So says AP (yet another hat tip to AmP with coverage here).
It’s a gutsy move, I’ll give him that. If nothing else, it’s going to generate a lot more discussion and media attention today than if he had gone with Romney, say. For shifting the topic of discussion from the DNC convention and Obama’s coronation, it’s a bold move.
A big asterisk, of course, would be her experience — a one-term governor of a state (Alaska) with a population of under a million. Still, I suspect that experience may not be the number one issue the Dems are going to want to talk about this election…
On a side note, gov.state.ak.us just got really slow…
Wanna learn more about Sarah Palin? Try Wikipedia (but beware of potential breaking-news Wiki-vandalism) — and the Draft Sarah Palin for VP blog.
More eventually.
It’s time we had a cute vice president.
I don’t know much about Palin, but I guess we’re all a fixin’ to find out.
It’s time we had a cute vice president.
What? You don’t think Dick Cheney is cute?
Tim J – what I’ve learned in the last half hour sounds really intriguing.
5 Kids… Pro-lifer… Is she Catholic?
Evangelical, I believe.
One of her kids has Down syndrome.
5 kids, AND the fifth one has Down’s. She knew, and she still had him.
You go, girl!
She sounds great!
Catholic Deacon, doubt she’s Catholic given her kids’ names, but she still sounds like a great VP pick.
It’s time we had a cute vice president.
What? You don’t think Dick Cheney is cute?
Well, Gore was kind of blandly cute in a pencil-pushing-dweeb kind of way back in ’92, before he went all Mountain Man…
Some comments from another forum I hang out in…
I’m thinking a Palin-Biden debate would harken back to the Kennedy-Nixon contrast. And from what little I know about her, I’m betting she could hold her own against him.
The only big negative is her relatively low experience level – but she’s got some very comparable experience to Obama, and he’s gunning for the top job. She’s only running for next-in-line. Big difference.
Her lack of experience is actually a plus, because she’s in a position where she can get the best kind of on-the-job experience.
As JA says, the dems aren’t going to want to bring up the lack of experience; that argument goes directly against them.
The best part about this pick is it completely blindsided the other side. They’re going to be scrambling around this for weeks.
Palin is pro-life, young (three years younger than Obama), a crusader (exposed corruption, from a republican no less, on her previous job with an energy commission), and has a lot of little pluses — female, “soccer” mom (called hockey moms in Alaska!), wants to drill in ANWR, she even runs marathons for gosh sakes.
She’s like the Good Hillary.
This race just got exciting. McCain made the announcement in Ohio – sure to be a battleground state if ever there were one, this fall.
The Chicken
Not JA. SDG.
If nothing else, it’s going to generate a lot more discussion and media attention today
NPR, at lunch today, almost sounded disappointed tha they had to take time away from covering Obama
This is a good summary of her pros and cons:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/29/what-palin-does-for-mccain-and-to-obama/
Remember, she has lived the choice issue herself; she has a Downs baby. She also has more EXECUTIVE experience than anyone else in the race.
Hey SDG,
Given your previous posting (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2008/08/why-mccain-may.html), I expect the check to be sent off to McCain/Palin momentarily 🙂
Regarding experience, she has 10 years experience in executive positions, while BHO has 10 years legislative experience. None of the candidates except her have executive experience.
I’ve got to say that I’m amazed at McCain’s adroitness recently. I’m not a big fan of his, expected the VP pick to be a yawn. I actually am rather thrilled. I wonder how many disaffected Hillary voters may really choose McCain/Palin because of the female VP possibilities. Unfortunately may will be put off by a pro-life woman. It shreds their script.
I just hope there’s not some heavy shoe waiting to drop about her.
As a Michigander, I was thinking Romney would be a smart choice, because he’d be able to deliver Michigan to McCain. But the more I’m finding out about Palin, the more I like her and the more I think she’s a smart choice.
She’s a member of Feminists for Life, which I think will allow her to, maybe, make the pro-life case about more than just religion. She has additional credibility here because she did not terminate her child with Down’s. She has credibility on the war because her son is over there. She’s a maverick like McCain because she exposed corruption in her own party. I think it’ll be hard for the Dems to say much bad about her.
All in all, this is, IMHO, a smart choice.
One other reflection.
Isn’t it sad that, at the VP debate, we’ll have a “Catholic” pro-abort debating a pro-life evangelical? How sad that many of our culturally Catholic politicians have such weak moral fiber. I wish the bishops had exploited some teaching moments a few years ago.
Wow. I like what I’ve read so far. Still not sure I can bring myself to vote for McCain, but it’s seeming a bit less unpalatable.
As of 12:53 pm Friday, the governor’s website is broken.
It’s been broken ever since I posted, apparently. That’s what happens when your profile jumps an order of magnitude beyond the capacity of your bandwidth.
…um, not of course meaning to imply that it was traffic from JA.o specifically that crashed the site… 😀
I’ve read several news articles saying she’s Catholic. Great choice for VP. McCain isn’t perfect, neither is she but they’ll definitely have my vote.
A big asterisk, of course, would be her experience
Well, as Kasia said, there is a difference between The CEO spot and, to paraphrase John Nance Garner, a bucket of warm spit. 🙂
I wanted to turn sommersaults listening to her speech. Her youngest is the best statement about pro-life; her oldest knocks out the liberals’ kneejerk comments about the war. And a dynamic speaker to boot.
One thought occurred to me that goodness is met with resistance, so they will need prayer support also.
Best info is she’s a non-denom Evangelical.
The “splat” you just heard was Obama’s post-convention bounce hitting the ground.
The Hillary followers were already holding McCain signs in Denver. Hmm. One heartbeat from the presidency, and better by far (so far as we know)than the other three front-runners.
The big danger now is voter fraud – ACORN is already at work creating tens of thousands of bogus registrations – and the likely riots (by Obamans of -any- race) if Obama loses.
Anchorage Daily News website has lots of info:
http://www.adn.com
The above quote regarding the office of Vice Presidency attributed to John Nance Garner should read “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”
‘This quote was Bowdlerized for many decades to “not worth a bucket of warm spit” by the media. The incorrect version is still used on occasion by writers who say they never heard or read it any other way. Garner once described a writer who quoted it this way as a “pantywaist.”‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner#Vice_Presidency
Al Stakhanov,
I know the correct quote. I paraphrased it, as I said. P### isn’t a word I wanted to use on a Catholic blog, if ever.
Someone reports Rush Limbaugh’s reaction: “Sarah Palin. Babies. Guns. Jesus. Hot damn.”
SDG,
LOL! (my thoughts exactly)
Her experience as a mayor and governor far exceeds that of Obama’s 143 days in senate. And Obama is supposed to be the top of the D ticket.
Heh. Your thoughts, maybe, but not words you would ever have quoted on a Catholic blog, apparently… :-7
This was a truly inspired choice – much more exciting than Romney.
Statement from the Obama camp:
Okay, I find this truly baffling.
“John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.” Uh huh. In other words, foreign-policy-experience wise, if President McCain dies and Palin winds up in the Oval Office, that would be… just like Obama winning the election and not dying, right?
Then there’s executive experience. Remind me how many people lived in the town Obama was mayor of. Or Biden, for that matter. What’s what “former mayor of,” anyway? She’s a governor, right? Granted, of a state with a smaller population than many cities, but at least she has executive experience — more, as people are saying, than Obama, Biden and McCain combined.
“Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.” So… McCain and Palin want to… change the 35-year status quo on Roe, while Obama and Biden want it to… stay the same… so remind me again, which side is for change and which is more of the same? Because I’m losing track.
I’m not sure Palin can be tarred with the Big Oil brush, but at that point I’m beyond my pay grade.
Does Sarah Palin remind anyone else a little of Laura Roslin? To look at her, I mean, not policy-wise. Just wondering. I miss BSG!
Her husband works for an oil company and is a member of a steel-workers union.
She told Washington: “we don’t need a bridge to nowhere (apparently she battled Ted Stevens on this); thanks but no thanks, but if Alaska needs a bridge, we’ll build it ourselves.”
Plus she hunts moose.
Me likes her.
Palin = Roslin?!? But… but we already know that McCain = Tigh!
What if Roslin turns out to be the final Cylon??! Then we’d have an all-Cylon GOP ticket!
I recently saw (today)a interview on C-span that was taped on 2-28-08 and when Sarah Palin was asked about her family there she replied that she had 4 children with no mention about her pregnancy or reference to a new addition.
If she is pro life then why would she not mention this when specifically asked. I wonder about this.
HJ,
It might have been edited out of the interview. That is the most likely explanation.
AP headline: Palin’s age, inexperience rival Obama’s
😀
HJ: It can’t mean much; she had the baby in April. By late February, a fifth pregnancy that far along is just about impossible to physically hide. Besides, if there was a chance at all that she was hiding it, it could be because it was such a high-risk pregnancy that she might have been told that the child might not live. But I wouldn’t read anything negative into that at all.
“If she is pro life then why would she not mention this when specifically asked. I wonder about this.”
Really? What do you wonder about it? How in the world does it have anything to do with her being pro-life?
