Proi-abortion columnist Charles Krauthammer said this in his syndicated column on May 11:

Legalizing abortion by judicial fiat ( Roe v. Wade) instead of by democratic means has its price. One is that the issue remains socially unsettled. People take to the streets when they have been deprived of resort to legislative action.

The other effect is to render the very debate hopelessly muddled. Instead of discussing what a decent society owes women and what it owes soon-to-be-born infants, and trying to balance the two by politically hammering out regulations that a broad national consensus can support, we debate the constitutional niceties of a 35-year-old, appallingly crafted Supreme Court decision....

I hope for the day when Roe is overturned, not because I want to see abortion criminalized - I once voted in a Maryland referendum to keep abortion legal if Roe is ever repealed - but to sweep away this ridiculous muddle.... Abortion is already so contaminated with legalisms, why not turn the issue into one of simple democracy? Let the people decide. Let them work it out the way everything else in this country is worked out -- by political argument and legislative accommodation.

I only pray that we will vote in a way that affirms life.

Two things,

1) Justice is not popularity contest. That's what we call mob rule.

2) There's not much that can be politically hammered out... at least not to the satisfaction of the fetus-centric who will stop at nothing short of an judicially untenable ban.

Cameron:

Democracy disagrees with you.

LOL

Too bad we're not a democracy

You're right Cameron, we're a Theoratical Dictatorship. I forgot.

*Theocratical

"1) Justice is not popularity contest."

yea, how bout some justice for the unborn, whadda-ya say Cam?

Why stop with the unborn... all my sperm want a home, and dag nabbit, they deserve it.

Actually, Lauren, we're a democratic republic, although I'm sure there are a number of people who agree with you on most issues who would love to have a theocracy. (I also know you were being sarcastic).

But Cameron is right. Justice is not a popularity contest. If it were, that Bill of Rights that we revere so much (well, some of us anyway) wouldn't be so important. It's there specifically to protect individual rights against the mercurial masses. And THAT is a major part of what this country was meant to be all about.

Cameron,

Why don't you move to France?

Are you a Fred Phelps follower too?

It's there specifically to protect individual rights against the mercurial masses. And THAT is a major part of what this country was meant to be all about.

All individuals except the unborn of course...And THAT is a major part of what this country was NOT meant to be all about.

Back on track with Krauthammer's comments....

It's kind of hard to hammer things out politically when one camp, prolife, is so much about positioning, maneuvering, and maligning the opposition to such an extent that all the principles for which they stand are secondary. In other words, saving babies is not the priority. It's become the biggest political hack job, in which we discuss the issue without actually discussing it. With a fraction of the effort they’ve put into the maneuvering, positioning, and trying to always have the moral upper hand, pro-life could have radically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies years ago... but that's not really what they want. They desire the issue more so than saving babies, because it's an issue that's gets people to open their wallets.

So let me see if I got this right MK

"All individuals except the unborn of course...And THAT is a major part of what this country was NOT meant to be all about."

Translation: scrap individual rights... except for those of the fetus?

"All individuals except the unborn of course...And THAT is a major part of what this country was NOT meant to be all about."

MK, I have never once in all my arguments on this site suggested that fetii do not have rights. I personally believe that their rights start when true brain activity starts, but every argument that I have given for the conclusion that a woman has a right to abort has assumed that fetii do in fact have rights. So, you can beat that straw man to death if you like, but it won't affect my stance.

Cameron,

Study anatomy and physiology. Your sperm have a home.

"They desire the issue more so than saving babies, because it's an issue that's gets people to open their wallets."

You think that is the case, Cameron? Money? I'm curious as to why. I always thought it was about pushing an ideological agenda, one issue at a time, an ideological agenda aimed at keeping an uneducated populace subservient by having them bow to God, wrap themselves in the flag, and accept just about anything they are spoonfed.

Diane,

"You think that is the case, Cameron? Money?"

Yes.. and what you said too. There is no doubt in my mind that we all could reduced unwanted pregancies significantly if that's where they put their efforts... and it would seem like the next best thing absent any ability to actually stop abortions, but that's not where they put their efforts. They put their efforts into the issue, and it's because there is no self-sustaining nature in it all to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

HisMan said: Why don't you move to France?

Quoi? ... I don't get it ...

Yes, yes. Tangent.

"Study anatomy and physiology. Your sperm have a home."

but the natural course of things is for my boys to eventually leave home and start their own homes, and everyone of them is alive, human, and just as packed with potential as an embryo

Cameron,

Your "boys" number in the multi-millions and contain only half of the chromosomes needed to produce another human life so the little fellas in and of themselves are not human. And unless you are one very active fellow its highly unlikely all your boys will ever find a new home once they leave their present residence, however they make their exit. The fact is the overwhelming majority of sperm go to waste. Sorry Cameron, but most of your boys will wind up homeless.

