There is a deep question for the pro-life movement--do you get abortion restrictions anyway you can through partisan politics (gerrymandering, etc.) if the majority of the people within a state do not believe that such legislation is justified? Every time it's on the ballot where there is no supermajority requirement, pro-choice always wins. Or is it necessary to change the culture before changing the laws?
95 comments:
It's strange for professing Christians to oppose legislation to prevent the intentional murder of innocent human beings. Thank God there were none of these around when the Spanish prohibited the Aztecs from their practice of human sacrafice. I'm sure they would have complained to Cortez that prohibiting the practice would only cause more sacrafices.
Also thank God that people are waking up from the woke mind virus and see the inane evil ideas it produces and defends.
How dare the pro-life movement push their political agenda through the political system by whatever means the system allows! Be kind and step aside so that the pro-choice movement can work the system without any pushback. That's what Jesus would do.
Well said, bmiller!!
Now do the climate change movement and the LGBTABCDEFG+ movement, Victor.
But shouldn't the pro-life movement just put pro-life laws on the ballot in all 50 states and let the chips fall where they may? Get the legislation people want through the most democratic means possible.
The question was whether anti-democratic methods are justified to support abortion restrictions.
You said through "partisan politics". Are you claiming it's only anti-democratic when pro-life supporters engage in partisan politics?
The abortion industry out-spent pro-life groups 6 to 1 in 2024 and had to lie and obfuscate profusely in order to fool the electorate. Do you think lying to people democratic or anti-democratic?
I suspect this will happen each election cycle if the state legislatures allow it.
However, making laws according to "the most democratic means possible" would be a disaster and was specifically rejected by the founding fathers because they were aware of history. That's why the federal government as well as all state governments have a form of representative democracy.
Now. How what is your opinion on this question: "Were the Spanish morally justified in outlawing the Aztec practice of human sacrifice even though it was "anti-democratic"?"
Regarding "Just put laws on the ballot", why stop there when no other major movement does that, and only that? All the big movements advance their agenda via many different fronts: social, political, educational, financial, institutional. Why aren't you asking the pro-choice movement (and others) the same questions - is it because you like the results that they are getting?
Pontius Pilate went through a democratic process of sorts when he asked the crowd to choose (vote) Barabbas or Jesus. Scripture says the crowd took responsibility for their decision. Just as crowd has blood on its hands, so do those that choose child death over life - even if it is done via the democratic process. Don't idolize democracy, Victor.
SteveK,
Victor is opposed to allowing anyone to vote on legalizing abortion. Oh wait. That was yesterday when Roe v Wade was "the law of the land". If I recall it was because making laws against abortion would cause more abortions just like laws against stealing cause more stealing....as proven in San Francisco.
An example of the Democrat party idea of "the most democratic means possible."
Joe Biden Threatens African Country, Will Deny $480 Million in Aid if It Doesn’t Legalize Abortion
These people must be kept from ever wielding power again.
Probably the most effective way to eliminate abortion would be to put in a pro-life dictator, like they have in Hungary. Maybe that is worth doing.
Has the claim about Biden's threat been fact-checked?
When the Spanish prohibited the Aztecs from human sacrifice, there was no democracy.
put in a pro-life dictator, like they have in Hungary.
What is a pro-life dictator?
The question was whether the Spanish were morally justified.
What is a pro-life dictator?
Jesus Christ comes to mind.
Yes
The idea that the only morally justified prohibitions are those that have been vetted and purified by a democratic process is an idea that has been disproven over and over throughout history. The reverse is also true. Democracy has given the world plenty of morally evil prohibitions.
When a democratically elected president - one man - does this sort of thing, is this democracy in action or is this an example of a movement attempting to establish prohibitions "any which way they can"?
What do you say, Victor?
BTW, regarding "fact-checking":
How it started:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/01/brit-hume/geriatrics-experts-say-brit-humes-claim-joe-biden-/
How it's going.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14210053/white-house-conceal-joe-biden-decline-hired-voice-coach.html
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Can you have stable pro-life legislation that people don't want? Why did Republicans, such as Trump, start backing down from their pro-life commitments once it became popular to do so? If you have a case to make for abortion restrictions, make it to the people so they will vote to support them. I know people think that the law is a teacher and people will adapt to laws if they are passed, but if people think, rightly or wrongly, that the laws are, like the Jim Crow laws of the South, are unjust, they will vote against them and get them overturned, sooner or later. If pro-life is true, (and I have what seem to me to be reasonable doubts), then you should be able to make a persuasive case. But people are not persuaded, and even if you convinced me that pro-life was correct, I am sure you would never convince me to chalk up all resistance to it to intellectual dishonesty.
