Is that right, Mr. Pot?
Feel free to point me to these explanations. Additionally, perhaps you can explain it simply and directly, you know, for all those not quite as brilliant as you.
Of course it’s true. I’m pleased top see that you actually understand this. The point you seem incapable of grasping is that as long as a valid and defensible secular motivation exists, the existence of a religious one becomes moot.
Great, got any suggestions of valid and defensible secular motivations that exist?
I propose the most obvious one is that abortion could lead to human extinction, i.e. if all pregnancies are aborted, the human race dies off. I don’t know how defensible it is, though.
He’s probably ignoring me, I just thought the observation was worth recording.
No. I notice you didn’t put a cite for this claim.
And you didn’t because it’s not true.
The process is laid in in Va Code § 46.2-725(D):
The General Assembly did not create, charter, or initiate Heartbeat International. They proposed the plate design and and submitted it to the Commissioner, as mandated by § 46.2-725(B)(1).
The General Assembly did, indeed, approve the recipient, but that’s because the recipient is “A nonprofit corporation as defined in § 501(c) (3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code;” and thus meets the criteria laid out in § 46.2-725(B)(1).
So let’s review:
Do you stand by the claim that the CPCs are “state-funded?”
No. It’s not state money, but the state DOES get to say, “Not only won’t we use our money to pay for abortions, but we won’t even be involved in collecting money from your donors and distributing it to you if you plan to use it for abortion.”
In other words, it’s not state money – but the state does hobble Planned Parenthood by refusing to allow it to collect donation money by means of the special license plate program.
It’s not state money. It is certainly state influence, but the influence is exerted by refusing to permit a disfavored entity a given method of fundraising as opposed to giving money to a favored entity.
Seems pretty pointless to let your pro-choice support get filtered through the Virginia legislature. Just write a check directly to Planned Parenthood and get a pro-choice bumper sticker.
Sure. On the other hand, it’s a fair complaint that the pro-life side gets to express their views via a license plate AND contribute to their pet cause at the same time – an option which is denied by law to the pro-choice side.
That doesn’t transform the issue into “state money” but I recognize that an inequity exists.
I would ask simply if it was possible to make an argument at all without religion. Surely if it is objectively correct, then one can make a secular argument for it without resorting to god
Don’t you think that if their argument was valid, they wouldn’t need to resort to a religious argument?
I think he can make his argument without pulling from his Catholicism roots. And what would be wrong with that? Using religious roots to argue for something can only convince those who share that religious sympathy. I can tell you that anytime Jesus, Mohammad, or Buddha is purported to do something, I ignore it. I’d rather know why John Doe was doing it than those religious leaders
If I said that, as an atheist, that is a good argument because we deny the validity of all religions, would you accept that as a good argument?
The question is whether valid arguments exist. Bricker pointed you to non-Christians—even atheists—who hold a pro-life position. Perhaps you missed that link more than the one time it was mentioned. But let me help you with the results of a quick Google search. Though I’m sure you’ll be equally able to ignore the existence of these arguments, as well.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/pro-life_atheist.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/293806/an-atheist-against-abortion
http://thebelltowers.com/2013/05/01/pro-life-without-god/
But perhaps you’d prefer, for a change, to watch, listen & ignore, here:
Mods, may I suggest an “Ignore” feature that doesn’t require one to be signed in in order to save one from further exposure to the dishonorable and hard of thinking?
I think you have to keep in mind that God has validity to them, so they see no need to shrink from mentioning him. Now, I do agree that if they are asked to provide a secular argument that it is incumbent upon them to do so without mentioning God or their religion.
Another thing to keep in mind is that much religion and accepted secular beliefs stem not from a religious position, but a philosophical one. For instance, there is a concept in our courts of treble damages (Bricker can correct me if I don’t get this right). It’s the idea that if someone is wronged financially, that the court can award not just that the injured party be compensated, but that that compensation be triple the amount of the injury. This is very common and I’ve never heard of anyone challenging it on religious grounds, even though it has roots in ancient Jewish law.
Similarly, just as we don’t reject an opposition to murder because it is a Christian Commandment, if a purely secular argument can be made against abortion, it is not fair to not evaluate it solely on its merits. The mere existence of a religious argument supporting the same position does not have any bearing on the fact of the position’s existence.
I see your point, but I don’t see Bricker doing that at all. And I say that as someone who practices no religion and is solidly, albeit reluctantly, Pro-Choice.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Can you please rephrase?
Truth be told, I only addressed (in detail) the quote Bricker mined from the source (Motto: “Because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.”) I assumed he picked what he thought was the strongest argument, and I was not sufficiently impressed to go the cite and do his research for him.
I’ll review the ten links you provide, though I’m not currently in a position to watch a youtube vid, so that will have to wait until later.
That’s the spirit! Link reviews to follow.
I’m okay with being exposed to you. I’ve seen worse.
No, I mentioned the motto because I thought it was cleverly intriguing for a motto, not because I felt it was a strong argument in itself.
