A Matter Of Opinion

Endless issues

Posted by Doug at 9:11 a.m. on November 10 Comments (193)

Two national stories on today’s front page, involve two of society’s most polarized issues: abortion and capital punishment. The public seems to be rigidly divided across an uncrossable gulf on both topics, yet in my several decades on this planet I have seen considerable, even dramatic, change in both arenas.

How is it that public attitudes can be made to shift about issues over which people flee the middle ground and race to the margins?

193 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

nslopeofw on November 10 at 10:28 a.m.
I believe in the right to choose, and in capital punishment. I guess that makes me an all around killer.

As a side note, I personally would never want to be a part of an abortion, but I can't know all the peoples reasons, therefore, I would not force my opinion on others.

Flag as inappropriate
nslopeofw on November 10 at 10:37 a.m.
Perhaps its time for an all out religion discussion. Wouldn't that be fun. We could have the Christians against the Druids. I bet a thread like that would go on forever ;-)

Flag as inappropriate
Doug Floyd on November 10 at 1:07 p.m.
How's this for an exercise? Pro-lifers have to offer their best argument for some aspect (not necessarily the whole ball of wax) for the pro-choice stance…and vice versa.
Same concept could be applied to gun control, capital punishment, gay rights,…

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 10 at 1:53 p.m.
Doug,

I'm pro-life (no secret) but it's easy - at least for me - to recognize the woman's right to choose in those cases where her choice was originally taken from her by the actions of another - that is; in cases of rape and incest. And furthermore, in those cases, I say we prosecute the man for manslaughter to recognize the loss of a child's life.

I also don't pretend do have the right or the wisdom to choose for a woman in those genuinely tragic cases where, for medical reasons, it's a choice between her life and the life of her unborn infant.

Now ask me if I have an easy answer in the instant case where I have to decide if all the good that could be accomplished through reforming health care is worth giving in to the pro-choice movement's demand that the price-tag for that reform is the surrender of my pro-life beliefs.

Today I'm once again finding that it's lonely out here between the partisan trench-lines where the answer don't come nearly as easily as they seem to for those in the bunkers on either side.

Because no, I don't have a glib, easy answer.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 3:48 p.m.
Doug,

There is no middle ground on those issues.

Flag as inappropriate
Doug Floyd on November 10 at 4:21 p.m.
There is no middle ground on any issue for those who will not seek it. But all issues arise out of human needs and concerns. It takes courage and conviction to open oneself to understanding another person's point of view. To understand is not necessarily to agree, but it begins with recognizing and valuing universal human experience.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 4:38 p.m.
Doug Floyd wrote,

“It takes courage and conviction to open oneself to understanding another person's point of view.”

Understanding one another's point of view does not create a middle ground. The only logically possible positions on those two issues are contradictory, therefore binary.

Now, some may think a “middle ground” would be allowing abortion or capital punishment only in some circumstances. But if there is even one such circumstance, that person is no longer opposed to abortion or opposed to capital punishment. The argument has become one of details.

Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on November 10 at 5:52 p.m.
could there be a far more powerful truth at play? would the aborted child had lived? or would it had died due to some other complication? is life governed by our human ideals? if the child were to live it would have.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 10 at 9:41 p.m.
I support abortion rights as currently restricted by Roe v. Wade and subsequent laws not challenged and as modified by several SCOTUS decisions on the matter since Roe.

I do not support Capital Punishment because carrying it out is extremely expensive, I don't trust the legal system on the matter, and life without parole satisfies precautionary imprisonment (guilty cannot repeat) as well as the punishment factor.

Frankly, I don't see how the two issues are related. For those who are against abortion in all or almost all cases, I think they have a sincere belief that the developing fetus is in fact a human being, and of course, it is innocent.

99% of those convicted of Capital crimes are in fact guilty of a heinous crime.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 5:14 a.m.
spokel,

I think we see more or less eye-to-eye on both issues, *mostly* for the reasons you cite.

I am pro-life. So I would see access to abortion more limited than it currently is. Not prohibited, mind you. As I've said, I can see many instances where fundamental human dignity demands that a woman have a choice. But if human dignity is the touchstone, how can it not be a balancing act between the rights of the mother on the one hand and the rights of the unborn child on the other? Because as you say, I sincerely believe that life begins at conception. But be that as it may, Roe v. Wade and its lineage is the law of the land. While I would work to change the law, I understand that in a democracy like ours, the will of the majority is what governs.

With respect to capital punishment, I would add that I see a blatant, fundamental contradiction. 'Human life is so sacred that we must kill people to defend it.' For me at least, that's absurd upon its face. I completely agree that life imprisonment without parole satisfies every valid societal interest while at the same time preserving the chance to correct the errors that have been proved - time and again - to exist in the system.

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 11 at 7:46 a.m.
A woman should have the right to control her own body. I know the common argument is that we must protect the rights' of the defenseless (and being “unborn” is about as defenseless as one can get), yet in this “wonderful” society where “property” rights are held in god-like awe, what is physically in a woman’s' body is her's is it not? This is a choice that is 100% a woman's prerogative. Additionally, with the technology now at our disposal, in that we can determine if the future baby will be severely physically/mentally handicapped to the point to where life would be simply a burden to her/his self, as well as to society as a whole, would not all be better served if the woman chose to abort? Would not the whole of society be better served if chronically “underprivileged” women chose not to burden society with yet another future likely “social deviant”? As far as when does a fetus become “ensouled”, again, this would be a matter between the woman and God, who are we to legislate her body?!?

Capital punishment is the Old Law, forgiveness was personified 2 thousand years ago! Put dudes like John Muhammad, Robert Yates, Gary Ridgway, etc. (what is it with Washington State and serial killers?!?), in prison for life, put them in general population, justice will have a way of working itself out (i.e., Dahmer!).

Peace

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 11 at 8:33 a.m.
<<Now, some may think a “middle ground” would be allowing abortion or capital punishment only in some circumstances. But if there is even one such circumstance, that person is no longer opposed to abortion or opposed to capital punishment. The argument has become one of details. >>

So an abortion to save the mother's life or in the case of rape or incest is a pro-abortion position. Barring abortions after the second trimester (sans complications to the mother and baby) would not be pro-choice.

What is the purist capital punishment position?

This seems to suggest that it is pretty rare to be pro-life, pro-choice and pro-capital punishment. OK, but is what they're trying to accomplish without merit? If it does have merit, could they get there without compromising the purity of the label?

The only purists, it seems, are those who oppose capital punishment.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 8:51 a.m.
empyrius,

*IF* you accept that life begins at conception - and I realize that people of good conscience dispute just when life begins - then it seems to me that you simply can't base the decision on a woman's right to control her own body. I say this because, of necessity, that right derives from a fundamental dignity that all humans posses in equal measure. So how can a claim based on that dignity decide the question?

If the unborn child is a human being too, aren't her rights to 'control her own body' at least equal to her mother's?

It seems to me this fundamental paradox is the basis for all these 'magic number' 'human life begins only now' rationalizations. If it's a question of rights and rights are necessarily equal, then the only resolution of the paradox is to slap a 'not human' label on the fetus. '90 days post conception and you're a person. 89 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds and you're not.' (Or whatever the arbitrary numbers actually are.)

That's a rationalization that is too flawed on its surface for me to accept. That's why, for me, the resolution to the paradox has to be found elsewhere.

As to a profoundly disabled fetus… This is another case where I don't pretend to have the wisdom or the right to decide. For several years I worked with the profoundly disabled. That experience led me to the unshakable understanding that saying, 'Your life isn't worth living' is… Well, it's simply not as easy when it comes to the individual as it sounds in the generalized hypothetical.

– Would not the whole of society be better served if chronically “underprivileged” women chose not to burden society with yet another future likely “social deviant”? –

How many of human civilization's brightest lights rose out of the darkest squalor? The answer is to do more to help the underprivileged. I don't know if we can ever wipe out poverty. But I do know beyond question that I will simply never even consider using 'pre-emptive euthanasia' as a tool in the attempt.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 8:55 a.m.
Gary,

Is the label we apply to this proponent of X or that proponent of Y really all that important?

Is making sure everybody has the most appropriate label affixed to their forehead going to solve all these issues? Will it even help?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 9:00 a.m.
Gary C., the “purist” would also have to be anti-war and further, to have no history of violence. When it comes to religious opposition to abortion and to call that “pro-life,” just how many of these people gravitate to, surround themselves by, or have a history of religious violence? I can't think of anything more defenseless than to imprison people by accusing them of “witchcraft,” torturing them on such a charge, then burning them at the stake upon obtaining a “confession.” If “life is sacred,” why is it only “sacred” in the womb but not after birth?

As an actual Druid here.

Then too, there is this matter of the bible. God deemed that children (to include “unborn children”) to be sinners if their parents were. Thus, miscarriages could be deemed a punishment (Tanakh and variations of the “Christian” Old Testament), infanticide (ditto); was a common theme. The bible is chock full of the sins of the father being brought against the child. Thus, while the “unborn child” might be deemed defenseless well enough, it wasn't according to God, innocent. Thus, the POLITICS of abortion, where the early church used the issue as an us v them (the pagans) in order to differentiate themselves; also put the church at odds with the bible.

Trying to use the bible today after the church had abandoned large tracts of it early on, to promote a so-called “pro-life” agenda; is utterly laughable.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 9:26 a.m.
Jeff Grey, while in the womb I had no control over my own body. Only after birth and as I neared adulthood, then and only then did I assume being captain of my own destiny. That is why, when it comes to abortion, yours is a utopian argument. There is no fundamental equality between a fetus and a born child. There is no fundamental equality between a child and a young adult. The “right to control your own destiny” is arbitrary and in a great many cases already controlled by law.

Could I, as a child, vote? No. Could I legally drink by the age of 14? No. Could I legally drive a car by the age of 10? No. Could I legally hold a job before a specific age? Say 18? No. Am I an American by law BEFORE the age of 14? No. Most anti-abortionist arguments don't take those matters into account. Until I am the age of 18, my PARENTS would choose for me, not me for myself. And if they chose to be child abusers (my dad in his lifetime was), what could I have done about it? When I was growing up after all, child abuse wasn't a public matter for which children actually had legal recourse. Utopian visions of “equality” don't take certain legalities into account or we'd call for fetuses to be able to vote when of course they can't.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 10:25 a.m.
AD,

Granting you every point you make, if I kill you before you reach any of the arbitrary milestones, can I still fairly proclaim those milestones to be the deciding factor - especially after I've rigged the game so as to ensure you'll never reach them?

As for the control your parents have over your before this age or that age… At what age do your parents lose the right to kill you on a whim? (Since when all is said and done, that's the fundamental 'right' we're really talking about here.)

And 'utopian'? … Ouch.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 10:47 a.m.
A long time ago, Jeff; there was an earthquake that affected the Glacier National Park that was also felt as far as Kootenai County, Idaho. Some time after that event, we went traveling in that area. We passed a road close barricade set up along side of a road that dad decided to drive on. If I hadn't continued to yell at him where I was around 6 years old. He would have commenced to drive over and take us off a road that had collapsed as a result of the earthquake and left behind a massive cliff. My yelling that there was no road finally stopped him an inch or so from killing all of us. Had I not developed prescient knowledge at a young age, Grey, I would not be here today.

My dad was in control of the wheel. And he was suffering a death wish. So, the reality is, Grey, you can not decide for others, what ever your own personal feelings are. Consider yourself lucky if you didn't have parents like mine.

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 11 at 10:49 a.m.
“If the unborn child is a human being too, aren't her rights to 'control her own body' at least equal to her mother's?” That is the crux upon which this debate is compelled! For instance, we certainly would not accept a mother killing her two-year old, we would all unreservedly agree that is murder, and have we not convicted people of double homicide when they have murdered a pregnant women? I think I have read somewhere that we have. The ovum splits during the first week of conception, after only six weeks there is a heartbeat, and of course the unborn gets ever more human after that: is human life - human life - at the very moment of conception? Indeed, profound questions here. I would hope if abortion is the chosen path for the mother it would be much sooner than later! But, I still have believe that while the unborn is in the womb, the mother should have the choice to decide if having the baby would simiply be too burdensome b/c of economics, age, disablity, rape, etc., that should be her decision and that would be a matter between her and God alone! If in fact that unborn does have an eternal soul she/he has a one way ticket to heaven! And we all certainly know the Lord knows what is in the mother's heart. Like, is the mom thinking to herself, “Ohhh, babies are a dime a dozen who cares …”, or, “I really don't know if I am doing the right thing, I have heard all viewpoints, but I just do not think it would be the best thing for the baby . . .”.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but this is quite the profound issue.

Peace

P.S.: I really do not think our society is geared towards looking out for the underprivileged anymore, if it ever truly was, and the prospects of “upward mobility” for the underprivileged is becoming nothing more than a myth; or maybe this is just my pessimism getting the better of me this afternoon.

Peace

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 11 at 10:53 a.m.
“Prescient knowledge” Arch? Where is a witch like you when a brother needs one!?! Har har har har.

Just giving you a bad time sister (I'm good at that you know!).

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 11:04 a.m.
So, empyrius; are you into Wicca? Where we Druids are concerned, a life not born THIS time has plenty of other times to get born. If not THIS family, then another family. Souls everlasting do not have only “one chance at life.” That's the problem only for self-limiting “Christians.”

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 12:07 p.m.
AD,

By my count this would make the third time you and I have engaged on this issue. Mindful of how those last debates turned out, let's make life easier for ourselves and just agree to disagree this time. I've made my points and you've raised your rebuttals. I've decided. You've decided. Now other people have to decide.

Between us, I'm content to leave it at that.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 12:09 p.m.
Major gut busting LOL! Jeff you are sweet.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 12:35 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“*IF* you accept that life begins at conception - and I realize that people of good conscience dispute just when life begins . . .”

“I say this because, of necessity, that right derives from a fundamental dignity that all humans posses in equal measure.”

“If the unborn child is a human being too, aren't her rights to 'control her own body' at least equal to her mother's?”

A bit of clarity might resolve some of these “paradoxes.”

First, life doesn't “begin” at conception, birth, or any point in between. It began a billion or more years ago and has been continuous ever since.

Also, there is no serious question that a human fetus is a human being. It has human morphology and physiology, and its DNA would be identified in any genetics laboratory as being human. But that is all irrelevant to the question of abortion.

“Human being” is a biological concept; the term denotes an organism having certain biological characteristics. But the controversy over abortion is a moral one, and only the *moral* properties of an organism are relevant to moral questions. It makes no difference, morally speaking, what DNA an organism has, or what is the shape of its body, or what biochemical processes keep it alive. What matters is whether it is a moral agent – whether it has those properties which confer moral status upon it and bring it within the scope of moral theory. In other words, what matters is whether it is a *person*, which is a moral, not a biological, concept. A Martian with a scaly, amoeboid body and waving tentacles who had interests, values, hopes, goals, and dreams; with whom we could learn to communicate, develop friendships, carry on trade, and exchange jokes, would also be a person, a moral agent.

So the right question to ask is not, “Is the fetus a human being,” but, “Is it a person?” I.e., is it a moral agent, and when does it become one? It will acquire rights at that point.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 3:04 p.m.
gmorton,

Some interesting points. You mention DNA. That's one point that always catches my attention in this debate. What is the current 'method of choice' the law uses to distinguish one individual from another? Is it not DNA testing? And if a fetus has unique DNA…

But moving along…

– So the right question to ask is not, “Is the fetus a human being,” but, “Is it a person?” I.e., is it a moral agent, and when does it become one? It will acquire rights at that point. –

Same question for you as I raised with AD. If you only become a 'moral agent' at some point certain in your development, can I kill you before you reach that point and then justify the killing by saying, 'You never would have been a moral agent'?

If you're running a hundred-yard dash and I blow your head off twenty yards out of the starting blocks, is it fair to say you never could have won the race so blowing your head off wasn't a foul?

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 11 at 3:14 p.m.
<<Is the label we apply to this proponent of X or that proponent of Y really all that important? Is making sure everybody has the most appropriate label affixed to their forehead going to solve all these issues? Will it even help?>>

Only if you're trying to make a point that there is only one way to be deemed pro-life or pro-choice or pro-capital punishment.

I wasn't.

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 11 at 6:04 p.m.
A Wicca Arch? No …, but I have been deemed a dicc-a quite a few times! Har har har har, you saw that coming right.

That is a good point about when one becomes a moral agent. “What matters is whether it is a *person*, which is a moral, not a biological, concept”. That is an interesting way to look at it. I am almost 43, and I have to regrettably admit that I have not given the abortion issue the appropriate thinking through that I should have by now.

I like the when does moral agency begin approach, and yet, you look at those pictures of a woman six or seven months along, and there is no mistaking tis a human being, but “it” certainly is not yet a moral agent.

To err on the side of life would be the conservative approach (O my, did I say that!?!?), and while that life has not yet “sinned” can “it” be sinned against (e.g., a mother smoking, drinking, doing meth, will most certainly harm the baby, and of course abortion is simply death)?

Hmmmm . . .

This is a “free” (NOT!) nation, tis the mother's choice!

Peace

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 11 at 7:59 p.m.
It isn't about being deemed “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” Those are purely political labels attached by media and popular culture.

My personal views are that abortion is wrong, from a moral point of view. However, I do accept that the issue becomes something different when the life of the mother is in jeopardy or when the “life” of the fetus - once outside the womb - would be so compromised as to not be considered a “life with value.” Whatever that may mean.

And while I can concur that an abortion in the very early stages is a choice only for that of the mother (although I still haven't resolved how the role of the father fits into that dynamic), I am still unable to contemplate how a society can extend that “right” to the mother in the instance of late-term, partial birth abortion strictly for “convenience.” And I do not see any contradiction between these views except in absolutist terms, which I mostly try to avoid.

But how is that the stance of partial birth abortion can be defended, other than in “legal” or “political” terms, when it is undeniably an act of violence? Can anyone help me understand that position? It seems to be the dirty little secret that no one wants to discuss, except, as I said, in legal or political terms. Both of which merely obfuscate that essence of being “human” - morality; right and wrong. To many seem not to understand that actions have consequences.

And this where I become really confused when I see how many who are absolutely opposed to the death penalty (a view I mostly (?) share) and yet are so equally absolute in their view that a woman should have the right to end the “life” of her third trimester fetus - if she so decides - for reasons of convenience. It seems there is some kind of disconnect with reality or, at least, with the tension between moral and immoral acts.

Where does responsibility for the fetus/unborn-child begin and end, when a woman makes the decision to become pregnant (and it is a decision to become pregnant if she has sex without any protection - another of those topics which is obfuscated by politics of feminism)?

