posted
[let me re-edit so as not to make you agree to something which wasn't yet there]
quote:Sara, I believe the active/passive distinction IS relevant, but is certainly not the only relevant factor in determining wrongdoing.
So -- and again, just to make sure that I understand you -- in my hypothetical case about Sophie, you would draw a moral distinction.
Your further development of a different hypothetical was not intended to clarify that active/passive distinction further, but instead was meant to address a different relevant consideration. Yes?
(I'm not trying to trap you, promise. I was just initially taking your further example to be an attempt at clarifying your position on the active/passive distinction, but now I think I understand it to be addressing a different consideration. Nonetheless, it seems, yourr initial commitment to the active/passive distinctions stands, regardless of whether the further example was specifically relevant to it.
Yes?)
[ October 27, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Your further development of a different hypothetical was not intended to clarify that active/passive distinction further, but instead was meant to address a different relevant consideration. Yes?"
Yes. For example, I do believe there is a distinction between turning off a breathing apparatus for someone who cannot breathe and shooting that same person, even if the expected result is the same. Allowing someone to die, even if the intent is that the person die, is not precisely morally equivalent to actually killing someone -- although I believe that intent is generally more relevant in most cases. It's a cube with multiple axes, not a flat graph. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:*nod* The question, then, is whether you are content to abide by the current status quo until dependable artificial wombs are developed and the social care issues related to massive adoption are ironed out.
If women were often having abortions past the first trimester, I would definitely feel a stronger sense of urgency. As it is, the (imperfect) current situation* is one I am willing to live with myself while I work my own thoughts out still further.
quote:* In 2000, for women whose weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported, 57% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at [less than] 8 weeks of gestation, and 87% at [less than] 13 weeks (Table 6). Overall, 23% of abortions were known to have been performed at [less than] 6 weeks of gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 17% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were at 16--20 weeks, and 1.4% were at [less than] 21 weeks. --From the CDC's Abortion Surveillance -- US 2000
[I had to replace the "less than" symbols with text for html reasons]
Note that I am not taking the above statistics to establish anything about whether anyone else should be willing to wait or not. I just include it for completeness and accuracy, while we are on the topic.
[ October 27, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Allowing someone to die, even if the intent is that the person die, is not precisely morally equivalent to actually killing someone -- although I believe that intent is generally more relevant in most cases. It's a cube with multiple axes, not a flat graph.
Okay, I think I got it. Thanks!
quote:ARGUING SEMANTICS!
For shame!
Scott, you are absolutely correct.
I do believe I require multiple and prolonged spankings.
quote:"It's just a matter of accurately stating what we've meant all along by the terms."
You use the word "we" here, Xap, where I think it is inappropriate.
By "we" I mean you and I and the rest of us Americans. Yes, I think you've meant "people who believe a fetus has a right to life (and may or may not think abortion should be illegal to protect that right)" all along. It is possible to mean something but not entirely know what you mean - like when the child I mentioned earlier says "teacher" and thinks it implies being a woman, when it really doesn't - or like when the founding fathers said all men are equal, but didn't all realize that would include slaves.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, I think you've meant 'people who believe a fetus has a right to life (and may or may not think abortion should be illegal to protect that right)' all along."
Yes, I know that's what you think. And it's why I've been trying to explain to you that it's not what I think. Perhaps you would agree that you are supremely less qualified to decide what I am thinking than I am? *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We both know what you think. The question is, what do you mean? And although I think you may be more qualified to know what you mean than I am, that doesn't mean you DO know what you mean better than I do.
I think valid reasoning would trump qualifications in the case of determining meaning (which is why we have the Supreme Court interpret the meaning of laws through reasoning, rather than polling the creators of those laws), if my reasoning is in fact valid.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, if you want to maintain faith in the justice system, don't investigate that claim about SCOTUS too closely. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes. And I am telling you that when I use the phrase "pro-life," I do not mean "people who think a fetus has a right to life but do not necessarily think most abortion should be illegal." Furthermore, I suspect that pretty much no one does.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The essence of a right is that legal protection of some kind is afforded it. So speaking of any kind of right implies at least some legal mechanism for protecting it.
quote:The essence of a right is that legal protection of some kind is afforded it.
