Death for Abortionists!

What you are describing is inconsistency not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is professing a belief one doesn't actually hold.

It is inconsistent for those who say that abortion is murder and that murderers should be executed to then say that abortionists should not be executed.

It's only hypocrisy ("base hypocrisy" is somewhat redundant unless you believe there is virtuous or elevated hypocrisy) if the speaker doesn't actually believe abortion is murder or that murderers should be executed.

There are plenty of people who believe abortion is murder who do not believe Capital Punishment is an appropriate punishment for all murderers

There are also people who believe that while abortion is murder, it is also, unfortunately, illegal and that until it is made illegal an abortionist, while perhaps deserving of death, cannot and should not be executed.

It seems to me that it is inconsistent too that someone might believe abortion is murder, but still allow for it to be conducted in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother. I don't think this is hypocrisy though, simply an inconsistency spawned of trying to reconcile an extreme aversion for the premeditated killing of an unborn baby and compassion for an innocent mother.

Speaking of inconsistency, here you have linked your ire to those who are being hypocritical to gain votes, and yet in your original posting you defined the base hypocrisy as 'the "Right to Life" position of most conservatives.' There's an inconsistency here unless you are of the opinion that most conservative are running for one election or another.

The premise of your overreaching charge rests upon your absolute assurance and insistence that most conservatives believe that all murders should be executed and that all abortion is murder. Is this merely your impression or can you substantiate such a claim?

What is particularly courageous about calling for abortionists to be executed or women who seek abortions to be jailed, particularly if one doesn't belive either should happen?

And just like hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty requires that the perpetrator knows full well that an argument is flawed or false and yet continues to press it.

Your argument that most conservatives views on abortion are hypocritical would be intellectually dishonest if you recognized its fallacious nature, but apparently you do not and so, in this instance, you can't be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

There is no inconsistency (let alone hypocrisy) in opposing nearly all forms of government payment for abortion, supporting abortion in the cases of rape incest or threat to a mother's life, and also supporting the outlawing of most abortions.

Bush opposes nearly all forms of government funding for abortion (Note this doesn't even refer to the legality of abortion, and by logical extension means that he supports some forms of government funding)

Bush supports abortion for three (some) specific cases

Bush supports the outlawing of most abortions

No inconsistency, and no sign of hypocrisy.

How is it cowardly or intellectually dishonest to say that one believes most abortions should be illegal but that one hasn't sorted out the penalties that should attend the crime? Do you have evidence of a speech given the day before where Bush called for the execution of abortionists and the jailing of women who sought abortions? Do you have evidence that supports that notion that when Bush provided this answer that he had, indeed, already sorted out the penalties issue?

You may (or may not) find it acceptable that abortion be allowed without restriction, but others do not, and, by definition, this precludes them from hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty when they argue that abortion with or without exceptions should be banned.

You have made the insinuation that Bush's answers are, somehow, proof of his dissembling to secure votes. The cited section in no way supports such an insinuation. I didn't bother to connect to the link, because if you are going to make charges like this you should be able to cite the pertinent sections, and not rely on us to find your evidence for you.

Did Bush comment previous to the answer you cited that he believed abortion was murder, and that all murderers should be executed? If he did, then Groer did a good job in making him sorely contradict himself. If he did not, what's your point?

I agree wholeheartedly in that it is quibbling semantics. Thing is, we probably part company on whether the semantics is appropriate.

If it's quibbling, it can't be appropriate.

I can't, at the moment, think of a moral debate that is characterized by semantics to a greater degree than is the abortion debate.

We agree, which is why I felt it necessary to characterize the particular semantics in which you engaged as quibbling. Again, I may not have followed your point, but in the context of princesspupule's comments, the fact that the second a fetus takes a breath and survives outside of the womb (if only for a second) it can, technically, no longer be called a fetus, seems to be quibbling, and I'm afraid your followup post hasn't, for me, clarified your position.

Semantics it is, but not by my choosing, as the framework of the issue itself forces it.

My arguments about abortion tend to center on quality of life, and not definitions. I adopted this position after living in a country where abortion is illegal. I used to think abortion was murder.

Thing is, Stateside, this debate is reduced to semantics and definitional tug-o-war. The realities of the implications of this issue on quality of life do not resonate with Americans as strongly as it might under the backdrop of less fortunate populace.

People who oppose abortion may well think they are doing the infant a favor, hell I used to. But they neglect to consider the implications of a life led devoid of quality and the implications birth control has on said quality of life for many.

This is less an argument for the validity of abortion than an argument for or against all sort of other social solutions and problems. It is based on a level of pessimism that denies human potential on both a species and individual basis, and irrespective of whether or not such potential exists or is overrated, you are failing to address the most important question generated by your position: Who gets to decide if the infant is better off aborted than born?