These kinds of questions and answers - beyond the political and legal - seem to me to be the only venue where common sense, value-based, moral guidelines can and should be contemplated and ultimately decided. Both for the individual and for society.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 10:14 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Same question for you as I raised with AD. If you only become a 'moral agent' at some point certain in your development, can I kill you before you reach that point and then justify the killing by saying, 'You never would have been a moral agent'?”

There is no point certain at which an organism becomes a moral agent, or a person. That is because becoming one is a process, not an event. At the beginning of that process it is not a moral agent. At the end (if all goes well) it is. So it makes some sense to assign moral status, and thus rights, to it in a similar progressive way. I.e., it gains more rights as that developmental process unfolds. The right to life must be the first assigned, else any other assignments would be moot.

A moral agent is a creature who has interests and goals, can envision a future, can feel pleasure, pain, delight, sadness, satisfaction and disappointment, and who possesses some means of satisfying those interests and achieving those goals. Most importantly, it is also a member of a community of moral agents and is able to recognize other members as also being moral agents.

So at what points in that development process does an organism acquire those properties?

Flag as inappropriate
nslopeofw on November 11 at 10:27 p.m.
One other point here. Empyrius believes in a “womans” right to choose. I think (unless something unlawful happened) that the man who had a hand in this (so to speak) should also have his rights. If he strongly believes in pro-life, and is willing to take care of the baby, then “woman's” rights are not the only choice.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 12 at 4:26 a.m.
gmorton,

If I understand you correctly, you're describing a 'process'. Your prospective moral agent starts with some rights and, as it matures, gains more rights that accrue directly as a result of that maturity. (However one defines both 'maturity' and 'rights'.)

Granting for the sake of argument that might be one valid way of defining the situation, it doesn't address the point I'm raising: If what you describe is indeed a *continuing* process, what happens when some outside force intervenes to end that process? For me, 'process' of necessity requires 'potential' - specifically, the potential to realize whatever the process is seeking to accomplish or create.

If I have the *potential* to become your moral agent, can you deny me that potential and justify the denial on the fact that I'm not a moral agent? To my way of thinking, that's not even circular logic. It's no kind of logic at all.

It's this fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of my objection to abortion.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 12 at 4:45 a.m.
Returning for a moment to an earlier thought…

Something occurred to me last night and I'd like to get some input on it. One current, major obstacle bedeviling the passage of health care reform is the objection some folks have to using their insurance premiums to fund abortion.

At the moment, 'opt out' is being touted as a way for people who disagree with the overall proposal to still vote for it. What if that same concept was extended to funding abortion?

What if I could direct that my insurance premiums were not to fund abortions? What if I could 'opt out'?

Now I grant you there's a bit of a fiction involved in this. When I pay my premium, all the money goes into a big pot and then gets disbursed without any way to identify which individual dollar is which. So it might be that one of the dollars that came out of my wallet eventually makes it way through the system and into the hands of an abortion provider.

But that doesn't change the fact that there would be fewer dollars available to pay for abortion if some folks were able to direct that their contributions not be used for that purpose. And in the end, isn't that in essence the same thing as withholding my premium payments in the first place? Can't I in truth say, those dollars that aren't going to fund abortions are in fact my dollars?

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 12 at 9:58 a.m.
Good discussion everybody.

If the woman is unmarried, then the child should be aborted, but if she chooses to keep “it” that is her prerogative.

If the woman is married, then that is a matter between husband and wife; they do not need me to decide for them.

End of controversy.

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 12 at 10:02 a.m.
Speaking of the devil: “The officials said it is not yet decided whether to charge Hasan with a 14th count of murder related to the death of the unborn child of a pregnant shooting victim”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009…

Peace

Flag as inappropriate
nslopeofw on November 12 at 10:02 a.m.
My main beef with the whole thing is the FACT that my taxes WILL have to be raised to pay for this monstrosity.

Obama has claimed there is an incredible amount of waste in the system currently, which will be used to fund this new system. I say why not get that done first, then when he can prove these savings, start a smaller program just for the uninsured.

This whole thing is about revamping our current system. It's not about insuring the uninsured. If it were, then they (the House) would get all of the uninsured, not just 95%. Most people out there with insurance, don't want to lose what they have. Under Obamacare, they just might. And, at a cost that is rediculous.

Flag as inappropriate
nslopeofw on November 12 at 10:06 a.m.
Empyrius-
Does that mean “partner rights” don't exist? Does it also, then mean, a woman who lives with a man for years doesn't deserve any compensation if they break up?

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 12 at 11:02 a.m.
If the couple are unmarried then the man has no rights over the woman's body. If they do not want a legitimate relationship in the eyes of God (according to Scripture), then the man should have no say over “his” woman's body.

As far as “Obamacare”, their main concern is that the insurance companies still get paid, hence whatever is congressionally manufactured shall be unjust anyways. If we truly wanted 100% universal health-care, it would have to be 100% a non-profit endeavor. Then that obviously implies people would want to be their brothers' keeper, and that is not going to happen in this country . . .

Peace

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 12 at 11:24 a.m.
<<Obama has claimed there is an incredible amount of waste in the system currently, which will be used to fund this new system. I say why not get that done first, then when he can prove these savings, start a smaller program just for the uninsured.

This whole thing is about revamping our current system. It's not about insuring the uninsured.>>

Can't get that done (cost-cutting, zapping waste) without revamping the system. The system leads to the waste.

The GOP plan has some cost-cutting. Why didn't they do that when they were in charge?

<<If the woman is unmarried, then the child should be aborted, but if she chooses to keep “it” that is her prerogative.>>

Aborted in the ninth month? What if she wants to get married, but the government won't let her?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 12 at 12:44 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“If I have the *potential* to become your moral agent, can you deny me that potential and justify the denial on the fact that I'm not a moral agent?”

“Potential” arguments are non-starters. First, because “potential” is too vague. How many potential persons are now standing in your living room? If a chimp's DNA could be altered with available technology to match human DNA, is the chimp a potential person? If it becomes possible for a collection of chemicals on a laboratory shelf to be combined to form human DNA, is the batch of chemicals a potential person?

Secondly, potential X's are necessarily hypothetical X's. They are Y's which will become X's if certain conditions are met. But as of now, they are only Y's. And now is when we must act.

Finally, any birth control method, even the rhythm method, and celibacy, will prevent the appearance in the world of a potential person. If we are bound to acknowledge rights of potential persons, it becomes impossible to decide what we may and may not do.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 12 at 12:45 p.m.
“My main beef with the whole thing is the FACT that my taxes WILL have to be raised to pay for this monstrosity.”
-nslope

You make over a million dollars a year?

Nice.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 12 at 1:31 p.m.
– First, because “potential” is too vague. –

And “rational being” isn't?

Sorry, gmorton. You're off on another of your strange semantics of the arcane trips and I frankly don't have the requisite energy or enthusiasm left to play another round of that. But it was interesting and enlightening for a moment.

For everyone else, I'll restate my quandry again: if you're running a 100-yard dash and I blow your head off at the 20-yard mark, can I defend my action by saying, 'I didn't interfere with the race because dead people can't win foot races'?

Flag as inappropriate
sue on November 12 at 7:43 p.m.
The end of the controversy to me, is the woman's body. She has the right to her own destiny, and always has. Actually, make that always will. A government, or a law, or a group of rabid self-righteous know-it-alls, can't change what women everywhere already know. How many births in this country are from unexpected pregnancies? My guess is many, but I can't think of a way to quantify that. Each woman has an inalienable right to her body, and what happens to it, and that's all there is to it. Make a law that she has to wear a burqa, or that she can't drive a car, or that she can't control her reproductive rights within her body. Do it, really, if it makes you feel better. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter what the law is. She will do what she needs to do, in her own circumstances. My experience, and my belief, is that most women will give birth, and raise that sweet baby, or adopt out that baby, but it will be her choice. You can't give a right to her or take it away from her. It just is.

Flag as inappropriate
nslopeofw on November 12 at 9:26 p.m.
Sue,
I pretty much agree with you on this one. I just think that if in the eye's of the law, a man and woman are common law married after 5 years, then the man should have a say in what happens to their child/fetus/whatever.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 12 at 9:43 p.m.
Sue wrote,

“You can't give a right to her or take it away from her. It just is.”

Well, Sue, most people today disagree with that. They have been taught that rights are gifts from government, that they can be created or abolished at the government's whim. The recently defeated Prop 4 is evidence of that. It was defeated this time, but if public opinion were to shift, then it could pass next time. And Voila! a whole slew of new “rights.”

And, of course, if new rights can be created *ex nhilo* by popular vote, then a woman's right to her body can be extinguished just as easily.

Women (and men too, of course) have only those rights the gummint says they do.

Scary, huh?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 12 at 10:59 p.m.
I posed these questions yesterday and it seems no one wanted to offer a response. I will ask again, because there are certinly people here who have defended this procedure. I am only trying to understand how they come to that view.

Anyone up to the challenge?

How is partial birth abortion defended, other than in “legal” or “political” terms, when it is undeniably an act of violence?

When that partial birth abortion is done for the sole reason of “convenience,” how is that act defended?

Someone, anyone?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 12:03 a.m.
Richard,

Though 20-week fetuses are not moral agents, their nervous systems are well enough developed that they can probably experience pain, which means they are “moral subjects.” Thus “partial birth abortions” would be morally proscribed for the same reason that torturing animals, which are also moral subjects, is proscribed.

I believe that 2nd trimester fetuses are euthanized these days before they are aborted.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 13 at 1:38 a.m.
“How is partial birth abortion defended, other than in “legal” or “political” terms, when it is undeniably an act of violence?”

Some women and their partners who have decided to abort, usually due to extreme fetal abnormality or feticide, wish to have a more intact fetal corpse to grieve over for a time; other abortion procedures do not provide such.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 5:32 a.m.
Sue,

I'm truly not unsympathetic to your position. To hold my own beliefs, I *have to* agree that a woman has a right to control her own body. I have to agree because I really and truly believe that without the fundamental human dignity that underlies that right, there's really not much point in going on.

But for me, there's an added consideration that simply makes it impossible to resolve the question *solely* as an issue of the woman's rights.

Doesn't the unborn child share the same human nature as the mother? (Unless you want to engage in what for me are some utterly unpersuasive fictions about humanity depending on the position of the second hand on a clock.) And if the unborn child shares his mother's fundamental nature, doesn't he also have an equal claim to that fundamental dignity? If he had a voice - which he someday might, provided we don't kill him - can't he say, “I have the same right to control my body as you have a right to control yours. How then can you kill me and still talk about rights?”

Now please believe me when I say I'm not some glassy-eyed zealot who can't see beyond my own narrow dogma. I know there are *so* many other terribly important concerns involved in all of this. I know that I can't just answer the question by saying, “The unborn baby has rights and that's the end of it!”

I know that is just *far* too simplistic an answer to an incredibly complex issue.

“I've got my rights!” usually is.

Flag as inappropriate
Blog_Czar on November 13 at 7:25 a.m.
Jeffery_Grey, Gmorton, Arch Druid, & spoklooneh:

It was hard enough for Ilk_of_Morton to change his name to Morton_Pool_Salt and it is really unfair for you all to expect him to be able to keep up on all the threads on this blog. As members of the same community you have a duty to look out for his blogging needs. You really should go back to Wednesday's loose thread and respond to his last posts or at least let him know what you guys are up to over here. Remember, we are all in this together.

God bless America!

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 13 at 8:50 a.m.
This is another time when I can find GMorton's position to be correct. Jeff Grey, I can again say that while I was in the womb I had no control over either my body or destiny. If my mother had miscarried (abortion) myself, we would not be discussing this (AD as I am now but rather Robert or John or maybe Sally and not a member of the Harman family and born somewhere else). If you believe in the soul Grey, then God does not deny the soul an opportunity to know life. That is why I have to shake my head at all the reducing this argument to the lowest common denominator. It exists in the womb and therefore is a life. It exists on an oxygen tube a feeding tube even though it is brain dead and therefore is a life. Grey, that is a fear of death argument. There is nothing moral about these fears of death that then translate into violence against one's fellow human beings who aren't you, don't think as you, or believe as you, etc. that is prevalent throughout all of human history.

I'll add to GMorton's moral agent by reminding you Grey about a certain biblical authority. MOST anti-abortionists declare a biblical authority to assign a “personhood” to the fetus and from that standpoint then want to re-write the 14th Amendment to conform with their views of the bible. However, there are laws found in the 10 commandments about promises made before the Lord your God if not kept become the swearing of false oaths. Personhood, Grey, is certainly established should a baby be born. But, it is how we then go on to treat that baby, child, teenager and adult who does indeed become a unique individual that proves whether we are truly capable of loving our neighbor as ourselves or not. MOST anti-abortionists are too busy condemning their unique and individual neighbors and thus swearing a false oath before the Lord their God.

If we truly believe this was a human life we would in fact cherish it as such. We do not. A comment on two letters to follow.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 13 at 9:03 a.m.
Jim Yates is a case in point (13 November 2009) of a guy so busy hysterically trashing his fellow man that he doesn't consider that he is in fact as much a part of this country and therefore is as much a part of its problems and solutions as anyone else who lives here. No doubt Yates would march in many an anti-abortion parade and rally, then turn around and attack all his post-birth neighbors for not being as he is.

Ray Anderson goes on record regretting that Obama was ever born and that he actually grew up to become president. He refers to a YouTube link (and we all know what can be done to videofiles now don't we?) and swears up and down that Obama “is proud of being a Muslim.” If I know the original source of this then Obama was proud of his family who most certainly has an Islamic background. But Obama is himself undeniably Christian. And admits it on the Arabic TV where the interview took place.

Anderson then goes on post his misunderstanding of the facts to couple Obama's Muslim (without question) background with “dangerous anti-American enemies.” Got a question for everyone, when 9/11/2001 occurred and its aftermath, just how many people were “siding with the terrorists” carrying out the wrath of God against a “sinning nation?” There were at least a couple of letters to the editor in the Press that expressed that very view.

So, how is Obama immediately responsible as a CHRISTIAN president for the tragedy of Ft. Hood? Only if you are a Ray Anderson who takes wild leaps off the deep end.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 9:23 a.m.
AD,

-smile- You apparently can't resist another go-round any more than I can. Deeply held beliefs have that effect, I guess. That's probably why this debate wasn't settled long ago.

Potentials…

If you hadn't been born, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. Well, there's no denying that. You believe I would have been having it with some other manifestation of your essence. Perhaps. I certainly can't disprove the notion.

But I wouldn't be having it with you. Whatever it is that makes you uniquely 'you' - that wouldn't exist. That unique potential would have been lost to the world. Maybe you disagree with that - that whatever the really important 'things' are, they would still be represented. Again, I can't disprove that notion. But you can't prove it. And I'm sorry, but that's one I'm simply not willing to accept on faith alone.

You say that God is far too loving to ever deny a soul a chance at life. I say that's a powerful, beautiful, hope-filled belief, AD. If I took nothing else from your religion, I could embrace that idea quite easily. The problem is that my religion teaches me that I don't get to play God lightly or for purely personal reasons. If God ordained that soul should have a chance at life in that body, it would seem to me that I ought to be *very* sure in my mind and more importantly in my heart before I disagree and thwart what seems to be God's design.

There's a word for doing otherwise. That word is 'hubris.'

As to your 'fear of death' argument - it seems to me that you say 'a life is a life and all life is transitory'. Again, that's certainly true. But to say, 'life is life' and then reject any refutation by saying you don't approve of arguments that over-simplify things to their lowest common denominator…

I said to Sue that I see this as a very complex issue. One of the complexities is that there's such a thing as quality of life, and yes - that has to be considered as one factor.

*One* factor among many.

Last but not least and with respect to a biblical authority - you know my thoughts with respect to the Bible, AD. It's a good book full of great wisdom, *if* you know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. As you may recall, my personal winnowing fan is; 'Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as you would love yourself.'

“All the rest is mere commentary.”

And as far as, 'The Bible *says* in Chapter…!' The Bible also says that slaves should be obedient, houses should have flat roofs and gutters built to certain dimensions, mules are an abomination and anyone who wears cotton/wool blend slacks should be stoned to death.

The Bible is a good place to begin the search for truth. A very good place, in fact. But it's not the ending place. More to the point, it's not the final, decisive authority with respect to my beliefs on abortion. It just isn't.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 9:41 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Doesn't the unborn child share the same human nature as the mother?”

No. The mother is a moral agent (a person); the fetus is not.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 13 at 9:44 a.m.
As usual missing the point? *Grin* Grey, you are about the only pro-life dude I know who actually posts on this blog. That is why I don't mind getting into go rounds with you on this and other subjects. You are one of the people I can have these discussions with and not find it becoming a shouting match. That being said.

The ANTI-ABORTIONIST (not pro-life) is the guy who engages in a whimsy as to the assigning of personhood and even “human status” then as I illustrated in the above two letters; has no problem removing both elements when they absolutely disagree with the politics and etc. of their neighbors or who is now president of the U.S. In Anderson's case, he is a bigot as to Obama's background and uses his bigotry to tie Obama to a tragedy that could just as easily have happened if a Republican were president instead. The Press has no problem publishing these letters where those who write them exhibit absolutely nothing in either common sense or moral righteousness.

So be it if Obama has a Muslim background. Christians are dangerous too, if Jim Yates is any indication.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 13 at 10:15 a.m.
<<How is partial birth abortion defended, other than in “legal” or “political” terms, when it is undeniably an act of violence? >>

OK, I'll give the same answer as last time and couch it in a question you never answered.

Why is the particular procedure targeted in partial-birth bans when alternatives would remain legal?

More violent? No.

More gruesome? No.

Less deadly? No.

The answer is that it is political. In that procedure, the fetus is partially brought outside the womb feet first, so it can be called “partially born.” The term “partial birth” was created by activists, not the medical community.

A procedure that terminates without bringing the fetus of an identical age partially outside, would remain legal, because it is not “partially born”.

The choice of procedures depends on medical circumstances. But with a partial birth ban, the government would step in (thought you didn't like that?) and essentially dictate how this will go.

Why? It doesn't save a single fetus. It's because it would satisfy the politics. If this procedure is banned, then it's on to the next one.

So, can you defend this in terms that don't invoke the politics or legality for why this would be the case? Or put another way, why didn't they target all late-term procedures?

http://www.slate.com/id/2671/

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 13 at 10:18 a.m.
<<t was hard enough for Ilk_of_Morton to change his name to Morton_Pool_Salt and it is really unfair for you all to expect him to be able to keep up on all the threads on this blog.>>

Settle on a single name or move on, please.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 11:50 a.m.
AD,

My short, generalized reply would be to warn you against the danger of pointing to the thoughts of any one member (or even group of members) of any belief system as determinative of the value of the underlying belief.

