The Book: Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority by Kristen Day
:10 -- The Gist: Day demonstrates how the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the extremely liberal members of the party and special interest groups and how the embrace of abortion rights has driven away voters.
:20 -- The Quote: "I've been asked many times how the Democratic Party could become entrenched as the party of abortion on demand, given their long history of fighting for the weak and vulnerable. They ask, 'Isn't a baby in a mother's womb the best example of the most vulnerable in society?'" (p. 9)
:30 -- The Good: Provides a detailed forensic examination of how the Democratic Party became the party of abortion on demand…
:40 -- The Bad: …but is weak on proffering solutions for returning to the their pro-life heritage.
:50 -- The Review: Kristen Day first began having misgivings about her party's stance on abortion after the 1992 Democratic National Convention, in which then Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was not allowed to express his pro-life views on live TV. Back then Day was a congressional staffer. Now she's the national director of Democrats for Life, a grassroots, pro-life organization in Washington D.C. Unfortunately, not much else has changed as Day shows in her brief, but well-documented, history of abortion and the Democratic Party. Day begins with the women's suffrage movement in 1848 and traces the progression (and regression) of women's rights through the subsequent decades before Roe.
Chronicling the chain of events from the 1940s until today, she demonstrates how the party was hijacked by liberal activists who pushed for a radical "pro-choice" agenda that alienated Catholics, conservative union workers, rural women, and other groups that had traditionally constituted the party's base of support. Day manages to thread the details of legislation and politicians into an impressively coherent narrative.
But while she provides a suburb diagnosis of the problem, the solutions for returning the party to a pro-life majority are sadly lacking. The best she can offer is the woefully inadequate 95-10 Initiative. Nevertheless, Day and Democrats for Life deserve praise and support in their efforts to restore the Democratic Party's commitment to "fighting for the weak and vulnerable."
:60 -- The Recommendation: Pro-life Democrats should read this book to learn how their party lost its moral footing on the issue of abortion; pro-life Republicans should read it as a cautionary tale of what could happen to the GOP once the pro-abortion crowd is welcomed into the Big Tent.
I thought this would be interesting and useful. I put this on a couple of other blogs. If we should vigorously work together to get rid of things like slavery, we should vigorously work together to get rid of the abortion holocaust. In addition, I want to put the Catholics Against Rudy link here http://catholicsagainstrudy.com/
Below I put together some parts primarily from the Stand to Reason Interactive series Making Abortion Unthinkable The Art of Pro-life Persuasion. Here are prenatal pictures. If you don’t want to, don’t look at them. http://prolifetraining.com/Prenatal-Pictures.htm
Here are abortion pictures http://prolifetraining.com/Abortion-Pictures.htm Here is an abortion video http://prolifetraining.com/Abortion-Video.htm
Graphic visuals are a standard means to good education with other moral issues (such as the Holocaust, the Civil Rights movement, and other issues). Graphic visuals are not manipulative if the images clarify truth rather than distort it. Graphic visuals are used to support our argument, not replace it. Tell people that they don’t have to look at the pictures or videos if they don’t want to.
Scientific evidence supports the argument that abortion kills a real human being. Leading embryology books confirm this See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29. It simply isn’t true that no one knows when life begins. Here’s why. The unborn is alive from the moment of conception. No period of non-life exists in the sequence of events from mating to birth. An unbroken continuum of life stretches from beginning to end: A living sperm unites with a living egg to form a living zygote. Biological growth begins at the moment of conception, which proves the unborn is alive. The unborn possesses each of the biological criteria for life.
1)Metabolism
2)Growth (reproduction)
3)Reaction to stimuli
The distinct life of an individual being begins at its http://jfaweb.org/i1p3.pdf conception (fertilization). It is the second image on that link. The aforementioned images are from the Justice For All Exhibit pro-life webpage. Images are an absolutely crucial aspect of the pro-life cause.
The individual’s unique genetic fingerprint originates at conception, which any biology textbook makes clear. An egg with 23 of the mother’s chromosomes unites with a sperm with 23 of the father’s chromosomes, creating an individual living thing. The zygote is different from every other cell in the mother’s body because it has its own unique chromosomal “fingerprint.” The unborn rapidly develops physically into a composite of different kinds of cells, which never happens with any other kind of human cell.
Given that the unborn is alive, what kind of living thing is it? Is it a plant or an animal? Is it a tomato or a rutabaga, or some kind of bacteria? Is it a bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, or mammal? What kind of mammal is it? A cat? Rabbit? The unborn is a Homo Sapiens, a human being. First, the DNA Genetic signature proves the unborn is a human being. If you had 10 zygotes in a row, how would you know which one was human if they all looked alike to the naked eye? You’d know by the DNA. The principle of biogenesis proves the unborn is a human being. The principle of biogenesis states two things. First, all life comes from pre-existent life. Second, each being reproduces after its own kind. Since every being reproduces after its own kind, human beings can only reproduce other human beings. Dogs make puppies, fish make guppies, and humans make yuppies. If this principle is denied, it must be explained how two human beings can create a separate being that is not human-in clear violation of the principle of biogenesis-but later becomes one. The individual, living offspring of two other human beings must always be another human being.
They say the unborn is human, but not a person. When confronted with this statement, always ask this question: What’s the difference? What’s the difference between a human and a person? If they permit the killing of a human being who’s not a person, but not the killing of a human who is, then they must be clear on the difference between the two. What are the specific reasons for disqualifying some humans from protection? Why should we accept the notion that some humans are not persons? The distinction seems arbitrary. Humans are personal kinds of beings.
Human beings have intrinsic value. They are valuable in themselves. Intrinsic value means that our value is tied to what we are, not to what we can do. We need nothing more than our shared humanity to have equal value and to deserve equal protection. Anything that can be functionally defined-valuable because of some condition, such as size, level of development, location, or degree of dependency-can be functionally defined away-no longer valuable because the ability is lost. What if we had no legs or our bodies were terribly misshapen, like the Elephant Man’s? Would we be any less ourselves? Would we be any less a person? Pro-life advocates believe that no human being-regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or place of residence-should be excluded from the community of human persons. Our view of humanity is inclusive, wide open to all-especially to those who are small, vulnerable, and defenseless. Gregory Koukl writes, “When the Founders wrote that all men are created equal, they were not referring to males of a certain age, but to all human beings. Further, the thing that made men equal was not some physical quality that each shared. Therefore, no argument could ever be given to disqualify any human for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness based on any physical characteristics (skin color, in Lincoln’s case)…The point the Founders were making is that rights accrue to men simply by virtue of the fact that they are human. Therefore, all human beings have those unalienable rights regardless of their levels of physical development or their capabilities.”
