What’s Wrong with the World

Clinton is a politician. And he quite accurately sums up the political dilemma of the pro-life movement here:

:...if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know, that you wouldn't have a lick of political support."

Although Clinton is talking realpolitik there, he also sums up the moral issue: if one believes abortion to be murder, then the most culpable person involved in that murder is the "mother." It is she who hires the "hit man." She intiatates the killing, for her own benefit. The abortionist, if not performing abortions, makes his money in the performance of other ob/gyn procedures; his income is not dependent on performing abortions. There is no moral integrity involved in pro-life positions that advocate legal jeopary for the abortionist alone. Yet that is the position I most frequently hear publicly and explicitly stated.
Maybe Charles Barkley should be consulted on this issue, too?

Let's suppose that a man--in most ways a good and loving family man and pillar of his community--is also a gambling addict. He gets himself in trouble with his gambling loses, and, having exhausted his credit and his bank account, borrows from a loan shark. Now the loan shark is threatening him. In his desparation, and thinking primarily of the ruination of his family, he hires a hit man to kill the loan shark, for a much smaller sum of money than he owned to the loan shark.
Does anything about his situation make him anything other than an accessory to murder? I think not. We may feel sorry for him. We may feel that loan sharking is an evil that could be discouraged as a practice if its victims were given immunity to testify against them. But, in the end, the man is still an accesory to murder. We either prosecute him, or validate his murder. If we do the latter, we only ensure that others in similar positions know that they too can "get away with murder", if necessary.
In all of these respects, how is abortion different?

Finally, with regard to immunity for the "mother" in order to prosecute the abortionist: supposing that, by this means, you could jail every practicising abortionist tomorrow (having made abortion illegal.) Is there anything that you know about the nature of crime that would suggest to you that, where there is sure money to be made in an illegal activity, there won't be plenty of people ready and willing to take the risks involved in doing it, in order to get that money? I think not.
The only legal recourse that might lessen the numbers of abortions would be to punish the women so harshly that getting caught would be obviously worse than going through with the pregnancy.

Well it's good to know that as a woman, I have absolutely no capability of thinking for myself and deciding whether or not I want to be pregnant and give birth after 9 months. I thought that I understood my own needs and desires, but apparently I don't. And though most women who have abortions don't feel like "victims," and would instead feel like victims if they were forced to give up the control of their own body to white male Republicans as a means of keeping social control over women and further dehumanizing them, I guess they just don't understand their own reckless female feelings, what with their tiny hormonal girl brains.

It's also good to know that while you fully admit that women who undergo illegal abortions are desperate, otherwise they would not take on such a great risk, you're perfectly willing to allow desperate women to take that sort of risk, anyway. You have "compassion" for her by not throwing her in jail -- because she's too dumb to know what she's doing. But not enough compassion to make sure that she doesn't die from a perforated uterus in a hotel room -- because she's a whore who's killing her "unborn baby." How generous of you.

Yeah, I can totally see how you're "pro-life" and don't actually hate women at all. Us "pro-abortionists" have you pegged all wrong.

"There is no moral integrity involved in pro-life positions that advocate legal jeopary for the abortionist alone."

You're right. The whole industry; Planned Parenthood and it's affiliates should be sanctioned, as they are the architects of a regime that preys on confused, desperate and abandoned women for profit. The pro-life position has always held the mothers to be victims of an often coarse, heartless culture. You have offered nothing to support overturning that view. Instead, you trudge out Clinton, a man known for throwing women under the bus and the type of guy whose lifestyle requires the fail-safe of abortion, as an authority.

As an aside; beware the self-described male feminist. He knows the "liberated" woman makes an easier target.

'And though most women who have abortions don't feel like "victims," "

There is not only an entire body of literature that
contradicts that contention, but a movement devoted to healing women (and men) from the pain that comes with killing their unborn child; http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/

I hope you pass it on to those who might find it helpful

Kevin--
I did not "trudge out Clinton." Clinton's remarks, as quoted by Francis Beckwith, simply kicked off the topic. Nor have I advocated abortion. I have merely discussed the consistency of the position that abortion is murder, but that women who resort to abortion should not, for various reasons, be charged with murder. This is the purport of Mr. Beckwith's quoted article.
And I have offered plausible reasons for finding intellectual inconsistencies there. It is you who have offered no argument, on either side.

Guys, this is very old hat with Rodak: He tries to pressure pro-lifers into advocating major prison sanctions (for example) for the mother and implies that we are inconsistent if we won't. But then, of course, he'd imply that we were monsters of hard-heartedness if we did. It's an old liberal game, and all pro-lifers should recognize it. Bill Clinton is playing it, too. A tip of the hand comes in the fact that Rodak has also referred to "theocratic" states in reference to the abortion issue, making it clear that, like so many pro-choicers, he would regard it as an "imposition of our religion" to protect unborn children legally. Which can hardly be something he's actually driving for.

