From this morning’s Inside Higher Ed:Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, attended four colleges in six years (one of them twice) before earning her bachelor’s degree. The Associated Press on Thursday tracked Palin’s move from college to college. She attended (in order) Hawaii Pacific University, North Idaho College, the University of Idaho, and Matanuska-Susitna College, and then returned to the University of Idaho, where she earned a degree.
Population of Alaska: 683,478 (Fewer than Santa Ana + Anaheim)Population of OC: 3,002,048
Alaska's "state look": perky
Palin censors books?
53 comments:
Maybe THAT'S why she wanted to ban books back at ol' Wasilla Library. She just had a hard time understanding them.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
Jealousy will get you no where, sports fans.
Not bad on the eyes; just the brain.
Jealousy of what? Can you be more stupid?
I will give credit to McKane. Now every second rate politicians is going to be a terror! They will have dreams of Vice Presidency and will become more ideological!
The book ban story is a lie. It's been tracked down and outed. Some moron posted it on a librarian web site and it went viral.
The real trouble is that BDS has been replaced with PDS. It's sad.
TB: Could you provide the counter evidence please? Even my favorite source, Wikipedia, is siding with MR and is citing several sources; and it doesn't mention anything about a hoax.
bohrstein, it looks like Palin is a shoot first ask questions later sort. When she won the Mayors seat she purged just about everyone she had appointment power over....wise move considering the corrupt environment she was operating in. The librarian was a target but she backed off on her after she was confronted by a hundred or so community supporters of the librarian. The librarian won't talk to the press about what happened.
The "book ban list" is a fraud because it even includes books published after the Palin library flap. This was just a list of books that was already circulating on the internet that some joker posted as being a Palin book ban list. It's no more real than that crap about Trig, or the other viscous lies circulating about her and her family.
Frankly, the Republican hierarchy corruption in Alaska rivaled anything anywhere else. You folks in Orange County HAVE to understand THAT! It might disappoint you that a Demoncat didn't put a dent in the Alaskan corruption but you should be at least happy that Palin made the effort even if she is a Republican.
Hell, if I ever run for office it will be as a republican, but that doesn't in and of itself make ME corrupt does it? And besides aren't you OC Democrats happy about all the Republican fratricide going on? I just don't understand why you'd be against Palin. She's going to go to Washington and tear into the rats there too! Isn't that what we all want?
Do NOT think for a minute that librarys are immune from corruption. There is a huge stink in the Sacramento area over financial misappropriation in a library district.
You can't gloss over the fact that she's an evangelical fanatic, who dislikes science and nature, except when she gets to shoot things.
Her hypocrisy over reproductive choice is also monumental.
Just what we need--another ideological train wreck. Fabtastic.
As a good critical thinking exercise, I want DtB readers to train themselves to complete the phrase "reproductive choice" with reference to what "choice" really means here: the "choice" to kill one's own children.
OK? Got that? Let's say it together: "Sarah Palin is against choice...(don't stop there!) to kill one's own children."
But some of you won't do that, even though it would be much more honest and accurate, because you really are monsters.
I'm interested 6:22 in how far you carry your argument - and of course, in how far Palin would carry hers. What kinds of charges should a woman and a doctor face? What kind fo penalty?
Tell us.
6:30/6:22 You both make a great point. This is an example of one of the many areas where we should keep government out of our lives.
"Choice" should NOT mean that the taxpayer pays for your abortion either.
We can't go around criminalizing everything. Hell if some dumbass judge ruled abortion is murder then there is NO statute of limitations for THAT and we would have to imprison millions!
What a dilemma!
And the prisons are already overcrowded - we'll just have to step up the execution rate!
I carry my case far enough to recognize the principle that "It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, especially if they are your own children."
You seriously have a problem with that?
Let me ask you, 6:30: if someone throws a newborn into a dumpster, should that person not face criminal penalties? And just what is the morally relevant difference between a newborn and an unborn child?
