What’s Wrong with the World

Appalling. Alas, I'm not sure we'll make much headway. It's too important for the powers-that-be to allow men and women to copulate at will for them to let a little discomfort or queasiness about such things hamper the agenda.

Either I am dsylexic, or the title of this post needs to be fixed.

The Chicken

God have mercy. If this took place outside the womb in plain view of the world, there would be a few more Abby Johnson conversions. But not, I fear, enough to put a stop to this barbarism.

MC, it's fixed. Paul is undoubtedly grateful.

In the properly ordered world of the future, reports of this sort will be suppressed.

Intemperate right-wing rhetoric. May lead to violence. Possibly even loss of innocent life.

Can't have that, now - can we?

Yes, we can't have words like "fight" used or people rejecting "truce," can we? Those intemperate right-wingers are very dangerous.

It isn't an accident that abortion takes place in semi-secret fashion. People know of abortion but aren't confronted by its ugly reality because it is performed in shoddy and unregulated places, much of the time by those unlicensed for medical practice sometimes just a few steps ahead of the law.

What are the abortion mills in your neighborhood doing? Are they selling baby parts? How do they dispose of the bodies? How often do women get rushed off to hospitals out the back door? How many legal violations or complaints does its practitioners have? We should all get to know our local neighborhood abortion mill. We shouldn't allow them to operate in secret.

What is the role of vigilante squads? My impression is they arise where the law doesn't exist (meaning there's no Marshal around) or has broken down. But when the law is wicked ("Evil be thou my good")? At this time we don't need vigilante squads, but....what? Maybe a Nebuchanezzar to scour the land clean?

What is the role of vigilante squads? My impression is they arise where the law doesn't exist (meaning there's no Marshal around) or has broken down. But when the law is wicked ("Evil be thou my good")? At this time we don't need vigilante squads, but....what? Maybe a Nebuchanezzar to scour the land clean?

Well I don't think we need those. In this case I believe the laws we have aren't being followed and so I think we should press the case to apply the law. Veterinary clinics operate with more oversight than abortion clinics. So present circumstances definitely don't justify extra-legal means.

But the article raises the question of John Brown, and that is a deep subject. Easily the most controversial figure in American history. You'll never hear him brought up in ethics class, because teachers like easy examples and easy answers. Yet when he was executed Church bells rang across the nation, and "John Brown's Body" was the most popular song of the era, and became the basis for "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Whether what he did was justified only God knows, as always, but he isn't as easily dismissed as is thought, and saying he was crazy doesn't help and seems most probably false.

John Ingalls, Senator of Kansas, said:

"... but the three men who will loom forever against the horizon of time as the representative, conspicuous types of this era, like pyramids above the desert, or mountain peaks over the subordinate plains, are Abraham Lincoln, U. S. Grant, and Old John Brown of Osawatomie ..."

The description of the abortion was emotive and it did well to project adult emotions onto the situation. Unfortunately, convincing me that it is wrong to perform abortions is another matter entirely. The description told nothing of the mothers plight and how the decision was made to undertake an abortion. Do we honestly feel that a womans decision to have an abortion is as emotionally shallow as going to buy toothpaste at the shop? I certainly don't. Until I truly understand a womans motivation for abortion, be it selfish or otherwise, I will not pass judgement. It is unfair to impose an ideology onto any other adult human being. Is abortion wrong? Is abortion an atrocity? Is abortion right? I feel the answer depends on the situation.

I rarely shout in a comment box, but withbregards to Arron's lat comment, THERE IS NO UNSELISH REASON FOR HAVING AN ABORTION. Emotional investment is irrelevant. A dead baby doesn't care how you felt when you killed it.

The Chicken

Aaron, I am opposed to killing 5-year-old children no matter what difficulties their mothers may be having that might be relieved by the death of a child. Is that an "ideology" that I should not impose on others? Or is that simply being opposed to the obvious evil of murder? If you think it is right and good to oppose the killing of a 5-year-old child, what is the difference in opposing the killing of a younger child whose residence happens to still be the womb? Why is opposition to killing an "ideology" not to be imposed when the child's residence is the womb but not when the child is already born? Murder -- the killing of human beings without just cause (such as execution for capital crimes or in the prosecution of a just war or in self-defense) -- is either always wrong or always right. It does not depend on the circumstances of the murderer.

The description of slavery was emotive and it did well to project Northern white emotions onto the situation. Unfortunately, convincing me that it is wrong to hold slaves is another matter entirely. The description told nothing of the slaveholder's plight and how the decision was made to undertake purchasing the slave. Do we honestly feel that a man's decision to buy a slave is as emotionally shallow as going to purchase saddle soap at the general store? I certainly don't. Until I truly understand a man's motivation for slaveholding, be it selfish or otherwise, I will not pass judgement. It is unfair to impose an ideology onto any other adult human being. Is slavery wrong? Is it an atrocity? Is it a right? I feel the answer depends on the situation.

Beth, you make some good points. I don't equate abortion to murder and in that sense I wouldn't compare an unborn fetus to a 5-year-old child. I don't condone murder and I find it inconsistent that capital punishment is okay by some but abortion is not. Is it reasonable for a woman who is raped to have an abortion? I think so. This is a pregnancy against her will. Do I deny her the right to have an abortion? No. I don't think anyone should. This is an unselfish reason to have an abortion (Hi, The Chicken). This is why I argue that the original article was emotive but ignored the plight of the woman. I don't like abortion or the idea of it but that is my perspective and I can only try to understand why other people do it. Understanding goes a long way.

Rob G, feel free to adapt my writing as you see fit but it would be desirable to not resort to parroting. I look forward to reading your actual opinion on the topic of the original post. In regards to your post, I don't agree with slavery and I am unsure as to how slavery can be compared to abortion. Also, unfortunately, as we found out in the Civil War, people weren't interested in understanding another perspective. I am happy to try and understand your perspective.

John Brown was a ruthless, fanatic, terrorist who murdered innocent people in cold blood. He was supported by a group of sponsers called the Secret Six. No, Brown wasn't psychotic, but he surely was an evil psychopath.

Is abortion an atrocity? Is abortion right? I feel the answer depends on the situation.

Feelings aren't what this is about.

But it's very interesting that liberals have no problem with showing us the plight of animals in an attempt to shock us, but when it comes to abortion, then talking about a baby's writhing and twisting in the grip of the cannula is mere emotional manipulation.

Abortion and slavery are very similar because they hinge on the same issue: What is a person?

Exactly, Respectabiggle!

Aaron, how do you define "person"? What is it that makes the child in the womb not a person that one can take his life if that life is inconvenient in some way?

Is it reasonable for a woman who is raped to have an abortion? I think so.

Why? The baby did nothing wrong. It is still innocent. The woman can offer the baby up for adoption. Surely, this is more compassionate and in line with human dignity than having an abortion. Even for the case of rape, abortion is still a selfish act, albeit one done under emotional trauma.

The Chicken

Beth & Respectabiggle -- thanks for your answers. That's exactly where I was going with my rewrite of Aaron's paragraph.

John Brown was a ruthless, fanatic, terrorist who murdered innocent people in cold blood. He was supported by a group of sponsers called the Secret Six. No, Brown wasn't psychotic, but he surely was an evil psychopath.

