Their act almost made me feel as if I were back in the USSR, where the harassment of people with my opinions was the norm.
Well, yeah — there they would have reported the author to the authorities for Wrongthink. It is only thanks to the threadbare Constitution such hallway-women lack such power here.
Wow, that is some list.
See also Ilkka Kokkarinen’s own list in comment #43.
Nice list, but ultimately futile. Leftists don’t “do” logic, and they certainly never play by the rules of a debate. Using the Socratic method on Leftists is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the Leftists.
Not that annoying Leftists is bad, mind you, but my time is valuable.
Comment 43 is excellent.
Al, you are SOOOO right! Amazing stuff.
For those who liked my list in comment 43, you might also like my follow-up in comment 75. And I have plenty more of these to come.
I could easily answer any of these, however many of my answers would start with “No, because I am a liberal, I don’t believe what the question presumes that I believe…”
The problem is where to start — that’s a pretty long list! If there is one or even just a few questions that you would like to select as particularly illuminating, I would be happy to answer.
Ok Bob. Explain opposition to the Death Penalty with simultaneous support for Abortion.
This question is incessantly flung at death penalty supporters, it just neglects that one has to be signed off on by an absolute minimum of three representatives of the executive, two to thirteen (or so) judges, with the legislative branch wrangling over defining the crime.
Perfectly willing to have every abortion go through the exact same procedure, honest. It would even meet the goals stated by liberals “Legal, but rare.”
(My actual personal position is one sparked by Lois McMaster Bujold: The woman has a right to a permanent and immediate legal and physical separation. But the fetus has the right to the best medical care available as well. This leads to advances in extreme neo-natal care…)
Al, the point of the list was demonstrate logical inconsistencies shared by many progressives. If I’m not mistaken, your question about abortion and the death penalty wasn’t even on the list, and no wonder: for many liberals, there is no logical inconsistency here.
You may find this answer too glib, but people who respect human life may oppose the death penalty because of that respect, but may not oppose abortion because they don’t view the fetus as a person. Additionally, many liberals oppose the death penalty because they suspect that the court system will find an innocent person guilty (see http://www.innocenceproject.org), and opposition to the death penalty this reason also has no logical incompatibility with abortion if a fetus is not a person.
As for Bujold’s solution, I can’t imagine any liberal objection to it, with one exception. A fetus diagnosed with a disease that like Tay-Sachs – one which inevitably leads to a painful death in infancy – might be a candidate for an early abortion, and the parents might object to the fetus being brought to term, out of compassion for the child-to-be. I don’t think this kind of concern shows the inherent illogic of progressivism, even for opponents of the death penalty.
There is a lot more I could say about both the death penalty and abortion, but if I was to go on, I would continue to treat them as separate subjects — for both liberals and conservatives, I don’t think views about one topic creates any great conundrum when considering views on the other topic.
But the question of whether a fetus is a person routinely devolves into a discussion of whether the fetus can survive independent of the mother. Most other ‘bright line’ date tests will always fail just due to statistics and the bell curve.
If things are arranged as I described, then a fetus that survives is -by-definition- a person. It seems that that number would inevitably be non-zero. And actually probably far higher than the number of executions on a yearly basis.
And a fetus that doesn’t survive would be more difficult to perceive as murder. Intent alone distinguishes some murders from manslaughter. If the intent was honest the maximum offense would be criminal negligence or malpractice – and even those would be a small minority of the procedures.
Al, briefly, in my opinion the definition of personhood would be linked to sufficient cognitive ability rather than to viability. After all, plants and animals are capable of independent living, but we don’t grant them personhood — because of their lack of cognitive ability. Similarly, we would grant personhood to non-human intelligences like aliens or computer programs if, and only if, they could demonstrate sufficient cognitive abilities.
Also, I see no connection between viability and murder, in that Person 1 can be dependent on Person 2, and yet be murdered by Person 2. When a fetus isn’t viable, it is simply dependent on the mother. But there are other ways to be dependent. For example, if I am dangling over a cliff, and my pregnant wife’s grasp is the only thing keeping me from falling to my doom, if she lets go on a whim, she has murdered me, despite my dependence on her. For a moment at least, my wife simply has two dependents. If she has a tapeworm, you could say she has three dependents. The question is whether a fetus is more like me, or more like a tapeworm.
Obviously, under my formulation, I’ve provided a justification for either making late-term abortion illegal or making infanticide up to some age legal. But medical emergencies are more complicated than that — look into why late-term abortions are performed.
There is really a lot to say about abortion, and it wasn’t my goal to discuss it. I became a father this year, and certainly watching my child via ultrasound while my wife was pregnant, as well as being faced with the reality of various ethical dilemmas involving genetic testing, certainly gave me a lot to think about.
