RIP Quincy Jones
-
Probably one of the greatest music producers EVER! I have to tell you, I
have been beside myself, I get it, he was old, but everything you listened
to deca...
15 hours ago
This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wherein Everyone Else Comments at Length on Abortion
For those of you who are interested, I am posting all outside comments on the discussion David and I are having about abortion here. If you are spectating, feel free to add your comments to this post. Just to keep things neat (so I can focus entirely on David's arguments -- and don't ask me why he rates such special attention), I will transfer any non-David comments from that post to this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reese Family blog has left a new comment on your post "Wherein David and Cory Argue at Length About Abort...":
ReplyDeleteHello, everyone!
I’m at an internet cafe in El Paso, so I have to make this quick…
As I have discussed at length with David in emails recently,
1. There is no such thing as a casual abortion. The phrase is ridiculous. It makes the medical procedure sound like a woman deciding to spend a day at the spa. I challenge David or anyone who believes that casual abortions exist to find a single woman who has undergone one (a casual abortion).
2. Family planning is the epitome of personal responsibility. Planning the size, makeup, and timing of bearing and raising children is one of the most responsible things an adult can do in their life. The effects of these decisions follow us forever, as our children hopefully will outlive us.
3. Number 2 is true if we can agree that having sexual intercourse can or should ever be undertaken without the full intention of producing and raising a human offspring. If any abortion opponent has ever had sex without fully intending to become a parent for life as a direct result of that act of copulation, FOR SHAME!
4. Expanding on number 3, the decision to become a parent is not made in the moment of being either the ejaculator or the ejaculatee. The decision to become a parent SHOULD be made over a long course of heartfelt discussion between two adults who have the utmost love and respect for each other. Here in 21st century USA, the act of sex between adults and the act or intention of procreation is not one in the same.
5. The rallying cry for personal responsibility as a justification for outlawing the medical procedure that allows women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a cover for the actual, prevailing reason for wishing to do so: religious taboo.
Peace out!
mpr
Hi Michael,
ReplyDelete1. The term "casual abortion" refers to all abortions that are not performed out of concerns to rape/incest, or the life/health of the mother. This includes about 94% of abortions. I believe the remaining 6% have legitimate grounds for ending their pregnancy, and don't want to muddle the discussion by confusing the two issues.
"Casual abortion" is the phrase I choose to use because it explains that the abortions I am referring to are not the life/health-threatening, or traumatic sexual experience ones, but the ones where a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy (and/or the man she's with) decide that this isn't what they want. I am not intending in any way to guess at the emotional content of that decision, just classifying the outcome.
2. Totally agree... so long as casual abortions do not figure as part of the connotation of "family planning".
3. Responsibility by definition includes planning for and accepting the consequences of one's actions. If two are going to engage in sexual intercourse, they need to plan and accept the consequences of potential pregnancy. Two irresponsibilities doesn't make responsibility: If the sex was irresponsible, that is no excuse for topping it off with a casual abortion. Why do you think people should have sex "without fully intending to become a parent for life"?
4. The decision to become a parent should be made while both people still have all their clothes on. It should be made before ejaculation, because the intellectual faculties are not especially conducive to rational thought during the act of intercourse.
5. You know better. Don't try to turn me into a straw man just because that would be easier to argue against.
Good to hear from you again. Say hi to Sofia and Nadia for me.
Kind regards,
David
redhatter has left a new comment on your post "Wherein David and Cory Argue at Length About Abort...":
ReplyDeleteI have been pro-choice since I was teen-ager in the fifties, not because I needed one but because I heard of the horrors of the back-alley abortions. What is morally or religiously right for one person might not be right for another. That doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. When abortion is safe and legal that makes it available for women and girls who view it as morally right, that doesn't mean that people who are opposed to it have to have one. Nobody, not even the holier-than-thou politicians has the right to force their moral views on anybody. Abortion is different than robbery, etc., in that the only person involved is the woman carrying the embryo, fetus or whatever other people want to call it. There is absolutely no other life involved until at the very least viability and my thought is when the fetus can live outside the woman. Some people even go so far as to say it isn't life until it draws it's first breath, which is what some people BELEIVE the Bible says. There are so many beliefs about when life begins that my thought is abortion should be left safe and legal for the people who feel it is the right choice for them.
Posted by redhatter to Madville Times at 4/29/2007 8:58 AM
Hey David,
ReplyDelete1. From Webster: casual: 1 feeling or showing little concern 2 lacking a high degree of interest or devotion 3 done without serious intent. Can we agree that the word “elective” is better, particularly since abortions are medical procedures performed by physicians?