(continued)
Every pro-life advocate should know this key illustration. Teach it to as many people as you can. There are a variety of different ways to teach this information (one can get creative). I frequently start with this illustration:
If your child comes up behind you while you’re working and asks, “Mommy/Daddy, can I kill this?’ what one question must you ask before you can answer his question? Before you answer the question “Can I kill this? You must first ask the question “What is it? If it’s a spider or a cockroach, he can smash it. If it’s the funny-looking boy down the street, he’ll need to sit down for a long talk with you. Abortion kills something that’s alive. Whether it’s right or wrong depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What is being killed? Or, What is the unborn?
Some other interesting things:
Elective abortion kills the unborn (doing so is the purpose of the abortion), and only something alive can be killed. The unborn can be a different gender from the mother. The unborn develops a separate brain and central nervous system. The unborn can have a different blood type. The DNA fingerprint is widely used in forensics, especially by the government and the military, to determine the identity of particular human beings. The DNA fingerprint allows investigators to connect certain biological remains (such as blood and hair) to specific individuals. Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception in a test tube, writes that conception not only confers life, but “defines” life. Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question that life begins at conception. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life In the Making.
The pro-life rationale is clear:
1) Intentionally killing an innocent human person is a moral wrong.
2) Elective abortion is the killing of an innocent human person.
3) Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong.
We are not talking about killing cockroaches. The key question is “what is the unborn?” Gregory Koukl writes, “If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.”An abortion shouldn’t be allowed unless the unborn poses a significant threat to the mother’s life.
Here are some parts from Scott Klusendorf’s writing: Now, it may be the case that the unborn are not fully human and abortion is therefore justified. But this must be argued with evidence, not merely assumed by one's rhetoric. Suppose, for example, that a friend justifies elective abortion this way: “Women have a right to make their own private decisions. What goes on in the bedroom is their business and no one else’s.” When you hear this, don’t panic. Trot out a toddler: Pro-lifer: Okay, you say that privacy is the issue. Pretend that I have a two-year old in front of me (hold out your hand at waist level to illustrate this). May I kill him as long as I do it in the privacy of the bedroom?
Abortion-advocate: That’s silly--of course not!
Pro-lifer: Why not?
Abortion-advocate: Because he’s a human being.
Pro-lifer: Ah. If the unborn are human, like the toddler, we shouldn’t kill the unborn in the name of privacy anymore than we’d kill a toddler for that reason.
Abortion-advocate: You’re comparing apples with oranges, two things that are completely unrelated. Look, killing toddlers is one thing. Killing a fetus that is not a human being is quite another.
Pro-Lifer: Ah. That’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers? That is the one issue that matters.
Staying Focused
Notice that you’ve not yet argued for the humanity of the unborn. You’ll do that in a moment. For now, all you are doing is framing the issue around the question, What is the unborn? That is the crux of the debate.
As the conversation continues, keep trotting out the toddler each time your friend assumes the unborn are not human. That will keep the discussion focused on the one question that really matters: the status of the unborn.
Abortion-advocate: But many poor women cannot afford to raise another child.
Pro-lifer: When human beings get expensive, may we kill them? Getting back to my toddler example, suppose a large family collectively decides to quietly dispose of its three youngest children to help ease the family budget. Would this be okay?
Abortion-advocate: But you're being too simplistic. This is a very complex issue involving women who must make agonizing decisions.
Pro-lifer: The decision may be psychologically complex for the mother, but morally it is not complex at all. When black children are denied schooling and other community services, do we spin a tale about complex and agonizing decisions for the white people in power or do we condemn the evil of racism?
Abortion-advocate: Aborting a fetus that is not human is one thing; discriminating against a black person is quite another.
Pro-lifer: So we’re agreed: If abortion kills a defenseless human being, then the issue wouldn’t be complex at all. The question remains: What is the unborn? Admittedly, one conversation is seldom enough to convert people on the spot. That’s okay. Sometimes clarifying the issue is enough to get friends and critics thinking. Once that happens, you’ll have opportunity to engage them again. To use a baseball example, you don’t have to hit a home run with every conversation. Sometimes just getting on base is enough. And you’ll certainly do just that when you trot out your toddler.
I have another post that should have showed up before that one. However, since it had multiple links, it probably needs to be approved. I’ll try once more (hopefully it doesn’t double post it).
the 1992 Democratic National Convention, in which then Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was not allowed to express his pro-life views on live TV.
I assume this is representative of the rest of the book. If so, that's reason enough not to bother with it.
This same, silly, stupid lie has been repeated over and over until it's become just another one of the bizarre distortions that drive the force-pregnancy position. It seems to me that if you can't make your case without the most obvious, self-created falsehoods on even the most minor points, and insist on continue to spout them even when the truth has been pointed out again and again, you ought to accept your own verdict - your case is not worth making.
Bob Casey was not prevented from speaking because he was in favor of forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. Several other Democrats who hold that position did in fact speak live at that same convention. Casey explicitly refused to endorse his own party's nominee for the Presidency, and also indicated he would use his speaking turn to oppose his own party's pro-choice platform plank. Of course he wasn't invited to speak. Nobody would be under those circumstances. (Find one live televised speaker at any Republican Presidential convention who had refused to endorse the nominee and then spoke explicitly against one of the nominee's stated policies.)
Casey is not a martyr - he was a misogynist and a jerk. He was simply not allowed to demonstrate it on live TV at his party's Presidential nominating convention - for which he should have been thankful. The fact that his meaningless woes and self-righteous, self-centered self-pity are a persistent banner for forced pregnancy - and apparently the motivation for this new book - only demonstrates how empty and self-centered that movement is.
Kevin T. Keith,
Joe works for an outfit, Family Research Council, that calls itself christian, but is in bed with war-mongering and war profiteers (like Blackwater), so his discussion about pro-life issues have no credibility anyways.
So you must be a passifist to be against abortion? That's simplistic and ridiculous.
JHadji,
I don't understand the logic or premise of your question? Please explain.
One does not have to be a pacifist to not support and cheerlead for every military action of our government. One does not have to be a pacifist to associate with and take contributions from war profiteers when you call your organization, christian.
