EB,

By the way, is your new animated avatar specifically designed to induce epileptic fits, or is that just an unintended side effect?

A side effect. Though a happy one to be sure.

Again, so this means that your position that we shouldn't assume motive is denying design?

Actually it's in the context of the so-called "pattern" of murders that pro-lifers are being accused of. As it's self-evident enough that murdering abortion doctors by pro-lifers are a rarity, then it's more than reasonable that some other motive that is more common should be considered before jumping to conclusions. I'm not opposed to thinking 'Yeah, that it may be an anti-abortionist.' I'm saying one should have something more substantial before starting this riot-like attitude Cop and many liberals have shown.

 Wait - your position on murdering abortionists is primarily influenced by the futility of the act?  Can you elaborate on that?

I believe SJ already pointed out that vigilante attitudes are immoral while the rule of law is in place. Murder is murder no matter what age the victim is. Is that consistent and clear enough with the pro-life arguement for you?

Of course, the facts have no bearing at all on this matter!

Actually that's my point. There were no facts when liberals started decrying pro-lifers. By your own admittance there was just assumption. One might as well have assumed it was an atheist killing church goers considering the time and place where Tiller was killed. Would that have struck you as reasonable as well?

Is that deliberately hilarious?  This sentence suggests that all liberals, including i assume the 53% of American voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008, are guilty of painting other people with a wide brush.  Truly, irony is dead.

Heh. Perhaps, though it would be more funny if that number did indeed indicate someone as liberal, as I don't believe it does. Of course the key difference is (assuming the facts matter) is that we can see mine being backed up by liberal organizations and the media. So there is indeed an indication of a 'group' attitude.  For the liberals they have one act by one man, and the pro-life side overwhelmingly decrying the act as well.

 So what if a hypothetical "they" get it wrong at some point in the future?  It's not like anybody was burned at the stake.  Get a grip.

Hmm, I'm sure this was said when a certain Germany party was painting Jews in propaganda.

When was that "found" to be true again?  i forget.

When science (which many secularists supposedly listen to) determined that human life does indeed begin at conception. I thought you were in the medical professian. No text books on the subject where you are at?

When have i said that i have certainty about this?

... but that doesn't mean that one cannot be fairly certain about when it definitely does not exist.

I would have to ask why this and your subsequent "i can say for sure that 100mph is fast, and 1mph is not" was needed then.

i have said when i consider a baby to be full-term, and when i think legal protection should be extended to it.  You (and SJ) interpret that as being an admission of personhood, but it could just be playing it safe.

Heh. Problably because "playing it safe" would extend to the entire pregnancy to truly prevent any risk.

EB,

A side effect. Though a happy one to be sure.

It certainly has some rarity value.  Very few other metaphors for the human condition require a government health warning.

Actually it's in the context of the so-called "pattern" of murders that pro-lifers are being accused of.

Not by me.  Although an interesting aspect to this case is that there is in fact something of a pattern, but not the sort you mean.  This is the first abortionist murdered in over ten years - not one was killed during the Bush years.  i wonder if that is significant?  Might these people (by which i mean, the sort of people who contemplate killing abortion doctors) be superficially placated by having someone in charge who is nominally on their side of the argument?  This would be despite the fact that the actual number of abortions performed in the US fell under Clinton and rose under Bush.

As it's self-evident enough that murdering abortion doctors by pro-lifers are a rarity, then it's more than reasonable that some other motive that is more common should be considered before jumping to conclusions.

i think you are ignoring some relevant detail.  This was a man who had been repeatedly targetted by "pro-life" extremists, and had escaped previous assassination attempts.  Someone who has been targetted in this way is clearly at high risk of being targetted again, making the conclusion that Cop and i and most of the rest of the World drew rather reasonable.  You may not like it since it provided some ammunition to the "pro-choice" side of the culture war, but that doesn't make it less reasonable.

For example, what are the odds of being struck by lightning?  Very small, so if you heard someone had died then taking your "rarity of the event in the general population" approach, it would be quite unwarranted to assume that they had been struck by lightning.  However, if the dead guy in question had been in the habit of standing on hilltops during thunderstorms, then such an inference would be a lot more reasonable.

I believe SJ already pointed out that vigilante attitudes are immoral while the rule of law is in place. Murder is murder no matter what age the victim is. Is that consistent and clear enough with the pro-life arguement for you?

Superficially.  i think that if i were "pro-life" to the extent that you are i would be compelled to take part in armed rebellion against the government, since i would hardly place the "rule of law" above the loss of 3 million innocent lives every year.  That would seem more consistent with your stated principles, to me.

There were no facts when liberals started decrying pro-lifers.

Liberals decry "pro-lifers" as mindless zealots and conservatives decry "pro-choicers" as immoral baby-killers, and it is all very tiresome.  You would gain a little more credibility in objecting to the infantile nature of the national debate if you didn't only do it when your team was on the receiving end.

"So what if a hypothetical "they" get it wrong at some point in the future?  It's not like anybody was burned at the stake.  Get a grip."

Hmm, I'm sure this was said when a certain Germany party was painting Jews in propaganda.

   Ooo, good - another nazi analogy.  Haven't had one of those since yesterday.

