Holier Than They

[Ethos]

For years, the left – and moderates – permitted the right to frame itself as the sole custodian of “family values” in the United States. It was only when vast numbers of American families woke up to the fact that they were not being valued at all – that, in fact, they were being fleeced – that non-conservatives shook themselves into a sentient state and began to talk about replacing empty words with substantive promises about health care, child care and college aid.

Now a similar thing is happening with religion. We are, we’ve repeatedly been told in the past week, in the grip of a faith war. There has been a lot of interesting discussion of Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism, about Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee outdoing themselves to appeal to Christian conservatives, and about John McCain’s belief in a “Christian nation.” There has been dismay about a political moment in which it seems a candidate must pass a religious litmus test to gain national viability. There have been comparisons to John F. Kennedy, talk of the Founding Fathers, of the separation of church and state, and of how the Puritans’ rather intolerant vision of religious freedom continues to trickle down to our day.

But one line of questioning, it seems to me, is missing. One point of view is inexpressible, taboo. I am not referring to atheism – the one belief system that clearly had no place in the vision of America Romney painted in his much-anticipated speech on faith last week. Rather, I’m thinking of the now entirely muted issue of whether the basic ethical foundations of Romney, Huckabee et al’s political views truly are “Christian” – in the good-neighborly sense of the word.

I am referring here to the sentiments that lie behind the candidates’ attitudes toward gays, which may have found their most honest and open expression in Huckabee’s recently resurrected 1992 suggestion that AIDS patients should be forcibly isolated. I am thinking too of Christian conservative opposition to progressive taxation, public spending for the needy and government “meddling” in such matters as anti-discrimination policies. And, of course, of the willingness to sacrifice women by genuflecting before a segment of the population that is scared witless by modernity and sugar-coats its fear and hate in the name of the sacred. (As governor, Huckabee, according to veteran Arkansas political journalist Max Brantley, once “stood in the hospital door, at least figuratively, to prevent state funding” for a mentally handicapped teenage girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and needed to have an abortion.)

In the run-up to the presidential election, some Democrats have made an effort, with greater or lesser success, to reclaim and redefine some of the religious terrain previously grabbed by religious conservatives.

“We cannot abandon the field of religious discourse,” Barack Obama, the most eloquently convincing of them all, said back in June of 2006. “Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.”

These days, however, for all the talk of religion, there is little public soul-searching about the absence of care and compassion, love, acceptance and inclusion – the things that many consider to be the essence of Christianity – in the words of our purported Christian leaders.



http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/holier-than-they/index.html?ex=1198731600&en=4504ec48d520b8cd&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

Something I caught a week ago, but was unable to post for reasons I am certain we are all aware of.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

It seems his criticism of social conservatives belies his own bias against homosexuals:

I am referring here to the sentiments that lie behind the candidates’ attitudes toward gays, which may have found their most honest and open expression in Huckabee’s recently resurrected 1992 suggestion that AIDS patients should be forcibly isolated.

I'm curious how being an AIDS patient is at all related to being homosexual.

I'm also curious how preventing the murder of children is against Christian values.

[ScummyD]

Touche.

[SpringRain]

It seems his criticism of social conservatives belies his own bias against homosexuals:



I'm curious how being an AIDS patient is at all related to being homosexual.

I'm also curious how preventing the murder of children is against Christian values.

Back in 1992 it was the gay disease. I guess you weren't paying attention.

Where are you getting the murder of children? Abortion?

Well how family values of you to decide that an unborn is worth more than an already born. I think you just proved the point of the OP.

[SpringRain]

Touche.

Playing with your sword, are you? Careful I here it can give your hand warts and make you go blind. :devil:

[GI Joe]

Speaking of AIDS has anyone heard of the new drug that might be helpful AIDS prevention in some. Its called Trinoassitol

[Izdaari]

As a socially moderate and theologically non-fundamentalist bisexual Christ-follower, I can partially agree with the OP article. The "Religious Right" shouldn't have -- and shouldn't be perceived as having -- a monopoly on Christian input into politics. It's a discussion American Christians need to have.

[Demon of Light]

Where are you getting the murder of children? Abortion?

Well how family values of you to decide that an unborn is worth more than an already born. I think you just proved the point of the OP.

Worth more? I'm not out to determine whether a life is worth more than another. In fact, I think it's the pro-choice crowd that makes that determination. Apparently the unborn are not lives worth caring for.

I simply fail to see how preventing a woman from having an abortion is against Christian values.

[Ethos]

Worth more? I'm not out to determine whether a life is worth more than another. In fact, I think it's the pro-choice crowd that makes that determination. Apparently the unborn are not lives worth caring for.