For Joe to bring up the abortion issue apparently for the sole purpose of smearing the democratic party, that's ridiculous.
Christ said, "Blessed are the peacemakers", not the well connected partisan hacks that take money from mercenary armies...
"Forced pregnancy" - There's no such thing unless you're talking about rape.
Kevin T. Keith:
"Forced pregnancy"? Wow. Nothing like using emotionally manipulative terms to distort a debate.
Look, except in the case of rape, there's nothing "forced" about it. What there is, is people getting into a situation that they can't easily get back out of. In this way, it is like joining the military. Once you do, you're stuck for several years, they can send you to Iraq whether you want to go or not, you can even die. Don't like it? Don't enlist. But calling deployment to Iraq "forced deportation" to try to rationalize desertion does nothing but add noise to the conversation.
JohnW calls himself a Christian, but is always eager to act uncharitably towards Joe, his brother in Christ,so his discussion of anything on this board lacks humility anyways.
Your post attempts to discredit Joe's convictions against abortion because he "works for an outfit, Family Research Council, that calls itself christian, but is in bed with war-mongering and war profiteers (like Blackwater)"
1.) Different topic, victims & circumstances. Using your broadbrush logic, if you support this war, you must be for any type of self-serving killing. Thus you cannot be against abortion. That is simplistic
2.) I'd LOVE to see the 'in-bed' link between the FRC and Blackwater. That is ridiculous
The validity of a woman's right to choose vs. the baby's right to be born is a different moral issue than why and what is going on in Iraq. Personally, I'm always glad to see sanity on the left.
Sorry if this took away from the topic.
JHadji,
It's a "culture of life" topic and war/occupation of Iraq is relevent.
Oclarki,
Two organizations that represent the most highly visible public face of evangelical christianity in America has close connections and takes money from war profiteers and mercenary armies and you call me uncharitable and lacking modesty?
Try these Google News searches:
"family research council" "erik prince" or
dobson "erik prince"
JohnW,
Is everything about Iraq with you?
Oclarki,
No, I am also concerned about christianity being misrepresented by political partisans pretending to be guardians of "moral values".
JohnW,
"No, I am also concerned about christianity being misrepresented by political partisans pretending to be guardians of "moral values"."
Yeah I guess it just depends on whose ox is being gored. I often find you to be a political partisan misrepresenting Christianity. Or am I missing the apolitical nature of your rants?
Hmmm ...
Joe works for an outfit, Family Research Council, that calls itself christian, but is in bed with war-mongering and war profiteers (like Blackwater), so his discussion about pro-life issues have no credibility anyways.
Guilt by association
and
Inductive reasoning
... all in one neat little packge.
Not bad for one sentence.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
there's nothing "forced" about [pregnancy in the absence of abortion rights]. What there is, is people getting into a situation that they can't easily get back out of.
But you can perfectly easily get out of an unwanted pregnancy. In fact, doing so is safer in the vast majority of cases than actually continuing the pregnancy - and, of course, is cheaper and takes less time, too. The only thing standing in your way is legions of self-appointed obstructionists who have made it their business to prevent you making your own choice and taking your own course of action on the matter. The only reason women are forced to continue unwanted, life-disrupting, and often dangerous pregnancies is that someone else is forcing them to do so, by law, harassment, intrusive restrictions on and denials of legal services, and in many cases by violence.
In this way, it is like joining the military. Once you do, you're stuck for several years, they can send you to Iraq whether you want to go or not, you can even die. Don't like it? Don't enlist. But calling deployment to Iraq "forced deportation" to try to rationalize desertion does nothing but add noise to the conversation.
Thanks. People don't believe me when I tell them anti-choicers are crazy. But one of them always proves it for me.
Getting pregnant against your will is like voluntarily joinging the army? Not being pregnant is like desertion from military duty?
Oh, but, you don't have any problem with women's autonomy, right?
Pregnancy is not a duty. Being sexually active - let alone being raped, getting sick, or carrying an unhealthy fetus - is not voluntary acquiescence in any possible consequences no matter what, and it is not an abdication of your own moral authority over your own life.
You can't change your mind about military enlistment because we have set up laws and procedures prohibiting it - it's not a natural consequence of joining, it's a system we created that takes soldiers' rights away for reasons that were compelling to whoever created the system. There may be good reasons for that, and, in a volunteer force, there may be reasons for enforcing compliance - the enlistees did explicitly agree to all such consequences. But there's nothing inevitable about it - the system is that way because we made it that way. Forced pregnancy is a system imposed by some people on others who cannot choose - while still living a normal life, making reasonable and normal decisions about their life and behavior - to avoid being caught up in that system. It imposes consequences up to and including death on people who explicitly repudiate the terms of the system and did not volunteer to accept them. And it is likewise unnecessary and arbitrary - it was set up for the purposes of those doing the enforcing, for reasons of their own, and imposed, in this case, on those who object, not those who agree.
That you think the two systems are similar says volumes about what you think women's lives should be like, and what role pregnancy plays in them.
Wow. Just wow.
Kevin, abortion is roughly equivalent to having a wart removed or taking an aspirin for a headache? The (apparent) flippancy of your stance on abortion is stunning.
The number of pregnancies that are life-threatening to the woman are (I suspect) much lower than you seem to imply.
And why should sex be consequence-free? Where did that idea come from? One of the natural results of sex is pregnancy. If you don't want the result, don't engage in the act. We don't actively advocate liposuction for the obese--we tell them to stop eating. Why not tell the pregnant to stop fornicating?
Stunning to me is the flippant manner in which people extinguish human life because they don't wish to face the consequences of voluntary behavior.
If I went about killing baby seals with the reckless abandon with which we kill our own unborn I'd be mobbed by PETA et al. It seems only humans can be slaughtered so easily.
We regulate the practice of medicine, not pregnancies.
Elective abortion is not medical care. It's killing our children.
Those of us who are prolife, don't want doctors learning to kill or practicing acts that are intended to kill. We use the laws to limit elective abortion. Which is better than the way that we got nation-wide legalized abortion in the first place: by lawsuits and activist judges who invented very poor legal emanations and penumbra.
BTW, I linked to this post on my blog.
Thanks, Joe.
Casey wasn't allowed to speak because he refused to endorse the nominee, not because he wanted to speak about abortion, so Day is a liar. So what good is her book?
