 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Pro Life" Activists Drop Pretense, Endorse Murder
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From the Kansas City Star:
quote:
Online auction to raise funds in Scott Roeder case
By JUDY L. THOMAS
The Kansas City Star
An Army of God manual. A prison cookbook compiled by a woman doing time for abortion clinic bombings and arsons. An autographed bullhorn.
These are among the items that abortion foes plan to auction on eBay and other Web sites in a fundraiser for Scott Roeder, the Kansas City man charged with killing Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller.
“This is unique,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who will sign the bullhorn. “Nobody’s ever done this before. The goal is that everybody makes money for Scott Roeder’s defense.”
<snip>
Roeder, charged with first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting of Tiller, is scheduled to go to trial in January.
Dave Leach, an Iowa abortion opponent who is organizing the auction effort, said he was aiming for a Nov. 1 launch.
<snip>
Leach said the auction was intended to raise money for the defense of Roeder, who was being represented by public defenders.
Leach and others would like to help Roeder hire a lawyer to present what is known as a necessity defense. That strategy would argue that Tiller was killed to prevent a greater harm — killing babies. Other anti-abortion activists charged with violent crimes have tried to use such a defense but with little success.
“If we are not successful in finding a lawyer we can afford, we will distribute the money to prisoners who have sacrificed their years for the cause of saving lives,” Leach said.
Essentially the point being argued by these Pro-Life* activists is that murder is okay if you feel very strongly about something, but only if it's the murder of a grown human being and not an embryo.
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Essentially the point being argued by these Pro-Life* activists is that murder is okay if you feel very strongly about something, but only if it's the murder of a grown human being and not an embryo.
*Offer expires at birth
If you say so. I'm sure they'd agree with the assessment of such a fair-minded and objective observer.
Alternatively, maybe - just maybe - what they're actually saying is that any murder is a criminal tragedy, but if someone's killing people at an alarming rate, and is going to be responsible for the deaths of many more if left unchecked, it might be considered justifiable to kill them to stop the carnage, like taking out a sniper.
You might disagree with their position, and even the assumptions on which it's based, but this sort of disingenuous polemic does nothing to advance your case.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What they are saying, whether in words or no, is that they are against the rule of law, at least as applies to themselves, and are willing to abrogate it in the name of their pet cause. As such they are dangerous to the functioning of society, and enemies to the Constitution and to the United States. What other law will they decide doesn't apply to them? Perhaps gays are next on their list of people it's okay to shoot because they're disobeying the Bible? Once somebody has taken the law into their own hands, we are all at risk, depending on which law they next decide doesn't apply to them, and which group deserves their hate. They are dangerous despisers of democracy and freedom. Even if they are right that abortion is wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Just pointing out that the typical Pro Life* talking point in the wake of the Tiller murder usually started out "Now of course we condemn this act . . . " when it's fairly obvious that a significant chunk of Pro Lifers* don't actually condemn assassination as a tool for their movement.
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Better these guys raise the funds for his defense than have the taxpayers pay for a public defender - - though the public defender might not raise the defense of necessity as the defense itself probably won't be allowed by the trial judge. Heck, the necessity defense to murder might not even be permitted under Kansas law.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Better these guys raise the funds for his defense than have the taxpayers pay for a public defender
Yeah, that's the point. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just pointing out that the typical Pro Life* talking point in the wake of the Tiller murder usually started out "Now of course we condemn this act . . . " when it's fairly obvious that a significant chunk of Pro Lifers* don't actually condemn assassination as a tool for their movement.
*Offer expires at birth
It's only fair to point out that atheists typically start out by saying that they condemn religious intolerance when in fact a significant chuncl of them don't really condemn persecution and murder of the religious. See, e.g. the French Revolutionaries and Commies.
[ 29. October 2009, 20:42: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Better these guys raise the funds for his defense than have the taxpayers pay for a public defender
Yeah, that's the point.
I guess that means when they pass the hat, you'll be happy to drop a coin.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just pointing out that the typical Pro Life* talking point in the wake of the Tiller murder usually started out "Now of course we condemn this act . . . " when it's fairly obvious that a significant chunk of Pro Lifers* don't actually condemn assassination as a tool for their movement.
*Offer expires at birth
Care to put a figure on that? I see two people named in that article. Heck, maybe there's even ten of them. Strikes me this is some way off being a "significant chunk"...