As a general rule; 'Close-minded Idiot' and 'Absolutist Zealot' are both belief systems in and of themselves. Systems that usually transcend all others and have to be addressed apart from all others.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 13 at 11:53 a.m.
Just as I thought; no one has the courage to defend their position of support for late-term partial birth abortion for purposes of convenience for the mother.

gmorton offers the erroneous and deceptive argument that a “mercy killing” (euthanasia) is performed on the fetus (which infers they are only done when there is a major defect of the unborn “moral agent” which would cause undue suffering). But this is often the result when libertarian views are taken to the absurd where the only way out of the “corner” is to dump moral considerations.

The whole notion of imposing philosophic “wizardry” (moral agent) to counter common-sense principles of humane treatment of a fetus days or weeks or a couple of months from life outside the womb … evokes images straight out of Beckiett’s “Theatre of the Absurd.” But it can be an interesting preoccupation and avoidance of real life conflict. (Are Druid and Jeff listening?).

And Loone’ offers the same basic argument as gmorton – that late-term abortions are performed only for “legitimate” reasons like the health and welfare of mother and child - but without the pretentiousness.

And Sue … she is totally absent except for depositing the view “it just is” (the sole domain of the woman without any moral consideration or obligation).

And in typical form, Gary has rearranged my question to suit his … answer; and then not even form an answer.

If I did not conform to the nuances of strict technical (or activist) labels, then I am guilty” as charged.

To make the question as simple as possible (and in an attempt to eliminate more of the various defense mechanisms folks in this precarious position seem to develop) I will pose the question again . . .

How does one defend ALL late-term abortion procedures – and the associated “grisly” and “painful” procedures - when performed for the sole purpose of “convenience” for the mother? “Convenience” - The quality of being suitable to one's comfort, purposes, or needs.

Extra points for the Bonus question:

Why does it take a conservative, and all that this defines (malevolent, unmerciful, etc) to point out - to the all-loving and all caring liberals – the brutality of killing a perfectly functioning, developing human fetus for the lone purpose of “convenience?”

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 12:16 p.m.
Richard,

Only because I see my name specifically mentioned…

Do I take it then that since I'm pro-life, which in the partisan world of black and white pure dogma means I'm also strictly anti-abortion (though admittedly maybe not quite as absolutist and therefore 'pure' as to completely buy in to the phrasing of your 'bonus question')…

Does that mean I get to be a conservative now?

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on November 13 at 12:23 p.m.
It costs U.S. taxpayers one million per year, per soldier, to maintain a presence in Afghanistan. Adding 40,000 troops will bring force levels beyond 100,000 personnel.

One hundred billion dollars in deficit spending per year.

The same amount has been proposed to reform the health care system and does not add to the deficit.

45,000 U.S. citizens die each year from lack of health insurance. That's fifteen 9/11's every year.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 12:29 p.m.
gmorton,

– No. The mother is a moral agent (a person); the fetus is not. –

You're playing with arbitrary concepts and meaningless semantics again. I don't care if for the purposes of your screed you label the mother 'a flying purple dingbat' and then draw the distinction that the fetus isn't one.

What I care about - *all* I care about - is that the mother has realized her potential as a human being with all the fundamental rights that attend that realized potential. **And the fetus - being at least the start of a human being, as opposed to a flying purple dingbat or anything else except a human being - therefore has exactly the same potential.**

Assign any arbitrary label you want. A label - no matter how long-winded or lofty - won't alter the potential to which I refer in the slightest.

And for this issue, potential is all that concerns me.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 13 at 1:36 p.m.
As I suspected, Richard didn't answer my question. Didn't the first time I ask it either.

I don't understand the premise of your question, Richard. There are reasons beyond the convenience (whatever that means) of the mother.

It's a slippery slope to banning all abortions. I've said that before. Do you really think it would've stopped there?

At least these pro-lifers get it.

http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/op…

“Dr. Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will “protect children.” The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child. You wrongly assert that this ruling finds, “no constitutional right to slay a healthy, nearly born baby by stabbing it in the back of the head and vacuuming out its brains, all without even anesthetizing the child.” In truth, the “pro-life Justices” indicate repeatedly the abortionist can still do exactly that. The ruling even permits a textbook partial-birth abortion, if for example the mother is over “dilate[d]” (p. 24) and the baby, by “inadvertence,” is delivered up to the neck as in typical PBA. Then the abortionist can kill him by “intact D&E” (p. 24), i.e., by partial-birth abortion, exactly in the cruel manner you have just described/

“Some of us learned that Focus on the Family staff was falsely informing supporters that this PBA ban has outlawed abortions in the third trimester, so we recorded our own call to 800-A-FAMILY, and posted online that call with Susan from your correspondence department. She told us that with this PBA ruling, “The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal for women to have an abortion in the last trimester.” Online at KGOV.com, we also document other pro-life media outlets misrepresenting this vicious ruling. Following your example, many national ministries have spent years using the PBA ban to motivate financial donations, all the while misrepresenting the legal effect of the ban.”

Back to my question. Why outlaw a single procedure when that wouldn't have saved a single life, rather than all late-term abortions?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 1:55 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“gmorton offers the erroneous and deceptive argument that a “mercy killing” (euthanasia) is performed on the fetus (which infers they are only done when there is a major defect of the unborn “moral agent” which would cause undue suffering).”

Yes, “euthanasia” does imply that. That was an error on my part. I should have just said it was killed in a painless way (lethal injection).

The fetus is not an “unborn moral agent,” however. That is a contradiction in terms. A moral agent is an organism having certain properties, some of which (for humans) presuppose, not only birth, but a certain amount of development thereafter.

“The whole notion of imposing philosophic “wizardry” (moral agent) to counter common-sense principles of humane treatment of a fetus days or weeks or a couple of months from life outside the womb …”

That is the reason for doing the lethal injection, i.e., to end the fetus's life without suffering. Humane treatment requires different things for moral subjects such as animals and fetuses, and moral agents (persons).

“Why does it take a conservative, and all that this defines (malevolent, unmerciful, etc) to point out - to the all-loving and all caring liberals – the brutality of killing a perfectly functioning, developing human fetus for the lone purpose of 'convenience?'”

Well, because a perfectly functioning, developing human fetus is not yet a person, i.e., it does not have the properties which define personhood. It does (at 20 weeks) have the properties of moral subjects, so is entitled to that level of moral consideration.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 2:06 p.m.
Spoketucky wrote,

“45,000 U.S. citizens die each year from lack of health insurance.”

Don't know where you got that, Spoke, but it is nonsense. No one dies from “lack of health insurance.”

Methinks you've been reading some statist hype.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 2:20 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“You're playing with arbitrary concepts and meaningless semantics again.”

Well, I think I defined that term fairly well. A moral agent is a creature which has certain morally relevant properties. Are you claiming those properties are arbitrary and meaningless?

You are fond of describing as “arbitrary” and “meaningless” any term which makes a distinction you'd rather not make. You made the same comment re: “public goods,” a term well-defined and found in any elementary economics textbook. But those terms (“arbitrary” and “meaningless”) have meanings also. If you try to apply them to terms which are well-defined and have definite referents, then you are using them *arbitrarily*.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 2:45 p.m.
gmorton,

You like definite terms? Okay. Here's one I'd rather we use. I'd rather use it because unlike your philosophical constructs, this relates directly to the hard reality of the real world and forms the recognized basis for the real-world decision-making process.

The term is 'human being.'

I think we can fairly quickly agree the mother is a 'human being' and she therefore is our definitional baseline.

Now, with reference only to the term in question - 'human being' - and in relation to the issue at hand, what is the unborn fetus? Is it 'a human being' or 'not a human being'? I submit that as a binary choice with only those two possibilities because again - in the real world that is the only hard reality distinction that is actually relevant.

What's your reply?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 5:56 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Now, with reference only to the term in question - 'human being' - and in relation to the issue at hand, what is the unborn fetus? Is it 'a human being' or 'not a human being'?”

The question is not relevant, as you'd know had you read my previous comment in this thread, i.e.,

“Human being” is a biological concept; the term denotes an organism having certain biological characteristics. But the controversy over abortion is a moral one, and only the *moral* properties of an organism are relevant to moral questions. It makes no difference, morally speaking, what DNA an organism has, or what is the shape of its body, or what biochemical processes keep it alive.”

You seem determined to base moral decisions on certain biological properties of an organism, which are morally irrelevant. That is the how earlier generations were able to conclude that Africans were not persons and could therefore be enslaved (“they are the wrong color”).

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 6:00 p.m.
Sorry, Jeffrey. I didn't answer your question. But I already answered it in the same comment above:

“Also, there is no serious question that a human fetus is a human being. It has human morphology and physiology, and its DNA would be identified in any genetics laboratory as being human.”

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 13 at 6:38 p.m.
Gary - this is really quite simple. I have never proposed banning a single procedure or any procedure. You cannot find anywhere in any of my postings where I have proposed any bans on abortion. That is not to say that I do not oppose many of the “reasons” used to abort a vital fetus. But you design your questions around the premise that I have articulated banning some procedures and not others. That is just not the case.

My questions don’t involve the government at all. And that is where you are making your mistake. My question is really very, very simple . . .

… In those instances where a mother decides to abort her child - for reasons that do not involve a threat to her health or that of the baby - how do we as a society (or as an individual) condone or elect to end that life of a fetus? What are the justifications, if you will, other than mere “choice” or a “political” right? It is a moral question (which I realize makes a lot of people very uncomfortable … by design.

There, have I made all the “required” conditions understandable? Or are there more clarifications anyone would need?

I will await further evading of the question or rationalizations based on political or legal points.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 13 at 6:52 p.m.
gmorton still wants to hide behind philosophical banalities and insipid postulations designed for “academic” discussion. But for the sake of argument, I will play along.

Since you acknowledge that a 20-week old fetus is now a “subject” of moral consideration; do you, as a moral agent support a woman’s choice to end the development [and potential life outside the womb] of a vital and healthy fetus in the third trimester when there is no threat to the life or health of the mother or the child?

Very simple question.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 7:02 p.m.
gmorton,

I disregard your first reply beyond it's proof that a discussion of human rights and human reproduction without reference to an entity's status as 'a human being' is not and never can be more than an exercise in empty sophistry.

– You seem determined to base moral decisions on certain biological properties of an organism, which are morally irrelevant.–

This is where you and I always fundamentally disagree. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. Philosophical niceties aren't relevant as anything more than mental exercises unless and until they have *practical* relevance to the real world - as your following example proves:

– That is the how earlier generations were able to conclude that Africans were not persons and could therefore be enslaved (“they are the wrong color”). –

As I say, it's the practical, real-world outcome that gives that example it's meaning. To just say, 'You are the wrong color and therefore less than me' is nothing more than an empty insult. It's only truly meaningful when the practical result is, 'And since you're less than me, I can therefore rightfully enslave you.'

It's the *tangible consequences* of a moral judgment that are meaningful in the real world.

Moving along to a significantly more substantive reply…

– “Also, there is no serious question that a human fetus is a human being. It has human morphology and physiology, and its DNA would be identified in any genetics laboratory as being human.” –

Now we finally come to it. Can you kill a human being simply on a whim? Or does taking a human life require far greater justification?

I submit that 'justification' is the real question of abortion. I further submit that it by no means admits of a simple, 'one size fits every situation' dogmatic answer.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 13 at 7:07 p.m.
Spoke took that figure straight from a study backed by “Physicians for a National Health Program,” obviously a biased and self serving “study,” if one uses the same “standard” of questioning environmental studies that are associated in any way with anyone who ever worked for an oil company.

Sorry, Spoke, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; I am sure you would agree.

Besides, the study in question is flawed because it did not track how long anyone was without insurance, the death risk is overstated, and it confuses lack of health insurance with lack of health care - which is often a choice. I have known people who don’t like doctors, won’t go to doctors, and therefore have no need for insurance.

Besides, as gmorton correctly stated; no has ever died from lack of insurance, just as it is the case that millions of people DO die with insurance.

Silly politically-inspired study. And Spoke uses it to protest the war in Afghanistan. How silly is that?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 13 at 7:07 p.m.
Spoke took that figure straight from a study backed by “Physicians for a National Health Program,” obviously a biased and self serving “study,” if one uses the same “standard” of questioning environmental studies that are associated in any way with anyone who ever worked for an oil company.

Sorry, Spoke, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; I am sure you would agree.

Besides, the study in question is flawed because it did not track how long anyone was without insurance, the death risk is overstated, and it confuses lack of health insurance with lack of health care - which is often a choice. I have known people who don’t like doctors, won’t go to doctors, and therefore have no need for insurance.

Besides, as gmorton correctly stated; no has ever died from lack of insurance, just as it is the case that millions of people DO die with insurance.

Silly politically-inspired study. And Spoke uses it to protest the war in Afghanistan. How silly is that?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 13 at 7:15 p.m.
Jeff … I just do not want to get entangled in your pointless and endless splitting of hairs and over analysis of even the simplest of matters. You don’t debate or argue or even discuss matters, you deconstruct the ideas and concepts and then rearrange them in an almost unrecognizable form, and decipherable only to … “A Beautiful Mind.”

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 10:07 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“Since you acknowledge that a 20-week old fetus is now a “subject” of moral consideration; do you, as a moral agent support a woman’s choice to end the development [and potential life outside the womb] of a vital and healthy fetus in the third trimester when there is no threat to the life or health of the mother or the child?”

You'll have to clarify what you mean by “support.” There are really two questions there – whether I would “support” such a decision by a particular woman for a particular pregnancy, by trying to encourage or discourage her from making it (and perhaps assisting her financially with it), and supporting her *right to make the decision*.

There would be many circumstances in which I would try to discourage an abortion – sometimes for moral reasons, sometimes for other reasons, but there are *no* circumstances in which I would not support her *right* to make that decision, without government interference.

Perhaps a “worst case” would be where a woman decides to abort in the 34th week because she has just won a free Caribbean cruise in a drawing and wants to be “slim, trim, and unattached” for the trip. I would consider that a very poor moral judgment on her part. I'd make the same judgment if she euthanized her cat or dog, rather than pay for boarding it, for the same reason. She is probably a person I would not want very much to do with. But I would still defend her right to make that choice.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 13 at 10:32 p.m.
“Following your example, many national ministries have spent years using the PBA ban to motivate financial donations, all the while misrepresenting the legal effect of the ban.”
-Colorado Right to Life

Ding ding ding ding!

PBA ban didn't prevent and can't stop any late term abortions. It just changes the methodology to one that is somewhat more dangerous for the woman, but is equally terminal to the fetus.

The “conveinience” issue that Richard is harping about is battle long fought over not the woman's physical health, but her mental health, and how that should be evaluated by medical and mental health professionals.

Richard would have you believe that it's a common situation where a woman who has been carrying the fetus for months has a “bad day” and decides to abort, a rather trivial reason. The likelihood of this happening is quite small, but I suppose it could happen in rare cases.

Far more likely is that events have produced severe mental distress in the mind of the woman, such as being beaten and/or abandoned by her partner, or her loved ones. Psychosis, NPD, OCD, or some other genuine and serious mental health medical condition that would affect her ability to carry the fetus to term and give it the care necessary to thrive after birth. The complexities of such matters are beyond pigeon-holing and require considerable weighing of the factors involved. If it's an issue of the woman being able to care for the fetus after it is born, than certainly adoption should be one of areas to be discussed. But you can't FORCE that choice upon a woman either, encourage, yes, but it simply cannot be forced.

In the end, what decision results comes out of some intense soul searching, psychological inquiry and counseling, and I guarantee the complexity of such process can not be reduced to law and ordinance.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 13 at 10:38 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“I disregard your first reply beyond it's proof that a discussion of human rights and human reproduction without reference to an entity's status as 'a human being' is not and never can be more than an exercise in empty sophistry.”

Human beings (exemplars of the species *homo sapiens*) are accorded “human rights” because they are, once they have reached a certain point in their development, moral agents. They are not accorded rights because they have a certain configuration of DNA. You are basing your judgment on morally irrelevant biological and physiological properties of human beings and ignoring the morally relevant ones.

“As I say, it's the practical, real-world outcome that gives that example it's meaning … . it's the *tangible consequences* of a moral judgment that are meaningful in the real world.”

Not sure what your point is there. Does deciding whether a fetus is or is not a person (moral agent) not have tangible consequences?

“Can you kill a human being simply on a whim? Or does taking a human life require far greater justification?”

Depends on whether the human life in question belongs to a person (moral agent), a moral subject, or neither (a 1 day embryo is neither, but it is still a “human life”).

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 14 at 8:50 a.m.
Having no cause to come back to visit here all of Friday; first Jeff Grey, so you suddenly don't like it that I can point out people who express their most violent and repugnant thoughts that the CDA Press delights in publishing. That these individuals may indeed represent something that you wouldn't care to be associated with? Well yes, anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to be associated with such dudes as I had mentioned. However, are they representative of guys like Roeder who disliking the fact that Dr. Tiller could legally practice in the state of Kansas his medical profession then sets out to kill him? The answer would certainly be, yes.

There would be less semantical splitting of hairs if everyone who makes much the same arguments as you do on abortion as to the definition of human, or person, even in the womb; would also apply the same arguments to their neighbors, even to the neighbors they disagree with.

Next, “Richard,” the to the convenience of the woman argument is always a favorite game of anti-abortionists. That is how they can discount just how and why abortion (aborticide actually) isn't a one size fits all issue. If the woman found her pregnancy inconvenient, she would be more likely to have it ended in the first trimester than in the third. At the latest, that inconvenient pregnancy would be ended by the second trimester.

However, if a woman does seek abortion services by the third trimester, there are generally health factors involved. The fetus died or will die upon delivery. The woman faces severe health risks if she attempts to carry to term. She is undergoing a late term miscarriage. The fetus is too badly deformed to survive. Generally health and mental status prove to be justification enough to end a pregnancy and that probably at most 1% of all abortions performed are factually third trimester. So, health would be the deciding factor and would take precedence.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 9:55 a.m.
AD,

What can I say in reply? Yes I disagree - *vehemently!! - with someone who would murder an abortion doctor in the fundamentally misguided belief that you have to kill to preserve life.

Does some wild-eyed zealot's actions mean that all pro-lifers are also murdering zealots? Can one person's greviously flawed misunderstanding of a belief be imputed to every individual who professes the same belief?

