Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

EDIT: Thanks Eileen.

Andrew Parker. If the human species on this planet nurtured every conception of sperm and egg, we would overpopulate the world so fast life would become unbearable for most the humans on the planet. It would lead to wars, starvation, terrorism, revolutions, and anarchy on a mass scale.

If what you suggest is right for Americans, never, ever allow choice once egg contacts sperm, it must be right for China, Russia, and every other nation as well. Reams and reams of studies have been done over the decades on population density and they all have the same prediction. As population density increases to highly competitive levels for resources, hostility and breakdown in levels of civilized and humanitarian behavioral systems take place in extremely hostile ways.

If you believe in a soul at conception, by all means, deny your wife or girlfriend an abortion if you can. But, don’t presume to deny freedom of choice for everyone in the world. That is dictatorial and evil.

David -

You must read a lot of Thomas Malthus. And you must not read a lot of the most recent work on population. Since the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, population experts have been saying the growing problem is a lack of young people. Likewise in Russia and Europe, people are wringing their hands over the problem of depopulation.

If you sincerely believe what you wrote above, then the tsunami wasn’t such a bad thing, except for where it destroyed crops and buildings. Frankly, there’s too many Indonesians anyway, so we should have lined a few hundred thousand more up on the beach for this?

Sound harsh? That’s the point Parker is making: if you view the fetus as a human, then abortion is a disgusting, massive, systematic, murderous spree perpetrated by those who have power against those who lack it.

If you believe in a soul at conception, by all means, deny your wife or girlfriend an abortion if you can. But, don’t presume to deny freedom of choice for everyone in the world. That is dictatorial and evil.

If you believe the world is overpopulated, by all means get a vas sectamy. But dont’s presume to deny freedom of life for everyone who isn’t born yet. That is dictatorial and evil (and doesn’t sound like much of a “choice” for those who are most affected).

Seriously, David. This post is not about arguing the right and wrongs of abortion. Your response misses the entire point. Your attitude in response to my article is the reason why I wrote it in the first place. Perhaps you should read it again.

I understand population density and overpopulation, I’m not ignorant. But the entire point is that for those people (clearly not yourself) who believe in life/soul at conception (I’m still undecided, but I’m leaning away from it) denying the ‘freedom of choice’ is preferable to the deaths of millions. It is not dictatorial or evil, it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to the assumption that life begins before birth. I’m not telling you that life before birth is fact, I’m just trying to get people like yourself to calm your responses (dictatorial and evil?) and understand that the opposing viewpoint is valid under the assumptions they make, just as you believe your viewpoint is valid under your own assumptions.

Look at our response to the deaths of 150,000+, and then consider that response 8-fold. What would you do to prevent that terrible misfortune if you could? Probably nothing, as you’re Buddhist, and those people will be reborn, but that’s your assumption, just as the assumption that souls occur before birth.

The whole point is that the demonization of the opposing viewpoint-holder is sickening. This article was merely an attempt for people to TRY to see the other side of the coin, if they would take the time.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will result in the butchering of American women citizens who elect to have abortions, feeling they have no choice, in unsterile back alley conditions at the hands of some hack willing to make a few black market bucks and doesn’t mind the sight of blood. Women, American citizens (fetuses are not citizens, read the constition which defines citizenship by virtue of place of birth or the natualization process), will die in ever increasing numbers from massive hemorhage, septicemia, or lose the ability to ever give birth again, if Roe v. Wade is overtuned.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will also kill Americans. And it will restrict citizen’s choices and individual rights to choose their destiny without a compelling justification of security for the state. It will be oppressive government which the Constitution seeks to prevent.

If one thinks outlawing abortions will stop abortions, one is a fool. Look at the drug war. All it will do is make criminals of women and subject them to medical procedure nightmares by hacks and thieves. That is evil.

Denying citizen’s choice without a compelling national security interest is dictatorial.

