I don't get Liberals sometimes

[gnam]

Thou shalt not kill.

Let's start with the government, is it okay for them to kill? My opnion: No. Scratch capital punishment. Scratch conscription. It shouldn't happen. Period.

Now, does abortion count as killing? My opinion: Yes. I would personally never endorse abortion because I feel that it is murder, and I'll explain why. It doesn't matter whether the fetus is 'human', but it might as well be. It has the genetic makeup to become human. It's on its way to become human. It's a living, thriving pre-human. And if allowed to run its course it would eventually become like you or me. A fully formed, fully functional, fully capable, fully reasoning human being.

Politically, should we 'ban' abortion? No. That would only send it underground like drugs and alcohol when they are prohibited. Should we encourage abortion? No. But the option should be allowed to be supplied if it is demanded. It's all about the supply and demand. By trying to stop supply and demand you only push the demanders and suppliers into a black market, which can be more dangerous than the actual act sometimes.

But I will always discourage abortion the way I would discrouage smoking tobacco or drinking caffeine. I won't stop you from doing it, but I highly recommend that you don't.

Thou Shalt not Kill...?? Wrong, the ten commandments of the old testament were explicitly given to moses as the governing law for the hebrews in the promised hebrew state. Those laws were never meant to be adopted by humanity at large. God did not tell Moses to use those laws to govern the Canaanites or anyone else. At such time as the hebrew god saw fit to dissolve the hebrew state (the first time around) because of the corrupt behaviour of its people and clergy, that state's constitutional laws ceased to have any worldly application. Thus, the ten commandments are null and void and not applicable in this matter.

Thus it is of no consequence whether abortion counts as killing or not since there is no legitimate and overarching ban (metaphysical or human in origin) on killing. Liberals, any thinking liberal (or conservative for that matter) that is, do not seek to protect life as a hard and fast rule. They tackle political issues on a case by case basis recognizing that questions concerning the judicial, penal and correctional system bear very little in common with the concerns surrounding the individual right to choose one's physical fate or the fate of one's potential child (especially for a group that has traditionally been marginalized in that regard in our society). Thus asking questions like 'why do Liberals (or anyone else for that matter) accept abortion while refusing capital punishment' displays a remarkable lack of depth in understanding the differences between the two instances. In both cases a life (or potential life) is terminated. However, the question is not why do liberals accept the termination of life and deny the termination of life. Abortion and capital punishment are simply not logically identical, thus in order to treat those issues with the degree of sensitivity they deserve one must understand their diffrences and then proceed to identify the appopriate (and in all likelihood diffrent) approach for each case. Thus the Liberals in question have considered the facts concerning capital punishment and have chosen to do away with that ridiculous policy on a number of grounds, many of which have been outlined by the writers who have posted here. In a separate consideration, Liberals have reasoned that they wish to uphold the rights of the woman to choose the manner and fashion in which she will dispose of her body; while they do concede that the fetus has some rights, the rights of the woman are taken to have precedence over and above the rights of the fetus. This simply amounts to a matter of making a choice.

So this, or something like this, as near as I can tell is how liberals arrive at their position, the position in which they find themselves supporting womens' right to choose and denying the utility or defensibility of a society's use of the death penalty. I can only imagine that this, or something like it is what goes on in the mind of the thinking conservative who arrives at the opposite conclusion. Have I answered the question for which this thread was started?

[newbie]

Thou Shalt not Kill...?? Wrong, the ten commandments of the old testament were explicitly given to moses as the governing law for the hebrews in the promised hebrew state. Those laws were never meant to be adopted by humanity at large. God did not tell Moses to use those laws to govern the Canaanites or anyone else. At such time as the hebrew god saw fit to dissolve the hebrew state (the first time around) because of the corrupt behaviour of its people and clergy, that state's constitutional laws ceased to have any worldly application. Thus, the ten commandments are null and void and not applicable in this matter.

Betsy will be pleased to hear this.

[kimmy]

Each person's opinion on whether abortion is murder is based entirely on their concept of when life starts.

On the contrary, arguing about when life starts as if that that determines "murder" and hence when an abortion should be illegal is entirely avoiding the question. As you point out, different people view this issue differently which means that some will consider it murder and others not. The debate will turn around in circles endlessly. Worse however, the definition is completely arbitrary anyway. One is free to pick whatever justification one wants to support one's opinion. "It's not murder because I say it's not murder."

