Anti-Abortion Group Gets Organized in Florida

Ah, but the difference between this group and the Taliban: I don't have to worry about being at the opposite side of a gun in expressing my dissent from their views.

"American Taliban"

I don't agree with or approve of their actions but the hyperbole speaks for itself and the author.

"Nuff said.

Unless maybe you're someone who works at an abortion clinic.

Well looks like the a pro abortion kook struck back

Police: Shooting suspect offended by anti-abortion material
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.sh...

I don't see it as bad or evil to try and save human life or in this circumstance give human life a chance to be born and live a life. However I do see it as an attempt to force a particular religion's moral belief and practice on people that are not of that religion.

…But that contraception prevents the creation of human life and abortion prevents the live birth and existence of a created human life, there is no doubt.

"Well looks like the a pro abortion kook struck back

Police: Shooting suspect offended by anti-abortion material"

I hope no Democrat on this thread will follow the example we see every time offensive behavior on the other side is pointed out by saying, "Well anti-abortion kooks do this, too"

There is no excuse for such violence--on either side

I don't see it as bad or evil to try and save human life or in this circumstance give human life a chance to be born and live a life. However I do see it as an attempt to force a particular religion's moral belief and practice on people that are not of that religion.

I think i pretty much agree with you, but there is one thing that isn't considered. Should people put aside their moral beliefs out of respect for those of others?

Here is an example: Slavery. When slavery was legal in the US was it wrong for abolitionist to do all they could to oppose it, even though it was acceptable to many? I would contend that it was not, and by the same measure there is absolutely nothing wrong with these folks doing what they can to stop abortion short of violence or unlawful activity. They are merely acting on their own conscience. I might not share their beliefs (I fall in the middle in the pro choice pro life debate, I'll explain if you like, but wont waste time otherwise) but I do respect their motive.

I hope no Democrat on this thread will follow the example we see every time offensive behavior on the other side is pointed out by saying, "Well anti-abortion kooks do this, too"

I actually hope that they do, kooks on both sides should be called out, as should the practice of trying to attribute kooky behavior to only the kooks on one side only. If we are to have open and honest dialogue, debate, and assessment its good to have as many facts as we can. Knowledge is power, hiding one's head in the sand is not. These examples should be welcomed as they give us all a chance to look beyond partisanship and see it not as red vs blue, but as the sane vs kooks who would kill and commit other forms of violence against fellow human beings. I bring forth counter examples to make people face the truth that there are deranged individuals on both sides. Some might not like the approach, but that truth needs to be hammered home, not brushed under the rug.

There is no excuse for such violence--on either side

Of course not, and I never have seen that sentiment expressed here, nor do I expect I ever will.

The difference between mainstream pro-lifers and those on the fringe of the movement is the question of contraception. All pro-lifers are opposed to abortion, many even in cases of rape/incest. However, not all pro-lifers are opposed to contraception, including the use of more permanent measures like tubal ligation and vasectomy. Those who would push the more strict view, i.e. that Christians should not practice the mentioned more permanent measures have to get over a logical hurdle, namely, that the movement has traditionally defined life as beginning at conception. So, if steps are taken to prevent conception, some other argument has to be made. It decidedly is not murder to prevent pregnancy. Usually, the argument made is that it shows a lack of willingness to trust God for all the children He wants to give to a couple. This is the thinking that often lies behind families like the Duggars, stars of "18 and counting." I do think that Kathy's use of "Taliban" is hyperbolic. On the other hand, I don't doubt that there are some who - if all abortions were outlawed - would take the next logical step of eliminating all forms of contraception. There is a fundamentalist mentality that has a strong misogynous streak, and to some degree, the current occupant of the White House, who is about as far left as you can get on abortion, is likely part of the reason why there is a reaction happening on the other end of the political spectrum.

--[I think i pretty much agree with you, but there is one thing that isn't considered. Should people put aside their moral beliefs out of respect for those of others?]--

The law of the land is legalized abortion and the free use of contraception. It is also the law of the land that law is changed by the people through their elected representatives according to the will of the majority. There’s no right and no wrong, there is only the majority with specific protections described in the bill of rights for the minority. If these people wish to impose their belief as law, they will have to become the majority. However the Supreme Court, with it’s Constitutional powers, has specifically determined that women essentially have a right to abortion, so they will now be protected even as a minority from possible “tyranny” from the majority regarding abortion rights. Changing the law will require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous decision.

