The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Thu, 21 May 2009 09:35:31 -0000

steve,

While I get the feeling we’re beating a dead horse here, I do think this is a good conversation to have. I think it’s healthy to express a bit more of a spectrum of belief. As to your most recent points, as we are so deep into this, I will try, likely unsuccessfully, to keep this brief.

1: I don’t think I’ve argued that a zygote has a sense of self, or consciousness, in the way you and I understand it. That being said, I’m not sure our understanding of what it means to have a sense of self or consciousness is a fair metric by which we can authoritatively and ethically ascribe value to life. It is the very argument used to defend (often needless) animal testing, the brutal raising and slaughtering of commercial livestock, as well as just about any form of animal cruelty imaginable, so it’s certainly not beyond any of our imaginations how such a rationale could be (and is, in fact, regularly) misused.

2: I am not moved by arguments that seek to rationalize abortion based around the idea that the fetus does not feel pain; although the condition is extremely rare, Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis is an affliction in which children are born and (if they’re lucky, grow up) unable to feel pain or differentiate between extreme temperature shifts. They never develop a real concept for pain and are therefore forced to live extremely sheltered lives so as to not do harm to themselves. We protect them from their inability to feel pain. We do not exploit their disability to serve our own purposes or convenience. Granted, they are not fetuses, but to carry on from the point you make about defining something by the way it functions, the logical ends of that argument would suggest that we should treat people with various physical disabilities and certainly those with cognitive disabilities as if they belonged to a different class of being.

3: I am not remotely convinced that “almost any living animal” (a category that includes far more species of insect than mammal) have a greater sense of sentience than a fetus of three or four months. And I do have to restate that it is far better to say “person” than human if we’re going to throw the potentiality rationale about. Let me restate, though, that I don’t dispute the need for lines to be drawn. I simply dispute that there are any good options when it comes to when we draw these lines. Which is not to say there are not rational ones.

4: Speaking of rational arguments, your statement that an individual sex cell has essentially carries the same level of potential for what you describe as “human life” is anything but. That’s like saying a guy who holds a lottery ticket for tonight’s drawing has just as much potential for collecting millions as the guy who won the lottery on Tuesday. Actually, the odds are far worse than that. A single sperm has to overcome those kinds of odds just to make it to the egg. The odds against being the single sperm (out of the billions a man will generate throughout his life) that actually fertilizes the egg are astronomical! But even the single sperm that beats those obscene odds will never be what you call a “human being.” Ever. Upon fertilization, a sperm and an egg cease to be. They literally become something else. They go from two different things, to a new third thing which carries an entirely unique (as in never seen before or ever again) genetic code. This new thing will do an incredible feat: over the next 38-42 weeks, it will grow from a two cell organism to one that literally has billions of cells. Try as it may, your sperm will never do that. ;)

5: To your comparison of brain dead vs. brain alive. Again, it all feels like rationalization to me. We treat them differently, yes. As we should. But they are not different things. Let’s come up with a more apt comparison. At thirty, I am different today than I was in 1979, when I was born. Starkly. In many ways, being a newborn is very unlike most any stage of development that follows, so when I was a newborn I was as unlike me as I ever hope to be again. But I think that you and I both agree that I was still me. Sure, change what came next, and I could have become a different kind of person than I am today, but I would still be the same person. I was as much me, I think you and I would agree, the day I came out as I was me the day before I came out. In fact, though it has never breathed air before, a fetus of 30 weeks is not all that different from a newborn. It is certainly more like a newborn than a newborn is like an adult. It’s kind of like (although there are obvious limitations to this analogy) comparing different species of great ape. A chimp looks more like a gorilla, but it is genetically far more closely related to Homo sapiens. A bonobo is more closely related to us than it is to a regular chimpanzee! Of course, unlike a fetus, a bonobo is not us, so there, the analogy falls apart. Yet, we’d still rather kill a fetus than a bonobo, yes?

6: As an aside, brain alive people are allowed to die every day as anybody who’s ever had to endure watching a loved one die in hospice care can attest.