2. Why do you think people should have sex "without fully intending to become a parent for life"? I believe this for the following reasons. To begin, imagine for a moment the sheer number of instances of copulation (ejaculation into the vagina) that take place around the world each day. Compare this number with the number of fertilized eggs (earliest stage of pregnancy) that results. There is no way to know for certain, but I’d wager the first number is remarkably large and the second remarkably (relatively) small. Here in the 21st century, the primary purpose of sex between adults is intimacy and pleasure, fertilizing eggs is secondary. Remarkably few people’s sex lives do not bear this out, and anyone with ortho tricyclen in the medicine cabinet supports this position. The second half to this argument deals with economic status and issues of misogyny. Until we live in a world where ALL homo sapiens truly and honestly reap the whirlwind of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy in a TRULY uniform manner, this personal responsibility ethos has to take a backseat to civil liberties. The effect of an unwanted pregnancy in the lives of the working poor is immeasurably more devastating than to the rich. In this utopia where all citizens carry all unwanted pregnancies to term, the poor would be driven deeper into poverty causing all previously existing family members and their relationships with each other to suffer, while the rich would simply sigh and contract an addition to their McMansion. Further, until homo sapiens evolve into some sort of animal whereby both sexes have an equally likely chance of becoming pregnant and carrying a fetus to term, we cannot force humanity to bear unwanted pregnancies to term. The previous statement was ridiculously sarcastic, but I simply cannot understand how the fact that only women become pregnant, NOT MEN, is overlooked in the context of this argument. For these reasons, I believe it is best to separate sex between adults into two categories: 1. sex for intimacy and pleasure and 2. sex for procreation. Obviously, as a Venn diagram, 2 is included in 1.
3. I’m still standing by my belief that the reason the mean (+-2.5sd) of American abortion opponents do not want abortions legal is because they believe it offends God. Your argument goes over their (+-2.5sd of mean) heads. Further, I have NEVER seen a sign in the hands of any abortion protester proclaiming, “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY NOW!” They usually say stuff like, “ABORTION IS MURDER!”
4. Here is where it gets fun. I know the bedrock of your argument for the need to criminalize abortion as a means of assuring individual personal responsibility rests on the observation that all great empires and civilizations have disintegrated when the mass bulk of their populace began to run amok. I maintain that we have a far more pressing crisis on our hands that threatens to unravel our republic. Both Rome and Britain had to choose between an empire and a republic. Rome chose its empire and lost its republic; and by doing so, its ability to govern an empire and lost that also. Britain chose to let go of its empire to save its republic. We have that same choice today. If we are going to maintain complete military, political, and economic hegemony around the world, we must allow the republic to fall. If the solvency of the republic is truly the foundation of your concern, I believe we need to hold the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the former secretary of defense, and most of the cabinet to task with a bajillion times more ferocity than what the anti abortionistas of the US do towards women who seek out abortions.
mpr
From redhatter:
ReplyDelete"Nobody, not even the holier-than-thou politicians has the right to force their moral views on anybody."
Would this include you? Because you seem to be trying to force a moral view on me, namely that you think it is right for everyone to make their own decisions.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteRegarding 1: I've always been bugged by the phrase 'casual abortions' myself. I came up with it on-the-spot while discussing the issue with Phil Assmus about 4-5 years ago, and never got around to finding exactly the right term. Unfortunately, 'elective abortions' doesn't fit right, because even in a case of rape, the abortion is elected (they could carry the child and keep it or give it up for adoption). So I spent a few minutes this morning coming up with some alternative terms for what I had heretofore called 'casual abortions'. Let me know which you think I should use.
- Selfish abortions
- Irresponsibility abortions
- Reckless screwing abortions
- Damn-the-consequence abortions
- I-screw-without-thinking-ahead abortions
- I-consider-my-child-to-be-a-parasite abortions
- Fyodor Karamavoz abortions
- Preemptive infanticide
Regarding 2: I asked you why you think people should have sex without intending to become a parent... and your response was, essentially, "Look at how many people DO have sex without intending to become a parent! This is a reality of the 21st century!" In other words, you didn't answer my question. If you asked me, "Why should people support George Bush?" And I answered with "But look at how many people DO support Bush! This is a reality of the 21st century!" you would get the same feeling.
It's true that even stable couples like Melita and I have had sex thousands of times (today) without once planning to have a child. But we are open to that possibility... and that is the key distinction. Any sex that isn't open to all the possible consequences, is irresponsible. And while I don't think that irresponsible sex should be outlawed, I also don't think that it should be topped off by the further (and greater) selfish irresponsibility of an abortion.
On the next point, I fully agree that intimacy is the primary purpose for sex, and on that basis, you and I then ought to be speaking in unison that only married people should have sex. Fostering an intimate relationship with someone who hasn't pledged their body and soul to you for the rest of their life is truly careless. (And if only married people had sex, I am certain that casual... err I mean 'selfish abortions' would dive significantly.)