Want Proof? If I am wrong and you are right, how come people like you consistently refuse to complete the reference to "choice" in your uttering of slogans? Why hide inside a euphemism, "choice," which depends on being incomplete in meaning? Why not just say what it is you are talking about, every time? Choice...to abort and thus intentionally kill innocent human beings. Answer: because the effectiveness of your political rhetoric depends on masking what you are really advocating.
All that shrieking you hear inside your head right now are the devils who dislike the claim that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong. Maybe better not to be on their side.
No devils in my head, ma'am. Speak for yourself and the little voices that you hear.
7:55 You answered the "voices in your head" issue.
Now how about answering the "babies in the dumpster" issue.
I'm curious as to what you feel we should do about that. If a newborn is tossed in a dumpster is that different than tossing a two year old in a dumpster? How many days should pass before dumping kids in dumpsters is not OK?
Don't feed the trolls people! They'll do just fien on their own.
I am so proud of the DtB crowd right now. This discussion of Palin's pro-life position has gone on since Saturday morning, and not one single commenter has used any phrases like "contents of the uterus," "blob of tissue," or "it" (as in "just get rid of it").
We really are re-learning, re-acquiring our knowledge of what is at stake here; there is evidence that our society may be on the road to recovery.
This better linguistic discipline on your part regarding unborn innocent human beings will make me happy this whole week.
The question being begged here is that an embryo is an "unborn innocent human being." Not buying it.
You need to learn the tricks of your own trade. Your usual move here is not to deny that the unborn child is a human being, but to deny that he or she is a "person." Then you can justify off-ing the fetus, but have the interesting situation in which you hold that some human beings are not "persons," and so can be killed.
Be careful where you draw that line, because your own sweet ass could end up on the wrong side of it. All it takes is one good hit on your head.
If you want to make sure that you get the protection by the moral rules that you deserve, better make sure that you rely on your own humanity, and not something objectively undefinable like "personhood."
That the unborn child has human parents and the full human genetic code are sufficient to establish its humanity; you won't get anywhere by trying to deny the humanity of the unborn child, because that is established objectively.
You do not get to make up the rules, and then claim that the other party has violated them. For example, the blatant emotionalism and sophistry, as well as vaguness and ambiguity contained below are mind boggling.
That the unborn child [what's wrong with fetus? If it's an unborn child, is it the same as a toddler haning around in the womb?]has human parents and the full human genetic code are sufficient to establish its humanity; [really? That's a pretty big burden to place on the argument. It has humanity? What does that mean?]
you won't get anywhere by trying to deny the humanity of the unborn child, because that is established objectively.[If you think that you have any sense of objectivity, you really should not be here talking to the grownups.]
By the way, love the violent subtext of your earlier comments.
The book ban thing apparently is in cover up. An overzealous opposer of Palin posted a standard list of books wanting to be banned by conservatives. It was called out as a fraud because the list was published a year before Palin was a mayor of Wasilla. Many have tried to interview the original Wasilla librarian, who did eventually resign and moved off to some (more) obscure town. She won't talk, and other librarians say it's because of Palin's bully tactics. Even other librarians of the area who have anonymously said they've talked to the original librarian about the incident and saw the letter requesting the resignation, won't come out on record. Their reasoning is that Palin is still governor of Alaska and they don't need the entire system squashed, funds taken, etc. by Palin's strong arming.
I think I’ll weigh in here, though I was hoping to avoid it.
My guess is that many DtB readers opted not to respond to some of our Pro-Life commenters owing to the violence and offensiveness of some initial comments. Such comments are very counter-productive re open and reasonable discussion.
Some of the pro-life rhetoric here has been logically abysmal. Referring to fetuses as “babies” is the classic logical error of assuming what one is obliged to establish. I cannot fault those who regard such rhetoric as beyond the pale and unworthy of response.