He sought to fight a war he thought was unavoidable, and terror was not his motive or plan. Were these guys terrorists? Terror was part and parcel of most of these acts, unless you can tell me what is the the military-strategic value of a teenage girl. The man thousands of lynchings even after the CW that were by definition acts terrorism, and should be so called. But I'll bet you don't.

Not sure if you could call Brown a terrorist, although he was a nut and a murderer. The terrorists were Sherman and Sheridan. But that's for another thread.

The pro-life movement, IMO, cannot put itself in the position of defending, let alone praising, any John Brown-type who happens to arise. To do such is wrong; plus you lose the PR battle. Look at the wackjobs from Westboro Baptist.

Do we honestly feel that a womans decision to have an abortion is as emotionally shallow as going to buy toothpaste at the shop? I certainly don't.

In the vast majority of cases, I agree with you. But that is the whole difficulty with arriving at the morally correct conclusion. The mother's decision is frought with emotion, rarely shallow (though you cannot eliminate the possibility). The very depth of the emotion normally involved clouds the moral judgment. That cloud is certainly not limited to the abortion issue.

Abortion and slavery are very similar because they hinge on the same issue: What is a person?

Also because they both assert a legal right for a certain class of human beings to be treated as property.

It is unfair to impose an ideology onto any other adult human being.

Are you kidding me? It's done all the time, by EVERYONE. You are doing it yourself by pushing the ideology that an unborn human being has no rights. Pushing an ideology is only unfair if that ideology is false. The whole point of governments and laws is to push an ideology.

Have you read David Kupelian re: Abortion

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562386/posts

Not sure if you could call Brown a terrorist, although he was a nut and a murderer. The terrorists were Sherman and Sheridan. But that's for another thread.

No need for a thread. This view is called the Dunning School. Or here. There really isn't much to discuss. The Dunningites will always be with us.

The pro-life movement, IMO, cannot put itself in the position of defending, let alone praising, any John Brown-type who happens to arise. To do such is wrong; plus you lose the PR battle. Look at the wackjobs from Westboro Baptist.

All serious Christians condemn those who murder abortion practitioners. I did not defend but called attention to the moral equivalence of condemning him while defending others who terrorize and kill the innocent.

Abortion and slavery are very similar because they hinge on the same issue: What is a person?

Also because they both assert a legal right for a certain class of human beings to be treated as property.

Other possible similarities:

-The ultimate disagreement over the issue came down to moral rights vs. legal rights, or at least some form of rights/rights conflict.

-They both required the active participation if those who thought it was morally repugnant: Fugitive Slave Laws and federal funding of abortion.

-Both sides (for and against) demonized abolitionists and anti-abortion activists.

-SCOTUS: Roger Taney / Harry Blackmun and the polarization of the court around an egregious decision.

-Slavery morphed in at least parts of the public from a necessary evil to a positive good, the other (abortion), at least in parts of the public, the reverse.

"this view is called the Dunning School"

Uh, no it's not. The Dunning School has to do with a certain interpretation of Reconstruction, not with the manner in which the Federal Government waged war in the South.

By the way, I take anything that comes out of Claremont w/r/t to the Civil War with a grain of salt. They are notable Lincoln hagiographers.

The mother's decision is frought with emotion, rarely shallow (though you cannot eliminate the possibility).

Oh, come on. Of the 3+ million abortions each year, not less than 1 million are done upon mothers who are old enough to get married and raise a family if they were so to choose. The shallowness is there, and it rests in choosing a lifestyle that includes empty sex that is understood not to lead toward raising children, and - if it accidentally does result in a child - then upon an assumption that abortion is the back-up method of reversing that being in a family way. This is especially true of the repeat offenders, of whom there are scads, who know perfectly well that their lifestyle leads toward abortion but they remain in it anyway.

By the way, I take anything that comes out of Claremont w/r/t to the Civil War with a grain of salt. They are notable Lincoln hagiographers.

It seems to me you have to read something to take it with a grain of salt. Jaffa's House Divided is a classic. I'm going to read Freeman's classic on Lee even though he's a hagiographer par excellence and I don't even like Lee.

What are the abortion mills in your neighborhood doing? Are they selling baby parts? How do they dispose of the bodies?

Tony,

Repeated indulgence in any sin, be it fornication or abortion leads to a darkening of the intellect, so the emotions of regret are buried really deep, but to be human is to have them, otherwise, there would be no wailing in Hell.

The Chicken

"I don't even like Lee"

Why am I not surprised?

All serious Christians condemn those who murder abortion practitioners. I did not defend but called attention to the moral equivalence of condemning him while defending others who terrorize and kill the innocent.

Please tell me you are not implying that those involved in the abortion process are "the innocent."

While I agree with you that we, as Christians, cannot harm them, we should not lose sight of the fact that in a properly ordered society, the courts would be handing out death sentences left and right for these people...

Jeff,

You once called me a "hard man" for advocating execution even for the mother in abortion cases where the life of the mother is not at risk. Can you still look at this act and not see it for the naked act of pre-meditated murder that it is? What excuse, other than the mother's life, can anyone offer that should rise to the same level of importance as the life of the child? Is there anything in the state of mind of a normal person when factored into their decision to end the life of a child without such medical necessity that can temper the enormity of what they wish to do?

Mike T: I stand by the reasons I gave in the earlier thread. Funny that my "leniency" in not wanting to execute mothers on the basis of their hormonal and emotional instability during pregnancy, and their susceptibility to manipulation, was more controversial than your call for capital punishment. As for the doctors, we wouldn't need to see too many hangings for this whole dirty business to come to an end. I'd settle for a long prison sentence.

"I don't even like Lee" Why am I not surprised?

The Lee of legend is a very different person than the real Lee. I respect what there is of his military prowess, but as a man he strikes out. Jackson, Longstreet, and other Confederate officers were good men for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration. This isn't about politics.

Please tell me you are not implying that those involved in the abortion process are "the innocent."

I didn't mean to imply that. They commit moral wrong that happens to be legal now, and though you could call that innocent of criminality, I normally struggle with applying the term to them for the reasons you mention. Legal murder is a conflict between legal/moral aspects that should not be. So technically they are guilty of gross moral evil, while innocent of criminality. A sad situation.

Seems to me, Mark, that you've drunk an awful lot of Claremont kool-aid, and this isn't the place to supply the antidote.

Seems to me, Mark, that you've drunk an awful lot of Claremont kool-aid, and this isn't the place to supply the antidote

Is there a Claremont view of Lee? Even if there were, not respecting a man for how he treats others, especially his own family, is not a political viewpoint. It has to do with character. It's pretty basic really if you think about it.

Why is opposition to killing an "ideology" not to be imposed when the child's residence is the womb but not when the child is already born?

Beth, you know the answer to that. Thomson's violinist argument is based on an indisputably legal person who can be indirectly killed by preventing access to the woman's body without legal culpability, although she does plainly acknowledge it as a selfish act. What her argument implies for the abortion debate is that a legally disputable person like a fetus involves less culpability, meaning that direct killing is permissible. For myself, I think you need to present a sensible argument that the fetus is not a person before you can support the claim that direct killing is permissible. I think such an argument can be made, and I don't mind invoking delayed ensoulment to support my case.

