Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 11-18-2011, 11:40 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
It's of a piece of a moral general approach (at least apparently, and I could be misunderstanding something or it's not clear). This people-have-value-as-means approach, from a Kantian analysis. Humans are valuable not in themselves, but because they will reproduce.
Yes, that's what seems fundamentally immoral to me about the argument.

Quote:
This link between degeneracy and lack of fecundity seems an odd one.
I expect it's an effort to shoehorn contemporary America into a certain set of ideas about the decline of Rome. Or a focus on falling birthrates in the west in general. Abortion isn't a big part of that, though, so it's a bad argument even apart from the more fundamental problems.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-18-2011, 11:52 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Personally, I agree with Kezboard's views as stated above
I think kez's post is an excellent statement of the pro choice side of the argument, and was not at all referring to her or similar statements in my post.

Quote:
I think pro-choice/life people generally DO understand "good faith" arguments on the other side.
IME, some, even many, people on both sides of the issue have a hard time seeing the opposing views as based on good faith disagreements, but instead explain them in other ways. This is a problem with mutual discussion and creating any ability to work together. There are other reasons, including fundamental diagreements that reach even the areas where there seems to be more agreement on the surface, and distrust, but it's still useful, IMO, to try and address the problem to which I was referring.

Your restatement is a generalization about what people in general understand, and I think it might be true as a generalization, but because so often there is no communication between people on opposing sides, I have found a lot of times it is not true in specific cases. This is often helpful for activism on both sides, also, in contrast to the overall view of the American public on average, which is that it's a complicated issue on which there aren't really clear answers. (That statement leads to the kinds of polls in which many people consider themselves both pro life and pro choice, an unwillingness to take the extreme positions, so on. People are willing to be what seems to ideologues inconsistent on the issue.)

Like you, I know a lot of people on both sides of the issue, including activist types. I used to be quite involved in efforts to get discussions going between the two sides. So I respect your experience, but don't think it disproves mine or the problem I see. Again, I'm not referring to everyone.

Edit: I'll stop being defensive and actually address some of the "lecture."

Last edited by stephanie; 11-18-2011 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:23 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I guess it would be useful to define "feminize" and "masculine" in this context. I think someone asked Sulla to do so a while back but the discussion got sidetracked into whether there is such a thing as sexual harrassment. What working definitions did you have in mind when you wrote the above?
I'd go with common, ordinary definitions. Basically, it's when men assume traditionally female roles or characteristics in work or social interactions. Are you denying that this has happened?

I didn't say it was a bad thing per se. Personally, I don't give a crap if gender roles are reversed, but don't tell me you haven't noticed.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:39 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Well, leaving the catholic church aside, I agree that the group that opposes birth control is quite small. But they are also very vocal.

And to the extent that they're a problem, they're a problem on your side of the abortion argument, not mine.
You seemed to be saying they're a big problem in your post to Ocean. Why would people who oppose abortion, no matter what their view of birth control, be a problem? There isn't even a remote chance that Roe v Wade will be upended. That a small subset of people who oppose birth control will have influence on their children can't be much of a problem either, as I see it.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:41 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
I disagree completely - you are only making excuses. How many 16 year-olds do you see in front of Home Depot looking for work?
I see Mexicans in front of Home Depot looking for work.

But even that kind of work is disappearing. The robot future is coming and those without skills are going to be jobless.

Quote:
And sorry but college degrees are fast becoming the most overrated commodity out there. The government's explosion of worthless college grad jobs is coming to an end.
I completely agree. But it's also true that college degree holders are still the least unemployed. And that means if you're having children without the means to provide them with an education or some definite skill set, you're more likely to be on the dole.

Quote:
People are actually going to have to produce but they have to want to work first and this coddled generation doesnt get that.
I actually kind of share your outrage. Hah.

Quote:
Responsibility of actions solves almost every societal ill.
Yes, but parents who have no sense of responsibility cannot raise children to be responsible, either. You and I agree on theory, but why not instead ask how to make the irresponsible more responsible? Don't worry, my solution isn't, "We need a new government department to do X."

Quote:
You are really only saying that we shouldn't expect or demand that people act responsibly and in fact we must compound the irresponsibility by killing children before they are born to contaminate the world with more irresponsibility. In the long run this philosophy only makes things worse, it promotes chaos, as just about every urban area has shown.
Denmark promotes eugenics and they might be the happiest people on the planet. And China vis-a-vis India also refutes your claim.

