The Weekly Standard's Elliott Abrams filets Obama's (lack of) coherent foreign policy!
I see a consensus building:
(And, just for fun, Freedom Outpost - totally unrelated!)
Monday, March 3, 2014
Saturday, March 1, 2014
I found out about Cecile Richards and her "hand wave" about when life begins in this article at NRO yesterday. She says:
It piqued my interest, and I responded to him. I was expecting the "forced gestation" argument to surface pretty quickly, but it didn't. Instead, I found myself in a conversation with someone who has genuine concerns about the rights of the mother vs the rights of her unborn child.
See what you think. My initial response:
“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”I started reading the coments, and found this one, by Bob Wynne:
If any of you full grown adults that are definitely alive needed to be hooked up to my blood supply for months, would the choice to carry that burden be up to me or not? It is not a question of whether you are alive. I accept that you are. Yet there is still a question.
See what you think. My initial response:
leelu Bob Wynne • a day ago
Wonderfully bogus argument, and totally off the point, too.
No argument from me, Boss. Just asking a question. You might wonder, "Why would Bob ask that?" In order to get an answer. So far I have been unsuccessful.
Ah... To answer your question, I would say yes, you definitely should/would have a say in it. OK?
Now, I am asking what the point is that I am off of?
What I perceive as the point of the article - the assertion that the issue of when life begins is irrelevant to abortion. I just don't see a connection there?
The point is that I think that if we, as civilized people, can agree that society cannot force an individual to share their blood, oxygen and nutrients with another living person, then it is not relevant when a cell mass becomes a person for purposes of abortion rights. If we can agree that society can force a person to share their blood, oxygen and nutrients with another person, then personhood might be relevant in the discussion.
The short answer is, if "it is not relevant when a cell mass becomes a person", then ,by a simple logical extension, there no reason why I should be penalized in any way for shooting you. (This is *not* a threat, btw.)
Your whole "sharing" example is irrelevant as well. In your case, you are talking about somthing that, absent force, would be, by definition, a contractual arrangement. I expect that you would not let me "hook up" for nothing. That is not the case between a mother and child - no contract exists. It is a moral issue, based exactly on the point of the start of personhood. Hand-waving it doesn't make it go away.
You may be right on your primary position here. We all agree that you cannot do anything to another person. I am suggesting that if the fetus is a person, that there is more to discuss along those lines.
Some would argue that refusing to share your resources is not doing something to them. It is not allowing them to do something to you. You are removing them from your personal space. You are redirecting your blood flow for your personal use. They are free to go on their way. But they feed on you only by your grace and agreement.
That is what I would say if some born person needed some component in by blood for some period of time. I do not believe in killing another, but I do not belive in forcing anyone to support someone else, either.
As far as the comparison to the abortion debate, I have no answers. I cannot support forcing anyone to make that sacrifice. Even if the fetus is deemed a person, why would I give him or her more rights than me or you? I am glad that the decision does not rest on me. I feel that it should be left up to those that will have to live with it.
"Feeding" suggests a parasite-host relationship, which again, is moot, since we are agreed that you have voluntarily donated blood or organs (I'm thinking "live donor" here, as in kidney or liver parts).
I don't think it's ultimately about rights, altho that certainly is a big part of the legal debate. If we agree that the unborn baby is human, then I would argue that his/her "right to life" is equal to yours or mine. So, in spite of Richard's hand waiving, it really does come down to that.
I'm enjoying this discussion. I can relate to your dilemma- my Catholic upbringing informs my conscience even today, yet I don't want to see women forced into the old "back alley/dirty coat hanger" environment. Women *will* get abortions, legal or not. If it came to a vote, I *would* vote my conscience ("No"), and still hope that women who sought them would be well cared for.
I'd like to post this to one of my blogs (leelusplace.blogspot.com). If you prefer, I will "anonymize" you.
Post it if you like. But I would like to close with the notion that not all decisions that need to be made, need to be made by government. And if the solution is not universal, then it should not be enforced by law.
And there we have it. What do you think?