Perhaps. Moral rights don't always translate into legal rights, at least if you believe we have the right not to be lied to or some such.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I am telling you that when I use the phrase "pro-life," I do not mean "people who think a fetus has a right to life but do not necessarily think most abortion should be illegal." Furthermore, I suspect that pretty much no one does.
And again, I know you think you mean that, but I still suspect you don't, for the reasons I gave earlier. It is a common confusion in America, I think.
An expression of the form, pro+X, is such that it asserts a given meaning, favoring X. I can make up expressions like that on the spot and you'd know what they meant. If I said I'm pro-Red Sox in the world series you'd know what that meant even if you'd never heard the term before and I never explained it. (You might even be inclined to suspect that also meant I was against the Cardinals, but if you thought about it more, I think you'd realize it merely meant I am in favor of the Red Sox - yet another example of how beliefs about meaning can be mistaken.)
As a test, consider what you'd think if someone told you they were both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Would you understand what they are saying? I bet you would. In contrast, if they said they were both Pro-Choice and not Pro-Choice, you'd have no idea how to take that, just as much as if you math teacher told you a number is both positive and negative. That suggests that Pro-Life may be something more to you than simply not Pro-Choice.
quote:The essence of a right is that legal protection of some kind is afforded it. So speaking of any kind of right implies at least some legal mechanism for protecting it.
So what do I mean when I say the law is violating my natural rights?
The essence of a right has nothing to do with law, unless we choose to enshrine that right in law. The essence of a right is an ethical protection - that if people violate that right without good reason then they are doing something wrong, even if not somethign illegal.
posted
Again, Xap, why do the semantics of self-identified terminologies matter to you, when the reality is considerably less ambiguous?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except when WE talk about the right to abortion, we are clearly talking about the right as enshrined in law. And the right to life, as part of the same debate, is used in the same manner.
quote:Again, Xap, why do the semantics of self-identified terminologies matter to you, when the reality is considerably less ambiguous?
Because the reality is, in fact, far more ambiguous, and only appears less ambiguous because of the erroneous use of terminology. There are not only two sides to the issue.
As I said, I think if people understood the "Life" issue and the "Choice" issue were two different matters, with multiple possible positions rather than the Either/Or choice the extremists would make them chose from - I think that if that were the case then there'd be a lot more agreement on the issue of abortion and we'd be a lot closer to finding a solution people could be satisfied with.
In short, I think a solution to the abortion contraversy is being blocked by semantic problems.
quote:Except when WE talk about the right to abortion, we are clearly talking about the right as enshrined in law. And the right to life, as part of the same debate, is used in the same manner.
No, that's exactly my point! The right to choose an abortion is clearly a legal question, but the right to life is an ethical question that might or might not be legally enforced.
posted
No, it's not. You've identified two different usages for rights now: legal and moral.
What you haven't done is given any reason why the first is the only one that applies to choosing an abortion and the second is the only one that applies to the right to life.
posted
The question of life is: does a fetus have a right to life or can we kill it without good reason? In that case, you might say it has a right to life and that right should be enshrined in law. Or you might say it has the right, but the law should allow people who don't think it has that right to act otherwise. Thus, it can either be a purely ethical rule or it can be enshrined in law. You can claim it is ethically right without implying it needs to be legally right.
But the question of choice is: does a mother have the right to choose to have an abotion or can the government forbid her from doing so? It makes no sense to say the mother has that right, but we won't enshrine that right into law - the right itself is a question of what the law says! It's an ethical question about how the law should be written, so you can't say it's ethically right without claiming we should make it legally right.
