Not as I see it. Saty believes overall that conservatives all share the same political opinions basically whereas liberals do not and she believes, actually believes this applies to abortion as well. Well obviously it doesn't because while liberals may wax poetic about our nation's diversity and pluralism their overall conclusion is exactly the same re the practice notwithstanding the occasional oddball like Nat Hentoff. That conclusion is that abortion should remain entirely legal, they wholeheartedly support Roe in other words. Now if you had some libs saying abortion legal only during the first few weeks, others saying maybe 4 or 5 months and still others advocating parental notification laws and others not, IF you had one hearty group of libs saying yeah we're pro-choice but the legal framework behind Roe really sucks and needs to be overturned or at least revisited and another group saying no 'tis fine, these and other finer shades and nuances would indicate liberal diversity of thought on the issue but you lose on this one Saty, oh boy do you lose!
Now if I were a liberal Democratic strategist I would counsel the Left distance themselves from abortion. Push the green issues, labor issues, the rights of dissidents in foreign lands and whatever else floats your boat but to chug away at something that is by its very nature ugly makes no eminent practical political sense to me. It's a creepy brand imo (make that creepy-cubed when you throw in Terri Schiavo). There doesn't seem to be that great a diversity of thought on gun control either or immigration for that matter. I'd go so far as to say that overall liberal and conservative thought tends to be fairly homogeneous over time and that is to be expected since liberals have roughly the same ideals as other liberals and conservatives share generally the same ideals as other conservatives and there's gambling in Vegas. So for Saty to tout liberals as somehow being the Great Thinkers of the Age on what planet?
Have at it. I'm pumped and primed and when it comes to splitting hairs and parsing language I already know your next move. I wasn't going to do an abortion blog so soon but her misguided encomia to modern-day liberalism cannot go unaddressed. BTW when it comes to liberal diversity of thought on abortion I want copious documentation and quotes:)
afterthought: You know here's a weird thought, there actually is more conservative diversity of thought on abortion than liberal diversity of thought on the issue. Conservatives also from what I've been reading in the blogosphere and in organized punditry these days also have differing views on gay marriage, Jonah Goldberg is rather all over the map......hmmmmmm......
So for Saty to tout liberals as somehow being the Great Thinkers of the Age on what planet?
ReplyDeleteWho said this? Are you following in the footsteps of others and putting words in my mouth?
We respect diversity of thought. We are all individuals who hold independent viewpoints and we respect those viewpoints equally. A religious stance can not be forced legislatively on people who don't subscribe to that viewpoint. To do so is the equivalent of Sharia law.
This is what I've said. Don't twist it, misappropriate it or make it into something it's not.
BUT the overall conclusion of liberals is that abortion should remain legal up 'til at least the 6th month, the very framework of Roe vs. Wade. That's not diversity. How often do liberals criticize the practice of abortion? I don't hear much of it now excuse me while I go hunt down some quotes.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with this. Saty (to Beth):
ReplyDelete"Those with a liberal mindset encourage diversity in all ways including diversity of thought. There are no liberal 'dittoheads'...Perhaps that may be the essential difference between conservatives and liberals; on the one hand the conformity to specific opinions on any given topic and on the other hand the encouragement of individuality and thinking outside the box."
It's known as paraphrasing but if you prefer more exact concise language...
All from "Reflections on the current blogging season" (2/3):
ReplyDeleteTo Beth: "Do you always make such sweeping generalizations? And in the same vein are every single one of your opinions identical with every other conservative out there?...So in other words, every single one of your opinions is one hundred percent identical with every other conservative in the country, with no variation whatsoever? No conservative has a differing opinion on any topic?"
Implying that we conservatives all read from the same playbook at least that's my interpretation.
This is my point, that we respect OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWPOINTS and because of that we have to support it... because we will not allow our own personal feelings to influence legislation that may affect people who don't hold the same opinions we do.
ReplyDeleteIs that somehow unclear?
We are not pushing our personal viewpoints.. we are looking at what's best for EVERYONE, whether they agree with us or not.
I don't make implications, Z, I make statements. If I want to say something, I say it. I asked Beth whether her opinions were identical with every other conservative's because she said something about the 'lib handbook'. She diverted from my question by bringing in a statement that conservative 'ideals' were identical, which took focus off my question whether her OPINIONS were not identical with every other conservative's.
ReplyDeleteIs it somehow a coincidence that all of a sudden you're working overtime to defend her and her statements, or would there be an ulterior motive?
I'm just saying.
BUT liberals almost to a member overwhelmingly support the framework of Roe, legal abortion at least up to the 6th month. I don't even hear liberals bemoaning the fact that if you look in the Yellow Pages you'll quite often see a clinic proudly advertising abortions up to the 24th week. Again liberals overwhelmingly support legal abortion, even late legal abortion and it's their very LACK of diversity of thought on its legality that is the most shocking. Is that somehow unclear to you?
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge difference between one, having personal opinions, and two, attempting to legislate them onto other people.
ReplyDeleteWe do not attempt to legislate our personal opinions onto other people.
If that were the case, and I was to attempt to use my own personal opinions and religious beliefs to influence my stance on legislation, I would do everything in my power to make meat-eating illegal. It's revolting and it goes against my religious beliefs.
However, I have to consider the beliefs of other people. Other people, whose religious and other beliefs don't forbid them from eating meat. By not legislating the legality of meat-eating, they retain THE CHOICE to eat meat or not eat meat. If they don't want to, they don't have to. If they do, they are free to make that choice.
That was an analogy. Do I need to clarify it or reduce it to make it easier to understand?
Personal morality, religious beliefs and personal opinions have no business in creating or influencing legislation that affects people who do not share the same opinions.
People who don't want abortions are free to refuse them.
