Good morning.
- Pentecost and the holy mountain. More on Pentacost from the Fathers here.
- Marriage and crime.
- A point to be made regarding the rhetoric of the wacky pro-abortion contingent in the wake of Mr Tiller’s murder. Which I heard of first here, and I might add is a pretty typical response from the Christian right blogs.
- The term economy and its theological meaning.
- Contra the “other.”
- Terrorism and policy and what we do “just to feel better” about ourselves, but which is materially morally worse.
- Sober thoughts on the nomination of Ms Sotomayor.
- Missing the point in grand style. The point isn’t that this is some sort of faked sympathy for other groups, the point is that the “mend it, don’t end it” project is clearly impossible.
- To look out for (eagerly), Judge Dee.
- Against using the eye of the heart in judicial matters.
- Math and music.
- Heh.
- In case you’re grumpy on this Monday morning.
- Narrative and man.
- The churcn and the Nazi regime.
- On Meyendorff about Palamas.
- Wanna bet Mr Obama won’t mention Coptic Christians during his Cairo address? Some reasons why he should.
- A little song.
- The GM boondoggle.
- The fall of unfaith.
A point to be made regarding the rhetoric of the wacky pro-abortion contingent in the wake of Mr Tiller’s murder. Which I heard of first here, and I might add is a pretty typical response from the Christian right blogs.
I don’t think “pro-lifers” have the right to call anybody on the other side “wacky” this week. You can’t go around calling people murderers and then act like someone who acts on that rhetoric had nothing to do with it.
Tiller had already been shot by a “pro-life” activist in 93 and his clinic bombed a decade before. Yet right-wing “pro-lifers” like Bill O’Reilly continued to declare him a mass murderer and a baby-killer. Oh, but it’s just awful what happened to that mass murderer, right?
I cannot express how angry I am about this. Dr. Tiller devoted his life to helping people in the fact of constant abuse and threats and having been freaking SHOT and BOMBED. The pro-lifers need to set their own house in order before they start yammering rhetoric they don’t even believe.
If I was a praying man, I’d be praying every night for the selfless, devoted people who risk their lives for the sake of their patients. I’ve known one or two of them personally in my life, and I’ve feared for them. If the pro-lifers had any decency, they’d use this tragedy to do some real soul-searching and they’d stop with the ridiculous rhetoric. They need to realize that not everybody’s in on the lie. Some people actually believe their words.
And that’s Dr. Tiller.
JA,
I don’t insist on you (or anyone else) calling me Dr Olson. My honorific usage on this site is and remains consistent.
Your position on late term abortion is the inconsistent one, holding to it to “avoid the slippery slope”. Half of late term abortions (which number 15k per year) are not for any medical reason … and late term abortion is not any different from a medical standpoint for the mother than delivery.
I’d like to see a serious examination of late term abortion. I’m even suspect of the 15K per year number. Who has them and why? For all the heat on the subject, I doubt anyone has done a real examination.
Mark,
don’t insist on you (or anyone else) calling me Dr Olson. My honorific usage on this site is and remains consistent.
His “Dr.” is quite relevant to the story. I thought you were making a statement by not using it. Sorry.
Your position on late term abortion is the inconsistent one, holding to it to “avoid the slippery slope”.
Holy fallacy of the excluded middle, Batman! I may be uncomfortable with late-term abortion, but I don’t consider it anything remotely like murder! More like drowning kittens, if I had to make an analogy, but not quite as bad as that.
Half of late term abortions (which number 15k per year) are not for any medical reason … and late term abortion is not any different from a medical standpoint for the mother than delivery.
I don’t claim to have the right statistics, but I’d bet 100$ that yours aren’t even close to reality. They’re based on half-remembered third-hand numbers from anti-abortion groups, right? I’m just guessing based on your intellectual rigor regarding arguments for “your side.”
JA,
Actually the numbers looked like they were from a pro-choice site.
Exactly, and there is no middle between completely unregulated (or even subsidized) and equal to murder. Right.
I’ll try to locate the abortion stats I found tonight.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal/~3/1b27PjJywT0/two-comments-on-the-murder-by-assassination-of-dr-george-tiller.html
Has an extended comment from a couple that had a late term abortion. It might be helpful to review especially since it would count as ‘not medically necessary’ yet is hardly frivious.
Exactly, and there is no middle between completely unregulated (or even subsidized) and equal to murder.
I never said there wasn’t!
JA,
So then where is the basis for your complaint against me regarding the “excluded middle.” You *know* my policy position regarding abortion.
Boonton,
I’m unclear on how conjoined twins is not a medical reason for abortion.
So then where is the basis for your complaint against me regarding the “excluded middle.” You *know* my policy position regarding abortion.
