The National Review issued a stinging editorial on the reasoning of the four judges who voted to allow partial-birth abortion.
The liberal dissenters have not merely made a minor logical error here. Take their argument seriously for a moment. They claim that it is conceivable that in some cases, partial-birth abortion is the safest method of abortion, and therefore it has to be allowed. (And it has to be allowed whether or not the pregnancy itself threatens the mother’s health.) They further claim that it should make no difference to anyone where the child’s feet are positioned when he is aborted.
Let’s apply this argument to infanticide. It is conceivable that in some cases removing the child from the womb completely before killing it is the safest option. And surely it should make no difference to any rational person whether the infant was fully within the womb, partly inside it, or all the way out when his skull is crushed? Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide. They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion.
Aaron, I'm with you on this one. This is infanticide by another name. Supporters of this are totally duped by nonsensical arguments.
Even the weak argument that there is no provision for "the woman's health" (which we all know is the loophole for allowing it for "mental health" reasons) is patently rediculous. If the woman's health is at risk, there are plenty of other options, including a LIVE BIRTH via c-section.
It's like saying "we don't want to outlaw slavery unless there is an economic hardship clause for the slave owner."
And are these some of the same people who call spanking "child abuse"??? I am beside myself with incredulity.
Seeker,
Your very tone and outright display of hostility in terms of seeing it from the opposition's perspective (even to understand it) and the use of alarmist shrill banter makes discussion with you on this point pointless.
I will say this, you do not have a womb nor can you get pregnant. Until you can do both and are actually in the same position as woman faced with this choice there is no way that you can intelligently speak about the problems with abortion from a Woman's perspective.
The only thing you can talk about is your moral opposition to abortion. That opposition based upon the above negates a woman's right to choose regardless of the type of abortion procedure we are talking about.
I know you will reject this perspective. I frankly do not care. You are not judge in jury in this case and neither am I.
What is next? Fundamentalist Islamists are responsible for Roe v. Wade and the Pro-Choice movement. Given the shrill nature of what I have been reading from you, I think anything is possible.
– Silver
Discussing abortion is pointless. How can you argue with someone who declares it murder?
Your very tone and outright display of hostility in terms of seeing it from the opposition’s perspective (even to understand it) and the use of alarmist shrill banter makes discussion with you on this point pointless.
I understand your point, but there is also a need for alarm. I am hostile to murderous ideologies like Islamofascism and the pro-infanticide stance of those who support late term abortions. They should be forcefully argued against, if not publicly shamed, denounced, ridiculed, and eventually, when righteous legislation is put in place, prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
You call that shrill? Talk to the dead children about shrill. Talk to the children who, almost ready to be born, have a surgeons tool crush their skulls so that they can come out through a cervix that is not dilated.
Abortion, specifically late term abortion, is murder.
Talk to the dead children about shrill. Talk to the children who, almost ready to be born, have a surgeons tool crush their skulls so that they can come out through a cervix that is not dilated.
Blah, Blah, Blah. I've heard this garbage so much I'm numb to it.
You call that shrill? Talk to the dead children about shrill. Talk to the children who, almost ready to be born, have a surgeons tool crush their skulls so that they can come out through a cervix that is not dilated.
Seeker, you have just proven my point about you being an intolerant alarmist no matter how passionate or informed you may be on this issue.
By reading those words that you have just written. I have visions of a foaming at the mouth rabid dog spewing out those very words instead of an intelligent, rational human being that can present an argument and sway public opinion.
As someone that has neither come down in favor or against the ruling by the Supreme Court, you can’t just put me in the Liberal abortion at will soapbox that you tend to do with others.
Only rational, informed, an intelligent discussion can resonate with me. Based upon the above, you should be very thankful that you are not the public spokesman for the anti-abortion movement.
Abortion, specifically late term abortion, is murder.
Do we really want to get into all the definitions and causes that we consider murder? I respect your position, but we in this society equivocate other terms such as execution something else when in fact it is state sanctioned murder.
If you want to go there, I will walk down that path with you and debate you on every front with other items that conservatives do not consider to be murder, but in fact are.
This is your call, but I caution you to be calm, and reasoned in your response.