In my mind, this says that “freedom from religion” is a more important freedom than “freedom of religion”. Therefore I doubt that the Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe/Wade.

I seriously question this concept of personhood. They want to us to define a fertilized egg as a human being with the full rights that involves. This is beyond anything done in the past. When abortion was illegal it was crime that did not involve loss of a human life. Implicit in the concept of personhood is that this will not be the case. Abortion will be treated as murder. In fact so will using certain types of contraception.

Are we ready to subject doctors and their patients to murder charges for abortion?

I think that most people don't realize that there are different types of abortions. A young couple I knew had an abortion, when it was discovered that there was something so seriously wrong with the child that it would either be stillborn or remain on life support with no brain function for the rest of it's "life." If this group had it's way, there would have been no choice.

Before Roe v. Wade, Florida had a chain of hospitals for such children, former TB sanitariums, they were rather gruesome places and suffered from chronic underfunding. Because of Roe v. Wade and advances in science, it became possible to reduce these hospitals needs to just about nil, so most of them closed. Now, these children are in the foster care system and finding people to care for them is difficult indeed. It is easy to say that the responsibility should be on the biological parents, but hard to make stick.

There is a type of abortion commonly called a "miscarriage", but whose technical term is "spontaneous abortion." Should something like this come to pass, law enforcement would have to get involved, just as it was before Roe v. Wade. My mother had one of these in 1962 and was required, by law, to put the aborted fetus in a bucket and transport it to the hospital so that the coroner could conduct an autopsy. The purpose of the autopsy was to determine the cause of death and whether charges should be filed.

I'm not sure if you know any people that have had either of these terrible things happen to them, but the aftermath is not "carefree." As if there is not enough guilt to go around, investigations as to whether the mother brought about these things, (did I take all my vitamins?) would be, frankly, cruel.

What exactly is the difference between people comparing Obama to Nazis and people comparing anti-abortionists to the Taliban?

"Are we ready to subject doctors and their patients to murder charges for abortion?"

Doctors, sure. Patients, no. Which doesn't quite make sense, but most pro-lifers haven't thought through the issue even that far.

Many more potential babies are lost to spontaneous abortion than to clinical abortion. If your goal is to save lives, you'd care about these more than pro-lifers do. Deep down pro-life isn't about saving babies, it's about controlling adults.

The law of the land is legalized abortion and the free use of contraception. It is also the law of the land that law is changed by the people through their elected representatives according to the will of the majority. There’s no right and no wrong, there is only the majority with specific protections described in the bill of rights for the minority. If these people wish to impose their belief as law, they will have to become the majority. However the Supreme Court, with it’s Constitutional powers, has specifically determined that women essentially have a right to abortion, so they will now be protected even as a minority from possible “tyranny” from the majority regarding abortion rights. Changing the law will require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous decision.

In my mind, this says that “freedom from religion” is a more important freedom than “freedom of religion”. Therefore I doubt that the Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe/Wade.

Agree fully with you, but my point was made that these people should not be condemned for trying to implement what they believe in according to legal process. Their policies are fair game, however. I don't have much problem with Kathy's post except for the Flame War style title with "American Taliban" in it. I to the center-left on most social issues but I think her word usage was uncalled for no matter how much I disapprove of the policies of such groups..

What exactly is the difference between people comparing Obama to Nazis and people comparing anti-abortionists to the Taliban?

One is accurate, one isn't.

Nazis were a right wing extremist group who started wars and committed genocide, Obama is at best a center-left politician.

The Taliban like the the US Anti-Abortionist are right-wing theocratic extremist who want to shove their religious beliefs and their way of life down other people's throats any which way they can, and if democracy & persuasion will not work, they will have no problems using violence to get to their goals,

One is accurate, one isn't.

Oy.

*facepalm*

Many more potential babies are lost to spontaneous abortion than to clinical abortion. If your goal is to save lives, you'd care about these more than pro-lifers do.

That's fallacious logic, Dr. J.

If I apply the same syllogism I could say, "Many more people die of natural causes than of murder. If your goal is to save lives, you'd care about these more than the people who support criminal justice do.

A life saved is a life saved, CS. If that's your metric, preventing a natural death, a manslaughter, or a murder are all equivalent.

That's not to say the way you go about preventing them is the same. We punish murder in the hope of deterring more of them, but preventing natural deaths requires a different approach. I wouldn't claim that people who support prosecuting murders are as a rule uninterested in preventing natural deaths.

