Topic: The Mighty Cop: Another victory for the Sanctity of Life crowd (Read 4082 times)

End Bringer · « **Reply #40 on:** June 08, 2009, 05:02:32 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 08, 2009, 03:32:24 PM

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?

Mostly due to the fact that we see far more death at the hands of Islamic motivation, yet the Left is more than willing to call for people not to condemn all Muslims for any single murder. Perhaps not being American does indeed remove you from things a bit (at least media wise).

Quote

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.

That's kind of always the view point from the oppressor's side of the table.

Quote

Now if only they knew you weren't really consistent in your beliefs they could all relax.

Can't know that as I'm not being consistent to my beliefs. That YOUR belief is that a problem that is largely in the legal system and the minds of the populace needs to be addressed by kicking down doors is something I'll gladly not be consistent with.

Quote

Oh, you mean it's complex?

No. It's simply comparing apples to oranges in terms of appropriate response.

Quote

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?

I personally push for any military response anywhere when there is a clear moral obligation and talk is shown to be useless. I have no qualms in America policing the world (in theory).

Quote

It's not something that happens on the minute...

Why not? Your belief is clearly 'It's not a person when it's growing at point A, then it suddenly is one at Point B.' That kind of does demand a transition on the hundreth of a second. As such it demands a nonarbitrary quality to signify that change.

Quote

...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.

Obviously, because "survival" outside the womb with no help is 0% as well.

And this doesn't even address what "survival" has to do with determining 'personhood' anyway. Who says a person is only a person if they can survive independantly?

Quote

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.

Dodging. I already know what your belief is. You seem to not step up when a rationale is called for.

Quote

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?

It's largely irrelevant. I didn't ask 'Do you think it can be 'terminated' at 24 weeks?', which is almost what all your response covers. I asked - 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?

The only quality you give is survival. It puts the question back to - Why is survival a relevant to personhood? Or better yet - How does surviving independantly (without help) necessitate us protecting the thing and thus helping? Seems a blatant contradiction to hold that something can only be helped when it doesn't need help.

Plus it occurs to me that inability to survive independantly is actually more reason to demand protection as fragility necessitates care.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #41 on:** June 09, 2009, 03:46:50 PM »

EB,

"i understand that you consider this presumptuous, although it was quickly proved to be correct, but why do you consider it hypocritical?"

Mostly due to the fact that we see far more death at the hands of Islamic motivation, yet the Left is more than willing to call for people not to condemn all Muslims for any single murder. Perhaps not being American does indeed remove you from things a bit (at least media wise).

Perhaps. i don't think you should be too quick to blanket the entire "Left" with the accusation of hypocracy, however, since i strongly suspect that the voices condemning all "pro-lifers" for this murder are less representative than you suggest.

"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."

That's kind of always the view point from the oppressor's side of the table.

There certainly is a tendency for groups in power to unfairly demonise those who oppose their goals (the castigation of anti-war activists as "Un-American" is an example), just as there is a tendency among groups whose particular special interest is not well represented by the government to wallow in victimhood. Again, your "Power to the Underdog" rhetoric would be more commendable if it didn't correlate so well with the ousting of the Neo-Con frat boy. i strongly suspect that it stems more from self-interest than principle.

Can't know that as I'm not being consistent to my beliefs. That YOUR belief is that a problem that is largely in the legal system and the minds of the populace needs to be addressed by kicking down doors is something I'll gladly not be consistent with.

That's weak and you know it. People who 'camp outside abortion clinics and make a nuisance of themselves' are clearly not people who truly believe that baby-murder is routinely being done inside. They may say that they do, but their response is not consistent with their supposed ideological beliefs. If you believed that an innocent child was being murdered in the house next door to yours, would you sit outside singing hymns, or would you kick down the door and defend the kid?

You want to pretend that this is a simple issue, but your behaviour says otherwise. If you truly believed that abortion is the unequivocal murder of a human being, as you have suggested here, then you would have been morally compelled to act in such a way that you would probably now be in prison. In other words, you are a hypocrite.

I personally push for any military response anywhere when there is a clear moral obligation and talk is shown to be useless. I have no qualms in America policing the world (in theory).

Why only in theory?

Your belief is clearly 'It's not a person when it's growing at point A, then it suddenly is one at Point B.' That kind of does demand a transition on the hundreth of a second. As such it demands a nonarbitrary quality to signify that change.

No, you're obviously not getting this. Viability has nothing to do with personhood. Personhood is obviously important, but unknowable, so kind of useless in this kind of discussion (on that point we almost agree). Viability has everything to do with the state being able to take over responsibility from the mother for the further development of the baby/foetus.

"survival" outside the womb with no help is 0% as well.

True. But the help available outside of the womb does not have to be forced in the case of a reluctant mother, and i am not prepared to support the application of that force on behalf of something which i am convinced does not qualify as a person. After 24-25 weeks this consideration does not apply, and i am happy to apply the benefit of the doubt.

Who says a person is only a person if they can survive independantly?

No one has said that.

"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?"

It's largely irrelevant. I didn't ask 'Do you think it can be 'terminated' at 24 weeks?', which is almost what all your response covers. I asked - 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?

You're missing the point. i don't think that the degree of 'worthiness of protection' changes significantly in that period, but only that the potential moral cost of providing protection prior to that is prohibitive, because it necessitates negating the autonomy of a definite person on behalf of a potential person.

Plus it occurs to me that inability to survive independantly is actually more reason to demand protection as fragility necessitates care.

i hope no one ever applies that standard when deciding between your life and that of a newborn kitten.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #42 on:** June 09, 2009, 04:33:14 PM »

Afterthought:

EB says, I personally push for any military response anywhere when there is a clear moral obligation and talk is shown to be useless, and yet declines to do anything more than talk when his stated belief system inescapably entails a death toll of innocents in the United States which is in the same league as the Holocaust without any apparent respite for the last thirty odd years. If that isn't hypocracy (and from someone who flagrantly tosses around accusations of hypocracy in others, at that) then i don't know what is.

For someone so fond of accusing others of promulgating slippery slopes to genocide, you are shown by your present inaction to be someone who would have done little more than sit on his butt and criticise the government if you happened to be alive at the time of the Holocaust. Advocating the killing of far away strangers when there is a "clear moral obligation" to do so obviously presents no problem for you, but bring things a little closer to home and you turn squeamish. Truly, you are a crusading couch-warrior.