– Silver
Does anyone care to argue with the logic of the NR piece? Can anyone argue that simply because a portion of the head is still in the birthing canal that it is okay to split open the back of the barely unborn baby’s head? I see how no thinking person can actually support this procedure that even stauchly pro-choice people oppose.
As to Silver’s comment that we basically have nothing to say on this because we are not women. I find that completely offensive. Could only people who were slaves or owned slaves speak about slavery? You do not have to be directly involved in a situation to make a judgement about it.
If you want someone with firsthand knowledge on giving birth, I can bring my wife in on the debate. She will argue more passionately than seeker about the blight that is abortion. Since she is a woman will you simply accept everything she says because she happens to have a womb?
I suppose you will also take the position that since you are not (I am assuming, perhaps I am wrong) a member of the military that you cannot speak about war. It is ridiculous and harmful to speech to attempt to silence someone because they cannot know first hand about an issue.
Also Silver, if we follow that logic those who do not have children cannot argue with those of who do in the thread on spanking. I don't believe that to be the case, but you can't have it both ways.
Also following the logic, none of us can argue anything about abortion since all of us are born. We don’t know (remember) what it was like to be “unborn.”
As Ronald Reagan once said, “I’ve noticed all those in favor of abortion are already born.”
Aaron,
Also Silver, if we follow that logic those who do not have children cannot argue with those of who do in the thread on spanking. I don’t believe that to be the case, but you can’t have it both ways.
If you note my specific comments in that thread, I did not take an irrational or shrill position, but merely stated what I believed and left open the possibility that I could be wrong… I did not take an absolutist position on the matter (at least not directly).
You are right that onc cannot have it both ways. At the same time, if you look specifically at the difference in my tone in that thread vs. the alarmist and frankly rabid commentary above, the difference is stark.
I can point out how, but really, is that necessary. I think you are just a little too excited about the ruling and way too close to this issue to look at the differences I am citing objectively.
As to Silver’s comment that we basically have nothing to say on this because we are not women. I find that completely offensive. Could only people who were slaves or owned slaves speak about slavery? You do not have to be directly involved in a situation to make a judgement about it.
I am sorry you are offended. Frankly, I am offended by the ultra-concervative stance espoused by male (and yes, I mean male) Evangelicals on this topic. Particularly you and Seeker’s position as stated in this thread.
Your commentary, while I could even conceptually be open to the position you state, utterly ignores the right of woman. It neither appeals to my sense of logic or my willingess to consider an opposing view. Rather it relies on shrill rhetoric that is meant to shock and awwe people instead of change peoples minds. That kind of rhetoric only appeals to those that already believe as you do.
That type of rhetoric does indeed give rise to a moderate and real politik minded person like me the worst possible image of a fanatic…one that while their position may be a good one and their cause is just is totally blinded by their passion for an issue.
Aaron, you can most certainly have a position on this topic, make an argument, etc, but in no way can you do that and represent the interest of a woman in this country simply because you are not female and neither am I. So, bring your wife on in. I say go for it.
This is a reproductive rights issue that extends above and beyond just what you believe, but what others believe and also directly impacts women in this country.
I suppose you will also take the position that since you are not (I am assuming, perhaps I am wrong) a member of the military that you cannot speak about war.
Aaron, when you decide to calm down, I will touch that in detail.
I will leave it at the moment that my family has served this country in public service in one way or another (Congress, DOD, US Attorneys Office, and US Military) for over 60 years. All of this coupled with a rich history of understanding more than a rural America view of the world.
Aside from the education part, can you honestly say that you have done the same in your life?
Nevermind.
– Silver
"I've noticed all those in favor of abortion are already born."
Ummmm… I've noticed all those against abortion have the same DNA as chimps (95% identical).
They claim that it is conceivable that in some cases, partial-birth abortion is the safest method of abortion, and therefore it has to be allowed.
Agree.
They further claim that it should make no difference to anyone where the child’s feet are positioned when he is aborted.
Agree.
Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide.
More rabid and sensational hype. Yawn.
[Lamenting] Oh, to actually hear some reason from the “pro-life” perspective.
I am offended by the ultra-concervative stance espoused by male (and yes, I mean male) Evangelicals on this topic. Particularly you and Seeker’s position as stated in this thread.