Based on conversations I've had with pro-lifers, though, they genuinely are uninterested in embryos that die of natural but potentially preventable causes. "You can't compare manslaughter to murder," they'll say. But obviously you can, and you should if your true goal is to save lives and "manslaughter" claims 1000 times more.

Based on conversations I've had with pro-lifers, though, they genuinely are uninterested in embryos that die of natural but potentially preventable causes.

That's purely anecdotal, and it doesn't comport with my experiences with tons of prolifers (nor with my personal views as a prolifer, nor with the actions I choose to address both as much as I'm able to.)



There are a couple of other points on which I differ with you, too. First, I'm not sure I can agree on the equivalency of numbers here. Do you have any data on the number of preventable spontaneous abortions? I highly doubt that there are anywhere near the number of clinical abortions. By far, most spontaneous abortions are not preventable.

And second, your premise that the entire goal is to save the maximum number of lives is faulty. I think most people do in fact want to 'save lives' but there's a very significant goal of establishing a justice system that recognizes the difference between natural death and killing.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you on whether or not the killing of a fetus or embryo should be considered murder- but you're ignoring the differentiation that's made about right to life vs. support for natural life.

For Pete's sake Dr J I am pro-choice but this is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. most miscarriages occur because there is something wrong with the pregnancy in the first place and were extremely unlikely to go to term. How do you propose we prevent miscarriages? You're talking about an unintentional, usually undesired occurrence vs an intentional act.

While this group is not the American Taliban by a long shot there are those who work hard to deserve such a name.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/03/the-rev...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/blumenthal
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?...

Agreed, Jim.

DaGoat: "How do you propose we prevent miscarriages?"

Apparently 25-50% of pregnancies are aborted spontaneously, and it's more likely to happen when the woman smokes or is under stress, both of which we could in principle act to reduce.

Personally I don't support getting even more dictatorial with prospective mothers, but I would need to if I really believed we had a duty to save as many of these embryos as possible.

CS: "Your premise that the entire goal is to save the maximum number of lives is faulty. There's a very significant goal of establishing a justice system that recognizes the difference between natural death and killing."

Saving lives not my premise, that's the claimed goal of the pro-life movement. It's even built into the name. But if you're saying what it's *really* about is justice, I'd agree with you. The group's actions are more consistent with trying to stop adult misbehavior than trying to save potential babies for their own sake. IMHO, pro-life is a euphemism for anti-sin.

. IMHO, pro-life is a euphemism for anti-sin.

Actually it's a euphemism for anti-sex.

Sin has rarely bothered conservatives. They have no problems with Lying, Stealing, Torturing, Cheating or Killing as long as they are doing it ( See Bush Administration).

Jim, the last article on Rushdoony was fascinating. I haven't heard much lately about dominion theology, though, and that article was written in 1989. With Robertson no longer at the forefront of GOP politics, I wonder if it's really much of a force any more. More recent was the wildly popular Left Behind series, which is incompatible with Rushdoony's vision of the end times.

Case solved: Any pregnant woman who smokes, drinks alcohol (or caffeine), does not eat right, works in a stressful job, is overweight/underweight, takes medication or comes down with an infectious disease.... should be thrown in jail for putting the life of another citizen at risk, which all of these actions do.

If the anti-abortion group is truly interested in saving babies lives they would also include the above in their legislation to protect our nation's people. As it it, their proposed legislation is woefully incomplete for the protection of our young and defenseless citizens.

Oh, and for the record, I wouldn't go so far as to label this anti-abortion gruop as the "American Taliban" but they are very similar in (as Don Quijote pointed out) that they want to shove their belief's beliefs down others' throats. As nutty as they may be, they don't go around as a group killing people.

But I do agree with this as a headline because they (and the anti-civil rights groups who take away rights from US citizens) are the American equivalent of the Taliban, though our groups aren't as bad.

Well you lost me there, StockBoy.. You say you wouldn't label this group the American Taliban but you agree with the headline labeling them as the American Taliban.

I would say this Personhood Florida group sounds like a bunch of kooks, but there is nothing in the cited article that remotely equates to blowing up girls schools, harboring terrorists, or killing missionaries and aid workers. This is the same sort of hyperbole NRA types use when they say Hitler supported gun control. Because two groups share certain beliefs doesn't make them equivalent.