End Bringer · « **Reply #43 on:** June 09, 2009, 05:29:17 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 09, 2009, 03:46:50 PM

Perhaps. i don't think you should be too quick to blanket the entire "Left" with the accusation of hypocracy, however, since i strongly suspect that the voices condemning all "pro-lifers" for this murder are less representative than you suggest.

Debatable.

Quote

There certainly is a tendency for groups in power to unfairly demonise those who oppose their goals (the castigation of anti-war activists as "Un-American" is an example), just as there is a tendency among groups whose particular special interest is not well represented by the government to wallow in victimhood.

Which begs the question - is it an accurate characterization? If so, then it's calling a spade a spade.

Quote

Again, your "Power to the Underdog" rhetoric would be more commendable if it didn't correlate so well with the ousting of the Neo-Con frat boy. i strongly suspect that it stems more from self-interest than principle.

If that's how you see what I'm argueing then you haven't been paying attention.

Quote

That's weak and you know it. People who 'camp outside abortion clinics and make a nuisance of themselves' are clearly not people who truly believe that baby-murder is routinely being done inside. They may say that they do, but their response is not consistent with their supposed ideological beliefs.

They are, and not just those that are strict pacifists. And if all you've got is assertion I see no reason to put any more force behind mine at this point.

Quote

If you believed that an innocent child was being murdered in the house next door to yours, would you sit outside singing hymns, or would you kick down the door and defend the kid?

Heh. And we see your continued streak of flawed analogies is maintained. As such an act is clearly illegal, while abortion is legal. Seriously how is such an act comparable method wise when trying to save the child lands you in jail and the community is inclinded to allow such acts in every household when you aren't around to make an opposing arguement.

Quote

You want to pretend that this is a simple issue, but your behaviour says otherwise.

No actually. I hold the issue of personhood and when a human being is a human being are actually simple issue. Killing abortion doctors is indeed a complex issue. I'm just nut shelling my arguement.

Quote

If you truly believed that abortion is the unequivocal murder of a human being, as you have suggested here, then you would have been morally compelled to act in such a way that you would probably now be in prison. In other words, you are a hypocrite.

Oh I believe it's more than that. I believe it's an ideological war that is indeed causing genocide. And as a rule of war it behooves us to achieve our goals in the most expedient way possible. Killing an individual abortionist sets our achievement back and thus is the wrong way to do things as it simply allows more death to go on unopposed. Even in the German death camps killing a single Nazis opperator would do nothing to stem the slaughter. What is called for is to go after the machines being used, which in this case is the legal system.

Quote

I personally push for any military response anywhere when there is a clear moral obligation and talk is shown to be useless. I have no qualms in America policing the world (in theory).

Why only in theory?

With our current administration, you even need to ask?

Quote

No, you're obviously not getting this. Viability has nothing to do with personhood. Personhood is obviously important, but unknowable, so kind of useless in this kind of discussion (on that point we almost agree).

Not if you're going to throw "potential personhood" lines at me like we see below. As such it is the ONLY issue. Sadly for you it's also simplisticly known which is why the ontological question is ignored by pro-abortionists.

Quote

Viability has everything to do with the state being able to take over responsibility from the mother for the further development of the baby/foetus.

Which it usually does when the thing is shown to be a human being/person. Which is again, why it's the only issue. As such if you hold this 'not-then-but-is-later' belief it demands a point of transition. As you want to maintain this "unknowable" act (I suspect you may just not want to know), you throw a 'safe period' that you feel comfortable with. However as there is no rationale behind it to say why it can't be pushed back further or not even applied, it's about as compelling as taking a dart and throwing it at a board and it lands on the "25 weeks" spot.

Quote

True. But the help available outside of the womb does not have to be forced in the case of a reluctant mother...

Ever heard of "neglect" crimes? This would be even less silly were it not for the recent news of the court forcing a child to recieve medical care, when the family declined for religious reasons. So go ahead. Tell me help does not have to be forced again.

Quote

...and i am not prepared to support the application of that force on behalf of something which i am convinced does not qualify as a person. After 24-25 weeks this consideration does not apply, and i am happy to apply the benefit of the doubt.

It occurs to me - what is your view on animal rights? I don't beleive I've erver heard you say. Because the contradiction on not willing to apply force on behalf of a "potential person", yet apply force on behave of animals that don't even become persons potentially should be obvious.

Quote

Who says a person is only a person if they can survive independantly?

No one has said that.

Then you wasted our time with this 'survivability' tact.

Quote

You're missing the point. i don't think that the degree of 'worthiness of protection' changes significantly in that period, but only that the potential moral cost of providing protection prior to that is prohibitive, because it necessitates negating the autonomy of a definite person on behalf of a potential person.

I believe someone here said that society restricts everyone's autonomy to some degree. Know the guy?

Quote

i hope no one ever applies that standard when deciding between your life and that of a newborn kitten.

As a kitten is not a human being the standard doesn't even apply (yet even it is afforded some protection despite it's 'nonperson' status). In regards to a baby, I'd be the first to say "Forget about me!".

End Bringer · « **Reply #44 on:** June 09, 2009, 05:41:23 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 09, 2009, 04:33:14 PM

Afterthought:

EB says, I personally push for any military response anywhere when there is a clear moral obligation and talk is shown to be useless, and yet declines to do anything more than talk when his stated belief system inescapably entails a death toll of innocents in the United States which is in the same league as the Holocaust without any apparent respite for the last thirty odd years. If that isn't hypocracy (and from someone who flagrantly tosses around accusations of hypocracy in others, at that) then i don't know what is.

You don't know what is then. Pretty much because we aren't at the point where talk is shown to be useless. If Roe v Wade is overturned yet nothing changes...well we'll see what happens.

Quote

For someone so fond of accusing others of promulgating slippery slopes to genocide, you are shown by your present inaction to be someone who would have done little more than sit on his butt and criticise the government if you happened to be alive at the time of the Holocaust. Advocating the killing of far away strangers when there is a "clear moral obligation" to do so obviously presents no problem for you, but bring things a little closer to home and you turn squeamish. Truly, you are a crusading couch-warrior.

*Yawn* I find this ad hominim particularly dull considering I do take action. That it's not the kind of "action" you think my belief calls for means nothing as it's simply not the kind of action that is indeed called for at this time as I, and most of the pro-life community, have shown.

That and your continued failed analogies of killing soldiers doesn't compare to killing pregnant women. The doctor may perform the "hit", but ultimately it's the mothers who send them to the "gas chambers". The circumstances simply aren't the same, and as I've consistenty argued it's the circumstances that define the morality of the action everyone must take. And even during the Holocaust people took "action" by hiding Jews and getting them to safety. Were they a "couch-warrior" too, or can you acknowledge that "action" takes more than one form and yours doesn't necessarily follow?

