1. A Brief Primer on the Problem of Evil
2. How Products Are Made explains and details the manufacturing process of a wide variety of products, from daily household items to complicated electronic equipment and heavy machinery. The site provides step by step descriptions of the assembly and the manufacturing process.
For example, you can find descriptions of air bag, air conditioner, automobile, blue jeans, chewing gum, compact disc, credit card, jet engine, laser pointer, nuclear submarine, paint, popcorn, refrigerator, telephone, television, vaccine, vacuum cleaner or watch. (HT: The Presurfer)
3. Camille Paglia on Religion and the Arts in America:
I would argue that the route to a renaissance of the American fine arts lies through religion. Let me make my premises clear: I am a professed atheist and a pro-choice libertarian Democrat. But based on my college experiences in the 1960s, when interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was intense, I have been calling for nearly two decades for massive educational reform that would put the study of comparative religion at the center of the university curriculum. Though I shared the exasperation of my generation with the moralism and prudery of organized religion, I view each world religion, including Judeo-Christianity and Islam, as a complex symbol system, a metaphysical lens through which we can see the vastness and sublimity of the universe. Knowledge of the Bible, one of the West's foundational texts, is dangerously waning among aspiring young artists and writers. When a society becomes all-consumed in the provincial minutiae of partisan politics (as has happened in the US over the past twenty years), all perspective is lost. Great art can be made out of love for religion as well as rebellion against it. But a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy.
(HT: Marginal Revolution)
4. Preaching to the Perverted in Second Life
The very concept of missionary work in an artificial world brings up a number of questions, many of them exceedingly creepy.
Chief among them is this: How do you speak of spiritual things to a giant squirrel person with six breasts? If you're a virtual missionary in a virtual world speaking to another virtual person, are you trying to convert the virtual person or the real person behind it?
5. George Saunders, one of the world's greatest short story writers, on dumb headlines in America:
A recent headline indicates a number of disturbing American trends: Father Kills Bear Charging At Son With Log.
First of all, who's giving these animals logs? There's nothing in the world a respectable bear needs with a log. If that bear has a log, he has it for one reason: to kill somebody.
It's clear to any American reader that our animals are going bad. Every day there's some story about out-of-control wildlife: Mother Kills Pit Bull Mauling Son With Spatula. Or: Lover Kills Shark Swimming Towards Daughter With Spear Gun. Or: Son Stops Mountain Lion Attacking Dad Using Judo.
What are these people thinking? Who gives a pit bull a spatula or a shark a spear gun? What kind of idiot enrolls a mountain lion in a judo class?
(HT: Iconia)
6. Baboon Metaphysics: "In sum, monkey society is governed by the same two general rules that governed the behavior of women in so many 19th-century novels: stay loyal to your relatives (though perhaps at a distance, if they are a social impediment) but also try to ingratiate yourself with the members of high-ranking families."
7. The 50 best movie robots (HT: BoingBoing)
8. History of Nations has a history of every nation in the world as well as many non-sovereign territories (including Texas). Each country is covered by a brief essay which gives the highlights of each nation's history. (HT: The Presurfer)
9. The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (HT: Outside the Beltway)
10. NRO has an online symposium responding to Anna Quindlen’s column in Newsweek titled “How much jail time?” which argues that pro-lifers are dodging the issue of jail time for women who seek abortions. The only quibble I have with the symposium is that to be fair to all respondents you lead off with a jab, not a knockout punch. For after Hadley Arkes weighs in, there isn't much left to say:
In the tradition of legislating on abortion, a certain distinction was made out of prudence: On the one hand there may a young, unmarried woman, who finds herself pregnant, with the father of the child not standing with her. Abandoned by the man, and detached from her family, she may feel the burden of the crisis bearing on her alone, with the prospect of life-altering changes. On the other hand, there is the man trained in surgery, the professional who knows exactly what he is doing — he knows that he is destroying a human life, either by poisoning a child or dismembering it. And in perfect coolness and detachment, and at a nice price, he makes the killing of the innocent his office-work. Certain women may indeed be guilty of a callous willingness to destroy a child for the sake of their own self-interest. But the law makes a prudent, tempered choice when it makes the abortionist the target of its censure and brings solely upon him the weight of the punishment.
11. The History of Branding (HT: The Presurfer)
12. Flannery O'Connor on Christian Realism:
The term "Christian Realism," has become necessary for me, perhaps in a purely academic way, because I find myself in a world where everybody has his compartment, puts you in yours, shuts the door and departs. One of the awful things about writing when you are a Christian is that for you the ultimate reality is the Incarnation, the present reality is the Incarnation, and nobody believes in the Incarnation; that is, nobody in your audience. My audience are the people who think God is dead. At least these are the people I am conscious of writing for.
(HT: The Point)
13. 10 Steps to Becoming a Better Writer (HT: SmartChristian)
14. Dumb People on Ladders (HT: In the Agora)
15. Martin Luther on the holiness of changing diapers:
Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, "Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labour at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? 0 you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful. Carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise."
What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, "0 God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers. Or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? 0 how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labour, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight….
Now you tell me, when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool, though that father is acting in the spirit just described and in Christian faith, my dear fellow you tell me, which of the two is most keenly ridiculing the other? God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling, not because that father is washing diapers, but because he is doing so in Christian faith. Those who sneer at him and see only the task but not the faith are ridiculing God with all his creatures, as the biggest fool on earth. Indeed, they are only ridiculing themselves; with all their cleverness they are nothing but devil's fools.
16. The Porn Myth (Part I): Naomi Wolf has an excellent article on the truth about porn: it doesn’t whet men’s appetites—it turns them off the real thing.
[P]ornography works in the most basic of ways on the brain: It is Pavlovian. An orgasm is one of the biggest reinforcers imaginable. If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on; if you open your focus to an endless stream of ever-more-transgressive images of cybersex slaves, that is what it will take to turn you on. The ubiquity of sexual images does not free eros but dilutes it.
Other cultures know this. I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time. In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time—to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family.
And feminists have misunderstood many of these prohibitions.
I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. "Can't I even see your hair?" I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. "No," she demurred quietly. "Only my husband," she said with a calm sexual confidence, "ever gets to see my hair."
When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband-the kids are not allowed-the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day-in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman's hair.
She must feel, I thought, so hot.
(HT: Challies.com)
18. Management guru Tom Peters on the sale of the Wall Street Journal:
I listened to some interviews with editors and writers at the Journal following the announcement of the decision to sell to Mr M. One editor, fit to be tied and clearly expecting the immediate end of the world as he's known it, summarized his chagrin and disgust: "It's all about money."
I just about ran off the road as I choked with laughter. It's not that I doubt that Murdoch will make ideological changes, nor do I expect to agree with some of those changes. No, my response, the life-endangering laughter, is tied, no more and no less, to the name of the beleaguered editor's paper per se. This is the WALL STREET journal. And, last I heard, Wall Street is precisely and by design "all about money."
19. 14 Numbers Your Cell Phone Can’t Live Without (HT: Lifehack)
20. Shift emerges in wage gap between the sexes
Young women in New York and several of the nation's other largest cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to an analysis of recent census data.
The shift has occurred in New York since 2000 and even earlier in Los Angeles, Dallas and a few other cities.
Economists consider it striking because the wage gap between men and women nationally has narrowed more slowly and has even widened in recent years among one part of that group: college-educated women in their 20s. But in New York, young college-educated women's wages as a percentage of men's rose slightly between 2000 and 2005.
(HT: Mere Comments)
21. The Nicene Creed (LDS Version)
22. Latest Web Metaphor: The Mullet Strategy
23. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek on the political process:
It is a well known fact that the close-the-door button in most elevators is a totally dysfunctional placebo which is placed there just to give individuals the impression that they are somehow participating, contributing to the speed of the elevator journey. When we push this button the door closes in exactly the same time as when we just press the floor button without speeding up the process by pressing also the close-the-door button. This extreme and clear case of fake participation is, I claim, an appropriate metaphor (for) the participation of individuals in our post-modern political process. We are all the time asked by politicians to press such buttons. But some things are excluded.
