Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Is Killing Abortionists Wrong?
Leading pro-life activists are denouncing yesterday's murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, but I'm not sure I understand why. "It is immoral and it is unchristian," says the Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council. Calling the killing "a cowardly act," Operation Rescue President Troy Newman says his group "has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring [Tiller] to justice through the legal system, the legislative system....We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe."
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to act. It may be unwise or counterproductive to the cause, as Schenck suggests when he worries that the killing could be "a greater setback to the pro-life movement than anything the so-called pro-choice movement could do." Promoting an image of pro-life activists as murderous extremists might dim the prospects for legislation restricting abortion, thereby leading to more deaths of unborn children than eliminating one abortionist prevents. But this is a tactical question that does not have to do with the inherent morality of killing in defense of innocent children.
Nor is it sufficient to note that killing Tiller was against the law. When the law blesses the murder of babies, it is hardly worthy of respect, any more than laws blessing the enslavement of Africans or the gassing of Jews were, and violent resistance against such enactments surely is justified in principle. Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry implicitly condemns Tiller's murder, saying, "We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God." Yet Terry continues to call Tiller a "mass murderer" and insists "the pro-life movement must not be browbeaten by Obama or the child-killers into surrendering our best rhetoric, actions and images," adding, "We hold absolutely no responsibility for [Tiller's] death."
The less militant anti-abortion organizations embrace a similar contradiction. Here is National Right to Life's statement:
National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller's family over this loss of life.
Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.
As I said, killing abortionists may be contrary to that goal for tactical reasons. But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend that right is wrong?
|6.1.09 @ 1:53PM|#
But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people
with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to
defend that right is wrong?
You could be a pacifist.
"Ladies, violence never solved anything...except conflict. Look,
I'm a pacifist. I PASS a FIST. Get it?"
anarch|6.1.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Shorter Sullum: How is it possible to believe that two wrong don't make a right?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 1:56PM|#
anarch - noooo...because killing the abortion doctor would be the right thing to do, unless you're stating that killing a concentration camp war criminal "wrong", in which case, you'll have to speak with the Nuremburg people about that.
|6.1.09 @ 2:00PM|#
I am more interested in his involvement with the Lutheran church where he was an usher.That's a contradiction I just can't seem to wrap my head around.
|6.1.09 @ 2:00PM|#
"But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people with
a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend
that right is wrong?"
If someone grabbed a sniper rifle and started picking off guards at
Auschwitz would it have been murder? This goes to the heart of why
abortion is an impossible subject. On the one hand, if it is just a
medical procedure and life begins at birth, why is a miscarriage
such a tragedy? On the other hand, if it is murder, how can we all
sit around and peacefully talk about it while millions of people
are dying? Neither side explains their conundrum very well.
That said, this was an act of terrorism. It was done not just for
the purpose of killing this guy. It was done for the purpose of
terrorizing other doctors into not doing abortions. That is the
text book definition of terrorism.
Sadly terrorism is really effective. That is why so many people do
it. I mean at this point you would have to be nuts to provide
abortions in this country.
|6.1.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Is this building up to pointing out that pro-lifers are either
murderers or hypocrites?
Because that's kinda weak.
|6.1.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Some people believe all killing is wrong. I respect that view as logically consistent.
short, fat bastard|6.1.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Is this building up to pointing out that pro-lifers are
either murderers or hypocrites?
Um, yes . . .
|6.1.09 @ 2:02PM|#
"Some people believe all killing is wrong. I respect that view
as logically consistent."
I think we should take them at their word. I know a lot of people
who are pro life and also anti death penalty.
|6.1.09 @ 2:03PM|#
I guess anti-abortionists should also seek and destroy all the women that had abortions in Tiller's clinic.
|6.1.09 @ 2:04PM|#
So any pro-lifer not killing abortion doctors is just a
whiny little bitch?
No, they're just secret pro-choicers who are trying to get some
pro-life pussy.
Megan: Hey, you're really hardcore, aren't you?
Mac: Oh, well, you know. I mean, if you really wanna see
hardcore... (hands her a piece of paper)
Megan: What's this?
Mac: That's the list of doctors I'm gonna kill.
Megan: There's two already crossed out.
Mac: Yeah, I know.
Mike M.|6.1.09 @ 2:04PM|#
I'm not a Catholic, but I think that the modern Catholic church probably has the best and most logical position on these issues, which is that the taking of another human life is never justifiable, with the exceptions that fall into the strictly defined "Just War" principles.
Righteous Ricky|6.1.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Actually, bombing abortion clinics when they are not in use is just as effective as killing abortionists while not requiring the taking of a life. So this should be the first step. However, if an abortionist rebuilds a couple of times, then he or she should be fair game.
|6.1.09 @ 2:06PM|#
But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people
with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to
defend that right is wrong?
I don't think it is possible to believe that fetuses are anything
other than [unborn] people is it? I can only speak for the Catholic
conscience, which is fairly consistent in its belief in the
sanctity of life, but last I checked there was a commandment
against murder, which this clearly was.
As to whether fetuses have a "right" t life, that is not for me to
decide. I am interested in letting the Supreme Court take another
swing at it though.
MNG|6.1.09 @ 2:06PM|#
I think if one has the deontological position that all killing
is wrong you can get away with it.
But if you think killing is justified and that abortion is indeed
fully murder, then it's gonna be a hard one for ya.
kraorh|6.1.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Tricky, especially considering that many pro-lifers (though
hardly all) support the death penalty. That said, though, I think I
could sort of make a case for the pro-lifer. It's not easy, and
certainly it exposes tension in the pro-life position, but it's
doable. You could take the pacifist line, as suggested above, or
you could take a line that says that violence is only justified in
cases of imminent danger. The abortion doctor may be putting Fetal
Americans in danger, but presumably the guy is not hurting anyone
at his home or anything. Even in the abortion clinic itself, the
only violence you'd really need would be just that "violence" you'd
need to restrain the guy. Shooting him would be, well,
overkill.
Again, I don't think it's a terribly strong position, which should
suggest to the pro-lifer that maybe his/her premises need to be
reconsidered. But I'm not sure it's a contradiction, especially if
you have a problem with vigilantism. It's one thing to say you'd be
justified in liberating a plantation or a concentration camp. It's
quite another to say that you'd be justified in assassination and
terrorism against the people in charge.
MNG|6.1.09 @ 2:10PM|#
"I don't think it is possible to believe that fetuses are
anything other than [unborn] people is it?"
I think its undeniable that at the moment the sperm and egg join
you have something human there. But a person in a vegatative state
for whom a machine keeps alive is also certainly a human.
The problem is that its not so much human beings that have so much
moral weight as it is persons. And are fetuses, embryos, or persons
in vegetative states such persons?
Ever watched a movie or had the tragedy of visiting someone in a
vegetative state? Someone will ultimately say "that's not uncle
John, uncle John passed a long time ago" in reference to the
certainly human being in front of you....
H.F. Wolff|6.1.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Since the author of this otherwise worthwhile article chose to
include a snippet of conventional wisdom regarding Auschwitz,
permit me to post the following for your consideration and
enjoyment:
Governments of Israel, Poland, and Germany, published information
refuting holocaust!
For decades the commemorative plaques at the Auschwitz
concentration camp in Poland proclaimed that the number of Jews
murdered in that camp was 4 million; consequently 2 million must
have been murdered elsewhere to arrive at the historic figure of 6
million Jews gassed and cremated by the Nazis.
In 1990 the Polish government, after years of study and research
concluded that the number of Jews murdered in Auschwitz had been
exaggerated by the communists who had liberated this concentration
camp, and that 1.5 million was a more realistic number. The
commemorative plaques were replaced with new ones acknowledging
this reduced estimate.
Subsequently this lower figure was further reduced to a generally
accepted number of 1.1 million (as per Wikipidia) for a revised
total claim of 3.1 million murdered Jews.
In 2002 the Israeli government is on record as stating that in the
year 2000 about 1.1 million holocaust survivors were still
alive.
In 2005 the German government is on record as stating that it was
still paying compensation to about 1.5 million holocaust
survivors.
The conflicting data from Israel and Germany may be averaged: (1.1
m + 1.5 m) / 2 = 1.3 million survivers in 2003, to establish a
point half-way between the two data points. That puts the number of
survivors at 1.3 million 58 years after liberation of the
camps.
The American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 1949, pg 1582,
published the mortality rates for various European countries,
varying from a low of 8 per thousand to almost 15 per thousand
population. Since the camp survivors had been subjected to
deprivations, disease, starvation, physical abuse, freezing cold,
medical experiments, etc. it is reasonable to conclude that the
camp survivors as a group would have a mortality rate at least at
the higher level of 15 per thousand, certainly not less or the
claims of deprivations would then sound hollow.
The mortality rate of 15 per thousand may be applied as a
multiplier to the Jewish survivor population as follows: P x
.985**58 = 1.3 m, where P is the number of survivors in 1945, .985
is the multiplier for a mortality rate of 15 per thousand, meaning
that 1000 people x .985 = (1000 - 15) = 985 people survive after
one year. After 58 years the original population will have
decreased by .985 raised to the 58th power, ie. .985 x .985 x .985
x .... for 58 terms. Then, solving the equation for P, and using
the known information as published by the above governments, the
calculation shows that: P = (1.3 m / .985**58) = (1.3 m / .416) =
3.124 million survivors in 1945, ie. slightly more than the number
claimed as murdered.
As author and professor Norman Finkelstein so aptly put it in his
book: "With all these holocaust survivors, who did the Nazis kill"?
Now we know: NOT ONE, as affirmed by those questioning the veracity
of the premise of the holocaust.
HdC
|6.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#
I am more interested in his involvement with the Lutheran church where he was an usher.That's a contradiction I just can't seem to wrap my head around.
I'm guessing ELCA, brotherben.
Definitely nor Missouri Synod.
Colin|6.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#
But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people
with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to
defend that right is wrong?
Because if all life is precious, so is Dr. Tiller's.
JB|6.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Jacob, why do you believe that fetuses (even if they are 50
years old) have the right to life?
They are nothing but clumps of cells.
Righteous Ricky|6.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#
The only real question is whether a woman that seeks an abortion should be treated as an accessory to murder or co-conspirator.
BeesInTheBrain|6.1.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Next up on Reason.
Why the ACLU are hypocrites because they oppose the use of the
death penalty to protect abortion doctors.
JB|6.1.09 @ 2:17PM|#
And Jacob, why are you using terms like 'murder' and 'killing'? This was nothing but an abortion of Tiller; he was nothing but a clump of cells.
|6.1.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"I think its undeniable that at the moment the sperm and egg
join you have something human there. But a person in a vegatative
state for whom a machine keeps alive is also certainly a
human.
The problem is that its not so much human beings that have so much
moral weight as it is persons. And are fetuses, embryos, or persons
in vegetative states such persons?"
That is a very good point. But it I think proves too much. Once you
start defining who is entitled to life and who is not entitled to
life based on capabilities, it is a very slipery slope. You make an
excellent point in how abortion is inextricably tied to euthanasia
in that the answers to both issues are determined by what we
consider to be a human being.
Two things to consider. First, unlike the person in a coma, the
fetus has an overwelming chance of someday being a fully functional
person. So, even if it is okay to pull the plug on grandpa, that
doesn't mean abortion is okay. You certainly wouldn't pull the plug
on grandpa if the doctors told you he had a 99% chance of a full
recovery in 9 months time.
Second, if your right to exists depends on your capabilities, at
what point do your capabilities get so weak as to take away your
right to life? Once we say it is okay to stop feeding grandpa in a
coma and letting him die, where do we stop? What is the definition
of "personhood". That part really scares me. I think we run a real
danger of letting capabilities be defined so broadly that it
becomes okay to kill the sick and the different. I would rather
just pay for grandpa to be on the machine for a while.
|6.1.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Ever watched a movie or had the tragedy of visiting someone
in a vegetative state? Someone will ultimately say "that's not
uncle John, uncle John passed a long time ago" in reference to the
certainly human being in front of you....
Which is why I find it odd that anyone who is pro-choice has a
problem with DNRs or assisted suicide. I am pro-life but think it
was a huge mistake for the state of California to spend however
many millions of (taxpayer) dollars in neonatal intensive care for
the Suleman octuplets. The right to life does not mean that
everyone gets to live, just that no one is prevented from living
against their will.
Xeones|6.1.09 @ 2:23PM|#
I think what it comes down to is that no one is sure when, exactly, a thing goes from fetus with no rights to human being with full rights pertaining thereto. I'm not sure this CAN be known. All we've got is an arbitrary line, and folks arguing about where that line should be drawn. For instance, if i recall my medieval theology correctly, it was Thomas Aquinas who placed the beginning of life at 40 days after conception, but it's not like the subject was any clearer then.
|6.1.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is
no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves
damnation.
Elemenope|6.1.09 @ 2:24PM|#
I think its undeniable that at the moment the sperm and egg
join you have something human there. But a person in a vegetative
state for whom a machine keeps alive is also certainly a
human.
I disagree even with this concession. I have more in common with my
house cat, in most relevant ways, than I do with a one-week old
fertilized egg.
Gene|6.1.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says
the Lord GOD, "and not that he should turn from his ways and
live?
--Ezekiel 18:23
At least for those pro-lifers who are religious, that would explain
it.
|6.1.09 @ 2:25PM|#
John, the problem imo is that with Roe v Wade, the govt. weakened societal requirements for sanctity of life. It isn't very far from aborting a baby to killing the abortionist. It allows for justifying the statement that some folks just need to be killed.
Billy|6.1.09 @ 2:27PM|#
""They are nothing but clumps of cells.""
That's bullshit. Tiller was a third-trimester abortionist. He
destroyed humans that on there own were viable outside of the womb
(granted they'd need food and a diaper change now and then). This
wasn't some guy at planned parenthood.
I am glad he no longer practices medicine.
Xeones|6.1.09 @ 2:27PM|#
Which is why I find it odd that anyone who is pro-choice has
a problem with DNRs or assisted suicide.
Conversely, living as i do in the shadow of PETA headquarters, i've
met an awful lot of pro-choice vegetarians and vegans. They're ok
with destroying a human embryo, but not that of a chicken.
|6.1.09 @ 2:27PM|#
But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people
with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to
defend that right is wrong?
