86 replies to this topic

[cmk]

Raskolnik, on 09 February 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

But in answer to your question, I included those two because they are in the same basic moral category--inducing the death of a zygote--but when asked by cmk, I clarified that even though they are in the same basic category, there is a subtle difference in terms of their acceptability. It is always worse to directly and intentionally kill than to kill indirectly as the unintended result of a separate action.

And I asked because this distinction highlights an important gulf between religious morality and libertarian philosophy. In fact, I consider the permissibility of "indirect killing" to be at the heart of justifications for both birth control and early-term abortion.

[Tom]

Preventing the implantation can also be directly abortifacent. What are your feelings on "Plan B", which is the scenario I was actually talking about? I thought that's what you were referring to when you said "directly attacking a zygote or preventing implantation of an egg already known for certain to be fertilized."

[Raskolnik]

Quote

And I asked because this distinction highlights an important gulf between religious morality and libertarian philosophy. In fact, I consider the permissibility of "indirect killing" to be at the heart of justifications for both birth control and early-term abortion.

I'm intrigued by your POV here. Would you mind saying a bit more?

Quote

What are your feelings on "Plan B"?

My feeling is that a Catholic hospital should not be forced to dispense it. I think it's less bad than an abortion later in the term, but still not a good thing to take, and I would applaud any young woman who would choose to put her faith before what the secular world would consider to be her material benefit. Of course such a decision would be made much easier if the father of the child were also willing to take responsibility. There are multiple overlapping issues here; as far as I am concerned, in this case, taking a pill can treat the symptoms, but not the disease.

[cmk]

Raskolnik, on 09 February 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

I'm intrigued by your POV here. Would you mind saying a bit more?

My view is that abortion represents an essential clash between the right of a fetus to continue living, and the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body.

I believe that the crux of the issue is what duty is owed by the mother to the fetus. Arguments against all forms of abortion are essentially claiming that a fetus has a right to draw resources directly from the mother's body, even against her will, and even though this can cause either temporary or permanent harm to the mother. I believe that this is inconsistent with society's general view on such matters, where it would never be considered acceptable for the state to force one individual to provide physical support for another in this way.

The usual example I use is this: if the government can force a mother to carry a fetus because otherwise it would die, why can't it force me to give up a kidney for someone who loses both of his in a car accident? Or even, force people to give blood for transfusions?

This is why I am generally okay with abortion up to the point of viability. This gives plenty of time for the woman to decide that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term, before it becomes in more and more ways like a person. Beyond that point, there is an option available: giving birth to the baby. That compromise of rights should be taken away only in serious cases where anything other than abortion would put the mother's own life in jeopardy.

I can envision a future of advanced in vitro gestation, which makes the entire issue of abortion largely moot.

[Baron Siegfried]

The problem with ‘pro-life’ is that it’s actually ‘anti-sex’. To the right-to-lifers, sex outside of wedlock with the specific intention of creating a baby (only in the missionary position, mind you) is sinful. Pleasure is inherently sinful to these people, casual sex is just absolutely horrible, and pregnancy is god’s punishment for your sins. Morality is based upon denial of anything carnal. It doesn’t matter if you were raped by a stranger or you were a girl molested by a relative, you had sex and that was sinful (even though you didn’t enjoy it) and now god is going to punish you for it. If carrying the baby to full term results in the mothers death, that's acceptable because she had sex and the baby didn't (I have actually heard that argument made by catholics).

If you have an abortion, not only are you evading god’s just punishment, but you’re penalizing that poor innocent (insert picture of goo-goo baby here) life who is far more important than anything else, including the life of the mother. Until it’s born, of course, at which point it becomes a burden on society who deserves nothing whatsoever, as it’s the result of sin which will probably spend most of its life in prison. Contraception is objectionable because once again, it lets you have sex while evading god's just punishment. Even if you don't get pregnant, maybe god will give an STD instead!

You will note that those vehemently opposed to abortion are also vehemently opposed to contraception and the day-after pill. The baby is their excuse, but it’s a deep and visceral hatred of (anyone else) having sex that lies at the root of the issue, going back to Paul. It’s gotten to a point that some parents refuse to inoculate their children against possibly fatal STDs because if they’re protected against one STD, why they might be encouraged to go out and have sex!!

Would anyone care to lay any money down as to whether the evangelicals will denounce the eventual production of an HIV vaccine and / or cure as an abomination? That they will refuse to allow their children to be immunized because if they do, why, they might try gay sex if they know they can’t get AIDS! And everyone KNOWS (at least in their circle) that AIDS is god’s punishment for being gay, so a vaccine / cure is a violation of god’s design.
The fanaticism and intolerance of the pro-lifers is very reminiscent of the rigidity and intolerance of the prohibition movement in the late 1800s, as well as their tactics. Though at least the prohibitionists didn’t go around killing people selling liquor . . .

