Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think your rebuttal logically follows. I think you may be creating a false dichotomy.

I think what is being said is, "if human life is precious, shouldn't it ALL be precious?" A murderer is a person who, like all people, can change. Yes, they took a life; but does the response to this HAVE to be "take a life back?" There are alternatives, some of which have been shown to be highly successful. And those alternatives are especially important when you consider the incidence rate of false convictions. Capital punishment necessarily involves accepting that some percentage of the people you kill will actually be innocent. It is final: no opportunity for reformation, and no opportunity to reverse any error that may have occurred.

I am not in my reply trying to deal with the complexities of when capital punishment is or is not justified. I am addressing the simple question of why might someone support the death penalty for a murderer but be completely opposed to abortion. Murder is the taking of innocent life. There are many reasons that one may have to kill that do not constitute murder. But to kill an innocent baby IS murder. And it is a crime as long as the baby is not still in the mothers womb.

Killing in self-defense is widely seen as moral (and I agree), but is a drone strike to take out a known terrorist justified if we know that we will, in the process, incur "collateral damage?" How much "collateral damage" is too much? And what about the issue of running roughshod over national sovereignty to launch these strikes?

This is the horror of war. To defend against a vigorous mortal threat can an does involve collateral damage. There is no way to avoid it. But there is also significant loss of life and liberty if one does not defend against a vigorous mortal threat. In fact, that is mostly why war can be justified even in a Christian religious setting. It is one of those moral dilemmas that is messy, difficult, and easily abused by people with ulterior motives - it is a consequence of evil in the world. To be a pure pacifist is to be slaughtered by the first marauding band of thugs that comes through your part of the world. That is just the way it is. Normally the west, the US, has taken on a defensive posture. We do not invade, we defend. Terrorism has challenged that in that to defend, sometimes (it appears at least) on must be the aggressor. It is truly sad - but evil, as the scripture says, is the most evil when it uses that which is good to do evil.

Sometimes it seems that people cling to their ironclad positions, even though they lead to some amazing inconsistencies. Why is "owning a gun" so much more important than "human life?" A gun is a thing. A tool. But despite all of the evidence that shows us that a proliferation of this particular tool leads to an increase in death BY that tool, the tool is so cherished and such a "right" that this amazing level of carnage is justified.

It makes one wonder...

I think the reality of the world is that there are no simple solution, no fully consistent moral positions. Because evil uses good for evil, one is forced to chose between the lessor of two evils or to die. That is just how it is. The way we deal with that is by holding the highest moral standard possible, and wherever we can, we do not let unnecessary evil slide. And even more importantly, we do not accept in ourselves or in our society, if possible, blatant moral violations.

A baby is an innocent. We as a society have a responsibility to protect, nurture and love the innocent among us. The problem is that we do not deal well what what is required to properly protect and raise children. First and foremost, it requires restraining our natural desires that result in creating babies in the first place. And that requires encouraging behaviors and environments that do not unnecessarily stimulate those desires. And it requires dealing compassionately when those safeguards fail. Be we as a society abandon ALL of that. We want to be sexually stimulated every minute of every day without consequence. We want absolute freedom to do whatever we want in that arena - and we want it so badly we are willing to murder the innocent to avoid facing the fact that unrestrained sexuality has significant consequences. And so we on one side require the innocent to suffer because we want to be merciful to the guilty and evil, and on the other side show no mercy to the most innocent among us so we can have unfettered access to sexual pleasure. It's really sort of sick - that we 'care' for people (criminals, murderers, thugs) that have taken innocent lives violently, sometimes letting them return to the streets to kill again, granting them 'mercy' and turning a blind and deaf eye to the innocents they abuse, and we also demand the right for ourselves to murder so as not to be inconvenienced if in our incessant search for pleasure and happiness we produce an innocent child.

And we call both of those things 'good'.