The whole Civil War tangent is really weird. Maybe Confederate sympathizers are innately bad allies for "abolitionists". Who could have guessed?

As for trying the women in court, everything I've ever read about it suggests it was a total disaster when it was attempted. Unfortunately, I can't find statistic on the conviction rate, but if it exceeded 1% of women tried I would be absolutely shocked.

Here is a slightly biased but mostly fair overview of the legal history:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/januaryweb-only/1-20-31.0.html

Step2, you really shouldn't assume what someone you don't know either knows or doesn't know. I haven't the foggiest idea what Thompson's violinist argument is, nor do I particularly care, if it is dependent on claiming that what the law says determines personhood. And since there is no possible way to know definitively if an unborn child is or is not given a soul at conception, it would seem obvious to me that one should err on the side of assuming that it is, in order to avoid even *possibly* murdering an actual human being.

Undoubtedly my understanding is far too simplistic for philosophers, but I don't believe one needs some esoteric philosophy to understand that a new human being has been created at conception and has all the dignity and rights of a human being from that time -- regardless of how that conception occurred. All that changes from conception to birth is growth because of time and nutrition, just as all that changes from birth to adulthood is growth because of time and nutrition. There is no argument that changes these biological facts, and there is no argument that will convince me that at any stage of that biological process it is not murder to end that human being's life, whether at 5 years or at 5 days after conception.

Beth, the simplistic thinker

(I suppose I might add that I have 5 children and this perhaps colors my understanding of what an unborn baby is.)

Beth, Thompson says you can kill the baby even if it is a person, because your body belongs to you and the baby doesn't have your consent to be connected to your body. (That's the brief version. It involves a fairly stupid thought experiment I won't waste your time elaborating in which you're hooked up to a violinist with failed kidneys.)

It doesn't color it, it clarifies it.

There is no way to measure a soul and no way to rule it out at conception. For that reason, it is morally reprehensible to abort once conceived.

Oh, the good old "it's my body, how dare that baby use it!" argument in some form? Whatever. We all have responsibilities to others; pregnancy is just one. It's the kind of argument that moves me not at all, since I don't think any of us has some inherent "right" to complete autonomy . . .

Thank you, c matt; exactly.

Beth,
Point taken. I'll ignore the rest of your questions in the future.

Step2, fine by me. :)

I think you need to present a sensible argument that the fetus is not a person before you can support the claim that direct killing is permissible.

I'd actually disagree with this. I'm not advocating this by any means, but I think we hear what I call "better off dead" arguments all the time in abortion and end-of-life cases. If you think a person is better off dead then personhood doesn't matter. I think these considerations easily trump the personhood question, unfortunately. I think many times sympathizers of abortion and certain end-of-life views dangle the "oh if you could only convince me it is a person" carrot knowing that it wouldn't matter in the end while watching the anti-abortion forces work themselves into a lather in trying to show personhood in more and more eloquent ways. I think large parts of the pro-abort community does this. I actually think the personhood debate is fairly well over and done, and that the public at large long since considers a fetus a person due to ultrasounds and other technical advancements. But abortion hasn't ended. Listen closely in these discussions and see if you don't detect subtle "better off dead" arguments.

I was at a pregnancy care clinic fundraiser a few years ago where various testimonies were given and the director pretty much explicitly acknowledged this. So you've got a little person inside the womb. But unfortunately that person has a dismal future of grinding poverty (so the story goes) because her mother's prospects are dismal because of x, y, and z. Granted if personhood is grasped as an absolute, as it should be, the answer would be never to abort and always to adopt, but it isn't always. Look at the suspicion endured by those with large families. How can you afford to send them all to college? What kind of a future will they have?

Mark, I think you probably underestimate the role that the "it isn't a person" concept still plays in helping women justify abortion to themselves. Sure, we do have people saying in public that the child is a person but you should be able to kill it anyway. But insofar as those are cool-headed, murderous academics like Judith Jarvis Thompson, they're in the minority.

In the population at large, I think there's a fair bit of muddle-headedness that goes on here. Let's put it this way: I think when Peter Singer talks about human non-persons, he's talking a technical language that ordinary folks translate into something like "unimportant persons" or "persons who are better off dead" or "people who are less valuable than other people and hence can be killed."

When you say that ultrasounds, etc., have ended the personhood debate, you're not reckoning with the fact that the bar has been moved: It isn't whether the child looks like a human being, but whether he has all these other fancy-dancy qualities--ability to think for himself, self-consciousness, etc.

This is why the same people who will make "better off dead" arguments about the unborn child wouldn't make those same arguments about a healthy five-year-old (though they might about a severely disabled five-year-old). This may move up to the level of infanticide. I doubt we'll ever see it move up to the level where fully healthy children who can speak up for themselves are killed with the same abandon. At that point, people do have trouble making these excuses.

We're nearly always fighting the "life unworthy of life" concept. Whether that unworthiness is put in terms of personhood theory or not, the concept is there under a variety of names. In the academic realm, personhood theory hasn't yet died a natural death, believe you me. Ordinary folks might use "person" as synonymous with "human being" and hence might say that the baby is a person, but when they find excuses for killing it, they still have something to do with its being _different_ from the people they talk to every day, all the time, the people they respect and value. When pro-lifers work themselves into a lather over personhood, we're trying to help people see that all people have that value.

~~Maybe Confederate sympathizers are innately bad allies for "abolitionists". Who could have guessed?~~

Depends entirely on why one sympathizes with the Confederacy, doesn't it? You can be completely anti-slavery but still believe secession was (is) constitutional. If the abortion problem had a similar particularly geographic dimension in the present day U.S., I daresay you'd be hearing more about secession than you are now, and not just from the Right.

The Civil War "tangent" came up as a result of a commenter wondering what would happen if a John Brown type arose in the pro-life movement. It is, of course, a hypothetical question, but a fair one.

Mark, I think you probably underestimate the role that the "it isn't a person" concept still plays in helping women justify abortion to themselves. ... When pro-lifers work themselves into a lather over personhood, we're trying to help people see that all people have that value.

Lydia, I understand all this. I probably shouldn't have said it "was largely won" in the public mind--that is an overstatement-- though I do think it has been trending favorably for some time. My real point was personhood isn't the issue in some cases, and we need to realize this. I've dealt with people like this personally and the goalposts just get moved. I was just saying we need to be wise to this. I did not mean to imply at all that I looked down on anyone passionately making personhood arguments against abortion, or any other. Far from it. I defend anti-abortion activists to the bitter end.

Still, I'm not sure I agree that the issue is now the "ability to think for himself, self-consciousness, etc." I still suspect one's perceived future prospects trump this. This is why I think the Christian community (and people generally) is far more engaged on the abortion question than end-of-life issues that go beyond mere opposition to euthanasia. As you know, dehydrating the mentally impaired is uncontroversial in many Christian communities. I think it comes down to future prospects and discomfort with our own future prospects. Babies are idealized in powerful ways no matter whether they presently demonstrate capacities because of their potential to do so. But if they don't demonstrate the potential for certain future prospects it is another matter. Witness the fact that the majority of Down's syndrome children are aborted now. Does anyone doubt that Down's syndrome children will have the ability to think or are self-conscious? No.