Edit: It should also be noted that a supposed contradiction or not does nothing to the legitimacey of the pro-life arguement itself.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #45 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:06:36 AM »

EB,

"...i strongly suspect that the voices condemning all "pro-lifers" for this murder are less representative than you suggest."

Debatable.

Which i take to mean that you'd rather not debate it since you are aware that your characterisation of the entire Left as a howling torches-and-pitchforks mob will not actually stand up to scrutiny.

"There certainly is a tendency for groups in power to unfairly demonise those who oppose their goals (the castigation of anti-war activists as "Un-American" is an example), just as there is a tendency among groups whose particular special interest is not well represented by the government to wallow in victimhood."

Which begs the question - is it an accurate characterization? If so, then it's calling a spade a spade.

Why is it that you never come up with fatuous truisms like this when it is your personal viewpoint that is under attack? So you think that the Bush government tarring opponents of the Iraq war as "un-American" was calling a spade a spade, but the Obama administration suggesting that "pro-lifers" might represent a threat is facistic oppression of the worst kind?

"i strongly suspect that it stems more from self-interest than principle."

If that's how you see what I'm argueing then you haven't been paying attention.

Sure, maybe i blinked and missed a split second of genuine humility or willingness to see the other persons point of view from you. Could you point it out to me?

"People who 'camp outside abortion clinics and make a nuisance of themselves' are clearly not people who truly believe that baby-murder is routinely being done inside. They may say that they do, but their response is not consistent with their supposed ideological beliefs."

They are, and not just those that are strict pacifists. And if all you've got is assertion I see no reason to put any more force behind mine at this point.

Perhaps it would help if i quoted my favourite philosopher on this subject - "Frankly I find strict pacifism immoral as it allows for victimhood by evil" (Re: Leo was correct, Reply #3: Today at 04:12:22 AM). It would seem like all of them, barring the occasional Roeder, must be strict pacifists - since they are doing nothing concrete to stop the evil which they claim to believe in - and yet you say that you support them?

Frankly you are (not unjustly) hoisted on your own petard in this debate, and i don't need to do much more than point to your previous statements in order for everyone to be able to see that. You have repeatedly invoked the holocaust as a clumsy weapon against your adversaries in discussing the issue of personhood, and stated repeatedly that there is no moral difference between killing an adult human and killing a 2-day embryo. They're all humans, right? But faced with the actions of a man who, i'm guessing, totally believed what you say you believe you get all coy.

"If you believed that an innocent child was being murdered in the house next door to yours, would you sit outside singing hymns, or would you kick down the door and defend the kid?"

Heh. And we see your continued streak of flawed analogies is maintained. As such an act is clearly illegal, while abortion is legal.

And there we have it. You're happy to intervene to save a life if and only if the law is on your side. What on earth do human laws have to do with what is morally right, in your worldview? i thought that you were committed to a Higher Law?

If you had lived in Nazi Germany then plenty of things which could have saved lives would have been illegal. i am taking note of the fact that you suggest that this alone would have stopped you from doing them.

Seriously how is such an act comparable method wise when trying to save the child lands you in jail and the community is inclinded to allow such acts in every household when you aren't around to make an opposing arguement.

Again, if you are true to your beliefs, then what you are engaging in is the biggest equal rights struggle in history, with millions of lives on the line. Gandhi and Mandela both spent significant amounts of time in prison in the service of fighting for what they believed in, as did innumerable other civil rights protesters over the last fifty or sixty years. Your desire not to go to prison in the service of saving millions of human lives doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who needs to reevaluate his level of commitment to the cause.

I hold the issue of personhood and when a human being is a human being are actually simple issue. Killing abortion doctors is indeed a complex issue. I'm just nut shelling my arguement.

i haven't suggested killing abortion doctors, and i don't think you should. But if your beliefs are as strong as you make them out to be then clearly urgent action is needed to make their work illegal as soon as possible. You don't want to go to prison, so instead you just talk about it. that's ok.

Even in the German death camps killing a single Nazis opperator would do nothing to stem the slaughter. What is called for is to go after the machines being used, which in this case is the legal system.

So how do you do that, bearing in mind the supreme urgency of this matter?

"Viability has everything to do with the state being able to take over responsibility from the mother for the further development of the baby/foetus."

Which it usually does when the thing is shown to be a human being/person. Which is again, why it's the only issue.

To quote that favourite philosopher of mine again, "if all you've got is assertion I see no reason to put any more force behind mine at this point."

"True. But the help available outside of the womb does not have to be forced in the case of a reluctant mother..."

Ever heard of "neglect" crimes? This would be even less silly were it not for the recent news of the court forcing a child to recieve medical care, when the family declined for religious reasons. So go ahead. Tell me help does not have to be forced again.

You can't force people to be good parents, it is impossible. Help can be provided, sure, but if they do not accept it then it may be better to take away their parental responsibility. That is what i am advocating after 24 weeks, not because i think that a foetus is a person at that stage, but because the mother's participation is no longer key to her baby's survival, and therefore we can let her make that choice. Prior to 24 weeks there is so little realistic chance of the foetus surviving without the mother that it makes no sense to try and do that. And, as history shows, many women will seek abortions even if they are criminalised (which i assume is your ultimate solution), and as a result will die. Since i have no illusions about the personhood of a pre-viable foetus, i think it better to have it done legally.

It occurs to me - what is your view on animal rights? I don't beleive I've erver heard you say. Because the contradiction on not willing to apply force on behalf of a "potential person", yet apply force on behave of animals that don't even become persons potentially should be obvious.

i think that anything which is demonstrably capable of feeling pain should be spared pain werever possible. i support limited and humane animal testing, because of the number of human lives it has saved.

""Who says a person is only a person if they can survive independantly?""

"No one has said that."

Then you wasted our time with this 'survivability' tact.

Or alternatively you have wasted your own time by willfuly misunderstanding it. i have never said that survivability has anything to do with personhood, but that at a time when personhood is extremely unlikely it is pivotal to whether or not the state can step in and take over from an unwilling mother.

I believe someone here said that society restricts everyone's autonomy to some degree. Know the guy?

Further time-wasting. That society limits peoples choices is just a truism, and stating it does not imply that the speaker wants all human rights to be curtailed.