7: You say: “I'll certainly agree that the termination of a 24 month old is a fetus because I think that being is pretty close to a baby and the end of that ‘life’ is not a good thing.” First, I’m not sure where the 24 weeks (as I think you mean) comes from. My guess is this is where you pinpoint the end of the second trimester and the beginning of the third, that is to say that you would be counting a month as four weeks and a trimester as three months. Given that math, though, the gestational period would last only 36 weeks. In fact, it lasts 40 weeks. The first trimester lasts from 0-14 weeks. You can see and hear the beating hear (via ultrasound) at seven weeks. Toward the end of the first trimester (between weeks 10 and 13), a woman goes an ultrasound to measure the nuchal sack, which will help doctors to gauge the likelihood of genetic/chromosomal abnormalities. It is at this point that a woman is able to get the first look at her fetus as a visibly living, moving humanoid complete with arms, legs, fingers and toes. That’s a week 12. Not even a third of the way there. At week 20, you go in for an anatomy scan. The fetus is very close to being anatomically, a baby, and is now large enough that a woman may be feeling the fluttering movements inside. By 24 weeks, less than a month past the halfway point (and your example threshold), a fetus has a 50% chance of survival outside the womb with intensive medical care, a fact that makes it kind of absurd to continue referring to it as a fetus after that point, so while I whole-heartedly agree that the ending of a pregnancy at that point is not, as you put it, “a good thing,” I’m at a loss as to how one would go about pinpointing a moment in the weeks and months prior to that point in which we can safely refer to such an act as an unequivocally “good” thing.

8: While, as a father of two who would have been happy to go on living and working in Brooklyn for the next twenty years, but who now lives outside of Atlanta, I can certainly agree that children can be burdensome, I don’t believe this alone can act to justify an abortion. I understand the fear of the burden. I know that a pregnancy can feel like a punishment or a curse. It is neither of those things. Parenthood is a life sentence, though. A consequence. An opportunity. And a demanding call for responsibility. An abortion, by anybody’s definition, is a way of shirking that responsibility. It is not a way of dealing with the consequences as much as it is an effective way of running away from them. I know that sounds callous.

9: I praise Obama for his tone, not simply in comparison with Bush’s (that’s a low bar to set). I praise Obama’s tone on this whether I compare it to Bush or any other public figure or loud voice on the matter (regardless of his or her perspective).

Again, I enjoyed this back and forth. I do think it’s important for thinking people. Honest people. To speak up and debate this matters. For those of us who generally agree on most areas, but have specific differences to air and understand those differences. Thanks.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

steve — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:49 -0000

Breaker:

A zygote, unlike a skin cell or an appendix is not simply a component; it is instead a body and a being unto itself. Once we accept that, and I’m hard pressed to come up with a reasonable refusal to accept it, we move on (as you have) to the idea of the scale that classifies the quality of life.

There's the rub. The zygote does not have many of the qualities that we consider when we value a human life. It has nothing like "consciousness" -- you can argue that we really don't know that it doesn't but I would guess that you would agree with that statement since you have a good science background. Fetuses likely don't feel pain until the 3rd trimester (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0.... From another standpoint, one can easily argue that almost any living animal has a much higher degree of sentience than any fetus younger than 6 months. So one has to fall back on the 'potentiality' of being human to value the human zygote/embryo/fetus above the life of an animal(which most people do).

Thus we can't argue that a fetus has it's value for what it is , but rather for what it's potential is -- a full human being. Agree or disagree? If you agree then we can go back to a sperm and an egg that sit in a petri dish next to each other but have not gotten together yet. Isn't this a potential human life, with the process of conception plus gestation in a womb? So why isn't this also a potential human, but with some more processes than your definition of a human life (which includes this exact same matter, but after the matter has been mixed to become a zygote). I agree that a zygote is MORE life-like than the sperm and the egg that have not undergone fertilization, but I don't think it's fair to say they contain that much difference in POTENTIAL human life, which seems to be a crux of your argument.

I argue that the scale is necessary. It is rational. But it is not good. And it is not true. The scale asks that we value these things differently, but it should not obscure the simple fact that these things we value differently are not different things.

