Ken Buck made a comment last night that he makes a distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion folks. Just as “pro-life” is an intentionally manipulative misnomer so is this distinction. I have made the case on my blog (http://mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/29/the-greater-good-and-scott-roeder/) that “pro-life” folks are not “pro-life” as they would have you believe. They are really anti-abortion folks that maintain a radical, fundamentally religious position if they oppose abortion under any circumstances. Additionally, if they really believed that all life was sacred they would oppose the death penalty, oppose war and favor a radical solution to health care. In any case, my intent with this post is to suggest that the argument that Ken Buck and the other anti-abortionists make that assumes there are rabid “pro-abortion” folks out there are really a deflection of their own radical views.
It is nonsensical to suggest that pro-choice folks really want people to get abortions. It is ludicrous to think that most sensible folks would want to push abortions on people. Why would anyone in their right mind insist that someone get an abortion? The only way I could see that someone could arrive at this position would be if they wanted to target an ethnic group on the grounds of some extreme genocidal position. Does Ken Buck think that these “pro-abortion” folks really want to target an ethnic group? The anti-choice folks have made these claims in the past about historical, pro-choice people but these days that claim only makes them look like lunatics to those of us outside their club. What other reason would someone be radically “pro-abortion”?
What he calls “pro-abortion” is really only people that think abortion should be an individual choice and not a big-government call about what should be a personal issue (to put it in Ken Buck’s terms). What really bothers me about this tactic is that it re-directs the real extremism to a fabricated extremism. Psychologists call this “projection” but in sociological terms it is really an attempt at mass manipulation. The real radicals are the ones that believe abortion should be outlawed under any circumstances (rape, incest, to protect the life of the mother, etc.). However, if they can re-define their extremism as the more “sensible” position then their position feigns the appearance of less radical and thus, more moderate. Thus, the “right” is never “right enough” and the left is always increasingly just left of the radical right. If the position that the government should not intrude on people’s personal choice for an abortion is shown to be “pro-abortion” and radical then the anti-abortion folks make their extremism more palatable. If people see through this, their feeble attempts at manipulation are ineffective and the real zealots become apparent.
What I take away from Ken’s comment is that he is content to surround himself with extreme right positions and he is willing to make everyone else look like the extremist he really is. If one adopts an ideology that can never directly be stated but only pointed at in “code words” it is because the ideology cannot stand on its own, in the light of reason and reasonable folks. I get the feeling that a lot of the right wing rhetoric is dishonest, pointing to ideas that they cannot express directly except in their inner circle. Thus, comments border on elitism, support for the rich and big business, racism, sexism, and homophobia but never quit get there in public discourse because that light would be too revealing. I know there are conservatives that have direct, honest and well thought out positions but this trend on the right is a little disturbing. I do all I can to make my ideas direct and without any need to ‘paint lipstick on a pig’. The question voters need to ask themselves is, “Is this the kind of person we want for our Senator”?
Me:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and : I guess it’s not alleged anymore, you’ve poven it. Truth hurts eh? It just took a little proveberial prodding with a stick to get your true colors to shine through your elitist facade. Socrates would be proud, I’m sure.
Posted by BerettaOwner
I have restated continually on this board that I feel the same way about your folks as you feel about me…call that elitist if you want but I have made no attempt to conceal that fact. However, I refuse to get bogged down in your issues anymore as I think others are probably more open to reason, facts and data. Why can’t you let it go and get about your anti-abortion insanity? …like the fight too much?
Blogger:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and : Well for starters, how about this? BerettaOwner – “You’re an alleged filthly little Marxist baby killer”
Posted by markdart
I guess it’s not alleged anymore, you’ve poven it. Truth hurts eh? It just took a little proveberial prodding with a stick to get your true colors to shine through your elitist facade. Socrates would be proud, I’m sure.
Me:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and : Again, you finally get to the point and project your true self at your attempt of Proof by Verbosity. What makes you think I’m bitter, wrathful, vindictive, and irrational? Putting words in my mouth perhaps, or is it just Freudian Projection?
Posted by BerettaOwner
I am glad we are finally communicating…short one syllable words…got it!
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and : Again, you finally get to the point and project your true self at your attempt of Proof by Verbosity. What makes you think I’m bitter, wrathful, vindictive, and irrational? Putting words in my mouth perhaps, or is it just Freudian Projection?
Posted by BerettaOwner
Well for starters, how about this?
BerettaOwner – “You’re an alleged filthly little Marxist baby killer”
Me:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Too much to read. Quit babbling and just make a point.
Posted by AIMWO4
I guess reading hurts the Republican brain. I knew the health care bill with all its 2,000 pages was too long even for Republican lawyers. Now I know the sound bite is about as long as their attention span. I didn’t know you had issues with the first ammendment:
“To those claiming they don’t Republicans oppose the establishment clause (in violation of the 1st)are in favor of National security letters (a violation of the 4th). & are against article 1, section 9, clause 2,(habeas corpus). You Repubs called those of us who opposed you over these issues, traitors & in league with terrorists. Do you think the rest of us are stupid?”
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101020060415AAE0DmC
Don’t like it – Don’t read it – Just don’t b***h!
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion” : I guess reading hurts the Republican brain. I knew the health care bill with all its 2,000 pages was too long even for Republican lawyers. Now I know the sound bite is about as long as their attention span. I didn’t know you had issues with the first ammendment: “To those claiming they don’t Republicans oppose the establishment clause (in violation of the 1st)are in favor of National security letters (a violation of the 4th). & are against article 1, section 9, clause 2,(habeas corpus). You Repubs called those of us who opposed you over these issues, traitors & in league with terrorists. Do you think the rest of us are stupid?” http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101020060415AAE0DmC Don’t like it – Don’t read it – Just don’t b***h!
Posted by markdart
Nice evidence. I’m glad you back up your claims rather than posting some more idiotic drivel. At least you kept it under 1000 words this time, there’s hope for you yet!
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and:
And yet your vindictive, irrational anger would put words in his mouth that is exactly opposite of what he was suggesting. You bitterness and wrath have no reasonable bounds – the definition of a radical extremist.
Posted by markdart
Again, you finally get to the point and project your true self at your attempt of Proof by Verbosity. What makes you think I’m bitter, wrathful, vindictive, and irrational? Putting words in my mouth perhaps, or is it just Freudian Projection?
Me:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion” : No, there you go again pulling only the data out that you need which you do time and time again, ironically fallacy by omission on your part. What you left out of his post was, “I would like to ask these folks if they have ever considered the notion that lack of affordable healthcare plays in to the decision for some to have abortions in the first place? Having children and providing healthcare for them is very expensive.” I did consider the notion, with the implication being that economic conditions are a justification for an abortion. If economic conditions are justification for killing a human, where does one draw the line on that justification? I extended the reasoning, which unsurprisingly no one addresses. Next time try to comprehend what you read before you bloviate.
Posted by BerettaOwner
Wrong again as usual. Let’s try one more time…
vince08 –
“I would like to ask these folks if they have ever considered the notion that lack of affordable healthcare plays in to the decision for some to have abortions in the first place? Having children and providing healthcare for them is very expensive. To say that people that are pro-choice like to kill babies is completely ludicrous. But to consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue. I am also wondering if all of these said “pro-lifers” have never placed a woman at risk to be in the unfortunate position of having to make this choice?”