I simply fail to see how preventing a woman from having an abortion is against Christian values.

The actual situation seems to be somewhat more complex than simple abortion.


for a mentally handicapped teenage girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and needed to have an abortion.

Perhaps you are one of the few pro-life individuals who feels abortion should be prevented in all cases - even those of rape or incest?

Ethos

[whatever]

It seems his criticism of social conservatives belies his own bias against homosexuals:



I'm curious how being an AIDS patient is at all related to being homosexual.

As SpringRain has noted, it used to be thought of as a gay disease. There's a higher proportion of gay getting it (see link). That means the isolation will disproportionately affect the gay population.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm
Figure2 gives a stark picture, especially of its spread in the gay population in the late 80's.

I'm curious, what do you think of the suggestion to isolate AIDs patients in itself, without bringing the homosexual factor into the equation?


I'm also curious how preventing the murder of children is against Christian values.

Way to whitewash a complex example.

[Demon of Light]

Ethos

The actual situation seems to be somewhat more complex than simple abortion.

I read it and it doesn't seem all that complex to me. She obviously has family issues and her stepfather should be locked away for a long time, but I don't see how that changes anything with regards to the child.

Perhaps you are one of the few pro-life individuals who feels abortion should be prevented in all cases - even those of rape or incest?

Do you believe in killing the innocent for the sins of their forebears? I still do not see how this is against Christian values to prevent someone from having an abortion. I think the author is just inserting his own personal politics.

whatever

As SpringRain has noted, it used to be thought of as a gay disease. There's a higher proportion of gay getting it (see link). That means the isolation will disproportionately affect the gay population.

I'm still not sure how having AIDs means being gay as the author seems to imply.

I'm curious, what do you think of the suggestion to isolate AIDs patients in itself, without bringing the homosexual factor into the equation?

What? Do you think I might actually support such madness? I certainly find Huckabee's stance frightening and would definitely be against Christian values, I just object to the implication that having AIDS bears any indication of a person's sexual orientation.

[Ethos]

Do you believe in killing the innocent for the sins of their forebears? I still do not see how this is against Christian values to prevent someone from having an abortion. I think the author is just inserting his own personal politics.


Though you didn't directly answer my question, I take your response as a "yes" - that in fact you do oppose abortion in cases of rape and/or incest.

That being said, it is certainly plausible that forcing a girl (mentally deficient or not) to endure the further trama of a full term pregnancy after having been sexually assaulted may be seen as an unethical and therefore non-Christian action.

Ethos

[serenity]

I get the urge to cavalierly say, "who gives a flying ####," because I seem to be some sort of atheist or something.

However, there are some good points here. Most Americans self-identify as Christian, and the political right has no special claim on Christianity. It is theirs to cherish, certainly. But not only theirs. Maybe liberals have been too eager to placate some imagined, hostile-to-religion secular movement; and while such forces exist, they sure as heck aren't enough to swing an election, so I don't know what liberals have been thinking here. (I mean, if this aversion for the sake of politics is the case...maybe it's more complex.)

[halfamind]

Seems to me that if a person picked up the N.T. and started reading it like they would any other book, the first thing they get to is the Sermon on the Mount.

Seems like a good way to approach Christianity to me.

[serenity]

The Sermon on the Mount is astonishing. And, to my knowledge, ignored with some really impressive discipline.

[Demon of Light]

Though you didn't directly answer my question, I take your response as a "yes" - that in fact you do oppose abortion in cases of rape and/or incest.

That would be correct and there is nothing wrong or immoral about that position.

That being said, it is certainly plausible that forcing a girl (mentally deficient or not) to endure the further trama of a full term pregnancy after having been sexually assaulted may be seen as an unethical and therefore non-Christian action.

I object to the use of force, but preventing any person from getting an abortion except when their life is in danger is not unethical, but the opposite. It is far more ethical, moral, and Christian to protect life than destroy it regardless of the circumstances.

A mother who kills her children after birth is considered to have committed murder and yet abortion is actually a good and Christian thing? You should re-evaluate your morals if that's what you think is ethical.

[serenity]

Demon--my own objections to your view aside (and they are substantial, on this point)...I assume you've got some ideas, then?

What are we, as a society, going to do for a woman who undergoes the trauma? Since we're talking about ethics--and since we can probbaly agree that rape is in the top tier of Bad-Things-That-Can Happen to somebody...what are your ideas about taking care of a woman forced to give birth as a direct consequence of her rape?