Every belief system has people who profess its tenants and still get it terribly wrong. But does that make the belief itself wrong? There are some deeply misguided people out there who confuse Druidism with Wicca with Satanism. Should I judge Druidism by them and their statements and beliefs? Hell, I used to confuse Druidism with Wicca. Does my confusion and my error reflect *in any way* on Druidism?

Or should it rightfully only reflect on *my* lack of understanding?

As for – … if everyone who makes much the same arguments as you do on abortion as to the definition of human, or person, even in the womb; would also apply the same arguments to their neighbors… – You're absolutely right! “Love your neighbor as yourself” and then practice what you preach.

So why doesn't that knife cut both ways?

If my neighbors who have been born deserve my respect and my recognition of their rights, why doesn't a potential neighbor distinguished from the others only by how long he or she has been around (not quite yet one year) not deserve the same?

Look, for both you and gmorton, I'll do it again:

Absent all the philosophical contortions and arcane labels, in the practical terms of the real world - absent the intervention of outside forces, what distinguishes a just conceived human embryo from a human being *except for the passage of nine months?*

Slap any label you want on that developing fetus at any time you want. I can rebut any distinction you might draw or any label you might apply based on the nature of the unborn child - *ANY* distinction or label - by saying nothing more than, 'That distinction becomes meaningless with the passage of a little time.'

And in my book, any distinction that ephemeral needs to be challenged.

Frankly, gmorton, I find it hard to believe that someone as clearly intelligent as you are still struggles with a concept that simple.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 10:00 a.m.
One other point just in passing:

– The fetus died or will die upon delivery. The woman faces severe health risks if she attempts to carry to term. She is undergoing a late term miscarriage. The fetus is too badly deformed to survive. Generally health and mental status prove to be justification enough to end a pregnancy and that probably at most 1% of all abortions performed are factually third trimester. So, health would be the deciding factor and would take precedence. –

As it should in my opinion. Those are all supportable, albeit tragic, reasons for abortion.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 14 at 11:51 a.m.
I am afraid, Loone’ that you are a victim of the deceit of those who would have you believe that “bad day” decisions of women aborting her child in the latter days of term, is a “rare” or non-existent event. As a person of conscience, I believe you would be shocked how easy it is for that woman having a bad day to have her “inconvenience” disposed of.

And when you then attempt to dodge that point by making the “mental illness” defense, you are not only including true issues of mental soundness and capability, but you are also allowing the flimsiest excuses of; “I feel trapped,” “I feel SO overwhelmed; how will I take care of a baby?” It is way too easy for a sympathetic doctor to “diagnose” a “threatening” medical condition. Why do these women not then receive “counseling” or therapy for her upset? Where are the safeguards? Do we not owe that to the mother … and the unborn?

And how about the woman who had 6 abortions - until someone finally told her NO - because she could not “deal” with the thought of her body becoming scarred with stretch marks?

This is so similar to the ubiquitous cries that, “Major Hasan is a “victim” of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome” - not a terrorist!” “He became “infected” by treating soldiers returning from war with horrific stories! Same logic; same excuse; same danger.

If you remain “sensitive” to the plight of women who behave in this manner, then can we at least revisit the idea of sterilization? Can we at least do that for the unborn?

Why should have a lower standard for a woman who wants to abort her child, than we have for someone who has abused a child? She can, you know, put the baby up for adoption!

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 14 at 12:01 p.m.
And gmorton, you clarified your position a bit; but you still seem to leave “wiggle-room” in your highly philosophic, detached - and academic - stance.

While I share many of your small-government positions as they relate to governmental interference in people’s pursuits of happiness, property rights, economic freedoms, etc; the “human” element in me (empathetic as opposed to purely academic) cannot allow me to condone (by virtue of remaining neutral) subjecting so-called “moral-subjects” - be they living animals or human fetuses - to deliberate, non-circumstantial infliction of pain and death.

And government must have a role - despite one’s purely intellectual offense to that concept - to protect the vulnerable “moral-subject” (animal, fetus, the severely developmentally disabled) from harm for impulsive and inconsequential reasons (as with the pregnant woman preparing for a cruise).

And the arguments put forth by Loone and others, that late term abortions for capricious reasons are “rare,” is as false as the common view we once had that innocent children are not the target of abuse from “responsible” adults - be they priests, doctors, teachers … or parents.

But this belief, dovetailed with the “academic” supposition that we have less responsibility for the unborn - for purely rational, political and “devised” legal reasons - results in the current popular belief that the unborn are “undeserving” of the same protections to the (potentials of) life and liberty we were all so fortunate to have been granted, and which we all so cherish.

We will someday look back - as we now do at the similarly once contrived, convenient, AND legal view that blacks were but 3/5 “human” - and we will wonder how we could be so blinded by our prejudices, our egocentric views and our own indifference.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 14 at 12:02 p.m.
Why loone, why can’t we “force” adoption on a woman mentally or emotionally incapable of caring for a child? Because we don’t have the political will to do so? That is not a justifiable reason to disregard the welfare of a helpless child.

Besides, we take children away from parents all the time. Sounds to me like just another in a string of excuses for confronting the “rights” of women to abort her child - even for the flimsiest excuses!

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 14 at 12:26 p.m.
<<If the woman found her pregnancy inconvenient, she would be more likely to have it ended in the first trimester than in the third. At the latest, that inconvenient pregnancy would be ended by the second trimester.>>

Druid - What is your source for that assumption? And it is merely an assumption, because there is virtually no way to investigateor determine the “reasons” why a woman chooses to abort her unboren child in the latter stages of pregnancy - except for anecdotal evidence. And it is very, very easy to say that there was a “legitimate’ medical reason for the abortion.

I know almost first-hand - unfortuanatly - that a woman CAN and DOES make a decision at the 24 week stage to abort her child when there is absolutely no physical or mental threat to her, or her unborn child … for issues of “convenience.” Right here in Washington State.

But you already seem to understand that fact, when you couch your statements with the term; “Generally” health and mental status prove to be justification enough … “

And then you have the audacity to “guess” that late term abortions for non medical reasons represent no more than 1%. Again, you have absolutely no evidence to support that figure, even if you are able to justify 1% as inconsequential.

Just one more attempt on these pages to justify the destruction of a developing human being for reasons that could not be justifed if it were an animal.

In fact, how many on these pages would admit to putting their healthy, robust, loving 3 or 4 year old pet dog “put-down” because you wanted to move into a no-pet, singles condominium?

Any takers?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 14 at 12:39 p.m.
Jeff, I wish to humbly apologize for my unkind words of yesterday. I was frustrated at the “legalize” being discussed by some and mis-applied that to you.

I become very frustrated at times when discussing such impacting issues as this one and then become confronted with “arguments” which uses the same “applied logic” one would use writing a treatise on the banal topic such as the “economic vitality of Honduras.”

I see now that what I had read was not something written by you. There is no excuse for writing what I did.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 1:12 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“If my neighbors who have been born deserve my respect and my recognition of their rights, why doesn't a potential neighbor distinguished from the others only by how long he or she has been around (not quite yet one year) not deserve the same?”

There are two mistakes there, both of which I've already addressed. First, you ignore the problem with “potential persons.” The problem is that “potential persons” are not actual persons. They are only hypothetical, or possible, persons. You have an infinite number of possible neighbors, or alternatively, a finite number with infinitely many possible properties, which can be contradictory. Your “potential neighbor” is both potentially male and potentially female; potentially black and potentially white; potentially a cop and and potentially a robber; potentially a Democrat and potentially a Republican; potentially Mother Theresa and potentially Hitler – all at the same time.

You have a disagreement of mode. You can't derive actual obligations of actual persons to hypothetical persons. You can only derive hypothetical obligations of hypothetical persons to other hypothetical persons, and actual obligations of actual persons to other actual persons. If you try to mix them up your theory becomes contradictory and incoherent.

The second mistake is your claim that a “potential neighbor” is “distinguished from the others only by how long he or she has been around.” That is plainly false. You can invite your neighbor to a BBQ; you can't invite your potential neighbor. You can go fishing with your neighbor; you can't go with your potential neighbor. You can visit your neighbor in the hospital; you can't visit your potential neighbor. You can exchange Xmas gifts with your neighbor, but not with potential neighbors. You can ask your neighbor his thoughts on the abortion controversy; you can't ask your potential neighbor. Those are fairly important distinctions.

If you substitute “fetus” for “potential person” in your claim above, it is also false. I doubt it is necessary to list all the differences again between your neighbors, all of whom are moral agents, and fetuses, which are not.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 1:38 p.m.
Richard,

Your gracious appology is accepted with sincere appreciation.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 2:04 p.m.
– The problem is that “potential persons” are not actual persons. They are only hypothetical, or possible, persons. –

That distinction becomes meaningless after the passage of at most nine months.

Further - it is logically absurd to say 'potential' is meaningless because it is only potential. That is a patently empty exercise in semantics.

If I blow your head off with a 12 gauge, can I defend my act as not murderous by saying, 'Him being alive tomorrow is only a potential. Since it's clearly impossible for him to realize that potential, I took nothing from him'?

– You can't derive actual obligations of actual persons to hypothetical persons. –

But I'm not engaging in a purely hypothetical. I have a viable fetus that will become a person. It is YOU who is committing the error by attempting to render a tangible intangible solely by branding it with an arbitrary label that you claim makes it intangible.

– If you substitute “fetus” for “potential person” in your claim above, it is also false. I doubt it is necessary to list all the differences again between your neighbors, all of whom are moral agents, and fetuses, which are not. –

'Moral agent.' *Sophistry!* *Utterly empty* rationalization! 'Flying purple dingbat' for all I care - at least with respect to the *TANGIBLE*, real world because this 'moral agent' claptrap is every bit as meaningless in that context! 'A human being in at most nine months' is the ONLY relevant characterization *for the purposes of determining if that fetus gets to realize its potential.*

You say I'm obsessed with turning this into a question of biology? Newsflash: human reproduction is in fact a matter of biology. The actual act of aborting or not aborting a fetus is a matter of biology. It's a matter *tangible things that exist in the real world*, of life and of death. Not of lofty, arcane philosophical concepts.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 2:08 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“And government must have a role - despite one’s purely intellectual offense to that concept - to protect the vulnerable “moral-subject” (animal, fetus, the severely developmentally disabled) from harm for impulsive and inconsequential reasons (as with the pregnant woman preparing for a cruise).”

Is slaughtering a cow or a chicken because one wants a tasty meal, a comfy feather pillow, or snazzy shoes any less “inconsequential”?

The chief differences between moral subjects and moral agents are:

1) Moral agents, but not moral subjects, can envision a future (including their own death). They can visualize possible futures and order their behavior to bring about the future they prefer (they are not always successful, of course, but they are usually partly successful).

2) Moral agents, but not moral subjects, can recognize one another as moral agents and can recognize moral subjects as moral subjects. They, but not moral subjects, can take moral factors into account when making decisions and make moral judgments. As a resullt, moral agents have duties to moral subjects, but the moral subjects have no moral duties (not being able to conceive them).

Death is less a harm to moral subjects than moral agents, because the former cannot envision it and therefore cannot be terrified by it. They cannot visualize the imagined future that would be extinguished by their death, and hence cannot suffer the distress that contemplation causes to moral agents.

Moral subjects do, however, experience pleasure and pain (that is the minimum requirement). Some of them also have interests and goals, can be happy or unhappy, feel fearful or secure. The duties of moral agents to moral subjects are determined by the morally relevant qualities they actually possess. Hence, in most cultures, killing animals is condoned, but torturing them or starving them is not.

Moral subjects are members of the “moral universe,” or moral community. But moral agents' duties to them differ, because they differ from moral agents in their morally relevant properties.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 2:36 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“– The problem is that “potential persons” are not actual persons. They are only hypothetical, or possible, persons. –

“That distinction becomes meaningless after the passage of at most nine months.”

That is question-begging. You are responding to an argument for the difference between actuality and possibility by citing another possibility.

We are not acting nine months from now. We are acting now (actual), upon the reality as of now. In nine months (hypothetical) that reality might be different, and so our decision (hypothetical) might then be different also.

“If I blow your head off with a 12 gauge, can I defend my act as not murderous by saying, 'Him being alive tomorrow is only a potential. Since it's clearly impossible for him to realize that potential, I took nothing from him'?”

You would not be prosecuted based on what would be the case tomorrow, but upon what you did today, and the status of the victim today. Tomorrow's “potentials” and possibilities have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

What a strange argument.

“But I'm not engaging in a purely hypothetical. I have a viable fetus that will become a person.”

Sorry, but it is a “purely hypothetical.” The fetus will become a person if conditions X,Y,Z are satisfied. That is a conditional statement in the future tense. That makes it hypothetical. The effectuating conditions are not satisfied in the present, but that is when the decision is to be made.

The chemicals on the laboratory shelf will also become a person if conditions A,B,C are satisfied. Does that limit what we may do today with those chemicals?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 14 at 2:46 p.m.
gmorton -

I see that you will not “detach” from the cosmic view you have on this subject.

And I see that you can accurately recite the provisions of the philosophy you adhere to. But I believe I have become completely revolted by the “moral agents' duties to them differ, because they differ from moral agents in their morally relevant properties,” responses. I guess I have not experienced anyone who can compartmentalize themselves so perfectly that they can stand “above” the fray with mere postulates read from a philosophic treatise.

In other words … next time I am curiuos about your take on a topic involving issues of morality … I will merely turn my computer on and do a google search. I will gain the same understanding.

Are you certain your name is not HAL and that you are not but a programmed computer?

And I assure you that I ask this as a purely “moral agent.”

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 2:50 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“I have a viable fetus that will become a person. It is YOU who is committing the error by attempting to render a tangible intangible solely by branding it with an arbitrary label that you claim makes it intangible.”

Are you saying this person whom the fetus will become is “tangible”?

Is this person a Cubs or Yankees fan? Democrat or Republican? Married or single? Fat or skinny?

You do know what “tangible” means, don't you? It means something you and everyone else can observe, weigh, measure, feel, etc. I don't think your “potential person” qualifies. Whatever does qualify is not potential, but actual.

Contrary to your claim there, you are trying to make an *in*tangible tangible.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 3:12 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“I guess I have not experienced anyone who can compartmentalize themselves so perfectly that they can stand “above” the fray with mere postulates read from a philosophic treatise.”

No reading from any treatise, Richard (though some of those thoughts are not original with me).

Nor are all the differences mentioned between moral subjects and moral agents “postulates.” Some are (we don't know, for example, whether a frog has goals), but most are fairly obvious.

I think you're suggesting that some non-rational, non-empirical considerations must be brought to bear. I realize that many people do that, but they are not likely to lead to a resolution of these issues. In fact, they guarantee perpetual disagreement, because they reject the only means we have of resolving disagreements, namely, evidence and reason.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 4:05 p.m.
gmorton,

A fetus developing in the womb is tangible. It's real. More importantly, it has the very real potential to become a human being. Labels don't change that. Empty philosophy that seeks to render a tangible intangible doesn't change that.

I'm simply utterly unconvinced by your continued attempts to draw a meaningless distinction based on empty semantics - a meaningless distinction that must ignore any tangible reality that doesn't fit neatly into its intangible philosophical fabric.

Like Zeno, you've built a cloud-piercing baroque tower of logic that stands monument to a fallacy with no relationship or application to the real world.

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on November 14 at 4:36 p.m.
richie: Don't accuse me of anything without providing proof for your claims.

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-i…

That study I quoted was conducted well before any debate began on health care reform. I know you'll claim the Harvard School of Medicine is filled with liberal hacks, but most reasonable people would trust their findings. The researchers simply wanted to examine the relationship between the uninsured and premature, preventable deaths. For instance, women with health insurance receive regular pap smears that detect cervical cancer in the very early stages where treatment almost always results in complete remission. Women can walk around with the cancer as it become increasingly lethal without ever knowing about the time bomb that ticks within. There are numerous other examples cited in the study that happen all too often and would be prevented with access to health care because the conditions would be revealed during routine examinations.

I hope that helped clear gmorton's haze as well, one that allows the spewing of nonsensical statements like “no on has ever died from lack of health insurance.”

I noticed neither of you disputed or are offended by the price tag for escalating failed policies in Afghanistan. Obama needs to check himself and quit worrying whether or not people will think he's tough. The tough choice is not always listening to the hawks and walk the walk of dialogue/diplomacy he crowed about while seeking election.

The U.S. cannot sustain 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. In addition to the troops there are civilian contractors at a ratio of about 2:1 meaning overall U.S. commitment in terms of people will exceed 300,000. Most of those civilians are involved in duties the military normally did for themselves during war time. If those civilian “jobs” were replaced with military personnel there would have been need of a draft a long time ago. Are you willing to send your kids and grandchildren to engage in that conflict, even if they don't want to go? Any escalation in Afghanistan MUST contain a call for national sacrifice in the form of higher taxes to pay for the war effort and a draft of eligible citizens from all social classes.

You'd see how fast we'd be out of there then.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 5:29 p.m.
This finally sank in:

– 1) Moral agents, but not moral subjects, can envision a future (including their own death). They can visualize possible futures and order their behavior to bring about the future they prefer (they are not always successful, of course, but they are usually partly successful). –

Wait… are you saying that by “visualizing possible futures” they are capable of recognizing potential? (In that the future is by definition nothing but potential.) And to order those potentials, they can further recognize that just because a potential has many possible outcomes, that doesn't necessarily mean that the potential is without present meaning?

gmorton, are you not a moral agent?

– Is this person a Cubs or Yankees fan? Democrat or Republican? Married or single? Fat or skinny? –

Again - it took me a while to recognize the fundamental fallacy, but I finally managed to do so. Like everyone else, my 'potential person' might be any of those things. The fact that multiple possibilities exist is irrelevant so long as one fundamental possibility exists to enable all the others - the potential to become a human being who can realize any of them.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 6:55 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“A fetus developing in the womb is tangible. It's real.”

Yes, it is. But it is not a moral agent.

“More importantly, it has the very real potential to become a human being.”

Yes, it does. When (if) it realizes that potential, we will treat it as a moral agent.

Having the potential to become an X doesn't make something an X.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 7:19 p.m.
Spoketucky wrote,

“I hope that helped clear gmorton's haze as well, one that allows the spewing of nonsensical statements like 'no on has ever died from lack of health insurance.'”

Sorry, Spoke. Pap smears cost, on average, $100. Plus, most communities, including Spokane, have subsidized or charity clinics where women can get pap smears and breast exams free.

http://www.srhd.org/services/bcchp.asp

Women don't die from “lack of health insurance.” They die from cancer, because they did not think an exam as important as new pair of shoes, or was worth the trouble.

