If there is no morally relevant difference between a child who is in the womb and one who lives outside of it, then one's reaction to the killing of a late-term abortionist should be no different from one's reaction to the killing of one who specializes in the routine slaughter of toddlers.
By now, there are relatively few who aren't aware of the shooting death of the late-term abortionist, George Tiller. In supplying an exceptionally rare service — the termination of "fetuses" twenty-one weeks and older — Tiller's was one of only three or four practices of its kind throughout the entire nation. It has been estimated that throughout his career, a career concerning which Tiller never tired of expressing unmitigated pride, he was responsible for approximately 60,000 late-term abortions.
But that career was brought to a grinding, permanent halt a few weeks ago as Tiller was gunned down while attending services at his church.
Immediately, the left-wing media treated its audiences to unrelenting coverage of the event, and within hours the President conveyed both his outrage and sadness over it. This, though, should have surprised no one, for more than any other type of event, the killing of an abortionist — even one, like Tiller, whose zealotry for "choice" and "reproductive rights" even most of his colleagues found unpalatable — is rich with ideological possibilities for the Left to exploit. And the exploitation of this specific killing contributed immeasurably to the furtherance, not just of the Left's endorsement of "abortion rights," but of the worldview from which that support derives.
By paying minimal attention to Tiller's exceptionality as an abortion doctor; the multiple encounters with our legal system to which his livelihood gave rise; and the extent to which he boasted of the practice in which he specialized, the media sought to ensconce in the popular consciousness an all too sympathetic impression of Tiller as a self-effacing doctor who, not unlike untold numbers of other such professionals, had been known to supply a tragic but necessary service to women in need. This virtuous image of Tiller served a twofold function: it further invested the "pro-choice" cause with the very respectability of which, simultaneously, it sought to deprive its enemies.
Yet there is more.
By exploiting the fact that Tiller's death was brought about in church, the leftist media could hope to tacitly connect in the American mind what was being portrayed as a shameless act of cold-blooded murder with Christianity. The intention here, even if it isn't completely conscious, is to deprive of legitimacy, not just the characteristically Christian commitment to combat the cause for "abortion rights," but all distinctively Christian cultural commitments.
But the Left's actions are insipidly predictable. It is the Right's reaction to the Tiller killing that is at once perplexing, revealing, and, quite honestly, exasperating. Without exception, mainstream right-wing pundits in the media of print, radio, and television, condemned Tiller's killer as "evil," "crazed," and/or "mad." While it is true that their expressions of sympathy were never without qualification — Tiller, they never tired of reminding us, was, after all, a late-term abortionist — the content of their condemnatory remarks was indistinguishable from those of their leftist counterparts.
A few weeks ago, in an essay I had written in regard to President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, I observed the striking differences between the ways in which all of us, whether we identify ourselves as "pro-life" or "pro-choice," react to the destruction of (early term) fetuses, on the one hand, and, on the other, the killing of post-natal human beings. From this observation, I concluded, not, as some had erroneously thought, that pre-natal life is worth less than post-natal life, but, rather, that we act as if the former is less valuable than the latter. Whether our intuitions are correct about this, of course, is another matter entirely, and not one upon which I touched.
However, I said nothing in that previous analysis about unborn babies five to six months and older. At five or six months into a pregnancy, the most noticeable difference between the unborn child and an infant is one of size: the "late term fetus" is unmistakably a baby. This consideration assumes the status of rock-hard fact for no one like the expectant parent who can barely contain his excitement over the prospect of obtaining an ultrasound of the rapidly developing 20 week-old human whose arrival into the world he anxiously anticipates and to whose existence he, somehow, miraculously contributed. (As my wife and I just became parents for the first time two months ago, I speak from an experience on this score that remains intensely vivid.)
That "conservative" talk radio hosts and other right-leaning commentators have waxed indignant over Tiller's shooter, that their outrage has rivaled that of their leftist counterparts, indicates that their professed view on abortion reflects at best confusion and at worst dishonesty. In either case, there is no reconciling the position that late-term abortion is profoundly immoral with the swift, decisive, and unabashed condemnation that was visited upon the man who shot George Tiller. That this is so owes to the fact that late-term abortion is deemed gravely immoral precisely and only because it consists in ending the life of a being whose innocence and physical features are identical to any newly born infant. The man who killed Tiller did so from his conviction, one presumably shared by all who steadfastly oppose the insidious practice in which the late doctor specialized, that the intentional decimation of a helpless baby (to say nothing of 60,000 helpless babies) is the most cowardly, dishonorable, and methodical form of murder imaginable. However, since it is also an action that, disgracefully, enjoys the support of our laws, Tiller's gunman chose to use the only means at his disposal to insure that at least some of those killings end now.
