quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 21, 2009 8:57:24 GMT -5
cut off your nose to spite your face |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 21, 2009 9:03:56 GMT -5
Comparing people with opposing viewpoints to Nazis isn't fair-minded words. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 21, 2009 13:21:52 GMT -5
What about the substance of the letter to the editor rather than snide words or using a reference to Nazis as a way to disparage what the writer's message is? What's the difference between saying you want to reduce the number of abortions and you want to reduce the number of slaves or the number of clergy abuses of children or teens or reduce the number of African Americans who can't eat at the lunch counter? To me it's the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 21, 2009 14:36:47 GMT -5
What about the substance of the letter to the editor rather than snide words or using a reference to Nazis as a way to disparage what the writer's message is? What's the difference between saying you want to reduce the number of abortions and you want to reduce the number of slaves or the number of clergy abuses of children or teens or reduce the number of African Americans who can't eat at the lunch counter? To me it's the same. I don't think anyone needs to answer these charges about alleged relativism before you explain how you are pro-life but apparently willing to support pro-death penalty judges who would incidentally reduce the scope of Roe v. Wade, or how you appear to have voted twice for national leaders who waged war under empirically incorrect pretenses, etc. As to the issues raised by the author of the letter, her opponents have one thing on their side that she does not appear to have challenged substantively - the laws of the United States of America. It isn't snide to reject comparisons to Nazis, slaveholders, etc. Those kinds of terms have no place in our politics and probably would not have been used by the letter author if she realized that, if applied strictly, it would create some unfortunate characterizations. |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 21, 2009 14:52:02 GMT -5
There are a few issues I have with it.
The argument makes sense if you are in the camp that believes that any abortion any time for any reason is wrong. And that you also believe that literally the only solution is that everyone in the United States abides by that and it is perfectly enforced. To say that we want it all like that instantly, and then to dismiss with that kind of rhetoric the idea of lowering the number of abortions is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If someone believes life begins at conception and that each of those lives matter, why wouldn't they welcome action to reduce the number of abortions, or even unplanned pregnancies themselves? Doing so does not preclude them from also working as hard as they can to eliminate abortion altogether.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 21, 2009 15:16:20 GMT -5
Yes, yes, we all know the internet law that the first person to bring up Hitler has lost the argument.
But the writer makes a point, and it's the same point I made earlier in this thread (without Nazi references!) - that, by Obama urging people to find common ground, he's making an argument that he can take people who want no abortions (a ban) and people who want what will result in a million abortions (full legality) and make a compromise of 500K. If someone believes that abortion is the taking of human life - no ifs, ands, or buts - than an argument to meet in the middle would be unacceptable morally - you're still, in that view, killing 500,000 babies who can't defend themselves, and that's wrong. In that view, you're not saving 500,000 humans - you're condemning half a million people to their deaths.
And, for the record, those who favor outlawing abortion have consistently picked away at abortion - rather than pushing for only bills which outlaw all abortions, they have been perfectly content to push for bills which outlaw items like late-term abortions. And groups like NARAL have never been known to be in favor of legislation that places any limits on abortion - if they do come out in favor of such legislation, it's always "this is a poor substitute for full legalization". The opponents of abortion and its proponents, at least in legislative and legal tactics, are very similar.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 21, 2009 15:38:06 GMT -5
Yes, yes, we all know the internet law that the first person to bring up Hitler has lost the argument. But the writer makes a point, and it's the same point I made earlier in this thread (without Nazi references!) - that, by Obama urging people to find common ground, he's making an argument that he can take people who want no abortions (a ban) and people who want what will result in a million abortions (full legality) and make a compromise of 500K. Obama said that the abortion debate can and should continue - not compromise - what he was asking for was two things : - fair-minded words (not comparing your opponents to Nazis, or for that matter slave-holders or pedophiles - and that works both ways) - working to reduce the root cause (unintended pregnancy), which would reduce the number of abortions I don't understand the argument that reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is "unacceptable morally". That's a moral no-brainer. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 24, 2009 9:09:51 GMT -5
1) I am pro life, but i would definitely welcome a reduction in the number of abortions.