In a context in which many pro-choicers were disinclined to join the discussion (for reasons referred to above), a pro-lifer offered the classic and familiar challenge to explain what the significant difference is between a late fetus and a newborn. That there is no significant inherent difference is known to all who are familiar with this debate. Of course, as is also well known, pro-lifers have their own “line-drawing” problem, for, in suggesting that there is no difference between these beings, they seem compelled to slide all the way to the beginning, declaring the conceptus to be a “person.” Notoriously, the notion that a conceptus is a “person” in the sense of an agent with the full set of entitlements of personhood is hard to argue for outside of religious contexts.
I suggest that commenters offer their comments in a manner that invites the “other side” to respond. Sometimes, commenters seem deliberately offensive or obtuse as though they were not interested in discussion. Over the weekend, I do believe that Rebel Girl commenced deleting some of these comments.
(I invite readers to read something I wrote recently about the abortion debate on my other blog. Two posts come to mind: one was called “In defense of extremism (1)” and the other concerned the alleged tension between emotions and reason. There and elsewhere I have not been entirely hostile to the pro-life community. I do hope that our pro-life commenters understand that the “DtB” community is not monolithically “pro-choice” and that some of us are perfectly capable of taking some pro-life arguments seriously. It is my hope that we can have genuine discussions here rather than the usual liberal vs. conservative posturing and issuing of sound bites.) --Roy
"Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, attended four colleges in six years (one of them twice) before earning her bachelor’s degree."
I attended five colleges in seven years before I got my bachelor's degree, but I was a pretty good student at all of them.
Well, if Rebel Girl deleted comments, then I don't know all of what was said, but speaking only for myself (there are apparently other anti-abortion voices involved here), my point has been to defend and apply the principle that "It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings."
How "It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings" could have a "violent subtext," I have no idea. Quite the opposite. Abortion, of course, is violence, lethal violence. As pro-life feminists say (you know, the adult feminists), abortion can be seen as male violence against women and male technological domination and interruption of the natural process which leads to human life.
Check the work of Celia Wolf-Devine. I think that she's a "grown up" and "objective."
If anyone is worried about "right-wingers"--seemingly a primary worry in these parts-- please note that "It is wrong to kill innocent human beings" also serves, or should serve, as the moral basis of any opposition to the invasion of Iraq, which was also, remember, a matter of "choice," and which definitely has a violent subtext.
True moral principles cut across party lines and left/right distinctions, because of corruption and viciousness on all sides. The idea is to reform us all equally, whether lefties, righties, and/or "fundies." And please don't mistake clarity, directness, and reason for "violence" in language.
Thanks for weighing in, Roy, even though you were reluctant to do so.
To remind you, here's the "violent subtext":
Be careful where you draw that line, because your own sweet ass could end up on the wrong side of it. All it takes is one good hit on your head.
Remember?
Try and offer a scientific posit that a one month old fetus is an "innocent human being."
Please.
It's easy to talk about late term abortions (unless you have that messy and rare problem with dangerously deformed fetuses that are fatal to the mother" but the thought that a newly developing zgote/embryo/fetus is an actual fully formed human being is faulty.
1:16,
I am not sure what is wrong with you. Here's "violent subtext" for you: You're a dork.
The remark about a "hit on the head" was obviously not a threat; it was a statement about our mutual vulnerability and our shared need to be protected by moral rules.
If I, or the reader, get in a motocycle accident, or have a can of paint fall on our head, then I don't want some "human vs. person" theorist coming along and saying that since we are brain-damaged, and so unable to teach English anymore, that we are no longer "persons," and can be killed.
Part of applying the principle against killing human beings to...all human beings...is to resist (you'll like this) the capitalist idea that only those able to make an economic contribution have value.
Speaking as an ethicist, I do believe that there is general agreement in my crowd that, logically speaking, moral personhood cannot be equated with the possession of the human genetic code--for a variety of reasons. (If a chimp were modified such that he were indistinguishable from a human being re faculties, surely we would embrace him as a "person" and his "genetic code" would be regarded as utterly irrelevant. If a human underwent some process that removed him from the human species while leaving his faculties, we would not cease regarding him as a "person" with rights. That is, his genetic code is irrelevant.)