For most Pro-Choice supporters, this question is irrelevant, because they have focused their arguments on an assertion that the infant/fetus really has nothing to lose, that it is a mass of tissue, a parasite with no human rights. If it cannot be robbed of anything how can it be spared anything?

But it doesn't seem that you subscribe to this line of thinking so I again ask: Who gets to decide?

Millions of children are born into situations that make me think abortion is more charitable in many instances.

One can very reasonably argue that death is preferable to a life of misery, but it seems to me that's a deeply personal decision to be made based on one's personal perception of the quality of life. If I had been John Merrick, the famous "Elephant Man," I'm convinced I would have killed myself rather than endure the physical and emotional suffering that burdened him, and yet he did not.

That a fetus is unable to make this sort of personal decision is problematic, but then born infants are unable to make this decision too. Is it acceptible for some one other than the infant (The mother, the parents, the State) to decide their lives are potentially too miserable to justify continued life and therefore rightfully euthanize them?

At least in the case of an adult who is incurably suffering and is unable to express his or desire concerning continued life with can rely upon prior documented or expressed wishes, or even the basic understanding of that person's nature by a loved one. No one knows what a fetus or an infant wants in the face of a life that only may bring misery.

Just as we sometimes justify putting an animal "out of its misery" I contend that the same can be true of humans.

But many find that appaling. Our empathy with humans is such that such logic in ethics when applied to humans instead of animals is off putting to many because of what I believe is a collective survival instinct within our species.

My arguments on this issue center on my preference toward minimizing quantity of suffering than minimizing the concept of death, and improving quality of life rather than quantity.

But to get a debate like that in America is hard, and in America people seem to think the morality boils down to definitional incompatibilities on what a fetus is, and when life begins and whether it's pro choice or pro life or....

Me, I'm anti-suffering, I think a life of suffering is worse than death. I just never find abortion debates on that issue, and often end up supporting my positions on abortion under the rules of the game as played Stateside:

Well, you probably find it hard to engage in a debate on the issue in the States, because both sides of the issue are in opposition to your thinking.

If you place human life on the same level of sanctity as animal life, for the purposes of justifying abortion, you have, defacto, justified euthanasia for animals. Unless there is an intervening argument, it follows that euthanasia for humans is acceptible as well. Along this line of thought, however, it would seem that you are either a vegan, or have no difficulty with cannabilism, that you oppose the use of animals as involuntary beasts of burden or have no difficulty with slavery.

I am purposely being extreme here to make a point, that it is not sustainable to make a sweeping argument about abortion with a very limited argument about animal euthanasia. The mere fact that you argued "We can sometimes justify putting an animal 'out of its misery,'"
implies that we cannot always justify such action, and so we return to the question of when is it justifiable and who gets to decide?

Semantics and quibbling

Here in the US, it's all about moving the goalposts of definitions and precedents a certain way.

And let me point out that while I agree with some of your objections to the particular way Joe couched things I think he brings a valid point.

In moving the goalposts toward pro-life there is an appeal to formulating arguments on the basis of conceptual terms of life and death and minimizing the focus on consequence.

Joe points out the traditional minimization of the consequence that would be enforecement of changed legislation.

I think he's right to call it intellectual dishonesty, as people are more predisposed to agree that X is bad when the negatives of combating X (unwanted births, backalley abortionists....) are unspoken.

To the degree that Pro-Lifers refuse to consider or propose solutions to the problems that can and will arise from a ban on abortions I would agree that they are less than effective advocates of their position and short on responsibility, and I will go a step further that the same can be said if they do not consider and address the problems that give rise to unwanted births, but, whether or not describing this as intellectual dishonesty is a matter of quibbling semantics, it doesn't invalidate their basic premise.

One need not know how to stop someone from murdering or what to do with them when they are caught murdering to appreciate that murder is almost always wrong.

What Joe is doing linking the anti-abortion position with the pro-capital punishment position, manufacturing a hypocrisy concerning the fate of abortionists, and then ascribing the whole construct to most conservatives.

Similarly, positions on any issue are often more nuanced than people think. And when they might oppose something they may find that they oppose it less within the context of enforcing its proscription.

For example, more people think pot is a bad substance than those who think it is both bad and worth the consequences of proscription.

Some will argue that pot may be harmful but that a negative of enforcing its proscription (say, taxing of law enforcement resources for example) makes proscription unattractive.

Similarly, the pro-life camp tends to focus on the conceptual life/death and avoid focus on the consequences of unwanted children and also the consequences on changing a law to proscription.

One of said consequences is penalties, and I think Joe is right to point out that the pro-life camp generally keeps the focus on the life/death versus the greater picture of sociological impact (which includes the penalties to enforce proscription).