Plus, you are aware, aren't you, that 2/3 of those who do not have insurance have sufficient incomes to buy it?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 7:30 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“Wait… are you saying that by “visualizing possible futures” they are capable of recognizing potential?”

Yes.

“And to order those potentials, they can further recognize that just because a potential has many possible outcomes, that doesn't necessarily mean that the potential is without present meaning?”

I didn't claim it was “without meaning.” It is recognized as a potential (possibility), and not mistaken for a reality. That allows me to act in order to bring that potential to fruition. E.g., if I visualize a potential house, I can draw plans and save the money to build it. But I don't sell my present house, move my furniture, or take out an insurance policy until the house is built. I.e., I don't mistake my imagined, potential house for a real house.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 14 at 7:47 p.m.
Jeffrey,

If the City of Spokane could collect taxes on all potential houses, all its budget problems would be solved.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 14 at 10:04 p.m.
“Why loone, why can’t we “force” adoption on a woman mentally or emotionally incapable of caring for a child? Because we don’t have the political will to do so? That is not a justifiable reason to disregard the welfare of a helpless child.”

It's not a helpless child. A child has been born. A fetus has not.

Please explain how such a forcing of a woman to carry a fetus to term would work, exactly. Prisons for preggos?

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 15 at 3:27 a.m.
For both gmorton and Spokel,

Your similar arguments fail because they are both founded upon a fundamental fallacy.

gmorton, you have continually tap-danced around the fallacy with this illogical construct of 'moral agency' - something that I see as pure fiction of convenience. (The fallacy and the fiction having become even more obvious as a result of the fundamental contradiction inherent in the very definition of the term versus its application, as I pointed out above.)

–Yes, it does. When (if) it realizes that potential, we will treat it as a moral agent.

Having the potential to become an X doesn't make something an X.–

**Actively intervening to thwart the realization of a potential and then claiming that since that potential can't be realized, it's not a factor in the intervention is logically absurd upon its face.**

That is the fundamental flaw in your argument that you've never addressed and that is what renders it an empty house-of-cards. And it doesn't get any better no matter how artfully you re-arrange the cards or how many cards you add to the stack.

Spokel, this is the same fallacious argument you're advancing. 'A fetus hasn't been born' is a meaningless rationalization for intervening to ensure it never will be. Absent the intervention of outside forces or random chance, the progression from fetus to human being is an *inevitable* process.

If you intervene to prevent something that will otherwise happen, you can't then say your intervention isn't a factor because what you prevented now isn't going to happen.

That's an circular, meaningless argument no matter how deeply you try to disguise it under arcane philosophical claptrap.

(And please spare me the nonsensical, 'Anything *might* happen tomorrow so I can do whatever I want today and not be responsible' argument. You *might* die of a heart attack before you hit the ground after I push you off the top of the Sears Tower, so how can they prosecute me for murder if I give you a shove?)

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 15 at 11:51 a.m.
>>Please explain how such a forcing of a woman to carry a fetus to term would work, actually. Prisons for preggos?>>

Loone’ - You don’t “force” a woman to carry to full term; you merely don’t allow her the easy access to (legal, government sanctioned, and often paid for) abortion. Sounds to me like another example of the (upside-down) world of liberalism.

The responsibility for the welfare of the fetus is on the mother; we have allowed (with sanctioned aborting when there is no medical justification) an easy out for those who choose NOT to be responsible.

What kind of a society awards that kind of irresponsibility (by facilitating the irresponsible act)? One that places more value on “convenience” for the (irresponsible) woman, than it does for the (innocent) human fetus.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 15 at 12:34 p.m.
Spoke - I didn’t accuse you of anything, other than citing a study that has been targeted as a flawed study with associations to a group that proposes and supports national health care.

There is no “scientific” way to determine that people without health insurance would not have died in the same manner or timeframe, had they, instead, been “provided” health insurance. One would have to assume that by providing insurance (key word here is “providing”) to the un-insured, that those individuals would alter their unhealthy or risky habits.

I would venture a guess you would find a link between having no insurance, and engaging in unhealthy, risky behavior. Why do you want me to subsidize bad behavior? We already do that for women who choose to abort their late-term unborn child when there are no health risks! What will be next? Paying car insurance for those who drink and drive?

A major fault with the liberal/progressive worldview is that it fails to recognize and understand human nature. It is faulty reasoning to believe that if government “provided” free insurance, risky behaviors would diminish. That runs counter to human behavior.

Plus, it is a worldview that believes it can and should manipulate and control behavior. It mostly can’t and it shouldn’t, short of sanctions against bad behavior - not rewards.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 15 at 12:43 p.m.
I wonder what Planned Parenthood is afraid of when it sued - took to court - a former director of a Planned Parenthood facility who resigned her position after observing an ultrasound of a 13 week old fetus which was - in her words - “struggling” to live as it was being aborted.

After resigning, this woman chose to speak out about her experiences. PP then sued this woman for “breach of contract”

What are they afraid of? What is in their “contract”? Employees are not allowed to divulge what goes on in its clinics? Why? Why is that so important?

What are they hiding?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 15 at 2:47 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“gmorton, you have continually tap-danced around the fallacy with this illogical construct of 'moral agency' - something that I see as pure fiction of convenience.”

It would be helpful if you could state the “fallacy” and point out which particular principle of logic the definition of “moral agent” violates. Those terms (“fallacy” and “illogical”) also have definite meanings, Jeffrey. You seem to be using them merely to express disapproval, rather like, “Bee-ess”, or “Bleh.”

“**Actively intervening to thwart the realization of a potential and then claiming that since that potential can't be realized, it's not a factor in the intervention is logically absurd upon its face.**

“That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.”

I've made no such argument, or any such claim. I've offered no justifications for abortion that make any mention of potential, or the realization or non-realization thereof. The argument has been that the fetus is not a moral agent at the time the abortion is performed. I've also argued, in response to your “potential” arguments, that its “potential” (what it may be at some later time, if certain conditions are met) is not relevant to its status now.

One does have a duty not to thwart potentials (plans, goals, dreams, ambitions) of moral agents. But none regarding potentials which are merely the expected results of physical or biological laws operating upon natural systems, unless those systems are moral agents – which fetuses are not.

You need to attack the arguments I've actually made, Jeffery, not distorted versions of your own making. But maybe you just haven't understood my arguments.

“If you intervene to prevent something that will otherwise happen, you can't then say your intervention isn't a factor because what you prevented now isn't going to happen.”

No one has said that. Abortion is certainly an intervention which prevents a natural process from completing. But there is nothing morally wrong (in general) with preventing natural processes from completing. Moral issues arise when one interferes with the actions of moral agents, not when one interferes in natural processes.

You are determined to transfer the moral status of persons to the processes that produce them. I.e.,

If process P may yield a result R, and R has moral status, then P has moral status.

That is a non-sequitur.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 15 at 2:54 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“Loone’ - You don’t “force” a woman to carry to full term; you merely don’t allow her the easy access to (legal, government sanctioned … abortion).”

You don't see the contradiction there, Richard? “Force” and “don't allow” are the same thing. How are you going to “not allow” her to obtain an abortion except with force, either against her directly or anyone who might wish to perform the procedure for her?

I agree, of course, that gummint should not be paying for it.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 15 at 4:40 p.m.
“I've made no such argument, or any such claim.”

It is the very basis of your claim. You say that this moral agency only arises at some point of development. Development is *by definition* a question of the realization of potential. Therefore potential and its realization is at the very core of this whole debate. There is no way to skirt that truth.

Further, you yourself have stated that one of the two identifying characteristics of this 'moral agent' of yours is the ability to plan ahead and to weigh actions with an eye toward ordering the future - in other words, *potentials* are at the very heart of your own statement of terms for that which makes potential irrelevant.

“I've offered no justifications for abortion that make any mention of potential, or the realization or non-realization thereof.”

True. You've consistently avoided addressing the issue at all, instead ducking behind semantics and attempts to define away a crucial point that I assure you is obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about this for a moment.

Since this is the case and since you are evidently again going to retreat behind semantics and 'defining the question to suit the answer', I simply have nothing more to say to you.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 15 at 8:22 p.m.
“you merely don’t allow her the easy access to (legal, government sanctioned, and often paid for) abortion. “
-Richard

Government sanctioned by order of the Supreme Court. Don't like it, get a President elected that will appoint SC judges to overturn the law. That will tank Republican fundraising.

“Often paid for” by the government?

Patently false.

Unless you are willing to lock up the woman, history shows the abortion will occur anyway, often a great risk to the woman, and often hurting her ability to conceive and carry a fetus to term in the future.

“Spokel, this is the same fallacious argument you're advancing. 'A fetus hasn't been born' is a meaningless rationalization…”
-Jeff
I
t's not an argument. It's a fact. Words have MEANING. A fetus is no more a child, or a “pre-born child” than a senior citizen is pre-dead.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 15 at 9:16 p.m.
<<I think you're suggesting that some non-rational, non-empirical considerations must be brought to bear. I realize that many people do that, but they are not likely to lead to a resolution of these issues. In fact, they guarantee perpetual disagreement, because they reject the only means we have of resolving disagreements, namely, evidence and reason.>>

“g” - You are guilty of the illusion that the “rational” resolution you suggest, will, in fact resolve the “disagreement.” Whether you have thought it through or not, you are suggesting the same construct which the Nazi’s did for the “Final Solution” for the Jewish “problem.”

In the final analysis, it was not the Jews who were the problem, it was the notion that morality and ethical considerations of LIFE could be overruled by a rational, emperical (although you have not used any emperical “evidence” to support your views) philosophy of Aryan superiority.

And if you were a student of history or social sciences, you would understand that it is these very Nietzschean-like worldviews which lead to the creation of societies and cultures we saw in Germany and Rusiia during the 1930’s and 40’s. There were “higher” principles to attain than the mere civil and humane treatment … and especially to the most vulnerable.

You are using some of the very constructs which were used by Margaret Sanger to justify sterilization of blacks, euthanasia of the “retarded” and other forms of “ethical” solutions for social “problems.”

I reject your views out of hand, they are unworthy of being referred to as “ethical” or “moral.”

<<You don't see the contradiction there, Richard? “Force” and “don't allow” are the same thing. How are you going to “not allow” her to obtain an abortion except with force, either against her directly or anyone who might wish to perform the procedure for her?>>

I stand corrected, “g” - You can’t “not allow” a woman to abort her fetus. But you can create legal sanctions if she were to abort her fetus after a certain period of development and and if there are no medical problems which threaten the life of the mother or the child.

Just as we do for murder and assault.

Any 5 year old can understand it is wrong to kill for no justifiable reason, a living, growing human fetus once it attains a state of viability.

Again, I totally and unequivically reject your philosophy as a life philosophy. I will debate it in the abstract; I will recognise and accept the logic of it … but I have a higher respect for life for life’s sake, than I do for ingenious and logical and static beliefs that are are placed above humanity.

The Nazis and the Stalinists already tried that. I reject completely, the outcomes of those experimentations.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 15 at 9:25 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“It is the very basis of your claim.

No, Jeffrey. The “basis of the claim” is that the fetus is not a moral agent.

“You say that this moral agency only arises at some point of development. Development is *by definition* a question of the realization of potential. Therefore potential and its realization is at the very core of this whole debate. There is no way to skirt that truth.”

No, Jeffrey. What *results* from that process is the “core of the debate.” The process itself is immaterial, and without moral significance until and unless that result occurs.

It makes no difference, morally speaking, how a moral agent comes to be. They could fall out of the sky at random times and places, and would have the same moral status. As I said before, you're trying to attach a property of a product (moral status) to the process that produced it. That is fallacious. It is like arguing that if an auto factory produces Corvettes, and the Corvettes can reach speeds of 150 mph, then the factory can reach speeds of 150 mph. Or because you need a driver's license to drive a Corvette, you also need one to work in an auto factory.

Biological and other natural processes (in themselves) have no moral significance (though I'm sure some Gaia worshippers would challenge that). Some of those processes yield moral agents. Moral significance emerges as those entities acquire the defining properties of moral agency.

Fords, and the Firapple trees pr

The developmental process

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 15 at 9:44 p.m.
Sorry for not cleaning up the previous post.

Jeffrey,

“Further, you yourself have stated that one of the two identifying characteristics of this 'moral agent' of yours is the ability to plan ahead and to weigh actions with an eye toward ordering the future - in other words, *potentials* are at the very heart of your own statement of terms for that which makes potential irrelevant.”

The plans and goals *of moral agents* have moral significance, Jeffrey. The significance is due to their authorship, not to the fact that they are “potentials.”

You can find potentials all over the place. Any natural process which proceeds according to regular laws embodies potentials. An acorn is potentially an oak tree; an ice cube is potentially a puddle of water. None of them have moral significance in themselves, but if one of them results in a moral agent, then we have something with moral significance.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 15 at 10:34 p.m.
Richard wrote,

““g” - You are guilty of the illusion that the 'rational' resolution you suggest, will, in fact resolve the 'disagreement.””

It would do so only if everyone involved dispensed with the non-rational (non-empirical and unverifiable) premises to which they cling. I have no illusions that will happen any time soon.

“Whether you have thought it through or not, you are suggesting the same construct which the Nazi’s did for the “Final Solution” for the Jewish “problem.”

And,

“You are using some of the very constructs which were used by Margaret Sanger to justify sterilization of blacks, euthanasia of the “retarded” and other forms of 'ethical' solutions for social 'problems.'”

It appears you haven't actually examined the arguments those folks advanced. If you had, you'd have noticed that:

1) They were all intent upon advancing “social” (i.e., Utopian) goals of some kind, not the diverse goals of individual moral agents, and

2) They all based their “moral” arguments on physical or biological distinctions of one sort or another – Nordic ancestry, skin color, physical condition, retardation, etc. Dogmatic pro-lifers do the same thing – they classify a fetus as a moral agent because it has human DNA. That fact is as morally irrelevant as its skin color.

The definition of “moral agency” I outlined includes no such criteria. Nor does advancing any “social goal” have any role in that definition, or in the moral principles which proceed from it.

Moral status (agent or subject) is based on certain readily verifiable characteristics of certain organisms, none of which are physical or biological. Nor are they supernatural or mystical. They are behavioral, functional, and dispositional.

One of those characteristics is that moral agents have goals of their own, which they are entitled to pursue *regardless* of any Utopian goals with which others in their neighborhood may have become enamoured.

I think you should consider the theories of Nietzsche, Sanger, et al, more carefully before drawing parallels.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 15 at 10:49 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“But you can create legal sanctions if she were to abort her fetus after a certain period of development and and if there are no medical problems which threaten the life of the mother or the child.”

Of course you can, just as you can create legal sanctions if someone smokes pot, works as a hairdresser without a license, or refuses to buy gummint-approved health insurance. Those sanctions will all be imposed by force.

Unless the fetus is a moral agent or a moral subject, the mother is entitled to do with it as she will. Anyone who attempts to interfere with her decision by force, whether via “sanctions” or any other means, is violating her own – and unquestionable – moral agency.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 16 at 7:01 a.m.
I do this one more time, then I'm done.

– The process itself is immaterial, and without moral significance until and unless that result occurs.

It makes no difference, morally speaking, how a moral agent comes to be. –

I'll be candid with you, gmorton. I stopped reading at that point because this is my fundamental disagreement with you. As far as I'm concerned, everything of yours that follows from this is irrelevant because by defining the question in this way, I feel you dodge a fallacy that renders everything else equally fallacious.

You like to couch things in the purely conceptual. All right. Here's the point stated in a purely conceptual way. This is a very simple, concise question. It requires nothing else to define it or clarify it. I know that can sometimes be a pedantic trick to cheat a simple answer out of a complex issue, but I simply don't see that as being the case here. This question really is just as conceptually simple as it appears. Therefore, if you have to appeal to other concepts and thus to redefine it…

Well, that in and of itself is going to be your answer.

Here's the question:

If you intervene in a continuing process that has a single, identifiable outcome and by intervening thwart that outcome - can you then reasonably, logically say, 'Since the outcome will never be realized, my intervention is not a factor in determining whether or not I should have intervened'?

Flag as inappropriate
Diana on November 16 at 8:10 a.m.
Richard wrote: “you merely don’t allow her the easy access to (legal, government sanctioned, and often paid for) abortion. “

Guess what, Richard. It's not for you to allow or not allow women to do anything. What is between me and my doctor is none of your business. See Roe v Wade.

Other than that, carry on, faux intellectuals.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 16 at 9:49 a.m.
<<Gary - this is really quite simple. I have never proposed banning a single procedure or any procedure. You cannot find anywhere in any of my postings where I have proposed any bans on abortion. That is not to say that I do not oppose many of the “reasons” used to abort a vital fetus. But you design your questions around the premise that I have articulated banning some procedures and not others. That is just not the case. >>

OK. I was under the impression that you supported the partial-birth bans that have been attempted. So you were against them?

Could you speculate as to why it was done this way? Do you condone it?

<<… In those instances where a mother decides to abort her child - for reasons that do not involve a threat to her health or that of the baby - how do we as a society (or as an individual) condone or elect to end that life of a fetus? What are the justifications, if you will, other than mere “choice” or a “political” right? It is a moral question (which I realize makes a lot of people very uncomfortable … by design. >>

Ditto, all abortions. If they've made the decision based upon friviolous concerns, then I would not condone it, but I'm not a factor in electing it. Then again, how would I know?

Ditto, the choices people make in how they raise their kids and what they teach them. Ditto, all of the immoral — but not illegal — choices people make. We can withhold condoning them.

<<There, have I made all the “required” conditions understandable? >>

Yes, but so what?

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 16 at 9:57 a.m.
<<I stand corrected, “g” - You can’t “not allow” a woman to abort her fetus. But you can create legal sanctions if she were to abort her fetus after a certain period of development and and if there are no medical problems which threaten the life of the mother or the child.

Just as we do for murder and assault. >>

The Nebraska ban didn't allow for health conditions to be a factor, so it was struck down by the Supreme Court. By focusing on a single procedure, It was like saying we'll ban murder and assault only when a certain weapon is used.

So why do it this way? Two reasons:

1. “Partial birth” carries emotional freight.

2. Pro-life strategists didn't want to make the health-of-the-mother concession because they were trying to lay the groundwork to overturn Roe, which is predicated on choice.

Ergo, the slippery slope.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 16 at 1:33 p.m.
gmorton wrote –

<<I think you should consider the theories of … .more carefully before drawing parallels.>>

I never said they were identical, but they are parallels, indeed. It is interesting that you did not dispute that the “outcomes” - or treatments of “moral subjects” when based on your views - are quite parallel with Sanger’s, the Nazis, etc. The outcomes are, indeed parallel. Just different sets of justifications. But they are justifications nonetheless.