Thata clear, now consider the principle that it is wrong to kill innocent humans. If we interpret "humans" as "beings possessing the human genetic code," then the principle is false (or at any rate it is by no means obviously true, given the intrinsic irrelevance of genetic code). If, alternatively, we interpret "humans" as meaning "persons," then the principle is true but no longer clearly refers to fetuses, uncless a compelling case can be made for regarding them as such.
In other words, once you clarify the meaning of the "principle," it is either false or question-begging.
And so I do not think that the principle that it is "wrong to kill innocent humans" gets us far in resolving the abortion debate.
-Roy
--Two further points. First, I neglected to include the word "intentionally" in referring to one commenter's "moral principle" above. But that makes no difference to my point. Simply insert the term where I left it out.
Nobody suggested that violence is involved in the notion that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. I earlier remarked that the violence and offensiveness of some comments explains why some do not wish to participate in this "abortion" debate. I was referring to earlier posts that referred to pro-choicers as "monsters" or that suggested that it would be fine to execute many people who took certain actions or views, among others. (I think even more egregious remarks were deleted.)
Again, I ask that commenters attempt to provide comments that invite discussion rather than outrage.
2:17, now you are changing the terms of the argument. The brain damaged adult discussion is fine, but it's far from the debate about when a "person" appears. And no one has been talking about economic value, as far as I know.
In my crowd, there is a concern that someone is going to draw the definitional circle for "persons" small enough that some human beings get left outside of it.
"It is intentionally wrong to kill innocent human beings" is question-begging only from the point of view of those seeking to justify the intentional killing of some innocent human beings.
You are using circular logic when you state that human beings are left out of the purview of your definition. You are already claiming personhood for an embryo without defining what makes a person.
4:22, one more time. You are relying on the "principle" that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The question is, what is meant here by "human being"? If what is meant is "being human genetically," then the principle is not obviously true (and thus it is not compelling in the way you think it is). If, on the other hand, what is meant is "a person in the full sense," then the principle is surely true, but applying it to fetuses is controversial, since it is not clear that fetuses are persons in that full sense. (You need to argue for that premise; you cannot simply assume it.)
The point is that, either way, your reasoning is not compelling or conclusive in the way you think it is. You will think so only by being confused about what you mean or begging questions, which means "assuming the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it."
OK?
"Person" is notoriously difficult to define, so it is easier to manipulate; it's clay in the hands of philosophers. There is no agreed upon definition of "person" in Roy's ethicist crowd.
"Human being," on the other hand, is objectively definable. Whatever has human parents, and the full human genetic code, is certainly human, indeed, even from the point of conception.
The whole "it's human but not a person" stuff started when we learned enough about human genetics and human development to know that, yes, even embryos are human. That just wouldn't do with the pro-abortion crowd, so they had to shift the discussion to a different concept: thus the emphasis in the abortion debate on "persons" away from "human" that we have seen since the 70s.
And remember a key point from the discussion above: if you really don't think that what is aborted is morally significant, why not finish the phrase about "choice?" Why always be talking about "choice" while being so careful to not specify what "choice" you mean?
Maybe, consistent with your views, you could at least say, to be more honest, "Sarah Palin is against choice...to kill humans that are not persons." But that would show your hand, wouldn't it?
Here's the goods on your book-banning slur about Palin:
www.cnn.com/video/savp/evp/?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2008/09/08/tatton.palin.books.rumor.cnn
Little more critical thinking for you.
What on earth does this mean?
"Sarah Palin is against choice...to kill humans that are not persons."
Of course the pro choice people would not say such a silly thing. You are stating we should say that humans are not persons, which is absurd. An freshly impanted egg, however, is not a human being, no matter how much you keep saying it.
By the way, if you getb your wish, will you call for imprisonment of women who choose to abort? And will you provide the many tax dollars needed to pay for all the extra pregnancies and births?