2) I think legally the best we can hope for is to eliminate late term abortions. To eliminate all abortions after vitality. I can't see any justification for termination of a fetus that can survive thanks to modern medicine outside the womb.
3) While I believe that moral personhood and rights start at conception it is simply a belief and not a fact and therefore I do not think we can legislate it.
4) I think we need to increase social structures to assist mothers who want to keep their children or give them up for adoption to allow this women to actually have a choice.
5) we should work to the point where an abortion is the very last possible solution and rarely gets used. The remaining abortions will still be wrong. But it is the best we can legally achieve.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 24, 2009 13:30:40 GMT -5
1) I am pro life, but i would definitely welcome a reduction in the number of abortions. 2) I think legally the best we can hope for is to eliminate late term abortions. To eliminate all abortions after vitality. I can't see any justification for termination of a fetus that can survive thanks to modern medicine outside the womb. 3) While I believe that moral personhood and rights start at conception it is simply a belief and not a fact and therefore I do not think we can legislate it. 4) I think we need to increase social structures to assist mothers who want to keep their children or give them up for adoption to allow this women to actually have a choice. 5) we should work to the point where an abortion is the very last possible solution and rarely gets used. The remaining abortions will still be wrong. But it is the best we can legally achieve. Typical of someone who claims to be pro-life but is not as his actual beliefs and frame of reference contradict being pro-life. Why not say that someone does NOT believe human life begins at conception but that is simply a belief not a fact and therefore you do not believe THAT should be legislated? Or edicted from the Supreme Court? |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 24, 2009 15:58:36 GMT -5
I don't think the Supreme Court or an elected body can define personhood either way.
I think what Obama's main message is that there are ways to reduce abortions that don't rely on the government and changing laws. If the pro-life movement took all the time, money, and energy they've put towards trying to get abortions banned into adoption programs, support for single pregnant women, and reducing unwanted pregnancies, they'd have saved a lot more human lives (using their view of human life) than they have.
I understand that abortion is an incredibly emotional issue for a lot of people, but I think the pro-life movement has to be more practical and less ideological than they are. I know reducing ideology and being practical seems like heresy to a lot of pro-lifers, but it's necessary if they want to achieve their goals. They have to focus more on saving lives than on changing laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 24, 2009 16:27:03 GMT -5
sorry for being practical ed. I'm talking about starting from where we are now. Yes I would like to see abortions made illegal. I'm just saying practically I don't see it happening anytime soon so I think it's better to get them reduced first as a start. Sorry if you have a problem with that. I know lets try and alienate everyone that will do wonders for our cause.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 24, 2009 18:30:54 GMT -5
What would have been the reaction if the Catholic Church has said "ideally we'd like to eliminate all sexual activity between our priests and adolescents or youths but that's impractical at this time so we're going to set a goal of reducing the number of such cases"? Just being practical.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 24, 2009 19:16:22 GMT -5
What would have been the reaction if the Catholic Church has said "ideally we'd like to eliminate all sexual activity between our priests and adolescents or youths but that's impractical at this time so we're going to set a goal of reducing the number of such cases"? Just being practical. would have been better than what they did |
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on May 24, 2009 22:23:01 GMT -5
What would have been the reaction if the Catholic Church has said "ideally we'd like to eliminate all sexual activity between our priests and adolescents or youths but that's impractical at this time so we're going to set a goal of reducing the number of such cases"? Just being practical. The last time I checked, abortion is legal and pedophilia is not. Therefore, if the Church adopted that stance, they would still be in violation of the law. HSB wants to reduce the instance of a legal activity. The analogy falls flat on face. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 25, 2009 12:38:24 GMT -5