Logic Challenged –
“By your logic, we should extend the definition of abortion to post natal children once the family budget gets tight.”
Vince08 plainly states, “To say that people that are pro-choice like to kill babies is completely ludicrous.” This should be an indication that he is not advocating killing babies. It really does not even need logic to understand, just reading.
What vince08 is plainly stating is that we should “consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue”. He cites two reasons as:
1) the “lack of affordable healthcare”.
2) anti-choice men may want to think about having “placed a woman at risk” or not using birth control and having unwanted pregnancy with a partner.
He thinks that if we “consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue”.
Your ridiculous jump in logic is, “By your logic, we should extend the definition of abortion to post natal children once the family budget gets tight.”
His point was that we could actually lesson the reasons for abortion (and therefore not have to do abortions) if we paid attention to other mitigating circumstances. He was suggesting ways to lessen abortions not “extend the definition of abortion to post natal children”. He is not advocating killing babies that have been born as you would want him to suggest (so you could dismiss his argument). His whole idea should find agreement with your idea to some degree – to find a way to not have to have an abortion. And yet your vindictive, irrational anger would put words in his mouth that is exactly opposite of what he was suggesting. You bitterness and wrath have no reasonable bounds – the definition of a radical extremist.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Too much to read. Quit babbling and just make a point.
Posted by AIMWO4
I guess reading hurts the Republican brain. I knew the health care bill with all its 2,000 pages was too long even for Republican lawyers. Now I know the sound bite is about as long as their attention span. I didn’t know you had issues with the first ammendment:
“To those claiming they don’t Republicans oppose the establishment clause (in violation of the 1st)are in favor of National security letters (a violation of the 4th). & are against article 1, section 9, clause 2,(habeas corpus). You Repubs called those of us who opposed you over these issues, traitors & in league with terrorists. Do you think the rest of us are stupid?”
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101020060415AAE0DmC
Don’t like it – Don’t read it – Just don’t b***h!
Blogger:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
This is the statement that vince08 made, “But to consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue.” From this statement you made the fallacious jump in logic to, “By your logic, we should extend the definition of abortion to post natal children once the family budget gets tight.”
Posted by markdart
No, there you go again pulling only the data out that you need which you do time and time again, ironically fallacy by omission on your part. What you left out of his post was, “I would like to ask these folks if they have ever considered the notion that lack of affordable healthcare plays in to the decision for some to have abortions in the first place? Having children and providing healthcare for them is very expensive.”
I did consider the notion, with the implication being that economic conditions are a justification for an abortion. If economic conditions are justification for killing a human, where does one draw the line on that justification? I extended the reasoning, which unsurprisingly no one addresses. Next time try to comprehend what you read before you bloviate.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Too much to read. Quit babbling and just make a point.
Posted by AIMWO4
I couldn’t help but chuckle at this statement. Thanks!
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Abortion is not really a left or right issue, IMO, it is a political landmine regarding two extremes. The first is the killing of babies, with the definition of a baby being a one-celled, fertilized human egg. The second is the right of the individual to choose to have an abortion without government interference. There are a lot of complicated arguments for both these extremes, but I tend to think that the position of average americans fall between these two extremes somewhere. Having said that, I would argue that abortion right now is only being used as a political weapon to defame one party or the other. I disagree strongly with these tactics, and end by saying, “Let the people vote”. Buck has no more power to end abortions than Bennett has to allow them.
Posted by Mark1962
Elloquently put! I agree, no matter where on the scale your opinions may lie, this IS a very accurate account of the issue.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In this era, there is no need for abortion as a form of birth control.
Posted by sdob9054
sdob – your simple statement is right on. Unfortunately, birth control is the major reason for abortions. For anyone who doubts this, try working in a hospital, women’s clinic or physician’s office. When our wonderful dem congress decided partial birth abortions are ok in late term, it was a new low for our country. Even when Bush wouldn’t sign the bill, they congress overroad him.
For those who think they really know what this procedure is, it’s when doctor lets baby get it’s head out, then punctures the skull and sucks out the contents.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion” : __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Hello, is anyone home? They don’t do partial birth abortions anymore!!! In 2003 the partial birth abortion ban was instituted by the US Supreme Court. Extremists are always trying to distort the truth
Posted by thatswhatIsaid2
Extremists post in big blue letters. The Supreme Court doesn’t institute laws, or at least shouldn’t. Congress does make laws along with approval of the President (assuming no veto). The law was passed in 2003, with no involvement of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the law in 2007.
Me:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
I have tried to ask this question before with little luck in responses. If the law defines life to begin at conception, who is going to care for all the unwanted children that are abandoned by parents or mothers that don’t want them? Seems to me that the price for the inevitable abuse, neglect, and abandonment will be quite high. No mention has been made of the potential for illegal abortion clinics, using possibly dangerous methods. While it’s noble to want to protect the young, no matter how you define them, I don’t see any of the consequences considered in these discussions.
Posted by Mark1962
Good points Mark1962. I think the answer is there is no answer. It also presents a social question. We have recently and finally passed CHIP (children’s health insurance program) after many years of trying and I am proud to say that a Republican US Representative that I grew up with, Billy Cassidy, signed it with the Dems. I thanked him personally.
Blogger:
I have tried to ask this question before with little luck in responses. If the law defines life to begin at conception, who is going to care for all the unwanted children that are abandoned by parents or mothers that don’t want them? Seems to me that the price for the inevitable abuse, neglect, and abandonment will be quite high. No mention has been made of the potential for illegal abortion clinics, using possibly dangerous methods. While it’s noble to want to protect the young, no matter how you define them, I don’t see any of the consequences considered in these discussions.
Me:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Once again, I agree with markdart also. And let me ask once again, how is advocating wars and capital punishment while considering healthcare to be a privilege instead of a right…moral and Christian? Yes, the hypocrisy is pretty thick in here. Oh wait, wars and capital punishment ARE endorsed by the bible? Maybe Christianity isn’t such a moral entity afterall…. Let’s concentrate on the healthcare issue for a moment, since we’re talking about abortion here. Since some people seem to think that only the rich deserve to receive high quality healthcare, I would like to ask these folks if they have ever considered the notion that lack of affordable healthcare plays in to the decision for some to have abortions in the first place? Having children and providing healthcare for them is very expensive. To say that people that are pro-choice like to kill babies is completely ludicrous. But to consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue. I am also wondering if all of these said “pro-lifers” have never placed a woman at risk to be in the unfortunate position of having to make this choice? In other words, have they NEVER had sex outside of marriage with a woman that they had no intention of starting a family with? I’m guessing that those numbers are few. Once again, the hypocrisy in here keeps getting thicker.