Let me turn that back on you for a moment, since this was a question i was intending to put to SntJohnny anyway.  Given both of your stated views on the terrible loss of innocent life being incured by the laws on abortion in the US, and also the inappropriateness of armed rebellion while the "rule of law" is intact, where do you think you guys would have stood in Nazi Germany?  Assuming that you observed the demonisation of the Jews and knew about the genocidal program being organised for them by the democratically elected government.  Would it have been "inappropriate" to join the resistance?  If not, why not?

"When was that "found" to be true again?  i forget."

When science (which many secularists supposedly listen to) determined that human life does indeed begin at conception. I thought you were in the medical professian. No text books on the subject where you are at?

Since i know that you are quite capable of making extremely complex and elaborate arguments in order to reconcile biblical contradictions, the simple-mindedness of this particular argument can only be deliberate.

Heh. Problably because "playing it safe" would extend to the entire pregnancy to truly prevent any risk.

That would be completely safe i agree, but since it would involve depriving many innocent women of their autonomy i cannot support it.  Fortunately, i have no illusions about the "personhood" of a week-old embryo.  It has none.



SJ,

I'm sorry, but what did I say that made you think I was not in a revolutionary mood?

You will please note that there is no smiley face next to that.

 

But then again, why?  Why now, and not last year?  i get that you don't like the extra taxes, the nationalisation of failing companies, or the sudden lack of conservative-friendly rhetoric from the big white building, but surely all that is dwarfed by the scale of the consequences of abortion in the US, and there, almost nothing has changed.  Why are you suddenly in revolutionary mood (while not actually physically rebelling)?

I for one am continually angered to hear Christians painted as diabolical and grouped into the whole 'religion is dangerous' package (ala Copernicus and many others) when in point of fact Christians are, and historically have been, some of the most law abiding folks out there.

i can understand how that might annoy you.  However, see my question to EB and you.  Might this law-abidingness be at best a bit of a cop-out, and at worst make you an accessory to some of the worst crimes of the century?

If we put this question into larger context of this issue it would become clear that even if you said, "Ok, let's have a revolution" it wouldn't follow at all that we'd know what to do.   Do you exterminate all 100 million people who allegedly are pro-choice?  Well gee, that doesn't seem to comport with 'pro-life' principles either, right?

You're making pacifist arguments.

You understand why I and many others simply cannot vote for a person who is pro-choice.

Of course, that's your privelige.  Likewise i would never vote for anyone who was "pro-life" to the extent of banning any and all abortions.

"Nope, but i like to err on the side of caution."

Well, that's progress.  I too like to err on the side of caution.   That's why I want to protect them all the way back to conception.  Can you explain to me what objective non-arbitrary development occurs within this range so that you think personhood may in fact be present?

No, because i don't know.  i know that you and i are 'persons', and i know that a newly fertilised egg is not one.  Somewhere in between we become one, and i'm not convinced that it even happens before birth.  However, at the point where a foetus is capable of surviving independently then i think it deserves the best shot we can give it, and i would not support any abortion after that time unless it was for a condition which would render its life unlivable.  Now, i know that is a subjective assessment.  The link you provided about the late-term abortion for CF was unpleasant, and i would be strongly opposed to that.  CF sufferers rarely make it into their thirties, but they can still have a life worth living.

"No.  That's inaccurate.  25-30 weeks is where i stretch the standard of human rights back to for safety's sake"

Ok, but at 39 weeks you are quite confident that we are talking about persons.  Right?

Nope.  

"i personally would not support (or allow, were i in charge of things) any elective abortion for any reason,"

Awesome.

Whoa, whoa!  Full quote, if you please - "...after thirty weeks gestation except in horrible cases such as anencephaly".  You made me into something i'm not there.

Well, Cop thinks that is akin to diminishing a woman's right to choose.

It is, but society restricts everyones choices to some degree.  i think what would have to be put in place if a woman decided she no longer wanted to continue with the pregnancy after thirty weeks is a system of elective c-sections and then an adoption mechanism.  i think a woman should still be able to choose not to be pregnant, but not to kill the foetus after thirty weeks (except in the sort of cases i mentioned).

"PS - SJ, would you oppose the abortion of an anencephalic foetus at 24 weeks?"

Yes. I know that sounds harsh, but in the first place doctors have been wrong.

They have, but that is surely not the real issue.  Courts have also been wrong before but you still support the death penalty, as of our last conversation on the subject.

In the second place, deciding when and how people die, no matter what the scenario, definitely seems above humanity's 'pay grade.'

Again i would call into question the consistency of this statement with your support of capital punishment.  However, in this case i also disagree.  That may be something to do with my work.  In the ER we see an inordinate number of people who i am positive should be allowed to die peacefully, people in a condition that we would not allow a dog to suffer.  My job, when these people are brought in, is to stick needles and tubes in them, increasing their discomfort in order to prolong a life which is no longer (in my opinion) worth living.

My Grandmother died this week at the age of 99.  She had been sent into hospital a few times when she was ill in the past, and had not enjoyed the experience.  When she became very ill again with a chest infection, we agreed with the nursing home that no ambulance should be called if she deteriorated.  She was not given antibiotics this time, since she couldn't eat without choking and they would have had to be painfully injected.  She was kept comfortable with sub-cutaneous morphine, and slipped away peacefully.  i am very glad that all involved felt it appropriate to not prolong her suffering.

