Editorial: Doctor’s intent matters | RoundTable: The Roanoke Times Editorial Board blogs on current events, issues

.....Advertisement.....

« Bamford: Allow gays to marry | Editorial: Preserving America's history »

2009.06.26

Editorial: Doctor's intent matters

The doctor's intent matters

Top court should overturn Virginia's partial-birth abortion law

On Wednesday, a federal appeals court ruled that Virginia may prohibit doctors from performing the "intact dilation and extraction" procedure. It's better known as "partial-birth abortion" or even "partial-birth infanticide" if you're a hyperbole-inclined lawmaker, attorney general or Republican gubernatorial candidate. Lawmakers won't likely repeal this foolish law, so we hope opponents appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down.
Read more.

Posted at 08:41 by The Roanoke Times Editorial Board | Category: Editorials | 117 Comments

117 Comments »

We cannot feed, clothe and adequately raise the children already born in this country. We cannot properly raise to maturity and educate a whole generation or two of children who were wanted. We have abominable institutions for the poor and disabled. We have astronomical costs for attempting to "save" a fatally ill or severely deformed infant. And we should just keep chip, chip, chipping away at the right of a woman to end a pregnancy she does not want or cannot sustain? We are some of the most judgmental and hypocritical people on the face of this earth and yet some go blithely on like this was never God's plan and we are ordained to decide for others.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 10:09 am
I've got an idea for those who end up pregnant and don't want the baby...

DON'T RUN AROUND HAVING SEX IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENSES... or
put it up for adoption... It's very easy NOT to find yourself pregnant if you don't want to be...

Why is killing an unborn baby OK, so long as the mother doesn't want it or can't afford it? If I find myself unable to take care of my pets, does that make it OK to tie them up in a sack and throw them in the river?

Comment by Danny — June 26, 2009 @ 10:50 am
No, Danny. You and a mother who did that would go to jail and rightfully so. You too started with a good idea and THAT is exactly where we need to start this ball steamrolling! PREVENTION is achievable, widely acceptable and should be widely and freely available up to and including sterilization free upon request. I support a woman's right to choose but only a moron thinks that there are not too many abortions and too many loosely immoral men and women running around who do not use common sense to prevent the possibility. You know, like the gun guys and the scouts preach: BE PREPARED!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 11:36 am
"We cannot feed, clothe and adequately raise the children already born in this country"

Good. Kill them. That fixes the problem.

Kinda odd that we are bashing doctors this week for performing unnecessary surgeries but we trust abortionists completely.

Comment by Henry — June 26, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Henry, I stated a fact. YOU added the "Good. Kill them. That fixes the problem" solution, NOT I. I also have not bashed any doctors for surgery or anything else so I am out of your loop on that one as well. If you want to characterize abortion as murder, you can do that. Have trials and punishments just like we do for the murder of people who were brought to term, born, lived and were then murdered. NEITHER seems a great success but what do I know. You have the solutions that "fixes the problem" after all.

This is purely an act of intimidation to doctors trying to help their patients and if it was the government telling a business how to do business or a gun seller how to sell their guns, you would see that quick enough, so yeah, "kinda odd" after all.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
This is tough. I am not crazy about partial birth abortions (although I am pro-choice). However, they should be 100% acceptable and legal if the mother's HEALTH or life is at stake.

Comment by HCS — June 26, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Sandi,

I am wondering what the value of human life is to you. A fetus should pay the ultimate price because its human host does not want it or cannot sustain it? What could be more innocent than a fetus?

Perhaps if abortions weren't so easy to get those creating unwanted babies would then realize the magnitude and long term implications of their actions?

This is not an easy issue, I grant you that. But your post seems to indicate you do not value human life very highly? I don't believe that but that is the impression I got.

Bob

Comment by BobH — June 26, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
I agree, HCS, I have no problem if the mother's life is in danger, but I just can't stand behind a right to "choose" death for your unborn child just because he/she would be an inconvenience. Every woman (except in cases of rape) has the opportunity to decide whether or not to have safe sex. That is the ONLY decision that should be afforded by law, once the baby is growing inside of her...it's a little late to be thinking that she should've used that condom...

Comment by Danny — June 26, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
It's called responsibility for your actions...

Comment by Danny — June 26, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
BobH, I am curious as to what I said that gives you the impression that I do not "value human life very highly". I have said over and over again that I abhor the fact that abortions are still happening and pray for the day when they are as rare as is humanly possible. Being the mother of two I cannot think of a harder burden that could be placed on a mother than the choice of aborting a fetus which in mighty short order is a baby no matter what anyone pretends. That you or anyone else thinks that people who support a woman's right to choose also somehow magically do not realize what that choice is, never ceases to amaze me.

Until such time as people who so oppose abortion and so despise me, support comprehensive sex education, all forms of birth control and the free and widespread availability of those prophylactics and sterilization, I will continue to support a woman's right to choose. Painful as that choice is for us all. That is as honest as I know how to be.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
I wish every day that there could be some magic wand created to stop unwanted, unplanned or potentially life threatening pregnancies in this world. It would certainly save us a lot of energy as the debate would be moot.

Regrettably, there is no magic wand to stop two people from having unprotected intercourse that results in the formation of a fetus. We can preach, teach, yell, scream, pray, legislate, dictate and pontificate all day long and it won't stop the event from happening.

I would like to hope that the woman carrying the fetus and hopefully the man that provided 1/2 of the activity necessary to create it know how to and have the capacity to raise the child and care for it in a manner that is loving and nurturing and protective.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case. If a decision is made to halt the pregancy, then all one can hope for is that the decision was not one that was entered into lightly and it was done with much thought and conviction. I don't believe there is a solid right or wrong side to abortion as each case needs to be handled on its own specific set of circumstances.

I get very frustrated when I hear about infants and children being abused/killed by parents/guardians. Where is the compassion for those children? Who is speaking up for them with the same fervor that many seem to be speaking up for the fetus's?

We can make wide sweeping statements when speaking in generalities...but when it boils down to the examination of one specific case in one specific instance, the lines become a bit less distinct.

This debate would become a bit easier to take side on if the same level of committment for the unborn were applied to the infants and children born into living conditions that are unsafe, unhealthy and inhumane. Sadly, I just don't hear the same level of outrage.

Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Sandi,

Your post #1 seems to indicate justification for ending a human life simply because the human host may not want or cannot sustain. That indicates to me not a very high value for human life.

You know, these high teenage pregnancy rates weren't liek this 100 years ago when abortions were not a medicinally safe event. Do you think the 2 are related.

Comment by BobH — June 26, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
And, Sandi. I do not despise you. I have followed your posts for some time now and we disagree politically but I respect your positions.

I believe you do value human life. I didn't like the feeling I got when I read post #1 because it didn't seem to represent much value for human life.

Will, I hear you and a very good post and point. I think child abuse is an outrage. I have read about 2 people, Gene Stallings (former coach at Alabama) and Sarah Palin who both knew that children they were going to have were going to to suffer from the "3rd Chromosone defect" (the one Al Gore made fun of in the campaign). They decided to have them anyway. And both indicated that it was the right decision for them. Gene eventually lost his son but still relishes every day that he was a part of his life. Governor Palin also relishes her special child.

These are human lives we are talking about here. I can't think of how outraged we would all feel if people started getting abortions because their fetus might be autistic, retarded, gay, or maybe not even the sex that they wanted.

I don't think we are too far away from that.

Comment by BobH — June 26, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Bob, more likely to happen is that all parents will have their DNA screened for any sort of defects they may have, and their child's DNA will be engineered to remove any genetic defects found in the parents DNA. I think that is what the movie Gattica was about, at least in part. I really didn't like the movie and it's been over a decade since I saw it, but as I watch where we're headed as a society, I think that movie may have been more prophetic than people thought.

Comment by Other John — June 26, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
BobH...

I appreciate the comment in your post #13. It is interesting that you point out Gene Stallings and Sarah Palin as two individuals who decided to go forward with the births of children who were challenged. Both of those individuals are (for lack of a better description) financially secure and covered by health care programs that probably provide a myriad of health care option for their special children.

I've wondered time and time again about the socio-economic status of the women who make the choice between going forward with a pregnancy versus terminating the pregnancy. My guess is that those who are of the financial means and wherewithall to support a child of an unplanned, unwanted or health challenged pregnancy are more likely to let the pregnancy go to full term. On the other hand, my guess is that those who are of lesser means and wherewithall will more likely choose abortion over allowing the pregancy to go full term.

I can't say that I've seen any statistics relative to the demographic that I've painted...but my 6th sense tells me that I'm correct in my presumption.

Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Will, of the studies I've looked at, your thoughts seem to be reflected in them. They generally indicated that women who were single, less educated, and of lower income groups had higher tendencies to have abortions...whereas women who were married, in higher income brackets, with more formal education tended to be less likely to get them (in terms of total numbers). Again, as with anything, there could be a myriad of casual factors in the data having such a skew. The studies did not mention the overall pregnancy rates for the women, so I never saw anything to say that the number of abortions as a percentage of total pregnancies within those groups were different. I also do not recall anything about the sample size or distribution of the groups studied, which would have also helped paint a more clear picture.

Comment by Other John — June 26, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Will:

“I get very frustrated when I hear about infants and children being abused/killed by parents/guardians. Where is the compassion for those children?”

“Frustration”?!? That’s your reaction?!? Oh, that we all could emulate your compassion, Will! When the government condones and subsidizes such parental activities under the guise of “right of choice,” because they are doing it in the “privacy” of their own homes, then I promise you’ll hear us. But as it is (so far), the government forbids and convicts parents of born children who pour solutions on the baby that cause 3rd degree burns and ultimately suffocate the child to death; it’s also illegal to take a sharp spoon and dismember the child, dispensing of their parts in a jar. And last I checked, it was still against the law for a parent to sneak up behind a baby, cut an opening at the base of their skull, aspirate the baby’s brain, and crush their skull.
When such things are legitimized under the sacred cow of “women’s rights,” I assure you, Will, I’ll have just as much compassion for them as I do the 3,700 that it happens to every day.

Isn’t the question reversible, though? “Where is the compassion [from you] for those children [the ones that experience the deaths I just listed]?”

“Sadly, I just don't hear the same level of outrage.”

Exactly. Rather you say and do everything in your power to promote and support the death of a certain class of children. Please don’t pretend that you’re the compassionate ones!

Enough of the red herrings and ad hominems. Let’s hear a sufficient argument that justifies the killing of any baby.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 26, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Mr. Stevenson...