Finally, such an approach still does not explain how we (as taxpayers and citizens) can send our soldiers abroad to kill people, sometimes in cold blood.

When Blackdog argues that a "fetus is not a baby" and hence an abortion is not murder, Blackdog is inventing a premise out of thin air and in effect avoiding the moral dilemma.

You're off on some kind of weird tangent with this, August. The question itself is based on a premise that was equally invented out of thin air, and can't be fairly addressed without addressing that premise.

Suppose I were to ask "How can conservatives reconcile being against euthanasia of suffering people when they're in favor of euthanasia of suffering animals?"

There's 3 assumptions inherent in the question:

-conservatives support the euthanasia of suffering animals.

-conservatives oppose the euthanasia of suffering people.

-suffering animals and suffering people are completely equivalent.

So answer me this, August: how can you resolve your contradictory views about euthanasia?

Don't try and weasel out of this by arguing about whether you actually hold those positions.

And especially don't try and question whether a suffering human and a suffering animal are equivalent, because that's just evading the issue.

-k

[August1991]

Thou Shalt not Kill...??

I think a better translation would be "Thou shalt not murder." That is, it is not immoral to kill but it is immoral to kill in cold blood. Then again, as BD would argue, why should we rely on a book written several thousand years ago for moral principles.

Liberals, any thinking liberal (or conservative for that matter) that is, do not seek to protect life as a hard and fast rule. They tackle political issues on a case by case basis recognizing that questions concerning the judicial, penal and correctional system bear very little in common with the concerns surrounding the individual right to choose one's physical fate or the fate of one's potential child (especially for a group that has traditionally been marginalized in that regard in our society). Thus asking questions like 'why do Liberals (or anyone else for that matter) accept abortion while refusing capital punishment' displays a remarkable lack of depth in understanding the differences between the two instances.

There is a superficial similarity between abortion and capital punishment - both involve killing or taking (potential) life. But I agree with you gnam. We should consider the question differently in each instance. I suggested pragmatism as a guiding rule.

Suppose I were to ask "How can conservatives reconcile being against euthanasia of suffering people when they're in favor of euthanasia of suffering animals?"

There's 3 assumptions inherent in the question:

-conservatives support the euthanasia of suffering animals.

-conservatives oppose the euthanasia of suffering people.

-suffering animals and suffering people are completely equivalent.

So answer me this, August: how can you resolve your contradictory views about euthanasia?

Don't try and weasel out of this by arguing about whether you actually hold those positions.

And especially don't try and question whether a suffering human and a suffering animal are equivalent, because that's just evading the issue.

Animals sometimes try to avoid euthanasia. I'm sure some humans would go to great length to try to avoid being a victim.

[kimmy]

Suppose I were to ask "How can conservatives reconcile being against euthanasia of suffering people when they're in favor of euthanasia of suffering animals?"

There's 3 assumptions inherent in the question:

-conservatives support the euthanasia of suffering animals.

-conservatives oppose the euthanasia of suffering people.

-suffering animals and suffering people are completely equivalent.

So answer me this, August: how can you resolve your contradictory views about euthanasia?

Don't try and weasel out of this by arguing about whether you actually hold those positions.

And especially don't try and question whether a suffering human and a suffering animal are equivalent, because that's just evading the issue.

Animals sometimes try to avoid euthanasia. I'm sure some humans would go to great length to try to avoid being a victim.

Surely Terri Schiavo and the crippled Calgary Stampede chuckwagon horses that got turned into dogfood last month were all about equally capable of avoiding euthanasia, meaning "not very". What's that got to do with the question? Why were Rugged Individualists lining up to fight to protect Terri Schiavo, when it was undoubtably Rugged Individualists who put those poor horses out of their misery?

And most importantly, are you criticizing people for questioning the premises underlying a loaded question such as the original post?

If the question is "how can liberals justify supporting abortion access when they oppose capital punishment," the answer is flat out simple: liberals justify it because they don't see the situations as equivalent at all. Need anything more be said?

-k

[Shady]

It seems like backward thinking to me

You're exactly right. Death to unborn babies but not to murderers. If that's "progressive", leave me out.

[Black Dog]

You're exactly right. Death to unborn babies but not to murderers. If that's "progressive", leave me out.