Pretty much because we aren't at the point where talk is shown to be useless. If Roe v Wade is overturned yet nothing changes...well we'll see what happens.

Talk is cheap. People like you have been talking for thirty-five years, and you've just elected your most "pro-choice" president ever. How many innocents have died within that time, according to you, and how many more will die during Obama's presidency? i'm sure that they would all be pleased to know that you were 'talking' on their behalf.

I find this ad hominim particularly dull considering I do take action.

Oh, i'm so sorry. What action do you take?

That and your continued failed analogies of killing soldiers doesn't compare to killing pregnant women. The doctor may perform the "hit", but ultimately it's the mothers who send them to the "gas chambers".

i haven't suggested killing pregnant women - you are throwing up smokescreens to disguise your own moral responsibilities. Of course it's a huge problem that x% of the country believe in the right to abortion, just as it was a huge problem that the majority of German citizens supported the Nazi government. The "de-nazification" of Germany didn't involve killing anymore than a minute fraction of those who had supported the regime, and if you'll remember, no one thought it worth trying to de-nazify the country before they were militarily defeated, which is essentially what you're proposing.

And even during the Holocaust people took "action" by hiding Jews and getting them to safety. Were they a "couch-warrior" too, or can you acknowledge that "action" takes more than one form and yours doesn't necessarily follow?

And what penalties would they have faced if they were discovered? Prison? Worse than prison? i would completely count those people among those who "took action" and who, more to the point, did so without resorting to feeble excuses like "it's illegal", or "the time for talk has not yet passed". There were people who invoked such excuses for inaction, and these days we would call them de-facto collaborators, and would certainly not celebrate their bravery.

Whatever the analogy in the abortion debate for the actions of those who sheltered Jews during the Holocaust, it certainly is not talking on discussion forums, waving banners and chanting slogans. If you don't take any action which endangers your freedom or happiness on behalf of all the babies you claim to believe are dying daily in the US, then i would say my characterisation of you is fairly accurate.

Edit: It should also be noted that a supposed contradiction or not does nothing to the legitimacey of the pro-life arguement itself.

Quite right. Just because we've established that you are a moral hypocrite doesn't necessarily mean that your arguments are wrong. That can be established on other grounds.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #46 on:** June 10, 2009, 08:18:39 AM »

Hey SJ, thought you might like this:

http://www.indecisionforever.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=229656

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #47 on:** June 10, 2009, 08:44:28 AM »

You can look at this one while I wait to get a chance to respond here:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,3220.0.html

Regardless of the fact that I think his argument is nonsense, it does illustrate some thing important: for a Christian who takes the Scriptures as their authority, one must take seriously the commandments to submit to authority and restrain from violence.

These passages exist. I don't get to just wave them aside when they are inconvenient to my 'gut.' You fail to appreciate the fact this constraint built into the Christian worldview.

Anyway, will reply more later.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #48 on:** June 10, 2009, 11:30:35 AM »

Danny:

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.

She laughed when I told her that. She

Dannyboy · « **Reply #49 on:** June 10, 2009, 01:28:32 PM »

Sasquatch,

You're a good man. On the (apparently widespread) voting criteria of "Person i would most like to have a beer with" i duly elect you the President of this forum.

Re: Personhood.

I think what SJ

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** June 10, 2009, 01:42:01 PM »

Sorry for the delay. Been a bit under the weather. (see the broken face story for details)

I'm going to consolidate a little here after a little housecleaning to try to get us on track.

"What i know is, it makes no sense to talk of an organism that is barely multi-cellular having personhood, which is what you want to do."

What I'd like to call your attention to is that you have now dramatically retreated. We started out challenging Copernicus's assertion that by taking out Tiller a radical attack on a woman's ability to choose had been made. In fact, Tiller was engaged in activities that both he and you ought- on your own arguments- have made you as disgusted as any pro-lifer had been.

Ironically, here we have a man, Tiller, whose lack of moral compass was so bizarre, that claiming to be a Christian, he carried out activities that even our resident atheists found abhorrent. Or at least Copernicus thought they were abhorrent until Tiller was killed. Now Tiller is a martyr. But I digress.

You are in full retreat. You expressed your view that 'full term' babies deserved our protection. I started out fighting simply for the day before birth. On further discussion, you pushed it back to 25 weeks. Now that your standard of 'independent survivability' has been threatened, you've taken us not even back to week 1, but day 1 and maybe even hour 1.

You've also tossed aside any notion that we could define 'personhood' even if we wanted to.

All this I find quite curious. I will reflect on it more at the end. First some more housecleaning:

"So your stance on abortion is largely punative towards people who have a different standard of sexual morality to you?"

Not at all. I don't consider pregnancy a punishment. Liberals tend to. Obama famously said he wouldn't want his daughter 'punished' with a pregnancy. I'm just pointing out that this business about being able to have 'free love' without consequences is just nonsense. If a particular consequence is the creation of an entirely new person, and one reasonably understands that this is always the case, then we must come to grips with the real issues. If we don't want women killing persons perhaps we might suggest to them to not participate in the time honored procedure for making them in the first place.

And of course I have words to say to men on the subject too but that is a later topic.

-----------------------------

Next, some consolidated remarks.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #51 on:** June 10, 2009, 02:00:55 PM »

There are three parts of the conversation. 1, I wanted to illustrate the fact that Tiller was involved in procedures that even Copernicus should have had the courage to repudiate. 2. I wanted to explain to you why it isn't a simple matter for Christians just to 'rise up.' 3. We want to justify the pro-life conception of personhood.

I consider #1 handled.

2. As I mentioned above when I linked to beefy's post, it isn't a simple matter for Christians to justify revolution. Like I said before, as citizens we have a right to revolt, but this right does not extend to Christians according to Christianity. The confusion begins with the fact that in this country, Christians are also citizens. An atheist like yourself, if set in this country, could simply get up in the morning and say, "I feel like having a revolution!" Then, later, he could say, "First I'll make an egg and see how I feel then."

You have no binding standard. You have only your fear for what will happen if you carry out decision X. But we Christians believe that we will answer to God, and we believe that God has communicated with us through the writers of the books of the Bible, and here we find that we can't merely wake up and figure a revolution is just what the body needs. If you haven't read Romans 13 any time lately, you should do so now.

It is often remembered that Paul wrote Romans while in prison under Nero, and we all know what Nero ended up doing to Christians. And in spite of that, and in spite of the wickedness of Nero, Paul said we should submit. Jesus said, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's." As you probably well know, people were even getting abortions way back then. There is no call in the NT for Christians to rise up against the Romans to stop that practice, though it was forbidden to Christians themselves (see the Didache).