I find your rant to be typical. I chose the word frustrated because certain words that would indicate my feelings are not proper to print and would only point to certain levels of uneducated rant.

You apparently haven't read or just choose to ignore several other posts that I've written regarding this topic. I don't like the fact that children are aborted but at the same time, I haven't been in the shoes of the person that has had to make that decision and I doubt you have either.

As you so uneloquently point out, yes...it is illegal to pour acid on to or take instruments and dismember infants and children. However, just because it's illegal doesn't keep it from happening to hundreds of children every day that managed to escape the womb and live with that very threat every day of their lives. Where's that outrage, Mr. Stevenson?

I hear outrage at "welfare babies" but the babies have no control over when, where, why or how they are born do they? How is that infant supposed to take care of itself? I think its a little to easy to stand on your soap box and decry abortion when there are thousands of infants and children who have been abandoned to "the system" through no fault of their own. Mr. Stevenson, where's that outrage?

Perhaps your rants would be better served screaming about educating young women about options other than abortion. Perhaps your rants would be better served screaming to the government to provide tax dollars to help unwanted infants and children get a better start to life via homes and shelters rather than being left to live out lives in squalor that they have no control over.

Perhaps your rants would be better served doing something rather than accusing those of us who try to understand an issue before diving headlong into the water without knowing how deep it is and what it contains.

Perhaps your rants should stop until you find a better way to understand the issue. I don't claim to understand all the factors that play into a decision like that and all things willing, I hope I never have to. You should too. Monchromatic vision doesn't suit your purpose very well at all.

Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Other John:

You must have not seen the study in one of the Guttmacher Institute's (pro-abortion advocacy group) former publications, Family Planning Perspectives 28 (July--August 1996).

Therein it was reported that 38% of abortions were done on women with family incomes between 30K and 60K, compared to 28% on those women with a family incomes less than 15K. In fact, those making over 60K accounted for 13.8%, while those between 15K and 30K were 19.5%.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 26, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Sorry, Will, you must not have read my last paragraph. At least there is no evidence that you did.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 26, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Mr. Stevenson...

It appears the information may indeed support my gut feeling. If you look at the numbers and consider the income levels, approximately 85% of the abortions during that particular time frame occurred with family incomes of less than $60,000. The study didn't indicate if that was gross income or net and there does seem to be a fairly wide gap between the segments of income studied.

I think it still supports the idea, however, that a greater number of abortions occur in lower income brackets than do higher income brackets. Consequently, it also may then be safe to conclude that the level of education and age also play a part in the process.

I'm not arguing that some of the procedures by which an abortion takes place are not awful. I never have. What I am saying is that the decisions to have the abortion perhaps are being made by people who feel that they have no alternative. Educating those people to the fact that there is might help solve the problem.

However, if those infants then become wards of the state, the last thing we need to hear is griping about "welfare children".

Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Come now Will, it is so much easier to write a diatribe of conviction for people who do not feel the sense of outrage that you do, than it is to "walk a mile in the shoes" of a woman facing the decision. It is so much easier to use your intellect and zeal to condemn something you do not approve of, than it is to look for answers that will indeed change the decision you hate. It is so much easier to lash with invective than it is to understand the reality of why something happens. Abortion statistics for the later second and third trimesters when a fetus is becoming or has become a baby to the extent that viability is possible with medical intervention is a rare and getting rarer procedure and every decent and fair minded person knows this and puts the issue in the proper prospective. The women who have these rare procedures are not the ones doing so simply for their convenience or the expedience of not having to deal with a "damaged" baby. Doctors are not lining them up to slaughter and neither are women the monsters they are being portrayed as by the self righteous zealots. You can tell a self-righteous zealot when they have that one issue that always brings out the worst in their comments. You can recognize a self-righteous zealot by their comfort with condemning the behavior of people they do not know and difficult and painful situations they are not involved in. You can recognize a self righteous zealot in the choice of the most inflammatory language and descriptions they can use to describe the tiniest percentage of late term abortions without any of the mitigating factors that have allowed the rest of us to realize that the choice needs to remain an option. Zealots also vigorously rail against the necessary changes in education and prevention that MUST be accomplished to lower the abortion rates. Many are also the loudest voices against WIC, ADC, Housing, Daycare, PreK and other programs designed to help end the cycle of poverty and deprivation that some children are born into.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
How can one claim that abortion is justifiable (preborns are expendable) and then turn around and say that child abuse isn't (postnatals are not expendable)? Unless, that is, they first suppose that abortion itself is not child abuse and killing. In fact, after the court decreed that prenatal life swings in the "choice of the mother," child abuse rose some 500%.

A study at U of So. Cal. of abused children discovered that 91% of the abused kids were from planned prenancies; and in America in general, only 63% of pregnancies are planned. It follows then that of the abuse cases in our society, a significantly higher number of cases are with planned children. So, the unwanted equals abused argument is contra-fact.

Just listen to the general line of your thought: Parents abusing and killing their born children is wrong, ergo allowing them to choose to abuse and kill him or her before birth is right. This is absolutely irrational! Or rant-ful, if you please.

The attitudes and causes of abortion are no different than those of abuse. They are the mother's suppression of her instincts to care and nurture for her baby; that the child is of less value than her own wants and needs, etc. If we can't say that a child should be protected in the refuge of his or her mother's womb, then I challenge you to find warrant for demanding that they get that respect after they've been born.

Restoring a high view of life throughout the continuum of life, from conception to grave, would be a great step in reducing the abuse we both despise.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 26, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Will and Sandi:

For both now and future reference, if you are willing to engage my posts (thus engage me), I would ask that you keep the "griping about child welfare...WIC, etc." nonsense to yourself, or save it for others. You can find nothing even close to that in anything I've ever written, therefore it's irrelevant in respect to any of my arguments...I'd suggest it another way of avoiding them, actually.

And Will, would you say that #22 qualifies as 'rant,' or is it just me?

And Sandi, try and allow this to sink as deep as is possible into you brain: If abortion is not unjustly killing another human being, then there is no need to justify it (or make it out like a "hard choice"); but if it is the unjust killing of another human being, then nothing--NOTHING--can justify it. Period.

I'm sorry for those who hate the moral dichotomy of the issue, but that's the reality of it. All these circumstantial arguments can be reversed to be used as justifications for the abuse you so claim to hate. They're just that bogus.

Sandi, you can't trump the arguments, so you make the ever "walk a mile in their shoes" appeal. If I didn't have a general love for you as a fellow human being, then I'd invite you to do the same: Walk a mile in the shoes of the millions who are aborted every year!

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 26, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Mr. Stevenson...

It is quite apparent that you do in fact have a very monochromatic view of the very sensitive issue of abortion and it's very obvious that you aren't reading and comprehending what others are writing including my own posts.

Life is very precious to me...especially having lost a very dear loved one to the same type of cancer that took the life of Farrah Fawcett. I grieved sorely at my sister's death and have replayed many of the same emotions having watched Ms. Fawcett suffer in the same way. So please don't even pretend to imply that I don't have a high regard for life and preserving it.

You make very generic observations with regard to the ability of a mother to care for an infant regardless of the circumstance that the mother finds itself in. I find that a bit over simplistic in view and in reasoning. I would prefer that all babies have the ability to be born into loving, caring, nurturing families that have the wherewithall including the financial means to care for their children until adulthood. Is that a reality today?

No.

However...saying that demanding respect for a child after its born in some way diminishes the need for nurturing before its born is bordering on insanity. The best that we can hope for is that both the unborn and the born get the same opportunites to live a life without abuse and torture.

Can you unconditionally guarantee that for every fetus that is now or will be conceived from now on Mr. Stevenson? I can't and I doubt you can either.

Guarantee that every fetus born will have unabridged opportunities to live a safe, secure and happy life until they reach adulthood, and I'll be on your side. Until then, I think it will be up to each individual to make choices that they themselves have to live with.

Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
The thing about this issue that causes me the most frustration is that people defending the "right" to choose abortion seem to presuppose that women have no role in getting pregnant in the first place. They use phrases like "having found themselves in this situation" as if the woman just woke up pregnant one day, but had absolutely nothing to do with getting pregnant.

And I'm sorry, but I think all of this "medically necessary for the mother's health" as well as the birth defect and rape arguments are just smoke and mirrors. Abortions performed for these reasons account for less than one percent of all abortions performed. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience after irresponsible behavior. I realize this is going to sound flippant, but the fact that someone may not want or be able to financially support a child is one of many facts that should be considered before engaging in sex, particularly unprotected sex. The simple solution is, if you aren't ready to face the possible consequences, you shouldn't be having sex. Unfortunately, our society has such a sense of entitlement and has so completely abandoned the concept of personal responsibility, we will argue that everyone should be able to have sex without suffering any consequence. I disagree. Sex is not like air or water. It is not a necessity.

I believe many here have sincerely held beliefs about the welfare of children born into troubled or financially unstable homes, but I am afraid I cannot find the logic in the position that these unborn kids are better off being killed because they might have a bad life if they are born. How many great people have gone on to successful, meaningful lives after humble beginnings? Using the logic argued here, they, along with society, would have been better off had they been aborted.

In conclusion, this is an emotional issue, with strong feelings on both sides. I believe the only way to reach any resolution is for both sides to approach the issue in an honest, open-minded manner. That means the religious people may have to accept that some people simply do not hold the same moral values that they do. It also means the pro-abortion types need to be honest and admit that abortion is largely an issue of convenience. I don't think many will be convinced by what seems to be the topic of the debate here, that it would be better to be dead than poor.

Comment by C Ramsey — June 26, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
C Ramsey: "The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience after irresponsible behavior."

I'll stipulate that if you stipulate that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before an embryo even becomes a fetus - and well before the brain has begun to fully develop.

Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 26, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Kevin Stevenson, I assure you that I have no desire or intent to "engage" in any activity with you. IF I so choose, rest assured, I will direct my comments at you and you alone. I do not believe you have any intention of having a discussion on the issue and I choose to get my sermons on Sunday in church and my information from sources I trust.

C. Ramsey, you are correct that it is an emotional issue but what you believe we "presuppose" is an unfair claim and I do not understand how you can admit something is an emotional issue and then appear to ask that we leave our arguments out of the discussion because YOU perceive them to be "smoke and mirrors".