Posted by Vince08
I will answer your question…no. This is a common tactic on the right and especially anti-abortion folks. Make and argument extreme and then you can dismiss it. If you can make it about ethnic purging, fascism, baby-killing or in this case killing already born babies; then, you can dismiss the original point all together. Actually, thinking involves being able to make fine and necessary distinctions. This is the statement that vince08 made, “But to consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue.” From this statement you made the fallacious jump in logic to, “By your logic, we should extend the definition of abortion to post natal children once the family budget gets tight.” What you did is try to make a logical extension. If you want to make a valid logical extension you need to show how his words set up a principal that equally validates both cases. However, you did not make explicit what that principal would be. This is also called the informal fallacy of omission. This omission conveniently led to your fallacious reasoning. People that do not pick up on this logical error will mistakenly think that you made a sound logical argument. In doing so, you have successfully manipulated them into thinking you are right. Socrates called this sophistry. So, tell me your principal, the universal that joins both statements. Hint: Try to find something in his actual words, the specific case, to your words, the other specific case that has agreement and thus, a common term. If you can do this you can BEGIN to establish a direction of thought towards a universal.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Markdart, Thank you for your level-headed responses. So, I just want to clear up where my thinking is coming from. I believe that a human being’s life starts at conception. Why? Because at that moment, the cells immediately start to undergo cell division and replication, getting everything together to form this potential human being. I understand that the big debate is over when a human being’s life actually begins. (This is a question I honestly don’t think will ever be answered.) The reason I believe that life starts at the beginning is because I don’t think that during the course of a pregnancy, there is a gene that is suddenly expressed and boom!, there’s life. All of the genes that are going to be in the new baby are there at conception. To a more non-scientific standpoint, when a woman finds out she’s pregnant (usually a month, month and a half already along in the pregnancy), her first thought is, baby. Not “I must have a mass growth of cells in my uterus”. I think that most women know that should they decide to carry out the pregnancy, there will be a human being as the end result. Therefore, are they not aware that by terminating the pregnancy, they are terminating a potential human being? Now I know people will be like, so are you saying birth control is abortion since you are terminating a potential human being? No, because fertilization has not occurred, so long as the sperm and egg do not meet, there is not a potential life being formed. However, an abortion is a conscience decision on the mother’s part to remove the “mass of cells” that are all destined to become and working towards forming a human being. For example, the approximate gestation period for a chicken egg is around 21 days. Say you have a known fertilized egg, incubating in its shell, if you crush the egg around day 7 (first “trimester”) or even around day 4, have you just killed a chicken?
Posted by Chuckles24
Chuckles24, this is a much smarter approach to the question. Aristotle would approve. The question of potential and actual is a very difficult question that was eloquently posed by Aristotle and has been discussed at length since. If folks think I write long posts now, you do not want to see me get into this one 😉 I will try to make a few suggestions.
One problem with the notion of potential is that it tends to have fuzzy boundaries. For example, it could be stated that the sperm and the egg are also potential with regard to a baby. In your case you cite rapid cell growth as the starting line, after the sperm penetrates the egg. This is good.
However, another problem with potential is that it is not always potential if potential means that it is rooted in an actual. In other words, if the rapid cell division turns out to be unviable, unable to get past a limited number of cells subdividing, is that potential? If you define potential as that which may or may not turn out to be actual then your language turns in on itself (in physics this might be thought as a singularity, in math an infinite series, in philosophy the hermeneutic circle of language). At this point the meaning value of the word starts to get fuzzy.
The other point about potential has to do with language. This is perhaps more difficult to get at but let’s take your example. The fundamental question posed is when does human life begin (and thus acquires a jurisprudence protection in the US)? The argument you pose is when the potential for life is present. In other words, you want to establish common terms between human life and potential. Human life is certainly actual so what you want to do is make the connection between actual and potential necessarily true, a tautology. In other words, one cannot be achieved without the other, an identity. Well, human life certainly has potential in a contingent, conditioned sense but not in all cases as I already mentioned. Therefore, we cannot make a tautological (always true like A=A) connection but we can make a contingent, conditioned connection.
Once the principal of a contingent connection must be established you are going to get into what most folks that do not explicitly think through in this fashion (thank God) when they suggest they are not sure where life begins. In other words, once a contingent argument is maintained by the very notion of contingent (conditioned) the conclusion must always be relative. Perhaps a gene does not need to be expressed to BE a human life but perhaps a certain level of brain function such as any activity whatsoever may be a condition someone might impose on the contingent argument. Perhaps some, as Aristotle, would impose a human “form” to the collection of rapidly dividing cells or a fetus (viz, the definition of fetus). I think your argument is reasonable about rapidly dividing cells but I also think both the cases I cited are reasonable so, personally, I am at a bit of a stale mate and not sure. I seem to have no way visa vie language to move beyond the stalemate so I am really stuck in a quagmire of language.
If I were religious, I could get past it by dogma but alas, in the separation of church and state that is an unprofitable avenue. Maybe you can begin to see how the separation of church and state solved some problems but also created others.
I think your position is respectable and all I can say is that in a democracy, contingent arguments boil down, in many cases, to how many folks you can convince. If it were an apodictic argument, necessarily or demonstrably true; incontrovertible, then you would have other jurisprudence recourse in this country. Sorry for the abbreviated 😉 philosophical response but a good question deserves a good answer. Mark
Bloggers:
Once again, I agree with markdart also. And let me ask once again, how is advocating wars and capital punishment while considering healthcare to be a privilege instead of a right…moral and Christian? Yes, the hypocrisy is pretty thick in here. Oh wait, wars and capital punishment ARE endorsed by the bible? Maybe Christianity isn’t such a moral entity afterall….
Let’s concentrate on the healthcare issue for a moment, since we’re talking about abortion here. Since some people seem to think that only the rich deserve to receive high quality healthcare, I would like to ask these folks if they have ever considered the notion that lack of affordable healthcare plays in to the decision for some to have abortions in the first place? Having children and providing healthcare for them is very expensive. To say that people that are pro-choice like to kill babies is completely ludicrous. But to consider all of the reasons that women decide to end pregnancies is a much more rational approach to looking at the issue. I am also wondering if all of these said “pro-lifers” have never placed a woman at risk to be in the unfortunate position of having to make this choice? In other words, have they NEVER had sex outside of marriage with a woman that they had no intention of starting a family with? I’m guessing that those numbers are few. Once again, the hypocrisy in here keeps getting thicker.
Markdart,
Thank you for your level-headed responses. So, I just want to clear up where my thinking is coming from.
I believe that a human being’s life starts at conception. Why? Because at that moment, the cells immediately start to undergo cell division and replication, getting everything together to form this potential human being. I understand that the big debate is over when a human being’s life actually begins. (This is a question I honestly don’t think will ever be answered.) The reason I believe that life starts at the beginning is because I don’t think that during the course of a pregnancy, there is a gene that is suddenly expressed and boom!, there’s life. All of the genes that are going to be in the new baby are there at conception.
To a more non-scientific standpoint, when a woman finds out she’s pregnant (usually a month, month and a half already along in the pregnancy), her first thought is, baby. Not “I must have a mass growth of cells in my uterus”. I think that most women know that should they decide to carry out the pregnancy, there will be a human being as the end result. Therefore, are they not aware that by terminating the pregnancy, they are terminating a potential human being? Now I know people will be like, so are you saying birth control is abortion since you are terminating a potential human being? No, because fertilization has not occurred, so long as the sperm and egg do not meet, there is not a potential life being formed. However, an abortion is a conscience decision on the mother’s part to remove the “mass of cells” that are all destined to become and working towards forming a human being.
For example, the approximate gestation period for a chicken egg is around 21 days. Say you have a known fertilized egg, incubating in its shell, if you crush the egg around day 7 (first “trimester”) or even around day 4, have you just killed a chicken?