But what would Paul have said if the Romans had the power of today's medical technology which has the ability to 'terminate,' literally, millions and millions and millions of the unborn, and the government granted free rein to anyone to do just that? We don't know.

There are Christians (beefy appears to be an example) who would deny Christians even the right to have fought Hitler, or fight in the American revolutionary war. I think they are wrong, but I don't deny the fact that there are some very specific prohibitions and principles laid out in the Scriptures. You, Danny, need only answer to yourself. We Christians will answer to God. Yes, we will answer to God if we have not done what is necessary and within our ability regarding abortion. I already said as much. And yet, we don't have a clear word on that. We do have a clear word about submitting to authorities. We would answer for that, too, if we willfully and wrongly did not submit to authorities.

My basic answer is that so long as there is a rule of law, we must work within it. That doesn't mean I like it. If there is a rule of law, there is 'authority' to submit to. No rule of law- no authority, and hence every man must do as he can according to his own conscience. The Christian man, however, is bound to the standard of the Scriptures and believes he will answer for it.

That is why the question is so easy for you and so complicated for us.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** June 10, 2009, 02:24:37 PM »

Now for number 3. :)

In your quest for cogency, you've had to retreat behind the notion that no one can possibly construe a just barely multi-celled 'entity' as a person. This is obviously nonsense, for many millions do just that. Right?

In the face of the fact that none of your metrics can hold muster consistently throughout all stages of human development, you're falling back to two notions. 1, personhood can't easily be defined, and 2, but we all know a multi-celled entity isn't one.

Basically your position is just as I described it: "I'll know it when I see it."

That's not good enough. If you want to allow for the termination of these 'entities' on demand, then you have to give us confidence that we aren't eliminating persons. This idea that I've got to show they are persons before we restrict choice is nonsense. It is self-evident that the taking of a life is much more serious than the restricting of choice. The burden of demonstration is on you.

You cannot with confidence tell us that the entity is a person, or not a person, on tuesday, when it is due on Wednesday. We now know you can't even allow as much until after the baby begins talking (Renny is now 2 and still hasn't said her first word. Not a person?) You cannot with confidence tell us that it is or isn't a person back to age 25 weeks. We've pressed your 'independence' and 'development' criteria (coma patients and teenagers) and you've fallen back to just barely multi celled. You've practically given up the whole field!

I'm having trouble imagining any other scenario where we would allow the argument, "Well, maybe it is a person or maybe it isn't, and since we don't know, I guess we can kill it."

I say that if you cannot define personhood and you cannot tell us with confidence when and how it begins, then you must err on the side of caution. It is not my job to justify that the dude in a coma is actually a person. If you want to kill him, you've got to prove he ain't. If you can't do it, you've got no business 'terminating' him.

Now, I'm with Sasquatch in admitting that these raise difficult issues and even as Christians it isn't exactly easy to come up with some definition that is 100% workable. But your idea that this supports your argument just doesn't make any sense at all. If we find ourselves confronted with a question of this importance and realize that our human faculties cannot and might not ever be able to get to the bottom of the matter, the solution is obviously to pursue an over abundance of caution.

Please note that I am not here listing my own positive reasons for thinking the unborn should be considered a person right back to the moment of conception. For the moment, the fact that you have had to invoke agnosticism and retreat back to just hours after conception in order to erect anything smacking of cogency is enough to make what I think is the critical point: if you don't know if its a person or not, you can't kill it. It might be a person. Maybe someday we'll learn it isn't, but also we might well learn that it is. We certainly have the knowledge now that if we leave it alone, it will someday indisputably be a person ("We know it when we see it") and have no real knowledge the other way.

Balanced against this entrenched agnosticism about what we're allowing to be killed you really submit a woman's choice?

Dannyboy · « **Reply #53 on:** June 10, 2009, 04:15:43 PM »

SJ,

Sorry for the delay. Been a bit under the weather. (see the broken face story for details)

Eeshk! i didn't realise that was you. Bad luck (and maybe those American Football helmets are a good idea after all).

What I'd like to call your attention to is that you have now dramatically retreated.

Highlighting an uncontroversial point where bi-partisan agreement should be realistically possible is not 'retreat'.

In fact, Tiller was engaged in activities that both he and you ought- on your own arguments- have made you as disgusted as any pro-lifer had been.

Um, no. i don't think that Tiller should have been doing what he was doing, on the principle of erring on the side of caution, but i am not committed to the idea that a post-30 week baby is necessarily a person as you are. So disgusted, perhaps, but not as disgusted as you.

Ironically, here we have a man, Tiller, whose lack of moral compass was so bizarre, that claiming to be a Christian, he carried out activities that even our resident atheists found abhorrent.

i could take offence to the implications of that statement.

I'm just pointing out that this business about being able to have 'free love' without consequences is just nonsense.

But it's the American Dream! Heheh.

More seriously, could you clarify that stance? If, for the sake of argument, an unmarried man had a vasectomy and regular STD checks, would he be able to engage in "free love without consequences"?

Re: revolution

As I mentioned above when I linked to beefy's post, it isn't a simple matter for Christians to justify revolution.

Yeah, i'd already read that. Still slightly mystified about who 'Leo' is though.

Like I said before, as citizens we have a right to revolt, but this right does not extend to Christians according to Christianity.

Why did this not come up in any of the gun control debates, is what i want to know? Could you not have slipped this in somewhere while your conservative christian peers were rambling on about the right to bear arms being a crucial measure against a hypothetical oppressive government? A little commentary about how christians aren't allowed to rebel by the scriptures, and therefore really don't need any guns, could have really helped me out.

An atheist like yourself, if set in this country, could simply get up in the morning and say, "I feel like having a revolution!" Then, later, he could say, "First I'll make an egg and see how I feel then."

That's spooky. You just described my average day.

What puzzles me is that someone who admits that certain biblical verses are later additions for reasons best known to the interpolators (someone who, to all intents and purposes, does not support strict biblical literalism), does not apparently see the massive utility value, and therefore potential bias, of the Romans verses about submitting to authority, from the point of view of...well, authorities.

Seriously, all human authorities are ordained by God? What kind of sense does that make? Are dictators ordained by God? Was Hitler (democratically elected, i need not remind you)?

Would you have opposed rebellious activity against Hitler?

There are Christians (beefy appears to be an example) who would deny Christians even the right to have fought Hitler, or fight in the American revolutionary war. I think they are wrong, but I don't deny the fact that there are some very specific prohibitions and principles laid out in the Scriptures.