"Or is it necessary to change the culture before changing the laws? "
Good question. Considering that this is a moral issue, I think a cultural change would be crucial.
I believe the polls have consistently shown that most Americans are in favor of protecting the right to obtain an aborion in the early stages of pregnancy. And even in the later stages if it becomes clear that the life & health of the pregnant woman is threatened or that the foetus is severly deformed with no chance of surviving birth.
Of course the fact that the majority support it doesn't entail that they are morally correct or incorrect in their stance. But unless the anti-abortion folks can persuade enough people of the correctness of their position, I see little chance for them to force their positon on others.
One of the unintended consequences of Roe vs. Wade being overturned was that both parties now agree that abortion should not be prohibited. Of course, the Republican support of it is much more limited than that of the Democrats.
I also found the reaction by many Republicans to attempts to restrict IVF access illuminating. Seems rather clear that any pro-lifer advocating for that is holding a radical position that is very unlikely to ever be embraced by a majority.
Victor,
Just saw your latest post after I finished writing mine. I think you make an excellent point here:
" If pro-life is true, (and I have what seem to me to be reasonable doubts), then you should be able to make a persuasive case. But people are not persuaded, and even if you convinced me that pro-life was correct, I am sure you would never convince me to chalk up all resistance to it to intellectual dishonesty."
even if you convinced me that pro-life was correct, I am sure you would never convince me to chalk up all resistance to it to intellectual dishonesty.
What is the reason for your personal resistance? Presumably you understand the best religious and philosophical arguments for pro-life. What motivates you?
Hal,
Of course the fact that the majority support it doesn't entail that they are morally correct or incorrect in their stance. But unless the anti-abortion folks can persuade enough people of the correctness of their position, I see little chance for them to force their positon on others.
Didn't Roe v Wade do exactly that to the pro-life folks? The pro-aborts didn't bother trying to convince the populace. All they had to do was get enough SC judges to fabricate "rights" out of thin air. Now we know those "rights" never existed in the first place. May take a while until everyone gets the message.
I also found the reaction by many Republicans to attempts to restrict IVF access illuminating. Seems rather clear that any pro-lifer advocating for that is holding a radical position that is very unlikely to ever be embraced by a majority.
What exactly do you think is the crux of the pro-life argument and what about it do you think is so radical?
Victor,
Since you continue to avoid the question I asked, I'll assume you agree that the Spanish were morally justified to prohibit human sacrifice in an undemocratic fashion.
You mentioned the Jim Crow laws. The citizens of the states did not vote those laws out. It was the federal Voting Rights act of 1965 that overrode the state laws. Likewise, the southern states did not vote for the Emancipation Proclamation. People were not persuaded, they were forced. And after a while the culture changed.
I'm sure those older Southerners that resisted didn't think they were being intellectually dishonest. They were just morally wrong. And they had to be disempowered for the good of society.
What I think borders on intellectual dishonesty is first arguing that abortion should not be voted on at all, and then arguing that voting on it should only be via referendum and not by the state legislatures. I don't see any moral principle in play here except attempting to legalize abortion by any means necessary.
bmiller,
There is nothing wrong with using either our courts or legislatures or referendums to decide contentious issues like abortion. All of those methods are legitimate in our democratic system.
I don't understand why you think those supporting abortion rights haven't bothered trying to convince others of the correctnes of their view. Personally, I think they have done a great job at this. That is why, I believe, the majority of people in this country have been supporting that position for so many years.
In the past we spent too much time debating the morality of abortion. I'm not going to waste anymore time doing that here.
I would make a small suggestion: it is counterproductive for you to accuse those supporting abortion of practicing human sacrifice. That is not a winning argument for your side.
People want to have sex without consequences. You don't need good arguments to convince people's hormones of anything.
There are zero good arguments supporting the killing of the unborn beyond the life of the mother. The rest is false rhetoric and free sex.
Abortion advocates want the right to legally kill another human being under ordinary life circumstances. Doing a great job convincing other people that they want something else doesn't change the fact that they are killing another human being under ordinary life circumstances - when killing is never justified. Ask the population if ordinary citizens should be able to do that and I bet you will get the majority support that you think we don't have.