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What they are saying, whether in words or no, is that they are against the rule of law, at least as applies to themselves, and are willing to abrogate it in the name of their pet cause.
Maybe. Alternatively, and charitably, this is an attempt (as observed, the number of people supporting it is unclear) to provide a decent defence for Roeder, because his supporters (however many there are) identify with his general worldview (but not necessarily his methods of pursuing it), and want to use this opportunity to do their best to put the case in a high-profile trial that Abortion is Wrong. It's certainly quite conceivable that someone could support this case with the aim of banning abortion through the back door and/or making it an untenable course of action, rather than declaring open season on abortion doctors.
It's true that if their Necessity Defence is successful (it won't be), they will effectively legitimise vigilantism, at least in certain situations, but that legimitacy would come from a formal legal process. The prospect of such a result may appal you (it would certainly appal me), but that surely makes them no more against the rule of law than any other proponents of unlikely defences. And instinctively, I find it difficult to condemn a desire to provide a defence for someone, however repulsive that person's actions appear to me.
quote:
Once somebody has taken the law into their own hands, we are all at risk, depending on which law they next decide doesn't apply to them, and which group deserves their hate. They are dangerous despisers of democracy and freedom. Even if they are right that abortion is wrong.
I agree with all of this. Where we part company is in the connection between supporting Roeder's defence and taking the law into one's own hands. Roeder's brand of vigilantism may be supported by all or none of his funding angels, but I don't see that a direct link can be assumed.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I agree with all of this. Where we part company is in the connection between supporting Roeder's defence and taking the law into one's own hands. Roeder's brand of vigilantism may be supported by all or none of his funding angels, but I don't see that a direct link can be assumed.
I think it's explicit in the "Necessary Defence".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
It was simultaneously good news to hear recently that Americans will receive a long over due health-care insurance overhaul and that funding for abortion has received a set back.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
It was simultaneously good news to hear recently that Americans will receive a long over due health-care insurance overhaul and that funding for abortion has received a set back.
From a pro-life* perspective it's usually preferrable to screw over women (or at least poorer women) than to actually do anything to improve life or health. In this case they seem to have, for the moment, been spared the embarrassment of admitting so.
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just pointing out that the typical Pro Life* talking point in the wake of the Tiller murder usually started out "Now of course we condemn this act . . . " when it's fairly obvious that a significant chunk of Pro Lifers* don't actually condemn assassination as a tool for their movement.
*Offer expires at birth
Care to put a figure on that? I see two people named in that article. Heck, maybe there's even ten of them. Strikes me this is some way off being a "significant chunk"...
Since you've decided to resurrect this thread, I'll just note that I'm still waiting for an answer to my question...
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just pointing out that the typical Pro Life* talking point in the wake of the Tiller murder usually started out "Now of course we condemn this act . . . " when it's fairly obvious that a significant chunk of Pro Lifers* don't actually condemn assassination as a tool for their movement.
*Offer expires at birth
Care to put a figure on that? I see two people named in that article. Heck, maybe there's even ten of them. Strikes me this is some way off being a "significant chunk"...
Since you've decided to resurrect this thread, . . .
That was Luke's doing. I just though he deseved a response.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I'll just note that I'm still waiting for an answer to my question...
I'm still collating the data from my vast army of telepath-researchers who've been busily polling pro-lifers* to determine which of their condemnations of murder are sincere and which are politically motivated. The main difference with the people in the article, though, is that they didn't preface their statements with variations on "Now of course we condemn this act . . . " As for ennumerating them, there's at least twenty-one willing to openly advocate murder without the cover of some sort of caveat. I'd figure the difference between those willing to openly admit it and those who secretly agree while mouthing some feigned condemnation is probably at least a couple of orders of magnitude. The fact that an organization like the Army of God finds it necessary to publish an operations manual (mentioned in the original article) including instructions on bomb-making indicate a larger group than can easily pass such information verbally.
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That was Luke's doing. I just though he deseved a response.
Thanks for the acknowledgment, I figured this thread was the latest place to for another round on the abortion thing.
I'm glad I'm not a Republican in America because it seems the Democrats have pulled a real coup, health-care with only limited abortion funding. Over here, sadly, Medicare pays for a lot of abortions.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I'm glad I'm not a Republican in America because it seems the Democrats have pulled a real coup, health-care with only limited abortion funding. Over here, sadly, Medicare pays for a lot of abortions.
