Thank you Leon. I will have a lengthy post later. Meteor Blades is a friend and when I feel that my friends are being attacked I start looking for noses to break, or some equivalent. Occasionally I lose objectivity when that happens. Hopefully I won't accidentally bump into Stephen Spruiell any time soon..... Anyway, there are some things we still need to discuss. But I hope we can do it civilly.
If your lengthy post is about Meteor Blades and my comment concerning him, I will say only this: My post was intended to be illustrative of the inconsistency of expressing such avid concern for the 2500 war dead in Iraq, while contributing himself to the death of untold numbers of the unborn. That Meteor Blades himself does not perceive it as an inconsistency does not make it any more excusable in my book. This is point one.
Point two is that the source of this anger is (we are told) that these individuals died for a lie - namely, that their deaths were sacrificed to a cause built on false premises. Fine. Then it ought to cause even those who are unconcerned about the issue of abortion, or those who do not believe that unborn humans should be entitled to all the rights of humans pause to learn that virtually everything said by NARAL (et al) in the leadup to Roe was a half-baked lie (as the post I linked to attempted to demonstrate; I did an entire series on this that I could dig up). Thus, the second inconsistency I sought to point out was that lies leading to policy have produced somewhat selective outrage.
I maintain, to this day, that Meteor Blades (and millions of other liberals - indeed, as I pointed out, this is a point I've been making for quite some time, Meteor Blades happened to be on the front page of Kos that day) is inconsistent in these two ways. I did not then, and do not now, accuse him of being a hypocrite, but I will apologize if my words created the impression that I was calling him such. I will note that they were posted in a venue where the overwhelming majority of readers would have taken for granted the premises I was arguing from.
I will confess to feeling, at this point, that there is very little to be gained by arguing about the particulars of the war in Iraq. This is not because I believe that the left is right about Iraq, it is rather because I have found that it is a spectacular waste of energy discussing the issue with anyone from the left, as the arguments tend to dissolve into the same pattern - over and over again, ad nauseam. I have a limited supply of mental and emotional energy to spend on political causes, and I've chosen some time ago to sit this particular one out. Let the record reflect that these will be my only comments on this blog about Iraq: First, I hope that the history of Southeast Asia will convince us that, on the inevitable day that we do extricate ourselves from Iraq, we honor our commitment to the new Iraqi government in a far more serious manner than we did the one to the South Vietnamese. Second, that the lessons of this war have convinced me that in the age of 24 hour cable news, the American people will not be able to stomach a war fought on the scale of World War II, should such a conflict become necessary again. Suffice to say, neither of these pronouncements are particularly hopeful, but I try in all things to remain an optimist (hence my participation in this blog).
In any event, I understand that Mike's frustration (and that of others on this blog) has much to do with the fact that Iraq is an issue with which he is much more engaged than am I, and my post (which was written, again, to an entirely different audience) targeted a friend of his. As he has pointed out, when the roles were reversed, I did not act in a manner without blame.
So Mike, if you want to respond in a separate post - knock yourself out. I'm dropping out of this one.
One further note, so that no one gets the idea that I'm saying with this post, "I don't care about the people who are dying in Iraq." That is absolutely not the case. I am sure that to many leftists, the proposition that anything could be more important than our troops dying in Iraq is preposterous, and is indicative of some kind of malformed conscience that confirms to you everything you always suspected about conservatives. Not so. 2500 of our best citizens, the most dedicated to the country that we have, are dead, and this is something to be mourned.
On the other hand, as a matter of perspective, over 3,000 unborn children are killed every single day in this country. Since the Iraq war started, the number is over 3 million in this country alone. No one has read their names aloud. No one has marked their graves, or even bothered to dig their graves, or sought to ensure that even their deaths had meaning. At times, the enormity of it is almost crushing. I cannot ask everyone to accept this perspective, but perhaps it can be understood.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I understand it. As a father, I don't particularly care for the use of abortion, though I am not prepared to allow the state to make decisions for a woman who becomes pregnant.
I'd like to see a lot more education focused on pregnancy avoidance, which would include serious discussions of condom use, the pill, pressure avoidance, and, yes, abstinence. And none of this sugar coated euphemistic approach, either. I mean a frank discussion of the risks of unprotected sex to an age appropriate audience.
And a reminder: abortion has been with us for a long time. When the church was passing laws against it as far back as nearly a thousand years ago, you can be sure that it was not an isolated incident. Frankly, I prefer the approach we currently have, in that the abortion can be carried out by trained medical professionals in a clinical environment, as opposed to the inherent risks of self abortion, shady "medical practitioners" in back alleys, or dangerous unregulated drugs with unpredictable dosages and effectiveness.
If you want to end abortion, whether it be legal or not, teach men and women to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies.
You're slipping between two different explanations for those who oppose criminalizing abortion: that they are simply "unconcerned about the issue of abortion" -- which is a straw man, and that it is perceived differently -- which makes your analogy irrelevant. If one dosen't understand how abortion is like a ham sandwich one can hardly compare its relative value to said ham sandwich or any other sandwich.
Unless someone accepts your implication that being pro-Roe v Wade is being pro-death your analogy means absolutely nothing. This game of patronizing people for not accepting your analogy when they really haven't accepted it's premise is ridiculous.
I have broader issues in mind than your statement about the moral relativity of abortion and the deaths in Iraq. I'm still not sure exactly what I want to say and may indeed have enough for multiple posts. The general topic I have in mind is "Politics, Religion and Science," which is admittedly broad. I'm trying to crystallize some key thoughts that we might discuss in multiple posts later. Thanks for the invitation to discuss here though.
Personally, on the issue of abortion, I've never felt the necessity to make any comment on the subject anywhere, it's contentious and politically divisive and framed to be that way.
Your purpose to conflate termination and war to make a moral rather than political point falls flat.
Infant mortality is just as important as is capital punishment. An Iraqi death is of equal magnitude to an American casualty. Choosing SUV's and global warming over polar bears is equal to doing little about thirst, disease and starvation. They are all choices over life and death and if honest morality was the motivation and life was sacred, then they would all be wrong whether you listed the distinctions or not.
To make it abundantly clear, you will not become pregnant, you will not be raped. You will not become a single mother with an unwanted and unaffordable child.
You will never have to make the choice between living children and career. You will never have to live with the unintended psychological consequences of a termination. You will never put your money where your mouth is to provide the social necessities and costs for all the unnamed zygotes.
Whatever your religious convictions are on a particular subject, they have no weight beyond your personal morality and your personal responsibility. Basically, your certainty of moral/political truth does not extend to others.
Don't agree with termination? Don't have one.
It doesn't matter how concrete, erudite and emotive your framed arguments become, moral pontification doesn't extend any understanding or lead to any solutions. Abstinence only teaching only works right up until the moment it fails - Even then it'll be because of someone else's moral failing and be someone else's financial problem.
Just saying "no" and denying access to knowledge is regressive.
Why don't you champion the only idea that would satisfy all the fringe moralists to separate girls from boys up until they were married at 13 and just be honest about 'god's' plan for sex and hormones?
Legal, safe and rare is not a partisan view it's a reality that balances the concerns of the majority and the effects of nature though wont satisfy any singular politically motivated extremists you support with your opinions.
This argument is every bit as valid as "You will never have any reason to kill another human being. Therefore, if you don't agree with murder, don't commit one. Meanwhile, if someone else has a good reason, that's not your business."
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Incidentally, if we can come to universal agreement that men have no say in the abortion question, I'll take that in a heartbeat, as women are consistently more pro-life than men.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
A vegetarian could make the same argument with the opposite answer. And legally speaking he'd be right and every bit as undisputed.
Which of these scenarios various occurences of abortion are more similar to and why is the central debate, which your comparison again does not address.
I suspect that women in congress and the Senate are more pro-choice than the men though.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this can go anywhere. I suspect that our axioms are wildly different on the subject. You take it as a given that from the moment of conception their is a human involved. Many of us have a more gradual view of the process.
If I may ask though, do you believe that not choosing to continue a pregnancy/save a life is morally equivalent to choosing to end one? i.e. If a woman had to conciously manage a pregnancy and chose to 'stop building' would that also be murder (morally)? I ask because my own arguement is that to be pro-life, you need to be proactive in helping others live, donate blood, register as an organ donor etc and was curious as to your view.