What happened to women who aborted illegally before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision? Were they routinely imprisoned? No: the punishment tended to focus on those who performed the abortions, who were virtually always men.
That's just becasue they didn't know how to write the law correctly. They won't make that mistake this time.
Scare tactic. The pro-life movement regards women as victims of abortion too: an abortion has two victims. That's why pro-life organizations are dominated by women.
Too bad for pro-aborts about the widespread use of ultrasound technology, eh? Hard to stay in denial.
And as for you, Roy, my friend, once your see yourself writing something like "given the intrinsic irrelevance of genetic code," an Absurdity Alarm should sound in your head, all thought- experiments about modifying humans and monkeys aside.
What better way of determining the sort of organism we are dealing with than by its genetic code? If anything in the world is the opposite of "irrelevant" here, it is the genetic code of the individual, and the genetic markers of the individual's natural kind.
"It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings" is indeed an obviously true moral principle, at least obvious to anyone who isn't just shopping for something more permissive.
As someone who has known many women who have had abortions, and were not the victims of the so-called lovers of life, this is especially insulting:
"The pro-life movement regards women as victims of abortion too: an abortion has two victims. That's why pro-life organizations are dominated by women."
As if many women are not able to understand what the choice means, without the supercillious and patronizing crap that we have seen spewed here lately.
Let's make it simple: don't have an abortion if you don't want one. And if you want women to be denied an early termination, which are the most common forms of abortion, then have something better than the "innocent human being" and ultrasound appeal.
Otherwise, please run along and annoy a librarian.
1:34, you are begging the question (i.e., you are assuming something that you are obliged to establish). You write: "What better way of determining the sort of organism we are dealing with than by its genetic code?"
(Please note: the issue at hand is not how we are to determine the "sort of organism we are dealing with." The issue at hand is: what is the basis of a being's possessing significant moral status [i.e., the rights of a person]?)
In fact, I offered an argument to the contrary of that position. What do you do? You ignore the argument and then simply reassert your claim: that genetic species identity is highly relevant to a being's moral standing.
One more time: By your logic, were a highly intelligent and familiarly humanoid extraterestrial species to visit us, we would be entitled to kill and eat them. Why? Well, they lack the human genetic code! What could be more obvious than that, lacking the human genetic code, they fail to have moral personhood! Let's set them on fire!
I cannot believe that anyone reading this finds this to be obvious. Hence, my friend, you are begging the question.
Further, you seem to be committing the error of confusing objectivity with relevance. Nothing could be more "objective" than genetic code. True. But from the objectivity of that standard, nothing follows about its relevance to the question at hand, namely, what is the basis of a being's moral estimability?
I have offered an argument that "genetic code" cannot be that basis. Shall we now once again observe the spectacle of you ignoring the argument and simply begging the question?
Apparently so. You do that a lot. My suggestion is that you take a logic course before attempting to debate this or any issue.
-Roy
Roy, don't forget the awful long list of GENETIC DISORDERS that plague humans, and various other animals (I almost said creatures!) on Earth.
Hasn't anyone ever heard of DS (Down Syndrome - Chromosomal Disorder)? Are humans with DS NOT human?
Also lets not forget to mention that none of us posting on this board here are 100% alike (i.e. we are genetically diverse), so this word exact floating around isn't going to do us any good. Also did you know mice are like 99% genetically similar to us, but due to some arrangements a better number floating around is like 96% similar to humans. The genetic argument is a poor one.
Sorry for my brevity, as usual I have to be somewhere else and well, I can't keep my mouth shut.
Roy writes, regarding my comments, "By your logic, were a highly intelligent and familiarly humanoid extraterestrial (sic) species to visit us, we would be entitled to kill and eat them. Why? Well, they lack the human genetic code! What could be more obvious than that, lacking the human genetic code, they fail to have moral personhood! Let's set them on fire!"