What the students did was disrespectful, and as a prolifer I condemn such conduct. Nevertheless, there's a way to deal with such hecklers without engaging in an ad hominem attack against prolifers in general, which is precisely what President Clinton did in his remarks.

No he didn't. Let's review what an ad hominem attack really is. It is an argument that someone is wrong because of something they are....in other words:

"You are wrong about banning abortion because you are a jerk" is a classic ad hominem attack. But....

"You are wrong about banning abortion and if you weren't such a jerk you'd see that too" is not an ad hominem attack (although it does leave out a reason for why your argument is wrong).

Unfortunately the 'prohibition' against ad hominem is often misread as simply being a ban on any type of harsh criticism of someone you disagree with. While harsh criticism may be rude, maybe uncalled for, or maybe simply a 'low blow' it can also be effective and potent.

Sadly, instead of taking the high road and defending the permissibility of abortion by explaining why he believes the view of the students is mistaken (or at least should be tabled for a more appropriate venue), the former occupant of the White House chose the low road and attacked the intellectual integrity of every American citizen who holds the prolife view.

Every American citizen? How about illegal aliens who are also pro-life? How about citizens in foreign countries? The world? Aliens on Alpha-Omega3 who are also pro-life? YOu seem to be reading stuff that just isn't there:

"We disagree with you,...You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth, tell the truth, If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison."

Clinton seems to be talking to his hecklers pretty directly and you yourself seem to have no problem criticizing hecklers...even if you agree with their motives. Yes he probably would use this argument if he was having a civil debate with a 'pro-life American citizen' instead of a heckler but I'm sure he would present it in a less harsh manner.

Onto your argument:
First, if this argument is correct about the prolifer's inconsistency, it does not prove that the unborn are not human persons or that abortion is not a great moral evil. It simply reveals that prolifers are unwilling to "bite the bullet" and consistently apply their position. The fact that prolifers may possess this character flaw does not mean that their arguments for the unborn's full humanity are flawed.

True but if pro-lifers are being inconsistent then a pro-choicer can reasonably ask why they are allowed to decide when to be inconsistent? If they are unwilling to 'bite the bullet' at making women murders why not simply refrain from 'biting the bullet' a bit more and, say, leave the first trimester decriminalized but beyond that have modest penalties?

First, they [the legislatures] might have considered that the woman who would attempt such an act would only do so out of desperation, and that it would be inhumane to inflict criminal penalties on her after having suffered through such an experience.

But no state to my knowledge ever offered lighter sentences to a woman who killed a newborn baby. When such cases do happen pleas of desperation (even when clearly true such as in clear cases of severe post-partum depression) often fall on deaf ears. Additionally, why would 'desperation' not simply be written into the law as a defense rather than a blanket assumption that before 9 months any women who would do such a thing would be 'desperate' but 9 months plus 1 days the penalty jumps all the way up to capital murder? Needless to say, 'desperation' fails to impress when applied to doctors who perform abortion.

Second, it is also possible that this immunization of women from criminal liability for participation in their own abortions was a result of the paternalism of the era, which limited criminal responsibility of women at the same time that it limited their civil rights.

Plausible if women who killed their newborn babies (or killed anyone for that matter) were also granted some type of immunization.

Third, the immunity might have been motivated in part by practical considerations. Often the only testimony which could be secured against the criminal abortionist was that of the woman on whom the abortion was performed; perhaps the woman was granted complete immunity so that she would not be deterred from revealing the crime or from testifying against the abortionist by any risk of incurring criminal liability herself.

The problem with this is it is actually making it harder to secure convictions. A prosecutor trying to confront an unwilling witness will want the flexibility to offer both a big carrot and a big stick. Writing a lower penalty into law makes the job all the harder (as in "why should I testify against the doctor when even if you convicted me the penalty would be light!").

You do try but the 'reverse feminism' that some pro-lifers have adopted (women are just as much victims of abortions as unborn babies!) remains very unimpressive. Your argument that the population just has their heads mixed up because of 30 years of confusing political arguments from NOW and just being distracted by MTV is likewise less impressive when you can't really explain why penalties in the supposedly 'pro-life' era for abortion were so much less than for murder.

The pro-life position has always held the mothers to be victims of an often coarse, heartless culture.

This is simply nonsense. In Nicaragua the penalty for the mother is 2 years in jail. Many States in this country had penalties for the mother. Places that do criminalize abortion tend to criminalize the mother's conduct. The first step in liberalization is to decriminalize the actions of the mother.

Now there are reasons why the penalties for abortion are typically less than those for murder. It is the same reason that familial killings are often punished more lightly than random murders. It is the same reason why parent-killing is often punished lightly. The reason is that the actions do not pose a greater risk to society. Much of the impairment caused by the death bears on the household itself.