First up:
Well, skipping all the name-dropping at the start, the author (Kristine Kruszelnicki) quickly likens a fetus to a preschooler, while ignoring the particular circumstances of pregnancy that distinguish a fetus from a preschooler. I have no objection to people who feel a “social duty” to support women in ways that don’t encourage her to abort. Let them offer any support they want. And “if” the preborn are “human beings” ? Well, you can choose to define them as such or not. Either way, it doesn’t comprise evidence.
The “Science vs Pseudoscience” paragraphs talk about how “the human embryo and fetus are biological members of the human species.” No argument from me on this; I don’t see what difference it makes.
The “Defining Personhood” section…[reading]… well, it doesn’t really define personhood, but it sure has a lot of sentences that end in question marks. I guess I’m supposed to read “Is a teenager who can reproduce more worthy of life than a toddler who can’t even walk yet?” and reflexively answer back “Of course not!” and thus get gradually drawn into the pro-life circle. The meat of the section seems to be its final paragraph:
Why “cannnot” one dismiss a fetus? Whatever “function” it might gain later on, there’s the more pressing immediate problem that the woman doesn’t want to stay pregnant and doesn’t want the responsibility of a child.
The next section is titled “Location and Singular Dependency”, which I’ll read with interest since location has always been a critical element of the issue for me. It doesn’t start out well, though:
Well, wait a sec. Why is Rossi’s definition of “human being” grossly fallacious, and the author’s own definition given earlier not? Reading on… the section makes much of the notion that the physical difference betwen a fetus just before birth and just after birth is trivial (true enough from a biological sense) and downplays the “location” issue. It goes on to say the even though the fetus is wholly biologically dependent on its mother, this does not render it “not valuable or worthy of life and protection” (actually, that sentence also ends in a question mark - I guess I’m supposed to respond in a particular way). The trouble is, “valuable” and “worthy” are not defined anywhere that I can see, and the closing paragraph:
…also uses undefined terminology. What is the “mark of a civilized people”? To whom would we show this mark? Are states that restrict abortion better “marked” than states that allow access? Are the latter states less “modern and sophisticated” ? Examples, please.
The next section, “Rape and Bodily Autonomy”, contends that a fetus “has a right to the uterus that is her biologically-given home”, even if put there by an act of rape. It assumes (but does not prove) the woman has a “basic obligation”, and ends with the rather unhelpful “Abortion neither unrapes a woman nor helps her heal. Let’s punish the rapist, not his child.”
The next section, “Personally pro-life – But don’t change the law?”, I’ll quote in entirety:
So abortion just prior to Roe v. Wade was safe. Good. How safe is it going to remain after the practice is re-outlawed? The author doesn’t go into detail on what penalties she has in mind. Doctors delicensed and jailed? Since that won’t stop the demand for abortions, doesn’t that strongly suggest that abortions will be performed by people who are not doctors, who will not supply the necessary antibiotics to keep abortion safe? Is Kruszelnicki assuming a black market will rise up to serve demand, and do so as safely?
And the final paragraph doesn’t end with a conclusion, but starts with another if… if one agrees that abortion ends humans lives, one must want laws against it, while again ignoring the particular circumstances of pregnancy and trying to roll it up with the general concept of murder. I get what the author is trying to do, but I’m not inclined to forget critical facts in the heat of the moment.
The “Conclusion” paragraph, in total:
I understand Matthews-Green’s point about desperation. Personally, I think the metaphor is more fitting if an article of the woman’s clothing was caught in the trap, so she could cut it free and be on her way with her body still intact, but that’s far less evocative. I have no problem, again, with anyone offering help to women cauight in traps, but the kind of help being implicitly offered isn’t freeing the woman from the trap because for the woman, the pregnancy is the trap. Possibly the help being offered just makes the trap more comfortable and easier to live with - details are thin, as are details on what comprises “real choices, real solutions and real compassion”, and I don’t see a summary for ideas “suggested by groups like Feminists for Life”.
Arguably, the Wisconsin law’s ultrasound requirement is a form of harassment. I’m guessing that wouldn’t prove very impressive to the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, but possibly they’re more sensitive to harassment issues.
“We can do better than abortion.” - sure, if you say so. How?
Are the rest of the links like this? I get the sense I’m going to see a lot of repetition, a lot of assumptions of that which the author is ostensibly trying to prove, and a whole lot of rhetorical questions left unanswered.
Well, I addressed it anyway, didn’t find it to be clever or intriguing. In fact, it raises a number of questions that undermines its own intent. It’s as if the sole purpose of human life was to create more human life.
Nice statute but it doesn’t change the fact that the General Assembly decides where the money goes.
Cite.
Luckily, Planned Parenthood got the funds, albeit with the caveat that this state-generated money can’t be used for abortions:
According to the statute you cited, the tags generate “revenue” for the state, just like taxes or fees. The state has decided to share some of the revenue generated with this or that organization, but the funds generated are absolutely *state *revenues - no one else’s. The state makes the license plates and sells them, and decides how much of the revenue goes to what organization. So, yes, it’s absolutely state money.