Why are they wrong? Surely Beefy's strictly pacifist stance is not mandated in the scriptures, but since you have just quoted Romans 13 at me, how can it be that you think he is wrong about Christians not being allowed to fight Hitler? German Christians, anyway.

Actually, that's a reasonable objection - it says 'civil authorities', but it doesn't say which. Following that verse to the letter would entail never taking part in a war, because you would always be opposing civil authorities, just not your own.

Yes, we will answer to God if we have not done what is necessary and within our ability regarding abortion. I already said as much. And yet, we don't have a clear word on that. We do have a clear word about submitting to authorities. We would answer for that, too, if we willfully and wrongly did not submit to authorities.

That is a reasonable answer (although i still want to know whether, and on what biblical grounds, you would have opposed Hitler as a Christian). From your point of view anyway. From mine it is barking mad given the face-palmingly obvious bias of civil and church authorities down the ages towards that Romans verse, but nevertheless - whatever floats your boat my friend.

Re: persons

In your quest for cogency, you've had to retreat behind the notion that no one can possibly construe a just barely multi-celled 'entity' as a person. This is obviously nonsense, for many millions do just that. Right?

Well, i think what i said was "What i know is, it makes no sense... etc". Again, i am reaching for the common ground here. i dont see how anyone can possibly think a bi-cellular entity is a person, no, but i understand that many people claim to think just that. Some may even genuinely hold that belief, but i suspect that the numbers are significantly lower.

What i suspect is that when push came to shove, many "pro-lifers" would not put their money where their mouth is for a newly fertilized egg. After all, it's kind of harder to muster any fellow-feeling for an invisible blob, whereas when foetuses develop into something that looks more baby-like we're all practically hardwired to coo over them.

i would bet good money that if most "pro-lifers" were given an ideological acid test, most would fail around that point. It could go something like this:

"Hey, you believe that life begins at conception right? Would you sacrifice your beloved dog/car/left leg to save a 38 week foetus that looks so much like a baby? You would? Terrific! Now how about for an 18 week foetus that still looks pretty much like a baby? That's great! Now how about if we get the bone saw/wrecking ball out to save a tiny cluster of cells which has a 25-50% chance of miscarrying before the mother even realises she was pregnant?"

i think a lot of your compadres would balk at that in a real life scenario.

That's not good enough. If you want to allow for the termination of these 'entities' on demand, then you have to give us confidence that we aren't eliminating persons.

That only gets us back to "what is a person". Shall we start from there, because any further discussion is going to be fruitless without that agreement.

Can we start with your definition?

For the moment, the fact that you have had to invoke agnosticism and retreat back to just hours after conception in order to erect anything smacking of cogency is enough to make what I think is the critical point: if you don't know if its a person or not, you can't kill it.

Sorry, but you've misconstrued my point. i am happy to make an argument that an 18 weeker isn't a person, but i thought that the <1 weeker example had more weight in that particular instance. i'm taking baby-steps here (pardon the metaphor), and one of the most obvious lines of attack is the notion of an invisible cell cluster being a person. That, to me, is a big weakness in your argument, so it makes sense to go for it.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #54 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:02:49 PM »

"i could take offence to the implications of that statement. Smile"

You could take a fence but where would you put it?

"If, for the sake of argument, an unmarried man had a vasectomy and regular STD checks, would he be able to engage in "free love without consequences"?"

How would this be different than an unmarried woman having a hysterectomy and having regular STD checks?

"Still slightly mystified about who 'Leo' is though."

Tolstoy, I believe.

"A little commentary about how christians aren't allowed to rebel by the scriptures, and therefore really don't need any guns, could have really helped me out."

I didn't say that Christians don't really need any guns. When they are citizens of a country where the individual is explicitly meant to be a check on the government, and Christians are included among those individuals, then they certainly would need guns (or they'd be a pitiful check). The conflict arises because of the other thing that Paul couldn't have hardly imagined- governing by the consent of the governed.

"What puzzles me is that someone who admits that certain biblical verses are later additions"

Whoa. When did I ever admit that?

"Seriously, all human authorities are ordained by God? What kind of sense does that make? Are dictators ordained by God? Was Hitler (democratically elected, i need not remind you)?"

As I've been trying to tell atheists, it takes brains to be a Christian. The Bible is not written for children. It requires a great deal of thought to process and evaluate. Some Christians would indeed say that Hitler was ordained by God. I am not among them.

BTW, I don't think Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nice try, though.

"Why are they wrong?"

Because I believe that authorities themselves are constrained to certain rules by God and when they abuse those rules, they too can fall under judgment.

"That is a reasonable answer (although i still want to know whether, and on what biblical grounds, you would have opposed Hitler as a Christian)."

Because I believe that Hitler's gov illustrates a case in point of an authority abandoning its proper functions. Not so hard to grasp. :)

"i think a lot of your compadres would balk at that in a real life scenario."

I think you're wrong.

"That only gets us back to "what is a person"."

No it doesn't, because on your grounds it may very well be a person, you just don't know for sure.

The thrust of my latest argument is that if you cannot definitively exclude it, and know that if things are allowed to progress naturally, you eventually will have what is indisputably a person, then you must err on the side of caution.

So, not only do we not need to concern ourselves with the definition, but the very fact that we don't have one is precisely why you should be pro-life.

"Sorry, but you've misconstrued my point. i am happy to make an argument that an 18 weeker isn't a person, but i thought that the <1 weeker example had more weight in that particular instance. i'm taking baby-steps here"

I too am taking baby-steps. We worked you back from the day before the due date, back to week 25, and back to the multi-cell. I half expected you to race forward again. So, let's talk about why an 18 weeker ain't a person.

Tell me what the definition of person is and why an 18 weeker doesn't qualify.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #55 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:11:00 PM »

Also, following your good example, i would like to issue a statement regarding todays DC Holocaust Memorial shooting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8094076.stm

Now, firstly, i think it only fair to point out that we have no currently conclusive evidence about what this shooter's motives were. It is just as likely that the murdered guard owed him significant amounts of beer, or that they were conflicted gay lovers, as it is that the gunman was a deranged White Nationalist intent on attacking one of the icons of the Holocaust-affirming community.

However, be that as it may, if it should happen to turn out - by coincidence - that the gunman was in fact a deranged White Nationalist, then i wish to see no inflammatory comments on this forum degrading the perfectly law-abiding majority of the deranged White Nationalist community. What we need here is proportion and a sense of perspective.

