When I get confused is when people believe abortion is murder, but execution is not.
Tim
this is
Reductio ad absurdum – Tim is arguing that we accept the as-yet usubstantiated (by him or anyone else) notion that there is no difference between kinds of killing – either from motivation, or from methodology, or from any other means of distinction.
...and
Argument from Personal Incredulity – Tim implies here that because he cannot see a distinction between one kind of killing and another kind of killing, therefore there must be none.
I think one would be hard-pressed to find any culture throughout history that was unable to make distinctions between kinds of killing. In fact, right within Tim’s own posting he has singled out two – murder and execution -- and then argues that we must accept them as essentially the same thing.
But they are not the same thing. And every culture in every period of history has been capable of making the distinction of which Tim seems incapable. In fact, languages even have different words for each.
But if Tim wanted to make his point on semantics, he probably should have chosen the word “killing” instead of “murder” because, at least then his point would have held some truth. All murders are killing – but not all killing is murder.
Killing in self defense, for example,
is killing. But it is not murder. No culture has ever accepted that killing in self defense is murder.
So how does “execution” differ from “abortion”?
Let’s say that you just figured out that your next door neighbor has been murdering people and burying the bodies in his basement. And let’s assume for the sake of example, that you think your neighbor should therefore be executed for his crime.
First, you would have to contact the police with your complaint. Next, the police would come out to yours and your neighbor’s homes to investigate. They would have to comply with all the rules established for the gathering of evidence – including, but not limited to warrants acquired from the courts, scientific procedures to make sure that evidence remains untainted, etc.
Next they would analyze that evidence.
If, after this point they decided there was ample evidence that your neighbor was, indeed killing people and burying the bodies in his basement, he would then be arrested and read his rights.
Then, if he could not afford an attorney on his own, the court would assign one to him to aid him in his legal defense.
Then there would be a trial wherein your neighbor would be judged by a judge and/or a jury of his peers. If for any reason that jury was not in 100% agreement over your neighbor’s guilt, he could not be executed. If there was 100% agreement, AND you lived in a State where capital punishment was still practiced, you could expect your neighbor to be put to death some time in the next ten years.
Now compare this to abortion – a kind of killing that Tim seems unable to distinguish from execution.
You want an abortion? Get one.
There is no burden of proof on you to show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what you want to kill is not viable, nor conscious, nor human, nor deserving of human rights. No discussion from a scientific standpoint as to how far along the baby might be in its development. The baby has no lawyer, court-appointed or otherwise.
In any other instance where we want to justify the killing of another human, the burden of proof falls to those who wish to do the killing. Not so in the case of abortion. In the case of abortion the burden of proof of human life has always fallen to those who wish to save the life --- and then that proof is ignored even if proffered because only the mother has the legal right to take part in the decision to abort a baby.
And if someone has the unmitigated audacity to suggest limiting abortions – they are characterized as “Extremist”. Meanwhile the pro-choice advocates – quite counter to public sentiment – advocate for any abortion at any time for any reason…..and THEY are characterized as the “moderates” in the ongoing debate. I have NEVER seen a pro-choice spokesperson referred to as “extremist” in any national media report on the story. I have seen pro-life advocates referred to as “extremist” in almost every story I have ever read or seen in the national media.
And let’s just say that, for instance, Loopy learned that
his neighbor wanted to have a late term abortion and he decided to try to figure out some way to legally stop the abortion because, out of good conscience, he realizes that his neighbor's unborn baby is just as “viable” as the boy he’s now been teaching to field grounders was on the day of his birth.
Loopy would be the “Extremist” for wishing to limit the “reproductive rights” of another. Never mind that it isn’t the “right to reproduce” that is being argued.
And right now, even if Loopy braved the derision and name-calling and tried to step in, it would still not hinder his neighbor from having the abortion. He could not do one thing to add one step of “Due process” to the killing of his neighbor’s baby.
When I get confused < …>. Or they believe that abortion is the destruction of a fully-realized human life, yet they are willing to make exceptions for rape, incest and a threat to the health of the mother. I'm not sure what these people believe. I'm not sure they are either.
Tim
And conservatives are always derided for being too simplistic – for seeing too many things in “black and white” terms. And now you’re claiming an inability to see differences in different cases – even when those differences aren’t terribly nuanced.
Well, all cases are not “black and white”.
In every culture throughout history, killing in self defense has been allowed. If the mother’s life is at risk, then there is no reason why she cannot avail herself of an abortion in order to save herself.
If she feels as you do – and is incapable of making the distinction between motivations for killing – then she might, as you suggest, choose to bear the risk and the child. This might even be admirable -- but there is no reason to believe that it is a more moral decision than self-defense.
In cases of rape or incest it is the same self-defense justification. The woman did not participate in the choice that put her at risk. Sure, we don’t hear many cases of women dying in child birth anymore. It doesn’t mean that there is no risk involved in bearing children. And there is certainly risk to the woman’s future.
It may be admirable for a woman to make the choice to overlook the horrible circumstances of the baby’s conception. When my sister was raped as a teenager, she happened to also end up more than two weeks late for her next period. She and my mom had decided at that point that they would raise the baby. She wasn’t pregnant, and I’m sure the relief was profound. But some people – like my mom and my sister – are as consistent as you demand they be.
. I'm not sure what these people believe. I'm not sure they are either.
Tim
Just because some people are not as capable as others at framing the nature of their beliefs, that alone does not make their beliefs wrong, nor unfounded, nor open to this ridicule. Perhaps you’ve just never heard a more articulate person express these beliefs?
Well, I doubt that you've not been exposed to a better understanding of the nuances, because next you fly this kite...
I know where you're going with this: Innocent fetus/guilty criminal. But it's just not good enough.
Tim
That’s called “Rhetorical Innoculation”. That is: you express the opposition’s strong points for them (before they do) so that you can characterize those points
FIRST, and minimize those point’s rhetorical impact, should the debate continue. In effect, what you have attempted to do by saying,
“I know where you're going with this: Innocent fetus/guilty criminal. But it's just not good enough.” Is to attempt to lessen the impact of points very salient to the core logic of the debate, should I be allowed to actually bring them up myself. Then, if I have the audacity to
still bring those points up anyway (and risk being perceived as a "poor sport"), you retort with, “yeah, those points have already been made and dismissed.” .
The part I don't understand about the pro-life people is that a "baby" is sacred.
I usually don’t argue my pro-life point of view from a religious perspective. For me, the human life does not need to be “sacred” to be defended. Though I think religion can be a very good basis – given the buffer of democracy – upon which to base the moral component of a legal system, I don’t think religion is necessary to make a good, strong, logical pro-life argument.
but as soon as it inhales on it's own they couldn't give a dry fart what happens to it. The little brat can starve or die of disease for all they care. Or get itself blown to pieces in a stupid war..
Sorry, but I don’t know who “they” are. If you mean the pro-life movement, I don’t see any people such as you describe. But even if I allowed as how there might be SOME case of some pro-life person with the views you describe (someone you know whom I don’t know)…
…from a purely logical standpoint, all you are doing is offering up an “ad hominem” argument to the debate – that is, what you are suggesting is that someone is wrong in trying to preserve the life of unborn babies because they won’t conclude what you do about what the proper raising of the child would have been if it had been allowed to be born. Or, in short, you are saying that because bad people believe in saving the life of the unborn, then saving the life of the unborn is, itself, bad.