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
I would like to ask these folks if they have ever considered the notion that lack of affordable healthcare plays in to the decision for some to have abortions in the first place? Having children and providing healthcare for them is very expensive.
Posted by Vince08
In the first place, I would say the biggest decision that led the mother to abortion is the choice to have intercourse in the first place (99% of abortions). By your logic, we should extend the definition of abortion to post natal children once the family budget gets tight. I wonder what the “pro-choice” rational is for not doing that?
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
ummm, after I posted this I noticed BHOpunkedUS posts disappeared…oh, well it is the blogosphere… How do you know what I think? IMO, I do not even think you know what you think. If I thought I was smarter than you I would not even bother answering your post. I really don’t care who is smarter; it is not a competition for me. I only want to try to work in collaboration with others so that we both walk away thinking a little clearer and not merely reacting blindly to each other. I have all the negative emotions toward you that you have for me I just want to be better than that…
Posted by markdart
People come and go, sometimes their accounts are closed, but they reappear under other pseudo’s … you can tell by their writing style, their general self expression. Smart is a matter of opinion, posting here, is just about self expression. Chances are neither side is going to change their opinion, and each person decides based on what they read and hear from many, many venues, what their ultimate position is on any issue or thread that’s started. I don’t care for the personal attacks or name calling, and hope I don’t stoop to it myself either.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion” : In the first place, I would say the biggest decision that led the mother to abortion is the choice to have intercourse in the first place (99% of abortions). By your logic, we should extend the definition of abortion to post natal children once the family budget gets tight. I wonder what the “pro-choice” rational is for not doing that?
Posted by BerettaOwner
SO…BerretaOwner…are you saying that you have NEVER had sex outside of marriage, and therefore have never placed a woman in the position of possibly having to make this choice???? How about all of your conservative comrades too? How would they answer?
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion” : SO…BerretaOwner…are you saying that you have NEVER had sex outside of marriage, and therefore have never placed a woman in the position of possibly having to make this choice???? How about all of your conservative comrades too? How would they answer?
Posted by Vince08
Well, you didn’t answer my question but I’ll be nice and answer yours. I have had sex before I was married, however I was prepared to accept the consequences of my, and her, actions. By the same token, if my wife ever wanted an abortion it would end our marriage.
About 15% of all abortions are performed on married women’s babies. While certainly a minority it’s not enough to say only single women kill their babies.
Me:
Thank you. I was starting to feel alone on this blog. I have to tell you though people can call me every name in the book and it means nothing to me but since I do have great respect for Jesus and know the Bible well (although I am not a Christian) I have to fight back tears when I see what they have done to that humble man from Galilee, it is like seeing him crucified all over again.
Blogger:
Thank you markdart for you rational and intelligent arguments
Me:
Feel better now? It is all about you isn’t it? Logic is a tool that we use to help us come to agreements without resorting to war as Locke and Hume thought. A “culture of death” is perhaps another name for war. I choose logic in the hope of avoiding a “culture of war”. You are either an advocate of the “culture of war” and blast everyone you do not agree with to satiate your aggression and hatred or you do the work of trying to make sense of your disagreements in the company of others.
As such, you state, “Who is wise enough to determine at what stage of development is it NOT immoral to kill this human?” by which I think you mean, “Who is wise enough to know when it is immoral to kill human beings?” Well, we do it all the time; it is called capital punishment, war, people dying for lack of affordable health care, etc. Are we wise enough to make that decision? Good question but we do make them. Moreover, why are anti-abortioners wise enough to know when abortion is immoral. Is it God or the Bible? Give me chapter and verse where God states that human being begins when the sperm penetrates the egg? We know you think or surmise that the Bible tells you the answer but there are many that believe in the Bible that do not get that answer and more yet that do not even believe in the Bible that come up with a different answer. You can spew hatred at folks with other answers or you can try to communicate your reasoning.
Heck, there was a time when I was a kid where Christians actually prayed for people when they thought they had wrong answers. They thought they should show love, forbearance, and respect for the non-believer. They even said that this is what the Bible and Jesus were all about. I guess times have changed.
Here is what I would say to you…you accuse me and others of thinking we are “wise enough to act as God.” but from my perspective you are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. You think that you know God and can speak for the true God. You have appointed yourself as God’s spokesperson and you are willing to condemn others based on your certainty. My answer to you…Jesus said, “Take heed if you think you stand lest you fall.” …”The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”…and
“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
More bloggers:
The fact that you only seem capable of irrational blubbering and ridiculous name calling only goes to prove who the educated one is.
Your argument that pro-choice equals pro-death is absurd and illogical.
What about the millions of miscarriages that women have yearly. Is the woman or God to blame? There are far more miscarriages than abortions. So is God a murderer?
I’m willing to bet that you are pro-war, am I right? What about the countless number of INNOCENT CHILDREN killed or horrifically wounded in the midst of war. You’ll most likely try and use a rational as to why this is acceptable, when in fact if you are really “pro-life” as you claim, there is no justification.
The hypocrisy among “pro-lifers” is staggering.
I agree completely with markdart’s comments. In fact, I believe that so-called pro-lifers wouldn’t really want Roe vs. Wade overturned because then they would no longer have the issue to bring in to political debates as a means of demeaning rational pro-choice candidates. I also completely agree with the statements commenting on the hypocrisy of proclaiming one’s self to be pro-life while supporting unjustified wars that kill many thousands of innocent people, such as the one former President Bush started in Iraq.
The facts are that Ken Buck has some pretty extreme views and I hope people will do their homework before going to the voting booths. He has made overt attempts to distance himself from past extreme statements in an attempt to attract votes from moderates, but he’s still the same person with the same beliefs. You may not be all that happy with our current senator, but we need to consider the alternative. He can’t hide behind his past forever.
[The something] Oh, please!!! Stop with the cheap barber shop philosophy. Aristotle you are not. A rationalizer you are. I’ve read many of your posts, Vinnie. And from them I know you are a radical liberal. Anything that most people refer to as “conservative” you label as “extreme.”
A something:
This poster, Markdart, is a blathering member of the “Culture of Death” who seeks to obfuscate evil with a torrent of words and psycho-babble. Abortion is the killing of a living thing. That living thing is either human or it isn’t. If it’s human, the sensible person asks, “Who is wise enough to determine at what stage of development is it NOT immoral to kill this human?” The wise person realizes that dilema was answered a long time ago by God and by His Church. The unwise person not only denies there is a God, but believes he or she is wise enough to act as God. But do they go about saying, “I am God and just as wise?” Of course they don’t, because they would be laughed at.
Me:
Thanks for a civil response.
I guess I would add the comments that I do not understand the relations implied in your question between “rapidly undergoing cell replication, division, and differentiation”, the notion of life, and babies. A chick has life but unless you are a vegan you are not bothered by eating chicken; nor would you call a chick a baby. Stated as a fallacious logical syllogism:
All life Is organisms manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
All babies Are organisms manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Therefore, All life Is babies
The conclusion is certainly false as life encompasses much more that the set of all babies.