It is unfortunate that you make such an accusation against me, because my whole line of argument is ordered toward protection of innocent life from unjust killing. Nothing I said came within miles of implying such views.
Of course, and obviously, nowhere did I say that having a human genetic code is a necessary condition for having moral significance, or for deserving moral protection: my clear position (how could I make it any clearer?) is that having human parents, and a human genetic code, is sufficient for protection by the traditional moral rule against killing. That is what it means to say that "It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings." You treat my main premise as if it were, "It is wrong to intentionally kill ONLY innocent human beings." That, of course, is not what I said.
Since you are obviously well-trained in logic, you must be familiar with the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, and you should know better than to accuse me of holding or implying such views. So I could accuse you of committing Straw Man, and I could accuse you of something worse: intellectual dishonesty. However, I won't accuse you of either, because I like and respect you a lot, and so I assume that your mistake was committed inadvertently, in the "heat of the moment."
As for me, I would like to take a logic class, as you suggest, especially if it were taught by you. I'm sure that it would help me conduct myself more competently in discussions like this one. For now, however, I must rely on what skills I already have.
Suppose there were discovered such an alien species as you describe. They would be a species like us, with lives like ours, and would have intrinsic moral value like we humans do. It would of course be wrong to kill them. The precise difference between your position and mine is that I would hold that every single one of them counts, and that it would be wrong to kill any of them. You would show up and explain how merely being a biological member of their species is "instrinsically irrelevant," that only the "persons" among them matter morally, and that therefore it is OK to kill some of them. Would you set those unfortunate "non-persons" on fire yourself, or eat them, (these are your suggestions) because by your standards, they don't matter?
You write, "Further, you seem to be committing the error of confusing objectivity with relevance."
I am not confusing them, nor indeed am I accepting your argument for the "intrinsic irrelevance" of genetics. Why? Because I am "begging the question"?
No, because I am trying to maintain the objective criterion as the relevant criterion, precisely to keep anyone from introducing a narrower and subjective criterion like "personhood." The only use of such a narrower criterion would be to justify killing certain members of a species, instead of protecting them all.
When certain philosophers draw a smaller circle of "persons" inside the circle of "humans," the space between the two circles becomes a moral "free fire" zone, a "kill area." Thus my insistence on protecting, yes, all members of the human species, including unborn members, aged members, physically ill members, brain-damaged members, mentally ill members and any other "unproductive" members.
My position protects all innocent human beings, and that's about all that it does. It doesn't deny protection to anyone. I do intend to deny that there is a "free fire" or "kill" zone within the scope of humanity.
For the most hostile readers here: Try taking my comments on this issue as a Rorschach test, and see what your opposition to them reveals to you about yourself. If you experience "outrage," that may be the usual and expected effect of appropriate moral admonishment.
Besides the fact that there will continue to be disagreement that a freshly fertilized egg is now an "innocent human being," you must admit that abortions will always continue to take place, like it or not.
So please follow up with the repercussions of your views, dealing with the practicality of making abortion illegal, which is surely your position. How will the participants be punished? If you are going to be intellectually honest, then you would have to call for the prosecution of women who seek and have abortions, or choose to self abort.
Also, what of the pregnant woman who lives an unhealthy lifestyle, by heavy drinking and smoking, for example. Should she be placed in custody for the duration?
I do admit that it's difficult to respond well to your questions. I will do my best. (Remember, I need that logic class, and Roy has suggested that I ought not continue this discussion until I take it. So I am a little insecure here now.)
1. First of all, the easy part: your statement that I "must admit that abortions will continue to take place."
OK, I admit that abortions will continue to take place. Happy? But my argument is that abortions are wrong, not that they won't continue to take place. So I am not sure that my admission gets us anywhere.
Car theft is wrong and illegal, but "you must admit that car theft will continue to take place." Same thing with arson, robbery, and sexual assault, but we don't want to therefore legalize those acts.