I think abortion is more of a contentious subject than Iraq. Omitting this central issue from the discourse community I find a discouraging move, and I hope Ender or Mike will not abstain from it.
More people will care about the Iraq war than abortion in the next election, so this site will lack in important debate if Leon will not engage on this issue.
Isn't that a rather dramatic contradiction in terms? The Death of the Unborn.
Is this how the extremistists of the pro-life crowd, the abstinence only wing, come to the conclusion that abortion is equal to the holocaust? The millions of deaths of the unborn?
I agree they should let the women decide. They can choose birth control, yet the zealots consider even that "the death of the unborn". And unfortunately, the zealots are trying to rule the day. (See South Dakota) (See also, Abstinence Only)
If it were up to the women, I seriously doubt, Meteor Blades, honoring of the war dead in Iraq would even be in question. Cause we would not be in Iraq in the first place. Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means. And I am talking about the born and raised.
And in the cynical world of politics, the unborn are used to whip the masses into a frenzy and raise money. My question, where is the respect for life, not the unborn, for life?
If it were up to the women, I seriously doubt, Meteor Blades, honoring of the war dead in Iraq would even be in question. Cause we would not be in Iraq in the first place. Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means. And I am talking about the born and raised.
It's very rational to lump all the women into a group with exactly the same leftist outlook on various issues simply by an accident of their gender. I doubt most women enjoy generalizations like that. You should try again if you are seeking debate based on more than your feelings.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The unborn don't have birth certificates with names to read.
The soldiers in Iraq have their names properly spelled on their birth certificates and their death certificates, after contributing their lifes to the cause of "freedom from terror".
Leon, the subject of abortion will blow this site up. Just as the sidestepping of the unnecessary and illegal occupation of Iraq. The issue of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a core component of what drives the anger of liberals.
You couch your language concerning abortion in such emotive terms that it makes dialogue difficult. ?Unborn children killed? ?graves? ?dig their graves? ?all emotive. But, that emotion and language are what the forced-birth agenda needs to continue its wave of terrorism against women. You start with a concept of ?life at conception? and therein begin to dig the hole in which to bury women.
The subject of abortion requires a vitriolic arena. It may be best to sidestep it until this site can get its bearings. Or not.
Ender, I don't think missliberties was going any further than Leon did in his comment about leaving abortion issues to women. There are polls that show women are more likely to support bringing troops home than are men.
I suggest that women are strongly pro-life, therefore, much more cautious in committing their sons and daughters to kill and die in war. No woman is happy to send their children to war. No woman is thrilled to have an abortion. In each case the decision is enormously difficult, and filled with feelings.
Your generalization that feelings (therefore women) are leftist is ludicrous.
Men cry when their sons die. Perhaps you can spin that statement into some divisive generalisation about left leaning drivel.
If I may ask though, do you believe that not choosing to continue a pregnancy/save a life is morally equivalent to choosing to end one? i.e. If a woman had to conciously manage a pregnancy and chose to ?stop building? would that also be murder (morally)?
Er... I don't think that this line of questioning is precisely apposite; the woman is not, as such, making the conscious decision to take raw materials from her body and use it in the building of a human being - it is the natural process of nourishment that we are discussing here. Now, under normal circumstances, the law does not recognize an obligation to save a life, or provide for its daily needs, no matter how easy it might be to save the life or make that provision. There are, however, a couple of exceptions. One, generally it is accepted that an obligation to save a life is created when one person negligently (or intentionally) places another life in danger. Another (which is relevant here), is in the context of certain relationships - such as, for instance, within the parent/child relationship. Thus, a parent can face criminal charges for failing to provide food for their starving child, whereas I don't face even civil liability if I fail to provide food for a starving co-worker or stranger. Thus, my answer to this would be - if a woman deliberately chooses to refuse to ingest food in an effort to harm a fetus, she would be, in effect, committing child abuse. I believe a few states have statutes which can actually make a woman liable for intentional or reckless damage caused to a fetus in utero (although I believe most of these are drug-related).
TO answer your question, however, I do believe very strongly in both donating blood and organs - especially so given that I have members of my very close family who are organ recipients. I do encourage people to give blood and to check the little box on their driver's license. However, the law has consistently refused to enshrine a duty to provide for the well-being of strangers, and I would be hesitant about supporting such a law in the case of blood donation. I hope that helps.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Your generalization that feelings (therefore women) are leftist is ludicrous.
I was only talking about your feelings and not generalizing about all women like you clearly were with "Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means."
That's like me saying: "If it were up to men, republicans would be in the majority for many decades to come. Men understand that using rational thought for solving our Country's problems is paramount."
So yes, I was talking about you generalizing about all the women. If I suggest that men are more rational, reasonable and more apt to use their mind when solving problems than women, you'd scream sexism. But when you say "I suggest that women are strongly pro-life, therefore, much more cautious in committing their sons and daughters to kill and die in war." you cast aspersions against men and somehow that's just grand.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
He is making a general statement about women that you don't seem to find fault with.
I said exactly the same thing, and related it to the possibility that if women were in charge, we might not be in Iraq, because as Leon said, "women are consistently pro-life."
Then you leap to the conclusion, that
...rational to lump all the women into a group with exactly the same leftist outlook on various issues simply by an accident of their gender.
Then you jump to the false conclusion, that I am casting aspersions against men for rational thought, and would scream sexism, when in fact I said no such thing.
Saying that I am casting aspersions against men, because I agree with Leon's assesment that women tend to be more pro-life, is extremely faulty logic. You are jumping to huge conclusions, and then whining about my anti-man stance. This is so typical. First you assault my conclusions with broad generalizations of "leftist", then you play the victim, by falsely stating that I am casting aspersions against men. I see this type of false argument laid out repeatedly. Your constant reliance on generalizations like leftist, or liberal completely avoid the subject.
(And as a personal aside, I relish the difference between men and women.)
Men cry when their sons die. No matter how brilliantly rationale and just the reasoning minds are at solving the countries problems. If the answer they come up with is war, then when their sons die they cry. That is what war teaches us. It is a universal truth.
What is bizarre is that you are chosing to make this a discussion about women v men.
One wonders, the source of this defensiveness, that women are more understanding than men is cause for upset on your part.
And even more telling that you leaped to the conclusion that "women are more likely to support bringing troops home than are men" you parse as women being more understanding than men.
What exactly do you mean when you say that woman being more understanding as a generalization equates to bringing the troops home?
If you are going to quote Leon, at least get it right in both the quote itself and also the context.
Leon said, "as women are consistently more pro-life than men." and not "women are consistently pro-life". He also said it in the context of the Abortion argument, meaning women are more pro-life on Abortion and not in some vague sense that includes opposition to wars. So I find fault with your interpretation of his statement.
I only used the Men's example as a comparison to what you were doing by making a generalization about all men, showing how silly it is to generalize. I never implied you were anti-man so you missed my point.
If your definition of pro-life includes women not wanting to send their sons into battle then you should know that men are just as pro-life in that sense and to say that women are more caring about their children dying is wrong.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, first, I don't complain nor whine, so don't use that tone.
Second, why would you presume that my language is to be constricted while yours is not? Those words were no more emotive than his. Not even remotely close.
Leon, thanks for the response. To clarify, I was aware of the legal answer, just as I am aware of the legal answer regarding abortion. I don't recall the legal term for the enhanced responsibility towards another that sometimes does extend to strangers (Lifeguards and nannies for instance.)
Since we are discussing what the law should be, not what it was, I was curious as to your opinion from the moral prespective.
Much of the arguement for a pro-life voting policy (as distinct from a pro-life policy (subtle perhaps)) seems to be based on an analogous (though not perfectly so) view. If someone has a moral duty to vote for a pro-life candidate (as opposed to a simple desire to bring about a pro-life policy) it seems to be based upon the assumption that we DO have a moral obligation to intervene for the stranger at a similar level.