I guess the distinction between the state exercising its power over the individual and the individual exercising its power over its own person is lost on you people. Oh well.

[gc1765]

You're exactly right. Death to unborn babies but not to murderers. If that's "progressive", leave me out.

I guess the distinction between the state exercising its power over the individual and the individual exercising its power over its own person is lost on you people. Oh well.

No kidding. I thought conservatives were all about small government?

[August1991]

Surely Terri Schiavo and the crippled Calgary Stampede chuckwagon horses that got turned into dogfood last month were all about equally capable of avoiding euthanasia, meaning "not very".

On their death bed, no one is a threat or capable of much at all. But before the deathbed, there's a whole life. IOW Kimmy, you ignore the unintended consequences of legal euthanasia. Wild animals are generally wary of humans.

If the question is "how can liberals justify supporting abortion access when they oppose capital punishment," the answer is flat out simple: liberals justify it because they don't see the situations as equivalent at all. Need anything more be said?

Alot needs to be said, as Shady states clearly above.

Kimmy, you claim that abortion and capital punishment are "different". Yet, both involve taking life, or taking potential life. So, the simple liberal argument "my body, myself" and "The State Must Not Kill" are contradictory. (One sees a similar liberal contradiction in lesbians defending Hizballah.)

Indeed, it does seem odd that we protect the life of Clifford Olsen while allowing the abortion of an innocent child who could, potentially, discover a cure for cancer. If anything, the opposite - hanging Olsen and forbidding abortion - seems more sensible.

[Black Dog]

Kimmy, you claim that abortion and capital punishment are "different". Yet, both involve taking life, or taking potential life. So, the simple liberal argument "my body, myself" and "The State Must Not Kill" are contradictory. (One sees a similar liberal contradiction in lesbians defending Hizballah.)

Lesbian nosequiter aside, how are the positions contradictory? "Potential life" is not how most pro-choice (or, as I am, proudly pro-abortion) people see it. (not to mention the fact that, if you recognize "potential life" as a valid concept, then you open up a vertitable can of worms as to what what the term means and how far it can be applied.)

I suppose if, as you do, one breaks down the debate into simple, cartoon positions, you can manufacture all sorts of inconsistencies.

Indeed, it does seem odd that we protect the life of Clifford Olsen while allowing the abortion of an innocent child who could, potentially, discover a cure for cancer. If anything, the opposite - hanging Olsen and forbidding abortion - seems more sensible.

Your language here is telling: "inocent child" versus the epitome of vile killers. Dirty pool, mate.

[kimmy]

If the question is "how can liberals justify supporting abortion access when they oppose capital punishment," the answer is flat out simple: liberals justify it because they don't see the situations as equivalent at all. Need anything more be said?

Alot needs to be said, as Shady states clearly above.

Kimmy, you claim that abortion and capital punishment are "different". Yet, both involve taking life, or taking potential life. So, the simple liberal argument "my body, myself" and "The State Must Not Kill" are contradictory.

Indeed, it does seem odd that we protect the life of Clifford Olsen while allowing the abortion of an innocent child who could, potentially, discover a cure for cancer. If anything, the opposite - hanging Olsen and forbidding abortion - seems more sensible.

For pete's sake.

First off:

Kimmy, you claim that abortion and capital punishment are "different".

I make no claims at all.

I merely point out that the question presupposes something-- the equivalence of a fetus to an adult human being-- that most abortion access advocates would strongly disagree with.

Your own language here--

both involve taking life, or taking potential life

admits as much. WTF is "potential life"? If you support the premise that a fetus and adult are equivalent, then why the qualifier of the fetus as a "potential" life? Then two sentences later you refer to the fetus as an "innocent child". The equivalence of a fetus to an adult, or a fetus to a child, or to borrow your goofy turn of phrase, the equivalence of a life to a potential life, is far from universally agreed upon, yet you're asking us to take it as a given for purposes of this discussion.

Don't you feel a little dirty pursuing this line of argument? Don't you feel a little dishonest? Don't you feel a little like takeanumber?

And finally, you make assumptions about my politics.

Given the opportunity, I'd have no qualms or regrets about putting Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo out of our misery.

And, I was old enough to be the flowergirl when my parents finally got married; if abortion were as easy to get and as accepted in the early 1980s as it is today, I might well not be here to have this conversation. I have serious doubts about the issue of abortion, but that doesn't mean I wish to see the topic discussed in the bullshit frame of reference that the original poster wishes us to look at it. It's an insult to the intelligence of everybody concerned, and I'm surprised and disappointed to see you hop on his bandwagon.