The elderly and disabled don't have bright future prospects and never will. I don't think we need to look much farther than that to see why some communities and persons are solidly anti-abortion and yet really don't seem to even grasp the issues in many end-of-life questions. But I don't think the two ends of life are related nonetheless and success in one affects success in the other.

We're nearly always fighting the "life unworthy of life" concept. ... but when they find excuses for killing it, they still have something to do with its being _different_ from the people they talk to every day, all the time, the people they respect and value.

Yes I fully agree. It isn't an accident that the disabled community is very engaged on end-of-life issues. On end-of-life issues the question is whether our own communities value the disabled. The church went along with the eugenics movement, and it isn't clear yet that we're not treading a similar path now.

~~I don't believe one needs some esoteric philosophy to understand that a new human being has been created at conception and has all the dignity and rights of a human being from that time -- regardless of how that conception occurred.~~

Woman gets raped, gets pregnant. Solution! Kill the kid. Makes a hell of a lot of sense.

There is a weird sort of magical thinking at work here too, as if whether the mother wants the baby or not is what bestows or removes personhood. If a woman is 5 months pregnant and wants the baby, then - voila! - it is a baby, and she can talk to it, play it Mozart, name it, etc.

If another woman is 5 months pregnant, however, and doesn't want the baby, then it's no longer a baby, but a thing that can be killed and discarded like a spider in the bathtub. Excuse me, but WTF?

If you can't see the parallel to slavery here you're blind as a bat.

There is a weird sort of magical thinking at work here too, as if whether the mother wants the baby or not is what bestows or removes personhood. If a woman is 5 months pregnant and wants the baby, then - voila! - it is a baby, and she can talk to it, play it Mozart, name it, etc.

If another woman is 5 months pregnant, however, and doesn't want the baby, then it's no longer a baby, but a thing that can be killed and discarded like a spider in the bathtub.

Well put, Rob. Whether or not A is a person has nothing to do with the perceptions or circumstances of others. Either A is a person or not, by inherent definition. One of my pregnancies was very difficult and I was supremely depressed through the first several weeks -- but it never occurred to me to think that the baby I carried was not a person and that I had any kind of right to kill him or her: I knew full well that no matter how much I didn't *want* to, I was responsible to carry that child into the world. My suffering, my wishes, my convenience -- these were completely irrelevant, for the simple reason that you don't murder other human beings, and this growing entity residing in my womb was nothing if not another -- totally helpless and dependent on me -- human being.

Because of that experience, I understand *wishing* not to be pregnant, not to have a child -- but so what? "If wishes were horses" and all that. And, what didn't amaze me because I already had children, but what amazes many women who thought they didn't want a child -- when you hear the heartbeat, when you feel the first fluttery kick, when you finally hold that child in your arms . . . well, you realize that from the first moment this was a little person and you thank God that you didn't make the worst decision of your life.

Ooh, I figured out how to do the block quotes! It's only been, what, 3 years since I've been here? I'm a little slow on the technology stuff, but it's all the more exciting when I "get" something!

Depends entirely on why one sympathizes with the Confederacy, doesn't it? You can be completely anti-slavery but still believe secession was (is) constitutional. If the abortion problem had a similar particularly geographic dimension in the present day U.S., I daresay you'd be hearing more about secession than you are now, and not just from the Right.

Secession was not and cannot be in the Constitution, and the question is not whether secession was legal per se.

Look, the only reason this question arises at all is because the South and sympathizers to its cause asserted a legal right to secession not to justify secession because the North never asked for any, but to declare the war illegal and the North guilty of a crime. The North never thought there needed to be any legal justification for secession and never asserted that secession was illegal. They only believed that there was no legal or moral right to secession the North was bound to respect. The North never asserted that secession was illegal because natural rights trump legal rights any day and this belief is explicitly acknowledged in the Declaration, and none disputed the natural (moral) right to revolution that the South asserted. This is why we have a 2nd amendment, because people have natural (moral) rights that trump legal rights, and this is the way it should be. The matter war settled "by way of the highest tribunal" --the force of arms.

You can't say that it was ever a Northern position that the war was illegal. The North believed both secession and the war to be extra-legal, and that moral issues were in play. Saying secession was not a legal right is far different from saying it is illegal. The North never asserted this because it is incoherent to do so. It is logically equivalent to asserting the Iraq War was illegal. It's absurd when dealing with sovereign states. You could argue it was immoral, but illegal? The moral question is all.

All to say that, pace Rob G., secession would not be relevant in the hypothetical he imagines about state abortion policy. For one, the same issues arise *inside* states (can a community outlaw it?) that secession can never solve. But more importantly, the abortion question is a moral one, and the question is whether or not force is ever appropriate and Americans generally think so and support the 2nd amendment. No, secession is not relevant in Rob G's hypothetical. Here is a better hypothetical that would clarify things. A state SC or legislative body declares that a community cannot declare its locality off-limits to abortion clinics or abortion. Does the community secede? Not if they have any brains. What they do is form citizens into a militia and dare the state to make them enforce state law. Dare them to order volunteer citizen soldiers to subdue them. See if the state has the moral fortitude to enforce the law their state bodies foolishly passed. That's your hypothetical that doesn't borrow from the duplicity of Southern grievance rhetoric from the CW. Could the same thing happen between the federal government and a state? Sure, but the history of the duplicity of "states rights" rhetoric must be avoided if we want to learn anything.

"The church went along with the eugenics movement..."

She did no such thing.

Mark, I suggest you read Bill Kauffman's recent book on secession. And Thomas Woods's "Nullification" wouldn't hurt you either. The states need to resist Federal Government encroachment, and to tell the Fed to go pound salt if necessary. If abortion ever becomes an issue of this nature, trust me: pro-lifers won't be afraid to talk nullification and maybe even secession. That's all I'm saying.

"The church went along with the eugenics movement..."

She did no such thing.

This is not in dispute.

You could start here, here, here, and here.

This is also why flirting with naturalism is dangerous. This is why I argue against naturalistic assumptions such as that that there are genetic causes and correlations for alcoholism, homosexuality, intelligence, etc. It is enough that it is false, but the importance is much more than people think. Consequences follow.

Mark, I suggest you read Bill Kauffman's recent book on secession. And Thomas Woods's "Nullification" wouldn't hurt you either. The states need to resist Federal Government encroachment, and to tell the Fed to go pound salt if necessary. If abortion ever becomes an issue of this nature, trust me: pro-lifers won't be afraid to talk nullification and maybe even secession. That's all I'm saying.

You can't avoid the philosophical issues I raise by referring me to other books unless you are wiling to tell me those sources deal with the philosophical issues I raised. I'm sure they don't. If you read them and they did you should be able to address the points I raised yourself.

On the historical merits, as I've said before, states can encroach on citizens rights as much as federal government. As it happens, Southern states were denying the rights of citizens of other states for decades in forcing Fugitive Slave Laws, Congressional gag rules, and making illegal carrying mail by the USPS of anti-slavery literature. These egregious violations of the basic and fundamental rights of people in other states by Southern representatives were engaged in with gusto for decades and even caused riots and civil disobedience in the North. This is why I agree with Paul that the issue of states rights were a transparent fraud. This is why seeing the issue through the lens of the Southern CW political rhetoric is a mistake.