DaGoat, hey there. Sorry- I guess I wasn't clear. I said this anti-abortion group is the American equivalent of the Taliban, in that sense the headline I agree with. They are the American Taliban. But the distinction is that this is not a subgroup of the Taliban. In other words, it's clear that this is not the American chapter of the Taliban headquartered in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

But it is our version the Taliban, strictly as comparison. In that way the headline is right.

Does that make better sense, DaGoat? I think every country has their own homegrown group which is that country's own version of the Taliban, though none of them may be related to the "original" Taliban.

For a reminder of actual effects of criminalizing abortion and contraception, please see what's going in Nicaragua right now. It's horrifying. Things we can expect to see if Florida somehow gets away with this religious-based slut-shaming activity: about the same number of abortions performed, but many more deaths because of it; criminalization of women who have spontaneous miscarriages (it's often nearly impossible to tell the difference afterwards), as well as the doctors and nurses who treat women who are hemorraging; more women falling to poverty due to having babies as teenages; a black market system full of amateur "doctors" who perform unsafe abortions; fewer women in college and the workplace due to having children before they're ready. This is just a handfull of the myriad effects that this sort of law would have on the people of Florida.

Thanks Stockboy, I see where you're coming from.

Well, his institute is still around. I looked at their web site a bit and found that it's explanations for how they were being perceived a bit lacking.

Gegenschattenbild wrote:

Unless maybe you're someone who works at an abortion clinic.

I agree and yet I disagree. Those who protest peacefully are not one and the same with those who act violently and take life. There are extremely significant differences in the mindsets between the two.

I'll go one step further, in saying that abortion-clinic murderers are still not of the same ilk as the Taliban: they do not disagree with over 75% of the modern American mindset. Yes, they are still murderers and thus wrong, but the focus of one who murders over abortion is different than one who murders over ethnicity or even levels of education.

I have to take a moment to explain that, for few things in life am I adamant about one's usage of labels or words in politics; it is what it is, and hyperboles abound. However, throwing around the mark of "Taliban" (as with other labels) dilutes the real issue while exaggerating the lesser one being discussed. It is because of this that I can't accept a mixing of the two.

Until zygotes can possess AR-15s we as a people are living in tyranny. Don't tread on me!

For those confused, the pill works by preventing an egg from being released. Should an egg "escape," it also prevents the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine lining.

That being said, I wonder if they'll ask that all miscarriages be investigated as a case of potential manslaughter. Many times, even without contraception, a fertilized egg is passed during a woman's period. Some miscarriages happen before a woman even realizes she's pregnant. How do they propose to track and investigate those? Would failure to realize pregnancy from day one be considered negligence? Would women of child bearing age be unable to purchase and consume alcohol? Could smoking around a pregnant woman be considered reckless endangerment? How exactly do we go about this?

The sad thing is that if they're pushing this in other states, I'm willing to bet that mine (Alabama) is on the list and that enough people here are stupid enough to pass it. No abortion under any circumstances means just that. And in cases of... say... a tubal pregnancy, failure to terminate the pregnancy can in fact lead to the death of two individuals rather than just one. There are also some rather interesting cases of twins where one had to be sacrificed so that the other could survive. So in these cases, do you charge someone with murder for the abortion or with negligence for allowing the person to die when it could have been prevented?

The next question is whether or not a woman looses personhood once she is determined to be carrying a child. Should she die due to her condition or during childbirth, could the father or baby then be charged with endangerment and/or manslaughter?

And if a person has a right to life, then would that not also include the right to potentially life-saving medical care? Would that not at least entitle all women access to proper maternity and well baby care?

Well that’s your contention with Kathy.

I think the world has a big contention with those whom incite the murders of planned parenthood professionals. After studying the Catholic catechism for a more than a year and making an in-depth study of catholic politics, I am convinced that the Catholic church incites murder. Believing this, I feel Kathy has more than enough justification to be rough on these people. Just as I would support Joe Windish being rough on Fred Phelps and his bunch of Baptist anti-gay hate mongers….and I don’t support LGBT civil rights legislation! (but I do support hate crime laws that defend LGBT people against violence).

It’s not an “all things being equal” subject Leonidas.

The group's actions are more consistent with trying to stop adult misbehavior than trying to save potential babies for their own sake. IMHO, pro-life is a euphemism for anti-sin..