I think what would help your argument is to specify “human life” or “human being”. In our country we do have laws to protect human being. However, we also have laws that put human beings to death. Additionally, we do not apply those laws to human beings that are killed in war, whether as “enemy combatant” or as “collateral damage”. Therefore, the narrow definition of our laws that protect innocent human beings in our country could be applied if you could establish that human being applies to the exact moment the sperm penetrates the egg. In order to establish this I see that you would have two recourses:
1) You could convince the majority of the electorate in a democracy that human being applies to the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. According to the gallop poll I previously cited 70% to 80% of the electorate since 1975 has not been convinced.
2) If you could prove apodictically, necessarily or demonstrably true; incontrovertible, that the moment the sperm penetrates the egg human being begins. This would have to be something along the lines of scientific or perhaps, jurisprudence.
IMO, any other tactics such as deception or dishonesty is an assault on integrity. While I would not try to equate terrorism with the anti-abortion movement (except perhaps in extreme actions like the murder of Dr. Tiller), I would suggest that any time you are willing to sacrifice your own integrity to impose your will on unwilling others (others as apodictically proven to be human being) you commit violence. To some extent we all do this but to the extent that we make that unethical decision is also to the extent that we damage ourselves and our community. I know that ant-abortion folks think that they are doing it for “babies” or the greater good but terrorists also think they are motivated by the greater good. This is what motivated me to write The Greater Good and Scott Roeder at http://mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/29/the-greater-good-and-scott-roeder/.
Bogger:
Markdart,
Ok, speaking independently of religion, can you name a non-living organism that is rapidly undergoing cell replication, division, and differentiation?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines life as: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
A baby, even in the earliest stages of pregnancy fits this description, so how can you describe a baby as not living?
You cant kill what is not alive. And befroe you say it, NO a zigot is not a living creture, it can not survive on its own, and is really, not even human. I am like MOST pro-choice people, late term abortions are discustng, and should eb against the law. But Birth control? the Morning after Pill? even Abortion for those who dont want a child and find out within the first month of pregnancy, I say you shouldnt be able to wait, unless the life of the monther is in danger, there should be no abortions after the first trimester at the latest, maybe earlier. But dont act like pro-choice means abortion at 8 months.
Well your skin is living. Do you ever take the Flu shot? Well the flu virus is a living thing, you try to kill that, right? I dont get that argument, yes, there is living tissue, but in the first few weeks of pregnancy, there is jsut s groubing of cells, much the same as cancer, and sometimes things go wrong and the baby never forms, thats why its not a fetus from the get go, Science KNOWS there is a time when its just a group of cells and may or may NOT become a fetus, teh body can purge it before the woman even notices something is difrent.
Actually, most abortion doctors do other things as well. And I have NEVER seen a add for abortions from a for profit doctor. If a woman WANTS a child, you will never convince them to abort that child. As for the comparison of an adult criminal to a unborn “Child”. Yo are correct, a person must decide to do things in order to get capital punishment, and yes tehy did (most likely) take the life of a fully developed person. However, you CAN NOT compaire ME or anyone else on this Earth, to a clump of cells that have yet to even begin specializing into the difrent types of human cells that we have in each of us. With the rgument against abortion being made now, teh life of a child beings in the egg and sperm, meaning that each and every month, a women who does not get pregnant, is murdering an unborn child. Life is a circle, it beings and ends as we know it yes, but it continues forever, To say life begins a conception is incorrect, “Life” as we know it begins late in term or after birth…
Senator Michele Bennet voted to INCREASE our National Debt by $3 Trillion dollars in just 19 months. Senator Michele Bennet voted for the Auto Bailouts, the “Stimulus,” ObamaCare, a second “Stimulus,” and a host of other Spending bills. Our unemployment is 9.6%—-18.5% if you count the UNDERemployed. Mexican drug cartels are killing OUR people and Illegals are taking our JOBs!Michel Bennet HAS DONE NOTHING FOR US!
But Liberal/socialist Demonrats want us to focus on what Ken Buck thinks is the cause of Homosexuality????? Please!!
Me:
Wow, such vitriol! I am just as capable of calling you names and resorting to violence but I make a conscious effort to resort to rationality. I agree with Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau that it is better to have rationally arguments than revolutions. It is called social contract theory. These folks were Thomas Jefferson’s mentors (whom I admire greatly). I think your extreme emotions may be cathartic for you but others reading your post may not find it cathartic. I hope it is eye opening for some about your positions. If you are content to call folks names and get your facts wrong there is nothing I can do to help you but others may benefit from seeing your unabated emotion. Ok, Let’s look at your facts:
BerettaOwner – “Markdart, we’re not even the same species”
Wrong – Sadly, we are of the same species. It is called Homo-Sapiens (9news will not let me write Hom* as a stand-alone word, Latin: “wise man” or “knowing man”) in the Homo-genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family
BerettaOwner – “From Merriam-Webster, http://wwww.merriam-webster.comBaby: a(1): an extremely young childChild: 1 a: an UNBORN or recently born person [emphasis added]Person: 1 HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL”
Wrong – Merriam-Webster (on-line with link provided)Definition of FETUS: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
Note: A lexicon is a collection of the common usage of words not a scientific or legal definition. Therefore, if I say, “the birth of a child” or “She’s pregnant with their first child” I am using the word as it is commonly used. It is not a scientific or legal definition of a fetus.
BerettaOwner – “You’re an alleged filthly little Marxist baby killer”
Wrong – I am a philosopher, a musician, an engineer and a small business owner. I take baths regularly and as an ex-body builder, I am not “little”. I like some things Marx has to say especially with his critique of capitalism and his analysis of value and alienation. I also think that his solution is lacking as it does not capture some of the more positive aspects of capitalism that Adam Smith was keen at pointing out.
With regard to your anecdote (look it up), one story does not a history make. Personally, I am against third trimester abortions and I do not know exactly where I would draw the line but we do live in a democratic society where abortion is legal and I think that is up to the electorate not fanatics with guns to make that decision.
You never did answer the question…as an atheist (are you still one) where do you make the determination that a fetus is a baby and what are your atheistic reasons for your assertion? This is called a logical argument. Name calling and hostility does not go as rational, merely as ridiculous.
BerettaOwner – Since you are proud of your gun I will tell you a few other things. I have had a shotgun since I was a kid. I used to go hunting with my dad. I was also in law enforcement in the late 70s and early 80s and I still have ties to law enforcement. I am not in favor of making guns illegal only controlled better especially in larger cities. However, you illustrate one of the best arguments I can think of for not letting the general public buy guns. You remember Scott Roeder don’t you? He was the one that murder Dr. George Tiller in church for performing legal abortions. I have written a post that I doubt if you will read but it is especially aimed at people like you, http://mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/29/the-greater-good-and-scott-roeder/. Tell me, how do you feel about the murder of Dr. Tiller?
To other viewers: Ken Buck may not express his view like BerettaOwner. However, he has some of the same extreme views. He has captured these voters because he is willing to cater to these types of people. If you vote for him and folks like him you are voting for anarchy IMO and that is not the kind of future I think we should want for our kids. Grown-ups should be about setting an example for their kids and not have emotional, cathartic outbursts at other people’s expense. Think about it…
Bloggers:
Don’t care. Abortion isn’t going away. I am voting for Buck because he is a good conservative and Bennet is a complete weenie who has done nothing for this state. Second to last in stimulus dollars? Millions spent on Obama visits? Lying or at least obfuscating about his votes. Sheesh. I thought he was a better pick than Romanoff, but I may have been wrong.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
One example may be in this very post where we supposedly had and “atheist” anti-abortioner but when I pushed back a little they disappeared.