I stand by my words as logical and rational, not radical and emotional.

AParker,
What are your sources of data? Where are the links?

Chops, you are arguing apples and oranges. Your argument deals with economics of work forces and resources for the aging. My argument deals with the effects of population density, crowding in areas of insufficient resources.

There are areas in the world where the resources are present but the delivery systems are inadequate to meed demand. And where conversion of resources in the marketplace to needed commodities is wholly insufficient. Work these problems out, then talk about increasing population.

David -
For the past 300 years, naysayers like you have been warning of overpopulation. Seriously, good scientists in the 1800’s had data that said the world population would face starvation if it exceeded 1 billion, then 2 billion, and so on. In an age when 95% of women (in the US) use contraception, outlawing abortion is not going to massive population growth.

A few other points:
(1) Overturning Roe v. Wade would not criminalize abortion; it would leave it up to the states. It’s likely that the numbers of abortions would correct downward toward their pre-Roe numbers, when a few liberal states had abortion. As you know, I advocate criminalizing it, not merely overturning RvW.

(2) You totally miss the point with your argument about the risk to women. If you, as I do, view unborn humans as fully human, then the death of the fetus is just as bad as the death of the mother. Both are human, both should be protected. Your argument is tantamount to saying that if rape were legalized, we’d have no more rape problem. We need to criminalize abortion to protect unborn children, and we need law enforcement to crack down on “hacks”. It won’t be perfect, but, like rape, legislation and law enforcement will keep it to a minimum.

Rocky -

cnn.com
Abortion stats

These were the first ones I found on google, I’m just basing my calculations off the generally accepted statistics of 1.3 million abortions per year, and about 150,000 dead in the inital wake of the tsunami.

David -

[A] We’re not debating the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Re-read my post(s).

[B] You do not think of your words as radical or emotional because you presume to KNOW there is no ‘national security risk’. Just because you do not believe that millions are dying each year does not make it fact. Some people would disagree with you, and argue that the situation is compelling to the point of restricting citizen’s free choice and thus is NOT dictatorial. That’s the whole point! From your assumptions, their viewpoint is dictatorial, but that arises from your assumptions NOT from fact! You therefore must concede that they have a valid viewpoint, just as they must concede that you have one as well! Both viewpoints are logical extensions of the moral assumptions they arise from, and neither is worthy of extreme derision. No one here is saying you have to believe one thing or another, only that we should not be so quick to demonize the ‘other side’.

The purpose of this whole discussion was to emphasize the magnitude of the burden that certain Americans feel all year by drawing parallels to the burden that most all of us feel right now with regards to the tsunami victims. Whether you think they’re right or not, you must admit that it IS a tremendous psychological burden to a substantial portion of american society.

Though I do not support abortion, I will tell you as a devil’s advocate why this presentation of the issue won’t work: They never lived, in the experiential sense of the term.

The aborted children never existed to most of their parents as anything more than the potential of a new life. The children and adults who died in the tsunami lived actual lives, had experience, interacted, however briefly with parents, siblings, and many others.

You will not win this argument with those who believe that a nonviable fetus is still part of the mother’s body because you speak of the unborn, with an argument that compares them to the living breathing human beings people actually get to know. They will weep for the named and the known, rather than the opposite.

Stephen -

Please read my comment directly preceding yours and you will see that I’m not ~’presenting the issue’. You are correct that I will not win this argument, however it is more correct that no one will win this argument. This discussion is more abstract than a simple argument of abortion being right or wrong. I am challenging people who disagree with abortion to see and perhaps feel the burden that anti-abortionists live with, and understand that the conviction that some feel to end abortion is logical under their moral assumptions. I do commend you for presenting your opinion without derision or condescention, as that is what I’m trying to bring about with this entire column.

It’s not about winning an argument, it’s about tolerance and respect.