The antiabortion industry doesn't have anything to do with "respect for life", it is a mechanism for controlling women, for punishing them for sexual behavior disapproved of by whichever one of the numerous closeted freaks, patrons of prostitutes, and other varieties of hypocrite is speaking at any particular moment.
I mean, various members of the anti-abortion industry expressed jubilation when the intact dilation and extraction prohibition was upheld, saying that prohibition of the procedure would cause increased intrauterine bleeding. It isn't a respect for life that leads someone to express happiness that women will suffer injury.
Pro-choice Democrats see women as human beings; the antiabortion industry sees them as passive incubators. It isn't us who have lost our moral footing.
I am so sick and tired of anyone who expresses a moral concern or even asks a question about abortion being labelled as a chauvinist or misogynist. A message to the pro-choice crowd - stop changing the subject with ad hominem attacks and address the only question that matters: is it a life or not?
It's you whose changing the subject, by throwing around vague terms like "life" you avoid real questions, like "what is the level of protection that the law should give to a 100-cell blastocyst", and "should the law value a 100-cell blastocyst" over a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions.
That's because you don't want to address or answer those questions, because the truth is that the antiabortion industry doesn't care. What they care about is controlling the sexual and reproductive behavior of women.
Mike Toreno,
Any society that doesn't control the sexual and reproductive behavior of its members is doomed. Only a foolish post-modernist could think that 50,000 years of human biology, behavior and psychology can be ignored.
It's odd that people like yourself are the first to stereotype Christians and conservatives as anti-sex when we are the ones who actually take it seriously.
Now go back to playing Grand Theft Auto.
Mike Toreno,
There is nothing vague about the term "life". Something is a life or it is not. And i'm not talking about what the law says, i'm talking about the ethical issue.
You proved my point with your slur on the anti-abortion "industry" and your presumption to know the motives of every single person who questions the morality of abortion.
"Pro-choice Democrats see women as human beings; the antiabortion industry sees them as passive incubators. It isn't us who have lost our moral footing."
Absurd. Inane. Nonsense.
Pro-choicers value a woman's "right to choose" over the life of whatever it is they are killing. They are reluctant to discuss in reasoned debate what it is that is being killed. And that's if they'll even admit they're killing something.
Just once I'd like to see someone say, "Abortion is the killing of a human being. But it is justified b/c the convenience of the mother is more important." At least we'd have some honesty.
Pro-lifers (at least this one) think that the life of the mother and the life of the child are both important, and killing one at the whim of the other is immoral. Maybe abortion is justified in some cases--but we never get to have that discussion b/c the debate never gets that far.
Mike, what is to be gained by "controlling the sexual and reproductive behavior of women"?
Apparently, there must be quite a corporate machine behind it. Perhaps those monsters at Gerber or Graco?
Everything isn't driven by a sinister agenda like on...Robocop
Here are (again) abortion pictures that support our pro-life argument http://prolifetraining.com/Abortion-Pictures.htm
Gregory Koukl writes, “But what I don't want anybody to do is to mistakenly frame this issue as one of choice. It is not an issue of choice any more than slavery was an issue of choice. It's not an issue of what a woman can do with her body. Frankly, a woman can't do what she wants with her own body and neither can men. Laws restrict those freedoms given the right set of circumstances. The issue to be considered here is the issue of human rights. It's unfortunate that the press and certain people arguing for one position have framed the question differently because they have missed the entire point. During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn't tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. Even then when you had a living, breathing human being standing there staring back, they still could argue that way. I'm not a bit surprised that it could be done with an unseen infant that is growing out of sight in the womb of its mother.” Keep the abortion-choice advocates on the key question “What is the unborn?”
Abortion choice advocates can no longer act as if the pro-life position is a big joke. Pro-lifers have many of the leading intellectuals in the world on their side. For example, Patrick Lee, Robert P. George, Scott B. Rae, J.P. Moreland, and countless others are advocates of the pro-life view. I want to emphasize that there is convincing academic work on the pro-life side. The eminent philosopher Francis Beckwith has a sophisticated new pro-life book titled Defending Life A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice published by Cambridge University Press http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice/dp/0521691354/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1163524-7777642?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191524256&sr=8-1
Beckwith could easily win an abortion debate with David Boonin.
JohnW,
Is everything about Iraq with you?
1) When all you have is one hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail.
2) If at first you don't succeed, GET A BIGGER HAMMER.
3) CAN YOU TOP THIS?
Ken,
Could you explain what you meant in Post 29? I don't get it. Don't know what it is you are trying to express.
What is the Hammer?
JohnW,
Ken is explaining how you are such a one trick pony around here that every comment becomes about Iraq. I think he is trying to say that when the only argument you have is "Oh yeah, what about Iraq?" then you end up using it in irrelevant and foolish ways.
Oclarki,
Thanks for the explanation. I suspected that, but wasn't sure.
Absolutely right, the Iraq situation is not the only evil in the world. However, It would be nice though if people in churches who made statements denouncing abortion would also occasionally denounce the situation in Iraq or atleast recognize the tremendous suffering it has brought to the people of Iraq. Right?
"A message to the pro-choice crowd - stop changing the subject with ad hominem attacks and address the only question that matters: is it a life or not?"
In a sense, it is. In another sense, it is not. When most people speak of their lives, they speak of the period between their births and deaths. More to the point is whether or not it is protected life. In our country, it is not.
Pro-lifers go to a great deal of trouble to get pro-choicers to care about the unborn. It's not going to happen, guys, no matter how often you refer to fetuses as "babies". The only unborn human beings that have ever concerned me in the least were my own children. As for yours, if you want them, I think you have the right to have them. If you don't want them, abort them. Your call. Once they are born, I'll advocate for their right to live.
One problem you pro-lifers have is that you seem to care much more for the unborn than you do about the ones that are actually living. That undermines your credibilty more than you seem to know.
Rob,
You said, "One problem you pro-lifers have is that you seem to care much more for the unborn than you do about the ones that are actually living. That undermines your credibilty more than you seem to know."
How can you claim that when it is overwhelmingly Christians that run crisis pregnancy centers, sponsor and promote adoptions? Additionally, most churches of any size have single mother's ministries or charitable progeams geared toward the poor who are overwhelmingly single female households.
What kind of question is that? It's because they want the babies, that's why. Like I said, the antiabortion industry doesn't see women as human beings, they see them as incubators.