"The church went along with the eugenics movement..."

She did no such thing.

This is not in dispute. You could start here, or here.

BTW, the church involvement in the eugenics movement relates to the question of whether or not there are genetic links or correlations with alcoholism, homosexuality, and intelligence. I don't believe genetic causes for these things have been shown, and I think these are naturalistic assumptions. Many Christians happily are embracing naturalistic assumptions like this and insouciently say "well just because it is genetic doesn't mean one are not responsible," not realizing that they are presupposing that genetic causes are functionally identical to non-genetic causes to begin with. If there were genetic causes for these things why wouldn't we think that they wouldn't function as other genetic causes we know of such as diseases, such that they can't be resisted?

The states need to resist Federal Government encroachment, and to tell the Fed to go pound salt if necessary. If abortion ever becomes an issue of this nature, trust me: pro-lifers won't be afraid to talk nullification and maybe even secession. That's all I'm saying.

Let me say this more directly. I'm with you 100% in resisting federal encroachment. I'm with you 100% that the Feds should be told to pound sand in all kinds of cases. ObamaCare is merely one. If SCOTUS doesn't find it unconstitutional, as they should, the states should opt out anyway. If the feds try to force the issue let it be forced. But you need to at least grasp that arguing for the legality of nullification and secession won't help since you've ceded your autonomy to the federal government in doing so! These are natural (moral) rights you are asserting, and you are undermining your own case by arguing for what only a court could approve. Legal rights are not how you tell the feds to pound sand because the highest court in the land is the 3rd branch of the federal government! So if you believe in secession and nullification sounds good, but you cannot tell the feds to pound sand on that basis. We're on the same side, but you seem to think long-discredited Southern political ideology is going to help.

Mark,

The Catholic Church never endorsed eugenics, only certain liberal members. Just because Margaret Sanger, who was a baptized Catholic, probably favored contraception for married women does not mean that the Church did (in fact, Humanae Vitae makes it clear that she does not). Citing the opinion of members of the Church who hold an idea does not equal the Church holding the idea. One might just as well argue that because a Catholic scientist invented the Pill that the Church endorses contraception. This is certainly hasty generalization on the part of the authors you cite.

On a different topic (nothing to do with Mark), Thompson's argument is just plain silly for two reasons: 1) to say that the baby has no consent to be connected to a woman's body is an epic fail because the acknowledged the possibility and gave passive consent when she decided to have sex, especially if it were non-contraceptive sex (it's the old, "What are you doing on the train if you aren't going to Minnesota?") 2) in fact, if it is a child in her womb, then since it didn't consent to be there (the argument cuts both ways, you see), then the mother is guilty of kidnapping and imprisonment.

As for delayed ensoulment, that is based on Aristotelian biology, which has since been discredited. If Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas were alive, today, they would disavow the whole notion. No one really seriously holds that idea anymore if they know anything about modern biology.

The Chicken

Mark,

The Catholic Church never endorsed eugenics, only certain liberal members. Just because Margaret Sanger, who was a baptized Catholic, probably favored contraception for married women does not mean that the Church did (in fact, Humanae Vitae makes it clear that she does not). Citing the opinion of members of the Church who hold an idea does not equal the Church holding the idea. One might just as well argue that because a Catholic scientist invented the Pill that the Church endorses contraception. This is certainly hasty generalization on the part of the authors you cite.

On a different topic (nothing to do with Mark), Thompson's argument is just plain silly for two reasons: 1) to say that the baby has no consent to be connected to a woman's body is an epic fail because the acknowledged the possibility and gave passive consent when she decided to have sex, especially if it were non-contraceptive sex (it's the old, "What are you doing on the train if you aren't going to Minnesota?") 2) in fact, if it is a child in her womb, then since it didn't consent to be there (the argument cuts both ways, you see), then the mother is guilty of kidnapping and imprisonment.

As for delayed ensoulment, that is based on Aristotelian biology, which has since been discredited. If Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas were alive, today, they would disavow the whole notion. No one really seriously holds that idea anymore if they know anything about modern biology.

The Chicken

Sorry for the double post. I have yet to figure out the vagaries of the iPad.

The Chicken

Me: "If abortion ever becomes an issue of this nature, trust me: pro-lifers won't be afraid to talk nullification and maybe even secession. That's all I'm saying."

Mark: "you need to at least grasp that arguing for the legality of nullification and secession won't help since you've ceded your autonomy to the federal government in doing so."

No. One of the major problems with the erosion of states' rights was that one branch of the federal government itself came to be the sole arbiter between the states and the fed, which is patently biased against the states.

The fact that in certain cases the states' rights argument was used as "a transparent fraud" does not mean that the argument itself is fraudulent. This is a liberal/neo-Con manuever to argue for the necessity of a strong central government, and is simply an enhanced form of guilt by association. By linking states' rights arguments indelibly to slavery defenders, the entire notion is able to be brushed aside without any due consideration. Ditto nullification.

Slavery was a rotten cause to secede over; abortion, maybe not so much. But the arguments are the arguments, no matter who uses them, or for what causes.

Mark -
You made a reckless, unsubstantiated assertion regarding collaboration with the eugenics movement. Better to modify it to; "some/many Christians betrayed the Gospels" or "secularized and dissident Catholics who reject the teaching authority of their Church not surprisingly cast their lot with the culture of death", if not simply retract your comment.

The situation is grave enough without insinuating that the only earthly institution resolutely standing in opposition to the abolition of man, has recently raised Judas to her altars. The ability to distinguish between the individual members of the Body of Christ from the greater whole is intellectually and morally vital at a time when all too many are drunk with despair.

You should be more nuanced in your overall rhetoric. I see no contradiction in the possibility that homosexuality might be caused by genetic predisposition, pre-natal development warped by unknown trauma, or environmental factors such as an abundance of estrogen in the water supply(another fruit of The Pill), and still holding the acting out of the same-sex urge to be intrinsically disordered.

Same-sex attraction is a Cross, we can mercifully acknowledge, and even perhaps Simon-like share in the burden, without falsely lifting it to the status of a spiritual good.

The Catholic Church never endorsed eugenics, only certain liberal members. Just because Margaret Sanger, who was a baptized Catholic, probably favored contraception for married women does not mean that the Church did (in fact, Humanae Vitae makes it clear that she does not). Citing the opinion of members of the Church who hold an idea does not equal the Church holding the idea. One might just as well argue that because a Catholic scientist invented the Pill that the Church endorses contraception. This is certainly hasty generalization on the part of the authors you cite.

Mr. Chicken, I thought it was clear from what I cited that the influence of eugenics was by far the strongest in mainline Protestant churches in America. The Catholic Church tends to distinguish herself on questions of life then as now. I had in mind mostly the Protestant American church when I said "the church".

You made a reckless, unsubstantiated assertion regarding collaboration with the eugenics movement. Better to modify it to; "some/many Christians betrayed the Gospels" or "secularized and dissident Catholics who reject the teaching authority of their Church not surprisingly cast their lot with the culture of death", if not simply retract your comment.