The mere fact that one CAN draw the distinctions you do - between characteristics of agents and subjects - does not in any way offer a justification or allowance killing a subject without consequences. You took a giant leap to get from A to B – a leap a moral society would not take.

Said differently; you have offer nothing – other than the fact of a difference from an agent – why a being that cannot (yet) visualize its future, deserves less consideration just because of this fact. You have obviously declared it to be “less than” merely because its perceptions are not yet realized.

That is a very sad state of mind. And you can deny it all day long, but I do not see a substantial difference between this view and some of the fundamental views of history’s most brutal and evil personalities.

Believe me; you are not the first nor will you be the last, to envision man becoming a “God-like” creature which will attain perfection in all aspects. Nietzsche’s Superman is but one example.

I reject that notion out of hand; I reject the idea that pure ration or logic can or would create a perfect being, let alone a perfect society.

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on November 16 at 1:43 p.m.
richie wrote: “Plus, it is a worldview that believes it can and should manipulate and control behavior. It mostly can’t and it shouldn’t, short of sanctions against bad behavior - not rewards.”

Yeah, us progressives invented the war on drugs too.

Pure ration? The only thing pure is the the B.S. you call a world view.

If Chief Kirkpatrick leaves town soon for another job I nominate Richard as her replacement since self deception seems to be a job requirement.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 16 at 2:43 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“If you intervene in a continuing process that has a single, identifiable outcome and by intervening thwart that outcome - can you then reasonably, logically say, 'Since the outcome will never be realized, my intervention is not a factor in determining whether or not I should have intervened'?”

No. That is circular.

But then, no one (except you) has made that argument.

Not sure why you're having trouble grasping the argument actually being made.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 16 at 3:05 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“I never said they were identical, but they are parallels, indeed. It is interesting that you did not dispute that the “outcomes” - or treatments of “moral subjects” when based on your views - are quite parallel with Sanger’s, the Nazis, etc.”

I'm mystified. Could you draw out those parallels you see? The Nazis and Sanger based moral classifications on physical factors or the requirements of the Utopias they idolized. I haven't.

Or is the the parallel simply the drawing of a distinction (between things with moral significance and things without it) on any basis at all? Are you suggesting the very making of that distinction is wrongheaded?

If so, I can't imagine how you could function without making it.

If not, how would you propose that it be made? I.e., what criteria would you suggest distinguishes between things with moral status and things without it?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 16 at 3:14 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“The mere fact that one CAN draw the distinctions you do - between characteristics of agents and subjects - does not in any way offer a justification or allowance killing a subject without consequences.”

I offered such a justification above – that moral subjects, unlike agents, cannot envision their own death and be terrified by it, and by the extinction of a future they have envisioned.

You do realize that if such distinctions may not be made, you are precluded, not only from eating meat, but even veggies. You kill an onion also when you uproot and eat it.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 16 at 3:18 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“Believe me; you are not the first nor will you be the last, to envision man becoming a “God-like” creature which will attain perfection in all aspects.”

Huh?

Flag as inappropriate
Blog_Czar on November 16 at 3:56 p.m.
This time I have to single out Jeffery_Grey (I know that's not your real name).

You are using fancy language and being candid with gmorton on this thread while totally ignoring Morton_Pool_Salt on a different thread. We have a duty to share in his awareness when it comes to blogs and blog etiquette. Please don't single him out because he is holding onto a thread that is almost two weeks old. Remember, we are all in this together and God bless America.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 17 at 5:59 a.m.
Diana,

I'm a little late in replying to your comment. Sorry about that.

Let me start by saying that as a late-middle-aged male, my point of view is necessarily different from yours. So the path by which I come to my beliefs on this issue must of necessity be different too.

We can, however, begin at one commonly shared belief for a starting point: I have no desire *whatsoever* to live in a totalitarian state that would dictate to me what I can or can't do with my own body.

At least not without some overwhelmingly important, valid social concern to weigh against that right.

And there's the rub.

Let me go back to the point I made to Sue a while ago. I've thought about this a lot and it seems to me that this right of self-determination springs from a fundamental dignity and respect owed to a human being. (Hell, if you want, you can even appeal to gmorton's 'rational agent' for one way to characterize the wellspring of this fundamental dignity.)

Accept the fact that I am sure beyond all doubt in both my mind and my heart that a developing fetus is a human being in everything but the passage of nine months - all the intellectually cowardly attempts to dodge the issue by defining it away notwithstanding - and I hope you can see my profound dilemma.

If a woman has rights because she's a human being - and I believe most sincerely that she does - then the developing fetus in her womb - being a human being too - has the same rights by the same definition.

That being so, I see the whole abortion question as a very painful, very complicated balancing of two equal, competing and often mutually exclusive rights.

I would never argue for the total elimination of abortion. There are simply too many cases when the woman's *equal* rights must take precedence because of other factors.

However, in my heart-of-hearts and not, I promise, as some kind of dry exercise in empty philosophy, I see abortion after the moment of conception as the sacrifice of a human life.

And that's a cost that I simply don't believe can be made based on any 'simple' answers.

Flag as inappropriate
Blog_Czar on November 17 at 6:43 a.m.
I didn't want it to come to this but it only takes one selfish individual to disrupt an entire society.

It seems as though Jeffery_Grey has decided that his own personal decisions on how he uses his own time trump those of his fellow posters to this site and refuses to continue on an old thread. Remember, Morton_Pool_Salt has a right to post his comments and engage in a little back and forth regardless of if his arguments are still relevant.

I am calling on all posters to this site to help absorb the costs of keeping Morton_Pool_Salt occupied over on last Wednesdays loose thread. Please don't take the easy way out and say that is “their” thread. Remember we are all in this together, so that makes it “our” thread.

God Bless America.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 17 at 8:23 a.m.
I hadn't been here for more than a day and see already that “Richard” is still putting words in my mouth. The 1% cases of late term abortion “Richard,” generally involves medical cases. Abortions otherwise occurring up to 24 weeks, why don't you conclude first “Richard,” that 24 weeks is not a “late term abortion” but is in fact a mid term abortion and that you have no idea what is in a woman's mind no more than you know exactly why she has obtained one. After all, a fetus can have died in the womb as early as 24 weeks as it could from a fatal deformity at the time of delivery. Since you don't know this, you have no business judging.

Next, Jeff Grey, it is far more hypothetical to declare a fetus as “having the same rights as the woman.” Or that they can be “mutually exclusive.” Is the fetus inside the womb? Then it has no rights. “Rights” exist only where you actually have the opportunity to exercise them. And “rights” only start where the child is actually born. “Rights” as a matter of mutual exclusivity, only if a DELIVERED child faces real and actual threats from members of its own family.

And while you are going around describing “killing anyone” who disagrees with you on a hypothetical basis, you are quite wrong to deem that this has some equivalence with abortion. Is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter? If a fetus dies of some medical condition during development this can be abruptly renamed as “child endangerment?” Murder as biblically defined is a deliberate act, many cases of abortion are not deliberate acts. For you to have an argument on terra firma, Grey; quit calling ending pregnancies for deliberate non-medical reasons as “abortions.” They are more correctly called aborticides. You'd do yourself one helluva favor.

And finally, as long as laws exist to make such a procedure legal, then the 14th amendment only comes into affect when the child survives and is actually born. Religiously or politically re-interpreting the 14th amendment to cover fetuses isn't going to change the fact that ABORTIONS up to 20% account for why a large percentage of them won't survive anyway. But such re-interpretations WILL endanger the woman and her rights.

Remember this, Grey; mutually exclusive rights are only possible if the child is born, not before. That's the LAW.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 17 at 8:36 a.m.
– Is the fetus inside the womb? Then it has no rights. “Rights” exist only where you actually have the opportunity to exercise them. And “rights” only start where the child is actually born. –

Then why is abortion generally restricted to the first tri-mester absent other considerations? Why isn't it allowed at 8 months, 29 days?

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 17 at 8:42 a.m.
AD,

Took me a while to find this. (Thus the two posts.)

– Remember this, Grey; mutually exclusive rights are only possible if the child is born, not before. That's the LAW. –

Except it's not. At least not here in Washington.

– RCW 9.02.110: The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion *prior to viability of the fetus*, or to protect her life or health. A physician may terminate and a health care provider may assist a physician in terminating a pregnancy as permitted by this section. – (emphasis mine)

I don't know how to read the very important 'prior to the viability of the fetus' except to recognize a right mutually exclusive to the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy at will.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 17 at 9:00 a.m.
Viability is defined as, Grey: the greater chance the fetus would have of survival if say prematurely delivered. At 25 weeks, the prematurely delivered child has about a 50-50 survival rate. In 7 months a greater survival rate and etc. Viability arguments must be based not on one's political or religious opinion but on the physical facts. Could you put an 8 week old aborted fetus in an incubator and expect a 100% survival rate? Not with the present technology. Therefore, viability arguments don't come into consideration until the woman enters into her 2nd trimester and later.

Next, according to anti-abortionists, abortion isn't “typically restricted.” LOL! If a woman has a medical condition necessary to ending a pregnancy late term, then the law does allow such a procedure. However, as presented to “Richard,” women generally would not have abortions past the first trimester if they thought their pregnancies were “inconvenient.” It isn't simply a matter of the law that follows closely the Roe decision at least in Washington state, the woman who truly does want to end the pregnancy won't wait to do so.

I hope that explains a few things to you.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 17 at 10:15 a.m.
Neither of those points answer the question I raised in reply to you, AD.

You're ducking that question.

The issue is not the definition of viability. The issue is why viability is relevant at all. If viability is a factor, then by definition 'someone's' rights are in play. Whose viability are we speaking of? Not the mother's. Not the doctor's. Whose?

Again - if there are no other valid interested to be protected other than the mother's rights to control her body, why are there any restrictions on abortion at all? Why isn't it simply on demand at the mother's request at any point during the pregnancy?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 17 at 10:32 a.m.
I never ducked your question, Grey. But suddenly you are in fact slip sliding around. Viability is based solely on the physical facts of survival. That is why a fetus at 8 weeks wouldn't be regarded as viable whereas a fetus at 25 weeks WOULD BE regarded as viable. The nature of survivability increases as the fetus develops further.

Washington state law that is based on the Roe decision takes these factors of DEVELOPMENT into consideration. That is why there would be no restrictions on “abortion on demand” in the first trimester, the “state's interest” would start to intervene by the second, and with the exception of the woman's health, abortion would generally be outlawed by the third. Because the viability of the fetus would be at its greatest.

The anti-abortion argument is that Roe guaranteed “no restrictions.” That is a misreading of judicial intent. So, excuse me; but even Roe provided restrictions after the first trimester. As the SCOTUS decision by 1973 took the viability of the fetus after the first trimester into consideration. You research these matters very well, Grey, do some research on this as well. My arguments are based on Roe.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 17 at 10:53 a.m.
The same outcomes … gmorton! The same views of “superiority” - one with dominion over the other. Those are parallels.

I reject the very notion - which you, Stalin, Sanger, Hitler, and millions of others who attempt to create a “Superman” with God-like status - that a developing fetus has fewer “rights” of existence in the natural world or in God’s universe (I know you will reject out of hand that one) where the “now-perceptive” has a logically based “right” to distinguish the not-yet-perceptive.

The wrongheaded-ness is not in making the distinction; it is in the belief that this amounts to some kind of dominion over. Sounds very parallel to Nietzsche - go back and read him.

You can, and must (to maintain any level of civility and morality) draw some lines based on perceptions of good and evil. Killing for convenience - even if only an insect - can very easily be “wrong” or evil.

Like I say, any 5 year old can and will tell you that.

To split hairs and say … “but those others (who also killed the “lesser” with logical precision) are significantly different than me,” merely because they base their justifications on “physical characteristics” rather than differences in perceptions … is smug and blinded to the very same degree as the Nazi, the Socialist, Sanger, and the Progressive. Each in his own way rationalizes his evil intent to manipulate his “world” to his liking and worldview.

Live and let live!

I am not going to even contemplate equating the “life” of a fetus-about-to-become-a-breathing-perceiving-human with that of an onion. If that is where your argument delves to, then that argument cannot survive any test of morality, right and wrong, or even “logic” - except in the most rudimentary level.

<<Huh!>>

“God-like” status is the eventuality of your worldview … just as it was for Hitler, Socialists, eugenisists, Progressives, etc.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 17 at 11:03 a.m.
“Richard,” you are definitely projecting. Look in the mirror any time you start spouting like that. What do you know of “God's universe?” Try reading scripture. Even God allowed the taking of life where sin was concerned. Your arguments are the very essence of liberalism.

As to “superiority,” even YOUR arguments in the defense of fetal life are those of superiority over the decisions made by other people. Which puts you in the same league as Hitler, Stalin, Sanger and etc. Feel free, “Richard.”

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 17 at 11:04 a.m.
Diana -

And yes, Roe does grant that “right” … just as earlier court decisions granted Southern plantation owners the “right” to enslave.

A legal argument is no argument when discussing right and wrong, good or evil, just or unjust, human or inhuman, etc.

“Other than that, carry on faux feminist”

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 17 at 11:13 a.m.
And “Richard,” God granted the right to enslave. Is God therefore evil?

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 17 at 11:26 a.m.
No, AD.

Not again. This is what happened last time. 'I'm not ducking the question. You are!'

Here's where we started.

– Rights exist only where you actually have the opportunity to exercise them. And “rights” only start where the child is actually born. –

If an 'unborn child' has no rights, why isn't abortion allowed on demand at any point in the pregnancy? If an 'unborn child' has no rights, why is its viability an issue?

Now if you can answer that specific question, well and good and we'll go on. But if this is going to get deflected off onto a tangent about the definition of viability or why Roe v. Wade was decided the way it was, then I'm not interested in continuing.

None of that is responsive to the question asked.

If you don't want to answer that question or if you don't have an answer for it, that's okay. I'm content to just let it hang because I've given up on trying to force answers around here.

However, since I see that specific question as pointing to a fundamental fallacy underlying the pro-choice's rationale for framing the debate as they have chosen to frame it, that's a threshold question that I have to have answered before I'm interested in anything else.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 17 at 11:45 a.m.
Gary -

I actually was not even aware of attempts to specifically ban partial-birth abortions. I have no understanding why this approach was taken. You are mistaken if you believe I follow closely or am an activist in this issue. I am an observer only.

All I know is that partial-birth procedures are hideous and barbaric. For those reasons alone I would be supportive of a ban. If other procedures are equally as barbaric, then I guess that is all the more reason to question and ban late-term abortions for non-life-threatening reasons - but mostly for the much-more-widely-used-than-we-wish-to-acknowledge reasons of “convenience.”

<< … but I am not a factor in electing it. Then again, how would I know?>>

You do not see that reasoning as a mere dodge of the issue?

<<Ditto the choices people make in how they raise their children. Ditto all the immoral - but not illegal - choices people make. We can withhold condoning them.>>

But you won’t condemn them either! Why is that, if it is not an implicit condoning? Especially as a journalist. You condemn many non-illegal things conservatives and Republicans do; every Wednesday and Sunday. Would you then support a ban of ALL late-term abortive procedures for reasons of “convenience” (for those instances when - to use a legal standard - “a reasonable woman would consider it mere convenience”)?

And you conflate the (non-illegal) modes of raising a child with the (non-illegal) killing of a viable fetus for inconsequential reasons. You don’t see any difference? Really? Why is that?

<<So why do it this way? Two reasons:

1. “Partial birth” carries emotional freight.

2. Pro-life strategists didn't want to make the health-of-the-mother concession because they were trying to lay the groundwork to overturn Roe, which is predicated on choice.
Ergo, the slippery slope.>>

That sounds like “interpretation” on your part (that its purpose is to overturn Roe). Where is your evidence?

And would it be so terrible to overturn the horribly flawed Roe? Certainly we could do better than the Roe decision. Ergo, all the divisiveness since Roe - and not just from the extremes on both sides but even from those who maintain reasonable positions - on both sides.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 17 at 12:29 p.m.
Viability issues are a central part of the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision. Why all the flailing around? You may not like it, but that's where it comes from.

Flag as inappropriate
empyrius on November 17 at 1:17 p.m.
Holy moly, you people are still going?!? Did anybody read the Leonard Pitts Jr. piece, http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009…

Except, for me, there is no inconsistency is being right. Har har har har!

Abortion concerns a woman having control over her body, nobody else, and if she chooses to deny potential life, that is her decision to make. Now let us add the death penalty to the discussion.

Potential life is naught but an unthrown stone, while carnality is the kinetics of sin; the former is blameless perfection while the latter is guilty redemption. And redemption is the reward of society that casts evil into the general prison population; death nor solitary confinement breeds justice or moral refinement; but those who live daily under the sword have already died!

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 17 at 2:45 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“If a woman has rights because she's a human being - and I believe most sincerely that she does . . .”

She doesn't. She has them because she is a moral agent. I.e., she has certain morally relevant properties which non-human beings could also have, and some of which some non-human beings, such as animals, actually have.

Once you grasp the difference between the concepts of “human being,” which is a biological concept, and “person,” which is a moral one, you should be able to understand this argument. Biological/physical properties are irrelevant to personhood.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 17 at 2:49 p.m.
Arch_Druid wrote,

“Rights” exist only where you actually have the opportunity to exercise them.”

Surely not. Else the inmates of the Gulag or Auschwitz had no rights.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 17 at 3:17 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“The same outcomes … gmorton! The same views of “superiority” - one with dominion over the other. Those are parallels.”

The outcome to which you refer, I take it, it that the fetus may be killed, just as the Nazis thought Jews may be killed. Is that the “parallel” you have in mind?

Well, that is true. It would also be true that the killer would be exerting “dominion” over the killed.

But that doesn't take you where you are trying to go. If you slaughter a chicken for dinner, or swat a mosquito, or euthanize a dog, bathe a bacterium in penicillin, or uproot an onion, then you are also guilty of asserting “dominion” over those creatures and imposing the same outcomes.

I.e., the relevant similarity is not the outcomes, but the nature of what is killed. What matters is whether what is killed is a creature with moral significance (a moral agent or subject). So you have to try to decide what properties endow some creatures, but not all, with moral significance. It is not a question you can ignore, since you must make decisions of that kind every day.

I asked you before to set forth your own criteria for drawing those distinctions. Will you do that?

BTW, you can't include “is a human being” as a property. That term simply denotes a biological species with many different properties, many of which are shared with many other species. You have to decide which of those properties have moral import and which don't.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 17 at 10:11 p.m.
gmorton -

You just keep repeating the same thing … you have no where to go but around in the same circle.