To these self-declared adherents of the "pro-life" movement, I pose the following simple question: If Tiller specialized in killing, not "late-term fetuses," but toddlers, say, do you believe that you would be as ready to condemn the man who gunned him down as a murderer, a "crazed extremist?"
Though this question is simple in itself, it poses potentially insurmountable difficulties for the establishment "pro-lifer" who desires to remain within the limits of acceptable social discourse that the Left has defined.
If he answers it in the negative, then he exposes himself to the charge of inconsistency, for the key reason to which he unfailingly alludes in defense of his position against abortion, to say nothing of late-term abortion, is the unborn child's fundamental sameness in moral worth as any other human. That is, late-term abortion is gravely immoral because it is a form of murder and murder is gravely immoral. But if there is no morally relevant difference between a child who is in the womb and one who lives outside of it, then one's reaction to the killing of a late-term abortionist should be no different from one's reaction to the killing of one who specializes in the routine slaughter of toddlers.
On the other hand, if the "pro-lifer" replies to the aforementioned question in the affirmative, if he claims that he would indeed be just as inclined to judge as "murderous," "crazed," "insane," and/or "extreme" a person responsible for the shooting death of a "toddler killer" as one guilty of ending the life of a late-term abortionist, then he can preserve logical consistency, but only at the cost of incurring another problem that is vastly more daunting. It is the problem of a mal-developed character.
Young children are the most innocent and vulnerable of human beings. All remotely civilized persons, fiercely intolerant, as they are, of any and all activities that imperil their children, possess a readiness to appropriate measures, extra-ordinary measures, if need be, to protect their offspring — the weak, the innocent, and the needy — from harm. While there are indeed plausible reasons in the offering for judging adversely a person whose vigilance in defense of children translates into a violence aimed at their oppressors that fails to meet the Law's cannons of justification, to treat that individual as self-evidently horrendous and his action as patently unconscionable is to betray an apathy toward children that is truly grotesque.
How could anyone, especially one who claims to be opposed to both early and late-term abortions, not rejoice over the removal from this world of a person who specialized in killing toddlers? How could a genuine champion of "the unborn" be so quick to condemn the man who, for the sake of sparing the lives of untold numbers of three and four year-old children, showed a willingness to sacrifice both his freedom and, if need be, very life?
In truth, I resolutely do not believe that the establishment supporters of "life" that today dismiss Tiller's killer as a "nut" and a "murderer" would do so if it was the death, not of "late term fetuses," but of toddlers for which Tiller was responsible. Yet if I am correct about this — and I find it difficult to think that I am not — then all of their talk about the "right to life" of the unborn, in both the earlier and later trimesters of pregnancy, reflects on their part a profound lack of either clarity or honesty, for they should be equally appalled by the systematic killing of toddlers and "late-term fetuses."
Similarly, they should be equally pleased by the fact that a man who made his living subjecting thousands of innocent, defenseless children to a violent death is no more — whether those children are born yet or not.
Jack,
As an ardent "Pro-Lifer" I can well understand your feelings. That Dr. Tiller has finally been forever prevented from practicing his gruesome undertaking is a good thing. Having said that, I'm not certain how you arrive at your conclusions.
In your posting you say; " That "conservative" talk radio hosts and other right-leaning commentators have waxed indignant over Tiller's shooter, that their outrage has rivaled that of their leftist counterparts, indicates that their professed view on abortion reflects at best confusion and at worst dishonesty. In either case, there is no reconciling the position that late-term abortion is profoundly immoral with the swift, decisive, and unabashed condemnation that was visited upon the man who shot George Tiller." I would like to point out that we have always thought of ourselves as the 'reasoned' party to these debates.
You pose this question; "If Tiller specialized in killing, not "late-term fetuses," but toddlers, say, do you believe that you would be as ready to condemn the man who gunned him down as a murderer, a "crazed extremist?" You then go on to write if late-term abortion is murder, and murder is gravely immoral, and the difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn baby is indistinguishable with the exception of physical position, then a murderer is a murderer and one should rejoice at his death.
I see two issues with such a premise. First; the difference in position; inside the womb or outside, is important from the earthly standpoint. While Dr. Tiller's practice was horrific; his practice, for now, has the protection of earthly law. I will grant you that religious people believe there is a 'higher' law. And one could reasonably expect Dr. Tiller to receive his judgment from God. Second; you assume that anyone that would take comfort in the fact that Dr. Tiller's campaign of death had been cut short is guilty of a mal-developed character.
As a practicing Catholic I am bound by church doctrine to respect all life, from conception to natural death. The Catholic Catechism teaches us that; "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."
Here is where your thesis falls apart. Is human life sacred? Yes! Can any man claim for himself the right to destroy another human life? No! We can quibble over the word 'innocent' as no one can rightly say that Dr' Tiller was innocent. There is still no implication here that allows for us to judge. Judgment is reserved for the Creator. Only God may condemn.