Chops, millions in China did die of starvation directly due to overpopulation. Africans have died in the millions due to overpopulation of the environmental resources. I guess you have to be over 25 and followed world news to be aware of all the millions of deaths that have resulted from overpopulation.

Chops said: “In an age when 95% of women (in the US) use contraception, outlawing abortion is not going to massive population growth.”

Where do you pull these statistics from, Chops, thin air? If you are going to make use data to support your argument, use real data, not invented data, unless you qualify it with a statement that that is your guess.

If you haven’t been following the news, the FDA and other health organizations have warned women against using the pill, one of the most widely used form of contraception. Hence, contraception pill users is about to decline according to an article published in the last 2 weeks. The article quoted 45 million women being at risk. That hardly approaches your statistic of 95% of women using contraception, unless you include time of the month timing, sheepskins, condoms, and oral sex as contraceptive methods as well.

I also wonder at the 95% statistic, since, I guess more than 5% of the women in this country get pregnant in any given year.

(1) Overturning Roe v. Wade would not criminalize abortion; it would leave it up to the states. It’s likely that the numbers of abortions would correct downward toward their pre-Roe numbers, when a few liberal states had abortion. As you know, I advocate criminalizing it, not merely overturning RvW.

You contradict yourself. First you say overturning RvW would not criminalize abortion. Then you turn right around and say that overturning RvW would permit the states to criminalize it. C’mon, man, make sense. Overturning RvW would in fact, lead to criminalizing abortions. If it wouldn’t, there would be little motivation for overturning it now, would there?

If you, as I do, view unborn humans as fully human, then the death of the fetus is just as bad as the death of the mother.

But that is the crux of the matter. I don’t view unborn fetuses as fully human, anymore than I view a brain dead body kept alive on machines fully human.

Should my view be imposed on you? NO! Hence, neither should your view be imposed on me, as a matter of law.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that if rape were legalized, we’d have no more rape problem.

No! It is not. Rape is a crime against a citizen of the state according to the laws of the state. A fetus is not a citizen of the state. Check your Constitution. A citizen is defined by BIRTH in this country or the naturalization process. Your argument has no legal merit. And your moral argument is specific to your relgion. Last I checked, America stood for freedom of Religion. My religion does not regard a fetus as a human being, only a potential human being like a sperm or an egg. Hence I have no more problem with abortion than I do with menstruation or male masturbation. The expelling of the potential of a human being. And thankfully so. If every sperm and egg were realized into citizens of the state, states would collapse the world round.

AParker said: “That’s the whole point! From your assumptions, their viewpoint is dictatorial, but that arises from your assumptions NOT from fact!”

No, you missed the point. I said dictating the limiting of choice is dictatorial. Roe v. Wade does not restrict anyone womans rights to choose or not choose abortion. Overturning RvW will restrict many women’s choice. Without a compelling national security interest, the government has no Constitutional right to restrict choice or freedom.

AParker, you stated in your article: When abortion is viewed in this manner, the desire to restrict the ‘freedom of choice’ becomes more rational.

Hence, I fail to see the logic of your implication that my discussion on abortion is somehow off topic.

For Chops:

msnbc.com

This article references 5.2% of sexually active women did not use some form of birthcontrol in 1995, and is up to 7.4% in 2002. Later:

In analyzing previous reports by the National Center for Health Statistics, Trussell has determined that half of all unintended pregnancies occur among the more than 95 percent of women who used some type of contraception, probably because the method failed or was used improperly. That means the other half of unintended pregnancies came from the sliver of the population not using birth control.

David -

In response to your comments directed towards me. You are still missing the point. I’m not arguing constitutionality, merely the validity of the opinion stemming from the belief in life before birth.

I said dictating the limiting of choice is dictatorial.

This is partial truth. You said:

Denying citizen’s choice without a compelling national security interest is dictatorial.

I argued that some DO see a compelling national security interest, and as a result the denial of a certain choice would not be dictatorial from that viewpoint! This you must concede by your own definition of dictatorial. I’m not saying you have to agree with them, only that their viewpoint is a valid one and not dictatorial by virtue of their belief in the origin of life.

