However, he still favors abortion on demand being legal.
Problem is, doesn't this sound like the least defensible position to take on the issue -- or at least the most cold-hearted? Consider the following viewpoints on abortion:
1) Some people believe life begins at conception. If they combine a religious viewpoint to this then they must believe the soul enters the body at this time. To believe this implies then that you should be firmly anti abortion since you admit a life is being taken if you do have an abortion.
2) Some believe in using the clinical basis for saying life exists -- either the beating of the heart or the detection of brainwave activity. If, for instance, the lack of brain activity is the clinical definition of death for someone after birth, the presence of brain activity before birth must imply life. Right to Life would never compromise at making abortion illegal at any point past 6 or 7 weeks but a fair number of people would be comfortable with laws that restrict abortion after this point.
3) Then there are the people who say that if a baby could possibly survive outside of the womb then that's the point to make abortion illegal. Logical, but then some babies are born at or around 22 weeks and live while others don't. And with advances in technology this point of survivability may become considerably shorter in the pregnancy. Also, a problem with this is that it basically says if the body of the baby is formed, then the fact that it depends on the mother for food and warmth may not be a good criteria to allow the killing of the little being.
4) Then there are those who say once the baby is out of the womb it is alive. This implies the child's geographical location alone gives a person the right to kill him or her.
Back to Kerry though. Kerry says he believes it's a human being but that it's okay to kill it if that's what the mother wants. I'd be much more comfortable if he took position #4 and then said it's her body but he isn't. He is perfectly aware the child is human but doesn't give a you know what for that being's rights. I know he is merely trying to fish for some forgiving, "open-minded" naive right to life votes who might not take the time to analyze Kerry's true positions on the issues (Kerry's supporters know full well the implications of Kerry's stands) but still...this guy seems totally willing to say anything to get elected.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,
Here's the important part.
Shrug. I believe that the embryo/blastula/morula/fertilized egg is a living thing that isn't "the mother." But I have a separate question of "person" that plays into it. It's more complicated than you pretend it to be.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, he still favors abortion on demand being legal.
No, he still favors not making all abortion illegal. There is a big difference there that some people (like you) can't seem to understand. He does not want to make it as simple as ordering a hamburger in Mickey-Dees, he just does not want to create a situation where he is imposing religious beliefs through legislation, which is unethical. Bush, though, has no such qualms about imposing his religious opinion onto federal writ.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Kerry's approach is more ethical. Bush's approach to sex ed on the other hand has been proven to lead to disaster.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even condom packages say that abstinence is the only sure prevention. How does this bear on Bush's right to live philosophy? Is there a link you want to provide on that?
P.S. I can see how if Kerry believes personhood begins at conception, his legal stance would have to allow different views. If I were raped, I want access to emergency contraception.
It will be interesting to see what Bush responds with.
posted
Say that? Abortion on demand means that if a woman, for any reason, wants an abortion then she can get one even for reasons like:
1) She's afraid that taking time off from work at the time might hurt her in her career advancement.
2) She alreaday has two kids and doesn't want any more.
3) She finds out the gender of the baby isn't what she wants.
4) She doesn't want a child that has the same racial characteristics as the father.
5) She doesn't want...well, you fill in the blank.
Now you explain what notwanting to create any restrictions on the "right" to have an abortion and abortion on demand are. I truly am interested in knowing.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you don't accept abortion in cases of rape or apparent danger to the life of the mother? (I don't really know what would pose such a danger apart from some advanced cancer scenarios I have heard of). I don't agree with the extension to "health" of the mother, where "health" is interpretable as mental, emotional, financial etc...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please name a political figure today that would oppose allowing abortion in the case of forcible rape (not statuatory like a 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old) or if the mother's life is in danger.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, it depends on how exactly Kerry means 'life begins at conception'. An amoeba can be said to be alive, after all.
However, if he means 'life' the way I define life-worthy of defense, possessing its own natural rights that should not be violated-then his belief system is unconscionable.
Because that would mean, by default, that he is unwilling to stop other people from murdering other helpless people, simply because he doesn't want to violate their belief system. That would be like me witnessing involuntary human sacrifice, possessing the power to prevent or fight against it, but refusing to do so because I don't want to violate the beliefs of the sacrificers.