Well, because generally speaking, you don't have a right to use
deadly force except under certain narrowly defined circumstances.
One of them is in a just war. Another is in self-defense. A third
in in defense of others. The only one of these categories that even
arguably applies is defense of others, and that doesn't really work
unless you're killing the abortionist as he's actually preparing to
perform an abortion (which clearly wasn't the case here). Any other
rule would lead to absurd results such as the conclusion that it
would be OK for me to kill a mobster in church because I believed
he was planning to kill me later in the week--or that it would be
OK to attack Iraq because I believed Saddam's government was
stockpiling WMDs to use against me.
Elemenope|6.1.09 @ 2:29PM|#
I think what it comes down to is that no one is sure when,
exactly, a thing goes from fetus with no rights to human being with
full rights pertaining thereto. I'm not sure this CAN be known. All
we've got is an arbitrary line, and folks arguing about where that
line should be drawn.
If a defining characteristic of humanity is sapience (esp. if we
situate our individuality as an expression of mind, e.g.
personality), then a creature that does not yet have a nervous
system or brain could not yet be human. I'd call that the absolute
lower bound.
Where the practical bound should fall, I think, for many reasons,
is the line beyond which the fetus has a non-negligible chance for
survival outside the womb. That line, of course, moves back with
technological and other medical breakthroughs, though I think it
can't be moved past the "hard lower bound" of absence of a formed
and active nervous system.
|6.1.09 @ 2:31PM|#
I also wonder how many people who think the murder of Tiller was outrageous think it would be OK (if not laudable) for Israel to kill Iranians in an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, on the ground that Iran *might* be planning to make bombs that *might* be used against Israel.
|6.1.09 @ 2:31PM|#
"John, the problem imo is that with Roe v Wade, the govt.
weakened societal requirements for sanctity of life. It isn't very
far from aborting a baby to killing the abortionist. It allows for
justifying the statement that some folks just need to be
killed."
I agree. I think the answer to abortion is some kind of compromise
where people have access to morning after pills and first trimester
abortions but after that it is banned. I get the idea that a zygote
is not quite the same thing as a baby. But at the same time, I have
a hard time buying that a six and seven month old fetus that in
this day and age would be nothing but a routine premi, is just bag
of cells at the mercy of the mother.
Craig|6.1.09 @ 2:32PM|#
But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people
with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to
defend that right is wrong?
Even if someone fully believes this, this particular type of
killing would still be wrong. The deceased wasn't in the act of
imminently taking another life, so the use of deadly force wasn't
defending anyone. If you see a suspected murderer on the street,
you can't just shoot him. The "correct" procedure would be to
detain him and try him before a jury of his peers before meting out
punishment.
Even if a suspected murderer is about to kill again, a would-be
vigilante/life defender is obligated to use the lowest degree of
force necessary to prevent the killing -- perhaps a verbal warning
and a chance to surrender peacefully.
ABORTING SOCIAL SECURITY|6.1.09 @ 2:33PM|#
Since, 1973 roughly 40-50 million fetuses have been aborted. That means 40-50 million people are not paying into the Social Security system! I don't care that there dead, I just care that SS ids bankrupt and I'm not getting more benefits.
|6.1.09 @ 2:34PM|#
I also wonder how many people who think the murder of Tiller
was outrageous think it would be OK (if not laudable) for Israel to
kill Iranians in an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, on
the ground that Iran *might* be planning to make bombs that *might*
be used against Israel.
Faulty analogy. Tiller had performed abortions in the past and
planned to perform them in the future. No one would fault Israel
(well, no with half-a-brain) if they bombed Iranian nuke facilities
after they had been nuked, imminent threat or not.
|6.1.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral
If Tiller was shot whilst conducting an abortion, you might have a
tiny distorted shadow of a point. But he was not. You don't shoot
murderers walking down the street. Even if the government is doing
nothing about it.
zoltan|6.1.09 @ 2:35PM|#
And to go along with Craig, vigilantes a la Batman don't kill, they detain.
|6.1.09 @ 2:35PM|#
"That means 40-50 million people are not paying into the Social
Security system!"
They are also not writing music, books, fixing cars or doing all
the other wonderful productive and interesting things human beings
do. That bothers me a bit more than the loss to social
security.
|6.1.09 @ 2:37PM|#
"If Tiller was shot whilst conducting an abortion, you might
have a tiny distorted shadow of a point. But he was not. You don't
shoot murderers walking down the street. Even if the government is
doing nothing about it."
Exactly. But imagine if the father of a baby he was about to abort,
went to the clinic and shot him. What an interesting murder trial
that would make.
Billy|6.1.09 @ 2:37PM|#
"That bothers me a bit more than the loss to social
security."
What bothers me is that they are disproportionately brownish in
color.
|6.1.09 @ 2:38PM|#
how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people with a
right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend
that right is wrong?
because your belief that killing is always wrong outweighs the
"good of the many" argument? that isn't even a logically
inconsistent argument. you're really, really reaching with this one
Jacob.
|6.1.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Here's an alternative perspective. I'm anti death penalty, but
most people would agree (at least in a knee-jerk reaction) that
it's not as morally objectionable for the state to execute a
murderer as it is for a private citizen to do the same. Why is
that? I would argue that the law does not exist to enforce morality
or protect citizens, but to provide an agreed-upon and mutually
acceptable system of recourse for victims.
So if someone murders my mom, that person can be punished by the
government or be punished by me and my family. In the former case,
there's a fair chance that at the end of it all everyone will agree
justice was served (or if it wasn't its the government's fault).
But if it's left to my family, we may kill someone who we later
find out was innocent, or we may be so mad that we kill the
murderer's mom instead of the murderer. In any case, we're far from
impartial, and there's a fair chance our actions will result in
retaliation. That leads to escalation and a cycle of violence which
is very harmful to society.
You could also argue that such vigilantiism is inherantly immoral
since it is motivated by hate and anger rather than necessity or
self-defense.
How does this relate to killing abortion docs? Well, you can
believe that they are committing immoral acts which ought to be
punished by the state. At the same time, you can believe vigilante
justice is immoral because of it's danger and motivations, even in
the absense of legal recourse.
Joel|6.1.09 @ 2:39PM|#
Did a real live holocaust denier just stumble through here, and nobody had a thing to say about it? Did I just dream that?
|6.1.09 @ 2:40PM|#
I am not sure what Sullumn's point is. I think he is just trying to goad abortion foes into supporting the killer and thus discrediting themselves.
Xeones|6.1.09 @ 2:40PM|#
If a defining characteristic of humanity is sapience (esp.
if we situate our individuality as an expression of mind, e.g.
personality), then a creature that does not yet have a nervous
system or brain could not yet be human. I'd call that the absolute
lower bound.
I agree with you, with the caveat that i know a huge amount of
people in their 20s who have yet to develop anything approaching
personality or individuality.
The only one of these categories that even arguably applies is
defense of others
Couldn't you apply that argument in defense of some abortions as
well, say, in the case of a teenager who is pregnant as a result of
rape? It's certainly not possible to argue that her life wouldn't
be pretty much destroyed, psychologically, emotionally, and
probably economically, by carrying the pregnancy to term.
|6.1.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Where the fuck is Max, dammit?
He's off bring up abortion in threads that don't have anything to
do with it.
|6.1.09 @ 2:41PM|#
"Did a real live holocaust denier just stumble through here, and
nobody had a thing to say about it? Did I just dream that?"
I thought about it. But I thought it better to ignore him than
encourage him and highjack what is otherwise a decent thread. Most
of those people crawl out of their holes looking for attention more
than anything else.
Righteous Ricky|6.1.09 @ 2:42PM|#
If you see a suspected murderer on the street, you can't
just shoot him.
Maybe so, but in this case the good doctor was an admitted
abortionist. This means that we have a serial murderer who has
publicly acknowledged that he has ended pregnacies in the past and
has no intention of stopping.
So when you have a serial murderer, that has admitted his crimes in
public, has stated his committment to continue those crimes, and
the state apparatus has declared that it won't interfere in the
continuing serial murder of future babies, then yes public
execution at any time of convenience is justified.
|6.1.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Couldn't you apply that argument in defense of some
abortions as well, say, in the case of a teenager who is pregnant
as a result of rape? It's certainly not possible to argue that her
life wouldn't be pretty much destroyed, psychologically,
emotionally, and probably economically, by carrying the pregnancy
to term.
Women have no rights, Xeones. Duh.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 2:42PM|#
So, again, Hitler's on his way to work in the Central Office. You don't kill him until he "imminently" starts issuing Holocaust-related orders?
|6.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"Couldn't you apply that argument in defense of some abortions
as well, say, in the case of a teenager who is pregnant as a result
of rape? It's certainly not possible to argue that her life
wouldn't be pretty much destroyed, psychologically, emotionally,
and probably economically, by carrying the pregnancy to
term."
Maybe. But if a one year old contracts a terrible disease and is
severely handicapped for life, that would probably destroy the
mother psychologically, emotionally and economically to. Would it
be okay for her to save the trouble and kill the one year old?
|6.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Oh, and I object to your groupism, Jacob. Here's a cluestick: We are all individuals, with our own divergent beliefs and ideologies. Don't cram several hundred million Americans into one of two tiny pidgeonholes, because we won't fit. Accusing those on the pro-life side of hypocrisy because they aren't following your narrow opinion of how they should act is crap.
Douglas Gray|6.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#
If abortion is akin to murder, then the woman who makes the
decision to have an abortion is guilty of conspiring to commit
murder, along with the abortion doctor. Anyone working at the
clinic is also an accessory to the crime.
O'Reilly should be pointing his finger at the women, not the
doctor.
Xeones|6.1.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Women have no rights, Xeones. Duh.
I was gonna say something smart alecky, but then i remembered that
you're from Kentucky and are being completely serious.
Did I just dream that?
An actual decent, thoughtful (relatively) abortion discussion on
the internet is too rare and beautiful a creature to derail,
dude.
|6.1.09 @ 2:45PM|#
"I thought about it. But I thought it better to ignore him than
encourage him and highjack what is otherwise a decent thread. Most
of those people crawl out of their holes looking for attention more
than anything else."
I thought about it too, but then decided to pass. But I was
reminded of the comedian that said the only six Jews were killed
holocaust but since Jews are prone to exageration, over time the
number mushroomed to 6 million.
SURVIVOR|6.1.09 @ 2:45PM|#
My mother had 2 abortions and my father paid for 4. There is a good 6 to 1 are not good odds. If you were born after Roe v. Wade like me, we've literally survived. The idea that I could not be here right now and that I could have 6 siblings really fucks me up. How could it not?
|6.1.09 @ 2:47PM|#
I was gonna say something smart alecky, but then i
remembered that you're from Kentucky and are being completely
serious.
I only get 15 sarcasm credits a week, I had to go a waste one of
them on you.
|6.1.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of
helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against
those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government
refuses to act.
Leaving aside war, perhaps the only time it is moral to use
violence against someone else is in self-defense (broadly defined
to include acting in response to an imminent threat to yourself or
others). I don't think you can call this self-defense, as the
doctor wasn't posing an imminent threat to any fetus while he was
passing out programs at church.
Ergo, what the doctor and the shooter did was immoral, even if you
believe abortion is murder. Both an abortion and shooting an
abortionist in church are murder, as neither can be considered
self-defense.
Was that so hard?
If someone grabbed a sniper rifle and started picking off
guards at Auschwitz would it have been murder?
Arguably, a war crime, if the sniper was an illegal combatant.
Whether a combatant (illegal or not) killing someone actively
serving in the armed forces during a time of war is murder, I
couldn't say.
Elemenope|6.1.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Maybe. But if a one year old contracts a terrible disease
and is severely handicapped for life, that would probably destroy
the mother psychologically, emotionally and economically to. Would
it be okay for her to save the trouble and kill the one year
old?
Worked for Sparta.
Jonas|6.1.09 @ 2:48PM|#
I have to say that I support what is known as the "consistent
life ethic", meaning that taking anyone's life, for any reason, is
immoral - even if by taking that person's life you would prevent
others from dying. Self-defense is theoretically justifiable, but
only because the threat of imminent danger makes it difficult to
make well thought out moral decisions, but even killing in
self-defense should be considered regrettable. There's no excuse
for walking up to someone and just taking them out, however.
Basically, in short, it's wrong to kill anyone, not even abortion
practitioners or serial killers. "Pro-life" means being
pro-ALL-life. Tommy Grand and John at about 2 o'clock seem to
understand this side of the pro-life argument.
|6.1.09 @ 2:49PM|#
***SURVIVOR | June 1, 2009, 2:45pm | #
My mother had 2 abortions and my father paid for 4. There is a good
6 to 1 are not good odds. If you were born after Roe v. Wade like
me, we've literally survived. The idea that I could not be here
right now and that I could have 6 siblings really fucks me up. How
could it not?***
Yeah that fucks with my head too. Momma thinks she can decide
whether I live? Well, fuck that cunt!
|6.1.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Jonas said, "Self-defense is theoretically justifiable, but only
because the threat of imminent danger makes it difficult to make
well thought out moral decisions,"
Jonas, I am a little touched in the head and it makes it difficult
to make well thought out moral decisions. Where does that leave me
when I feel that some folks just need killing?
|6.1.09 @ 2:52PM|#
"Maybe. But if a one year old contracts a terrible disease and
is severely handicapped for life, that would probably destroy the
mother psychologically, emotionally and economically to. Would it
be okay for her to save the trouble and kill the one year
old?
Worked for Sparta."
Only until the Macedonians showed up. Then they were reduced to a
being a small village doing nastalgia acts for visiting Romans.
Fluffy|6.1.09 @ 2:54PM|#
If Tiller was shot whilst conducting an abortion, you might
have a tiny distorted shadow of a point. But he was not. You don't
shoot murderers walking down the street. Even if the government is
doing nothing about it.
I don't think this is true. If you had a political situation where
the government declared that certain mobsters had an automatic
right to kill whoever they wanted at any time [sort of like the
ancient samurai did] then I think if you were a member of the
non-samurai group you would in fact be entitled to shoot members of
the privileged class as they walked down the street.