One would think that, except in the cases of rape and incest (which are not smoke and mirrors) which cannot ever be dismissed, ALL women who "find themselves in this situation" got there relatively the same way and with some degree of consent. "There, but for the Grace of God" is certainly not an effective prevention for pregnancy and I would have no problem with restrictions on any "abortion of convenience" if I was convinced that anyone actually makes such a decision with that frame of mind. No one who supports a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy thinks it is a decision to be taken lightly or for convenience. Is there nothing that can go without saying in this debate? I do not think I have ever presented as a cold, calculating person without a conscience or faith, so why do I need to stipulate that I am not a cheerleader for abortion as birth control or risk ridicule and condemnation for supporting the need for abortion to stay legal and safe? If you want to discuss changing the way abortion is thought of and have some real research that supports your contention that it is a mere convenience issue (which is so far from my experience that it is incredulous) I am willing to listen. Like many other actions that go against the conscience of humanity, a woman answering questions at an abortion clinic might well choose the lie of convenience as the shortest out but that does not mean that women are that thoughtless and dehumanized to the actuality of the event.

This is not a single, right/wrong question and all involved here know it. This is an issue that society needs to deal with for once and for all and we need to examine it strenuously and objectively. Change what needs changing to make abortion even more of a last resort and lesser needed option. If we feel that too many abortions are happening, we need to look at why that is and work back from there to address the problem. To assign blame, guilt, condemnation and even criminality is counter productive to a discussion and a solution IMHO.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 27, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Having abortions for the sake of convenience is the real kicker for a lot of people, including me. It just seems awful that someone would argue that they should have the right to abort a baby, just for their own convenience or comfort. I know that not all abortions happen for that reason, but there are probably more that happen for the purpose of simple, selfish convenience than any of us would like to think about.

You know what though... let's start a movement to redefine pro-choice to mean that you choose to lead a responsible sex life! Choose to have safe sex. Choose to be a responsible adult! Choose to use protection and birth control. Choose to wait until you understand all of the possibly outcomes of sex before you start doing it. If pro-choicers are so into having the freedom and right to choose... then exercise your freedom and make intelligent choices regarding what to do with your body, and choose to treat your body and your sex life responsibly! Choosing to abort a baby because you "suddenly realize" that you aren't financially or emotionally ready for a child once you are pregnant is not an example of being responsible. Being responsible would be taking care of your body in the first place, and protecting yourself and your partner during sex, and making intelligent choices about using birth control. There's nothing that says we have a "right" to have sex you know... I see sex as one of those things that you do once you realize that you are ready for any and all consequences that may come with the actions. How come being held accountable and taking responsibility for one's own actions is applicable in most all other life situations... but not for getting pregnant?

The ONLY real and safe answer that will ever truly be acceptable and legitimately safe about abortion laws is when PREVENTION of pregnancy in the first place becomes more important. So much focus is put on what to do once you've already been irresponsible and found yourself with an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, I already know that all abortions don't come from irresponsible parents and choices, but anyone would be fooling themselves if they don't think that the majority of them do. Anyway, just think of how much progress our society could make on this topic if more attention was placed on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place!

Comment by hokie24 — June 27, 2009 @ 1:01 am
Wrong Dan. Most abortions are performed between 7 and 12 weeks, when there is both a heartbeat and brain activity. Granted, the brain is not fully developed, since that doesn't happen until approx. the age of 16 years. Are you prepared to argue that the mother (given your standard) has the "right" to kill her 2 yr. old, 6 yr. old, 15 yr. old?

You are correct however, the only difference between what's in the womb and what's out of the womb is degree of development. So, according to you, one's level of development determines one's value as a human being and worthiness of our protection?

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 27, 2009 @ 7:22 am
C. Ramsey:

"That means the religious people may have to accept that some people simply do not hold the same moral values that they do."

Can you find anyone in any culture that values (treats as a virtue) the unjust killing of an innocent human being? And if you could, should we allow their amorality any weight in the conversation? We normally call those people psychopaths, right?

If you found out that someone you knew about was planning to kill their child the next day, how "open-minded" would you be? Your quote makes sense if and only if you already know that the preborn is not a human being. But you can't know that, since we can't know what's false. Therefore, your statement doesn't even make sense.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 27, 2009 @ 7:33 am
"That means the religious people may have to accept that some people simply do not hold the same moral values that they do. It also means the pro-abortion types need to be honest and admit that abortion is largely an issue of convenience."

C Ramsey: "The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience after irresponsible behavior."

"I'll stipulate that if you stipulate that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before an embryo even becomes a fetus - and well before the brain has begun to fully develop."

You two can stipulate to each other all day if you like. The fact remains that it is no ones business why a woman is having an abortion. She can have them because they feel good if she likes. It is her decision and the views of someone else are irrelevant and uncalled for.

Comment by Blue John — June 27, 2009 @ 7:35 am
I lived through the horror of an abortion, from about the first year it was legal. One had to fly to NY or such larger city, at that time. Being a young man, I didn't understand, or think, of what I was endorsing. I have been haunted by the boy's death, since. I didn't understand what it meant when my fiance' called to say that, 'I'm further along than thought; they will have to use a saline procedure (similar to a partial-birth)...it dissolves part of the baby. Bascially, the baby most likely would have lived, if a C-section was used; I was given a chance to reverse our decision. It was my last chance. Later that night, I awakened to the audible sound of a baby crying. It was no dream, just harsh reality. No worry about food and care for babies, just stop the murdering.

Comment by other joe — June 27, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Dan,

People's brains don't fully develop until the mid twenties. Are you suggesting that a fully developed brain should be the line where abortion becomes illegal? The last part of the brain to fully develop is believed to be the part that enables rational decision making. By that criteria, I know a lot of middle aged adults whose brains I wouldn't consider to be fully developed. How about a heartbeat? Can you really argue that an embryo or fetus, or whatever name you prefer to call it based on an arbitrary date line, is not alive when it has an identifiable and measurable heartbeat. This whole "it's okay to kill it because it's not really a human until . . ." argument just seems like a cop-out to salve the conscience and make an unconscionable decision easier to make. And by the way, I don't really need you to stipulate to the fact that abortions are performed as a matter of convenience. It's a fact, whether you agree to it or not.

Kevin, sorry you misunderstood my argument. I was pointing out that you are using a moral-based argument against people who don't share your moral beliefs and in a society that is virtually devoid of morality. No matter how fervently you argue, you won't convince them. I wasn't suggesting you alter your beliefs or concede the righteousness of abortion, only that high-minded, accusatory rhetoric typically doesn't lead to anything except further animosity. I never realized a call for open-mindedness would be so offensive.

Strangely, no one seemed to address the poverty issue. Have you seen the folly of the argument that babies would be better off aborted than running the risk of being born into less than ideal circumstances? With unemployment still climbing, I certainly hope our employer's don't adopt that philosophy.

Comment by C Ramsey — June 27, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
"Kevin, sorry you misunderstood my argument. I was pointing out that you are using a moral-based argument against people who don't share your moral beliefs and in a society that is virtually devoid of morality. No matter how fervently you argue, you won't convince them."

How is this a moral issue? Who decides what is right or wrong concerning abortion? The only people that interject morals are the ones that are intruding into other people's privacy with their beliefs. Talk about hypocrisy!

Comment by Blue John — June 27, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
C. Ramsey, when I use the term poverty and deprivation, I am certainly not saying poor. I was born "poor", raised "poor" and by many standards raised two children "poor". I mean the comprehensive: ignorance, lack of education, immorality, abuse, neglect syndrome we recognize as poverty and deprivation not the 'I live in the projects' poor, or the "I have been out of a job" poor. Surely you realize there is a difference.

I do not condone abortion for "convenience" or simply for being "poor" although neither reason is in my purview to judge for another IMHO.

If you hate abortion, support preventing the need and supporting the mother and child when the choice is life. Those really are the best options. We can outlaw it again and criminalize it, but that will not really address the cause and stop it. No one likes abortion. No one with a conscience of a mother believes that a woman makes that decision lightly or walks away from it lightly. The emotion is there, why not use it for the good instead of for condemnation?

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 27, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
How is killing another living being for the sake of convenience, and expediency and then trying to rationalize it by saying it's merely a matter of privacy, a moral issue? Is that really a serious question. If you can reduce abortion, the willful termination of an innocent life, to a mere medical procedure devoid of moral implications, like say, removing an in-grown toenail, then you'll have to forgive me if I don't get too worked up because you think I'm a hypocrite. I'll just look to the source and consider it a compliment.

Who decides whether it is right or wrong? Who decides that murder, rape and robbery are wrong? Clearly, each individual makes decisions about whether abortion is right or wrong. That doesn't mean it is not also a societal issue. And as one other poster noted, if this is not a moral issue, why do even the pro-abortion folks talk about the "heart-wrenching" decision to have an abortion. Do people feel despair and turmoil over other medical procedures? Do they consider having a diseased appendix removed a gut wrenching decision they will have to live with the rest of their life? Clearly they feel this conflict because they know the choice they are exercising is one to end another life. That type of decision is never easy precisely because of the moral implications. "Privacy" and "choice" are just buzz words people use to rationalize the act and salve their conscience.

You did, however, prove my point to Kevin. You don't even think abortion is a moral issue, so you clearly don't share his moral beliefs. Thanks for that.

Comment by C Ramsey — June 27, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
This was an insult that did not need to be used and is not true or even defensible "...you are using a moral-based argument against people who don't share your moral beliefs and in a society that is virtually devoid of morality" While this may indeed be a moral argument, it is you and people like Kevin who are making the moral judgment to condemn which is equally wrong in the eyes of most any moral belief you care to offer.

There are immoral members of the clergy, law enforcement, education and any other group you can name but to say that our society is virtually devoid of morality is not true and you know that. Seeing the ugly side or even the side you do not appreciate may twist your perception, but many good, decent, hard working, honest, moral, kind and generous people still work every moment of the day to make this world a good place for the people in it.

Always good to know that I am not the only one who gets carried away with rhetoric though. I do thank you for that!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 27, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
C Ramsey,

You have no compunction for removing an ingrown toenail, but you condemn others for ending some other "innocent life"?

Doctors and their patients have to make heart-wrenching decisions all the time. What about the parents of conjoined twins, who have to kill one to enable the other to live? What about medical workers at a disaster who have to follow triage rules, allowing some victims to die without treatment so that others can be saved?

Medical science is not perfect. There are always some lives that cannot be saved. That is a fact of life.

Comment by Ed H — June 27, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
"Doctors and their patients have to make heart-wrenching decisions all the time."

True. Look at what happened to Michael Jackson. I bet it was very heart-wrenching to give Michael that fatal cocktail of drugs but it was his choice made with the counsel of his doctor. Some lives just can't be saved.