I'm not going to argue with you about the morality of terminating fetuses. I get that you feel strongly about it and I empathize, even if I do not sympathize. However, the outrage over abortions is a modern phenomenon; and even Christians, prior to the 20th century, did not assert embryos to be human beings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
"We must kill these children before they are allowed to suffer" is something that will go on forever. Teaching the people in these areas responsibility and healthy cultural attitudes stops the suffering/killing.
I won't purposely misinterpret your claims. I ask that you accord me the same courteousness.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 11-18-2011 at 12:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:42 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
I agree that the single issue abortion voters are on the fringe, but they're hardly exclusive to the right. I happen to personally know several single issue voters on abortion, except they're staunchly pro-choice, and pretty apocalyptic with their rhetoric.
I'd modify this a little, but I think this is true -- abortion and the way in which many on both sides see the issue as a crucial one that reveals something more about the other side and on which far more is likely to change than actually will, as a result of the law, tends to help both political parties. That's one reason why I think the "reasonable people can disagree" idea is not encouraged.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:44 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You seemed to be saying they're a big problem in your post to Ocean. Why would people who oppose abortion, no matter what their view of birth control, be a problem? There isn't even a remote chance that Roe v Wade will be upended.
I was saying it's a problem for the understanding that abortion will go away as an issue. And I actually think it is a real problem.

Let's just say if you think that there's no chance that Roe v. Wade will go away AND you also think that there's a real risk of the end of capitalism, you and I have completely inverted views of the future.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:45 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
However, the outrage over abortions is a modern phenomenon; and even Christians, prior to the 20th century, did not assert embryos to be human beings.
This is an important point, and the Roe v. Wade decision explicitly referred to the traditonal Christian understanding. Those who aren't familiar with it should look up "ensoulment" and "quickening"
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:46 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I see Mexicans in front of Home Depot looking for work. But even that kind of work is disappearing. The robot future is coming and those without skills are going to be jobless.
.
It's kinda hard to get a robot to build a brick wall and that entails a lot of skill especially if it's going to last more than one winter.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:48 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I'd go with common, ordinary definitions. Basically, it's when men assume traditionally female roles or characteristics in work or social interactions. Are you denying that this has happened?
I am not blaming for this but this is kind of circular. I understand that the definition of feminization is taking on traditionally female roles and characteristics, but what I was trying to get to was what you meant by "traditionally female roles and characteristics."

I understand that everybody has an intuitive understanding of these things but I also suspect that everyone's intuitions differ to some degree, so i want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'd like to expand on why this is unclear to me, but hopefully the above is a start. it's a hectic day at work.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:48 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post

Let's just say if you think that there's no chance that Roe v. Wade will go away AND you also think that there's a real risk of the end of capitalism, you and I have completely inverted views of the future.
good summation.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:53 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Abortion is an issue that was decided properly in the mid 20th century, and that has no real legal momentum into the 21st century.
As DZ said, that's not really true. It's an incredibly important part of the realignment and maintaining the current alignment for many voters and for the political parties. It is a reasonable position (although one can reasonably argue the other way too) that legally things aren't going to change much, that the main issue is access, which has to do with a lot more than the law, but that's not how it works politically. Despite the fact that Roe has been the law since '73, was reaffirmed in '91, and that most legal types don't think it's going to change substantially, many voters on both sides vote based on the hope of things changing, the fear of things changing, or simply and perhaps even more importantly, because they see views on these as a proxy for more and can't imagine voting for someone with the wrong views.

It's also something of a problem for those on the left who want to say the parties are basically the same, that other issues -- like war and peace -- should make more difference, since abortion is one of the issues that keeps both many leftwingers voting for the Dems and keeps many who might agree with a lot of more liberal economic positions voting for the Republicans.

Quote:
Most voters now understand that sexual morality is a private matter and that opposition to masturbation, birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, promiscuity and pornography is 99% religious and has no place in the public and political sphere.
You have a habit of asserting as true things that I think you simply want to be true. I do agree that we are farther toward this position as a society than we were in the '50s, say -- although some of the things you mention were never in the "political" sphere -- but I think you grossly overstate how much this is true, ignore that these kinds of issues are relevant to the culture war and the culture war is still relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
There will be a time in the forseeable future when abortion is utterly unnecessary. The sophistication of preventative measures will be near absolute, and easily reversible. As simple as taking a pill. I'm sure we all know that this isn't "science fiction", we can see the improvement in these products within our own lifetime to the point where we marvel at their function.
There already are preventive measures that work almost without fail: contraception for both men and women. There is also the "morning after" pill that nips pregnancy in the bud. Utopia is here. No need for science fiction. Between preventing pregnancy and terminating pregnancy, what utopian possibility is there?

Quote:
When that time comes, this issue will be seen as the great failing of the age. Just as you would probably speak about the outrages of ancient slavery, surrounded as you are by the wonders of modern technology, our children or at most, our grandchildren will be mortified to learn what people did to infants in the womb. They will consider us to be little better than the Mycenaeans swinging the little body of Astyanax around our heads.
That seems to me unlikely. As long as there are women and men who, through carelessness, inexperience, stupidity or whatever, conceive a child without wanting it, there will be abortions. And that means removing--- in some fashion more or less gruesome---the unborn infant from the womb.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 11-18-2011, 01:23 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I am not blaming for this but this is kind of circular. I understand that the definition of feminization is taking on traditionally female roles and characteristics, but what I was trying to get to was what you meant by "traditionally female roles and characteristics."