And with each revolution you fail to enter the realm of right and wrong, good and evil … concepts of moral behavior and actions.

You ask a thousand people, and I will venture a guess, that about 998 will tell you that there is a significant difference between an onion or a mosquito, a bacterium … and a healthy, viable fetus.

I have very little problem - as a human - in asserting dominion over the onion, the mosquito, the dog - they are not human. And until we meet some creature from the deep recesses of space which are intelligent but not of the same form as we humans on this earth, then I will continue to believe humans can and do assert that dominion over the fellow creatures we share this planet with. And it matters nothing to me that a fetus may share SOME characteristics with that bacterium … I place more value on the fetus and less on the germ. I don’t need to hide behind a “philosophical” dictum; I have a rational mind and a feeling heart.

I find nothing irrational or illogical about that.

You and your 1 (of 2) compatriot are right? And the remaining 998 are wrong? I guess that could be the case; numbers don’t determine rightness; but we live in society and a world where moral behavior and value for human life (in all its forms, whether fetal or developmentally disabled) - while not universal (998 to 2) - is still viewed as something worthy to strive for.

Sorry that you and Alfred Rosenberg, Philipp Bouhler, the eugenicist at Michigan State (who strives to justify “mercy killing” for the developmentally disabled) and others, have missed the “message.

And no, I do not make those kinds of decisions (distinguishing between properties of different creatures with the same moral significance) everyday. I assume you are talking about eating meat and veggies (?). It matters nothing to me that a chicken and a fetus share the (narrow) range of similarities you identify - while conveniently leaving out other characteristics which are dis-similar. I will gladly allow someone to slaughter a chicken so I can eat it; I would never allow someone to slaughter a fetus so I can eat it. Although … there are certainly some people who would find that to be “morally’ justifiable using your constructs.

I just do not find any redeeming value of your (mis)use of a construct of logic to devalue and ultimately use for justification of killing a human fetus. I believe there is a God and he did not give us the human attributes we have to diminish and demean our own moral virtues in this manner.

And I think my acknowledgement that I am a practicing Christian; we have reached an impasse. I withheld that before because I knew that would either make you squeamish or it establish a wall neither could surmount. I wanted to allow you to establish your views and justifications. Now I know what they are, and there is no where else to go.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 17 at 11:32 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“You ask a thousand people, and I will venture a guess, that about 998 will tell you that there is a significant difference between an onion or a mosquito, a bacterium … and a healthy, viable fetus.”

Can you articulate that significant difference? There are obviously many differences. Which ones are morally significant?

“And until we meet some creature from the deep recesses of space which are intelligent but not of the same form as we humans on this earth, then I will continue to believe humans can and do assert that dominion over the fellow creatures we share this planet with.”

Well, that suggests that you consider intelligence as one significant difference. Is a 24 week fetus intelligent?

“And no, I do not make those kinds of decisions (distinguishing between properties of different creatures with the same moral significance) everyday.”

You don't? If you kill a mosquito, you haven't made a decision that the mosquito lacks some property which your neighbor has, and which deters you from killing him, even though he is as annoying as the mosquito?

“I believe there is a God and he did not give us the human attributes we have to diminish and demean our own moral virtues in this manner.”

Well, that is what I'm asking you to articulate – those attributes which distinguish humans from dogs, mosquitoes, etc. And then reflect on how many of them are possessed by the 24 week fetus.

“And I think my acknowledgement that I am a practicing Christian; we have reached an impasse.”

If the attributes at issue are mystical, i.e., assigned pursuant to religious doctrines, rather discerned through observation, then we are indeed at an impasse. Evidence and logical argument are useless against mystical beliefs.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 18 at 7:27 a.m.
Grey, no one has ducked your question and you keep reframing differently every time you come back and comment. I stipulated rights some of which begin at birth ref the 14th amendment. What the laws allow as you progress in age. What you are fully allowed to do at adulthood that you can not do as a child. And while you are avoiding addressing a particular truth; any of us among the pro-choice position do recognize that pregnancies first of all aren't perfect incubators for the next generation of ALL children. Miscarriages (abortions) can happen at any point. Fetal death from any number of causes can happen at any point. Just because you WANT to create this “independent entity with full 'rights'” doesn't mean that this is a guarantee. Since there is no guarantee that this child will be born nor a guarantee that it will be born alive, there are no “rights” for it at the time of conception. Rights are only confirmed at the time of birth. That is why, when I initially expressed to you that I had no rights while in the womb, I was only being correct. Nor while I was in the womb did I have any guarantees of being born.

Anti-abortionists, Grey; love to return again and again to the Declaration of Independence (where at the time that it was written did not in fact apply to ALL people living in the colonies) as a “right” that is given to fetuses. That is a misinterpretation of Framer's intent. The Declaration of Independence was a Revolutionary War doctrine to turn the British colonies into an independent nation, NOT to give fetuses a “right to life” that has no guarantee to start with. And a woman can decide to abort a dead fetus as opposed to a living and supposedly “viable” one. How would you know? You don't. That is why no pro-choicer judges the situation that the woman may find herself in nor protests for “rights” that constitutionally, don't exist before birth. That is between that woman and her God.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 18 at 8:50 a.m.
AD,

Your argument is a fallacy that boils down to, 'Since it might not happen I can intervene and make sure it doesn't happen and yet not bear any responsibility for it not happening.'

That's blatantly circular. It is not a valid argument.

As for constantly rephrasing the question - that was your evasion last time we had this argument. It wasn't true then either. The question has remained unchanged from the start and you have yet to answer it:

If an 'unborn child' has no rights, why isn't abortion allowed on demand at any point in the pregnancy? If an 'unborn child' has no rights, why is its viability an issue?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 18 at 9:04 a.m.
Grey, as long as you continue to ignore the SCOTUS decision of 1973 you can keep going on this particular track. “Rights” don't exist prior to birth. And “abortion on demand” covers a lot more issues than just the death of a “viable fetus.” I described that at length. If “abortion on demand” were by law denied to women, then a woman who has a miscarriage could and would be denied medical treatment. A woman who's fetus had died in the womb would also be denied treatment. A woman who faces medical problems that preclude her carrying a pregnancy to term, would indeed be denied treatment. You limit your argument to “viable fetuses” that therefore “must have rights.” And that the “rights” of fetuses must carry supremacy over that of the woman. Whether you like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church has much the same sort of argument never mind that the application of such an argument has led to the deaths of women as a consequence. HER rights don't matter. Well excuse me, Grey; but constitutionally, yes, she does have rights. And the 1973 SCOTUS decision affirmed those rights.

Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 18 at 10:08 a.m.
Still dodging it, AD. I'm not asking about Supreme Court decisions or about the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not asking about a non-viable fetus. I freely stipulate that there are valid grounds for requesting an abortion, and to terminate a non-viable pregnancy is most assuredly one of the valid grounds. To preserve the health of the mother is another valid ground for the request.

But that's not the question.

To put it bluntly AD, I'm asking one last time and in the very specific case of the abortion of an otherwise viable fetus that would otherwise make it to a healthy birth - because that's something that does happen in the real world and is the situation that I'm interested in discussing and not all these 'what if' and 'the Supreme Court says' and 'the double-talking Catholic church teaches' evasions.

AD, if you can (and not meaning to be insulting, but I'm pretty sure you can't) please explain to me; “If an 'unborn child' has no rights, why isn't abortion allowed on demand at any point in the pregnancy? If an 'unborn child' has no rights, why is its viability an issue?”

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 19 at 4:53 p.m.
gmorton - I believe you mentioned in an earlier post, something about being raised in a very strict religious home, and that that was one of the influences which took you to your views today.

So, if I am recalling correctly, then am I to assume that your current views are really about a rejection of religion and the views of your parents?

All of which would mean that, because you grew up with parents who had “strict and extreme beliefs” in religion … you have now adopted “strict and extreme beliefs” of rationalism and empericism?

Just wondering.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 19 at 7:16 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“gmorton - I believe you mentioned in an earlier post, something about being raised in a very strict religious home, and that that was one of the influences which took you to your views today.”

Nope. 'T'wasn't me. Doesn't describe me, either.

You realize that is an *ad hominem*, don't you?

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 20 at 9:47 a.m.
Might be time to change the thread title to Endless Issue.

Flag as inappropriate
Lulubelle on November 20 at 10:51 a.m.
Why is it always men with the loudest opinions on abortion? Sure it takes two to tango, but ultimately it's the woman who pays the price for unintended pregnancy.

Any person who thinks a woman makes the decision to have an abortion in a cavalier way, is crazy. Give women the education and resources to prevent pregnancy and/or the health care and support to raise children and you will see a lot fewer abortions.

Talk is cheap…especially if you're not the one bearing and caring for the child.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 11:21 a.m.
Lulubelle wrote,

“Give women the education and resources to prevent pregnancy and/or the health care and support to raise children and you will see a lot fewer abortions.”

Perhaps. Give men a spiffy pad, a cool car, a big screen teevee, all the beer they can drink and cocaine they can snort, and all the hookers they can handle, and you'll see a lot fewer armed robberies, muggings, and rapes.

If, instead, of giving women (or men) what they should be providing for themselves, you made sure they understood that no one would be giving them TANF, health care, day care, housing subsidies, or food stamps, you'd also see a lot fewer abortions – because there would be a lot fewer irresponsible pregnancies.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 11:30 a.m.
It is amusing how many women declare that they have rights to their own bodies, yet assume that feeding, housing, and caring for that body is someone else's responsibility.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 20 at 11:41 a.m.
Lulu - that is a very “comforting” notion to think that no woman destroys a fetus for “cavilier” reasons … but it does not “jive” with reality. And you, and everyone else knows that to be true. But you do not like to think that - because you have a conscience, I suppose - but many people do not. That is why there are sanctions against murder. And why there should be for destroying a viable fetus for “cavalier” reasons.
A simple notion any 5 year old would understand and agree with.

Get the politics out of the issue. It is a human issue, not a woman’s issue.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 20 at 11:42 a.m.
gmorton
<<Can you articulate that significant difference? There are obviously many differences. Which ones are morally significant?>>
I already did. You are merely playing a game of semantics, based on a deduction (supposition) of logic - which you (and only you) define).

I, and nearly every other human on the planet, place more value on human life (in all its forms) than that of animal, insect or plant; in that descending order, typically.

And now is when you expect me to list those characteristics to “justify” that ordering and thus “trap” me into your logic. But I have already recognized and understand the characteristics you base your “system” of “valuing.” And this is where I reject your values.

I, and most humans, place more value on the “potential” of a developing fetus than an animal, insect, etc. It is a “pre-conceived” “human” with unique DNA only from that one conception of a mother and father. Most humans place more “value” on the “loss” of that one, unique potential, than they do of a mosquito sucking the blood out of there arm.

Why do mothers and fathers feel sad when the mother has a miscarriage; but they don’t when a bee hits their windshield at 75 miles per hour? There must be a reason for that. By your logic, it would be self evident to that mother and father, that they should feel just as sad seeing that bee “splat” on their windscreen as when she miscarried.

I bet a mother who did behave in that manner … would probably be encouraged to seek some kind of counseling or therapy. Right?

It is called value, and you cannot define it with mere logic. That is why we are “human” and a potato is not.

In the end, you are using the technique of maneuvering me to a point I will be cornered by your logic and your listing of shared “characteristics.” But I reject your notion of “value;” or lack thereof.

I will gladly eat an onion, but I would never eat a fetus. And nor would you, I suspect. And therein lies your “Waterloo.” And that of most philosophic constructs which consist of mere “logic.”

It is premised on a view that human logic is supreme, which you will never, I suspect, be able to “prove” because it is a self contained construct in a universe we can only speculate about. And yes, I realize we are learning more and more everyday, and that someday we may ‘understand” it. But only in terms of physics, and not in terms of metaphysical or - excuse me - “mystical.”

What are the “significant” differences, you try to ask, between an onion and a fetus. But you have limited the discussion only to accepting those YOU define as “significant,” which is obviously self serving. Morality, I believe, cannot be so constructed to fit nicely around simple observable characteristics.

Many, many philosophers and great thinkers of all persuasions have tried to do so for centuries, and they have yet to come up with the universal truths that would be self evident to all.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 20 at 12:13 p.m.
gmorton -

Your last post, however, is “spot on.”

The truly amazing thing about so much of liberal or “progressive” thinking, is how chock full of contradictions it “juggles”

And that is largely due, I perceive, because the proponants of liberalism are unprincipled and they are political animals. Control of others is their primary function.

Their “worldview” is, of course, far “superior;” thus leading to the egalitarian format of the Obama-world!

Flag as inappropriate
Diana on November 20 at 12:47 p.m.
It must be heck for some of you guys that you can't control women's reproductive lives anymore. Those days are long in the past. Sorry, fellas, but it's time to get over yourselves.

Flag as inappropriate
Lulubelle on November 20 at 1:18 p.m.
And speaking of “doing it all on your own” and not relying on any help……….lets take all the Viagra and the other ED aids off the market. Might even help with the pregnancy rates.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 1:27 p.m.
Lulubelle wrote,

“And speaking of “doing it all on your own” and not relying on any help……….lets take all the Viagra and the other ED aids off the market. Might even help with the pregnancy rates.”

No, Lula. We don't take anything off the market. We just don't ask someone else to pay for it for us.

Tough notion for free-lunchers to grasp, I realize.

Flag as inappropriate
Lulubelle on November 20 at 1:47 p.m.
gmorton - It's Lulu, not Lula….

The reference was to who uses “a little help from their friends”…..not necessarily whose paying for it. But when you put it that way……we're all paying for erectile dysfunction aids in the form of higher insurance premiums to cover those little daddies helpers.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 1:50 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“<<Can you articulate that significant difference? There are obviously many differences. Which ones are morally significant?>>

“I already did.”

Ok, I missed it. Can you point me to that post?

“And now is when you expect me to list those characteristics to “justify” that ordering and thus “trap” me into your logic.”

Yes, that is indeed the plan. Usually distinctions and orderings are made based on the differential characteristics of the things distinguished or ordered. If you have a different “logic” for this case I'd be interested to know what it is.

“I, and most humans, place more value on the “potential” of a developing fetus than an animal, insect, etc.”

There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone may place any value they like on anything they like. That doesn't change its objective characteristics. Things don't acquire the characteristics of moral agents because someone values them. A dog does not become a moral agent because it is loved by its owner. Indeed, creatures who do have the necessary qualities are moral agents, and have rights, whether anyone loves them or values them or not.

“But I reject your notion of “value;” or lack thereof.”

I haven't (until now) said anything about value. But one of the characteristics of moral agents is that they value things. What they value, however, is up to them, and has no bearing on their status as moral agents.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 1:58 p.m.
Oops, missed this comment.

Richard wrote,

“But you have limited the discussion only to accepting those YOU define as “significant,” which is obviously self serving.”

I didn't place any limits at all. I asked you to list the qualities you took to be definitive of moral agency. List whatever you like.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 2:10 p.m.
Lulubelle wrote,

“gmorton - It's Lulu, not Lula….”

Sorry. I know; that was a typo.

“The reference was to who uses “a little help from their friends”…..not necessarily whose paying for it.”

Nothing wrong with friends asking friends for help, or friends helping friends. But usually when someone proposes that some group be “given education and resources,” etc., they are calling for government to seize the necessary means from non-friends at gunpoint and hand it over to the designated group.

When you made that suggestion, were you only asking friends to help their women friends out?

“But when you put it that way……we're all paying for erectile dysfunction aids in the form of higher insurance premiums to cover those little daddies helpers.”

No, we're not. You can avoid that expense by refusing to buy a policy that includes that coverage. Or at least you could before gummints began dictating what conditions private insurers must cover. So now your choice is only whether to buy insurance or not. Soon that choice will be eliminated also.

Aren't you glad you live in a free country?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 20 at 3:06 p.m.
Diana
Get off the “stupid-liberal trick” of pretending that the topic of killing a fetus is part of a “hidden” agenda for men to control the lives of liberal women! Believe me when I say; very few men and no conservative men want anything at all to do with that.

It isn’t always about YOU, ya know. It is about the fetus.

And it is time you move beyond that “one-note song.” You can’t even sing it in key anymore, it has become so tired.

And why aren’t you addressing the more timely women’s issue of the government preparing you for the health bill and the coming “rationing” of mammograms and pap smears and many other procedures?

Feminists seem strangely quiet about that one. But the “dirty little secret” is that feminist groups are much more about liberalism and progressivism … than they are about women.

And this is just one more example of the proof of the truth in that statement.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 20 at 3:28 p.m.
gmorton -

I accept the characteristics you so define. So? But, that in no way changes my view of wantonly killing a fetus. Not one iota.

So we are still at the same point. But if it would “make your day” I will concede that there are shared characteristics between an onion and a developing human being. (But, I have to confess; as I type those words I can barely contain my laughter due to the absurdity of it!)

Is that helpful!

Get back to where the discussion began. Is it morally wrong to kill a viable fetus for convenience, incidental reasons, non-compelling reasons, reasons that are minor in scope … I could go on, but when it gets to this point, everyone - from the liberals to the faux feminists to you - all stumble at the word convenience.

It seems to be a convenient place to veer off (pun intended).

How about I merely declare that I am right when I say that it is, indeed, immoral to kill a viable fetus for convenience … because no one can offer an answer to that question.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 5:57 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“How about I merely declare that I am right when I say that it is, indeed, immoral to kill a viable fetus for convenience … because no one can offer an answer to that question.”

I already agreed with that. Remember the Caribbean cruise example. It becomes a moral issue at the point at which the fetus becomes a moral subject, and a more serious one the more closely it approaches the status of moral agency, and as the cost to the mother (in time, discomfort, pain, or “inconvenience”) diminishes.

Moral agents, however, are obliged to make moral decisions. They surrender that status when they allow others to make them for them, and they deny others moral status if they prevent them, by force, from making their own moral decisions.

Nothing obliges you to ratify or underwrite or applaud others' moral decisions, but you are obliged not to interfere with them, unless those others are themselves violating the rights of yet other moral agents.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 20 at 6:58 p.m.
Richard wrote,

“But the “dirty little secret” is that feminist groups are much more about liberalism and progressivism … than they are about women.”

The Left has been very adept at Trojan Horsemanship. Greenies have often been called “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside. Similarly, many feminists are “pomegranates” – pink on the outside, red on the inside. Like the greenies, they appropriated a genuine issue or injustice (pollution, legal discrimination against women) and lashed their statist agenda to it. So, for example, not only were discriminatory laws against women repealed, the government gained another substantial increment of control over the economy and everyone's personal lives (quotas, mandatory maternity coverage, comparable worth, etc.) The Left adopted the same strategy on environmental issues – they leapt aboard that bandwagon, and loaded it up with the usual leftist baggage.