(HT: Prosthesis)
24. Worthy Quote: "The greatest form of currency to children is time."
25. 25 Most Infamous (Non-Drug-Related) Sports Scandals (HT: Jesus Creed)
26. The Plight of the Poor Rich
David Koblas, a computer programmer with a net worth of $5 million to $10 million, imagines what his life would be like if he left Silicon Valley. He could move to a small town like Elko, Nev., he says, and be a ski bum. Or he could move his family to the middle of the country and live like a prince in a spacious McMansion in the nicest neighborhood in town.
But Mr. Koblas, 39, lives with his wife, Michelle, and their two children in Los Altos, south of Palo Alto, where the schools are highly regarded and the housing prices are inflated accordingly. So instead of a luxury home, the family lives in a relatively modest 2,000-square-foot house — not much bigger than the average American home — and he puts in long hours at Wink, a search engine start-up founded in 2005.
“I’d be rich in Kansas City,” he said. “People would seek me out for boards. But here I’m a dime a dozen.”
(HT: Ross Douthat)
27. Mark Olson on Slavery as a Lesser Evil
28. Treven Wax on the false dichotomy between prayer and Bible study:
Our professor listened calmly as the ruckus in the room escalated. After a few moments of mayhem, he interrupted by asking a simple question: "Why do prayer and study have to be separate?" The idea, completely foreign to our compartmentalized minds, made sense. After all, just because we can split an atom, doesn't mean we have to.
That classroom discussion led to an overhaul of my Quiet Time habits (not to mention sermon preparation). No longer did I feel guilty for spending too much time in the Word or too little on my knees (or vice versa). Bible study and prayer are as intertwined as inhaling and exhaling is to breathing. Can you divide the breathing process right down the middle - only inhaling for fifteen minutes and then only exhaling continually for fifteen minutes? Of course not. You can't live that way. You'll only wind up tired, frustrated and flushed. Sadly, that's generally how people who try to rigidly divide prayer and study in their Quiet Time wind up. We miss out on being daily revitalized after daily time spent with God.
(HT: The Thinklings)
29. To Read with Speed, Get Hooked on Phonics, and…
In work that may one day narrow the gap between speedy, voracious readers and slower, disinterested ones, researchers at New York University (N.Y.U.) have determined that three different mechanisms are used to decode the words in a particular sentence.
The three processes: phonics (a letter by letter sounding out of words); contextual clues (earlier parts of sentences that help readers anticipate upcoming words); and holistic word recognition, or the physical shape of words.
(HT: BoingBoing)
30. Violent video games slow our processing of happy faces -- Just 15 minutes playing a violent video game can lend a negative bias to the way we interpret people's facial expressions.
31. Farmers unhappiest of all self-employed workers -- Self employment is good for productivity, except for farmers, who score badly on every measure of health and quality of life, reveals a study published ahead of print in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
32. Cold Kills More Than Heat: From an abstract on "Extreme Weather Events, Mortality and Migration"
We estimate the effect of extreme weather on life expectancy in the US. Using high frequency mortality data, we find that both extreme heat and extreme cold result in immediate increases in mortality. However, the increase in mortality following extreme heat appears entirely driven by temporal displacement, while the increase in mortality following extreme cold is long lasting.
(HT: Marginal Revolution)
33. Pixar's latest short film: Lifted
(HT: Neatorama)
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3816
1
In the tradition of legislating on abortion, a certain distinction was made out of prudence: On the one hand there may a young, unmarried woman, who finds herself pregnant, with the father of the child not standing with her. Abandoned by the man, and detached from her family, ... On the other hand, there is the man trained in surgery, the professional who knows exactly what he is doing — he knows that he is destroying a human life, either by poisoning a child or dismembering it.
The problem with this argument is it overly romanticizes the woman and demonizes the doctor. More than likely the doctor doesn't believe he is killing a human beign (yes yes he knows he is destroying 'human life' but human life simply means living tissue associated with a human beign...a kidney is 'human life' but is not a human beign).
In reality most women who get abortions know what they are doing. They are not poor orphan girls being pushed around by merciless pimps. That's a very nice Dickensonian image but it isn't reality. Many young girls who are getting abortions are coming from either privileged backgrounds or at least middle-class families. Yes I'm sure it does happen but the fact is it is very bad public policy to begin with an assumption that most people are dupes. In fact, most people, even very poor or very young people are often wickedly smart.
If they were teenage boys who went and shot a gas station clerk people like Arkes would have no problem trying them as full adults.
The law makes no accomodation for a woman who kills her baby moments after birth. yet all the circumstances above may conceivably apply. In fact the mental stress on the woman might be all the worse right after birth because now she has this newborn and must choose to act NOW. During 9 months of pregnancy she does have, obviously, nine monthes to seek help, advice etc.
When such cases do come up the law itself doesn't make accomodation but it is usually the mercy of prosecutors and judges and maybe juries if the defense tries to win their sympathy for an aquital by temporary insanity (which rarely happens).
This runs up to the problem that Quinlend touched upon. Pro-lifers, for the most part, equate abortion with murder rhetorically but not in practice. For example, they lionize pre-Roe.v.Wade America but back then abortion was treated not as murder. While penalties were sometimes harsh they were never equal to what a doctor or mother would get for killing newborns.
If, though, abortion is not the same as murder then why should it be banned? If it is less than murder why are we to believe it is only a little bit less so it should still be banned versus a lot less so it shouldn't?
posted on 08.06.2007 10:26 AM2
Boonton beat me to it. He's exactly right.
The quote is nothing more than evading the question, and in a very dishonest way. As Boonton notes, the same people who are so het up about abortion are very often the same ones who want mandatory inflexible sentencing, death penalties, increased sentences for all sorts of crimes . . . but now are supposedly suffused with love and understanding for the women they despise. It won't fly. And, as Boonton also points out, the quote seems to pick out the particular cases of abortion that are most sympathetic and justifies its exception on that basis, with no acknowledgment that there are many other circumstances in which abortion is sought and with no attempt to discriminate between those cases.
Bizarrely, people who have no compassion and no flexibility about either abortion or crime are suddenly willing to throw all criminal procedure by the wayside in the one case that drives them the most insane. In no other case do they simply allow people they regard as "murderers" to walk free out of sympathy for their - completely hypothetical - distress, but they offer a free pass to every woman who has an abortion, due to a suddence upsurge of empathy they never before have demonstrated for those women who were merely seeking the right to have abortions. In every other case, we take mitigating evidence, based on factual testimony, into account in sentencing, but that's apparently not an option in the case of abortion, where a blanket amnesty is granted to every woman because of some possibility of difficulty some women may face, rather than simply asking about the circumstances of each woman during her sentencing hearing. For some reason, in this one case, the people who are generally least sympathetic to defendants find it necessary to go far beyond the processes of criminal law that already allow us to grant leniency, and simply vacate the law entirely for one class of defendants who ordered and paid for the "crime", while holding their hired technicians guilty of "murder".
Why do they suddenly reverse themselves in this case, after hounding women literally to death for so many years? Why is ordinary criminal procedure turned on its head in this one case - a case it is laughable to imagine is driven by sympathy or compassion on their part? For the one reason they won't say, but is screamingly obvious to everyone listening: they know they won't get a law passed if they say what they really feel. They know they're far crazier, and more vicious, than the broad range of the public when it comes to women's sexuality and reproductive rights, and if they come right out and admit what they'd like to do, they'd have no chance of getting it passed. So they're willing to accept half a loaf - convict somebody for abortion - for as long as it takes to get that far, then go after the other half. (You never imagined that if they criminalized abortion without penalties for women, they'd stop there, did you?)