Again - I have to disagree. They are different things just as a brain dead person is different from a brain-alive person. Most people are comfortable with the idea of letting a brain dead person die despite the fact that letting a brain-alive person die is impossible to conceive. What's the difference between the two? The brain dead person has the same physical makeup, but has different processes that define it's value. In the same way, it's not the physical make-up of a zygote/embryo/fetus that define it's value as a human, but it's processes (i.e. thought, experience, perception). As development continues, the PROCESSES that develop make the embryo/fetus increase its' value as a human.

They are the same thing in different stages of development. I was once a fetus. You were once an embryo. There was not this one thing that became us. We were that thing. And there is an importance to that which I believe the pro-choice community seek to marginalize.

Again, I think it's more rational position to define a thing by what it does and not what it's physical make-up is. Thought experiment: if your brain lived in a jar, but you still had all the same sensations even though all of your limbs and organs were mechanical, would you have the same value as everyone else? I think you'd argue yes, because the brain is where our value as humans comes from. Given the way in which brains develop in embryos and fetuses, I think you have a weak position for arguing they are the same THING as we are, given the very very primitive state of their brains at that time (especially early in pregnancy).

the size of the "tragedy" is in the eye of the beholder. I'll certainly agree that the termination of a 24 month old is a fetus because I think that being is pretty close to a baby and the end of that "life" is not a good thing. The end of an embryo's life is a much much smaller tragedy.

Your point about the regret woman feel from abortion is true, but misses the bigger picture. I completely agree that woman might feel a host of bad feelings after an abortion, and I also agree that many woman ignore this when they decide to abort. That said, what about the incredible burden created by carrying a baby to term and then either putting it up for adoption or raising it? -- that is a much larger badness for the woman than the negative feelings associated with abortion, and this must be considered when making the decision.

We can definitely agree on our evaluation of Obama's tone -- the contrast with Bush's simplicity is unbelievable.

I will say that I think the points you raise are among the most intelligent advocating the pro-life argument (even though you favor abortion rights), and that's because you actually think about it. Which gets back to my original point that many people on both sides do not think about it, but there is more non-thought on the right, especially given that the right is so often anti-science along with being pro-religion. Look at global arming and hot the right and left have responded to the science on that subject. I agree that it is healthy to be a skeptic, but the arguments from some people on the right are truly laughable.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:23:18 -0000

There’s a clear difference between being a part of and being connected to. Your finger is a part of you. The individual cells of your finger (bone, muscle, skin, blood, etc.) all carry, within their nucleus, your genetic code. If we had the technology, we could clone you based on the genetic material contained within your finger.

A fetus, though it is connected by an umbilical cord to a placenta that is attached to the uterine wall is still an individual organism unto itself. It has a unique genetic code. It is attached and utterly dependent on the mother. But it is not part of the mother.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:11:43 -0000

@steve

As per skin cells being human, they are. Human is an adjective. When placed in front of a noun, it modifies the noun. We’re not talking about just any skin cell, we’re talking about a human skin cell. The real question crux about the debate is not whether or not a zygote or a fetus are human, they are quite literally individual members of the species Homo sapien. The key question is whether or not a zygote or fetus qualify as a being. Not all things that have life are an organism unto themselves. A skin cell (or a finger or whatever), though it has life, is not an organism. Instead, a skin cell is part of a multi-celled organism. Seeing as a skin cell is merely a component of a greater whole, a skin cell is not a being unto itself. A zygote is different, but you know that. A zygote is a profoundly unique organism, unlike anything that has ever been or will ever be. That is an important distinction. A zygote, unlike a skin cell or an appendix is not simply a component; it is instead a body and a being unto itself. Once we accept that, and I’m hard pressed to come up with a reasonable refusal to accept it, we move on (as you have) to the idea of the scale that classifies the quality of life.