Now it may be that, in the "liberal" mind, referring to the Jews as antichrists will be wrongly conflated with this kind of crime, and dubbed as 'hate speech', soon to be penalized by federal law. How unconstitutional can you get!? i for one wish to see no attempts to condemn the entire deranged White Nationalist movement because of this single event.

i know i know

Dannyboy · « **Reply #56 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:25:33 PM »

i need to sleep, but very briefly:

"If, for the sake of argument, an unmarried man had a vasectomy and regular STD checks, would he be able to engage in "free love without consequences"?"

How would this be different than an unmarried woman having a hysterectomy and having regular STD checks?

Whatever, i was using the example to ascertain whether your view of the 'consequences' of 'free love' was limited strictly to childbirth and potential disease transmission.

"What puzzles me is that someone who admits that certain biblical verses are later additions"

Whoa. When did I ever admit that?

Christians and Book Burnings
Reply #37 on: May 27, 2009, 02:17:43 PM
"I wasn't thrown off by learning that Jesus and the adulterous woman in John or the ending of Mark was probably a later addition."

i may be a little vague sometimes, but no way was i going to forget that one.

i'll be back, honest. Going up north for the funeral tomorrow. Back at the weekend.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #57 on:** June 10, 2009, 06:04:30 PM »

In reply, briefly:

"Whatever, i was using the example to ascertain whether your view of the 'consequences' of 'free love' was limited strictly to childbirth and potential disease transmission."

Remember, I also mentioned no fault divorce. Didn't you read Spero? I have a whole love scene expounding- though I admit, briefly- on sex and consequences. :)

That said, I don't personally feel like we can in a free society make laws addressing all conceivable consequences to sex (thus the need for a spiritual revolution, which would make such laws unnecessary) but as they say, your rights end where mine begin. If people want to have sex, let em go at it like rabbits. But at the point where 'mine' begin, ie, a new person comes into play, then that's the breaks. You can: use effective birth control, abstain, or carry the child to term. And abortion is not 'birth control.'

See, I'm not against choice at all. There are three choices right there and none of them said "You can't have sex."

"i may be a little vague sometimes, but no way was i going to forget that one."

heh, well, those hardly count. We're talking about LATE additions, like 300-400 years later. With few exceptions, I believe the NT as we have it was as written no later than 100 AD.

End Bringer · « **Reply #58 on:** June 10, 2009, 06:07:38 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 10, 2009, 05:06:36 AM

Which i take to mean that you'd rather not debate it since you are aware that your characterisation of the entire Left as a howling torches-and-pitchforks mob will not actually stand up to scrutiny.

On the contrary, I actually take it as more of your flippant dismissal. Organizations do represent people. That's why pro-life organizations have been targeted as a "terrorist" organization by the Left. Yet when we see Left organization behavior, you suddenly want to shrug and say "Well they may not represent many people".

Quote

Why is it that you never come up with fatuous truisms like this when it is your personal viewpoint that is under attack? So you think that the Bush government tarring opponents of the Iraq war as "un-American" was calling a spade a spade, but the Obama administration suggesting that "pro-lifers" might represent a threat is facistic oppression of the worst kind?

Absolutely. More so because I can indeed justify Obama's behavior as fascist (though not necessarily involving the pro-life issue) with evidence of his behavior, and I do indeed have reasons for people who oppose any and all war as Un-American. You just think this is a knee-jerk 'us-against-them' thing, but as I do indeed have reasons behind why I call it how I see it, it's a bit more thought out than you think.

Quote

Sure, maybe i blinked and missed a split second of genuine humility or willingness to see the other persons point of view from you. Could you point it out to me?

Again, all I see is that you aren't paying attention. When it comes to figuring out what's correct and true, it only leads to one point of view.

Quote

Perhaps it would help if i quoted my favourite philosopher on this subject - "Frankly I find strict pacifism immoral as it allows for victimhood by evil" (Re: Leo was correct, Reply #3: Today at 04:12:22 AM). It would seem like all of them, barring the occasional Roeder, must be strict pacifists - since they are doing nothing concrete to stop the evil which they claim to believe in - and yet you say that you support them?

You seem to not understand what "strict pacifism" means. It means not resorting to violence at any time and in all situations. That I don't believe violence is called for at this time, doesn't mean I don't support it at any other time or when situations change.

Quote

Frankly you are (not unjustly) hoisted on your own petard in this debate, and i don't need to do much more than point to your previous statements in order for everyone to be able to see that.

What statements? Ones where I point out your examples of moral acts in isolation aren't comparable as (we can see) such acts rarely have iolated effects and allow for more evil than good, or my statements where I point out the sheer differences in circumstances which dictate how we act?

Quote

You have repeatedly invoked the holocaust as a clumsy weapon against your adversaries in discussing the issue of personhood, and stated repeatedly that there is no moral difference between killing an adult human and killing a 2-day embryo. They're all humans, right? But faced with the actions of a man who, i'm guessing, totally believed what you say you believe you get all coy.

I get practacle. I see no difference between killing abortionists than John Brown who prior to the civil war took radical action to free slaves and ended up getting his men killed and set the abolition cause back. Compare that with Wilburforce who used persuasion to end slavery in the British Empire.

Quote

And there we have it. You're happy to intervene to save a life if and only if the law is on your side. What on earth do human laws have to do with what is morally right, in your worldview? i thought that you were committed to a Higher Law?

No, I'm saying that as it's legal the best way to prevent the millions who perform the act is make it illegal. As it's legal that means the act doesn't happen in a vaccuum. It will have consequences that would ultimately allow for more death as others are persuaded to maintain the institution.

Quote

If you had lived in Nazi Germany then plenty of things which could have saved lives would have been illegal. i am taking note of the fact that you suggest that this alone would have stopped you from doing them.

Again, your torturing the facts of what I'm saying. Right now plenty of things which can save lives are legal. Thus it behooves us to use these methods.

Quote

Again, if you are true to your beliefs, then what you are engaging in is the biggest equal rights struggle in history, with millions of lives on the line.

That's why we must proceed wisely and carefully.

Quote

Gandhi and Mandela both spent significant amounts of time in prison in the service of fighting for what they believed in, as did innumerable other civil rights protesters over the last fifty or sixty years. Your desire not to go to prison in the service of saving millions of human lives doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who needs to reevaluate his level of commitment to the cause.

*snort* Or alternatively I don't believe the kind of act that would guarantee me going to prison is called for regardless of what consequences would happen.