It'd be like saying "I think it's wrong for the law to ban drinking, but I don't think the law should reflect that." Compare that to "I think drinking is wrong, but I don't think the law should reflect that." The latter makes sense as an ethics-only claim, but the former does not.
posted
Only because you've decided to couch it in those terms. And frankly, I've got no reason to prefer your presentation of the issues to mine or Tom's.
posted
What about the reasons I've given. Such as this one, or the others I've given before that haven't been refuted:
quote:An expression of the form, pro+X, is such that it asserts a given meaning, favoring X. I can make up expressions like that on the spot and you'd know what they meant. If I said I'm pro-Red Sox in the world series you'd know what that meant even if you'd never heard the term before and I never explained it. (You might even be inclined to suspect that also meant I was against the Cardinals, but if you thought about it more, I think you'd realize it merely meant I am in favor of the Red Sox - yet another example of how beliefs about meaning can be mistaken.)
As a test, consider what you'd think if someone told you they were both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Would you understand what they are saying? I bet you would. In contrast, if they said they were both Pro-Choice and not Pro-Choice, you'd have no idea how to take that, just as much as if you math teacher told you a number is both positive and negative. That suggests that Pro-Life may be something more to you than simply not Pro-Choice.
posted
But would you call someone pro-Red Sox in this series if you'd like the Red Sox to win a series, but not against the Cardinals because you like them better?
No. Just as I wouldn't call someone pro-life in the context of abortion if they think an unborn child has a right to life, but not at the expense of a woman's right to have an abortion because they think that's more important.
posted
I would still consider myself pro-Red Sox even if I didn't support a law mandating that the Red Sox win every year, though. That is really the issue at hand: In order to be pro-Life do I have to demand that a law be created to enforce my views legally?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That is really the issue at hand: In order to be pro-Life do I have to demand that a law be created to enforce my views legally?"
Yes, since that's pretty much the context of the conversation. Someone who genuinely believed that abortion constituted the wrongful killing of innocent children but did not think they had the "right" to legislate in that way would be, in effect, arguing that society has no right or reason to legislate against murder.
posted
Dag, yes. Or, in that case, any laws that violate that freedom of choice must be eliminated. Otherwise, what would pro-choice be?
Tom,
quote:Someone who genuinely believed that abortion constituted the wrongful killing of innocent children but did not think they had the "right" to legislate in that way would be, in effect, arguing that society has no right or reason to legislate against murder.
You are forgetting context - It would be to believe that society has no right to legislate against murder in this one particular case.
posted
"Doesn't John Kerry claim to hold this position?"
Yes. And I question his sincerity. I do not believe that John Kerry believes the fetus to be a living person endowed with rights.
Frankly, I find that particular position -- that a fetus is a living human being, possessed of all human rights, but that the freedom to kill it is such an inherent right that the act should be subsidized by tax dollars -- more odious than any of the alternatives. In my experience, few people who say they believe this really do; perhaps you should be concentrating your efforts on pointing out their hypocrisy to them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, yes. Or, in that case, any laws that violate that freedom of choice must be eliminated. Otherwise, what would pro-choice be?
But if the right to life can recognize exceptions such as "except when the mother of an unborn child decides to abort that child," why can't right of a person to choose which surgical procedures are performed on her recognize the exception "except when that choice is to directly terminate the life of an unborn child"?
In which case, I'm pro-choice, because I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, unless there's a good reason to restrict it.
quote:Frankly, I find that particular position -- that a fetus is a living human being, possessed of all human rights, but that the freedom to kill it is such an inherent right that the act should be subsidized by tax dollars -- more odious than any of the alternatives. In my experience, few people who say they believe this really do; perhaps you should be concentrating your efforts on pointing out their hypocrisy to them?
Well, I do hold that view too, so it's unlikely I'd be pointing out hypocracy to them. Why don't you? I would argue this is the most reasonable view because it is the only view that recognizes both the possibility that the fetus is a person AND the long-standing American ideal of not legislating ambiguously justified moral views (an ideal that is no longer followed very well.) If something is known and agreed to be murder that is one thing. But if something only might be murder and many people agree it is not, and it doesn't impair the functioning of our sociey, what reason does the government have for stepping in to ban it? That's not the government's role - it's the role of the church, academia, and the individual good judgement they are supposed to promote.