If, however, he means 'life' in a more biological way, then his statement is fine.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are the one who says that "on demand" means only for frivolous reasons.
I know in my state legislation is always being discussed of making a woman see an ultrasound image of the fetus before abortion can be performed. I think where a woman has decided to have an abortion, measures like this would only force her to be more emotionally detached.
But I think non-judgemental counseling for women should also be supported. The Pro Choice camp's insistence that abortion should not result in grief is equally stupid. I would guess that abortion would be at least as traumatic as divorce for any given individual.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
If his definition of "life at conception" is one that morally obligates him to do something, then he's immoral not to do something. I can only point out that I have a definition of "life at conception" that does not morally obligate me to do something. Michaele seems to think that he necessarily must use the first definition.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, it makes me think very highly of Kerry that he is willing to stay pro-Choice in the face of incredible pressure from his church. Who should we have more respect for, the cookie cutter Mormon or Catholic or Jew or whatever who toes the majority line and does not show the ability to compromise[edit: with those who believe differently from themselves], or the person who rolls up their sleeve and speaks their mind and shows that they are willing to try and work with the other side? Who takes risks within their church?
I don't understand the viewpoint that says that if you join a church, you must believe what the church hierarchy says you must believe, period. That you can never agitate for change. Where is the incentive to change within the church if no ideas are ever challenged openly and discussed?
Catholic leaders within the church absolutely have the right to promote certain ideas and creeds as being true within the church. Their power should derive not from their ability to excommunicate and not give communion, but from the power of their logic and the persuasiveness of their arguments. Threatening to withhold communion to force Kerry and others like him to shut up and toe the line seems weak to me. It does not reflect well on the belief that those leaders have in the strength of the logic and persuasiveness of their arguments.
On the other hand, things are as they are in the Catholic church. I hope Kerry is prepared to bear the weight of whatever 'punishments' (withholding of communion, excommunication, etc.) that the church comes up with. If the church does do this, then he should accept the consequences of his actions, and can with all honestly say that he did what he thought was right. This, to me, is admirable, and says far more about his spirit and spirituality, than someone who never goes to church and doesn't get involved with the issues in his church such that he never takes any risks.
posted
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that neither the pro-life not the pro-choice positions make any sense. I see it as a medical decision.
I'm also tired of this being advanced as a woman's right. I think there are many times men wanting to dodge responsibility behind the decision to abort.
From the Wafer Nazi thread, it is apparent (to me, at least) that the Catholic doctrine assumes personhood at conception.
P.S. I think the question of whether Kerry is taking communion is none of my business.
quote:Who should we have more respect for, the cookie cutter Mormon or Catholic or Jew or whatever who toes the majority line and does not show the ability to compromise, or the person who rolls up their sleeve and speaks their mind and shows that they are willing to try and work with the other side? Who takes risks within their church?
It depends on whether compromise in a given situation = cowardice.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Can't find the whole article, but, basically it says that abstinence alone is ineffective and that most teenagers who sign abstinence pledges have sex within a year. Not only that, but many of them have oral sex not counting it as real sex...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, CT, my understanding on conditions such as that is that the risks from abortion and delivery are about the same. (edit: this info is about 5 years old, by my understanding is that after 30 weeks a baby can be delivered without huge additional risks to her health). I'm concerned about the idea that keeping the baby after she's born could be seen as a real threat to someone's health.
Maybe I'm biased, but it seems Planned parenthood wants to hide the possibility of adoption just as much as the abstinence folks want to hide condoms.
Syn, how many kids would think to use a condom, if instructed, during oral/anal sex? I think these kids are more worried about pregnancy or, oddly enough, preserving virginity than about disease transmission.
Anyway, the condom education issue is really a different can of worms.
Can Kerry be politically pro-choice but religiously pro-life? I think he could if he were sincere, but I think it's more a case of the compromise forced by party alliances. Since I feel parties are immoral, I feel this is sad.
Likewise, I don't think Bush can really defend the Republican plank calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
posted
If Kerry is afraid to become pro-life on the basis that he doesn't want to impose his religious views on other people then maybe he should advocate the removal of laws banning murder, after all who is to say that life is valuable?