In my opinion; Scott Roeder had no more justification for his action than Dr. Tiller had for his actions; considerations of volume aside. The 'taking' of a human life is murder. The killing of another human being is the ultimate judgment. We as humans are not qualified to make that judgment. I spent a decade in military service, and felt compelled to confess and request absolution for the killing of other humans. Even in conflict, one must stay true to core philosophic convictions.
I feel no moral dilemma. I mourn the loss of 60,000 defenseless humans. I mourn the 'taking' of Dr. Tiller's life by another. I pray for the tortured soul of Scott Roeder.
We will not alter the frame of the debate by lashing out in violence at those who beget violence. The 'service' that Dr. Tiller provided was pure savage action. His murder was the same. "Listen to us, or we'll shoot you" is not a reasoned response to the late-term abortion question. Nor is it reasonable to rejoice over the murder of another. It is not our place to render such a verdict.
I have no issue with condemning the actions of others I find morally culpable. I also have no qualms about casting aspersions on the character of persons I believe commit reprehensible acts. An 'eye for an eye' is from the Old Testament. The New Testament challenges us to love and forgive. It says nothing about forget, but demands we practice forgiveness.
Yes, Tiller was a despicable human being. Yes, he was engaged in an evil practice. Yes, he committed 60,000 murders.
But he was still murdered. There is no moral uncertainty about this.
Roe v. Wade, 1973. That's 36 years. 60,000 / 36 / 365 comes out to 4.5 per day, not counting any vacations or weekends. If we assume weekends and two weeks of vacation, that's 6.66 per day, or about one abortion every one hour and twelve minutes, unfailingly, every single workday for 36 years.
Sorry, I can't buy the 60,000 figure.
And, as you note, "we act as if [pre-natal life] is less valuable than [post-natal life]." It's extremely rare that anyone holds a funeral after a miscarriage, even among those opposed to all abortion. (I've noted a similar disconnect among young-Earth creationists before, how they claim that they have a better, more scientific theory, but never seem willing to invest money into proving that, by finding natural resources more effectively than conventional geologists.)
Finally, I'm a little confused about how the media should have reported the location of Tiller's shooting. In your opinion, how should they have reported it? Should they simply not have mentioned that it happened in a church at all? Can you suggest an example of the phrasing that should have been used?
60,000 is Tiller's number. He was very proud of his work.
Creationism is off topic, and a gratuitous shot. Please focus.
The fact the Tiller was gunned down in church is being used to manipulate people regarding his character. The insinuation is that Tiller was in the service of the Lord when he was shot. Also, the implicit point is that there are some churches out there that are evolved enough to accept and even embrace the "noble work" Tiller was doing.
By the way Mr. Ingles, I hate to bring it up, but as to the wonderfully "predictive" nature of evolutionary thought, maybe you should wander over to http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/06/rethinking-natural-selection.html.
Mountain Man – Perhaps Tiller was self-aggrandizing, but that figure simply isn't humanly possible. Can you cite exactly where Tiller gave this figure?
I agree that the point of this article isn't creationism, I was simply drawing an analogy between ideological disconnects. To restrict the point to the topic here, abortion and the personhood of fetuses, how many people do you know who (a) oppose abortion on such grounds and (b) have held full funerals for miscarriages?
And finally, as to reporting that Tiller was shot while attending church services, I repeat: "Can you suggest an example of the phrasing that should have been used?" Seriously, if you were writing the article about it, how would you have reported that particular fact?
(Oh, and Mountain Man – I think the comments at that blog point out the misunderstandings of Vox pretty well, no need to reopen the debate here on an unrelated topic. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss it further, or post an article about it here on IC.)
Mr. Ingles,
Here is Dr. Tiller speaking: http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/sixtythousand.mp3
As far as funerals for miscarriages, irrelevant.
I don't have to suggest alternate phrasing. It is enough to point out the implications.
Mr. Ingles,
Regarding Vox Day, he is devastating his opponents, as usual.
[...] June 23: Intellectual Conservative: Conservatism, the Pro-Life Movement, and the Killing of George Tiller [...]
Mountain Man – Like I said, apparently he was self-aggrandizing (though just an mp3 without context is a little iffy to me) but that figure simply isn't possible.
As to funerals for miscarriages: unfortunately quite relevant. If people say they believe something, but don't act like they believe it… you have to wonder if they actually believe what they say. I have to agree with Mr. Kerwick on that point.
And, finally, so far as I can tell, you (and Mr. Kerwick) are apparently suggesting that the location of Dr. Tiller's shooting should not have been reported at all? That there was no way to fairly report the location of the shooting? Reporting that he was shot was okay, but they should have consciously concealed where it happened?
Mr. Ingles. I am not bound by Dr. Tiller's statements, self-aggrandizing or otherwise. So I really don't care. The man was human scum, and apparently you have demonstrated that he was a liar too. Surprise.