I understand that everybody has an intuitive understanding of these things but I also suspect that everyone's intuitions differ to some degree, so i want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'd like to expand on why this is unclear to me, but hopefully the above is a start. it's a hectic day at work.
That's fine. Conservatives romanticize a 1950s utopia with specific gender roles; we know what that is. The concept of the stay-at-home dad is no longer alien, even if it may be resisted by some. We can acknowledge that men have taken on more traditionally female roles and vice versa, right?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 11-18-2011, 01:28 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
It's kinda hard to get a robot to build a brick wall and that entails a lot of skill especially if it's going to last more than one winter.
That's true. That's why we should use prisoners and just have them rebuild it every winter.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 11-18-2011, 02:01 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
I see. There are no lengths I won't go to to push my dishonest, right wing agenda.
It's not that; it's the way you talk about the issue and the things you focus on.

Quote:
Though I doubt you disagree with me.
I disagree with you quite a lot, and I think most pro lifers I know would. I happen to think abortion is immoral and troubling in a lot of ways, although I'm not prepared to make early term abortions illegal, but I don't think my moral objections are at all similar to your reasons for wanting to change the law.

Quote:
But of course, you think abortion is a pretty decadent social phenomenon.
Decadent is a ridiculous word to use here. But of course you know that.

Quote:
I've addressed that issue elsewhere in this thread.
No, you haven't. You referenced the potentiality argument, but as DZ pointed out, that the embryo, that a fertilized egg has a potential of becoming a person does not mean that it is a person. If you want to make that claim, you need something more. That you have not even attempted to provide.

Quote:
In this portion of the debate we are discussing the inevitable conclusion of conception being a human being, and how that inevitability is what makes a child of greater moral stature than Don Zeko's dog, or a monkey.
Again, you just assert that. That a fertilized egg has the potential of becoming a human being makes it a person -- a philosophical concept -- why? Indeed, you yourself admitted to drawing lines, as you don't care about potentiality, apparently, until implantation, so why? On what grounds should DZ agree with your claim?

Moreover, we simply don't treat embryos, fertilized eggs, or even fetuses as identical to persons. We speak of them as babies, sure, but if there's a conflict between the health of the fetus and the mother, the treatment routinely prefers the mother. When the logical effects of something like the personhood amendment are discussed, no one seems to really want them. Pro lifers just want abortion banned. Indeed, pro lifers are often reluctant to punish the woman who has an abortion or even to take the efforts necessary to enforce the law. It's more a statement of values than analogous to how we treat murder. This is why pro choicers can reasonably question the claim by many pro lifers, often as a statement of religious faith, that they consider an embryo a person, morally identical to a baby. It's more complicated than that simple statement suggests.

Quote:
Why? What about the infant is significant outside of the womb to be granted a regime of rights by God himself, and what is lacking in that child within the womb? And where can I find this distinction in discourse about natural law?
You seem to be conflating natural law and natural rights.

Also, again, I'm not making an assertion about my personal view. I'm pointing out that it is generally accepted, with very little dispute, that infants are persons. Claiming that this is not obvious is an extreme position. What about being a person do you think infants lack?

Quote:
We assign rights to people who are born without brains.
That is, I think, largely by analogy, but we don't claim that they have the right to be kept artificially alive if they lack the basic physiology to breathe on their own. But, yes, we believe that born humans have a right not to be killed. We class all born humans as persons.

Quote:
Care to explain why we do that in the West, while allowing people to abort children who have cleft palates or a clubbed foot?
The suggestion that abortion is legal due to such defects is obviously wrong and a misleading way of arguing. The reason abortion is permitted under various circumstances is because the fetus is not considered a person.

Quote:
This is clearly arbitrary.
I said that in some cases, as with a corporation or the unborn for various purposes, the law classes as "legal persons" entities that aren't recognized as philosophical persons. That's just a statement of what is. Your response is a non-sequitor.

Quote:
Every single woman who carries a child she doesn't abort considers the pregnancy to be with a "baby", not a "fetus" or an 'embryo" or any other deliberately clinical term.
This is not an argument as to why an embryo is philosophically a person. Nor is it an argument for the position you asserted earlier, that humans are only treated as persons, assigned rights based on a status they don't yet have, prior to majority. The idea that one would not be a person before one is 18 is odd. What do you think a "person" is that adulthood would be necessary?

Quote:
This is more a matter of politics
It seems to be for you, but many people genuinely find the idea that a fertilized egg is morally identical to a baby puzzling, for obvious reasons. You seem unwilling to address that argument.

Quote:
You probably don't discuss abortion with fellow supporters of abortion that often.
I talk about abortion with people on all sides, and no, self-reliance is never brought up as the issue. That the woman is being required to support the fetus with her body is another aspect of the issue, separate from the personhood argument, but pro choicers tend to have a variety of views on that topic, IME. In any case, it doesn't support your suggestion that a baby isn't a person because it needs care.