If we are to accept that the life of the unborn (at any stage of development) is not equal to the life of the mother (and I believe we should accept that), then we have already established some rudimentary hierarchy. Further, if we are going to allow for pregnancies to be terminated when the life of the mother is not at stake (as I believe there is still a need), then we obviously need some kind of scale that considers a zygote different from an embryo, an embryo different from a fetus, a fetus different from a baby. In the end, I argue that the scale is necessary. It is rational. But it is not good. And it is not true. The scale asks that we value these things differently, but it should not obscure the simple fact that these things we value differently are not different things. They are the same thing in different stages of development. I was once a fetus. You were once an embryo. There was not this one thing that became us. We were that thing. And there is an importance to that which I believe the pro-choice community seek to marginalize.

I don’t believe the motives are nefarious (not usually, anyway). I believe people act out of a perceived necessity. There is a sense within many that because abortion is a necessity (which I believe it to be), that it cannot be treated as a de facto tragedy. That we cannot accept the full gravity of what has occurred with each procedure lest we cause some to question its necessity. These people, tend to try to push the darkness of the procedure out of sight. That while it’s not unusual for a woman to feel sorrow, guilt, or clinical depression following an abortion, there’s really no reason for the kind of reaction. Mind you, I do not think these are the opinions of the majority of people who are favor abortion rights. I simply believe these are the loudest voices. And I do believe they have an impact. They persuade some. They repel others. Really, all I meant to be addressing with any of this is that I believe the president’s tone on this, (which expresses empathy and sympathy) to be spot on. I’m sorry if my own tone wasn’t. Posting at work can limit my ability to focus on the argument in as clear a way as I should have.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

steve — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:29 -0000

You are either living or not. Are there and can there be different classifications of what it means to be alive?

For the purpose of this discussion, we may have gotten off track with the living/non-living distinction, I thought we were mainly focused on "human" living.

Is a zygote, which is a unique individual that is both human and alive a human being? By definition, yes. That is not a point that can be honestly debated.

And yet we are debating it, because the value of a life as a human life is NOT agreed upon here. You seem to base your argument on a kind of biological classification which would lead us to classify a skin cell (or an appendix) as a human as well (which you've already rejected).

Your increasing scale of humanity (and indeed, I think we all have some kind of scale in our minds) while it serves to answer the question of why you think it's okay to terminate a pregnancy during certain stages, it does very little to mark a threshold for when (except in extreme cases) is it no longer okay. Presumably such a threshold exists. Where do we mark it? How do we justify the mark? People used to talk about viability, but that is a moving target.

yes, I agree that my fuzzy definitions make setting policy more difficult as the equation of weighing the rights of the fetus and the mom is not an easy one, but that does not mean it can't be set. I stick to my position that early abortions are acceptable because I believe that the weights of the mom outweigh the rights of the fetus at that point. You're absolutely right that I do have to draw a line (e.g. first trimester) and that line is based upon a fuzzy equation in my head, but just because I cannot describe exactly how that equation is created doesn't mean it's not a decent line to draw.

I agree it's very difficult to justify where the line should be, but sometimes we do have to draw fuzzy lines based upon fuzzy calculations. Just because my position creates a difficult problem of drawing a line doesn't change my fundamental belief that it is a tough question -- should I abdicate reason whenever it leads me to a place where there are no easy answers? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Why do I assume people know abortion is unjust? Because I take for granted that there exists a somewhat common sense that it is wrong to kill your child, even if that child has not been born.

Yes, you take it for granted, but that's a mistake. I don't assume that pro-life people agree with my conception of human life as a continuous variable, in fact, the whole point of my post is to say how their assumptions are different from mine. Yet you keep on telling me that it is "common sense" that destroying an embryo is "wrong" -- which can only imply that I am some kind of idiot or liar for not believing this "obvious" fact.

I don't believe we need the government or religion to tell us it's wrong. I think we know it.

I agree with the first part -- religion so often does tell people how to think and is the main reason why we haven't had as much stem-cell research in the past eight years as we should have -- what a ridiculous tragedy demonstrating my point -- binary, simple minded thinking that has delayed progess on curing diseases -- talk about immoral.