In social systems where one group is privileged with the
extraordinary right to abuse others, the entire system of law is
illegitimate and one can morally resist it up to and including by
committing violence.
Think of a political system that allowed slavery, for example.
Slaves, and their defenders, would certainly be entitled to commit
acts of political violence against members of the master class,
even if they were just walking down the street.
All this being said, to return to the original post for a moment, I
think the reason people " believe that fetuses are people with a
right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend
that right is wrong" is because people are very hesitant to engage
in political violence before all other options are exhausted. If
libertarians "really believe" that only certain government powers
are permitted, why is there no libertarian revolution? If
Christians really believe in eternal damnation, why don't they burn
heretics any more? Because people stop short of violence even when
they have strongly-held beliefs that would seem to logically end in
violence.
|6.1.09 @ 2:54PM|#
I often agree with Sullum, but this column I just can't wrap my
head around. There are legitimate and peaceful ways of defending
the unborn that are far more effective than killing the doctor who
performs them. From what I understand, Tiller was very close to
having his license revoked. This is a legitimate way of stopping
him.
Being a libertarian means not forcing your will upon another.
Murdering someone is anti-libertarian.
The murder of Dr. Tiller cannot be seen as self-defense or
defending the defenseless when other legitimate and legal means
aids in the defense of the unborn at a much greater level.
robc|6.1.09 @ 2:55PM|#
I thought the black dude in A Time to Kill should have
been found guilty (and then given the minimum possible penalty). I
would have forced a hung jury if I had been on it (yeah, yeah, I
know its fiction).
So, lets see...pro-life, mixed on death penalty (due to process
more than in theory), in favor of pretty loose castle doctrines,
and anti-vigilante.
Nope, dont see any contradictions there.
Tacos mmm...|6.1.09 @ 2:56PM|#
I would rather just pay for grandpa to be on the machine for a while.
And if you don't have that kind of money?
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 2:57PM|#
"Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless
children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who
carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to
act."
Unless you take a consistent Tolstoyan type position of
"non-resistance to evil." Most Christians however, do not. Only the
Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, (some) Jehovas Witnesses and a (very)
few others could claim that is their reasoning.
|6.1.09 @ 2:58PM|#
"Because people stop short of violence even when they have
strongly-held beliefs that would seem to logically end in
violence."
Or to put it another way: The fact that people stop short of
committing violence over beliefs that would seem to logically end
in violence does not mean those beliefs are not sincere and
strongly held.
|6.1.09 @ 2:58PM|#
"A Time to Kill"
At my house we refer to this film as "Some Time to Kill" because
there could be no other reason for watching it. Very, very bad
acting all around.
|6.1.09 @ 3:00PM|#
"At my house we refer to this film as "Some Time to Kill"
because there could be no other reason for watching it. Very, very
bad acting all around."
Worst American novelest of the 20th Century? I think any list has
to include Grisham near the top, although my vote would go for
David Foster Wallace. Grisham wrote crap, but at least he didn't
try to pretend it was profound.
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 3:00PM|#
"Only the Quakers, Amish, Mennonites..."
I lived with the Amish in Central PA. Good folks.
Tacos mmm...|6.1.09 @ 3:02PM|#
If Christians really believe in eternal damnation, why don't they burn heretics any more? Because people stop short of violence even when they have strongly-held beliefs that would seem to logically end in violence.
Indeed. To paraphrase a quote I once heard, the difference between
a gangster and an ordinary man is that for a gangster, violence is
not a method of last resort.
Xeones|6.1.09 @ 3:03PM|#
I only get 15 sarcasm credits a week, I had to go a waste
one of them on you.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
|6.1.09 @ 3:04PM|#
so, you don't shoot Hitler until he starts issuing orders?
Well, maybe you could go back in time to kill Hitler, or
maybe you couldn't.
wishiweredead|6.1.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Reading this blog makes me wish my mother would have sucked my brains out.
|6.1.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Nastalgia: To reminisce about extreme sex acts.
Good neologism.
On topic: by Xenu's scrotum! A "good" abortion thread!
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Hambone, I agree they are good folks. And they are the only people I trust when it comes to building anything made of wood. Does that make me a religious bigot by the way? I'm not Amish or I wouldn't be posting here. Just wondering. Could a craftsman be sued for advertising "Handmade Amish Wood Furniture?"
Jonas|6.1.09 @ 3:07PM|#
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133830.html#1294165
Jonas, I am a little touched in the head and it makes it difficult to make well thought out moral decisions. Where does that leave me when I feel that some folks just need killing?
The killing is still wrong. That's just what I'm getting at. You
can't say, "Well, that guy is a little touched in the head, so it's
really not so bad that he killed someone," or "Well, that guy he
killed deserved to die, so it's really not that bad."
When I said certain killings are more "justifiable", I just meant
*legally* justifiable. The death penalty should never be a legal
option, for example. People who kill in the heat of the moment in
order to defend themselves or someone else have less stringent
legal repercussions than someone who kills in cold blood. People
who are "touched in the head" have more legal defense options than
someone who's perfectly sane and of average intelligence.
|6.1.09 @ 3:09PM|#
"Hambone, I agree they are good folks. And they are the only
people I trust when it comes to building anything made of wood.
Does that make me a religious bigot by the way? I'm not Amish or I
wouldn't be posting here. Just wondering. Could a craftsman be sued
for advertising "Handmade Amish Wood Furniture?"
Where I live if you are just ordinary rich you buy a house, tear it
down and hire a few mexicans to come in and throw you up a
McMansion in a couple of months. But if you are really rich. I mean
special rich. You buy a house, tear it down and hire a bunch of
Pennsylvania Amish to come down and build you a house. No shit. An
Amish built house is now the thing to have for the millionaire with
everything.
|6.1.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Could a craftsman be sued for advertising "Handmade Amish
Wood Furniture?"
Around here this just means that they are selling it on commission
for the Amish.
|6.1.09 @ 3:10PM|#
If you had a political situation where the government declared that certain mobsters had an automatic right to kill whoever they wanted at any time [sort of like the ancient samurai did] then I think if you were a member of the non-samurai group you would in fact be entitled to shoot members of the privileged class as they walked down the street.
We actually have that today. Several states still have the death penalty. Why can we not shoot down legal executioners as they walk down the street?
|6.1.09 @ 3:12PM|#
"We actually have that today. Several states still have the
death penalty. Why can we not shoot down legal executioners as they
walk down the street?"
Yes because executioners just grab people off the street and kill
them at random.
Lord Jubjub|6.1.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Single point absolutism (aka zero-tolerance) is an attractive philosophy that inevitably leads to tyranny.
nicole|6.1.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Yes because executioners just grab people off the street and kill them at random.
Yeah, um, just like abortion doctors do...oh wait.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 3:15PM|#
John,
There are innocent people who have been executed by the state. What
if one of the executioners who killed an innocent person were shot
on the street by a vigilante? Would that be just?
|6.1.09 @ 3:16PM|#
"Yeah, um, just like abortion doctors do...oh wait."
So you mean that aborted fetuses get 10 plus years of due process
and have to be found guilty by a jury of their peers of some form
of aggrivated first degree murder? Wow there are a lot of really
violent fetuses out there.
|6.1.09 @ 3:17PM|#
"There are innocent people who have been executed by the
state."
Name one with link providing proof. Not someone who was innocent
and spent time on death row. But someone who was exectuted and is
now known undisputably to be innocent.
Some Guy|6.1.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Conversely, living as i do in the shadow of PETA
headquarters, i've met an awful lot of pro-choice vegetarians and
vegans. They're ok with destroying a human embryo, but not that of
a chicken.
Stupid PETA, human embryos don't make very good omlettes!
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist |6.1.09 @ 3:19PM|#
John,
Quick google search. I can find more if you like
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 3:20PM|#
"Could a craftsman be sued for advertising "Handmade Amish Wood
Furniture?""
The chickens I buy at the local butcher are called Amish Fams on
the label, but I doubt they really came from an Amish farm.
Would the Amish sue anyone for trademark infringement? I doubt they
have registered trademarks, but then, they do use electricity in
their milking barns.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 3:21PM|#
John,
Another one.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-150862805.html
nicole|6.1.09 @ 3:22PM|#
So you mean that aborted fetuses get 10 plus years of due process and have to be found guilty by a jury of their peers of some form of aggrivated first degree murder? Wow there are a lot of really violent fetuses out there.
No, I mean there aren't any fetuses even available to
"grab...off the street and kill...at random." I mean seriously, at
random? That's really stretching things.
Dougie|6.1.09 @ 3:24PM|#
You can't kill someone because it's illegal. If you don't like the laws get them changed. How about a bit of common sense.
Hacha Cha|6.1.09 @ 3:26PM|#
well since most of the pro-lifers are christians I think that thou shalt not kill rule kind of frowns on murder.
|6.1.09 @ 3:26PM|#
DHS,
The Cantu case is an interesting one. The witnesses recanted but
seem generally unreliable. I remember living in San Antonio when
that came out. I forgot about it. He may be the only legitimately
innocent guy ever to be executed in this country.
|6.1.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Hey SugarFree,
Pour some sugar on me!
You are exhibiting a severe miscomprehension of my handle. :-)
|6.1.09 @ 3:29PM|#
DHS,
I am not buying the Willingham case. They didn't just had forensics
in that case. They had the guys neighbors who testified that as the
house began smoldering, Willingham was crouched down in the front
yard, and despite the neighbors' pleas, refused to go into the
house in any attempt to rescue the children.
The anti death penalty sites conveintly leave out that fact when
they talk about the forensics in the case.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 3:31PM|#
John,
OK, so we have at least one. The question was a philosophical one.
Let us suppose a vigilante by the name of Rorschach were to hunt
down the executioner who killed that innocent man and kill him in
the exact same way that he killed that man. Would that be just?
Charles|6.1.09 @ 3:31PM|#
John,
You may be right about DFW's novels, which aren't terribly good,
but you have to admit he's an essayist of the first rank.
Djyrn|6.1.09 @ 3:33PM|#
First, I know nothing about this, but...
"They had the guys neighbors who testified that as the house began
smoldering, Willingham was crouched down in the front yard, and
despite the neighbors' pleas, refused to go into the house in any
attempt to rescue the children."
That strikes me as kind of funny. If the neighbors were so bent,
why didn't they go inside?
sds|6.1.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, has a good explanation of why murdering Tiller was
wrong.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3866
|6.1.09 @ 3:37PM|#
"You may be right about DFW's novels, which aren't terribly
good, but you have to admit he's an essayist of the first
rank."
His essays are very good. He was brilliant with language and words.
The problem was he had no idea how to write believable characters
and interesting coherent plots. I thought Infinate Jest was the
most pretentious piece of crap I have ever read. But, his essays
about lobster fishing and such are really good. Sadly, he was a
really troubled guy and killed himself last year.
|6.1.09 @ 3:38PM|#
"OK, so we have at least one. The question was a philosophical
one. Let us suppose a vigilante by the name of Rorschach were to
hunt down the executioner who killed that innocent man and kill him
in the exact same way that he killed that man. Would that be
just?"
No. Because that was just the guy pulling the switch. He acted in
good faith thinking he was doing justice. If you want to kill
anyone. Kill the DA who framed the guy.
*|6.1.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Stupid PETA, human embryos don't make very good
omlettes!
Do you think chicken embryos do? Have you ever cracked open a
soft-boiled, fertilized chicken egg that had been fertilized for a
bit too long? :-)
Wilhelm Keitel|6.1.09 @ 3:40PM|#
"No. Because that was just the guy pulling the switch. He acted
in good faith thinking he was doing justice. If you want to kill
anyone. Kill the DA who framed the guy."
Befehl ist Befehl
|6.1.09 @ 3:43PM|#
My youngest one told us she'd become a pro-lifer if the pro-life
organizations put as much money & passion against wars as they
do for their demands that government should control spawning
habits.
Out of the mouths of babes, squared!
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Augie - did United States wars kill 1.21 million people last
year?
Thought not. Your child isn't that clever, so tuck in that
chest.
robc|6.1.09 @ 3:48PM|#
I attend the same church as Mohler. I should bring him a sixer of my homebrew some time. :)
|6.1.09 @ 3:48PM|#
"My youngest one told us she'd become a pro-lifer if the
pro-life organizations put as much money & passion against wars
as they do for their demands that government should control
spawning habits."
So war is the same as abortion? Even if it was, why are pro life
people obligated to fight every form of death and not just
concentrait on the one that is happening here? Either they are
right about abortion or they are not. Their failure to protest wars
doesn't make them any more or less right about abortion.
Your youngest is a moron Augie. Looks like she didn't fall far from
the tree.
|6.1.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Good article in that it does explore an uncomfortable thought
process to go through. If Hitler was killed would that be ok? If so
then why not someone who murders babies if that is your
belief.
I think this stems from it being a hotly debated issue, not
concrete in any sense, the operation he performed was in fact
legal.
I might believe it's murder but that doesnt give me the right to
kill this man anymore than someone rationalizing I am killing
Muslims by voting for Bush or that the people in the WTC deserved
to die on 9/11 because they are "little Eichmans".
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist |6.1.09 @ 3:51PM|#
"No. Because that was just the guy pulling the switch. He acted
in good faith thinking he was doing justice. If you want to kill
anyone. Kill the DA who framed the guy."
This really does sound like the Nuremberg Defense.
|6.1.09 @ 3:56PM|#
I find it odd that in all this abortion discussion there is only mention of the woman, and her rights. If nothing else the pro-choice mentality should find grounding in the castle doctrine for libertarians. I think its totally justifiable for you to shoot anyone who enters your house, its not your responsibility to figure out if he is there to jack your 52" flat screen or to rape and murder your loved ones. If you feel that someone trespassed against you and is actually inside your body you may remove them at your convenience. The issue is not whether a fetus has the same rights as an adult human, but that many pro-lifers wish to bestow special rights to the fetus.
|6.1.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"This really does sound like the Nuremberg Defense."
