And so it starts - Bush and abortion

Great Debates
141

Intellectual honesty might suggest that when your arguments are as clearly destitute of logic or reason, you might at least consider the possible that you are mistaken to some degree.

Fixing a fence is not aiding and abetting. Let me give you an example that actually fits the discussion:

Your neighbor comes over and says his car is broken. He tells you that he needs to go into town and buy some cigarettes and rob a liquor store.

You say that you don’t want any part of the robbery, but could use some cigarettes too, so you give him the ride.

You drive into town, he buys the cigarettes, then walks into a liquor store, and robs it. You drive him back home. If you were The Ryan, you might wrongly think that you had not aided and abetted.

There are clear parallels between this little exercise and the situation of funding organizations that perform abortions.

  1. Foreknowledge. Your faulty WWII example is not aiding and abetting, because you cannot demonstrate that the allies had foreknowledge of atrocities committed by Communist Russia in the indeterminate future. But, you know that one of the reasons your friend is going to town is to rob the liquor store, just as you know that certain organizations will provide abortions. You have foreknowledge.

  2. Did you Aid? Yes, you gave him a ride into town which he needed in order to rob the store. Even though you only did so for the cigarettes, since you had foreknowledge of his other purpose, you knowingly aided him in it. Even if your are certain that the particularl dollars you give to an organization are not funding abortions, you are still aiding them in doing so. By providing the organization with funds for a specific purpose you free up resources which no longer need to be devoted to that purpose. Those other resources can then be devoted to other tasks, such as providing abortion. You are indirectly funding abortions.

  3. Abetting. You might normally give a ride to your neighbor into town for cigarettes. However, now that you know that that normal service will result in a robbery, you are responsible to withhold it. Otherwise you have abetted it. It should be abundantly clear how this apllies to organizations that offer abortions.
    History here, and in the other thread (since you haven’t responded I trust you are now clear on what was confusing you,) suggests that need to hear things several different times, and in several different ways before you achieve understanding. However, I believe I’ve been sufficiently clear and straightforward that you now understand why the distinction is meaningless.

142

I keep on hearing this ‘indirect’ funding of abortion argument and am not convinced by it. Yes, any time one gives $$ to a group and organization, it ‘frees up’ $$ to do other things as well, but you can take it to ridiculous extremes, as well.

For example, why simply deny aid to that organization? why not to the entire country, after all, if they have $1000 being given for antibiotics, that frees up the other $1000 for that country to now give to the organization that funds abortions. Oh, wait, roads? sure, if you help them pave roads, you’re indirectly supporting all the potential uses for them as well.

It is a clearly established and acceptable accounting procedure for an organization to have multiple threads of funding that operate multiple parts of their programming. Except apparently when it comes to abortion and Republican presidents.

So, to make them all happy, how about this as an alternative:

Clinic Bush houses medical offices, medical personnel, informational services (oh, but won’t speak of abortions), antibiotics, etc etc. they get USAID funds. Inside Clinic Bush’s building, is a seperate entity called Clinic antibush, they don’t get USAID funds. It’s a mere coincidence that all of the employees for Clinic Bush also happen to be employees of Clinic antiBush, but Clinic antiBush has a seperate corporate identity, maybe even telephone line etc. And they perform 2 abortions per week. There. Totally seperate. now, everyone can happily go home.
I guess my major problem with the attitude taken by the “we don’t approve, therefore” stance is this:

USAID $$ is humanitarian aid. So, there’s country where they cannot afford to build/staff enough clinics and hospitals to insure the good health of it’s citizens. They have citizens dying of diseases and lack of medical care. And because of the moral stance of some Americans, we wish to state that we will only help those of their citizens that we find to be pure enough, moral enough, good enough to survive. And we get to choose. How is this different from deciding that, say, people shouldn’t get syphillis, either 'cause if they practice monogomy, they won’t get it, but in (pick a country) there’s thousands dying of it, and could be saved by the ingestion of some simple anti biotics. But, we won’t send them those - 'cause it’s immoral for them to be in that situation and we don’t want our tax dollars spent that way.

If it’s humanitarian aid, IMHO, as long as it isn’t spent for example, on development of a new Pokeman character, I think the folks on the recieving end are in a better position to determine how it can best serve a humanitarian purpose.

143

aid:
To furnish with help, support, or relief
abet:
To urge, encourage, or help

I specifically said that you’re helping the neighbor, so you are aiding and abetting the neighbor. I don’t see how you can dispute this.

How does this fit the discussion? US funding does not aid abortions. It doesn’t even aid the discussion of abortions. Aiding people that discuss abortions is not the same thing as aiding the discussion of abortion. Your example assumes they are the same in order to prove that they are the same. Nice little bit of circular reasoning.

Yet again you apply your “if he hasn’t replied within twelve hours, he’s never going to respond” logic.

No, if things are stated clearly, I only need them said once.

You haven’t provided any support for your claim that the disctinction is meaningless; all you’ve done is repeat your original assertion without any evidence. I’ve already said that paying for abortion is supporting abortion, and that paying people that perform abortions is not. If you wish to logically defend your claim that the distinction is meaningless (something which I very doubt that you are interested in), you must show that either
a) paying for abortions does not support them
b) paying people that perform abortions does support abortions
c) the issue of whether or not something supports abortions is not meaningful

So which one is it? A, B, or C?

144

Just who is advocating that? The Constitution requires a full accounting of public expenditures.

Complain? Yes. Demand? No.