As for the second part, you said "I don't mean to tell you what to believe", but your actually telling me what I DO believe, which is pretty silly. I actually think it's okay to tell people what they SHOULD believe, because that is how we try and make the world a better place -- by convincing people that our positions are better.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:01:55 -0000

@ steve (and Bruce)

I honestly don't mean to be a jerk, I don't mean to tell you what to believe. But human is an adjective. A zygote created when two sex cells of two Homo sapiens merged is, by definition human. Living is a simple state of being. You are either living or not. Are there and can there be different classifications of what it means to be alive? Sure. But when something is living is it also technically alive? Unquestionably, yes. Is a zygote, which is a unique individual that is both human and alive a human being? By definition, yes. That is not a point that can be honestly debated.

Again this isn't to say that a zygote is equal to a two year old. If I believed that, I couldn't very well be remotely in favor of abortion rights. Which I am.

And again, I don't believe you have some secret agenda. I believe you maintain your position through a number of necessary rationalizations (I believe all of our perspectives are the result of rationalization, really such is life). It's not part of an agenda unless you consider living with your opinion to be an agenda. Your increasing scale of humanity (and indeed, I think we all have some kind of scale in our minds) while it serves to answer the question of why you think it's okay to terminate a pregnancy during certain stages, it does very little to mark a threshold for when (except in extreme cases) is it no longer okay. Presumably such a threshold exists. Where do we mark it? How do we justify the mark? People used to talk about viability, but that is a moving target.

Why do I assume people know abortion is unjust? Because I take for granted that there exists a somewhat common sense that it is wrong to kill your child, even if that child has not been born. I don't believe we need the government or religion to tell us it's wrong. I think we know it. The question is how do we live with that knowledge. The answer invariably is suppression and rationalization.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Jennifer D. — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:42:24 -0000

The thing is, if you're going to advocate for a woman's right to choose, then it has to be for all women. Most do not take it lightly, but a small percentage do. Depends on how you define "lightly" I guess. Personally, I think someone using abortion as birth control with multiple abortions over the span of a decade may be taking it "lightly." On the other hand, I support her right to choose even though I find it personally distasteful, because I support it for all women. Obama's doing that thing he does so well trying to illustrate for us both sides of the argument and find a center of civil agreement, and that's one of the reasons I voted for him. On the other hand, not just the women who go home from their abortion and pray for forgiveness should be protected here. The freedom to choose should be for all women, regardless of what I or the government think of their "moral" character and considerations before and after the act.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

albatross — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:40:10 -0000

I think the most vocal folks on both sides of this issue are constantly oversimplifying the other side, with the goal of demonizing them. That said, it's a really big world. Some women no doubt *do* have casual, serial abortions without a moral twinge. Some opponents of abortion surely want to shove women back into nineteenth century sex roles. But by all accounts and all evidence I've seen, both of those are tiny, tiny groups.

It seems to me that there's a large majority of Americans who agree that abortion is almost always a bad thing, even though some think it's a necessary evil. What I wish we had more of is some explicit policies directed toward decreasing the number of abortions happening. For example, making sure birth control is easy to get, and making sure that pregnant women in various situations (in high school, in college, unemployed, poor) can get the support needed to have their baby and maybe give it up for adoption without wrecking their lives, might decrease the number of abortions by quite a bit.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Bruce — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:35:36 -0000

@BreakerBaker...ok, we've now gone into the magical world of he say she say...i say a zygote is not a human being, and you say it is...i'm not going to discuss this further with you for the simple reason that i won't give in, and i guess you won't...so i hope you'll understand that it's still just an opinion you're holding!

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Jennifer D. — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:29:31 -0000

To the men advocating for life, I ask you are you willing to work for legislation that demands men be not only responsible for at least one half of the costs but the whole responsibility for raising each and every child born in the world?

Excellent question.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:27:04 -0000

We belong to the subgroup (within the initial WE) that believes if abortion is legal, the person to make the judgment as to whether or not a woman has an abortion is the woman herself. This is not to say that I belong to a We that says the woman’s judgment on the matter is always and necessarily sound. Simply, that if anybody is going to make the decision, it has to be her.

This basically sums up my position, also.