Comment by Henry — June 27, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
"How is killing another living being for the sake of convenience, and expediency and then trying to rationalize it by saying it's merely a matter of privacy, a moral issue? Is that really a serious question."
This is your question, your choice of words, not mine. My question would be "when does a fertilized egg become a human being"?

"If you can reduce abortion, the willful termination of an innocent life, to a mere medical procedure devoid of moral implications, like say, removing an in-grown toenail, then you'll have to forgive me if I don't get too worked up because you think I'm a hypocrite. I'll just look to the source and consider it a compliment." Consider it what you like, but the fact remains that you have interjected YOUR FEELINGS into the mix and have tried to obfuscate the issue with those FEELINGS.

"Who decides whether it is right or wrong? Who decides that murder, rape and robbery are wrong?" The lawmakers make this decision, and abortions are legal.

"Privacy" and "choice" are just buzz words people use to rationalize the act and salve their conscience." If this is what YOU THINK, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And we all know what an opinion is worth.

You are still concerned with "proving" your point rather than admit it is none of your business if another person decides to terminate their pregnancy.

Comment by Blue John — June 28, 2009 @ 7:04 am
It seems to me that if Kevin can claim his moral dichotomy is valid (either abortion is or is not the unjustified killing of a human), then I can claim another moral dichotomy: either life is "sacred" or it is not. (Since I do not have a religious axe to grind, I use the word "sacred" in a secular sense that life is important and worth preserving.)

I don't recognize a distinction between human life and other life, so when I say life is either sacred or it is not, I mean all life, in all its forms. We make decisions every day about which life we can end based almost exclusively on convenience, but also on necessity.

We end life by eating, and we feel no moral compunction against that (and yes, I include vegetarians in that, because how can we morally claim that plant life is any less important, or sacred, than human life.) We end, or at least imperil, life because we drive to places, and even if we were to bike or walk everywhere we go, some form of life is ended just because we wear clothing.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying to mean that I don't consider life important, because I do. I'm simply pointing out that we make these decisions about what gets to live every day. If you are going to make the case that life of an unborn human is just as important as the life of a born human, and therefore abortions are murder, then tell me what distinguishes human life from any other life.

I suspect that most of you will call on "god" to make that distinction, but once you open that door you have to grant admission to other gods as well (unless you have some really compelling reasons that your "god" should trump other "gods"). If your "god" makes human life more sacred than other life, the Hindu god(s) make bovine life at least as sacred, if not more so, than human life. That means we have to stop eating hamburgers.

And since gods are as plentiful as the human imagination, we'll need a pretty big room to house them all. Oh, and we'll have to recognize all of the life forms those gods hold as sacred, and act accordingly.

Or we can recognize that, biologically, all life is essentially the same, and we draw our lines at where and when we can end certain life forms. Yes, that is an argument for a subjective morality, but I feel no shame in that; all morality is ultimately subjective, even if it seems objective to various generations and cultures.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 28, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Henry...

Have you received some kind of "inside information" as to the cause of death for MJ? Jumping the gun a little aren't you?

On another note...let's say, for the sake of argument, that we all agree that abortions are horrible things (and I honestly believe that most of the folks here do agree on that). Now, let's take it a step further...we educate people (women especially) that there is a viable alternative to abortion and that's giving the child up for adoption.

We all know that there are many couples seeking to adopt children but there are hundreds of children still waiting to be adopted.

How would you feel about opening up adoption to gay and lesbian couples? I just read an article on CNN today about the "gayby's" and their prominant roles in society.

Seems to me we could cure two problems pretty quickly here folks.

Comment by Will — June 28, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Alright now, Rob Miles, I am a vegetarian and I beg to differ with your generality: "We end life by eating, and we feel no moral compunction against that (and yes, I include vegetarians in that, because how can we morally claim that plant life is any less important, or sacred, than human life.)" While I agree with your basic premise, I find that while believing that all life is sacred and if possible to be treated as sacred, there is a difference in the practice of that "sacredness". If you believe that the edible plants we eat have lived a life cycle that was (as mostly has to be the case to have a successful crop) coddled, nurtured and in essence treated as sacred. You cannot compare that in any way to the desecration and abuse of the animal lives on "factory farm" operations and no amount of words will change that reality. That is, if you are so esoteric as to claim plant and animal life to be the same.

I do take your point that the reverence for life is startlingly NOT in evidence in many of the pursuits of man.

If a woman chooses to have an abortion (for whatever reason and within the legal boundaries) and she has even a rudimentary knowledge or belief in God, she, no doubt believes that upon the completion of this procedure, whatever life was potentially developing is immediately taken up to God and being a total innocent receives the rest or reward that religion offers and that woman accepts unto herself whatever judgment that same religion metes out. That any of mankind feels granted a judgment over that decision is not legally morally or religiously justified. Even if a woman who chooses an abortion has no such belief, mankind still has no such dispensation for condemnation.

If you do not support abortion, do not have one, do not advise those you love to have one. Work for the comprehensive sex education, free and easily accessed prophylactics and sterilizations that will lower the numbers of abortion and then pray for those who feel they must make that decision. Abstinence works when practiced. Condemnation never works when practiced.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 28, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
"We all know that there are many couples seeking to adopt children but there are hundreds of children still waiting to be adopted. "

Then why is there a waiting list for adoptions?

Gay adoption? You mean like this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/06/28/little_boy_blue_devil

White gay man sells adopted black kids as sex slaves

Comment by Henry — June 28, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Oh, for crying out loud, Henry. If you're going to use an extreme example like this to argue against allowing gays to adopt, then you'll have to stop allowing and group to adopt. You think I can't find news articles about heterosexual adoptive parents abusing their kids? I bet if I look hard enough I could find someone named Henry who abused their kids.

I don't often agree with you, Henry, but your arguments rarely sink to this level.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 28, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Henry...

You're so myopic sometimes...I'm almost afraid for you.

Try this for your counterbalance:

http://www.fww.org/famnews/0314a.htm

Sad to say, there are as many if not more sick straight people than there are sick gay people.

Comment by Will — June 28, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Will, Rob

How would you know about the number of examples? Do you think you would ever be told? Search your newspaper tomorrow. Silence.

But trust me. The news is getting out. It's not my fault. I'm just the messenger.

Comment by Henry — June 28, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
I don't really have a big beef about abortions. But to say that an aborted child is kissed up to God because a woman had an abortion because she didn't think she looked good in maternity clothes is, oh well. My gripe is this business that its a woman's sole right to decide, because its her body, etc.. to have an abortion. If a woman decides to have the child her first phone call is to the father to let him know what "they" are going to have and what his child support responsibilties are. He can't say its a bad time for him, he is hunted down and labled a dead beat dad if he wants to bow out. He can't have the equivalent of an "this ain't a good time for me" abortion. But the truth is he didn't have any more to do with the pregnancy than the woman.

Comment by wayne p. — June 28, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
wayne p.: I'll agree with you on that one; it does seem that the man has very little to say in the decision, especially if the couple aren't married, but winds up shouldering the responsibility if the woman decides to keep the baby. I just don't know if there is a better way to do it.

Henry: you don't get it, do you? Your one example from a right-wing rag, plus your assurance that there are others, isn't the point. It happens, and it's a tragedy, but it doesn't mean the whole group is responsible. Otherwise, we'd have to stop allowing Christians to adopt, wouldn't we? Taken to the logical conclusion that you're inferring, we'd have to stop letting heterosexual, Christian couples from having children altogether. Way to go, Henry.

According to the article, the man who abused the child went to some lengths to make sure his partner, also homosexual, didn't know anything about it. Why do you suppose he did that? After all, you seem to think all homosexuals are just waiting for the opportunity to jump on all those adopted boys, so why would this one bother to keep that one out of the loop?

Ooh, right, he wanted to keep the boy for himself.

This is a poor excuse for an argument, Henry. I thought it was beneath you, but apparently I was wrong.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 7:04 am
"If you do not support abortion, do not have one..."

Oh, yeah, you mean like:

If you do not support slavery, do not own a slave.

If you do not support Nazism, do not have a Holocaust.

If you don't like child abuse, do not abuse your child...

But for Pete's sake, don't you dare make moral judgments about topics such as apartheid, forced servatude, genocide, and infanacide...after all, "mankind still has no such dispensation for condemnation," and besides, "Condemnation never works when practiced."

No one has the right to tell others who they can oppress and/or kill, because "we draw our lines at where and when we can end certain life forms. Yes, that is an argument for a subjective morality, but I feel no shame in that; all morality is ultimately subjective."

Moreover, "It is [their] decision and the views of someone else are irrelevant and uncalled for." Therefore, "The only people that interject morals are the ones that are intruding into other people's privacy with their beliefs. Talk about hypocrisy!"

This little cantena of sophmoric amorality has been provided by Sandi, Rob, and Blue John respectively. Be sure to drpo them a note of thanks for offering their profound ethical insights, and then we can all go on living our lives as we normally do: Saying that we believe that theoretical rubbish like this is true, but betrayoing ourselves by contradicting it with our actions, everyday!

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 29, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Rob:

I'll answer your # 42 post either latter today or in the morning. Until then, two things.

Let's say I'm an at risk teen, rejected by my family, alone on the streets, and experiencing all the despond and dispair I can handle, so I've decided to end my life. How would you answer me?

And, in light of # 42, you may feel no shame in arguing for subjectivism (!), but surely you must feel some when you tell Henry, "This is a poor excuse for an argument"! Granted, his post isn't even an argument, but seriously though, read yours again.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 29, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Rob

The truth is the truth whether it comes from Town Hall or Roanoke Times. You either accept the truth or you do not. The question is whether you can get to the truth.

I learned a long time ago to read an article and ask "What are they not telling me?". When I read the article about the Duke molester, I found it odd that a single guy could adopt two kids. So I dug deeper outside the mainstream media and discovered it was a white gay couple with two adopted black kids. Do you honestly believe that the RT or any other mainstream media outlet is going to tell you that? No way. Not when they are trying to push gay marriage. Gay marriage has enough troubles in the black community without this story getting coverage. Under the rug it goes.

Ask yourself, Rob. What are you allowed to see?

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Henry, just answer this: do you think this one case illustrates why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt? Or is it that White couples should not be allowed to adopt Black kids?

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Kevin: "Let's say I'm an at risk teen, rejected by my family, alone on the streets, and experiencing all the despond and dispair I can handle, so I've decided to end my life. How would you answer me?"