No. It is a reasonable mistake defense. In some cases, when the guy
is guilty, the executioner is doing a public service. In this case
he killed an innocent man not because he meant to but because he
reasonably but mistakenly beleived the guy was guilty.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist |6.1.09 @ 3:57PM|#
"or that the people in the WTC deserved to die on 9/11 because
they are "little Eichmans""
Wow now! I would not put that stretch anywhere NEAR the others.
There were people in the WTC who had vastly different views from
one another. It would have been one thing if they were all
ideological clones of one another but they were not. I am confident
that at least some of the people in the WTC opposed America's
interventionist foreign policies.
|6.1.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Val,
Are you insane? If someone breaks into your house, they are there
by their choice. A fetus in contrast is not inside a woman's body
by any choice of its own. If a person were freezing to death and by
necessity entered your house and posed no threat to you and you
shot the person, even under the castle doctrine you would be guilty
of murder. Lastly, a fetus in inside a woman, absent rape, because
of choices the woman made.
That is the most fucked up stupid argument for choice I have ever
read.
Neu Mejican|6.1.09 @ 4:00PM|#
If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable
rights, then there is never a legal justification for
execution.
IF, they are inalienable rights, that is.
It seems you can alienate yourself from your rights by acting
against the rights of others, so...
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Yeah, val, you cannot just invite someone into your home and then shoot them in the head for trespassing. It's counter to the definition.
|6.1.09 @ 4:02PM|#
John, I can just see you foaming at the mouth. But think about it for a second, if this guy was freezing, and I said alright get the fuck out of my house and didn't kill him, still ok? Or do you feel that because he is 'freezing' that the government has the right to pass some invasive fucked up 'good samaritan' law and force me to take care of him??
Neu Mejican|6.1.09 @ 4:03PM|#
val,
There are many problems with your argument, but first among them is
reliance on the idea that a property crime justifies deadly
force.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 4:04PM|#
"No. It is a reasonable mistake defense. In some cases, when the
guy is guilty, the executioner is doing a public service. In this
case he killed an innocent man not because he meant to but because
he reasonably but mistakenly believed the guy was guilty."
This is not equivalent to a heart surgeon who makes the wrong
incision. This person is TRYING to kill someone. He did so because
he trusted his superiors. At the time that Wilhelm Keitel was a
field marshal the concept of Eugenics was fairly well accepted as a
"science" in much the same way manmade Global Warming is accepted
by Gorebots as a "science". Keitel trusted Hitler and those who
advised him that what he was doing was in the best interest of the
German people. It is equivalent morally, on a much smaller scale,
but in concept it is the same.
|6.1.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Yeah, val, you cannot just invite someone into your home and
then shoot them in the head for trespassing. It's counter to the
definition.
For crying out loud. I can ask them to leave. Then if they refuse I
can try to remove them. Call the cops. What the fuck ever. Even
shoot them, if I feel threatened, but obviously as the last
resort.But no way in hell could it be justifiable for me to be
forced to take care of an encyclopedia salesman that decided he
like my house and want to stay with me.
Frank J.|6.1.09 @ 4:06PM|#
If a fetus had a gun and shot the abortion doctor, I don't think anyone would blame him.
Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:07PM|#
We wouldn't have to worry about abortion if women would just stop being dirty whores.
Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:12PM|#
"We wouldn't have to worry about abortion if women would just
stop being dirty whores."
That was an imposter Billy to whom I say, "FUCK YOU,
COCKSUCKER!"
|6.1.09 @ 4:13PM|#
I think its totally justifiable for you to shoot anyone who
enters your house, its not your responsibility to figure out if he
is there to jack your 52" flat screen or to rape and murder your
loved ones.
Actually, this is not the law. Even under the castle doctrine, you
aren't justified in shooting him just because he's in your house.
You are only justified in shooting him if you are in reasonable
fear of death or serious bodily injury from him. (The castle
doctrine only means that you don't have a duty to retreat if you're
in your own house, before you use deadly force to defend yourself.)
So yes, it *is* your responsibility "to figure out if he is there
to jack your 52" flat screen or to rape and murder your loved ones"
before you empty your .45 into his chest.
The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.1.09 @ 4:13PM|#
I am more interested in his involvement with the Lutheran
church where he was an usher.That's a contradiction I just can't
seem to wrap my head around.
Brother Ben!!!!!
I think it says something profound about the Lutheran church that
this Pillar of the Community was shot while handing out the Sunday
bulletin.
Sadly for him, if the guy with the Big G on his pocket and the Cane
and the Sheep is real, He'll likely invoke the deeds v words
rule.
And the libertarians say the Christians aren't progressive.
Imposter Imposter Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:13PM|#
"That was an imposter Billy to whom I say, "FUCK YOU,
COCKSUCKER!""
What, in the imposter Billy's statement, is incorrect?
|6.1.09 @ 4:14PM|#
but first among them is reliance on the idea that a property
crime justifies deadly force.
Like I said in the middle of the night its not your responsibility
to figure out why the two masked men entered YOUR house. You come
down the stairs and find them there, if you feel safer shooting
first asking question later I cant fault your for that. If on the
other hand you want to scare them away, make a citizen's arrest or
offer them tea and biscuits, I cant fault you for that either. How
you conduct your self in your house in that situation is entirely
your choice.
CH|6.1.09 @ 4:14PM|#
"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants
it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."
- Edward Abbey
Don't make ad hominem arguments against Abbey because you don't
like Eco-terrorists. Address the merit of the statement itself.
Shouldn't "Libertarians" of every variety stand up for a woman's
right to choose? Isn't the Libertarian mindset supposed to be
"pro-choice" on EVERYTHING?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:15PM|#
But no way in hell could it be justifiable for me to be forced to take care of an encyclopedia salesman that decided he like my house and want to stay with me.
It isn't a matter of the fetus liking your uterus, val. It's a
matter of you taking actions or failing to take actions that led to
pregnancy.
|6.1.09 @ 4:16PM|#
think about it for a second, if this guy was freezing, and I
said alright get the fuck out of my house and didn't kill him,
still ok? Or do you feel that because he is 'freezing' that the
government has the right to pass some invasive fucked up 'good
samaritan' law and force me to take care of him??
If you were at the Scott-Amundsen Station at the South Pole in the
middle of July (i.e., winter), and you discovered someone
trespassing there, I don't think the law would look kindly on your
refusing him any assistance, much less your pushing him outside and
slamming the door shut.
Spoonman|6.1.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Frank J., if a chicken had a gun and shot a farmer, would anyone blame him? It's a retarded question, because chickens aren't capable of that.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:16PM|#
dress the merit of the statement itself. Shouldn't "Libertarians" of every variety stand up for a woman's right to choose? Isn't the Libertarian mindset supposed to be "pro-choice" on EVERYTHING?
Libertarians are not (and this isn't my view) pro-choice on killing
another human being.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist |6.1.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"It isn't a matter of the fetus liking your uterus, val. It's a
matter of you taking actions or failing to take actions that led to
pregnancy."
Very well said.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 4:20PM|#
"Libertarians are not (and this isn't my view) pro-choice on
killing another human being."
I agree
http://www.l4l.org/
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:20PM|#
I mean, val, do you think that you should be able to give a live
birth and then push the baby out a window?
Why or why not?
Djyrn|6.1.09 @ 4:20PM|#
But, are libertarians absolute on where the line is drawn? Without a consensus is it something for the state?
Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:21PM|#
"What, in the imposter Billy's statement, is incorrect?"
His willingnes to judge.
But the primary point here is that imposters are faggy
asshats.
That is all.
The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.1.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Tiller is now a hero and his death will be used to whip up a
frenzy of righteous indignation against gun owners in general and
the second amendment in particular.
Other than that he was a vile human being.
|6.1.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Stupid PETA, human embryos don't make very good
omlettes!
Do you think chicken embryos do? Have you ever cracked open a
soft-boiled, fertilized chicken egg that had been fertilized for a
bit too long?
I have. They don't taste bad at all. The bones and feathers were
not developed yet - just some near-solid masses with the
consistancy of tofu. Maybe that's why I had to hold back the urge
to vomit. Tofu isn't food.
Baby egg
mmmmmm, looks yummy, doesn't it?
The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.1.09 @ 4:23PM|#
...if a chicken had a gun and shot a farmer.....
That's a good beginning and I was hoping for a punch line. :-)
Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:24PM|#
"Address the merit of the statement itself. Shouldn't
"Libertarians" of every variety stand up for a woman's right to
choose?"
C'mon. Late third-trimester (Tiller's specialty) is rape by the
state? Bullshit.
Imposter Imposter Imposter Bil|6.1.09 @ 4:24PM|#
"His willingnes to judge."
Why is it wrong to judge?
"But the primary point here is that imposters are faggy
asshats."
On that we agree.
|6.1.09 @ 4:24PM|#
So yes, it *is* your responsibility "to figure out if he is
there to jack your 52" flat screen or to rape and murder your loved
ones" before you empty your .45 into his chest.
Look I didn't want to turn this thread into a castle doctrine
discussion or the practical implications there of. Once I pump my
45 into his chest as you had put it, he will have a hard time
telling his side of the story, about how horrible his upbringing
was that forced him to enter my house. But thats besides the
point.
I was getting at the fact that if nothing else, I can ask the dude
to get the fuck out of my house and have various options available
to me to remove him. And it would be pretty crazy to force me to
take care of the guy because he doesn't want leave.
You try to frame the abortion discussion in terms of killing baby
not killing baby. I see it in terms of removing unwanted intruder,
thats why the viability threshold is such an attractive line. At
that point give up for adoption becomes an option, up until that
point there is no way to have the intruder leave your premises
without killing it.
The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.1.09 @ 4:26PM|#
DHS Thinks I'm a Terrorist
Really?
Dam German freight companies.
|6.1.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Every form of contraceptive has a failure rate. If every sex act has attached to it the possibility of being forced to carry a child nine months, then the only choice of a woman who does not want a child is to not have sex at all. Thus, women are only allowed to have sex for procreative purposes.
|6.1.09 @ 4:26PM|#
I mean, val, do you think that you should be able to give a
live birth and then push the baby out a window?
Why or why not?
Absolutely not. While we may have all sort of discussions about
which trimester is ok and which isn't. I imagine every pro-choicer
and pro-lifer, my self included, will agree, that birthing is a
very real event, not some arbitrary line, after that anything
malign done to the baby is murder.
|6.1.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I think val has taught us an important lesson here:
If you think you have a short, unanswerable solution to the
argument over abortion:
You're wrong.
Another example:
Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants
it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the
State.
Maternity after consensual sex is no more rape by the state than a
judgment requiring you to perform a contract is state-sponsored
slavery. In both cases, your voluntary actions have consequences.
To the extent avoiding those consequences violates the rights of
others, the state has a legitimate role to play.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:27PM|#
bigbigslacker:
I think you meant
this.
*blech*
I see it in terms of removing unwanted intruder, thats why the viability threshold is such an attractive line.
you wanted the intruder! And he's dependent on you for his literal
life...not his livelihood, or comfort, but his life. And you put
him in that spot.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:28PM|#
"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." - Edward Abbey
I didn't think that's what rape was.
The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.1.09 @ 4:28PM|#
How about you shouldn't murder because its
illegal immoral.
Fixed that for you.
Illegal isn't always immoral and vice versa.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 4:28PM|#
"Tofu isn't food."
I like tofu - some people do not understand it because it has no
flavor of it's own. It isn't supposed to. It's function is to
absorb the flavor of those foods or sauces around it. I love well
prepared tofu - if it is with other food that has a good flavor.
You probably had a bad experience with it or tried it without any
other food cooked around it.
Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Dear Imposter Imposter Imposter Billy,
I am off to fuck your mother now. I'd stick around, but I hear
there's a real long line today. But then when isn't there a long
line? I mean $2 blowjobs are pretty rare in this country.
|6.1.09 @ 4:29PM|#
You shouldn't smoke pot because it's illegal.
You shouldn't jaywalk because it's illegal.
You shouldn't evade taxes because it's illegal.
Circular logic is fun until the wheels come off the bus.
|6.1.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Every form of contraceptive has a failure rate.
Just so.
If every sex act has attached to it the possibility of being
forced to carry a child nine months, then the only choice of a
woman who does not want a child is to not have sex at
all.
Not at all. She can take the risk, and bear the consequences. Every
time you leave your driveway, there is the possibility that you
will be killed by a drunk driver or crushed by a runaway semi. That
doesn't mean your only choice is to give up driving your car.
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 4:30PM|#
"I see it in terms of removing unwanted intruder"
A greatful Planned Parenthood salutes you, val.
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 4:32PM|#
"Every form of contraceptive has a failure rate."
Mouths and assholes don't get pregnant.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:32PM|#
If every sex act has attached to it the possibility of being forced to carry a child nine months
Oh, come now (not literally) Sugarfree. Not every sex act comes with the possibility of pregnancy. See 2 girls 1 cup or...other unspeakable and even heterosexual things. Plus, sex acts with Tom Cruise are unlikely to end in pregnancy.
|6.1.09 @ 4:32PM|#
I also wonder how many people who think the murder of Tiller was outrageous think it would be OK (if not laudable) for Israel to kill Iranians in an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, on the ground that Iran *might* be planning to make bombs that *might* be used against Israel.
Faulty analogy. Tiller had performed abortions in the past and planned to perform them in the future. No one would fault Israel (well, no with half-a-brain) if they bombed Iranian nuke facilities after they had been nuked, imminent threat or not.
I think you missed the point. My point was that, if it was *wrong*
to kill Tiller, who "had performed abortions in the past and
planned to perform them in the future," then it must a
fortiori be wrong to attack Iran, which has not nuked anyone,
especially when the likelihood that Iran will do so if left alone
is a lot less certain that the likelihood that Tiller would
continue to perform abortions if left alone.
|6.1.09 @ 4:33PM|#
Disclaimer: I tend toward the squishy middle on this issue - I
think women should be allowed to abort during the first trimester
or so.
I just think a lot of the real expansive arguments that lead to
unlimited abortion are krep. That is all.
|6.1.09 @ 4:35PM|#
"It isn't a matter of the fetus liking your uterus, val.
It's a matter of you taking actions or failing to take actions that
led to pregnancy."
How a pregnancy came about makes no difference.