Then you go on to argue that the consequences of carrying all healthy pregnancies to term doesn't affect society equally, so I'm asking for an unfair law. Sure, I'll grant that birth affects the income of a poor person more than a rich one... but so do a lot of things. For example, a $100 speeding ticket affects a poor person's income more than a rich one. You seem to be trying to smuggle in an argument for communism here, which is not what we are currently discussing. And if indeed two poor people's income would be tremendously affected by having a child, they can always choose not to have sex. That's a perfectly responsible choice.
"Sex for intimacy and pleasure" cannot be legally separated from "sex for procreation" because the action is one and the same. Sex is all-inclusive, and the only responsible way to engage in it is to prepare for all three consequences. Trying to make such a distinction would be like trying to say that "driving for pleasure" is different than "driving to get somewhere"... and that any traffic violations on the latter should be waived because you weren't joy-riding.
Regarding 3: I am noticing a pattern in our discussions, that I am tempted to label as The Reese Fallacy. A number of times now I have presented a well-thought out defense of my position only to be met with a remark that my defense is an outlier on the bell curve. And then, because my view is unconventional, unorthodox, or not emblazoned on picket signs, either my argument is so weird as to be dismissed immediately without thought, or else David is secretly in favor of the conventional defense, but just playing games with his verbal acrobatics. The discussion then usually focuses on how David should believe the conventional belief, followed by Michael's prepared arguments against it. It strikes me like a guy trying to play a chess game, but all the while convincing his opponent which moves to make... which are the moves he knows how to beat. Maybe the suggested moves are the standard/conventional ones... but a good chess opening strategy could adapt to any moves your opponent throws at you.
Yeah, the bell curve is cool, and I have spent many hours with it in my undergrad stats class and subsequent programming efforts... but I don't find it logically relevant to my position to keep reminding me of the masses' arguments, and how you disagree with them.
Regarding 4: This is where your post really get weird. First there is a bait-and-switch... aimed at trying to get off the topic altogether because you want to talk about monarchies. It's almost monomaniacal, suggesting that any discussion that does not incorporate the irresponsibility of the White House is not worth having... and the post ends with what a seemingly arbitrary use of the word "abortions" like you felt compelled to tie the rant off with the subject of the thread.
And secondly, there is hardly anything of substance in this part except a "grr, grr, Bush sucks!" attitude. Rome declined because it chose a monarchy? That's hardly a bona-fide fact. (For example, Gibbon's celebrated account concluded that Rome's decline was wholly the fault of Christianity.) And even though you proclaim that we have some sort of choice today between a republic (?) and a monarchy (?) I wasn't notified that that was going on next November's ballot.
What was going on here? Are you trying to incite a national revolution from the 4th point of the 4th post on a low-traffic blog read only by citizens of Madison, and friends of Cory?
Political corruption must be addressed, and I will deal with it as our founders intended: with my vote. What more do you want of me, and where were you planning on going with this?
Hey David,
ReplyDeleteYou have to check out my blog for some new pictures of Sofia. Also, I’m still working on the answer to that other question. Every metaphor I keep coming up with doesn’t get the job done…
1.Funny enough, the last time I talked to Phil Assmus about abortion was almost ten years ago. At the time, I was staunchly anti abortion. How the world turns… I’ll address why I find your labels for abortion silly in a bit. At this point, as a transition to #2 I’ll ask this question: Are you prepared to honestly state that you expect every American citizen to abstain from sex unless they are financially (and all other ways) prepared to raise a child that might result? That is absurd. I think your capacity to maintain this belief is linked to having never really known anyone intimately who was not in the same position that you and your beloved are in (financially, and otherwise). The vast majority of Americans do not have CONSISTENT access to health care. If a female member of the working poor (vast majority of Americans) is lucky enough to get a free or reduced cost gynecological exam and some birth control pills, that prescription will only last six months. Here is a fact: for most American women, having an uninterrupted supply of oral (or otherwise) birth control is a dream. You have no idea of what obstacles these women face in finding affordable health care concerning their reproductive issues (or anything else). The simple fact is that most Americans (half of which are women, 100% of whom bear the awesome power/responsibility/burden of child bearing) are either uninsured or underinsured. The vast majority of Americans do not have 3-6 months worth of savings to sustain them in the event of job loss. The vast majority of Americans do not have rich relatives who can bail them out in a jam. Do you know (or intimately care about or love) anyone who fits this description?
What would you and your beloved do if one day out of the blue, you both had no health insurance and suffered a simultaneous financial crisis (and hypothetically had no familial financial support)? Bread would come before ortho tricyclene or condoms. Would you abstain from sex for the two to three years it might take to become solvent again? I doubt it. This is the reality that most Americans face.
