The people-pleasing side of me wants to post only happy, congenial, peaceful topics on View from the Prairie Box. To shy away from hot topics, however, goes against my staunchly-held value system and I cannot and will not ignore what I believe to be true. So, here and there you will read blog entries like the one below. This is an election year afterall! One thing I ask is that you write your comments respectfully. I have no qualms deleting entries that are excessively rude. And, when possible, provide a link to back up your comments.
That being said, I’m totally annoyed at how many people are protesting the Republican National Convention in NYC. I’m all for the freedom to protest, I just think it’s creating hazardous conditions, a ticking time bomb, in an already congested city.
One more thing… I refuse to be apologetic for being a Republican. It’s not popular to be conservative these days. Believing that “life begins at conception” and that abortions should never be allowed, saying that marriage is an institution for one man and one woman only, is definitely not smiled upon in most circles. I know many of my friends believe differently, but I’ve had it with trying to tone down my position in order to pacify others. I’m politically conservative with no apologies.
46 Comments
andrew Aug 30, 2004 2:02 PM
you say that you’re politically conservative. exactly how are you politically conservative in terms of fundamental aspects, not based on issues? is this different than being republican?
i do not admit to being politically conservative anymore, since the term is obfuscated with republican talking points. the republican party no longer stands for the tenets of limited government, limited national spending, state sovereignty, or for individual liberty in the same way that it once did.
the giant amalgam of the parties has created a political vacuum wherein i am forced against my will – damned if i do, damned if i don’t. i do not support this movement of the republican party to the middle, i do not support the leaders of the republican party in an effort to draw in the undecided voters.
if my party has to vacillate between two conflicting beliefs about the same issue, such as deficit spending, abortion, the war on terror, et cetera, then should i pretend that i support them.
i don’t support the republican party, i’m just another guy trying to understand how the republic of the United States could end up in a two party whorehouse.
Brad Aug 30, 2004 3:22 PM
It is clear that Andrew’s comments are on the “empty” side. Wouldn’t you agree Rebecca?
Jacinda Aug 30, 2004 3:52 PM
In any case, one should never have to apologize for his or her convictions. Props to Rebecca for standing up for what she believes in. Have you seen this one before:
Pro-life = Anti-choice
Pro-choice = Anti-life
(any questions?)
(And you don’t have to be a “Republican” or “conservative” to believe in that!)
Rebecca Aug 30, 2004 4:36 PM
Empty or worse! ; ) Welcome to the blog, Brad. Hope you and your roomie are enjoying a good start to the school year. Take care of the NooNeeMeister.
Matt Aug 30, 2004 9:03 PM
I’m curious…do you think abortion is wrong in the case of rape and/or danger to the mothers life?
I don’t.
Rebecca Aug 31, 2004 8:30 AM
Abortion is wrong because it involves killing a human life. (Slight tangent… I’m amazed at how a woman can be so excited to hear her baby’s heartbeat at 8 weeks gestation, to see the baby sucking on it’s thumb at 12.5 weeks, and STILL support abortion.) To borrow a tired cliche and to simplify the topic, two wrongs (rape and abortion) don’t make a right. As for the cases of endangerment to a mother’s life, I haven’t heard it proven anywhere what truly qualifies as an appropriate abortion. But if you know something I don’t, please feel free to share it here.
Anyone is welcome to chime in on this discussion. I’ve had a tension headache all night long, so I may be unclear in my explanation.
Matt Aug 31, 2004 9:10 AM
I don’t think the mother should have to shoulder the burden of child-bearing when she had no active choice in the creation of the child, to me that is an unfair stress placed on her life when she has already probably been traumatized by the rape experience.
As to the case of danger to the mother’s life, less then 1% of abortions are performed for this reason, though I still think it should be an option for the mother to choose. No person’s right to life is greater then anothers, so whatever the mother decides is morally permissable in a situation like that.
We live in a secular society based on secular laws, and I believe that laws should never take away an individuals choice in this matter. I respect those who hold that abortion is never permissable on religous grounds, but we don’t/shouldn’t make laws based on religion in this country.
Rebecca Aug 31, 2004 9:32 AM
Matt, I agree that carrying a baby to term is an unfair stress placed upon an already traumatized rape victim. But you’re missing the point. If abortion is wrong, it can’t be “made right” by the circumstances surrounding the creation of the child. Life is not fair. We all know that very well!