145

Uh Scylla remember all those cites I searched for and posted to back up my claims and prove you wrong? Remember? Well, why haven’t you done the same.
For some reason you refuse to accept that the U.S. has not been “aiding and abetting” abortion for the past 27 years. So, instead of comparing it to the KKK, why don’t you offer some sort of evidence to back up your claims?

How about this scenerio:
Your neighbor comes over and asks you for advise. She says that she wants to rob a convience store because she is hard-up for cash. Mainly she needs food to feed her children. You say, “I don’t think you should do that. I know things are rough now, but they will get better.” and you go on to offer her advise on how she can survive, even offering her a few dollars yourself. She goes home happy.
No laws were broken.
You know why no laws were broken?
Because there are currently no laws being broken right now. The USA is not paying for abortions! And you know what else? In many countries abortions are legal.

Let’s see if I can break this down:

  1. The US. Government does not want America tax dollars paying for abortions.
  2. US tax dollars are not directly, and often not even indirectly, paying for abortions.
  3. Bush, in all of his “wisdom” has decided to re-instate the “gag” rule.
  4. Now many entities are going to suffer because they had the audacity to even mention the word “abortion”.
  5. Scylla can’t understand why this “gag” rule is a bad thing.
146

Actually, you can demand it if you’re the President.

147

I only remember the one’s from the two posts I picked apart.

Yes, I’m still remembering. I heard you the first time. Please go on.

Because you haven’t asked me for one yet, and I think the argument can be satisfied by simple logic.

No, I clearly accept that fact. I used aiding and abetting as a metaphor.

You are kidding me, right? What specific claim of mine recquires backing up with evidence? I think we are all in agreement as to the bare facts. It is the interpretation of those facts that is in doubt, and being argued. I made the comparison to the KKK as an overexageration for emphasis in order to illustrate a point.

That’s a nice story. I’m glad everything worked out. I’m wondering if there’s a point.

Are you sure? I think she might have been panhandling by threatening to rob a store in order to coerce funds from her neighbor.

You mean other than panhandling? Umm. Probably because they engaged in no activities other than panhandling which were currently illegal.

I don’t follow. How can an action in the present effect an action in the past?

And this relates to your story how? I don’t see many points of convergence. Anyway, simply saying it doesn’t make it a fact. I am not disputing the fact that the dollars don’t go directly towards abortion. I am disputing that considering indirect funding is a valid distinction.

Yes, I’m listening.

Ummm. Yeah. I’ve heard that. I don’t recall arguing otherwise. Remember, the aiding and abetting was only a metaphor.

I’m game.

False! George Bush Bush is not yet the US. Government, and I doubt this decision was unanimous among all elected officials.

True! (maybe. It’s wholly possible that somebody’s sneaking an abortion in on the Government’s tab illegally, and therefore US taxdollars were paying for abortions. However, to mention this would be nitpicky. Still it’s always nice to be accurate where possible.) We are only talking about a very small fraction of US tax dollars involved in the issue. I am however glad you recognize that there is indirect action occuring. I feel that since the indirection is seperated from the actual action by only one degree and that it directly contributes to the ability of these organizations to provide abortion services, by freeing resources within the organization, that the distinction is essentially meaningless.

True. This was established in the OP, after all, and was never disputed, so I don’t see how you earn any points for bringing it up again.

False. As I mentioned at least five or six times before, you have to establish 1. That actually saying the word would provoke an automatic response. and 2. That the loss of funds by these organizations and hence services available would not be equally compensated by organizations in compliance who stand to gain adittional funds. You have provided a link to one of these losing organizations that says it would suck and hurt people to lose money. This is neither impartial nor particulary convincing evidence.

False. I understand why you think it is. I disagree, and you have provided no compelling reason for me to change my mind.

148

And as was pointed out earlier in this thread…if we look at the historical record when Reagan & Bush (the dad) enforced the same executive order…a grand total of about 2 out of 350 or so organizations opted to not abide by the restrictions…and thus lose funding. Does that guarantee that the same thing will happen under Dubya? No…but it is certainly more indicative of what will probably happen than just saying (twice) that many entities are going to suffer.

149

Scylla, so let me get this straight. You can create stories about the KKK to draw a metaphor, but when I create a story about a neighbor, you fail to get the distinction.
So, in other words, you can only make claims. When it comes to refuting claims you focus on what is literally said, (i.e. the story) and not what is meant (the metaphor).

150

Pepperlandgirl:

No, I’m pretty good at understanding metaphor.

In your story, somebody talks to their neighbor about potentially commiting a crime, but changes their mind and lives happily ever after after hearing a few kind words.

As I said it’s a nice story.

What point you’re tryijng to make with it is lost on me, as the metaphor seems completely broken away from any deeper meaning.

The only valid application of your story would exist if I were actually claiming that abortions were illegal in foreign countries in which we are delivering aid.

I am not now, nor have I ever (or anybody else for that matter) suggested that this was the case.

Why then you seem so hell bent on rebutting the idea is beyond me (though this thread has gotten pretty twisted and arcane.)

I’m not being sarcastic or anything, I just don’t get the point (or maybe I do, but don’t understand why you’re arguing it.)

151

Are you trying to imply that you’re the President?

152

You claimed that it was an analogue. Let me guess: another “meaningless distinction”?

So you agree that no funds are going to any group that performs abortions?

Even if they were the same, that wouldn’t change whether the USA is paying for abortions, because there is no indirect funding.

For this to contribute to the ability of these organizations to perform abortions, they must perform abortions, which they don’t.

153

Go play with somebody else.