Funny you should bring up speeding tickets. I am a proponent of a sliding scale fine system, based on ones tax return’s AGI. A speeding ticket fan financially devastate a member of the working poor and is nothing more than a nuisance to the few.
Which brings me to the “Reese Fallacy.” I only am consistently pointing out that it is beyond ridiculous to form public policy based on the actions, attitudes, behaviors, etc of people who make up less than 1% of the population. For example, I would wager that there is an elite group of Americans who travel almost exclusively by private jet. It would be ridiculous to move every highway patrolman off of the terrestrial highways and put them into the lower atmosphere on supersonic jets policing the movements of the super rich on their private jets. This is as ridiculous as outlawing abortions because there are a miniscule number of women who are serial abortresses, aborting fetuses on a twice annual basis throughout their child bearing years, all the while having unprotected anal sex while simultaneously shooting up heroin while the children who were unlucky enough not to be aborted scrounge around the trash cans for bread crusts. These women are as prevalent in the US as people who exclusively travel by private jet. They exist, but why in the world would be base public policy on their actions? The VAST MAJORITY (+-2.5sd of m) of women who have abortions do so rarely, with profound aforethought (no casualness whatsoever), while trying to live their lives as responsibly as possible given their circumstance. If this is the “Reese Fallacy,” I am guilty as charged. We really have to broaden the perspective on the real world implications… I don’t know how to say this or if it will make sense, but around 750,000 give or take people live in SD. Of these, the profoundly poor are mostly reservation residents, whose social dynamics are a horse of a completely different color. SD does not offer the greatest social awareness level necessary for shaping public policy for an unbelievably heterogeneous nation of 300,000,000 people.
Onto number four. David, your argument on the need to criminalize abortion is rests on the need to hold people responsible for their actions. We need to hold our leaders responsible for their actions. However, there is no call to do so. The people picketing family planning clinics need to go stand outside of the white house for a while. As for Rome and Britain, the choice was between republic and empire (not monarchy, which can be a means of governing an empire, but not necessarily so). The Rome-Britain-US republic/empire dichotomy is coming on the scene in history and political academic circles right now, and I saw a connection, so I mentioned it. Man, I’m out of time. I have to get off this computer.
Peace!
mpr
"Are you prepared to honestly state that you expect every American citizen to abstain from sex unless they are financially (and all other ways) prepared to raise a child that might result?"
ReplyDeleteMy answer is yes, and I find nothing absurd in abstaining from sex. It seems to be analogous to saying that I expect every American to abstain from driving until they can afford a car and pass the drivers' exam.
Driving may be pleasurable, but if you aren't financially prepared for the responsibility associated with it, you have no reason to expect to enjoy that pleasure.
"Which brings me to the “Reese Fallacy.” I only am consistently pointing out that it is beyond ridiculous to form public policy based on the actions, attitudes, behaviors, etc of people who make up less than 1% of the population."
ReplyDeleteUmmm... actually that's not what I was calling the Reese fallacy. The Reese fallacy is where you tell me that I secretly think abortion is murder to stay in lock-step with the mob on my side of the issue. Or it's when you tell me that I should believe that God intentionally made Jesus into a human sacrifice from the beginning of creation to stay lock-step with Luther and Al Goldammer.
And in both cases I suspect you want me to change my opinion because you already have stock arguments against them.
I thought the "Reese Fallacy" was tied to my overly developed fascination with the bell curve. How does this explanation of the Reese Fallacy relate to that?
ReplyDeleteAre there any connections between my definition of idolatry (absolutzing the relative) and the Reese Fallacy?
I have never encountered anyone who accused my arguments of being somehow prepackaged chess moves. This is refreshing.
PS: Nadia got offered a kick-ass job yesterday! We’re going to be set for the next school year.
mpr
Well you do enjoy the bell curve like a fat kid loves cake, but not every use of it constitutes the Reese Fallacy. It's perfectly valid to use it to explain how you think that my image of casual abortion seekers is made up by only a fraction of the standard population. But it's invalid to use it to say that my argument is so unorthodox, that you have to believe that I really intend to be arguing the party line. That's what I had in mind for the "Reese Fallacy"... it's some sort of No True Scotsman or reverse Bandwagon fallacy thrown on one's opponent to make it look he did (or should) change positions, followed by either a Red Herring or Straw Man attack on this new target. But I'm sure it's a short-lived fallacy that will never make it into the logic books; and you'll probably never use it again now that it has been pointed out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that we can define idolatry as you suggest, but we can certainly use in the form of a simile. Where you and I are likely to disagree is in what constitutes 'absolutizing the relative'. (Maybe a better way to say it is 'creating certainty out of probability'.) Or maybe not... I am perfectly happy saying that my belief in a literal resurrection is only probably true. I think it has a strong probability, but it isn't anything like a mathematical proof.