To be clear, I'm not saying that to argue a woman has a duty to not have an abortion you need to argue that we all have a duty to donate blood. I'm saying that to argue that a voter has a moral duty to support this policy, you are also arguing that such a person has a moral duty to donate.
I was simply incredulous that you would question Leon's terminology as too emotive for good dialogue and in the same post label pro-lifers anti-women terrorists... It was strange.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am only disputing your assertions that women are more understanding than men because of this: "Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means." which, if you look at the the tone and exlusivity of Women in that sentence, implies that Men don't.
This is becoming too technical to have any value for discussion.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've been away teaching classes today and haven't participated in the debate. I think one thing we need to address is the concept of inflammatory language. Most of us have an easier time of spotting the faults of others than we have in seeing our own faults. We need to have a frank discussion, though not a contentious one, about what constitutes inflammatory language. I think both sides could benefit from that.
Sure - I understand what you're saying, but I can't recall saying that I believed that people had a moral obligation to vote for pro-life candidates. Upon reflection, I'd probably agree with that statement, however, so I'll assume that this is true for the purpose of answering your question.
Of course I would view that donating blood, and helping others in need is a moral duty. I would say that, if a strong swimmer passed by a strange 7-year-old drowning in a pond, knowing full well that she could save the child with no risk to herself, she has a moral duty to help the child, if not a legal one. And insofar as we are confining this discussion to moral, rather than legal duties, I would agree with you on the blood/organ donation issue.
However, one thing might merit mention - it is difficult for me to find support for the existence of such a moral obligation (to donate blood/organs) outside the Christian ethic embodied in the "Golden Rule." All other similar philosophical structures that I am aware of enshrine a responsibility to avoid the positive infliction of harm - a positive responsibility to voluntarily do good (that is, an ethic of altruism), is not, so far as I know, a necessary principle of any other ethical system. Perhaps I am wrong about that point.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
If women are more consistently pro life then why is there this misunderstanding from the right that young women are using abortion as a means of birth control without any consideration for the thought that the fetus they are terminating has the potential to become a human? I seriously believe that the best way to make abortion more rare is to eliminate the obstacles that women face that cause them to choose an abortion over taking on the risk and responsibility of carrying a baby to term.
I also want to add there are some that do not see paralells between war and abortion. I'm not one of them. In both cases potential futures are terminated by the will of man. I see grief in the loss of an Iraqi child and in the loss of an unborn baby. There is a part of me that recognizes that sometimes war is required, probably the veteran in me. However, in the case of Iraq that was NOT the case. It was a preemptive attack and a poorly planned one at that.
Odd. First I was making broad generalizations, now it is too technical to have value. I wonder which, is cause for you to feel like you are losing the debate, however you wish to cloak your arguments.
It is a debate you can clearly see I welcome. You took the first shot.
It?s very rational to lump all the women into a group with exactly the same leftist outlook on various issues simply by an accident of their gender. I doubt most women enjoy generalizations like that. You should try again if you are seeking debate based on more than your feelings.
yet can't stay for the last battle. I don't advocate cutting and running.
Rhetoric yes. It really doesn't move the debate forward does it.
Is the question the ethics of abortion vs the ethics of war. Or is it the morals of abortion vs the morals of war. Perhaps the godliness of abortion vs the godliness of war.
Each rests on personal feelings, and the broader picture of what is good for a civil society.
Yes, I was keeping it confined to the moral view, at least in as much as an effort to change the law should be based on utilitarian or moral grounds.
Too be clear, I am not suggesting that a law requiring blood donation would be appropriate (being consistent with my own right-to-privacy views), just explaining why I tend to see inconsistency in rigidly pro-life individuals who do not believe that they have personally have such a moral duty when it might cause THEM inconvenience.
I think you could probably relate such an obligation to do good, though less formalized, in ethics that embody karma and view a choice to do nothing as still being a choice.
Whatever SC is, it's not an echo chamber for people patting each other on the back for mojo.
It could be a conversational civil examination of beliefs, or as it is a place to confront conservatives with globalized mainstream positions but either way it's about engaging.
Neither of your responses on the abortion topic were sufficient to defend your party's fundamentalist platform on a personal or political level and you don't want to deal with Iraq either.
I suppose we should storm through gay rights, economics, poverty, healthcare, education, science and a few others before it's obvious that truth isn't a matter of opinion or debate between left and right and look for solutions not discredited electioneering policies and polarizing talking points.
You should address my post below instead of talking about me surrendering the point. You consistently miss my point when I can't make it any more clear.
Sexist generalization to make a political point is silly and does not constitute an argument. I don't care to compare the morals of abortion to the morals of war.
You consider going to Iraq a bad decision. Then you claim that if it was up to women, that bad decision would never have been made because of some special understanding only women posess. I said that was silly and I don't know how much more plain I can make that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I agree. I'm a woman and I absolutely agree with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq. To say that "women understand," in what comes off as a look down the nose at men tone, seems to me a way of losing what women have been fighting for. We have not been fighting for superiority missliberties. As women, we've been fighting for equality. And not all women believe what you believe simply because we share a gender. I also don't share your ability to jump to Oscar-award nominee capability on emotive speech when you feel threatened, though I can throw a good temper tantrum when provoked. It's clear you don't like Leon. For the record, I do. Very much so. The least you can do, however, is read what he says before you immediately jump on his case.
I think we can all do that. I just joined this site and already I'm put off by the fact that someone can apologize and immediately be jumped on by 10 different people including the person he apologized to about a prior post. Adults, indeed. I am admittedly biased in that I think Leon is a pretty swell man, but I think that everyone needs to take a step back and read what is being said before jumping on the bashmobile.
I would agree. If "oh, yeah, well your mom is a...." starts coming in, the whole conversation should be over.
On a serious note, I just joined the site and I know that I'm biased being that I'm related to a contributor. At the same time, my stomach literally turned looking at some of the responses here. I think some boundaries would benefit everyone involved, in my not so humble, very green opinion.
How would you go about this? As a matter of personal interest, do you think young women are thinking of the life of the child or their own future MORE (not both) in this type of situation? Do you feel like they consider this a fetus if they view the baby as a child and not a mass?
While I am ALSO a woman and do not agree with the pre emptive strike on Iraq. Therefore, I think we can pretty much make the assumption that females like males run the gamut in their opinions.
For the record I also think Leon is swell and I think his apology was a very classy act.
I think that you do have to recognize that this is a debating site. I sincerely think the intent was not to "jump on" Leon, but to debate the points that he makes in his posts. People can be pretty strident in their opinions. I imagine or I hope anyways if Leon feels "jumped on" and feels a line has been crossed he can speak up for himself. ;)
Part of the problem I think is that there are relatively few sites where opposing viewpoints are discussed and as such people are treated as representatives of the opposing side rather than as individuals. Leon, as a well read member of the pro-life side, often gets tagged with some of his allies' desire to outlaw contraception. The reason I was querying him on his world view above was that while I completely disagree with him on the issue, I want to know when I disagree with HIM on the issue vs those he just happens to talk with.
On that note, and in your case, what do you mean when you say that you absolutely agree with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq?
This is a pretty broad statement with many interpretations. Do you believe that the reasons that were put forth for the invasion were correct? That those that turned out to be true are sufficient? That the war has been well executed? That it was the optimal use of our military, our lives and our tax dollars?
Nah, he never says a word to me about it. He never once has asked me to speak up for him and I've never asked him for permission to do so. I'm ok with debate, but, as Mike stated below, I think the language runs out of line in some of the comments. I get the impression that maybe some boundaries of some sort are going to pop up, but I could have misread that in my postwork postnap stupor.
I don't know if you want to hear my opinions at all. :) Most people really, really don't, but it's nice to meet you!
I think that women can hold more than one thought in their pretty little heads (I'm allowed to say this since I am female :) ). I think the decision to terminate a pregnancy is largely situational. I think that in each and every instance the circumstance that leads a woman to decide to terminate is that they feel that terminating the pregnancy would be more beneficial then continuing it and that other than that it could be for a myriad of reasons including but not limited to physical, emotional or financial implications and to any combination of these as well.