Quote:
When?
When what? What I said that you are responding to is "I have not asserted that the unborn are not, at some point, a person." I have made no assertions on the issue at all. I have been responding to your argument that the fact an embryo (like a fertilized egg) has the potential to become a person makes it a person.

To discuss whether or not an embryo is a person, the question is what is a person. If you assert that potentiality is enough, you have to explain why, at least if you want to make a convincing argument.

Quote:
It is impossible to discern a moment between now, as I write this post, and when I, my self, did not exist as a human being.
Agreed.

Quote:
Reason dictates that if this is true, to interfere in the natural progression of pregnancy with the blades of the abortionist is to exterminate not just some mass in the stomach of a woman, but the man that child grows to be.
No -- that a seed becomes a tomato plant does not mean the seed is a tomato plant.

Quote:
If an infant is a person as you see it, why do you unconsciously refer to the infant as "it"?
It's common in British English to refer to a child of unknown sex as "it," and I think this makes sense. Easier than he or she. It's not a slam on the personhood of the child or infant.

Quote:
It is a different argument. One that addresses the supposedly secular nature of support for abortion.
If you don't address the moral value question -- explain why the embryo or fetus either is a person or has such moral value as to justify the legal burden on the pregnant woman -- you can't reasonably support the anti-abortion position without departing from generally accepted values (such as the need to have babies for the interest of society). Whether we are talking secular or religious values, that's the case.

Quote:
You have yet to offer any argument in support of your preferred abortion policy though, I notice.
My position isn't under discussion and it's based on different grounds, largely the role of the law and the disagreement on what is a fundamental issue.

Quote:
Of course I do. I disapprove of it; indeed at the outset I say it is decadent.
Yes -- you seem to find it distasteful in an abstract way, much like you think about gay marriage. You don't talk about it like someone who really considers it the killing of entities with rights, who are personally harmed. Yes, you made a reference to Saturn (and perhaps Medea), but the overall tone and the things that really seem to bother you aren't consistent with someone who genuinely thinks there are victims other than society at large of abortion.

Quote:
Rather than rend my garments and gnash my teeth before a gallery of smirking liberals mocking the idea of "cells" having human value, I am challenging the premises for abortion.
If it's so clear, surely you could make a real argument for it. Without doing so, you have no hope of "challenging the premises for abortion."

Quote:
I want a restoration of consequence in all things.
Again, your argument is inconsistent with plenty of other examples. Should I be refused medicine if I bear some fault in my getting sick? Can employment contracts be specifically enforced? Consequences do not involve every possible effect of an action. If there are options to avoid undesired consequences, people can take them unless there is some other reason why that option is precluded. Thus, that pregnancy is a consequence of sex does not, alone, mean that abortion should not be allowed. It should not be allowed only if it is both (a) bad in itself, and (b) so bad as to outweigh the other interests of the woman who will bear the burden.

Quote:
you don't seem to be able to muster an argument in rebuttal.
I'm addressing only the argument you have made. I'm interested in the arguments for and against abortion in generally, not in advocating for a particular position, at least not here. I expect my personal position wouldn't be all that popular with anyone on this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 11-18-2011, 03:00 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
It's also something of a problem for those on the left who want to say the parties are basically the same, that other issues -- like war and peace -- should make more difference, since abortion is one of the issues that keeps both many leftwingers voting for the Dems and keeps many who might agree with a lot of more liberal economic positions voting for the Republicans.
I don't see a lot of that in the real world. As I said, most leftwingers I know vote Dem., regardless of their views on abortion, which are often very "conservative." OTOH, many secular Republicans vote R even though they are pro-choice (including pro-choice activists who donate to Planned P and similars.)

Quote:
I do agree that we are farther toward this position as a society than we were in the '50s, say -- although some of the things you mention were never in the "political" sphere -- but I think you grossly overstate how much this is true, ignore that these kinds of issues are relevant to the culture war and the culture war is still relevant.
Relevant because a small group of hardcore well-funded activists can always make some difference, but waning in the general population. I think this is why Santorum types (who, I think, has debated quite well) get little traction and no one takes Huckabee types too seriously outside of hardcore red states.

I also think Ocean is right about the "yuck" factor of abortion. Morning after contraception and early stage termination address those issues, so the basics of contraception (use it! be educated about sex! have access to all means of birth control!) are a win-win. That part -- education and free condoms/counseling/early termination technology is only resisted on the far right.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 11-18-2011, 03:09 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I also think Ocean is right about the "yuck" factor of abortion. Morning after contraception and early stage termination address those issues, so the basics of contraception (use it! be educated about sex! have access to all means of birth control!) are a win-win. That part -- education and free condoms/counseling/early termination technology is only resisted on the far right.
I think resistance to sex ed that isn't abstinence only is more widespread than you're giving it credit for, and is largely an unreasonable expression of parents' reasonable discomfort with the sudden sexual maturity of their children. Hell, I've got a 16-year-old little brother, and I'm certainly experiencing a bit of an ick factor when I contemplate the likelihood that he is doing the kinds of things that I was doing when I was 16.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 11-18-2011, 03:20 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I think you are underestimating the amount of indoctrination that is occurring in a lot of churches, toward young people, about abortion. Unlike gay people, who are harder to demonize once people know a few of them, abortion remains less visible. And if your youth pastor is constantly peppering you with claims thatat the moment oif conception, a baby has a consiousness and a soul, etc., you aren't going to have any frame of reference to counter that, unlike the nonsense that same pastor may be spouting about gay people.
I don't know about what goes on in churches. A lot of young people don't go to church. And even those who do, and who get indoctrinated as you say, may decide that their own views on this topic don't give them a right to force the same on other people.