Again, to the extent that the pro-life movement excludes the sociological impact of a ban on abortion they are too narrowly focused and missing the opportunity to better advance their position, however for them, the life v death issue is the greater picture, and the other issues secondary. This is inherent in their position and it is intellectually dishonest to insist that they flip their perspective to that of their opposition.

Quote:

And just to throw in my own, possibly, quibbling semantics, if the use of "host" in describing the mother implies the fetus is a parasite, it is a misuse of the word.

It wasn't intentional, it came from someone else using cancer as a basis of comparison and the way it became couched had more to do with the transition from what is a parasite to any desire to characterize a baby as a parasite.

But I'll note that for personal reasons I am probably predisposed to seeing a baby as parasitical to a far greater degree than are you.

This is only relevant to the degree that the pro-choice movement seeks to dehumanize the fetus. In biological terms, the fetus is not a parasite, but it helps to advance the notion that abortion is a no harm no foul affair. In fact, it cynically and repulsively takes it to the next step. If the fetus is not a human life and is nothing more than a mass of tissue which can be disposed of without injury to the mother, how can their be a moral dilemma about killing it? And, if it is actually more than a senseless mass of tissue, but a parasite, isn't their the implication that an abortion is actually medically beneficial to the mother?

If one is seeking for intellectual dishonesty in the abortion debate, one need go no further than the argument concerning the absence of humanity in the fetus. The basis of Pro-choice is the independent freedom of a woman to exercise control over her body. I don't happen to think this freedom is absolute but I can accept that others might. What I can't accept is the effort to bolster this argument by removing all moral implications, as if the choice to abort a fetus is nothing more than the choice to have a tooth removed. Abortion is legal and so the choice is as well. I won't presume to say with any certainty how I might choose if placed in the position as a mother, a husband or as the father of a pregnant daughter, but I know that it would likely be one of the most difficult choices I ever had to make and I would expect it to be the same for all other people with a shred of conscience. Making the choice easy is not necessary to preserve its legality and leads to incredibly repulsive situations such as the one recently recounted in the NY Times, by the mother herself, wherein two of her three triplets were aborted because the financial burden of three infants would have forced the vacuous woman to move to the suburbs and shop at Wal-mart.

This is a complex issue which, at least for me, defies simple answers. The issue of personal choice relative to one's body and the rights and potential of human life have come together like tectonic plates and raised a mountain that divides us. How we create a path over or through this mountain is difficult to imagine.

If it's quibbling, it can't be appropriate.

We agree, which is why I felt it necessary to characterize the particular semantics in which you engaged as quibbling. Again, I may not have followed your point, but in the context of princesspupule's comments, the fact that the second a fetus takes a breath and survives outside of the womb (if only for a second) it can, technically, no longer be called a fetus, seems to be quibbling, and I'm afraid your followup post hasn't, for me, clarified your position.

This is less an argument for the validity of abortion than an argument for or against all sort of other social solutions and problems. It is based on a level of pessimism that denies human potential on both a species and individual basis, and irrespective of whether or not such potential exists or is overrated, you are failing to address the most important question generated by your position: Who gets to decide if the infant is better off aborted than born?

For most Pro-Choice supporters, this question is irrelevant, because they have focused their arguments on an assertion that the infant/fetus really has nothing to lose, that it is a mass of tissue, a parasite with no human rights. If it cannot be robbed of anything how can it be spared anything?

But it doesn't seem that you subscribe to this line of thinking so I again ask: Who gets to decide?

One can very reasonably argue that death is preferable to a life of misery, but it seems to me that's a deeply personal decision to be made based on one's personal perception of the quality of life.

That a fetus is unable to make this sort of personal decision is problematic, but then born infants are unable to make this decision too.

Is it acceptible for some one other than the infant (The mother, the parents, the State) to decide their lives are potentially too miserable to justify continued life and therefore rightfully euthanize them?

No one knows what a fetus or an infant wants in the face of a life that only may bring misery.

If you place human life on the same level of sanctity as animal life, for the purposes of justifying abortion, you have, defacto, justified euthanasia for animals.

Unless there is an intervening argument, it follows that euthanasia for humans is acceptible as well.

Along this line of thought, however, it would seem that you are either a vegan, or have no difficulty with cannabilism, that you oppose the use of animals as involuntary beasts of burden or have no difficulty with slavery.

I am purposely being extreme here to make a point, that it is not sustainable to make a sweeping argument about abortion with a very limited argument about animal euthanasia.

The mere fact that you argued "We can sometimes justify putting an animal 'out of its misery,'"
implies that we cannot always justify such action, and so we return to the question of when is it justifiable and who gets to decide?

To the degree that Pro-Lifers refuse to consider or propose solutions to the problems that can and will arise from a ban on abortions I would agree that they are less than effective advocates of their position and short on responsibility, and I will go a step further that the same can be said if they do not consider and address the problems that give rise to unwanted births, but, whether or not describing this as intellectual dishonesty is a matter of quibbling semantics, it doesn't invalidate their basic premise.