The quote above is a slam-dunk, indeed, if your interest is in how blatantly anti-choicers would lie to kill or imprison sexually active women. If you think it's a statement on the morality of the abortion issue, or even these people's personal beliefs about it, you're just as dumb as they need you to be.
posted on 08.06.2007 11:50 AM3
Why is ordinary criminal procedure turned on its head in this one case -
Well it isn't the first time. The right did the same thing in the Schiavo case and in a different way with that Cuban boy in Florida during the Clinton admin.
But I ascribe slightly less sinister motivations. I think many pro-lifers are under the impression that they are conservatives. They are just trying to restore the way it was before Roe came along and upset everything. You'll notice, for example, that almost always in abortion debates estimates of post-Roe abortions are tossed around willy nilly but you almost never hear pre-Roe estimates....as if abortions didn't exist until 1973.
There are legal conservatives who argue against Roe on true conservative ground. Namely that the Constitution gives the states, not individuals the right to regulate abortion. But while this stance practically serves the pro-life movement, it doesn't recognize that the pro-life movement is essentially radical. Their assertion that unborn babies should be recognized as full persons under the law is simply historically unprecedented in our system. Now being radical doesn't automatically make you wrong but I think it should be recognized as such rather than pretending that this is just about reversing an improperly decided decision.
posted on 08.06.2007 1:35 PM4
If you are going to go around setting up straw-men, at least set up strong enough straw-men to look more than ethereal. So now you are bemoaning the 'demonization' of doctors, and before you were bemoaning the 'demonization' of women. Let me guess, the only one in the trio you don't have a problem with being 'demonized' is the fetus.
posted on 08.06.2007 2:37 PM5
I didn't demonize the fetus. I asked a simple question. Can you imagine a mother who had just killed her newborn baby being described in the language used by Hadley Arkes? Every now and then there are cases where such a thing happens (here in NJ I remember there was a big case about a teenage couple that checked into a hotel, had the baby and threw it in the dumpster). While some do plead for sympathy it's rare that commentators and pundits are so easily moved.
I'm just saying try to be honest here. Don't just pretend that every abortion is about a weak willed girl being pushed around by some evil man. When pro-lifers do this they end up sounding like some type of paradoy of 1970's feminists.
posted on 08.06.2007 3:58 PM6
Some "women" who abort are 14 year olds being ruthlessly manipulated by their parents. Some are 25, don't like to use birth control, and just prefer to abort if they get pregnant.
I speak from the experience from counseling at a CPC for three years.
There is wide spectrum of culpability among the women who abort.
I believe they should be persecuted if they are adults. I believe the D.A. should look into it, determine what degree to charge them with (just like in the case of the murder of born people), and the jury can decide. From voluntary manslaughter to first degree with special circumstances; there are varieties of murder. Let the jury decide.
Just like any other crime.
posted on 08.06.2007 4:58 PM7
"Just like any other crime."
Fortunately, it is not a crime, so juries don't have to make that call.
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will not be illegal in all states and/or in all cases. Only those too poor to travel a state or two over will be prevented from aborting.
posted on 08.06.2007 6:17 PM8
How's this for a solution?
Let's be lenient in sentencing for those women that Arkes writes about; those women who agonize over it, who might otherwise take a coat hanger and while crying out in desperation rip the fetus from their womb.
On the other hand, let's put those women who use it as birth control in jail; those women who would coldly and calmly take a coat hanger and pluck the fetus out as if it was a wild eyebrow hair.
Maybe like third degree versus first degree abortion.
posted on 08.06.2007 7:14 PM9
Boonton:
just out of curiosity. Are you a dyslexic human beign or just an ordinary human beign?
Do you have spell-check?
posted on 08.06.2007 7:16 PM10
No, you didn't specifically (at least not this time), but it certainly seems as if you don't mind it happening... specifically because you think that abortion falls under the doctrine of self-defense.
No you didn't, you pontificated for half a page before you even asked a question. Here's a simple answer... both the doctor and the woman soliciting abortion should be put on trial, as well as any person coercing the woman should be tried for conspiracy to commit murder. Probably everybody that argues pro-abortion ought to be tried for conspiracy to commit murder also.
posted on 08.06.2007 7:59 PM11
"Probably everybody that argues pro-abortion ought to be tried for conspiracy to commit murder also."
Yikes! Not the America I'd want to live in, not even an America I could recognize. Here we have the right to argue for or against any law we wish, and that's a good thing. Why are you so desperate to impose silence on your ideological opponents?
posted on 08.06.2007 8:36 PM12
smmtheory
No, you didn't specifically (at least not this time), but it certainly seems as if you don't mind it happening... specifically because you think that abortion falls under the doctrine of self-defense.
Since you were quite active on those threads you should know very well that I wasn't demonizing fetuses. If you want to honestly talk about how self-defense applies to legal abortion then I'll be happy to engage you but if you want to pretend you're running for office you can do that on your own.
Here's a simple answer... both the doctor and the woman soliciting abortion should be put on trial, as well as any person coercing the woman should be tried for conspiracy to commit murder. Probably everybody that argues pro-abortion ought to be tried for conspiracy to commit murder also.
Well an honest and consistent stand at least. I guess we will no longer be pretending this is just about reversing Roe. Here's another simple question, you are proposing a radical change in law that flies in the face of just about all of recorded history...even Biblical history. How do you justify this position?
posted on 08.06.2007 9:29 PM13
Conspiracy to commit murder is NOT protected speech.
I'll answer that question as soon as you answer this one about calling homosexual unions 'marriage' - you are proposing a radical change in law that flies in the face of just about all of recorded history...even Biblical history. How do you justify this position?
And if you weren't intentionally demonizing unborn children, it wasn't apparent to me.
posted on 08.06.2007 10:57 PM14
smmtheory
I'll answer that question as soon as you answer this one about calling homosexual unions 'marriage' -...
I didn't realize you asked a question about that. When did you?
And if you weren't intentionally demonizing unborn children, it wasn't apparent to me.
I'll stand by what I said earlier. If you're willing to have an honest discussion then go ahead. If you want to grandstand you can do it alone.
Conspiracy to commit murder is NOT protected speech.
You didn't say you wanted to outlaw conspiracy but rather:
Probably everybody that argues pro-abortion ought to be tried for conspiracy to commit murder also.
This would not be conspiracy by any normal reading of the law. There's a huge difference between saying "I should have the right to kill Joe Carter" and saying "Let's kill Joe Carter, you meet me at his house tonight and we'll do it!". The second is close to conspiracy (I believe it would require at least one material act to bring implement the plan) while the first is very far away.
So now we have two very radical changes in the law being advocated but little in the way of an actual reason why we should get behind this.
posted on 08.07.2007 12:27 AM15
Anti abortion activists understand that on the political front they have lost ground by being fetus centric.
So they've changed strategy the past few years to appear female centric.
But as Marie clearly and personally points out, they aren't at all. 'Pro lifers' are pro-birth, not pro-life.
posted on 08.07.2007 2:26 AMThere is no way I would ask any woman in my family or in my life to Marie for 'counselling.'
Her contempt for her clients speaks for itself.
16
More than likely the doctor doesn't believe he is killing a human beign (yes yes he knows he is destroying 'human life' but human life simply means living tissue associated with a human beign...a kidney is 'human life' but is not a human beign).
Boonton, you spend an awful lot of time here pontificating about things you have no apparent knowledge of. Have you been to medical school or even taken a course on animal reproduction? What biologist or medical doctor teaches that an animal fetus is not a distinct individual, but merely a part of the mother, akin to a kidney or even a tumor? I would really like to know what you base your assumption on.
posted on 08.07.2007 6:56 AM17
"So they've changed strategy the past few years to appear female centric."
This is, to put it mildly, a misrepresentation of fact. Pro-choice advocates have always focused primarily on the rights of the woman. Read the Roe v. Wade arguments and decision from well over thirty years ago.
posted on 08.07.2007 7:21 AM18
So they've changed strategy the past few years to appear female centric.