I am not retracting a perfectly defensible statement, certainly not at the insistence of such a distastefully prideful and sanctimonious demand. It is not inaccurate to say the mainline Protestant churches "went along" with the eugenics movement. Common English usage and the evidence makes the modest claim perfectly reasonable. Where were you when someone claimed here the familiar claim that the Church went doctrinally corrupt in the 2-3rd century? The fact that Hell shall not prevail against the Church does not mean the church has not fallen into serious error at certain times.

The situation is grave enough without insinuating that the only earthly institution resolutely standing in opposition to the abolition of man, has recently raised Judas to her altars. The ability to distinguish between the individual members of the Body of Christ from the greater whole is intellectually and morally vital at a time when all too many are drunk with despair.

You are implying that the Church can't be criticized and this is patently absurd. The fact that large parts of the American church were heavily invested in slavery offend your pride? Your "how dare you" attitude is a prideful response that isn't reasoned, not supported by scriptural support that speaking the plain truth should not be done.

I see no contradiction in the possibility that homosexuality might be caused by genetic predisposition, pre-natal development warped by unknown trauma, or environmental factors such as an abundance of estrogen in the water supply(another fruit of The Pill), and still holding the acting out of the same-sex urge to be intrinsically disordered.

It isn't a logical contradiction. Rocks dreaming is not a logical contradiction either. You are making claims about metaphysics, and I do think the assumption is a naturalistic one. You are presupposing that genetic predispositions are functionally identical to non-genetic predispositions at the outset. This is begging the question. What reason have you to assume this? None. Isn't it reasonable to think that if there were genetic predispositions to homosexuality, that these predispositions would act similarly to other genetic predispositions that we know of such as heart disease or cancer? It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that same-sex urges based in genetics would have no more force than urges based on non-genetic causes.

Not to encourage a threadjack, but it's _quite obvious_ that it is _possible_ for sexual urges to have genetic causes but also to be resistible--ask any normal heterosexual male who resists acting on his sexual impulses. Those urges obviously have a genetic cause, starting with his being born a normal male, instantiated in the production of testosterone with the entire set of effects that this has upon his body and mind. Yet he is responsible to remain celibate and/or faithful to his wife. Every normal heterosexual celibate is evidence that saying, "This urge has a genetic cause" does not entail "This urge is irresistible." We don't even need to talk about alcoholism or homosexuality to see that this is true. There's nothing invidiously "naturalistic" about it at all.

Mark,

I appreciate your clarification. I did seem to me that you meant the Catholic Church qua church, but with your clarification, I have no complaints. I do think that the 1930 Lambeth conference was the start of the aquiescence of the mainline Protestant churches. The thing is, eugenics didn't die after WW II, but rather went underground to resurface as the Planned Parenthood movement. In a society that is so lonely and struggling for the simplicity of truth, people are begging to know that there is a God who loves them. To change the relationship between a man and a woman from a daring adventure of blood and bone into a cellaphane contract of one-night stands, to change God's love from that of the Hound of Heaven into the enigmatic smile of the Cheshire Cat is to show that the societal changes of the twentieth centuries put the lie to any true eugenics movement. The true advancement of man will always be measured in how much closer he comes to becoming like Christ. Judged by this standard, Galton knew nothing of God and less of people. He wanted to breed people like livestock. The only thing separating a man from a beast is his relationship with God, so it had to go. We are slowly becoming nothing but two-legged cattle and sex is becoming nothing more than a watering trough. What do cattle know of love and the future? Take those things away from a man or woman and children mean less than grass. How sad.

The Chicken

No. One of the major problems with the erosion of states' rights was that one branch of the federal government itself came to be the sole arbiter between the states and the fed, which is patently biased against the states.

And state supreme courts would not be the sole arbiter of between intra-state localities? Many state supreme courts are far worse than the federal court in term of judicial independence from political or outside influences.

The fact that in certain cases the states' rights argument was used as "a transparent fraud" does not mean that the argument itself is fraudulent.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that your argument was fraudulent. I am sure you are quite sincere. Let's be clear about that.

This is a liberal/neo-Con manuever to argue for the necessity of a strong central government, and is simply an enhanced form of guilt by association. By linking states' rights arguments indelibly to slavery defenders, the entire notion is able to be brushed aside without any due consideration. Ditto nullification.

You are grossly mistaken. This is why I've raised the philosophical issues, and these issues have nothing to do with anything in the past. Nothing whatever. I am willing to engage your ideas without any reference to the past, and when I do this you refer me to CW history books that make no serious attempt answer them. I argue political philosophy and you talk history. I only use history for the purposes of example.

There is a natural the conflict between the universalistic principles of constitutional democracies on the one hand and the particularistic claims of communities to preserve the integrity of their habitual ways of life on the other. You think secession solves it, and I don't think it solves anything. It is an abdication. Problems can be solved within our system of government far better than outride it. The wiser Southerners knew and stated at the outset that a war would destroy slavery and that they could preserve more of their way of life (and slavery) within the Union than without, and they were right.

Nullification is a concept from John Calhoun which I think fails miserably on the rocks of "concurrent majorities" understandings of governance. But why don't you see I support your view of nullification as construed as a natural right? Because I do. Its just that if you mean what Calhoun meant by nullification I don't support that. Because it is far more than you realize. It is a strong form of multi-culturalism that goes way beyond what you think are "states rights". Why can't you acknowledge the common ground we have in that immoral laws should be nullified somehow? Isn't that the important thing? If you can't make common cause with someone that share arguably ALL your conservative political beliefs how can you argue that a "liberal/neo-Con maneuvers" is afoot? Why wouldn't I think that you have a wistful dream of a distant past where you think state governments solved problems that they didn't?

That's a brilliant comment, Chicken. I too date the mortal decline of mainline Protestantism to the 1930 Lambeth conference. Before that, most maintained a position on artificial birth control comparable to Rome's.

Mark -- I tend to date Nullification from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Would you draw a strong distinction between Interposition and Nullification?

Not to encourage a threadjack, but it's _quite obvious_ that it is _possible_ for sexual urges to have genetic causes but also to be resistible--ask any normal heterosexual male who resists acting on his sexual impulses. Those urges obviously have a genetic cause, starting with his being born a normal male, instantiated in the production of testosterone with the entire set of effects that this has upon his body and mind. Yet he is responsible to remain celibate and/or faithful to his wife. Every normal heterosexual celibate is evidence that saying, "This urge has a genetic cause" does not entail "This urge is irresistible." We don't even need to talk about alcoholism or homosexuality to see that this is true. There's nothing invidiously "naturalistic" about it at all.

I didn't say that genetic tendencies are irresistible. They don't need to be irresistible to throw a monkey wrench into classic ideas of morality. Moral responsibility is not predicated on resistibility, it is predicated on equality with others in relevant ways. Is a person without a genetic predisposition to same-sex urges equally culpable if he acts on it as someone who acts on it that doesn't have these genetic predispositions? Of course not.

Moral responsibility is not predicated on resistibility, it is predicated on equality with others in relevant ways.

Not in my book.