My complaint was about the pro-life movement, not you personally. You personally, however, rushed to declaim pro-choicers as “wacky” the day after a “pro-lifer” murdered a doctor in cold blood. My point is that you should set your own house in order first.
I’m unclear on how conjoined twins is not a medical reason for abortion.
Usually abortion for medical reasons has been taken to mean a medical condition where the mother’s health or life is at stake. I’m not sure how this would apply to the case of the commentor De Long cited.
So is Mark letting the abortion question go for now?
Boonton,
Well, I’ll talk about practically anything? After all I’m an active blogger.
One thing that struck me in the linked piece about Mr Tilling was I got no impression that the doctor treated his case as one involving three patients and not one. That would be troubling.
What I think is interesting, though, is that you tried to initially treat that abortion as being in the clear because it was for ‘medical reasons’. But since the mother’s life was not in danger beyond whatever danger any pregnancy offers…the abortion would have been banned under most of the partial birth abortion laws pro-lifers hawk.
But I think most people would hesitate to say the abortion shouldn’t have happened or that it should have been blanketly outlawed. The partial birth issue, IMO, is more about a rhetorical slight of hand. If you don’t dig into it too much it sounds very callous…a bunch of women having abortions in the 8th month of pregnancy for silly reasons. Scratching the surface, though, reveals situations that are much less clear cut. In this case it seems to me that delievering a non-viable human life appears to be an act of cruelity. Of course I wouldn’t want to extend that to serious but still managable disabilities (like Downs Syndrome). But insisting that birth happen for a baby whose life would, at best, be one year to be spent in horrible pain while enduring multiple organ transplants strikes me as disrespectful to human dignity in its own way…..
Anyway, I was also hoping you’d address in more detail my points about pro-life rhetoric. Specifically calling abortion murder but then failing to recognize that implies violence and other harsh measures would be justified.
Boonton,
Look, I have two policy related positions on abortion. First I think it should be locally regulated. Second, the policy (locally?) I’d advocate is that this is a considered and serious moral decision and that policy should be in place to try to insure that. I have some suggestions as to how to achieve the latter, I’d expect that a lot of ways might be used to achieve that end.
that is not much of an answer. OK let’s say it’s regulated by states or by towns or villages or even by blocks. OK how should Mr. Obama, block mayor, vote on partial birth abortion regulations? You say the decision should be treated ’seriously’. I’m not sure why you think women having the abortions wouldn’t take the decision seriously. Sure some women won’t take the decision seriously but somehow I suspect local town politicians are less likely to take the decision seriously.
The principle of subsidary says decisions should be made by the actor or institution at the lowest level possible. That’s the woman, I don’t see how that’s the ‘local government’
Boonton,
The principle of subsidiarity??? I’m not basing my preference on a “principle of subsidiarity” but an idea that we need local personal participation in the democratic process in order to keep Democratic instincts and habits alive.
Besides, unlike you I don’t think the ‘woman’ is alone or is alone affected. I think the entire community is affected by her decision to abort. Not just her. And besides that, do you think infanticide is OK. The parents are the actor or institution at the “lowest level.” Let them do it.
And as for “taking the decision seriously” … there I’m talking not just about late term abortions but any abortion. I think the above is true (that it doesn’t “just” affect the woman) and there are a lot more of those abortions that are earlier.
Did you see that quoted fragment from Ms Delsol I posted this morning? I think that applies quite well here.
I’m not basing my preference on a “principle of subsidiarity” but an idea that we need local personal participation in the democratic process in order to keep Democratic instincts and habits alive.
So perhaps we should set up a web site and let the block vote on what sexual positions you will take with your wife each night of the week. I’m sure that will certainly encourage ‘local personal participation in the democratic process’. I’m all for the democratic process but it’s not an end in itself. The town council is find for telling me I have to mow my lawn and put my garbage out on Tuesday night but I’d rather they keep their distance beyond that.
Besides, unlike you I don’t think the ‘woman’ is alone or is alone affected. I think the entire community is affected by her decision to abort.
Let’s consider the case we have of a late term abortion. The ‘entire community’ might vote to have the woman give birth but its the woman who will do 100% of the giving birth. This isn’t quite like a town deciding they need better roads, voting a tax increase and then they all share both the cost and benefit of the roads together.
And as for “taking the decision seriously” … there I’m talking not just about late term abortions but any abortion.
And I’m talking about incentives. Why would the ‘let’s vote on Mark’s sex life’ not result in serious decision making? Because people would use the web site for their own ends and not the interest of your marriage. Hence your marriage is considered private and for the most part outside the scrutiny of the larger community….(unless you go so such an extent that you force the larger community to take an interest….if you’re committing rape or having sex on your front lawn in front of the kids waiting for the school bus in the morning but barring such extremes its properly considered private).