I have met women who carried their children to term knowing the child would be either stillborn or die shortly after.  "Carry to Bury" they called it.  I knew a woman in college who was raped and kept the child.

Impressive choices, but only because they were not forced.  i do not think that anyone has the right to tell a raped woman that she must carry the resulting pregnancy.

These things are not the end of the world for anyone, and 'nature' tends to take its course.

   "not the end of the world"?  No, i agree.  Nor is being raped the end of the world, but i will not join you in calling for its enforcement either.

Don't anecephalic babies usually miscarry or are stillborn anyway?

Or they die within a few days.  They cannot survive and they lack the necessary equipment to be persons.

The scenarios that create the more ethical dilemma in my book is the so called 'life of the mother.'  I don't here mean the pathetic parsing where 'mental health' or whatnot constitutes a threat to the 'life of the mother' but the actual physical threat to the life of the mother.  I don't know how you can legislate this one.   I mean, I'd like to, I guess, I just don't see how you could do it.

i don't think you should be quite so dismissive of the mental health aspect.  Going back to rape, there might often be minimal physical trauma from such an ordeal, but would you dismiss the psychological consequences so lightly?

i think legislating the whole thing is fraught with difficulties.  In countries where abortion is illegal people tend to make their own arrangements, with the result that a rather higher number of potential mothers dies from botched backstreet abortions.  And their babies still die, of course.

That ties into the legalisation fo drugs, in a way.  When legalised, they become safer, although that is not in itself a good argument for doing so.  Far more people die every year as a result of the use of legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol, than as a result of illegal drug use.  i think there's probably something wrong with our classifications when the big killers are freely available and drugs like cannabis which have documented medicinal properties are criminalised.

Anyway, tangent.  Later, Dan

"But then again, why?  Why now, and not last year?"

And what makes you think I wasn't last year?

"i can understand how that might annoy you.  However, see my question to EB and you.  Might this law-abidingness be at best a bit of a cop-out, and at worst make you an accessory to some of the worst crimes of the century?"

I accept that in fact we/I will be held accountable.  But I don't think this necessarily will be because we didn't revolt.

"You're making pacifist arguments."

There is nothing pacifistic about declining to murder 100 million people in order to save 50 million people.

I doubt there is any pro-lifer who, when thinking of the magnitude of the problem, hasn't sat down to consider such options.  But when you think it through, the majority concludes that on both pragmatic grounds and on principle, a revolution just won't cut it.

"No, because i don't know."

Sounds like a great reason to err on the side of caution, to me.

"However, at the point where a foetus is capable of surviving independently "

But strictly speaking, a 'foetus' cannot survive independently even then.  It must be fed and sheltered and have its diapers changed.  If you put it into a room and left it alone for three days it would die.  It wouldn't start a campfire and begin foraging for food.  This standard has the benefit at least of being somewhat non-arbitrary, but I don't see why it is a good solution.  There are plenty of instances where people cannot 'survive independently' (car accident victims, for example) but we don't believe they aren't persons during the time when they can't get up and make their own meals.

"CF sufferers rarely make it into their thirties, but they can still have a life worth living."

Who are you to decide such a thing?  What gives you the right to impose your ideas of 'worthiness' on other people?  Perhaps a mother believes that the life of a CP sufferer believes that her child's life wouldn't be worth living.

"Nope.   Very Happy"

It looks like you have a real problem here.  I appreciate that you think there are complexities and the like but if you cannot bring yourself to believe that the thing is a person on Tuesday when it is due on Wednesday, the problem extends to Thursday after its born.  Nothing physiologically has really changed with our 39-40 week 'fetus.'  The day after it is born you feel more confident it is a person.  The day before, not so much.  Yet the only thing that has changed regarding the infant is geography.

Your problem is that you've got no definition at all.  You're in a spot basically that says "I'll know it when I see it."  But when millions of lives are on the line, you've got to step it up.  Questions about where you're going to eat tonight can be left ambiguous.  Personhood is too important to leave untended.  But we must understand why it is ambiguous for you.  Such uncertainty follows inevitably from your worldview.

"Whoa, whoa!  Full quote, ... You made me into something i'm not there."

Don't worry, I didn't think otherwise of you.  Just condensing. 

Well, Cop thinks that is akin to diminishing a woman's right to choose.

"It is, but society restricts everyones choices to some degree.  i think what would have to be put in place if a woman decided she no longer wanted to continue with the pregnancy after thirty weeks is a system of elective c-sections and then an adoption mechanism."

A unique solution.

What about that time honored tradition of simply abstaining from sexual activity until you are in a structure and context that can accommodate eventualities like pregnancy?

I love this whole "I'm can't stand telling people their behavior is wrong and potentially harmful, so even when it results potentially in the destruction of millions, I'll just find another way to avoid the consequences of choices made."

The ultimate solution to the abortion issue are married individuals who keep their sexual activities within the marital framework.

""PS - SJ, would you oppose the abortion of an anencephalic foetus at 24 weeks?""
"Courts have also been wrong before but you still support the death penalty, as of our last conversation on the subject."