People who do should be given the same freedom to obtain them.
Conservative ideals are pretty much identical, that's why they overwhelmingly support the free market. Is it somehow a coincidence that you and Shaw almost sound like the same person when the subject is abortion? just sayin'
ReplyDelete"There is a huge difference between one having personal opinions, and two, attempting to legislate them onto other people."
ReplyDeleteSo you're ok with abortions up 'til the 24th week?
People who don't want abortions are free to refuse them."
But apparently not to refuse to have to pay for them through their tax dollars. Are you ok with this or is this another famed liberal nuance we've not been hearing about?
& if you're asking me if I believe in what I call the protocols of friendship I most certainly do but I've always stated when I disagreed with her on an issue (hey let's talk Walmart). Just so happens our conclusions have coincided lately or perhaps you would prefer me weaker in my conclusions so as to express detachment or objectivity is my guess. On the legal aspects of abortion there is absolutely NO liberal diversity of thought or else I've missed it and you can fill me in.
ReplyDelete• No taxpayer subsidies for abortion. Abortion has been one of the most contentious issues of the debate. Republican John Boehner said that the Democrat-backed House proposal (the Senate hadn't drafted one at that point) "will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars." We found that the federal government will not send tax dollars to abortion providers, so we rated his statement False. We later checked the main Senate version on a different aspect of abortion coverage. We found that health care plans that receive public money (to help low-income people pay for insurance) will be able to offer abortion coverage if those particular services are paid for with patient premiums, not the subsidies.
ReplyDeleteGet your facts straight. As well, states who administer health plans will be free to make their own laws regarding their plans whether or not to include abortion in those plans.
On the matter of Meat "that was an analogy. Do I need to clarify it or reduce it to make it easier to understand?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can reduce it to its proper mystical emanations. Maybe you can reduce it further because where I come from if you eat a hamburger you're eating an animal whereas if you eat a fetus that'd make you a cannibal.
Which part of 'we have our own opinions but don't allow them to get in the way of legislation that affects other people who may not hold the same opinions we do' doesn't make sense to you?
ReplyDeleteDiversity is accepting that not everyone believes the same way we do. And it also means that we don't support legislation that denies people the right to act on their beliefs.
No one who doesn't want abortion is forced to have one, are they?
Reduce it further.
ReplyDeleteShall I repeat it again?
My personal religious beliefs and opinions are mine and applicable to me only.
To attempt to force it in legislative terms on people who don't necessarily believe the way I do is unacceptable.
People have the right to choose to eat meat or to not have an abortion.
Equally, those who choose not to eat meat, or to have an abortion, should be granted the same right.
I can't make it any clearer than that. If it's not understandable then we've moved into obtundity.
Protocols of friendship... another phrase for 'don't throw me under a bus'?
Speaking of taxes that reminds me I have to pick up those forms later. You know why they had to jettison the whole abortion thing, they wanted so desperately to get the dang thing passed that you could make the case it was a pragmatic decision on the part of the Dems and not the usual moral position they're accustomed to and they also had to deal with that tiny obstreperous minority of pro-life Dems who were holding back on the Great Moral Legislation of the Day (and the Obama hallmark). It wasn't some great Shakespearian Moral Position if that is what you're...inferring (ooooops!!).
ReplyDeleteAre you even writing these comments? Seriously.
ReplyDeleteI have an appointment to get to. Everything is an hour away from here.
But you haven't answered the question. If people eating meat and having an abortion is on the same moral plane then eating a fetus would be the same thing as eating a bowl of chili. I would think the Law might or should find this problematic as you can't execute a pregnant woman on death row either. Let me ask you something, how many times have you thrown Shaw under the bus (not that you should)?
ReplyDeleteAbout the only thing we agree on these days is the Hudson Valley. Is obtundity a word? Maybe you should go up against Watson:)
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't particularly matter if they're the same or different. My personal views have NO BEARING on what legislation I support in either case.
ReplyDeleteI think of other people besides myself. This is why they call it an analogy; the point I was making, for the 50th time, is that what I personally believe doesn't affect my support of legislation, because I look at people outside myself and recognize that they may not believe the same things I do, and that legislation needs to address more than just me and my beliefs.
And as far as obtundity: you can look it up here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtundity
As far as throwing Shaw under a bus: we actually, if you have never noticed, interact only rarely, and have never had an escalated disagreement. If I did ever disagree with her, I'd certainly make my opinion on any subject known, as I would expect her to with me. Neither action would be 'throwing someone under a bus'. It would be the exchange of views and ideas. I don't expect every other liberal person on the planet to entertain identical ideals to mine, and I don't feel that disagreeing with me is somehow 'throwing a fellow liberal under a bus'.
Yes, there is great diversity on the right regarding abortion: we note the libertarian view
ReplyDelete(gov't should not tell individuals what to do)
the Republican Majority for Choice, etc. Inconsistant, IMO, as the GOP pro-lifers seek protection for 'babies', while cutting aid to single mothers.
Why should hardworking taxpayers' dollars go to support single mothers, BB, when we all know they're crack-smoking welfare queens? Don't you remember Beth saying we should make people 'uncomfortable in their poverty' and that will magically get them jobs that pay enough money to enable them to not only stop smoking crack and get off welfare but to send their kids to top shelf schools and buy new cars every two years like real Americans do?
ReplyDeleteNo, BB.. by refusing them aid, denying them healthcare and essentially reducing their quality of life, they'll be more equipped to find success in life. In no time at all they'll have moved out of the ghetto and into the gated community. All it takes is the right motivation.. so our job as good, patriotic Americans is to strip away every bit of aid and help for these people. It's the right thing to do.