No state, no subdivision of government whatsoever, has the authority to set up extermination camps, or abortion clinics.

Hi Cam and Diana,

I love the Arthurian line in Camelot ::: "It's might FOR right ... not might IS right!" Please comment in terms of abortion.

Cameron, Diana: When the two of you figure out just which bigoted perspective of pro-life best describes reality, be sure to get back to everyone here, OK? Meanwhile, how should we handle the lack of coherence on that question that two pro-choice folk in one forum generate?

"but the natural course of things is for my boys to eventually leave home and start their own homes, and everyone of them is alive, human, and just as packed with potential as an embryo"

This would be Cameron 1, I believe.

The only tangents here are Cameron and Diana.

They live in a moral world of their own making that does not include the God of the Universe.

And spiritually suicidal.

Rasqual,

I wasn't describing "the pro-life" perspective. I was describing a general perspective that I perceive infiltrating much of our society, although I do think it is particularly apparent in neo-conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity - both of which, of course, are heavily involved in pro-life politics.

As for the "lack of coherence" on the question of what the reasoning is behind the fact that the pro-life camp does nothing toward preventing unwanted pregnancies (and, hence, abortions), well, I'm sorry that you find it odd that two intelligent people who agree about one issue might disagree about another. FSM forbid we actually use reason rather than attaching ourselves wholesale to an ideology such that we all agree on everything! Do you agree with all pro-lifers on everything? Or even the fundamental motives behind the pro-choice understanding of things? I would certainly hope not.

John,

Comment on "might for right" in terms of abortion? Hmm.. I don't like the use of "might" period except when absolutely necessary (say, the justified protection of individual rights), so I don't really know what to say about that.

HisMan,

I'm a tangent? What? And I do live in a world without god. And? That doesn't mean I created it, and it doesn't mean that I don't believe in objective morality (I'm a virtue theorist - a neo-Aristotelian of sorts). I understand that this is the garbage that many are fed about atheism - that somehow there is no morality without God, but if you go look up divine command theory, and pay close attention to Plato's "Euthyphro" and your own views about god's omnibenevolence, and you'll realize that morality derived only from god is highly implausible. (Well, perhaps you won't realize it, since dogmatism is a powerful force. Eh, nevermind)

And then, HisMan, go look up Virtue Ethics, Naturalized/naturalistic Moral Realism, Kant, and Consequentialism, just for starters, for some views of objective morality that don't require god. (Kant actually believes God exists, but what is moral is moral independently of god). After you do, and you refute all of these views, come back and I'll give you some more, and then when you've refuted those, then maybe you can insist that all atheists live in "a moral world of their own making"

Diana -

So those views don't have atheistic pedigrees?

I believe you're arguing against the notion that atheists live in "a moral world of their own making." If each of the schools you cite have an atheistic pedigree, than you're not succeeding in defeating HisMan's assertion, apparently. On the other hand, if these views do NOT have an atheistic pedigree, then apparently your citing them is on account of finding some merit in theistic ethics of one sort or another.

Either way, I think your rejoinder is ill-advised. ;-)

Rasqual,

Ill advised or not, a rejoinder will be made.:) Although I won't be hanging from either horn of the dilemma you set up.

Apparently either I or you misunderstand what it means to live in a "moral world of their own making" - if it merely that one derives morals from something other than god, then you are right, but then it is also a charge that would carry no weight with an atheist.

I took HisMan to be claiming that atheists are committed to moral relativism, that is, that there are no objective moral truths. The schools I put forward all can be taken to give a realist account of ethics. (Although relativists, constructivists, etc also like to play with them, but that's another issue). Hence, my point was that a realist ethics is possible without god. (While a consistent realist ethics with god is actually pretty questionable - more objectionable than the schools I suggested)

"but then it is also a charge that would carry no weight with an atheist."

I believe HisMan is indifferent to an atheist's esteem for his remark. ;-)

As for virtue ethics, I get my Aristotle by way of Aquinas, evangelical though I be.

"I believe HisMan is indifferent to an atheist's esteem for his remark. ;-)"

Indeed, though were he to consider a true challenge, it would then be question begging. I just get frustrated when people insist that atheism leads to moral relativism, when there are a plethora of views out there that allow for a naturalist moral realism.

"As for virtue ethics, I get my Aristotle by way of Aquinas, evangelical though I be."

Bit of a Thomist, then, maybe? A MacIntyre fan, perhaps?

consider *it* a true challenge.