Since the earliest anti-abortion advocates were also some of the earliest woman's right advocates, this statement is pretty silly and historically ignorant. Here are some quotes from early woman's rights advocates on abortion.
"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
Mattie Brinkerhoff, The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Elizabeth Cady Stanton in a Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library
"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy."
posted on 08.07.2007 8:10 AMSusan B. Anthony, The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
19
Since the earliest anti-abortion advocates were also some of the earliest woman's right advocates, this statement is pretty silly and historically ignorant. Here are some quotes from early woman's rights advocates on abortion.
Wow, so history actually existed before Roe.v.Wade!
What biologist or medical doctor teaches that an animal fetus is not a distinct individual, but merely a part of the mother, akin to a kidney or even a tumor?
Weren't you around for one of the endless threads we've had here that discussed personhood? I didn't realize it had all been reduced to a simple biological question.
posted on 08.07.2007 8:43 AM20
I see two broad schools to this debate. One is the moment school and the other is the process school. Moment people believe a human person is created in a single moment. Process believe it to be, well, a process.
Take adulthood. The legal view is moment orientated, when you turn 18 you're an adult. But the process view is how most of us really operate. We consider the 19 year old down the street still a kid. Most biological events seem more like processes than moments.
There are moment people on both sides of the abortion debate. Back in the time of Roe some feminists argued that 'personhood' began the moment of birth so abortion should be totally unregulated. Really the only difference between them and the pro-lifers here is that they just happened to set the 'magic moment' at birth rather than conception. Other moment people will take conception so all abortion would be out. It's well known that many early Christians believed that the soul entered a baby's body at quickening (the moment when the first kicks are felt). That belief would have left most abortions in the clear since most abortions happen early in pregnancy.
Roe.v.Wade was interesting because it bucked the moment side entirely and went with a process theory using trimesters to make a scale from near complete deregulation early on to harder regulation later on. The process wasn't about personhood though but about the state's interest in the unborn child versus the mother's interest in bodily autonomy.
posted on 08.07.2007 9:13 AM21
So here's the problem, given the different ways people think in post 20 about this subject it isn't obvious that any one way is correct. Doctors do obviously have different beliefs about this as everyone else. It is not 'obvious' to him which way is correct anymore than it is obvious to any of you who never took anything more than biology 101. The question of personhood isn't resolved by simply figuring out when DNA changes...therefore it isn't a question that can be answered simply by asking 'expert opinion'. The doctor's thoughts about abortion are no more informed than this hypothetical scared young girl...at least in regards the philosophy here.
So maybe the 1,025th time we go around this topic again we can make some progress by dispensing with this assertion that you only have to look in a medical textbook to know the answer.
posted on 08.07.2007 9:31 AM22
Weren't you around for one of the endless threads we've had here that discussed personhood? I didn't realize it had all been reduced to a simple biological question.
I thought you atheists were all about testable hypotheses; how do you test for "personhood"? But really, I thought we wanted medical doctors making treatment decisions based on biology, not an mystical concepts like "personhood". If your doctor told you that you had a growth, that biologically was a tumor, but that his guru told him it was actually a unicorn egg and based on that he wouldn't remove it, you'd find yourself a new doctor and probably try to get the old one's license revoked. With abortion, however, you will allow a doctor to ignore the biology and instead rely on quasi-mystical concepts like "personhood", essentially arguing for the existence of some "soul-like" thing that makes a human a person, to base his decisions on.
posted on 08.07.2007 9:41 AM23
I thought you atheists were all about testable hypotheses; how do you test for "personhood"? But really, I thought we wanted medical doctors making treatment decisions based on biology, not an mystical concepts like "personhood".
So your thinking here is there's a biological test for, say, DNA but none for personhood so we solve the problem by just pretending DNA=personhood?
essentially arguing for the existence of some "soul-like" thing that makes a human a person, to base his decisions on.
Actually I didn't equate personhood with the existence of a soul (I'm sorry, 'soul-like thing', whatever that is). It's kind of strange to see you getting all huffy over the mention of the word, though...especially on a religion blog. But while we are at it, there's a big difference between a 'mystical concept' and a concept that is abstract or even subjective.
For want of a better definition, personhood would be the quality of being a distinct human person. Now that need not have to include a non-testable concept like a soul but if you're going to reduce it to a simple biological test you should articulate very clearly what that is and why it should be considered valid. 'Unique DNA' doesn't really cut it IMO.
posted on 08.07.2007 10:26 AM24
So your thinking here is there's a biological test for, say, DNA but none for personhood so we solve the problem by just pretending DNA=personhood?
No, my thinking is that if you are going to make determinations on who is and who isn't human, and therefore, who is entitled to protection under the law, then it should be based on a little bit more than pseudo-scientific tripe like "personhood". Using the concept of "personhood", a forced-abortion program like China's One Child Policy is no more morally problematic than a forced vaccination program. In fact, China's policy may be morally superior because, unlike most US vaccination programs, it doesn't allow for a religious exception.
But while we are at it, there's a big difference between a 'mystical concept' and a concept that is abstract or even subjective.
Okay, let's test this little hypothesis; what's the difference between "Allah told me to kill you because you are a heretic" and "Comrade Stalin told me to kill you because you deviated from Party orthodoxy"? If I'm the "you", I ain't seeing much of a difference.
For want of a better definition, personhood would be the quality of being a distinct human person.
So, there is some non-scientific (i.e. mystical) quality that makes a distinct human being a distinct human person. I think what we have here is a good example of how willing supposedly "reality-based" atheists are to embrace pseudo-science or even mysticism when the science doesn't support their position.
posted on 08.07.2007 12:26 PM25
Bene D,
You have no idea how much I loved the women and girls who came to our center. You have no idea how much help and kindness was shown to them by that incredible place. One of the kindest things I could do for them was to do all in my power to save the lives of their sons and daughters.
However, when, whether through personal desire or pressure from others, they went through with abortions, we continued contact, encouraged them to come in for post abortion counseling (and did it), helped with other (born) children, and provided whatever services or referrals (medical care, food, job assistance, clothing, etc. etc. etc.)
Just because I believe abortion is murder does not mean I hate those who do it. I have seen women put under incredible psychological and in some cases physical pressure to do it. I have seen women break.
posted on 08.07.2007 12:27 PM26
You didn't see the little '?' at the end of the paragraph?
We've tried that already, don't you remember? I didn't find your side of the discussion all that honest, substantive, or convincing when you were talking like a woman had to defend her life against a fetus that you alluded would murder her by its simple existence.
And maybe you can explain why, for the 1,025th time, an Atheist thinks an argument should hinge on early historical teachings of the Church. I'll not hold my breath... I wouldn't want to pass out.
posted on 08.07.2007 1:27 PM27
No, my thinking is that if you are going to make determinations on who is and who isn't human, and therefore, who is entitled to protection under the law, then it should be based on a little bit more than pseudo-scientific tripe like "personhood".
Pseudo-scientific would be something pretending to be scientific when it really isn't...such as say telling us that 'medical textbooks' tell us that personhood begins at conception, implantation, the first cell division, the first brain wave etc.
Okay, let's test this little hypothesis; what's the difference between "Allah told me to kill you because you are a heretic" and "Comrade Stalin told me to kill you because you deviated from Party orthodoxy"? If I'm the "you", I ain't seeing much of a difference.
You could also add to the mix "God told me to kill you because he told me he wanted me to sacrifice my son to him" but I don't see your point here. Are you just trying to demonstrate that an argument from authority is a fallacy? Nice job, too bad the only person attempting anything near an argument from authority is you.
smmtheory
You didn't see the little '?' at the end of the paragraph?
OHHHH, you mean you asked me that question AFTER I asked a question. Well you can answer my question first then.
I didn't find your side of the discussion all that honest, substantive, or convincing when you were talking like a woman had to defend her life against a fetus that you alluded would murder her by its simple existence.