And if they should die from exposure from sleeping under the bridge after they've been evicted, or die of severe nutritional deficiencies, or die of lack of healthcare.. well, that's their fault.
You Know, Since "Thou Shalt not Kill" is One of the Ten Commandments, Perhaps Murder is a Religious Stance and therefore, Murder should be Legal.
ReplyDeleteOr how about this? Since Murder Elicits Personal Feelings and we should not Allow Personal Feelings to Influence Legislation, shouldn't Murder be Legal?
Since there are People in this Country that Feel no Remorse Over Murder and Therefore Hold the View Point that Murder isn't Wrong, Therefore, shouldn't we Respect the View Points of Others, Allowing Murder to be Legal?
In all of the Above, I am Referring to the Murdering of People who are already Born, but what Makes the Killing of the Unborn any Different? Are These Question Somehow Unclear?
Actually, Satyavati, there are Young Girls who are Indeed Pressured to have Abortions. Though the Pressure Generally Comes from Boyfriends, Friends and Parents, rather than the Government, that doesn't Mean that such Pressure does not Exist and there is not Enough Done to Protect against this sort of Pressure.
Lista,
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I'm not ever going to change my mind that religious groups have the right to legislate their beliefs and morality onto others who may not share the same beliefs.
I realize this is your favourite topic and that we could once again go on forever with this, but the topic isn't abortion, it's diversity of thought.
Z, reading over again, you actually got my original premise wrong. I never stated nor assumed that all conservatives share opinions; what I actually did was ask Beth, several times, whether her opinions were identical with every other conservative's out there. Now, she never did answer the question because she diverted her answer to 'identical ideals' rather than to directly address the question of 'identical opinions'. Having nothing else to go on, and no direct answer, I stated that 'perhaps the essential difference', not that definitely the essential difference, because I never got the answer to the question I asked, which was whether all conservatives did indeed share the same opinions.
So it all goes back to Beth diverting from a direct question, doesn't it?
She was the one who mentioned 'lib handbooks', not I. She was the one who implied that my opinions should somehow be the same as other liberals'. That didn't come from me.
So if you insist on carrying on with this, let's get the facts and details straight, instead of diverting and manipulating them into convenient bits and pieces.
Saty: "Don't you remember Beth saying we should make people 'uncomfortable in their poverty'..."
ReplyDeleteActually Ben Franklin said that.
"...And if they (the welfare people, ed.) should die from exposure from sleeping under the bridge after they've been evicted..."
That's not what this blog is about, are pro-choice good people, are pro-choice people bad people? Do pro-life people suck? Who makes more sense yada yada and you're lucky I'm not a prick otherwise I'd delete this stuff. The only focus of this thread is this: there is practically no liberal diversity of thought regarding abortion and your challenge dear Saty is to show me there is and so far I ain't heard it yet. Pro-choice people ALWAYS say the same thing hence lack of liberal diversity of thought on the subject. Thanx guys.
"Like I said I'm not ever going to change my mind that religious groups..."
ReplyDeleteYou've mentioned GOD how many times now and I haven't brought Him or Her up once. Since you see abortion as being a solely religious issue can you explain where you're coming from on this? Is everything a religious issue to you or just abortion?
"but the topic isn't abortion, it's diversity of thought"
It's both or more specifically the lack of liberal diversity of thought regarding abortion. Now the vast majority of liberals think Roe vs. Wade was a wonderful decision, even a great one hence lack of liberal diversity of thought on abortion. Now lest somehow accuse you of obtundity get back on track here.
"I never stated nor assumed that all conservatives share opinions. What I actually did was ask Beth, several times, whether her opinions were identical with every other conservative's out there."
That there is a classic conundrum ad absurdum. Each of your statements perfectly contradict the other so how can Beth be guilty of anything? In your first statement you imply that conservatives do not all share the same opinions and so how can Beth's opinions be identical with every other conservative out there if those opinions naturally vary across a group as stated in your first sentence? You know this is kinda fun.
Finally Sat you have a habit or tendency or style of debating that tries to raise your opinions as obvious self-evident facts and it doesn't matter what the topic is. It happened with your Terri Schiavo threads at your blog, potassium deficiency, end of story. It's happened with theories of global warming where you accuse conservatives of not accepting established scientific facts hence in effect shutting down the whole debate from the getgo. Re dieting the discussion was more congenial but you kinda have the final word on carbs, calories and what's good and what's bad because you're the resident health expert. You're the Oracle of Truth and we're all to listen.
ReplyDeleteI have never been an abortion apologist.
I'm late to the party, but here's goes. I’m a pro-choice Conservative. I don’t LIKE abortions, but I don’t believe I have the RIGHT to tell another woman what she SHOULD do with her body. While I wish there weren’t any abortions, I realize there are cases of incest, rape and personal reasons that I’m not privy to and have NO right to know or judge, and considering those, want there to be a safe way for women to have this procedure performed. And as Saty mentioned, if one doesn’t want an abortion, fine, don’t get one, but at least it’s available in a safe way for those who do.
ReplyDeleteThen..there are always
ReplyDeleteexeptions ...
Off-Topic Pam and those issues and angles have been amply discussed at some of my other threads but you do highlight something I said in my afterthought and that is there is more conservative diversity of thought on abortion than liberal diversity of thought on the issue. For instance soapie regularly challenges Beth and me on some of our pro-life conclusions and we him but how many liberals challenge the pro-choice, pro-Roe status quo in the liberal community nowadays? You know we once had a young Democratic mayor in Yonkers by the name of Nicholas Wasicsko who when asked his position on abortion responded with "limited pro-choice." Well at least it was different ya know?
ReplyDeleteBB has gotten what this thread is all about. Kudoes BB you get a year's supply of Turtle Wax and Oodles of Noodles.