Hello HJ,
My wife and I had 5 kids and my wife never liked to make broadcasts about the one on the way. It seemed presumptuous to her. You never know what might happen. We always shook our heads at couples who would announce way early; seemed rather unseemly to us. So Palin’s reticence is understandable to me.
I have seven kids, and, even though my wife has never had a miscarriage (so far as we are aware), she also doesn’t like to broadcast early. In the case of Palin’s most recent child, she might have known that there could be problems, and so her not talking publicly about the pregnancy is completely understandable, at least to me.
I’ve liked the concept of Obama (“post-racial”, etc.). The reality, less so (OK with infanticide, etc.). Palin sounds excellent. My previous hope was that Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer & Stevens would all perish together in a hot-tub accident, and that Bush could ram through replacements a’la Janice Rogers Brown. With SCOTUS secured, I’d have been free to vote for the non-war candidate (Obama). With the election nearing and the utter dearth of hot-tub accidents, my voting for Obama had already become less likely. McCain/Palin is looking a lot better than any ticket with Joe Biden on it.
“…that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.”
The change we need, meaning “Progress,” by which definition, every possible Republican vice president (and president) would be to some degree inadequate.
Anyone else ever get the feeling that there’s an undercurrent of “Not now, GOP; the adults are trying to have a conversation?”
It’s probably not just them, but I just happened to imagine noticing it.
Hot damn
The VICE president.
Blonde on one arm, brunette on the other.
I used google to get most of the information off of the state site and put it up on mine:
http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin.html
Personally, I find the idea of a woman who recently gave birth to a special needs child being VP a litle strange. (I don’t believe that women should be permitted to vote or hold office in any event.)
That being said, she seems by far the most likeable of the four on the ticket and a very genuine person. She will make a nice contrast to the gas bag Joe Biden.
“(I don’t believe that women should be permitted to vote or hold office in any event.)”
WHAT???????
Wikipedia now lists her religions as “Assemblies of God.”
From what little I’ve seen, it looks like some of the MSM is spinning this as a tu quoque argument. From Newsweek:
Happy birthday, Johnny Mac! You’re 72 now, a cancer survivor, and a presidential candidate who has said on many occasions that the most important criteria for picking a vice president is whether he or she could immediately step in if something happened to the president. Your campaign against Barack Obama is based on the simple idea that he is unready to be president. So you’ve picked a running mate who a year and a half ago was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 8,500 people. You’ve selected a potential leader of the free world who knows little or nothing about the major issues of the day beyond energy. Oh, and she’s being probed in her state for lying and abuse of power.
In other words, they don’t see it as Obama being underqualified, but only Palin and complain that McCain’s choice of someone with little international experience is hypocritical. The MSM seems to be looking through a one-way mirror.
Let’s not kid ourselves, the bias in the media, even at this early stage, seems to me to be almost palpable. Hillary Clinton will set the tone for what her supporters to do. I do not expect much of a draw from former Hillarians.
The Chicken
“I don’t believe that women should be permitted to vote or hold office in any event”
WTF!!!! You can’t just make a statement like that and leave it like that!
Best quip I’ve seen so far? That Hillary is going out and gettin’ drunk tonite. 🙂
As I recall, the Catholic Church was fighting against giving women the right to vote in Quebec into the 60s.
I’m just trying to think with the mind of the Church here.
Personally, I think voting and office-holding should be restricted to men who own property and believe in the Trinity.
Your thoughts, maybe, but not words you would ever have quoted on a Catholic blog, apparently… :-7
:-1
“P***” is a vulgar word, coming from the vulgar Latin, pissiāre. In modern times it is considered ‘vulgar.’
OTOH, “Hot Damn” is considered ‘slang,’ coming from the words ‘hot,’ which refers to temperature or feeling, and ‘Damn,’ which refers to a hot place. ;-D
I apologize to Al Stakhanov and anyone else if my post seemed like the response of a priggish and judgmental jerk , as that was not my intention.
Personally, I find the idea of a woman who recently gave birth to a special needs child being VP a litle strange. L
What part? The idea of a woman, the idea of a women giving birth to a child, or the idea of giving birth to a special needs child?
Best info is she’s a non-denom Evangelical.
From an interview with her two weeks ago…
What’s your religion?
Christian.
Any particular…?
No. Bible-believing Christian.
What church do you attend?
A non-denominational Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.
I’m just trying to think with the mind of the Church here.
If you thought with the mind of (allegedly pro-woman) Fr. Thomas Reese: “Deep down the Vatican’s position is that it would hope that the husband earned enough so that women could stay home and take care of the kids.”
But according to Palin, “With Todd’s slope work, he works 700 miles away from home. And the commercial fishing. And I’ve got a busy schedule.
“But also my immediate family and my extended family, for the most part, are Alaskans, they’re here, helping with a network, a support system. I got a couple of aunts outside in Washington state too who are very, very helpful to me. So logistically speaking it’s not impossible what I’m doing. I’ve got great assistance.”
I don’t understand this obsession with “experience.” George Washington didn’t have any experience when he took the post, and we actually have rules (term limits) that prevent the people with the most experience from holding onto the job for too long.
I’d rather my president had principles, backbone, and a human heart than experience.
SB– I support experience, because it gives you a chance to know what the person can do.
This gal has been a major, a manager, a leader of majors, a governor who actually got a LOT of stuff done….
Washington had experience leading folks; nobody was making BS arguments about “national experience”– they were looking at who was a good leader.
Jimmy, one way to avoid sending people to a vandalized page is to use Wikipedia’s history function. Click on the history tab and then select the latest version (the one at the top of the list). Then after checking for vandalism, paste that URL instead of the normal URL for the article, and that ensures that they’ll see the version of the article you were referring to.
Like so: Sarah Palin (revision as of 05:42 GMT, 30 August 2008
Sarah is not Catholic.
She is 100% pro-life.
Her kids’ names are Alaskan names (Bristol for Bristol Bay, AK, ie, salmon runs; Piper for the airplane which everyone has to fly to get around here; Willow for the town, AK).
Her child was the mascot for AKRTL’s site for a long time.
She is down to earth and the real deal. My husband and I worked on her Alaskan campaign.
I worked the polls the day she was elected in AK and Dems/Indeps/Non-voters voted for her. She has appeal.
The libs absolutely hate her,
see the following:
http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/fendrich/mccains-misogyny
jt82, you’re correct. The libs and Dems are absolutely foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth because they KNOW Palin is a good pick and will give them real trouble.
If you joined me and the six other people who caught a few minutes of Keith Olberman last night, you’ll know what I’m talking about.
They were in full-on denial, trying to make it sound like McCain had made an obvious blunder and that common folk would be shocked – shocked! – that he made such an inept choice.
Meanwhile, everyone but indentured Democratic servants and entrenched left-wing bomb-throwers really like Palin and think McCain made a gutsy and smart choice.
Why Should We Vote for this New McCain/Palin Team?
LINK:
Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback Democrats warn women that high court — and abortion rights — is at stake
DENVER – The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision nationalizing a woman’s right to get an abortion was a top-of-mind issue for top Democrats.
Voters, beware, the Democrats’ message seemed to be: Palin is not in favor of abortion rights.
The Democrats seemed to be concerned that some voters might be under the misapprehension that Palin was a pro-choice woman — or that because she is a woman, it might help McCain get the votes of pro-choice women.
The message echoed and re-echoed:
“Gov. Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.
“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.
“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.
“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women’s rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.
If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.
Why Should We Vote for this New McCain/Palin Team?
LINK:
Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback Democrats warn women that high court — and abortion rights — is at stake
DENVER – The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision nationalizing a woman’s right to get an abortion was a top-of-mind issue for top Democrats.
Voters, beware, the Democrats’ message seemed to be: Palin is not in favor of abortion rights.
The Democrats seemed to be concerned that some voters might be under the misapprehension that Palin was a pro-choice woman — or that because she is a woman, it might help McCain get the votes of pro-choice women.
The message echoed and re-echoed:
“Gov. Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.
“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.
“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.
“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women’s rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.
If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.
Based on some inferences at the Dallas Morning News’s Religion Blog. From what I’ve seen, Palin disclaims a specific denominational label. Just because she sometimes attends an A/G church doesn’t make her A/G.
Are you sure? Cuz I think it’s just possible that Hillary not-so-secretly wants Obama to lose.
I think this is a great pick. McCain/Palin may be the most pro-life ticket the GOP has EVER fielded!
One story quotes her as being a member of the Wasilia Bible Church. The typical “Bible Church” is non-pentecostal from what I can tell.
http://wasillabible.org/
Jeb Protestant:
As I recall, the Catholic Church was fighting against giving women the right to vote in Quebec into the 60s.
Canadian nitpicking alert, It was actually in 1940 that Quebec gave women the vote in provincial elections. Quebec women had already had the vote in federal elections since 1918. True enough, the Catholic Church in Quebec was the staunch opponent of female suffrage, and put forth their position as late as 1940 as natural law and Rome’s view.
Well, if you know anything about Quebec, you know how horribly things have gone there for the Church. There was a lot of wonderful faith, charity and evangelization that came out of the Quebec Church, but clericalism really damaged the flock, and left it wide open for the attacks of the 60s and 70s on their faith.