You just said that “no person’s right to life is greater than anothers” — why did you say that? The pro-choice stance says that a one woman (the pregnant one) has more of a right to life than another woman or man (the growing fetus). One has a voice and a choice, the other does not.
The idea of one’s right to life is not simply a religious one. We have laws against murder, physical abuse and even intent to harm — are these laws built solely on one man’s religous views?
Matt Aug 31, 2004 10:21 AM
The point about rape victims is that they should be allowed the choice of ending the pregnancy since they had no control over the start of the pregnancy. I highly doubt a woman wants to carry around a baby for 9 months that was violently forced upon her, and it is of no consequence to anyone else if the pregnancy is ended.
No one person has more a right to life then another is simply the justification for why it is ok for a woman to have an abortion in cases of danger to her life. I didn’t say it was a reason to support ALL abortions. The reason I support all abortions is because it is a decision for one person alone, and that decision will not harm anyone else. Obviously, many feel that life begins at conception, though I do not. We could debate this up and down with biological facts and statistics, but the point at which a fetus can survive on its own outside the mother is when I think it is truly its own person.
About laws, of course we have laws against things that HARM others. Abortion causes no harm to anyone else though, which is why there is no legal reason to oject to it.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 10:43 AM
Ah, there’s the rub, Matt—you don’t believe that a fetus is a person. Why didn’t you say so from the beginning? Tell me, if it’s not a person, then what is it? A chicken? A door? A fallacious argument? Or maybe something else?
Matt Aug 31, 2004 11:27 AM
It’s a group of replicating cells.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 11:50 AM
Matt, you’ve just described yourself and an unborn child—not to mention a toad and an unborn toad. Are you equating yourself with the others, or do you wish to distinguish yourself in some manner?
Matt Aug 31, 2004 11:55 AM
I can survive outside of the womb of a woman, an embryo cannot until many months into the pregnancy. Until that point, it is just a mass of replicating tissue.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 12:07 PM
Tell me this, precisely when were you able to survive outside of your mother’s womb?
Matt Aug 31, 2004 12:19 PM
The age of viability is generally accepted to be between 22 and 26 weeks into pregnancy. In this country, abortion is illegal after the 24th week of pregnancy. Of course I nor anyone else can tell the precise instant when I was viable, but the best data we have suggests it to be within that range, which is why the laws are the way they are.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 12:40 PM
Even though you can’t tell me the precise instant that you became a person, are you suggesting that there was a precise instant?
Matt Aug 31, 2004 12:51 PM
I’m saying that we become people when we are viable outside the womb, and that occurs between 22 to 26 weeks. There really isn’t any other issue to it then that. As science get better, that range may narrow, but that is the best we can say right now. Some fetuses develop faster, some slower, and the 22-26 week range reflects that.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 1:41 PM
I understood your initial point—I was asking a follow-up question.
Jacinda Aug 31, 2004 1:55 PM
I don’t know how Matt feels, but at one time I was a fetus. My mother was a teenage high school dropout. My father was on his way to becoming a drug junkie. Had I been aborted, the world may have been better off, ever so slightly. It would have been one less person on welfare in 1983. And what am I today? I have a father and a stepmother in prison for methamphetamine. Neither my mother nor father has a college education. I have a 3 year old son, and I’m not married. We receive gorvernment assistance. Okay, that’s not a permanent situation, since I’m a senior in college. However, from the current perspective, what am I? I am a deficit to the economy, a recipient of transfer payments. I bring the GDP down. Had I been aborted (like possible “siblings” before me) it would not have harmed anyone.
Personally, I believe that if as a result of my actions, an embryo/fetus/baby/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is formed, then it is my responsibility to see that said “life” is cared for. However, I can’t control what others believe. As long as the fetus does not have to be dismembered in any way, I don’t think it’s any of my business.
Rebecca Aug 31, 2004 1:55 PM
(I don’t know if we can come to an agreement on this issue and, by all means, let the discussion continue. I just wanted to say thanks to both Matt and Jeremy for carrying on a civil debate on abortion. Thanks.)
Matt Aug 31, 2004 2:07 PM
I just believe that ultimately there is no reason for it to be illegal…if one disagrees with it on moral grounds, then they would never get one. However, it should still be an option for the individual to choose. I don’t seek to impose my moral opinion on the issue, I just think it should remain a legal option.
Rebecca Aug 31, 2004 2:14 PM
For those of us who believe life begins at conception, ignoring abortion is equal to something as heinous as ignoring the plights of slaves before the Civil War or turning our backs on the victims of concentration camps in WWII. It’s a matter of life and death quite literally. Choosing to just “not get one” myself doesn’t help me feel less outraged by the fact that babies in utero are, legally, continuing to be dismembered by vacuums or scalded by saline solutions.
