speak, intact.”
Hadley Arkes wrote the books “First Things” and “Natural Rights and the Right to Choose” which, in my view, devastate any “right” one has to commit abortion.
Here’s what he had to say in 2000 when the court struck down the law in Nebraska which permitted partial birth abortions….
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment062800h.html
“Ultimately the arguments seem to defy rationality and devolve to emotion and individual religious beliefs, not a very fertile ground for libertarian thought.”
Swen… that’s precisely the assumption made by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade.
Blackmun’s judgment rested on the conviction that the court needn’t resolve the question of where life begins. “When those in the fields of medicine, theology and philosophy are unable to arrive at consensus, the judiciary is not in a position to speculate on the answer.”
So, within that judgment, Blackmun asserts the fallacy that the presence of disagreement indicates the absence of truth.
This idea he posits, that the question of “what is a human life and when can it claim protection of the law” as if it’s a question only of religious or theological weight and therefore one of private belief, is an assumption.
This assumption reflects a tendency in our public discourse to equate moral questions with matters of religious faith or private belief, which cannot be judged finally as true or false. It was as if the matter of abortion, as a profound moral question, was somehow cut off from the process of weighing evidence and testing arguments by the canons of principled reasoning. Justice Blackmun however, did not subject to the test of principled reasoning his own assumptions about the nature of the fetus and its standing in the eyes of the law.
We’re just trying to demonstrate that we don’t discriminate against the handicapped?
Swen
That is why the parameters of abortion should be a public debate and a matter of policy written by state legislatures reflecting the will of The People…
… not invented law from the eminations from the penumbra of unenumerated “privacy” rights as decided by American federal
mullahsjudges.The shrieking hysterics one is hearing from the pro-abortion side is a fair indication of their basic unwillingness to debate this issue in the public square .. not the least of which is their inability to deal with the unpleasant fact that “termination of pregnancy” means killing nascent human life.
As leftists are wont to simply put it “you can’t legislate morality!”
…which is truly a line worthy of a few giggles and guffaws.
All law is based on morality, which is derived from a set of assumptions.
Good lord, even the concept of “free will” is an assumption.
The basic starting point is then whose morality and how much of it will be codified into legal statutes? endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights is a statement of profound assumption. An assumption of government power derived from individuals in contrast with Islamist assumption that individuals have no say in a government that derives its power through religious edict as interpreted by a special religious class.
“Multiculturalism” has attempted (and succeeded to some degree) to burn out the ability of individuals to make a moral judgment of what set of cultural values is better than another.
There are fairly clear legal and medical parameters on what constitutes death with regard to brain activity, lives are enhanced everyday by organ donations based on these laws, and severely brain damaged patients are allowed to pass to the next stage by life support termination. Why shouldn’t these same parameters be in effect at the beginning of life? Why does it matter if the life support system is biological or artificial in the eyes of the law?
It seems clear to me, if there is enough brain activity to legally deny the termination of a mechanical life support system, it should be sufficient to deny the termination of a biological one.
Interesting. All sides on this matter think they know “the truth”. Yet they don’t agree on what “the truth” is. When “those in the fields of medicine, theology and philosophy” don’t agree on what the truth is, to whom should we appeal as a final arbiter on what constitutes “the truth”?
Is there a final arbiter on what constitutes the truth? Is this entity hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin?
Eggzactly. As a “free minds” kind of libertarian, why should I give a damn about anyone else’s definition of morality? Is it somehow more valid than my definition of morality? If so, why? From a libertarian standpoint, how do we decide whose version of morality should be imposed? Is there some logical method of measuring “truthiness”, or should we just go with the emotions of the majority?
Well, you do have to be able to logically defend your own brand of morality that you define as “free mind libertarianism”.
Argue your morality based on reason (which in itself is another assumption…)… be prepared to make persuasive arguments.
Stand up for what you believe, argue it persuasively, and win people to your belief system (aka moral code)
Yes to the former, no to the latter and remember all moral codes/systems of values can be argued via reason. Emotionalism can be weilded just as much by secular fundies and religious fundies.