Sweet. A quiz! I've even sharpened my pencil. Not initially. Let me clarify that thought. I think that initially, since we thought the threat was there, we should have investigated, which we did and when that process was hindered, we did what we needed to do to make sure we were safe. I don't think that it was worth the immediate jump into war but I think the end game justifies how we got there. So, yes to your second question. They could have done it better. I think our intelligence was faulty. We should have known a little more before jumping in with our eyes closed. Had we known more, it's possible that it could have been better executed. All of that ties back to my beliefs about our intelligence agencies, which you didn't ask about, but you can infer that I believe change is necessary. To the last, absolutely. We did the best we could with what we knew and now that we are there, we need to finish the job.
One problem is that in an attempt to stigmatize pre-marital (well, all, but mostly 'sinful') sex, society has also stigmatized pre-marital pregnancy. And the pregnancy is much more evident. It is also pretty expensive to be pregnant, monetarily AND opportunity-wise (Job/career that is needed to take care of your already born children, 'special' schools etc.)
I'll leave it to cwaltz to answer the second question as it seemed to be addressed to that particulary commenter, but it seems to be a bit of a mind reading exercise to try to figure out what they think.
Whatever SC is, it?s not an echo chamber for people patting each other on the back for mojo.
I haven't the foggiest what you're responding to, or even what you're talking about.
It could be a conversational civil examination of beliefs, or as it is a place to confront conservatives with globalized mainstream positions but either way it?s about engaging.
Neither of your responses on the abortion topic were sufficient to defend your party?s fundamentalist platform on a personal or political level and you don?t want to deal with Iraq either.
I have already made clear, since the moment I started here, that I do not feel an obligation to respond to every comment thrown my way, even if I did have the time. In fact, when the signal/noise ratio on a given comment drops below a certain point, my eyes tend to just skip to the next one. Nothing personal, I'm just not going to respond to either personal insults or comments that have nothing to do with the OP. Neither do I feel an obligation to engage or even defend "my party's stance," fundamentalist or otherwise, on every single issue.
If you're looking for someone to convince you that Republicans are always right, and are disappointed that I've failed at that task, you are certainly entitled to feel that way. You could, of course, mosey along to greener pastures, or you could remain here and carp about it ad infinitum. I wouldn't give odds against the latter.
I suppose we should storm through gay rights, economics, poverty, healthcare, education, science and a few others before it?s obvious that truth isn?t a matter of opinion or debate between left and right and look for solutions not discredited electioneering policies and polarizing talking points.
You are certainly entitled to feel that political debate is worthless; however, I haven't the foggiest why you'd want to remain here with such an opinion.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I suppose we should storm through gay rights, economics, poverty, healthcare, education, science and a few others before it?s obvious that truth isn?t a matter of opinion or debate between left and right and look for solutions not discredited electioneering policies and polarizing talking points.
You are certainly entitled to feel that political debate is worthless; however, I haven?t the foggiest why you?d want to remain here with such an opinion.
I think you might have misunderstood the point on that Leon, but I'm not sure. I think "look for solutions" is the key phrase. It isn't that they don't want debate, it is that they want that debate centered on more than "nyah nyah I'm right you're wrong." But I may be mistaken.
Feel free to tell me what you think of our intelligence agencies. (Heh, I just wrote that and realized I would read like ELIZA)
Well, we certainly disagree on most of this. There is certainly a fair amount of evidence that there was a desire to interpret the intelligence in a let's-go-to-war fashion, and Sec Rice flat out lied about the intelligence concerning aluminum tubes, yet was promoted.
The strongest disagreement we have is on the opportunity costs of the war. I'm just thinking what we could have done with 2-300 billion dollars: securing all the loose nukes in the world, concentrated on securing Afghanistan, improved security at all ports and harbors etc and it seems that this wasn't a fair sacrifice of tens of thousands of soldiers' well-being.
I also take issue with the way the National Guard and Reserve have been treated. Active Duty signs on to do whatever is deemed necessary, but whatever their contract says, the Reserve and NG sign on for country-in-serious-jeapordy issues and there really isn't any evidence that Iraq created such a jeopardy. Particularly considering that the sanctions were causing Saddam's forces and programs to continue to deteriorate.
I've had to rewrite this 4 times to edit out foul language. ;) Kidding. I think our intelligence agencies need to be rebuilt from the ground up. They are completely twisted and set up in a way that benefits certain people, namely those that run them. We've spent far too much time making friends and not enough time watching our backs.
I think it is a good sign that Leon is willing to step away from the abyss, so to speak. As much division as there is in this country, we still have to find some way not to go for the jugular in our political discourse. Both sides try to reduce complex and multifaceted issues down to single memes, in order to make digestion easier by the public and to encourage moral outrage. I hope Leon and Mike can explore more of these complex issues and better explain why they hold the beliefs they do.
Family planning would be incredibly important. That includes in my opinion all avenues of family planning including contraception as well as abstinence. I'd like to see more done about domestic violence and rape. I'd like to see better enforcement of financial support from deadbeat dads. I'd like to see more respect in the workplace for parenting(For the record, I think men should get paternity leave and not just women getting maternity leave. Heck it would eliminate that women have to take off time to have babies meme that men use to justify paying women less and give men the opportunity to bond with their kids during their first weeks). I have tons and tons of different things that I think could be done to help reduce abortions that are not done for medical reasons.
It would be great if one of those right side think tanks worked backwards on the reasons that women state they choose to terminate. They run the gamut from abusive relationships to career worries, etc etc.
You made two posts earlier, one that you wouldn't engage on Iraq and one that indicates to me by a lack of answer that you didn't want to discuss abortion either.
Since we seem to understand each other's side politically already, we are only individuals speaking for ourselves. I'm not responsible for Cindy Sheehan or the Dems and you don't need to defend Bill O'Reilly or the Reps. So getting to the truth as individuals seems to be the only option.
i thought I was being light-hearted about future discussions and whether we may as well take a short cut to finding common ground by ignoring everything contentious by leaving out talking points and polarizing comments. Hence dreaming.
I hope that's less cryptic since I didn't quite understand how you came to your comments either.
Thanks Morpheus. I'm trying to put together some thought to get discussion started along certain themes. And I'm trying to figure out how to frame the presentation of those thoughts in a way that limits contentiousness.
Slow? I'm struggling to catch up with all the comments! Thanks for the welcome. Hopefully I'm going to spend a lot of time listening and very little time voicing my opinion.
Hello Jillian. That is a pretty name. Nice to talk to.
I don't like Leon's position on abortion and I don't like the way he equated it to war deaths in Iraq. He apoligized for tone and not for content.
I disagree with the rest of your character assessment of my posts and will leave it at that. You make your judgements, I will make mine. Hopefully we can agree to debate the issues, not the personalities. And if I flare towards the emotive, find fault with it if you will, but please forgive me.
The most interesting discussions are with those with whom you disagree.
My interest is discovering how people can reconcile a pro-life position with a pro war position, finding honor with one and dishonor with the other. I find it highly irrational.
Odd, I think alot of our problem is we focus on self interest and not enough on the effect long term on the global community.
For instance take the fact that we trained Osama because we thought he was an ally, or the fact that we overturned a legit election in Iran and installed the Shah or the fact that we supported Saddam because he was willing to gas Iranians for us. We tend to be a bit short sighted sometimes when choosing our allies.
Comments :
Thank you Leon. I w
Thank you Leon. I will have a lengthy post later. Meteor Blades is a friend and when I feel that my friends are being attacked I start looking for noses to break, or some equivalent. Occasionally I lose objectivity when that happens. Hopefully I won't accidentally bump into Stephen Spruiell any time soon..... Anyway, there are some things we still need to discuss. But I hope we can do it civilly.
If your lengthy post
If your lengthy post is about Meteor Blades and my comment concerning him, I will say only this: My post was intended to be illustrative of the inconsistency of expressing such avid concern for the 2500 war dead in Iraq, while contributing himself to the death of untold numbers of the unborn. That Meteor Blades himself does not perceive it as an inconsistency does not make it any more excusable in my book. This is point one.