However, to answer your question, this idolatry discussion has nothing to do with the Reese Fallacy.
Anyway, getting back on topic, I'm still waiting for your answer to my question, "Why do you think that people should have sex without being prepared to have a child?" And my other one, "If we both think that intimacy is the primary purpose of sex, doesn't it logically follow that people should only have sex within marriage... when they have a life-long covenant securing the relationship?"
“But why do we dismiss so cavalierly that selfish abortions are not a threat to public safety. I haven't yet built my case on the "human status" of the embryo... but there are empirical facts here that must be taken into consideration. Fetuses aren't boogers or fingernail clippings... they have their own DNA, heartbeat (3 weeks), brainwaves (5 weeks), and free will (kicking, 18th week). No I don't consider abortion the same as murder, but if we are to error in our thoughts on embryos, we should error on the side of giving them human status, not garbage status.”
ReplyDeleteDavid, please explain how you think so-called selfish abortions are a threat to public safety. How does a woman having an abortion pose a threat to you? Are you somehow less safe because a woman has an abortion?
I myself am not threatened... at least not directly. (There is still the cranky old man "our civilization is going to hell in a hand-basket due to those irresponsible teenagers" argument...) But if the unborn child is considered a member of public (or even a potential member of public), then he or she is the one whose safety is threatened. That was all the point I was making. Sorry it wasn't stated more clearly.
ReplyDeleteHey David,
ReplyDeleteI understand the Reese Fallacy now. However, I feel the Bergan Argument against abortion needs to step up the pace a bit. As is, the Bergan Argument is short on premise (allowing abortion on demand fosters decay of personal responsibility ethos in America) and long on conclusion (abortion should be outlawed).
Erin’s question gets to the heart of the Bergan Argument’s deficit:
“David, please explain how you think so-called selfish abortions are a threat to public safety. How does a woman having an abortion pose a threat to you? Are you somehow less safe because a woman has an abortion?”
And, if your response were a swimming pool, it would have “WARNING: No Diving” signs posted around the perimeter.
I, and others, have listed and described ad infinitum what would happen if abortion was outlawed. The negative effects on society and individuals are legion. I, and others, have described at great length how these negative outcomes have a more crushing affect on the poor and women. I have even offered a corollary on the ontological relativity of a fetus. I have consistently explained at length with anecdotal and statistical claims that casual abortions do not exist. I have described at length how Family Planning (which, sadly, sometimes does mean having an abortion) is the essence of personal responsibility. One could dive into the argument for continuation of legal abortion without risk of spinal cord or cranial injury.
On the other hand, we have the abortion = decay of personal responsibility and downfall of American society / republic argument. I still, and for the foreseeable future, maintain that this argument IS offered as a dodge; a way out of discussions of beating hearts and flailing limbs, ontological relativity or absolutes.
Even if the Personal Responsibility is Paramount foundational premise of the Bergan Argument is accepted as fact: that is, when society allows its citizenry to escape the consequences of their actions willy nilly (not Nelson), that society shall not persist, we shall discover within a few moments of discussion that the status of legal abortions does not find its way onto a list of the top ten thousand societal issues in America where allowing its citizenry to escape from the consequences of their actions have any negative affect on the solvency of the Republic.
The list of which I speak should be arranged in order according to how ones irresponsible actions (individually, and then as a collective of individuals acting likewise) wreak havoc on the foundations of the republic based on the following criteria: 1. How do these irresponsible actions inflict pain and suffering onto innocents (Yes, I am prepared to compare the sentient consciousness of an aborted fetus to a chicken on an egg farm or a steer in a slaughter chute in any future argument concerning beating hearts)? 2. To what extent does the irresponsible action allow its actor to gain personally (financially, or otherwise) at the expense of the broader public; and at what ratio? 3. Does the irresponsible action have a compounding effect? That is, would its power to erode the foundations of the republic expand exponentially if allowed to be repeated over and over? [I reserve the right to expand this list in the future. I have to hurry as Sofia is about to wake up and she’ll want breakfast.]
Take the following two items which have been in the news recently: 1.) “war” in Iraq, and 2.) Oxycontin manufacturer on trial.
In regards to #2, recently, the corporation which manufacturers and distributes Oxycontin was found guilty in federal court of knowingly developing a highly addictive narcotic and marketing it as a strong pain killer which is “less addictive” than its current competing drugs. The ensuing marketing campaign, which took place after it was common knowledge throughout the company that the drug was HIGHLY addictive, resulted in an epidemic of addiction and abuse: the crack epidemic of the poor white south (and, similar to the crack epidemic, which was not completely confined to the black ghettos, the oxy epidemic was not confined to the trailer parks of NASCAR Land). The pain and suffering (of fully sentient beings) caused by unleashing this drug on society is immeasurable. Thousands upon thousands of lives cast into ruin, financially, emotionally, marriages destroyed, children growing up with parents in prison, etc, etc, etc.