Just because there is debate does not mean truth isn’t present. Too many, I think, reach a conclusion on what truth is and then say all debate must cease.
Not necessarily; as more evidence comes in then the debate should continue. But because the debate is continuing doesn’t mean that a decision can’t be reached now. It merely means that the decision can be revisted and changed if a better understanding of what is the truth is determined.
In Re: Legislating morality.
We always legislate morality. There are laws against many things such as, say, sexual harrassment, that are very moral-based. We have laws against serving alcohol at certain times and certain places. Are practical reasons involved? Certainly, but moral reasons are also involved.
N.B.: This is an observation, not a declaration of blog-war.
Yes, BMoe, but how much brain activity is enough? Shouldn’t alphie be at least a little nervous?
And seriously, isn’t this the crux of the Terri Schiavo case? IIRC, some argued that life support should continue in the absence of brain activity. Some couldn’t agree on whether there was any brain activity or by what means that activity should be measured. In the Schiavo case a severely brain damaged patient was certainly not “allowed to pass to the next stage” without a great deal of wrangling over the legal and medical parameters of what constitute death with regard to brain activity.
Is there some logical, rational, dispassionate means of resolving these issues? Or must they ultimately devolve into ‘conservatives are stupid and ill-educated’. ‘Oh yeah? Well liberals are shrieking hysterics’.
And
Yes, perhaps the truth is out there. The problem arises when we try to capture it, tame it, harness it, and make it pull our own little ideological wagon, no?
We have a taker! So.. What is the logical method of measuring truthiness? When two opposing sides don’t agree on what “the truth” is, how do we decide, logically, who’s right?
You might also explain how “the emotions of the majority”, which you reject, might be distinguished from “the will of The People”, which ought to be the law of the land.
No. As a “free minds” kind of libertarian I’m happy to grant you your version of morality so long as you grant me mine.. and stay off my yard.
“Yes, perhaps the truth is out there. The problem arises when we try to capture it, tame it, harness it, and make it pull our own little ideological wagon, no?”
Yes, Swen.
Though everything is open to debate, some things need very persuasive evidence before they will be accepted as a truth; some need less evidence.
For fun – humans do not breathe liquid water and live. While it can be debated, truly extaordinary proof is going to needed to support the assertion. With other assertions – well, varying degrees of proof are needed.
When the discussion is what a society ought to do, that involves not only truth, but also what a society wants to encourage or discourage. And it turns into ideological wagons, such as those Islamic governments that deny the Holocaust. That has nothing to do with truth but ideology.
Separating the two is the infuriatingly fun part.
By the way, Swen, you forgot to quote me on this part:
“Not necessarily; as more evidence comes in then the debate should continue. But because the debate is continuing doesn’t mean that a decision can’t be reached now. It merely means that the decision can be revisted and changed if a better understanding of what is the truth is determined.”
Theo,
You are have been completely consumed with liberal nonsense. It’s truly sad.
I remember 22 yrs ago learning about Partial Birth Abortion and even seeing pictures of it and not believing it. I just refused to believe that anyone would do that to what is CLEARLY a baby. But I was wrong. It was happening and more often that any of you think. It you think that statisics tell a story. You are wrong. Abortion has never been studied in an honest manner because those who perform abortions do not want that information available and they have never really had to.
All those gruesome pics you have seen of aborted babies? They were from many years ago when abortionist would throw away the baby body parts in bags and throw them in the trash. They have gotten much better in hiding their work now.
A few years ago I listened to a woman with celebry palsy who was aborted late term (not PBA though) and survived. Theo might want to read about her so he can realize how ridiculous it is to say that it is a woman’s right. Because there is someone else’s right to consider.
And I also think that a lot of us, myself included, have missed what Dan said about his friend. And what Dan said about his father.
All of Dan’s ideas are because of who is father is. That was thrown at Dan as an insult; Dan can’t think for himself; Dan is merely an automaton, Believing only what his father believed.
It is obvious to me that Dan loves and respects his father, and thought long and hard about what he believes; and part of his thinking is what his father imparted to him.