[whatever]

Ethos



I read it and it doesn't seem all that complex to me. She obviously has family issues and her stepfather should be locked away for a long time, but I don't see how that changes anything with regards to the child.



Do you believe in killing the innocent for the sins of their forebears? I still do not see how this is against Christian values to prevent someone from having an abortion. I think the author is just inserting his own personal politics.

whatever



I'm still not sure how having AIDs means being gay as the author seems to imply.



What? Do you think I might actually support such madness? I certainly find Huckabee's stance frightening and would definitely be against Christian values, I just object to the implication that having AIDS bears any indication of a person's sexual orientation.

I think you misread what the author wanted to say (either intentionally or genuinely I'm not sure).

If you look at the link, gay account for about 50% of the those diagosed with HIV. Homosexual accounts for about 2-5% of the general population. That's a very high prevalent rate. The site put it at about ten times the heterosexual population for one rough measure. Any policy that have to do with AIDS will affect the gay population more than any other group. As such, when you consider any measure to do with AIDS, you have to consider what the implication will be for the gay population. But more than that, in the context of the late 80's and early 90's, HIV was thought of as a gay disease, the underlying thought of a lot of misguided peope then was that AIDS was spread through "gay sex", so if you have AIDS you must be gay, if you put AIDS patients away, you are essentially putting gays away. The two were almost synonymous. There are still websites around that tout that heterosexual AIDS is a myth put out by gay advocates.

The author does make a jump in concluding that if you want to put AIDS patients away, you must necessarily be anti-gay, but Huckabee does seem to favour "anti-gay" measures, and the Christian-right do think homosexuality is a sin, so it's not very far from the truth.

I have personally heard arguements from Christians that AIDS is a fitting punishment from God for those people who pratice promiscuity and sodomy. I know not all Christians are that way, but the very zealot do think in that vein.

[Demon of Light]

serenity

What are we, as a society, going to do for a woman who undergoes the trauma? Since we're talking about ethics--and since we can probbaly agree that rape is in the top tier of Bad-Things-That-Can Happen to somebody...what are your ideas about taking care of a woman forced to give birth as a direct consequence of her rape?

The decision is not mine to make but is to be left up to those involved. If the individual is competent enough to decide on her own then she could decide how to handle it in a way that does not endanger the life of the child. If you're implying that somehow the government should do something for her simply because it makes abortion illegal then I think you have the wrong idea about government. Government should not atone for making something illegal and I can't help but feel any time this is argued for it's really just a veil for pro-choice beliefs.

It's kind of like the, "If abortion was illegal who should be arrested?" quip that is only really intended to distract from the simple matter of whether it should be illegal or not.

whatever

I think you misread what the author wanted to say (either intentionally or genuinely I'm not sure).

It's a possibility he did not mean it in an offensive way, but it is certainly an offensive generalization all the same and one he does not neatly explain as you do. He simply asserts Huckabee's view of homosexuals is reflected in his view of AIDS patients like the two groups are the same.

[serenity]

The decision is not mine to make but is to be left up to those involved. If the individual is competent enough to decide on her own then she could decide how to handle it in a way that does not endanger the life of the child. If you're implying that somehow the government should do something for her simply because it makes abortion illegal then I think you have the wrong idea about government. Government should not atone for making something illegal and I can't help but feel any time this is argued for it's really just a veil for pro-choice beliefs.

Yes, because anyone who disagrees with the glorious Demon of Light has hidden, sinister motives to everything he says.

The point is, we were talking specifically here about a mentally retarded woman, raped and impregnated by a family member.

Tough for her, you say. Well, bully for you, then.


It's kind of like the, "If abortion was illegal who should be arrested?" quip that is only really intended to distract from the simple matter of whether it should be illegal or not.


you are the one who insists upon calling it "murder."

murder...with no murderer. Fascinating.

It would appear that you have some faint inkling of the incoherence of your stance...so you dismiss very real and sensible questions, and also dismiss the very legal and moral incoherence generated by your "murder"-without-murderers clause.

You see, anything illegal is to have consequences. However, if you think that abortion should be illegal, but with zero consequences for those having or performing them...well, ok, I can get behind that. :)

[Demon of Light]

Yes, because anyone who disagrees with the glorious Demon of Light has hidden, sinister motives to everything he says.

The point is, we were talking specifically here about a mentally retarded woman, raped and impregnated by a family member.

I never said you had sinister motives. I said it sounded like you were suggesting if abortion was illegal the government has to do something extra for someone like her just because it's illegal. Government involvement, in the absence of community involvement, should only be as much as is necessary for someone in her situation.

Tough for her, you say. Well, bully for you, then.