If abortion is equivalent to murder its murder, if its not its not.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stating that a fertilized egg is alive does not mean that destroying it is murder. That argument equates a fertilized egg with a person, and therein lies the root of the controversy. If you believe that personhood occurs at some point after conception, then destroying the fetus before that point is not murder.
This has been said several different ways in this thread alone.
[ July 05, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of the four viewpoints I mention in the original post which best demonstrates your view of when life begins?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, a totally legitimate question. When do people believe life (and let's extend some legal protection) really begins? If someone blieves the developing baby (or whatever you want to call it) is a lump of tissue then removing it is no more a moral question than having a wart removed. If however you believe that life is a continual progress (that begins sometime in the womb) then to say you aren't for some legal protections is indefensible.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe this question could shed more light on the issue. Is a newborn baby a human being? Was it human the day before yesterday when it was still in the womb? How about the day before that...how far can we go back to where you would be comfortable in saying that no, it isn't a human being on THIS day?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
michaele8, are you arguing that from the moment of conception, the embryo is, for all intents and purposes, a 'human being'?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold on a second - Kerry is claiming to follow the Catholic teaching on this, which means he doesn't think a fertilized egg is alive but not a person; he thinks it's a wholly unique living person due all the respect and dignity of other human people. That is, if he really follows the Catholic teaching on this.
Second, it is no more imposing your religious beliefs on others to outlaw abortion that it was for abolitionists to insist that slaves be treated with the same rights and dignity due any other human being.
posted
I'd err on the side of caution and make abortion illegal except in cases of forced rape and health issues for the mother (i.e. ectoptic pregnancy, etc.).
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If his definition of "life at conception" is one that morally obligates him to do something, then he's immoral not to do something. I can only point out that I have a definition of "life at conception" that does not morally obligate me to do something. Michaele seems to think that he necessarily must use the first definition.
But one can be morally obligated to do something, and yet do nothing. Supposing John Kerry thinks that life-human life, that is-begins at conception. That upon conception, the organism is as alive as human children and infants are. What if Kerry still believed that he could not violate another person's beliefs? That is what I am saying is unconscionable. I guess my point is that the excuse (or reason, the mileage varies according to the issue), "But that's their belief and they have a right to it," really extends only as far as MY belief, or YOUR belief, on some things.
There are beliefs practiced in the world this very instant that, I believe, fundamentally violate the individual sovereignty and dignity of persons. It's not MY belief, and the people doing so (maybe even the person being acted upon) may believe their belief is right. But on some things, that doesn't matter to me. Stoning women for adultery, for instance.
My point is, I don't care what your (any person's) belief is if it grossly violates my own beliefs as to what is right. Furthermore, I think everyone has that same thinking-for different beliefs.
--------
Now, as to John Kerry, I don't think highly of him (or Bush), but I don't think he really believes that upon conception, the life-form is human and worthy of protection, and that he's just willing to ignore that in order to court pro-choice voters. I think he believes differently than I do about the nature of life, that's all. Just wanted to throw that little note at the end of this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and this does not really make me think higher or lower of John Kerry than I already do. It doesn't because I have a tendancy to think that national-level politicians (especially the really-really big-leagues) care more about their political ambitions than they do about other conflicts.
Dubya on capital punishment, Kerry on abortion. It's quite obvious that Christians are not supposed to execute people, and it's quite obvious Catholics aren't supposed to practice or endorse abortion. But both of them have presided or moved to make both happen.
Edit: And as usual, Doc hits the nail on the head-most especially with the last sentence
posted
Dagonnee: it is if the problem is defined by religious beliefs. Is a fertilized egg a human being? If you belief that it is not, or not yet, then abortion before the point of personhood is an acceptible procedure. If you believe that a fertilized egg is automatically a human being then any abortion is murder. The belief determines the status.
Something I'm curious about. If you believe that abortion is murder but are willing to permit them in the cases of rape or incest, you're essentially condoning murder for the sake of the mother's emotional hardship. Why? It wasn't the baby's fault.
To me, if you permit abortions for any reason besides the undeniable preservation of the mother's life, you're pro-choice. A very strict pro-choice, but pro-choice nonetheless.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, my post was mostly in response to this:
quote:Stating that a fertilized egg is alive does not mean that destroying it is murder. That argument equates a fertilized egg with a person, and therein lies the root of the controversy.