Once again, why is it sad that your medical plan pays for medical treatments? Is it just a desire to cut out coverage for procedures you yourself will never need? If that's the case, gynecology in general should go by the wayside.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
(I think it's the first time you asked me.) "Treatment" implies being cured of some illness, why would a pregnancy need to be cured?
I think it's sad because the money could be spent on improving the whole adoption process, encouraging more families to adopt children, better screening of parents etc. I also think it's sad because killing innocent people is a bad thing to have happen. I'm not sure how arguing against abortion would decrease the need for gynecology, wouldn't more babies being allowed live to full term increase the demand for gynecology?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Luke: re the "cure " of pregnancy:
Consider the following possibilities
(1) the evacuation of a molar pregnancy
(2) the removal of an ectopic pregnancy-either pre or post rupture of same
(3)termination of second trimester pregnancy induction of labour in the event of life-threatening maternal hypertension
(4) termination of pregnancy in the case of maternal cancer
Please consider that there are 2 players in this game i.e. the mother and the foetus.
Might be best to leave the medical aspects to the women in question and the obstetricians.
Take note that I have gone nowhere near any other legitimate grounds for TOP.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Providing examples were it may be necessary to kill the child in order to save the mother isn't an explanation for why abortion should be described as treatment.
quote:
Might be best to leave the medical aspects to the women in question and the obstetricians.
Since when has any topic become immune from moral argument? (How curious that in your scheme of things the kids who are about to "treated" don't get a say.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Croesos, I'm pro-life and I condemn the act. Assuming Roeder actually committed the crime, he should get the death sentence IMO. What he allegedly did was worse than murder, it was terrorism. He attempted to overthrow rule of law for rule of fear.
Yes there are fringe elements in any group who will find any excuse to kill. There always have been. But using the kook fringe to make pro-lifers out to be murderers is manipulation. It's not what the movement is about and you know it.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(How curious that in your scheme of things the kids who are about to "treated" don't get a say.)
The "kids" in question don't have the ability to form opinions, much less have a say. What you're really objecting to is that you don't get to have a say, and it seems as if you further object that you can't use the tools of the state to make your say final.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Crœsos, I'm pro-life and I condemn the act. Assuming Roeder actually committed the crime, he should get the death sentence IMO. What he allegedly did was worse than murder, it was terrorism. He attempted to overthrow rule of law for rule of fear.
Yes there are fringe elements in any group who will find any excuse to kill. There always have been. But using the kook fringe to make pro-lifers out to be murderers is manipulation. It's not what the movement is about and you know it.
Given the number of witnesses and Roeder's subsequent confession, I'm fairly comfortable dropping the "alleged" from the description of Roeder's crimes.
And yes, it was terrorism. So is bombing women's clinics, or attacking them with volatile chemicals, or assembling a screaming mob outside, or very blatantly taking pictures of anyone entering or leaving the building. These are all commonplace pro-life* tactics. The purpose of terrorism is to intimidate others (i.e. instill terror) so that they comply with your agenda. Roeder just took what was, from the pro-life* perspective, the next obvious step. And from the pro-life* perspective he was incredibly successful: Tiller's clinic is closed leaving only two clinics in the U.S. that will perform late term abortions and any doctor who performs abortions will obviously have to reassess their willingness to do so in light of the possibility of assassination. The fact that Roeder's actions are not unprecedented and the fact that he has a number of supporters indicates that he's not that far outside the pro-life* mainstream in the U.S.
Interestingly enough, late-term abortions are typically the ones that the pro-life* movement claims to approve, involving massive fœtal abnormalities, hazard to the life of the mother, the rape of a minor, or some combination of these factors. The fact that the pro-life* movement has concentrated so heavily on late-term abortions indicates that ending elective abortion is a rhetorical fig-leaf.
*Offer expires at birth.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The fact that an organization like the Army of God finds it necessary to publish an operations manual (mentioned in the original article) including instructions on bomb-making indicate a larger group than can easily pass such information verbally.
Or a small group who want you to think that they are a large group. Or just some nerdy delusional self-important gunwankers who like to talk about weapons a lot.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The fact that an organization like the Army of God finds it necessary to publish an operations manual (mentioned in the original article) including instructions on bomb-making indicate a larger group than can easily pass such information verbally.