How is it bullying? In fact, the good Christian thing for any individual to do would be take care of her because of her situation and above all insure her child can have a healthy normal life. I don't live in Arkansas and don't have the means to get there so it's not like I can get involved.

you are the one who insists upon calling it "murder."

murder...with no murderer. Fascinating.

Who says there is no murderer? The doctor would be the murderer or perhaps the mothers under certain circumstances. Should it be made illegal than states would pursue those cases as they pursue all murder cases. An individual like the one mentioned in this article would probably not be tried for having an abortion, though the doctor who does it would be.

It would appear that you have some faint inkling of the incoherence of your stance...so you dismiss very real and sensible questions

I'm not dismissing them it's simply not an issue of concern until after abortion is made illegal. Afterwards the question of how to treat the practice under the law and what should be done for those who have unexpected or unwanted pregnancies will become relevant. Right now it's an irrelevant distraction from the central issue.

[serenity]

I'm not dismissing them it's simply not an issue of concern until after abortion is made illegal. Afterwards the question of how to treat the practice under the law and what should be done for those who have unexpected or unwanted pregnancies will become relevant. Right now it's an irrelevant distraction from the central issue.

Okay, I get it now. Thank you.


An individual like the one mentioned in this article would probably not be tried for having an abortion, though the doctor who does it would be.

I'm not sure; in some states, we seem to delight in executing the mentally challenged; we treat children as adults (that is, they have adult responsibilities...but not adult rights, since we tend to be authoritarian-minded and misunderstand democratic principles of legal accountability).

So, yes, she would likely be murdered by the state, at least in Florida and Texas, perhaps a few others.

[Demon of Light]

So, yes, she would likely be murdered by the state, at least in Florida and Texas, perhaps a few others.

It will certainly be a beautiful when Texas ends the death penalty whether it comes from the state of the federal government.

[serenity]

It will certainly be a beautiful when Texas ends the death penalty whether it comes from the state of the federal government.


I have my doubts it will happen...but to be fair, if this were 1969, I probably would doubt that it would be reinstituted, so...

[whatever]

I never said you had sinister motives. I said it sounded like you were suggesting if abortion was illegal the government has to do something extra for someone like her just because it's illegal. Government involvement, in the absence of community involvement, should only be as much as is necessary for someone in her situation.



How is it bullying? In fact, the good Christian thing for any individual to do would be take care of her because of her situation and above all insure her child can have a healthy normal life. I don't live in Arkansas and don't have the means to get there so it's not like I can get involved.



Who says there is no murderer? The doctor would be the murderer or perhaps the mothers under certain circumstances. Should it be made illegal than states would pursue those cases as they pursue all murder cases. An individual like the one mentioned in this article would probably not be tried for having an abortion, though the doctor who does it would be.



I'm not dismissing them it's simply not an issue of concern until after abortion is made illegal. Afterwards the question of how to treat the practice under the law and what should be done for those who have unexpected or unwanted pregnancies will become relevant. Right now it's an irrelevant distraction from the central issue.


I disagree, the practicality of the law is just as important as the principle of it. Women have a lot of reasons for abortion, under which would it be considered a crime and under which is it not, for her? What happen when she does it herself, and end up hurting herself, should she still receive punishment on top of it? Unless society can answer those nitty gritty questions that is necessary to the writing of the law, a law will not be possible. You may think those things should be left to the lawyers and legislators, as they usually are, but I personally think that you can't say you've thought it through unless you have answered those questions for yourself.

[Soren]

As a socially moderate and theologically non-fundamentalist bisexual Christ-follower, I can partially agree with the OP article. The "Religious Right" shouldn't have -- and shouldn't be perceived as having -- a monopoly on Christian input into politics. It's a discussion American Christians need to have.I agree. While I disagree on a fair number of issues(including some which intersect with faith) with you, I attend church every Sunday and frankly much of what gets trotted out in the name of religion in politics reminds me more of the Pharisees than it does Christ. For one thing, if they cared for the teachings of Christ, we'd actually have serious discussion of how we can use the powers of government best improve the lot of the poor. I don't think there's been serious political discussion of this for most of my life.:mad:

[Ethos]

A mother who kills her children after birth is considered to have committed murder and yet abortion is actually a good and Christian thing? You should re-evaluate your morals if that's what you think is ethical.

As with most things, the issue is in the details. If you ask a broad question such as "is it moral for a mother to kill her child?", the answer is of course "no".

If you ask whether it is moral to force (and that is what you suggest, whether you would use the term or not) a girl who has been raped to carry that child to term, the answer is not nearly so simple.