As to the broader question, much of the pro-life beliefs against abortion are vaccuous. For many in the movement the goal is simply to erect a signpost that says "Abortion is Evil." I've even heard arguments claiming that the doctors are a victim of society. This is why I tire of the realpolitik in the pro-life movement. Concessions are made solely that we can somehow get a toothless moral majority in the polls. By doing this, things like the 3-exceptions are deemed by many people to be morally supportable; many think their churches actually teach that abortion is okay in the case of rape.

"You do try but the 'reverse feminism' that some pro-lifers have adopted (women are just as much victims of abortions as unborn babies!) remains very unimpressive."

It isn't reverse feminism, but simple common sense that leads one to conclude that women have been sold a bill of goods by a certain kind of male predator. Surely you have worked with or know the type. Have you ever noticed in those so-called "office romances", that it's the woman who suddenly leaves the company? No greater example than Clinton exists. He gains both carnally and electorally from the status quo. He probably calls it "triangulation" when hanging out with his kind.

Oh, if the contention that women aren't victims of this regimen, is so unimpressive maybe you can rebut the claim.

"...when you can't really explain why penalties in the supposedly 'pro-life' era for abortion were so much less than for murder."
Abortionist were put in prison and kept separated from the the rest of the prison population. Are you suggesting the death-penalty should be the penalty? Come on, your sophistry is worse than childish. It's boring.

Moral suasion and the emergence of such technologies as the sonogram, not violence or brutish, misguided legalisms are why the abortion industry will collapse.

I suspect that knowledge causes you some pain. Why is beyond me.

"In Nicaragua the penalty for the mother is 2 years in jail. Many States in this country had penalties for the mother."

Go ahead. Name the states and the penalties.

Guys, this is very old hat with Rodak:

An argument is invalid if it's been presented before.

He tries to pressure pro-lifers into advocating major prison sanctions (for example) for the mother and implies that we are inconsistent if we won't.

I'm not "implying" it: I'm stating it, flat-out.

It's an old liberal game, and all pro-lifers should recognize it.

It's no more a "game" than is the argument Mr. Beckwith's initial post; it is a philosophical position. If it's so "old" it is only because it has not been plausibly refuted. Instead of pointing out what I've said and done (which I'm sure that the others can see for themselves), why don't you simply address the points that I've made, and refute them?

he would regard it as an "imposition of our religion" to protect unborn children legally.

Until I'm convinced that the pro-life position is not founded upon the belief of "ensoulment at the moment of conception"--which has no basis in science, and is an article of faith--that's quite true.
In terms of science, with the advent of human cloning, every cell in the body will be just as much a potential human being as a human sperm/ovum at the instant of conception. What then? If you answer that question at all, I guarantee that it will be with reference to your religious beliefs, rather than to any scientific definition of a "person."

But Rodak, you've claimed you will "support" pro-lifers (or words to that effect) when they do what you consider to be "being consistent." But really, you won't, because you would think they were then "imposing their religion." So stop pretending that if we just "be consistent" (as you define it) you will support us, becuase that's false.

Rodak, the burden is on you and your bizarre contention that geography determines personhood. What scientific changes occur upon delivery that did not exist moments prior in the womb? And how do these changes impact that person?

By the way, Why the caps on "person"?

Anyone who works for an abortion facility or who has observed an abortion facility knows that many women are pressured into having abortions by the fathers of the unborn babies. A pregnant 13-year-old who was molested by her father and who is driven by him to the "clinic" is not exactly an example of "choice." Even an adult woman whose husband or boyfriend doesn't want the baby can be coerced into an abortion, whether through emotional or physical means. Moreover, the fear and uncertainty of an unwanted pregnancy are powerful inducements, in our present culture, to take the abortion option. These are the reasons to support more lenient legal penalties for the mother who has the abortion and tougher penalties for the doctor who exploits her situation by providing the abortion.

Cara, who is dehumanizing women, really? I think it's the men who want to use a woman's body for their pleasure but don't want her ability to bear children. As a woman, and, not coincidentally, a mother, I am able to think as an adult and see the humanity of my child, born or unborn.

Lydia--
I have said (and I think that this is the only context in which I've claimed I would "support" pro-lifers) that if pro-lifers are serious about having the fetus declared a "person" from the moment of conception, they should be working for a constitutional amendment to that effect. With such an amendment, the religious issue would become moot, and the principle would be established as a matter of secular law.
This business of voting for incompetent warmongers like Bush in order to get a couple of conservative judges appointed who might overturn Roe is balderdash. The next time the right-left pendulum swings the other way, a new judicial majority will simply make a new ruling re-establishing something akin to Roe. Only a constitutional amendment--since it is so difficult to obtain--has any chance of standing the test of time with this issue.

would instead feel like victims if they were forced to give up the control of their own body

But that's the whole question, isn't it? Is it simply "your body", or is it your and your baby's bodies

By the way, Why the caps on "person"?