Roe v. Wade does not restrict anyone womans rights to choose or not choose abortion. Overturning RvW will restrict many women’s choice.

No one is disputing these facts.

Without a compelling national security interest, the government has no Constitutional right to restrict choice or freedom.

Again, you illustrate how you miss my point. The ‘other side’ DOES see a compelling interest and as a result desires to restrict that choice or freedom without being “dictatorial”.

David -

Hence, I fail to see the logic of your implication that my discussion on abortion is somehow off topic.

[A]Hence? What does this statement follow from?

[B]No one said you were off-topic, I said you missed my point. I’m not arguing the constitionality of Roe v. Wade, or overturning it. I’m not saying you should believe that life begins at conception, or that I even believe that. I’m saying that when you begin to comprend the large scale of (believed) death as a result of abortion, the desire to restrict choice by those people can be seen as a rational conclusion rather than religious extremism and ignorance. And as such, their opinion should not incite references to facism or other extremist terms. To them the situation is extreme enough to warrant the restriction of choice, they do not desire to restrict choice on a whim or because they’re dictators. My attempt was to put their dire view of the situation into context by drawing analogy to something we can all relate to.

No one is saying this thread is not allowing for discussion of the legal issues of abortion, rather that discussion was not my intention, nor will I be responding in that discussion. I’ve made it clear what I believe a compromise should be in previous threads.

AParker, my difficulty with you article is in what I perceive to be an ignoring of the relationship between perception and action. Pro-choice perception of a compelling national security interest does not a national security interest make.

Many in this land view non-whites as the greatest threat to our future. That view however does not, in anyway, vigilantes, lynchings, changing immigration laws to allow only whites in, etc. in a land founded upon immigration and freedom for all.

In the same vane, anti Roe v. Wade folks may view abortion as a national security risk, but, it in no way in fact, constitutes a national security risk, nor does it justify turning our backs on our Constitution which seeks to preserve and protect choice and freedom. Compromising the Constitution of the US is not, in my opinion, warranted by a minority or even majority opinion which has no empirical, measurable basis.

Prove the national security risk Pro-Life folks perceive in an empirical and measurable way, and I and millions of others may relent in our opposition. You and I both know, that folks will argue whatever helps move their motives to realization. The National Security Risk posed by abortion helps move their motives, but, lacks any credibilty by empirical standards.

David -

my difficulty with you article is in what I perceive to be an ignoring of the relationship between perception and action. Pro-choice perception of a compelling national security interest does not a national security interest make.

And my difficulty is getting you to understand that I’m not attempting to prove that there is a national security interest. I’m saying that given their assumption, the conclusion is valid and not all that extreme, given the enormity of crisis that they perceive.

Personally, I see the whole issue as a moral catastrophe, but I also do not argue for the complete elimination of abortion either. It cannot be argued constitutionally, as it is based in personal moral conviction. But this is not the point of my article. I just want people to attempt to see things from another point of view, and hopefully this results in a little less animosity. That is the best we can hope for. You have reasons for believing what you believe, as do I; and it is unlikely that either of us change our core beliefs as a result of discussion and thus unlikely that either of us change sides of the abortion fence. But we can work towards peaceful cooperation and compromise.

AParker, I appreciate what you are trying to do in mediating the differences.

However, formal rules of logic dictate that if the assumptions (or premises) of a conclusion are false, then the conclusion is also false based on those assumptions. The ProLife argument that abortion constitutes a national security risk is simply a false assumption. Their conclusion that Roe v. Wade should be overturned on that basis, is, by the rules of logic, also, then false.

One of my problems with some on both the left and the right, is the assumption that all arguments are just opinions and their opinion is more equal than other’s opinions. Arguments are not opinions. They are a set of premises, which if true result in a conclusion or decision which must also be true based on the premises or assumptions.