Posted by markdart
Supposedly? You’re an alleged filthly little Marxist baby killer. I don’t think we have much common ground to have a meaningful conversation. You can’t think logically; equating the most innocent human life with capital criminals. We have nothing to discuss. To paraphrase a famous movie line: You’ll never understand. Me and you, Markdart, we’re not even the same species.
How abortion is justifiedin America: “Most non-radical folks believe that there is a time in conception when a fetus can certainly be called “cells dividing” and not a baby.”
From Merriam-Webster, http://wwww.merriam-webster.com
Baby: a(1): an extremely young child
Child: 1 a: an UNBORN or recently born person [emphasis added]
Person: 1 HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL
Those crazy radicals at Merriam-Webster! Meanwhile, here’s the outcome of several “cells dividing” fetuses (babies):
Statement of Allison Baker, RN, BSN
Hearing on H.R. 4292, The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
Subcommittee on the Constitution
July 20, 2000
In August of 1998 I began working in a high risk labor and delivery unit at Christ Hospital and Medical Center in Oak Lawn, Illinois. When I was hired, I was informed of a procedure called “therapeutic abortion” which was performed in the unit. This procedure was reserved for babies with particular conditions such as Down’s Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Potter’s Syndrome and many others. It was explained to me that in these cases, the mother would have an induced labor to expel the fetus in order to discontinue growth and life. This was an elective procedure and the patient was to be informed of all the details it involved.
Between August of 1998 and August of 1999, I witnessed three particular cases of therapeutic abortions at Christ Hospital first hand. The first occurred on a day shift. I happened to walk into a “soiled utility room” and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs. The fetus was visibly alive, and was gasping for breath. I left to find the nurse who was caring for the patient and this fetus. When I asked her about the fetus, she said that she was so busy with the mother that she didn’t have time to wrap and place the fetus in the warmer, and she asked if I would do that for her. Later I found out that the fetus was 22 weeks old, and had undergone a therapeutic abortion because it had been diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome. I did wrap the fetus and place him in a warmer and for 2-1/2 hours he maintained a heartbeat, and then finally expired.
The second case involved a couple who had requested a therapeutic abortion for their 20 week fetus with Spina Bifida. My shift started at 11:00 PM, and the patient delivered her fetus about 10 minutes before I took her as a patient. During the time the fetus was alive, the patient kept asking me when the fetus would die. For an hour and 45 minutes the fetus maintained a heartbeat. The parents were frustrated, and obviously not prepared for this long period of time. Since I was the nurse of both the mother and fetus, I held the fetus in my arms until it finally expired.
The third case occurred when a nurse with whom I was working was taking care of a mother waiting to deliver her 16 week Down’s Syndrome fetus. Again, I walked into the soiled utility room and the fetus was fully exposed, lying on the baby scale. I went to find the nurse who was caring for this mother and fetus, and she asked if I could help her by measuring and weighing the fetus for the charting and death certificate. When I went back into the soiled utility room, the fetus was moving its arms and legs. I then listened for a heartbeat, and found that the fetus still was alive. I wrapped the fetus and in 45 minutes the fetus finally expired.
Me:
Yes. I agree with some of what you said but I have to tell you that I have been dealing with anti-abortioners for some time now and they are very shifty. They are not above lying and deceit. One example may be in this very post where we supposedly had and “atheist” anti-abortioner but when I pushed back a little they disappeared. Many times they would rather show you graphic pictures of abortion to shame you into accepting their position. It is harder to find one that will just own up to their religious convictions on the issue. In any case, they have tried to get a constitutional amendment through before and have certainly tried to load the Supreme Court. Don’t you think it has occurred to them to try to sneak enough Senators and Representatives in the Congress in a low profile way and then lower the boom? They know they cannot make it on their own merit.
A blogger:
Abortion is not really a left or right issue, IMO, it is a political landmine regarding two extremes.
The first is the killing of babies, with the definition of a baby being a one-celled, fertilized human egg.
The second is the right of the individual to choose to have an abortion without government interference.
There are a lot of complicated arguments for both these extremes, but I tend to think that the position of average americans fall between these two extremes somewhere. Having said that, I would argue that abortion right now is only being used as a political weapon to defame one party or the other. I disagree strongly with these tactics, and end by saying, “Let the people vote”. Buck has no more power to end abortions than Bennett has to allow them.
Me:
Dinty – Ken Buck was the one that brought up the “pro-abortion” versus “pro-choice” distinction that prompted this post. True, it was in response to a question. You could say that minimizing this issue could also be a tactic to try to load the congress with anit-abortion folks. They know they can’t get it through on face value beause they have been trying for years and the gallop poll I previous quoted shows that since 1975 3/4s of the American people have consistently stated that are in favor of abortion under some or all circumstances. I know these kinds of tactics go both ways but in the interest of full disclosure I think the issue is relevant.
In Response to More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time:
” The reason 70% to 80% of Americans since 1975 think abortion is ok in some or all circumstances…” – markdart This is from last year and the numbers have been steadily growing for those that call themselves “pro-life”. Your numbers simply are wrong. What is your source? Have a nice day. More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time ~ Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances” “A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice .” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
Posted by ColGadsden
I really do not get this…I put the source in the original post…
(see http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx and http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2009/12/02/fallacies-from-anti-abortionists/)
just as you did and NO you are wrong when you write, “This is from last year”. The graph is in the link. It is an average range of each year from 1975 to 2009. I don’t care what people call themselves as long as the majority of Americans are willing to make abortion safe and legal.
Why don’t you folks read so you can make better arguments?
A blogger:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
Lots of words here, but this issue is taking a back seat to issues like the economy, big government, taxing and big spending this time. This issue normally is a priority for me in regards to voting, but this mid-term is an anti-obama/pelosi vote…..plain and simple. The only reason we’re seeing bennet bring it up at this point, is because it’s his last desperate attempt to save his campaign.
Posted by cons4evr
I tried to wade through all of these posts. Just too much stuff to digest. THIS post, on the other hand sums it up nicely. But, I have to add my two cents. I’m a Conservative, but I do agree that most Conservatives are hypocrital when it comes to the abortion issue. I, for one, am pro-choice, but I’m NOT pro-abortion. I don’t see any inconsistent logic in that position. If you don’t want the Feds deciding these types of issues for you, then you can’t make the case for Feds involved in capital punishment or anti-abortion. These are States rights issues. Also, I don’t understand why the abortion issue should be a litmus test for a Senate candidate. If it were the Supreme Court, maybe. An individual Senator most likely will never have any effect on abortion choices. So, Bennet should give it up and try to defend his voting record instead. It’s just a diversionary tactic.
Me again:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion” : It’s NOT an argument you *****, it’s an observation. And why should anyone trust your drivel if you can’t tell the difference between the two?
Posted by imboTheJoker
Your insults say nothing about me but everything about you…
A blogger:
Lots of words here, but this issue is taking a back seat to issues like the economy, big government, taxing and big spending this time. This issue normally is a priority for me in regards to voting, but this mid-term is an anti-obama/pelosi vote…..plain and simple. The only reason we’re seeing bennet bring it up at this point, is because it’s his last desperate attempt to save his campaign.