Our fallible criminal justice system has imprisoned thousands of low-level dealers for oxy related offenses. There are dealers serving sentences of 150 plus years for selling pills. These dealers did not get rich. These are the Kid Rock black-toothed mullet types who drive Camaro-Firebird hybrids.
Meanwhile, not a single corporate executive at the manufacturer will ever see a single day in a cell. In fact, only TWO employees are even being personally fined. These are the guys with the broad view, the ones who knew full well what they were doing and how evil it was. These are the guys who made $2 billion selling these pills. These are the guys whose selfish and irresponsible actions are eroding the foundations of the republic and require the attention of the Bergan Argument.
Onto #1… George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, became convinced BY AN IDEOLOGY (not evidence) that it was in the interest of the US to invade a sovereign nation that in no way posed a threat to the US. This ideology was based on the belief that removing Hussein from power would result in the spontaneous eruption of pro-America love in the hearts and minds of every Iraqi. Further, this love and adoration for the US would lead to the development of a western-style democracy or republic in Iraq. Further, the presence of a western style democracy in Iraq would inspire jealousy in the hearts of Iraq’s neighbors and western style democracies would sprout up throughout the Middle East.
Now, because neither the American people, the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, nor other international law would allow the president of the US to start a war of aggression based on an ideology (better described as a fantasy), the shapers and believers in this ideology developed a way to sell the war. They created a false link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Iraq, 9/11/01 and Iraq, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 9/11/01. They did this knowing at every turn that there was no evidence of any of the claims of fact. And then they lied publicly and often to reinforce the sales strategy.
It is hard to even begin to write a list of the negative outcomes of this unfathomably irresponsible actions and series of actions. A study conducted by the Lancet (employing the same methodology as the studies conducted in the Sudan and lauded by Colin Powell in the year 2000) estimates 750,000 Iraqis have been killed violently as a result of the American invasion. The civil unrest unleashed in the vacuum of Hussein and the Ba’ath party persists: car bombs, execution slaughters of hundreds of people, day in and day out. It is the Virginia Tech incident multiplied by a thousand and taking place every day. Our military is stretched beyond the pale. Our soldiers are dying and suffering. American families are being destroyed. Towns in Kansas cannot deal with natural disasters for which the National Guard was created to deal with. Our national budget does not allow for schoolbooks, teacher raises, health care, infrastructure renewal, border security, port security, carbon fuel alternative development, etc, etc, etc.
The level of suffering caused by this group of people’s unfathomably irresponsible actions cannot be fully known, ever. This is the type of irresponsible action that should be examined under the harsh light of the Bergan Principle: that an irresponsible citizenry erodes the foundation of the republic.
"Why do you think that people should have sex without being prepared to have a child?" Sex with a life partner is part of the immutable human experience. Most Americans would have to wait until they were at least 35 before having sex for the first time just to be financially ready. Puritanical and nuts.
And
"If we both think that intimacy is the primary purpose of sex, doesn't it logically follow that people should only have sex within marriage... when they have a life-long covenant securing the relationship?" I agree. SHOULD, but not mandated by law.
Peace in the Mid-East,
mpr
Hi Michael,
ReplyDelete"Sex with a life partner is part of the immutable human experience. Most Americans would have to wait until they were at least 35 before having sex for the first time just to be financially ready. Puritanical and nuts."
Is that the best you answer you have? Call Dave a Puritan, and the issue is settled? Come on, you can do better than that.
How's the faith analogy coming?
Kind regards,
David
Hey David,
ReplyDeleteHere is a must-listen-to radio program. It is extremely illuminative in regards to the issue of how sex between adults is something that… well, it seems to me cannot be subtracted from the human experience for years on end while adults struggle to establish 401-K’s, get health insurance coverage, a mortgaged 3 bedroom/2bath, etc etc etc.
Sex can have unintended negative consequences. If you do not want to have a child at that moment in your life, a pregnancy is an unintended negative consequence. Obviously, HIV is an unintended negative consequence of sex. In the face of death on a scale not seen since the bubonic plague, the African continent struggles with… well, just listen to the program:
http://www.radioopensource.org/the-spread-of-hiv-in-africa/
Seriously, if anyone really expects humanity to abstain from sex as a solution to the abortion or any other issue, listen to this to help shape your perspective.
Further, what of the Bergan Principle that citizenry acting irresponsibly erodes the foundation of the republic and the Reese Response - the inverse proportionality between the effects of the so called “moral” issues of gay but sex and abortion have on said erosion and the attention our representatives and their constituencies pay them.