I would have more understanding of the pro-life position if they were to offer support and sympathy to women facing a terrible decision as well as options (as in church run orphanaces to raise the unwanted children)(minority kids, not just the cute white ones they can sell for obscene amounts) than screaming hysteria and hate. I'm sorry . . . my opinion is that the final decision is a both personal and medical one, in which neither government nor religion has any say. The gov't has no business whatsoever trying to legislate this. If it's a sin, then the mother will eventually face judgement (assuming you buy into that load of codswhallop), and even if it's not, the act caries with it an everlasting cherem of guilt. Having an abortion is NOT an easy decision to make.

The evangelical notion that a pregnant woman just blithely decides to go have an abortion because it's inconvenient to be pregnant is one of their more cherished illusions, alongside of black welfare queens driving their cadillacs to the food stamp office so they can go buy steaks. Abortion is a bad thing, but forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want is worse, and even worse is being the child of a mother who doesn't want it.

I don't think that catholic or any religious institution should be required to dispense contraceptives, but I also think that since they live in a secular world and accept secular money, they are bound by secular law. And that law says you can't discriminate. End of story.

[zephae]

cmk, on 09 February 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

My view is that abortion represents an essential clash between the right of a fetus to continue living, and the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body.

Rather than simply rehash this exact argument that I had with Raskolnik over at FrumForum, I'll simply piggy-back on your argument here and ask one question: Raskolnik, you said that,

Quote

Yes, absolutely, I think it is worse to directly attack the zygote than to indirectly prevent it from living by preventing implantation. This BTW is the basically the same principle operative in the reasoning why, according to Catholics, it is acceptable to remove the fallopian tube of a woman who is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, but not to use abortifacent drugs. In the latter case you are directly attacking the child, while in the former case you are operating on a diseased organ and the fetus unfortunately dies as an indirect result of the operation.

My question is how do you define "attacking the zygote/fetus"? Would removal of that organism from the womb but not killing it or intending not to kill it(say, by implanting it into an artificial structure of some sort) be considered an "attack"?

[zephae]

Raskolnik, on 09 February 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

My feeling is that a Catholic hospital should not be forced to dispense it.

1. Just Catholic (religiously-based) hospitals or hospitals in general?
2. What distinction do you draw, if any, between an objection to dispensing Plan B and an objection to providing any other kind of healthcare based on religious or moral grounds?

[Rabiner]

http://www.thedailyb...liberately.html

The potential politics of this. Seems like a net-positive for Obama.

[drdredel]

zephae, on 09 February 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

1. Just Catholic (religiously-based) hospitals or hospitals in general?
2. What distinction do you draw, if any, between an objection to dispensing Plan B and an objection to providing any other kind of healthcare based on religious or moral grounds?

Right. It's #2 that I see as being sort of the open and shut case here. Either they're a secular business that is beholden to secular Federal regulation or they're not. If they are then they don't get special privilege to discriminate on religious grounds (cause if they do... where does that end? What else can they demand of their staff, and customers?) and if they're not then they shouldn't have a business license.

[indy]

Rabiner, on 09 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

http://www.thedailyb...liberately.html

The potential politics of this. Seems like a net-positive for Obama.

I agree it seems to be a winner for him. Frum actually summed it up well I thought by saying that no matter how often you say it is about the constitution and not about contraception, when you draw up bills that only allow a single exception---contraception---people will hear that it is about contraception. And If it is about contraception, I don't see how the GOP doesn't get slammed over the issue.

[hisgirlfriday]

balconesfault, on 09 February 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Tell me then why aborting a zygote is better than aborting a two month old embryo?

Because a zygote is just a cluster of cells without recognizable humanity.

To me "aborting" a zygote is not that different than clipping toenails or scratching off a scab or surgically removing a tumor or pricking a finger to extract blood or getting a haircut.

It's a clump of living cells that is part of a human being, but not a human being on its own and once it is removed from its host it ceases being a living thing at all. Until it is viable and able to live and grow outside the woman's body, it is part of a woman's body as far as I am concerned.

And just a reminder, you can throw out charged buzzwords like abortifacient all you want, but at the end of the day, contraception is MEDICINE. This is an issue of MEDICAL care. Contraception is not just a moral issue, but a MEDICAL one.

[Rabiner]

http://andrewsulliva...traception.html

And we have the Republican overreach. Is it me or did Obama expect this?

[hisgirlfriday]

Marco Rubio's bill also extends the conscience exception to ALL EMPLOYERS. Not just church-affiliated employers.

Quote

“Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio’s bill and all the employer would have to do is say it’s for a religious reason,” said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. “There is no test to prove eligibility. It’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.”
The Rubio bill, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, comes in response to a Catholic firestorm over the fact that the administration’s exemption on its birth control rule does not include religious hospitals and universities along with churches. But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday the measure would grant the exemption to “not just Catholic employers — to all employers.”
Rubio’s spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. His bill has 26 GOP cosponsors and the support of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (WV).
The relevant section of the bill, under the title “Conscience Protections,” is below.[indent]`(1) IN GENERAL- No guideline or regulation issued pursuant to subsection (a)(4), or any other provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, or the amendments made by that Act (Public Law 110-148), shall—
`(A) require any individual or entity to offer, provide, or purchase coverage for a contraceptive or sterilization service, or related education or counseling, to which that individual or entity is opposed on the basis of religious belief; or
`( require any individual or entity opposed by reason of religious belief to provide coverage of a contraceptive or sterilization service or to engage in government-mandated speech regarding such a service.[/indent]

[indent]
http://tpmdc.talking...?ref=fpnewsfeed[/indent]

[indy]

Yep, one and only one conscience exception. It's all about freedom don't ya know.