No, miscarriages are irrelevant. Just because you think that someone ought to do something hardly matters a whit. My wife grieved for months when she miscarried our first, but apparently you think her actions were inappropriate or inadequate? Who put you in charge of how people should deal with these kinds of things?
I think my communication has been clear regarding the reporting of Tiller's death. To most of the media Tiller was wonderful. That was the context for every story I read about it. He was a hero. To them, the place of his death simply confirmed what a noble character he was.
But what is never reported is the women who die in abortion mills or shortly thereafter. You are so worried about supposed disconnects, how about that one?
At the link provided by MM, there is a page of testimonials from women who had abortions at Tiller's clinic. Of the the first four I clicked on, 3 were pretty much like "Sally" (http://www.dr-tiller.com/sally.htm), a 20 year-old Coloradian who was determined to carry and raise her child with her fiancee even after ultrasounds revealed the possibility that her daughter had congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) where the "muscle which separates the thorax (chest cavity) and the abdominal cavity does not form completely. The lack of formation leaves hole that in most cases allows the abdominal organs to herniate (move) into the thorax. This severely inhibits lung growth and leaves the child unable to breathe on his/her own."
Only after her 25th week, when Colorado forbids abortion, did she learn that in addition to the CDH AND a continental heart defect resulting in a ventricular hole, little Lily Marie also had Wolf-Hirshhorn syndrome, which causes severe mental retardation in 50-90% of cases. Sally decided to seek out Dr. Tiller, one of the only qualified doctors in the region, to save her baby a very short life of pain and suffering.
Then there was "Cheryl," who was told at 22 weeks that here baby "had a two-vessel cord, her heart was on the wrong side (fluid around the heart – leading to failure), ribs were butterflied, lung abnormalities, and spine was missing pieces & fragmented. Her facial bones were abnormal as well as her brain development. She also had dislocated, frog-like hips and her tailbone was missing." She was told the child's quality of life would be ""zero" and that her deformities were 'incompatible with life". If she survived to term and birth, which was very doubtful, our child would be in constant pain and have numerous inoperable conditions."
These are not appeals to emotion, but cases from life, taken from an anti-Tiller website. These women made moral decisions on their own and there most certainly is a difference between terminating their lives as fetus' and allowing them to be born only to suffer and die – for both child and mother.
To Mr Kerwicks points – The premise of this post sums up the differences pretty succinctly, so I'll give Mr. Kerwick that. Those of us on the pro-choice side DO see a moral distinction between aborting a fetus for medical reasons and killing a healthy child of any age, and attempting to equate the two shows a lack of seriousness.
Also, mentioning the fact that the murder occurred in a church is not an attack on Christianity in some wacky double-whammy reverse Melvin kind of way, but a straight acknowledgment of the fact that the shooter choose to kill Tiller in his own sanctuary to send a message. This is not the em ess em trying to smear Christians with a crime, but a terrorist trying to intimidate a community.
If you want to stand on a soapbox and condemn these women and many more with similar heartbreaking stories, that's fine, but Dr Tiller provided a perfectly legal service to women who sought him out of their own accord. Murdering Tiller was most certainly both an illegal and an immoral act, and should be condemned for the vigilante terrorism that it is, rather than be apologized for.
Ok, so Chasm, tell us which fetuses don't deserve to live and which do. Right here, tell which ones deserve to die.
And while we are at it, there are lots of really late term candidates for abortion out there. Tell us, Chasm, upon what criteria will you use to excuse a person with Down's syndrome who is, say, three years old? Are they worth it, or should they be rounded up and aborted (what is that, the 12th trimester?)?
Legal = moral, apparently, so a quick change to the law will take care of everything.
Very, very few people, percentage wise in the scope of history 'deserve' to die, MontHomme, but they/we all do anyways. And the fact that I can't, and wouldn't presume, to make life or death decisions regarding other people's pregnancies is exactly the reason we shouldn't have the Government doing so either. Substitute 'the Government' for 'Chasm' in your above question, and you have your answer. You see, if your wildest fantasy came true, and abortion was illegal except to save the life blah blah, then "Sally" and "Cheryl" would be in court, using taxpayer money to argue that they needed to save their lives. OBGYN's would spend half their lives in court litigating truly life-or-death situations (and babies, and mothers, would die waiting for the case in court). And in the end, Judges – hated Judges! – would be the ones deciding life or death on a daily basis.
And, of course I'd never excuse the killing of a DS person, and DS is not even close to the horror of suffering awaiting the children with the above diagnosis, and again, I'm not proposing to be the Judge and in fact am proposing we continue to keep the Judges out of it… so WTF is your point?
And if your reading comprehension was a little better than you'd notice that I distinctively delineated between moral and legal arguments, so you really have no point there either, do you buckaroo?