Not unless you also agree that anti- murder statutes are euphemistic for anti-sin. If you're agreeing with me that there's a justice component involved with governmental protection of life, then all that's left is to agree to disagree on when the Constitutionally protected right to life begins. The belief that life should be protected some time before birth is not inherently connected to religious beliefs regarding sexuality any more than the standard Constitutional right to life for the already born would have to be inherently connected to religious ideas about ensoulment of those individuals. It's only your own bias that leads you to assume that a prolife stance for fetal life is necessarily connected with religious ideas about sexuality.

Case solved: Any pregnant woman who smokes, drinks alcohol (or caffeine), does not eat right, works in a stressful job, is overweight/underweight, takes medication or comes down with an infectious disease.... should be thrown in jail for putting the life of another citizen at risk, which all of these actions do.

Or, you know, we could apply common sense and rational balance just as we do with other parental responsibilities. We don't throw people in jail for child endangerment if they feed their kids a steady diet of junk food (even though there are tons of examples of poor parenting like that which we as a society might hope to correct while not wanting to criminalize), but we have statutes against the most egregious examples of parental neglect and malfeasance.

I didn't think he clarified that at all because he didn't address your main point- this group isn't similar enough to the Taliban to rate that kind of headline because there's nothing to indicate that they're advocating violence.

Personally I agree with some of the ideas of this group but where they're completely wrong is in trying to enshrine the contraception idea into law. Fighting for abortion restrictions by law has to do with legal protections for individuals who are already in existence; fighting contraception means you're advocating that people can't choose to block the creation of new individuals. The latter, although it's what I personally believe, is strictly a religiously informed view (based on the concept that only God should determine the beginnings of new life.) There's really no secular basis for that viewpoint and so it has no place in a legal or political argument.

So in the sense that these people are theocrats, there's some similarity between them and the Taliban- but the differentiation based on political activism vs. political terrorism is too great a difference to ignore in trying to establish a parallel.

All that's left is to agree to disagree on when the Constitutionally protected right to life begins.

What's left to agree on is pro-lifers' priorities. Abortion involves not only the loss of a fetus, it involves an adult who (usually) had irresponsible sex and who is now looking for a quick way out of the consequences. Those latter two are significant sins (even in secular terms) according to most conservatives.

I'm saying in opposing abortion, pro-lifers are fighting three distinct sins, of which their stated one--ending embryonic life--actually ranks third. It's plain they don't value it as much as we value adult life (and as much as they're claiming to), because they're not willing to exert themselves nearly as hard to protect it. We prosecute murders of adults and children, but we also prosecute manslaughters, and we spend hundreds of billions preventing accidental deaths through building codes and medical care and traffic laws and so on. None of us on either side of the abortion issue is really prepared to go to these lengths for a zygote.

You're just talking yourself in circles as far as I'm concerned. Nearly all criminal acts also involve some antecedent acts which might be considered immoral (in part because of the possibility that they'll lead to a spiral of other immoral acts because of the irresponsible behavior.) In some cases, we criminalize the antecedent act because we think it's both egregious enough in and of itself, and that criminalizing it might act as a deterrent. Example: texting or hands on cell phone use while driving, which could lead to vehicular manslaughter. Some states have statutes against these acts, others don't.

The act of texting or cell phone use in and of itself has no moral bearing, but the context of doing it while driving is irresponsible. Similarly, in a secular sense, there's no rationale to declare consensual sex as immoral- though religious folks might attach additional conditions for its morality based on the sacramental commitment of the participants (that part is a religiously based tenet, but it also derives in part from the potential responsibility attached to the consequence when a pregnancy results.)

Virtually no one wants to criminalize extramarital sex, but some do see it as an act of immorality and that's in part due to the irresponsibility that leads some to then decide to abort a resulting pregnancy.

Basically though, 'right to lifers' have no greater or lesser obligation in fighting all of these antecedent sins than does anyone who supports laws against murder, manslaughter, or any other classification of illegal killing. Recognizing that there are antecedent acts doesn't mean that people must fight to criminalize or even attempt to stop those antecedent acts- instead, it's a matter of holding people resonsible for the consequences if they freely choose to engage in those acts and the undesired potential result occurs.

Sorry, I didn't follow that at all. I'm sure you're not saying having an abortion is an antecedent to becoming a serial killer, nor that spontaneous abortion is an antecedent to something else. What antecedent relationship are you talking about?