Specious reasoning. While males may lack the ability to totally understand the position of a woman in this position, this doesn’t invalidate their moral reasoning. It’s like saying those who aren’t immigrants can’t reason for public safety in the immigration debate, or white people can’t argue that slavery is wrong.
In this case, I do not care that some people who want to linger in the realm of friendly debate, while children are being killed, are offended. In my mind, the time for debate over the issue of third trimester abortion is over, and those who still debate it are akin to pro-slavery apologists – it’s like reasoning with KKK members.
The fact that Cineaste yawns at the “rhetoric” of infanticide shows how morally bankrupt his thinking has become – this is the same type of mentality we saw in people complaining about what Hitler was doing or had done, or yawned at the “alarmist” rhetoric of abolitionists.
To put it in language you will understand, I could say I yawn at the alarmism of the global warming fanatics. They might think me on the wrong side of the argument, and making a gross moral mistake, and they might be right. I guess their alarmism turns me off, and so maybe I should not be alarmist if I want to win people over.
But in this case, the argument has been going on since 1974, not in the last two years. And while global warming’s hypothetical (but perhaps real) consequences are in the future, TODAY 5000 children were legally killed in the US and Cineaste is yawning. Himler would be proud of such indifference.
On the issue of first trimester abortions, I am open to debate. On third trimester, I’m really only wanting to declare that it is a great moral evil.
In my mind, the time for debate over the issue of third trimester abortion is over, and those who still debate it are akin to pro-slavery apologists – it’s like reasoning with KKK members.
Seeker, then go ahead and pull out that Glock 20 and SKS assault rifle and go to town. I will call in my friend with his arsenal of M-16’s and SKS’ (no I am not kidding).
There are far more many people in this world than you think that are categorically in favor of preserving a woman’s human and civil rights. This is something when it is all said in done will not be resolved soley in the courts, but in the streets, and through violence and dissents from parties on both side. This is precisely how divided this country is on this issue. Be prepared with that gun, you will need it. I guarantee it.
If you want to go on advocating your position as you have, then I would say that the direct and radical reaction to this on the part of the Pro-Abortion lobby is to make it a Felony for a Man to wrongfully impregnate a woman (whether it was concentual at the time or not) should she choose to not keep the child, but is forced to because you have succeeded in violating her civil rights.
Don’t you see how radical a position you have taken? The very nature of what I have proposed is SO ludicrous that a person in your position would look at me and say I was mad. That is just how insane and extreme your presentation has gotten.
The very indignant nature and tone of what you just wrote leaves me to believe if there are enough people that feel as passionately as you do that there will be mass killings and abortion clinic bombings to right the injustices that you see with this country.
You want to force change down everyone’s throats regardless of changing opinion? Keep going down that path. You can see how well that went down with Bush’s march into Baghdad. If you want to change people’s minds you must moderate that rabid fanaticism or you will do nothing but convince the convinced.
Bottom line people on both sides of this issue on this site are offended. Those on your side of the fence are offended by those that either have their minds made up or are totally turned off to the fanaticism at a time when they might be open to a real discussion.
If you cannot temper your shrill and fanaticism to a level that a moderate can listen to with an open mind, then there is no basis for any sort of discussion between you and me on any subject. Period.
– Silver
The very indignant nature and tone of what you just wrote leaves me to believe if there are enough people that feel as passionately as you do that there will be mass killings and abortion clinic bombings to right the injustices that you see with this country.
Liberals always think that is the case, but my level of passion around saving children from abortion has existed nearly since the RVW decision 30+ years ago. How many waves of killing and murders have happened in that time? Exactly, nearly none. One fringe whacko guy killed an abortionist. ONE. So your reasoning is not borne out by history. You should re-examine your logic and assumptions.
This passion is what fuels the persistence of the pro-life movement. Just like it took Wm. Wilberforce 50 years to overcome the institutionalized racism and economic momentum of slavery, those of us in the pro-life movement know that it takes time to overcome such deeply rooted cultural evils.
And a woman has no civil right to infanticide. No pro-lifer is interested in curtailing civil rights, but extending them to the helpless. And our rights are all limited by the rights of others.