People who are opposed to abortion whine endlessly about the "right to life" ,the "sanctity of life" and the "slaughter of the unborn in the womb."
But their concern for the unborn inevitably ends at birth,making them rank hypocrites.Once you're born,it's "you're on your own,kid."
Your mother's too poor to provide you with decent food,shleter,clothing,education and medical care? Tough noogies,kid,you've already been born.We don't give a you-know-what about you any more. We just want to make sure you weren't aborted.
Most women do not have abortions for frivolous or capricious reasons;the vast majority are simply too poor to provide for their children,born or unborn.
Yet does the US government subsidize poor pregnant women so that they would be able to provide adequately for their children?No. Can private charities provide for all poor children and poor pregnant women?They cannot.Is adoption the solution?No.It won't work.
This is why abortion is so common.Unless the US government strikes at the root of the problem,abortion will remain common whether it is legal or not.
Making abortion illegal will not only not end it,but increase it,as it always has.And many poor women will die from botched illegal abortions,leaving more and more young children without mothers.
The same hypocrites who whine about abortion inevitably support and vote for equally hypocritical Washington politicians who are also oppsoed to abortion but want to end welfare and all government programs to help the poor.
And all the time,women who can afford safe,legal abortions will have absolutely no difficulty flying off to Europe or elsewhere for them. It's always the poor women and children who suffer the most.
And if contracpetives are ever made illegal again,it will only cause the abortion rate to skyrocket and create a black market in illegal abortions.
No doubt organized crime will get involved if abortion becomes illegal again,and dangerous and unsanitary back-alley abortionists will do a brisk business,while the poorest women will try to abort themselves with coathangers or by taking poison,or throwing themselves down stairs. Not a pretty picture.
There will be absolutely no way to enforce the law if abortion ever becomes illegal again.It was already very common before Roe v Wade,and would have remained so even if this Supreme Court decision had never been made.
How will the government enforce the law?Appoint a massive force a anti-abortion agents to police every corner of the US 24/7 to make sure that no abortions are taking place? Or locate and close every venue where illegal abortions are taking place?
Or monitor pregnant women 24/7 to make sure they are not having abortions? Keep women from trying to abort themselves? Put up surveillance cameras in every home and arrest,prosecute and imprison them if they do?
Conservatives want the government to cut expenses as much as possible. How much money would be wasted in the futile attempt to stop abortion?
It won't be pretty.Beware of what you ask for.
There are better ways to deal with abortion,such as providing more help for the poor and making sure that contraceptives are always easily avaliable.

Is adoption the solution?No.It won't work.

Thank goodness that my mother and Rob G's mother did not believe this portion of Robert Berger's hateful rant justifying tearing us into small pieces and suctioning our body parts out of our mothers' wombs.

Not in my book.

So you assume genetic predispositions are functionally equivalent to non-genetic predispositions? What reasons have we to think that?

I just don't think there's some problem with moral responsibility if someone has an urge, and I don't think that "this urge had a genetic background" removes moral responsibility, any more than "this urge had a background in events in my childhood" or anything else like that. Equality is also not necessary to moral responsibility. Normal males have a greater urge to be unchaste with females than do, say, abnormal males without sexual appetite. That doesn't mean that an unchaste man is not morally responsible just because there is an "inequality" between him and an abnormal male as regards genetic dispositions toward action.

I think you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this one, Mark. But I shd. stop discussing it in this thread.

You are implying that the Church can't be criticized and this is patently absurd.

No, I simply said your criticism was without foundation. Of course, I thought you were originally referring to the Catholic Church,which you have since clarified.

The fact that large parts of the American church were heavily invested in slavery offend your pride?

There is no such thing. There are a many Christian denominations, varying in their level of orthodoxy, but an American church is a fiction, as the divide between evangelicals and Episcopalians makes clear. Instead the term invokes the image of a nationalistic civil religion, not a spiritual entity. You really need to be more precise in your language, especially when it involves a charge as serious as the one under discussion; moral collusion with the culture of death.

I didn't say that genetic tendencies are irresistible. They don't need to be irresistible to throw a monkey wrench into classic ideas of morality.

It is your crude generalizations, not classic ideas of morality that are under threat. I assume there is a wide range of moral culpability within any group and embrace the fact it isn't my responsibility to dole it out on an individual basis. This does not alter the reality; acting on homosexual impulses is sinful. Quite amazing that you would conclude otherwise. Is there a spiritual text, "American Church" (consider seceding from it), "Classic", or otherwise, from which you draw your insights?

Mark, neither Kauffman's book on secession nor Woods's book on nullification are Civil War history books. They are contemporary examinations of each respective issue.

I do not think secession automatically solves everything. I do, however, believe it is a valid last resort that can be used if federal government power cannot be resisted any other way. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be taking it off the table as an option up front due to your political philosophy. I disagree.

~~But their concern for the unborn inevitably ends at birth,making them rank hypocrites.Once you're born,it's "you're on your own,kid."~~

This is a common claim from the pro-abort Left but it is complete and utter b.s. I would ask Berger to note the large number of pregnancy centers across the U.S. which help new mothers with diapers, formula, baby food, etc., and often help them find jobs, affordable housing, medical care, etc.

What Berger and other Lefties of his ilk mean by "concern for the born" is an uncritical acceptance of liberal social causes as enshrined in the platform of the Democratic party. Of course if the babies are DEAD, they can't take advantage of your wonderful social programs, can they, Berger? It's hard for them to benefit from food stamps when they're in a dumpster somewhere. Flippin' moron.

(btw, Berger's a troll. He may be loquacious, but a loquacious troll is still a troll.)

If you think a person is better off dead then personhood doesn't matter. I think these considerations easily trump the personhood question, unfortunately.

It is true those two ideas usually get entangled because they are both important considerations. I generally tend to give greater weight to categorical distinctions like personhood, probably because I was corrupted from reading a conservative philosophy blog for so long.

Isn't it reasonable to think that if there were genetic predispositions to homosexuality, that these predispositions would act similarly to other genetic predispositions that we know of such as heart disease or cancer?

There is supposedly a 50% correlation between identical twins for being homosexual. This doesn't prove a genetic predisposition, but it makes some sort of biological influence seem very likely.

1) to say that the baby has no consent to be connected to a woman's body is an epic fail because the acknowledged the possibility and gave passive consent when she decided to have sex, especially if it were non-contraceptive sex (it's the old, "What are you doing on the train if you aren't going to Minnesota?")

I think many people agree with an increased culpability for non-contraceptive sex, at least in theory, but contraceptive sex is rightly viewed as giving consent for sex but not for pregnancy.

2) in fact, if it is a child in her womb, then since it didn't consent to be there (the argument cuts both ways, you see), then the mother is guilty of kidnapping and imprisonment.

Yes, but the escape method involves the same procedure as the mother's active dissent.

No one really seriously holds that idea anymore if they know anything about modern biology.

Many theologians today are not so sure about the fertilized egg having a soul, for reasons like twinning, fusion, undifferentiated cell tissue, and the large number that fail to implant and are naturally eliminated. They do frequently advocate for ensoulment at a very early stage, but once you've accepted that the soul emerges from a sufficiently developed body, it isn't too much further to say that it takes a sufficiently developed human brain to incorporate a rational human soul.

Adoption won't work?

In what universe? Adoption is a fine solution used too infrequently.

The problem is not usually poverty. It is lack of family support; it is substance abuse; it is selfishness. If there no faulty teaching about sex, there would be no contraception. Divorcing sex from its intimate connection with the future and making it only a present-tense is the root of all of these problems.