Jim

[Cerebrum123]

THAT is what the right wants to make this about - but the fact is no one on the left is talking about killing healthy babies outside the womb.

So I repeat - for the fourth time in this thread: does anyone here think 58% of the population of the United States, probably including many of your friends, neighbors, and even family, are functioning sociopaths?

Give the people I've encountered in my life this wouldn't be a surprise. In fact, it would make a lot more sense of what I've seen.

[carpedm9587]

I am not in my reply trying to deal with the complexities of when capital punishment is or is not justified. I am addressing the simple question of why might someone support the death penalty for a murderer but be completely opposed to abortion. Murder is the taking of innocent life. There are many reasons that one may have to kill that do not constitute murder. But to kill an innocent baby IS murder. And it is a crime as long as the baby is not still in the mothers womb.

I understand that, Jim, but I think my point still stands. And not all people on death row turn out to be guilty. The general point is: death is final - it leaves no additional choices. It doesn't matter who the person is - that is the reality. I recognize that the baby is innocent (though that would not be consistently agreed to by those who adhere to the concept of "original sin.") Anyway - I suspect we agree more than we differ, so enough said.

This is the horror of war. To defend against a vigorous mortal threat can an does involve collateral damage. There is no way to avoid it. But there is also significant loss of life and liberty if one does not defend against a vigorous mortal threat. In fact, that is mostly why war can be justified even in a Christian religious setting. It is one of those moral dilemmas that is messy, difficult, and easily abused by people with ulterior motives - it is a consequence of evil in the world. To be a pure pacifist is to be slaughtered by the first marauding band of thugs that comes through your part of the world. That is just the way it is. Normally the west, the US, has taken on a defensive posture. We do not invade, we defend. Terrorism has challenged that in that to defend, sometimes (it appears at least) on must be the aggressor. It is truly sad - but evil, as the scripture says, is the most evil when it uses that which is good to do evil.

Well....I think there can be a case made for the difference between "collateral damage" that occurs as a consequence of a war action in the heat of battle, and the collateral damage that occurs when someone pushes a button on a console 2,000 miles away to launch a missile at a building containing a known terrorist, knowing there are families in the adjacent buildings. I can be defending myself against an enemy in the heat of battle and accidentally kill a civilian. It takes a conscious choice to kill that civilian when you launch that drone attack knowing they will die - or that there is a high probability they will die. I don't think you can equate these two things.

I think the reality of the world is that there are no simple solution, no fully consistent moral positions.

On THAT we agree 100%

Because evil uses good for evil, one is forced to chose between the lessor of two evils or to die. That is just how it is. The way we deal with that is by holding the highest moral standard possible, and wherever we can, we do not let unnecessary evil slide. And even more importantly, we do not accept in ourselves or in our society, if possible, blatant moral violations.

Agree there to - we all have a quest to do the least harm and most good. where we differ is how to draw that line.

A baby is an innocent. We as a society have a responsibility to protect, nurture and love the innocent among us. The problem is that we do not deal well what what is required to properly protect and raise children. First and foremost, it requires restraining our natural desires that result in creating babies in the first place. And that requires encouraging behaviors and environments that do not unnecessarily stimulate those desires. And it requires dealing compassionately when those safeguards fail. Be we as a society abandon ALL of that. We want to be sexually stimulated every minute of every day without consequence. We want absolute freedom to do whatever we want in that arena - and we want it so badly we are willing to murder the innocent to avoid facing the fact that unrestrained sexuality has significant consequences. And so we on one side require the innocent to suffer because we want to be merciful to the guilty and evil, and on the other side show no mercy to the most innocent among us so we can have unfettered access to sexual pleasure. It's really sort of sick - that we pretend to care for people (criminals, murderers, thugs) that have taken innocent lives violently, and at the same time demand the right to murder ourselves so as not to be inconvenienced if in our incessant search for pleasure and happiness we produce an innocent child.

