dagblog - Comments for "Talking about Akin to Dan Callahan"

Okay...leave aside the 100%.

AnonymousPS — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:17:02 +0000

In reply to I think you're misreading him

Okay...leave aside the 100%. Except, I do think that if there were more agreement on abortion, Resistance might take a slightly different position on the policy, though not the moral principle.

Disagreement about abortion seems to form a major plank of his argument, so that's why I introduced 100%. Anyway...

This is getting a bit convoluted, and maybe I misunderstand the facts or the law.

It's my understanding that RvW says that you can't make a law that outlaws abortion.

It doesn't say that any woman must be "given" an abortion on demand. She doesn't have a right to it in that sense. She has to pay for it, or have it paid for, in some way.

So I would argue that we pay for it as part of the "general welfare." General welfare has nothing to do with rights. I agree totally with your point about the poor; they are always the losers in this discussion. Wealthier women will always have options, even if we outlaw abortion.

The fact that there's much disagreement abortion is immaterial to the basis on which we provide it--that's where the political battle is joined.

There'd be a whole lot more "disagreement" about the country going to war if we still had a draft and folks thought they had a realistic chance of doing anything about it.

If we're going to go the check box route, then there should be a check box for all of the programs we pay for through government. I want to pay for welfare; I don't want to pay for defense. As a matter of principle (not practicality) it's the same thing. As soon as some people get to opt out of the body politic and our collective decisions, we're headed for dissolution.

Someone who is morally opposed to X needs to win enough hearts and minds to change the law or become a conscientious objector and stop paying taxes, just as the war protestors did.

One interesting consequence of the check box idea could be that those opposed to abortion would lose some of their moral suasiveness. One could say to them: "You separated yourself from the abortion process. You don't pay for it. It has nothing to do with you. Go away." That's the flip side of the argument for the check box. I'm not sure that's where they want to be.

Right now they aren't paying for abortions, but they're still have standing in the argument, as it were.

Anyway, I may be talking at cross purposes here...so I'll stop.

By definition, a zygote is

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:46:00 +0000

In reply to Is the zygote alive without

By definition, a zygote is the result of fertilization.

Is there a little bit of life in a sperm, a little in an egg? Perhaps, perhaps not. A little bit more when joined, and maybe more when joined to the uterine wall, and then when the division process starts and real organs and cells form, wow, there's even a chance of survival, existence.

I wipe out ants on my kitchen counter and just tonight killed a bee.

I'll have to think about if a zygote is closer to my sympathy level for the bee or the ant, or when these thresholds happen.

Of course getting positive results from the pregnancy test are often exciting for the parents involved as I recall, but a bit too early to get serious about names and clothes sizes. At least not till 6th month.

May sound flippant, but pregnancies are a risky business.

Okay, back to male things, baseball and beer season from what I recall.

Is the zygote alive without

Resistance — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:34:41 +0000

In reply to Well you're condemning her

Is the zygote alive without fertilization?

Well you're condemning her

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:32:06 +0000

In reply to Whose the callous ones you

Well you're condemning her ethics with slightly flattering words.

No, ethically a zygote without a nervous system or cognitive/pain ability is lower on the life scale than the mother, and if she's in danger, she should save herself. There's no one clapping for her death sacrifice in heaven. If it's really meant to be, she can fertilize another egg and try pregnancy again.

By the way, fertilized eggs get flushed down the toilet all the time. Until they implant on the uterine wall, it's a crapshoot. And even after it's no great odds. And there's no physiological difference between an implanted zygote and one that's expelled - just a different address.

So if we're going to get upset about an implanted zygote, we should also be down on all fours rescuing that expelled zygote from the toilet, whatever that means to the woman's health.

In short, I hope you to see how absurd this all is, vs. the reality of someone you've lived with and loved being in mortal danger over a pregnancy that's by no means guaranteed to finish successfully?

And if there's a God with any common sense, he can see the absurdity in such a wicked useless Sophie's Choice.

Whose the callous ones you

Resistance — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:14:51 +0000

In reply to A bit of typhus can grow to

Whose the callous ones you speak of ? The mother who decides, to give her life to save her child? Or the one that says, "let the little one die"?