Oh one more thing. Turns out Palin was baptized Catholic, but her parents fell away from the Church when she was a small child, and she’s been going to Non-Denominational churches ever since.
See Her Interview with Time.
There’s nothing to blame her for there, but it’s always sad to hear stories like that. I do hope that the Church as she’s encountered it in her adult pro-life work has been a good witness to her. Maybe one day she’ll discover what her parents left behind.
Jeb writes:
>Personally, I think voting and office-holding should be restricted to men who own property and believe in the Trinity.
I reply: WOW!!!!!!Jeb I had no idea you where such an extremist fruitcake! Take about Jawdrop!!!
I can’t wait to tell everyone this the next time you post some snarky Ad hominid attack on the Church. I doubt anyone will take you seriously when this gets around.
Ben Yachov, please keep things civil and drop the ad hominems.
That’s part of Da Rulz of Jimmy’s blog (check the left hand column).
Okay, Jeb’s view is an extreme position. That doesn’t make it wrong automatically, or Jeb a fruitcake – necessarily.
>Okay, Jeb’s view is an extreme position. That doesn’t make it wrong automatically, or Jeb a fruitcake – necessarily.
I reply: Yes it does. It absolutely does.
If you don’t want me to make fun of him fine but to claim he is not a fruitcake for such extremist views is an insult to my intelligence.
>Okay, Jeb’s view is an extreme position. That doesn’t make it wrong automatically, or Jeb a fruitcake – necessarily.
I reply: Yes it does. It absolutely does.
If you don’t want me to make fun of him fine but to claim he is not a fruitcake for such extremist views is an insult to my intelligence.
I have no idea why I’m double posting.
FWIW, I confess, as one who’s criticized BenYachov’s intemperance in the past and thinks BenYachov has a definite civility problem, that in this case I’m having a hard time finding the line between accurate characterization of Jeb’s position and language like “extremist fruitcake.”
Granted that even extremist fruitcakes should be treated charitably, I’m not sure BenYachov’s language in this case isn’t more or less within the pale. BenYachov had no call to be calling Tony Sidaway a sociopath — as unreasonable as Tony can be and has been in discussion — but calling Jeb a fruitcake, at least in this connection, isn’t anything like that egregious.
I confess, I’d rather see BenYachov not pounce with such triumphalist delight, savoring future debunkings of Jeb’s anti-Catholic polemics with “Oh yeah?” ad hominem. But we can’t enforce charity, only minimal civility.
Ben Yachov,
I’m not sure it was necessary to call him a fruitcake, but I’ll leave it to Jimmy to enforce Da Rulz, assuming they even apply here.
Jeb Protestant,
I’ll bite. What do you feel our society would have to gain by denying the vote to women, non-Christians, and non-landowners?
Tony Sidaway IS a sociopath as are all of PZ Myers’ followers without exception. (I would say the same about the followers of the “Rev” Phelps). This I truly believe. It is not said by me so much to insult but as far as I’m concerned it’s a statement of fact. You may disagree but my mind is made up.
The thing is from my long experience with Jeb & my limited experience with Tony that I have come to believe from interacting with them that neither is a person of good will(thought Tony is 1000 times worst than Jeb ever was let’s be clear). They are both disingenuous in the extreme. Well I am all for honest debate & disagreement but not with jerks or people who hold wacko views.
Granted Tony is far far far more out there then Jeb. I just want to put that on the table.
I will not treat a person who, for example thinks sex with children is normal, as a person with an honest opinion. I will rather express my utter contempt for such a sick view & point out it is in objective FACT a sick point of view.
The same goes for persons who believe it is moral to steal objects others value, but they do not, & think their victims have to prove to them the object in question is objectively valuable before they repudiate stealing it & call for the punishment of those who do. Such people are sociopaths since normal human beings realize you should not do this.
Of course Jeb’s view that only property owning male Trinitarians is wacko fruit-cakery. But to be clear it is not sociopathic. I’ll give him that.
>I confess, I’d rather see BenYachov not pounce with such triumphalist delight, savoring future debunkings of Jeb’s anti-Catholic polemics with “Oh yeah?” ad hominem. But we can’t enforce charity, only minimal civility.
I reply: I would rather you not feed sociopathic trolls who don’t have any clear objective or consistent moral code or granting them legitimacy by debating them endlessly. But you can’t have everything my friend.
You are a free agent do what you want. My mind is made up.
Ben, perhaps you missed what SDG wrote in another thread?
SDG wrote:
BenYachov, if you’re still reading, take note: You will remember that we’ve had words in the past about rudeness toward others. Uncivil discourse, including calling other posters things like “sociopaths,” can and will get posters banned. Please try to keep discussion civil, or better yet charitable.
Or perhaps not, judging from your penultimate sentence: “… do what you want.”
You seem to be bitter or angry. I hope you find something that relieves that (clearly in your particular case nothing you presently possess or appropriate is doing so) I would recommend something to you (it involves a kind of “club” or “bar” — need not serve any alcohol however nor even involve anything considered inherently sinful by Catholicism) but as it may contradict the moral beliefs as regards prudential action of our host, JA, I will refrain from doing so. Something I can recommend is movies. Perhaps rent the movie in which John McCain had a cameo: Wedding Crashers.
CT based on your posts I don’t regard you as a person of good will either. Just so we are clear.
Thought had you recommended I watch the BBC scifi comedy RED DWARF I might have rethought that view. But you blew it. Wedding Crashers? Why not recommend a Will Farrel movie while you are at it? Or better yet you could shoot me in the head.
“I will not treat a person who, for example thinks sex with children is normal, as a person with an honest opinion”
Granted. I also think that Jeb’s coming out and admitting that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or hold office does make me feel rather less concerned about his opinion of MY beliefs.
It’s just that a lot of people would consider me an extreme fruitcake because I have a Pope and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Tony, for instance.
Just to chime in on the Jeb question. I don’t know if he intended this or not, but his statement:
Personally, I think voting and office-holding should be restricted to men who own property and believe in the Trinity.
Should be recognized by everyone, here, as the conditions that reigned during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. I could be wrong, but one could read this as a cry of exasperation that people are allowed to vote who don’t even know the names of their senators or the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This would be a charitable assessment of what Jeb meant to express. Perhaps he really mean to be cynical, but I do not know. All I can determine is that James 1:19 surely isn’t being obeyed in this combox:
James 1:19 “But let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger.”
Personally, given the dumbing down of modern education, I am almost tempted to say that no one should be allowed to vote who can’t go without watching tv or the internet for a week. Maybe, if people took their time and had to really think through issues instead of getting their information in soundbites, this election would be much more clear-cut. A study was done a few years ago on how much political information people were able to pick up from various sources. If I recall, radio and newspapers were very close. TV was very far behind. I sincerely doubt that more than 20% of all voters will have read one speech by the candidates or studied any history of the issues before the election. Voters are deciding on, perhaps, the most important person on the planet in terms of responsibility for stability and they do so for such cavalier reasons.
People spend (or should spend) months or years getting to know the person they are going to marry. Shouldn’t they spend some time really getting to know the people and the issues in the election? We do not have an informed electorate in this country. I maintain that we haven’t had one in forty years.
I would not go so far as to say what Jeb said, but I certainly want people to quit watching the tv screen and really do what they should: deliberate.
If people can be so easily convinced that abortion, pre-marital sex, and contraception are good things instead of the moral evils they are, in what sense should I cede them the right to cast an intelligent vote. No, I do not believe that intelligent people can reach the conclusion that abortion is a good. I do not believe that intelligent people can come to the conclusion that the issue is about choice (whatever that is supposed to be) at all. Really, in my eyes, such people should be disqualified from voting. I actually don’t care that some people will disagree with me in this combox. I am not a relativist. When white becomes black and black becomes white, we’ve slipped into Orwell’s Newspeak and real communication becomes impossible. I just want a politician who says yes when he means yes and no when he means no. It makes judgments so much easier.
I’m sorry, but I am extremely cynical somedays when it comes to the common sense of the American people. If they can’t even muster the common sense to know right from wrong, how are they to make the far more subtle distinctions necessary to choose a president from the best of a bad lot?
Sorry for being so discouraged. Can someone give me a reason for hope? Yes, McCain and Palin are both pro-life, but how many people will they really persuade to change their minds on this issue, otherwise, this whole period from now to November simply becomes a referendum, not a learning experience.
Lincoln and Douglas not only debated, without scripts, on occasion, but they really sought to develop ideas, slowly, methodically. during those debates. Reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates should be mandatory for high school students during an election year. It would show the real poverty in the modern campaign process with scripted debates and smiles, smiles, smiles – this is nothing more than a play in a bright shiny theater. What I want to know is: who is the ticket master?
Sorry. I’ve had a sinus migraine all day. I’m grumpy, sneezy, sleepy, and dopey, all rolled into one. Somedays, I wish there had been a dwarf named moppy.
The Chicken
I have to say that McCain’s choice of Palin as a running mate almost makes me forget that two of his top ten favorite songs (according to Slate) are ABBA tunes.
Almost.
(Uugghhh… *shivers*)
“Isn’t it sad that, at the VP debate, we’ll have a ‘Catholic’ pro-abort debating a pro-life evangelical?”