Not sure why the situation is in parallel.  A., if someone wishes to say that they accept the DP in principle but aren't confident in the justice of the system, I respect that.  B., at any rate, capital punishment allows the accused (here in America) significant opportunity to vindicate themselves.  The unborn have no such process, nor did they commit any crime at all.

"Again i would call into question the consistency of this statement with your support of capital punishment."

It is not difficult to perceive the difference here.  Unborn=no crime.  Murderer=crime.  Unborn=no due process.  Accused Murderer=due process.  Unborn=no advocate.  Accused Murderer=advocates (self and attorney).

I would contend that objecting to the DP is itself in contradiction to pro-life principles, but see argument A. above.

"My Grandmother died this week at the age of 99."

Sorry to hear this and hope she died in peace.

Of course, here again with end of life issues, there is the potential for process and advocacy.  This alone makes the situations different.

"Impressive choices, but only because they were not forced.  i do not think that anyone has the right to tell a raped woman that she must carry the resulting pregnancy."

That depends on whether or not it is decided we're talking about a person here, or even might be.  You tell me on what principle you think its ok to kill someone else because of someone else's crime.  That should be priceless.

If we're not talking about a person here, then the question is moot.  If it is a person, then there is no justification for killing him/her.  None.  Perhaps this could be an occasion for your unique solution you described above.

"Not talking  "not the end of the world"?  No, i agree.  Nor is being raped the end of the world, but i will not join you in calling for its enforcement either."

I should hope not, but on no conceivable reasoning is it morally permissible, if the child in question is in fact a person, to kill him, regardless of the circumstances of his conception.  One doesn't get to say "if its a 30 weeker I'm going to protect it because it might be a person but if its the product of a rape mysteriously the same infant isn't (possibly) a person deserving my protection."

Clearly, the critical question boils down to personhood.  On this, you are prepared to err on the side of caution but arbitrarily suspend that caution sometime around 25 weeks or suspend it because of the circumstances in which the child is born.

"i don't think you should be quite so dismissive of the mental health aspect."

I think I absolutely should be dismissive, if only because of the level of dishonesty that is involved.  In America, it is rare to hear the legislation explicitly state 'mental health' as a valid reason but it is often manipulated to get around the law.  If people want mental health on the table then they could at least be courageous enough to be upfront about it.

People are not as frail as the 'mental health' argument requires them to be.  The argument is an insult to women.

"Going back to rape, there might often be minimal physical trauma from such an ordeal, but would you dismiss the psychological consequences so lightly?"

I think in principle this is erroneous.  However, for the sake of the principle that something is better than nothing, how about this- I'll let you get abortions in cases of rape if you'll take all elective abortions past conception off the table.   Since abortions on account of rape and incest probably amount to a dozen or so a year- at most- I will stomach my principle to save the millions of others.  A bitter compromise for me, but a definite improvement.  What do you say?

"In countries where abortion is illegal people tend to make their own arrangements, with the result that a rather higher number of potential mothers dies from botched backstreet abortions.  And their babies still die, of course."

Yes, people tend to make their own arrangements, but its a little silly to enact legislation that makes it easy to facilitate murder- if murder is what we think it is.

But I'm not sure about the facts here.  The whole back alley abortion thing has always seemed to me overblown.  I've never seen any facts and statistics.  Did more women die in back alleys than already die in botched abortions?  The CDC, I recall, reports about 10 women a year die in legal abortions in the US.  Do more women die in botched abortions in these countries you mentioned?

"i think there's probably something wrong with our classifications when the big killers are freely available and drugs like cannabis which have documented medicinal properties are criminalised"

I agree with that, actually, but think its a red herring.  Legalizing drugs in theory affects just the people who choose to buy them.  If every time someone smoked some heroin it killed another person we wouldn't dream of thinking that it was rational to legalize it on the grounds that at least the one smoking it was safer.

It all boils down to the question of personhood.

I am unaware of any objective, non-arbitrary point in human development to look at as a beginning for personhood other than the point of conception itself.  As I said once elsewhere on here, if it could be definitively shown that there was some other point, I'd be happy to consider it.  However, mere differences in stages of development have no impact on personhood status.  You'll need something more substantive than that, otherwise you may as well say that humans aren't persons until they hit puberty.

Not by me.  Although an interesting aspect to this case is that there is in fact something of a pattern, but not the sort you mean.

And not the sort the liberal media is saying either.

i think you are ignoring some relevant detail.  This was a man who had been repeatedly targetted by "pro-life" extremists, and had escaped previous assassination attempts.  Someone who has been targetted in this way is clearly at high risk of being targetted again, making the conclusion that Cop and i and most of the rest of the World drew rather reasonable.  You may not like it since it provided some ammunition to the "pro-choice" side of the culture war, but that doesn't make it less reasonable.

Actually it begs - Why would they start up again just now if it's an organized thing? Though I'm becoming less incline to give your arguements on this point weight, as you are showing to be simply ignoring my counter-examples of what other "likely" assumptions can be drawn.

Superficially.  i think that if i were "pro-life" to the extent that you are i would be compelled to take part in armed rebellion against the government, since i would hardly place the "rule of law" above the loss of 3 million innocent lives every year.  That would seem more consistent with your stated principles, to me.