Kevin--
Those aren't "caps"--those are quotation marks. They are there to indicate that there is no agreement within the context of this argument as to what the definition of "person" is. That is, in fact, why there is an argument on the issue at all.
I realize that if I make a statement, the burden of defending it is upon me. I have been doing so. If you would like to enter the argument, rather than just sniping at what displeases you viscerally, please do so.

Kevin, I have cited Wisconsin Statute and common law. Presently the comment is in moderation.

I'm surprised at how many commentators under this entry actually believe that to charge someone with personal inconsistency is not an ad hominem attack. For example, suppose Jones says, "Wife beating is wrong," but then we later discover that Jones beats his wife and has lobbied against statutes to criminalize spousal abuse. To tell Jones, "You really don't believe wife beating is wrong," does not count against the claim "wife beating is wrong." The first is a judgment about Jones, and the second is a judgment about a proposition uttered by Jones. Because both propositions can be true at the same time, the first is not a defeater of the second. President Clinton, therefore, did not address the prolife position. He sought to show that those who claim to be prolife lack intellectual virtue. The latter may or may not be the case. But it has nothing to do with plausibility of the prolife posiiton per se.

Two, of course, can play this game. Bill Clinton claims that abortions were reduced during his administration. That's an odd thing to say about the exercise of a "fundamental right." I'm sure Clinton believes that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. But would he consider it a vindication of that position if it were discovered that during his administration there were fewer books published. What would we think of a president who says, "I believe in a person's right to read and write, but I want such activities safe, legal, and rare."

Of course, this does not count against the abortion-choice position as a position. It is merely employed to illustrate that either side can employ such a tactic.

These are the reasons to support more lenient legal penalties for the mother who has the abortion and tougher penalties for the doctor who exploits her situation by providing the abortion.

When abortion is illegal, there is no question that abortionists are exploiting the situation for financial gain. But since it is legal, it makes no sense to look at it that way. Doctors who perform abortions either think that they are helping the women involved, or they think that they are just performing a routine procedure, like any other. Doctors have no need to "exploit" women by performing abortions. Doctors have many ways to make money, and back when abortion wasn't one of the available options, doctors were doing just fine financially. And if abortion is made illegal again, doctors will do just fine then.

Rodak, I have seen the warnings against engaging you and your by the hosts of this site. I will now do so confident your tortured, contradictory and sophomoric efforts to deny the humanity of the unborn will become apparent even to you.

I'm surprised at how many commentators under this entry actually believe that to charge someone with personal inconsistency is not an ad hominem attack.

It's not. It is only the argument that there exists contradiction between two or more of the propositions put forward by the other person of which the other person is not aware.

It becomes ad hominem only when the argument is of the kind, "If you weren't so bigoted (or "liberal" as it is routinely used on me), you would see that you are contradicting yourself."

"In terms of science, with the advent of human cloning, every cell in the body will be just as much a potential human being as a human sperm/ovum at the instant of conception."

This is one of the odder red herrings that is cropping up lately.

A pool of amino acids is in theory also a potential human being, but the sheer enormity of energy involved in building a human being from those material parts makes such a task rather impotent.

The simple fact that a whole lot of technological meddling is necessary to induce, say, a skin cell into becoming a human being, whereas the union of sperm and egg requires no technological intervention at all, shows that the potential of all human cells to become human beings is not equal.

Perhaps "material" potential vs. "formal" potential is the distinction ignored here.

Kevin presents some nice ad hominem above my last comment.

Kevin Jones--
I don't see how that changes my point.

"Let's suppose that a man--in most ways a good and loving family man and pillar of his community--is also a gambling addict."

Sorry, I'd argue that someone who is a gambling addict
doesn't love his family at all. This scenario sounds
extremely contrived to me.

That's an odd thing to say about the exercise of a "fundamental right."

No, it's not. The "fundamental right" established by Roe is the right to privacy as expressed in the doctor-patient relationship. I believe that Clinton, like most other pro-choice advocates, finds abortion to be distasteful. The usual formula is that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare." One can decide that this formula is always and everywhere uttered as a lie, but that is a baseless assumption until proven otherwise.

This scenario sounds
extremely contrived to me.

If I had said "compusive gambler" rather than using the world "addict" would that have made a difference? Either word implies behavior that the person knows to be wrong, but cannot control. If, of course, you are of the opinion that "compulsion" and/or "addiction" are just phony psychobabble terms for "sin" then my hypothetical will carry no force with you.