You? Hmm, that's a tough one. Or do you mean some other "at risk teen" (whatever that means)? How I answer that teen would depend on the question that teen asked. But, in general, I would try to talk that teen out of killing him/herself.

Kevin: "And, in light of # 42, you may feel no shame in arguing for subjectivism (!)"

Firstly, I'm not arguing "for" subjectivism; morality; it's simply the reality. Secondly, it's certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Kevin: "No one has the right to tell others who they can oppress and/or kill, because "we draw our lines at where and when we can end certain life forms. Yes, that is an argument for a subjective morality, but I feel no shame in that; all morality is ultimately subjective.""

The rest of Kevin's rant wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to point out that I didn't say "no one has the right to tell others who they can oppress and/or kill". Kevin, as usual, likes to build his straw-men and put words in others mouths that they never said. He'll argue that it's the "logical extension" of what someone has written, but a closer examination shows no such thing.

We have laws, based on the morals of our society (which are ever-changing), so we can indeed tell others who they can oppress and/or kill. Within the framework of those laws, we can individually decide whether we will do that or not, and it's nobodies business as long as it stays within that framework.

For instance, I may personally loathe the killing of innocent vegetables required so that Sandi can eat, but it's legal within our society for her to do so. Sandi may not like all of the cute little hamburgers that must die for our annual cookout, but (as Cindy Lauper sang) "they ain't made a law against it yet."

If, in the fullness of time, enough others agree with me that the whole-sale slaughter of innocent vegetables has to end, we'll finally have a law against it. Until then, I can either demonize her and call her an immoral murderer, or I can work to change the laws. Or, I can do both, I suppose, but I rather like Sandi, despite her penchant for killing lettuce and tomatoes, so I'd rather not alienate her.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Good plan Rob, you know how I get when I am alienated! I love and applaud your courage and fortitude, but you are sure choosing a brick wall my friend.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Rob

You cannot see the forest for the trees. The issue is what you are allowed to see. I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids and this story did not influence that belief at all. One of the partners was clueless about the incident. The question is whether the media suppressed details of this story because it would have damaged their political agenda.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Without getting into specifics, Rob...you highlight a great part of the freedom of living here in our great country. We have hundreds of things that are legal here that people can choose to not participate or engage in because we have the freedom to choose what we do. A person can choose to drink alcohol because it is legal, or they can choose to not exercise their ability to legally drink if they morally object to it. I don't eat pork, I object to it on multiple counts. But, I do not care if someone else chooses to do so, and I would not work to deny them their ability to eat it nor would I denigrate them for choosing to do so. In that same context I approach most other issues. There are certainly some that I feel are big enough and important enough to transcend certain levels and become something worth of working to change...but even still, I will not tear down the other person in the process. I understand why some people will always object to something like abortion on moral grounds, and I also understand why other people do not object to it and support abortion rights. The stance that I take does not impose my feelings on the matter onto either side of this bitter debate and allows for both groups to exercise their particular beliefs regarding abortion. Why so many people think that they have to make laws to ban or prohibit an activity (be it smoking, drinking, abortion, working on Sunday, having a wood-burning fireplace, etc.) just so they feel that they can live their lives, I will never understand, especially because there is not any existing law telling those people they have to do the thing in the first place.

Comment by Other John — June 29, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Kevin: "This little cantena of sophmoric amorality"

By the way, Kevin, can you give me a definition of "cantena"? The only thing I've found in a Google search for that word is the antenna's war-drivers make out of Pringles cans to search for open Wi-Fi signals. I'm sure you weren't saying "This little Pringles can used to find open Wi-Fi signals of sophmoric amorality", right?

Right?

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
He might have meant "catena". At least, I would assume that with a rational writer.

Comment by Ed H — June 29, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Sandi: "I love and applaud your courage and fortitude, but you are sure choosing a brick wall my friend."

Sandi, the feeling's mutual, and don't I know it!

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Henry, you backtrack like a professional. "The question is whether the media suppressed details of this story because it would have damaged their political agenda." What agenda is that pray tell and how on earth is one story in the media which left out facts YOU deem essential the same as suppressing the information? Do you even grant the remote possibility that the case was gruesome and awful enough on the face of it that the sexuality of the adoptive monster or the race of the adopted victim was irrelevant? There is case after case of such happenings in the hetero community and not always on adopted children, and you bring this here for the point of discussing biased news coverage? I think not.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
I'm guessing he was going at it from the angle that for many news reports of killings or attempted killings in this country, there have been people of the extremist Muslim background who have committed such acts, and those details have been, in many cases, left out of the article and made to seem like any other shooting, hit and run, or day-to-day occurrence that happens that we've become all too accustomed to seeing in the news. In some cases, the omitted details help clarify the picture of what went on and provide some insight as to why an event may have occurred, other times they don't do a thing for making the news more understandable or pulling the full context of what happened into focus.

Comment by Other John — June 29, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Ah, yes, Rob. Good catch.

The intended term was "catena."

My apologies.

The real question is, What on earth does "drpo" mean? which came from the same paragraph. I have no excuse for my typing skills.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 29, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Good point Other John, those extremist Muslims get away without a bad word said every darn day, don't they?

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Kevin. I understood that "drpo" was a simple typo, and unless I'm really irked I won't harp on those too often (as long as I'm forgiven my trespasses in that regard as well.) But I wasn't familiar with catena, and so didn't recognize another simple (and understandable) typo.

I'm assuming that you used "catena" in the sense of the secondary definition "A closely linked series, especially of excerpted writings or commentaries" and not the primary one, "a chain or connected series, esp. of extracts from the writings of the fathers of the Christian church." (Both definitions copied from dictionary.com.)

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to go for, or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. We definitely do hear a lot about what happens around the world, but often when things happen domestically that could be related, it seems that details are not mentioned directly, but either have to be gleaned from articles and news footage or are only revealed well after the fact. Why that is, and who makes such decisions, I don't know. What I do know is that it makes me question a lot of what I see in the news, because I do wonder from time to time if I'm getting the whole story, or if I'm only getting what someone else wants me to know. That's part of why I never rely on a single source for my news, that usually helps me avoid only getting a partial story. Take for example the instance a few years ago at UNC, where an SUV was driven into a crowd of students in a common plaza space on campus. It took quite a while before it was revealed that the driver of the SUV claimed to be Muslim, and that he was trying to kill and injure as many Americans as he could. For quite a long time, this was simply portrayed as a driver crashing into a crowd of people. Likewise, one of the recently foiled terrorism plots in Britain, the suspects were simply referred to as native Britons for a long time in many news sources. There was almost no mention of their names, their backgrounds, or their motives for hatching their plots. It took a long time for details about their background to emerge, and even then, from what I remember the media in the UK was very, very careful not to mention that they claimed to be Muslim. Again, I don't know the motivations for why this information wasn't revealed sooner, but it makes me wonder.

To give you an example of how missing details cloud the issue at hand, remember back in the 90's or so when there was a rash of rollover type SUV crashes where a lot of people got killed? Most of these news articles mentioned only that the SUV was involved in a rollover wreck on highways. Most people attributed the wrecks to SUV instability in turning, or to driver error. Then, when some digging was done, a pattern emerged of tire failures on these SUV's. Turns out, the tires were defective and in many cases actually caused the crashes to happen. I don't know if it simply was not known that a tire failure occurred first and caused these crashes, or if investigations into the causes were ongoing which caused those details to be withheld, or if the reporting just didn't bother to include the details...but a clear problem was not brought to light until later...for whatever the reason happened to be. That's what I'm hinting at.

Comment by Other John — June 29, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
I think that a white gay guy who is the Associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy selling his adopted black kids as sex slaves is certainly more newsworthy than Liberty University making the College Democrats go off-campus.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Of course you do Henry, because it plays into your agenda. Same as always.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Henry...

You have no clue as to how good gay parents can be. How many have you ever sat down and talked to that have children? How many children of gay and lesbian parents have you ever sat down and talked to?

You read your slanted internet sites that scream and yell at how bad gays and lesbians are...but in reality, how many gays and lesbians have you ever sat down and talked to one on one?

Your broad brush approach to serve your particular agenda is loosing it's ability to color, thank goodness.

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
By the way, Henry...try this on for size:

http://www.eufaulatribune.com/euf/news/local/article/eufaula_child_clinically_dead_in_massachusetts/79468/

Yea...straight parents are really up to the task.

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
I half agree with you, Henry. It would be relevant to mention that he's the director of Duke U's Center for Health Policy, as his position would appear to be opposed to abusing children. It is also probably relevant to mention that the child is adopted, as there is a distinct and disproportionate incidence of child abuse involving adopted children, and the majority of cases involve family members.

I don't see any relevance in his being White and/or gay, or the child being Black.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Or this Henry...

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/may/06/tn-couple-arrested-child-abuse-charges/

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Thanks Will. You proved my point

"The police report said his stepmother, Linda Sue Mooney, and his father, Darrell Mooney, "
"Schuler’s girlfriend, Tiffany Hyman, 28,"

Look. Details! It's opposite sex couples. That info was missing from the Duke case. Why is it that we can ascertain the type of relationship in your cases but not in the Duke case?

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Will - the solution is to ban heterosexuals because there is evidence of some of them being unfit parents.

Comment by HCS — June 29, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Or ban all smoking because some people get cancer.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Henry...

First...gay marriage isn't allowed in NC, consequently, there is no recognized relationship.

The vast majority of pedofiles are straight men...therefore I suspect the reporter(s) felt that this was yet another case of the same thing.

But you have proven my point...STRAIGHT OPPOSITE SEX couples abuse children...news flash there Henry!

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jSqIxM-9KE&feature=channel_page

Gay Activist Ring Leader of Paedophile Ring in Scotland

"Rennie, 38, was the successful chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland, an organisation dedicated to helping young gay people.
A former secondary school teacher, he regularly spoke out in public on gay issues, particularly how they affected young people.
He was charged and ultimately convicted of molesting a child over a number of years, starting at the age of three months. "

Maybe we should ban chief executives.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Read again

"Schuler’s girlfriend, Tiffany Hyman, 28,"

Ooops. not married.

"The vast majority of pedofiles are straight men"

Not exactly true. About 33-40% of molestations are same-sex. I would post the link but you would just shoot the messenger so there is really no point. Search it yourself. A heterosexual cannot be attracted to someone of the same sex. It defies the definition. The vast majority are men who are attracted to both sexes.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Henry...

For everyone of yours, I can show you plenty on the other side.

Bottom line, there are people who should not be parents from both sides, but to say that all gays/lesbians are bad parents is equally as ridiculous as saying all straight people are bad parents. It's simply not so.