The fact that you respond with the fear of gunfighting reveals something about the pro-choice mindset – pro-choicers mistake passion and righteous anger on the right for the intent and willingness to do violence.
I guess this is understandable, since most pro-lifers are conservatives who also are pro gun ownership, and “everyone knows” that people who own guns and support gun rights are reckless rednecks who are just looking for a fight. Of course, the truth is much different from that. Also, since gun liberals think that gun ownership leads to violence, they probably assume that’s where such arguments go.
However, this view of the “angry right” is actually not borne out by recent history or facts. We may be angry, but we are principled. Remember, you are also mostly dealing with Christians, not Muslims or other ideologues who resort to violence.
Those on your side of the fence are offended by those that either have their minds made up or are totally turned off to the fanaticism at a time when they might be open to a real discussion.
If people on my side of the fence are offended, they should speak up rather than letting you speak for them. I sometimes choose to abandon discussion for declaration because quite frankly, sometimes that is needed.
You want to force change down everyone’s throats regardless of changing opinion?
I am not forcing anything. I am using another valid approach to change, and that is, declaring the moral bankruptcy and criminal negligence of those who support third trimester abortions. For now, I am not interested in discussion. Sure, some people will bail out. They can go talk to someone who is still interested in debating the value of these children being killed.
In fact, I’m sure if you want to support the inferiority of blacks, you could find people who want to try to discuss your position with you. Me, I might try to convince you through discussion that your wrong, but I might also appeal to your conscience by declaring that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.
It reminds me of how Jonathan Swift must have felt when he wrote A Modest Proposal – people were dying due to the famine, and the cultural elite were treating it like a philosophic problem to discuss rather than a human crisis to take action about.
I have just witnessed the beginning of the criminalization of partial birth abortion, and am very encouraged. I can tell you for sure that pro-lifers intend and believe that in our lifetime, we will not only see RVW overturned, but see abortion become a very restricted procedure, limited to the first trimester, with exceptions only for the imminent physical preservation of the mother’s life.
My passion is not to fight in the streets, but in the court of public opinion, appealing to public conscience with the obvious brutality of this murderous money-maker for PPA, and doing battle for the just laws that protect the helpless child.
Perhaps I should go back to discussing third trimester abortions, but you know, many of the liberals I know even find it questionable, even wrong. I guess you are not one of them. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that it is obvious not just to conservatives that such things are evil – but I guess the fact that 4 of the justices dissented should indicate to me that there are many who’s consciences are not yet awakened to the horrors of late term abortions.
I will leave it at the moment that my family has served this country in public service in one way or another (Congress, DOD, US Attorneys Office, and US Military) for over 60 years. All of this coupled with a rich history of understanding more than a rural America view of the world.
Aside from the education part, can you honestly say that you have done the same in your life?
You honestly want to turn that into a my family did more than yours did debate to go along with an implied slight against my supposed strict "rural America view of the world?" That completely misses my point, maybe intentionally on your part.
My point was that you argue that only women can make informed arguments about abortion as they are the ones pregnant (I guess that leaves everyone here out), so my question was does that same logic carry to the military?
If only women, who are the ones effected by abortions laws (if we ignore the unborn), are allowed to debate on abortion laws, are only members of the military allowed to debate on military actions.
My wife is more pro-life than I am. She is against all abortions, death penalty and chemical birth control because of the small (but present) possibility that it can prevent an impregnated egg from attaching. She is more passionate and less "reasoned" on this than I am.
But this ridiculous stance that only a specific group can engage in informed debate on certain topic is absurd and dangerous to free speech.
Aside from all this, the issue of abortion is a passionate issue and I know of no way that I cannot be passionate about it. I find it hard to believe that anyone could not be appalled by this procedure. (ed. I wanted to describe it, but I will instead link to and quote from Wikipedia.)
That's NR's point. My (logic) question is this, what makes this "fetus" different from a baby that is full developed and delivered completely from the womb? How is it acceptable in one case and not in the other? If a doctor had done this to a baby outside the womb, he would be arrested and mauled (rightfully so) by the media and everyone but Peter Singer. But because a portion of the "fetus'" head is still inside the birth canal, it is okay to do this to?