For those who didn't have the pleasure of being on that thread, I believe smmtheory is referring to a case where a woman's life is endangered by her unborn child. I pointed out that the doctrine of self defense would hold that such a woman had a natural right to defend herself. Smm countered with the assertion that the child was innocent. But the doctrine of self defense does not consider the guilt or innocence of the threat. A mentally ill person could be perfectly innocent as he charges at you with a knife but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to shoot him.
And maybe you can explain why, for the 1,025th time, an Atheist thinks an argument should hinge on early historical teachings of the Church. I'll not hold my breath... I wouldn't want to pass out.
Actually I never said I was an atheist...you should try not to put words in people's mouths or try to guess at things you know nothing about. I didn't assert that we must adopt early Christian teachings anymore than I asserted we had to adopt centuries old English common law. I pointed out that what you are proposing is in fact a radical break from historical precedent. Such a proposal should be justified by those making it, not simply asserted as 'obvious' by referencing some hypothetical 'medical textbooks' as your side is a bit too prone to do.
posted on 08.07.2007 4:36 PM28
Bene D:
My comment (17) was based upon my misreading of your comment (15). I apparently conflated antonyms, which is a good way to be 180 degrees wrong.
I apologize for the error.
posted on 08.07.2007 5:15 PM29
Pseudo-scientific would be something pretending to be scientific when it really isn't...such as say telling us that 'medical textbooks' tell us that personhood begins at conception, implantation, the first cell division, the first brain wave etc.
Boonton, "personhood" is your concept, not mine. I think all human beings are entitled to protection under the law; you think their is some arbitrary (mystical?) barrier that a human being must cross to attain the enlightened state of "person". What I am trying to find out is what it takes to transform a human being into a person. Is it a soul, is it a certain experience, like crossing the birth canal. Do children with autism or Down's qualify? How about children born through Caesarian? What's the minimum IQ to be a person? Is "personhood" a permanent state or is their some spell we can cast to transform a "person" back into a "non-person"? Help me out here, because it sounds like "personhood" is merely a construct you use to justify your position that certain people aren't really people.
You could also add to the mix "God told me to kill you because he told me he wanted me to sacrifice my son to him" but I don't see your point here.
I am not sure I see your point here. My point was that in this case the distinction between the mystical and the abstract is pretty insignificant. What's your's?
posted on 08.07.2007 5:17 PM30
As soon as you tell me why it applies for this question but not the other, because you have in the past totally ignored the same consideration for the question regarding the redefinition of marriage in favor of the radical change.
Despite the fact that I have never actually claimed that an unborn child is innocent, you have yet to offer authenticate evidence that it is truly the unborn child that is endangering the mother's life and not the mother's natural biological inadequacy. You keep sidestepping that issue for some reason.
No, you have not actually in any comment to me mentioned that you are, but other people have mentioned that you are without your bothering to correct them. But that sure is great advice coming from somebody who is constantly putting words in other people's mouths.
I'm sure that when laws were first enacted to put people on trial for murder it was a radical break from historical precedent too, but it had to change sometime, just as this needs to change as well. I also don't really consider the Church's current teachings on abortion a radical break from historical ecclesial precedent, despite continued assertion from you and others that it is.
posted on 08.07.2007 6:53 PM31
"What I am trying to find out is what it takes to transform a human being into a person. Is it a soul, is it a certain experience, like crossing the birth canal."
Live birth is as reasonable a requirement for personhood as the age of 21 years is for adulthood. Society has to draw the line somewhere for both personhood and adulthood. Pro-lifers prefer to draw the line at conception, pro-choicers prefer various points between conception and birth. Each side can point out what it perceives as flaws in the opinion of the other, but neither side is likely to convince the other. I suspect abortions will remain legal in the United States for at least my lifetime and yours.
posted on 08.07.2007 7:11 PM32
Live birth is as reasonable a requirement for personhood as the age of 21 years is for adulthood.
No, both are purely arbitrary. Before Roe, most people considered a fetus or even an embryo as a person that has rights that should be respected. Roe and it follow on cases arbitrarily removed those rights. Now we have respected individuals who make the case that an infant isn't a person or a person who has suffered some level of brain damage isn't one.
posted on 08.07.2007 8:21 PM33
Rob R: No problem, I get my exercise jumping into misunderstanding sometimes too, that's what discussion is about.:^)
Marie, "I believe they should be persecuted if they are adults."
I believe you believe that, rationalization and minimalization are powerful denial mechanisms, some of the women you work for are merely criminals to you. I get that. I've no doubt you'd make that phone call to put them behind bars if the law permitted it.
We evaluate issues legally, morally, ethically and politically. Your want women legally behind bars.
Anti abortionists have felt heard by pro life US presidents and administration. That is changing and the anger in your ideological friends is building.
I'm sure you are familar with Human Life International (HLI), and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer.
He is no longer considered extremist or fringe.
He uses the demon Moloch to dehumanize anyone who doesn't agree with you. They are sub human.
Army of God - magical and catastrophic thinking that leads to bloodshed.
You want punishment, revenge, payback for what I see are moral reasons.
Michael Griffin, Shelley Shannon, Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph, it okay to kill medical people who provide choice and respect.
Marie you know rhetoric is escalating and this issue is going to blow; medical people and clinic people are going to lose their lives again.
The distance between the clinic bombers and harrassers is not that far from your views.
Those who saw and worked on the abortion wards pre Roe are seeing it happen and are trying to warn Christians that are not natural law anti abortionists.
Is this group going to a target of the unstable fringe that thinks bombing and killing is okay?
If Euteneuer, Flip Benham, Fr. Pavone and others have their way violence against Christians would not be a surprise at all.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/7/15948/23706/Front_Page/Feeding_Moloch
6 million people died in car accidents last year, including innocent children.
You want women behind bars, charged by law as criminals, but the moral, ethical and pastoral response to 6 million road deaths is unimportant.
(just one example)
posted on 08.07.2007 8:39 PM34
Bene Marie you know rhetoric is escalating and this issue is going to blow; medical people and clinic people are going to lose their lives again. The distance between the clinic bombers and harrassers is not that far from your views.
We've always had our differences, Bene, but now you've crossed the line. I think that it is despicable that a Christian would condone the evil of abortion in the first place. I really don't see how you reconcile the destruction of human life with your faith. But for you to make such claims--that a person who works in a pregnancy crisis center is close to a clinic bomber--is simply beyond the pale. Shame on you. You really, really should be ashamed of yourself. I'm ashamed to say that I know you.
posted on 08.07.2007 8:53 PM35
6 million people died in car accidents last year, including innocent children.
You want women behind bars, charged by law as criminals, but the moral, ethical and pastoral response to 6 million road deaths is unimportant.
What's your point, that abortion is morally equivalent to an auto accident fatality? That until we can eliminate auto fatalities, we shouldn't worry about abortion fatalities? In other words, WTF.
posted on 08.07.2007 9:35 PM36
No, both are purely arbitrary. Before Roe, most people considered a fetus or even an embryo as a person that has rights that should be respected.
More mythology. A fetus had no significant legal rights before Roe. Go ahead and name one. Before you say 'the right not to be killed' keep in mind pre-Roe states could and did legalize abortion. In fact, considering the courts had ruled involuntary sterilization was ok the states might have even been able to mandate abortion if they wanted too!
As soon as you tell me why it applies for this question but not the other, because you have in the past totally ignored the same consideration for the question regarding the redefinition of marriage in favor of the radical change.
Ok, I'll bite. Gay marriage was not a radical change in marriage law. Was it a radical change from 2,500 years ago? Sure but hardly as radical as, say, the rejection of arranged marriages. Not as radical as, say, trying to retrofit our current marriage laws to accomodate polygamy.
Despite the fact that I have never actually claimed that an unborn child is innocent, you have yet to offer authenticate evidence that it is truly the unborn child that is endangering the mother's life and not the mother's natural biological inadequacy.
The hypothetical stands on its own. If you want to assert that self defense does not apply then you should demonstrate why. If your argument isn't based on innocence then what is it?