Unfortunately I believe you would prefer to keep the debate simplistic in order to avoid more difficult reasoning, even when it is anything but.

Ethos

[Izdaari]

I agree. While I disagree on a fair number of issues(including some which intersect with faith) with you, I attend church every Sunday and frankly much of what gets trotted out in the name of religion in politics reminds me more of the Pharisees than it does Christ. For one thing, if they cared for the teachings of Christ, we'd actually have serious discussion of how we can use the powers of government best improve the lot of the poor. I don't think there's been serious political discussion of this for most of my life.:mad:
Aye, that's an important issue. I don't believe that's what government is for, and I think it would bungle any such attempt... as IMO it has already done when it has tried. But you're right, it deserves serious discussion.

[Demon of Light]

whatever

I disagree, the practicality of the law is just as important as the principle of it. Women have a lot of reasons for abortion, under which would it be considered a crime and under which is it not, for her? What happen when she does it herself, and end up hurting herself, should she still receive punishment on top of it? Unless society can answer those nitty gritty questions that is necessary to the writing of the law, a law will not be possible. You may think those things should be left to the lawyers and legislators, as they usually are, but I personally think that you can't say you've thought it through unless you have answered those questions for yourself.

Except this is where we get in an endless and fruitless argument. You ask, "Well how about this?" and then, "How about this?" or "What about this?" and I could answer you every time but you'll just come up with some new, obscure example to question whether my opposition to abortion is valid.

Legal issues are exceedingly complex and how prosecutors carry out their case is left to them and the states determine the punishments, often with a varying degree of punishments depending on the case.

Saying I should be able to explain all of these elaborate matters before I can oppose abortion is completely insane.

Ethos

As with most things, the issue is in the details. If you ask a broad question such as "is it moral for a mother to kill her child?", the answer is of course "no".

If you ask whether it is moral to force (and that is what you suggest, whether you would use the term or not) a girl who has been raped to carry that child to term, the answer is not nearly so simple.

Only because people like you make it complicated. You appeal to emotion, "Oh my this girl has had so much trouble in her life, she shouldn't have to carry a baby, she should be able to kill that baby," but no matter how sad the circumstances are it would never excuse the actions taken.

I could use the same argument for infanticide that you're using for abortion. In India some women kill their children because they simply can't take care of them. Is it sad? Yes. Is it complicated? Yes. Is the act excusable because of this? No.

Beyond all the smoke and mirrors there is no moral defense for abortion.

Unfortunately I believe you would prefer to keep the debate simplistic in order to avoid more difficult reasoning, even when it is anything but.

No matter how complicated the circumstances of a murder are, it doesn't change the fact of the murder itself.

[Ethos]

whatever
Only because people like you make it complicated. You appeal to emotion, "Oh my this girl has had so much trouble in her life, she shouldn't have to carry a baby, she should be able to kill that baby,"Beyond all the smoke and mirrors there is no moral defense for abortion.

With due respect, I do not believe you have even a faint grasp of the psychological implications of rape.



No matter how complicated the circumstances of a murder are, it doesn't change the fact of the murder itself.

We long ago established that an abortion is not "murder".

In any event, we already understand that killing - up to and including murder - carries with it differing levels of morality depending on the circumstances involved. Pretending otherwise is unhelpful.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

With due respect, I do not believe you have even a faint grasp of the psychological implications of rape.

The appeal to emotion distraction continues unabated it seems. Even calling out the fallacious argument does not seem to prevent its use.

We long ago established that an abortion is not "murder".

You mean nine people with black robes making up laws established it. The Constitution is above them and there is no constitutional power granting them the ability to decide on this matter.

In any event, we already understand that killing - up to and including murder - carries with it differing levels of morality depending on the circumstances involved. Pretending otherwise is unhelpful.

Who's "we"? because I certainly have never asserted such nonsense that somehow one killing or murder is more moral or better than another. Killing is killing, murder is murder, and nothing changes the fact. What changes is the culpability in the act, how accountable a person is for the act committed.

[Ethos]

The appeal to emotion distraction continues unabated it seems. Even calling out the fallacious argument does not seem to prevent its use.

Apparently you do not detect even the slightest hint of irony in your incorrect and emotive use of the term "murder" in the process of decrying my own spurious manipulations.



You mean nine people with black robes making up laws established it. The Constitution is above them and there is no constitutional power granting them the ability to decide on this matter.

No, I mean there is a definition for the word "murder" and abortion does not meet that definition. What you believe in this case is irrelevant.