One need not know how to stop someone from murdering or what to do with them when they are caught murdering to appreciate that murder is almost always wrong.

What Joe is doing linking the anti-abortion position with the pro-capital punishment position, manufacturing a hypocrisy concerning the fate of abortionists, and then ascribing the whole construct to most conservatives.

Again, to the extent that the pro-life movement excludes the sociological impact of a ban on abortion they are too narrowly focused and missing the opportunity to better advance their position, however for them, the life v death issue is the greater picture, and the other issues secondary. This is inherent in their position and it is intellectually dishonest to insist that they flip their perspective to that of their opposition.

And just to throw in my own, possibly, quibbling semantics, if the use of "host" in describing the mother implies the fetus is a parasite, it is a misuse of the word.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

What you are describing is inconsistency not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is professing a belief one doesn't actually hold.

Not according to my Funk & Wagnall's.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It is inconsistent for those who say that abortion is murder and that murderers should be executed to then say that abortionists should not be executed.

It's only hypocrisy ("base hypocrisy" is somewhat redundant unless you believe there is virtuous or elevated hypocrisy) if the speaker doesn't actually believe abortion is murder or that murderers should be executed.

I disagree. One can certainly be a hypocrite by advocating two inconsistent moral positions.

For instance, if one were to say "murder is always wrong, but in your case I'll make an exception," I think we would be entitled to conclude that the speaker is being more than merely inconsistent.

Likewise, if one purports to adhere to a moral standard but who, in practice, deviates significantly from that standard, then I would contend that that person was being more than inconsistent.

Hypocrisy involves inconsistency; all hypocrites are, in some sense, inconsistent, but not all people who are inconsistent are necessarily hypocrites.

The key, I think, is the significance of the inconsistency. A person who claims that he is trying to lose weight but who eats a great deal of pork would, quite likely, be inconsistent. A person who claims that he is an observant Jew but who eats a great deal of pork would, I would contend, be a hypocrite.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There are plenty of people who believe abortion is murder who do not believe Capital Punishment is an appropriate punishment for all murderers

There are also people who believe that while abortion is murder, it is also, unfortunately, illegal and that until it is made illegal an abortionist, while perhaps deserving of death, cannot and should not be executed.

And I was not addressing those people.

Read what I wrote in my post again:

Now, as to your question: the "base hypocrisy" of which I speak is [b]the hypocrisy of those who believe -- as Coburn believes[/b] -- that a fetus is a person, abortion is murder, and murderers should be executed, and yet who do [i]not[/i] believe, or do not [i]admit[/i] that they believe, that abortionists should be executed.

As is evident from the highlighted passage, I was not concerned with people who disagreed with Coburn's position.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It seems to me that it is inconsistent too that someone might believe abortion is murder, but still allow for it to be conducted in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother. I don't think this is hypocrisy though, simply an inconsistency spawned of trying to reconcile an extreme aversion for the premeditated killing of an unborn baby and compassion for an innocent mother.

Well, as I explained above, I think this is a question of the significance of the inconsistency. You apparently do not see this as a particularly significant inconsistency. I, on the other hand, see it as a profound inconsistency.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Speaking of inconsistency, here you have linked your ire to those who are being hypocritical to gain votes, and yet in your original posting you defined the base hypocrisy as 'the "Right to Life" position of most conservatives.' There's an inconsistency here unless you are of the opinion that most conservative are running for one election or another.

That's a fair point. I'll amend my remarks to include only those right-to-lifers running for office as "base hypocrites." For all the others who engage in the "Bush Straddle," I'll content myself with describing them as "mere hypocrites."

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The premise of your overreaching charge rests upon your absolute assurance and insistence that most conservatives believe that all murders should be executed and that all abortion is murder. Is this merely your impression or can you substantiate such a claim?

I think I've been very careful to confine my remarks to those right-to-lifers who agree with Coburn, including Coburn's position on capital punishment. If I have said, anywhere, that I'm characterizing the entire conservative population as sharing Coburn's beliefs, then I mis-spoke.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

What is particularly courageous about calling for abortionists to be executed or women who seek abortions to be jailed, particularly if one doesn't belive either should happen?

The fact that Coburn, almost alone, actually admits to this position leads me to believe that he is courageously honest, since it appears that few others, in his position, would have risked the consequences of such a statement.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

And just like hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty requires that the perpetrator knows full well that an argument is flawed or false and yet continues to press it.

One can also be willfully blind to those consequences.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Your argument that most conservatives views on abortion are hypocritical would be intellectually dishonest if you recognized its fallacious nature, but apparently you do not and so, in this instance, you can't be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

Your kindness, though appreciated, is misplaced.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There is no inconsistency (let alone hypocrisy) in opposing nearly all forms of government payment for abortion, supporting abortion in the cases of rape incest or threat to a mother's life, and also supporting the outlawing of most abortions.