Yes, it is sad, but in all charity, please remember that opposition to abortion is not exclusively a Catholic issue, and that Catholics do not necessarily have a monopoly on morality or right thinking. There are many Protestants who abhor the practice as well.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy has severely damaged its credibility in recent years through the pedophile priest scandal.
Sorry you’re sickly, Chicken, Try some… Masked Chicken soup.
BENYACHOV: Further accusations of sociopathy against other combox participants will result in your being disinvited to participate on the blog. Please keep it civil. Thank you.
>Granted. I also think that Jeb’s coming out and admitting that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or hold office does make me feel rather less concerned about his opinion of MY beliefs.
I reply: And the next time I see him post some snarky swipe at the late John Paul or the Church in general I will make good on my threat to out him further.
>It’s just that a lot of people would consider me an extreme fruitcake because I have a Pope and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
>Tony, for instance.
I reply: So if it’s valid for him to feel that way & express it why is it not valid for me?
BTW I’ve said it repeatedly to people like Tony & other PZ Myers fembots. I could care less what they think about my beliefs or say about it. But the moment they STEAL (or in Tony’s case justify/rationalize stealing) our sacred stuff & demand we have to prove to them it’s valuable before they respect it I will treat them the way a black man would treat a Klansmen.
They deserve neither respect nor intellectual legitimacy.
Now the Atheist Blogger I cited a while Back from the Daily Kos he gets it. He condemned Myers’ crimes unequivocally & called for Myers to be fired. That guy can’t stand the Catholic League or it’s President but at least he has common decency. Stop treating the likes of Tony & his ilk as if they are reasonable beings. They are not. They are indifferent to the rights of others & yet they jealously insist on their own right including the right to violate our rights as part of their so called freedom.
Excuse me if I find them that contemptible & say so.
Let me say something about sociopaths in general.
(as opposed to specific individuals whom the management doesn’t want identified as such since they are of the strong belief to do so is not civil. A view I don’t agree with at all for reasons stated but it’s their blog so I WON’T CALL said individuals what I truly believe they objectively are while in the management’s house. To do otherwise would be to violate the management’s sovereign rights to operate their blog they way they want too. Much like going into other people’s houses of worship & stealing their sacred objects against their will to desecrate them).
But that having been said.
What they don’t get with their “It’s OK for me to steal your sacred object that I find worthless & damage it at will till you prove to me it’s value” meme is let us say you could miraculously prove to them the doctrine of Transubstantiation? Well they might STILL believe it’s OK to steal objects others greatly value but they don’t & they proceed to steal the “Eucharists” of the Lutherans & other anti-Transubstantiation Protestants who believe in a version of the real presence.
So it’s futile to be “civil” with them.
I’m not sure why my views on voting and office-holding are considered extreme. They are consistent with what the Catholic Church taught for a long time, as well what was practiced in the US. For example, the Vatican was a strong supporter of Pres. Garcia Moreno’s creating a Catholic state in Ecuador whose government officials had to be Catholics. So I’m quite liberal here.
Restricting voting to Christians would probably have prevented the Europe’s and the US’s suicidal embrace of multiculturalism via mass immigration.
For those who like to call all those who are pro-choice “pro-abort” or “pro-abortion”
First I note that one Catholic here demurred in that regard and remarked that being pro-choice does not entail being pro-abortion.
Second, I ask this:
Suppose there were a pro-choice woman who much like Palin, when discovering that her child would face severe difficulties in life — in Palin’s case Down Syndrome — chose to not terminate the pregnancy?
As you praise Palin for her choice would you also praise this pro-choice woman for hers? Or is it somehow morally impermissible to praise the moral virtues of someone who is pro-choice, especially as it relates to their own personal pro-life decisions?
And what you call such a pro-choice woman “pro-abortion” or “pro-abort” even though she made this choice which in the case of Palin is described as “heroic” by some and is cause for being featured on Christian fundamentalist radio programs precisely to praise her authentic, heroic decision?
The fact is, many pro-choice persons are personally pro-life. They are simply not for imposing pro-life choices on other people.
And yes, women like the one in my example above are not mere hypothetical entities — many such women exist and yet according to Masked Chicken they are unable to “cast an intelligent vote” and according to all of you with exception noted, they are “pro-abortion.” There exist even pro-choice but personally pro-life women who choose to keep a baby that is the product of rape.
One cannot be pro-life in an anti-choice way while recognizing that these personally pro-life women heroines are reasonable in their pro-choice beliefs. Yet to say their beliefs are unreasonable, seems a little unreasonable itself. If their beliefs are reasonably held, if the issue of choice is something on which reasonable men can disagree, then that itself is (I won’t explicate this here) an argument for choice.
Speaking of which, if your young daughter were raped or if you yourself were raped, would it not the thought of abortion at least cross your mind? If so how can one condemn those who choose abortion to jail or death or those who perform it to jail or death or those who faciliate it to jail or death without also condemning your own thoughts? And if something like this can in some circumstances cross your mind, then is it not a reasonable course of action in some circumstances — or is your mind liable to ponder unreasonable courses of action? And if it is a reasonable — albeit on your view still immoral — course of action, then on what grounds is the reasonable yet immoral made unlawful?
There is no disruption to society when an abortion takes place. They take place all the time naturally in miscarriages — often ones that occur before anyone knows anyone is pregnant. These may in fact be the majority of the abortions. Thus adding induced abortions shouldn’t disrupt society in any substantial way.
@Jeb
I don’t see your view as extreme relative to Christianity. On Christianity, your view is reasonable. However, that is just another reason to reject Christianity as both extreme and untrue.
My own position is also non-democratic. I would be open to proposals that limited voting rights to individuals who did not regard any text or person as — under whatever circumstances — in some way inherently inerrant beyond the inerrancy it would have in an ordinary text or ordinary person. That would not exclude Christians. Christians who look to the bible for spiritual wisdom would still be permitted to vote.
CT,
First of all, an abortion is a purposeful killing of an unborn child. A miscarriage is not. The end is that a child has died, but surely you can see the difference.
A man eating in a restaurant chokes on his food and dies. Another man is walking down the street and someone grabs him, pulls him into an alley, and cuts his throat and he dies.
You might not agree that the unborn child is a child, but surely you can see if that assumption is made there is a big difference. If not, I would be interested in seeing why you thought not. Saying, ‘It’s not wrong for God to kill an unborn child, so why is it for anyone else?’ is not a defense that will hold water. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t use it in the man walking down the street scenario…but I guess we will see.
BTW, I am sure every person here would praise the act of a woman who thinks that being pro-choice (pro-abortion / anti-life – it’s a choose your own label adventure) is the way to go, but still chooses to not abort her child.
Choosing a political candidate SOLELY on the issue of abortion is dangerous. In Nazi Germany, abortion was a criminal offense.
John, Don’t think anyone’s proposing to do that, but it’s worth noting that while abortion was a criminal offense for the average German, it was mandated for the less than perfect. (If there’d been a test for Down’s Syndrome then, Hitler’s Germany would have used abortion for Down’s babies. As it was, it just killed them after they were born.) So, even the mythical person who’d choose a candidate only on the issue of abortion wouldn’t have chosen Hitler.
No labels are 100 percent satisfactory. In general, I would advocate a system in which everyone is known by what they call themselves and by the values they identify with, thus we would speak of “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” However, many partisans on both sides, including the MSM, resist this, thus pro-lifers are almost invariably called “anti-abortion” in the media. Using “pro-abortion” is merely parity and self-defense.
Also, FWIW, the “pro-choice” position in practice isn’t always as “pro-choice” as advocates claim. Sometimes abortion is aggressively pushed as the only viable or right “choice.” Young women have been coerced, lied to and had their protestations and objections ignored. While this sort of thing may not be ubiquitous, I suspect it is more widespread than many would like to admit.
I’m sure similar things have happened on the other side which could give some warrant to the polemical term “anti-choice.” But then, the pro-life side never claimed “choice” as their top virtue, so in preferring life to choice, even in unethical ways, pro-lifers wouldn’t be as hypocritical as “pro-choicers” preferring abortion to choice.
Ultimately, abortion advocacy is not simply “pro-choice,” but part of what can rightly be called a culture of death, an anti-life ethic that includes euthanasia, contraception and general social downgrading of marriage and family. The population crash faced by Europe in particular, as well as the decline of marriage and family increasingly depriving children of the benefit of a home with a father and a mother, are among the consequences.
Absolutely. 100 percent. My hat is off to anyone of any persuasion who makes the right choice. If anything, I might give the pro-choice woman more credit than the pro-life woman with regard to the moral heroism of this particular act (though obviously not more credit in general).
FWIW, not long ago on PZ Myers’ blog I saluted an atheist who volunteered at Hospice. I believe that in the end atheism is incompatible with true morality, but atheists who are personally highly moral still have my personal esteem.
The big question for those who claim to be “personally opposed but” is “personally opposed to what?” What exactly is abortion that you should be personally opposed to it? Is it the taking of a human life, or not? Of course that’s a rhetorical question; there’s no question that abortion is the taking of a human life. The embryo or fetus in the womb is a member of the human family. So the only real question is, ought the state to recognize the rights of members of the human family to live, or the rights of others to kill them?