You are trying to instill onto a fetus a right that no other human
being enjoys. Basically you are saying that the fetus has an
absolute right to be parasite off another human being. And I mean a
literal parasite, something that lives inside you, and eats what
you eat. You have no real responsibility to rear your own children,
they can be given up for adoption, but for some reason, the fetus
gets a new right, but only while it's in the womb?
Billy|6.1.09 @ 4:36PM|#
"Giver her a kis for me."
Sorry, but I don't kiss whores. That's something only their kids
will do.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 4:36PM|#
"Disclaimer: I tend toward the squishy middle on this issue - I
think women should be allowed to abort during the first trimester
or so."
Isn't that the Leonard Peikoff position?
|6.1.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Shouldn't "Libertarians" of every variety stand up for a
woman's right to choose?
Absolutely! I believe in the right to choose any or all of the
following:
Abstinence
Sterilization
Birth Control of every kind with the probable exception of
RU-486
Adoption
The Morning After Pill
and having the child of an unplanned pregnancy.
Most importantly I stand up for the right to choose to take
responsibility for one's actions.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Um, val, we all *used to be* 'parasites', so your "no other human being" distinction is just confusing to me.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 4:40PM|#
"Sorry, but I don't kiss whores. That's something only their
kids will do."
You don't understand. It's a family act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats_(joke)
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Wait, this...
You have no real responsibility to rear your own children, they can be given up for adoption, but for some reason, the fetus gets a new right, but only while it's in the womb?
...is the most confusing part.
|6.1.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Um, val, we all *used to be* 'parasites', so your "no other
human being" distinction is just confusing to me.
Right, except that I came into being not by government fiat, but
because my mommy wanted me.(as far as I know) See it's that whole
pro CHOICE thing. We all used to be parasites, my mom was ok with
it, some might not be.
milo the hungry dog|6.1.09 @ 4:41PM|#
I've always wondered how the anti-abortion right to lifers can justify the position that all abortions are wrong EXCEPT in the case of rape or incest. If fetuses are "innocent" and little humans with full human rights to be protected at all costs, why is it acceptable to abort are fetuses that result from rape or incest? After all, the circumstances of their conception are not their fault.
|6.1.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Every time you leave your driveway, there is the possibility
that you will be killed by a drunk driver or crushed by a runaway
semi. That doesn't mean your only choice is to give up driving your
car.
Bad analogy. No one thinks you should be killed by a drunk
driver or crushed by a semi for the "crime" of leaving your
driveway. If there was a law passed saying that 1.3 million people
had to be crushed every year for backing out of their
driveways, few people would drive and you'd cry foul.
When pregnancy is used as a punishment for (certain) sexual
transgressions, then we are way out of anything even resembling
liberty.
Either I own my body, or someone else does.
(No, I'm not a woman. But the point stands.)
|6.1.09 @ 4:42PM|#
You try to frame the abortion discussion in terms of killing
baby not killing baby. I see it in terms of removing unwanted
intruder, thats why the viability threshold is such an attractive
line. At that point give up for adoption becomes an option, up
until that point there is no way to have the intruder leave your
premises without killing it.
That's why I posed the hypothetical of the trespasser at the
Scott-Amundsen Station. Believe me, when it comes to expelling him
from the station into the Antarctic winter, he is just as
"non-viable" as a 6-week embryo expelled from its mother's body.
Strangely enough, that non-viability makes it worse, not better,
than if you pushed him out the door a few months later when he
might have a better chance of surviving on his own.
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 4:42PM|#
"Right, except that I came into being not by government fiat,
but because my mommy wanted me"
Is she still feeding you that BS?
|6.1.09 @ 4:43PM|#
"At that point give up for adoption becomes an option, up until
that point there is no way to have the intruder leave your premises
without killing it."
Suppose there is a huge blizzard. I mean one that runs for days and
you are on an Island. It will be two months before a boat shows up
to help you. Someone washes up on your shore. They want to stay in
your house to get out of the storm. The only way to remove them
from your house is to kick them out into the ocean to die in the
storm. Does that give you the right to shoot them? No it
doesn't.
Val your nuts. Go back to Emily's list.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:44PM|#
See it's that whole pro CHOICE thing. We all used to be parasites, my mom was ok with it, some might not be.
Right, but that's all very academic. I'm not saying that your position is right or wrong, I'm just saying that it solves no ethical dilemmas.
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 4:44PM|#
"I've always wondered how the anti-abortion right to lifers can
justify the position that all abortions are wrong EXCEPT in the
case of rape or incest."
Not all of them agree with that. I saw a piece on TV about a woman
who had her rapist's child. It was an interesting piece. I'd have
trouble with that, but it was her choice not to abort.
Eric|6.1.09 @ 4:46PM|#
"Thou shalt not kill [murder]." -- Exodus 20:13
The abortion doctor was wrong to kill the unborn babies, and the
guy who went into the Lutheran church and killed the abortion
doctor was wrong. Classic "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
-- Romans 12:19-21
I think that about sums it up.
Flappy The Eagle|6.1.09 @ 4:46PM|#
"Either I own my body, or someone else does."
THEN SELL ME YOUR LIVER TO EAT!
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:48PM|#
You have no real responsibility to rear your own children, they can be given up for adoption, but for some reason, the fetus gets a new right, but only while it's in the womb?
So, if you have no responsibility to your children, why do you have
to give them up for adoption? Can't you just dispose of them as you
see fit?
The fact remains that, at some point, that "parasite" becomes a
rights-having human being for whose care *you* are responsible.
Hannibal Lecter|6.1.09 @ 4:48PM|#
A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
|6.1.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Anti-abortion zealots don't actually care about children. Once
they're born they take positions that ensure the hardest possible
life for most of the children who'd otherwise be aborted.
It's a political wedge issue dreamed up by the GOP-christian right
alliance to help the GOP win elections, and I wish more people
would take that into consideration.
Or perhaps I missed the bible verse that condemns abortion.
|6.1.09 @ 4:50PM|#
That's why I posed the hypothetical of the trespasser at the
Scott-Amundsen Station. Believe me, when it comes to expelling him
from the station into the Antarctic winter, he is just as
"non-viable"
Are you guilty of murder though? I'm not sure what the legal
outcome of that situation is. I personally don't know, you'd be a
real immoral fuckin' asshole for doing that, but I'm not sure
weather that is a jailing offense, in my view that is, not
legally.
I posit however that an intrusion not to your property but into
your body is much more grave of an offense and as that justify more
extreme measures.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think the woman has a 'body
integrity' right? And if so why does the fetus override her
right?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Right, except that I came into being not by government fiat
Assume that there is someone out there who would kill you, val,
but-for the long prison term and/or potential death sentence.
Voila, you are alive by "government fiat".
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.1.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Why do the British spell it foetus and the Americans spell it fetus? Just wondering? How do they spell it in Liberia?
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Sugarfree, marinate on this:
How are you supposed to know? Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...and destruction
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:54PM|#
It's a political wedge issue dreamed up by the GOP-christian right alliance to help the GOP win elections, and I wish more people would take that into consideration.
You're right, Tony. Were it not for the GOP, there would be no ethical or moral controversy regarding abortion.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 4:54PM|#
Let me ask you a question. Do you think the woman has a 'body integrity' right? And if so why does the fetus override her right?
Heh. Assume you have a conjoined twin reliant on your shared liver
to live. Surgery would yield the death of one and the continued
(and obviously better) life of the other.
Now what?
Hambone|6.1.09 @ 4:54PM|#
"Anti-abortion zealots don't actually care about
children."
Another bucket pulled overflowing from the Tony bullshit
well.
That is one deep fucking well.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Do you think the woman has a 'body integrity' right? And if so why does the fetus override her right?
Do conjoined twins have body integrity?
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Holy fuck, never in my life have my talking points been so thoroughly PWNed by other peoples' faster responses.
|6.1.09 @ 4:57PM|#
"As I said, killing abortionists may be contrary to that goal
for tactical reasons. But how is it possible to believe that
fetuses are people with a right to life yet also believe that using
deadly force to defend that right is wrong?"
Wow. You're putting me on. Really?
Wow!
Worst 'morality' argument I think I have ever heard, and certainly
from this otherwise-great organization.
|6.1.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Once they're born they take positions that ensure the
hardest possible life for most of the children who'd otherwise be
aborted.
I suppose you think that is clever, but other than advocating that
the individuals who bring the child into the world accept
responsibility for their actions, how is a non-party to the
parenthood ensuring anything?
Or perhaps I missed the bible verse that condemns
abortion.
I think if falls under the part about abstaining from killing.
Djyrn|6.1.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Not all of them agree with that. I saw a piece on TV about a
woman who had her rapist's child. It was an interesting piece. I'd
have trouble with that, but it was her choice not to
abort.
Isn't there a politician who was a result of such a coupling? I
recall the talking point along the lines of, if that were the case
then so-and-so wouldn't have been born.
Of course so-and-so might still have been born, since it's an
option. It also begged the question, "Would it have been a
disappointment it would have been if his mother hadn't been
raped?"
|6.1.09 @ 4:59PM|#
You're right, Tony. Were it not for the GOP, there would be
no ethical or moral controversy regarding abortion.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
There was no controversy for most of human history until movement
conservatism came along and discovered they could get idiots to
vote GOP on a single, emotionally-charged issue such as
abortion.
They're on the wrong side of 1000 years of common law, women's
independence, and for that matter the Bible itself, which condones
the "abortion" of children, one-by-one or en masse, with glee.
|6.1.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
What almost no wants to talk about is that this is about
conflicting rights. Bodily integrity vs. a potential human life. I
just don't come down on the side that wants to create a massive
miscarriage surveillance state to monitor the wombs of
America.
The rights of the fetus begin to out-weigh the rights of the mother
at viability. (And real viability, not 3-million dollars worth of
equipment viability.)
But we shouldn't kid ourselves or sugarcoat it. Forcing a woman to
carry an unwanted child to term is not rape, its slavery. She is
living her life without autonomy. No legal choice (sex) should have
slavery as a consequence.
(Please know that I do not bring up slavery to race-bait.)
|6.1.09 @ 5:01PM|#
I think if falls under the part about abstaining from
killing.
Except that no part of the Bible equates aborting children with
murder. There are several parts where the murder of viable children
well beyond the 3rd trimester is not only condoned but
required.
|6.1.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Heh. Assume you have a conjoined twin reliant on your shared
liver to live. Surgery would yield the death of one and the
continued (and obviously better) life of the other.
Now what?
Cut the live in half? I think liver is actually an organ that can
be sectioned. Am I wrong about that? But I see what you are trying
to get at. Even so, are you trying to tell me that if one twin
wants to undergo a surgery, lets say very very risky, so as to gain
'body integrity' but more like;y loose his life, while the other
one doesn't, the ethical solution here is to take the second one's
no surgery option?
|6.1.09 @ 5:03PM|#
You are trying to instill onto a fetus a right that no other
human being enjoys.
Wrong. If a pair of conjoined twins cannot be surgically separated,
then each has the right to live as a "parasite" of his brother (or
her sister). And for a lot longer than nine months, I might
add.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 5:04PM|#
and for that matter the Bible itself, which condones the "abortion" of children, one-by-one or en masse, with glee.
Oh, gosh, Tony, do you imagine I've never read the Old Testament? Look, man, I'm not religious and I'm definitely not a conservative and...really, Tony? In the old days infant mortality was so high that I can't imagine 'bortions were in particularly high demand.
|6.1.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Or perhaps I missed the bible verse that condemns
abortion.
There's also no Bible verse that condemns slavery (and some would
argue that there are plenty that condone it). So what's your point?
That Christians ought to have STFU about slavery in the 19th
century (and should STFU about it in places like the Sudan
today)?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:05PM|#
no, val, I said that surgery "would" absolutely kill one and
free the other from his "parasitic relationship".
So now what?
Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is not rape, its slavery. She is living her life without autonomy
As RC said, no more than obligating you to perform your duties
under contract is slavery. If it is the fact that we set the "line"
at a certain point and the woman knows or should have
known about that line, then the consequences past that line are
hers to bear, as in all things with the law.
|6.1.09 @ 5:06PM|#
I really REALLY hope Sullum is trying to point out the hypocrisy
of many pro-lifers and not defending å man who murdered a doctor in
the middle of church services.
Firstly, I feel the need to point out that the late term abortions
that Dr Tiller performed were used primarily for cases in which the
child had mentally or physically debilitating conditions that had
not been identified up to that point, things like Potter's syndrome
or Down syndrome which would at the very least vastly reduce
quality of life, and in many cases would ensure an extremely
painful end to a very short life.
If a fetus has the same moral weight as an adult, what about the
morning after pill? Do women using it deserve to die? The
pharmacist who prescribes it? The doctor who writes the
prescription?
and WTF is up with the holocaust denial up there?
|6.1.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Except that no part of the Bible equates aborting children
with murder.
I didn't say that it did.
There are several parts where the murder of viable children
well beyond the 3rd trimester is not only condoned but
required.
Other than Highway 61 Revisited, where does it say
this?
|6.1.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Promoting an image of pro-life activists as murderous extremists might dim the prospects for legislation restricting abortion, thereby leading to more deaths of unborn children than eliminating one abortionist prevents. But this is a tactical question that does not have to do with the inherent morality of killing in defense of innocent children.
Jacob, you answered your own question here. My own opinion, and I
suspect that of the Church as well, is that intentional killing is
immoral by default, and only under extremely strict circumstances
does it become moral. One such circumstance is to stop a person
from killing others, but this is only allowed when there is a
reasonable chance of preventing those future killings AND killing
the killer will not cause greater harm than letting him live.
In this case, there is very little probability that the death of
this abortionist scumbag will save any unborns. The abortions he
would have committed are just going to be committed by other
"doctors".
Djyrn|6.1.09 @ 5:11PM|#
If it is the fact that we set the "line" at a certain point
and the woman knows or should have known about that line, then the
consequences past that line are hers to bear, as in all things with
the law.
If that line is conception, why should she be the sole bearer of
the consequences?
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 5:11PM|#
(Please know that I do not bring up slavery to race-bait.)
Oh no, you di'in't!