No, you have not actually in any comment to me mentioned that you are, but other people have mentioned that you are without your bothering to correct them.
Quite a while ago this subject came up. Someone, I believe it was giggling (apologies if I'm wrong) said I had claimed to be an atheist. I asked for his source, he produced a quote but refused to cite the URL of where it came from. AFter a lot of back and forth it turned out that he had done a search on Yahoo for something like "Boonton atheist" and grabbed a paragraph of one of the results. The paragraph, though, combined sentences from the entire comments page. After all was finally said and done he argued that it didn't matter because he felt it was 'something I would have said'.
So let me just warn you, I am under no obligation to read everything you write and correct your mistakes. If you say someone is something then you should base it on what they actually say or some other actual evidence. If you say something and someone fails to correct it, that is not a good reason to assume you got it right.
I'm sure that when laws were first enacted to put people on trial for murder it was a radical break from historical precedent too, but it had to change sometime, just as this needs to change as well. ...
Perhaps but your desire to rewrite the meaning of conspiracy would not be a beneficial change and you still have yet to provide any good reason for it other than just you saying so. I'm sure the first person who said something lilke "let's do something about people murdering other people" did a much better job showing why his 'radical change' was a good idea.
ucfengr
What I am trying to find out is what it takes to transform a human being into a person.
The two are the same so since you don't like personhood I'll use your term. What does it take to make something into a human beign as opposed to just a sperm cell, just a fertilized egg, just a fetus, just a baby, just an adult etc?
(Personhood is a better term, though, since it would apply to non-humans as well...I think we would agree it would be murder to kill Mr. Spock even though he technically isn't a human)
Is it a soul, is it a certain experience, like crossing the birth canal. Do children with autism or Down's qualify? How about children born through Caesarian?
I would say it is similiar to what makes a person an adult. It's not a particular moment but the adoption of characteristics of an adult. The characteristics of a human beign would be, IMO, something like the ability to think, the ability to perceive, the possession of a human body.
Crossing the birth canal would therefore be irrelevant. Whether you came accross the canal, via Caesarian or grown in a mad scientist's vat it's the same. Ditto for Down's syndrom, autism, low IQ's, etc. I would say the boundary is fuzzy but the end points are definite. (Like adulthood, a baby is clearly not an adult, a 40 year old man clearly is....a 19 year old may be 'just a kid' or an adult or kind of both at once). I would also say it is binary. In other words, if you're able to think twice as much as a normal human you're still just a person...not some type of double person. The analogy to adulthood breaks down a bit here, I suppose. We can talk about two adults where one person acts more like an adult than the other. But even here the binary nature holds. You can vote at 18 because you're an adult legally, you don't get to cast two votes at 36.
Is "personhood" a permanent state or is their some spell we can cast to transform a "person" back into a "non-person"? Help me out here, because it sounds like "personhood" is merely a construct you use to justify your position that certain people aren't really people.
No it is not permanent in practice (it could be in theory). It ends with death at which point personhood comes to an end... This is why cremation of dead bodies is not murder.
posted on 08.07.2007 10:57 PM37
Bene D,
I don't want revenge. I want the the laws to be just. It is unjust to kill an innocent person.
A legal sanction against abortion, with the possibility of punishment, is a big deterrent to a women considering aborting her child. In my opinion, it would be the deciding factor in most cases.
Then, the baby could have a chance at life, like the rest of us.
posted on 08.08.2007 1:26 PM38
The very issue that you keep sidestepping. It's not actually the unborn child that might cause the mother's death, but her own body. How many times that has to be put in front of your face before you consider it a demonstration of why the doctrine of self defense doesn't apply is anybody's guess.
Okay, so you might not be an atheist, let me rephrase the question to apply specifically to you then... maybe you can explain why, for the 1,025th time, you think an argument should hinge on early historical teachings of the Church when you ignore them at your leisure? You're appealing to an authority which you don't view as an authority. Put that in your fallacy basket and smoke it. You'll just go right ahead and feel free to ignore precedent where marriage is concerned too, and act like it's not a radical change while bloviating about how I don't justify what you assert is a radical change concerning abortion.
And that's just it, since you don't consider abortion murdering people, you think I'm trying to redefine conspiracy to commit murder. Inciting people to practice abortion (murder of people unborn), which is what people do when arguing pro-abortion; they incite people to practice it, that is conspiracy to commit murder. You want to hedge it down to conspiracy to murder a particular person, but it doesn't work that way. If murder is incited with a victim or victims to be determined later, it is still conspiracy to commit murder.
posted on 08.08.2007 2:53 PM39
Before you say 'the right not to be killed' keep in mind pre-Roe states could and did legalize abortion.
Throughout most of the 19th century, abortion followed existing English common law, which prohibited it after "the quickening" (i.e. when you could feel the baby kicking). This is when it was believed that the fetus became alive. In the mid-19th century, as medical knowledge advanced, the concept of a "quickening" was dropped because it was determined that the baby was alive from the moment of conception. From this, it is possible to at least infer that one purpose of the law was to preserve the unborn child's "right not to be killed". (source: www.policyalmanac.org/
posted on 08.08.2007 3:38 PMculture/archive/crs_abortion_overview.shtml)
40
The characteristics of a human beign would be, IMO, something like the ability to think, the ability to perceive, the possession of a human body.
A 6 month in-utero fetus has these characteristics as much as a preemie born at 6 months, yet one of them meets your criteria for person (i.e. has rights that should be protected) and one does not. Why is this? I am still having a hard time seeing your definition of "personhood" as anything more than an artificial construct used to justify your support for a position that you are not comfortable with.
posted on 08.08.2007 3:53 PM41
The very issue that you keep sidestepping. It's not actually the unborn child that might cause the mother's death, but her own body. How many times that has to be put in front of your face before you consider it a demonstration of why the doctrine of self defense doesn't apply is anybody's guess.
That's an odd argument to make since pro-lifers take such pains to emphasize the unborn has a seperate body from the mother. Now when that seperate body poses a threat it is really the mother's body?
Even if I grant you this the argument fails. If you're laying on the floor and I'm standing on your throat you still have the right to kill me in self defense. You don't have to die because your body is unable to hold my weight. If your body had some type of bizaar allergic reaction to me and I insisted on getting close to you self defense would still apply to you even though the situation is caused by a defect in your body.
why, for the 1,025th time, you think an argument should hinge on early historical teachings of the Church when you ignore them at your leisure? You're appealing to an authority which you don't view as an authority. Put that in your fallacy basket and smoke it. You'll just go right ahead and feel free to ignore precedent where marriage is concerned too, and act like it's not a radical change while bloviating about how I don't justify what you assert is a radical change concerning abortion.
My argument doesn't hinge on any historical teaching of the Church. I'm pointing out that your position is a radical break from just about all of previous history both secular, religious and various different types of religion. My position is that your proposal is far more radical than changing legal marriage in the US to accomodate gay marriage.
This is not an argument that we must always follow precedent or that the past is always right. If anything it is simply a statement of fact, that you're proposal is a radical break. Yielding on that point doesn't mean you have to give up anything. It's not like there's any law that says radical breaks are never justified.
And that's just it, since you don't consider abortion murdering people, you think I'm trying to redefine conspiracy to commit murder. Inciting people to practice abortion (murder of people unborn), which is what people do when arguing pro-abortion; they incite people to practice it, that is conspiracy to commit murder. ...
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Advocating murder does not fall under the definition of conspiracy. You can, for example, put up a blog that says "the town should march over to that child molestor's house and lynch him". Conspiracy would require articulating a plan to actually carry out the murder coupled with at least one act. So if you said to me "I'll buy the rope, you find out where he lives and then we'll go lynch him" you'd be close to conspiracy but then at least one of us would actually have to perform at least one act indicating follow through ont he plan (like you buying the rope or me googling his address).