Well, buckaroo, congrats of both avoiding the point and descending further into irrationality.
Implicit in your "argument" (if one could call it that) in post #13 is that these children were desperately ill and probabaly should have been aborted. Otherwisw you wouldn't have mentioned them at all.
Therefore it is logical for me to question you further to find out who should live and who should die. And we are not talking about about the grand destiny of us all, chief. We are talking about the purposeful elimination of undesireables.
So, if there are pre-born undesireables, under the banner of choice we can eliminate them. Why not certain post-born undesireables? Now that I have restated the question, hombre, can you please answer it?
"Those of us on the pro-choice side DO see a moral distinction between aborting a fetus for medical reasons and killing a healthy child of any age, and attempting to equate the two shows a lack of seriousness." Comrade, if I could get you to be serious, or at least think, I'd like to point out that you have set up a non sequitur here. since I specifically compared pre-born and post born sick children.
"Judges – hated Judges! – would be the ones deciding life or death…" Um, Chasm. 9 justices (they're judges in case you didn't know) decided in 1973 who was human and who was not, who should be protect and who should be not.
"…I distinctively delineated between moral and legal arguments…" I look in vain for this distinction, petit ami. Since I am so stupid and morally bankrupt as well, perhaps you could explain it (be sure to use small words and type slowly)?
Mountain Man –
No, I wouldn't call her actions inappropriate or inadequate. If she believes that the fetus was a full human being, though, and would have held a funeral if a born baby had died, then I'd have to call her actions inconsistent, though.
It's not that I'm claiming to be 'in charge of how people should deal with these kinds of things'. I'm taking the way people manifestly do deal with the death of a born infant, and contrasting it with how they deal with a miscarriage. There is a difference in how these are treated… even though many people claim that there's no significant difference between a fetus and a delivered baby.
I'm not making a pronouncement on how such things should be handled. I'm pointing out something inconsistent about how they are handled.
When my 27 year old brother died, we did not have a funeral for him. When both my parents died, my brothers and I did not have a funeral for them. When I die, my will states there will be no funeral for me. My family dislikes funerals, and chooses to recognize a person’s life by other means. And yet, I believe that human life begins at conception, something that is apparently “inconsistent” because I don’t believe in having funerals for dead people.
"Inconsistency" is in the eyes of the beholder, it seems — particularly when someone decides that you should do X because you believe Y because, well, that’s the way they’d do it if they believed the things you profess to believe … which they obviously don’t because they don’t believe the things you do.
So once again a discussion about the presence of, or value of, human life supposedly hinges on what some person’s opinion is — with “consistency” (as defined by the non-believer) to be a critical component in validating the opinion.
I’m taking 3 weeks off starting in a few hours, so I won’t have the opportunity (fortunately) to participate in another endless, pointless, dodging of the real issue about human life, which is put succinctly as this:
A fertilized human egg is both a qualitative, and quantitatively different entity than an unfertilized egg. The fact that a blastula doesn’t look like a human being is irrelevant. Change is what defines life, so to look only at surface feature is to miss the whole point of the issue. A newborn child barely resembles an 80 year olds man, and yet both are clearly human.
While we may not be able to prove via “scientific consensus” (the new standard for determining “truth”) that humanity is officially established at conception, common sense tells us that a fertilized human egg won’t develop into a rabbit. Moreover, we do know with absolute certainty that assigning humanity through an arbitrary compromise (no matter how “well intended”) is just that — an opinion.
So, faced with the sure knowledge that assigning humanity is just an opinion, and the certain knowledge that a human sperm and egg if left uncombined will never develop into a human being — but if combined will develop into a human being and not some other creature — doesn’t simple rationality and decency say that we should all agree that this singular point (conception) is the only state that has a fundamentally unique property to it that isn’t the subject of a compromise or legal decision?
If you want to argue that the ability to survive outside the womb on your own is key, you better hope that you never need a feeding tube after an accident or operation, or you just lost your humanity. If you want to talk about mental capability or quality of life (another “opinion” — my mentally handicapped brother in law was one of the happiest people I ever knew) as the key factor, better hope you never have a mild stroke, begin to lose mental capacity with old age, or just become too frail for some 20 year old to think your life is worth continuing.
In short, if you want to justify killing babies, don’t insult our collective intelligence by arbitrarily re-defining them as not-babies, or saying that miscarriages must have funerals or it’s a tacit recognition they were never human. [Whether they had a soul or not is an entirely different matter, but before you can even begin to discuss that you’ve got to recognize that humanity isn’t dependent on surface characteristics].
I’m about to head out for three weeks of vacation, so I won’t be able to participate in the endless hair-splitting and dissembling that is sure to follow which justifies elective abortion because it doesn’t really kill a person because we can’t scientifically test to see if it has a soul, and instead assigns human status via political compromise and legal opinions, and further denigrates those who would object to this by saying they are hypocritical or inconsistent in their positions because they don’t have funerals for miscarriages, or talk about a mother’s man-made constitutional right to privacy to justify aborting a defenseless human being who’s only crime was to be an unwanted conception (since adoption would be too traumatic for the mother, and the death of the child is just so much easier). And so on, and so on.