We’re moving to El Paso for good next week!
It’s Sofia’s birthday party tomorrow! New pictures coming to my blog soon…
mpr
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Michael,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay. The radio program you suggested was an hour long, and I've been so busy the last couple weeks that it took awhile to fit that in.
I was expecting to find therein some sort of philosophical defense for casual sex making people happy, but I didn't hear anything of the sort. Instead it was a discussion on how HIV is storming across Africa and how we should stop it. What was interesting to me was noticing that while the native Africans on the program all suggested that casual sex must be curtailed, it was the US/UK representatives who kept dismissing the idea as being "Puritanical". Why is it that when casual sex is so obviously devouring a continent, the US/UK social correspondents aren't willing to point out the common sense cure? Even the native African nightclub singer quite unexpectedly (to me anyway) enunciated a call for chastity as enthusiastically as born-again Christians.
The dismissal of the native African's position by the US/UK commentators was entirely founded on that one word: Puritanical. And in your recent posts, that same word has been almost the exclusive argument against my position on casual sex. So let's examine that Puritanism and find what evil lurks therein.
The Puritan aim was to be as Godly as possible... a noble goal if there ever was one. Their view on sex was to save it only for marriage (unlike the Shakers who thought sex to be entirely a sin). They also, by and large, felt that sex should be reserved for the intent of procreation, since too much indulgence in pleasures of the flesh (like too much drinking or gambling) could distract one from spiritual devotion. That last part may sound unusual to a post-60's America, but what would be the trouble if this view of sex were adopted universally? It seems to me that HIV and abortion both would be squelched as social issues in about one generation.
I'm not saying that chastity is easy... like courage, non-plagiarism, or any other virtue, it takes self-discipline and social encouragement to master. But there isn't any reason to dismiss it altogether just because it is hard. We would still encourage bravery, even if most people prefer to be cowards. So even if chastity is hard... nay, especially if chastity is hard, we should be all the more vigorous in teaching it to our children and neighbor's children.
The sting in the word Puritan doesn't come from their view on sex. It isn't chastity that's inherently repulsive... but the Puritan's judgmental attitude. And you can be sure that I will shout until my lungs bleed against the sin of judging other people. But the Puritans' judgmental-ness in no way invalidates the reasonableness of the virtue of chastity.
What I have observed here is that invoking the word "Puritanical" (like invoking the word "rights") is a cheap, but effective, rhetorical trick. Because Puritan implies judgment along with the real virtues they aimed for, you can almost always override someone's conscience with that one word. No one wants to be thought of as judgmental, and so the high school virgin sluts herself to the drunk lecher when he labels as Puritanical her desire to save sex for her future husband. But again the virtue of chastity is not logically bound to the sin of judgment. There is just this one case where a word combines the two connotations. Chastity until monogamy, as a virtue on its own, is better for both intimacy and procreation... as well as avoiding the negatives of HIV and abortion. So what exactly do you object to?
"I still, and for the foreseeable future, maintain that this argument IS offered as a dodge; a way out of discussions of beating hearts and flailing limbs, ontological relativity or absolutes."
I will continue to present my argument as it appears clearly in my mind... that I believe it to be an axiom of government to enforce the responsibility of its citizens, and that 'standard abortions' (the new term for what I had heretofore called 'casual abortions' and then 'selfish abortions') are a flagrant violation of personal responsibility. However, I am perfectly willing to wander into these other topics if that's really where you think the meat is.
Beating hearts and flailing limbs: How exactly does this help your side? It seems that these are two more self-evident reasons to take my position. Standard abortions are irresponsible AND gross AND likely murder.
Ontological relativity: Your position is that an embryo/fetus isn't a human being until the mother wants to bear a child. It's ontological humanness is totally at the whim of the mother. But, you qualify, once the child is born, it is a human for sure.
I don't know how this is supposed to be a compelling argument. I can't make my computer a horny toad, nor can someone else turn a fetus into a parasite just by thinking so. Legally there is absolutely no precedent for it, and establishing one would be complete madness. ("Sorry officer, it might look like murder to you, but it was recreation for me.")
Second, it strikes me as two-faced to maintain that 1 hour after birth the baby is ontologically absolutely a human, but 1 hour before birth it is up to the mother. If you think the child is a parasite during the 9-months of pregnancy, it is even moreso the next two years. The 'inconvenience' of pregnancy is fractional compared to the 'inconvenience' of motherhood. The truth is that standard abortions are in fact preemptive infanticide, just like cracking an egg is preemptive chicken-killing. If someone was morally opposed to eating chickens, they couldn't eat eggs in good conscience.