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
No mention of the second "ring leader's" sexual orientation, or his job. None of the other members (8 in all); I wonder why they didn't mention that? Maybe they all identify as heterosexuals, and that would look bad if they wrote that up, huh?

Other interesting articles linked from the same page:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Slim-Fasts-Barry-Bethell-Found-Guilty-Of-Sexually-Assaulting-Young-Girl-After-Promising-Her-Fame/Article/200905115277220?lpos=UK_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15277220_Slim_Fasts_Barry_Bethell_Found_Guilty_Of_Sexually_Assaulting_Young_Girl_After_Promising_Her_Fame
(an apparent heterosexual, though the article doesn't specify that, takes indecent pictures of a young girl).

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Freckled-Paedophile-Dean-Hardy-Jailed-For-Six-Years-After-Photo-Analysis-Of-His-Hands/Article/200904415268000?lpos=UK_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_6&lid=ARTICLE_15268000_Freckled_Paedophile_Dean_Hardy_Jailed_For_Six_Years_After_Photo_Analysis_Of_His_Hands (a father of one goes to Thailand to take pictures of young girls being abused. They don't mention his sexuality or whether he's married, so he must be heterosexual and they are just covering it up to avoid any embarrassment.)

Seriously, Henry, you're not getting your point across, whatever it is. We know you're homophobic, but what are you getting at with this stuff?

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
"We know you're homophobic, "

I'm not scared of homosexuals. I grew up with one. You know very little about me to be passing judgement like that.

I posted news articles and you got all itchy about them. Does news hurt you in some way? Your links don't bother me. I agree they are true but I draw no conclusion from them. They are simply news stories. Why do my links bother you? Why do you have such an emotional reaction to simple news stories? I offered no conclusion about them. I simply pointed out the story. The writers editorialized a bit but I neither agreed nor disagreed with them.

A white gay associate director at Duke molested and tried to sell his two adopted black kids as sex slaves. That's just a simple fact. No editorial comment. It is what it is. The chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland was a serial child molester. I didn't make it up. I just pointed it out.

It is rather interesting that people had such an intense reaction from the story. Maybe that is why the mainstream media has spiked the story.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
No editorial comment or broader conclusion should have been inferred from this comment: "Gay adoption? You mean like this:"

Get real, Henry.

Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 29, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Just stumbled across this thread and would like to comment on Henry stating that 33-40% of molestations are same sex. That may be true, but that does not mean that the person doing the molesting identifies themselves as gay. There are a lot of cases where straight men are molesting boys and straight women are molesting girls. Maybe you need to do some checking and realize that sometimes molestations and rapes are a violent crime and have nothing to do with ones sexual gratification or identity.

Comment by OtherSilentBob — June 29, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
So you believe the news story about the gay man adopting two children and molesting them had nothing to do with gay adoption? Fascinating. I rather thought they were connected in some way.

Granted, if I had been the target, I would have figured that one instance does not mean very much and let it drop like I did with Rob and Will's links. When people started getting upset, I decided to press the attack to see how people would react. And they did. Like shaking the monkey's cage.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Henry...

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night but that doesn't make me the least bit qualified to fly a 747.

I think you need to stretch the depths of your understanding just a little more.

Just so you'll know, I think the Duke Official should be punished to the highest degree possible. I don't care of you're gay, straight, white, black, yellow or indigo.

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Right, Dan. Henry's trying to change his tune now, but his intent all along has been crystal clear. He's posting these links as some kind of indictment against gay/lesbian adoption. He even admitted as much in posts #53 and #58.

Henry, all I know about you is what you post here in the boards. Things you've posted in other threads, and everything you've posted in this thread, indicates that you are indeed homophobic.

MSM hasn't spiked the story, but you sure seem to take an inordinate amount of joy in wallowing in the "white gay man" and "black boy" angles. I wonder why that is?

Comment by Rob Miles — June 29, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
"Henry, all I know about you is what you post here in the boards. Things you've posted in other threads, and everything you've posted in this thread, indicates that you are indeed homophobic."

Rob

You disagree with me so you accuse me of being a homophobe. You don't seem to have a problem with a white man molesting and pimping black kids so I guess you are a racist. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
" I don't care of you're gay, straight, white, black, yellow or indigo."

Yes but the media cares. That's why they suppressed some of the information. Can you imagine the damage that would be created by a story about a white gay health care reform activist molesting and pimping his adopted black kids? It would be like white cops beating a black motorist.

A couple of black columnists have picked up the story. Stand by.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
"Just stumbled across this thread and would like to comment on Henry stating that 33-40% of molestations are same sex. That may be true, but that does not mean that the person doing the molesting identifies themselves as gay"

I never said it did. Amazing that people immediately jump to that conclusion though. But they can't be heterosexuals and be attracted to the same sex no more than a homosexual can be attracted to the opposite sex.

Comment by Henry — June 29, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
That's enough with the insults, gentleman. Feel free to discuss the issues, even if homosexuality is technically off topic. We will delete any further comments that resort to name calling such as 'homophobe' and 'racist'.

Comment by C. Trejbal — June 29, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Henry...

You persist in making remarks like "shaking the monkey's cage" and other remarks that attempt to put you on the "I'm the innocent person here" list.

I have consistently and quite effectively refuted your remarks with regard to gay vs straight as being capable of raising children in a loving and nurturing environment.

The ax that you seem to want to grind is that the media didn't sound off with fireworks and megaphones that the Duke Official was gay. Do you somehow feel like you've been wronged by the lack of fan fare about the moleter's sexual orientation? For you purposes, it appears to give more credibility to your argument of course...but then the same could be said of the straight couples that have molested children...so I'm not sure what point you're ultimately trying to make.

Frankly, over the years, I've heard very little discourse as to the sexual orientation of child molesters other that the fact that the greatest number seem to be straight males.

Consequently, if your beef is with the media and it's alledged slant of news reporting...then make your argument about that; however, don't while in the process make false assertions as to the fitness of gay people in general to make wonderful loving parents of children. That, my friend, will simply not fly in any shape form or fashion despite the bias that is attempted by your commentary.

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
And finally Henry...

I'll post this last line for your reading enjoyment:

http://www.womeninthelife.com/articles/skinny/childabuse.html

Comment by Will — June 29, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Henry (to me): "You don't seem to have a problem with a white man molesting and pimping black kids..."

ROFL... thanks, Henry, you just made moot any need for me to respond to you.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 30, 2009 @ 6:05 am
Re: # 42

Okay, Rob, sorry for the delay.

I indeed presented the dilemma that either the unjust killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong or it is not. Now, as you surely know, it is incumbent upon you to affirm one or the other of the disjuncts, or provide a third way or the horns of the dilemma. The fact that you can’t simply affirm that ‘the unjust killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong’ is alarming, because neither can cereal killers. We’re all grateful for your inconsistent praxis.

Your aversion to actually facing the force of the pro-life arguments drives you to assert that you don’t “recognize a distinction between human life and other life.” So, if your strongest counterpoint to my argument—If it’s self-evidently wrong to unjustly kill an innocent human being, and the preborn is a human being, then it’s self-evidently wrong to unjustly kill preborn—is to conflate all organic being to the same moral value, then I needn’t say anymore; this is sufficient to make my case, neither you nor any other (sane person) lives as though this is true, thus you contradict yourself.

However, even this objection of yours is not made honestly; you pull the old bait and switch. In the second and third paragraphs of # 42, you make it clear that the distinction that you’re talking about is a moral one. To paraphrase, you said, I don’t make a moral distinction between human life and other life…because how can we morally claim that plant life is any less important…than human life? Then in your final paragraph, you say, “Or we can recognize that, biologically, all life is essentially the same.” What a flagrant equivocation of concepts! “The same” does not mean the same thing in both statements. Here then is what you present us:

P. All life is essentially the same, biologically speaking;
C. Therefore, all life is essentially the same, morally speaking.

Sorry, but the conclusion doesn’t follow, it’s a non-sequitur. You’ve fallen prey to Hume’s classic is-to-ought conundrum. Hence, I’ll answer you according to your folly. Since all matter is essentially the same, elementally speaking, on what grounds do you make any distinction between organic and non-organic matter?!? Utter nihilistic…nothingness and meaningless is the only thing that can follow from your premises, consistently, that is; and even at that, it’s only by reasoning in circles!

I’d quickly point out another epistemic failure. You are confusing facts with values. When you make your appeal to the Hindis’ high valuation of bovine life, you simply don’t go far enough to make your point. Facts: In our society, it’s immoral to eat grandma; in Hindi societies, it’s immoral to eat cows. But you never even think to ask why. The reason Hindis don’t eat cows is because they believe that the cow might actually be grandma!! So while the facts may conflict, the values, at bottom, don’t. Both believe eating a person is immoral.

Finally, please reread your last paragraph. Therein you state, “Yes, that is an argument for a subjective morality…all morality is ultimately subjective, even if is seems objective to various generations and cultures.” There are several flaws in this.

First, you claim that you’re are arguing for subjectivism?!? How do you make sense of that? This is like being an evangelistic cynic. It’s a contradiction in terms. You are seeking to prove that morality is solely dependent on the subject; and you are doing that by means of (what you falsely believe is) objective argumentation, which, if sound and valid, we would be morally obligated to believe!

Second, nothing about your post is an argument for any sort for morality. Rather its content is concerning metaphysical questions. Perhaps subjectivism is an entailment of your assertions, but that does not make it a cogent argument for the same. Many hold a similar view of reality while, in vain, trying to argue for an objective morality. So, subjectivism doesn’t just de facto fall off the tail of your metaphysic.

Nevertheless, I’d thirdly point out one last self-contradiction. Look, again, at your “argument.”

P. Morality is subjective—that is, there is no objective, universal, “ultimate” moral truth; moral truth is determined by the individual subject(s).

C. Therefore, “all morality is ultimately subjective.”

With (1), which is garden variety relativism, you are denying that there is any one morality that is universal and ultimate/absolute in sweep, and applicable to all people for all times and in all places. Conversely though, that is exactly what (2) is affirming. In (2), the term “all” makes the proposition universal in scope, and the term “ultimate” is synonymous with final, definitive, over-arching, or absolute. Therefore, you contrarily say that there is one absolute or “ultimate” value system which encompasses “all” people, namely subjectivism. Subjectivism is the antithesis to the very absolutism you’re attempting to claim for subjectivism! Or, all ethical judgments are relative to the individuals tastes, and everyone is morally obligated to this universal moral frame of reference. Or, you’re simply claiming to have the corner of morality and seeking to universalize and absolutize it, which is quite “close-minded,” since others may have a different morality. Come on, Rob.