I think this view would be widely accepted if it were seen as a real option - but the false dichotomy created in part by the misuse of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" tends to make this option invisible. What makes you think it would be hypocritical?
quote:But if the right to life can recognize exceptions such as "except when the mother of an unborn child decides to abort that child," why can't right of a person to choose which surgical procedures are performed on her recognize the exception "except when that choice is to directly terminate the life of an unborn child"?
It's because I think pro-choice is being used in the context of unborn children here. We're talking about people who favor choice in the fetus issue.
It's sort of like how pro-lifers can't be expected to favor the right of life in every possible argument (like the death penalty.) Pro-life in the abortion debate just means you think the fetus has a right to life. Similarly pro-choice in the abortion debate just means you think the government shouldn't restrict our right to choose to have abortions when we think it is right. You might be pro-choice in other issues, but on the abortion issue you can't be pro-choice unless you actually think the government should not ban those things.
posted
Yes. But you can still be pro-life if you don't think that right should be enforced by law.
That's the difference. The right to choice is about what you believe people are legally allowed to do (whether you can choose or not). The right to life is about what you believe you are ethically allowed to do (what you should choose if you have the power to choose).
posted
Xap, it appears that you are talking about what is right to do, not about what you have a right to do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But if something only might be murder and many people agree it is not, and it doesn't impair the functioning of our sociey, what reason does the government have for stepping in to ban it?"
Okay, let's be clear about this. You say YOU believe that abortion is murder, but that you don't feel right banning it because you can't prove that it's bad for society?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, THIS is where I feel you're setting arbitrary boundaries on the definitions without providing any reason to prefer your boundaries over ours.
If the boundary is going to be rigidly abortion-related, then the policy that favors the right to abortion over life can't be called pro-life.
quote:[/quote]Frankly, I find that particular position -- that a fetus is a living human being, possessed of all human rights, but that the freedom to kill it is such an inherent right that the act should be subsidized by tax dollars -- more odious than any of the alternatives. In my experience, few people who say they believe this really do; perhaps you should be concentrating your efforts on pointing out their hypocrisy to them?
Well, I do hold that view too, so it's unlikely I'd be pointing out hypocracy to them.[/quote]
Wait a minute...so you do believe that a fetus is a human being, but you endorse abortions just to avoid hypocrisy? Or just because banning it would be bad for society? Or what?
---------------
As to the question of rights...these shades of gray and distinctions you're making are meaningless, protestations or not. To a pro-lifer, a fetus has a right to be alive. Now when they say that, they know what they mean, generally and within a range. They mean 'right' like they have a right not to be robbed and murdered on the street, the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to worship as they see fit. Basically, the right to keep on living without someone killing you without any input from you.
They don't mean, "Right, but just so long as it's politically, culturally, and sociologically expedient." If that's the definition of 'right' you're using (and assigning to others, too, which is very annoying and presumptuous), then really you should just replace it with the word 'coupon' or 'voucher'. You know, with the fine print on the back that gives expiration dates, location exclusions, what the voucher is good for and with what items, etc.
That's your definition of right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, let's be clear about this. You say YOU believe that abortion is murder, but that you don't feel right banning it because you can't prove that it's bad for society?
Yes, that's it. But not just because I can't prove it - because I can't even generate an argument that will convince a large majority.
It's a lot like my religious views... I think certain religious practices could harm you seriously in a spiritual sense (worse than murder would harm you, even!) but I can't offer much clear objective proof, and I can't get a majority to agree, so I think liberty should be the default - freedom to decide what is right on your own.
Why is that (as you said earlier) hypocritical?
quote:Xap, it appears that you are talking about what is right to do, not about what you have a right to do.
I am talking about both - they are both ethical questions that come into play (but need not be enforced by law.)
quote:If the boundary is going to be rigidly abortion-related, then the policy that favors the right to abortion over life can't be called pro-life.