When faced with uncertainty about when human life begins, the people who actually care about protecting innocent human life look for the point where below that, no real case can be made that it’s a developing human life. The people who profess to care about protecting innocent life instead talk about absolute scientific proof, the wisdom of man-made consensus, and the personal feelings and man-made rights of the mother to justify killing the baby instead of saving it. And for good measure, some of them focus on whether miscarriages should have funerals.
Let the moral equivocating begin …
Phil,
Well said.
Pro-abortion people will never admit the ogical inconsistency of their position. So, have a good vacation and stay away from the computer.
Oops, that would be "logical inconsistency."
Dr. Jackson, if your family dislikes funerals, then it's hardly inconsistent if you don't hold them, for babies or miscarriages. You're treating them both the same way.
I, on the other hand, was referring to people who do hold funerals for born infants and don't for miscarriages, while also claiming that there's no difference between them. There seems to be quite a few more people in that category than those who don't hold funerals at all.
You're free not to behold that inconsistency, though, I agree. Beholding can be selective.
(If anyone wants to see where I did "look for the point where below that, no real case can be made that it’s a developing human life" – and reached a different conclusion than Dr. Jackson – you can look here or here.)
(Aw, darn, forgot the hash mark in the first link. See here. Hey, editors, any chance of a preview button for comments?)
Mr. Ingles,
Continue flogging a dead horse if you wish, but this is still about your expections regarding how other people ought to grieve for their loss.
There "seems to be quite a few" who are, in essence, hypocrites. The only way to really accuse someone of hypocrisy regarding this is if 1) They have gone on record regarding the humanity of miscarried babies, 2) They have had a miscarriage and did not have a funeral, and 3) they had a child die but did have a funeral for the child.
So, I challenge you to actually produce one example that supports your thesis. Then, I challenge you to contact them and call them hypocrites.
Otherwise, we are simply engaging in a hypothetical that doesn't exist in the real world, making your objection moot.
By the way, I note that you have ceased pursuing a defense of Dr. Tiller and where he was shot.
Mountain Man – You write, "I note that you have ceased pursuing a defense of Dr. Tiller and where he was shot."
Actually, it was you who seemed to want to stop discussion of it. "I think my communication has been clear regarding the reporting of Tiller's death."
I, too, thought I was pretty clear. I wasn't "defending" Dr. Tiller – nor was I "defending" where he was shot. The only thing I was defending was the media – for accurately reporting that he was shot, and where he was shot. You apparently think the presentation was biased, but you've declined multiple opportunities to suggest a way in which it should have been reported, a way you would consider 'unbiased'.
Let's try another tack. How about you present an example of a biased way it was reported. Then we'll see if we can come up with alternate phrasing you can agree on.
Mountain Man – I thin you're confused about which horse is deceased here. Yet again: I haven't said anything about how people "ought to" grieve. I've just been pointing out peculiarities about how they do, in fact, grieve. Whether they 'ought to' grieve that way is quite beside the point.
(BTW, why should I contact someone and "call them hypocrites"? What would that prove? What would there reaction, if any, have to do with whether or not the point was accurate? It really seems like you have the desire to tell people what they "ought to" do…)
"I've just been pointing out peculiarities about how they do, in fact, grieve."
Produce one example, according to the criteria I set forth. Then I will decide if indeed it is "in fact."
You seem to love to toss out these hypotheticals as if they were "in fact." I reject your premise, your reasoning, and your conclusion. The "fact " of the matter is not established.
I wanted you to contact one of these hypocrites, assuming you could even find one, and see what they thought of your ideas. You offhandedly spout off about the proper way to grieve in some sort of theoretical sense, so I'm asking you to put the rubber to the road in the real world.
Let me help you down the road.
1) There aren't any people who hypocritically mourn their born dead children and not their miscarried ones.
2) Pro-lifers in general are not hypocrites.
3) There is no inconsistency in philosophy in believing that people who haven't been born yet are human.
By the way, I am happy to tell people what they ought to do when what they are doing is wrong.
Mountain Man – Some stats. "An estimated 6,390,000 pregnancies ended in 2004, about 6 percent fewer than the 1990 peak (6,786,000). The 2004 total included 4.11 million live births, 1.22 million induced abortions, and 1.06 million fetal losses." (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_15.pdf)
"…the U.S. infant mortality rate… in 2000… was 6.89 infant deaths per 1,000 live births… the U.S. infant mortality rate did not decline significantly from 2000 to 2005…" (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf)
So, in 2004, 1.06 million miscarriages, ~24,000 infant deaths. And yet, funerals for miscarriages are nearly unheard of, instead of around 40 times more common as the numbers would suggest. Assuming that one's stance on abortion does not affect one's likelihood to miscarry by two orders of magnitude, then it follows that there would have to be thousands of people who oppose abortion, have miscarried, not held a funeral in that case, and also have lost an infant but held a funeral.