The Chicken

Shoul say, "present-tense thing..."

The Chicken

The twin argument for delayed ensoulment is easily defeased: while there is one embryo, there is one soul. When the second embryo emerges it gains a soul. Twins are not over-lapping embryos. There is one embryo and then a second. There is no need for a delay until there are two embryos to give them souls. They get a soul when each forms. What is so hard about that? One either accepts this argument or else the twin argument seems to conceed that cell division interrupts or even prevents ensoulment whenever it occurs - but it occurs throughout life. Like it or not, twinning is cell division albeit gestalt cell division. Twinning is duplication, not mere separation. Think of it like a matter duplicator in science fiction. The original has a soul before the duplication occurs and the duplicate gets a soul when it is created. Nothing I know of in the biology of twinning argues against this.

Also, ancephalic children have no higher brain functions, indeed no higher brain, but they have souls.

The Chicken

My post may have been a rant,but it was in no way hateful. I was merely trying to point out how disastrously countrproductive making abortion illegal again in America would be.
So I'm a troll. But don't people have the right to disagree with others on websites? It's free speech.

Also, ancephalic children have no higher brain functions, indeed no higher brain, but they have souls.

Step2's position is, and always has been, that they don't. (Step2 and I are old sparring partners from five years ago at a now-defunct blog, where we were both more loquacious than we are today.)

Step2, in fact, is one of my poster children for the argument that Mark is at least somewhat wrong sociologically and that personhood theory is not only alive and well but also very important to the pro-choice camp.

But don't people have the right to disagree with others on websites? It's free speech.

Nonsense. You have no "free speech" right to our bandwidth, our own private website, to set down tedious rants noteworthy for nothing except bad punctuation.

It is customary in most cultures to show some respect and deference to hosts. What you've done is analogous to urinating on a stranger's carpet and then answering his howls of protest by asserting a right to pee as you please.

People who are opposed to abortion whine endlessly about the "right to life" ,the "sanctity of life" and the "slaughter of the unborn in the womb." But their concern for the unborn inevitably ends at birth,making them rank hypocrites.Once you're born,it's "you're on your own,kid." Your mother's too poor to provide you with decent food,shleter,clothing,education and medical care? Tough noogies,kid,you've already been born.We don't give a you-know-what about you any more. We just want to make sure you weren't aborted.

Supporting abortion on demand while demanding better socialized benefits for children is like campaigning for equal rights legislation while supporting antebellum slavery.

I think many people agree with an increased culpability for non-contraceptive sex, at least in theory, but contraceptive sex is rightly viewed as giving consent for sex but not for pregnancy.

It is not rightly viewed as giving consent to sex but not pregnancy. It is very wrongly (but widely) viewed as giving consent to sex but not pregnancy. Even the manufacturers of the products concede its less than 100% effectiveness, and anyone using them knows they accept the risk of "one shot getting past the goalkeeper". It is akin to consenting to Russian Roullette, but claiming no consent if the unlucky chamber is struck. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Most women do not have abortions for frivolous or capricious reasons;the vast majority are simply too poor to provide for their children,born or unborn.

Berger,

There is absolutely no difference in principle between this justification for abortion and the same justification for simply murdering the poor. Under your reasoning, it would be perfectly legitimate for the government to round up everyone earning less than the poverty level and, for the expedient price of a bullet, be rid of them.

One either accepts this argument or else the twin argument seems to conceed that cell division interrupts or even prevents ensoulment whenever it occurs - but it occurs throughout life.

You could say at that point the embryo is inherently unstable, and therefore hasn't formed yet.

Also, ancephalic children have no higher brain functions, indeed no higher brain, but they have souls.

Lydia is correct about my response to this. There is a generic sense in which any living being has a soul, but I'm sure that isn't what you meant.

It is akin to consenting to Russian Roullette, but claiming no consent if the unlucky chamber is struck.

Just letting you know, comparing getting pregnant to an unlucky bullet is a really bad position for a pro-life advocate. My own imperfect comparison is like locking the front door of your house but leaving one of the windows unlocked. It is clear that you aren't giving consent to people entering through the window, even though they technically can.

I think the grave matter here, Step2, concerns killing a baby, not which window it crawled through.

Certainly, the comparison has its drawbacks. But the concept of consenting to the risk of chosen behavior is analagous. Much more so than your door/window one. One does not seek out the thief or otherwise invite him in; however, one did seek the sex.

Still another reason we fight:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

No doubt such things happen in secret nationwide; this monstrosity just happens to have been discovered.

Also, ancephalic children have no higher brain functions, indeed no higher brain, but they have souls.

... is one of my poster children for the argument that Mark is at least somewhat wrong sociologically and that personhood theory is not only alive and well but also very important to the pro-choice camp.

I'm not sure if I'm somewhat wrong, or if you just misunderstand my position. Namely, that personhood matters until it doesn't. Moreover, when it doesn't the answers are a tougher sell and we need to be prepared for that no matter how out of step with the culture or unpopular it may be. In other words, my view is merely that there is an ambivalence at the heart of this issue that we are wise to consider. People often shift very easily and quickly from personhood arguments to pseudo quality-of-life arguments.

step2 seems to say persons without higher brain functions have no souls. I think that is wrong, unless you believe in zombie-like creatures. But in many more cases I think people who can see full well that higher brain function exists say "he's gone." Is this a statement about personhood or souls? In a way. In the sense that some idealized younger or more functional person is "gone," but I think it is more fundamentally a judgement that their life isn't worth living anymore. In the end the only way to show that a life is worth living is to treat persons in these conditions as though it were true That is something for which no argument will suffice, and I think it is pretty hard for us to do with our modern cultural commitments.

step2 seems to say persons without higher brain functions have no souls. I think that is wrong, unless you believe in zombie-like creatures. But in many more cases I think people who can see full well that higher brain function exists say "he's gone."

There is no way to actually know when the individual acquires a soul. It cannot be determined by logic or empirically discovered.

Therefore the most prudent course of action would be caution, given the damage in the event that one is wrong.

In a moral sense, I don't think someone who argues for delayed ensoulment has any more claim to mercy from God than a doctor who kills someone out of gross negligence.

There is no way to actually know when the individual acquires a soul. It cannot be determined by logic or empirically discovered.

Therefore the most prudent course of action would be caution, given the damage in the event that one is wrong.

I don't like arguments that at least sound like they are conceding dangerous ideas that still try to uphold a principle based on caution. If we concede that we have little or no knowledge of that which can't be discovered empirically, the game is pretty much over in any case.

There are so very many things that are confidently stated by empiricists that are highly dubious even on empirical grounds. But they get away with this because people are inclined to accept that which is stated confidently, especially with the trappings of social authority.

There is supposedly a 50% correlation between identical twins for being homosexual. This doesn't prove a genetic predisposition, but it makes some sort of biological influence seem very likely.

It seems that this commonly cited figure from the prior studies cannot be duplicated.

This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias (Kendler & Eaves, 1989). . . . In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation, however, ours did not provide statistically significant support of the importance of genetic factors for that trait….. Our findings demonstrate the necessity of very large sample sizes to resolve familial variance into its genetic and shared environmental components, when one is studying traits with unfavourable distributions, such as sexual orientation.”