It's not. I'd call it pro-choice. But it doesn't EXCLUDE also being pro-life either.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And believing expectant mothers have the right to choose surgeries for their bodies except where it results in the termination of a human life still allows someone to be called pro-choice.
quote:Wait a minute...so you do believe that a fetus is a human being, but you endorse abortions just to avoid hypocrisy? Or just because banning it would be bad for society?
I don't endorse abortions. I reject the notion that we should legally ban abortion right now, not to avoid hypocracy, but because I believe it is not the governments position to enforce moral rules that cannot be proven and are highly contraversial. I think to let the government do this is dangerous for society, and me personally.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am talking about both - they are both ethical questions that come into play (but need not be enforced by law.)
All law is is a series of ethical dilemmas formulated and legislated into a series of legal actions and reactions. Most laws, however, are built around ethical questions so obvious and easily answered that people don't think of them as dilemmas or ethical matters.
I don't think that your view is hypocritical. I do, however, think that your view essentially is this: it's acceptable-maybe even noble-to tolerate people murdering other people if you cannot convince a large majority of people that doing so is wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a very, very good thing that the government has, in the past, done just the opposite of your policy.
Slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, child labor, rape, sexual / racial discrimination in the workplace, segregation, religious intolerance...these are all things that, at one time or another, were acceptable to a majority of Americans but were stopped by the government. Before there was this consensus of which you speak.`
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and yes, you do endorse abortions. Maybe not directly, no. You're not performing the procedure (or vaccuuming brains, as the case may be). You're just nodding your head, saying that it's not your place to do something about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, that's it. But not just because I can't prove it - because I can't even generate an argument that will convince a large majority."
So someone is being killed, right now, at this very moment, and not only are you not doing something to stop it but you don't think it's any of your business?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I know, widespread use of the term "pro-life" has always been connected to the abortion issue and was a direct and deliberate response to the selection of "pro-choice" by abortionists. It is perfectly possible to be in favor of life in general -- and thus pro-life -- without being "pro-life," as the term is applied. (A classic argument against "pro-lifers" is that they're hypocrites, that they support things like the death penalty while claiming to approve of life; this is a semantic dodge, built upon a largely disingenuous interpretation of the "pro-life" label.)
Tom, I'm a bit concerned here. I think you're specifically calling me disingenuous for taking a label like "pro-life" literally. But, I think there's a bit of history here that perhaps we don't share on the subject. Growing up Catholic, as I did, there have been a series of popes who affirmed and reaffirmed the Church's stance on the sanctity of human life. They were naturally against the practice of abortion, but their stance went far beyond that. They weren't hypocritical and no-one really accused them of that, even though Catholics have never been given conscientious objector status in war time. Catholics are allowed to go to war and kill other people.
I think the Church has had a consistent life-affirming stance.
It is pro-life.
Now, you come along and say that anyone who takes the pro-life label to mean anything beyond the anti-abortion stance is being disingenous.
I assume you aren't deliberately trying to offend. So, maybe we can figure out the other half of this. Which is, what label would you give to people who hold either of the following views (reiterated from my post back on p.6):
1) All human life is to be protected and every individual should be allowed to live out his/her natural lifespan.
or
2) Our real duty is to maximize both the number and quality of lives.
To me, either would fit a pro-life stance as I know it from my earliest days. I'm happy to adopt a label other than "pro-life" since it clearly has been interpreted in modern times to mean just "anti-abortion" instead of the broader sense the simple words seem to imply. I understand the pursuasive value of it, and the desire to offer a counterpoint to the "pro-choice" label. So, I am okay with looking elsewhere.
PS: I hope this post doesn't offend you as my last two seem to have. It was never my intention to impugn your stance and, frankly, I didn't know anything about your switch from "pro-choice" to "pro-life" positions. Or rather, I didn't recall your post on that.
Sorry for any offense I've given you. It was not intentional.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two things. First a request for clarification, then some clarification of my own.
-----
Bob:
quote:Our real duty is to maximize both the number and quality of lives
If by maximizing the number of lives you mean minimizing the number of unnecessary deaths, I follow you and wholeheartedly agree. But if you mean everyone should go out and have 10 kids so we can increase the number of lives (even assuming that this wouldn't have a negative impact on the quality of life), I don't follow you at all. I'm guessing you mean the former, but the way you phrased it seemed odd.