So to get back to logic and away from emotion as much as possible. If a baby is viable outside the womb, should that baby not also be protected inside the womb? NR's point is that should the location of the baby determine whether they are a fetus that can be aborted or a baby that cannot be killed?
It's a classic self-deception – if I can't see it, it's not really that bad. Don't show me the reality of it, that's just an emotional appeal, not a reasoned one. Out of sight, out of mind.
But this is also why they fight the use of ultrasound in pregnancy support centers. While they may want to keep pregnant women from being emotionally manipulated using this tool, what's really going on is that they don't want the woman to see what they themselves are unwilling to see – that the fetus is a child.
They want their own moral blindness to be maintained in the public arena so that they don't have to change with the sea change that would come with educating the populace. Better to keep people ignorant of the truth so that the elites can make decisions for them – "for their own good." Knowledge is a dangerous thing.
One can be passionate about the issue without accusing the other side of murder.
seeker's arguments would be more credible if he weren't such an ignorant bigot regarding gay people.
I suppose it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
One can be passionate about the issue without accusing the other side of murder.
I agree the language is loaded, but when you view abortion as such how do you avoid it completely?
Okay, that’s your belief. However, your beliefs here shut down communication and compromise. That leaves power and its use as the only alternative. Those of us who value freedom from the interference of religious ideologues must continue to oppose you on all fronts. We must continue to organize and vote against you. And, if you resort to violence, we must use all the resources the law provides to suppress you. The lines are drawn.
All this illustrates to me the dire danger religion poses to those of us who value secular democracy and civilization. I don’t want religious fanatics dictating to me how I live my life. A short study of history shows the evils theocracy brings upon its victims. We must fight you with all our might.
How ironic that Jesus caused this kind of enmity. I guess I completely misunderstood him.
I don't want religious fanatics dictating to me how I live my life. A short study of history shows the evils theocracy brings upon its victims. We must fight you with all our might.
I think you misunderstand me and Jesus too, I guess.
I have no intention or resorting to violence or taking over the government. I do not want to see a theocracy any more than you do.
I do want to see innocent human life protected. This is an issue that cuts across the religious spectrum. It is not isolated to Christians v. Atheists. There are atheists and agnostics who oppose abortion and Christains who support it.
It is not the case where I cannot compromise. I know and understand the current political limitations and would work within them. However, that would be to reach the end where through logic, reason and knowledge the vast majority of humanity would come to share my view of abortion.
If I view abortion as murder, I certainly do not want to lead some type of physical rebellion where even more will lose their lives. I want to work through the appropriate democratic and free speech channels to inform people of the true nature of abortion and the consequences of it.
It almost seems as if on this issue – abortion – you fight it so strongly just to oppose something that the majority of conservative Christians support. I have not seen you really argue for abortion, but merely against Christian action on the issue and harsh language.
I've tried to move toward a logical discussion of this issue and evaluate it from both sides – hence my honest question and my question ending the previous post about the difference location makes. But it seems you have moved away from that and toward the emotional realm of the scary evil theocrats. How can you chastise me on one hand and then engage in the exact type of rhetoric you claim ends the debate.
All this illustrates to me the dire danger religion poses to those of us who value secular democracy and civilization. I don’t want religious fanatics dictating to me how I live my life.
In this case, religion hasn’t even been mentioned, nor are we talking about mere “belief.” I am using what I consider to be ethical and reasonable moral argumentation to show that the unborn child is in fact a person with rights.
When the founders wrote “we hold these truths to be self-evident” they were not appealing to religion per se. They were appealing to conscience.
"we hold these truths to be self-evident"
Jefferson was slick :) This is actually a tautology. In essence it says, it's true because it's true.
“It almost seems as if on this issue – abortion – you fight it so strongly just to oppose something that the majority of conservative Christians support. I have not seen you really argue for abortion, but merely against Christian action on the issue and harsh language.
“I’ve tried to move toward a logical discussion of this issue and evaluate it from both sides – hence my honest question and my question ending the previous post about the difference location makes. But it seems you have moved away from that and toward the emotional realm of the scary evil theocrats. How can you chastise me on one hand and then engage in the exact type of rhetoric you claim ends the debate.”