The thought of murder, yes (of the rapist). Of abortion, never. Adding an innocent baby’s blood to my daughter’s conscience for the rest of her life would never, ever occur to me as a way of “helping” her in such a crisis. Quite the opposite: I could never regard that as anything other than incalculably compounding her crisis, adding evil to evil, making her not just a victim of aggression but also an aggressor and victimizer of one weaker and more defenseless than herself.
What’s more, I’m pleased and proud to say that, knowing my 14-year-old daughter as I do, she would undoubtedly feel far more strongly than I would on this point.
Aside: red herring here. No one here is talking about “jail or death” for those who “choose” abortion, only for abortion providers.
That’s like saying that there is no disruption in society when a person dies — death takes place all the time naturally — thus adding induced deaths shouldn’t disrupt society in any substantial way.
And of course the culture of death already has disrupted society in substantial ways, as the decline of marriage and family and the underpopulation crisis illustrates.
This seems a bit garbled, but I think we know what you mean. How lucky for us that you’re almost as fringe as Jeb Protestant on this point.
Tony Sidaway, meet CT. CT, Tony.
Sorry for the length of this post but I fear that should I contract my quotations that others would accuse me as before of quoting out of context.
No one here is talking about “jail or death” for those who “choose” abortion, only for abortion providers.
So you admit to supporting “jail or death” for abortion providers. Is that merely the physician/surgeon who performs the abortion or also the nurses who participate in the procedure? What about others who facilitate with varying degrees of proximity to the abortion? What of the person who pays for the abortion (if you are right then wouldn’t that be comparable to hiring a hit man on behalf of someone else?). And on what grounds would you leave this crime of murder unpunished (as regards jail or death) while punishing other crimes of murder (with jail or death)? Now you say that you aren’t “talking” about jail or death for those who choose abortion — but what do you believe? Should those who choose abortion be punished in some cases with jail or death? It is, let’s face it, politically and socially unpalatable to advocate for punishing those who choose abortion. And while you may be reticent on this matter, there are Catholics who advocate jail or death for women who choose abortion (and if a woman pays for her own abortion, is that not conquerable on your views to a woman hiring a hit man to kill her own child?)
Even a Catholic anti-choice pro-lifer admits the disingenousness of the movement here:
I do not think we pro-lifers can honestly say that no women who has an illegal abortion will automatically be granted immunity from breaking the law. Some women will be legally punished, some will not. Some abortionists will be punished, some will not. Same with boyfriends, husbands, parents, nurses, doctors, school counselors, anyone who in involved in the crime. Some will face some type of punishment, and others will be granted immunity for various extenuating circumstances or if they “cop a deal” or whatever.
http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/02/01/90528/
BTW, in the Vatican, abortion is not permitted even to save the life of the mother. Thus, it seems to me, that Catholic anti-choice pro-lifers would likely be committed to not allowing an exception for the life of the mother. Even Palin, who is anti-choice with respect to victims of rape and incest, is pro-choice when it comes to the life of the mother. Let’s hope she doesn’t convert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_law&oldid=234668967
And it is not merely the commenter on catholicexchange, but Matt Abbott and James Fitzpatrick who both question the intellectual honesty of certain contrary positions:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070827
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/080130
Ms. Quindlen does point out a weakness in the right-to-life movement. Much like the debate among pro-lifers on the issue of contraception — which, incidentally, has become more prominent in recent times, thanks to the efforts of Father Tom Euteneuer, Joe Scheidler and Judie Brown — the debate about whether the abortion-seeking woman should be treated as a criminal is something many in the movement are seemingly not comfortable addressing.
Now, I realize that, at this point, it’s really not a relevant aspect of the pro-life position. Abortion remains legal, and, sadly, such will likely be the case for quite some time. Thus, we pro-lifers should be focused on helping women and children in need and on continuing to educate the public about the terrible reality of abortion. We can worry about the legal penalties for abortion if and when abortion is outlawed (although we do have a moral obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legalized abortion) (…)
Ms. Quindlen is correct in her assertion that if one believes abortion to be murder, one should advocate treating it as such in our legal system. If, however, one asserts that abortion is murder, and should be illegal, but the abortion-seeking woman shouldn’t be punished because she, like her unborn child, is a victim, well, I agree that said line of argument can be hypocritical.
So the first step of the anti-choice pro-life movement is to make abortion illegal (and here to as Steve Forbes strategized change the culture gradually as the law is changed gradually including by parental consent measures and late-term abortion bans) and then the next step (once anti-choice pro-lifers have political governance) is to ponder the penalities for those involved, including the women.
Now Matt Abbott in revisiting the issue where he reprints a column from JKF says ” I essentially agree with Mr. Fitzpatrick’s position”
Quindlen is on the mark. How can we hold to the position that only the abortionist should face criminal charges for the killing of the unborn child, and not the woman who contracted him to perform the killing? We wouldn’t let someone who hired an assassin escape punishment.[incidentally the Vatican newspaper has referred to abortion as “assasination”] The problem, of course, is that pro-lifers understand that if they call for jail time for women who undergo an abortion they will kill any chance for passing laws to outlaw abortions. They know how voters will respond to the prospect of women being handcuffed and frog-walked off to jail in punishment for their abortions.
The pro-abortion forces think they have us cornered. They contend that if we say we don’t want the women who have abortions punished, it must be because we intuit, despite our protestations to the contrary, that the fetus is not truly a child. But if we admit to that proposition, why forbid abortions? If, on the other hand, we insist upon calling for serious jail time for women who procure abortions, we know that we will alienate voters who oppose abortion on principle, but who do not want women, perhaps their own family members, going to prison because of their abortions.
And contra SDG — who knows perhaps it is true of SDG and perhaps even on for everyone on this blog as far as publically expressed “talking” goes — there are pro-lifers who support jail for women who procure abortion. JKF is one of them:
Am I saying that there should be serious punishment for some women who secure abortions? If we want to be logical and honest in responding to the point made by Anna Quindlen, the answer to that question has to be yes; for some women, in some cases. (Of course, after the law has been changed to state clearly that abortion is a crime. I am not calling for a repeal of the ex post facto laws.) The concepts of mitigating circumstances and diminished capacities come into play in determining the punishment for murder, rape, theft, perjury, embezzlement. There is no reason why they should not also come into play when considering a woman who has hired an abortionist.
We can draw lines those lines. Frightened teenagers who have bought into the abortionist’s propaganda about an unborn child being little more than a “clump of tissue” should be treated differently from a socialite who uses abortion as a backup form of birth control. But the lines must be drawn. The way to deal with Anna Quindlen’s smarmy maneuver in the culture wars is to answer it honestly. Not all women who procure abortions are victims, or guiltless. Yes, some deserve punishment. Not as much as an abortionist who has performed hundreds of abortions, but something serious.
There’s more in the links above. (BTW, there are a surprisingly number of intellectually honest pro-lifers, including Catholics, who support “Jail Time for Women Who Have Had Abortions” There are even a few who support death. These could be termed pro-death/anti-life anti-choice pro-life — being pro-life at the expense of both choice and life. Of course life is more than biological life. Anyone who advocates jail for women who have had abortions is in that respect anti-life.
>Anyone who advocates jail for women who have had abortions is in that respect anti-life.
Let’s see, explain to me how wanting babies to live and people who choose to kill babies to go to jail is “anti-life”? 50 million dead babies and counting, and people who want to stop that are “anti-life”? What kind of logic is that?
American Heritage has a couple definitions that may clear the matter up for you:
The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence
Human existence, relationships, or activity in general
WordNet has a couple also
2. the experience of being alive; the course of human events and activities; “he could no longer cope with the complexities of life”
3. the course of existence of an individual; the actions and events that occur in living; “he hoped for a new life in Australia”; “he wanted to live his own life without interference from others”
In any event what I meant was an existence characterized by spiritual/physical flourishing. Prison impairs life; capital punishment destroys it as for as the course of the pre-death life is concerned. In reference to plants, while depriving a flower of sunlight temporarily may not kill the flower, it will still impair its life: it will suck the life out of it. So life is not a binary thing where it either exists or does not exist without any sense of degree. Life is a continuum which according to Christianity reaches its highest form in the divine Trinitarian life.