Perhaps as tolerance develops, regarding diversity, there's a growing sense of respect for what others believe and how they live without wanting to evangelize or moralize them to their religious tastes.

Hey, we're speculating about the future, so why not think up a different, more positive outcome?

(Yes, I know, you'll accuse me of optimism.)
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 11-18-2011, 04:00 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I don't see a lot of that in the real world.
I do. Obviously different subgroups will be different, and you've made it clear that you are coming from a perspective of people who are activists on certain leftwing issues. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that abortion might not be the issue on which they vote.

I also agree that there are many prochoice Republicans who simply ignore the abortion issue, assuming Roe is secure. This is why I suspect the Republicans would really prefer that Roe and Casey remain in effect. It's quite possibly an electoral problem for them if it does not, whereas now they can use it as a sword to attract prolifers who disagree with them on many other issues, and calm down the prochoicers who are economically conservative. However, that there are prochoice Republicans doesn't mean that abortion is not politically important to both parties or otherwise contradict my post.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 11-18-2011, 04:09 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I think resistance to sex ed that isn't abstinence only is more widespread than you're giving it credit for, and is largely an unreasonable expression of parents' reasonable discomfort with the sudden sexual maturity of their children. Hell, I've got a 16-year-old little brother, and I'm certainly experiencing a bit of an ick factor when I contemplate the likelihood that he is doing the kinds of things that I was doing when I was 16.
Yes.

There's also some degree of discomfort about clashing values and whether kids are being advised in a way that the parents wouldn't approve of, whether access is encouragement, so on. Just the usual "we the parents should decide about these things and by talking about them you are taking on a role that should be ours."

I can't find it, but in the late 90s, I think, I read an article, quite possibly in The Atlantic, about the roots of the culture war having a lot to do with people from different and more culturally unanimous areas -- often the city on the one hand and more rural areas on the other -- meeting in the 'burbs, where many of the first and most hotly-fought culture war battles were waged. Basically, they were used to schools having been run without objection to the way they assumed they should be, and ended up clashing with people with different assumptions. Before then, the different views had coexisted without really being aware of the other.

I'm explaining this badly and no doubt forgetting important details, but it was interesting and convincing.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 11-18-2011, 04:38 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
The non-selfish act is to abstain from sex as mind numbing excess without taking proper precautions.
What is "sex as mind numbling excess" and what does it have to do with abortion?

Your argument comes down to "don't have sex if you aren't willing to have a child" since even proper use of birth control has some risks. I'm fine with that rule as a personal one, but the claim that it's inherently selfish to have sex when having a child would pose a big problem is false. I know women who have struggled over the abortion decision and gone both ways, and I think it's normal -- not the case for all women, I'm sure, but quite common -- to feel pressured by responsibility, by what is right, by the desires of other and by concern for the resulting child to have an abortion, even when one would prefer not to. Obviously, if one believes the embryo or fetus is a "person," the consideration should be different.

Quote:
There will be a time in the forseeable future when abortion is utterly unnecessary.
Probably. Your arguments make it seem as if you wouldn't like this world, though. Actually, I know plenty of prolifers who wouldn't, although for different reasons than yours.

Quote:
Hmmmm.......what? Care to restate this?
You cannot assume that abortion being practiced in a society means that fewer children are born than otherwise would be. The number of children people go on to have after an abortion vs. the number they would have if they had had the child is not identical. To a significant extent the effect of abortion is delaying childbearing, not fewer children being born. I believe Kristen Luker's books talk about this.

Quote:
Adoption remains a ready alternative to mitigate the consequence of liberty.
Ah, so one can avoid consequences in some ways. Thus, the "consequences" thing is a red herring, that cannot be used to get around the essential disagreement about the act itself.

Quote:
The "burden"? Self-reliance is not a required attribute of personhood in any definition I've ever heard.
Correct, it's not. It is, in this context, a non-sequitur, as the burden obviously does not determine whether or not the unborn are persons and the two were not linked in the sentence to which you are replying.

Quote:
Ironic that the way to think of pregnancy and of children that is terrible is the one that keeps children alive
Much as you may want that to be what I said, it is not. Many prolifers don't think of pregnancy in the kinds of terms you used, as a punishment, a consequence that people must be forced to bear to avoid moral hazard, analogous to why companies should go bankrupt.