Rodak:

You're wrong. The right of privacy was "discovered" several years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut, in the penumbras of the emanations of several amendments of the Bill of Rights, to paraphrase Justice Douglas. That right was the ground of Roe, not the consequence of it.

If the fetus is not a person, and if abortion helps dispel future harm, and if many, like Clinton, believe that the government should subsidize it, why not consider it an instrumental good?

I guess I feel the same way about Clinton presidencies as President Clinton feels about abortion: they should be safe, legal, and rare.

I guess I feel the same way about Clinton presidencies as President Clinton feels about abortion: they should be safe, legal, and rare.

Now that's ad hominem!

That right was the ground of Roe, not the consequence of it.

So, I used the wrong word to refer to Roe. My bad. I still believe that "privacy" is the "fundamental" right to which Clinton was referring. Clinton is, after all, a lawyer. That abortion is not a "fundamental" right in-and-of-itself is the reason for the controversy, and the reason that "privacy" is needed as the ground of Roe.

I haven't watched the video, so maybe the ad hom is somewhere in there. But I don't see anything like an ad hom attack in the quote Beckwith offered.

This thread is an excellent insight into the state of the abortion debate;

Pro-lifers, once accused of caring only about the child, and at the expense of the mother, are now accused of being either; patronizing, or inconsistent. All because they fail to seek jail time for women seeking abortions.

Pro-lifers are relying on moral suasion, non-violent witness, crisis pregnancy centers and post-abortion counseling services to make their case. This troubles those who depended on judicial fiat to create a right to "terminate" mere plasma and tissue.

Pro-lifers, notorious for relying on religion reasoning are now guilty of relying too much on science in defending life. They now use sonograms, instead of Scripture to influence others.

Pro-lifers promote a way too broad interpretation of "personhood" (scare quotes a must) and are therefore guilty of being too...inclusive.

Pro-lifers are rudely asking tough questions like: who really benefits from the right to abortion. Some men take umbrage and label this a form of ad hominem attack

Pilate once asked; "What is truth?" He knew. So too the abortion industry and it's increasingly incoherent and desperate defenders.

Rodak:

Now that's ad hominem!

If I said "Bob is a blustery blowhard", that would not be an ad hominem (though it is an alliteration). It might even be true.

If I said "Bob's argument is wrong because Bob is a blustery blowhard", that would be an ad hominem.

I guarantee that it will be with reference to your religious beliefs, rather than to any scientific definition of a "person."

Is that all there is Rodak? "Religious beliefs", and "science"? I was under the impression that there was still a thing called "philosophy" being done by those interested in things called "ethics" and"morals". But since, for Rodak, apparently we must wait for "science" (I always wonder who these people are and how one gets admitted into the "science court", and how they make decisions about what is and is not a "person"...is it by simple majority, 2/3 majority with a veto power somewhere?) to make a ruling. If science would just make a ruling on the human person, I'd really be relieved. I could skip a lot of these mandatory philosophy classes in college. It would save me a lot of money.

If I said "Bob's argument is wrong because Bob is a blustery blowhard", that would be an ad hominem.

Zippy--

See my comment of 12:26 p.m.

If you want, we can try to parse Mr. Beckwith's comment of 12:45 p.m. to see if it's an real "ad hominem" or not. Maybe it isn't. It was just an attempt to lighten up the discourse a bit. So shoot me.

Rodak:

There is no moral integrity involved in pro-life positions that advocate legal jeopary for the abortionist alone. Yet that is the position I most frequently hear publicly and explicitly stated.

Until I'm convinced that the pro-life position is not founded upon the belief of "ensoulment at the moment of conception"--which has no basis in science, and is an article of faith--that's quite true.

And furthermore, does every single policy and law we come up with need to be scientifically proven? What's the "basis in science" for your open-borders immigration policy preferences, for instance?

Surely you have a position of your own here, and not just nits to pick with other people's consistency. So what is it?

I stated my position to Lydia at 12:07 p.m.

Oh? So when does science show that ensoulment happens? What time of ensoulment does have a basis in science? Exactly 6 months from conception? The exact moment of birth?

So far as I am aware, science has yet to detect the presence of the soul. That is what makes the concept of ensoulment at conception (or at any other time) a matter of faith.
A society based upon secular law should not impose one group's faith-based beliefs upon the entire society.
If, however, the concept that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception can be put into the constitution, so be it: it is then the law of the land.

Rodak: So shoot me.

That would be immoral, even if it were legal.

So far as I am aware, science has yet to detect the presence of the soul.

Rodak: So shoot me.
That would be immoral, even if it were legal.

Chalk one up for Todd.:-)

At what moment does science tell us that a fetus becomes a person?

A plausible "scientific" case could be made for the fetus becoming a "person" when it is viable outside of the mother's body. That is why most reasonable people are against third trimester abortions and partial birth abortions, which is nothing but infanticide by another name.