I don't so much disagree with your critique of the pro-choice argument as I (with all due respect, no sarcasm) think it's irrelevant. I think pro-choicers have helped make the point--but I don't think some of the more obnoxious arguments are the reason why Americans continue to protect abortion.

It's because the issue is so personal. If you're a woman, the idea of the state dictating such a decision to you is often horrifying. If you're a father/brother/husband/son the idea of the state dictating the decision for your loved is often horrifying.

Obviously not everyone believes this--but a lot of people do, enough that abortion is still legal.

Again, I understand your point about obnoxious arguments--but I don't think those arguments are what motivate every day people.

It's like the Schiavo thing. There is a particularly callous way of looking at end of life issues. But that's not what motivated so many people. It was the idea of the government telling them how to care for their loved one in their last days that scared them. And understandably so, I might add.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

steve — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:00:39 -0000

Breaker-baker,

I don't think you an win an argument by just keep stating that your answer is correct. When you say "Neither human nor alive? But it's unquestionably both of those things!", it's Unquestionable to you, but not to me or some other people.

You keeping using this word "rationalization" which implies that pro-choice people agree with you but are afraid to admit it. That's just not the case.

"You can try to hypothesize that a moment occurs prior to birth, at birth, or even months after the fact (the first several months of life are called, by many, the fourth trimester), but all of that is rationalization."

This misses my point completely. I don't see human life as a 0 or a 1. At conception, I wouldn't even give it a zero, I'd give it a slight positive number. As the fetus grows, the value grows to 1. This isn't something I do to hide some agenda, it is how I conceive of the issue and objective reality gives me some support.

You say I rationalize because I "know that abortion is unjust". I'm not even sure what "justice" means here. But ok, I'll bite. Sure it's unjust because the rights of two potential lives are being pitted against each other. If the abortion happens, the mom wins and the fetus loses. That is very unjust for the fetus. If the mom is forced to bear the child, the fetus wins and the mom loses. That's unjust for the mom. The whole point is not that some 'unjustice' exists (as it always will), but rather what is the proper weighting between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. Do you disagree with that?

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Eduardo — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:58:24 -0000

That's exactly what I was arguing, I mentioned Rick Warren just as an example. I think they are other better examples like when he "commended" McCain for working across the aisle just to mention almost meaningless things knowing full well that McCain a) had really crossed the aisle in way more important subjects b) had flip-flopped on those and couldn't defend himself against the back handed compliment. McCain lost it right there and his performance from that moment on went down.

We are good, Bruce.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:32:48 -0000

Indeed, we belong to the same “we” and to different “we’s. ” The We I was addressing before was the general We who oppose the criminalization of abortion. Likewise, We belong to the subgroup (within the initial WE) that believes if abortion is legal, the person to make the judgment as to whether or not a woman has an abortion is the woman herself. This is not to say that I belong to a We that says the woman’s judgment on the matter is always and necessarily sound. Simply, that if anybody is going to make the decision, it has to be her. I don’t know if on that, we belong to the same We. But I also ascribe to the societal necessity perspective, although I believe that could change.

As to whether or not We are winning. I personally believe there’s a bit more fluidity of thought. Generally, I think the nation is more ambivalent. I think they believe abortion should be legal, but I think they're also turned off by the argument that denies the humanity of a fetus, this is the perspective that likens a fetus to an organ, nothing more than a part of the woman’s body or, worse, a parasite, an intruder that can be justifiably expelled as a matter of fact. Given that I believe there to be a fluidity of thought on the matter, I believe such rampant intellectual dishonesty, which once fueled the cause could one day undermine it.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

CitizenE — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:08:34 -0000

As I said above, the moral issue for pro life appears to be quite clear. However, the moral issue for abortion--the issue of defacto since the beginning of humanity slavery--is always glossed over--just look at the thread so far. Not only is there the issue of what goes on within a woman's body, which goes to the heart of the legal decision, but who is responsible for the labor of child raising. Because there is choice, one can choose to bring a baby to term if one wishes to do so, but unless there were laws enacted and enforced, and abortion outlawed, women would remain the responsible work force for raising children--a two decade commitment. To the men advocating for life, I ask you are you willing to work for legislation that demands men be not only responsible for at least one half of the costs but the whole responsibility for raising each and every child born in the world?