(Of course, bankruptcy itself is a way of avoiding certain consequences that would otherwise exist.)
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 11-18-2011, 05:17 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
That's fine. Conservatives romanticize a 1950s utopia with specific gender roles; we know what that is. The concept of the stay-at-home dad is no longer alien, even if it may be resisted by some. We can acknowledge that men have taken on more traditionally female roles and vice versa, right?
Before we agree, I am asking you what you mean (or what you think of when other people say, whatever you like) by "female roles"
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 11-18-2011, 05:22 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I don't know about what goes on in churches. A lot of young people don't go to church. And even those who do, and who get indoctrinated as you say, may decide that their own views on this topic don't give them a right to force the same on other people.
Oh, no, I agree.

My point is this.

1) a LOT of young people attend church regularly. Probably more than you might expect.
2) many churches engage in pretty heavy handed indoctrination.
3) the open-mindedness you cite is more amenable to experience with things like race and sexual orientation, than about abortion.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 11-18-2011, 06:28 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
I think some people on the pro choice side similarly are unwilling to see the opposing argument as one that can be held in good faith, and would, in fact, class Amanda among those. One counterpart for the "they must agree about personhood, really, and thus just think babies can be killed for convenience" position is "they must agree with me about the extent of coerciveness that is required to enforce pregnancy, and thus really be focused on control or sexism."
Yes, there are disagreements that people of good faith can have with regard to abortion. But I would have to class myself with Amanda among the people who don't take most pro-life arguments seriously. This is the sort of thing you don't want to say on message boards dedicated to political debate, but I think that the position I made clear in my last post -- that the fetus's rights increase with its development but never trump those of the mother -- is the only reasonable position. The position of the personhood amendment simply can't be taken seriously, both because they can't decide what "conception" means and why this is the beginning of life, and because they end up equating zygotes and blastocysts with newborn babies, despite the fact that they are just obviously more comparable to the contents of a tampon than a baby. The pseudo-intellectual justification for this is that they have the potential to become babies. This impresses people who are impressed by this kind of thing, but it's silly for the reasons Zeke talked about somewhere else in this thread. This argument reminds me of the Robert George argument against gay marriage, not just because it's so Catholic, but because it's not the reason anyone is actually against abortion. People are against gay marriage because they think it's icky and it offends their sense of propriety. The pro-life movement is against abortion not because they truly believe that embryos have the moral worth of newborn babies, but because they don't like sex, at least when it's not under the specific circumstances described by them.

How else can you explain the outrage of nearly everybody in this movement at the HHS decision to list birth control as preventive care requiring no co-pay? How else can you explain the "rape and incest" exception? How else can you explain the befuddlement, and also the condescension, about how women who get illegal abortions should be punished if abortion were illegal? How else can you explain the support for abstinence-only sex education no matter how many times it's proven useless, for purity pledges, and for generally denying the fact that the vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage?

They don't like abortion because they subscribe to an arbitrary kind of morality which says that putting your wing-wong in a willing partner's hoo-ha is immoral if you're not married to her, and that denying yourself a fun time by putting a wing-wong in your hoo-ha is a godly and moral act, because sex is not for fun times, it's only for making babies, so if you've had sex, you must have that baby. How do you have a real, good-faith argument with that if you don't share their sectarian assumptions?

edited because I screwed up the quote
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 11-18-2011, 06:46 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
I think resistance to sex ed that isn't abstinence only is more widespread than you're giving it credit for, and is largely an unreasonable expression of parents' reasonable discomfort with the sudden sexual maturity of their children. Hell, I've got a 16-year-old little brother, and I'm certainly experiencing a bit of an ick factor when I contemplate the likelihood that he is doing the kinds of things that I was doing when I was 16.
It's also because so many people have been persuaded that public education is an administrative failure and union scam, dominated by ideological liberals.

There's certainly some room for discussion about what subjects are appropriate at what age and how "graphic" to be in describing and appearing to condone sexual "experimentation."

I'm only saying that broadly speaking the sexual revolution is over and has been won by liberals. Yay!
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 11-18-2011, 06:47 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
Yes, there are disagreements that people of good faith can have with regard to abortion. But I would have to class myself with Amanda among the people who don't take most pro-life arguments seriously.
Just to make sure I'm being clear, I'm not talking simply about the failure to take the opposing argument seriously. I'm talking about a refusal to accept that there's a basic difference in how one's opponent is seeing the issue and thus assuming that the real disagreement is another. I think this is a common result of (a) not discussing the issue with people who disagree, (b) simply not being able to understand how someone could believe what the other side claims to, and (c) hearing some on the other side admit to other considerations, even as their primary motivations.

For the prolifers I've seen doing this, it's usually a difficulty in understanding how people couldn't think of the fetus as a baby, a person, and thus conceptualizing the prochoice position as justifying the killing of a person in their own minds. I think sometimes there's a tendency to just not see the burdens that pregnancy involves, also, how much is being asked (especially for younger people or men, IME), but I think the first issue is the bigger one.