Unfortunately, “conservatives” have been unwitting facilitators of this legerdemain. By boneheadedly defending the “traditional role of women,” they surrendered control of the agenda to the pomegranates.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 21 at 8:06 a.m.
I haven't been here in a couple of days, yesterday in particular trying to recover from a miserable cold. And I already see where this thread has significantly degenerated. “Richard,” seems you'd place a LOT of value on the fetus because primarily it is an easy critter to “defend” against all those “enemies” including doctors and “liberal women” out to get it. On the other hand, your posts are also significant in what you will NOT value as a fellow human being. Like a great many anti-abortionists, you put politics ahead of any real moral questions. You replace God as an agent judging others for not living their lives according to your wishes or demands. That is not a moral argument, “Richard.”

GMorton, what would you call “Christians” who employ the “at gunpoint” argument in pushing their own agendas? “Richard” is only one of those people who'd use the state to advance his position while opposing the state if it advances agenda(s) that he is simply in disagreement with. Isn't there as much of color red in THEIR argument as you have thrown like a mud pie at others you have a significant disagreement with? At some point in time, we ALL ask of the state to assist us. That is what it is there for. In a DEMOCRACY Morton, we CAN demand that the state do something for us. In a DICTATORSHIP which by no twist and turn of your fantastical imagination do you live in now, would the state “at gunpoint” insist that you do this and that. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

And finally Grey, you haven't been dodged on any question or point that you have raised. You just keep ignoring the obvious. During any woman's pregnancy there is ALWAYS a risk that even if the woman plans on having a child, that the child will not be born because of a miscarriage or not be born alive because of a fatal defect. Because we do not have the medical technology, Grey, to guarantee EVERY live birth from the point of conception; then neither can “rights” be guaranteed. And if you were to study the 14th Amendment, Grey, it stipulates in VERY PLAIN ENGLISH “BORN” or “at birth.” The 14th amendment as it currently exists does not provide “fetal rights.” There can always be a “state's interest” argument as defined by SCOTUS; there can always be laws, Grey, that if a pregnant woman is injured or killed because of a murderous act it becomes a “double homicide.” But then, the “state interests” (which GMorton already declares he detests) can make that a legal argument. It doesn't mean however if the state wants to call the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide that it will also necessarily provide laws against the woman voluntarily or for medical reasons ending her pregnancy. That being the case, the “state's interests” already provide by law what it limits its involvement to. Sorry, Grey.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 21 at 12:03 p.m.
Arcg_druid wrote,

“At some point in time, we ALL ask of the state to assist us. That is what it is there for.”

Assist us – how? That is what is in question, Arch. We may ask it to assist us in protecting our rights. That is, after all, the reason it was organized (“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men …”). We may not ask it to “assist us” in *violating* someone else's rights. That would be asking it to commit the very acts it was organized to prevent. So, you may ask the State to help you recover something someone has stolen from you, or help free you if you are being held hostage by a kidnapper. You may not ask it to steal someone's property and give it to you, or “assist you” in enslaving someone and forcing him to work for you. That is not “what it is there for.”

“In a DEMOCRACY Morton, we CAN demand that the state do something for us.”

Yes, that's true. But, as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before, the US is not, and has never been, a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, which means that the powers of government are limited to protecting rights and providing certain public goods. They do not include the power of seizing private goods from some persons and handing them over to others in exchange for their votes, regardless of how numerous the free-lunchers may be.

The US government is a “democracy” only within the scope of its constitutional powers. It is not an unlimited democracy. The only difference between an unlimited democracy of the type you perhaps envision and a monarchy or oligarchy is the number of tyrants and thieves involved.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 22 at 6:14 p.m.
Druid … please explain the logic you use to tell me that I put politics ahead of morality in this issue. Morality is the ONLY basis for my view. It isn’t a political or a religious issue with me. I am thinking only of the fetus.

You call me an anti-abortionist. Your label is just plainly wrong. I am a realist and I know that there are many legitimate reasons for what must be a horrible decision for most women who make it.

But being a realist, I can also see the truth about late term abortions when the fetus is viable and there are many, many decisions made to destroy that fetus for reasons of convenience. It is just a fact.

If we as a nation lack the courage to do the right thing and create laws and oversight for clinics with questionable practices - and instead merely leave it up to the woman, then I will continue to speak out, as I would believe there are many others, until the truth becomes known. And then maybe some of these women will be “shamed” into making the right decision for the baby they are carrying, instead of taking the easy way out.

Don’t tell me that I replace God as “an agent.” You have absolutely no basis to say that, except for your own biases. It is ludicrous that I am requiring anyone to live their life according to my wishes. I am only pointing out that we - this society - is allowing women to kill their viable fetus/baby for reasons we would abhor if it were done to a pet dog.

And, for your information, it is the feminist/liberal/progressive who uses politics to defend their position by claiming it is a “right” to kill their fetus.

And I would strongly suggest, Druid, that you reconsider your views that government is there to “do things” for you or to “demand” it do things for you. That was never the purpose of this government.

I totally concur with gmorton’s comments.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 24 at 9:32 a.m.
First GMorton, the “this is a constitutional republic” argument in the face of 200 + years of DEMOCRATIC activism is purely revisionist history. And by the way, as much as you would like to discount or dismiss that we can demand anything at all of gvt despite the facts of the first amendment is to also ignore the obvious that we can and do demand a lot from gvt including the anti-abortionists that “Richard” makes common cause with.

Second, “Richard,” it isn't moral to only “think of the fetus.” Or to come out with arguments in favor of the fetus and only when the 1973 SCOTUS decision was made. Legal and illegal abortions had occurred long before then. But feminism as a political movement had a firmer foothold in the wake of Roe v Wade and that is precisely why anti-abortionists took to the streets, not out of concern for the fetus but because of their opposition to feminism. As for the claim of “morality,” God in biblical scripture deemed it to be quite moral that children could be slaughtered right along with the adults if the society was deemed sinful. They could even die violently in the womb. Upon what exactly would you base these arguments when the bible itself doesn't support them?

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 24 at 1:33 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“And by the way, as much as you would like to discount or dismiss that we can demand anything at all of gvt despite the facts of the first amendment . . .”

We've covered this ground. The 1st Amendment does indeed guarantee that you can “demand” anything you wish, from government or anyone else. The Constitution, however, limits which demands the government may grant. In order to expand those powers you need a Constitutional Amendment. A majority vote in Congress is not sufficient.

You do understand how that all works, don't you?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 25 at 6:57 p.m.
Discussing things with you Druid, leave me completely frustrated with your apparent lack of reasoning. You have no knowledge about the individual motives of those who are pro-life - which is merely a media name.

And for you to say “it isn’t moral to think only of the fetus” is so beyond unintelligible that I have no way to respond, other than to shake my head in disbelief that anyone could even imagine making an ignorant statement such as that.

And don’t give me you “literal” Old Testament blather. That is not my God and I refuse to even discuss - again - such blather.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 29 at 9:33 a.m.
“Richard,” anyone who disagrees with you “lacks reasoning.” Good thing I was taking a number of days to simply not post here so that I couldn't get caught up in an un-ending slugfest with you. Has it ever occurred to you that when ever you attack people like that that you don't apply that “pro-life” position in a way that matters? Your God is the same God Old Testament to New. How your God gets interpreted differs from the Old Testament to the New. So you don't like the fact that God isn't demonstratively “pro-life?” All that argues is that you views are political and not moral.

As for GMorton's argument, I always have to laugh about the limits of gvt to grant demands given it by the people. Just who demands these “limits” Morton? If “your side” is in power the demands on gvt is unlimited. If the “other side” is in power, then abruptly “we need” to limit the power of gvt. That is an argument of hypocrisy. And a matter of political convenience.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 29 at 2:23 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“Just who demands these “limits” Morton?”

Er, the Constitution, Arch.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”
–James Madison, Federalist #45

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
–James Madison, comment on a bill to subsidize cod fishermen

“If your side is in power the demands on gvt is unlimited.”

Huh? What side do you take to be “my side”? Are you still trying to squeeze me into your irrelevant democrat/republican classification scheme?

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 29 at 7:09 p.m.
The Constitution was based on, in many ways, the Articles of Confederation, with several major differences.

In the Articles, the language was quite clear that Congress had only certain, enumerated powers. After much debate, such language was purposely not enshrined in the Constitution, thus making the powers of Congress more broad than under the strict enumeration language in the Articles.

“The standard, “to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare,” does limit the federal government to those things appropriately within the national sphere. “[C]ommon Defence and general Welfare” entered the Constitution as a synonym for the “necessities” or “exigencies of the Union.” (11) The Convention resolution that was supposed to bind the committees that drafted the constitutional language allowed Congress “to legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of the Union.” (12) The phrase “for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” accordingly, empowers the federal government power to provide for common or general interests necessary to the union. There is no necessary agreement on what is appropriately “common” or “general” interest, but once it is decided that an activity advances the common defense or general welfare, Congress may undertake it. Under this reading, the Constitution expresses a principle that governs the federal sphere and not just a list of petty powers.
…
The full phrase, “to provide for the common defence and general welfare,” also links a broad interpretation of the common defense with a broad interpretation of the general welfare. Hamilton explicitly argued that taxation should have a broad range of goals:

Money is with propriety considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power therefore to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. (172)

Why in any event, the Federalists asked, would any man “choose a lame horse, lest a sound one run away with him?” (173) In defending his plan to subsidize American manufacturing, Hamilton argued in 1791 that “[t]he phrase [common defense and general welfare] is as comprehensive as any that could be used.” The constitutional authority of the Union to tax, he said, should not have been restricted within limits any narrower than the 'General Welfare.'” (174)

Thus, both the text of the Constitution and the arguments of the proponents support a general power to tax for the common defense and general welfare, even beyond the enumeration. McCulloch settled that there was an enumerated power doctrine outside of tax, but within tax the settlement went the other way. It is also now settled legal doctrine that Congress can tax and spend for the common defense and general welfare beyond the range of the specifically enumerated clauses that follow clause 1. (175)”

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/cal…

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 29 at 9:14 p.m.
Hmmm, well, what do you know, a leading Libertarian agrees with the view that the Constitution does not say the powers of Congress are limited to the so-called enumerated powers.

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

We might think those words—or words to the same effect—are in the U.S. Constitution. But they are not. They are from Article II of the Articles of Confederation, America’s first constitution. They could have been placed in the U.S. Constitution but were deliberately left out in 1787.
…
The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The most significant difference is that Article II qualifies the word delegated with expressly. The Tenth Amendment does not. The difference was no oversight. This suggests that while the Articles of Confederation was a document of express, enumerated congressional powers, the Constitution, contrary to widespread belief, was not.

Professor Calvin H. Johnson of the University of Texas Law School published a paper in 2006 that sheds light on this subject. “The Dubious Enumerated Power Doctrine” presents formidable evidence that the framers had no intention of limiting the national government’s powers to the 16 items listed in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.
…
Calvin Johnson is happy the Constitution has implied powers. No libertarian would be. But we must separate what the Constitution appears to say and how we evaluate it, and resist the temptation to let our political-moral views warp our reading. As Lysander Spooner in 1870 wrote, the Constitution “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.” Liberty’s champions have to come to terms with that logic.”

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/colum…

When a leading libertarian mocks the bogus “enumerated powers” argument, you realize just how warped those who keep harping on it really are.

“Sheldon Richman is an American political writer and academic, best known for his advocacy of libertarianism.

He is the editor of The Freeman, a magazine published by The Foundation for Economic Education,[1] and is a Senior Fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation, Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, and a member of the Liberty and Power group weblog at the History News Network. His own blog is called Free Association.[2]

A graduate of Temple University, Richman was formerly a journalist, and a senior editor at the Cato Institute[1] and the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.”
http://www.viswiki.com/en/Sheldon_Ric…

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 29 at 10:05 p.m.
Spokalooneh wrote,

“It is also now settled legal doctrine that Congress can tax and spend for the common defense and general welfare beyond the range of the specifically enumerated clauses that follow clause 1. (175)”

Yup, that is indeed the statist's official spin on the issue. The revisionist history (“the Constitution neither says nor was intended to say that the listed powers were exclusive”) is a pretty tough sell, however, given that it took 140 years for that Newspeak interpretation to be discovered. You would expect, after all, that those who drafted and ratified the Constitution, having been involved in the debates and attuned to one another's understanding of its various provisions, would have construed it that way from the outset, and immediately begun trotting forth their pet schemes for promoting the general welfare. Madison, however, its principal drafter, in vetoing the Erie Canal bill, wrote,

“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States … .

“To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.”

http://www.constitution.org/jm/181703…

Hamilton wrote,

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”
–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Sorry, Looneh, but I think Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, et al, were a bit more qualified, and in a much better position, to tell us how the Constitution was understood at the time it was ratified than Professor Johnson.

“We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 29 at 11:12 p.m.
Your recitation of Hamilton as though it were authoritative is laughable, gmorton.

Have you not read Hamilton on “Report on the Subject of Manufacturers” from 1791, where clearly he relies on the general welfare clause to promote Congress asserting a power that is not enumerated in the Constitution?

“There is no purpose, to which public money can be more beneficially applied, than to the acquisition of a new and useful branch of industry; no consideration more valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of productive labor.
…
A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The national legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare'' with no other qualifications than that “all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution,'' and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.'' These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defense and “general welfare.'' The terms “general welfare'' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare'' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the national legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce are within the sphere of the national councils as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this—That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be general and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
…”

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ha…

You seem to have a rather selective reading of Hamilton's works, only those which support your fringe opinion as to what the Framers' intended, and par usual, ignoring the wealth of information that directly contradicts your fringe opinions.

Then there are the implied powers that are evident from the Constitution itself, another subject which, in your zealotry, you ignore, because it doesn't fit YOUR peculiar interpretation of the Constitution.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 29 at 11:54 p.m.
Looneh,

There are numerous errors in Johnson's analysis, but the chief one is construing the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” as a separate power, and then using examples related to the scope of the “necessary and proper” clause to expand it to a general legislative power.

There have always been disagreements about what the “necessary and proper” clause could justify. The US National Bank was challenged on the ground that creating a central bank was not an enumerated power; but in McCulloch v. Maryland Marshall held it to be allowed as “necessary and proper” for exercising the enumerated powers of borrowing money, collecting taxes, coining money and regulating its value, etc. Marshall wrote,

“This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”

Whether a particular measure is “necessary and proper” to carrying out an enumerated power may always be fairly argued, that is not the thrust of Johnson's thesis. It is the claim that the “general welfare” clause amounts to a general grant of legislative power. And that claim has no support whatsoever in American history until the 20th century.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 30 at 12:05 a.m.
Looneh,

Heh. I expected you to cite the “Report on Manufactures.” Hamilton was indeed a statist (subspecies: mercantilist), an admirer of Colbert. But the subsidies he urged were never adopted. Protective tariffs were, but those were justified on the Constitution's powers to “lay and collect taxes” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” They were not justified on the basis of Hamilton's interpretation of the “general welfare” clause.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 30 at 12:09 a.m.
BTW, I cited the Hamilton Federalist quote to illustrate the interpretation used to sell the document to the American people at the time. Had Hamilton made his “Report” arguments in 1789 the Constitution would never have been ratified.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 30 at 2:56 a.m.
The point is, gmorton, there is NO Constitutional maxim that requires the Congress to be limited by “enumerated powers”. That argument was proffered in the time of the Framers, and discarded, and for good reason.

Hamilton, in his contradictory “logic” about the general welfare cause is emblematic that the Framers genuinely debated deeply on this issue, the “enumerated powers” folks lost very early on.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 30 at 3:20 p.m.
Speaking of Hamilton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNFf7n…

Bootstraps!

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 30 at 7:03 p.m.
Spokanelooneh wrote,

“The point is, gmorton, there is NO Constitutional maxim that requires the Congress to be limited by “enumerated powers”. That argument was proffered in the time of the Framers, and discarded, and for good reason.”

Er, no. It was not discarded until 1936, in US v. Butler – 140 years after the Constitution was ratified.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/1/ca…

Since then, the proportion of GDP consumed by government has increased from the 5-7% it maintained throughout the 19th century to 45% today. The health care scheme will easily push it above 50%.

Hamilton's vision of the megastate has indeed prevailed, as it was bound to do eventually. Big Brother is here.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 30 at 7:20 p.m.
GMorton for a “Libertarian” you sound a lot like a Republican. Interesting dialog between you and Spokelooneh though. No actually, GMorton, the Constitution does not demand “limits” or it would have very specifically prohibited amendments, or any amendment after the first 10 were adopted. But, ideologues demand “limits” when they aren't the ones in power. Doesn't matter WHAT your party is.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 30 at 8:49 p.m.
“Er, no. It was not discarded until 1936, in US v. Butler – 140 years after the Constitution was ratified.”

There were PLENTY of things that were done by Congress which did not fall under the enumerated powers supposed restriction LONG BEFORE 1936.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 30 at 9:03 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“No actually, GMorton, the Constitution does not demand “limits” or it would have very specifically prohibited amendments, or any amendment after the first 10 were adopted.”

Huh?

Sorry, but your reasoning there eludes me completely. Twilight Zone logic, I guess. Or the Mad Hatter's.

Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 30 at 9:23 p.m.
Spokalooneh wrote,

“There were PLENTY of things that were done by Congress which did not fall under the enumerated powers supposed restriction LONG BEFORE 1936.”

Have some examples based on the “general welfare” clause, and not on the “necessary and proper” clause?

As late as 1919, when Congress decided to ban alcoholic beverages, they realized a constitutional amendment would be necessary. No one even suggested that the general welfare clause might authorize it. When it decided to ban narcotic drugs in the 1930s and after, it didn't bother with an amendment. The newly re-interpreted Commerce Clause would suffice. But no one proposed the general welfare clause as a basis.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on December 04 at 8:03 a.m.
And alcoholic trafficking that led to an increase in gangs and general criminal behavior WASN'T a general welfare argument, GMorton, following prohibition? When they repealed the amendment and simply went to REGULATING alcohol instead, then the crime rates that came as a consequence of prohibition also dropped accordingly. The reinterpretation of the commerce clause SINCE the 1930s would make the “War on Drugs” around 70 years old now. AND we are all well aware of just how exponential the increase in crime rates surrounding drug use—as another form of prohibition—has been over the SAME period of time. Am I advocating simply regulating “less dangerous drugs?” No. But I am advocating that we could do some serious revamping of drug policies since the current one doesn't seem to be working too well.

Flag as inappropriate