Hal,
Your first response above addresses something that I directed toward Victor's change in position, not any particular flaw in our system of government.
I don't know where you got the idea that I think pro-aborts haven't made any arguments.
In the past we spent too much time debating the morality of abortion. I'm not going to waste anymore time doing that here.
OK. I guess at least you are an abortion supporter that doesn't want to make any arguments. So there is at least one.
I would make a small suggestion: it is counterproductive for you to accuse those supporting abortion of practicing human sacrifice. That is not a winning argument for your side.
Thanks for your opinion on what you think would or would not be a good argument for my side. Although I didn't accuse those supporting abortion of practicing human sacrifice I may start doing so now. Nothing like getting feedback from the opposition on the proper rhetoric to employ :-)
Hal,
Rereading your second response I think you mistook my point. Roe v Wade was a lawfare tactic to avoid having to put abortion to a vote...either nationwide or statewide. So it wasn't that the pro-abortion industry didn't try to make any arguments to convince anyone. They tried to convince a SC that was found to have decided wrongly rather than to try to convince the populace to vote for evil.
I guess at least you are an abortion supporter that doesn't want to make any arguments.
I see no need for repeating arguments that were made in our previous discussions regading the morality of abortion. You are certainly free to go back and review them if you are really interested.
And you missed my point: there is nothing wrong with using the courts to suupport one's political or moral positions in legal matters. The anti-abortion folks did the same thing when they convinced the court to overturn Roe. I don't understand why you think that is wrong. It is a legitimate process of our democratic from of government.
SteveK,
Abortion advocates want the right to legally kill another human being under ordinary life circumstances. Doing a great job convincing other people that they want something else doesn't change the fact that they are killing another human being under ordinary life circumstances - when killing is never justified. Ask the population if ordinary citizens should be able to do that and I bet you will get the majority support that you think we don't have.
You won't get it, because it's a misleading question. If you really want to know if there is support for abortion you need to simply ask them for their views on abortion. And when that question is asked the results have consistenntly been in favor of it.
You all need to come up with more convincing arguments if you want to persuade people that it is really evil to abort a human foetus. Simply calling it evil is not enough.
"You won't get it, because it's a misleading question."
It's a question that accurately describes what's happening so it's not factually misleading as far as that goes. You can ask follow up questions to see if it will change people's mind. For example, ask my question first and follow up with the question "Suppose the action in the previous question is called an abortion how do you respond to the question?"
The first answer is their moral convictions about human life - you'll get a clear majority in favor of the pro-life position. The second answer, if it changes, reveals their personal biases, fears, emotions, etc - either real or imagined.
Hal,
The comment of mine that you are referring to is a response to this statement of yours:
But unless the anti-abortion folks can persuade enough people of the correctness of their position, I see little chance for them to force their positon on others.
You made a prediction that seems to ignore history and so I disagreed. People can have, and have had, positions forced on them whether they have been persuaded or not. Roe v Wade, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 1965 Voter's Rights act are all examples of citizens being forced to accept something they hadn't been persuaded of regardless of whether they were morally right or wrong.
Roe v Wade was unconstitutional as well as being morally evil and was overturned. Thank God.
I'm certain that when abortion is finally outlawed everywhere in the US it will be considered to have been outlawed by morally licit means.
Hal,
If I recall, you agree with biology that the unborn are human beings. What then, is misleading about SteveK's question?
Hal - how would you answer the 2 questions I asked?
One one more thing.
There is nothing wrong with using either our courts or legislatures or referendums to decide contentious issues like abortion.
If you want to be intellectually honest you should be directing this statement at Victor rather than me. I haven't implied that any of these methods are wrong while Victor has.
Even though I am for making abortion illegal, I personally struggle with that because I have emotional biases, comfort biases and self-preservation biases that imagine me and my family living under very difficult situations - and who wants that? I get the emotional pull, and I think most everyone gets it, but I won't let my personal bias change my position. I'd rather suffer a difficult life and perhaps be changed by it for the better rather than encourage society to devalue human life.
Guys, I've already indicated that I don't think it is immoral to abort a human foetus. I'm not going to argue my position here because I have already done so in the past. You are free to go back and review those arguments if you wish. I've been posting here under my name for years.
"I don't think it is immoral to abort a human foetus"
But you do think it's immoral to kill a human under ordinary circumstances.