Yes there is. Leaving aside the funding argument (I also don't see any inconsistency there -- or, at least, no inconsistency that springs from Bush's position on abortion), it is inconsistent to believe (as, I think, Bush believes) that a fetus is a person yet, at the same time, believe that it is all right to kill that person if it is the product of rape or incest. Certainly we do not proclaim open season on "post-born" bastards or accord them fewer protections under the law simply because of the circumstances of their conceptions. Yet somehow the fact that a bastard is in the womb makes it less of a person? Sorry, but I don't find that to be merely inconsistent; I find that to be hypocritical.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Bush opposes nearly all forms of government funding for abortion (Note this doesn't even refer to the legality of abortion, and by logical extension means that he supports some forms of government funding)

Bush supports abortion for three (some) specific cases

Bush supports the outlawing of most abortions

No inconsistency, and no sign of hypocrisy.

Anyone who believes that a fetus is a person and that abortion is murder, but who allows for exceptions in the case of rape or incest, is, I contend, a hypocrite.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

How is it cowardly or intellectually dishonest to say that one believes most abortions should be illegal but that one hasn't sorted out the penalties that should attend the crime? Do you have evidence of a speech given the day before where Bush called for the execution of abortionists and the jailing of women who sought abortions? Do you have evidence that supports that notion that when Bush provided this answer that he had, indeed, already sorted out the penalties issue?

If Bush believed that fetuses are persons and that abortion is murder, he did not need to consider what the proper punishment for abortion should be: he should have known. The punishment for murder is set forth in every criminal code, as is the punishment for being an accessory to murder.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You may (or may not) find it acceptable that abortion be allowed without restriction, but others do not, and, by definition, this precludes them from hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty when they argue that abortion with or without exceptions should be banned.

By definition? How do you figure?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You have made the insinuation that Bush's answers are, somehow, proof of his dissembling to secure votes. The cited section in no way supports such an insinuation. I didn't bother to connect to the link, because if you are going to make charges like this you should be able to cite the pertinent sections, and not rely on us to find your evidence for you.

PM me and I'll explain to you how to use the "find" function on your computer.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Did Bush comment previous to the answer you cited that he believed abortion was murder, and that all murderers should be executed? If he did, then Groer did a good job in making him sorely contradict himself. If he did not, what's your point?

Read my post again. I used the "Bush Straddle" as an example of a politician who prevaricates on the issue of punishment. Frankly, I don't know if Bush ever said that abortion is murder, but I do know that he wanted to outlaw abortion (except in certain circumstances). What I don't know, however, is how he wanted to enforce that ban and what he considered to be appropriate punishments for those who defied it. That was my point.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If it's quibbling, it can't be appropriate.

Sez Finn. When others quibble I do not think it inappropriate to address their quibbling on the terms they demarcated.

Quote:

We agree, which is why I felt it necessary to characterize the particular semantics in which you engaged as quibbling. Again, I may not have followed your point, but in the context of princesspupule's comments, the fact that the second a fetus takes a breath and survives outside of the womb (if only for a second) it can, technically, no longer be called a fetus, seems to be quibbling, and I'm afraid your followup post hasn't, for me, clarified your position.

I can live with filing to clarify things for you, which is why I won't make much more effort than the following:

If sematic definitions of words are used as the basis of an argument in debate error in said definitions are pertinent.

Quote:

This is less an argument for the validity of abortion than an argument for or against all sort of other social solutions and problems. It is based on a level of pessimism that denies human potential on both a species and individual basis, and irrespective of whether or not such potential exists or is overrated, you are failing to address the most important question generated by your position: Who gets to decide if the infant is better off aborted than born?

1) No, my position is not based upon denying "human potential", just not denying quality of life concerns.

2) The person who gets to decide is the owner of the womb the fetus depends on to survive. I did not answer this question because it was not posed and because the answer is obvious.

Quote:

For most Pro-Choice supporters, this question is irrelevant, because they have focused their arguments on an assertion that the infant/fetus really has nothing to lose, that it is a mass of tissue, a parasite with no human rights. If it cannot be robbed of anything how can it be spared anything?

But it doesn't seem that you subscribe to this line of thinking so I again ask: Who gets to decide?

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I do not think a fetus is a mass of tissue, but to answer the question again; the owner of the womb the mass of tissue depends on to survive.

Quote:

One can very reasonably argue that death is preferable to a life of misery, but it seems to me that's a deeply personal decision to be made based on one's personal perception of the quality of life.

I'm inclined to agree, which is why the owner of the womb whose quality of life is also in question is the one who should make the deeply personal decision.

Quote:

That a fetus is unable to make this sort of personal decision is problematic, but then born infants are unable to make this decision too.