Until I'm convinced that the pro-life position is not founded upon the belief of "ensoulment at the moment of conception"--which has no basis in science, and is an article of faith--that's quite true.

Ummm... I don't think that's the foundation of the pro-life position at least as I understand (and believe) it. In fact, it is far from clear that the Church has taught authoritatively on the moment of "ensoulment". I am personally agnostic to the "moment of ensoulment". Clearly, by the teaching of the Church, we must act as though the fertilized oocyte has an eternal soul. My pro-life stance comes from objective fact that fertilized oocyte is (essence) a human (qua human) being (qua being), a different thing (in essence) from the parts that it was a moment before; and a thing (in essence) very much like me. All of which is quite strongly based on science, and not at all upon religious faith. It really is that simple, Rodak... at least from the perspective of this pro-lifer.

... Which I'm sure won't convince you because it is impossible to prove a negative...

Kevin

It isn't reverse feminism, but simple common sense that leads one to conclude that women have been sold a bill of goods by a certain kind of male predator. Surely you have worked with or know the type.

Yes yes so why is this always the story with abortion and never the story when a mother kills her newborn baby? There have been some very high profile cases of this and when it happens the general instinct of most people is not to say "why yes, of course she was sold a bill of goods by her no good boyfriend or husband". The response of the public is usually along the lines of "no man is worth killing your own kids" and even if you have an amazing argument to make in the woman's defense you have a huge uphill battle.

So yes it's a little implausible to her pro-lifers try to get away with pretending every abortion is about some evil man lurking in the shadows pushing for an abortion so he can (save on child support? have more sex?) or some mythical 'abortion industry' that somehow cons women into getting abortion to make money (as if the same doctors who perform abortions wouldn't be able to carry a pregnancy to term and make a hell of a lot more money doing so).

Here's an example:

Jaennie
Anyone who works for an abortion facility or who has observed an abortion facility knows that many women are pressured into having abortions by the fathers of the unborn babies. A pregnant 13-year-old who was molested by her father and who is driven by him to the "clinic" is not exactly an example of "choice."

Except when an argument is made for the usual three exceptions "rape, incest or life of the mother" pro-lifers are the first to stand up and shout this barely applies to 1% of abortions at best. So which one is it? Is Jaennie's example typical or not? Probably not.

So what type of 'pressure' is Jaennie really talking about? Social unacceptance of teen/young adult pregnancy? The possibility of losing a boyfriend? Financial problems or lack of health insurance? Would any of these 'pressures' even be entertained by Jaennie if CNN reported another case of a woman who kills her child?

Lydia
Guys, this is very old hat with Rodak: He tries to pressure pro-lifers into advocating major prison sanctions (for example) for the mother and implies that we are inconsistent if we won't. But then, of course, he'd imply that we were monsters of hard-heartedness if we did. It's an old liberal game, and all pro-lifers should recognize it. Bill Clinton is playing it, too. A tip of the hand comes in the fact that Rodak has also referred to "theocratic" states in reference to the abortion issue, making it clear that, like so many pro-choicers, he would regard it as an "imposition of our religion" to protect unborn children legally. Which can hardly be something he's actually driving for.

But Rodak, you've claimed you will "support" pro-lifers (or words to that effect) when they do what you consider to be "being consistent." But really, you won't, because you would think they were then "imposing their religion." So stop pretending that if we just "be consistent" (as you define it) you will support us, becuase that's false.

Your argument is a horrible mess. Rodak's motivations are irrelevant to the arguments he makes. Whether he argues against something a pro-lifer says because he wants to see the pro-life movement improve their arguments or because he thinks they are totally wrong and wants to expose the flaws in their arguments are irrelevant. It doesn't make your arguments any better if they don't make sense.

If you want to be inconsistent then go ahead but you can't cry unfair if someone calls you on it. If you're inconsistent because you don't want to be 'hard hearted' then again it's no foul to be called on it.

Francis
I'm surprised at how many commentators under this entry actually believe that to charge someone with personal inconsistency is not an ad hominem attack. For example, suppose Jones says, "Wife beating is wrong," but then we later discover that Jones beats his wife and has lobbied against statutes to criminalize spousal abuse. To tell Jones, "You really don't believe wife beating is wrong," does not count against the claim "wife beating is wrong." The first is a judgment about Jones, and the second is a judgment about a proposition uttered by Jones. Because both propositions can be true at the same time, the first is not a defeater of the second. President Clinton, therefore, did not address the prolife position. He sought to show that those who claim to be prolife lack intellectual virtue. The latter may or may not be the case. But it has nothing to do with plausibility of the prolife posiiton per se.

I'll agree with you in a strictly logical sense but not rhetorically. To see why imagine a slightly alternative hypothetical:

Jones: "Wife beating is correct. The Bible says man is the head of the house and he should beat his wife if she gets out of line"

You: "You don't really believe that. I know your wife and you've never raised a fist to her!"