Is a normal pregnancy somehow an unordinary circumstance or is the human somehow a special kind of human? Is the fetus something like a slave in that it's 3/5ths of a real human - or a child with less value than an adult? I don't expect you will answer but these are the questions that run through my mind.
Hal,
You claimed SteveK's question was misleading. The question was
"should human beings be allowed to kill other human beings under ordinary life circumstance?"
I think he is correct that most people would say it is morally wrong to do so. Do you think the answer would be different? That was the question, not what your own peculiar non-scientific position is. I'm certain that relatively few people have heard of Wittgenstein or Hacker and even less have read their works.
The follow on question regards the morality of how we treat the unborn, but again, the question is not whether you would be convinced or not, but the general public. It seems you think something unfair is going on by asking the first question in the context of the second question. To me, that implies you think pro-life arguments will persuade the general public if your side can't stifle them.
Sometimes I ask people to play Animal, Vegetable or Mineral with me. Is the unborn baby animal, vegetable or mineral? Since it is an animal, is it a dog, cat or human? Since it is human, is it alive or dead? Since it is alive, is it a unique individual or just part of the mother? Since DNA shows it is unique, each unborn baby it is a unique living human being. It's undeniable.
Since it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, it is therefore wrong to kill unborn babies.
Hal,
>You are free to go back and review those arguments if you wish.
Except that searching Blogger sucks. Even doing a Google search for "hal friedrichs" site:dangerousidea.blogspot.com
...brings up exactly one post from September about ethics.
Martin,
He posted merely as "Hal" previously. Probably won't help the search though.
I recall now that Hal must have deleted his account and with it everything he posted on this blog. All you'll find are responses to his posts that include the name "Hal"
Well, that only deepens the mystery. A search for hal site:dangerousidea.blospot.com brings up several posts, and an obvious abortion one: https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2020/09/will-reversing-roe-save-fetuses-maybe.html
...in which I see bmiller responding to Hal, but no Hal original comments! Same for other (non-abortion) posts, such as this one: https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2020/06/left-and-right.html
So, no, Hal, we apparently are not "free to go back and review those arguments."
I've not seen one principled reason justifying the killing of the unborn under ordinary circumstances that doesn't result in that same principled reason justifying a killing that is considered immoral by the same person. That means there's a flaw in their logic somewhere. Maybe Hal can give us an example that disproves my theory.
>I recall now that Hal must have deleted his account
Ah. Well. There ya go.
I'm not a big fan of "I'm not arguing X because I've already done so, go read that" anyway. Maybe it's new to me and I wanna hear it!
SteveK
I'm not super well-versed in the arguments in the debate, but just off the top of my head, there is bodily autonomy. If someone is hooked up to my circulatory system and relies on it to stay alive, nonetheless it's myheart that is being used, and I'm the one who ultimately gets to decide who uses it, not the government.
And there is also the personhood argument, that personhood is a process that develops, but is not identical to "human." A clump of cells that miscarries in the first trimester is human, but was never a person. Like the difference between knocking over someone's house vs scattering the boards and bricks they've brought to the lot to begin constructing the house.
I think even in red states where abortion referenda overwhelmingly win in favor of pro choice, one or both of the two arguments are probably at work intuitively or subconsciously with folks.
For me recently, a third...not argument but consideration, is the misplaced priority. All those millions and millions of dollars spent on our billionaire's auctio...*ahem*, excuse me, presidential election, over the course of decades, and wheeling and dealing and maneuvering for Supreme Court justices....meanwhile, there are 2 billion people on this planet who do not have access to clean drinking water, and 700 million who are starving, and half a million homeless folk in the US. Why isn't the energy directed towards any of that?
Martin,
The autonomy principle justifies killing a person that you are tasked with keeping alive via various bodily activities. Think parenting a young child or caring for the sick.
The personhood principle justifies killing a person who has less developed processes. Think infants, young children, elderly or handicapped people.
The misplaced priority principle justifies killing a person who isn't currently the highest priority (however that is determined). Think everyone but the highest priority people.
The same principle can be used to justify immorality, thus there is something wrong with the thinking.
I've seen the example of having someone hooked up to your circulatory system and whether you would have the right to disconnect them vs the government compelling you to continue supporting their life.
I think a more compelling analogy would be, let's say there is an activity that has been known since the dawn of time to have a very high probability of resulting in another human being attached to your circulatory system for nine months, depending on your heart to sustain them. You willingly choose to engage in the activity and then find yourself with an innocent attached to you and depending on you to live.