Back before Roe v. Wade, many many single mothers were maneuvered and pressured into giving their babies up for adoption. After Roe v. Wade, not were women empowered to terminate unwanted pregnancies, many women felt free to carry their pregnancies to term and keep their babies, rather than give them up to "well-meaning" "Christian" adoptive families.
What the antiabortion industry can't stand is for women to have choices, whether it's to terminate their pregnancies, keep their babies, or whatever. If these single mother "ministries" really cared anything about the mothers, they'd help the mothers do whatever they felt was best for them to do, rather than help them to do whatever the antiabortion industry wanted them to do.
It sounds like the abortion-choice advocates are still begging the question (assuming the unborn aren’t fully human). Although I supported my argument with pictures and a movie, the abortion-choice advocates are still acting as if elective abortion should be allowed. The abortion pictures and movie (in the above posts) clearly, clearly show what happens to the unborn. We have a lot of teaching to do.
No, what we're doing is declining to answer the question you want answered in the way you want us to answer it.
You are basically presuming that your viewpoint is correct and accusing others of "failing" to support it. No, it is you who have failed because you have failed to mount a persuasive case. One primary reason for this, of course, is that the antiabortion industry doesn't really care about what it says it cares about. It uses a pretended "reverence for life" in order to conceal its true motivation, which is the desire to control women and to "punish sluts".
Mike,
Other than your twiseted bigoted views, what grounds do you have for asserting that pro-lifers want to "punish sluts"?
Mike,
Other than your own bigotry, what grounds do you have for accusing the pro-life community of wanting to punish and control women?
Oclarki,
I don't want to be a "johnnie one note", so I won't even mention the name of the country our military is occupying...
The true purpose of the Democrats for Life book (and Joe's post) is reflected in a recent article in the Washington Times. It's the same old tired tactic of using wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage to drum up support for republicans. The party and their lobbyist, like Family Research Council are concerned about loosing the "christian" vote. See Below
Washington Times Article published Oct 2, 2007
Young evangelicals diverge from GOP
October 2, 2007 By Jennifer Harper
–
Young evangelical Protestants continue to cling closely to their bedrock conservative values. Yet they are abandoning trust in the White House and straying from the Republican Party, according to an analysis that tracked waning sentiments from 2001 to 2007.
"An examination of the younger generation [those ages 18 to 29] provides evidence that white evangelicals may be undergoing some significant political changes," said Dan Cox, a researcher with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. "The question is whether these changes will result in a shift in white evangelical votes in 2008 and beyond."
So this book is about giving disenchanted young republicans a democrat option? Hmmm, an interesting political take.
At a really basic level, aborting kids seems so wrong, which makes us us passionate and therefore it's a good political football.
I'm still trying to see something remotely plausible in this 'controlling women' diatribe. Dude, you've got some personal issue here.
Okay, I'm done here
Well JHadji, banning abortion would be controlling women just like mandating abortion would likewise be controlling woman since it is women who get pregnant. I suppose you can technically claim that any such law would apply equally to men should some bizaar sci-fi channel type movie incident happen where a man got pregnant but that's kind of stretching things a bit.
Boonton, all laws are designed to "control" people. Saying that criminalizing abortion is about controlling women is like saying that laws against thievery is about controlling everyone. Your point only serves as a little distraction, and doesn't confront the main issue.
Speaking for myself, I couldn't give a crap about what people do as long as it doesn't involve hurting somebody else (as abortion obviously does and as parents are or should be legally obligated to care for all their offspring, not just those who happen to have exited the magical birth canal).
Boonton, all laws are designed to "control" people. Saying that criminalizing abortion is about controlling women is like saying that laws against thievery is about controlling everyone. Your point only serves as a little distraction, and doesn't confront the main issue.
Speaking for myself, I couldn't give a crap about what people do as long as it doesn't involve hurting somebody else (as abortion obviously does and as parents are or should be legally obligated to care for all their offspring, not just those who happen to have exited the magical birth canal).
Yes we are all 'controlled' by laws against thievery. Women are controlled by laws mandating abortion or prohibiting it.
It isn't me that brought up the issue but JHadji who seems amazed at this observation:
I'm still trying to see something remotely plausible in this 'controlling women' diatribe.
Try to imagine him writing "I'm still trying to see something remotely plausible in this 'laws against theft apply to everyone' diatribe"
Parents are not obligated to care for all their offspring. They are allowed to put them up for adoption after birth if they feel they cannot provide for them either emotionally or financially. The demands of a child, post-birth, though pale in comparison to being pregnant with a child. While we are fortunate that most people are willing and even happy to accept these demands (if they weren't we wouldn't be here) the fact remains it's a big burden and I don't think the state has the right to mandate it on women.
“…the fact remains it's a big burden and I don't think the state has the right to mandate it on women.”
The homeless are unwanted, may we kill them?
“Parents are not obligated to care for all their offspring.”
In the book Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life Francis Beckwith writes, “…This same entity, when it becomes a newborn, has a right to her parents’ care, regardless of whether her parents “wanted” her. This is why we prosecute child-abusers, people who throw their babies in trash cans, and parents who abandon their children. Although it is true that pregnancy and childbirth entail certain emotional, physical, and financial sacrifices on the part of the pregnant woman, these sacrifices are also true of parenthood in general (which ordinarily lasts much longer than nine months), and do not justify the execution of troublesome infants and younger children who have a right to certain financial and bodily goods which are under the ownership of their parents. If the unborn is a human person, as Thomson is willing to grant, why should the unborn’s right to her parents’ goods differ before birth?”
Gregory Koukl and Scott Klusendorf write, “…When can the law restrict what we do with our own bodies?...When we are a threat to another valuable human being. And that’s the very issue here. Clearly, a woman cannot do whatever she wants with her own body.”
Koukl and Klusendorf write, “Abortion advocates know that if they are forced to defend the act of dismembering a defenseless child, they will lose.”
That is why, according to Boonton, the unborn child is not defenseless but instead an aggressor that the mother must defend herself against.
smmtheory wrote, “That is why, according to Boonton, the unborn child is not defenseless but instead an aggressor that the mother must defend herself against.”