Technically you can call this an ad hominem since you're telling Jones...essentially..."you're argument is wrong because you fail to live by it". But what if you said:

"You don't really believe that. You've never raised a fist to your wife. And you haven't because you know in your heart your assertion is wrong"

If the bolded statement is left unsaid but is understood by the listeners then it really isn't an ad hominem. You are asserting that Jones heart has some ability to determine right and wrong and since his heart has ruled against beating his wife we can conclude that it is wrong to do so. Jones, of course, may counter that his heart is flawed and unreliable and it's not right let it have the last word anymore than you would say a doctor can't stop eating McDonald's is wrong when he argues a Big Mac diet is unhealthy.

Two, of course, can play this game. Bill Clinton claims that abortions were reduced during his administration. That's an odd thing to say about the exercise of a "fundamental right." I'm sure Clinton believes that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. But would he consider it a vindication of that position if it were discovered that during his administration there were fewer books published.

Ahhh but if choice is the right Clinton is talking about then your argument falls flat. Freedom of speech is indeed a fundamental right but a metric indicating fewer people embrace 'Archie Bunker racism' would hardly merit bemoaning a 'lack of freedom'. Rather one could say such would be an example of people using their freedom in a more responsible way (perhaps inspired by others who used their own free speech to convince them to change their minds).

Rodak:

I stated my position to Lydia at 12:07 p.m.

I'm asking what YOU think. Is abortion unjustified homicide or not? If the Constitution said that it was, would the Constitution be saying something true or false? Would you like there to be such a Constitutional amendment? Are fetuses persons? If not, when do they become persons? Is it okay to kill persons? Is there any such thing as persons at all?

Surely the guy who discovered a Scriptural injunction not to take better care of one's own children than a stranger's has an opinion on this. Praytell, stop being cute and tell us.

A plausible "scientific" case could be made for the fetus becoming a "person" when it is viable outside of the mother's body. That is why most reasonable people are against third trimester abortions and partial birth abortions, which is nothing but infanticide by another name.

Hey, careful with slinging such terms as 'infanticide'. There are some good and reasonable people who would disagree with you on the matter of third trimester abortions. Are you in favor of putting women and abortion doctors in prison for 1st degree murder if they have third trimester abortions? Are you in favor of a constitutional amendment defining 'personhood' as beginning in the third trimester?

Kevin

Pro-lifers, once accused of caring only about the child, and at the expense of the mother, are now accused of being either; patronizing, or inconsistent. All because they fail to seek jail time for women seeking abortions.

Pro-lifers are relying on moral suasion, non-violent witness, crisis pregnancy centers and post-abortion counseling services to make their case. This troubles those who depended on judicial fiat to create a right to "terminate" mere plasma and tissue.

I suspect you're another one of those all too common pro-lifers who doesn't even bother to read or listen to anyone who disagrees with him yet feels perfectly comfortable writing long posts about what his opponents supposedly are saying. At least Francis took careful note of what was said and articulated where he disagreed and why. You, on the other hand, hardly seem to know what you're saying let alone anyone else.

Are you trying to say the pro-lifers heckled Clinton because he objected to them using moral suasion to convince people not to have abortions? If that was the case then why would Clinton's response include the drop in abortions during his term? The hecklers were attacking Clinton because they want abortion to be criminalized and yes it's perfectly valid to question why they reject being consistent.

I'll admit there are hard-hearted women out there. I would never claim that _every_ abortion is the fault of some male or that no women have abortions willingly and callously. I think a lot of pro-choicers refuse to admit the pressure that do exist, but there's no point in denying the existence as well of women who procure abortion without a qualm and knowing fully what they do. In strict justice in law, those distinctions would be made. A woman who knew what she was doing and was under no duress of any sort would receive legal punishment, whereas those who were deceived, confused, or under duress would have that taken into account as legally mitigating, perhaps very much so depending on the circumstances. In the limiting case, minor children are sometimes quite literally forced to have an abortion by their parents, which of course should carry no penalty at all for the young mother who is in those cases a victim herself in the strict sense.

I wish to point out in passing that the medical personnel who disassemble and reassemble small arms, legs, and heads can hardly be in any doubt about what they are up to. "Informed consent" doesn't really enter in there, does it?

But it seems to me ridiculous to say that we can never consistently argue for any restrictions on abortion unless we actually press for penalties on women procuring abortion. Why should this be? How does this follow from our position? Is there an argument lurking somewhere here like this?

1. If abortion is murder, then every state is obligated instantly to enact jail terms for all women procuring abortions.

2. Every state is not obligated instantly to enact such jail terms for all women procuring abortion.

Therefore,

3. Abortion is not murder.

I'd like to see the argument for #1.

