Thursday, January 22, 2009

More Terrorism

To commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, some nutjob decided to drive his SUV into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.
When [spokesperson] Di Nicola arrived at the clinic, she said the man had gotten out of the SUV and was pacing around it, holding a crucifix and chanting. "He was agitated and he was saying, 'shut down this Auschwitz,' " she said.
I can't say I'm surprised. Bob Dutko and his ilk are won't stop repeating that "abortion is murder" and that it must be eradicated. If I believed murders were actually occurring in a building, I might try to stop them, too.

However, abortion is not murder, no matter how many times Bob and his ilk say it is. Luckily, no one was hurt in this instance of domestic terrorism.

5 comments:

djtyg said...

Good catch, Jeff.

There was also a woman who had her house burned down because she was known to be supporting Obama.

You'd think as much as the right-wingers say they hate terrorism, there'd be a lot less of them committing acts of terrorism.

The Mule said...

Bob is a member of the compulsory pregnancy brigade. Kind of a Christian version of the Taliban. I'm surprised that it's okay with him that women work, get educated, and not wear a head covering in church. Then again, maybe he's not?

One thing I wish the compulsory pregnancy crowd would do is study the numbers. Apparently abortion was DOWN under the Clinton regime and up under the Bush regime, which tells me that when things are better (and things were better under Clinton sorry wingers, W is going down in history as an unparalleled disaster) people are more inclined to have children. But my favorite thing to tell people who are opposed to things like abortion or same-sex marriage: If you're against it, don't have it/do it.

IliveBcauseofJC said...

Hey Jeff,

I read most of the "abortion is not murder" link and I have to say I disagree with Robert P. Tucker's reasoning as he states, "an early-term abortion does not constitute "murder."". The crux of his argument seems to be based on this statement he made,
"Because "personhood" is an epiphenomenon of the human brain, it should be clear that if there is no fully functional brain, then there is no personhood". I think that he rather stiputively defines this and I also disagree. I don't think that a person's personhood should be based on if their brain is "fully functional" or not. Not only is this definition of personhood made up without a given basis but it also seems very unfitting to me. For example if someone was temporarily is a state of amnesia, craziness, or something that would cause a brain to not be "fully functional" (I think he should have defined this term more) for any period of time, it is not right to label them as not a person. So why is it right to do so to a baby that would certainly overcome this state of having a brain that is not "fully functional", even without any medical assistance?

Jeff said...

Ilive,

Granted, the essay by Dr. Tucker is probably not the clearest with respect to what constitutes a "fully functional" brain. However, he does go on and state that "the prevailing medical opinion is that, at least as far as the first trimester goes, there simply is not yet sufficient maturation of the developing brain and nervous system to give the fetus any real ability to achieve consciousness or self-awareness."

"Consciousness or self-awareness" seems like a pretty good standard to me for what constitutes a person. Clearly, an amnesiac or a insane person is still conscious and self-aware. Of course, Teri Schiavo was clearly not conscious or self-aware, which was why the State of Florida (eventually) permitted her husband to honor her wishes by removing the feeding tube that was keeping her alive.

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, don't you have a moral obligation to stop it? If a guy said to me, "I'm going to go and shoot up a McDonalds," and I honestly believed he was going to do this, I would surely find some way to stop him!

IliveBcauseofJC said...

Jeff,

""Consciousness or self-awareness" seems like a pretty good standard to me for what constitutes a person". First of all I will mention that this standard is subjective meaning it doesn't really have a basis other than it's something someone came up with that isn't necessarily the truth. But based on this standard if someone was asleep and not thinking enough to be considered self aware this would mean that they were temporarilly (even if just for a brief second) not a person and also meaning that if you killed them during this time period it would not be murder because they were not conscious or self aware and therefore they were not a person. Or, though I won't get into the Terry Shivo case, consider if someone like her was only very temporarily in that state. They would get better in a matter of months. Would it be fine to kill them anyways because during that state they are apparently not considered a person? If you don't think you should kill them then why use a different standard on an unborn baby who will naturally 'get better' over a matter of months?

"If you truly believe that abortion is murder, don't you have a moral obligation to stop it?"
Yes. Which is also why I disagree with The Mule when he says, "But my favorite thing to tell people who are opposed to things like abortion or same-sex marriage: If you're against it, don't have it/do it" (implying that that's ALL you should do). There are a lot of people who are really against abortion and if others will listen hopefully abortion will be stopped.