But again, this doesn’t really speak to the topic of the thread, which was why progressives supposedly needed a socratic dialog.
On the contrary, I think you’ve demonstrated it. Thank you.
Al, your answer initially pissed me off, but on second thought, I suppose I brought it on myself by sending a mixed message.
So, let me be more clear: on abortion, my thoughts are muddled. But on the other hand, I simply think it is easy to argue that there is no logical inconsistency between supporting (or opposing) the death penalty and opposing (or supporting) abortion. I believe the majority of liberals and conservatives actually agree on this point!
And I also think I had something clear to say about abortion. You said “But the question of whether a fetus is a person routinely devolves into a discussion of whether the fetus can survive independent of the mother. “
It might be true people routinely come to this conclusion, but I offered twp arguments for why there is a different way to look at things. First, I suggested that sufficient cognitive ability might define personhood. Second, I tried to show why it doesn’t matter whether or not the fetus is viable outside the womb when considering the ethics of abortion.
Sharing my muddled feelings about abortion may have confused the matter, but I think those two arguments were clear enough. You certainly aren’t obligated to reply, but your choice of a put-down instead of a valid argument is disappointing.
Sorry, it seemed like you were acknowledging some of the conflict with the line “… I’ve provided a justification for either making late-term abortion illegal or making infanticide up to some age legal.” That combined with your apparent desire to move on led me to not continue with an explanation.
At least, I have difficulty reconciling your line with many of the arguments commonly espoused in criminal justice. “He has sub-normal intelligence” is a mitigating factor there, not a confirmation of sufficient guilt to proceed to the execution without a trial.
On the term ‘dependency’, I was attempting to refer strictly to the chemical and biological relationship occurring inside the womb. The standard I’m applying is a directly observable standard. (Human DNA + Lifesigns -> Human) The exact composition of ‘lifesigns’ needs to be flexible enough to include catatonia, hypothermia, hibernation, etc. The standard I seem to understand as yours (perhaps mistakenly) seems to be a little flexible, and something that can shift.
Neither a three-month premature baby nor a fetus liberated from the womb three months before the nominal delivery date has the slightest chance of writing a decent computer program in COBOL on that date. There’s no particular reason to expect any especial cognitive differences (provided both receive identical care). I don’t see any particular reason for a legal, medical, moral, or ethical distinction between them.
Ah, the good old abortion debate again!
One possible way to illuminate this is to consider the two extreme positions; the extreme “pro-choice” position that every woman should have the right to an abortion up to and including the date the baby would be born if not aborted – and the extreme “pro-life” position that a zygote becomes fully human with full human rights immediately on fertilisation.
I am going to assume for the moment that there is nothing wrong with the foetus and that there are no medical complications that would risk the mother’s health and/or life if the foetus is brought to term. Also ignore rarities such as foetuses resulting from rape.
My opinion is fairly simple; both extremes are ridiculous and, if enshrined into law, immoral and bad law. One reason is that the “pro-life” position means necessarily that any doctor who fits an IUD should be punished – as they prevent implantation, not fertilisation.
IMHO the real argument is when a foetus gets the full protection of the law. And my opinion is; quite early – perhaps when the nervous system has begun to be formed. As long, that is, as the baby once born will live more than a few minutes. Such cases as the young Irishwoman who was forced by religiously-inspired law to take an anencephalic foetus to term illustrate this point rather well. To avoid anyone having to run to a dictionary, that word means that the foetus had NO BRAIN. And hence was never going to be human.
To be sarcastic about it, the point of this decision was to make it possible for a celibate crossdresser to splash water on the inhuman lump in the few seconds for which it kept breathing.
Fletcher, up a couple of comments I stated my position. Does that mesh with yours?
“Al, briefly, in my opinion the definition of personhood would be linked to sufficient cognitive ability rather than to viability.”
Great Bob! Let’s go to all the mental institutions and kill all the ret…errr mentally challenged who can’t tie their shoes. That would be the slippery slope.
Those cells aren’t going to become a dog or a cat or a spider now are they?
Bill…you falsely represented Bob as believing that mentally ill people lack sufficient cognitive ability to be worthy of protection. Your argument implicitly likens the cognitive capability of a fetus with that of a mentally ill person. In my understanding, there is little likeness, and I suspect Bob would find mentally ill people to be of much greater cognitive ability than you conveniently ignore.
Slippery slope? From fetus to mental patient? Bill…do you purport to be that easily confused? Or are you just saving us from our own moronic inability to recognize such a broad distinction?