Hey, careful with slinging such terms as 'infanticide'. There are some good and reasonable people who would disagree with you on the matter of third trimester abortions.

I see that even if I state a position that you should be in agreement with, I'm still wrong. It is becoming an exercise in absurdity to engage in a discussion with some of you.

Rodak:

A plausible "scientific" case could be made for the fetus becoming a "person" when it is viable outside of the mother's body.

Or are you just redefining "person" to mean "person who can stick up for themselves", in which case you ought to be for the "choice" of killing the disabled? And what's the scientific proof that this definition is the correct one?

Okay, I'll stop being cute now, and point out the bleedin' obvious that everyone here already knows. There is no scientific definition of "person", which is pretty much synonymous with "soul". These are both concepts known to a) philosophy, and b) common-sense 1st-person experience.

That is why most reasonable people are against third trimester abortions and partial birth abortions, which is nothing but infanticide by another name.

Also, Rodak, what do you think should happen to women who have partial-birth abortions? Should they be locked up for years like common murderers? Because if you don't think they should, and you think that partial-birth abortion is infanticide, then you are obviously being inconsistent.

I see that even if I state a position that you should be in agreement with, I'm still wrong. It is becoming an exercise in absurdity to engage in a discussion with some of you.

I'm just wondering if you are going to hold yourself to the same standard of reasoning that you seem to be holding "us". If anti-abortion advocates ought to be supporting prison terms or even death sentences for women who have abortions and abortion doctors in the name of consistency, shouldn't you be doing the same?

Like Boonton, I'm having difficulty seeing how comparing action to rhettoric is necessarily illogical. For example, if I observe that a preponderance of people take route A over route B to get between two points, I think it would be perfectly valid for me to claim that people prefer route A. A counterclaim may be that route B is under construction, but then we are getting into the detail of why people prefer said choice. Given the antipathy of many pro-lifers for charging mothers in abortion, I think it is reasonable to conclude that those pro-lifers sincerely believe that mothers should not be charged in the case of abortion. That there may be alternative explanations seems to be an argument against the fallacy of rash generalization. So when Clinton claims that pro-lifers are being inconsistent in criticizing him for not demanding justice when they don't demand justice, I'm seeing a probably true claim, at least until the generalization is proven to be rash.

So when Clinton claims that pro-lifers are being inconsistent in criticizing him for not demanding justice when they don't demand justice, I'm seeing a probably true claim, at least until the generalization is proven to be rash.

But it's not a fact that anti-abortion advocates don't demand justice. We just aren't demanding, at current, prison terms or death sentences. Call it amnesty, if you will--or mercy. The culture of death has become so pervasive in our society that the conscience of many has been deeply and hopelessly compromised, along with, apparently, the ability to reason properly. It's something like, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". We're trying hard to make this an easier pill to swallow. The charge of inconsistency is hollow, and it falls flat as a high school chorus. It's a dodge, a pure dodge. Clinton and his type don't want to try and match the pro-life argument because they can't. He's smart enough to know he's got nothing to answer it with, so he dodges it with this clever aggression. The pro-choice argument, when it comes to the subject of personhood, is an argument from ignorance. Boy, is it ever.

Lydia,

I'll admit there are hard-hearted women out there. I would never claim that _every_ abortion is the fault of some male or that no women have abortions willingly and callously. I think a lot of pro-choicers refuse to admit the pressure that do exist, but there's no point in denying the existence as well of women who procure abortion without a qualm and knowing fully what they do. In strict justice in law, those distinctions would be made.

How about women who do the abortions themselves either with an 'abortion pill' or some other method? Again this 'pro-life feminist' argument is almost a satire of itself. If you weren't using it to argue a pro-life position I'd almost think you were doing a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of the most radical feminists imaginable from the 1970's and 80's. Perhaps you can argue next that all sex is rape therefore every abortion is really some man victimizing a woman?

I'll say it again more bluntly, you are arguing a massive double standard here. Pre-birth you bend over backwards to think of every excuse imaginable from the extreme (the 13 year old being taken for an abortion by her incestuous father) to the most vague ("pressures") to cut women a break. Post birth you would have none of this. (If I dive into the archives here will I find any posts from Lydia telling us to not rush to any conclusions in the Susan Smith case, perhaps she was 'mislead' by some evil man).

I'd like to see the argument for #1.

1. If abortion is murder, then every state is obligated instantly to enact jail terms for all women procuring abortions.

If the state is not obligated to enact jail or other punishments for murder then "abortion is murder" does not serve as a viable argument for outlawing abortion does it?

thebyronicman
But it's not a fact that anti-abortion advocates don't demand justice. We just aren't demanding, at current, prison terms or death sentences. Call it amnesty, if you will--or mercy. The culture of de