Point two is that the source of this anger is (we are told) that these individuals died for a lie - namely, that their deaths were sacrificed to a cause built on false premises. Fine. Then it ought to cause even those who are unconcerned about the issue of abortion, or those who do not believe that unborn humans should be entitled to all the rights of humans pause to learn that virtually everything said by NARAL (et al) in the leadup to Roe was a half-baked lie (as the post I linked to attempted to demonstrate; I did an entire series on this that I could dig up). Thus, the second inconsistency I sought to point out was that lies leading to policy have produced somewhat selective outrage.
I maintain, to this day, that Meteor Blades (and millions of other liberals - indeed, as I pointed out, this is a point I've been making for quite some time, Meteor Blades happened to be on the front page of Kos that day) is inconsistent in these two ways. I did not then, and do not now, accuse him of being a hypocrite, but I will apologize if my words created the impression that I was calling him such. I will note that they were posted in a venue where the overwhelming majority of readers would have taken for granted the premises I was arguing from.
I will confess to feeling, at this point, that there is very little to be gained by arguing about the particulars of the war in Iraq. This is not because I believe that the left is right about Iraq, it is rather because I have found that it is a spectacular waste of energy discussing the issue with anyone from the left, as the arguments tend to dissolve into the same pattern - over and over again, ad nauseam. I have a limited supply of mental and emotional energy to spend on political causes, and I've chosen some time ago to sit this particular one out. Let the record reflect that these will be my only comments on this blog about Iraq: First, I hope that the history of Southeast Asia will convince us that, on the inevitable day that we do extricate ourselves from Iraq, we honor our commitment to the new Iraqi government in a far more serious manner than we did the one to the South Vietnamese. Second, that the lessons of this war have convinced me that in the age of 24 hour cable news, the American people will not be able to stomach a war fought on the scale of World War II, should such a conflict become necessary again. Suffice to say, neither of these pronouncements are particularly hopeful, but I try in all things to remain an optimist (hence my participation in this blog).
In any event, I understand that Mike's frustration (and that of others on this blog) has much to do with the fact that Iraq is an issue with which he is much more engaged than am I, and my post (which was written, again, to an entirely different audience) targeted a friend of his. As he has pointed out, when the roles were reversed, I did not act in a manner without blame.
So Mike, if you want to respond in a separate post - knock yourself out. I'm dropping out of this one.
One further note, so that no one gets the idea that I'm saying with this post, "I don't care about the people who are dying in Iraq." That is absolutely not the case. I am sure that to many leftists, the proposition that anything could be more important than our troops dying in Iraq is preposterous, and is indicative of some kind of malformed conscience that confirms to you everything you always suspected about conservatives. Not so. 2500 of our best citizens, the most dedicated to the country that we have, are dead, and this is something to be mourned.
On the other hand, as a matter of perspective, over 3,000 unborn children are killed every single day in this country. Since the Iraq war started, the number is over 3 million in this country alone. No one has read their names aloud. No one has marked their graves, or even bothered to dig their graves, or sought to ensure that even their deaths had meaning. At times, the enormity of it is almost crushing. I cannot ask everyone to accept this perspective, but perhaps it can be understood.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I understand it. As
I understand it. As a father, I don't particularly care for the use of abortion, though I am not prepared to allow the state to make decisions for a woman who becomes pregnant.
I'd like to see a lot more education focused on pregnancy avoidance, which would include serious discussions of condom use, the pill, pressure avoidance, and, yes, abstinence. And none of this sugar coated euphemistic approach, either. I mean a frank discussion of the risks of unprotected sex to an age appropriate audience.
And a reminder: abortion has been with us for a long time. When the church was passing laws against it as far back as nearly a thousand years ago, you can be sure that it was not an isolated incident. Frankly, I prefer the approach we currently have, in that the abortion can be carried out by trained medical professionals in a clinical environment, as opposed to the inherent risks of self abortion, shady "medical practitioners" in back alleys, or dangerous unregulated drugs with unpredictable dosages and effectiveness.
If you want to end abortion, whether it be legal or not, teach men and women to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies.
You're slipping betw
You're slipping between two different explanations for those who oppose criminalizing abortion: that they are simply "unconcerned about the issue of abortion" -- which is a straw man, and that it is perceived differently -- which makes your analogy irrelevant. If one dosen't understand how abortion is like a ham sandwich one can hardly compare its relative value to said ham sandwich or any other sandwich.
Unless someone accepts your implication that being pro-Roe v Wade is being pro-death your analogy means absolutely nothing. This game of patronizing people for not accepting your analogy when they really haven't accepted it's premise is ridiculous.
Leon, I have broa
Leon,
I have broader issues in mind than your statement about the moral relativity of abortion and the deaths in Iraq. I'm still not sure exactly what I want to say and may indeed have enough for multiple posts. The general topic I have in mind is "Politics, Religion and Science," which is admittedly broad. I'm trying to crystallize some key thoughts that we might discuss in multiple posts later. Thanks for the invitation to discuss here though.
Personally, on the i
Personally, on the issue of abortion, I've never felt the necessity to make any comment on the subject anywhere, it's contentious and politically divisive and framed to be that way.
Your purpose to conflate termination and war to make a moral rather than political point falls flat.
Infant mortality is just as important as is capital punishment. An Iraqi death is of equal magnitude to an American casualty. Choosing SUV's and global warming over polar bears is equal to doing little about thirst, disease and starvation. They are all choices over life and death and if honest morality was the motivation and life was sacred, then they would all be wrong whether you listed the distinctions or not.
To make it abundantly clear, you will not become pregnant, you will not be raped. You will not become a single mother with an unwanted and unaffordable child.
You will never have to make the choice between living children and career. You will never have to live with the unintended psychological consequences of a termination. You will never put your money where your mouth is to provide the social necessities and costs for all the unnamed zygotes.
Whatever your religious convictions are on a particular subject, they have no weight beyond your personal morality and your personal responsibility. Basically, your certainty of moral/political truth does not extend to others.
Don't agree with termination? Don't have one.
It doesn't matter how concrete, erudite and emotive your framed arguments become, moral pontification doesn't extend any understanding or lead to any solutions. Abstinence only teaching only works right up until the moment it fails - Even then it'll be because of someone else's moral failing and be someone else's financial problem.
Just saying "no" and denying access to knowledge is regressive.
Why don't you champion the only idea that would satisfy all the fringe moralists to separate girls from boys up until they were married at 13 and just be honest about 'god's' plan for sex and hormones?
Legal, safe and rare is not a partisan view it's a reality that balances the concerns of the majority and the effects of nature though wont satisfy any singular politically motivated extremists you support with your opinions.
This argument is eve
This argument is every bit as valid as "You will never have any reason to kill another human being. Therefore, if you don't agree with murder, don't commit one. Meanwhile, if someone else has a good reason, that's not your business."
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Incidentally, if we
Incidentally, if we can come to universal agreement that men have no say in the abortion question, I'll take that in a heartbeat, as women are consistently more pro-life than men.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
A vegetarian could m
A vegetarian could make the same argument with the opposite answer. And legally speaking he'd be right and every bit as undisputed.
Which of these scenarios various occurences of abortion are more similar to and why is the central debate, which your comparison again does not address.
I suspect that women
I suspect that women in congress and the Senate are more pro-choice than the men though.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this can go anywhere. I suspect that our axioms are wildly different on the subject. You take it as a given that from the moment of conception their is a human involved. Many of us have a more gradual view of the process.
If I may ask though, do you believe that not choosing to continue a pregnancy/save a life is morally equivalent to choosing to end one? i.e. If a woman had to conciously manage a pregnancy and chose to 'stop building' would that also be murder (morally)? I ask because my own arguement is that to be pro-life, you need to be proactive in helping others live, donate blood, register as an organ donor etc and was curious as to your view.
Admirable of you to
Admirable of you to apologize.
I think abortion is more of a contentious subject than Iraq. Omitting this central issue from the discourse community I find a discouraging move, and I hope Ender or Mike will not abstain from it.
More people will care about the Iraq war than abortion in the next election, so this site will lack in important debate if Leon will not engage on this issue.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I am sure we'll have
I am sure we'll have plenty of chances to talk about Iraq in the coming weeks. I care about what happens there and the debate surrounding it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
<blockquote>the deat
Isn't that a rather dramatic contradiction in terms? The Death of the Unborn.