Whether or not women do a good job of taking abortion seriously enough, I don’t see any reason to think that local mayors, block captains, town councilmen and so on would add to the seriousness of the decision.
I also don’t think you’d really have the guts to do it. Would you let a town mandate abortions, for example, for women convicted of child abuse? Illegal immigrants? Women on welfare? Women who are pregnant and serving prison sentences?
And besides that, do you think infanticide is OK. The parents are the actor or institution at the “lowest level.”
No its not ok but the parents wouldn’t be the actor at the ‘lowest level’. You’d have three players there that are independent of each other. The unwanted infant can be adopted out without infanticide. Technology, though, provides for no ‘womb transplants’ or artificial uterus’s and will probably not do so even in a sci-fi future.
In a way I think you’re fighting against human nature here. Abortion as a medical procedure is only kind of new. The fact that as humans we come into existence dependent biologically on our mothers, not our governments or ‘local community’ is not new. Even if abortion is banned you can’t really microregulate a woman’s behavior or misbehavior during pregnancy. For better or worse, unborn babies are at their mother’s mercy. When you look at young women and realize the full extent of that power and responsibility it is unsettling but it is also reality.
Boonton,
Wow, first of all, try not to do that. I’ve suggested that local government have the authority. You interpret that by suggesting the most unreasonable ways that might occur. Now … perhaps you prefer and would personally campaign for such a situation, I can’t speak for you, but don’t be unreasonable because it’s fun.
Look, when I say that, abortion for example, might be regulated by local authority that doesn’t mean (duh) that a village council would convene to discuss and rule on each girls pregnancy. What it does mean is that the village would set their own statutes and rules for how abortion might be regulated there. That means that, yes, one village might decide to micro-regulate everything. Another on the other hand, might decide to regulate nothing at all. It is their choice. They might decide to hand out a limited number of “abortion approved” stamps to a few selected members of their community along side an appeal process. Whatever.
That means the discussion can’t be turfed to “somebody else.” It means each village has to take the responsibility and the consequences that come with authority. They have to practice democratic interactions. Give, take, compromise and communication (which they don’t do now). Look we’re losing our democratic impulses to centralization of power and because we don’t use them. The only way local government is going to become important … is if the local government gets real authority that matters.
Clearly you’ve not spent much time with infants if you think they are independent of anything.
Uhm, for better or worse, unborn babies are not just at their mother’s mercy. Women do not act alone to have an abortion.
1. How far does this local authority really extend? Would the local gov’t be allowed to mandate abortion? If not why not and what authority would prevent a local gov’t from doing so?
2. Women do not act alone to have an abortion but they do act alone to be pregnant. Yes the larger community may or may not be with them but they are pregnant alone. Which leads me to….
What would happen if some distant community was allowed to share authority with the local one? Suppose that the city council of San Fransciso was allowed to have 40% voting power on some small city in…say…Georgia. You would have a mess. The SF votes could vote stuff up or down with no direct impact or sense of what they were doing. Their interests would be far away but the impact of their votes would be local. At best they would be casting votes without any connection to how the laws impact the residents of Georgia. At worst they would cast votes in such a way as to help themselves (i.e. ‘all law firms must hired must have a SF office too’) at the expense of the citizens in Georgia.
Here is the issue as it applies to abortion. Even on the local level, the pregnant woman is very far away from even her town mayor. The town mayor has all types of incentives to consider when voting on abortion…what do local religious groups think, how about feminists, what impact will his vote have on his aspirations for running for higher office. Many of these considerations are very far removed from the actual woman who bears 100% of the consquences.
Even if I give you your idealized idea of local control, you still must set off an even more set of limits around the individual person that even the very local can’t regulate. Hence you balk at the idea of your local town regulating your sex life….because even a very responsive, very democratically involved town still has no business in your marriage bed.
In essence, this just takes your localization idea to its logical level. The town is sovereign for what goes on inside its borders, the individual is sovereign for what goes on inside the borders of his or her own body.
Wanna bet Mr Obama won’t mention Coptic Christians during his Cairo address? Some reasons why he should.
What do you know I caught some of it this morning and he mentioned them! I would have bet you $100. Care to just take my word for it and give me the money?
Boonton,
“You balk at the idea of your local town regulating your sex life”
Actually that’s not precisely true. Western civilization has this notion of (rightly) regulating my sex life by promoting and advocating sex to be hold exclusively within monogamous married relationships. In fact, they even go to the extent of providing processes to regulate that, i.e., the posting of marriage bans and the “does anyone object to …”. I’m OK with that, oddly enough. In fact I’d go so far to say that it’s a good idea that might get some traction in a wider community than just with me. Different cultures and communities have found lots of different mechanisms for dealing with people who don’t follow the model they hold as ideal. And that’s exactly the sort of freedom that is important and which you are attempting to deny. The freedom of a locale to order its own community in meaningful ways on important issues in the way they see best.