Jim

And here we part company. Not so much in the general sentiment (I agree with you observations about stimulation, etc.) but rather with your language of "murder." I understand how easy it is to see it that way because you define "human life/person" in a particular way. The people I talk to on the other side do not define it the same way. So what is "murder" to you is not murder to them. They are as perplexed about your position as you are about theirs. Since they do not see the fetus as "a human person," they wonder how ANYONE could justify telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. For them, it amounts to an instance of subjugation - a form of slavery - another instance of the state dictating what a woman can and cannot do.

Yes - I know - you disagree. So do they. So the language of "murder" (yours) and "woman hater" (theirs) simply puts everyone's backs up, and produces no context in which common ground can be found.

As I have said previously. This war has waged now for almost six decades (or more...?) - which is essentially my entire life. It shows no signs of changing. Indeed, if anything, support for abortion has grown over that time. If one side wins, the other side rallies and renews the war. In this war, the collateral damage is the children being aborted.

So when, I wonder, will the two sides call a "cease fire" and look to see if they can actually end the hostilities and find a solution that will satisfy both sides?

Until then - children will continue to die...

[carpedm9587]

Give the people I've encountered in my life this wouldn't be a surprise. In fact, it would make a lot more sense of what I've seen.

So you are confirming that 58% of the population, in your opinion, is sociopathic?

[Cerebrum123]

So you are confirming that 58% of the population, in your opinion, is sociopathic?

Like I said, given the people I've encountered, it would make more sense of the world. It's entirely possible I've just had really, really bad sample size. Others have noted that I tend to be a magnet for bad things, and bad people.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, given the people I've encountered, it would make more sense of the world. It's entirely possible I've just had really, really bad sample size. Others have noted that I tend to be a magnet for bad things, and bad people.

I can only say what I said to MM - someone who is willing to entertain the possibility that 58% of the U.S. population is sociopathic has slipped so far down the path of "unreasonable" that I cannot see any purpose to discussion. At least in your case you seem willing to entertain the possibility that "you had a bad batch." But still - 58%? Sociopathic? If you are not being hyperbolic and you truly think this is a possibility - then it seems to me any semblance of "balance" has been lost.


ETA: to be honest, I was kind of expecting "of course not!" to be the more common response. I'm getting something of a disturbing education....

[oxmixmudd]

I understand that, Jim, but I think my point still stands. And not all people on death row turn out to be guilty. The general point is: death is final - it leaves no additional choices. It doesn't matter who the person is - that is the reality. I recognize that the baby is innocent (though that would not be consistently agreed to by those who adhere to the concept of "original sin.") Anyway - I suspect we agree more than we differ, so enough said.



Well....I think there can be a case made for the difference between "collateral damage" that occurs as a consequence of a war action in the heat of battle, and the collateral damage that occurs when someone pushes a button on a console 2,000 miles away to launch a missile at a building containing a known terrorist, knowing there are families in the adjacent buildings. I can be defending myself against an enemy in the heat of battle and accidentally kill a civilian. It takes a conscious choice to kill that civilian when you launch that drone attack knowing they will die - or that there is a high probability they will die. I don't think you can equate these two things.



On THAT we agree 100%



Agree there to - we all have a quest to do the least harm and most good. where we differ is how to draw that line.



And here we part company. Not so much in the general sentiment (I agree with you observations about stimulation, etc.) but rather with your language of "murder." I understand how easy it is to see it that way because you define "human life/person" in a particular way. The people I talk to on the other side do not define it the same way. So what is "murder" to you is not murder to them. They are as perplexed about your position as you are about theirs. Since they do not see the fetus as "a human person," they wonder how ANYONE could justify telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. For them, it amounts to an instance of subjugation - a form of slavery - another instance of the state dictating what a woman can and cannot do.

Yes - I know - you disagree. So do they. So the language of "murder" (yours) and "woman hater" (theirs) simply puts everyone's backs up, and produces no context in which common ground can be found.