Incitement is even harder to establish legally. It's very much like yelling fire in a crowded building....you're using speech at just the right time to set off a crime. So yelling "go get him" to an angry mob might be incitement to murder or to riot....it isn't if you yell it to a mellow crowd sipping lattes outside of Starbucks. Since abortion is not some type of 'spur of the moment' thing someone just does I think you'd have to come up with a really, really convoluted hypothetical to illustrate how you could ever find a case where you could prosecute for 'incitement to abortion'.
But that's all academic. You said not only should abortion be legally defined as murder but advocating against such a policy should be prosecuted as 'conspiracy to murder'. Nope, not how the world works at all.
You want to hedge it down to conspiracy to murder a particular person, but it doesn't work that way. If murder is incited with a victim or victims to be determined later, it is still conspiracy to commit murder.
Actually it does work that way. If you advocate murder in the abstract....say you're a Klu Klux Klan member and you say "it should be legal to kill blacks" you cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy EVEN IF someone sees you on TV and goes out and murders a black person. Even if they say "I killed that person because he said it should be legal" you cannot be prosecuted.
ucfengr
Throughout most of the 19th century, abortion followed existing English common law, which prohibited it after "the quickening" (i.e. when you could feel the baby kicking). This is when it was believed that the fetus became alive. In the mid-19th century, as medical knowledge advanced, the concept of a "quickening" was dropped because it was determined that the baby was alive from the moment of conception.
Now that's a bit of a stretch isn't it? You mean it wasn't until the 19th century that people put together the fact that sex made babies? What exactly did they think was happening in that period between intercourse and quickening?
Nonetheless you haven't shown that the fetus had any legal rights. It didn't. There were states that permitted abortions, those laws were never struck down as violating the rights of a fetus. All states had laws that made abortion punishable by penalties less than murdering a person after birth. None of those laws were ever struck down as violating Equal Protection.
posted on 08.08.2007 4:29 PM42
A 6 month in-utero fetus has these characteristics as much as a preemie born at 6 months, yet one of them meets your criteria for person (i.e. has rights that should be protected) and one does not. Why is this? I am still having a hard time seeing your definition of "personhood" as anything more than an artificial construct used to justify your support for a position that you are not comfortable with.
Actually it might surprise you to know that I would say it would. I would reject the moment idea even when applied by a pro-choicer like Rob who would set the 'magic moment' at birth. I would say that late term abortions would become morally suspect and I would accept regulation of them. In general, the state's interest in protecting the developing person would become stronger as personhood develops. That would make abortion that takes place minus one day from birth quite different from abortion that takes place minus eight months, ten days before birth.
Your definition is no less artificial than mine, the only difference is I'm not pretending my thinking is beyond question. There are no mythical 'medical textbooks' that prove anything you've argued here. There are certain facts such as "when is new DNA formed", "when does implantation happen", "when does the heart start beating" that you can find in your "medical textbooks" but they do not resolve the philosophical question.
If you honestly think so then let me ask you, can you say that the pro-life movement is of one mind regarding the birth control pill?
posted on 08.08.2007 4:39 PM43
"No, both are purely arbitrary."
Umm...that's what I meant by one is as reasonable as the other. We can set either requirement, that for adulthood and that for personhood, wherever we want. You want to set personhood at birth (by personhood I refer to the point at which one is protected by law) and people like me, seeing no societal interest in protected tiny unwanted embryos, will prevent people like you from establishing that standard. I prefer to protect the rights of the mother rather than giving rights to the unborn.
posted on 08.08.2007 6:10 PM44
Now that's a bit of a stretch isn't it? You mean it wasn't until the 19th century that people put together the fact that sex made babies? What exactly did they think was happening in that period between intercourse and quickening?
No, it wasn't until the mid 19th century that they were able to determine that life began at conception, not when you could feel the baby move (a.k.a. "the quickening). I think it is largely irrelevant what exactly they were thinking happened between intercourse and "quickening", what is relevant is that the laws against abortion were predicated on the fetus being a living human being.
Nonetheless you haven't shown that the fetus had any legal rights.
Since initial laws against abortion made it illegal when it could be determined that the baby was alive, it's reasonable to assume that the unborn child was considered to have some defensible rights.
Your definition is no less artificial than mine, the only difference is I'm not pretending my thinking is beyond question.
No, my thinking gives the benefit of the doubt to the fetus being a human being. Since neither of us can prove conclusively that we are right, I think that is where the benefit of the doubt belongs.
posted on 08.08.2007 6:11 PM45
Since initial laws against abortion made it illegal when it could be determined that the baby was alive, it's reasonable to assume that the unborn child was considered to have some defensible rights.
'Initial laws' also made birth control illegal. Was that granting rights to sperm and egg cells? If you had a right to life then the state couldn't legalize your murder. Long story short, a fetus had no significant legal rights pre-Roe. Yes some states made abortion illegal, that was not granting fetuses rights. That was simply making a procedure illegal. Look at it this way, it's illegal to kill endangered animals today. That doesn't mean an endangered animal has been granted any rights. If tomorrow they changed the law the endangered animal has no claim that could be heard by a court.
No, it wasn't until the mid 19th century that they were able to determine that life began at conception, not when you could feel the baby move (a.k.a. "the quickening). I think it is largely irrelevant what exactly they were thinking happened between intercourse and "quickening", what is relevant is that the laws against abortion were predicated on the fetus being a living human being.
But of course life begins before conception. Sperm and egg cells are alive. People back then were not so ignorant of real life biology. Remember this was an agricultural country until the turn of the last century. People knew that baby animals grew inside their mothers before 'quickening' They were uncertain of the microbiolgy of conception but they certainly knew there was such a thing as conception and they knew it happened long before quickening.
posted on 08.08.2007 7:42 PM46
Boonton, I think you are being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious that English common law and the laws that moved the prohibition back to conception were based on the unborn child not just being alive, but being a unique individual entitled to certain protections. Also, it wasn't some states made abortion illegal, it was all states. It wasn't until latter part of the 20th century that non-therapeutic abortions started being legalized. Also I think it is pretty disingenuous of you to try to equate individual sperm cells or eggs with a living human being. At just about any stage of development, a human being possesses those criteria (i.e. the ability to perceive, a possession of a body, even a limited ability to think pretty early on) that you have identified as making a human being. An individual sperm or egg never has these.
posted on 08.08.2007 9:36 PM47
It's pretty obvious that English common law and the laws that moved the prohibition back to conception were based on the unborn child not just being alive,...
How exactly is this obvious? Abortion laws before Roe go in many different directions but you find that rarely do they demand the same penalties as murder, rarely were they vigeriously enforced and no where will you see society acting as if abortion was eqilivant to killing infants.
There were no great 'discoveries' that overturned quickening. People knew back then quickening was simply being able to feel the baby kicking, that's all. They knew the baby was growing before quickening, they knew it was growing since conception.
I wouldn't be surprised if you actually found the opposite of what you're arguing. Earlier laws treating abortion more like a capital crime rather than later laws doing the same (later laws, remember, were supposedly created by people better informed about 'discoveries' that 'disproved' quickening).
posted on 08.09.2007 1:14 AM48
I'll (for now) overlook your constant assumption that nobody you argue with has ever bothered to read up or research any of these issues. Name even just one condition you think constitutes the baby posing a threat, can you even do that? Every condition I've ever come across that threatens the mother's life are external to the fetus. I'll look it up and research it even, if you will but name it. All I've ever seen you do is spew out grossly irrelevant analogies that demonize unborn children by comparing them with fully grown attackers (or otherwise, like in the case of using yourself as an obliviot standing on somebody's throat).
That is contradictory. It wouldn't have been if you had not included - 'religious and various different types of religion'. Next time you make an appeal to authority, maybe you should just stick to the ones you actually view as authority figures.
Silly Rabbit, it was to prevent fatherless children (pre-birth, & pre-conception), and to prevent abortion.