BTW, even if it were established that abortion were the killing of a human person say after twinning or any other form of individuation is no longer possible — let’s mark that point as point X, I would still not support making it unlawful for cases after point X. I neglected to address something IIRC SDG raised or was it Tim … Non-induced abortions often occur without the knowledge of anyone, including the mother — they often happen without anyone, including the mother, realizing that she is pregnant. It seems perhaps you did not understand that point. And this point is also an argument against the position that a human person exists from fertilization since it is difficult to see why God (assuming for our purposes God’s existence) would allow all these “natural” abortions to take place without giving each soul a chance to live or the mother a chance to even realize she is pregnant (excluding reincarnation for our purposes). Anyway, why are all these non-induced abortions not a disruption to society? I speak primarily of the ones that not even the mother is aware of occuring. It is because, among other things, no one and in these cases not even the mother, knows that they have occurred. Well, now add the non-induced abortions colloquially described as “miscarriages” to the mix — the ones that the mother does know about. This disrupts peace in her and her family but the larger society is unaffected. Now let’s add induced abortions to the mix. Well, it is inconsistent for people to be grieved by these when they are not grieved by the “miscarriages” that strangers experience and they are not grieved by the countless more non-induced abortions that occur without even the mother realizing she had been pregnant. Further, if these induced abortions are done with privacy and statistics are no longer amassed regarding them and greater consistency is realized among members of society, then the disruption to society that these added induced abortions would produce would be very minimal. Peace in society is a good that cannot be subjugated wholesale to any other particular good, no matter how high that good is. Politics is an act of balancing and there is no good that is so great a good as to outweigh any possible incarnation of peace in society for the task of a politician who is as Palin rightly points out is to be a “servant” is to be a servant of society and in that service, to hold peace in society as if not the highest good, as one among the highest goods he is bound to serve. Perhaps churchmen are called to serve other higher goods in their work (assuming that the church has rights for our purposes); but, the secular kings, the politicians of our day, are not.
I don’t think I fully explicated my argument so let me add to the last paragraph (and let me add that it was Todd to whom I was responding)
The difference between this issue and the one you mentioned Todd is that in that case making it unlawful does not disrupt society; making abortion unlawful, does. Keeping your case lawful does disrupt society (for obvious reasons); making abortion lawful, doesn’t (as explained above). There is certainly the potential issue of justice, but justice as a value cannot for the civil leader be made paramount over peace in society.
@SDG on labels
The media sometimes calls you “anti-abortion rights” and those who are pro-choice as “pro-abortion rights” Sometimes it is true that it is abbreviated as “anti-abortion” but I take that to mean anti-abortion to the point of being against abortion rights. It is not “parity” as you claim to abbreviate the pro-choice side as “pro-abortion” for pro-abortion rights persons are not so because they are pro-abortion but for other reasons whereas anti-abortion rights persons are so precisely because they are so anti-abortion to the point of being anti-abortion rights.
Great choice! From what I have seen, she handles a gun a lot better than Cheney.
One more thing
My proposal, contra SDG, is not biased against religion in general nor targeted against any particular religion. Some religious adherents may be adversely affected just as some are adversely affected by laws against marijuana use even though their religion qua religion is not a target qua religious target of the laws. My proposal may also exclude non-religious persons from voting. It is religion-neutral. It is no more unfairly discriminatory against religion or any particular religion than are laws in some jurisdictions that require certain professions to report child abuse to authorities without providing for special exemptions for Catholic priests.
So, I reject that my proposal is similar to Jeb’s.
CT,
What I said was: “red herring here. No one here is talking about ‘jail or death’ for those who ‘choose’ abortion, only for abortion providers.”
This is not a global characterization of the entire pro-life movement, only a characterization of the discussion on this blog. My brief in this discussion has always been that a human life exists from conception on, and that the state’s obligation is to recognize the right of human beings to life, not the non-existent right of others to kill them. How the state can best address that is a separate question.
On that question I’m with Fr. Pavone, and I expect most of us here are. That doesn’t mean that the commenter is necessarily wrong. They aren’t addressing the same question. The question Fr. Pavone is addressing is: “When abortion becomes illegal again, are we going to start throwing all the women who have abortions into jail?” The question the commenter is addressing is: “Will any woman anywhere who gets an abortion ever face serious consequences?” One can answer no to the first question without necessarily answering no to the second.
You have drawn a false inference from the Wiki article’s statement about civil law in Vatican City. I don’t know whether or not the statement is correct — it may or may not be — but it is not true that where the mother’s life is in danger from, e.g., ectopic pregnancy, Catholic moral theology does not permit saving the mother’s life at the cost of the child’s. It does.
In my experience, the usual media terms are “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion.”
Your argument about disrupting society over justice would have been a big hit among anti-abolitionists.
Steve,
I realize my proposal is on the fringe by today’s standards, but are you saying it is radical by Catholic teaching?
Last I checked, the president and vice president of Argentina have to be Catholic. Has the Catholic church lobbied to change this requirement?
The Catechism would appear to violate historic Catholic teaching:
“Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”
-JProt
CT: You made the initial comparison of your view to Jeb’s — “My own position is also non-democratic.” My only observation was that your view was about as fringe as his.
To that I would add that your proposal seems highly likely to “disrupt society.” I could list further objections, but there’s no point. There are clear and present battles to be fought here and now without worrying about every fringe possibility over all possible horizons.
@SDG
You may be thinking of indirect abortion which may be permissible in some situations. However, the Vatican claims that direct abortion whether as an end or a means is impermissible even to save the life of the mother. There’s no “life” exception in EV as far as direct abortion is concerned and it is “direct abortion” which is usually meant when we speak of “abortion” just as it is “induced abortion” that is meant when we speak of “abortion” — setting aside the philosophical deficiencies with the deontological principle of double effect.
Catholic moral theology, contra SDG, does NOT permit direct abortion for the sake of saving the life of the mother; indirect abortion for the sake of saving the life of the mother may be permitted, but never direct. If you don’t believe me, check with your friend JA. (Maybe after I am proven correct on this technical, theoretical point, persons on this blog will not be so prejudicial against me as regards my knowledge of Catholic theology)
And your statement on Pavone’s somewhat rhetorical question: “When abortion becomes illegal again, are we going to start throwing all the women who have abortions into jail?” illustrates precisely my point and the point that is affirmed by some anti-choice pro-life Catholics. When Fr. answers that question in the negative though he may technically not have lied (just as JA acknowledged PP may not have technically lied depending on one’s definition of “lie) — and while he may not have even engaged in deception at all depending on his views of the matter — your explication of how his statement is consistent with the commenter (btw I mention not only the commenter but also a columnist for the Wanderer — which you praised at PZM’s blog — and CatholicExchange as well as Matt Abbott) unveils the sleight of pen that is going on. By answering the question in the negative, Fr. gives the impression that he is not for throwing any women who have abortions in jail. If you are honest surely you would realize that. You may not agree that one is responsible for such an impression even when that impression may be intended or foreseen … but in that case what of your criticism of PZM? This is all assuming as you have that Pavone’s position is consistent with the commenter’s.
JKF and MCA had arguably harsher words to say — using words like “intellectual dis/honesty” or “hypocrisy”
Perhaps you haven’t checked since 1994. I don’t believe this is the case today.
typo
“criticism of PZM”
should read
“criticism of PP”
Steve,
If so, would you have supported the change?
Was the Catholic Church wrong to support Garcia Moreno’s reforms?
I don’t see how the section I quoted from the Catechism is consistent with Catholic teaching.
“Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”
I don’t imagine this is strictly applied in Vatican City.
JProt
It’s not a ‘fundamental personal right’ to hold office.
CT, I assure you I have long been quite familiar with the state of Catholic moral theology on the subject, including the usual distinction between direct and indirect abortion, and have discussed it often with Jimmy.
While there is a lot more on this subject that warrants saying and exploring, the bottom line in the present discussion is that simply saying “it is ‘direct abortion’ which is usually meant when we speak of ‘abortion'” is mere misdirection when the question is “Can a mother with an ectopic pregnancy get an abortion to save her life?” The answer of Catholic moral theology is “Yes, she can,” even if a rider clarifying that the abortion must be indirect rather than direct would usually be added.
You’ve raised the issues of justice and peace in society. Outlawing abortion is required by justice. How to prosecute the crime of abortion is a question of both justice and peace in society. I think that all the commentators you’ve cited, from Fr. Pavone to JKF and Matt Abbott, recogize the potential negative implications for both justice and peace in society from efforts to prosecute and punish mothers who obtain abortions. Charges of “intellectual dis/honesty” or “hypocrisy” seem unhelpful and unnecessary in this context.
Clarification on The Wanderer: I praised one aspect of its journalistic history. I do not endorse the publication in general.
Jeb,
what constitutes “belief in the Trinity?”
Would someone who believes that the distinctions among the persons are real and not merely mental be someone who doesn’t “believe in the Trinity”? What of someone who believes in the trinity but not its timelessness and that one person preceded another in some form of time? And how are we to understand the “threeness” of the persons of the trinity? Is “threeness” to be understood in a logicist or neo-logicist sense? Is it to be understood in a nominalist sense? Do these ontological and metaphysical issues affect whether someone if you will really believes in the Trinity? Is there one set of beliefs, belief in every element thereof, constitutes belief in the Trinity or is there no such set (which would mean that belief in the Trinity would be expressed in terms of some disjunction (or its logical equivalent) … perhaps one which requires an infinitary language)
Jeb’s position is more reasonable on Christianity than any other here. For if Christianity is true, then Christians have access to a greater pool of data than non-Christians such as the bible or magisterial documents or what have you. So they would be capable of making better informed decisions. This is another inconsistency in many Christians. Unfortunately as consistent as Jeb is on this issue, he can’t help but being inconsistent on others — but that’s another topic.
CT,
I think we could easily come up with a definition that would be agreeable to Catholics, Orthodoxers and Prots and at the same time exclude Jews, Moslems and Masons.