But seriously, my objections to abortion are due to my own
reasoning process, and I respect the (well-reasoned) positions of
the Pro-Choice crowd, even when I don't agree with them. I know
neither side has definitively won the debate, but in the absence of
certainty I will continue to side with the pro-life side.
So basically, the abortion debate to me is an example of how
intelligent people can come to different conclusions (God...yes or
no? is another great example).
I am more certain that 3rd-trimester abortion is wrong than
early-early term, but...
...I see your point, and respect it.
|6.1.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Let me ask you a question. Do you think the woman has a
'body integrity' right?
"Bodily integrity," as in the right not to have body parts cut off
our out? Sure. Which is why I disagree with Justice Holmes's
decision in Buck v. Bell. Not quite sure what that has to do with
the issue at hand, though.
Maybe "autonomy" was the word you were groping for.
|6.1.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Wrong. If a pair of conjoined twins cannot be surgically
separated, then each has the right to live as a "parasite" of his
brother (or her sister). And for a lot longer than nine months, I
might add.
I dunno why you guys bring up the conjoined twins thing. I'm fairly
sure that the most common course of action where you have a
parasitic conjoined twin, that twin is generally removed (i.e
killed)with the parents consent?
|6.1.09 @ 5:13PM|#
If that line is conception, why should she be the sole
bearer of the consequences?
Last time I checked, fathers and well as mothers had the legal
obligation to support their children.
|6.1.09 @ 5:13PM|#
the late term abortions that Dr Tiller performed were used
primarily for cases in which the child had mentally or physically
debilitating conditions that had not been identified up to that
point, things like Potter's syndrome or Down syndrome which would
at the very least vastly reduce quality of life
Being killed before being born also tends to vastly reduce one's
quality of life. It's interesting how this argument gets trotted
out there again and again, despite the fact that many, many elderly
people try to avoid death even when the remainder of their life
will have vastly reduced "quality". Too bad the unborns don't get
the same choice!
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 5:14PM|#
and WTF is up with the holocaust denial up there?
Among reguars, we've all learned to ignore that Wolff clown.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:15PM|#
val - but what if that decision wasn't made at birth? Let's say that you're 20 years old and you have a shared liver, but you have 70% of the liver and the other twin has 30% of it. Do you think that you should be able to essentially kill your parasitic twin (i.e. abort him) at 20 years of age because of your right to "bodily integrity" or autonomy?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:16PM|#
If that line is conception, why should she be the sole bearer of the consequences?
Ha. I wasn't considering setting the line at conception, because of
all the impossibilities that go along with that and because that
would require banning The Pill, which would never work.
|6.1.09 @ 5:17PM|#
As RC said, no more than obligating you to perform your
duties under contract is slavery.
Actually, courts rarely order specific performance of contracts for
personal services. The 13th Amendment is one of the reasons for
this. (Another is the fact that people compelled to perform
personal services often do a lousy job of it. The way slaves often
used to.) Instead, the courts usually just order payment of
damages.
|6.1.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of
helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against
those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government
refuses to act.
So if someone guns down the cops who killed Kathryn Johnston (or
insert any of the other innocent people killed in SWAT-style drug
raids), Reason will cheer them on, eh Jacob?
Murdered helpless people? Check.
Government refuses to act? Check.
I'll be waiting to see if you guys put your money where your big
mouth is.
|6.1.09 @ 5:20PM|#
I dunno why you guys bring up the conjoined twins
thing.
Well, it might have had something to do with falsifying your claim
that pro-lifers would give a fetus a right (that of being as
"parasite") that no other human being is given.
|6.1.09 @ 5:21PM|#
val - but what if that decision wasn't made at birth? Let's
say that you're 20 years old and you have a shared liver, but you
have 70% of the liver and the other twin has 30% of it. Do you
think that you should be able to essentially kill your parasitic
twin (i.e. abort him) at 20 years of age because of your right to
"bodily integrity" or autonomy?
Alright we are getting into some pretty weird, what ifs here. But
yes, in my view, you as the majority liver owner would have that
right. While it maybe noble of you, to sacrifice your quality of
life and exist as a horrible freak so that your brother may live as
well, no way in hell would I think it is moral for me to force you
to do so.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Seamus - I am aware of the rarity of specific performance, but monetary damages are de facto performance because they are calculated based on (usually) reliance or expectation interest. The fact remains is that you have to fulfill your obligations one way or another.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:25PM|#
val - so, yes, through no fault of his own, your twin has to die
based on an affirmative decision you are making. As it stands, the
status quo, the negative, the no-action route is that you both live
(admittedly diminished) lives. The affirmative, the action, is
death for one and increased quality of life for the other.
Perhaps you're seeing a stronger analogy with abortion now.
|6.1.09 @ 5:27PM|#
So wait, Art, Seamus, T.O.A, etc.., am I to understand that you feel that what when doctors remove the parasitic twin, as is usually the case in those situations, what actually takes place is an abhorrent murder of a child?
Chad|6.1.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Seamus | June 1, 2009, 5:17pm | #
As RC said, no more than obligating you to perform your duties
under contract is slavery.
Actually, courts rarely order specific performance of contracts for
personal services. The 13th Amendment is one of the reasons for
this. (Another is the fact that people compelled to perform
personal services often do a lousy job of it. The way slaves often
used to.) Instead, the courts usually just order payment of
damages.
This is true as a matter of practice, but not of principle. There
are certain occasions when monetary payments simply cannot address
the issue.
|6.1.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Perhaps you're seeing a stronger analogy with abortion
now.
I get the analogy, I just thought it plays for my side of the
argument, considering that the standard operating procedure is to
cull the parasitic twin, so as to improve the quality of life for
the other twin, with nary a peep from the pro-life crowd. You never
know though, since these cases are so rare, is this also a hot
issue for the pro-life a crowd?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:35PM|#
val, again, we're not talking about birth. We're talking about hypothetical adult you undertaking surgery you *know* will kill your conjoined twin.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 5:39PM|#
So wait, Art, Seamus, T.O.A, etc.., am I to understand that you feel that what when doctors remove the parasitic twin
In most cases, the parasitic twin is essentially stillborn, so, no.
Fluffy|6.1.09 @ 5:40PM|#
Suppose there is a huge blizzard. I mean one that runs for
days and you are on an Island. It will be two months before a boat
shows up to help you. Someone washes up on your shore. They want to
stay in your house to get out of the storm. The only way to remove
them from your house is to kick them out into the ocean to die in
the storm. Does that give you the right to shoot them? No it
doesn't.
The problem, John, is that if the guy who washed up on shore has a
right to stay in my house, because if I don't let him stay he'll
die, that means that his need supercedes my property right.
And if that's true, I don't see what basis we would have for
asserting that ANY property right whatsoever survives the assertion
of need by a third party.
If it is murder for me to not let that guy in, it's also murder for
you to retain any property above bare subsistence rather than give
that property to starving Africans. They need it, and will die - DO
die - because you don't give it to them.
The answer to your thought experiment has to be "I can let
him in, or make him leave, at my moral option" or absolute
socialism has to be the moral ideal. You have to pick. I know which
one I pick.
He\'s In The Hot Place Now|6.1.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Ah, the gross miscarriage of justice, that mass murdering
parasitic clumps of cells like Tiller the Killer have to be shot in
the most historically romantic way possible, and not while stood up
against a wall after being tried and convicted of torture,
genocide, and crimes against humanity. In any case, he's most
certainly in Hell right now. Judging by the response of his family
and his standing at his church, most of his friends and family will
doubtless be joining him there whenever they die.
And yes, Val, any of you parasitic feminists who go to these murder
mills to have a psychopath like Tiller murder your babies so you
can avoid the consequences of your choosing to have sex should also
be stood up against the wall and shot as well, your case having
been tried in much the same way we would try the case of anyone who
hires a hit man to take out a relative, and you having been found
guilty of murder in the first degree and conspiracy to murder.
(You'll notice that this, however, lets anyone who's been forced
into an abortion--as in women in China or as in the case of all
those child molestors Planned Parenthood has been helping--off the
hook.)
Unless we can prove that Tiller's killer is too insane to be
morally culpable for what he's done, he should also be stood up
against a wall and shot; or fried in the electric chair, or gassed,
or given a lethal injection. Whatever.
The same goes for the murderer(s) of the military recruiter(s) in
today's incident of vigilante "justice" which, if one is to
believe all the political parasites bashing the pro-life movement
right now, has permanently destroyed all anti-war protesters' moral
standing.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 5:43PM|#
But, val, hypothetically there is still a point on the continuum between conjoined and parasitic where there is a moral dilemma.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Fluffy - fine and fair. Now, what if you pluck someone from a
previously safe place (nonexistence, even!) and push him into
traffic? Who's responsible then?
Yo, HITHPN, shut the fuck up.
|6.1.09 @ 5:50PM|#
val, again, we're not talking about birth. We're talking
about hypothetical adult you undertaking surgery you *know* will
kill your conjoined twin.
I'm pretty sure I answered what my view was on the 'adult'
parasitic twin issue. But I fail to see how adult vs new born comes
into play, if you have some sort of right to be parasite because it
will save your life, you have that right whether you're 50 years or
50 minutes old. So how do you reconcile the fact that one is
usually killed to improve the quality of life of the other with
your view on abortion.
In most cases, the parasitic twin is essentially stillborn, so,
no.
I dunno, thats a pretty big fact to throw out there with out much
back up. But anyways, since you said mostly, lets pick that one or
two cases where its not still born. Perhaps the hypothetical adult
pair that T.O.A was talking about.
And yes, Val, any of you parasitic feminists who go to these
murder mills to have a psychopath like Tiller murder your babies so
you can avoid the consequences of your choosing to have sex should
also be stood up against the wall and shot as well
LOL, I'm a dude, dude, and can say with 99.9% certainty that none
of my boys have ever lead to an abortion.
|6.1.09 @ 5:53PM|#
But, val, hypothetically there is still a point on the
continuum between conjoined and parasitic where there is a moral
dilemma.
I suppose there is a point. I'm guessing where organ ownership is
roughly 50/50, or at least close enough where you cannot clearly
point one out and say he is the parasite.
dudeness|6.1.09 @ 5:54PM|#
I understand Jacob's reductio ad absurdum argument: pro-lifers
believe that a fetus' life is equal in value to a grown person's.
Thus, pro-lifers MUST inherently support the killing of an
abortion-provider to save the lives of more fetuses. The pro-life
position therefore reaches an absurd conclusion and the whole
proposition of the value of fetal life fails.
This is a terrible argument.
1) Equal value is NOT placed on a fetus and a grown person. A
miscarriage is mourned far less than the death of 10 year old.
Which is worse: two miscarriages or the simultaneous death of a
mother and her fetus?
2) The death of one abortion-provider will not prevent an abortion
from occuring any more than the closing of one gas station will
prevent someone from filling his gas tank.
3) Even if you accept the bone-headed version of the pro-life
position presented in this article: "abortion = murder", then you
accept that pro-lifers are OPPOSED TO MURDER. If they are opposed
to murder, then how are they supposed to support the murder of an
abortion-provider?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 5:56PM|#
if you have some sort of right to be parasite because it will save your life
It's not an affirmative right, val, it's the situation that exists
without interference that you are actively trying to
change.
Fact: a parasitic twin is a living human being. Therefore, it has
the right to life, and therefore, you do not have the right to do
*something* to that parasitic twin that you know is actively going
to kill that living, rights-having person.
My understanding is that the only time one living twin is separated
and therefore killed is if the state of being conjoined means that
they would both die, because the "weak" one will surely kill the
"strong" one, and the "weak" one cannot live on its own. That's a
self-defense/defense of others situation.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 5:57PM|#
I dunno, thats a pretty big fact to throw out there with out much back up. But anyways, since you said mostly, lets pick that one or two cases where its not still born. Perhaps the hypothetical adult pair that T.O.A was talking about
My answer is that if that adult twin has full central nervous system function and capability for coherent thought, that would be murder.
Fluffy|6.1.09 @ 5:58PM|#
Fluffy - fine and fair. Now, what if you pluck someone from
a previously safe place (nonexistence, even!) and push him into
traffic? Who's responsible then?
But I don't accept that that's what you're doing.
If we want to keep John's analogy going, it's more like I decided
to invite the guy in to my house - but then after a few hours I
decided I didn't like him and wanted him to leave.
Would the fact that I invited him in for a little while change the
situation, and give him an ongoing right to stay? I don't think it
would.
Now, of course in 999999 times out of 1000000, I would let the guy
stay. But for a property right to be a right, it's got to
stay in existence even for that one in a million instance where I'm
a total dick. And the same would go for a bodily integrity
right.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 6:01PM|#
But I don't accept that that's what you're doing.
I don't care that you don't accept it. Your analogy fails because
the guy in your house isn't totally dependent, thanks entirely to
your actions, on you and you alone for his survival.
The fact remains is that the hypothetical female is entirely
responsible for placing the human inside of her (if we accept
that's what it is, arguendo). She placed it in a position of
helplessness. Like I said, you cannot just pluck someone from
safety and put them in danger.
|6.1.09 @ 6:07PM|#
That is a one-testical question. Why is killing abortion doctors
wrong if abortion really is murder.
It also has the problem of relying on some flawed logic. You don't
prevent any abortions by killing a doctor, because they are not the
ones seeking to kill fetuses. Anyone on this doctor's waiting list
will simply make other arrangements.
Hence the two-testicle question is when are you gonna get around to
killing the women who engaged these services.
Because if it really is murder then there's also no allowable limit
before it counts.
Fluffy|6.1.09 @ 6:09PM|#
Like I said, you cannot just pluck someone from safety and
put them in danger.
If nonexistence is "safety", then abortion returns the fetus to
"safety".
[That's why I don't accept that you're "plucking the fetus from
safety". For that to be true, you'd have to define nonexistence as
safety, which have I just reductio'd.]
No situation is perfectly analogous to abortion, so we only can get
so close.
You seem to be arguing that the dependence of a fetus is of a
special character, that it's the mother's fault, and that therefore
the mother's rights are trumped by the duty of action she owes to
the fetus - and that this is a unique moral circumstance, that is
not applicable or extendable to situations where you yourself might
be called upon to provide aid and support to a person in need.