-k

[geoffrey]

Indeed, it does seem odd that we protect the life of Clifford Olsen while allowing the abortion of an innocent child who could, potentially, discover a cure for cancer. If anything, the opposite - hanging Olsen and forbidding abortion - seems more sensible.

Your language here is telling: "inocent child" versus the epitome of vile killers. Dirty pool, mate.

We were agreeing on too many things, too long BD. I got to step in here. Are you saying some of these children aren't innocent? Are some of them guilty of placing a burden on their parents? Or did the parents place that burden on themself?

I don't you don't believe a fetus has any value, but it isn't a matter of extremes. All unborn children would be innocent children... any criminal is more worthy of death then them IMO.

That being said, I think the principled and civilized approach isn't to be killing anyone and that's were I'm taking my stand.

[Black Dog]

We were agreeing on too many things, too long BD. I got to step in here. Are you saying some of these children aren't innocent? Are some of them guilty of placing a burden on their parents? Or did the parents place that burden on themself?

My beef with August's use of "innocent children" was that he is using emotionally charged language that IMO, doesn't advance the debate. It's a manipulative attempt to humanize the "potential human". Now, if I had to dig a little deeper, I'd say a term like "innocent" is a bit of an odd characteristic to ascribe to a non-sentient collection of tissue. Why just yesterday I committed the unforgivable crime of murdering an innocent hangnail. (*disclaimer: I'm not equating a fetus with a ahnagnail, but...oh hell, nevermind.)

I don't you don't believe a fetus has any value, but it isn't a matter of extremes. All unborn children would be innocent children... any criminal is more worthy of death then them IMO.

The issue isn't wih the unborn being innocent: its with them being "children" at all.

[Charles Anthony]

I have serious doubts about the issue of abortion, but that doesn't mean I wish to see the topic discussed in the bullshit frame of reference that the original poster wishes us to look at it. It's an insult to the intelligence of everybody concerned, and I'm surprised and disappointed to see you hop on his bandwagon.

I will jump on that bandwagon!

Given the opportunity, I'd have no qualms or regrets about putting Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo out of our misery.

I would. I think it is foolhardy and irresponsible to kill such people when there is the opportunity to study them. Studying them could focus on prevention because at one point both of them were innocent children.

And, I was old enough to be the flowergirl when my parents finally got married; if abortion were as easy to get and as accepted in the early 1980s as it is today, I might well not be here to have this conversation.

Were you ever an innocent child?

Don't you feel a little dirty pursuing this line of argument? Don't you feel a little dishonest? Don't you feel a little like takeanumber?

In the context of discussing killing life, I do not think he should feel dirty.

Now, if I had to dig a little deeper, I'd say a term like "innocent" is a bit of an odd characteristic to ascribe to a non-sentient collection of tissue.

When would you assign innocence and why?

The issue isn't wih the unborn being innocent: its with them being "children" at all.

No. The issue is whether you are killing them.

[Riverwind]

Now, if I had to dig a little deeper, I'd say a term like "innocent" is a bit of an odd characteristic to ascribe to a non-sentient collection of tissue.

When would you assign innocence and why?

If the question is when does a fetus become a child then my answer is: when the fetus can survive as an independent living being outside the mother's body. I would add the caveat that surviving means that the child only requires basic parental care that any other child would require (i.e. food, water, affection). A fetus that might be able to survive with the extraordinary medical intervention is not a child - it is simply a fetus kept viable in an artificial womb until it is mature (much like a frozen embroyo is keep viable by freezing). A fetus becomes a child when it can leave that artifical womb.

This definition is also a statistical definition. So a child born after 9 months with severe medical problems is still a child because 99% of children delivered at 9 months survive without intervention. A fetus delivered after 6 months is not a child because it would never survive without the artificial womb. This definition means that there is a line between 6 and 9 months where a fetus could be reasonably be considered human because it could be delivered and given to someone other than the mother to take care of - that last statement is key to my definition. I am saying that the mother should have the absolute right to control her body as long as she is the only person that can keep that fetus viable. Once that duty could be transferred to another person then the mother no longer needs to have that absolute right since alternatives exist that would allow the mother to control her body and ensure that the biologically independent child/fetus can live too.