It is the womans choice. If she is of strong faith, she will observe the commandment even to death.

"For there is no greater love, than that a man/ woman should lay down his/her life for another."

A mother to be, with so much love for her unborn child, she gives her life, instead of taking the childs life.

The woman makes the decision, knowing she is the one that has to answer for her actions, before the judge. Maybe when the pressure gets intense she weakens? It is he that accuses or excuses. Not anyone else.

If you show him love, he rewards you with his love. It becomes a strong relationship. Many will never understand that bond of love.

God doesn't bind you; individuals make the determination, to show their love and faith, as they look for his help, during trying times, through prayer.

If she is not a woman of strong faith and she decides to go outside of the law, She is not bound to God; but neither should she expect God to hear her prayers. Go it alone, if you choose.

No one is bound. It is the womans choice, after all.

I think you're misreading him

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:31:42 +0000

In reply to I think there's a bit of a

I think you're misreading him some.

He certainly doesn't mean 100% when he says "common"

And he calls abortion a right, but since it's not by common agreement, he suggests funding should come from elsewhere.

Which I'd be fine with, except the plight of the poor, who often can't afford it and for whom the effects are most negative (as well as the welfare of society as a whole).

So we're caught in a quandary. Which I'm not sure Resistance even frets about so much - just that few acknowledge his dislike of paying for what he and many consider an ethical abomination.

Of course war is in a league of its own - an abomination we accept, and almost always one we back with majorities.

I think there's a bit of a

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:19:48 +0000

In reply to A bit of typhus can grow to

I think there's a bit of a mix-up here that I didn't see until I read your comment.

When we talk about the "general welfare," we aren't necessarily (maybe not at all) talking about rights. These are two different things.

We're talking about why we, as a people, set up the government way back when. To provide for defense and the general welfare. We're talking about the rightful role of the government.

We still have to decide what actions fall within those categories and what we want to do. We could decide that it made sense to give everyone a gun, for example.

Resistance seems to want to include under "general welfare" only what we, as a people, can agree on virtually 100%. If we're deadlocked 50-50, we can't, almost by definition, call it "general welfare."

But many important advances in the general welfare (assuming one agrees these were advances) didn't garner anything close to 100% approval, and often the discord was quite substantial. There was big opposition to SS and Medicare and integration.

We can't even always agree on whether something is a right or how far the right extends. Guns, for example. Just about anything that makes it to the Supreme Court involves substantial disagreement on the right course of action.

A bit of typhus can grow to

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:06:19 +0000

In reply to As I understand; the

A bit of typhus can grow to affect the "general" welfare. The occurrence of poor children in single parent households did grow to unhealthy levels that affected the general population. While "common ground" and "general" sound benevolent, the Supremen Court on several occasions has ruled against the tyranny of the majority.

But in general, I think I agree with your logic. There is no inherent "right" to a social security program, though it makes some sense as "general" welfare by common agreement. Healthcare as well.

But it's not quite as obvious that legal abortions equals "government will pay for abortions", just as my support for legalized marijuana doesn't mean I support a dime bag in every pot, or that government should pay for gay weddings. However, unwanted pregnancies tend to be a drag on society, especially among those who are least able to control or manage them. So we're stuck with a quandary - supporting that general welfare and the needs of the underclass means ethically offending the values of a pretty large group. Do not have a good answer.

Though I do have a good answer for those who whould favor an unformed zygote with no nervous system or functioning cognitive or even circulatory system over the life of an endangered mother: mindless barbarians. They may think they're being excessively principled, but their really being excessively callous and absurdly pedantic.

...common good... Hard to

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:59:10 +0000

In reply to As I understand; the

...common good...

Hard to define. I think we can agree that many people might disagree on what this is and agree, also, that actions taken for the common good won't necessarily apply to all of us directly.

General welfare implies a

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:55:16 +0000

In reply to As I understand; the

General welfare implies a control. (General: Affecting or concerning all or most people) If the term general welfare would suggest common good.

But, in fact, there's great disagreement on welfare, as we've seen over the years and see now with a good chunk of the people agreeing that we should cut Medicaid as well as other "welfare" programs.

Not only is there a growing disagreement on "welfare," welfare itself only helps a small (though growing) percentage of the population.