Is this how the extremistists of the pro-life crowd, the abstinence only wing, come to the conclusion that abortion is equal to the holocaust? The millions of deaths of the unborn?
I agree they should let the women decide. They can choose birth control, yet the zealots consider even that "the death of the unborn". And unfortunately, the zealots are trying to rule the day. (See South Dakota) (See also, Abstinence Only)
If it were up to the women, I seriously doubt, Meteor Blades, honoring of the war dead in Iraq would even be in question. Cause we would not be in Iraq in the first place. Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means. And I am talking about the born and raised.
And in the cynical world of politics, the unborn are used to whip the masses into a frenzy and raise money. My question, where is the respect for life, not the unborn, for life?
I'm only half stupid
<blockquote>If it we
It's very rational to lump all the women into a group with exactly the same leftist outlook on various issues simply by an accident of their gender. I doubt most women enjoy generalizations like that. You should try again if you are seeking debate based on more than your feelings.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The <strong>unborn</
The unborn don't have birth certificates with names to read.
The soldiers in Iraq have their names properly spelled on their birth certificates
and their death certificates,
after contributing their lifes to the cause of "freedom from terror".
I'm only half stupid
Leon, the subject of
Leon, the subject of abortion will blow this site up. Just as the sidestepping of the unnecessary and illegal occupation of Iraq. The issue of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a core component of what drives the anger of liberals.
You couch your language concerning abortion in such emotive terms that it makes dialogue difficult. ?Unborn children killed? ?graves? ?dig their graves? ?all emotive. But, that emotion and language are what the forced-birth agenda needs to continue its wave of terrorism against women. You start with a concept of ?life at conception? and therein begin to dig the hole in which to bury women.
The subject of abortion requires a vitriolic arena. It may be best to sidestep it until this site can get its bearings. Or not.
Ender, I don't think
Ender, I don't think missliberties was going any further than Leon did in his comment about leaving abortion issues to women. There are polls that show women are more likely to support bringing troops home than are men.
I suggest that women
I suggest that women are strongly pro-life, therefore, much more cautious in committing their sons and daughters to kill and die in war. No woman is happy to send their children to war. No woman is thrilled to have an abortion. In each case the decision is enormously difficult, and filled with feelings.
Your generalization that feelings (therefore women) are leftist is ludicrous.
Men cry when their sons die. Perhaps you can spin that statement into some divisive generalisation about left leaning drivel.
I'm only half stupid
Exactly!
I'm only half stupid
bronte17, Are you
bronte17,
Are you kidding? Did you really just complain about Leon's use of emotive terms and then in the same breath said:
I hope it was just an example of the kind of language we should not be using in the abortion debate. Otherwise it was rather uncalled-for.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
<i>If I may ask thou
If I may ask though, do you believe that not choosing to continue a pregnancy/save a life is morally equivalent to choosing to end one? i.e. If a woman had to conciously manage a pregnancy and chose to ?stop building? would that also be murder (morally)?
Er... I don't think that this line of questioning is precisely apposite; the woman is not, as such, making the conscious decision to take raw materials from her body and use it in the building of a human being - it is the natural process of nourishment that we are discussing here. Now, under normal circumstances, the law does not recognize an obligation to save a life, or provide for its daily needs, no matter how easy it might be to save the life or make that provision. There are, however, a couple of exceptions. One, generally it is accepted that an obligation to save a life is created when one person negligently (or intentionally) places another life in danger. Another (which is relevant here), is in the context of certain relationships - such as, for instance, within the parent/child relationship. Thus, a parent can face criminal charges for failing to provide food for their starving child, whereas I don't face even civil liability if I fail to provide food for a starving co-worker or stranger. Thus, my answer to this would be - if a woman deliberately chooses to refuse to ingest food in an effort to harm a fetus, she would be, in effect, committing child abuse. I believe a few states have statutes which can actually make a woman liable for intentional or reckless damage caused to a fetus in utero (although I believe most of these are drug-related).
TO answer your question, however, I do believe very strongly in both donating blood and organs - especially so given that I have members of my very close family who are organ recipients. I do encourage people to give blood and to check the little box on their driver's license. However, the law has consistently refused to enshrine a duty to provide for the well-being of strangers, and I would be hesitant about supporting such a law in the case of blood donation. I hope that helps.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
missliberties, <blo
missliberties,
I was only talking about your feelings and not generalizing about all women like you clearly were with "Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means."
That's like me saying: "If it were up to men, republicans would be in the majority for many decades to come. Men understand that using rational thought for solving our Country's problems is paramount."
So yes, I was talking about you generalizing about all the women. If I suggest that men are more rational, reasonable and more apt to use their mind when solving problems than women, you'd scream sexism. But when you say "I suggest that women are strongly pro-life, therefore, much more cautious in committing their sons and daughters to kill and die in war." you cast aspersions against men and somehow that's just grand.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Polls showing that a
Polls showing that are hardly cause to make dismissive statements about women being more understanding than men. How bizarre.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let me see if I can
Let me see if I can make this clear to you.
Leon said, "women are consistently pro-life".
He is making a general statement about women that you don't seem to find fault with.
I said exactly the same thing, and related it to the possibility that if women were in charge, we might not be in Iraq, because as Leon said, "women are consistently pro-life."
Then you leap to the conclusion, that
Then you jump to the false conclusion, that I am casting aspersions against men for rational thought, and would scream sexism, when in fact I said no such thing.
Saying that I am casting aspersions against men, because I agree with Leon's assesment that women tend to be more pro-life, is extremely faulty logic. You are jumping to huge conclusions, and then whining about my anti-man stance. This is so typical. First you assault my conclusions with broad generalizations of "leftist", then you play the victim, by falsely stating that I am casting aspersions against men. I see this type of false argument laid out repeatedly. Your constant reliance on generalizations like leftist, or liberal completely avoid the subject.
(And as a personal aside, I relish the difference between men and women.)
Men cry when their sons die. No matter how brilliantly rationale and just the reasoning minds are at solving the countries problems. If the answer they come up with is war, then when their sons die they cry. That is what war teaches us. It is a universal truth.
I'm only half stupid
What is bizarre is t
What is bizarre is that you are chosing to make this a discussion about women v men.
One wonders, the source of this defensiveness, that women are more understanding than men is cause for upset on your part.
And even more telling that you leaped to the conclusion that "women are more likely to support bringing troops home than are men" you parse as women being more understanding than men.
What exactly do you mean when you say that woman being more understanding as a generalization equates to bringing the troops home?
I'm only half stupid
missliberties, If
missliberties,
If you are going to quote Leon, at least get it right in both the quote itself and also the context.
Leon said, "as women are consistently more pro-life than men." and not "women are consistently pro-life". He also said it in the context of the Abortion argument, meaning women are more pro-life on Abortion and not in some vague sense that includes opposition to wars. So I find fault with your interpretation of his statement.
I only used the Men's example as a comparison to what you were doing by making a generalization about all men, showing how silly it is to generalize. I never implied you were anti-man so you missed my point.
If your definition of pro-life includes women not wanting to send their sons into battle then you should know that men are just as pro-life in that sense and to say that women are more caring about their children dying is wrong.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, first, I don'
Ender, first, I don't complain nor whine, so don't use that tone.
Second, why would you presume that my language is to be constricted while yours is not? Those words were no more emotive than his. Not even remotely close.
Leon, thanks for the
Leon, thanks for the response. To clarify, I was aware of the legal answer, just as I am aware of the legal answer regarding abortion. I don't recall the legal term for the enhanced responsibility towards another that sometimes does extend to strangers (Lifeguards and nannies for instance.)
Since we are discussing what the law should be, not what it was, I was curious as to your opinion from the moral prespective.
Much of the arguement for a pro-life voting policy (as distinct from a pro-life policy (subtle perhaps)) seems to be based on an analogous (though not perfectly so) view. If someone has a moral duty to vote for a pro-life candidate (as opposed to a simple desire to bring about a pro-life policy) it seems to be based upon the assumption that we DO have a moral obligation to intervene for the stranger at a similar level.