I exclude heroic interventions with an artificial womb because we cannot have a definition of life that depends on the existance of an extremely expensive medical system that many women do not have access to (i.e. in third world countries).

[jdobbin]

If the question is when does a fetus become a child then my answer is: when the fetus can survive as an independent living being outside the mother's body. I would add the caveat that surviving means that the child only requires basic parental care that any other child would require (i.e. food, water, affection). A fetus that might be able to survive with the extraordinary medical intervention is not a child - it is simply a fetus kept viable in an artificial womb until it is mature (much like a frozen embroyo is keep viable by freezing). A fetus becomes a child when it can leave that artifical womb.

This definition is also a statistical definition. So a child born after 9 months with severe medical problems is still a child because 99% of children delivered at 9 months survive without intervention. A fetus delivered after 6 months is not a child because it would never survive without the artificial womb. This definition means that there is a line between 6 and 9 months where a fetus could be reasonably be considered human because it could be delivered and given to someone other than the mother to take care of - that last statement is key to my definition. I am saying that the mother should have the absolute right to control her body as long as she is the only person that can keep that fetus viable. Once that duty could be transferred to another person then the mother no longer needs to have that absolute right since alternatives exist that would allow the mother to control her body and ensure that the biologically independent child/fetus can live too.

I exclude heroic interventions with an artificial womb because we cannot have a definition of life that depends on the existance of an extremely expensive medical system that many women do not have access to (i.e. in third world countries).

I think that a lot of people agree with that definition. Some also add brain activity because it also defines whether a living person is defined as dead.

[gc1765]

Now, if I had to dig a little deeper, I'd say a term like "innocent" is a bit of an odd characteristic to ascribe to a non-sentient collection of tissue.

When would you assign innocence and why?

If the question is when does a fetus become a child then my answer is: when the fetus can survive as an independent living being outside the mother's body. I would add the caveat that surviving means that the child only requires basic parental care that any other child would require (i.e. food, water, affection). A fetus that might be able to survive with the extraordinary medical intervention is not a child - it is simply a fetus kept viable in an artificial womb until it is mature (much like a frozen embroyo is keep viable by freezing). A fetus becomes a child when it can leave that artifical womb.

This definition is also a statistical definition. So a child born after 9 months with severe medical problems is still a child because 99% of children delivered at 9 months survive without intervention. A fetus delivered after 6 months is not a child because it would never survive without the artificial womb. This definition means that there is a line between 6 and 9 months where a fetus could be reasonably be considered human because it could be delivered and given to someone other than the mother to take care of - that last statement is key to my definition. I am saying that the mother should have the absolute right to control her body as long as she is the only person that can keep that fetus viable. Once that duty could be transferred to another person then the mother no longer needs to have that absolute right since alternatives exist that would allow the mother to control her body and ensure that the biologically independent child/fetus can live too.

I exclude heroic interventions with an artificial womb because we cannot have a definition of life that depends on the existance of an extremely expensive medical system that many women do not have access to (i.e. in third world countries).

I think that's probably the best definition I've heard.

[Charles Anthony]

I can not resist:

Now, if I had to dig a little deeper, I'd say a term like "innocent" is a bit of an odd characteristic to ascribe to a non-sentient collection of tissue.

When would you assign innocence and why?

If the question is when does a fetus become a child then

No. That is not the question.

Here is a hint: the question is immediately followed by a question mark.

CAVEAT: You walked into that one.

[geoffrey]

Thou Shalt not Kill...?? Wrong, the ten commandments of the old testament were explicitly given to moses as the governing law for the hebrews in the promised hebrew state. Those laws were never meant to be adopted by humanity at large. God did not tell Moses to use those laws to govern the Canaanites or anyone else. At such time as the hebrew god saw fit to dissolve the hebrew state (the first time around) because of the corrupt behaviour of its people and clergy, that state's constitutional laws ceased to have any worldly application. Thus, the ten commandments are null and void and not applicable in this matter.

Betsy will be pleased to hear this.

So the opposite of them must be true!! Thou shall kill, and steal, and bare false witness. Hell, what do they know, completely unapplicable. The world would be a better place with more killing!!

--

Anyways, back to the normal not so anti-religion for the hell of it people... about the sentient baby topic.