Because those no-good whores are guilty, and you aren't.
|6.1.09 @ 6:10PM|#
My answer is that if that adult twin has full central
nervous system function and capability for coherent thought, that
would be murder.
That fine but do you agree that there is an issue of competing
right there. That the dominant twin, has some right to seek out
normality for him self and restore his body integrity which he
lost/never had due to a freak birth defect? Obviously that right
stands directly perpendicular to the parasitic twins right to
exist.
It's not an affirmative right, val, it's the situation that
exists without interference that you are actively trying to
change.
I have to totally disagree with you on that. You
are suggesting that you loose some pretty basic rights because of a
birth defect.
Like I said, you cannot just pluck someone from safety and put
them in danger.
This discussion is getting a tad metaphysical, for what safety is
the fetus plucked exactly?
|6.1.09 @ 6:12PM|#
Hypothetical:
You are in a hospital awaiting test results, an ambulance peels in
with someone suffering from acute liver failure. If †hey do not
receive a transplant within an hour they will die. It would take
longer than that to get a replacement, or to test willing donors
for compatibility, but the doctor informs you that you are a
perfect match, and are in perfect health to donate.
Should the doctors (or anyone else) be able to force you to donate
a portion of your liver against your will to save the man.
His life is completely dependent on you, thanks to no fault of his
own.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 6:15PM|#
That fine but do you agree that there is an issue of competing right there. That the dominant twin, has some right to seek out normality for him self and restore his body integrity which he lost/never had due to a freak birth defect? Obviously that right stands directly perpendicular to the parasitic twins right to exist.
No, I don't think the dominant twin has any "special right" to restore "body integrity".
No situation is perfectly analogous to abortion, so we only can get so close.
Yes.
Fluffy|6.1.09 @ 6:15PM|#
You are in a hospital awaiting test results, an ambulance
peels in with someone suffering from acute liver failure. If †hey
do not receive a transplant within an hour they will die. It would
take longer than that to get a replacement, or to test willing
donors for compatibility, but the doctor informs you that you are a
perfect match, and are in perfect health to donate.
Should the doctors (or anyone else) be able to force you to donate
a portion of your liver against your will to save the man.
His life is completely dependent on you, thanks to no fault of his
own.
In fairness to TAO, he seems to be saying that YES, they can take
an organ from you - but only if you were the guy's bartender. Then,
since you contributed to his predicament, you would be morally
bound to make it good.
This is his attempt to put a boundary around the set of situations
where need trumps rights. It has its strong points and its weak
points.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 6:16PM|#
and that this is a unique moral circumstance, that is not applicable or extendable to situations where you yourself might be called upon to provide aid and support to a person in need. Because those no-good whores are guilty, and you aren't.
Are you finished, fuckwad?
OK, good.
Look, as you say, we can only get so far because of the uniqueness
of the situation. IF it is the case that, at a certain point prior
to passing the birth canal that a fetus becomes a human, THEN it is
inarguable that killing it without a self defense justification
would be murder. It's as simple as that.
You are suggesting that you loose some pretty basic rights because of a birth defect.
No, you are, specifically, that due to no fault of
his own, the "weak" twin isn't entitled to continue life as his
life was, through chance or God or the cosmos, given to him.
|6.1.09 @ 6:18PM|#
No, I don't think the dominant twin has any "special right"
to restore "body integrity".
Do you think YOU should have the right to do whatever YOU please
with YOUR body?
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 6:18PM|#
His life is completely dependent on you, thanks to no fault of his own.
Nor is it YOUR fault. I suppose if you stabbed the guy in the liver
it might be just to force you to hand it over, or (and this is more
likely) pay for the subsequent transplant surgery.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Do you think YOU should have the right to do whatever YOU please with YOUR body?
Like it or don't, this doesn't fit. Your body IS his body. They are
one and the same.
|6.1.09 @ 6:20PM|#
Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is not
rape, its slavery. She is living her life without autonomy. No
legal choice (sex) should have slavery as a consequence.
Its not slavery; the pregnant woman isn't the chattel of the fetus.
Words have meanings, you know.
Actually, courts rarely order specific performance of contracts
for personal services.
True, but they will do so in the rare case where money damages
aren't sufficient. I would note that specific performance is
routinely ordered in contractual disputes involving non-competes
and confidentiality.
If we want to keep John's analogy going, it's more like I
decided to invite the guy in to my house - but then after a few
hours I decided I didn't like him and wanted him to
leave.
Fine. But the only way to get him to leave is to shoot him in the
head, and you knew that when you invited him in.
|6.1.09 @ 6:27PM|#
No, you are, specifically, that due to no fault of his own,
the "weak" twin isn't entitled to continue life as his life was,
through chance or God or the cosmos, given to him.
You keep talking about fault. Neither of the twins is at fault. One
wants to live, the other wants to be normal, they both have the
right to pursue happiness. Those rights conflict.
Like it or don't, this doesn't fit. Your body IS his body. They
are one and the same.
Thats why we talked about parasitic twins where one is piggy
backing on the other's body. Since thats more analogous to the
fetus/mother situation. You yourself brought up the example of
70%-30% percent liver split. Well its pretty damn obvious who owns
the body in that situation. Its an even clearer 'body-split' with a
fetus I'm afraid.
|6.1.09 @ 6:28PM|#
Words have meanings, you know.
Thanks for clearing that up, joe. Now tell us how taxation isn't
theft because theft is illegal and taxation isn't illegal.
I'm fine with calling any situation where you are compelled by the
state to be at the service of another against your will and without
having committed a crime by the simple to understand word
"slavery." If you are compelled to serve another person you are a
slave.
You are free to come up with a word you think better describes the
situation.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 6:32PM|#
Neither of the twins is at fault. One wants to live, the other wants to be normal, they both have the right to pursue happiness. Those rights conflict.
And should you be allowed to murder for normalcy?
|6.1.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Should the doctors (or anyone else) be able to force you to
donate a portion of your liver against your will to save the
man.
Inapt analogy. In this case saving the man's life requires a
positive act. If nothing is done, the man will die.
In the case of abortion, if nothing is done, the unborn will live.
It requires a positive act to cause the unborn to die.
Art-P.O.G.|6.1.09 @ 6:38PM|#
You are free to come up with a word you think better describes the situation.
Serf?
Its an even clearer 'body-split' with a fetus I'm afraid.
Poor. Of course the fetus only takes up the womb, that's nature. That's circular logic in this case, too.
|6.1.09 @ 6:38PM|#
Since we're going nuts with analogies here, how 'bout this
one:
You're out in the middle of the Pacific in your sailboat, when
suddenly a plane in the sky above explodes, but not before the
pilot ejects and lands safely on your boat. Do you have the right
to throw him or her overboard?
The boat is your property.
He landed in your boat through no fault of his own.
And you didn't want him in your boat.
It's going to take a long time to get him to safety.
|6.1.09 @ 6:39PM|#
things like Potter's syndrome or Down syndrome which would at the very least vastly reduce quality of life
As someone whose brother had Downs Syndrome, let me say "fuck you!"
He had a very high quality of life. He lived his life to the
fullest, despite his disadvantage. The idea that he was unworthy to
live is offensive.
|6.1.09 @ 6:47PM|#
So wait, Art, Seamus, T.O.A, etc.., am I to understand that
you feel that what when doctors remove the parasitic twin, as is
usually the case in those situations, what actually takes place is
an abhorrent murder of a child?
If the "parasitic twin" is alive, then yes.
|6.1.09 @ 6:51PM|#
Are you guilty of murder though? I'm not sure what the legal
outcome of that situation is. I personally don't know, you'd be a
real immoral fuckin' asshole for doing that, but I'm not sure
weather that is a jailing offense, in my view that is, not
legally.
I believe that (1) it would be a jailing offense and (2) it should
be a jailing offense.
|6.1.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Serf?
Serfdom was just a modified form of slavery. Their labor belonged
to a third party, even though they were not owned outright as
property themselves. (Although a good many libertarians and
anarcho-capitalist argue that one's labor is a product of
self-ownership, and therefore owning someone's labor is the same as
owning them.) Since the forced labor of not being able to abort a
child has no direct feudalistic or Manorialism features, is seems
to be a needlessly obscure synonym to use instead of "slavery."
Art-P.O.G. (Internet Tough Guy|6.1.09 @ 6:56PM|#
Too late.
"Slavery" still doesn't work for me in this example.
|6.1.09 @ 7:00PM|#
None of the property analogies are even close to the
point.
I am 100% for the idea of self-ownership. It's axiomatic for me.
Having said that, I see no contradiction in distinguishing the
self-owned self from the property outside oneself that you
can own.
The question is not "Can I kick him out of my house if he'll die?"
it's "Because he will die other wise, do I have to allow him to
crawl into my body and share my blood, liver, kidneys, and breath
for nine months?"
Of course you don't.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 7:02PM|#
SugarFree - how forced is it? Of course, what we should realize is that not all of us are talking about a blanket ban on abortion. If there is a reasonable timeframe known to all (my personal crossover period is at the development of uniquely human brainwaves, or around 5-6 months), then we aren't talking about slavery any more, we're talking about not terminating a human life that the person voluntarily chose to carry to that point.
The Angry Optimist|6.1.09 @ 7:04PM|#
"Because he will die other wise, do I have to allow him to crawl into my body and share my blood, liver, kidneys, and breath for nine months?"
Well, then you don't have to feed him or clothe him after that
point, then. After all, a human baby, in our society, has an
affirmative right to your money, your food, your house
etc. etc.
|6.1.09 @ 7:07PM|#
"Slavery" still doesn't work for me in this
example.
That's cool. I'm not invested in making you accept it. Abortion is
a tough subject to apply principles to, and different axioms are
going to be employed.
|6.1.09 @ 7:08PM|#
Embryos / fetuses don't crawl into your body, SF.
It's true, there is no foolproof analogy for this situation. It is
truly unique.
For me, the case where the embryo came into existence due to
consensual sex is open and shut. If you own your body then you have
to own the consequences of what you choose to do with it.
The cases of rape and very young women getting pregnant are much
harder, and I understand why people have a hard time saying no when
someone in those situations wants an abortion. Still, these amount
to less than 1% of abortions, so permitting abortion on demand for
those who get pregnant due to consensual sex, just for the sake of
these hard cases, is letting the exception swallow the rule.
|6.1.09 @ 7:08PM|#
Is viability the threshold? Viability as in being able to function outside of the womb? Who gets to make the viability call? By what standards?
Art-P.O.G. (Internet Tough Guy|6.1.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Abortion is a tough subject to apply principles to, and different axioms are going to be employed.
Yeah, no kidding.
|6.1.09 @ 7:19PM|#
TAO,
Just bear with me a minute...
If you are a slave, does it matter whether the master you serve is
conscious or not? What if you were the servant of a comatose person
who was not your owner, but those who did own you (in the sense
that you have no autonomous choice in the matter) made you serve
him (or them by proxy as it were.)
The moral blame for your servitude does not fall on the comatose
person, but you are his slave nonetheless.
As to the second part of your question: I assert that if a woman is
prevented at any point from terminating her pregnancy, she is a
slave forthwith. This has nothing to do with the viability of the
child and in fact it might be even more morally reprehensible after
viability in that she is being forced to care for a person who is
"capable of taking care of themselves."
I'm not saying that abortion should be legal up to the moment of
birth, but this notion that a woman--even one that has taken every
reasonable precaution against conception--suddenly forfeits all
notions of autonomy and integrity the moment sperm meets egg (or
anytime after) is just madness to my ears.
|6.1.09 @ 7:21PM|#
Tulpa,
Embryos / fetuses don't crawl into your body, SF.
You have a poor grasp of the locomotive mechanics of spermatozoa.
;-)
|6.1.09 @ 7:24PM|#
Sugar Free,
You have a poor grasp of the difference between spermatozoa and
embryos.
Chad|6.1.09 @ 7:34PM|#
You are in a hospital awaiting test results, an ambulance
peels in with someone suffering from acute liver failure. If †hey
do not receive a transplant within an hour they will die. It would
take longer than that to get a replacement, or to test willing
donors for compatibility, but the doctor informs you that you are a
perfect match, and are in perfect health to donate.
This is not a correct analogy for abortion. The correct analogy
would include two key facts:
1:) The reason that the patient is suffering acute liver failure is
that you just accidently shot them.
2:) Only a small portion of your liver is needed. What would be
required of you is an operation lasting a few hours, then a slow
recovery to normal that requires about a year.
Hmmm....doesn't seem so simple any more, does it?
|6.1.09 @ 7:37PM|#
Tulpa,
The voluntary action in the procreative sex act is the woman
letting sperm into her body. Men don't shoot embryos out of their
wang-a-doodles.
Since we are talking about which voluntary acts are sufficient in
your mind to force a woman into nine months of slavery, maybe you
should try and keep up.
|6.1.09 @ 7:46PM|#
TAO,
Sorry, I missed our other comment:
Well, then you don't have to feed him or clothe him after that
point, then. After all, a human baby, in our society, has an
affirmative right to your money, your food, your house etc.
etc.
Once again it comes down to the difference between the self and the
things the self owns. And that is the difference between putting in
jail a woman who starves her children and a woman who refuses to
breastfeed but whose child is perfectly nourished with formula.
|6.1.09 @ 8:55PM|#
"As someone whose brother had Downs Syndrome, let me say
"fuck you!" He had a very high quality of life. He lived his life
to the fullest, despite his disadvantage. The idea that he was
unworthy to live is offensive."
At no point did I say that anyone was "unworthy to live." I was
making the point that late term abortions are generally not
performed for convenience nor indecisiveness, they are usually a
wanted pregnancy involving complications that leave the parents
with an extremely difficult choice to make. Nor am I saying that
abortion should be the choice they make, I'm saying that they are
extremely difficult and heartbreaking ocurrences, and that the
parents are the only people qualified to make that decision, not
legislators or activists.
Chad|6.1.09 @ 10:24PM|#
, I'm saying that they are extremely difficult and
heartbreaking ocurrences, and that the parents are the only people
qualified to make that decision, not legislators or
activists.
I would argue just the opposite. Parents are the most biased
decision-makers imaginable.