Matt Aug 31, 2004 2:26 PM
I won’t discuss emotional arguments, legality and definitions of when fetuses are people (which is viability) are all that should matter on an issue like this.
bobw Aug 31, 2004 4:03 PM
if personhood = viability, then what happens if my son is no longer viable even though he’s been out of the womb for 3 weeks? he has a hard time eating. without intervention, he could starve to death, even if presented with enough food. so, left on his own, he is not viable. so, therefore, he’s not a person?
am I understanding your logic correctly?
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 4:23 PM
Matt, as time ages you, I think you’ll find it difficult to avoid emotional arguments. People are emotional beings, thus, to discuss topics of ethics and morality without regard for the emotions of people involved would be a travesty. Reducing the human experience to logic and legality is to reduce us to little more the rocks at our feet. If it wasn’t for emotions, as Rebecca mentions, their would be no reaction to the “heinous” crimes against humanity and thus no reason for discussion. Moreover, since emotion is the impetus behind abortions, shouldn’t it be admitted as a stance against them.
On another note, perhaps you haven’t realized that pro-life proponents challenge the very notion that personhood is equated with viability. Our presupposition is that personhood equates with life, which begins at conception.
Finally, you still haven’t answered my question.
Jacinda Aug 31, 2004 5:19 PM
If personhood begins at life, then what should be done to prevent someone who is four weeks pregnant from doing drugs, drinking alcohol, back-alley procedures, etc.? You can “stop” that person from getting an abortion if it’s illegal, but if they don’t feel a moral objection to the practice, then what is there to stop them from pursuing other means?
The problem with assuming that personhood begins at conception is that clearly not everyone agrees on this; therefore, you can’t make laws based on that premise. There is a huge emotional gap between how one feels about the embryo as a lump of replicating cells and as a fetus whose heart you can hear beating from outside the womb at 12 weeks, no matter what your religious disposition. How do you feel about swatting a fly with a flyswatter versus smashing a spider that’s two inches in diameter? Not to equate getting an abortion with swatting a fly–there is a huge difference between a fly and a baby.
Some people would smash the spider in an instant. Others would look at that creature crawling around, and scream and run into another room. Someone who has just found out that they are facing an unplanned pregnancy may have a similar reaction. One’s own convictions determines what happens thereafter.
I wouldn’t want to squish the spider. I’d place relocate it to a more suitable environment; i.e., outside. Likewise, while adoption is a phenomenal process beneficial to all parties involved, not all are willing to go through with it. Similarly, you will never hear about me having an abortion, nor would I ever encourage someone to have an abortion without thinking very hard about exactly what it is they are doing (killing their own child).
Matt Aug 31, 2004 5:45 PM
To answer your question, jeremy, There is no way to determine if there is or isn’t a precise moment when life begins. The point as to whether it is a person or not (which I still believe it isn’t) isn’t the issue. The issue is reproductive rights of a woman, of which the government has no business denying. I say that its good their is a safe medical approach to this…as opposed to a woman drinking alcohol and inducing a miscarriage to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
Emotions are fine, as long as they are founded on the fact of real Harm to someone. Taking emotional offense to abortion doesn’t qualify, as we do not make laws based in emotional offense in this country.
Matt Aug 31, 2004 5:53 PM
Bobw, viability means if the fetus were removed from the womb, it wouldn’t die when provided normal parental care. The case in which your son has difficulty eating, is much different then having to be placed on many machines, in an incubator, and be constantly monitored in order to survive. This would be the case if a fetus were removed before 22 to 26 weeks.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 5:55 PM
Jacinda, with regard to your first point, if you examine it closer, I think you’ll find it is non-sensical. You’re arguing that an activity shouldn’t be illegal because people will find other illegal means of engaging in it. That doesn’t make sense. It’s like suggesting that burglary shouldn’t be illegal because people will find other ways to steal from you.
Jacinda Aug 31, 2004 6:31 PM
LOTS of things don’t make sense if you think about them. I did think about that as I typed it. The point is just that people don’t always follow the laws if they don’t feel that they reflect their agenda. For example, many people with respectable positions smoke marijuana. Just because it’s not legal doesn’t mean that people won’t do it. One of the goals of punishment in regards to sentencing is to encourage a lesser crime, when possible, according to the classical theory of crime. So I think that you’ll find that there IS some sense to my comment.