I've never read any MacIntyre primary sources, alas. He's on my reading list -- though even that's been misplaced since I left school for the world of work that beckons any man siring four kids. I.T. is frenetic enough, though, that at the end of a typical day I could probably parse even Kant a lot faster, at least until the buzz wore off (at which time Kant's opiating effect would take over ;-)

Oh Fritz, I hated reading Kant for my ethics class. It was like shoving an icepick into my brain (which actually would have been preferable).

On the other hand, I'm definitely a fan of John Stuart Mills' version of Utilitarianism (and pretty much John Stuart Mills' take on politics and philosophy.

Rasqual, As someone who gets his Aristotle through Aquinas, you should find MacIntyre intriguing (although the later Mac is probably more up your alley, whereas the earlier work is more to my liking.

Kant's opiating effect, lol. I.T.? I'm afraid I don't know what that is. At any rate, anything that would allow you to parse Kant even with any modicum of speed must be dangerous. Be careful there.

Rae- My readings of Kant have been similar experiences. Ice pick in the head. Over. And over. And over again. Thankfully I'm not a Kant scholar, so now that I've shown my proficiency, I can move on to the fun stuff (Thank goodness!). Mill is indeed good stuff. Just out of curiousity, what else did you read for your ethics class. Was it an intro course?

Hey I LOVE Alasdair MacIntyre!

I also love Bass-Baritone Donald McIntyre, who played Wotan in the Boulez videotaped RING OF THE NIBELUNG.

@Diana: It was an intro ethics class...from Hell. It was at a community college but it was definitely more work than any of my university classes have been. Anyway, we started out reading old-school stuff like Aristotle, Kant, Mills, Rawls etc and then we moved on to various "ethical topics", first being abortion where we read stuff by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Mary Warren (she's pretty extreme in my opinion) and a few anti-abortion ones that I can't recall. We also did Euthanasia/Genetic Engineering, Freedom of Speech, Racism, War, Sex and Marriage, Drugs, Environment. So most of the philosophers were modern, though occasionally one by somebody "not-so-modern" would pop up. I took this class nearly 2 years ago and I still have nightmares. :D

And i once took a course from a mathematician called Angus McIntyre.

Rasqual, Hisman, Mary, Rae and Diana,

I just want to know when this turned into a site for MENSA members only...Good Heavens, I have had to have an extra window open just to look up half the stuff you guys said...

Rawls, Kant, MacIntyre, Mills, constructionist, realists, relativists...

Some of us have IQ's lower than 180 and a few of us don't have Masters or PHD's in anything except packing lunches and changing diapers...

Sheesh, at least put a glossary at the end of your posts...

I'm with Rae. I think I'll be having nightmares now.

mk

MK,

You give me too much credit. I wasn't involved in this deep discussion. My contribution ended with Cameron's reproductive biology lesson.

Mary,

This is true...however I have read all of your other posts and there are just too many brain cells floatin' around between you guys...

Actually, I love it because I am learning soooooo much.

And I'd be lost if it was up to me to refute some of this stuff. (stuff-that's about as intellectual as I get. lol)

It's become a joy to tune in. While I can hold my own on the moral issues, and I understand all of the arguments, my vocabulary is woefully lacking. Sort of like I can read some french, but can't speak it!
Keeps me humble. And on my toes.

mk

Actually Diana, had I not ducked out of school to provide for the growing family I'd probably be teaching those intro Ethics courses now. That was my dream. Well, philosophy and theology, actually. The whole constellation.

I aspired to teach in a community college somewhere. Had no ambitions for university, which would probably be more normal. But I wanted to make a difference "on the street", and work hard among the more blue collar crowd, I guess. Your neighbors in the two flat, rather than in the burbs. That kind of thing.

Anyone still in the flush of their academic life can still provoke envy from me; it's still a siren but I'm WAY too busy. I.T. = Information Technology and its bevy of craziness.

Diana,

I am confused...

(I'm a virtue theorist -

Definitions of virtue on the Web:

* the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong
* merit: any admirable quality or attribute; "work of great merit"
* morality with respect to sexual relations
* a particular moral excellence
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If being a virtue theorist means that you seek to be a person that is "good" at the deepest level and therefore doesn't have to worry about consequences, because your nature will always direct you to do the most moral or virtuous thing, then how do you reconcile this with the statement:

Since a woman has a right to defend her bodily autonomy in gruesome ways in such cases (and this would include cases when, say, she was being violated by someone with a mental handicap who didn't know any better - hence you can't appeal to the whole "but the baby doesn't know any better") then she has the right to do it in the case of a pregnancy, even if that means doing something gruesome.

or the statement:

"Was my decision selfish? Perhaps". I do not deny that I had myself in mind. But whether or not an act is selfish has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone has the right to do it.

or this one:

I realize that abortion is a 'selfish' choice- but that's a major component in how people get anywhere in the world. If I never did anything for myself I would never have a career or an education. My choice to abort was for ME- and that, in my opinion, is who I should be most concerned with in my life until I am ready to marry and/or have a child.