Problably because you don't understand that it's not the prima facia case that pro-lifers trying to save 3 million lives a year necessitates an armed conflict of millions against millions.

Liberals decry "pro-lifers" as mindless zealots and conservatives decry "pro-choicers" as immoral baby-killers, and it is all very tiresome.  You would gain a little more credibility in objecting to the infantile nature of the national debate if you didn't only do it when your team was on the receiving end.

Heh. Not when the actual facts are on my 'team's' side. And here I thought you cared about the facts.

 Ooo, good - another nazi analogy.  Haven't had one of those since yesterday.

Problably because it's relevent when you see history repeat itself.

Let me turn that back on you for a moment, since this was a question i was intending to put to SntJohnny anyway.  Given both of your stated views on the terrible loss of innocent life being incured by the laws on abortion in the US, and also the inappropriateness of armed rebellion while the "rule of law" is intact, where do you think you guys would have stood in Nazi Germany?  Assuming that you observed the demonisation of the Jews and knew about the genocidal program being organised for them by the democratically elected government.  Would it have been "inappropriate" to join the resistance?  If not, why not?

Depends on the kind of "resistence" you are talking about. If we are talking about the time period when the tools for the Holocaust was being organized and not put into practice, then "resistence" in the form of civil disobedience or trying to bring such actions to the light of the German public (the Holocaust's success can be largely attributed to the fact the Nazis kept it hidden from it's own citizens for awhile) would definitely be called for. And in Nazis Germany there was a clear cut regime with an agenda. Abortion is an act by the ordinary populace, which makes it a far more complex and daunting problem if one is going the resistence route.

But the main difference in my mind is that armed resistence is simply not the only nor the best option at this time. Pro-lifers still have a platform in which to persuade others, and as we see gun-touting acts hurts the movement rather than helps. When there is indeed an option through the system to save innocent lives in a more civilized and lasting fashion without resorting to violence, Christians are simply called to take it first.

Since i know that you are quite capable of making extremely complex and elaborate arguments in order to reconcile biblical contradictions, the simple-mindedness of this particular argument can only be deliberate.

Problably because it's not as complex an issue as it's made out to be.

That would be completely safe i agree, but since it would involve depriving many innocent women of their autonomy i cannot support it.  Fortunately, i have no illusions about the "personhood" of a week-old embryo.  It has none.

It is, but society restricts everyones choices to some degree. Remember who said this?

And I see that guff of "complex phenomenon" was just that. Well like SJ asked - what nonarbitrary act happens that a 25 week old baby is 'magicly' granted personhood, but at 24 weeks and 6 days the thing isn't?

Don't worry, Cop.  I'm sure now that they've made a Federal case out of it, and bent over backwards to ensure that Pelosi can't be linked to it, they will get to the bottom of it and 'root out' these domestic terrorists and their criminal organizations.  There is nothing so detestable as a hate crime, a hate inspired murder.  Benevolently inspired murder, of course, is ok.

I do hope that you'll be responding to the other points directed at you.

Yes, I'll get around to it.  I just finished reading Dannyboy's responses, and I honestly think that he does a better job than me at responding to you. 

Given that he's flopping around like a out of water, that says something about you Cop.

Here is an irony:  Dannyboy refuses to admit that there is definitely a person in the third term but he would still protect them and would not allow elective abortions.  You admit that there definitely is an 'individual' in the third term, but rather than admit that it was unfortunate that Tiller was engaged in such abortions or that you believe that they should be illegal, you defended what he was doing as "providing pregnant women with the right to choose" and that "I believe that late-term abortions are horrendous decisions for the vast majority of women who have them."

Dannyboy would protect that which he cannot confidently assert are persons.  You on the other hand think you are being a swell chap if you don't get in the way of women 'terminating' that which you in other places state are 'individuals.'

Please note I have deliberately avoided using inflammatory language here.   I am not accusing you of tolerating baby-killing and out and out murder, only for state sanctioned 'termination' of 'individuals.'  I did this so that you can sleep at night.  I hope you thank me for my consideration.

Hi Sasquatch,

Best wishes to you and your wife now that the big day is close at hand.  Tell her i hear childbirth smarts a little bit, but i'm sure she'll be fine.

Regarding definitions of the word 'term', i am aware that there is an official number of weeks gestation which is classified that way, but i've been using it a little more loosely since it is quite possible for premature babies to survive after less than thirty weeks now.

Nice to see you buddy.


SJ,

I think DB is trying to foment a revolution.

Heheh.  i'm actually not, i just don't really get why you aren't rebelling.  i understand your viewpoint, and to me it would mandate violent resistance of the type which was used against the Nazi authorities.

And what makes you think I wasn't last year?

Because you're a well-motivated, active, intelligent guy.  i imagine that if you were seriously bent on overthrowing the US government then i would have heard something about it on the news by now.

There is nothing pacifistic about declining to murder 100 million people in order to save 50 million people.