As I have said previously. This war has waged now for almost six decades (or more...?) - which is essentially my entire life. It shows no signs of changing. Indeed, if anything, support for abortion has grown over that time. If one side wins, the other side rallies and renews the war. In this war, the collateral damage is the children being aborted.

So when, I wonder, will the two sides call a "cease fire" and look to see if they can actually end the hostilities and find a solution that will satisfy both sides?

Until then - children will continue to die...

At the current time we are dealing with a volatile late term abortion argument, where the 'fetus' is viable if removed from the womb. How that is not murder, I'll never grasp. But if you want to argue first trimester, we can have a discussion. Most importantly, especially in that late term abortion situation, that baby inside her is NOT her body. It is a baby. And when we make a baby, We are responsible for it. And it doesn't matter if it was a mistake or planned, we are responsible to care for, nurture, and grow that child. That doesn't change just because the baby is still inside the woman's womb, especially when there is only a month or less to go and all one needs do is a c-section to make the distinction between the two obvious.

If it were possible to have a discussion that recognizes the difference between a few cells dividing and a baby almost ready to come out on its own, we could probably come to a compromise on both sides. But as long as the line is "once it's fertilized its a baby" on the one side and "no even if it's one hour before birth it's still just a pile of cells and who are you to tell me what to do with 'my' body" on the other, no progress can be made. Because the truth is both positions are simply dishonest. Both sides are refusing to recognize there is a grey area to this debate, and refusing to acknowledge the stark realities that govern the early and late stages of gestation.

When I refer to murder, I am talking about babies yet unborn - third trimester viable outside the womb with modern medicine, not 48 cells about to divide into 96.


Jim

[Starlight]

Because the baby is innocent, and the criminal is not. A person who has murdered another person (and that is one of the few remaining ways a person can legally earn the death penalty in this country) is NOT the same as an innocent baby.

I responded to this idea in post 38:

I think you might have been indoctrinated to hold an implicit moral assumption which I don't hold: Namely that it is possible for someone to "deserve death".

The last execution in my country was 25 years before I was born. In my lifetime not a single court has ever, nor could ever, rule that someone "deserved" to die, for any reason, for any possible action. Thus the concept that someone might deserve death because of their actions is alien to me. It is not an idea I have ever been taught to believe.

Consider it's opposite: Nobody would say "I was conceived and born because I deserved to live". Nobody starts living because they "deserved" it, and likewise, IMO it strikes me as equally utterly nonsensical to imagine someone might die because they "deserve" it.

But, I can understand that people who grew up in America, where the death penalty is practiced, whose military does active lethal missions regularly, might be indoctrinated by their society to believe that death could be something that "bad people" "deserve" due to being "guilty" of something. While this makes me view you as having a horrible and immoral society that puts little value on human life, I do understand how this might lead the average person in the US to think that death is something that can be deserved, and that somehow if someone is 'bad' or 'guilty' that this makes it somehow okay to kill them. (If you think that such an idea can be derived from logical premises rather than merely being indoctrinated as a axiom, I would be interested to see your argument.)

So, whereas I see all intelligent life as always and in every case valuable in and of itself, and its death always and in every case as a tragedy, which can never be "deserved" anymore than its life in the first place was "deserved" (i.e. I see that sort of thinking as a category error), you guys by contrast do not see intelligent life as being as valuable as I see it and you think its death can be deserved/warranted if it has done 'bad' things and/or is 'guilty' of the wrong behavior. Another difference I see is that your concern for intelligent life is primarily a concern for human life rather than intelligent life (either because you have religious beliefs that humans are special, or because you are a human and only care for your own species), and so you are concerned for life which is human but not intelligent (e.g. fetuses)... of course I then have to wonder what you would do if we ever encountered a sentient alien species - would you think killing and eating them like an animal would be fine if you decided God hadn't given them souls?