I’d hope people would preferably save the teenager in the cliche “save only one” death scenario. He’s had much more emotional and financial resources poured into him by society and his parents than the toddler. He also has a wider and older social net that would be destroyed if he died. And he presumably has hopes and dreams and all that good stuff and doesn’t want to die. A toddler has none of that.
So save the teenager, unless he’s an asshole who kicks puppies or something.
The, save the puppies.
I take my hat off to you for having the integrity, the openness, the stamina, and the fortitude to examine those links. I’m glad that someone on our side is making that extra effort. Thank you for the review of the arguments presented. FWIW, I agree with you in the exposure of the fallacies involved. The key argument seems to be that the fetus is a person – which only “assumes by concluding.” It begins by accepting as a premise the very matter which is contested.
By that logic, the Chargers are the best team in the NFL, because they really are.
Well, in the interest of integrity and openness and junk, I’ve only actually examined the first one so far. I think it’s fair of me to invite magellan01 to comment, however briefly, before I move on to the next.
Related, Bricker has not indicated that he now understands the points I raised in post 1129 and its follow-ups, so I don’t feel a whole lot of incentive to revisit the “nephew” issue.
Heh, I guess I’ll just go ahead and discuss magellan01’s second provided link, since it’s short and ironic:
The link has a short excerpt from a 1989 paper by Don Marquis:
The poster (who is presenting this excerpt), says:
The poster (“atheistintermarried”) goes on to describe an ethical distinction he (?) makes:
Further:
I doubt a fetus would know, either. This argument is based on opportunity cost, essentially, that since the fetus has a potential future, robbing it of that future is… wrong, apparently. I suppose we’re ignoring the lost future opportunities of the pregnant woman. In fact, any decision we make robs us and others of potential futures. “atheistintermarried” acknowledges this:
I’m not sure why “atheistintermarried” is impressed by Marquis’ argument (I’m not) while pointing out its flaws, but no big deal. I guess I could follow the links, read Marquis’ paper in full, but magellan01 gave me ten links and I’m going to stick to those ten links, goshdarnit.
What??
The amount of revenue that goes to ANY organization is fixed by § 46.2-725 – the state doesn’t decide that Organization A gets 30% while Organization B gets 40%.
On what basis do you say the state “…decides how much of the revenue goes to what organization?” The state has fixed the scheme as being the same for all organizations.
In your view, if the state collects money for another entity and then pays it to that other entity, is that all that’s necessary to make it “state money?”
Maybe this will answer the question: let’s say I get a refund from my Virginia state taxes this year. It comes to me as a check from the Virginia treasury. Is that “state money?”
Well I don’t know what specific arguments Bricker was using, not going to slog through 1000+ posts, but I took a look at the first 5 of your links. While I can see the merit in some of those arguments, it strikes me that they would all crumble under certain cross examinations. Most obvious would be the claim in the 1st, 4th, and 5th links about when life begins. What those arguments leave unanswered is that much human life right now ends even when the person’s humanity is not in question, and I don’t mean death row inmates. Poke at those arguments just a little, and I don’t believe it won’t resort back to some form of conceptional soul-creation, but that, I’ll admit, is my personal belief on how things would go and not factual.
What else is missed by those links is the problem of assuming the existence of human exceptionalism that comes from nowhere. I’d like to see them answer that with a non-religious answer
What I believe, and maybe this doesn’t apply to Bricker, is that people tend to cloak secular arguments with religious justification, or religious arguments with secular justification. Unless one makes a singular secular argument, it is often indistinguishable from religious.
For example, if someone said its wrong to shoot somebody in the face because it violates that person’s autonomy and harms him undeservedly, that’s a valid secular argument. If someone says that its wrong because their god says its wrong, while the guy’s situation doesn’t change, I wouldn’t exactly support that justification as law because he’d be making a religious argument. I’d tell them they would have to justify it somehow without using their god to do so because I would consider it a valid argument
I think we’re talking a little bit around each other because I do agree that the existence of a religious argument doesn’t void that argument, my contention is that those are often mixed so that you can’t tell them apart OR that the secular argument seems to be based on religion. Have all the religious justifications you want, only you’ll have to remove them if you want anyone not of that denomination to follow it
If he’s not doing that, my mistake, I misunderstood the citations others provided. There’s too many posts in this thread to know which ones people are talking about
The point I was trying to make, and maybe this doesn’t necessarily apply to Bricker, was that if I were speaking as an atheist, I deny the validity of some argument solely because my religion of atheism (and we can save the “is atheism a religion?” debate for another thread), would religious people accept that or would they instead deny it because “oh he’s just one of those atheists” IF we take into account there are non-atheist arguments supporting my contention. If the former, wouldn’t religious people be doing the same thing they accuse atheists of (only without the grounded factual basis that secularism has)?