ReplyDeleteAw crap. I like oodles of noodles.
ReplyDeleteI can't explain it any more than I have.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't understand that the liberal mindset is to keep one's private, personal opinions out of the public legislative debate, then what else can I say? Youa're not getting it, either deliberately or because you just don't get it. Either way I can't simplify or explain it in any more detail than I have.
Liberal thought keeps its own variegated opinions to itself and concentrates its legislative support on what will benefit everyone, not itself.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteMy Questions Illustrate Why your Argument is Weak. Your Decision to not Change your Mind does not have any Bearing on the Strength or Weakness of your Argument and your Continuous Repetition of it doesn't either.
Explaining your Position is not the Problem, Satyavati. We Understand you Perfectly. We just don't Agree with you and my Comments Explains Why your Position is Weak. I don't Really have anything More to Explain Either, other than I would Love it if Pam would Come Over to my Blog and Read some of my Abortion Posts. Here are my Two Favorites...
Abortion/Pro-Choice/Do What I Want with "MY OWN BODY"
Abotion & Rape
Regardless of what you or anyone else would like to make it, and I know you would, this is not solely about abortion for me. It's about any piece of legislation that attempts to put one group's morality onto another, and that fails to recognize that not only do not all people share their opinions/moralities/beliefs, but that to do so is a direct violation of people's religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteAnd I cannot ever in good conscience support a piece of legislation on any topic whatsoever that attempts to put the beliefs of one group onto everyone else, who may not believe the way they do.
It's the same principle that makes the phrase 'we are a Christian nation' completely wrong.
If you disagree with the fact that our nation is made up of multitudes, who do not all subscribe to the same tenets and beliefs, and who should not be bound by the religious tenets of others (and I am talking about various different pieces of legislation and not simply abortion), then you may if you like.
However, for myself, whether you or anyone else 'agrees' with me doesn't change the fact that in order for legislation to be fair it has to take into consideration that not everyone believes the same way.
Abortion is only one of many, many pieces of legislation that are affected by this bias. It's American tradition for one group to try to give their personal beliefs legislative power over everyone else. It's been going on from the very beginning, and it's dead wrong. It is on an exact par with Sharia law, which is law based on religious belief. And there are Christians in this country as we speak who are attempting to do just that; make Biblical law the standard for all American legislation. They have already begun to change education through manipulation and bias in school books through the Texas School Book system. They're having, raising and educating children with the express purpose of putting them into politics so that they can influence legislation toward a Christian-run nation, and support principles such as refusing or reneging citizenship for non-Christians and disenfranchising women and also non-Christians. It may seem unbelievable but yet it's true.
In the end, you are free to disagree as you like, but to expect that I should or would ever abandon the principle that legislation should reflect the diversity of beliefs in this country is unrealistic and doomed to failure.
There was a Time, Satyavati, in which the Morality of One Group was the Right to Own Slaves and the Morality of another Group was that we shouldn't Own Slaves and this Issue was so Heated that it Caused the Civil War. I Guess another Option would have been to just Allow the Confederates to secede from the Union, but the Point is that this was the Main Issue that Contributed to the War.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you would have Preferred it if we had Just Left the Issue of Slavery Alone and it was still a Common Practice.
When Woe vs. Wade was First Enacted, there was much Less Diversity in Relation to the Issue than there is now, for most of the States were Forbidding it.
You can Accuse me of Trying to Make the Abortion Issue into Something, if you'd Like, yet you have already Decided what you Think it is and will not Allow for any Alternate Interpretations. It's just Like Z Said. You have Already Decided it, you have the Final Word; the Oracle of Truth and we're all to Listen.
You Never did Answer my Questions as to Why Murder isn't also a Religious Freedom. It's One of the Ten Commandments, Satyavati, so shouldn't we Legalize Murder? Why won't you Answer my Question? You have Blinders on, that's Why and will not Acknowledge that there are Other Valid Arguments besides your Own.
For you to Bring Up a Group of Extremists that are Trying to Push Christianity to the Point of even Refusing Citizenship to Non-Christians is a Change of Subject, for that is not what this Issue is About. This is just a Case of Fearing Compromise because of the Fear of an Extreme. You are no Different, Satyavati, than those who Fear Health Care Reform.
If you are a Person who has no Desire to Convince anyone of anything, Satyavati, as you had at One Time Claimed, then why do you Keep Talking? Why can't we just agree to Disagree then and Move to another Topic? I'd be Perfectly Fine with that.
Whatever, Lista.
ReplyDeleteIf you can find a group of any people anywhere who can argue with you on a religious basis that murder ought to be legalized, then you go on and do that, and then we can discuss it.
Meanwhile, the whole institution of slavery was more an economic issue than any kind of a moral one.
Are we finished now?
"The whole institution of slavery was more an economic issue than any kind of a moral one."
ReplyDeleteThe Issue of Abortion is more of an Issue or Rights, than an Issue of Morality. That is the Rights of the Unborn Baby. The Only People who Make it into a Moral Issue are those who are Pro-Choice.
Yeh, I Guess I'm Finished now? Are You?
I have a simple solution to those who oppose abortion: Don't have one.
ReplyDeleteThe slavery issue doesn't work here, since the slave holding states were intent on IMPOSING slavery in the new territories when the settlers of those territories DID NOT WANT IT. IOW, the slave states were forcing the issue. Also, in the south, a slave had NO CHOICE but to be a slave.
No one forces abortion on a woman. She CHOOSES IT. Even if Lista says a woman is influenced by boyfriend or other interested parties, she is not FORCED to have that abortion.
In any event, no one here knows the personal, private reasons that are involved in seeking an abortion.
In very many cases an abortion is sought for therapeutic reasons, i.e., to save the life of the mother.