Well, yeah — there they would have reported the author to the authorities for Wrongthink. It is only thanks to the threadbare Constitution such hallway-women lack such power here.
Wow, that is some list.
See also Ilkka Kokkarinen’s own list in comment #43.
Nice list, but ultimately futile. Leftists don’t “do” logic, and they certainly never play by the rules of a debate. Using the Socratic method on Leftists is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the Leftists.
Not that annoying Leftists is bad, mind you, but my time is valuable.
Comment 43 is excellent.
Al, you are SOOOO right! Amazing stuff.
For those who liked my list in comment 43, you might also like my follow-up in comment 75. And I have plenty more of these to come.
I could easily answer any of these, however many of my answers would start with “No, because I am a liberal, I don’t believe what the question presumes that I believe…”
The problem is where to start — that’s a pretty long list! If there is one or even just a few questions that you would like to select as particularly illuminating, I would be happy to answer.
Ok Bob. Explain opposition to the Death Penalty with simultaneous support for Abortion.
This question is incessantly flung at death penalty supporters, it just neglects that one has to be signed off on by an absolute minimum of three representatives of the executive, two to thirteen (or so) judges, with the legislative branch wrangling over defining the crime.
Perfectly willing to have every abortion go through the exact same procedure, honest. It would even meet the goals stated by liberals “Legal, but rare.”
(My actual personal position is one sparked by Lois McMaster Bujold: The woman has a right to a permanent and immediate legal and physical separation. But the fetus has the right to the best medical care available as well. This leads to advances in extreme neo-natal care…)
“Nice list, but ultimately futile. Leftists don’t ‘do’ logic . . . .”
As their comments on this blog clearly testify.
Al, the point of the list was demonstrate logical inconsistencies shared by many progressives. If I’m not mistaken, your question about abortion and the death penalty wasn’t even on the list, and no wonder: for many liberals, there is no logical inconsistency here.
You may find this answer too glib, but people who respect human life may oppose the death penalty because of that respect, but may not oppose abortion because they don’t view the fetus as a person. Additionally, many liberals oppose the death penalty because they suspect that the court system will find an innocent person guilty (see http://www.innocenceproject.org), and opposition to the death penalty this reason also has no logical incompatibility with abortion if a fetus is not a person.
As for Bujold’s solution, I can’t imagine any liberal objection to it, with one exception. A fetus diagnosed with a disease that like Tay-Sachs – one which inevitably leads to a painful death in infancy – might be a candidate for an early abortion, and the parents might object to the fetus being brought to term, out of compassion for the child-to-be. I don’t think this kind of concern shows the inherent illogic of progressivism, even for opponents of the death penalty.
There is a lot more I could say about both the death penalty and abortion, but if I was to go on, I would continue to treat them as separate subjects — for both liberals and conservatives, I don’t think views about one topic creates any great conundrum when considering views on the other topic.
But the question of whether a fetus is a person routinely devolves into a discussion of whether the fetus can survive independent of the mother. Most other ‘bright line’ date tests will always fail just due to statistics and the bell curve.
If things are arranged as I described, then a fetus that survives is -by-definition- a person. It seems that that number would inevitably be non-zero. And actually probably far higher than the number of executions on a yearly basis.
And a fetus that doesn’t survive would be more difficult to perceive as murder. Intent alone distinguishes some murders from manslaughter. If the intent was honest the maximum offense would be criminal negligence or malpractice – and even those would be a small minority of the procedures.
Al, briefly, in my opinion the definition of personhood would be linked to sufficient cognitive ability rather than to viability. After all, plants and animals are capable of independent living, but we don’t grant them personhood — because of their lack of cognitive ability. Similarly, we would grant personhood to non-human intelligences like aliens or computer programs if, and only if, they could demonstrate sufficient cognitive abilities.
Also, I see no connection between viability and murder, in that Person 1 can be dependent on Person 2, and yet be murdered by Person 2. When a fetus isn’t viable, it is simply dependent on the mother. But there are other ways to be dependent. For example, if I am dangling over a cliff, and my pregnant wife’s grasp is the only thing keeping me from falling to my doom, if she lets go on a whim, she has murdered me, despite my dependence on her. For a moment at least, my wife simply has two dependents. If she has a tapeworm, you could say she has three dependents. The question is whether a fetus is more like me, or more like a tapeworm.
Obviously, under my formulation, I’ve provided a justification for either making late-term abortion illegal or making infanticide up to some age legal. But medical emergencies are more complicated than that — look into why late-term abortions are performed.