In short, I don't buy your "lack of 'innocence' somehow makes murder okay" idea in the least and find it morally absurd. Innocence and/or lack of it can never justify killing, and I find your position that it can offensive and immoral.

Also, as I briefly touched on at the end, I find your concern for humans specifically in and of themselves as a biological species to be morally absurd, and believe the morally relevant thing is mental capacity/intelligence whatever the species, so a fetus whose mental functions are almost completely undeveloped has less moral relevance to me than a dog or a cat or a cow. You and a few others here seem to think that because the fetus is biologically human that it somehow is as morally important as a human adult with fully developed mental functions. I think such a position is totally absurd and almost comical, but if you want to present some arguments for such a view I would read them.

[Cow Poke]

In short, I don't buy your "lack of 'innocence' somehow makes murder okay" idea in the least and find it morally absurd. Innocence and/or lack of it can never justify killing, and I find your position that it can offensive and immoral.

You can't seem to grasp the difference between murder and killing. They are not the same thing. You revealed your ignorance of this when you screwed up by referencing the police "murdering" the criminal. If it is a justifiable homicide, it is not murder.

[Cow Poke]

So you are confirming that 58% of the population, in your opinion, is sociopathic?

Where do you get that?

[carpedm9587]

At the current time we are dealing with a volatile late term abortion argument, where the 'fetus' is viable if removed from the womb. How that is not murder, I'll never grasp.

And my point is that many on the right - including those posting here - despite the ironic thread title - are being dishonest (or at least misinformed) about the law and what has been said about the law. No one has advocated killing a third trimester infant outside the womb. Furthermore... the law itself explicitly forbids this. So if we are going to have arguments - let's have them about issues that are actually real?

But if you want to argue first trimester, we can have a discussion. Most importantly, especially in that late term abortion situation, that baby inside her is NOT her body. It is a baby. And when we make a baby, We are responsible for it. And it doesn't matter if it was a mistake or planned, we are responsible to care for, nurture, and grow that child. That doesn't change just because the baby is still inside the woman's womb, especially when there is only a month or less to go and all one needs do is a c-section to make the distinction between the two obvious.

You are preaching to the choir. I believe the fetus is a human person from the moment that fertilization and implantation have occurred. So I believe every abortion represents the death of a child.

If it were possible to have a discussion that recognizes the difference between a few cells dividing and a baby almost ready to come out on its own, we could probably come to a compromise on both sides. But as long as the line is "once it's fertilized its a baby" on the one side and "no even if it's one hour before birth it's still just a pile of cells and who are you to tell me what to do with 'my' body" on the other, no progress can be made.

Unless, of course, we work together to deal with the problem BEFORE the pregnancy occurs...

Because the truth is both positions are simply dishonest. Both sides are refusing to recognize there is a grey area to this debate, and refusing to acknowledge the stark realities that govern the early and late stages of gestation.

There is another "gray area" - and that is the intertwined nature of two lives. You cannot grant rights to the infant without depriving the woman of rights. You cannot grant rights to the woman without depriving the infant of rights. As they said in War Games, "Interesting game - the only way to win is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" I don't mean to trivialize this as a "game" - but the observation is apt.

When I refer to murder, I am talking about babies yet unborn - third trimester viable outside the womb with modern medicine, not 48 cells about to divide into 96.

Jim

I know you are. And yet "murder" is an act pretty much universally seen as immoral - and one of the worst moral acts a human being can commit. So when you accuse someone of murder - they are not exactly going to warm up to you. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying your language polarizes.

[carpedm9587]

Where do you get that?

From his previous statement...?

And note that that was a question....

[Cow Poke]

Sometimes it seems that people cling to their ironclad positions, even though they lead to some amazing inconsistencies. Why is "owning a gun" so much more important than "human life?" A gun is a thing. A tool. But despite all of the evidence that shows us that a proliferation of this particular tool leads to an increase in death BY that tool, the tool is so cherished and such a "right" that this amazing level of carnage is justified.