Well, I tried to acknowledge your belief (“Okay, that’s your belief.”), and then I went on to explore the consequences thereof. Since you believe that abortion is murder, I don’t really see any possible compromise, do you? How can you accept anything short of a complete ban? And how can any of us who think differently do anything but oppose you without holding back? We are labeled as murderers and allies of murderers – an emotional argument if I’ve ever heard one, and one which ends all debate.
It’s true that I’m not particularly passionate about the issue at hand as it doesn’t directly affect me. However, I do see it as part of a larger effort of the right-wing to control our private lives, in particular, our sex lives. As you mentioned, your wife wants to ban all contraceptives because of the remote possibility that a fertilized egg might be destroyed. And, of course, the debate over gay rights fits right in with the agenda. Conservative xians want control over our private lives in all their aspects – from controlling what media we can view to what we teach our children to how we use the environment. That’s why I’m against you on abortion rights.
I’m not particularly paranoid and don’t see some sort of well-thought-out conspiracy, but I do see the efforts of the right-wing religious in concert with other interests having the same effect. You may not want a formal theocracy, but the result is the same.
btw: The above was from me. I also direct your attention to the following:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=128&id=9149&t=Abortion+and+gay+unions%3A+terrorism+with+human+face
btw2: I would appreciate it if anyone could direct me to instructions as to how I can insert italics and hotlinks, etc.
Louis, I keep a “cheat sheet” stickie up on my Mac for all the codes. Just make sure you take out the spaces I had to put in to get it to post the code.
link: < a href="website">text< / a >
italics: < em >example< / em >
bold: < strong >example< / strong >
blockquote: < blockquote >example< / blockquote >
strike through: < s >example< / s >
As you mentioned, your wife wants to ban all contraceptives because of the remote possibility that a fertilized egg might be destroyed.
Prime example of a complete misunderstanding. I said my wife was against chemical contraceptives, I never said she wantd to ban them. You made an assumption based on your a priori belief that Christians want to take over the country and control everyone’s sex life.
I told you that I could make compromises on abortion, but that I would acknowledge those compromises would be a means to get to the end of abortion completely through reason, logic and knowledge.
I never called anyone in this debate “murderers and allies of murderers.” The language is not useful. I said abortion was murder, but I am not calling the political supporters of it murderers. Just as I wouldn’t call politicians who I believe encourage terrorism murderers either. I only call those who do the deed by the name.
If I can be shown through reason and logic that my position is wrong, then I can accept that. The issue is a personal one to me, but I believe that I have logic and reason behind me. If I didn’t I wouldn’t hold to it.
You disagree with conservative Christians so you believe we are “controlling what media we can view to what we teach our children to how we use the environment.” I know those on my side who say the same of those on the left and of gay rights groups in particular. Both sides accuse the other of running things and trying to form a theocracy or a communist state. Or, as you say, the other side might not be trying to do that but “the result is the same.”
Since you believe that abortion is murder, I don’t really see any possible compromise, do you? How can you accept anything short of a complete ban? And how can any of us who think differently do anything but oppose you without holding back? We are labeled as murderers and allies of murderers – an emotional argument if I’ve ever heard one, and one which ends all debate.
I understand your beef, but that is the reality – there is no argument FOR murder. Your pleading in this case is as meaningful as if you were arguing for slavery.
Since you believe that killing a slave is murder, I don’t really see any possible compromise, do you? How can you accept anything short of a complete ban? And how can any of us who think differently do anything but oppose you without holding back? We are labeled as murderers and allies of murderers – an emotional argument if I’ve ever heard one, and one which ends all debate.
Perhaps then, we should focus on the real issue – personhood. Why are black people persons? Why are the unborn persons? We've had this argument, and it seems to boil down to a few meaningful positions:
1. Zygote: unique set of DNA that can mature to a human (human potential)
2. First Trimester: Heartbeat, brainwaves, differentiation of cells, responds to negative stimulus, human potential and visible similarity to human
3. Second Trimester: I'm not sure what characteristics make the 2nd trimester more person-like
4. Third Trimester: Capacity to comprehend pain (frontal cortex), extreme similarity to human
5. Birth: no umbilical cord, breathing air
So here's my argument. The difference between a third trimester child and one that is born is not significant. The third trimester child is a person who feels pain and consciously feels it. That at LEAST should be considered murder.