Both problematics and relevant to the criteria of suffering due to the relationship between degree of conciousness and suffering.

Quote:

Is it acceptible for some one other than the infant (The mother, the parents, the State) to decide their lives are potentially too miserable to justify continued life and therefore rightfully euthanize them?

Yes, because the mother is making a decision in regard to her own life and potential misery as well.

Quote:

No one knows what a fetus or an infant wants in the face of a life that only may bring misery.

I posit that you focus on what a mass of tissue wants (at a stage in development at which it does not) to the exclusion of concideration of the viable lives involved in the equation.

Quote:

If you place human life on the same level of sanctity as animal life, for the purposes of justifying abortion, you have, defacto, justified euthanasia for animals.

I did nothing of the sort. My comparison was toward the logical relationship between suffering and death. Not an equation of animal and human life.

I merely referenced animals because this logic's validity is widely recognized in their case.

Quote:

Unless there is an intervening argument, it follows that euthanasia for humans is acceptible as well.

Indeed, the criteria of life/suffering has implications on human euthanasia.

Quote:

Along this line of thought, however, it would seem that you are either a vegan, or have no difficulty with cannabilism, that you oppose the use of animals as involuntary beasts of burden or have no difficulty with slavery.

No. This relies on your revision of my use of animals as an example to your distortion of the example to assert equitablility.

Allow me to demonstrate:

1) To teach Bobby how math works a teacher gives him a problem to solve.

2X2

2) Bobby is unable to solve it.

3) The teacher starts explaining and offers as an example other multiplication answers such as 5X5.

Now the teacher has used an illustrative example, according to your logic you would have us believe that the teacher believes that 2 and 5 are equitable.

Quote:

I am purposely being extreme here to make a point, that it is not sustainable to make a sweeping argument about abortion with a very limited argument about animal euthanasia.

Thankfully, the issue of abortion is not restricted to your focus on animal euthanasia.

Quote:

The mere fact that you argued "We can sometimes justify putting an animal 'out of its misery,'"
implies that we cannot always justify such action, and so we return to the question of when is it justifiable and who gets to decide?

Again, the mother, who is most dramatically affected by the decision due to her consciousness and immediate involvement.

Quote:

To the degree that Pro-Lifers refuse to consider or propose solutions to the problems that can and will arise from a ban on abortions I would agree that they are less than effective advocates of their position and short on responsibility, and I will go a step further that the same can be said if they do not consider and address the problems that give rise to unwanted births, but, whether or not describing this as intellectual dishonesty is a matter of quibbling semantics, it doesn't invalidate their basic premise.

Their failure to address the consequences might not invalidate their position, that much is obvious.

But so is it obvious that one reason to avoid addressing consequences is that said consequences might.

Quote:

One need not know how to stop someone from murdering or what to do with them when they are caught murdering to appreciate that murder is almost always wrong.

This is not about not knowing, but rather the consequences being a net negative.

If an action's proscription results in conseuences that render the proscription a net negative then said negatives are relevant to the avisablility of the proscription.

Quote:

What Joe is doing linking the anti-abortion position with the pro-capital punishment position, manufacturing a hypocrisy concerning the fate of abortionists, and then ascribing the whole construct to most conservatives.

Hypocrisy is subjective, and I am certainly not going to get into Joe's use of it, as I'm not as interested in the perceived hypocrisy.

Similarly, positions on any issue are often more nuanced than people think. And when they might oppose something they may find that they oppose it less within the context of enforcing its proscription.

For example, more people think pot is a bad substance than those who think it is both bad and worth the consequences of proscription.

Quote:

Again, to the extent that the pro-life movement excludes the sociological impact of a ban on abortion they are too narrowly focused and missing the opportunity to better advance their position, however for them, the life v death issue is the greater picture, and the other issues secondary. This is inherent in their position and it is intellectually dishonest to insist that they flip their perspective to that of their opposition.

This is mere wordplay Finn. By this logic anyone who questions the position of others is "intellectually dishonest" for their attempt to have the opponent change positions.

This is the second time you insult the now inconsolable term "intellectual dishonesty" in this thread by making an argument that is tantamount to equating the forwarding of an opposing position to "intellectual dishonesty".

Again, the term has specific logical meaning that is often lost of those who either get hung up on the "dishonesty" part or the perception that its negativeness needs to be retributed.

Quote:

And just to throw in my own, possibly, quibbling semantics, if the use of "host" in describing the mother implies the fetus is a parasite, it is a misuse of the word.

It wasn't intentional, it came from someone else using cancer as a basis of comparison and the way it became couched had more to do with the transition from what is a parasite to any desire to characterize a baby as a parasite.

But I'll note that for personal reasons I am probably predisposed to seeing a baby as parasitical to a far greater degree than are you.

With the large ending paragraph I will however simply agree that I find it disingenuous for anyone to argue that there are no moral implications of aborting a fetus.