When I say, “authority granted is the only authority rightly exercised”, does this mean anything to you or is it just words? That answers the question of how far this “rightly extends.” If coercion comes into play … then it is wrong. A local government could, I’d suggest, “mandate abortion” if the community all thought it should and could … and the jail cell door was wide open, i.e., if you object, just walk away.
In fact, I’d suggest that if one were taking this idea seriously, statewide governments (and on up to the next level in the hierarchy) might find it wise to provide community taxes to provide a fund to ease and defray opportunity costs involved in exercising their “open door” option, the size of the grant might be given by the statewide view of how reasonable the objection is seen from an statewide aggregate perspective.
On
I hadn’t thought that parthenogenesis as the norm as to how human reproduction occurs was commonly found in intelligent left wing bloggers. But live and learn.
Oddly enough, it would be my guess that most US democratically run towns will likely not leave all decisions to a king-like mayor. It would be my guess that mayors would not setup statues and laws, but that this would be decided more democratically, you know with statutes and laws and the like. Why do you find the idea of putting the power into the hands of a mayor so attractive?
I hadn’t thought that parthenogenesis as the norm as to how human reproduction occurs was commonly found in intelligent left wing bloggers. But live and learn.
Pay closer attention to word usage. Women are pregnant alone. I didn’t say they get pregnant alone.
Oddly enough, it would be my guess that most US democratically run towns will likely not leave all decisions to a king-like mayor.
No they leave them to something like a council or board…but the same thing still applies. The woman is in her own body, the town council might was well be a million miles away.
Actually that’s not precisely true. Western civilization has this notion of (rightly) regulating my sex life by promoting and advocating sex to be hold exclusively within monogamous married relationships.
Promotion and advocacy is not regulation. Promoting car pooling is just that. Telling single drivers that they may not be on the roads on even days of the month is something quite different.
But you’ve already conceeded the point. The town could tell you which days to sleep with your wife, and how to sleep with her if it wants too. Likewise it could decide to mandate abortions for your wife or others if it wants too. This is your view of ‘freedom’ that has unjustly been denied to ‘the community’….even though never in human history has the community had such freedom.
You’re only out here is what appears to be some type of universal right to leave the community possibly subsidized by some larger state. Although how the larger state would get the power to tax in order to basically undermine community power I’m not sure about. Likewise, why do communities have such dramatic life and death power but not power over who gets to leave? If somone commits murder in one community how to keep them from just deciding to leave for some other community?
When I say, “authority granted is the only authority rightly exercised”, does this mean anything to you or is it just words? That answers the question of how far this “rightly extends.” If coercion comes into play … then it is wrong. A local government could, I’d suggest, “mandate abortion” if the community all thought it should and could … and the jail cell door was wide open, i.e., if you object, just walk away.
Doesn’t make much sense. If 100% of the community wanted abortion in particular cases, there’d be no mandate. Its members would simply get an abortion if that particular case ever materialized. Or are you saying a community could decide to mandate abortion but not stop its members from leaving. So if someone was pregnant she could decide to leave before the abortion mandate kicks in? But coercion remains in such a system. You can spend years investing and setting down your roots in such a community, which, if it adopts such a mandate forces you to choose between giving up all that you have or complying with their mandate. People who insist on staying in their homes, then, could be happily dragged by their hair out and strapped down to the abortion table in your world.
When I say, “authority granted is the only authority rightly exercised”, does this mean anything to you
In order for such authority to be granted, the person doing the granting must already have the authority. If he doesn’t…well then the check bounces.
Speaking of which are you going to pay me the $100 for the Coptic bet?
Boonton,
What alien world do you hail from? I happen to be human, you might consider us to be “dependent rational animals”. We are communal creatures. No woman is “pregnant alone.” She has friends, likely a lover, parents, dependents, and a whole network affected by and likely assisting her where needed in her pregnancy.
Uhm, when you need a building permit you go to the mayor or the town council? If you have a parking ticket, you see the mayor or the town council. Again and again you seem to be fighting this in ways that seem to make no sense.
If that was authority that we granted to it, yes.
Uhm, we actually live in a country (the US) with a hierarchical government, we have precinct/village, county, state, and federal levels of government. All these bodies have relative powers to tax and regulate. I’m suggesting we move to giving the local bodies mandate to have more control than they do no. I’m suggesting that it is the local bodies that exercise control over the big moral issues that vex our nation today, i.e., abortion, marriage, end-of-life, and so on. I want to give each community a lot more power to fix its local community in ways that suit its local needs. And I also think the best essential guard of freedom for a situation like that is that the “cell door” be insured to be kept open. A man cannot be enslaved and at the same time free to leave at any time.