And to a certain extent, if people don't buy that argument, there's nothing I can do except to restate my logic, and appeal to their consciences, and yes, even using "emotional" pictures so that the logical structure that they have built to insulate their consciences is bypassed.
We don't JUST appeal to reason, because often, people have mental constructs build on faulty assumptions that become impenetrable to reason. But we can still appeal to their conscience through demonstrating visually the horrors of what they are doing.
Think of Nazi Germany. How did these people not hear their consciences? Not just fear and intimidation, but a logical construct built on false (social Darwinist) assumptions that they took as true. Everything that came from that false assumption was logical, so they were able to quiet what their consciences should have alerted them to. Same argument goes for abortion, imho.
I can say exactly the same thing to you, seeker, about gay rights. So, you see, it’s a double-edged sword.
Thanks for the info, Aaron.
I’m sorry but I still don’t see the difference between calling abortion murder and those who support having it as an option “supporters of murder.” Bringing murder into the equation works as an atom bomb blowing up the conversation. I, therefore, don’t think conversation is possible around it.
Yes, I’m aware that right-wingers think those of us on the other side are conspiring as well. It’s just that, right now, the right-wing is in the ascendant (not for long, I think), and we can see it’s efforts everywhere, while the left or the secularists are on the defensive. I tend to be libertarianish and secular, so I oppose gov’t. forcing its will on us as much as is feasible. Thus, I think abortion is a matter for the individual to choose, as is the use of contraceptives (and, please, those who think contraceptives are immoral will most likely favor some sort of gov’t regulation). I am for maximum individual freedom of conscience and choice, which is why I oppose those who advocate enforcing religious doctrines through force of law (I point to alcohol and drug Prohibition as prime evidence). I see religious groups constantly trying to restrict the liberties of the rest of us in the name of their religious beliefs (or, covertly, hiding their religious agenda: I.D.). Thus, christianists organize to oppose the favorable depiction of gay people in the media, oppose our equal civil rights, and attempt to force us back in the closet using gov’t. power. Anti-abortion agitation is merely one aspect of this.
I think it has come down to this: each side feels threatened by the other. I see no way past this except through the exercise of power.
I’m sorry but I still don’t see the difference between calling abortion murder and those who support having it as an option “supporters of murder.” Bringing murder into the equation works as an atom bomb blowing up the conversation. I, therefore, don’t think conversation is possible around it.
I am in agreement with this sentiment. A conversation is not really possible when both sides of the spectrum are working from a position of absolutes.
I think it has come down to this: each side feels threatened by the other.
I think this hits the nail right on the head. With the added dimension that with each side feeling threatened, there is a added flavor of complete dismay that the opposing side cannot see the “truth” or be swayed by what is seemingly so obvious. That creates an added level of frustration.
So why then are you against infanticide? Doesn’t that limit a parent’s rights? And if you are against it, why are you not against third trimester abortions?
I can say exactly the same thing to you, seeker, about gay rights.
Except that I am not calling for the murder of gays, while you are justifying the killing of the unborn child. While I am asking for government neutrality in the homosexual question, you are leaning towards allowing any person to take the life of an unborn child.
I was thinking of your paragraph:
“Think of Nazi Germany. How did these people not hear their consciences? Not just fear and intimidation, but a logical construct built on false (social Darwinist) assumptions that they took as true. Everything that came from that false assumption was logical, so they were able to quiet what their consciences should have alerted them to. Same argument goes for abortion, imho.”
**
Need I point out how Nazi Germany persecuted gays? And your argument about “false assumptions” can be turned against you and your (christian) assumptions that you take as true. Everything that comes from your false assumptions about gay people and gay sex is logical, so you are able to quiet your conscience about the injustices you are advocating. Why should I become exercised about your pet project (abortion) when you are so horrible to me? As I mentioned, abortion rights and gay rights are linked in the christianist preoccupation with controlling sex and our private lives to further their patriarchal agenda. I view you with as much horror as I would a Nazi: it’s only a matter of emphasis and opportunity. Christians in the past persecuted, tortured and murdered gay people, why not in the future?