I for one do not think this is simply a social necessity issue. I am a son, brother, father, and grandfather to women and a girl. However, that does not mean that I don't see the pro-life's moral (stronger than just ethical) position, only that at this point in history, it does not hold precedence for me.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

marta — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:00:54 -0000

Deva, it seems to me the real contradiction is when militant anti-abortion activists don't also oppose ALL war. Even accepting for the sake of argument the innocent/guilty distinction some pro-lifers make to reconcile their opposition to abortion and their support of capital punishment, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a war in which innocents are not killed. So once a pro-lifer accepts that there are principles in war that outweigh the value of innocent life, then they are no longer arguing from the principle that innocent life is ALWAYS of greater value than any other principle (something I don't believe). There are actually a few principled pro-lifers who take very very consistent pro-life stands -- against abortion, against capital punishment, against war, against poverty -- but they are few and far between. They are all, in my experience, also folks who would be very very happy to talk to President Obama, or you and me for that matter!

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Bruce — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:57:26 -0000

I didn't see it as much as a match as i saw it as two people who drew advantage from each other. And people on both sides thought that was a bad thing...for me it was a "meh" moment...small win for warrens side maybe...i wanted to look at the "big" picture.

now, if you're arguing that obama is a savvy politician...well yes...i think he's sometimes too savvy for his supporters best. I think if people are too kind to him, and don't criticise him when he get's it wrong, he won't change, because that's the type of political animal he is. As you put it, he punches seemlessly and without notice. Now, i must apologize for my poor choice of words, it wasn't intended to be demeaning, and i think it's best for the discourse if such language is left out.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

zacksback — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:53:51 -0000

I'm not here about the abortion debate, but about the ND debate.

The overwhelming majority of ND students supported the invitation (including many who are pro-life). The batshit craziness came from Randall Terry and his extremist ilk who basically decided to invade South Bend for the duration. Talk to the vast majority of the ND community, and they are almost to a person supremely pissed at the clusterfuck these yahoos turned commencement into.

The situation wasn't helped by the media. An ND student told of a fellow undergrad who was asked his opinion by a CNN reporter - when he began to express support of the university giving Obama an honorary degree, the reporter cut him off in the middle of his response with a curt "Thanks" and went off to find some nutjob holding a fetus in formaldehyde.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:26:17 -0000

Why do people continue to insist that it's unclear when life begins, when what they mean is that it's unclear at what point life acquires value? Why do we need euphemisms if our argument is so strong? If we're winning, why is it still part of our MO to deny simple truths?

Perhaps we should define the "We" and then we can define the goals. The "We" that I belong to, simply believes that, on balance, a woman is a better judge of whether to terminate her pregnancy than the state, and that she should have that right. By that simple standard, in the long view of history, that "We" is winning. I don't think there's much more it.

People can continue to debate over the ethics of abortion--I think that's healthy. I don't believe that abortion is "a moral good." I believe that choice is a societal necessity. My goal isn't to make people think aborting a baby is like tossing a dresser into the trash. It's to convince them the best answer--not the perfect answer--is to leave these matters in the hands of mothers.

That argument has never, in history, carried more power and had more endorsers than it does right now. I call that winning.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:14:22 -0000

I apologised above for what could clearly be read as too callous a representation. I did not intend to suggest the right of the fetus to be born was greater than the right of the woman to live. I do not privledge the well-being of the fetus over that of the mother. I simply value and acknowledge the life and body of the fetus.

Mind you, I believe in the moral necessity of abortion rights. This is not to say I am not torn. I have never told a pregnant woman that her rights were beside the point. I do think it's important to remember that this isn't simply the right over her own body she's exercising. It's a right over somebody elses.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:00:21 -0000

Perhaps I was unclear with respect to my meaning. My intention was to say that the perspective that says a woman's right to control her body, while something everyone can agree on, is an intentionally incomplete assessment of the situation at hand, seeing as there is more than one body involved.