What would have been the reaction if the Catholic Church has said "ideally we'd like to eliminate all sexual activity between our priests and adolescents or youths but that's impractical at this time so we're going to set a goal of reducing the number of such cases"? Just being practical. Eliminating all sexual activity between priests and youths is a heck of a lot more realistic than eliminating all abortions. Even if you ban abortions, there will still be a ton of abortions, they'll just take place in back alleys where girls are likely to be raped or killed. In order to really eliminate abortions you'd have to do things like pregnancy monitoring, putting police in hospitals, and other extremely invasive methods. Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu is a good example of the dire consequences of a radical anti-abortion regime, although Ceausescu was trying to increase the population, not save lives. Like most other things, abortion an issue of supply and demand. Right now there's a lot of both for abortions. The pro-life movement has focused almost all of their efforts on eliminating the supply of abortions, but as long as there's demand the supply will be there. I think that they'd be a lot more successful at reducing the number of abortions if they focused on reducing the demand. With all their resources and energy, I think they'd be very successful if they put their efforts into that. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 25, 2009 20:10:55 GMT -5
What would have been the reaction if the Catholic Church has said "ideally we'd like to eliminate all sexual activity between our priests and adolescents or youths but that's impractical at this time so we're going to set a goal of reducing the number of such cases"? Just being practical. Hahaha. The fact that this is even a question is hilarious to me. Those are the same priests that you think have the ability to speak authoritatively about infinite truth, right? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 26, 2009 18:56:38 GMT -5
Amazing how people "lawyer" a post instead of concentrating on how ludicrous it is to merely call for a reduction in abortions, just the way it would be ludicrous to call for merely a reduction on priests abusing both youths and teenagers. Or merely calling for a reduction in slaves. Or merely calling for a reduction in murders. Or merely calling for a reduction in lynchings.
Add to this, the first actions Obama has taken re abortions have been to open up federal funding for abortions at home and overseas and open up federal funding for some embryonic stem cell research, just the opposite of reducing abortions. Sounds suspiciously like President Clinton's words that he wanted to make abortions safe, legal and rare, the rare part being lost for 8 years.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 26, 2009 22:03:26 GMT -5
But what if you can't eliminate abortions? Isn't reducing abortions better than not doing so?
My point is that the pro-life movement's singular focus on banning abortions is preventing them from reducing abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 26, 2009 22:23:38 GMT -5
Amazing how people "lawyer" a post instead of concentrating on how ludicrous it is to merely call for a reduction in abortions, just the way it would be ludicrous to call for merely a reduction on priests abusing both youths and teenagers. Or merely calling for a reduction in slaves. Or merely calling for a reduction in murders. Or merely calling for a reduction in lynchings. Add to this, the first actions Obama has taken re abortions have been to open up federal funding for abortions at home and overseas and open up federal funding for some embryonic stem cell research, just the opposite of reducing abortions. Sounds suspiciously like President Clinton's words that he wanted to make abortions safe, legal and rare, the rare part being lost for 8 years. The statistical evidence debunks your final claim that Clinton somehow pushed upward the number or rate of abortions in the United States. As to the numerosity issue, this website is helpful: www.euthanasia.com/usstat.html. Perhaps you recall who won elections in 1980, 1984, and 1988 and notice how the highest totals of abortions were generally reached while they were in office. Bill Clinton then took these levels down to the pre-Reagan and late Carter levels. The more extensive data here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html) indicates that the downward trend continued in Clinton's second term such that the number of abortions performed in the US annually was at the pre-Carter level or below. Perhaps some anti-choice pamphlet or another weighty tome has different numbers. If so, please share since this limited evidence does more to support the idea that abortions in the United States go down with Clinton-like policies than your competing hypothesis. Qualitatively, your comparisons skirt around the issue as framed in the law. All of the victims mentioned in your post or their families have now been afforded protections under the Constitution and are able to seek redress. The people (victims of abuse, slaves, et al.) mentioned in your post most clearly meet the Court's definition of personhood. Find some examples where beings that do not meet the Court's definition of personhood have been given protections as people under the Constitution (upheld by the Supreme Court), and the point may be better taken. |
|