Who's "we"? because I certainly have never asserted such nonsense that somehow one killing or murder is more moral or better than another. Killing is killing, murder is murder, and nothing changes the fact. What changes is the culpability in the act, how accountable a person is for the act committed.

War, assassination, capital punishment, murder, manslaughter, self defense, medical triage, suicide, euthanasia, famine, accident, neglect.

I do indeed assert we as a society consider some forms of killing more moral than others. Context matters. If a woman kills her husband, it is murder. If she kills him after twenty years of physical abuse, it is murder, but is the latter as wrong as the former?

Abortion for the sake of convenience, I believe, has no place in civil society. Forcing a rape victim to have that child is, I believe, less civil - in fact, exceedingly cruel.

In the real world, context matters.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

Apparently you do not detect even the slightest hint of irony in your incorrect and emotive use of the term "murder" in the process of decrying my own spurious manipulations.

There is no irony. I use the term to be accurate to the truth. Abortion's granted legal status is illegal in itself, but there is no definitive way of challenging the Supreme Court if it goes outside the bounds of law. As such the illegal act of murder called abortion goes on. I'm merely calling it what it is.

No, I mean there is a definition for the word "murder" and abortion does not meet that definition. What you believe in this case is irrelevant.

Abortion certainly does meet the definition, and the dictates of our Supreme Court don't change it if their decisions are outside the law.

War, assassination, capital punishment, murder, manslaughter, self defense, medical triage, suicide, euthanasia, famine, accident, neglect.

I do indeed assert we as a society consider some forms of killing more moral than others. Context matters. If a woman kills her husband, it is murder. If she kills him after twenty years of physical abuse, it is murder, but is the latter as wrong as the former?

Yes. There is a difference in legal responsibility depending on the circumstances though.

Abortion for the sake of convenience, I believe, has no place in civil society. Forcing a rape victim to have that child is, I believe, less civil - in fact, exceedingly cruel.

In the real world, context matters.

In the courts, yes context matters. Also it is not cruel to say to a woman that she can not kill her child. I think this article proves how warped and sub-human our "advanced" culture has become.

[serenity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon of Light
The appeal to emotion distraction continues unabated it seems. Even calling out the fallacious argument does not seem to prevent its use.



posted by Ethos
Apparently you do not detect even the slightest hint of irony in your incorrect and emotive use of the term "murder" in the process of decrying my own spurious manipulations.

Evidently you are to be held to a higher standard than he who indicts you for your unwarranted emotionalism.

There is no irony. I use the term to be accurate to the truth. Abortion's granted legal status is illegal in itself, but there is no definitive way of challenging the Supreme Court if it goes outside the bounds of law. As such the illegal act of murder called abortion goes on. I'm merely calling it what it is.


No, Demon. You disagree with the ruling; but "murder" is a legal term, and therefore you are NOT using it in that matter.

In fact, you ARE counting more on the connotation than the denotation. That is, you ARE using the word emotively.

Personally, i have no problem with this, as I consider it acceptable rhetoric: for example, I maintain that George Bush is a criminal--and I mean that without a hint of exaggeration--although, technically, legally, no, he isn't.

So, fine. the problem is that you insist upon diferent standards for your opponents than for yourself.

Oh, and by the way: we do not all agree that abortion is "murder" connotatively, either. That is not an objective fact of which we can all agree.

[whatever]

whatever



Except this is where we get in an endless and fruitless argument. You ask, "Well how about this?" and then, "How about this?" or "What about this?" and I could answer you every time but you'll just come up with some new, obscure example to question whether my opposition to abortion is valid.

Legal issues are exceedingly complex and how prosecutors carry out their case is left to them and the states determine the punishments, often with a varying degree of punishments depending on the case.

Saying I should be able to explain all of these elaborate matters before I can oppose abortion is completely insane.

You can oppose abortion without answering those questions, but when you propose criminalising it, then you have to think about what the consequences of that law will be. At least that's what a resposible person would do. Saying they are complex and should be left to the prosecution simply means "I don't care enough to think about them". Well, these issue affect real people.






Ethos



Only because people like you make it complicated. You appeal to emotion, "Oh my this girl has had so much trouble in her life, she shouldn't have to carry a baby, she should be able to kill that baby," but no matter how sad the circumstances are it would never excuse the actions taken.

I could use the same argument for infanticide that you're using for abortion. In India some women kill their children because they simply can't take care of them. Is it sad? Yes. Is it complicated? Yes. Is the act excusable because of this? No.

Beyond all the smoke and mirrors there is no moral defense for abortion.



No matter how complicated the circumstances of a murder are, it doesn't change the fact of the murder itself.