Or a small group who want you to think that they are a large group. Or just some nerdy delusional self-important gunwankers who like to talk about weapons a lot.
How many assassinations and bombings do there have to be before it's recognized that this is a tactic rather than an aberration? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical device. How many killings does it take to cross the line from "self-important gunwankers" to "criminal subculture"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Sorry, but you are being extremely disingenuous to say the least.
When I challenged you on your numbers, you first of all decided not to answer, then when I asked you again, admitted that you knew of 25 people. Being generous, I can imagine that there are maybe as many as a hundred.
Out of the millions of people who are opposed to abortion, this is a miniscule percentage; to claim otherwise is nonsense, and looks dishonest.
This doesn't make the actions of these people any less deplorable, of course, but they remain a tiny minority and to tar the rest of us with the same brush certainly looks very much like playing rhetoric to try to score points. (As incidentally does your "offers expires at birth" line. The first time, it was a clever jibe. To have carried on this long doesn't make it look like you're really interested in dialogue with people who don't agree with you, IMO. For which reason, I shan't be posting anything else on this thread.)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
(I didn't think it was a good idea to equate abortion with "treatment.")
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(How curious that in your scheme of things the kids who are about to "treated" don't get a say.)
The "kids" in question don't have the ability to form opinions, much less have a say. What you're really objecting to is that you don't get to have a say, and it seems as if you further object that you can't use the tools of the state to make your say final.
How fascinating, personhood = capable of having an opinion. How is the capability to have an opinion measured? Who decides what constitutes an opinion? How does Scripture support this definition of personhood?
I'm sticking up for the kids who get killed in abortions because ... I'm frustrated? So your here arguing about abortion because ...?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(How curious that in your scheme of things the kids who are about to "treated" don't get a say.)
The "kids" in question don't have the ability to form opinions, much less have a say. What you're really objecting to is that you don't get to have a say, and it seems as if you further object that you can't use the tools of the state to make your say final.
While those mothers who agree with abortion do get to have their say, and do get to use the tools of the state to make their say final. Final in the fullest sense of the word.
What I think Luke is objecting to and what I agree with him about, is that the kids involved are not considered or given any individual worth except what the mother chooses to give them. They have no independent worth. They are considered either to be a disease to be ‘treated’ or a precious human life, decided only according to the whims of one person, until born, when they get given all the rights and status of a human being and the according full protection of law and society. But until that magical moment they are only the property of the mother, to be kept or disposed of as she wishes.
Now surely the children who are not yet born deserve some kind of rights independent of the choice of the mother. Since the child can’t form or voice their opinion, someone needs to do it for them. You cannot give this decision solely into the hands of one person, society does not work like that. We have laws independent of the arbitrary judgments of individuals. And this Law is the advocate for those who cannot defend themselves. Whether they are too weak or disabled, or are not yet capable or for those who have lost their capability. We do not agree that a son who cares totally for his elderly mother should have the right to euthanize her if he decides to do so. Our law restricts his rights over his relative, even though his mother may no longer have the presence of mind to form her own opinions.
Our law removes the right of a single individual to choose life or death for another person. Individual rights are all very well but sometimes individuals need to be restrained by law when our desires or decisions interfere with the rights of another human being. The mother should not have the choice to kill her child. No human should be given that choice, (unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances such as the mother’s life is in danger).
And I’m not entirely sure why you think your ‘offer expires at birth’ thing is so world-shatteringly witty that you have to say it in every post. I disagree with la vie en rouge, I don’t think it was even humorous the first time I read it. It’s attacking a strawman that you’ve made up, and shows you aren’t trying to understand the opposing viewpoint to your own, just insult it while congratulating yourself on how clever you are. Pro-lifers do not think the right to life expires at birth, they just think it should not just start at birth. It should begin before and the fundamental human right to exist should be extended to all humans, not just the ones that have been born.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
To add my own £0.02:
Pro-lifers I know do not believe in the death penalty or no longer helping the poor and vulnerable simply by virtue of the fact of their birth. It may be a Pond difference, but your use of the 'offer expires at birth' asterisk is both tiresome and misleading as far as the UK is concerned.
Roeder is guilty of murder. Since, however, I don't agree with the death penalty, I think he should go away for life not be executed.
I agree with exceptions where the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is non-viable, but these exceptions seem to be cited on this thread as if they are the rule.