Kerry has effectively stated that he thinks a fertilized egg is alive and that he thinks destroying it is murder (edit: that is, if he truly believes what the Church says.)
As for what michele8 thinks, I've given up hope of discerning that from his posts. Well, we get to know the conclusions, but not the reasoning behind them.
But I'll bow out now, because I'm interested to see if he can muster a coherent line of reasoning on this.
quote:Something I'm curious about. If you believe that abortion is murder but are willing to permit them in the cases of rape or incest, you're essentially condoning murder for the sake of the mother's emotional hardship. Why? It wasn't the baby's fault.
To me, if you permit abortions for any reason besides the undeniable preservation of the mother's life, you're pro-choice. A very strict pro-choice, but pro-choice nonetheless.
Well, I happen to agree, and I don't like the rape/incest exception. But I'd still vote for a law with the rape/incest exception if it meant getting rid of the other cases. It's a pragmatic decision.
posted
You mean annoying you increases the number of pies in the world? That's not motivation to stay the nice, sweet guy I am, you know.
Michele has participated very little in any substantive threads started by others, and his posts generally start with a broad, over-generalized conclusion lacking supporting reasoning. They're usually quickly followed by shock that his rhetorical masterpieces haven't converted everyone on the forum to his point of view.
posted
Well, I had intended to be polite, but since you're feeling played upon, I'm gonna drop that like a hot rock.
The guy's a troll. His name, type of participation, and types (and especially titles) of threads he starts leads me to think so, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a long post written out, but I'll just say that I"ve changed my mind and say that I guess I agree that you can't say that you agree with the Catholic church's stance on things, and you are pro-choice. It's clear from Kerry's quoted remarks that by 'life', he meant human life.
From kind of googling around a bit, it is also clear to me that you can be Catholic and be pro-choice, as many are.
So, I think Kerry should be pro-choice, but say that he disagrees with the church in this instance. I think he should stop trying to straddle the fence and commit himself to being pro-choice if that's what he wants to be.
As to the whole Michaele8 thing, I actually didn't mind this thread and I thought his posts were non-inflammatory. Not sure why all the hard feelings abound, but I'm sorry that they are.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I think you and I agree completely. (This is Suneun, on public machines)
CT: Well, give him a little time, but I agree that his posts tend to be polemic trolling. (Heh. I suppose all trolling is polemic)
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I think it's a cumulative effect, dating back to a little before you came back. Here, I think the view is that whenever the topic turns to the nitty-gritty portion of his theory (where it might be vulnerable to logical attack), he steps back from the details and takes another tack. And this is from someone who probably agrees with most of his theory.
The problem is, I can't really tell based on what he's posted here.
posted
Meh. I was agreeing with a trend, not necessarily about this particular thread. I think people are just anxious about waiting for the response.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A cell is alive. If it is human tissue, then it's human life. I don't see any great demand that people be legally persecuted for eg getting a tattoo or an ear pierced. Yet. But let's get a bit real, you folks are just a bunch of Pharissees who wanna brag at the Temple without doing anything that requires a bit of self-sacrifice or self-restraint. If it weren't for the abortion issue, you'd be proclaiming yourselves holy for opposing eg the breaking of eggs on the narrow end.
1) At best, you are arguing that folks who eg believe in dancing around with rattlesnakes ought to be able to use the law to punish everyone who doesn't want to.
2) The complete lack of willingness to accept that others do not share your definitions, and that you are willing to harm living-by-anyone's-standard human beings to enforce your beliefs, is the reason that those who oppose you won't attempt compromise. Appeasement of tyrants never works.
3) Once a baby is born, your attitude is "Your mother is a worthless slut for getting pregnant, so go off and die." Which is one of the many evil reasons that you support Dubya. So don't hand me any BS about being pro-life.
4) A human's body is not a geographical location. The fact that you mistake it for one -- alone -- is enough to prove that you think of humans as merely territory to be conquered.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everytime I get embarassed because someone is badly expressing a view I share or partly share, someone from the other side comes along to make me realize such things aren't restricted to any one side of the debate.
posted
Dagonee - Sometimes you just want to tell people, "Please, don't be on my side. Go over there." It's almost enough to make me think aspectre is a pro-lifer who's come over here to be an agitator.