[Sinan]

If they want to make this a campaign issue in the fall, expect every female under the age of 40 to become a Democrat but for the die hard Christians. Add to that their boyfriends who want to make sure they can have sex without worry and you have another massive voting block that will run from these neanderthals. I am aghast that this is even an issue. No wonder the world thinks we are nuts.

[MCHammer]

Marco Rubio's bill also extends the conscience exception to ALL EMPLOYERS. Not just church-affiliated employers.
_________________
I saw that article and couldn't help but think that the GOP leadership and their money men just think people in the USA should be serfs. GOP talks a good game about freedom, the Constitution, etc., but really it's "freedom" for organizations/people in power.

My favorite Marco Rubio statement so far is that he states that Medicare and Social Security has made people in this country weak and lazy. And, he's a Senator from Florida!

[Rue Bella]

Quote

Marco Rubio's bill also extends the conscience exception to ALL EMPLOYERS. Not just church-affiliated employers.

Well, what if my religion had no diety, but had as its primary tenent that over-population is a significant world problem, that no one should ever have more than a small number of children - and once that number was reached, to work for me, using contraception would be mandatory.

Do you think Mr Rubio would find that acceptable?

[Raskolnik]

Quote

Would removal of that organism from the womb but not killing it or intending not to kill it(say, by implanting it into an artificial structure of some sort) be considered an "attack"?

No.

Quote

2. What distinction do you draw, if any, between an objection to dispensing Plan B and an objection to providing any other kind of healthcare based on religious or moral grounds?

The distinction I draw is that terminating a zygote means killing a human being. If the "kind of healthcare" provided does not necessitate killing a human being, then it is qualitatively different from dispensing Plan B. For example giving a blood transfusion does not necessitate killing a human being, so objecting to blood transfusions on religious grounds is different from objecting to Plan B on religious grounds.

[Baron Siegfried]

I honestly think this is a calculated move which sets off a not-so-small bomb off under the conservatives and was specifically designed to light them up like a trunkfull of fireworks. The folks who are in high dudgeon over this are the people who would rather write-in for Lucifer than Obama, so there's zero loss. It keeps them focused on a micro-issue which is a macro-issue only to their base and off of the economy . . . which is the most important thing to the voters.

My guess is that Obama and the DNC have figured out that the rightwingers are like small dogs that you can drive crazy with a flashlight. They know that ANYTHING that Obama does will be met with howls of defiance from the right, so Obama and his advisors are putting up items that are specifically intended to make the GOP jump up and down, scream, fling poo, and further alienate the centrist and moderates. The more the right goes batboop crazy, the deeper they'll drive the wedge.

The drawback to having an agenda which consists soley of 'whatever Obama in in favor of, we're opposed to' is that every time the President proposes something or issues a statement, they go totally off-message to attack whatever Obama just said. And the DNC is setting up situations where the nominees reflexively go into attack mode without giving any thought to the ramifications of their responses.

The Dems know that birth control is one of those issues that women feel VERY strongly about, and the sight of the GOP candidates rising in vociferous opposition to something so important to them will cost the GOP dearly. What's amusing is that catholic women strongly support accessibility to contraception, and the sight of powerful older males denouncing birth control, well, what can I say. Really bad messaging.

Watch for more of these pokes. I'd be willing to bet the DNC agitprop section is putting together a list of topics that with careful presentation will cause the GOP to overreach and further damage their image. And since the GOP is quite simply NOT capable of restraint on any subject involving the president, all the DNC has to do is shine a light on the floor somewhere and watch the right scrambling to chew it up. Which means the DNC is controlling the agenda, and the republicans are not.

[hisgirlfriday]

Raskolnik, on 09 February 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

No.



The distinction I draw is that terminating a zygote means killing a human being. If the "kind of healthcare" provided does not necessitate killing a human being, then it is qualitatively different from dispensing Plan B. For example giving a blood transfusion does not necessitate killing a human being, so objecting to blood transfusions on religious grounds is different from objecting to Plan B on religious grounds.

It isn't different. Jehovah's witnesses have one theology about the human body that holds the cluster of cells in blood that do not look anything like a human being, cannot feel pain, cannot think, have no will and have no capacity to live outside the human body as so sacred that you shouldn't get a blood transfusion. Catholics have a theology about the human body that holds that a cluster of cells around a fertilized egg that do not look anything like a human being, cannot feel pain, cannot think, have no will and have no capacity to live outside the human body as so sacred that you shouldn't take medicine that causes that cluster of cells to detach from the womb or prevents that cluster of cells from being formed at all.

You are simply prizing Catholic theology about life (and that's modern Catholic theology about life... Thomas Aquinas certainly did not believe that life began at conception) above Jehovan thelogy about life.