I don't, however, know anyone who argues that position and coupled with my waning interest this leaves me with only that to say at the moment.

1) No, my position is not based upon denying "human potential", just not denying quality of life concerns.

2) The person who gets to decide is the owner of the womb the fetus depends on to survive. I did not answer this question because it was not posed and because the answer is obvious.

Quote:

For most Pro-Choice supporters, this question is irrelevant, because they have focused their arguments on an assertion that the infant/fetus really has nothing to lose, that it is a mass of tissue, a parasite with no human rights. If it cannot be robbed of anything how can it be spared anything?

But it doesn't seem that you subscribe to this line of thinking so I again ask: Who gets to decide?

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I do not think a fetus is a mass of tissue, but to answer the question again; the owner of the womb the mass of tissue depends on to survive.

Quote:

One can very reasonably argue that death is preferable to a life of misery, but it seems to me that's a deeply personal decision to be made based on one's personal perception of the quality of life.

I'm inclined to agree, which is why the owner of the womb whose quality of life is also in question is the one who should make the deeply personal decision.

Quote:

That a fetus is unable to make this sort of personal decision is problematic, but then born infants are unable to make this decision too.

Both problematics and relevant to the criteria of suffering due to the relationship between degree of conciousness and suffering.

Quote:

Is it acceptible for some one other than the infant (The mother, the parents, the State) to decide their lives are potentially too miserable to justify continued life and therefore rightfully euthanize them?

Yes, because the mother is making a decision in regard to her own life and potential misery as well.

Quote:

No one knows what a fetus or an infant wants in the face of a life that only may bring misery.

I posit that you focus on what a mass of tissue wants (at a stage in development at which it does not) to the exclusion of concideration of the viable lives involved in the equation.

Quote:
What Joe is doing linking the anti-abortion position with the pro-capital punishment position, manufacturing a hypocrisy concerning the fate of abortionists, and then ascribing the whole construct to most conservatives.


Hypocrisy is subjective, and I am certainly not going to get into Joe's use of it, as I'm not as interested in the perceived hypocrisy.

Similarly, positions on any issue are often more nuanced than people think. And when they might oppose something they may find that they oppose it less within the context of enforcing its proscription.

joefromchicago wrote:

I disagree. One can certainly be a hypocrite by advocating two inconsistent moral positions.

Only if one appreciates that the positions are inconsistent and doesn't believe in one or the other, or both. This is not mere quibbling semantics because hypocrisy requires deliberate misrepresentation and falsehood and it is very much this element of intent which you charge to those you accuse.

joefromchicago wrote:

For instance, if one were to say "murder is always wrong, but in your case I'll make an exception," I think we would be entitled to conclude that the speaker is being more than merely inconsistent.

Sure we would but who is saying anything like this?

joefromchicago wrote:

Likewise, if one purports to adhere to a moral standard but who, in practice, deviates significantly from that standard, then I would contend that that person was being more than inconsistent.

Agreed, but again who is doing this?

joefromchicago wrote:

Hypocrisy involves inconsistency; all hypocrites are, in some sense, inconsistent, but not all people who are inconsistent are necessarily hypocrites.

We agree!

Our disagreement here may be simply one of semantics. I don't know how significant it is that a self-professed Orthodox Jew eats pork, but if he or she makes a point to publicly profess his or her orthodoxy and yet eats pork, there is hypocrisy.

You repeatedly indicated you were addressing most conservatives who oppose abortion, and so unless you think that those who subscribe to the above positions are a minority within conservatives (in which case I renew my request that you offer proof of this alleged demography), then you are addressing "those people."

So you, as a purist, would have them declare for banning or allowing all abortion, without exception. By that logic, someone who supports a woman's choice but opposes partial birth abortion is a hypocrite. I wouldn't have thought you were such an absolutist Joe.

How magnanimous of you.

You've not been so careful unless you believe that most conservatives with an anti-abortion position agree with Colburn. If you do, then either admit that this is simply your impression or offer some evidence to support the contention. Of course you haven't said anywhere that the entire conservative population shares Colburn's beliefs, and so you retraction is, at best, hollow.

Well, I suppose the person who stands at the corner of 5th Avenue and 116th Street in Harlem and pronounces that African-Americans are gene trash, is, in a manner of speaking, courageous, but this hardly suggests that everyone who does not is a coward.

This is quite weak. Willfully blind is merely an artful way to express disingenuousness, hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty. You can't sneak unintended inconsistency into the scope of intellectual dishonesty through this word trick.

How so? Do you recognize the fallacious nature of your argument?

]They do not reveal that Bush believe what you suggest they do. If you have other quotes, please provide them but please stop trying to rephrase the ones you've provided to fit your argument.