For the prochoice version, I think it's either the reverse, the claim (which I understand) that no one really sees a fetus as a person, as demonstrated by the various differences in the approach to them of even prolife people, or it's the argument demonstrated by Michelle Goldberg a while back: that it's so clearly analogous to requiring blood or organ donation that it makes no sense that people who would never demand those things would demand this.

What I find worth arguing against in person (it's pointless on the internet) is not the view that the other side's position is not reasonable (even though I think both sides can be argued reasonably), but the idea that therefore the essence of the position is something else or the people holding the view are basically moral monsters or bad people.

Anyway, as this probably indicates, I don't agree with you that the prolife position in general is based on opposition to sex or that concern for the fetus is not a genuine part of it, but I certainly do agree that it's not nearly as easy to separate from the opposition to birth control or from the culture war, the basic distinctions in ideas about sex, as the argument on this board so far would have it.

Last edited by stephanie; 11-18-2011 at 06:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 11-18-2011, 06:53 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
I also agree that there are many prochoice Republicans who simply ignore the abortion issue, assuming Roe is secure. This is why I suspect the Republicans would really prefer that Roe and Casey remain in effect. It's quite possibly an electoral problem for them if it does not, whereas now they can use it as a sword to attract prolifers who disagree with them on many other issues, and calm down the prochoicers who are economically conservative.
That's exactly my point. Abortion as a broad societal right is a non-issue. The right-wingers who think it's a real issue are being scammed by their elected officials.

It's somewhat like "gun control" for liberals. I know that -- except around the edges with issues like tightening up licensing and keeping the AK-47 and automatic weapon discussion going -- the conservatives have won on the 2nd Amendment. Why on Earth would I pay any attention to what Obama or Hillary Clinton say about guns? Does it matter if they disagree with Sarah Pallin and Rick Perry? Of course not.

No Dem. is seriously ever going to challenge the "sacred" right to bear arms. Gun rights are safe, just as abortion rights are safe.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:00 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
How else can you explain the outrage of nearly everybody in this movement at the HHS decision to list birth control as preventive care requiring no co-pay? How else can you explain the "rape and incest" exception? How else can you explain the befuddlement ...
Never saw that one before but I have seen the like. Cognitive Dissonance anyone ?? Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller

Plenty of pro-life people will have answers for such a question but where will others in the pro-life movement, who don't have the answers, end up ? They can't tell you exactly what it is but they know what it isn't and it isn't murder. Ultimately it's the woman who decides anyway.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:03 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
No Dem. is seriously ever going to challenge the "sacred" right to bear arms. Gun rights are safe, just as abortion rights are safe.
I agree on the first part and have to disagree to an extent on the second. There are so many places in this country where women do not have remotely reasonable access to abortion. A procedure that could save their continued health and lives.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:08 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Yes, there are disagreements that people of good faith can have with regard to abortion. But I would have to class myself with Amanda among the people who don't take most pro-life arguments seriously.
I agree, except I would add that just because you win the scientific and rational argument doesn't mean that the "pro-life" decision is not worthy of the utmost respect, including respect for an anti-abortion view about the "sanctity of life."

Many women who are rational, scientific and secular would say, "I'd never have an abortion" (Never say "Never"). For some people -- unscientific though it may be -- pregnancy is a very serious life/nonlife boundary issue. I think virtually all pro-choice people get that. Nobody thinks an abortion is a trivial matter, like male masturbation or female menstruation, or even day after contraception.

I don't have a strong opinion about letting health care professionals opt out of performing abortions. If there were no shortage of providers and services, I certainly wouldn't worry about it.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:12 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
That's exactly my point. Abortion as a broad societal right is a non-issue. The right-wingers who think it's a real issue are being scammed by their elected officials.
I'm not so sure. Do I think Romney wants Roe overturned as opposed to just focusing on the edges? Or most of the elite Republicans, the business interests, etc.? Of course not. It would quite possibly hurt the Republican coalition more than the Dems at this point, and definitely cause a major shakeup and tension between the wings of the party. (On the other hand, richer people have far less to worry about from abortion being tossed back to the states.)

However, there are unintended consequences, and judges that are good on other "conservative" issues are also in most cases more likely to see abortion as an issue for the states. Add to that the need to placate the social cons, and the idea that Roe can't possibly be overturned seems quite wrong. Right now we have one justice (Kennedy) who voted with the plurality for Casey, and two justices who dissented (Scalia and Thomas). Of the rest, I think it's clear Ginsburg (who is likely the next to go), Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer (age 73) are not overruling Casey. I'm not at all sure how Roberts and Alito would decide. The idea that we can be sure that Romney or any Republican won't be able to find a justice who would overrule Casey/Roe is just wrong. Even if that's (secretly) not the plan, the most conservative justice(s) possible is going to be appointed, and even the president may be surprised. Arguably, that's what happened with Reagan's appointments the other way.