It would be barbaric for the US to outlaw a medical procedure that would save the life of a woman because of a absolutist view that abortion in all cases is wrong.
I'm all for universal birth control to cut down on the number of abortions.
I'd also be willing to show that unless an anti-abortion advocate is against all wars, JUST and unjust, he or she is morally inconsistent.
To FORCE a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will is no different from FORCING a woman to abort a pregnancy against her will, as is done in China.
There are two main reasons why I am not responding to Saty and Shaw's pro-choice lines of argumentation: namely it's not my goal to change them to my way of thinking but more pivotally it's not germane to the point of my thread.
ReplyDeleteSaty: "People who don't want abortions are free to refuse them. People who do should be given the same freedom to obtain them."
Shaw: "I have a simple solution to those who oppose abortion: Don't have one."
Saty and Shaw, two liberals, are saying practically the exact same thing here hence there is a lack of liberal diversity of thought regarding abortion and THAT dear reader is the point of my thread. In fact I welcome more liberals to chime in here because it basically comes back to my overall thesis.
I'm Sorry, Z, that we are Off Topic and I guess I wouldn't Respond to them Either Except that I have Become Quite Tired of the Same Faulty Arguments and even though we have been Through all of this Repetitively with Satyavati, Pamela and Shaw were not Participating at the Time and this is Why I can't seem to Resist Speaking my Piece on the Issue Once again, so here it is Again...
ReplyDeleteShe Chuckles at Shaw's Comment. I have a Simple Solution for Those who do not Believe in Murder. Don't Murder. Sounds Good, huh? But there is Only One Problem. It Does Nothing at all for the Victims of those who do Murder.
The Slavery Issue is Totally Relevant because Roe vs Wade IMPOSED the forbidding of Abortion on all of the States and thus was a States Rights Issue, just as Slavery was.
Also, just as the Slave had NO CHOICE so also the Unborn Baby has NO CHOICE. Abortion may not be FORCED on a Woman, but it is FORCED on the Unborn Child. Pro-Choice Advocates are Perpetually Ignoring the Third Party and Assuming that there are Only Two, those who Oppose Abortion and The Pregnant Woman. The Third Party is the Baby and Pro-Choicers Continually Ignore the Reality of the Actual Victim.
To a Frightened Teenager, External Pressures can Feel Like Force and such should not be Allowed.
Murder is Acceptable in the Case of Self Defense. That's Even True when the Victim is already Born. The Position that Abortion should be Outlawed when the Woman's Life is in Danger is not what Most Pro-Lifers believe. We should Never Avoid Rational Compromises to Limit the Practice just because of the Fear of the Extremes that Only a Very Small Number of People Believe in.
More for Shaw...
ReplyDeleteI am in no Way an Absolutist and Oppose those who are, yet Abortion on Demand is Often Chosen for the Smallest of Reasons and this should be Stopped.
Birth Control is already Available to Teenagers who want it and it hasn't Stopped the Problem of Teen Pregnancy.
"I'd also be willing to show that unless an anti-abortion advocate is against ALL wars, JUST and unjust, he or she is morally inconsistent."
This is Only True of an Absolutist. Absolutists may be more Verbal than the Rest, but that is not what Most Pro-Lifers are.
Not Offering Something is not the Same as Forcing. There was a Time in which Abortion did not Exist and because of this, it was NATURE that Forced the Issue, not Medicine or Government or anything else, so Perhaps we should be Taking these Complaints to Mother Nature, or to God.
Once a gain, Z, I'm Sorry for my Diversion from the Topic. You are so Right, though, that what Liberals say is Quite Repetitive and the Arguments that they Repeat are Very Weak.
I'd Like to Invite Shaw to my Blog to Read the Same Links that I Gave to Pamela Above. You will Find them in the Comment that I Left on 2/20, 2011, at 1:48 AM. I'd also Like to Add that in the Comment Section of the Abortion and Rape Post, I have Stressed that I am not an Absolutist in Relation to the Issue of Rape in that I would never Push this Particular Issue Politically.
I too can't resist. Saty & Shaw: well here's what I find shocking about the lack of liberal diversity of thought on abortion, you'd think you'd find a substantial minority at least of modern-day libs who say Roe went far, way too far in allowing abortions up to the 24th week (and even after but let's for the sake of discussion here say the 24th). I mean they're all in lockstep with Roe which as a judicial decision has more problems than sticking a stick up your ass so that's for starters.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is this personal compartmentalization of your personal feelings on the matter and your political stance which I find utterly fascinating. I don't like, egads abortion is icky, 'tis sucks but...so how do you mentally bridge the chasm over to but keep it perfectly safe and legal and the nice doctor just came back from Dunkin Donuts but he's a good guy who knows what he's doing. For me it's not possible, just sayin'
"Once again Z I'm Sorry for my Diversion from the Topic."
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, have at it. The Topic has already been proven thanks to liberal ramblings and I'm feeling pentup anyway.
The Unfortunate Reality is that there are Probably a much Larger Percentage of Absolutists on Both Sides of the Issue on the Web, than you will Meet in Real Life. Absolutists are much more Vocal. Most People, though, are more Willing to Compromise and that is all that I am Trying to Get these Pro-Choicers to do.
ReplyDeleteSorry that you are Feeling Pentup, Z, yet I'm not Going to Dwell on this Post any More Today. I've Said my Piece for now.
That probably explains all those public opinion polls on the matter, a little pro-choice here, a little pro-life there. What makes me laugh though is when groups like Planned Parenthood see themselves, actually see themselves as mainstream. Come back tomorrow then.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Lista, but under the laws of the United States of America, abortion is NOT murder. Under your religious dogma it is.
ReplyDeleteUS law is not based on religious dogma.