False dilemna - killing 100 million people or letting 50 million die.  The facts of the matter, under your worldview, are that over 3 million entirely innocent human beings are being killed every year in the US, in procedures approved of and ultimately presided over by the government.  i get that you find this horrifying, and i would too if i believed it.  Under such circumstances, i would expect you (and all the other people who believe it) to do everything in your power to change the status quo, including actions technically illegal under your countries laws.  To quote you - But when millions of lives are on the line, you've got to step it up.  What's stopping you?

i know that the 'potential loss of life' arguments impressed you very little in 2003 when i, and others, made them against the invasion of Iraq which you thoroughly supported.  What was the calculation there?  How many were being saved for the potential death toll of such an invasion?  Can you see why i am confused?

I doubt there is any pro-lifer who, when thinking of the magnitude of the problem, hasn't sat down to consider such options.  But when you think it through, the majority concludes that on both pragmatic grounds and on principle, a revolution just won't cut it.

And yet i think that you would feel differently if the government was killing 3 million newborn babies a year.  i think in that situation you and many others would find a violent uprising to be wholey in line with your principles, regardless of the practical difficulties involved.  Am i wrong there?

"No, because i don't know."

Sounds like a great reason to err on the side of caution, to me.

Agreed.  However, i don't see any good reason to err so far on the side of caution that we restrict the autonomy of women in the early stages of pregnancy.  Yes, all laws limit people's choices in some degree, but not without good reason for doing so.

"However, at the point where a foetus is capable of surviving independently "

But strictly speaking, a 'foetus' cannot survive independently even then.  It must be fed and sheltered and have its diapers changed.  If you put it into a room and left it alone for three days it would die.  It wouldn't start a campfire and begin foraging for food.

   True.  Let me be more precise - the point at which the foetus is capable of surviving independent of the mother.  We know all too well that you cannot force someone to be a good parent.  Some people will abandon or mistreat their children, and while we can penalise this, that will not magically transform them into nurturing mothers or fathers.  In that situation, the state (or relatives) have to take over.  Likewise, if a woman decides that she doesn't wish to remain pregnant after thirty weeks but still before the ideal delivery date, i don't think that it is realistic to suggest that we can coerce her with laws into fulfilling her function as an incubator for her child.  Just as with later parenting, the best scenario is that a child is cared for by his or her own parents, but we have to accept that human beings will not always live up to their responsibilities.  A plastic incubator, IV drips and nutrition are a poor substitute for the safety of a womb, but it is preferable to death via an illegal abortion, so i think on practical as well as on principled grounds it is appropriate for the state to step in when a parent (or parent-to-be) shirks his or her responsibilities.

This standard has the benefit at least of being somewhat non-arbitrary, but I don't see why it is a good solution.  There are plenty of instances where people cannot 'survive independently' (car accident victims, for example) but we don't believe they aren't persons during the time when they can't get up and make their own meals.

Not being able to survive independently of people who signed up for caring for you and who generally get paid for it is a significantly different moral calculation that not being able to survive independently of someone who didn't ask to have you growing inside them and is forced to have their body distorted against their will in the service of your growth.

Nothing physiologically has really changed with our 39-40 week 'fetus.'  The day after it is born you feel more confident it is a person.  The day before, not so much.  Yet the only thing that has changed regarding the infant is geography.

i don't know where you're getting this from.  i have said that i believe a full-term foetus should have the same rights as a newborn baby.  i have not stated that the change in location has anything to do with the attribution of personhood.  This paragraph appears to be addressed to someone else.

"It is, but society restricts everyones choices to some degree.  i think what would have to be put in place if a woman decided she no longer wanted to continue with the pregnancy after thirty weeks is a system of elective c-sections and then an adoption mechanism."

A unique solution.

Thank you.  i think.

What about that time honored tradition of simply abstaining from sexual activity until you are in a structure and context that can accommodate eventualities like pregnancy?

   Wow, look who turns into a hippie communist humanist when proposing solutions to unintended pregnancy!  i thought your worldview was all about how humans are basically all miserable sinners, and any plan which counts on them to do the right thing en-mass is foolish utopianism.  Seriously, do you think this is either a) realistic or b) enforcable?

I love this whole "I'm can't stand telling people their behavior is wrong and potentially harmful, so even when it results potentially in the destruction of millions, I'll just find another way to avoid the consequences of choices made."

To be fair, i don't share your view that millions are endangered by legal abortions, the vast majority of which occur in the early stages of pregnancy.  i also decline to take very much of this high-horse stuff from someone who ostensibly does believe that millions of innocent lives are being taken every year but who is apparently disinclined to do anything more than talk about it.

The ultimate solution to the abortion issue are married individuals who keep their sexual activities within the marital framework.

i could not fail to disagree with you less.    That is the utopian day-dream pie-in-the-sky solution to the abortion issue, so why even bring it up?  It's almost exactly like saying that the ultimate solution to inequality and poverty is for everyone to share all property in common.  Sure, that would be fine if it worked, but it's never going to work, and everyone sensible ought to be able to realise that.

...capital punishment allows the accused (here in America) significant opportunity to vindicate themselves.  The unborn have no such process, nor did they commit any crime at all.

Well, although that is quite true you're going outside the framework of the analogy.  The court's deliberations about guilt or innocence in a capital case are paralleled with a medical professional's diagnostic tests for anencephaly.  In both cases, a certain result entails that it is "ok" to kill the accused/foetus because in one case they have forfitted their right to life, or in the other case because there is no chance of survival.  As you say, a lack of faith in the judicial or medical system would be a good reason to oppose such a process, but i just wonder why your faith in courts is apparently stronger than your faith in doctors.