In this scenario, how many people do you think would support the right to disconnect and kill them as a way to escape the known consequences of your choices? If the innocent was an adult? A child? An infant? Would the government champion the right to kill an infant dependent on your heart due to your own willful actions?
bmiller,
You are correct that I did at one time delete my account. Had no idea that all the posts I made prior to that would be deleted. That's a shame.
In any case, I am not going to spend anymore time debating it here. I would have nothing to add to my previous arguments and none of the anti-abortionists posting here found them persuasive.
Also, I do recall that in our last debate you ended up calling me evil and hell-bound because I actually contributed money to pro-abortion groups. I'm not willing to tolerate that kind of verbal abuse again.
Martin,
I don't know whether or not you can see my email here. It is a gmail account that has my full name (no spaces). Feel free to drop me an email and I will be glad to explain in detail the reasons for my position. I will say one thing here: I agree that the bodily autonomy argument is not a good reason.
Hal,
Since you addressed me, please stop telling me you are not going add anything to what you wrote before. I'm not asking you to do that. I remember what you wrote. If I get it wrong I trust you will correct me.
Also, I do recall that in our last debate you ended up calling me evil and hell-bound because I actually contributed money to pro-abortion groups. I'm not willing to tolerate that kind of verbal abuse again.
If I remember correctly you deleted your account after being pressed to explain Hacker's acknowledgement that the "The Ship of Theseus" persisted even though none of the original material persisted, not the exchange you indicated and which Martin linked to.
In Catholic theology unrepentant intentional evil-doers go to hell. I think that is unremarkable since that is what Jesus Christ taught and what one could expect a Catholic to express as a warning to unrepentant sinners as an act of charity, not malice. I know you are no longer a Catholic and are an atheist, but if I remember correctly, I was warning Starhopper but you may have been addressed also since you sided with Starhopper.
But why should an atheist take offence at a theist giving them a warning of impending harm and take it as an insult? Either you take the possibility of hell seriously and should thank people warning you against it or you don't and it's a meaningless superstition and you should pat the person on the head and thank them anyway.
bmiller,
If I remember correctly you deleted your account after being pressed to explain Hacker's acknowledgement that the "The Ship of Theseus" persisted even though none of the original material persisted, not the exchange you indicated and which Martin linked to.
I didn't give any reason or indication in my post for why I closed my account. It certainly had nothing to do with the ship of Theseus so your recollection is faulty. Nor did it have anything to do with previous disscussions regarding abortion.
I was surprised and sorry to learn that my posts had been deleted as a result of closing my account.
Since you addressed me, please stop telling me you are not going add anything to what you wrote before
Will gladly do so as long as you stop posting arguments addressed to me against abortion. Which is what you did just prior to my post.
Hal,
Thanks for explaining your reason for deleting your account had nothing to do with the Ship of Theseus. If memory serves, it was during that discussion that it happened.
Will gladly do so as long as you stop posting arguments addressed to me against abortion. Which is what you did just prior to my post.
I don't understand. You've been making posts about abortion and I've been interacting with your posts. Are you asking me not to respond to your posts?
Also, what a complete inversion of morality.
The government is set up to protect the weak and defenseless, yet is being accused of evil by compelling evil-doers not to do the evil of killing the weak and defenseless. More twisted than a pretzel in a funhouse mirror.
What is undeniably true is that all abortionists and all those asking for or paying for abortions are killers.
SteveK,
> Think parenting a young child or caring for the sick.
No. Think being hooked up to another person who is making use of your heart activity to stay alive. You're a life support person for another. The buck stops with the heart owner, not with the government. The government cannot and should not be allowed to force my heart to be used to keep another alive.
>Think infants, young children, elderly or handicapped people.
Half of those will develop into persons, so no, it doesn't justify killing infants or young children, and the elderly are still persons. If by "handicapped" you mean something like "brain dead," who were once persons but are no more and never will be again, then yes and people do this all the time and hardly anyone bats an eye, e.g. removing life support from someone in a persistent vegetative state.
>Think everyone but the highest priority people.
It's not really a principle, but more of a stance. Sure, we can protect the unborn, but can we first shift our resources to the 2 billion people who only have liquid sh*t to drink, and then protect the unborn? Again, multiple millions spent on presidential elections to get the "right" person in who will kill Roe v Wade, but how many starving people could those millions have fed?