The idea that abortion consitutes a national security issue is designed to argue the government has a compelling interest in restricting citizen’s rights. This argument is invalid because there is not defensible empirical basis for the assumption that abortion constitutes a national security risk.

Why is this important? Because we are talking about Constitutional rights of citizens, which are guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution declares every citizen’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without interference by the government, unless there is a compelling national interest demonstrated to support the limiting of those individual rights and freedoms.

It sets out additional, but less comprehensive rights for non-citizens, which, as we know, President Bush has decided aren’t worth much since he is defending the right to imprison human beings for indefinite periods of time up to and including life, without due process of law, (i.e., attorney, trial, and statutory sentencing).

The Constitution defines citizenship by being BORN in this land, or, Born to parents who are citizens in this land, or the naturalization process. Hence, this is a Constitutional issue, since the Pro Life groups desire to restrict citizen’s right in lieu of NON-Citizen’s rights.

The Laws or our land are not made by sampling of opinion, or what seems right to some. The Laws of our land stem from the documents of argued, reasoned, and defended principles not the least of which was the protection and freedom to live one’s life free from undo government interference. The Constitution is premises are to preserve and protect individual’s freedoms while in the same document restricting and constraining acts, power, and authority of government. Not the other way around, which is what Pro Life groups would like to see be the case on the abortion issue.

Now, I am the first to admit, that others also have good logical arguments from a legal and Constitutional basis from which to argue the Pro-life position, as Misha Tsytelin, here at WB has demonstrated.

But, your assertion that abortion is little more than a difference in opinion fails to comprehend the enormity and importance of the issue. Folks can argue their opinions about the morality of abortion till the cows come home, but the issue of overturning RvW speaks directly to the Constitution and what it stands for as a guiding principle document. The guiding principle of the Constitution is to protect individual freedom and choice from undue and overbearing government. Overturning Roe v. Wade will violate the guiding principle of the founding document of this great nation.

That is not a difference of opinion. That is a profoundly and extremely consequential legal interpretation difference with far reaching consequences for generations of citizens to come.

P.S., there is a constitutional method of overturning Roe v. Wade. That would be a Constitutional Amendment that defines the fetus of American citizen mothers as citizens of the United States. That is one way Roe v. Wade can be overturned, since the Constitution currently does not define citizenship in that way. But that would open a pandora’s box of legal issues. Does the fetus of a foreign national woman become a citizen if the sperm came from an American male overseas? A host of others follow as well. I hope you can envisage the immigration nightmare that would create for the State Dep’t with our troops spreading seed all around the world.

Haha! AParker, nice try at making a point, but this is why they call it a hot-button issue. Light the fuse and get outta the way! :)

It’s likely that the numbers of abortions would correct downward toward their pre-Roe numbers, when a few liberal states had abortion.

I suppose the family violence, child abandonment, and devestating poverty in the other states would all rise to their pre-Roe numbers, too.

Counseling, options, support. Then let the woman decide.

David -

How many times have you been told that the citizenship argument is irrelevant?? Seriously, how many times? I’ve seen it twice, and that’s just in the past month.

Rape is a crime against a citizen of the state according to the laws of the state. A fetus is not a citizen of the state. Check your Constitution. A citizen is defined by BIRTH in this country or the naturalization process. Your argument has no legal merit.

I hate to stop your fun, but you should probably quit raping non-citizens. Even illegal immigrants are protected by laws against rape. It has nothing to do with their legal status; it has everything to do with their humanity.

Could you please, for once, admit that *if* you accept the proposition that a fetus is a human being that it is illegal to kill one? We’re not asking you to accept that position; just to see that it is a logically consistent one.

A constitutional amendment would be appropriate to clarify the issue, but (for me) it’s only a clarification. The laws against first-degree murder would effectively cover unborn humans if two more of the Supreme Court justices believed that fetuses are human.