-JProt
clarification: “can’t help but being” was a reference not to some defect in Jeb but a defect in Christianity; as I said that’s another topic, but I feel necessary to clarify for Jeb’s sake.
@Jeb
I will have to concede your point here. A theoretical definition that is rigorousness for any conceivable scenario may be infeasible but yes I concede a practical one would be feasible.
Insisting on jail time for those who have procured an abortion misses the point that the woman is often ALSO a victim, being that she is most often comparatively ignorant of the process and of embyonic biology. The abortion provider has no excuse for such ignorance. He/she is also not under pressure from others to perform the abortion, as – again – the women often are.
We should not jail the victims of abortion, including the women.
@SDG
I never mentioned ectopic pregnancies; you did as one example that was supposedly contrary to a “line of inference” that I had made.
“Outlawing abortion is required by justice. How to prosecute the crime of abortion is a question of both justice and peace in society.”
Outlawing something without prosecuting it (any of the actors involved in it) whatsoever raises the question of whether it is really in fact outlawed. If memory serves me there are Catholic legal thinkers who opine that a law that is unenforced (which here would be done through prosecution of the crime of abortion) is not a law that is binding. I don’t recall the full reasoning behind this so I will leave it there for now.
So if “how to prosecute the crime of abortion” is a question of both then it is hard to see why “whether to prosecute the crime of abortion” would also not be a question of both. And given what I noted above, it is hard then to see why whether to “outlaw abortion” in a binding way would not be a question of both.
BTW, you mentioned that pro-choice advocates were not all always pro-choice. This is not true. Perhaps you are referring to efforts to avoid requiring medical providers to make statements they may not agree with (such as that abortion involves terminating a member of the human species — a recent development) or perhaps you are referring to other like efforts. In some cases there may be a question of forcing people to utter things they do not believe to be true, which may then go against their conscience. In other cases there may be a question of requring medical providers to give certain biased information as opposed to information that each medical provider chooses based on their medical expertise and the current ever-evolving state of medical affairs. And in still other cases, even if the information is all true and even fair and balanced, it is wrong to require medical providers to provide it to women. The reason is that it may create confusion and turmoil in a difficult time. Let’s face the truth. The aim is to discourage as many women as possible from choosing abortion.
If a medical provider is required to say: “Some believe abortion is usually right others that it is neither right nor wrong; others that it is usually wrong; still others that it is always right; and still others that it is always wrong” (replace this kind of schema with any kind of data including scientific data on embryology, risks/benefits of abortion or what have you) then as true and fair and balanced as it may be, it is defiling women in some cases to say that when it may make the woman have to deal with additional feelings of guilt or increased stress or a sense of being a social outcast. So these pro-lifers are pro-life at the expense of choice; in some cases, also at the expense of life, whether as prison or death; and at the expense of compassion and kindness to women. It is anti-humanism in the name of the sanctity of human life.
John said,”Choosing a political candidate SOLELY on the issue of abortion is dangerous. In Nazi Germany, abortion was a criminal offense.”
Yeah — I can see how McCain and Palin are but Hitler & Mussolini in disguise whereas Obama, what with his sworn FOCA agenda and false promises for the Middle Class, is but only the Saviour of the People of not only the United States but of the World with his Voice in the Desert, Biden!
Insisting on jail time for those who have procured an abortion misses the point that the woman is often ALSO a victim, being that she is most often comparatively ignorant of the process and of embyonic biology. The abortion provider has no excuse for such ignorance. He/she is also not under pressure from others to perform the abortion, as – again – the women often are.
We should not jail the victims of abortion, including the women.
So women “often” are also victims; then in the cases they aren’t you favor jailing them?
So if it could be determined in a particular case that a woman is not wholly a victim or not a victim at all, you would support jailing them I presume to be consistent?
Suppose the woman choosing abortion were a biologist who had written articles on comparisons between human and other animal embryological development?
You do realize that many women who choose abortion are not poor and uneducated, don’t you? Many are college graduates. Many have even higher degrees. Here’s a sample of abortion stories (note some are very intelligent and educated women including someone who was about to attend Oxford, an economist, etc.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2006/oct/27/healthandwellbeing.society
“So women “often” are also victims; then in the cases they aren’t you favor jailing them?”
No. They are victims, even if they don’t understand it.
Also, it would be extremely impractical – almost impossible – to enforce with equity and justice.
Since I have already indicated that I would be in favor of prosecuting some of the actors involved, the point seems to be moot.
You’re saying that everyone involved in the abortion process has never acted for any other end than serving the woman’s own free choice? No woman has ever been in any way coerced with the complicity of medical personnel, or undergone procedures over her own vocal objections at the time?
As CT rightly argues, mothers have a right to murder their babies. They can either get rid of the noxious inconvenience by way of abortion or other means such as microwaving the little tikes. Babies either in the womb or out are but the rightful property of mothers subject to their various whims.
Prosecutor: Mother put baby girl in microwave
Arnold, 28, of Dayton, is accused of killing her infant daughter Paris Talley in 2005. She could face the death penalty if convicted of aggravated murder.
Brandt said Arnold told a cellmate she put the baby in the microwave and turned it on because she was worried her boyfriend would leave her if he found out the child wasn’t his, Brandt said.
>I think we could easily come up with a definition that would be agreeable to Catholics, Orthodoxers and Prots
I reply: No you couldn’t since the EO would reject any definition that has the Holy Spirit proceeding threw the Father & the Son & the follows of the late Dr. Walter Martin & the present followers of John McArthur would object to any definition that suggest the Son is Eternally generated by the Father.
Your view is extremist & unreasonable also you are selective in taking you P’s & Q’s from the Church. Why do you accept the non-doctrinal political views of the Church 100 years ago but reject her teaching on Justification?
I believe McArthur has recanted his views. (And “Dr.” Walter Martin’s PhD was up there with Jim White’s.)
How about, “There is one God in three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.”
-JProt
BenYachov’s message discusses whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son. This, of course, is the Filioque question, that led to the schism between the Western and Eastern church.
Some interesting points:
Protestant denominations (e.g. Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran) use “filioque” in the Nicene Creed, because they devolved from the Roman Catholic church AFTER the schism took place. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, “filioque” was not an issue in the Western church.
On the other hand, Eastern Catholics, who are in communion with the Apostolic See at Rome, generally omit “filioque” from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. They are completely within their rights to do so, and failure to include “filioque” does not endanger their communion with Rome.
Thus, “filioque” is not a huge stumbling block to the unity of Christians, as I see it. In 1595, the Ukrainian Catholics signed the Union of Brest, by which they came into communion with Rome. As to filioque, it was said that we argue about it mostly because we refuse to understand each other. The Ukrainians were permitted to retain it, along with their married clergy, and they remain in full communion with Rome to this day.
Further, as a matter of charity, could we refrain from referring to persons as “Orthodoxers” and “Prots”? It seems rather uncharitable to me.
Many Orthodox theologians today acknowledge that filioque is more a semantic and canonical issue than a real theological one. The Seventh Ecumenical Council acknowledged that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son.” At that point, quibbling about “and” vs. “through” seems gratuitously captious (not that anyone would ever accuse the Orthodox of that…).
I heartily agree with Jeb on the substantial unity of Trinitarian Christians, and heartily disagree with his proposed application as regards voting rights.
“Orthodox” functions as a plural noun as well as an adjective (“I’m Orthodox,” “the Orthodox,” “Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants,” etc.). “Orthodoxers” is unnecessary; “Orthodox” does the job. “Prots” sounds abrupt coming from non-Protestants, although I won’t quarrel with Jeb if he wants to use it.
Good grief, just how far from Sarah Palin can we possibly get…?
“Dr.” Walter Martin’s PhD was up there with Jim White’s.
To be fair, (I am assuming here that your disparagement here is accurate), it is no less real a doctorate than the D.D.’s that are automatically granted to a new bishop (or is it only a new bishop of his first diocese, I forget) who did not previously have one. But these are not held up to be more than something along the lines of honorary. But what is more analogous are the doctorates that the church hands out that do not have in some places and cases any coinciding secular recognition. In these cases the church is certainly not an accredited institution, yet she hands out all these degrees which in some cases, yes, the person happens to receive a secularly recognized degree (or the ecclesiastical degree is itself recognized) but in some, is not.
When the day comes that to be accredited requires the imparting of an education incompatible with Catholic sensibilites, I am sure Catholics will be lauding the virtues of getting an unaccredited education.
There are already murmurs in the political waters regarding home school regulation. For example, many want to make sure that homeschooling teachers are properly teaching evolution. I doubt Palin would be for that.
You’re saying that everyone involved in the abortion process has never acted for any other end than serving the woman’s own free choice? No woman has ever been in any way coerced with the complicity of medical personnel, or undergone procedures over her own vocal objections at the time?
As far as I know yes limiting the universe of persons to those who sincerely profess to be pro-choice and the universe of actions to those done while sincerely professing to be pro-choice (so of course someone like myself who once upon a time used to be anti-choice “pro-life” and even, sadly, participated in a prayer protest near a medical facility, would have been anti-choice in some past actions, but not since the conversion to pro-choice). I don’t think medical facilities that provide abortions (which include many hospitals) require all their employees or even all those who in some way facilitate abortions to be pro-choice. Someone at a hospital in billing who handles matters including those related to abortion services, I would doubt would need to be pro-choice.