I'm not saying pro-lifers have an obligation to do anything, just that their actions speak louder than words. They make choices about which lives to defend, and those choices suggest their priorities are not quite as billed. It's understandable, since "save babies" is a nobler sounding cause than "stop having loose sex," but the disparity dings their credibility.

hi there FatherTIme, would you say more about how your study of the Catholic Catechism and catholic politics, leads you to be convinced the Catholic church incites murder?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Just would mention, you can read my articles here at TMV on Fred Phelps starting back a couple years ago, as well as about my confrontation with Fred at the Columbine High School memorial. Fred claims to be a Baptist, but it is thus far not possible to find a Baptist in the hierachy who will endorse him unequivocally.

thanks.
dr.e

Very nice, have not finished reading all the comments yet but I learned more about the subject from this debate than any pro-life/pro-choice website could ever teach me. Although i agree that Kathy was a bit partisan in the way it was presented, you cannot deny that it got the ball rolling on a civil and informative exchange. Thanks for the good reading!

Ugh, no, obviously you didn't follow me. By antecedent, I'm talking about various irresponsible behaviors which are chosen, and which lead to situations where a person then makes a choice that some people feel is a criminal act.

For clinical abortion, irresponsible sex is the antecedent. For manslaughter of various types, other actions precede the killing. Those other actions (I gave the example of cell phone usage while driving) may or may not be the focus of the law. Those decisions are made on a case by case basis.

I presume that you wouldn't say that the citizens, legislatures, and law enforcement officials of states that don't have legal prohibitions against use of cell phone while driving are disingenuous when they still insist on prosecuting people for vehicular manslaughter if they kill an individual as a result of their irresponsible cell phone behavior. Why not? If they're not 'going after' people for the antecedent act, then does that mean that they aren't being honest about what they believe is irresponsible, or does it mean that there hasn't been a determination in that case that such a law on balance is necessary or good?

Same with abortion- people might believe that sex without regard to taking responsibility for a potential pregnancy is morally wrong and that it precedes the unwanted pregnancy. We may wish that no one would be so irresponsible as to get themselves into that situation, so that abortion would not be necessary. But that doesn't mean that there's a hidden agenda to prohibit irresponsible sex because we think it's 'naughty.' It is just an example of the end decision being the one that is morally wrong in a secular sense as well as a religious one, and therefore ought to be addressed by the law.

I think you greatly underestimate the desire of many prolifers to help women who face unwanted pregnancies, and perhaps if you had a more balanced view of that you'd see that it isn't about punishing the adults involved- just not allowing them to take a fetal life as a result of their prior actions.

I'm sure that you can find examples of the type of religious individuals who want to shame women for having had sex and gotten pregnant, or punish them. It's just that that's not at all the bulk of people that I've encountered in the prolife movement, and the kind of caring that you say that we would show if our priorities were correct is very present in a lot more people than you seem to give credit to. Maybe my experience is also anecdotal, and perhaps skewed because I tend to associate more with people who help out and support crisis pregnancy centers where compassion and assistance are profound, rather than putting a lot of my time and focus on those who agitate for legal changes. But I'd still challenge you to look at the overall picture, not just a narrow segment that you seem to have encountered.

That doesn't mean that there's a hidden agenda to prohibit irresponsible sex because we think it's 'naughty.'

I'm not accusing anyone of a hidden agenda, and in general I find charges of hypocrisy rather silly. I hope you're not suggesting conservatives' disapproval of irresponsible sex is either my imagination or a secret. Remember I'm a right-wing zealot myself, or so I'm reliably informed by many people here. Conservatives oppose promiscuous sex because society has learned over the centuries that it leads to broken families and the spread of disease. Look around at the 40+% divorce rate and the AIDS epidemic, and it's hard to deny conservatives have a point.

Nor am I suggesting pro-lifers are anything but well-intentioned, compassionate people. I just think they've been oversold on the movement they're part of, and they haven't noticed. In that, perhaps, they're like most people in most movements.

I hope you're not suggesting conservatives' disapproval of irresponsible sex is either my imagination or a secret.

No, I just felt that you were overplaying that hand- your initial comments seemed to suggest that this was really the main reason for opposing abortion but the 'baby killing' meme is an easier sell to society.

At any rate, your last comment is more nuanced in terms of the variety of motivations within the movement, and I'm content to leave it there.

