« Freedom and Security on the Mall
ABC Denies It Ever Said Yesterday’s Protest Rally Had 1 Million People »
Anti-Abortion Group Gets Organized in Florida
[ Editor's Note: The title and URL for this post has been changed from the original. -- PMA ]
They probably will not succeed in what they are trying to do (at least not this time), but it’s frightening to some of us to know that there are organized groups with this agenda:
A nationwide anti-abortion group launched an effort in Florida Friday to outlaw all abortions and certain types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill.The religion-infused movement, called “Personhood Florida,” would define conception in Florida’s constitution at the “biological beginnings,” supporters said — when the sperm meets the egg. The group filed its amendment today but the exact ballot language is still being worked out, said Secretary of State Spokeswoman Jennifer Krell-Davis.
61 Responses to “Anti-Abortion Group Gets Organized in Florida”
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.