If being virtuous is about being "good" and "moral", but the bottom line is "doing what is best for you, no matter who gets hurt" then I don't get this whole virtue theory...

Maybe you can help.

Who is the final authority on what is virtuous? Who is the final authority on what is moral?
Who is the final authority on what is good?

I don't get it.

Now I know that I have not read years worth of Philosophy books, but from what I have read this morning, it seems to me that all these "moral" theories are just theories created to justify certain behaviors.

You could get so lost trying to figure out how to define yourself morally that you never find your way back...let alone choose a definitive way of living.

I don't know...I mean, you've got tome's written on what's right and what's wrong, you've got volumes written on how you should decide what is the most "ethical" thing to do...

Or you've got 10 sentences written on a stone tablet.

Or you've got one sentence...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

I'll take the sentence, because I figure by the time you sort through all the drug-induced theories of morality, you're gonna come full circle, right back to these eleven simple words.

Or how about one word.

Love.

I know by following that one word, I find abortion and the taking of a human life for purely selfish motives to morally bereft. While you have thousands upon thousands of words and come to the conclusion that snuffing out a living, breathing, human being is perfectly acceptable if it means your life will be better.

My advice is quit reading and start living!

And Rasqual,

Feel free to think of me as one of those street-smart, book-dumb individuals...and start-a-teaching...you won't find a more enthusiastic pupil...

mk

MK, don't be so quick to underestimate yourself. I love reading your posts. I really enjoy your added humor on some of them!

MK:

Virtue theory isn't unlike Aquinas. If you read in the Summa on habits under virtues, you'll get some sense of it. Aquinas is mediating Aristotle in much of this -- the famed "synthesis" between faith and reason he aspired to.

Basically, virtue theory posits that developing good character will help when it comes to moral decisions. As a theory it's less concerned to engage in getting into the details of a given moral calculus.

I don't think virtue theory is considered a sufficient or exhaustive approach to morality. But its pedigree is respectable and there'd certainly be a lot of touchpoints for Catholics up on their Aquinas.

For Catholics who aren't up on their Aquinas ;-) I'd recommend Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa -- a darned accessible reading with extensive notes that are also accessible to anyone new to Aquinas or philosophy/theology in general.

Challenging, but rewarding.

Aack. Me and my html tags. Wish these comments were editable.

MK

Heather4life is right. Don't underestimate yourself. I also enjoy and learn much from your posts. Keep up the good work.

Half of making a difference in the world is carefree indifference to the certainty that some of what we'll say will be wrong, stupid, and so forth. All of us err, and even more of us ;-) fail to grab perfect opportunities to make very worthy truths better understood. Our medium (language) has terrible limits, and our ideas are buried deep under layers of anxieties, compulsions, hubris, fear, anger, myopia, unchecked ambition, delusion, and curiosity about why the pizza's already cold.

Luther said "sin boldly," by which he simply meant that we shouldn't be immobilized by the sure knowledge that today, tomorrow, or the next day we'll probably say or do something really stupid.

Live.

I'm the noob here, but it's everyone else's energy and enthusiasm that keep me around. You rock, MK.

@MK: I'm no genius, believe me. Far from it in fact. :)

I don't even have a degree in college, I just happened to take some philosophy courses (though I have more of an interest in political philosophy rather than ethical philosophy).

Believe me, I often have nooooo idea what Diana is talking about with the "constructivist" stuff and what not. :)

Hi MK,

along with many others here, I very much appreciate your superb posts and biting wit. Like us all, you do seem up-against-a-wall by the profound myopic view of many people here.

I very much love it when you willingly switch from one way of expressing yourself to another ... for example, when you wrote about you and your Dad. It really was marvelous, and I can assure you that 1000 years of philosophical moral theory is much less 'educating' than a single minute with you speechless Dad or baby-Eliot.

Oh my goodness...I wasn't "fishing" honestly. I just felt so inadequate...but thank you all. I feel like Sally Field! YOU LIKE ME!!!! okay, I was just bein' silly there...

Rasqual,
I love Peter Kreeft and will definitely look into that book. I also love Aquinas in teensy weensy bites...I hope Mr. Kreeft can help!

Thanks again guys, and keep it up. I mean keep up the conversations, not the compliments. I'm learning. The brain is old so I'm not sure I'm retaining but I am learning!

mk

You're so sweet, Mk. :)