You tell me on what principle you think its ok to kill someone else because of someone else's crime.  That should be priceless.

Those are your terms.  It should always be possible to abort a rape pregnancy before there is any possibility of it being a person, in my view.  If for some reason it isn't, and the pregnancy passes the point of viability i think that the woman should have the right to decide to deliver early and hand the baby over to the medical and social services of the state.

If we're not talking about a person here, then the question is moot.  If it is a person, then there is no justification for killing him/her.  None.  Perhaps this could be an occasion for your unique solution you described above.

Snap.  And yes, i agree.

However, for the sake of the principle that something is better than nothing, how about this- I'll let you get abortions in cases of rape if you'll take all elective abortions past conception off the table.   Since abortions on account of rape and incest probably amount to a dozen or so a year- at most- I will stomach my principle to save the millions of others.  A bitter compromise for me, but a definite improvement.  What do you say?

   i feel like we're in power-sharing talks to form a bi-partisan world government.  That would be interesting.

Although i like that you're willing to compromise, i can't really sign up to this deal because it would criminalise a lot of procedures which although in many cases i might consider them to be symptoms of irresponsibility and immature carelessness, i do not think that they should be illegal.

My compromise would be this - no abortions after 24 weeks, only elective deliveries/c-sections with the state then taking medical and social responsibility for the baby if it is viable.  Prior to 24 weeks, i can't really offer you much except the promise of a massive public health campaign aimed at reducing uninternded pregnancies.  i might be willing to discuss some sort of legislation penalising the apparent use of abortions as a regular form of contraception.  Run that past the Minister for the Supression of Vice and Promotion of Virtue and see what he makes of it.  Heheh

The whole back alley abortion thing has always seemed to me overblown.  I've never seen any facts and statistics.  Did more women die in back alleys than already die in botched abortions?  The CDC, I recall, reports about 10 women a year die in legal abortions in the US.  Do more women die in botched abortions in these countries you mentioned?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3194680.stm

"In Peru alone, an estimated 50,000 women a year either die or suffer serious complications after an illegal abortion."

I am unaware of any objective, non-arbitrary point in human development to look at as a beginning for personhood other than the point of conception itself.

And maybe there isn't one.  You can demand one as much as you like, but that doesn't mean that one can be produced.  Imagine for a moment (just for the sake of argument) that evolution is true.  If that is the case, then we can presume that consciousness was something that evolved slowly and gradually through various different populations.  To demand an exact point at which consciousness emerged would be foolish, and the position that since we must find a 'non-arbitrary' point we should go all the way back and define flatworms as being conscious beings, even more so.

You might find this interesting:  http://americanrtl.org/news/abortion-vigilantism-worksheet
 
Yeah, interesting.  Too long for me to fully take in on a quick glance, but i'll try to read it more thoroughly later.


EB,

Though I'm becoming less incline to give your arguements on this point weight, as you are showing to be simply ignoring my counter-examples of what other "likely" assumptions can be drawn.

i'm confused.  You suggested that Tiller might have been shot by a militant atheist or a cuckolded husband.  Are you wanting me to take these suggestions seriously at this point?

i don't really know why we're still having this debate days after the general assumption which you are apparently still fighting against has been proved correct.

Heh. Not when the actual facts are on my 'team's' side. And here I thought you cared about the facts.

i am interested in the facts, but less so when the "facts" turn out to be code for "EB's opinions", as it often has done in the past.

Depends on the kind of "resistence" you are talking about. If we are talking about the time period when the tools for the Holocaust was being organized and not put into practice, then "resistence" in the form of civil disobedience or trying to bring such actions to the light of the German public (the Holocaust's success can be largely attributed to the fact the Nazis kept it hidden from it's own citizens for awhile) would definitely be called for.

So are you doing that?  Y'know, since the genocidal program which you claim to believe is going on has been in place for a number of years.

Abortion is an act by the ordinary populace, which makes it a far more complex and daunting problem if one is going the resistence route.

While that may be true, i don't see how the difficulty of tackling the problem affects the moral necessity to do so.

When there is indeed an option through the system to save innocent lives in a more civilized and lasting fashion without resorting to violence, Christians are simply called to take it first.

Yeah, i'll bet you supported continuing weapons inspections in Iraq instead of invading didn't you.  Appeasement anybody?

And I see that guff of "complex phenomenon" was just that. Well like SJ asked - what nonarbitrary act happens that a 25 week old baby is 'magicly' granted personhood, but at 24 weeks and 6 days the thing isn't?

You're projecting again.  i haven't said anything like this.


Cop,

I just finished reading Dannyboy's responses, and I honestly think that he does a better job than me at responding to you.

You are too kind sir.  

i'm confused.  You suggested that Tiller might have been shot by a militant atheist or a cuckolded husband.  Are you wanting me to take these suggestions seriously at this point?

i don't really know why we're still having this debate days after the general assumption which you are apparently still fighting against has been proved correct.

Just as another example of liberal hypocriscy.

i am interested in the facts, but less so when the "facts" turn out to be code for "EB's opinions", as it often has done in the past.