Secondly, I somewhat agree with the pastor who said that doing all this pearl-clutching for the unborn, but barely any for starving persons, is a way for people to feel good about themselves without having to deal with all the baggage associated with existing people (icky icky different politics, icky yuck icky different cultures, etc). I'm not saying don't protect the unborn, but just that priorities are SEVERELY out of whack.
>Would the government champion the right to kill an infant dependent on your heart due to your own willful actions?
An infant is a person, so maybe not. Again, I suspect that both the bodily autonomy argument AND the personhood argument are at work behind the scenes causing 80% of the country to think abortion should be legal, and only 12% to think it shouldn't be.
bmiller,
I'm talking about what I suspect is going on internally, maybe subconsciously, to cause the vast majority of people to be in favor of allowing abortion. I think most people intuit that the government absolutely has a right to protect the vulnerable, but does not have the right to force a person to be life support equipment IF they don't want to be.
Hal,
Done. Thanks.
Martin,
You're probably correct that a lot of people have had their natural sense of morality twisted by the abortion industry promoters although it is false to claim it's "the vast majority".
Persuading people that being a mother and naturally being drawn to providing sustenance for their baby, urges that are inherent to the human race, are somehow coercive and unnatural seems to be intentionally deceptive, evil and inhuman. As Kevin pointed out, it exploits our sinful and selfish desires to override our naturally good impulses.
As Kevin also points out, almost all pregnancies that end in abortion started via consensual sex and so the human being that is killed showed up due to the action of the mother. Mothers are lying to themselves with the help of men shirking responsibility and evil abortion promoters who know differently.
Since it has now been established that intentionally killing innocent human beings is not a constitutional right people will have to actually listen and deal with pro-life arguments as laws are proposed for legislation unless those arguments are suppressed or lied about. Like the lies that were told this election cycle about mother's lives put in danger due to pro-life laws. We live in a democracy so liars are gonna lie, but sooner or later the truth sneaks out people stop listening to the liars. The recent collapse of the MSM comes to mind.
bmiller,
I was referring to your post on December 20, 2024 9:46 AM.
You said:
"You claimed SteveK's question was misleading. The question was "should human beings be allowed to kill other human beings under ordinary life circumstance?" I think he is correct that most people would say it is morally wrong to do so. Do you think the answer would be different? That was the question, not what your own peculiar non-scientific position is. I'm certain that relatively few people have heard of Wittgenstein or Hacker and even less have read their works."
To be fair, you weren't asking me argue for or against abortion. But it looked to me at the time that it would indirectly end up in that debate. So I retract the statement you are quoting. Sorry about that. I will certainly stop telling you that I am not going to be making any more arguements for abortion.
The OP was asking about what methods the pro-life movement ought to take in trying to push their agenda. If it were me, I think it would be necessary to change the culture first since it seems fairly obvious that the Democrats have succeeded in doing that. And because of that success the Supreme Court's recent decision hasn't had that much of a negative impact on the pro-abortion movement.
Martin,
Everyone accepts that the government can force parents to care for and not kill their children regardless of the inconvenience. This is not controversial at all.
Why should I accept your definition of "personhood"? You haven't made any argument and neither has anyone else offered a non-controversial and morally coherent definition. Its common sense if you kill something without certain knowledge what you are killing you are willfully reckless at the least and possibly guilty of homicide. That's why it's illegal to shoot at things without knowing what you are shooting at.
Your final point is a blatantly false dilemma and borders on intentional groundless slander against your opponents. Pro-lifers can and do favor support for the unborn as well as the poor. Have you never heard of Mother Theresa?
Hal,
Ok. Looks like we are on the same page.
As I mentioned, Democrats succeeded in eliminating all legislation against abortion via Roe v Wade and not by changing the culture first. If in fact they had been successful then why were SC justices selected and appointed resulting in that unconstitutional ruling being set aside? Seems to me that wouldn't have happened if the Democrats had really succeeded.
You also seem to be in disagreement with the abortion lobby when you claim that Dodd hasn't been much of an impact. They've been crying bloody murder and spending untold millions on "partisan politics" to remove any and all restrictions on abortions. There's big money to be made in aborted body parts.
Martin,
"No. Think being hooked up to another person who is making use of your heart activity to stay alive. You're a life support person for another."