My dad and I are very close; he’s called me a friend. I am thankful he is my father; for I have learned a lot from him – not only on how to wire a light socket, but in how to treat people and how to stand up as a man. When those warring pulls happen, I think of how my mom and my dad would want me to go; and I go and do the hard thing, the annoying thing, the right thing. Because they raised me to do that, and because my dad demonstrated decency every day.
And from his post I can see that Dan took what he was being told and taught, and held it up to the mirror of his father, and asked how could a decent upright man be so wrong? And he re-examined what he was told and found it lacking, that his father was a rock upon which to found himself, not a foundation of sand.
And it really is amazing that no one wants to attack the main thrust of his post, the respect and admiration he has for his father. Amazing that all of the attacks are on peripheral matters.
Dan, you’re blessed; you have a father that was a man and not just a male. That is so rare and wonderful, and I am thankful every day that I have the same. It is so hard, as I know now, to be a good example every day. Vice is easy, virtue difficult; so virtue must be promoted constantly and those in our lives that have demonstrated virtue must be celebrated.
Father’s Day comes in June, but is really every day. Good luck, Dan, with yours; the reward is seeing another man of honor, probity, valor, and decency walk out your front door.
“cerebral palsy”, just to be picky.
My daughter has it. There are degrees of CP; she’s over on the mild end of the spectrum.
But she’s from a place in the world where, not so long ago, they didn’t dispose of their babies before childbirth nearly as frequently as after. So things have gotten better, in some respects.
Dang! I hate when that happens. But it doesn’t answer the basic questions: Both sides of the abortion debate claim to know “the truth”, yet can’t agree on what “the truth” is. Will further debate get us closer to “the truth”, especially when so much of the debate is of the “Yeah? Well your momma too!” sort? How will we know, objectively, when we’ve found “the truth”? And once we’ve found “the truth”, why continue the debate?
I’m arguing that there is no objective “truth” to be found. Rather, our views of abortion are based on our religious beliefs and personal feelings, which aren’t quite, ya know, objective and thus, aren’t really amenable to debate. Some have disagreed, saying the truth is out there, but no one wants to tell me what it is, how to find it, or how to recognize it when I see it, so you’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical.
Okay, back to the “Liberal nonsense! Conservative idiocy!” debate. I can see a lot of truth on both sides of that one.
Umm, actually, Swen, I suspect you really don’t know the debate that well if all you are doing is going to fall back on the old liberal nonsense; conservative idiocy thing.
Any fool can shout that and there are a lot of fools that stop by here and do nothing but that. With abortion there is still a good intellectual debate about the start of life and where one life leaves off and another begins; the right of the mother and the right of the person she is nurturing inside herself.
It is difficult and hard; and that is why I said that a decision may be reached for now, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be revisited.
Unfortunately, as you said, too many people hook too many other ideological wagons to the issue, which makes it hard to address.
I find this issue mortally difficult. I haven’t really fallen on one side or the other for long. It disturbs me, and I do think about it, but I am also still trying to work my way through it.
And that has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with an honest question about rights, humanity, morality, and justice.
slartifbartifast—I think I have a nephew from that same part of the world, on much the same basis. Good for you.
BTW, Swen.
I’m not saying you are a fool.
Just that path is really the wrong one to take here.
I think the p-a abortion argument was Dan’s way of introducing a topic that has bothered him. He has beliefs and his friends haven’t respected him for them, instead judging the worth of his friendship on whether he agrees politcally with them.
It is very disturbing when people you think are friends stop being friends because you have a different political belief on one issue. What is really wrong there, you or them? Is everything that you are to be judged by your stance on one issue, are you really that simple or are they that shallow that everything must be pushed through that one filter. And if it won’t go, why then, no matter how many other bonds of comradeship there are you are cast out.
That is the kind of thinking you see in civil wars and it is not, I say again, NOT pretty. Are we really that polarized? And if so, when and over what do we fight?
There was alot of extraneous arguing about the morality of it all, the legal issue was simply who had the authority to make the decision. The law was clear that life support could be terminated if the legal guardian so chose. The only issue was who was the legal guardian, the parents or the husband.