To be clear, I'm not saying that to argue a woman has a duty to not have an abortion you need to argue that we all have a duty to donate blood. I'm saying that to argue that a voter has a moral duty to support this policy, you are also arguing that such a person has a moral duty to donate.
Is that clear?
And, I must apologiz
And, I must apologize for not being here for the continuity of the dialogue, but I must run.
I was simply incredu
I was simply incredulous that you would question Leon's terminology as too emotive for good dialogue and in the same post label pro-lifers anti-women terrorists... It was strange.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am only disputing
I am only disputing your assertions that women are more understanding than men because of this: "Women understand what pre-emptive action to prevent death really means." which, if you look at the the tone and exlusivity of Women in that sentence, implies that Men don't.
This is becoming too technical to have any value for discussion.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've been away teach
I've been away teaching classes today and haven't participated in the debate. I think one thing we need to address is the concept of inflammatory language. Most of us have an easier time of spotting the faults of others than we have in seeing our own faults. We need to have a frank discussion, though not a contentious one, about what constitutes inflammatory language. I think both sides could benefit from that.
Sure - I understand
Sure - I understand what you're saying, but I can't recall saying that I believed that people had a moral obligation to vote for pro-life candidates. Upon reflection, I'd probably agree with that statement, however, so I'll assume that this is true for the purpose of answering your question.
Of course I would view that donating blood, and helping others in need is a moral duty. I would say that, if a strong swimmer passed by a strange 7-year-old drowning in a pond, knowing full well that she could save the child with no risk to herself, she has a moral duty to help the child, if not a legal one. And insofar as we are confining this discussion to moral, rather than legal duties, I would agree with you on the blood/organ donation issue.
However, one thing might merit mention - it is difficult for me to find support for the existence of such a moral obligation (to donate blood/organs) outside the Christian ethic embodied in the "Golden Rule." All other similar philosophical structures that I am aware of enshrine a responsibility to avoid the positive infliction of harm - a positive responsibility to voluntarily do good (that is, an ethic of altruism), is not, so far as I know, a necessary principle of any other ethical system. Perhaps I am wrong about that point.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
If women are more co
If women are more consistently pro life then why is there this misunderstanding from the right that young women are using abortion as a means of birth control without any consideration for the thought that the fetus they are terminating has the potential to become a human? I seriously believe that the best way to make abortion more rare is to eliminate the obstacles that women face that cause them to choose an abortion over taking on the risk and responsibility of carrying a baby to term.
I also want to add t
I also want to add there are some that do not see paralells between war and abortion. I'm not one of them. In both cases potential futures are terminated by the will of man. I see grief in the loss of an Iraqi child and in the loss of an unborn baby. There is a part of me that recognizes that sometimes war is required, probably the veteran in me. However, in the case of Iraq that was NOT the case. It was a preemptive attack and a poorly planned one at that.
Odd. First I was mak
Odd. First I was making broad generalizations, now it is too technical to have value. I wonder which, is cause for you to feel like you are losing the debate, however you wish to cloak your arguments.
It is a debate you can clearly see I welcome. You took the first shot.
yet can't stay for the last battle. I don't advocate cutting and running.
Rhetoric yes. It really doesn't move the debate forward does it.
Is the question the ethics of abortion vs the ethics of war. Or is it the morals of abortion vs the morals of war. Perhaps the godliness of abortion vs the godliness of war.
Each rests on personal feelings, and the broader picture of what is good for a civil society.
I'm only half stupid
Leon, Yes, I was
Leon,
Yes, I was keeping it confined to the moral view, at least in as much as an effort to change the law should be based on utilitarian or moral grounds.
Too be clear, I am not suggesting that a law requiring blood donation would be appropriate (being consistent with my own right-to-privacy views), just explaining why I tend to see inconsistency in rigidly pro-life individuals who do not believe that they have personally have such a moral duty when it might cause THEM inconvenience.
I think you could probably relate such an obligation to do good, though less formalized, in ethics that embody karma and view a choice to do nothing as still being a choice.
Leon: Whatever SC i
Leon:
Whatever SC is, it's not an echo chamber for people patting each other on the back for mojo.
It could be a conversational civil examination of beliefs, or as it is a place to confront conservatives with globalized mainstream positions but either way it's about engaging.
Neither of your responses on the abortion topic were sufficient to defend your party's fundamentalist platform on a personal or political level and you don't want to deal with Iraq either.
I suppose we should storm through gay rights, economics, poverty, healthcare, education, science and a few others before it's obvious that truth isn't a matter of opinion or debate between left and right and look for solutions not discredited electioneering policies and polarizing talking points.
Dreaming again!
You should address m
You should address my post below instead of talking about me surrendering the point. You consistently miss my point when I can't make it any more clear.
Sexist generalization to make a political point is silly and does not constitute an argument. I don't care to compare the morals of abortion to the morals of war.
You consider going to Iraq a bad decision. Then you claim that if it was up to women, that bad decision would never have been made because of some special understanding only women posess. I said that was silly and I don't know how much more plain I can make that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I agree. I'm a woma
I agree. I'm a woman and I absolutely agree with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq. To say that "women understand," in what comes off as a look down the nose at men tone, seems to me a way of losing what women have been fighting for. We have not been fighting for superiority missliberties. As women, we've been fighting for equality. And not all women believe what you believe simply because we share a gender. I also don't share your ability to jump to Oscar-award nominee capability on emotive speech when you feel threatened, though I can throw a good temper tantrum when provoked. It's clear you don't like Leon. For the record, I do. Very much so. The least you can do, however, is read what he says before you immediately jump on his case.
I think we can all do that. I just joined this site and already I'm put off by the fact that someone can apologize and immediately be jumped on by 10 different people including the person he apologized to about a prior post. Adults, indeed. I am admittedly biased in that I think Leon is a pretty swell man, but I think that everyone needs to take a step back and read what is being said before jumping on the bashmobile.
I would agree. If "
I would agree. If "oh, yeah, well your mom is a...." starts coming in, the whole conversation should be over.
On a serious note, I just joined the site and I know that I'm biased being that I'm related to a contributor. At the same time, my stomach literally turned looking at some of the responses here. I think some boundaries would benefit everyone involved, in my not so humble, very green opinion.
How would you go abo
How would you go about this? As a matter of personal interest, do you think young women are thinking of the life of the child or their own future MORE (not both) in this type of situation? Do you feel like they consider this a fetus if they view the baby as a child and not a mass?
My bad, I misread a
My bad, I misread a comment and Mike did not jump on Leon. My apologies.
While I am ALSO a wo
While I am ALSO a woman and do not agree with the pre emptive strike on Iraq. Therefore, I think we can pretty much make the assumption that females like males run the gamut in their opinions.
For the record I also think Leon is swell and I think his apology was a very classy act.
I think that you do have to recognize that this is a debating site. I sincerely think the intent was not to "jump on" Leon, but to debate the points that he makes in his posts. People can be pretty strident in their opinions. I imagine or I hope anyways if Leon feels "jumped on" and feels a line has been crossed he can speak up for himself. ;)
By the way, welcome
By the way, welcome to the site Jillian. I look forward to reading your opinion on topics. :)
Jillian, Part of
Jillian,
Part of the problem I think is that there are relatively few sites where opposing viewpoints are discussed and as such people are treated as representatives of the opposing side rather than as individuals. Leon, as a well read member of the pro-life side, often gets tagged with some of his allies' desire to outlaw contraception. The reason I was querying him on his world view above was that while I completely disagree with him on the issue, I want to know when I disagree with HIM on the issue vs those he just happens to talk with.
On that note, and in your case, what do you mean when you say that you absolutely agree with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq?
This is a pretty broad statement with many interpretations. Do you believe that the reasons that were put forth for the invasion were correct? That those that turned out to be true are sufficient? That the war has been well executed? That it was the optimal use of our military, our lives and our tax dollars?
Nah, he never says a
Nah, he never says a word to me about it. He never once has asked me to speak up for him and I've never asked him for permission to do so. I'm ok with debate, but, as Mike stated below, I think the language runs out of line in some of the comments. I get the impression that maybe some boundaries of some sort are going to pop up, but I could have misread that in my postwork postnap stupor.
I don't know if you want to hear my opinions at all. :) Most people really, really don't, but it's nice to meet you!