That's what's called an "existence proof"; you don't have to find a specific example to show that there must exist instances.
I didn't say there were people who "hypocritically mourn their born dead children and not their miscarried ones". I pointed out that they mourn them differently, not that they don't mourn at all.
Nor did I claim that 'pro-lifers in general are hypocrites'. I do think that some versions of that position are inconsistent, but that's not the same as hypocrisy.
Oh, and I didn't say that there's "inconsistency in philosophy in believing that people who haven't been born yet are human". I think that it's incorrect, at least before the first month, but that's not the same as being inconsistent.
Where, exactly, did you point out that people mourn them differently? The answer is, you didn't. Your position is a moving target that morphs and shifts to make sure you are never pinned down. You split hairs on words, you dance and shuck and jive, but you never, ever, are wrong.
The statistical probability of the existence of something was not your criteria until now (where "…an actual example of the thing has not been found"). You asserted that there is a disconnect. I asked you to prove it by producing an example (one will do). You dodge the issue, as is your pattern, by attempting to obfuscate.
Implicit in your statements about pro-life people who have both had a miscarriage and had a post born child die is that they are hypocrites by not fulfilling your expectations in how they mourn. You made statements with full assurance that there are people who behave this way. You are certain that pro-lifers don't live what they preach. Your intent is to obtain self-assurance that your beliefs are right because of the inconsistencies of those with whom you disagree.
You create a scenario out of thin air, use it to draw conclusions about people, and then retreat to a quasi-intellectual statistical proof that says nothing about anything.
But we are talking about real people and real life. My wife's miscarriage was real. Her grief was real. HER CHILD DIED, and she had to watch its lifeless form being born. He was real. My son is dead. Dead.
I wish I could have comforted her in some meaningful way. Lucky for her I didn't insist that she do certain things in order to make sure that should a subsequent child die post-born that she would found to be intellectually consistent.
I've had it up to here with you. Go to h*ll.
Mountain Man, you ask, "Where, exactly, did you point out that people mourn them differently?".
Comment 17 above.
And no, I haven't said anything about 'pro-life people' being hypocrites – that's your word you're trying to put in my mouth. Hypocrisy requires a certain amount of consciousness about a contradiction, and I think there are many people (on all sides of the 'abortion issue') who haven't thought through the implications of their beliefs. One can be inconsistent without being hypocritical.
I'm sorry for your and your wife's loss, truly. No matter when it happens, it's a terrible thing. (My own wife came very close to losing our first and was on bed rest for months.) You are apparently perceiving what I'm saying as an attack, which is not the case. I'm attempting to have an intellectual discussion on "Intellectual Conservative", but if you're unwilling to do so, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.
"I'm attempting to have an intellectual discussion…" That is as dishonest of a statement as I have seen from you. Dodging, misdirection, changing definitions… all that is intellectual? And of course, I am not being intellectual enough for you.
In post 17 you did not say that people mourn differently, you said, "…then I'd have to call her actions inconsistent, though." "Differently" is a magnanimous term, while "inconsistent" is perjorative. Once again you dance around, trying to be a moving target.
Your whole implication is that pro-lifers are hypocrites. Otherwise you wouldn't have written things like, "If people say they believe something, but don't act like they believe it… you have to wonder if they actually believe what they say." That is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
It is clear who is lacking intellectual consistency here.
Mountain Man, I specifically said that "I have to agree with Mr. Kerwick on that point." And "that point" was that many people who profess to oppose abortion on moral grounds display, as he put it, "a profound lack of either clarity or honesty".
I haven't impugned the honesty of either your wife or yourself… nor would I expect you or your wife to display a lot of clarity upon suffering a miscarriage. If you want to take what I wrote as "perjorative" no power on Earth can stop you, but that wasn't my intent. And if you actually read what I wrote, I think you'll come to that conclusion.
Why would anyone have a problem with a miscarriage? It's just a blob of tissue. Anyone who objects to abortion but doesn't have a funeral for a miscarriage is either suffering from a lack of clarity or is dishonest. Apparently for me and my wife, it is lack of clarity, eh? And it's profound, not just your garden variety lack of clarity.
Oh, wait. Those are Mr. Kerwick's words, but it seems you agree with them. But your actual words, which I quoted in #30, carry the meaning of "hypocrite." But they don't, you say, even though your complaint is about inconsistency regarding a large group of people you claim statistically exist. Sure, I got it now.