My position is that every state has legal parameters for what they consider “brain dead”, that point where if the guardian so wishes a patient can be removed from life support. Why not just scan the fetus and hold it to the same requirements? Why are the standards different at the beginning of life and the end?
D’oh! You’re right, there’s plenty of room for debate on when life starts, etc. etc. I even touched on most of those topics in my first comment, which I meant as a hint. But I don’t see much debate here about when life starts, or how to resolve the conflict between the rights of the mother and those of the fetus.
Rather, I’m seeing a lot of people calling each other foolish liberals and idiot conservatives. Meanwhile, there’s been a lot of talk about “truth”, without anyone venturing to suggest what that might be, although I get the distinct impression that some of you are pretty sure you know what “the truth” is. And no Mikey, you didn’t call me a fool, you just suggested that I don’t know what I’m talking about, when I’d already mentioned all the points you just brought up. How foolish of me. Do feel free to jump in and run with any of those topics. Please.
If there was ever a topic where debate creates more heat and less light than abortion, I’m sure I don’t know what it might be. I think that’s because there’s very little that can be pointed to as objective truth. It all boils down to what we feel and what we believe, and nobody likes to have their feelings or beliefs questioned, even if they can’t really articulate why they feel and believe as they do.
Let’s take the question “When does life begin?” as an example. Does life begin at conception? Does it begin at birth? Does it begin when the heart starts beating or the brain starts waving? Or does it begin when the fetus is viable outside the mother? Pick a position and explain, objectively, why you think as you do.
Using the term “obviously” will cost you 10 debate points.
Not easy, is it? It’s so much easier to just call each other fools and idiots, and question whether we know what we’re talking about, and that’s so much more constructive.
So.. When does life begin? Personally, I haven’t the foggiest notion how to objectively answer that question. On one hand, I’m not sure I see a fertilized egg as possessing full human rights. On the other, I think it’s unreasonable to place the age much past 21, although I can see the argument for abortion retroactive to the age of 18 on the orders of either parent or a consensus of the neighbors. But that’s just the Heinlein in me.
My first thought was to wonder how the brain could wave since it doesn’t have hands.
Ba dum bum.
Most people are playing a line-drawing game when it comes to abortion. There will be no concensus possible until we decide where that line is. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
At one time I considered myself mostly pro-choice, but over the years I have become more conservative. Once I discovered how barbaric abortions usually are, I pretty much moved to being mostly pro-life.
I would guess that brain activity would be where my line sits, but I’m not sure how justifiable it is. I don’t get worked up about freshly fertilized eggs, so morning-after treatments are more palatible. But this may very well not be the proper position we should take as a society.
One thing I would like is for it to go back to the states. I don’t think the Federal Goverment should be in the business of making these kinds of decisions, I don’t see in the constitution where they can do so, and I don’t like seeing Supreme Court Justices being chosen based on this one issue.
Why not conception?It is a human fertilized egg, after all. He/She/It has all the genetic material it will ever have to be a human.The act of copulation to fertilize that egg required some human agency between two people.
In my opinion the abortion debate isn’t about unwanted fetus’, but instead the legal abandonment of personal responsibility.
The obvious answer that people want to ignore completely is that lacking a clear judicial or medical answer on when a “lump of living human cells” becomes a “person” then we must be cautious. Since we can’t declare that dividing line, then the obvious thing to do is to protect the unborn to the earliest practical point.
Not knowing what the exact moment is cannot be used as an argument for laxity, it is the very definition of when we ought to show caution because human life is at stake.
For those who think that you cannot be a person until you exit the mommy, I have two points:
1) there’s nothing magical about exiting the mother, there’s no transformation that occurs.
2) The US Constitution in the 14th amendment presumes personhood of the unborn. I’m not kidding:
Catch that? Let me explain.
The amendment begins with a definition of a citizen. This definition is a person limited by two properties:
a) born in the US
b) naturalized in the US
This presumes, by inevitable logic, that there are persons who are unborn. So you cannot argue legally at least that unborn babies cannot be persons. At some point before birth, the US Constitution recognizes “personhood.”