[ 23. November 2009, 10:36: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And I’m not entirely sure why you think your ‘offer expires at birth’ thing is so world-shatteringly witty that you have to say it in every post. I disagree with la vie en rouge, I don’t think it was even humorous the first time I read it.
What can I say? I was being generous ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And I’m not entirely sure why you think your ‘offer expires at birth’ thing is so world-shatteringly witty that you have to say it in every post. I disagree with la vie en rouge, I don’t think it was even humorous the first time I read it. It’s attacking a strawman that you’ve made up, and shows you aren’t trying to understand the opposing viewpoint to your own, just insult it while congratulating yourself on how clever you are. Pro-lifers do not think the right to life expires at birth, they just think it should not just start at birth. It should begin before and the fundamental human right to exist should be extended to all humans, not just the ones that have been born.
For someone who considers killing inside the womb acceptable it's strange Croesos is so upset by killing outside the womb.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Out of the millions of people who are opposed to abortion, this is a miniscule percentage; to claim otherwise is nonsense, and looks dishonest.
This doesn't make the actions of these people any less deplorable, of course, but they remain a tiny minority and to tar the rest of us with the same brush certainly looks very much like playing rhetoric to try to score points.
Let's just say I find it very difficult to believe that Eric Rudolph (to pick one example) evaded the FBI for five years completely unaided. While a lot of pro-lifers* may find such actions "deplorable", there are a significant number who don't deplore them enough to keep them from aiding a fugitive from a murder charge. In any philosophy that regularly spawns terrorists the actual numbers carrying out terrorist acts always comprise a "miniscule percentage" of the total population. That doesn't mean you're not spawning terrorists.
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(How curious that in your scheme of things the kids who are about to "treated" don't get a say.)
The "kids" in question don't have the ability to form opinions, much less have a say. What you're really objecting to is that you don't get to have a say, and it seems as if you further object that you can't use the tools of the state to make your say final.
How fascinating, personhood = capable of having an opinion. How is the capability to have an opinion measured? Who decides what constitutes an opinion? How does Scripture support this definition of personhood?
Wow, talk about moving the goalposts. A simple observation that "get[ting] a say" requires the ability to both think and express oneself and you're off on a tangent about personhood. While there are cases where one person is assumed to speak on behalf of another, it is the height of arrogance to pretend that the they are literally channeling the person on whose behalf they are speaking. We can sometimes make a reasonable guess about what a person being thus proxied really wants, but don't pretend it's anything more than a guess.
As for Hawk's long discursion on the right to life*, it misses the point. What he's arguing is that an embryo actually has a superior right to the use of a woman's body than that woman does herself. The whole premise of free society is that we own our bodies and that the state can't reassign them to others. This legal theory of Hawk's has some very disturbing applications if taken to its logical conclusion. For example, if the state is allowed to reassign a uterus, why not a kidney or a lobe of someone's liver? If an embryo has a positive right to the gestational services of its ovodonor, does that mean that a woman who generates a dozen eggs at a fertility clinic is legally obligated to carry each of them to term? What if she dies before gestating them all? Can the state assign someone else's uterus to fulfill the putative rights of the remaining embryos?
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole premise of free society is that we own our bodies...
No it isn't. In the Common Law that lies behind the laws of both England and the USA we don't own our bodies. Neither do we own our bodies in the French Civil Law. We don't own our bodies we are our bodies. Nobody "owns" our bodies. Bodies are not the kind of thing that can be owned. Which is why you cannot in law dispose of your body parts in your will, nor can you make a binding contract to sell body parts to someone else.
And yes, the automatic repitition of the "offer expires at birth" wisecrack makes it look as if you have given up the argument and are mechanically repeating words for the sake of it.
[ 24. November 2009, 00:39: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole premise of free society is that we own our bodies...
No it isn't. In the Common Law that lies behind the laws of both England and the USA we don't own our bodies. Neither do we own our bodies in the French Civil Law. We don't own our bodies we are our bodies. Nobody "owns" our bodies. Bodies are not the kind of thing that can be owned. Which is why you cannot in law dispose of your body parts in your will, nor can you make a binding contract to sell body parts to someone else.
A distinction that is irrelevant to my point. Even if we cannot be said to "own" our bodies in the legal sense of the term, it is still maintained that no one else has a greater claim to them than we do. If someone else has a greater claim over your body than you do, then you are no longer free.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
If someone else has a greater claim over your body than you do, then you are no longer free.