PS. I’ve since read another post of yours, wherein you’ve seemed to abandon subjectivism for conventional ethics. That is, that positive law is based on the (“ever-changing”) moral conventions of a society; and that as far as one is operating, making choices, within the confines of such laws, they are acting morally. I think that’s a fair appraisal. And if it is...

1) It precludes all moral reform and legal redress, since a reformer would be challenging the status quo, and thus be immoral by definition. Additionally, there could never be any immoral laws.

2) It precludes condemning other societies and nations for evil policies and actions. For instance, we must conclude that those individuals working within the legal boundaries of Nazi Germany, who were murdering hundreds of innocent human beings a day, were being virtuous by definition of the moral context (this was the defendants’ argument in the Nuremberg Trails). We could never say that the slavery in this country’s past was immoral, since it was legal, and laws are based on social “morals.” (Technically, what you are calling “morals” are merely mores. Otherwise, you are saying that cruelty and murder are wrong in the same sense that getting three strikes at bat is wrong. Who knows. For consistencies sake, that may be exactly what you’re saying!)

3) This ultimately reduces values to power—might makes right—whoever has the biggest guns. Not real tolerant sounding is it? I’m old fashion, I guess. I still believe in the power of ideas to change the world, your ethic(s?) are attempting to change the world of ideas through power.

4) We could go on, but I’ll end by saying that if your right (about conventional ethics...you should really make-up your mind), then abortion laws still need to change. Even granting your morality, since the majority today is pro-life, the laws need to be changed to reflect the ideals of that majority, or they are immoral laws. Thus, the elective abortion laws are immoral, and that on your own terms!

Blessings,

Kevin

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 30, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Re: post #41 - I just had the opportunity to read this and had to ask. Is the only reason you believe murder, rape and robbery are wrong because they are illegal?

Comment by C Ramsey — June 30, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Kevin...

Through your lengthy diatribe in #97 above, you have failed to respond to my simple question to you in the last paragraphy of my post #25 above?

Can you unequivocally guarantee the saftey and well being of all infants born into situations that don't provide a loving, caring and nurturing environment...and guarantee that safety until adulthood?

Comment by Will — June 30, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Well, Will, that is because I wasn't attempting to answer your question (#25). For one, it's a loaded question; that is, is has an unanswered (absurd) question behind it: Must I "unequivocally guarantee the saftey and well being of all infants born into situations that don't provide a loving, caring and nurturing environment...and guarantee that safety until adulthood?" in order to argue that unjustly killing preborn babies is morally wrong? If you believe the answer to the hidden question is yes, then the burden of proof is on you, friend. You must show how the "unequivocal guarantee" is a necessary precondition for my argument. Secondly, your question assumes a sense of objective moral duty, where are you deriving this from? What's the standard you are assuming?

And while you're at it, you might think of how you would answer these:

Did the US's ethical motives for stopping the Holocaust morally obligate the US to guarantee every refugee what you posit above?

Why are you not asking all those crying out against child abuse the same question? How does the same obligation not follow from such activism?

If I were to save woman from being raped and murdered, would I be obligated to take her into my home, and make her my wife?

If you would put an end to homelessness, can you unequivocally guarantee what you demand from me for them, giving every homeless person the good life?

Finally, "Can you unequivocally guarantee" that absolutely no same-sex relationships will further spread HIV? If not, then how can you argue for gay rights?

The point: How does my arguing for the negative right of the baby to live obligate me to guarantee the benefits of a perfect life? Should we be allowed to kill all children with a life of lesser quality than you describe?

Clearly, these questions are meant to be rhetorical, hoping to put into perspective for you the silliness of your own question.

But here's the real question: What is it about my argument you find unacceptable? That's the heart of it. I'd just as soon avoid your rabbit-trails. Redeem the time, the Bible says.

Kevin

PS. The absurd standards for a life-worth-saving is not something a single parent can live up to in this present world! "Kill'em all," says Will?!?

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 30, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
BTW, Rob, if you so wish to have some fun with my "'cereal' killers" from the first paragraph, you have my blessing. It deserves it! I don't know if it helps, but I was actually eating a bowl of cereal while I was typing it. Last I knew, Tony the Tiger is still alive and well. In fact, He's Gggrrrrreeaaattt! Sorry for more slop.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 30, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Will #98 - If we go by what you said...based on the life my father and step-mother gave me (and the counselling it caused) would mean that I'd have been better off dead...oops, I mean aborted...

Comment by Danny — June 30, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Kevin, you say less with more words than anyone I know. I read the first paragraph of your post, and ignored the rest. But I will respond to that first paragraph. No, no need to thank me.

Kevin: "I indeed presented the dilemma that either the unjust killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong or it is not. Now, as you surely know, it is incumbent upon you to affirm one or the other of the disjuncts, or provide a third way or the horns of the dilemma. The fact that you can’t simply affirm that ‘the unjust killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong’ is alarming, because neither can cereal killers. We’re all grateful for your inconsistent praxis."

First, thanks a lot of derailing my plans to jump all over the "cereal" killers. Typos are one thing, but that would have been too good to pass up.

I have no problem, though, with affirming that the "unjust killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong", though. We'll have to agree on some definition of terms before we could go any further: "unjust", "innocent", and "human being" for sure, and "killing" and "morally wrong" will be up for discussion too.

And before you go all presup again and start asking how I can know that "unjust killing of innocent human" is "wrong" if morals are subjective, I'll repeat that morals are determined by society and evolve over time just like life and societies evolve. Unless you can demonstrate (and not merely assert) otherwise, I'm comfortable with that answer (though it's a shortened version of a very long discussion) and I've come to that conclusion after years of studying the issue off and on.

Kevin, that's all I have to say on this subject, in this thread. This forum isn't very good for the type of long, drawn-out discussion you want, and again I really don't have the interest in wading through paragraph after paragraph of your typos and questionable word use, on top of your false dichotomies and misrepresentations that I called you on previously (in another thread) and you ignored without comment. I'm sorry for bringing up the typos and other word mistakes, and I don't mean to make fun or bust on you about it, but you are a difficult person to read.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 30, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
"Yes, that [the point of Rob's post] is an argument "for" a subjective morality..." (Rob, # 42)

"I'm not arguing "for" subjectivism; morality..." (Contrary-Rob, # 55)

Therefore, Rob both is and is not arguing for subjectivism.

There ya go, Rob. You're refuted in a single sentence.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 1, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Rob -
In post 46, you said, "If you are going to make the case that life of an unborn human is just as important as the life of a born human, and therefore abortions are murder, then tell me what distinguishes human life from any other life."

Actually, we needn’t even address the distinction between human life and other forms of life. Murder, by definition, is the taking of a human life. And so the conclusion, abortions are therefore murder, is able to stand without delving into the issue you’re raising.

The real question concerns your distinction between born and unborn. What is it about the fact that a human has not yet been born that devalues that life in your eyes?

Moreover, why should your valuation of life be made definitive given you statement in the following:

"I suspect that most of you will call on 'god' to make that distinction, but once you open that door you have to grant admission to other gods as well (unless you have some really compelling reasons that your 'god' should trump other 'gods')."

Generally, proponents of various religions would indicate that they have compelling reasons which lead them to hold their gods as determinative over other gods. Of course, they may not be reasons you personally find compelling. But if you are ultimately arguing that they shouldn’t impose their standards upon you, it becomes difficult for you to impose your standards of what constitutes a compelling reason upon them.

Comment by Steve — July 1, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Mr. Stevenson...

The point that I have been making for as long as I have been participating in this debate is simply this:

If you are going to be a steadfast advocate of supporting the rights of the unborn, then you must be a steadfast advocate of supporting the care of the infants and children that are born.

One isn't mutually exclusive of the other...but it seems that on most of the arguments I hear and read...once the child is born all the consciences of the pro-life movement have been cleared. The child (if not born of all the things we want for children) is pretty much left to fend for itself.

I happen to find it disengenous if you don't pull as hard for the infants after birth as you do for the pre-birth child.

Was it a loaded question? It certainly was and you avoided the answer just as I suspected you would. Your blustry arguments, at least to me, don't really make a hill of beans worth of difference.

Comment by Will — July 1, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
And by the way...who says my standards are absurd? You have a problem stretching a little bit outside your comfort zone?

Comment by Will — July 1, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Steve: "Actually, we needn’t even address the distinction between human life and other forms of life. Murder, by definition, is the taking of a human life. And so the conclusion, abortions are therefore murder, is able to stand without delving into the issue you’re raising."

I'll agree that murder is "the killing of a human being under conditions specifically covered in law", which would rule out abortions as our laws currently stand. That's a valid definition (according to dictionary.com), but it tends to lead to a tautology ("murder is murder" or "not murder is not murder").

Someone else, perhaps even Kevin, offered (I'm paraphrasing) "murder is the unjustified taking of human life", and as I said earlier, I can affirm that I believe the *unjustified* taking of life is morally wrong. That leads to long, drawn-out discussions on what is justified, of course, and why your or my valuation of "justified" is more correct than the other.

Steve: "The real question concerns your distinction between born and unborn. What is it about the fact that a human has not yet been born that devalues that life in your eyes?"

Well, that's the question, isn't it? When does human life begin? Until that can be determined (and so far, there isn't a consensus on what is the "right" answer), asking about "a human [that] has not yet been born" is putting the cart before the horse.

If we replace "human" with "fetus" in your question, we have: "What is it about the fact that a fetus has not yet been born that devalues that life in your eyes?" A fetus is a potential person, but is not in fact an actual person. That doesn't mean that I think no fetus is valuable, but it is not as valuable as an actual, living person. A more complete discussion of this can be found at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm (I am not the author of that article.)

Steve: "Generally, proponents of various religions would indicate that they have compelling reasons which lead them to hold their gods as determinative over other gods. Of course, they may not be reasons you personally find compelling. But if you are ultimately arguing that they shouldn’t impose their standards upon you, it becomes difficult for you to impose your standards of what constitutes a compelling reason upon them."

Well, that's a good point, and not an easy one to answer. I think it's a harder point for someone who believes in one god (or one group of gods), but not any other, to address than someone who doesn't believe in any gods. There is an inherent inconsistency in claiming your reasons for your god are compelling, but that fellow's there is not compelling, especially when the reasons ("faith", "personal experience", "holy book", etc) are almost identical in kind.