It makes one wonder...

Do you drive a car?

A car is a thing. A tool. But despite all of the evidence that shows us that a proliferation of this particular tool leads to an increase in death BY that tool, the tool is so cherished and such a "right" that this amazing level of carnage is justified.

It makes one wonder...

[oxmixmudd]

I responded to this idea in post 38:


In short, I don't buy your "lack of 'innocence' somehow makes murder okay" idea in the least and find it morally absurd. Innocence and/or lack of it can never justify killing, and I find your position that it can offensive and immoral.

Also, as I briefly touched on at the end, I find your concern for humans specifically in and of themselves as a biological species to be morally absurd, and believe the morally relevant thing is mental capacity/intelligence whatever the species, so a fetus whose mental functions are almost completely undeveloped has less moral relevance to me than a dog or a cat or a cow. You and a few others here seem to think that because the fetus is biologically human that it somehow is as morally important as a human adult with fully developed mental functions. I think such a position is totally absurd and almost comical, but if you want to present some arguments for such a view I would read them.

Murder is the unjust taking of an innocent life Starlight. To kill is not always to murder. To kill a person about to murder me is fully justified. It is not murder - it is self defense. To kill to keep a madman from destroying your family or your country is also not murder. There is nothing immoral about either. The death penalty is based on justly paying back what you took. To execute a murderer convicted and tried is not murder. It is causing them to pay back the life they took. It may or may not be the best way to deal with the situation, but it is not murder. The truth is there is no way to evaluate if a man has be 'fixed' so he won't kill again. And some people's crimes are so heinous that even if they were truly 'rehabilitated' their own sense of justice would demand that at the very least we not release them. Once a person has shown a capacity to murder - especially pre-meditated which is what it takes to earn the death penalty - they have shown they are fundamentally broken and a danger to all people anywhere. So what to do with them is a non-trivial discussion. But you don't naively assume that if the hang out in prison 20 years, they are good to go.

As to abortion, I will not try to present an argument as regards the early phases of gestation. That gets too grey, too complicated. But when we are talking about a 'fetus' that is virtually indistinguishable from a child that is born in terms of his physical capacity for life, the argument is simple. All human life is sacred. We do not devalue people because of their intelligence or their knowledge or their wealth or their physical capabilities. When you start heading down the road of 'valuing' one person more than another because maybe they are old or maybe they are infirmed or maybe they are just a month old or maybe they are stupid, you are heading down the road to a holocaust. To take a human life unjustly is murder. And we do not apply any metric or valuation based on anything other than the fact it was a human life.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

And my point is that many on the right - including those posting here - despite the ironic thread title - are being dishonest (or at least misinformed) about the law and what has been said about the law. No one has advocated killing a third trimester infant outside the womb. Furthermore... the law itself explicitly forbids this. So if we are going to have arguments - let's have them about issues that are actually real?



You are preaching to the choir. I believe the fetus is a human person from the moment that fertilization and implantation have occurred. So I believe every abortion represents the death of a child.



Unless, of course, we work together to deal with the problem BEFORE the pregnancy occurs...



There is another "gray area" - and that is the intertwined nature of two lives. You cannot grant rights to the infant without depriving the woman of rights. You cannot grant rights to the woman without depriving the infant of rights. As they said in War Games, "Interesting game - the only way to win is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" I don't mean to trivialize this as a "game" - but the observation is apt.



I know you are. And yet "murder" is an act pretty much universally seen as immoral - and one of the worst moral acts a human being can commit. So when you accuse someone of murder - they are not exactly going to warm up to you. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying your language polarizes.

I understand that it is hard for some to accept - in this day and age - that some abortions are in fact murder. But rarely will someone try to make a case that killing a 1 day old baby is not murder. And so why then would a baby 1 day from birth not yet born but poisoned, burned, or hacked to pieces in his or her mothers womb (or after in fact being forced to be born) not also be murder?

Jim