How can you draw that line River, when a baby can survive outside the mother's body. It still can't survive without a mother or parent there to take care of it. So really, it can't survive on it's own.

How about a disabled person, with a mental disablity, that relies on guardians to take care of him/her? Are they fair game because they aren't self-sustaining?

How about a mentally alert person that's on a resperator (spelling?) or diaylsis? Are they fair game because they can't exist beyond the machines that keep them alive?

[Riverwind]

How about a mentally alert person that's on a respirator (spelling?) or dialysis? Are they fair game because they can't exist beyond the machines that keep them alive?

A fetus is biologically tied to its mother and cannot survive outside its mother's body until some yet-to-be-defined point during the pregnancy. Up until that point the fetus is part of the mother's body so the mother should be free to decide whether to let it grow into a human. There is no other situation where one person is biologically required to take care of another person. Even someone hooked up to an iron lung is not biologically tied to a single person - many people can assume the responsibility for caring for that person. This is why forcing a woman to carry a child to term violates her rights.

It is possible that future medical advances may make it possible to grow an embryo into a full term baby which means that may be theoretically possible to break the biological dependency between the mother and the fetus without destroying the fetus. However, no matter what technology is available this technology will cost money and will not be available to every woman. For that reason, it is unreasonable to force poor women to carry a fetus to term simply because rich women have access to technology that allows them to end their pregnancy without destroying the fetus. That is why I feel the we should draw the line at the point where a fetus is naturally likely to survive if it is separated from its mother. I am guessing that line is somewhere around 8 months.

[Renegade]

I am guessing that line is somewhere around 8 months.

RW, I agree with most of your argument, however I would take issue with the line being drawn at 8 months. While I agree that when concieved the fetus is nothing but a mass of tissue, at some point before birth that fetus evolves into a human being. I would say that point is well before 8 months, regardless of the fact of if it could survive or not without the mother.

The mother should have self-determination in deciding whether she wants to host a pregnancy or not, however she does not need 8 months to make that decision. In my view 3-4 months are sufficient time. If she decides not to terminate the pregnancy within the first 4 months, she should be deemed to be implicitly entering a "contract" to host the pregnancy and carry it to term. After that cutoff she should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

One question, if a mother, after 8 months, decided she wanted to cease hosting the pregnancy and induce immediate delivery, would you permit it, despite the fact that it may lead to serious complications in the child's health?

[August1991]

*sigh* ... where do I begin? Might as well start with kimmy...

And, I was old enough to be the flowergirl when my parents finally got married; if abortion were as easy to get and as accepted in the early 1980s as it is today, I might well not be here to have this conversation. I have serious doubts about the issue of abortion, but that doesn't mean I wish to see the topic discussed in the bullshit frame of reference that the original poster wishes us to look at it. It's an insult to the intelligence of everybody concerned, and I'm surprised and disappointed to see you hop on his bandwagon.

This is not a bullshit frame of reference, and I may be elliptical but referring to lesbians, Olson and Hizb Allah are perfectly sequential.

Many liberal arguments against war and capital punishment (or for vegetarianism) stem from a premise of "the sanctity of life". This premise runs up against the obvious contradiction of abortion, which all "progressive" liberals support. So, the liberal mind redefines life. Life apparently starts when the liberal decides it starts - which is after anyone has an abortion. And voilà, support for abortion and the premise of "the sanctity of life" are no longer in contradiction.

I'll have nothing to do with an argument supporting abortion that relies on an arbitrary definition of when life starts. I don't care when "life starts" or about any "sanctity of life premise" because they're not the issue. Our (civilized) society condones death and murder in many ways. Our politicians order soldiers to kill, allow policeman to shoot first. They make budget decisions about roads and hospitals that have for effect the deaths of innocent people. As individuals, we proverbially spend money for SUVs that could be used to bring fresh water to innocent African villagers who instead die of dysentery. For a pro-abortion liberal lesbian to argue against war on the grounds it kills innocent children makes about much sense as for a liberal lesbian to defend Hizb Allah.

Once you dispense with "the sanctity of life" premise, you face full square the moral dilemma of who gets to live and who may die and how to decide between the two. I have suggested one moral guide: pragmatism and the consequences of any decision rule. This rule (sort of) justifies abortion and forbids capital punishment.