You want to overturn a lawful medical procedure because of your religious beliefs.
Z-man, why do you try to make the case that there's something wrong with liberals who agree on the abortion issue? There isn't anything wrong with that.
Shaw,
ReplyDeleteIn the Dictionary, the Word Homicide is Defined Like This...
"The Killing of One Human Being by another."
So the Real Issue here is not just in the Definition of Homicide, but in the Definition of "Human Being", so this is a Matter of Definition. Those who Believe in Pro-Life Believe that some Changes should be Made to Current Law, so in Light of that, What the Current Law Says is not the Issue. The Issue is rather or not a Person Believes in the Current Law.
It is also Interesting to Note that During the Slavery Issue, there was also a Debate Relating to rather or not the Negro Slaves were "Persons", or just Property. And here we are Once again calling the Unborn not "Persons", but Property. This Fact Becomes Obvious Every Time that someone says "MY OWN BODY".
The Point I was Making, However, is that the Command that we should not Murder (Define that in what ever way that you want to) is One of the Ten Commandments and Therefore could be Called a Religious Issue. Since Murder of those already Born is a Religious Issue, shouldn't we Allow Murder to be Legal? Or how About Stealing? That's One of the Ten Commandments as Well. So since this is a Religious Issue, why Not Allow People to Steal?
This Particular Argument was not Stated in Order to Establish Abortion as Murder, but instead to Show Why Calling Abortion a Religious Issue is not by itself a Valid Argument, for if we Got Rid of all Laws that were Mentioned within Religion, we would have no Laws.
My Arguments are Sound, Shaw. You Guys are just Choosing not to Listen.
Abortion is NOT about Religious Dogma, but about Rights and that is the Rights of the Unborn. The Only People Who Insist that this is a Religious Issue are those who are Pro-Choice.
Z-man,
In Response to your most Recent Post that has no Place to Post Comments, Please don't Feel too Discouraged. There are Other People Out here that Care about You. Please come By my Blog. I've Talked some about Politics, but I've also Talked some about Relationships and I even did a rather Cute Post about a Penguin that you can Use in Order to just Shoot the Breeze about anything if you would Like to.
I'd Even Write you a Personal Note if I had your Email, but I won't Push that Issue. That's entirely up to you.
Lista, are you against the morning after pill?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe a zygote is a person?
People who are against abortion are against the morning pill which will abort a zygote--a fertilized ovum with no brain stem, heart, or nervous system.
Religious people who are against the use of this pill, Catholics, for example, are against it because they believe that a "soul" is present at the moment of conception. That is a religious belief, not a medically scientific fact.
In the case of a woman who seeks an abortion, there are TWO rights in conflict, the woman's and the embryo's. When two rights are in conflict, the living person's, outweighs the one that cannot survive outside the womb.
Late term abortions are rare and performed to save the life of the mother in dire medical circumstances. They are not used as a birth control procedure.
Outlawing the medical procedure to save the life of a woman is barbaric.
We do not live in a perfect world. If we did, there would be no unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancies
Z-man, I know dozens of devout Catholics who are Liberals, but who do NOT support abortions.
So there's diversity for you, you just don't want to see it. Just because two women, Saty and I, came here and agreed on the abortion issue, that does NOT prove your point.
Shaw: "Z-man, why do you try to make the case that there's something wrong with liberals who agree on the abortion issue?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not just that Saty has recently posted that liberals are more open-minded and diverse in thought than conservatives and she even believes this to be true in the area of abortion and it's obviously not true. Libs for the most part agree on abortion, she implied otherwise.
I get Lista's point. Her point is that much of our laws are remarkably similar to the Ten Commandments and they deal with things like murder and stealing so we can make murder and stealing into religious issues the same way some do about abortion. You either get it or you don't.
Oh God so much in your post there Shaw. Catholics who are Democrats and I've known a few are against abortion you're right but they're Democrats primarily because of the labor issue, they're pro-union. They're the ones Reagan attracted in droves but I don't know if they're liberal across-the-board the way you and Saty are. The zygote is not a religious issue, the scientific fact is that human life begins at conception.
ReplyDeleteLista: "The Only People Who Insist that this ia a Religious Issue are Those who are Pro-Choice."
Sure seems that way. Since Shaw mentioned the soul when does a newborn get a soul? The Law really doesn't care, infanticide is against the law.
Shaw: "When two rights are in conflict the living person's outweighs the one that cannot survive outside the womb."
ReplyDeleteBut that's the thing, viability is constantly changing. You had this baby, Renee King, born at around 20 weeks and yet many clinics will perform abortions up to 24 weeks. Time to adjust your thinking Shaw? If we ever have an artificial womb that'll blow your whole argument out of the water.
"Late term abortions are rare and performed to save the life of the mother in dire medical circumstances. They are not used as a birth control procedure."
That may or may not be true but the salient point is that libs like you and Saty support Roe vs. Wade and Roe says a woman can have an abortion for any reason up to about the 24th week (or Roe even said maybe the 28th but that was 1973). The State may only regulate this type of abortion to make it as safe as possible but yes a woman can have an abortion for any reason up to this time so would you and Saty go for an adjustment of Roe here or at least a tweak? God that decision was rendered in 1973 and alot has changed since then.
Z-man, I know that you were answering my several of my comments, but when you wrote this:
ReplyDeleteShaw: "Z-man, why do you try to make the case that there's something wrong with liberals who agree on the abortion issue?"
You were wrong. I never wrote those words. Go back and see for yourself. When you use quotes, that implies that the person actually said or wrote those words. I didn't.
Z-man: "Libs for the most part agree on abortion, she implied otherwise."
Do you have anything other than your opinion to back that up? Did you forget about the Dem. Senator that gave Obama trouble over the abortion issue during the health care reform debacle?