You assume that we think that a foetus is the same as a baby, that abortion is murder. Some of us don't think that way.

[whatever]

Evidently you are to be held to a higher standard than he who indicts you for your unwarranted emotionalism.



No, Demon. You disagree with the ruling; but "murder" is a legal term, and therefore you are NOT using it in that matter.

In fact, you ARE counting more on the connotation than the denotation. That is, you ARE using the word emotively.

Personally, i have no problem with this, as I consider it acceptable rhetoric: for example, I maintain that George Bush is a criminal--and I mean that without a hint of exaggeration--although, technically, legally, no, he isn't.

So, fine. the problem is that you insist upon diferent standards for your opponents than for yourself.

Oh, and by the way: we do not all agree that abortion is "murder" connotatively, either. That is not an objective fact of which we can all agree.

That covers what I want to say.

[Demon of Light]

serenity

No, Demon. You disagree with the ruling; but "murder" is a legal term, and therefore you are NOT using it in that matter.

The courts are not the law and they are not above the law, certainly least of all the Constitution. If their ruling is illegal on its face it can not be accepted as legal. Therefore abortion is murder. Unfortunately we've surrender a great deal of freedom to the courts. You'll find that even much of Bush's action which you consider illegal were previously backed by the very Supreme Court you intend to support.

In fact, you ARE counting more on the connotation than the denotation. That is, you ARE using the word emotively.

No, I'm using it because it is what it is. Murder. I mean it in the legal sense.

So, fine. the problem is that you insist upon diferent standards for your opponents than for yourself.

I'm not insisting upon different standards. I'm saying abortion is illegal just like many tolerated actions are illegal. I'm not appealing to emotion except so far as a wanton violation of one of the most basic foundations of democracy should evoke emotion.

whatever

You can oppose abortion without answering those questions, but when you propose criminalising it, then you have to think about what the consequences of that law will be. At least that's what a resposible person would do. Saying they are complex and should be left to the prosecution simply means "I don't care enough to think about them". Well, these issue affect real people.

No it does not mean that. I have thought a great deal about the issue of how such cases would be tried, judged, and sentenced. As I said, in cases of mental incompetence a woman would not be tried, the possible exception of Texas was mentioned, however, a doctor certainly could be, but that would also be determined by the circumstances.

I understand the complicated and arduous process of prosecution, trial, and sentencing enough to know I can not give a short and simple answer to the question.

You assume that we think that a foetus is the same as a baby, that abortion is murder.

I'm not assuming what you think. I am saying what I think to be true. That abortion is illegal and therefore murder.

Some of us don't think that way.

Which is the ultimate level of hypocrisy.

[Ethos]

Believing something to be "murder" does not make it so and opinions opposing Supreme Court rulings do not negate their legal standing.

Formal debate that denies basic matters of fact is quite useless.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

Believing something to be "murder" does not make it so and opinions opposing Supreme Court rulings do not negate their legal standing.

I wasn't aware the Supreme Court was now above the Constitution.

[Ethos]

I wasn't aware the Supreme Court was now above the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is charged with constitutional interpretation. You are not. As such the Court's opinion on the matter is legally superior to your own. You are certainly free to object to that decision, but you must abide by it regardless.

Ethos

[steveksux]

That abortion is illegal and therefore murder.
Really? Abortion is illegal? What country are you referring to? Someone should let the anti-abortionists know, they're wasting a whole lot of time and effort trying to make it illegal if it is already illegal.

When using a statement fo the type "This is true, therefore that", it's important to make sure the "this" is not demonstrably false. If that is truly dependent on this being true, and this is not true, you have just refuted your own conclusion.

Randy

[whatever]

May I just to what Randy and Ethos have said: In a common law country, the court's decision do become the law, unless overturned by higher court, since the SC is the highest court in the land, its rulings are law until that decision is overturned or overwritten by the legislation. I'm sure you knew that, as I'm sure you must know that abortion is not equal to murder in the legal term.

[whatever]

whatever



No it does not mean that. I have thought a great deal about the issue of how such cases would be tried, judged, and sentenced. As I said, in cases of mental incompetence a woman would not be tried, the possible exception of Texas was mentioned, however, a doctor certainly could be, but that would also be determined by the circumstances.

I understand the complicated and arduous process of prosecution, trial, and sentencing enough to know I can not give a short and simple answer to the question.



I'm not assuming what you think. I am saying what I think to be true. That abortion is illegal and therefore murder.



Which is the ultimate level of hypocrisy.