Anonymous Aug 31, 2004 6:41 PM
Matt, I do feel sorry for you, as you have no defenders of your own at this blog, which leaves you swamped with many rebuttals. However, I must add another point to the fray (Albeit late in the game). Hopefully I am not restating some of the other arguments too much:
There is a big problem with a range in “viability” that the law and many others claim to hold. A range is not a definite point in time. In fact, no human can authoritatively draw a line and say that this is when a person is viable and this is when they are not. Sure, scientists have come up with many different theories, but to say that there is a certain time in which life starts takes more faith in science than I think it deserves.
In the past scientists have come up with numerous theories that were taken as scientific law, but later disproved. Over the years, many laws of biology, math and quantum physics have been disproved or are in dispute. However, none to very few of these scientific laws have the weight attached to them that abortion does.
Let say, for argument’s sake, that life does not begin at conception, but at some point later on in the development process. However, this point is not definitively known (as it is in real life). But we (mankind, scientist, etc) have an idea of where we think this viability point is. So we start to performing abortion procedures within a certain range of time closest to what we think could be the viability point. Then later, in a what scientist call the “most conclusive and authoritative scientific discovery know to man”, the viability point is found. Now, we have run into a problem. We have allowed abortions to take place within a specified range and some of those procedures have exceeded the viability point—in effect terminating viable people, murder. This is not just an issue of the reproductive rights of women. There are many rights that we all hold, both men and women, but none of them should supercede the right of another to live.
The point is: that abortion is too heavy of an issue to theorize and then act. If there is the slightest possibility that human life exists and you perform an abortion; you very well might intentionally be putting an end to a life. We are talking about the difference between committing murder and not committing murder. And since there is not incontrovertible evidence for a viability point shouldn’t we at the very least err on the side of caution and not perform them?
Matt Aug 31, 2004 6:54 PM
Anonymous, it is not murder, and won’t be called murder, ever. Let’s say someone who is pregnant drives recklessly and gets into an accident, losing the fetus. Will she then be charged with murder? I don’t think that is a can of worms we want to open, legally.
Also, because I’m sure I’ll be disagreed with, I think the central issue is the right of a woman to end an event that will have a profound impact on the rest of her life, whether that be for reasons beyond her control or not. We must allow the rights of women over their own bodies. To imply that they do not make the decisions when pregnant is to grant more rights to a mass of replicating cells then to a living, breathing, person already in existence.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 7:08 PM
Kudos, Anonymous. I was hoping Matt would recognize the difficulty in establishing a point of viability—hence, my questions—but it appears you beat him to the punch.
Matt, I’m not sure you want to abandon the “personhood” defense so early in the game. I was once on your side, and I suspect it’s your strongest card. Personhood is key in defending a woman’s right to choose—without it, you’re left with a woman wanting to kill another person for the sake of convenience.
As an aside, the “can of worms” has already been opened. I don’t recall in which state it occurred, nor the final legal outcome, but someone was charged with a double-homicide when they killed a pregnant woman. Maybe someone else here can recall the details.
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 7:22 PM
Jacinda, I’m not attacking you personally, but your argument is invalid—you can’t determine the merit of legality based upon compliance. Either it is appropriate to prohibit an act or it is not. For example, it is correct to prohibit murder, regardless of whether people continue to commit murder.
As to the purposes of laws, you’re right that one is to dissuade crimes. However, another is to meet out justice.
By the way, you’re right that “lots of things don’t make sense if you think about them,” but arguments need to make sense. if they don’t we have to reconsider our arguments or our positions.
Matt Aug 31, 2004 7:36 PM
I never said I was abandoning the personhood defense, just that rights is another strong card too. I probably misspoke and made it seem that way though. As I’ve stated before, the mother has a right to chose what happens with her body. Maybe one day we will know when the precise moment that a fetus becomes a person. Most likely we will not. The debate will continue forever, which is good because debating is healthy.
As to the point of “erring on the side of caution”, I don’t think as extreme a point of not doing them at all is neccesary, as is maybe moving back the amount of weeks into pregnancy an abortion is allowed for. I wouldn’t be opposed to revising the laws as they stand to reflect that point. However, it can and should always remain an option to the woman to be able to abort a pregnancy.. I think it should be agreed all around that cases of rape and danger to the mother, should always be allowed. I am also in favor of the woman’s right to choose in any condition, but I do understand why many have a problem with that.