Z-man, no matter what I say or what I give you as evidence, you'll find something wrong with my argument, as you do right here:
"Catholics who are Democrats and I've known a few are against abortion you're right but they're Democrats primarily because of the labor issue, they're pro-union."
But you see, Z-man, THEY ARE LIBERALS WHO OPPOSE ABORTION. You are bringing in secondary premises not connected to the subject in an attempt to discredit what I just presented. You won't be satisfied with anything that goes against YOUR ideology.
A potential human being begins at conception, but it is NOT a human being, just like an apple seed is not an apple. Aborting a zygote is NOT infanticide no matter how you try to convince me or yourself that it is, a zygote is NOT an infant go look it up. I suggest you learn what those two terms mean.
Arguing with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall, you keep changing the premise, changing the subject, or making up definitions.
Z-man, we don't have an artificial womb, we're dealing with what we have now and the circumstances we have to face now. Conjuring up scenarios just to make a point against me is not arguing, it's childish.
Of course as our medical technology improves and a fetus' viability is farther away from full-term, of course that has to be revisited.
Are you against all wars just and unjust? If you are not and yet maintain your absolutist stand on abortion, you are morally inconsistent.
Hi Shaw,
ReplyDeleteYou do not Know me well Enough Yet, to Know that I am a Moderate and that I Abhor Pushing anything Extreme when it comes to Politics. What you are Reacting to is the Extremes that I am Talking about.
When I Use the Word Extreme, all I Mean is that which is Far from the Center and/or the Absolute Refusal to Offer any Kind of Compromise.
As to the Morning After Pill, I'm a little Torn on the Issue. I Believe in Abstinence Prior to Marriage, yet I would Never Legislate that, because it is a Christian Idea, not a Political One. I Guess I would Place the Morning After Pill in that Same Category.
On a Personal Level, I Believe that Sex should be Preserved Until Marriage and that Life Begins at Conception. I Understand the Argument that you Give about US Law not being Based on Religious Dogma, though, and that is why I will not Push Politically what many Non-Christians Would Consider Extreme.
Abortion on Demand, as a Matter of Convenience, however, is another Matter and I do not Consider the Inappropriateness of such a Matter of Religious Dogma.
"they believe that a 'soul' is present at the moment of conception. That is a religious belief, not a medically scientific fact." Shaw, 2/24/2011, 10:51 AM
That is Correct.
"When two rights are in conflict, the living person's, outweighs the one that cannot survive outside the womb." Shaw, 2/24/2011, 10:51 AM
Thanks for Acknowledging that this is, In Fact, an Issue of Rights. What you have Stated, though, is not a Religious Opinion, but a Political One and it is Based on the Definition of the Word "Person", for the Constitution Protects the Rights of "Persons".
You have Chosen to Define this as the Age of Viability, yet as Z has Pointed Out, that is Constantly Changing because it is Based on the Scientific Progress at any Particular Time in History, which is why not Everyone Agrees with that Definition of Personhood.
More for Shaw
ReplyDelete"Late term abortions are rare and performed to save the life of the mother in dire medical circumstances. They are not used as a birth control procedure." Shaw, 2/24/2011, 10:51 AM
It was Not Long Ago, in which Late Term Abortions were Quite Common in California because the Abortion Laws were and Still are so Lax. Be Careful not to make Judgments Based only one what Happens in your Own State.
"Outlawing the medical procedure to save the life of a woman is barbaric." Shaw, 2/24/2011, 10:51 AM
I Agree and I don't Know a Single Person who Believes in the Extreme that you have just Purposed.
"We do not live in a perfect world. If we did, there would be no unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancies." Shaw, 2/24/2011, 10:51 AM
That's Right and that is the Reason why I Believe in Compromise, rather then the Pushing of Extremes. The Liberals Need to Compromise too, though, for Abortion on Demand is just Plain Wrong and should not be Allowed.
Even Z is Doing Nothing more than Requesting a Compromise and he did so Very Well, yet instead of Thinking Rationally, all that Most Liberals can do is Scream about the Extremes that very Few People actually Believe in.
You Know Z,
There is such a Thing as a Moderate Liberal, just as there is such a Thing as a Moderate Conservative. I Don't Think that it is Really Right to Go Doing this Comparing Game. Saty should not have done it and you should not have Played Along. Both Sides are Often Guilty of Extremism and Refusal to Compromise, as well as the Lack of Diversity of Thought. Both are Guilty and Both Contain a Few Rational Souls that ARE Willing to Compromise.
The Challenge for Each of us is to Ask Ourselves, rather we want to Focus only on the Extremes, or Try and Find our Way Towards a Rational Compromise.
Still More for Shaw,
ReplyDeleteThe First Quote that Z Sited that you Questioned was Spoken by you on (2/23/2011, at 11:20 PM)
Take a Look for yourself. It is most Definitely there. It's actually a little Bit of a Hassle to Put Date and Time Stamps on Everything I Quote, yet if there is a Chance that you Might Deny that you Said it, then I Guess that is what I Better do.
"A potential human being begins at conception, but it is NOT a human being." (Shaw, 2/24/2011, 3:35 PM)
That is a Matter of Opinion, Shaw, and Once again it Depends not on Religion, but on Definition and Unfortunately the Definition IS Debatable, but let's get Back to the Compromise Idea, rather than Debating the Extremes, for the Continuous Focus on Extremes Only Leads to Bitter Arguments with nothing Resolved.
My First Reaction to your Statement to Z that "Arguing with you is like Trying to Nail Jello to the Wall" was that if Z Frustrates you, Shaw, then Argue with me Instead, cause I'm not at all an Absolutist. Not Even Close.