I have a different take on this matter than most, falling between the pro-life and pro-choice camps. I have absolutely not problem with abortion up to the point where a fetus is capable of having its first mental synapse. To me, it is not human life at that point anymore than sperm or an egg is, or a fingernail, or piece of flesh is. However, once that mental synapse is possible I view that fetus as a living being and I revert from pro-choice to pro life. I also feel that the time period between conception and that mental synapse is enough time for adults to make a determination about keeping the child or not.

So I agree and disagree with both camps.

Concerning Phelps, it's one thing to be a charismatic religious intolerant, it's quite another to be an offensive jackass.

As for my studies, I’d rather not say. However I would recommend listening to EWTN radio all day every day for at least six months. Leading up to an election is a good time. The hate rhetoric comes out and cannot be camouflaged should you continue to listen. After the indoctrination, it’s only a small step to become a “Martyr for God” as so many good Catholics have done throughout history. Sacrificing one’s self on the ongoing battlefield between good and evil to save the “babies”.

It’s all there. You just have to be persistent.

Your initial comments seemed to suggest that this was really the main reason for opposing abortion but the 'baby killing' meme is an easier sell to society.

Yes, the meme model is a good one. The movement has latched on to the baby killing meme because it's much more virulent, even though it doesn't fully make sense. I think it appeals to conservatives because it also plays into their displeasure with promiscuous sex and ducking consequences, both of which are on firmer rational ground.

Human reproductive systems are designed to lose a large fraction of embryos; ultimately that cannot be squared with a moral obligation to save them. I think followers of the movement are sincere, they just haven't put together the contradiction. And even if they did, a few built in contradictions often make a more potent meme.

"As for my studies, I’d rather not say. However I would recommend listening to EWTN radio all day every day for at least six months."

hi there Father Time and thanks for replying to me. I respect your preference to 'not say.' That's ok. I am interested in where people come from in their thinking a little more than they sometimes have time to leave in a comment.

I do read between your lines a bit, tho. EWTN used to be a communications system to evangelize and pray with listeners... long ago. I've not heard radio broadcasts, only seen the TV programming. It was very mixed on that day in terms of holiness vs angry people. The soul of the Church is at issue for many. Thanks.
dr.e

Human reproductive systems are designed to lose a large fraction of embryos; ultimately that cannot be squared with a moral obligation to save them.

Meh, now you're losing me again. All life is pretty much designed to lose a large fraction (and every life ends naturally at some point!), so I still feel you're putting a greater onus of internal consistency on those who see the issue of taking (not just 'not saving', but actively taking a life) life during the fetal stage vs. everyone else who acknowledge that taking a life after birth is morally wrong and should be legally prohibited. Using your rationale, one could argue that a subgroup of the population which is born with a serious congenital disease condition (pick one- say, cystic fibrosis) represents the same kind of 'waste' built into the system- a sort of natural selection for the human population- and thus it would be impossible to argue that these people should be saved. IOW, you seem to be missing the VERY important distinction between accepting natural deaths and actively killing a living being.

Really I think the more logical position for abortion rights trumping right to life of the fetus is that legal personhood doesn't begin until birth. I don't agree with that position, but I don't find it illogical either.

You seem to be missing the VERY important distinction between accepting natural deaths and actively killing a living being.

And I think you're confusing two issues. One is how valuable a thing is, the other is the level of premeditation leading to its end. If we agree the answer to the first is "not very," complaining that someone dispatched it deliberately is vindictive. It's as if my partner got mad at me for throwing out his "favorite shirt" that he never wore...and which was, technically, mine.

The deeper issue is when life becomes valuable enough to protect from perils, whether they're deliberate or accidental. And on this I can categorically say I have no categorical answer, other than categorical lines are too simplistic. The Catholic view that every sperm is sacred is absurd, and the Jewish view that the fetus is fully alive only when it graduates from med school is perhaps too extreme the other way.

The point of conception is too early, both because so many zygotes aren't biologically viable and because in practice no one is prepared to go to bat for them, except insofar as that involves giving someone else a hard time. The moment of birth is unambiguous, but babies a few moments after birth are pretty much the same as those a few moments before, so how can they have become a whole lot more valuable in the meantime?

If ever there was a question that resisted black-and-white answers, it's this one. In a way, a policy with some vague guidelines about trimesters which ultimately leaves women to figure it out for themselves seems like the only possible solution.