For me, I believe that morals based on reason are superior because we are constantly forced to reevaluate them to find the best answer to "what is right". A moral system based on "god says x is moral, y is immoral" is lazy, and brooks no argument if and when future evidence is available that could lead to a different, reasoned response.

That's not to say that the moral statement "murder is wrong" needs to be constantly evaluated in case we decide it's no longer true, but we are forced to evaluate the definition of murder (and therefore the definition of justified, for instance.) In fact, that is exactly what we do, as a society, on all moral questions.

So when I argue that morals are subjective, I primarily mean that in the sense that they are man-made, not "god given". I don't believe there is a universal moral code that exists outside of mankind, waiting to be discovered. But I can make room in my worldview for a reason-based morality reaching for an ideal balance, whatever that might be. I know some who would still define that as an objective morality, even though they agree with me that it is man-made.

Now this post is getting as long as any that Kevin offers, and for that I apologize (though I do hope my spelling is better). As I've said, this forum, because of it's format, isn't a good place for these types of discussions. If you treat the issues honestly, every point could require posts this long to respond to, and could spawn many other points that also must be addressed. It's made even worse when one of the participants purposefully misrepresents what the other said, or selectively quotes part of a sentence in order to score some point or another.

I'm not saying that you, Steve, would do that, but it has happened often, and very recently, in this thread alone.

Comment by Rob Miles — July 1, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Rob dear, you are one smart dude! Well reasoned and well stated. Remind me not to try and argue with you next time we don't agree, please.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Rob said, "I think it's a harder point for someone who believes in one god (or one group of gods), but not any other, to address than someone who doesn't believe in any gods. There is an inherent inconsistency in claiming your reasons for your god are compelling, but that fellow's there is not compelling, especially when the reasons ("faith", "personal experience", "holy book", etc) are almost identical in kind."

It really seems that you are being unfair in your assessment of religious belief. As you've mentioned, this isn't the ideal format for discussing these kinds of questions, and so bear with me. But I should say that certainly there is a great difference between the kinds of compelling reasons you've mentioned. Faith, personal experience, or a holy book may be vastly different from one another depending upon what a religious adherent means by these things. There are questions concerning the nature of God, the transcendence and/or immanence of God, the dependence or independence of human beings in acquiring knowledge, and a host of other issues that might lead one to vastly different conceptions of the justification of knowledge in the realms you've mentioned. Thus, the likeness of the means to religious knowledge you've mentioned is overstated at best.

Now, most philosophers and theologians, would obviously concur that there are similarities between different schools of religious thought. We could, for example, talk about a variety of ways people believe that divine beings have revealed themselves to them. And whether we're speaking about a holy book or immediate revelation or natural revelation, we're still talking about divine revelation.

But it seems incredibly naive of you to think that the nonreligious escape this dilemma. Religious adherents in the West (especially conservative Christians and Muslims) generally hold to theories of knowledge that are very much in line with those held by the nonreligious. In many instances, divine revelation, for example, is not viewed as ultimate. Rather, human reason or "what works" or empirical evidence serves as the logical grounds for one's acceptance of revelation. So again, these approaches parallel the approaches taken by the nonreligious very closely.

Thus, the point I would want to make is that no one is neutral in all of this. Whether we are religious or not, we all have some kind of axe to grind. We are ideologically influenced by our culture, our socioeconomic statuses, our historical location, our education, our social affiliations, etc. Given that we view things through these lenses, then, it seems that we should be very careful in thinking that we have arrived at some sort of vantage point from which we can independently make absolute judgments about the beliefs of others. There is a sense in which such a belief would really seem to be much closer to religious belief than to nonreligious belief. Such a viewpoint entails a claim to have a sort of god's-eye view of things that is extrinsic to a nonreligious worldview. Thus, let me close by saying that there is an extent to which I would agree, "there is an inherent inconsistency in claiming your reasons for your god are compelling, but that fellow's there is not compelling."

Comment by Steve — July 1, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
Steve: "In many instances, divine revelation, for example, is not viewed as ultimate. Rather, human reason or "what works" or empirical evidence serves as the logical grounds for one's acceptance of revelation. So again, these approaches parallel the approaches taken by the nonreligious very closely."

That's fine, Steve, and you and I won't have a major disagreement here. In fact, I'd say we're very close to being on the same page in terms the subjective vs. objective moral question. Replace "divine revelation" with "morality" and we have:

"...human reason or "what works" or empirical evidence serves as the logical grounds for one's acceptance of morality."

Now all we have to discuss is whether "divine revelation" is even necessary, and I can tell you from experience with my business partner that can be a very pleasant discussion over a couple of beers and a cigar.

Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 6:33 am
Sandi, thanks for the compliment, but you have nothing to fear from me when we're in disagreement. You can more than hold up your own.

Comment by Rob Miles — July 2, 2009 @ 6:42 am
That man outside Danville killed his wife and son and tried to kill another son. I guess, along Henry's line of thinking, that's an indictment against both heterosexual marriage AND parenthood.

Danged heteros...wish they'd stop slaughtering their family members.

Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 7:13 am
Rob:

"Well, that's the question, isn't it? When does human life begin? Until that can be determined (and so far, there isn't a consensus on what is the "right" answer), asking about "a human [that] has not yet been born" is putting the cart before the horse."

Exactly, but what kind of evidence will you find "compelling"? How about this?

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)

"[A]sking about "a human [that] has not yet been born" is putting the cart before the horse."

Rob, this statement doesn't even make sense unless one first assumes your unargued definition of what constitutes an "actualized" human being. That's exactly the question you posed just before; this,the next one begs it.

What, for you, actualizes a human?

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 9:33 am
"But I can make room in my worldview for a reason-based morality reaching for an ideal balance, whatever that might be."

Then the problem becomes, Rob, that within your worldview, there is no room for reason itself. Crass relativism (epistemological and ethical) is about all your worldview has room for.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Rob:

"I'll repeat that morals are determined by society and evolve over time just like life and societies evolve. Unless you can demonstrate (and not merely assert) otherwise, I'm comfortable with that answer (though it's a shortened version of a very long discussion) and I've come to that conclusion after years of studying the issue off and on." (# 102)

"Morals evolve 'just like' (biological) life." With this, you feel that the burden is on me to prove otherwise?!? (You're such a 'presupp'!) Well, fine. That's easy enough.

Life, in this sense, is organic and material; morals are absract and immaterial, thus there is no similarity in 'what' they are. "Evolve" (micro, that is)is a term which simply trys to 'describe' particular observations in scientific terms. "Morals" are not descriptive, but prescriptive, they're deontological (see dictionary.com if needed). Morality does not arise out of particular social actions and/or situations but judges them. So, again, dissimilarity; this time concerning 'how' the concepts function. Lastly, if the two were "just alike," then as objects of knowledge, we would come to know and understand the one 'just like' we would the other. I think that point needs no further comment. This is enough to show that the two haven't the correspondance to be considered analogous. Burden removed.

If your attention can suffer a couple more thoughts, I will gladly admit one sense (besides God) in which there is a point of contact between biological life and morals.

The law of biogenesis is similar to the laws of morality in this sense: change in either domain would be recognizable if and only if there were some unchanging reference point intrinsic in them. With life we observe minor changes within a kind, but it stays the same kind; similarly, we see changes in the application of moral absolutes, but the principles don't change.

For this reason, we can affirm that "Rape is wrong," and insist that the proposition is absolutely and universally true. (So too with many like phrases, "Generosity is good," "Cruelty is wrong," "Torturing babies for fun is evil," etc.) Not only do we know this by intuition, it can be demonstrated from other moral proposition, which given their invaribility, presuppose the mind, moral nature and Lordship of the triune God. Situational applications vary; the moral principle is constant.

Rob, in the course of this thread, you've argued for subjectivism, then conventional ethics, and now you claim you could "make room" for a pseudo-objectivism in your worldview. Granting your triple-minded uncertainty, how is it that you can say that Christian's are wrong when you don't even know what's right? As Steve said, you're sure no one has a "god's eye view," but then all your remarks depend on you having that very privlege.

At very least, I've removed the burden from myself...next one's on you.

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 2, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Rob said, "I'd say we're very close to being on the same page in terms the subjective vs. objective moral question."

Well, I'm not exactly sure what would lead you to that conclusion. Actually, there seems to be quite a bit of difference between our conceptions of morality. You see, I'm a Christian. I believe that morality is based on the character of the God who has revealed Himself in Christ.

Rob said, "Replace 'divine revelation' with 'morality' and we have: '...human reason or 'what works' or empirical evidence serves as the logical grounds for one's acceptance of morality.' Now all we have to discuss is whether 'divine revelation' is even necessary, and I can tell you from experience with my business partner that can be a very pleasant discussion over a couple of beers and a cigar."

Actually, you would first have to determine whether human reason, "what works," or empirical evidence (rationalism, pragmatism, or empiricism) provided the basis for one's knowledge of morality. Without this step you might be able to superficially agree with someone else about whether or not divine revelation was necessary. But if you are both operating on different theories of knowledge, then one or both (as in this case) of you would not be able to justify your beliefs about divine revelation.

And then if you do both happen to arrive at a consensus regarding your theory of knowledge, you're still going to have to answer the question of how you can make this kind of independent determination and then impose it upon the rest of humanity over all of human history. As I said before, such a thing seems rather imprudent given the extent to which your historical and cultural situatedness dictates your opinion on these matters.

Comment by Steve — July 3, 2009 @ 12:42 am
Steve:

I hate to discourage you, but "You're up aginst a brick wall" at this point. In a well stated post, you have now pushed Rob to the point of having to offer warrant for his arbitrary assumptions. The lack of response is indicative of his style on this very issue. Lick and paste link arguments hold pride of place in his arsenal.

This morning I read a passage from Nietzche's, Beyond Good and Evil, and thought it was strangely applicable. In the opening paragraph of part five, On the Natural History of Morals (!, *snicker here*), he says,

"[T]hey wanted to furnish the rational ground of morality -- and every philosopher hitherto has believed he has furnished this rational ground; morality itself, however, was taken as a 'given.'" He later mockingly quotes Schopenhauer, who agrees that such a grounds, "under the sun," that is, has been as elusive as the 'philosopher's stone.'

The point is, everyone, as we've both suggested, is a presuppositionalist; and, as an atheist, Nietzsche has the honesty to admit that attempting to find any ethic worth the name, one that can be justified is like roping the wind.

Good post, Steve.

Blessings,

Kevin

Comment by Kevin Stevenson — July 4, 2009 @ 3:51 pm