I too would like clarification on the statement. Who should and should not be given the vote, and based on what criteria?
In this overpopulated age, the common good imposes no duty to reproduce.
Yes, and various people might find various things equally appalling - interracial or gay marriage, sodomy, polygamy based on various reasons. None of them good reasons, mind you…
However, virtually anyone in modern society can agree that the idea of preventing certain minority groups from voting with no good reason is horrible, based on the past we’ve had. And it’s easy to explain why slavery is absolutely horrific. Whereas, to jump on your hobby horse here, abortion? I reject that a fetus is deserving of human rights until it is capable of survival outside of the mother’s womb, and I hold categorically the right of a woman to control over what goes on in her body higher than the right of a clump of cells to continue to exist to her detriment inside her body. What can you do to convince me otherwise? I don’t think you can, because I don’t think you have an argument against that at all. A lot of people here agree with me. This is not an easy question (unlike the whole “voting” thing, which is about as simple as it comes). You’re passionate, and fervent, but your passion just makes you look bad when you compare abortion (a moral gray area) to slavery (are you even serious?!).
It gets better. If the soul is transferred on conception, what happens to twins? They don’t split until days after conception! Is one of them soulless and thus unworthy of life? Is there a test for this or something? This whole “the soul is transferred at conception” concept doesn’t pass the sniff test. At all.
(and this is why dba fred doesn’t post much in Great Debates: It took me hours to compose this post, with looking up citations & phrasing & spelling but I couldn’t get multi-quoting to work, sorry for the cut & paste job)
I admit that my request for a cite was an effort to pop a hyperbole balloon.
I accept that it is difficult to find accurate abortion statistics, and also that laws have changed in the country and states in the 41 years since Roe v. Wade was decided.
I did see your cite to 'After Tiller’ Profiles Last Four U.S. Doctors Who Do Late-Term Abortions prior to my asking you for a cite; I also looked at Anti-abortion violence
I don’t read your cite(s) that way.
Your 2nd cite, to the article ‘After Tiller’ Profiles Last Four U.S. Doctors Who Do Late-Term Abortions, in the next paragraph leaves out the “Last” modifier … follows the four doctors in America who still perform third-trimester abortions.
Further into the article is the statement “… in the states that these four practice—Maryland, Colorado, and New Mexico, currently …”.
From another article about the documentary ‘After Tiller’ [“After the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller in a Wichita, Kansas church, only four doctors continued to provide third trimester abortions openly in the United States.” <bolding mine>.](“http:// */media/2013/09/film-review-after-tiller-third-trimester-abortion”)
Your 2 cites are to the same documentary that follows 4 doctors practicing in 3 states and makes no comment or assertion to the other 47 states, many of them blue and large, e.g. California and New York.
I have great difficulty believing in that no third-trimester abortions are performed in the 47 states which those four doctors do not practice.
Now it’s my turn to let you do the math:
8 murders in the 41 years since Roe v. Wade was decided is:
-1 murder every 5.125 years/0195 murders per years
Either way it’s 8 murders too many. I do not condone or agree in any way with the murder of a doctor who performs legal medical procedures.
How would you prefer I frame the question? I acknowledge that I was pointing to the infrequency of murders of doctors who perform abortions.
It’s 8 murders too many. I do not condone or agree in any way with the murder of a doctor who performs legal medical procedures.
To my original point, based on your cites which follow 4 doctors practicing in 3 states, I have not been convinced that there are very few doctors who still perform late-term abortions for fear of murderous pro-lifers.
And on the OP, that Dr. Tillman was murdered not at an abortion clinic but in a church, an 8-foot or 35-foot or 100-foot abortion clinic buffer zone would not have prevented his murder.
So in the saner bluer states, these abortions are occurring but nobody kicks up much of a fuss. Meanwhile, in the backward redder states, a doctor who performs the procedure is at risk.
Obvious solution - stop fussing.