Gregory Koukl wrote, “A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there… Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into the lake. Smith's crime was especially obscene because she violated the most fundamental moral obligation of all: the responsibility a mother has for her own children. Yet wouldn't Susan Smith be exonerated by Thompson's and McDonagh's logic? These children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith's life, depriving her of liberty. Why not kill them? Those boys were attacking her. It was self-defense… The responsibility a mother has toward her child supersedes any claim she has to personal liberty. If it doesn't, if Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments succeed, then release Susan Smith. Release the deadbeat Florida tourists. If parenthood is an act of heroism, if mothers have no moral obligation to the children they bear, if child-rearing is a burden "above and beyond the call of duty," then no child is safe, in the womb or out.” An article entitled “Unstringing the Violinist,” by Gregory Koukl (available through Stand to Reason) has more information on this aspect.
Yeah, I tried telling Boonton and all the other abortion-mongers stuff along those lines, and so has most everybody around here, but they can't wrap their minds around it.
The homeless are unwanted, may we kill them?
If they show up in your body yes. If they show up down the block no.
In the book Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life Francis Beckwith writes, “…This same entity, when it becomes a newborn, has a right to her parents’ care, regardless of whether her parents “wanted” her. This is why we prosecute child-abusers, people who throw their babies in trash cans, and parents who abandon their children. ...
Actually this type of 'care' is mandated on all adults. Here's a silly illustration. A mother hands you her baby to hold for a moment while she ties her shoe, she is struck dead by lightening. You cannot just drop the baby on the ground and walk away. If you did you could be charged with a crime. You are obligated to call the police and give the baby to them or child services or someone who will take care of it. You are NOT required, though, to instantly adopt the baby and raise it as your own.
You are allowed to chosoe not to care for your newborn provided you do so in a manner like the above. Of course there are certain areas where the state will still mandate some things from you like child support payments but it isn't quite the same thing as saying you're required to be a good parent.
Gregory Koukl and Scott Klusendorf write, “…When can the law restrict what we do with our own bodies?...When we are a threat to another valuable human being. And that’s the very issue here. Clearly, a woman cannot do whatever she wants with her own body.”
The difference comes in when you're mandating that one person be allowed to use another's body versus someone just doing something with their body that hurts others. To use another illustration, if a woman wanted to cover herself with gasoline and walk into a crowded theater and light herself on fire we couldn't just say "well that's her body she can do what she wants with it". On the other hand, if the woman had a rare blood type but refuses to donate blood because she believes the Bible prohibits it (or she is just a nasty person who doesn't care about other people) the state cannot force her to do so against her will...even if it means someone else will die.
smmtheory
That is why, according to Boonton, the unborn child is not defenseless but instead an aggressor that the mother must defend herself against.
Only in cases where the baby poses a risk to the mother. Even then I wouldn't say aggressor because that implies an intentional act versus simply unfortunate circumstances.
Kyl
One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there… Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into the lake. Smith's crime was especially obscene because she violated the most fundamental moral obligation of all: the responsibility a mother has for her own children. Yet wouldn't Susan Smith be exonerated by Thompson's and McDonagh's logic?
Actually Smith violated the prohibition against murder. I'm sure if you happened to find a baby in my car for some unknown reason and you responded by ditching the car in a lake the public wouldn't be any less shocked because...well...you weren't the baby's mother.
But notice how the whole body issue is ignored. Do you think having a baby in the back seat of your car is really the same as having a baby inside your body? If you found a baby in your car there are plenty of options to remove it without harm. You can call social services, bring it to a police station, call the police, hospitals, churches etc. Likewise Smith had pleny of non-harmful options to 'remove' the baby from her marriage such as putting it up for adoption. Granted such a move would have been meet with a lot of disapproval from society but it still would have been legal and better.
Suppose there was some type of strange situation where the baby couldn't be removed from your car without killing it. Suppose a madman had hooked a device to her to inject poisen if she was removed. Even then the state telling you that you may not use your car until the device could be defused is not the same as the state telling you that it must use your body against your will.
But what strikes me over and over about your passage is that while it purports to honor motherhood on the surface it really treats it with contempt. Carrying a baby, it seems, is not that much different than carrying a baby in the back seat of your car. Yes it may crimp your style somewhat and make things messier than you perfer but essentially it's not a big deal.
Which brings me finally to the sphere argument Joe made a while ago. If you weren't here for that, it was essentially that society is made up of co-equal spheres of authority. So, say, parents have the authority to tell their kid when to go to bed and the state has the authority to say what documents you need to get a drivers liscense. The state DMV isn't a higher or lower authority than the parents, it is just an authority over a different area (driving) while the parents have authority over bedtime.
Joe used the idea in a discussion of Federalism where it often comes up. Typically, for example, the Federal gov't will NOT be able to prosecute you for murder but the state government will. This is because most murders fall under the authority of state gov'ts and not the Federal gov't. The spheres are not a heirachy, though, so if one fails to do its job it isn't like a 'higher one' can step in. If parents refuse to set a bedtime the DMV cannot do it. They do overlap in some areas, though, so a theft might be prosecuted by the local gov't or the state gov't or parents that abuse their authority can be challenged by the state.
Taking the idea to its conclusion it seems reasonable to say that a mother-unborn child relationship is a co-equal sphere of authority with the mother at the center. It is the mother that must adjust her behavior to care for the unborn child and it is her body that must bear it in the most intimate way. Hence she should have authority in the situtation to decide what's best. Can she make crappy decisions? Sure but so can every other sphere of authority in a society and of all the spheres the mother-unborn child one probably has the best track record.
A born child simply cannot be seen as analogous. While there is a parent-child sphere of authority it isn't the same thing. The child developes its own sphere of authority that starts out limited but grows with age.
What Smith did, therefore, cannot be read as analgous to an abortion. Whatever 'spheres' her children might have been disrupting were not spheres she had primary authority over. Even if her kids were disrupting her marriage that is a sphere made by her and her husband and embedded in the larger society. She has no more authority to kill 'intruding kids' on that sphere than she would have to kill an 'intruding mistress' anymore than you have the authority to stand sit in the parking lot of your workplace every weekend and kill 'intruders'
Boonton,
Is Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice by Francis J. Beckwith (Cambridge University Press, 2007) a book that you will read? Have you read it? According to the Amazon book description “Defending Life is the most comprehensive defense of the prolife position on abortion ever published…There is simply nothing like this book.” I admit that I have not read it. However, I’m definitely going to read it. In addition, you can go to Beckwith’s webpage. He has some articles on there such as "Defending Abortion Philosophically: A Review of David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion." Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 31 (April 2006): 177-203.
