8 responses so far ↓

• 1 bel air republican // Apr 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

  Excellent comparison to Lincoln. I think the biggest stumbling block for pro-life is the all or nothing approach. Is it better to save some or go for all and save none.

  One approach that should be support is that of Birthright in Bel Air. This approach is perfect opposition to the PP groups that would just as soon abort.

• 2 Brian Bittner // Apr 24, 2007 at 3:32 pm

  This article makes very few good arguments and commits several logical fallacies. To me, the least persuasive argument is that being pro-abortion in order to gain favor within the Democrat Party is the “essence of modern liberalism”. Everyone on this blog who complains about Republican candidates not being good conservatives have to realize that the major Democratic candidates are not good liberals either.

  The slavery analogy is also inappropriate. Once again, the debate over abortion has flared up without any attempt to define the terms of the dispute. Abortion supporters do not believe what they are doing is killing because they define life differently than abortion opponents. The issue will never be resolved as long as that definitional question goes unasked.

  Although this article argues that autonomy is the all-encompassing liberal value, I think it means more to conservatives. I don’t understand why conservatives oppose using their personal resources to feed, shelter and provide medical care to strangers unless that stranger happens to be growing inside one’s own body, in which case caring for it is an unavoidable imperative.

• 3 GOPerative // Apr 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm

  Come on Brian. I would probably vote for a pro-life democrat at the moment but they don’t exist. It is the litmus test for high level office in the democratic party. For me, if you believe in abortion you are unfit for elected office. It’s that serious to me. Call me shallow but I just cannot pretend it is not important. This belief says so much about a person’s character. Do they believe in personal responsibility? Do they know how to do what is right even if it makes things tough for them personally?

  I found the slavery analogy to be spot on. They are both moral issues dealing with human beings. Lincoln argued that you cannot let the states choose something that is morally wrong. You cannot let states treat African Americans like hogs. We are in a similar situation where one side is arguing that the growing human being is trash.

  Your last paragraph clearly shows the different between liberals and conservatives. I have to ask you, where do we find most of the poor in this state. Answer, Baltimore City. Who is politically in control of Baltimore City and the entire state? Liberals. Liberalism does nothing to feed, shelter, and provide medical care to strangers either. Who do the poor typically vote for? The same liberals who have been unable to improve their station in life for decades.

  Conservatives simply don’t believe it is the government’s job to catch every person that falls. I do my best personally to help those in need but I do not expect the government to fill the gap between my giving and everyone else’s need. On the other hand I do expect the government to help those that cannot speak for themselves. Unborn babies included.

• 4 GOPerative // Apr 24, 2007 at 9:29 pm

  Brian,
  One more thing. You have got to get that book on the top right. You would love it. There is one available at the Abingdon Branch and the Bel Air branch or you can just buy it.

• 5 Brian Bittner // Apr 24, 2007 at 10:35 pm

  You continue to disregard the fact that abortion supporters support abortion because they define life differently than you do. Abortion is not a moral issue “dealing with human beings” if you do not consider a fetus to be a human being from the moment of conception. You don’t have to worry about this when you only argue amongst people who define the issue the same way you do, but good luck convincing anyone else.

  I agree that liberals in Maryland have failed to provide the things that people need. I’m not a liberal and I’m not interested in defending them. My point is that the article is flawed when it says that a particular view on abortion defines the essence of liberalism because top Democrats have adopted it. I know you understand the distinction between party and ideology because you yourself said “Bush has painted himself a conservative. This could not be further from the truth. Bush is no conservative”.

  The debate over abortion is going nowhere until we drop the false “liberal/conservative” labelling and start talking about how we define the argument and what that means. I agree with you that “this belief says so much about a person’s character,” but I’m not going to let anyone believe that Hillary Clinton defines my character for me.

• 6 GOPerative // Apr 25, 2007 at 5:02 am

  Brian,
  I guess I would say to them, “When does it become a human?” I know one thing, if you leave it a lone it won’t turn into a cow. This is just an argument to lessen the spiritual/psychological impact on woman who are about to make a huge mistake. They say, “Oh don’t worry about it, it’s not even human yet.” It is the exact same argument in favor of slavery. Blacks were not viewed as human but sub-human. How incredibly wrong was that! The pro-choice side needs to devalue human life to trash in order to succeed.

  You are right though. The debate hinges on the understanding of when life begins. Babies are surviving earlier and earlier and this is one more problem for pro-choice.

  Listen to this scenario. We have two fetuses. One makes it to 20 weeks and is aborted. It is not a human until it can survive outside the womb (using pro-choice definition). However, next week a scientific breakthrough enables a fetus to survive outside the womb at 15 weeks. Was the baby that was aborted at 20 weeks a real life or not? Does technology determine when we become human and alive? Or are we just always alive, waiting to be born at the perfect time?

• 7 Travis Seitler // Apr 25, 2007 at 11:27 am

  I wonder if the long-discredited (but still widely-cited) Recapitulation theory is to blame for much of the debate surrounding when a developing human “becomes” a person.

• 8 Brian Bittner // Apr 26, 2007 at 12:20 pm

  “Listen to this scenario. We have two fetuses. One makes it to 20 weeks and is aborted. It is not a human until it can survive outside the womb (using pro-choice definition). However, next week a scientific breakthrough enables a fetus to survive outside the womb at 15 weeks. Was the baby that was aborted at 20 weeks a real life or not? Does technology determine when we become human and alive? Or are we just always alive, waiting to be born at the perfect time?”

  If a scientific breakthrough allows us to one day grow children out of tofu, do I have to stop eating it? This might sound ridiculous (and it is) but it is equally unhelpful to imagine scenarios without considering what is actually happening in the world as it exists now. What do scientific breakthroughs matter to people who need to have an abortion because they have no insurance and can’t even get through the hospital door? Technology can’t determine anything if we don’t all have access to it.

Leave a Comment