Oh my God. This is hilarious. When you expect a pimply faced tween or something and then you’re introduced instead to the almost middle aged grown ass man… cognitive dissonance indeed.
In fairness, that’s not what he’s suggesting. He’s arguing not that we should reproduce (for the common good), but stop murdering thousands of babies (for the common good). AFAIK, he’s ok with contraception.
.
Wow, really? I had him pegged for a Boomer…
The article emphasizes several times that these are the only four. That said, I’ll grant there are probably more than four. But I don’t think that that disproves the general point about the danger these people face. How many doctors have to choose between practicing “openly” and having people try to kill them? The list of people who’ve been killed or attacked or threatened is pretty long.
Maryland and Colorado and New Mexico are blue. Doctors and clinic workers in New York and Massachusetts have also been attacked and murdered, so being in a blue state doesn’t make you safe.
And what is that supposed to prove? One doctor being targeted and murdered every five years is a pretty frightening clip, and that doesn’t count the killings of clinic workers or attempted killings or death threats. If you were a doctor considering your future a specialty and you heard one provider gets murdered every five years, how would that affect your thinking?
Why do you think there are only four doctors who practice “openly?” In what other specialty is that even a thing?
Of course he was shot outside his practice on another occasion, and people have been killed or injured in attacks on clinics. But the chief appeal of the buffer zones is that they reduce the harassment of patients. Doctors are on their own since anti-abortion groups are free to share their home addresses online.
It’s hard to see how the “common good” concept applies there.
Is it?
I oppose capital punishment in part because I feel is is unbecoming of a civilized society. I believe that it is not in the common good.
I can understand someone feeling that abortion is a net societal negative. I disagree entirely, but I grok it.
Not even to spare the fetus/baby from a short existence of suffering before it dies?
Like I said earlier. People gung ho into these subjects often seem to purposely misunderstand their opponents and pretend that the most ridiculous interpretation is the obvious one. Tough to read, honestly.
I wonder how the story would have ended if he said “Let me call my husband.”
I once asked an abortion protestor why he didn’t go live under the Taliban, since they don’t allow abortions. He responded “Cause they wouldn’t let me do this.”
Twenty-some years ago?
Not too well.
Today? Today I, and I suspect most of my pro-life compatriots, would be thrilled to hear a story that ended that way. For a couple to be able to share their love with a baby that otherwise would have died, and to see that baby grow up… that’s an amazing thing.
If that conversation actually happened, it’s rather short-sighted on the protester’s part. There are a multitude of reasons living under the Taliban’s rule would be unpalatable, but since the Taliban doesn’t allow abortions, there would be no need for the protester to do “this” – that is, protest abortions. It’s odd that the one thing the protester thought of as a deal-breaker was the one thing you had just reminded him would be totally unnecessary under the Taliban. Funny he or she forgot that contradiction in the two seconds it took to form a reply.
By “most of my pro-life compatriots” do you mean most of them out there, or most of them that you personally know? If the former, I think I’d like to see a cite that show that a majority of pro-life protesters are also pro gay marriage.
By the way, your anecdote, if that conversation actually happened, was nothing more than an anomaly-a blip on the screen that means absolutely nothing when it comes to the big picture. Twenty something years ago an anonymous friend adopted a baby. If he had gone on to found an organization that contacted women in that situation and guaranteed their potential children good homes, that might of made a point in this conversation. If you can show that a significant percentage of abortion protesters also adopt potential children sight unseen, that also might make a point. As it is it has about as much impact as if, in a conversation about the national debt, I bring up an anecdote about how my friend about ten years back overpaid his taxes by about $100 and told the government to keep the change.
The majority of abortion protestors I’ve talked to are definitely NOT pro-gay anything. And yes, the conversation did happen.
My own personal opinion is that most anti-abortion protestors are using their agenda to harass and terrorized women. Why don’t they work at having Roe v. Wade overturned? Simple answer: Ain’t gonna happen.
Cite?
I repeat.
Defined by what criteria, and why?
Big Ceaușescu fan?