After Additional thought, though, I was Surprised that you would Call Z an Absolutist because I've always thought that he was Far more Balanced than either Soap (on Finances & Regulation) or Beth (on Abortion). In his Mention of Woe Vs. Wade, he was doing Nothing more than Requesting a Compromise.
The Artificial Womb that we Currently have is Called an Incubator and we are Improving on it all the Time. The Point that Z was Making is that the Age of Viability Keeps Changing and Depends more on the Technology we have at any Given Time and Something that is Constantly Changing should not be what we Base a Definition on in Relation to Personhood, for that has more to do with Human Technology, than with a what the Baby is.
Shaw I never said a zygote and an infant are the same thing just that the Law against infanticide doesn't care about ensoulment. Um, an apple seed is not an apple, an old old Bill Baird argument I once heard on a Morton Downey show, brings back memories. It's not a potential human being but a human being with vast potential. You did not come from a zygote, embryo or fetus, you once were that zygote, embryo or fetus. I thought the Japanese were working on artificial wombs, sorry if I offended you.
ReplyDeleteAs far as me being wrong in my premise that there is no liberal diversity of thought on abortion I have no problem with being proven wrong so here's the place for all those pro-life liberals to open up once and for all and to come out of the closet. Yeah Shaw I know about the occasional Dem who gave Obama probs but I'm talking in general.
ReplyDeleteZ-man,
ReplyDeletethere are 300+ million people in this country. And millions of liberals. Millions. You have heard from how many liberals on the abortion issue? You can't make a decison on diversity of opinion from the 2 or 3 liberals you've heard from.
Lista,
I have always said abortion should be a rare medical procedure. I would be for universal birth control for teens and all women who do not want to become mothers.
Abortion should be kept legal for those instances when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
Or when it would be a catastrophe for the girl or woman.
The morning after pill would do much to lessen those 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.
I have a personal story about why outlawing late term abortions would be an unconscionable act against the health of women.
How many Times do I have to Say it, Shaw? Most Pro-Life Advocates believe in Abortion for the Sake of Saving the Mother's Life. In Fact, I Personally, do not Know of anyone who does not Believe in this Exception and this is why I Consider that Argument Irrelevant and Mute.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Possibility of "a Catastrophe", right Now the Definition of Such is Far too Broad, and Inconvenience is Far too Often the Reason.
I've seen Bills and Propositions Written that Allow the Pregnant Girl to be Heard by a Judge before being Given an Abortion. To Me, that Makes more Since than Abortion on Demand. If the Situation was Serious Enough, the Judge would Allow an Exception.
You Seem Reasonable Enough, Shaw. You and I could Probably Find a Way to Compromise. What about Parental Consent? Do you Believe in that One?
"I've seen Bills and Propositions Written that Allow the Pregnant Girl to be Heard by a Judge before being Given an Abortion. To Me, that Makes more Since than Abortion on Demand. If the Situation was Serious Enough, the Judge would Allow an Exception."
ReplyDeleteThis bothers me. This takes away a woman's authority over her own body and places it in the hands of a judge--usually a man--who may have a religious or ideological aversion to abortion.
As I've stated, I believe the decision should be left with the woman and her doctor, not a judge, since that is imposing the government's will over a woman's right to decide her own personal health issues.
I repeat: Allowing a government to force a woman/teen to carry a pregnancy is no different from allowing a government [communist China for example] to force a woman/teen to abort a pregnancy.
It's wrong.
And I repeat: When there are two rights in conflict, the woman, who is the fully developed and living human, has precedence over the embryo's right. That's just the way it is.
There is no black and white position over parental consent, IMO.
Not all families are composed of loving mothers and fathers and children. Some fathers/step-fathers impregnate their daughters, or force their daughters to accept their religious views against their will. Too many variables.
In the best of all possible worlds, the parents of young women would have a frank talk about sexual activity and the responsibility it carries. And advise them on birth control if they are sexually active.
This rarely is the case, I think, hence teen pregnancies
I'm busy today going here and there but just to say that what is legal is not always moral. I just think we don't know what to do about the problem:)
ReplyDeleteTo have an Aversion to a Certain Form of Homicide is not a Negative, Shaw. Do I Need to Go Over the Definition of Homicide again? And You Really Do Need to Read my Post, Abortion/Pro-Choice/Do What I Want with "MY OWN BODY"
ReplyDeleteIt Seems Odd to me How many Times I can say that they Used to Call Negro Slaves Property, rather than Persons and yet it doesn't Matter how many Times I say it, it Falls on Deaf Ears.
Why should a Woman have "Authority" over her Own Homicide? Once Again, it is Only the Woman's "Rights" that are being Considered and not the Rights of the Baby.
Also, Once again, Not Offering something is not the Same as "Force". It is God or Nature that Forces the Issue. That is Until Man Steps in and "Forces" Death on the Baby.
No, Shaw. Abortion is what's Wrong and Considering a Separate Entity A Part of "ONE'S OWN BODY" is Wrong as well and you Know What I can Say the Words "I REPEAT" just as well as you Can.
"And I repeat, When there are two rights in conflict, the woman, who is the fully developed and living human, has precedence over the embryo's right. That's just the way it is."
And I Repeat, that just because this is what the Current Law States does not Mean that it is not Wrong.
As to Fathers and Step Fathers Impregnating their Daughters, now you Need to Read my Post on Abortion and Rape. Basically, what it Comes Down to is that Abortion is a Perfect Way to Cover Up the Crime of Incest and because of this it is Just Continued and not Brought to Justice.
Sometime I have One Heck of a Time Getting certain Links to Work. Here is the Abortion and Rape One Again.
ReplyDeleteLista I love your contributions, they're so well thought out.
ReplyDelete