-----
This whole debate about the meaning of pro-life and pro-choice has gotten a little muddled, since we're actually talking about several different concepts while using only two terms to refer to them. It's not that it isn't an important argument; it is. Let me try to clear things up a bit, because I think I understand what everyone is saying and I think there are some good points to be made.
The first confusion is one of scope. We are confusing the meanings of the general, literal terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" with their specialized meanings that they have acquired in the context of the abortion debate. Part of the problem is that the terms have been redefined within this limited scope to be somewhat restricted. That is, the general terms, when limited to the context of abortion, are more inclusive than the commonly accepted limited terms. The situation is made worse, inevitably, because of the politics involved in choosing these terms to represent platforms/agendas/movements/what-have-you. Worse yet (in terms of understanding, anyway), these terms have become so ubiquitous in the context of abortion that they are almost never used in the general sense. Therefore, "I am pro-life" has the following approximate meanings:
I hold life to be sacred. (General)
I hold the life of unborn humans sacred. (Specific, literal meaning)
I believe that abortion should be illegal. (Specific, common meaning)
While "I am pro-choice" becomes
I believe that choice is an important right. (General)
I believe that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy. (Specific, literal meaning)
I believe that abortion should be legal. (Specific, common meaning)
Note that the second and third definitions for "pro-choice" are nearly, but not quite, identical. By contrast, they are quite different for "pro-life". Thus we have confusions like the following: Bob defines himself as pro-life in the second sense, but not the third. But Dagonee says that if Bob can do that, Dag can call himself pro-choice, because he is pro-choice in the first sense. He can, but this is not a parallel situation, which is only clear if you are careful about what you mean and in what context.
Then we have Xap saying that pro-lifers are wrong if they claim you can't be pro-life yet be against making abortion illegal. They are not wrong; they are simply using the third definition. Xap, you have a very good point that words can mean one thing even if the speaker thinks they mean something else, but this is not an example of that. This is jargon. The literal meaning is lost, overridden. When pro-lifers (in the third sense) say "pro-life", they are using a shorthand for their entire ideological position; there is essentially no meaning left in the word itself. I applaud you for pointing out the underlying discrepancy, but it is useless to claim that their definition is wrong because it isn't literal.
So, everyone, be clear in what you say, and let's try giving each other the benefit of the doubt. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:By "we" I mean you and I and the rest of us Americans
Xap, I don't agree with what you are saying there, as most of the people engaged in this debate are NOT using your definitions for pro-life and pro-choice. I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with the relevance of it in the context of the abortion debate.
According to your definitions, I would be both.
Now personally I would not ever consider having an abortion (rather, asking my wife to have one), and my wife and I talked about that when we were dating. I told her that while I think that a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her own body, on a personal level I would never consider it, unless it were medically necessary.
I am not sure when a fetus becomes human, but even if it isn't human while in the womb it is a potential son or daughter, and I would never want or allow it to be terminated.
So in effect, I believe in the sanctity of life, even in the womb. I also believe in a womans right to live her life and make her own choices. I don't know her situation, her medical history, her psychological history...I am not her, and this fetus inside of her isn't mine, or inside of me.
So my personal beliefs are that unless it is my child too, I should have no say in her decision, and no legal right to bar her from making her choice to abort.
But if I had been dating Jenni and she aborted a child of ours, we would have been done, right there and then...no matter how much I loved her, I would have never been able to be with her again.
Jenni had the same exact beliefs as I did, thank God, so it all worked out....but it doesn't always, not for everyone.
I think Mike made one of the best "clarification" posts I have ever seen here. I would like to say thank you...even though you ruined a post of mine, where I was making some of the same points.
Of course, my post wasn't half as clear or concise, so it is better off in the trash bin..
Xap, changing the definitions doesn't mean that everyone would agree all of the sudden,. It actually clouds the issue rather than clarifying it.