Ask the victims of the Nazi Holocaust if the state couldn't legalize your murder when you had a right to life. Long story short, Pre-Roe, a fetus didn't need significant legal rights, now it does! Reason: society has let down the defenseless and unprotected by legalizing an abomination like abortion.
posted on 08.09.2007 11:32 AM49
All I've ever seen you do is spew out grossly irrelevant analogies that demonize unborn children by comparing them with fully grown attackers (or otherwise, like in the case of using yourself as an obliviot standing on somebody's throat).
I'm a bit tired of this game your playing. Back in post 30 you implied innocence wasn't relevant here. Now I see it is because you're back to playing this demonization card again. I've emphasized over and over again that self-defense says nothing about the guilt or innocence of the person posing the threat.
It also doesn't matter if you think there are 'real life' situtations where pregnancy threatens a mother's life. The doctrine is applied on a case by case basis. We don't try to derive categories of 'impossible' situations to rule on ahead of time.
And finally it doesn't matter if the threat is caused by the child or by a 'defect' in the woman's body that makes her unable to accomodate the child. This is a 'half-dozen of one, six of another' argument that is entirely meaningless in this context. You don't lose your right to self-defense because your body happens to have some vulnerability.
That is contradictory. It wouldn't have been if you had not included - 'religious and various different types of religion'. Next time you make an appeal to authority, maybe you should just stick to the ones you actually view as authority figures.
An appeal to authority would follow the form of "X should be our policy because Y says it should". If you have a statement "X is different from Y" that is not making Y an authority. My statement is that your position is different from our past history.
Silly Rabbit, it was to prevent fatherless children (pre-birth, & pre-conception), and to prevent abortion.
Prevent fatherless children? By preventing people from using or having access too birth control? Is that like trying to prevent speeding by outlawing breaks?
Even if you think birth control caused children, the law applied to married couples as well. Why does that matter? Because under common law if a married woman had a child it was automatically considered the husband. There was no such thing as a 'fatherless child' born to a married woman back then, hence no need to prevent it by banning married women from using birth control.
Ask the victims of the Nazi Holocaust if the state couldn't legalize your murder when you had a right to life.
The German gov't did legalize the murder of the Holocaust victims as far as I can tell. However that could not be done legally under the US Constitution without some rather dramatic amendments being introduced first. In both cases, though, the Nazi's actually didn't legalize anything. You may recall the Nurenberg trials found that a state cannot mandate violations of human rights. So the Nazi's did violate the law and they never legalized anything. Granted only a few of them were punished but the law has never been sold as a perfect instrument.
Long story short, Pre-Roe, a fetus didn't need significant legal rights, now it does! Reason: society has let down the defenseless and unprotected by legalizing an abomination like abortion.
This is incoherent still. First rights exist whether or not you 'need them'. Second it's absurd to try to argue that if fetuses were entitled to legal rights they didn't need them pre-1973. On the contrary.
Abortion was not universally outlawed up until 1973. The process to ban it involved a long debate and did not achieve a unaminous consensus by all the states. Even when it was banned, it was often not prosecuted. You may read about reformers criticizing the major newspapers for campaigning against abortions in their editorials while carrying thinly veiled ads for abortions in their classifieds (just as today many newspapers carry thinly veiled ads for prostitution in their classifieds under the heading 'escort services').
Again you demonstrate the mythology the pro-life movment has been selling us for 30 years now. If society 'let them down' today then society was also letting them down 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago and even as far back as well....just about all of recorded history.
posted on 08.09.2007 3:56 PM50
How exactly is this obvious?
Boonton, I have gone from thinking you are being disingenuous to thinking you are being dishonest.
There were no great 'discoveries' that overturned quickening. People knew back then quickening was simply being able to feel the baby kicking, that's all.
Here is what Blackstone said regarding abortion and the quickening in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England", one of the most important sources on common law:
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
Again, it is clear that until the mid-19th century, the quickening was the point at which it was thought that the child was alive and entitled to certain protections under the law. I don't expect you to agree, but I also don't expect you can find any contemporary evidence to support your position that it was widely understood that the quickening was nothing more than the point at which the unborn child could be felt.
posted on 08.10.2007 10:05 AM51
Ucfengr,
I'm waiting on a post to clear Joe's filter but...
Not only don't I agree, Blackstone doesn't as well.
and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as...
Clearly he is saying that life begins as a legal matter upon quickening. But nothing you cited indicates that he was under the impression that there was nothing in the womb before quickening. Obviously he knew babies came from sex like everyone else.
I would bet the reason quickening was used was not because people thought the baby was 'dead' until that moment but because there was no easy way to tell for sure if a woman was pregnant until that point. If a man hit a woman and she claimed she had been pregnant and lost the baby how could it be proven? Quickening would have established witnesses who could have confirmed she was pregnant but if the woman simply said she had missed her period and then bleed after being struck...how could a court be sure?
Notice also that your quote confirms my assertion. While he calls it a 'very heinous misdemeanor' he certainly does not state the law equated it with murder.
posted on 08.10.2007 11:56 AM52
Another interesting aspect, even in the case where a man attacks a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, Blackstone states that is not murder. In that case you cannot claim the lighter crime was due to any sympathy for a young, confused girl making a bad choice.
posted on 08.10.2007 1:33 PM53
I said what I said in post 30 because you consistently misrepresent what I have said in your comments. And you keep overlooking again and again that I'm not talking about guilt or innocence when you have yet to establish that the fetus is the person posing the threat.
So what you are you saying here, that abortion could never be legal under the US Constitution without some rather dramatic amendments being introduced first? I agree. Somehow that little fact slipped through the loophole of Roe-v-Wade though, and people (to the tune of around a million and a half a year) are having abortions illegally performed. Ask the victims of the Abortion Holocaust if their murderers will ever be taken to trial. Every pro-choicer appears to be conspiring to cover it up.
Yeah, it's call tying the consequences to the action... it used to be a time-honored tradition in society before the advent of the instant gratification pathology. The consequences of sex were children, parents of children born out of wedlock were frowned upon in public (again, consequence). Public censure once carried nearly the weight of law. Now people seem to go out of their way to thumb their noses at public censure. They are encouraged by people who think laws against birth control were silly. They are encouraged by people who think unborn children don't need the protection of law. They don't have to worry about consequences any more, 'cause if she gets pregnant, the good ol' pro-choicers will ensure that the little sucker never sees the light of day. It might be illegal, but who cares? Everybody's doing it! Yep, people once upon a time had to think about the long-term consequences of their actions.
posted on 08.11.2007 2:53 AM54
And you keep overlooking again and again that I'm not talking about guilt or innocence when you have yet to establish that the fetus is the person posing the threat.
Actually I did address that several times.
So what you are you saying here, that abortion could never be legal under the US Constitution without some rather dramatic amendments being introduced first? I agree.
No we were discussing the Nazi's and their policies which were nor primarily abortion if you recall. But considering that abortion law has been all over the map historically but has almost never treated abortion equal to murder it's strange for you to assert the above. What you're essentially saying is that the Constitution says something that just about everyone has missed for the last 200+ years until you came along.
Ask the victims of the Abortion Holocaust if their murderers will ever be taken to trial. Every pro-choicer appears to be conspiring to cover it up.
If you do start demonstrating the ability to speak rationally, we can explore an important difference between the Holocaust and your claims of an abortion holocaust. Rights as traditionally understood limit the gov't's actions, not obligate it to impose results. While it's good that the gov't prosecutes murders and tries to prevent them there is no 'right not to be murdered' where your estate can then sue the gov't if you happen to get shot in a mugging.* The rights are that the gov't may not murder you unless it follows due process of law.
Yeah, it's call tying the consequences to the action... it used to be a time-honored tradition in society before the advent of the instant gratification pathology. The consequences of sex were children, parents of children born out of wedlock were frowned upon in public (again, consequence)....
BZZZZ, wrong. Let's try this again. It was illegal for married couples to use, purchase or even receive information about birth control. By definition even if birth control causes children, there could be no out of wedlock children born to married couples.
posted on 08.12.2007 2:22 PM