The complete impossibility of enforcing a given proposed law does make it ridiculous to have that law at all, as in the example of forbidding "treasonous thoughts against the king," but the ability to enforce most laws is a matter of degree, so even serious difficulty of enforcment doesn't necessarily make the law impractical. If it did, almost no laws would be justified, because there is practical difficulty in enforcing almost every law.
2. Most of the time, we obey the law not from fear of getting caught, but because we believe in the value the law reflects. There could never be enough police and prisons to enforce all laws, all the time. Social order depends upon people like you and me obeying the law willingly, apart from fear of arrest and punishment.
3. A law can reflect, preserve, and strengthen a cultural value, such that what that law forbids is not just illegal, but becomes unthinkable. That's what pro-lifers want abortion to be: unthinkable, just as it is unthinkable for Roy to hurt a cat.
4. A law can indeed be seen in a negative way, as a restriction of "choice" and personal freedom, but it can also, at the same time, be seen in a positive light, a rational way of loving the good that the law protects. Look at a potential anti-abortion law as an expression of respect, love, and protection for brand-new human life.
5. In a society in which abortion is unthinkable, there would be few situations in which anyone would be arrested or punished for obtaining an abortion, just like there is not much call for arresting or prosecuting members of the Irvine Valley College School of Humanities for selling crack or for sexual assault. The faculty just hold values that make such acts unthinkable. They don't feel "oppressed" or "coerced" by the legal prohibitions against those activities. They obey the law voluntarily, and would obey the laws even if they had an opportunity to break those laws without fear of getting caught. The laws reflect, strengthen, and preserve values that IVC Humanities faculty hold personally.
6. So ultimately, an anti-abortion law would be a means to the end of transforming culture into one in which no one wants to obtain or perform an abortion. So the goal is to create a situation in which no one is arrested (or prosecuted or punished) for involvement in abortion.
(Does Roy want to see factory farming made illegal? Yes! (Or so I am guessing.) Oh! Does he want to see honest, hard working farmers arrested and punished? Is he anti-farmer? No. Roy wants to see us all change in such a way that no one wants to do farming that way, and so no one even wants to do what would get him arrested under an anti-factory-farming law.
But I bet he does want an anti-factory farming law, as a means to that cultural/societal transformation, and to protect animals from abuse and exploitation!)
I admit that minimizing abortion ultimately depends on voluntary compliance, as minimizing most wrongful acts does. Transforming culture does start with each of us reforming ourselves. But an anti-abortion law will be part of the solution; it will help.
One more thing:
I do regret the vehemence of some of the pro-life arguments here, including some of my own. Also, I am disagreeing with (some) people that I know personally, and that has an emotional cost, and greater costs as well.
I just want to say that I do respect the participants here.
I want them to know that, and that I respect them unconditionally, even if they cannot respect me or my views.
Gee, ya teach class for a week and then you cruise Dissent to discover 47 comments on a single post!
I wonder how many of you were involved in that doozy on gay marriage last summer!
That went on and on too - like you all were trying to "win" something...
The "culture wars?" Hearts and minds?
Interesting discussion.
Looking at all the comments again, it seems that the "pro-choicers" (a term which received well-deserved criticism) were so focused on nailing the pro-lifer(s) for "begging the question" or "circular reasoning," that the abortion advocates missed something: what they consider to be the relevant concept, "personhood," doesn't clearly exclude fetuses until "person" is defined.
So any pro-choicer who assumes that a concept like "person" is the relevant one here--without first defining it and then arguing for its relevance--really does "beg the question" and commit circular reasoning.
It's like McCain is trying to lose this election but America keeps supporting and no matter what he do he can't stop the support!
Oh wow. Pardon the terrible grammar, I've been wracking my brain trying to write an essay and my writing has gone... uhh... I'll get back to you with a word..
Roy:
Interesting abortion debate. Not a shocker though. Remember me, from the "Saddleback Shuffle" thread? Are you going to claim that you aren't able to acquire tickets to this Sarah Palin event too?
Post a Comment