And I think you're confusing two issues. One is how valuable a thing is, the other is the level of premeditation leading to its end. If we agree the answer to the first is "not very," complaining that someone dispatched it deliberately is vindictive. It's as if my partner got mad at me for throwing out his "favorite shirt" that he never wore...and which was, technically, mine.

Well, again, I can agree with you that abortion rights are based on the relative 'value' of the right to life for the fetus, and that some people simply don't agree that the basic right exists before birth.

But I don't agree with your particular rationale for value (basing it on the number of natural deaths that occur in that population.) And I think you are also confusing two issues- property rights vs. right to life. Our Constitution and legal system is framed on a much more absolute right to life. The concepts of manslaughter vs.first degree murder don't have anything to do with the relative value of the person killed. We don't, for instance, say that if a victim wasn't valued by any other human beings then society is hypocritical for charging his killer with murder.

I'm sorry Archangel if it offends you, but I gave EWTN radio all possible benefit of the doubt. Being as objective and self critical as I possibly can, I must also admit that the indoctrinations had their effects on me. That same objectivity and self criticism led me to obvious logical rationalizations and dictated the conclusions that I came too.

EWTN TV is considerably milder in rhetoric than EWTN radio. Generally EWTN TV runs concurrent with EWTN radio, however radio programming includes local programming also. Local call in programs are very interesting with regard to political rhetoric that the catholic church denies it broadcasts. Specific hypocrisies as well as electioneering violations are prevalent, especially as an election date approaches. Electioneering violations this past election really shocked me. Therefore it did not surprise me one bit when a doctor was murdered by a zealot in the Kansas City area earlier this year and only a few months after the election.

I'm happy to consider right to life as completely separate from property rights and following a different ethical calculus. If we reframe the terms along those lines, the questions become who has a right to life and what privileges it implies. We strive to prevent the deaths of adults from deliberate, negligent, or accidental causes out of a respect for their right to life, right? Why, then, should respect for the right to life of an embryo imply only the first and not the second or third?

I see only three ways out of the ethical pickle. Either right to life implies only protection from murder, and there's some other reason we exert ourselves to prevent accidental or negligent deaths of adults; or it implies one thing for adults and another thing for embryos for some reason we would need to conjure up; or it implies all three, and someone granting one but not another is not truly recognizing a right to life but is acting on some other principle.

hi there Fathertime:

you wrote: "I'm sorry Archangel if it offends you, but I gave EWTN radio all possible benefit of the doubt."

I did not know this information you put forth about electioneering violations.

And not at all offended, incidentally, by your thoughts about ewtn.

I can now better see where you are coming from. Thank you.

dr.e

see only three ways out of the ethical pickle. Either right to life implies only protection from murder, and there's some other reason we exert ourselves to prevent accidental or negligent deaths of adults; or it implies one thing for adults and another thing for embryos for some reason we would need to conjure up; or it implies all three, and someone granting one but not another is not truly recognizing a right to life but is acting on some other principle.

I'll add option #4 then. Take the first part of option one- the definition of right to life as protection from murder, and insist that this must come first. Just as, for instance, the founders framed the right to life as primary. Society, and the rest of our legal system, has built upon that addition protections from negligence which can cause death, but I would bet that early statutes focused mainly on prohibiting deliberate killing.

So, I don't see any inconsistency in focusing on right to life as defined by 'protection from deliberate killing' first. It's a foundational concept upon which everything else is built. In fact, that's part of what a lot of right to lifers argue- that abortion rights have led to a decline in general respect for life.

Prioritizing murder first is fine as an operational policy, but we're talking about matters of principle. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" (if that's what you're referring to) states principles, not a sequence for implementation.

Do we in principle have a moral duty to try to save every embryo from accidental death? It's a yes or no question. If you're tempted to answer "not yet, but we tend to grant more rights over time," that means today the answer is "no" and leaves us still bobbing among the pickles.

That's part of what a lot of right to lifers argue- that abortion rights have led to a decline in general respect for life.

That's a curious idea. In historical perspective, it seems like we have more reverence for life than ever. Society is much less violent than it was a couple centuries or even a couple decades ago, people feel more and more compelled to help random strangers on the other side of the globe, and we're extending more and more concern for animal and environmental welfare. Even the concern for the welfare of fetuses is AFAIK of recent vintage. If one takes their opinion literally, it seems to be in distinct conflict with the evidence.

Do we in principle have a moral duty to try to save every embryo from accidental death?

A moral one, yes (at least in terms of truly preventable accidental deaths.) Not a legal one though.