The only situation like the one you are describing is a pregnancy so your principled reason for killing another human boils down to "because it's an unborn child". That reasoning includes 10 seconds prior to delivering a full term baby. It appears you have a lot of hate for children built up inside you.
"Half of those will develop into persons"
An unborn child will do that to if you don't kill it. Your reasoning is flawed because the same principled reason used to justify killing also justifies what you would say is immoral killing.
"priorities are SEVERELY out of whack."
The USA has literally been feeding a starving world for decades and killing the unborn for those same decades. Priorities have severely out of whack for a long time. Now they are a little more balanced.
* reposting due to formatting error
"the government can force parents to care for and not kill their children regardless of the inconvenience."
Additionally, the hospital keeping patients alive via heart machines cannot kill their patients because they are an inconvenience. The electric and gas companies are keeping people alive too. They cannot shut down their services and kill people.
Martin's reasoning is flawed because the same principled reason (autonomy) used to justify killing the unborn also justifies the immoral killings above.
bmiller,
What criteria are you using for culture change? Polling seems the most reliable to me. And overall US polling even long before Roe has consistently shown more support for abortion than banning it. But there has never been overwhelming support for either side for quite some time.
If you look at IVF treatment the disparity is greater. The Republicans went into panic mode when it looked like they were going to be accused of banning that.
Whether one uses the courts, the legislature or referendum tells us little about cultural changes. Any group is goiing to take the easiest route even if it is in the majority.
Hal,
What criteria are you using for culture change?
Legislation successfully passed banning or restricting abortion. Went from zero to about half the states now within 2 years. Polling is unreliable in predicting how people will vote as we've seen but is even more-so on a topic like this. It depends on what question is asked and to whom.
For instance, abortion providers could run a poll only asking if people favored "bodily autonomy" and then claim most people are for abortion. Or if people should be able to a use "medical procedures" if they are unable to naturally conceive a child and therefore claim people favor IVF. The problem is pollsters are pushing for a particular answer they can use to push their agenda.
I'd be interested in a neutral poll that would tell us if people are really knowledgeable about these issues. Once again, for instance, Martin assumed the pro-life laws in Texas were the cause of a woman's death just because the news sources he consulted claimed it so. At least you and Martin are willing to go beyond that and actually find out what the reasons for the pro-life position.
You've mentioned IVF twice. IVF is not normally considered abortion. Why do you bring it up in this context?
bmiller,
Thanks for sharing your criteria over culture change.
I brought IVF into it because The Rrepublican legislatures who are anti-abortion don't want to also ban IVF which often results in the destruction of human embryos. And you emphasized earlier how important it was to have legislatures involved in resolving these issues surrounding abortion.
Anyways, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion now. Don't really have much more to add. And although I love philosophical discussion, the topic of abortion is far from my favorite. Am much more interested in areas of human nature involving qustions concerrning the mind and language and agency. I'm a very slow writer and reader and this discussion has been taking too much time from those topics. Still have too many unread books on the shelves.
Ok Hal.
The reason I asked why you brought up IVF was because I doubt most people would relate that topic to abortion. For instance the abortion lobby was not writing up referendums to ensure the right to IVF. I suspect Democrats that bring it up are not interested in any philosophical discussion about it but see it as a tool to deceptively attack the pro-lifers on abortion. Something like:
"See how crazy those pro-lifers are? They don't even want people to procreate! " When pro-lifers generally only oppose the forms of IVF that end up creating unborn human beings only to intentionally destroy them later.
Once again I see this as the typical Democrat strategy of attempting to get their way by lying to the public and/or using sophistical argumentation. I'm used to it and I suppose I could expect it from people who don't claim to have a firm moral basis for their actions, but it is disturbing when I see people who claim to be Christians endorse this type of behavior.
It’s that time of year where we get another story telling us about “The Real Jesus”. The next one will come out during Easter week.
https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2024/12/22/nyt-virgin-birth-that-probably-wasnt-n2405546
Has the NYT ever published a story skeptical of miracles within only the Jewish or Muslim faith?
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” - John 3:16
Merry Christmas
"Fear not, for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy... ...which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a savior... ...which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you. Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." And suddenly, there was with the angel... ...a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: "Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth, peace, goodwill toward men."
That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.
Thank you Linus!
May you all have a safe & joyful Christmas.
I read this and had 2 thoughts.