I think that women c
I think that women can hold more than one thought in their pretty little heads (I'm allowed to say this since I am female :) ). I think the decision to terminate a pregnancy is largely situational. I think that in each and every instance the circumstance that leads a woman to decide to terminate is that they feel that terminating the pregnancy would be more beneficial then continuing it and that other than that it could be for a myriad of reasons including but not limited to physical, emotional or financial implications and to any combination of these as well.
Sweet. A quiz! I'v
Sweet. A quiz! I've even sharpened my pencil. Not initially. Let me clarify that thought. I think that initially, since we thought the threat was there, we should have investigated, which we did and when that process was hindered, we did what we needed to do to make sure we were safe. I don't think that it was worth the immediate jump into war but I think the end game justifies how we got there. So, yes to your second question. They could have done it better. I think our intelligence was faulty. We should have known a little more before jumping in with our eyes closed. Had we known more, it's possible that it could have been better executed. All of that ties back to my beliefs about our intelligence agencies, which you didn't ask about, but you can infer that I believe change is necessary. To the last, absolutely. We did the best we could with what we knew and now that we are there, we need to finish the job.
One problem is that
One problem is that in an attempt to stigmatize pre-marital (well, all, but mostly 'sinful') sex, society has also stigmatized pre-marital pregnancy. And the pregnancy is much more evident. It is also pretty expensive to be pregnant, monetarily AND opportunity-wise (Job/career that is needed to take care of your already born children, 'special' schools etc.)
I'll leave it to cwaltz to answer the second question as it seemed to be addressed to that particulary commenter, but it seems to be a bit of a mind reading exercise to try to figure out what they think.
<i>Whatever SC is, i
Whatever SC is, it?s not an echo chamber for people patting each other on the back for mojo.
I haven't the foggiest what you're responding to, or even what you're talking about.
It could be a conversational civil examination of beliefs, or as it is a place to confront conservatives with globalized mainstream positions but either way it?s about engaging.
Neither of your responses on the abortion topic were sufficient to defend your party?s fundamentalist platform on a personal or political level and you don?t want to deal with Iraq either.
I have already made clear, since the moment I started here, that I do not feel an obligation to respond to every comment thrown my way, even if I did have the time. In fact, when the signal/noise ratio on a given comment drops below a certain point, my eyes tend to just skip to the next one. Nothing personal, I'm just not going to respond to either personal insults or comments that have nothing to do with the OP. Neither do I feel an obligation to engage or even defend "my party's stance," fundamentalist or otherwise, on every single issue.
If you're looking for someone to convince you that Republicans are always right, and are disappointed that I've failed at that task, you are certainly entitled to feel that way. You could, of course, mosey along to greener pastures, or you could remain here and carp about it ad infinitum. I wouldn't give odds against the latter.
I suppose we should storm through gay rights, economics, poverty, healthcare, education, science and a few others before it?s obvious that truth isn?t a matter of opinion or debate between left and right and look for solutions not discredited electioneering policies and polarizing talking points.
You are certainly entitled to feel that political debate is worthless; however, I haven't the foggiest why you'd want to remain here with such an opinion.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
<blockquote><i>I sup
I think you might have misunderstood the point on that Leon, but I'm not sure. I think "look for solutions" is the key phrase. It isn't that they don't want debate, it is that they want that debate centered on more than "nyah nyah I'm right you're wrong." But I may be mistaken.
Hmm. Feel free to t
Hmm.
Feel free to tell me what you think of our intelligence agencies. (Heh, I just wrote that and realized I would read like ELIZA)
Well, we certainly disagree on most of this. There is certainly a fair amount of evidence that there was a desire to interpret the intelligence in a let's-go-to-war fashion, and Sec Rice flat out lied about the intelligence concerning aluminum tubes, yet was promoted.
The strongest disagreement we have is on the opportunity costs of the war. I'm just thinking what we could have done with 2-300 billion dollars: securing all the loose nukes in the world, concentrated on securing Afghanistan, improved security at all ports and harbors etc and it seems that this wasn't a fair sacrifice of tens of thousands of soldiers' well-being.
I also take issue with the way the National Guard and Reserve have been treated. Active Duty signs on to do whatever is deemed necessary, but whatever their contract says, the Reserve and NG sign on for country-in-serious-jeapordy issues and there really isn't any evidence that Iraq created such a jeopardy. Particularly considering that the sanctions were causing Saddam's forces and programs to continue to deteriorate.
I've had to rewrite
I've had to rewrite this 4 times to edit out foul language. ;) Kidding. I think our intelligence agencies need to be rebuilt from the ground up. They are completely twisted and set up in a way that benefits certain people, namely those that run them. We've spent far too much time making friends and not enough time watching our backs.
I think it is a good
I think it is a good sign that Leon is willing to step away from the abyss, so to speak. As much division as there is in this country, we still have to find some way not to go for the jugular in our political discourse. Both sides try to reduce complex and multifaceted issues down to single memes, in order to make digestion easier by the public and to encourage moral outrage. I hope Leon and Mike can explore more of these complex issues and better explain why they hold the beliefs they do.
Family planning woul
Family planning would be incredibly important. That includes in my opinion all avenues of family planning including contraception as well as abstinence. I'd like to see more done about domestic violence and rape. I'd like to see better enforcement of financial support from deadbeat dads. I'd like to see more respect in the workplace for parenting(For the record, I think men should get paternity leave and not just women getting maternity leave. Heck it would eliminate that women have to take off time to have babies meme that men use to justify paying women less and give men the opportunity to bond with their kids during their first weeks). I have tons and tons of different things that I think could be done to help reduce abortions that are not done for medical reasons.
It would be great if one of those right side think tanks worked backwards on the reasons that women state they choose to terminate. They run the gamut from abusive relationships to career worries, etc etc.
You made two posts e
You made two posts earlier, one that you wouldn't engage on Iraq and one that indicates to me by a lack of answer that you didn't want to discuss abortion either.
Since we seem to understand each other's side politically already, we are only individuals speaking for ourselves. I'm not responsible for Cindy Sheehan or the Dems and you don't need to defend Bill O'Reilly or the Reps. So getting to the truth as individuals seems to be the only option.
i thought I was being light-hearted about future discussions and whether we may as well take a short cut to finding common ground by ignoring everything contentious by leaving out talking points and polarizing comments. Hence dreaming.
I hope that's less cryptic since I didn't quite understand how you came to your comments either.
No you weren't mista
No you weren't mistaken. It was misinterpreted.
Welcome. Today has
Welcome. Today has been a little slow but it is a weekday and a Monday. Hang around and there will be more fun later. :)
Thanks Morpheus. I'
Thanks Morpheus. I'm trying to put together some thought to get discussion started along certain themes. And I'm trying to figure out how to frame the presentation of those thoughts in a way that limits contentiousness.
Slow? I'm strugglin
Slow? I'm struggling to catch up with all the comments! Thanks for the welcome. Hopefully I'm going to spend a lot of time listening and very little time voicing my opinion.
Hello Jillian. That
Hello Jillian. That is a pretty name. Nice to talk to.
I don't like Leon's position on abortion and I don't like the way he equated it to war deaths in Iraq. He apoligized for tone and not for content.
I disagree with the rest of your character assessment of my posts and will leave it at that. You make your judgements, I will make mine. Hopefully we can agree to debate the issues, not the personalities. And if I flare towards the emotive, find fault with it if you will, but please forgive me.
The most interesting discussions are with those with whom you disagree.
My interest is discovering how people can reconcile a pro-life position with a pro war position, finding honor with one and dishonor with the other. I find it highly irrational.
I'm only half stupid
Odd, I think alot of
Odd, I think alot of our problem is we focus on self interest and not enough on the effect long term on the global community.
For instance take the fact that we trained Osama because we thought he was an ally, or the fact that we overturned a legit election in Iran and installed the Shah or the fact that we supported Saddam because he was willing to gas Iranians for us. We tend to be a bit short sighted sometimes when choosing our allies.
Sex education, for b
Sex education, for both men and women. Birth control, or having the choice of when to start a family.
I'm only half stupid
Thank you.