On the Right Reason blog (a weblog for conservative philosophers) leading pro-life educator and communicator Scott Klusendorf wrote, “Your [Francis J. Beckwith’s aforementioned book] book sets the standard for the pro-life apologist. It's way more than a re-write of PC Death--it's loaded with great replies to sophisticated thinkers like Boonin, Stretton, and Thomson. Although I enjoyed Ramesh Ponnuru's "Party of Death," it's more for the new comer wanting an overview of how the debate plays out politically. You've gone a gigantic step further by summarizing, then refuting, the ideas that determine culture in the first place. Given the likely outcome of a pro-abortion President and Congress in the next election cycle, well-schooled pro-lifers alone will be left to stem the vicious assault on human dignity and propose an alternative vision of inclusiveness.
Sadly, we can't count on our market-driven churches to propose that vision, so it's up to lay people who care enough to fight-on alone despite thier their timid leaders. You have equiped us well for that daunting challenge.”
Smmtheory,
It is very sad that some people think that poisoning or dismemberment of unborn children should be allowed through elective abortion. I’m glad you and others are against it.
Smmtheory,
Above I wrote, “It is very sad that some people think that poisoning or dismemberment of unborn children should be allowed through elective abortion. I’m glad you and others are against it.”
I meant to write, “It is very sad that some people think that poisoning or dismemberment of an unborn child should be allowed through elective abortion. I’m glad you and others think that elective abortion should not be allowed.”
Boonton, the reason why abortion supporters shriek about laws against abortion "controlling women" is because they believe that abortion laws is about the patriarchy trying to dominate and take over women's lives. That is blatantly ridiculous, but they use it in order to paint prolifers as some kind of dictatorial misogynist control freaks. It's blatant demagoguery and slander. Some of us prolifers have read those feminist diatribes, even if you haven't. I expected though that it was well-known which is why I directed my comments at you.
Parents are not obligated to care for all their offspring. They are allowed to put them up for adoption after birth if they feel they cannot provide for them either emotionally or financially.
That's true, Boonton, but if adoption were impossible, it wouldn't cause infanticide or child neglect to become legalized, would it?
The truth of it is - the parent is obligated..giving up the child for adoption is initiated by the parent in most situations so as to ensure the child is properly cared for, and they can only give the child up if there are people available willing to take the child (and obviously, too, people willing to foster the child in the case of adoption waiting lists).
The demands of a child, post-birth, though pale in comparison to being pregnant with a child.
Really? Do you know how much money a child costs to raise up to adulthood? Do you know how much more effort, resources, and time is required to care for a child post-birth as opposed to the brief period of 9 months in utero? How many women in their right minds - if given a choice, and assuming she doesn't want children - would choose to be pregnant rather than care for a born child for 18 years?
Even if you were correct, it still doesn't negate my argument. Children with severe disabilities are arguably very very burdensome, but we wouldn't say that their parents have a right to abandon them.
the fact remains it's a big burden and I don't think the state has the right to mandate it on women.
Parenthood is a big burden, and the state has an interest in ensuring that parents care for their offspring regardless of the "burden". The issue here, Boonton, is one of responsibility.
But, don't concern yourself too much over the plight of women in the prolife scenario. If it were up to me, the father would have the legal obligation to provide the mother with half her living expenses as well as child support while she is pregnant, since it is his responsibility, too. If paternity is an issue, get a blood test after birth and he would owe her money or additional support if it turns out he's the father.
See, Boonton! I'm an equal opportunity burdener! :)
It is the mother that must adjust her behavior to care for the unborn child and it is her body that must bear it in the most intimate way.
The most intimate way? That's what her body is built for. I'm not saying she should be required to bear children, but I'm just saying that it is proper and natural for her to bear it in that way. Breastfeeding is also a very intimate activity.
Still, though, parenthood by its nature is burdensome. Every parent has to adjust his or her behaviour. Anything less usually results in child neglect and a prison sentence.
The child developes its own sphere of authority that starts out limited but grows with age.
I don't buy this "sphere of authority" junk, and I think it's largely irrelevant to the discussion. Your argument boils down to "it's not fair that the mother's body has to keep the child alive". My argument boils down to parental responsibility regardless of level of dependency. In most cases, the parent put the child in that vulnerable position.
Whatever 'spheres' her children might have been disrupting were not spheres she had primary authority over.
*yawn* And even if she did have primary authority over them, she still would have no right to kill them.
I know someone who is emotionally and verbally abusive because of such rationales -after all, the other person was "intruding" on a sphere he had primary authority over. This other person has a mental illness and was "intruding" unwittingly through that illness, but since he's the primary authority he has the right to do whatever he wants, and he has never apologized or expressed any remorse for what he has done. At least, not yet.
I call BS on such rationales. You can have authority, and you can abuse your authority, too.
You say that, but every analogy I've ever seen you use to spin abortion as a positive painted the unborn as an aggresor, whether witting or unwitting.
But whichever abortion-monger starts shrieking that we're misogynists, then that person is using projection to divert attention from their own misogyny.
Boonton, the reason why abortion supporters shriek about laws against abortion "controlling women" is because they believe that abortion laws is about the patriarchy trying to dominate and take over women's lives.
Again a law against abortion is by definition controlling women. Whether the motivation is patriarchy, ideology or some other reason the fact remains its a valid complaint.
That's true, Boonton, but if adoption were impossible, it wouldn't cause infanticide or child neglect to become legalized, would it?
No because even when adoption is impossible other solutions are such as foster parents who are paid by the state to care for a child on a temporary basis. In theory the state could even fund orphanages & other institutions to do the job if some social disaster left even foster parenting impossible to deal with demand.
The truth of it is - the parent is obligated..giving up the child for adoption is initiated by the parent in most situations so as to ensure the child is properly cared for, and they can only give the child up if there are people available willing to take the child (and obviously, too, people willing to foster the child in the case of adoption waiting lists).
This responsibility is there because the parent is the one initially with the child. See the previous example where you end up with a kid simply because you held it for a moment when the mother was struck by lightening. You're also responsible not to just drop the kid but to ensure the state is contacted and custody is transferred.
Really? Do you know how much money a child costs to raise up to adulthood? Do you know how much more effort, resources, and time is required to care for a child post-birth as opposed to the brief period of 9 months in utero?