This seems especially relevant in the case of rape/incest. In those cases no consent was given (nor can it be implied) and forcing a girl/woman to continue that pregnancy against her will is tantamount to involuntary servitude which many would argue is disallowed under the Thirteenth Amendment. We no longer allow slavery in the U.S. and forcing a girl/woman to carry a child conceived without her consent seems nothing less.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Nobody "owns" our bodies.
Not after 1865.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
How fascinating, personhood = capable of having an opinion. How is the capability to have an opinion measured? Who decides what constitutes an opinion? How does Scripture support this definition of personhood?
Wow, talk about moving the goalposts. A simple observation that "get[ting] a say" requires the ability to both think and express oneself and you're off on a tangent about personhood.
Your trying to argue that unborn children shouldn't have a say in whether or not they should be killed. If they are persons then maybe it's not a good idea to destroy them. If they aren't persons, how are they not persons?
quote:
While there are cases where one person is assumed to speak on behalf of another, it is the height of arrogance to pretend that the they are literally channeling the person on whose behalf they are speaking. We can sometimes make a reasonable guess about what a person being thus proxied really wants, but don't pretend it's anything more than a guess.
So, if we don't know what they think about being killed, its OK to kill them? (Your suggestion sounds awfully callous.)
quote:
*Offer expires at birth
If abortion wasn't so serious it'd be funny how caught up you are about people getting killed after birth as opposed to before they are born.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I take it to mean that the pro-life squad seem a lot less concerned with making life livable for the very young and their parent(s) than they do with abortion. The same people who scream outside Planned Parenthood also vote to defund things like childcare, health care, job training programs -- things that if young, poor mothers could depend upon them, they might not feel it is necessary to choose abortion.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think that's what he's saying at all.
Which of Croesus' claims are you defending?
quote:
I take it to mean that the pro-life squad seem a lot less concerned with making life livable for the very young and their parent(s) than they do with abortion. The same people who scream outside Planned Parenthood also vote to defund things like childcare, health care, job training programs -- things that if young, poor mothers could depend upon them, they might not feel it is necessary to choose abortion.
I guess I'm part of the pro-life squad, although I've never screamed at someone during an anti-abortion rally, yes we do have them in Oz. However I was pleased to read on the news that healthcare in America is being reformed so that the poor will have better access to it and at the same time abortion funding gets restricted. Furthermore, as I observed early in this thread it's pity the Republicans couldn't get their act together and support healthcare reform and while simultaneously restricting abortion. Then again I don't completely understand American politics.
Although it's not completely evident that poverty alone is the direct cause of a high level or increased abortion, people will always be sinful regardless of their circumstances. (However improving access to adoption will help somewhat.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Luke, how will improving access to adoption help?
In the days when abortion was illegal and children were put up for adoption, there were ways of hiding unmarried pregnant mothers away until after the birth. For example, they were put in homes and worked for the nuns, who then placed their children in suitable homes. Or they went away and "visited an aunt for six months" and came back without the baby. These days, the mother-to-be lives in their community, meeting those neighbours in the street coming up and stroking the bump, and asking all sorts of questions about the imminent baby. They will tell the mother-to-be how they can't possibly give up their baby.
A pregnant woman is seen as public property by a surprising number of people. Personally, I found the intrusion one of the worst things of being pregnant and was extremely grateful not to show until very late.
I have seen someone put a baby up for adoption who didn't find out until they were fairly late into pregnancy and when they became pregnant again, they were very, very swift to have a termination.
The vast majority of terminations happen within the first trimester in the UK - 90% in the first 13 weeks, 70% in the first 10 weeks. In an ideal world people wouldn't be using terminations as contraception. They wouldn't be having unprotected sex, would be aware that every time they had sex there was the potential for becoming pregnant and used contraception more carefully. The current perception of young people is that everyone is having the most wonderful sex life and that they are missing out if they don't.
Personally, I'm involved in educating young people and working with them, and our message is that sex means pregnancy, so you need to be prepared for that every time you have sexual intercourse, but we are working against a media that makes sex the ultimate thing to strive towards.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As for Hawk's long discursion on the right to life*, it misses the point.
I would suggest Croesus, that actually you have missed the point of my post. Nobody’s arguing that the state should assign or reassign bodies or body parts. That’s just another strawman you’ve made up to deflect the argument. I note that you don't actually answer my points, instead you make up a series of fantasy scenarios to attack instead. Interesting.