The only difference between standard abortions and true infanticide is the elusive philosophical question of humanness. (This was even acknowledged by Roe's attorney in the Oral Arguments of Roe v Wade.*) I think that empirical evidence shows that fetuses do have the biological traits of a human from a very early stage (unique DNA immediately, and a heartbeat at 3 weeks), and therefore should be legally viewed just like an infant.
But I recognize that my argument about humanness is less concrete than my argument about irresponsibility. From an irresponsibility point of view abortion and infanticide are equivalent; both amount to shirking duty from the consequences of one's actions.
Therefore my stance is that standard abortions are probably murder, but certainly irresponsible and certainly preemptive infanticide. And that's a prima facie case.
"Further, what of the Bergan Principle that citizenry acting irresponsibly erodes the foundation of the republic and the Reese Response - the inverse proportionality between the effects of the so called “moral” issues of gay but sex and abortion have on said erosion and the attention our representatives and their constituencies pay them."
Are you sure this isn't a dodge to get me off the subject of abortion? ;)
I agree that the Oxycotin manufacturers acted irresponsibly, and weren't justly punished.
I agree that our political leaders started the war in Iraq for the wrong reasons, and with bad/insufficient evidence. I hate fascism with ever drop of blood in my veins, and am glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power... but I also think civil war is the worst of all possible wars, and have a hard time choosing which is the lesser of the two evils. (Oppressive government vs anarchy was an LD debate resolution when I was in High School, and I could never convince myself thoroughly of one side or the other.) Either way, I do agree with you that Bush and company should have been more thorough in their research and more honest in their speeches.
However, I also believe that the irresponsibility generated by casual abortions is significant, and that a nation's virtue can only be cultivate from the bottom up... just as Confucius said in probably the wisest advice ever given to a governor:
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the Kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.
* http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/reargument/
Meanwhile...how about talking about reducing the numbers of abortions? Something I presume we can all agree on. Oh, but outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them. Widespread access to birth control does, though. I know I'm getting all pragmatic here on you, David, but I'll even venture to say that working for widespread access to birth control is a much more effective use of our time and resources than is trying to convince everyone in the world that they shouldn't engage in pre- or extramarital sex.
ReplyDeleteYou know, 'cause it's all about the babies.
Hi Erin,
ReplyDelete"Oh, but outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them. Widespread access to birth control does, though."
To which I have always responded that we should fight this enemy with every weapon we've got. Ramp up sex ed, make contraceptives cheap, encourage chastity in our churches and culture, and outlaw standard abortions. I don't see how the birth control argument invalidates the argument that standard abortions should also be illegal.
"working for widespread access to birth control is a much more effective use of our time and resources than is trying to convince everyone in the world that they shouldn't engage in pre- or extramarital sex."
Wow. I'm at a loss. A devout Christian is telling me it's better to dispense medicine than to encourage virtue. Should I spend time comforting people in grief, or is it a "much more effective use of our time and resources" to just give them a bottle of Prozac? In my opinion, no amount of drugs will be able to redeem a society that has lost a grip on fundamental virtues. For each virtue there is but one way to attain it, and a million ways to deviate. Giving up chastity because it isn't 'pragmatic' not only affects the amount of standard abortions, but also STDs, pornography, prostitution, marital strife, depression, the divorce rate, single-parent children, etc. I think it requires much more time and resources to diagnose and medicate each individual effect of unchastity.
And furthermore, I believe that just medicating these sorts of situations doesn't extend our Christian love the way that encouraging virtue does. To stay mute while a teenager engages in reckless sexual adventures and then just toss her a morning after pill to make sure she's not pregnant, an antibiotic if she catches syphilis, or a Prozac if her partner cheats on her, shows a lack of loving her. If you really loved her you would encouraging behavior that is healthy for her body and spirit. Promiscuity isn't.
"You know, 'cause it's all about the babies."
Actually it's not. My point has been from my first post on this blog until today that it's all about responsibility. Standard abortions are irresponsible, severely irresponsible, and no person should be allowed to have one. Would you ever consider a law making infanticide legal, in the hopes of decreasing the amount of infanticide? What's the difference?
Kind regards,
David
I just wanted to point out something from a new study out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/. Now I'm the first one that thinks that abortion statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I noticed something, well, odd. If you look at the numbers of abortions performed in Europe, they are eerily similar to the US/Canada numbers. I point this out because one would think that Europe would have significantly fewer abortions.
ReplyDeleteI say this because many argue that the best way to lower abortion rates is to provide better healthcare (more affordable private or universal), provide comprehensive Sex-Ed, and contraceptive use. There's nothing wrong with doing these things, I just wonder if they really lower abortion rates in practice.
Speaking as someone who is in that age category that has high numbers of abortions, I don't really believe they factor in as much as our elders believe. Mr. Bergan might be right that this issue is more a matter of responsibility...