Of course, IMO, there are many other reasons to care about the Court, but the idea that there's no meaningful difference between the parties on social issues -- because the liberals have won! -- is not accurate, IMO. More significantly, social issues are still going to get the right to the polls.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:17 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
There are so many places in this country where women do not have remotely reasonable access to abortion.
This is despite the legality, though. It's not hard to imagine that if Roe were overruled and abortion given to the states that actual availability would change very little. It would still be available where I live, and not in many places where it's currently not. However, there'd be heated arguments and realignments of the political parties somewhat.

It's really nuts if prochoice liberals only care about the courts when focused on abortion, though, so if abortion works as a reason to remember that the courts matter, I don't mind, even if it's not the reason I care.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:39 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I agree, except I would add that just because you win the scientific and rational argument doesn't mean that the "pro-life" decision is not worthy of the utmost respect, including respect for an anti-abortion view about the "sanctity of life."
The problem I have with that is that people who so defend the sanctity of life, should be defending the sanctity of those who are born already. So, in order to be consistent with the principle, they should be antiwar, anti death penalty, pro aid to help those who are starving or dying from preventable diseases, pro animal rights, pro gun control. Why does the expanding circle have to expand into a woman's womb only?
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
However, there are unintended consequences, and judges that are good on other "conservative" issues are also in most cases more likely to see abortion as an issue for the states.
A more conservative Supreme Court might further erode abortion rights, but it's certainly not going to uphold criminal homicide prosecutions for women. It's not going to make a fetus a person. Not even Mississippi or the Pope can do that.

So it seems the worst case scenario in a Roe v. Wade overturn is that some retrograde states could prohibit practitioners from providing abortion services to women.

But they can't make it 1970 or 1870 again. Basically, a bad SC decision just means abortions go up in cost (includes a plane or bus ticket to a non-religious-right state). Abortion services are already restricted for poor rural women, so a de-secularized SC would make it worse, but it wouldn't undo the feminist revolution.

The spike in botched illegal abortions performed by non-professionals and population growth among the poorest, least educated and youngest single women might lead states to re-think the wisdom of a religious ban on necessary health services.

But I guess if the Deep South really wants to live in the Dark Ages and really gets the SC to allow it, we all just have to make the adjustments.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:50 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
This is despite the legality, though. It's not hard to imagine that if Roe were overruled and abortion given to the states that actual availability would change very little. It would still be available where I live, and not in many places where it's currently not. However, there'd be heated arguments and realignments of the political parties somewhat.
Yep this is an interesting line of argument as are a lot of state's rights issues. It would be useful to see how states would do thing and let the population sort themselves out. I just think of the suffering that goes on in states that restrict this medical procedure. It would be a bit of a pyrrhic victory when it comes to american women's lives and health in general.

Quote:
It's really nuts if prochoice liberals only care about the courts when focused on abortion, though, so if abortion works as a reason to remember that the courts matter, I don't mind, even if it's not the reason I care.
Yup. To work off of that, some people in general who don't care about whose president can definitely care about the courts and whatever gets them to care ... gets them to vote.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”

Last edited by thouartgob; 11-18-2011 at 07:53 PM.. Reason: f'in quotes and stuff
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:53 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
The problem I have with that is that people who so defend the sanctity of life, should be defending the sanctity of those who are born already. So, in order to be consistent with the principle, they should be antiwar, anti death penalty, pro aid to help those who are starving or dying from preventable diseases, pro animal rights, pro gun control. Why does the expanding circle have to expand into a woman's womb only?
Yes, I agree. I will say that many of the people I work with who are religious and pro-life DO in fact hold all the other positions you mention. I went to a talk in a church a couple of years ago by this guy . The talk attracted a lot of anti-war leftists and Catholic teenagers (probably their teachers made them go). His whole point to the youth was exactly what you were saying: if you're "pro-life," be consistently pro-life on the whole spectrum of issues; don't just be anti-abortion; that's too easy.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 11-18-2011, 08:03 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
pro animal rights
Here's some very mainstream American pro-life stuff(ing).

Happy Thanksliving!
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 11-18-2011, 08:14 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
ABut I guess if the Deep South really wants to live in the Dark Ages and really gets the SC to allow it, we all just have to make the adjustments.
Wasn't this one of the arguments against the approach Lincoln took?
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 11-18-2011, 08:16 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
The problem I have with that is that people who so defend the sanctity of life, should be defending the sanctity of those who are born already. So, in order to be consistent with the principle, they should be antiwar, anti death penalty, pro aid to help those who are starving or dying from preventable diseases, pro animal rights, pro gun control. Why does the expanding circle have to expand into a woman's womb only?
I don't agree with their view, but it's not inherently inconsistent. Add the qualifiers innocent human life, and that eliminates (in their minds) all of the above.
One has to make a whole lot of tenuous assumptions about a just world, but I find that people of a conservative bent tend not to have a lot of trouble with that.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.