In the context of abortion debate, pro-choice refers exclusively to the right to choose an abortion, and pro-life refers to the overriding right of the fetus to be born, blocking the womans right to abort.
Anti-abortion is what I really am...I don't believe that abortion is a good solution, and would never even consider it an option.....I hate them, and think they are a waste of potential for the whole race. A lot of people are pro-choice but anti-abortion....I think that is one of the points you were trying to make.
quote:You're just nodding your head, saying that it's not your place to do something about it.
quote:So someone is being killed, right now, at this very moment, and not only are you not doing something to stop it but you don't think it's any of your business?
You've both got it wrong. It IS my business to try to use whatever means I can rightly use to stop abortions, and I do so. However, it is NOT the business of the government. The government is not me, and it's function is not to help me go around righting wrongs. That's what I use churches, civic groups, or simple advocation (like on this forum) for.
And if you still think this is wrong, keep in mind that right now you are standing by idle while your government lets murders happen. Unless you advocate invading and overthrowing the government of every nation whose government might murder its people for any reason, you are doing so willingly. Unless you favor suspending all civil liberties in our country that would hinder the effort to stop all murders, you do so willingly. Unless you want to eliminate all limitations on the government's power to prevent murders around the world, you willingly stand by idle while preventable murders could be stopped your government.
Unless you do support this, you too agree that it's a wise idea to limit the power or scope of the government, even when doing so allows murders to go on. Freedom is valuable. So don't claim that government should step in and stop ALL the murders it conceivably could, because it's clear neither of you believe that claim in regards to other circumstances.
quote:Slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, child labor, rape, sexual / racial discrimination in the workplace, segregation, religious intolerance...these are all things that, at one time or another, were acceptable to a majority of Americans but were stopped by the government. Before there was this consensus of which you speak.
The government had strong, clear reasons for doing each of those - and they weren't reasons based entirely or mostly on faith. It's clear that the government should stop SOME acts - acts that fall under it's realm of power. That includes things that allow the country to function smoothly and harmoniously, and other things that can be shown to be right based on reasoning stemming from widely accepted principles of right and wrong, and even things that are nearly universally agreed to be true.
However, when you look at when they've tried to stop things based largely on faith-based reasoning that only a part of the country accepts, the results are far poorer. Remember prohibition in this country, or the drug war now, or the various attempts that have been made to ban forms of homosexuality? Or the countless times "wrong" religions have been banned in nations around the world - in pre-Colonial England, or Soviet Russia, or even Nazi Germany? Those ALSO are examples of the government acting to restrict things that it cannot justify with any objective evidence and which it could not convince a its people to agree upon.
The government just can't ban things willy-nilly based on whatever we feel is wrong. It has to be limited, or else it becomes more dangerous than the things we are combating.
Limited government is good!
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Xap, there is a good point to the pro-life movment, and it's core belief is that the fetus is already a person.
Personhood is a nebulous term at best, but murder is a fairly clear one.
There are some studies that suggest that the fetus is aware in the womb, and reacts to stimulas fairly early in the pregnancy. I don't know what to believe, because so much of the research inthe feild is done by obviously partisan people, many of whom are willing to do or say anything to eand abortion rights.
But it IS the place of the goverment to decide what is and isn't murder, and to stop murders whenever possible. And if people believe the definition should chnge, they have the right to activly work towards that goal.
However, they don't have the right to berate young mothers going into family planning centers, or to blockade abortion clinics. To threaten of corerce people who don't believe the same as they do. That is where I find pro-lifers the most offensive, and where I feel that they do themselves the most harm.
Not that I think all pro-lifers are the same, any more than all pro-choice people are, but those "activists" are the ones I dislike. The ones holding signs in front of the doctors offices because the doctor perscribes the morning after pill....
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was just initially taking your further example to be an attempt at clarifying your position on the active/passive distinction, but now I think I understand it to be addressing a different consideration. Nonetheless, it seems, yourr initial commitment to the active/passive distinctions stands, regardless of whether the further example was specifically relevant to it.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