1) A person from Bangladesh and India discussed this in a conversation that I was part of. They both agreed and also agreed that they were glad they were in America and that America was not like that. I had no idea.
2) I see the lack of respect for telling the truth on the part of abortion advocates as an indication that they are attempting to move America to this state of affairs.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/india-its-worse-you-think
Do abortion advocates think it's OK to lie to the public in order to get them to vote they way they want them to? That is a conclusion I am coming to.
It's obvious that many are consequentialists, so maybe they think that it's better to lie to voters in a democracy in order to serve what they think is the "greater good".
"Abortions are slightly more common now than before Dobbs"
“Abortion bans don’t actually prevent abortions from happening”
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-roe-dobbs-states-data-5632f60aa1d797bcdec9fbc77a385413
Yes, they routinely palter too.
Abortion bans actually do prevent abortions in the states where they are banned although they do not prevent them in states where they are not banned (obviously). So saying:
“Abortion bans don’t actually prevent abortions from happening” is technically true but intentionally misleading.
What is noteworthy is that I don't see those who favor abortion disagreeing with me about the paltering and lying. It seems to me that they agree that lies are being told, but since fooling people into believing lies benefits their political goals they are good with it. How soulless.
"Abortions are slightly more common now than before Dobbs"
Source: Society of Family Planning
Reacting to the news, Catholic University of America professor and Charlotte Lozier Institute scholar Michael New expressed that a degree of skepticism is in order. He noted that SFP “really had no previous experience doing abortion estimates prior to Dobbs,” and many of their state estimates differ significantly from those of the Guttmacher Institute, which while pro-abortion is taken by most on both sides to be the most comprehensive source of abortion data. Guttmacher’s national abortion estimate for 2022 was 951,168, followed by 912,360 in 2023, a decrease of 38,808.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/report-claims-abortions-are-actually-higher-in-2024-than-before-roe-was-overturned/
Jim Jones. Did anyone see it coming? Yes.
https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=61463
Interestingly his was a subsidiary of Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and tied up with "progressive" politics. Maybe this explains why some progressive "Christians" get things things so evilly backwards.
Here's a surprise. 16% of people who had an abortion were not women.
https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/06/many-16-people-having-abortions-do-not-identify-heterosexual-women
Tell me again that progressives are not lunatics.
Happy New Year.
Since I haven't posted anything about abortion since last year I thought it was about time I started up again :-)
There have been questions regarding if passing laws could reduce abortions or whether culture changes could reduce abortions. There have been assertions that the US wants abortion and we're never going back.
Take a look at the graph in this article from the Guttmacher Institute:
https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023
The number of abortions shot immediately after Roe, stabilized for about 10 years and then started to come down. Our population (of those not aborted) rose from 248,709,873 to 331,449,281 while the number of abortions dropped from 1,600,000 to 930,160 during the timeframe from 1990 to 2020. As a percentage of population the drop was from 0.64% to 0.28% or 56% drop in abortions as a percentage of population.
So. It seems the culture has changed dramatically even though Roe allowed for abortion everywhere and perhaps the changing legal landscape is just a reflection of that fact. The hysteria we've seen from the pro-abort crowd is looking like they realize their time is limited.
Can anyone tell me why my original 2 poll questions are misleading? That's been the claim so far, but nobody has explained why abortion - and abortion alone - is a unique/special situation that justifies a different answer. Martin made an attempt but it didn't work out logically. Anyone want to try? Victor?
1) Should human beings be allowed to kill other human beings under ordinary life circumstance?
2) Suppose the action in the previous question is called an abortion how do you respond to the question?"
SteveK,
I think only Hal claimed your questions were misleading so refused to answer. It appeared to me that Martin didn't attempt to engage your questions and merely listed some pro-abortion contentions.
I would expect most people to say we shouldn't ordinarily be allowed to kill each other. And to the second question it wouldn't matter what we called that act it would still be wrong.
My 2 cents.
On the other hand there are a bunch of people that can be convinced that changing the name of some objectively evil act changes it from being evil.
Notice how we see progressives using the term Minor Attracted Person?
I consider Martin's response a valid attempt to list some principled reasons for answering the 2nd question differently. They all failed, therefore, logically, the 2 poll questions must be answered the same - even for Martin.
I'm a horrible comment box proof reader. I seem to only catch my mistakes after I hit the publish button. Ugh!
You're not the only one. I've made a New Year's resolution to do better this year. Just like I did last year :-(
Post a Comment