Since we don’t know when this transformation occurs, we must always land on the side of protecting human life, especially the most helpless and innocent of human life.
I could very well find myself at that point some day. This would put fertility clinics in jeapordy, of course.
I strongly agree.
But with the abandonment of personal responsibility, and the government stepping in to take care of that problem, what is the inevitible result of making abortion illegal? I think it would be people suing the government for compensation for the hardship of carrying unwanted babies to term. And in this political and legal climate, I could see people winning such a case.
I guess the sticking point for me is “to be a human”. It is human, but not yet a human.
Excellent B Moe! It seems best to keep the rules as simple as possible and logically consistent. Our brain is a huge factor in what makes us human. If there is no brain function can the fetus be considered human (other than genetically and potentially)?
I guess the biggest question this raises in my mind is the exceptions to the rule: What if there is brain function, but tests indicate that the fetus is so abnormal that it will never achieve function higher than say, a reptile. The baby could be born and live, but it will be severely impaired mentally and physically? IIRC, it’s this sort of thing that leads to quite a lot of late-term abortions. Of course, as the state of the medical art improves we should be able to make these diagnoses earlier in gestation, so hopefully this situation will become ever more rare.
You’re right about the Schiavo case, but I think the law was pretty clear that the husband was the legal guardian. IIRC, the parents sued to have his guardianship overturned, which started the whole bruhaha. An odd case. If she wasn’t brain dead then I think it was wrong to pull the plug. If she was brain dead then what could it hurt to keep her body alive, at least so long as those arguing for that were also willing to pay the expenses? My memory is foggy, but I also seem to recall that who should pick up the tab for keeping her on life support was a point in contention. Some folks claimed nefarious motives for the husband wanting to pull the plug before he was completely impoverished.
Rightwingsparkle – “A few years ago I listened to a woman with celebry palsy who was aborted late term (not PBA though) and survived. Theo might want to read about her so he can realize how ridiculous it is to say that it is a woman’s right. Because there is someone else’s right to consider.”
Hadley Arkes, in 2002 crafted and helped turn into legistlation, the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” which protects those like the woman you describe above.
This is the text of that law….
Public Law 107-207
U.S. Code
Title 1, Chapter 1: Rules of Construction
Section 8.
‘’Person’’, ‘’human being’’, ‘’child’’, and ‘’individual’’ as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘’person’’, ‘’human being’’, ‘’child’’, and ‘’individual’’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term ‘’born alive’’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘’born alive’’ as defined in this section.
Heheh. I guess the question here is whether you have a brain or your brain has you. Who is in charge? Of course, some folks do most of their thinking with their little head, which is a good part of why we’re having this discussion.
That’s gonna cost you 20 points. If any of this was that darn obvious we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s possible for the judiciary or the field of medicine to objectively answer the question of when a fetus becomes a “person”. At best it’s a question of definition, at worst it seems to me to be more of a metaphysical question than one amenable to the legal arts or science.
On the other hand, you’re certainly correct that when the issue is clouded and human life is at stake we should exercise extreme caution. That’s why I’m a bit puzzled that those in favor of legal abortion usually oppose the death penalty, and vice versa. The rape and incest exceptions some of the anti-abortion crowd make also strike me as logically inconsistent.
That’s gonna cost you 20 points. If any of this was that darn obvious we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Sure we would, you can have plenty of arguments between people about what’s obvious if one or another side is unreasonable enough or deflects enough from the truth. We see that kind of thing all the time in arguments on various topics on the Internet.
Watch any argument about abortion and see how many times this concept is even mentioned, let alone debated. It’s not, because pro-abortion activists want to pay attention to anything else other than the truth behind the curtain, and anti-abortion activists are swept up in the argument. Stay on target: this is about humanity, and nothing else. All the other arguments (privacy, the parasite within, etc) are all deflections from the obvious.
The rape and incest exceptions some of the anti-abortion crowd make also strike me as logically inconsistent.
I concur. The only time aborting a child is a terrible but reasonable option is to save the mother’s life.
How about when, without intervention, it would continue to live?