TallDave|6.1.09 @ 10:32PM|#
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of
helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against
those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government
refuses to act.
It's the same reason James Hansen and Al Gore don't gun down
Exxon/Mobil executives, even though they've compared fossil fuels
to Auschwitz.
|6.1.09 @ 11:42PM|#
And the same reason that people who think that Gitmo is torture and that terrorists have human rights generally don't approve of a terrorist assault on the base.
Stoned|6.1.09 @ 11:52PM|#
I can't wait until abortions are made illegal, and then there
will be more great quotes like:
"Will people be better off if they are legalized? Well, yes, they
will be, because they will avoid all the problems created by
prohibition, including black-market violence, unreliable quality,
artificially high prices, and the risk of arrest and
imprisonment."
Oh wait, where have I heard that argument before...?
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132089.html
Oops! I guess libertarians can be hypocrites too!
|6.2.09 @ 1:04AM|#
Oops! I guess libertarians can be hypocrites too!
Weak. You really don't see the difference between drug use and abortion?
Paul|6.2.09 @ 1:51AM|#
how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend that right is wrong?
Come on, Jacob, it's really quite simple. I believe my 7-yr-old
daughter has a "right to life". If I felt someone was trying to
take her life, I'd use deadly force to defend her.
The real hard-core pro-lifers merely see this a the same thing. The
unborn fetus is, in their mind, no different than my 7-yr-old
daughter.
Paul|6.2.09 @ 1:54AM|#
It's the same reason James Hansen and Al Gore don't gun down
Exxon/Mobil executives, even though they've compared fossil fuels
to Auschwitz.
Bad example. James Hansen and Al Gore don't really believe
that fossil fuels are comparable to Auschwitz. That's just
political hyberbole.
|6.2.09 @ 2:50AM|#
Stoner:
1. I would argue that many of those statements would apply to
abortion if it were to become illegalized.
2. All groups have their hypocrites, and it could probably be
argued that everyone is a hypocrite at some level.
3. That was an awfully trollish sounding post.
|6.2.09 @ 3:23AM|#
As I said, killing abortionists may be contrary to that goal
for tactical reasons. But how is it possible to believe that
fetuses are people with a right to life yet also believe that using
deadly force to defend that right is wrong?
Jacob, if you are actually trying to achieve a major change in the
world -- as opposed to vainly demonstrated how rad and committed to
the cause you are -- then tactics do matter. Critically, in
fact.
There is certainly no reason to believe that sincerity compels you
to choose the most violent option available to you. You can
effectively oppose slavery without turning into John Brown.
Although I oppose the application of strictly religious arguments
to public policy on abortion, I do think that the Catholic
doctrines of Just War are a pretty good guide to the morality of
the use of force in general.
The following is from the Catholic Catechism (although I don't
regard it as strictly religious; these are "rules" that have been
deduced by reason, rather than relying strictly a supernatural
revelation). The parts that I think apply to the use of force in
general (rather than specifically war) I've put in bold:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force
require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision
makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one
and the same time:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the
nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and
certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been
shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of
success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders
graver than the evil to be eliminated.
#1, taken by itself, might justify the killing of an abortion
doctor in order to prevent the doctor killing another human
being.
#2 is arguable. Some might argue that peacable means of abolishing
abortion have been tried and failed. They might make an analogy to
slavery -- it took a war to force half the country to "change its
mind" with regard to the moral and legal status of enslaved
Africans in the USA. On the other hand, other nations were able to
abolish slavery without civil war.
But #3 and #4 tip the balance decisively against trying to stop
abortions by murdering abortion doctors. Wrong it may be, but
abortion is legal; the "right" to have it done is protected by law.
Because roughly half the country believes it should be, and does
not see most abortions as killing another human being. However,
they definitely do see the shooting of a doctor as the killing of a
human being.
Thus, one guy with a sniper rifle is never going to stop abortion
in America; at most, he might stop one. Nor will hundreds or
thousands or millions of snipers; before that point is reach, there
will be sufficient outcry to have the power of the State suppress
the vigilantes.
Even most people who believe murderers should get the death penalty
would have qualms about a Dirty Harry scenario -- a vigilante who
takes it upon himself to snuff out killers who cannot be
punished by law. Outside of immediate self-defense, most of us
don't want to give any individual that kind of power.
An attempt to violently exterminate abortion doctors would bring
about a backlash of public opinion. You'd lose the undecided people
sitting on the fence for sure. You'd set back the
abortion-abolition movement even further. More abortions will
continue to be performed that much longer.
You can't change people's minds by force; you have to persuade
them. And stopping abortions is particularly difficult to do by
force. If you really want to end abortion in America for good, you
have to persuade Americans to internalize the idea that abortion is
wrong. Especially those American women who would otherwise choose
to get one.
But however sincere you are in opposing an action you believe is
homicide -- or any form of harm that is "lasting, grave and
certain" -- neither logic nor consistency nor sincerity
compel you to choose a use of force that is both
ineffective and ultimately adds to the harm inflicted. Indeed, Just
War doctrine argues that this is precisely the kind of thing you
should avoid.
|6.2.09 @ 6:26AM|#
As it is said, when using a gun be sure you kill the other guy
so the judge will only hear yoiur side of the story.
Also DFW was deservedly pompous because he wrote one of the best
short stories in mankind: The Girl With Curious Yellow Hair. Also
Infinite Jest, although arguable as a whole pretentious, if one
reads it in snippets it is some astounding shit.
Louis Andrews|6.2.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Sullum Wrote: "As I said, killing abortionists may be contrary
to that goal for tactical reasons. But how is it possible to
believe that fetuses are people with a right to life yet also
believe that using deadly force to defend that right is
wrong?"
Agreed. I don't believe in the sanctity of life and am
pro-abortion, but if I believed that fetuses were human being
persons with as much right to life as a 15 yr old healthy kid, then
I would have to believe that killing abortion doctors was morally
justified. Since I don't equate fetuses with living human being
persons, I don't condone such conduct.
Abdul Alhazred|6.2.09 @ 12:54PM|#
"
So if someone guns down the cops who killed Kathryn Johnston (or
insert any of the other innocent people killed in SWAT-style drug
raids), Reason will cheer them on, eh Jacob?
Murdered helpless people? Check.
Government refuses to act? Check.
I'll be waiting to see if you guys put your money where your big
mouth is."
If someone shot a police officer in legitimate self-defense, I
would very much cheer them on.
|6.2.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Mad Arab,
That wasn't the question... this guy didn't shoot Dr Tiller in
self-defense, yet Mr Sullum seems to think pro-lifers should
support his action.
|6.2.09 @ 2:13PM|#
The voluntary action in the procreative sex act is the woman letting sperm into her body. Men don't shoot embryos out of their wang-a-doodles.
Since we are talking about which voluntary acts are sufficient in your mind to force a woman into nine months of slavery, maybe you should try and keep up.
And smokers don't breathe tumors in when they smoke, yet we
consider them responsible for their own lung cancer since the
development of tumors is known to be a likely consequence of
smoking. Likewise, getting pregnant is known to be a likely result
of having sex (even when using contraceptives).
|6.2.09 @ 3:36PM|#
On the one hand, if it is just a medical procedure and life
begins at birth, why is a miscarriage such a tragedy?
Someone may have already answered this... but my take on this
question has always been that the tragedy was not, strictly
speaking, the loss of the fetus; it was the loss of the fervent
hopes, sunny dreams, and pleasant fantasies of the parents. If by
forcing an unwilling woman to give birth you force her hopes and
dreams for herself to become impossible, it's even worse than the
so-called "murder" of the fetus; it's the murder of a living
person's future. Don't forget all the pregnant girls and women
without access to abortion who pray for an opportune
miscarriage, even suspecting that it will hurt or even kill
them.
In this sense, abortion is in one sense like the breakup of a
marriage. If someone desperately wants to stay in a marriage in
which they and their partner have invested all of their future
hopes in life, and all is going well, it's a terrible tragedy to
separate them through no fault of their own (= miscarriage). But if
the marriage is horrible and destructive to even just one partner,
only the most obstreperously pro-forced-marriage advocate would
insist that the marriage be preserved at all costs. Most of us
would offer the suffering partner(s) any help we were in a position
to give in order for them to terminate the marriage (= abortion)
and rebuild their lives.
|6.3.09 @ 12:12AM|#
I watch from Australia the extraordinary expressions of American religiosity, not to say religious fanatacism about microscopic blobs of cells which just might one day grow into (one or more) human persons. I watch with fascination not seeing any recognition that God, who is presumably the source of their morality, did not see fit to instruct the Hebrews about abortion (apart from protecting the patriarch's interest in his wives' pregnancies against their being mishandled and damaging his property), Jesus didn't mention the subject and the Catholic Church was still relying 100 years ago (in the Catholic Encyclopaedia) on Aristotles 2300 year old errors so that a man who had arranged an abortion for his girlfriend in the first 40 days of pregnancy was still able to become a priest - because the foetus could not have "quickened", i.e. receive a soul and become a person even if it was male.... So, if God clearly didn't and doesn't care, why do Americans who claim to be able to read (at least the Bible) and pretend to think get so righteous when sensible rational modern people take the view that the only legitimate purpose of the criminal law is to stop citizens from having to take the law into their own hands to avenge or protect themselves, or others, who are citizens.
Eoghan|6.3.09 @ 6:24AM|#
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless
children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who
carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to
act.
Yet if you honestly believe the death penalty is murder, it's hard
to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is
immoral, especially since the government refuses to act.
Yet if you honestly believe killing animals for meat is the murder
of helpless animals, it's hard to see why using deadly force
against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the
government refuses to act.
Yet if you honestly believe smoking is a passive method of murder,
it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it
out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to
act.
Yet if you honestly believe 9/11 was a planned attack by the US
government to murder 3000 citizens, it's hard to see why using
deadly force against those who you believe carried it out is
immoral, especially since the government refuses to act.
Yet if you honestly believe the US is the a murderer of fellow
Muslims in an attempt to spread its dominance in the middle east,
it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it
out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to
act.
Yet if you honestly believe that Jesus is telling you that there is
a local satanic cult that is murdering children, it's hard to see
why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral,
especially since the government refuses to act.
rog|6.5.09 @ 12:34AM|#
Jonas | June 1, 2009, 2:48pm | #
I have to say that I support what is known as the "consistent life
ethic", meaning that taking anyone's life, for any reason, is
immoral - even if by taking that person's life you would prevent
others from dying. Self-defense is theoretically justifiable, but
only because the threat of imminent danger makes it difficult to
make well thought out moral decisions, but even killing in
self-defense should be considered regrettable.
If someone who is about to assaulted and killed by a serial
murderer, but succeed in killing their assailant why should they
"regret" it? If they hadn't killed him, they wouldn't be alive to
see their friends and family, and would probably have suffered rape
and torture before being killed.
They would be quite justified in feeling ecstatic to be alive, and
not in the least regretful that their would be killer is the one
who is a carcass.
Eoghan|6.5.09 @ 9:46AM|#
rog | June 5, 2009, 12:34am
"If someone who is about to assaulted and killed by a serial
murderer, but succeed in killing their assailant why should they
"regret" it? If they hadn't killed him, they wouldn't be alive to
see their friends and family, and would probably have suffered rape
and torture before being killed.
They would be quite justified in feeling ecstatic to be alive, and
not in the least regretful that their would be killer is the one
who is a carcass."
If I were in that situation, I would feel glad to be alive, but I
would also feel regret for having to end a human life.
A pregnant woman who discovered she has cancer but could not
receive chemo while she was pregnant may also feel that way if she
had an abortion so that she could continue to live.
a|6.5.09 @ 9:55PM|#
Usually when someone writes something like this they clarify that they don't, personally, think killing abortionists is morally right-it only takes a sentence. The fact that Sullum opts not to do this, and that he thinks late-term abortions are wrong (see http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2006-03-23-156688.112112-Terms_of_Pregnancy.html) suggests that unlike other people who've written stuff like this (Damon Linker, William Saletan, Megan McArdle) he actually does think Tiller's murder was morally OK. It's annoying that someone would write a whole column chastising pro-lifers' reticence in endorsing murder while being so deliberately coy and ambiguous about their own views.
|6.9.09 @ 7:31PM|#
The reason people don't endorse it is that they don't want to
have to fight the state. That is it.
If they endorse it, people will say they are accomplices to a
crime. In reality, I am not responsible for the death of babies
even if I do not intervene. I am not responsible to ruin my own
life to end something that is horrible, and I will never jeopardize
my quality of life by putting myself against the entire police
powers of the United States.
I am not responsible to go against all the law enforcement agencies
in the entire country.
The real opinion of pro-life people is that what happened was not a
terrible thing, but we are not going to do anything illegal in
order to support such things. How can we endorse something we won't
do ourselves?
Yes, Abortion is worse than slavery, but don't get all mad at the
peaceful abolitionists for not supporting the murder of
slavers.
Requiring me to pay for what others have done (abortion) by asking
me to commit a crime and ruin my life is incredibly unfair.
Your article was something terrible. We point out that it is murder
because it is. You are basically saying that we either consider it
as not murder or we commit a crime or nearly act as an accomplice
to a crime.
It is murder, people need to realize that, until they do it is not
the responsibility of those of us who are opposing it to ruin our
lives in the process by enticing the ruin of others.
|6.10.09 @ 12:21AM|#
Scott Roeder did the right thing. I'm glad that babykilling abortionist George Tiller is dead and now he won't be murdering any more innocent children.
|6.10.09 @ 9:22PM|#
Tiller was a serial child killer who mass murdered children; therefore using deadly force to stop Tiller's murderous rampage is morally justified. At one time it was illegal to help save Jews from the death camps, but those who did were heroes and not criminals.
streiff|6.12.09 @ 7:52AM|#
this is actually one of the silliest, most juvenile pieces I've
read on the subject.
Even if abortion were legally considered murder, killing Tiller
would be illegal in every state in the union unless you caught him
in the act of committing an abortion, and even then, you'd only be
able to shoot him if he refused to stop the procedure after you'd
challenged him. And that would only apply in jurisdictions where
use of deadly force by civilians is permissible.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245