Anonymous Aug 31, 2004 8:06 PM
Jeremy,
The Lacy Peterson case is a good example of a “can of worms” that has been opened recently. The Connor Bill was signed into law not to long ago because of this case.
Here’s the link just in case my “Connor” link doesn’t work: http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/8380973p-9215282c.html
Jeremy Aug 31, 2004 9:48 PM
Thanks, Anonymous (btw. what’s with the anonymity?).
Matt, the “rights” debate is contingent upon the “personhood” issue (notwithstanding Thompson’s fallacious argument). If a fetus is a person then his/her right to life categorically overrides a woman’s right over her body.
Anonymous Aug 31, 2004 10:17 PM
The anonymity allows me to freely comment without having anything stupid that I can (and probably will) say tied to my name. A combination of cowardice and knowing myself, I guess.
Jacinda Aug 31, 2004 11:56 PM
Okay. Killing is wrong. I don’t have a problem with that. Abortion is wrong. I don’t have a problem with that. What about war? War is killing people. Is war wrong? My mother has fetal alcohol syndrome–but it’s perfectly legal to drink beer, and lots of it, just so long as you’re not operating a vehicle. Crime and deviance are a part of humanity. With civilization, there is crime. Shall we revert to pre-civilization, where one would be free to worship cats and drink urine?
Anonymity is Fun Aug 31, 2004 11:59 PM
Any argument, argued long enough, will eventually fail. Thus, it could be said that NOTHING is logical.
Matt Sep 1, 2004 12:22 AM
A growing mass of tissue has no rights, nor should it. I think its ridiculous for someone to say that a fetus has right to life greater then a womans control over her body, when the fetus is TOTALLY dependent on the womans body to survive.
On another note, why do you think thompsons argument is fallacious? Are you referring to the violinist example?
Anonymous2 Sep 1, 2004 8:10 AM
You’ll have to forgive me for posting anonymously, too…I’m not a blogger, debater, or fluent in metaphors, which is the means I’m going to try to use here. I’m only sharing because I think I might have something worth contributing, but I’m not confident enough to tell the whole of this blog who I am. :) Without further ado…
Seeds do not begin growth until properly acted upon by their environment. Once growth begins, it will continue until the plant’s life cycle is complete. So my question is, is it less of a plant before it pokes its head out of the ground? Does it change from a seed into a budding plant, or from a seed into a “something” into a plant?
If a farmer plants a row of tomatoes, but before they can sprout visibly someone comes in the night and ravages the earth in which they are planted, did that person in fact kill that crop, or is that just the farmer’s perspective because he wanted the crop to grow? I’m not talking about having a right to the property, but about the status of the seeds/plants/whatevers.
The pattern of life is for a seed to be acted upon and to develop into an “adult” whatever-it-may-be. I simply cannot understand how you can call a stage of growth (however early or unlike the finished product) anything BUT the beginning of life.
Thanks.
Jacinda Sep 1, 2004 8:49 AM
I’m not a blogger or debater either–this is the only blog I have ever posted on. And I’ve NEVER been good at debates. I was the kid who hid under the table when it was my turn to present in class. Once that was no longer an option, I got in front of the class and cried for the fear of being judged by my classmates. But for some reason, here I am allowing my name to be dragged in the mud, all because of an issue that I care about…
Jeremy Sep 1, 2004 5:33 PM
Matt, yes, I was referring to the violinist example. Thomson’s argument is that the right to life does not include the right to be given the means necessary for survival. However, one hole is that her argument doesn’t account for modern abortion techniques which work, not by removing that which the fetus needs for survival, and thereby allowing it to be killed, but by killing and then removing the fetus.
More important than the hole in Thomson’s argument is that the legal defense for abortion (cf. Justice Harry Blackmun’s defense of Roe v. Wade) requires personhood to be established.
As to your other point, a fetus’s right to life is true regardless of the fact that it’s dependent upon the womb—just as your right to life is true regardless of the fact that you’re survival is dependent upon eating a cow or a soybean.
Matt Sep 2, 2004 12:30 AM
A fetus is not a person though, so it doesn’t have any rights. It is the woman’s choice what to do in the case of pregnancy, because she is the one that the pregnancy affects in the greatest degree.
bobw Sep 2, 2004 8:52 AM
I think it’s time to shake hands and recognize the clearly fundamental differences of belief.
one side: fetus = person
another side: fetus != person
apart from significant changes of heart, neither side seems like it will win over the other on this point, especially on a blog.