Well, you can pawn it off on Mr. Kerwick, but I will continue to hold you accountable for your words. And your words morph over time when challenged. They don't mean what they mean. One gets jarred when one goes back to your original comments after experiencing your parsing of them in later posts.
And, of course, it is you that is having the intellectual discussion. I, on the other hand, profoundly lack clarity.
You know, after having previous discussions with you ending up the same way, maybe I am lacking clarity. Why would I engage you yet again and tolerate your continued bob-and-weave? It's like seeing a familar shape of a car, but it is covered with mud and no longer recognizable.
I guess I'm just not intellectual enough.
Mountain Man – As I said before, 'hypocrisy' is conscious inconsistency. "One can be inconsistent without being hypocritical." Even Kerwick above uses the phrase "hypocritical or inconsistent" (emphasis added). If I'd meant 'hypocrisy', I'd have used the word.
And here's where you miss the point so completely that I have to suspect malice: "Why would anyone have a problem with a miscarriage? It's just a blob of tissue." If people say they don't believe that, if they say that a zygote is a full human being, but then don't treat them that way… yeah, that's "hypocritical or inconsistent".
…"'hypocrisy' is conscious inconsistency…" Where exactly did you say that?
"…I have to suspect malice…" Precisely my point about you in my comment 32, something you completely avoid in your response.
My comment about the blob of tissue is directed towards you. In case you didn't get the point, you have made this big to-do about inconsistency and how you expect people to grieve, as if there is something profound that you are taking a stand on. If it is a blob of tissue, then why do you care?
Whether or not you intended to use the word hypocrisy matters very little. You wrote what you wrote, it was, clear, and you have spent a dozen posts trying to obscure what you plainly wrote.
People can grieve exactly the hell they want. What you think about it matters less and less to me the more you throw dust up in the air.
Jeez, if you could only have an honest exchange once in a while.
Mountain man – In comment 27 I said "Hypocrisy requires a certain amount of consciousness about a contradiction" – if you don't think that means "'hypocrisy' is conscious inconsistency…" then I have to ask what you do think that means.
You ask, "If it is a blob of tissue, then why do you care?" Because I do think that before the brain forms, an embryo can't be a human being… but people who disagree are trying to mandate that everyone treat them as such, whether or not they agree. Yet they don't seem to think through what that implies, or behave accordingly.
Pointing out this inconsistency is a way of getting people to actually think about what they actually believe and why. The fact that you have to work so hard to regard it as a vile aspersion on your character or whatever makes me suspect you don't want to do that.
I get accused of dishonesty around here a lot, but it's not the case. So far as I can tell, the fact that I'm not a cartoon liberal (not really a 'liberal' at all, though not a 'conservative' either) confuses people here. I take different positions, and justify my positions with different arguments. But since I'm "not conservative", I must therefore be "liberal", right? I mean, there's no other option… is there?
Merriam Webster:
Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
I.e., there is no requirement of any amount of conscious inconsistency in order to be a hypocrite.
"…before the brain forms, an embryo can't be a human being…" Genetically speaking, what exactly is it? If it is genetically human, then killing it is murder, and forbidding murder has little to do with the nefarious mandating of anything.
Maybe you should think through what THAT implies (i.e., the vote of judges determines the humanity or value of undesireables).
"…vile aspersion on your character…" show me where I wrote that.
"I get accused of dishonesty around here a lot." Maybe it's time to stop and consider why, since I did not accuse you of being a liberal in this thread.
Mountain Man – If you want to play "dictionary", we can just run a quick Google search on "define hypocrite". The top hit from Princeton's WordNet is "a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives." Next hit, the Free Online Dictionary, "a person who pretends to be what he or she is not". Wikipedia: "Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy typically comes from a desire to mask actual motives or feelings, or from a person's inability to conform to standards they espouse." Dictionary.com: "a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs." Note the common thread of pretense – i.e. deliberate concealment.
My understanding is hardly obscure. If you honestly misunderstood, my clarification of which sense I've understood the term – which you suggested and I explicitly averred – should settle it. If you still want to call it hypocritical based on your understanding, then fine – but by that very definition it's no more perjorative than the term 'inconsistent'.
(As to your questions regarding what a fetus is, see the second link all the back in comment 21. You know, where I said "If anyone wants to see where I did "look for the point where below that, no real case can be made that it’s a developing human life" – and reached a different conclusion than Dr. Jackson… see here." Short version: if it doesn't possess a brain, then it's human tissue, not a human being. If killing it is murder then so is exfoliating. Once a brain has formed, it's hit at least the minimum possible point where a thinking being could be present.)
As to "vile aspersion on your character", I didn't say you wrote that phrase. I didn't put quotes around it or anything. I was characterizing how you apparently received what I wrote. Calling it "perjorative" and telling me to "Go to h*ll" seems to bear that out.
More of the same. And you still don't know why people have been calling you dishonest. Sad and pointless.