I apologise for the callosness of my original wording.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

BreakerBaker — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:50:33 -0000

Bruce,

I'm sorry to have implied that the "where life begins" argument was directed at you. In fact, it was a topic brought up by BD (to whom you were replying). However, a zygote is a human being.

steve,

actually no, neither sperm nor egg are unique. A sperm is a cell. Like a skin cell. Or a brain cell. Even though one survives in the end, the winner is not unique except for the fact that it succeeds. The same goes for egg cells. Every egg a woman will ever have is developed in the womb. They are identical. They serve only one purpose, and with the creation of the zygote, that purpose is fulfilled.

I don't think people are being nefarious. Although I am a bit surprised that somebody who would liken a zygote going through cellular mitosis to a sex cell would in the same post object to the notion that they may be rationalizing a bit. Let me be clear, I favor abortion rights, and I believe people are genuinely struggling with an attempt to justify something they know to be unjust. It's very difficult, under those circumstances, to come up with any argument that doesn't involve a rationalization of some shape or form.

You, for instance, reject the quality of life. Neither human nor alive? But it's unquestionably both of those things! Oh, no, you say that it's simply a question of small thinking on my part that prevents me from seeing beyond what is verifiable and what is simply hypothetical. That's very convenient. You can try to hypothesize that a moment occurs prior to birth, at birth, or even months after the fact (the first several months of life are called, by many, the fourth trimester), but all of that is rationalization.

I, for one, never said the quality of life of a zygote was equal to that of a child. If given the option between a child dying a zygote dying, I would unquestionably choose the zygote. Likewise if there are complications with a pregnancy or with a woman's basic health that could indanger her should she carry the pregnancy to term, I don't think the moral choice is all that difficult to determine. But there's a hell of a big difference between granting that point and arguing that fetus is essentially no different than an appendix (Or at least more similar to an appendix than it is a baby). That a woman can have her appendix out. Why shouldn't she be able to have her fetus out?

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

Eduardo — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:24:09 -0000

Well, Bruce, I know you weren't arguing Obama's gay credentials, but re-reading your previous post I can't help but thinking that you saw the Rick Warren thing as an Obama v. Warren match. It wasn't.

As for the gays freaking out, I concede you this: it wasn't the gays per se the ones that were "freaking out" but many of the people that were really hurt by the Obama's move were gays and people for which gay rights are a high priority. Some of them freaked out because they saw it as a harbinger of things to come. But some people were hurt and not freaked out, and some gays were meh about the whole thing, thinking that the whole thing was just symbolic and that as long as Obama delivered on gay rights, that was just OK. So, yes, sloppy witting on my side. Hope that know what I meant is more clear.

The basic point that I try to make stands: Obama has an uncanny ability to punch without appearing to be punching --except to those who are in the receiving end. This is a formidable weapon and I admire that on him.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

deva — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:14:49 -0000

The fact that anyone can right that a woman's right to control her own body becomes "beside the point" once they are pregnant, is exactly why this debate has been so stalled for so long. The welfare of fetus and child are tied together -- at no point is one or the other's beside the point. To privledge the well-being of the fetus (only while it's a fetus) over the rights of the adult woman is to treat the woman as an object, property, breeder, sinner, etc. A being irrelevant to the process of gestation taking place inside her -- a vessle and no more.

That kind of perspective is exactly why Pro Choice people are wary of accepting any of the terms of Pro-lifer's characterization of gestation, pregnancy, personhood and birth.

How on earth does one look a pregnant woman in the face and say, "I understand that your concerns, but your fetus is a human being and therefore your well-being is beside the point." What kind of sense does that make? Ah, yes. None.

Re: Making Your Enemies Look Petty

rb — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:05:30 -0000

Steve -

It is far from moronic to assert that for many people, and particularly for elements of the conservative christian authorities, the issue boils down to one of control.

If these people were truly interested in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, they would support the use of birth control.

But that is not their goal. Controlling when and how people have sex is their goal.