It’s not a privacy issue, nor is it a national interest issue. It’s a *human rights* issue, and I will continue to oppose abortion in the same way I hope I would have opposed the Holocaust in which my ancestors were murdered as “untermenschen”.

Consider your position, David: history frowns on dehumanizers.

(P.S. Parker - thanks for the data. I had read it but didn’t have time to look it up. Apologies for being off by 2 percentage points)

David -

This is the problem:

However, formal rules of logic dictate that if the assumptions (or premises) of a conclusion are false, then the conclusion is also false based on those assumptions. The ProLife argument that abortion constitutes a national security risk is simply a false assumption.

I’m a mathematician, and quite familiar with rules of logic. The point: You do not know when life begins, and as such, you may not state that others assumptions are assuredly false. Thus you must concede that the opposing viewpoint is a valid one, as it is founded in assumptions no more provable than your own.

AP - Thanks, I knew it wouldn’t be easy.

David -

Let me address some flawed logic I’ve seen from your posts.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will result in the butchering of American women citizens who elect to have abortions, feeling they have no choice, in unsterile back alley conditions at the hands of some hack willing to make a few black market bucks and doesn’t mind the sight of blood.

Are you suggesting that just because people will break laws, we shouldn’t bother making things illegal? I’ve heard you make this same assertion before, and I can’t believe I keep hearing it. With this mindset, we shouldn’t have any laws. Are you an anarchist?

If one thinks outlawing abortions will stop abortions, one is a fool.

And if one thinks that the purpose of outlawing certain actions is to stop all instances of that action, one is a fool.

If you haven’t been following the news, the FDA and other health organizations have warned women against using the pill, one of the most widely used form of contraception. Hence, contraception pill users is about to decline according to an article published in the last 2 weeks.

Can I have links for this? I could only find studies refuting heart benefits from taking the pill.

One of my problems with some on both the left and the right, is the assumption that all arguments are just opinions and their opinion is more equal than other’s opinions. Arguments are not opinions. They are a set of premises, which if true result in a conclusion or decision which must also be true based on the premises or assumptions.

This seems to be a setup to allow you to give your own opinions more weight than others because you address them as ‘arguments’. Reference your assertion that the pro-life assumption is assuredly false. Call it an argument, call it an opinion, but what we have here are irreconcilable views, niether of which can be proven. Therefore they are both equally valid, and there shouldn’t be the disdain that so frequently occurs.

———————————————-

We all need to understand that the abortion argument must play out in two very different arenas: the moral and the legal. The whole purpose in this article is to help convey the urgency that some feel in the moral arena, and as a result, they attempt to act on that urgency in the legal arena. Their urgent actions politically are viewed as extreme by those who disagree with them in the moral arena, and also by those who disagree politically. My attempt is to show that these people are not ignorant or intentionally facist, rather they are consumed by the remorse of a nation which (in their eyes) willingly kills a tsunami’s worth in every month and a half. It is incredibly difficult to separate moral and legal when you have a 1.3 million/year person burden resting on your shoulders, which is why we do not see many pro-life people discussing the issue in a calm and rational manner.

The moral arena is personal, what you believe, and what you then base your choices out of. I personally disagree with all abortions morally, and as such, I would never counsel anyone to pursue an abortion.

The legal arena is trickier because you are determining the freedoms of others, and some probably take that too lightly. Although I disagree with all abortions morally, I would never advocate the criminalization of all abortion. Since neither side of this issue (morally) can prove their side fact, the legal stance on abortion ought to reflect both moral views. How can this be acheived? My opinion is that a compromise which constrains legal abortion to the first six months of development respects both moral views, and is even scientifically tenable. Looking at pure reality, we see that premature births assert the fetuses human independence of the mother prior to birth, and with that observation, we ought to conform our laws to respect that. The six month line also respects the woman’s right to choose not to be a mother, and the rape scenario as well.