My argument is only that our law should restrain a person from doing anything that directly kills another person.
You constantly talk about ‘freedom’ as though it is an absolute and any infringement is the ultimate crime. But that is rhetorical nonsense and has no bearing on reality. In a society no one’s freedom is absolute, it is a compromise. That is what our laws are all about. Our individual rights are all very well and should be preserved. But NOT when they interfere with the rights of others. This is inevitable and necessary. What is our law except a restraint on individual freedom for the benefit of all?
Within a society every member of that society is free, but only to a point, no one is free to exercise their freedom in ways that harm other members of society. At that point the law must restrain our rights so that a compromise position is reached that enables ALL members of society to survive and prosper, not just the powerful or the vocal.
I am only talking about laws that only restrain us from taking life, not force us to give life. That is the limit of our current law and I am not proposing it should be enhanced. I only argue that the law which we currently agree on should be extended to all human beings, even those not yet born.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What he's arguing is that an embryo actually has a superior right to the use of a woman's body than that woman does herself
You’ve misunderstood. I do not agree that the embryo has a superior right to the use of the woman’s body than the mother. In the case of a question between equal lives; either the mother’s or the child’s, the child’s would not automatically take precedence. But I would argue that it has an equal right to share in the life of the body, without fear of death, during the necessary gestation period. This is because there is no other humane alternative. Maybe in the future medical science will invent other options. But for now the only alternative is forcibly killing the embryonic human, in order to increase the freedom of the adult human. Which is not a humane alternative.
And in the case of the extreme situations (such as rape or that the mother’s life is in danger) which are constantly brought out to divert this debate, I do not argue that abortion is always wrong and should never be done, no matter what. Each situation is different and needs to be considered. But it needs to be considered based on right and humane principles. I only argue that in all questions of abortion, the fundamental right to exist of the human being that has not yet been born is always recognised and taken into account. At the moment it is not considered as a factor and the rights of the mother are always the only rights considered. But there are two human beings in these situations, not just one. And both of these humans need to be protected, as best as medical science can.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Although it's not completely evident that poverty alone is the direct cause of a high level or increased abortion, people will always be sinful regardless of their circumstances. (However improving access to adoption will help somewhat.)
Ah, people have abortions because they're sinful? No wonder the pro-life crowd doesn't understand the problem let alone have a decent solution.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even if we cannot be said to "own" our bodies in the legal sense of the term, it is still maintained that no one else has a greater claim to them than we do. If someone else has a greater claim over your body than you do, then you are no longer free.
If this is strictly true, then it could not be illegal for a mother to bring an infant home from the hospital, and then simply allow it to starve to death. For if we insist that she is obligated to act in the good interests of her child, then we admit that the state controls the use of her body in some sense, which we are asserting is contrary to true freedom.
Thus, any arguments in favor of the legality of abortion derived from a concept of an individual's right to freedom from state coercion must then also allow for any and all forms of passive infanticide.
Would anyone disagree?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Although it's not completely evident that poverty alone is the direct cause of a high level or increased abortion, people will always be sinful regardless of their circumstances. (However improving access to adoption will help somewhat.)
Ah, people have abortions because they're sinful? No wonder the pro-life crowd doesn't understand the problem let alone have a decent solution.
Original Sin is an orthodox doctrine. How would it not effect people's decision making?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I simply don't believe that's what you meant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How is abortion not a product of Original Sin?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
That just makes it more confusing, is he impugning my motives for being anti-abortion or arguing with Croesos? Either way I suspected Mousethief's comment was just a smokescreen, to avoid dealing with how sin is the primary cause of abortion.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
And my point was that you're addressing the wrong thing. Attacking abortion is too late, what you need to attack is deification of sexual depravity, as that's what is leading to the unwanted pregnancies that are being terminated.
By the time someone has got to the point of an unwanted pregnancy, surely they have been sinning? And it's that sin that leads to the sin of abortion?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I only argue that in all questions of abortion, the fundamental right to exist of the human being that has not yet been born is always recognised and taken into account. At the moment it is not considered as a factor and the rights of the mother are always the only rights considered.
If that were the case, women would be able to have abortions at any stage of the pregnancy, no questions asked. The limits that are placed on abortion implicitly reflect society's view of the baby/embryo/foetus's rights.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