That Bush believes a fetus is a person and still accepts aborting a fetus in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother, is not inconsistent (let alone hypocritical), unless he has argued that persons should never be killed. Hard as I might search, I don't find this argument in the quotes you have provided.

joefromchicago wrote:

By definition? How do you figure?

Since they actually do believe that abortion should not be allowed without restriction, there is nothing hypocritical or intellectually dishonest about their arguing that abortions, with or without exceptions, should be banned. It would only be hypocritical or intellectually dishonest if they argued for banning abortion while actually believing that abortions should be allowed without restriction.

joefromchicago wrote:

PM me and I'll explain to you how to use the "find" function on your computer.

Cute, but evasive.

You now, finally, admit to not knowing that Bush ever said that abortion was murder and yet you have repeatedly used it as a fundamental element of your prior arguments.

So it boils down to your not knowing how he wanted to punish those who violated the abortion ban he advocated. And this implies he's a hypocrite?

He admitted he had not formulated an opinion on what punishment would be appropriate. You might find this hard to believe, but it is what he said, and unless you can prove that he actually had formulated an opinion prior to this debate, your charges of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty remain baseless.

Your argument that those who think like Colburn but refuse to express these beliefs as Colburn did, for fear of political fallout, are hypocritical is essentially valid, however you have taken a segment which you have no way of quantifying and expanded it to most conservatives, and you have placed former President Bush within this segment without any basis for doing so beyond what you think he might have believed, in spite of what he said.

No offense, Cdk, But this is b.s. You aren't addressing quality of life concerns at all.

Suppose you have 2 women, pregnant. The 1st is a crackhead, addicted, smoking and drinking throughout her pregnancy, but desiring to bring her fetus into this world, a live baby at that point... The other woman is health conscious, but unwilling to bring her fetus into this world a breathing member of society. Which one has the better quality of life?

Which decision regarding quality of life is more valid?

Would it be more logical, then, if quality of life is the concern, for the state or some other reasoning body to come in and mandate euthanizing the crackhead baby with FAS?

After all, we're talking about quality of life concerns, or so you say...

You agree w/Finn, "One can very reasonably argue that death is preferable to a life of misery, but it seems to me that's a deeply personal decision to be made based on one's personal perception of the quality of life." However, you say, "the owner of the womb whose quality of life is also in question is the one who should make the deeply personal decision." Why not wait for the child to form its own opinion?

CdK, why shouldn't we be interested in Coburn's perceived hypocrisy?

I agree that it is more nuanced than people think, that one side cannot call the other side idiotic for inconsistancies.

It's interesting to me, where different people draw the line in the sand, who has what right?

I disagree w/abortion. I am in favor of birth control, and wish every ovulating woman had the morning after pill in her medicine cabinet, along with other methods of birth control.

Slightly OT, but if you don't mind answering before your interest in this thread completely wanes, if you don't mind answering a newcomer's question, why are you probably predisposed to seeing a baby as parasitical to a far greater degree than others are?

Perhaps it is only fitting that Coburn seeks to represent Oklahoma in the senate along with James Inhofe, widely regarded as the dumbest senator of them all.

Anyone from the Sooner State care to comment?

What was the score the last time the Okies played any football team from Illinois?

She's thrilled to see the resources available now to parents, from curriculum to legal defense to creation science programs and even extracurricular activities like athletics.

The College is, and shall always remain, a Christian institution dedicated to bringing honor and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ in all of its activities. Each Trustee, officer, faculty member and student of the College, as well as such other employees and agents of the College as may be specified by resolution of the Board of Trustees, shall fully and enthusiastically subscribe to the following Statement of Faith:

1. There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

3. Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh.

4. The Bible in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the inspired word of God, inerrant in its original autographs, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living.

5. Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of salvation, which is exclusively found by faith alone in Jesus Christ and His shed blood.

6. Christ's death provides substitutionary atonement for our sins.

7. Personal salvation comes to mankind by grace through faith.

8. Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead.

9. Jesus Christ literally will come to earth again in the Second Advent.

10. Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.

Mission
The mission of the Department of Government is to promote practical application of biblical principles and the original intent of the founding documents of the American republic, while preparing students for lives of public service, advocacy and citizen leadership.

Jay Grimstead, was a former Moonie, and promoter of the notorious, cult-like Shepherding Movement in the 1970's. "Shepherding" has re-surfaced among the Promise Keepers, and in protestant churches; its premise is to appoint a mentor to guide a small group of Christians in their spiritual and worldly paths, using a "covenant" to bind the members of the group together. The men are encouraged to foment a pseudo-warrior-like us versus them, good versus evil mentality.

It's not just death to abortionists, folks. It's death to democracy.

Welcome, Offred.

And to add to the fun, Falwell's new law school to train up a generation of lawyers with good christian values. And did we know Harvard was a cess pool of commies?
http://www.wtov9.com/education/3664283/detail.html