Or rather, you don't like the conclusions the facts lead to, which is what my opinion is based on.

So are you doing that?  Y'know, since the genocidal program which you claim to believe is going on has been in place for a number of years.

Apparently so, since it's getting to the point where simply making the arguement for pro-life and calling a spade a spade is being dubbed 'hate speech', I'm expressing civil disobedience just by having this conversation with you. And I whole heartedly support those who are willing to camp out at abortion clinics and make a nuisance of themselves.

While that may be true, i don't see how the difficulty of tackling the problem affects the moral necessity to do so.

I didn't say it did. I am using it as an example of how tackling the problem of abortion calls for a fundamentally different method than simply gunning down a Nazi.

Yeah, i'll bet you supported continuing weapons inspections in Iraq instead of invading didn't you.  Appeasement anybody?

You seem to be under the false impression that I think the invasion was only justified on the grounds of WMD's being reported to exist. Or that I thought that there was indeed a civilized way to have delt with Saddam. Do you find the civilized way being of any effect with North Korea?

The UN is like GI Joe - an organization with the goal of world peace. Difference being one of them actually achieves their goals.

And I see that guff of "complex phenomenon" was just that. Well like SJ asked - what nonarbitrary act happens that a 25 week old baby is 'magicly' granted personhood, but at 24 weeks and 6 days the thing isn't?

You're projecting again.  i haven't said anything like this.

That's fair enough, so I'll rephrase - What nonarbitrary act happens that at 25 weeks the thing is suddenly worthy of protection that you don't feel imparting at 24 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds?

Better?

EB,

"i don't really know why we're still having this debate days after the general assumption which you are apparently still fighting against has been proved correct."

Just as another example of liberal hypocriscy.

i dont see the hypocracy (although you may have read something that i haven't due to not being American).  People presumed that this man, who had been violently targetted in the past by anti-abortion campaigners, was killed by an anti-abortion campaigner, and commented accordingly.  i understand that you consider this presumptuous, although it was quickly proved to be correct, but why do you consider it hypocritical?

"So are you doing that?  Y'know, since the genocidal program which you claim to believe is going on has been in place for a number of years."

Apparently so, since it's getting to the point where simply making the arguement for pro-life and calling a spade a spade is being dubbed 'hate speech', I'm expressing civil disobedience just by having this conversation with you.

Ok, and we can both agree that that is stupid.  However, maybe those in charge are making a similar calculation that i am and thinking "Holy s***, if these people actually believe what they say they'll be breaking down the door of the Oval Office any minute now!!".  From that view-point it kind of makes sense to include people who believe the things you do in groups that are considered a danger to the state.  Now if only they knew you weren't really consistent in your beliefs they could all relax.  

And I whole heartedly support those who are willing to camp out at abortion clinics and make a nuisance of themselves.

Yes, that is brave.  If i knew of a place where innocent people were being murdered every day i'd certainly... camp out,... and make a nuisance of myself by throwing red paint occasionally.  And chanting.

That is a proportionate response.... at an animal testing lab!  Not when human lives are on the line!  What is up with you people???

I am using it as an example of how tackling the problem of abortion calls for a fundamentally different method than simply gunning down a Nazi.

Oh, you mean it's complex?  

You seem to be under the false impression that I think the invasion was only justified on the grounds of WMD's being reported to exist. Or that I thought that there was indeed a civilized way to have delt with Saddam. Do you find the civilized way being of any effect with North Korea?

If there was only one possible "civilized" form of engagement, or war, then that might be a sensible question.  So, you also had human rights concerns with Saddam did you?  Well, that's reasonable.  i assume that you've been pushing ever since for an invasion of Saudi Arabia too?

And I see that guff of "complex phenomenon" was just that. Well like SJ asked - what nonarbitrary act happens that a 25 week old baby is 'magicly' granted personhood, but at 24 weeks and 6 days the thing isn't?

You're projecting again.  i haven't said anything like this.

That's fair enough, so I'll rephrase - What nonarbitrary act happens that at 25 weeks the thing is suddenly worthy of protection that you don't feel imparting at 24 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds?

Better?

Yes, thank you.

It's not something that happens on the minute, but as i said to SJ just now, there is a significant milestone passed between 20 and 24 weeks.  The odds of survival outside the womb go from 0% to around 50%, which for me is an important fact, although i understand that it may not be one for you.  Since i do not consider a 24 weeker to be a person in the sense that you or i are persons, i make a different calculation to you.  i think a 24 weeker deserves a chance to become a person, but that potentiality, to me, is not more pressing than a person's right to decide what to do with their own body - and the woman involved, to me, automatically qualifies as a person.  So, after that stage, if a woman decides she no longer wishes to continue with the pregnancy, the baby can be delivered with a reasonable chance of surviving and the state can take over its care.  There should be no reason to abort after that unless, as in anencephaly, there is literally no prospect of survival.  Prior to 20 weeks, there is no chance of independent survival (independent of the mother, i mean) and for me the scales tip in favour of the woman's choice, rather than the foetuses' potentiality.  So, it doesn't have to be bang-on 24 weeks, but around that time period seems like an accurate reflection of the realities of the situation.  Is that clear?