Let's see...
1) At best, you are arguing that folks who eg believe in dancing around with rattlesnakes ought to be able to use the law to punish everyone who doesn't want to. At best, even at worse, they are arguing that human life is being murdered for convenience (as opposed to live human cells being destroyed) and I would think that's a bit different from enforcing religious practices. There are an awful lot of people who are pro-life and not at all religious, and several of them post here regularly. Honest pro-choice advocates must admit that no one knows when personhood begins, we have only established a legal definition which can be changed. The argument that potential humans deserve protection is not that far-fetched and should not be so easily dismissed.
2) The complete lack of willingness to accept that others do not share your definitions, and that you are willing to harm living-by-anyone's-standard human beings to enforce your beliefs, is the reason that those who oppose you won't attempt compromise. Appeasement of tyrants never works. Funny, that's just how slave-owners felt. How dare someone come along and say that nigras had the exact same rights as white folk, and force us to agree whether we did or not? Of course, that issue was a bit easier to argue. And yes, some pro-lifers are willing to compromise to achieve a part of what they want. Dagonee just admitted that a page back, or did you miss it?
3) Once a baby is born, your attitude is "Your mother is a worthless slut for getting pregnant, so go off and die." Which is one of the many evil reasons that you support Dubya. So don't hand me any BS about being pro-life. Sigh. Not all pro-lifers agree with any of that. Not all pro-lifers support Bush. For that matter, many pro-choicers support Bush (although probably for other reasons) and many pro-choicers are less than charitable towards single mothers. Could you possibly paint with a wider brush?
4) A human's body is not a geographical location. The fact that you mistake it for one -- alone -- is enough to prove that you think of humans as merely territory to be conquered. WTF? You lost me on this one. If anything, the pro-choice side has been accused of this, the implication that a baby on the inside is an open target but the same child outside deserves recognition.
Thanks for injecting some much-needed idiocy. Wouldn't want any kind of real dialogue or anything to start...
[ July 05, 2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone actually believe that when Kerry says life he isn't referring to human life? Otherwise why in the world would he say that. Obviously something is alive at conception, the question is what.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't speak for Kerry, and I'll bet he'll dance like a centipede on ice before he'll commit to an exact definition.
Me, I have no problem believing that a fertilized egg is human life. I just don't agree that it's a person, or that it deserves the same legal protections as the mother. Not yet.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
on your last point. why the emphasis on use of logic, then, in this thread? or, more pointedly to the subtext of the later portions of this thread, the belittling of the original poster's lack of usage of this logical protocol that leads nowhere? mere civility?
fallow
PS. I like grilling mammals.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thanks, CT, my understanding on conditions such as that is that the risks from abortion and delivery are about the same.
Actually, one is 11 times more likely to die from delivery than from having an abortion. Though both are far enough under 1% to be negligable.
For the babies, it's a little more severe. .5% die after being birthed, while 100% die during an abortion.
quote:Sometimes you just want to tell people, "Please, don't be on my side. Go over there."
And sometimes you want to throw aspectre and michaele8 in a giant cage filled with idling chainsaws and let them fight to the death. At least that way, extremists will generate cashflow in the form of $5-a-head seating and gambling profits.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: fallow, if we take a matter seriously, we should be very careful and thorough in our analysis of it.
absolutely. fairly impossible around here and numero uno reason I rarely participate in "serious threads". there are no agreed upon rules of discourse, let alone compartmentalization of the topic.
quote: Lack of rigor necessarily implies lack of consideration.
Not at all (if you're talking about posting here in the sandbox). The context of an ongoing debate soon to be derailed is a key consideration.
fallow
edit: usual spelling errors associated with difficult word
posted
I usually ignore Mi...8's threads but this one did happen to include what I would consider an important news story. I guess we could have appended it to wafer Nazi, though.
I wasn't really aware that the "when life begins" argument was the archetype "slippery slide" proof until I took informal logic toward the end of my sophomore year in college, CT. Just to calm your worries about our educational system. I'm sure I'd heard "slippery slide" prior to that with respect to this argument,
I have been searching for a definition somewhere between the embryo/fetus boundary (12 weeks, I think, or when all the discrete organs have begun forming) and fertilization for some time.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