Quote

i haven't suggested killing abortion doctors, and i don't think you should. But if your beliefs are as strong as you make them out to be then clearly urgent action is needed to make their work illegal as soon as possible. You don't want to go to prison, so instead you just talk about it. that's ok.

Uh, that's usually how we make things become illegal in this country. Court rooms aren't known for their brawl fights.

Quote

So how do you do that, bearing in mind the supreme urgency of this matter?

Persuading as many people as possible, which in turn will effect how our officials represent them (in theory) in their decision making.

Quote

To quote that favourite philosopher of mine again, "if all you've got is assertion I see no reason to put any more force behind mine at this point."

I think your miffed when I beat you with your own quote about autonomy.

Difference being personhood/human being is directly linked with when something is guaranteed viability (at least in this country) as it is afforded equal civil rights.

Quote

You can't force people to be good parents, it is impossible. Help can be provided, sure, but if they do not accept it then it may be better to take away their parental responsibility. That is what i am advocating after 24 weeks, not because i think that a foetus is a person at that stage, but because the mother's participation is no longer key to her baby's survival, and therefore we can let her make that choice.

Last time I checked if you are prohibiting abortion at 25 weeks, you are indeed forcing the mother's participation to carry it.

Quote

Prior to 24 weeks there is so little realistic chance of the foetus surviving without the mother that it makes no sense to try and do that. And, as history shows, many women will seek abortions even if they are criminalised (which i assume is your ultimate solution), and as a result will die. Since i have no illusions about the personhood of a pre-viable foetus, i think it better to have it done legally.

You know what the lovely thing about pro-choice is? Choice. That they choose to go through with something that can kill them is no one's fault but theirs. That a bank robber may die is a lousy arguement to legalize theft.

Quote

i think that anything which is demonstrably capable of feeling pain should be spared pain werever possible. i support limited and humane animal testing, because of the number of human lives it has saved.

So we can do whatever we want with cepa patients and those with nerve diseases? This is a weak cop out DB.

Quote

Or alternatively you have wasted your own time by willfuly misunderstanding it.

Kettle. Pot.

Quote

i have never said that survivability has anything to do with personhood, but that at a time when personhood is extremely unlikely it is pivotal to whether or not the state can step in and take over from an unwilling mother.

And thus why if personhood is shown to be likely or better yet definite, survivability has nothing to do with it. Because the guaranteeing of equal civil rights guarantees protection especially when it can't fend for itself.

Quote

Further time-wasting. That society limits peoples choices is just a truism, and stating it does not imply that the speaker wants all human rights to be curtailed.

It does imply an inherent contradiction when you shy away from something on the basis of 'preventing autonomy' yet recognize that autonomy isn't wholey granted anyway. And in the case of pregnancy it's not even permanent prevention of autonomy.

Quote

Talk is cheap. People like you have been talking for thirty-five years, and you've just elected your most "pro-choice" president ever. How many innocents have died within that time, according to you, and how many more will die during Obama's presidency? i'm sure that they would all be pleased to know that you were 'talking' on their behalf.

Actually as about half the country now identifies as pro-life while we've maintained the rule of law, I'd say we've accomplished more than you think. If we still can't get results with a large populace well then we'll see how talkative we need to be.

Quote

Oh, i'm so sorry. What action do you take?

I vote (the most important action in this country), I send money, and as you see I attempt to persuade.

Quote

i haven't suggested killing pregnant women - you are throwing up smokescreens to disguise your own moral responsibilities. Of course it's a huge problem that x% of the country believe in the right to abortion, just as it was a huge problem that the majority of German citizens supported the Nazi government.

Ahhh, but as the Holocaust itself was hidden even from it's citizens we can see the difference between a clear regime, and millions within the populace.

Quote

The "de-nazification" of Germany didn't involve killing anymore than a minute fraction of those who had supported the regime, and if you'll remember, no one thought it worth trying to de-nazify the country before they were militarily defeated, which is essentially what you're proposing.

I'd say largely that has to do with the deception aspect of the time of the Third Reich. The full horror of acts commited wasn't known till after the nation was military defeated.

And for someone who isn't suggesting attacking anyone, it leaves your whole tact of 'someone should be attacked if you were consistent' as empty. Why waste our time with analogies of attacking murderers if you aren't suggesting we attack the murderers?

Quote

And what penalties would they have faced if they were discovered? Prison? Worse than prison? i would completely count those people among those who "took action" and who, more to the point, did so without resorting to feeble excuses like "it's illegal", or "the time for talk has not yet passed". There were people who invoked such excuses for inaction, and these days we would call them de-facto collaborators, and would certainly not celebrate their bravery.

My reason of acts being moral in isolation, but having evil consequences when taken as a bigger picture is hardly feeble.

Quote

Whatever the analogy in the abortion debate for the actions of those who sheltered Jews during the Holocaust, it certainly is not talking on discussion forums, waving banners and chanting slogans. If you don't take any action which endangers your freedom or happiness on behalf of all the babies you claim to believe are dying daily in the US, then i would say my characterisation of you is fairly accurate.

I would say it's silly to think a person believes what he believes only if he goes to jail. Mostly because, again, you fail to recognize that those who took action in a more passive manner in Germany didn't have a platform to effect change. Speaking out was illegal. That's it's legal in this country (for now), doesn't show a "collaborator" attitude. Trust me if we see America revert to the sort of oppressive state Germany was in, you'll be seeing many people go to jail.

Quote

Quite right. Just because we've established that you are a moral hypocrite doesn't necessarily mean that your arguments are wrong. That can be established on other grounds.

No we've established that your ad hominem tact is largely a red herring for your inability to rationally defend your belief. It's that 'dart thrown at the board' thing you want to glaze over.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #59 on:** June 10, 2009, 06:25:13 PM »

It is so nice to see EB and DB get along so well. :)

I thought I would quick clarify, DB, that I am not a pacifist and I disagree with beefy at other points, too. For example, I believe we have an inalienable right to self-defense. I believe that a Christian has the right to use lethal force to defend himself and his family. I believe that the government cannot legitimately withhold this right. Although, having a right and exercising it are different things. I believe that the Bible clearly prohibits divorce except for cases of marital unfaithfulness, but that doesn't mean someone must exercise that right. There are situations when I believe a Christian ought to refrain from using lethal force in his own defense, though not because the right has been revoked, per se. It's complicated.

Author Topic: The Mighty Cop: Another victory for the Sanctity of Life crowd (Read 4082 times)