My response:
Great to see someone that actually deals with the argument and not mindlessly hurl insults…LOL. Insults mean you lost the argument in my book.
I have debated this issue for many years and have always heard about the fabled atheist that was against abortion in all circumstances but have never heard from one yet…so you do exist. First, the exception does not a rule make. If you truly deny that Jesus was God AND are against abortion under any circumstance you are in the minority as this gallup poll suggests:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/religion-politics-inform-americans-views-abortion.aspx
Here is a quote:
“There is a stark difference in views on abortion between Americans who are Christians and those who are not Christians, i.e., those who identify with a non-Christian religion or no religion at all. While just 20% of Christians say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, a majority of non-Christians (54%) and a large segment of those with no religious preference (39%) agree.”
I did not suggest that you personally made the statement that all life was sacred but the majority of folks that are against abortion under any circumstances who are Christians do make that argument when they are playing it straight. My previous criticism was based solely on the logic of maintaining a universal and a contingent claim that clearly contradict each other.
As to your other points, we do murder folks quasi-legally in war and most folks do not think it is wrong. We also legally murder folks in capital punishment. It might surprise you to know that while I have no problem putting criminals to death for heinous crimes I do not like the circus and vigilantism that surrounds it so I would probably come down against it overall.
I think those that opposed doing something about the millions dying early or in emergency rooms for lack of any health care is also murder. I think if you opposed doing something about it you are guilty and I hope the faces of the kids you condemned because they were born in poverty break through your rationalizations.
So, we do take lives every day and we are part of a system that does especially if we voted for a president that started two ridiculous wars and spent/will spend trillions doing so. Did you violate the rights of anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan by voting for Bush? Are they not considered people? Are they merely enemy combatants…collateral damage? Are you proud of your involvement with those wars? I am not and I damn sure did not like my tax dollars going to that lunacy. I much prefer wasting it (as you might think) in health care.
If you can possibly break away from the obsessive thought that all abortion is murder from conception then I would suggest yet once again that cells dividing does not a baby make. Why not go back further to the sperm and egg? If you are an atheist I assume you believe in evolution. Why not go back to our ancestral species? When the young were eaten, killed or abandoned by their own kind was that murder? When does killing become murder?…for HomoSapiens not HomoErectus? If you are truly an atheist and believe in evolution how would you rationalize the difference between a baby and a collection of dividing cells? How could you maintain that from conception a fetus is a baby and not before or after conception? Can you acknowledge that there is a certain arbitrariness to this conclusion? If you have no religious underpinnings why would you be so adamant that conception on is a baby? Why so dogmatic and unwilling to let others think differently? If your opinion of when a fetus becomes a baby is arbitrary why not allow others to draw their own conclusions concerning the same? Do you have some esoteric knowledge we should know about?
I did not state that you or I were a Marxist but I do read. Do I need to apologize for reading? If it makes you feel better I have read Adam Smith as well. I did not bash conservatives. In fact I stated, “I know there are conservatives that have direct, honest and well thought out positions but this trend on the right is a little disturbing.” I did criticize a “trend” on the far right but I do not equate that with conservatism…do you? You are the one that bellowed about “brainwashing” and “obtuse”. You made it personal to me and I was writing of a trend not you personally.
Additionally, here was my quote about Marx, “Maybe you have more in common with Karl Marx than you think?” First, it is a question. Second, how you got some kind of insult and bashing capitalism out of that I will never know. If I write the word “Marx” am I guilty of something? Do you think you MIGHT be jumping to conclusions? To suggest you may have something in common with Marx is not to insult you or capitalism. After all, you are human and so was he…is that an insult? I did not even say that you actually did have something in common with him. I actually used the word “maybe”.
It is clear to me that your anger and hostility towards me personally is not rational. If you are so willing to jump to conclusions and hurl insults I think it says more about you than it does about me. I think others not so personally involved may also draw that reasonable conclusion. I prefer reason to brute force. My question to others reading this post…do you really want these types of folks running the country?
Another blogger:
However, I will say that if you believe “all abortion is murder” under any circumstances then you have a theological position that all life is sacred. If all life is sacred then taking a life (unless you are God) is profane or murder.
I’m an atheist so I have no theological position and no religious conundrum. All life is not sacred, and unborn humans should not be subject to malicious homicide.
If you stated that you believed that not all life was sacred and that it is ok to take some lives (as in capital punishment or a just war) you could not make the claim that all life was sacred and humans should not take a life.
I’ve not made that statement about life being sacred, however turnabout is fair play. Is the justification for abortion the same justification we should use to make the murder of born people legal? If taking the life of an unborn human is “ok”, why not after it’s born? What is your non-religious justification for (adult) murder being a crime?
I just think that when you muddy the waters with all your “liberal” bashing you obscure the point that a universal claim (as all life is sacred and no human should commit abortion) cannot be maintained at the same time that one maintains a contingent claim (as some killing of humans by other humans is ok) without contradicting yourself.
I don’t think life is sacred, so you arguments are moot. Do I think innocent people, whether born or unborn, should be killed? Of course not. Do I think convicted murderers and child rapists should be killed? Absolutely. You haven’t stated your own postition on the subject of capital punishment, but if you can’t see the difference between totally innocent life and that of someone who preys on other humans, I think you need psychological help for your lack of cognitive abilities.
Furthermore, you indict capitalism if you buy into the philosophy that abortion is merely a capitalistic endeavor for murder. Why can’t you let the market decide? Maybe you have more in common with Karl Marx than you think?
Ha, you say I muddy the waters with “liberal bashing” and then you proceed to bash conservative capitalism! Then you further insultingly insuate I’m Marxist? Your true colors shine through. However, I’ll answer your question though you’re probably too obtuse to understand it as a brainwashed liberal marionette. We are a nation of laws, and the unadulterated purpose of law is to maintain order and freedom for all. To that end, individual freedom only extends to the point that it doesn’t voilate the freedom, i.e. the rights, of others. Slavery, child pornography, murder-for-hire, abortion, etc., can be considered laisez faire endevours where there exists a niche of certain consumers. However, these endevours violate the fundamental, self evident rights of others, and so are illegal with the exception of abortion.
More of my responses:
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
LOL-after that sermon you should really pass the collection plate. Little phrases show your extreme bias, so what is the purpose of your “poll”? Specifically, copied and pasted from your post: It is a sure sign of extremism when you cannot even recite the counter argument correctly. Most non-radical folks You folks cannot because you have a theological, dogmatic position underlying the discussion. The reason you cannot concede any ground on this point And those are in just the 1st several lines. Don’t fall off your soap box.
Posted by tiredofchange
I guess you see extremism everywhere. I merely use your own logic that makes a universal claim and a contingent claim that contradict each other. I suppose you can call that a “sermon”. I seem to recall that Jesus said something about “your own words condemn you” to the religious folks of his day. I call it obfuscation.
In Response to Re: Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
You’re on fire and VERY well spoken, ColGadsden. Markdart is full of hot air and liberal crap.