[kimmy]

I have serious doubts about the issue of abortion, but that doesn't mean I wish to see the topic discussed in the bullshit frame of reference that the original poster wishes us to look at it. It's an insult to the intelligence of everybody concerned, and I'm surprised and disappointed to see you hop on his bandwagon.

I will jump on that bandwagon!

You would? (shrug) Whatever. I'm not familiar enough with your writing to have much of an opinion about that, but I have been reading August's messages for a long time and have come to expect a higher standard from him. It seems to me that if someone needs to resort to these kinds of debating tactics it means that they're more interested in propaganda than discussion, or that their viewpoint isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits.

Given the opportunity, I'd have no qualms or regrets about putting Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo out of our misery.

I would. I think it is foolhardy and irresponsible to kill such people when there is the opportunity to study them. Studying them could focus on prevention because at one point both of them were innocent children.

That's a thought. I don't think our understanding of the brain is yet to the level where we could identify precisely what makes these people do what they do.

I wonder. You know how some otherwise normal person might like Rob Schneider movies? Is that because of some physiological defect that we could diagnose, or is it just unexplainable human individuality at work?

Could Paul Bernardo's enthusiasm for killing young girls during sex be a result of some physiological defect that could have been diagnosed before he killed anybody? Or is it just an unexplainable quirk that just shows up in the same way as somebody somehow deciding that Rob Schneider is funny?

Maybe with enough research an answer could be discovered.

And, I was old enough to be the flowergirl when my parents finally got married; if abortion were as easy to get and as accepted in the early 1980s as it is today, I might well not be here to have this conversation.

Were you ever an innocent child?

Depends who you ask, I suppose.

You can get as dumb as you want, Chuck (and trust me, with this last question you're getting pretty dumb) but you're not going to goad me into an argument about the morality of abortion.

Don't you feel a little dirty pursuing this line of argument? Don't you feel a little dishonest? Don't you feel a little like takeanumber?

In the context of discussing killing life, I do not think he should feel dirty.

If you were at a rally or had a booth set up at the Students Union building at your local university campus, or providing sound-bites for your local news, then sure, go nuts. Chances are pretty good that you'll reach lots of people and that of the people you reach a fair percentage are dumb enough to be swayed by propaganda. But this isn't society at large, this is Mapleleafweb. There aren't actually that many regulars here, and the regulars here aren't the kind of people who are easily swayed by propaganda. (this is something that should be pointed out to the flood of native activists, whose efforts would be much better directed toward a larger, dumber audience.)

-k

[Black Dog]

When would you assign innocence and why?

For the purpiose of this debate, I wouldn't bother. It's not a relevant concept.

No. The issue is whether you are killing them.

Wrong. Abortion terminates (in other words, kills) the fetus. That's pretty much the point of the procedure, no? However, that is not the moral issue. If a fetus is not a child (that is: deserving of all the rights and protections as a sentient, self sufficient human being), then kiling it is not morally wrong, any more than killing a tumour with radiation or surgery is wrong. Now, personally, I'm not willing to go that far. essentially, I'm a pragmatist on this issue. In the conflict between "potential humans" and the concept of the individual's right to self-determination, I'll go with the latter.

[kimmy]

For a pro-abortion liberal lesbian to argue against war on the grounds it kills innocent children makes about much sense as for a liberal lesbian to defend Hizb Allah.

Does Hezbollah advocate Sharia law? If that's the case, then our hypothetical Hezbollah-boosting lesbian would be supporting a group that would have her put to death. I guess that's a somewhat illogical position.

"For a pro-abortion liberal lesbian to argue against war on the grounds it kills innocent children makes about as much sense..."

Again, whether those beliefs are contradictory depends entirely on whether you consider a fetus to be a child. From the point of view of a pro-abortion liberal, they're not illogical or mutually exclusive at all. I don't know why you keep beating that drum.

Once you dispense with "the sanctity of life" premise, you face full square the moral dilemma of who gets to live and who may die and how to decide between the two. I have suggested one moral guide: pragmatism and the consequences of any decision rule. This rule (sort of) justifies abortion and forbids capital punishment.

This is more interesting. Getting rid of both of the moral justifications claimed by one side ("right to control my body!") or the other ("sanctity of life!") is probably not going to be popular with either side of the debate.

If this question were a matter of pure pragmatism and no other moral question were considered, when you look at the effects of kids from broken homes and unfit parents... we would probably be *promoting* abortions.

-k