There is really a lot to say about abortion, and it wasn’t my goal to discuss it. I became a father this year, and certainly watching my child via ultrasound while my wife was pregnant, as well as being faced with the reality of various ethical dilemmas involving genetic testing, certainly gave me a lot to think about.
But again, this doesn’t really speak to the topic of the thread, which was why progressives supposedly needed a socratic dialog.
On the contrary, I think you’ve demonstrated it. Thank you.
Al, your answer initially pissed me off, but on second thought, I suppose I brought it on myself by sending a mixed message.
So, let me be more clear: on abortion, my thoughts are muddled. But on the other hand, I simply think it is easy to argue that there is no logical inconsistency between supporting (or opposing) the death penalty and opposing (or supporting) abortion. I believe the majority of liberals and conservatives actually agree on this point!
And I also think I had something clear to say about abortion. You said “But the question of whether a fetus is a person routinely devolves into a discussion of whether the fetus can survive independent of the mother. “
It might be true people routinely come to this conclusion, but I offered twp arguments for why there is a different way to look at things. First, I suggested that sufficient cognitive ability might define personhood. Second, I tried to show why it doesn’t matter whether or not the fetus is viable outside the womb when considering the ethics of abortion.
Sharing my muddled feelings about abortion may have confused the matter, but I think those two arguments were clear enough. You certainly aren’t obligated to reply, but your choice of a put-down instead of a valid argument is disappointing.
Sorry, it seemed like you were acknowledging some of the conflict with the line “… I’ve provided a justification for either making late-term abortion illegal or making infanticide up to some age legal.” That combined with your apparent desire to move on led me to not continue with an explanation.
At least, I have difficulty reconciling your line with many of the arguments commonly espoused in criminal justice. “He has sub-normal intelligence” is a mitigating factor there, not a confirmation of sufficient guilt to proceed to the execution without a trial.
On the term ‘dependency’, I was attempting to refer strictly to the chemical and biological relationship occurring inside the womb. The standard I’m applying is a directly observable standard. (Human DNA + Lifesigns -> Human) The exact composition of ‘lifesigns’ needs to be flexible enough to include catatonia, hypothermia, hibernation, etc. The standard I seem to understand as yours (perhaps mistakenly) seems to be a little flexible, and something that can shift.
Neither a three-month premature baby nor a fetus liberated from the womb three months before the nominal delivery date has the slightest chance of writing a decent computer program in COBOL on that date. There’s no particular reason to expect any especial cognitive differences (provided both receive identical care). I don’t see any particular reason for a legal, medical, moral, or ethical distinction between them.
Ah, the good old abortion debate again!
One possible way to illuminate this is to consider the two extreme positions; the extreme “pro-choice” position that every woman should have the right to an abortion up to and including the date the baby would be born if not aborted – and the extreme “pro-life” position that a zygote becomes fully human with full human rights immediately on fertilisation.
I am going to assume for the moment that there is nothing wrong with the foetus and that there are no medical complications that would risk the mother’s health and/or life if the foetus is brought to term. Also ignore rarities such as foetuses resulting from rape.
My opinion is fairly simple; both extremes are ridiculous and, if enshrined into law, immoral and bad law. One reason is that the “pro-life” position means necessarily that any doctor who fits an IUD should be punished – as they prevent implantation, not fertilisation.
IMHO the real argument is when a foetus gets the full protection of the law. And my opinion is; quite early – perhaps when the nervous system has begun to be formed. As long, that is, as the baby once born will live more than a few minutes. Such cases as the young Irishwoman who was forced by religiously-inspired law to take an anencephalic foetus to term illustrate this point rather well. To avoid anyone having to run to a dictionary, that word means that the foetus had NO BRAIN. And hence was never going to be human.
To be sarcastic about it, the point of this decision was to make it possible for a celibate crossdresser to splash water on the inhuman lump in the few seconds for which it kept breathing.
Fletcher, up a couple of comments I stated my position. Does that mesh with yours?
“Al, briefly, in my opinion the definition of personhood would be linked to sufficient cognitive ability rather than to viability.”
Great Bob! Let’s go to all the mental institutions and kill all the ret…errr mentally challenged who can’t tie their shoes. That would be the slippery slope.
Those cells aren’t going to become a dog or a cat or a spider now are they?
Bill…you falsely represented Bob as believing that mentally ill people lack sufficient cognitive ability to be worthy of protection. Your argument implicitly likens the cognitive capability of a fetus with that of a mentally ill person. In my understanding, there is little likeness, and I suspect Bob would find mentally ill people to be of much greater cognitive ability than you conveniently ignore.
Slippery slope? From fetus to mental patient? Bill…do you purport to be that easily confused? Or are you just saving us from our own moronic inability to recognize such a broad distinction?