Let me clarify what I mean here. The demand to bear a child is much different than the demand to simply provide child support. To see this imagine a law saying you would be taxed to provide support to someone else's child. Now imagine a law saying the gov't has decided the population should be increased therefore you are ordered to get pregnant and give birth. While libertarians may not like the first law it's clear the second would be an extreme intrusion on your body.
The most intimate way? That's what her body is built for. I'm not saying she should be required to bear children, but I'm just saying that it is proper and natural for her to bear it in that way. Breastfeeding is also a very intimate activity.
No we do not see ourselves as machines that are built for anything other than exercising our free will. You wouldn't dismiss a rape victim on the grounds that her body was 'built for' sex even though by the same standard the body is. To see the problem with this line of thinking just pick an offbeat hypothetical and see how it applies. For example, the state says women may not engage in prostitution. Does that mean it can regulate their bodies? At first glance it might appear so but imagine the reverse law. Imagine a law that said women who fall deeply in debt must engage in prostitution if they have no other way to pay off their debts. Such a law would obviously violate our shared standards about what the state may not impose on someone's body.
I don't buy this "sphere of authority" junk, and I think it's largely irrelevant to the discussion. Your argument boils down to "it's not fair that the mother's body has to keep the child alive". My argument boils down to parental responsibility regardless of level of dependency. In most cases, the parent put the child in that vulnerable position.
Authority and responsibility are two different matters. It's the parents responsibility to set a bed time for their kid but if they fail to do so the state DMV has no authority to do it for them. In many areas of government authority is limited. For example, murder is almost always a state responsibility to prosecute and rarely a Federal one. You would have to go out of your way to commit a murder that would open yourself to Federal prosecution. If a state failed to prosecute you for committing a murder, it doesn't follow that the Federal gov't would then have authority to do so.
*yawn* And even if she did have primary authority over them, she still would have no right to kill them.
This is missing the point. Her children were not inside her body. Neither was her marriage. Your analogy is rather disturbing since it seems to imply having children in your car is just like having them inside your womb. It isn't.
I know someone who is emotionally and verbally abusive because of such rationales -after all, the other person was "intruding" on a sphere he had primary authority over.
What sphere would that be? The other person's emotions? The other persons mind? You cannot show how a person can so intrude upon another that the only way they can resolve it is to kill the other person. If you could come up with such an example the killing would probably have a rather solid defense under self-defense. In other words, you are free to stop associating with someone. If for some strange reason your decision to not associate with someone will cause their death the state cannot force you to keep associating.
his other person has a mental illness and was "intruding" unwittingly through that illness, but since he's the primary authority he has the right to do whatever he wants, and he has never apologized or expressed any remorse for what he has done. At least, not yet.
I'm not sure where you're going with this or how it applies. What 'sphere' does this mentally ill person have authority over? His house? The 'spheres of authority' argument Joe talked about does not say one can 'do whatever (they) want'. You can only do 'whatever you want' inside a sphere that you have full authority over. Even if you own a house and another person is a guest you do not have unlimited authority to do whatever you want. The only place where you might have something close to such authority is your own mind & perhaps your body.
smmtheory
You say that, but every analogy I've ever seen you use to spin abortion as a positive painted the unborn as an aggresor, whether witting or unwitting.
This is false, I've presented hypotheticals where a person could pose a threat to another without being an aggressor. In such cases the doctrine of self-defense would not apply any less.
Same thing. The analogized fetus supposedly poses a threat and you say the mother is justified by self-defense doctrine. All the while you have not once been able to say how exactly the fetus posed the threat other than its mere existence. You still continue by using passive aggressive descriptions, trying to pass off your arguments as reasoned and reasonable.
All the while you have not once been able to say how exactly the fetus posed the threat other than its mere existence.
Like it or not self-defense applies to threats that exist, not to things that lack existence. You've never been able to articulate what your argument with self-defense is other than a knee-jerk "how can a cute baby ever pose a threat to someone" type of reaction.
In my book 'aggressor' speaks of intent, often criminal intent. I suppose, though, you can use the word aggression to apply to things that have no intent (such as "an aggressive tumor"). Intent is not required to apply the doctrine of self-defense. Nor is it required that the person using self-defense be 'normal' and the threat be due to something abnorml (previously you've tried to argue that women whose health is threatened by a pregnancy have a defective body hence cannot defend it).
Oh I think I've been able to articulate my argument well enough. It still hasn't prevented you from interpreting my argument as a knee-jerk reaction, but that is not my fault. All I can say is considering your understanding of the self-defense theory, you had better hope that you are never put in a situation where you have to decide whether or not to defend yourself. You really cannot prove ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion to any degree of satisfaction when using self-defense theory to justify abortion.
Just the same, I realize that you will continue thinking that you can and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. It is really a shame that you portray pregnancy as an attack that women have the option to defend themselves from.
You really cannot prove ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion to any degree of satisfaction when using self-defense theory to justify abortion.
If you want to explore this on a case specific basis then that's fine (even though we'll be using hypothetical cases). Self defense is context specific. In other words there are no broad rules like "anyone coming at you with a gun may be killed in self-defense". The defense is applied to individual cases so there may be times that killing someone with a gun is NOT self-defense.
In general I don't really follow your argument and I don't think you really make it. You seem to be more intent on finding a spin that sounds negative ("babies aren't invaders!") and running with it rather than making your case. Perhaps you can try again or perhaps someone else who follows your argument can rephrase it.
Hey, if you get to talk in generalities about how abortion can be justified with the doctrine of self-defense, then I can talk in generalities about how your claim stinks like week old road kill.
You talk about my 'intent on finding a negative spin' like you know the tactic so well... maybe because you use that tactic so often yourself. If your argument were defensible, maybe you wouldn't have to spend so much time practicing that tactic.
Yes, self-defense is context specific. The trouble is, you're trying to spin context out of thin air and spreading it over the concept of abortion in general. It don't work, and your theory stinks like week old road kill.
The fully referenced story is here:
http://www.themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htm
Dave Six
Treasurer, North Carolina Pro-Life Democrats
(and a Bob Casey Democrat)
Forced pregnancy? Well I guess the earth is forced to let people walk on it, and take their provision from it. Since this is "forced" perhaps we should just kill you and then ourselves. You know since the earth has been "forced" to let you exist.
Geez.
Boonton, if someone causes the need for body use, one SHOULD be forced to donate the organ. The reason the laws do not currently reflect this is only a gutless government.
The child support issue matters, since if the woman is not responsible for the neediness, then the father is not either.