I don't think there is a short and easy answer, and that was the point of the excerise. The important thing is to take the time and think about all those complications. It's funny you should decide that this part of the issue should be left to the prosecutors. If these details are not written into the statute, what will happen is that they will be decided by the trail courts and become case law. That in essence means that the court will be the final writer of the law, something abortion-opponents claim to take exception to.

[Demon of Light]

Ethos

The Supreme Court is charged with constitutional interpretation. You are not. As such the Court's opinion on the matter is legally superior to your own. You are certainly free to object to that decision, but you must abide by it regardless.

Constitutional interpretation does not mean they are above the Constitution, which is the position they've put themselves in. The Constitution is above everyone and every part of the government.

Their own decision is in violation of the Constitution so it is illegal.

whatever

I don't think there is a short and easy answer, and that was the point of the excerise. The important thing is to take the time and think about all those complications.

Are you saying that anyone proposing the legalization or illegalization of anything in any debate has to provide a complete list of every single case where it would be legal and where it would not?

I pointed out the case given in this article and I have no obligation outside of that.

It's funny you should decide that this part of the issue should be left to the prosecutors. If these details are not written into the statute, what will happen is that they will be decided by the trail courts and become case law. That in essence means that the court will be the final writer of the law, something abortion-opponents claim to take exception to.

There is relevance to the court's powers of judicial review, however, it needs to be remembered that the court is not the law and they also have limitations and checks on them. Abortion being treated as the unlawful killing of a person would mean all present case laws regarding apply to them, albeit the special circumstances would demand retooling.

[whatever]

whatever



Are you saying that anyone proposing the legalization or illegalization of anything in any debate has to provide a complete list of every single case where it would be legal and where it would not?

I pointed out the case given in this article and I have no obligation outside of that.

No, I'm saying they have the obligations to think about the complications they can forsee. When writing the law on murder, someone had to think about what constitute 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, man slaughter and self-defence. They had to think about the sentences for the people accused. Only then can the prosecutors use those guidelines to prosecute their cases. From what you wrote so far, it seems to me you think that those things should be left to the prosecutor, in that case, the whole law regarding "the criminal act of abortion" (should it be criminalised) will be left to the prosecutor and the court. That's not acceptable, even to someone who thinkt that common law is a good thing, like me.

And when it comes to abortion, it just highlight the inconsistency in the abortion-opponents' stance, because on the one hand they think society should have a say in, and punish, those women's decision to have abortion, and on the other hand, they don't want to think too much about how their wanting to criminalise abortion will affect those women.


There is relevance to the court's powers of judicial review, however, it needs to be remembered that the court is not the law and they also have limitations and checks on them. Abortion being treated as the unlawful killing of a person would mean all present case laws regarding apply to them, albeit the special circumstances would demand retooling.

I think if you think about it carefully, you will see that abortion is quite unlike "murder" as they are being prosecuted now.

And I think you're missing the point I was making. I'm saying if you leave these decisions regarding how abortion cases should be prosecuted to be made during trails, you are leaving them to the court. So the court will make abortion laws - one of the biggest reason against abortion that abortion-opponents often use.

[Demon of Light]

No, I'm saying they have the obligations to think about the complications they can forsee. When writing the law on murder, someone had to think about what constitute 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, man slaughter and self-defence. They had to think about the sentences for the people accused. Only then can the prosecutors use those guidelines to prosecute their cases. From what you wrote so far, it seems to me you think that those things should be left to the prosecutor, in that case, the whole law regarding "the criminal act of abortion" (should it be criminalised) will be left to the prosecutor and the court. That's not acceptable, even to someone who thinkt that common law is a good thing, like me.

No I did say legislators would have their role.

And when it comes to abortion, it just highlight the inconsistency in the abortion-opponents' stance, because on the one hand they think society should have a say in, and punish, those women's decision to have abortion, and on the other hand, they don't want to think too much about how their wanting to criminalise abortion will affect those women.

I think about it a lot, I just don't want to spend a long time arguing a million different possibilities. I think you're also missing the point of criminalizing abortion. Just like murder not every case is ***** and span. When an abusive husband is killed by his wife we try the wife we don't try to dismiss their crime. When a poor mother drops her child in a dumpster because she can't take care of him or her and the child dies the mother can be charged with a murder.

Not all crimes are simple, easy, and done by "depraved" and "evil" people. Trying to appeal to emotions is a tactic used by defense attorneys to keep their clients from being convicted.

However, appeal to emotions should not be used to argue for ignoring a murder altogether.

I think if you think about it carefully, you will see that abortion is quite unlike "murder" as they are being prosecuted now.

It's not unlike murder, it's murder. Not all murders are alike.