Posted by imboTheJoker
Now that is an argument if I ever heard one…
In Response to More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time:
” The reason 70% to 80% of Americans since 1975 think abortion is ok in some or all circumstances…” – markdart This is from last year and the numbers have been steadily growing for those that call themselves “pro-life”. Your numbers simply are wrong. What is your source? Have a nice day. More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time ~ Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances” “A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice .” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
Posted by ColGadsden
Yes, there is no data for 2010 yet. The point is that even those that call themselves “pro-life” believe that abortion should be allowed in all or some circumstances (70% to 80% since 1975). You can run with a headline if you want but the devil is always in the details…
More bloggers comments:
LOL-after that sermon you should really pass the collection plate.
Little phrases show your extreme bias, so what is the purpose of your “poll”?
Specifically, copied and pasted from your post:
It is a sure sign of extremism when you cannot even recite the counter argument correctly.
Most non-radical folks
You folks cannot
because you have a theological, dogmatic position underlying the discussion. The reason you cannot concede any ground on this point
And those are in just the 1st several lines. Don’t fall off your soap box.
“The reason 70% to 80% of Americans since 1975 think abortion is ok in some or all circumstances…” – markdart
This is from last year and the numbers have been steadily growing for those that call themselves “pro-life”. Your numbers simply are wrong. What is your source? Have a nice day.
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time ~ Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”
“A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
My response:
Ok, one more time. If you frame the argument in terms of “killing babies” then you have committed the informal fallacy of the loaded question. It is tantamount to asking “when are you going to stop beating your wife”. It is a sure sign of extremism when you cannot even recite the counter argument correctly. Most non-radical folks believe that there is a time in conception when a fetus can certainly be called “cells dividing” and not a baby. You folks cannot even think those words as a viable position because you have a theological, dogmatic position underlying the discussion. The reason 70% to 80% of Americans since 1975 think abortion is ok in some or all circumstances is because they think that there is a point where cells are merely cells and not “a baby” (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx and http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2009/12/02/fallacies-from-anti-abortionists/). The reason you cannot concede any ground on this point is because you have an opinion based on an orthodox religious belief. If it were not based on a religious belief you would allow exceptions to your dogmatism (rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.).
This brings me to the other comment. I will not get into the argument for why anti-abortion and belief in capital punishment and a just war are contradictions as I have already done that on my blog. However, I will say that if you believe “all abortion is murder” under any circumstances then you have a theological position that all life is sacred. If all life is sacred then taking a life (unless you are God) is profane or murder. If you stated that you believed that not all life was sacred and that it is ok to take some lives (as in capital punishment or a just war) you could not make the claim that all life was sacred and humans should not take a life. If taking a life is ok in some instances but not in others then having abortions in some cases but perhaps not in others would be ok. It is the absolute black and white, no middle ground in your position that contradicts you not “liberals”. If you think that it is ok for you to contradict yourself and suggest that some taking of life as in capital punishment and a just war is ok but under no circumstances is abortion ok you have made a fundamental contradiction that “reasonable” folks will not go along with.
Personally, I do not think that “all life is sacred” is a bad philosophy. I think it is extreme and probably not very practical. I also think that it has some very difficult implications such as what is life and when it starts. However, it is to some extent an admirable philosophy. I just think that when you muddy the waters with all your “liberal” bashing you obscure the point that a universal claim (as all life is sacred and no human should commit abortion) cannot be maintained at the same time that one maintains a contingent claim (as some killing of humans by other humans is ok) without contradicting yourself. If you are ok with that then I suggest that you are an extremist (Jesus was an extremist so that is not always bad). However, do not play games, shift/obscure the argument, and blame it on “liberals”. You have a contradiction in your fundamental reasoning. You indict yourself and are willing to go to extremes to indict everyone else that would point this out. Suck it up and live with the contradiction but do not expect reasonable folks to buy into it.
Oh, one more thing. If you think that abortion doctors love making money on abortion are you suggesting all of them do it for the money or some. I guess you could say that all doctors do it for the money but that is an extreme position. I am sure some do it for the money but many actually want to help people. I think the percentages are the same for doctors that do abortions. Furthermore, you indict capitalism if you buy into the philosophy that abortion is merely a capitalistic endeavor for murder. Why can’t you let the market decide? Maybe you have more in common with Karl Marx than you think? In any case, doctors do not have to be “pro-abortion” to get patients in a system where abortion is legal. They do not have to push it simply to make money as you suggest. Orthopedic doctors do not need to push broken limbs to get customers. This is a ludicrous claim. Maybe there are a few doctors that have a sadistic need to push abortions but when you paint all abortion doctors with that broad brush only your extremism comes to the fore for most reasonable folks.
Comments from bloggers at 9News:
I have heard the argument from many on the left trying to paint conservatives as hypocritical because we are against abortion but not against capital punishment or all war. This argument is specious at best and ignores many of the religious teachings of many Christian denominations, as well as the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. First, unborn babies are truly the definition of innocence and vulnerability. What I find hypocritical about liberals on this argument is their supposed abundance of compassion for those that most need protection in our society, yet unborn babies are a mere inconvenience to most of them and can be killed without consideration for any reason whatsoever, including, and most often for, they are an unwanted responsibility that came about as a direct result of someone’s chosen action. Babies don’t just appear – unless you are Mary.
As for capital punishment, we all know that capital punishment is delivered unto a very limited number of people in our society after incredible due diligence, presentation of evidence, a trial, and other legal proceedings, and usually only after appeal after appeal after appeal has been exhausted. It sometimes takes a decade to execute someone and then it is for a heinous crime(s) – NOT for simply being an inconvenience or for existing in the first place. If only it took as much time to get an abortion as it does to get executed the world might be a better place, though a bit more crowded.
As for war, Just War Theory, (or Bellum iustum) is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin studied by moral theologians, ethicists and international policy makers which holds that a conflict can and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions. Just, under certain conditions, goes back at least to Cicero. However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.” – Wiki
War, as with execution, is NOT murder and is not a conflict with the commandment that says “Thou shalt not murder” not “Thou shalt not kill”, as so many read it as in the translated English. Killing in a just war is not morally equivalent to murdering for personal gain. The Catholic Church, and no Christian denomination, has any dogma that outlaws or prohibits war but it does have dogma, as do most all religions – including non-Christian religions, about aborting babies. Most moral and religious people with the ability to reason can clearly see the moral difference between murdering innocent unborn babies and executing convicted criminals and/or waging a just war to defend one’s nation, people, tribe, village, or whatever might be involved. It takes a big leap of logic, reason, and dare I say faith, to morally equate those three things.
In Response to Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”:
It is ludicrous to think that most sensible folks would want to push abortions on people. Why would anyone in their right mind insist that someone get an abortion?Posted by markdart
Well, how about abortion doctors? They really do want people to get abortions, it’s how they make a living. How about the title of this article from a well known abortion doctor, “Population growth: the real reson behind the peril to the planet”. Or how about, “Is human culture carcinogenic for uncontrolled population growth and ecological destruction?”, and it’s simliar publication, “Has the human species become a cancer on the planet?”. Great, an abortion doctor who thinks the human race is a cancer. Good line of work to be in I guess.
Also, you attack the definition of “pro-life” but I can say you people baffle me with your pro-choice definition. I don’t see how pro-choice people can sanction a homicide on an unborn human with no choice about whether they live or die, based on a choice the mother made, and somehow compare that with a criminal who made a choice to commit a capital crime. I’m also a “pro-life” atheist, not part of some religious radical bucket you’d like to put “pro-life” people into.