IOW: “Of course all those who sincerely profess to be pro-choice are pro-choice.” Why, yes, by definition. Then, naturally, any and all counter-examples of coercive behavior can be dismissed as falling outside the specified “universe.” Well done.
OK, just omit the “sincerely”
I agree with SDG that “filioque” is a largely matter of semantics. A major part of the problem, however, is the manner in which Rome attempted to force the change on Constantinople.
The Nicene Creed was adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was finalized in 381 at the Council of Constantinope. At that time, the Creed did NOT contain the word “filioque.”
The absence of “filioque” is based on John 15:26, which states that “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER, he will testify to me” (New American Bible)(emphasis supplied).
The first use of “filioque” seems to have occurred around 600, in Toledo, Spain. The Spanish were combating the Arian heresy, and they thought that inserting the word “filioque” more accurately expressed their belief in the Trinity. At first, the Pope opposed modification of the Nicene Creed, but by 800 or so, he was sold on the idea, and he began to pressure the Eastern Church to accept its use as well.
The Eastern Churches objected. The Nicene Creed is the document that summarizes the faith of the Universal Church. In the Eastern view, if there is a need for a change in the statement of faith that binds the Universal Church together, another council should be called, and the matter should be prayerfully discussed. The Church of Rome should not unilaterally impose its view on the other churches that make up the Universal Catholic Church.
One thing led to another, until finally, in 1054, the Pope DEMANDED that the Church in Constantinople accept “filioque” as part of the Creed. When Constantinople refused, Rome excommunicated Constantinople. Constantinople returned the favor and made the excommunications mutual. The mutual excommunications were not rescinded until 1965.
There are five principal rites in the Universal Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is only one of the five. Each of the five Rites is of equal dignity, and each is entitled to adopt its own style of worship and discipline. None is subject to the dictate of any other.
What is the proper role of the Pope?
He is head of the Roman Rite, and, as such, he may regulate the Roman Rite in any manner that he desires. He is also the head of the Universal Church, but in that role, he serves merely as arbiter on questions of faith and morals. In reality, very little falls into the category of “faith and morals.” On all other questions, the five rites, although in communion with the Apostolic See at Rome, are independent of each other, and they are entitled to be governed by their own internal procedures without interference from the Pope. In the view of many Eastern Catholics, the Popes sometimes forget their dual role.
Another ancient controvery between West and East concerned the use of icons. The West opposed them, while the East favored them. In 842 (two centuries before the Schism), a council was held at Constantinople, and West and East agreed that it was proper for the East to use icons if it desired. The defeat of the iconoclasts is celebrated in the Eastern church as the Feast of Orthodoxy on the First Sunday in Lent in each year.
In case anyone is wondering, I am a Ukrainian Catholic, which is part of the Byzantine Rite of the Universal Catholic Church. We have been in communion with the Apostolic See at Rome at least since 1595, when the Union of Brest was signed.
Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics are free to receive Communion in each other’s churches, and if you have the opportunity, you should participate in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It dates from about 300, and it is very beautiful.
The best way to sum it up:
Yes, I am Catholic.
No, I am not Roman Catholic.
No, I am not Orthodox.
And, no, no, no, Ukrainians are not Russians!!!!
Adding an innocent baby’s blood to my daughter’s conscience for the rest of her life would never, ever occur to me as a way of “helping” her in such a crisis
Especially since, in fact, when rape victims become pregnant, those who do not have abortions would recommend the same course to another woman in their situation, and those who do would not.
OK, just omit the “sincerely”
Once we omit it, we have pro-choice people who strenuously object to NOT forcibly shipping pregnant women back to China for forcible abortions, and who argue that if a pregnant woman is attacked for the purposes of killing the baby (much desired and chosen by the woman) and the baby is killed — you can’t possibly punish the attacker for killing the baby because that would be an attack on women’s choice.
Pro-abortion.
Not to mention those who hold that the baby has to die after birth if it inconveniently lives. Who are pro-infanticide.
Once we omit it, we have pro-choice people who strenuously object to NOT forcibly shipping pregnant women back to China for forcible abortions, and who argue that if a pregnant woman is attacked for the purposes of killing the baby (much desired and chosen by the woman) and the baby is killed — you can’t possibly punish the attacker for killing the baby because that would be an attack on women’s choice.
Whether asylum should be granted is a complex matter. Your example there does not support SDG’s contention in any event. On the other point, those particular pro-choice persons (1) still favor punishing the attacker criminally, just not for homicide (2) also favor subjecting the punisher to greater civil penalties in terms of emotional loss even if it wouldn’t be categorized as wrongful death. Besides, your example cuts both ways as regards punishing women who procure abortions.
>>As far as I know yes limiting the universe of persons to those who sincerely profess to be pro-choice
>IOW: “Of course all those who sincerely profess to be pro-choice are pro-choice.” Why, yes, by definition. Then, naturally, any and all counter-examples of coercive behavior can be dismissed as falling outside the specified “universe.” Well done.
I reply: It’s called the “No True Scotsmen Fallacy”.
interesting link that shows the dark side of so called “Pro-choice”.
http://prochoiceviolence.com/
CT said, “To be fair, (I am assuming here that your disparagement here is accurate), it is no less real a doctorate than the D.D.’s that are automatically granted to a new bishop (or is it only a new bishop of his first diocese, I forget) who did not previously have one.”
This is a flat-out lie.
If that were the case, all U.S. Bishops would have a D.D. listed after their names, which would include the one I know personally.
Flat-out lies being uttered by a Pro-Choice devotee — as that Tom Jone’s song goes, “It’s Not Unusual…”
No, really.
You have engaged in calumny
John Smith wrote: “This is a flat-out lie…. Flat-out lies being uttered by a Pro-Choice devotee” (I omitted your embarassingly poor reasoning)
I guess then that Amy Welborn is a liar too:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/10/bishop_school.html
I knew about Bishop School, but I didn’t know this:
Bishops automatically receive the title of D.D. (doctor of divinity) when they are named to the episcopate.
(and before you call her a liar too you might want to find out who she is)
I suppose also that her source (quoted and linked to by Amy Welborn above), The Pittsburgh Catholic has a liar for an author as well:
http://www.pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=1518
I expect you to either retract your statement (I don’t expect an apology as I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation given my past experience here involving another like incident — more than one actually) or to be committed to the notion that either Amy Welborn and/or John Franko of The Pittsburgh Catholic are lying too.
BTW, it was not always this way but your ignorance of this matter is no excuse for your poor reasoning which is not only poor but hard to accept as honest unless your are really that obtuse (paging Tim J with the subtle irony). It wouldn’t surprise me if you were one of the several who have previously accused me of lying and then not apologized when proven wrong.
And now that we have an embarrasing incident of a case where the knowledge of a Catholic — whose confidence in his knowledge and/or poor reasoning led him to accuse me of lying as regards my own knowledge — on matters Catholic has been shown inferior or deficient compared to my own, I hope now not everyone will be so prejudicial as virtually everyone (well actually, everyone who has expressed on the matter) has been with respect to me and my knowledge of Catholicism.
I am quite certain btw that had I not caught this calumny by “John Smith” until say three days later, that this blog would have been littered with several posts by several people who would have joined in with John Smith in his calumny. I’m sure those who would have done so would know if they would have.
From the LA Times:
Palin was baptized as a Catholic but later began attending the Wasilla Assembly of God church. At age 12 she, her mother and sisters were re-baptized in nearby Beaver Lake. The former pastor of her new church would give the invocation at her inauguration.
Doesn’t that make her an apostate?
No. An apostate is a former Christian who has given up the Faith altogether. An example would be a Christian who becomes a Hindu.
One takes with a grain of salt the opinion of someone who would judge a 12-year-old CHILD for obeying her parents and converting to another Christian church.
John,
Thank you for your statement of an Eastern perspective on the filioque controversy and on the Petrine primacy. On the whole I think your statement is fair from an Eastern perspective, and I appreciate your take on the role of the Bishop of Rome. While I would add or recontextualize some factual points here or there, and while obviously as a Catholic I would look to the Bishop of Rome as the final arbiter of the nature of his primacy, there is little I would challenge or dissent from in your account.
One claim you make is new to me: that the West was ever “opposed” to icons. Since this is not the stance of the Western tradition as I know it, I would be curious to see evidence of this claim.
Dear Radtrad,
You wrote:
At age 12 she, her mother and sisters were re-baptized in nearby Beaver Lake. The former pastor of her new church would give the invocation at her inauguration.
Doesn’t that make her an apostate?
Objectively, yes; subjectively, it depends on the state of ignorance as to the teaching and other possibly coercive factors (such as social ones). If she does not understand about the Church’s teaching of one baptism (even though one may recite it in the Creed, one may not understand why one says it), then she would not be able to say she were being re-baptized as a free act made with full knowledge. This would mitigate the sin to the point where she might not be an apostate in her heart, just really confused.
The Chicken
Dear Bill912,
You are correct, in general, but the original poster is correct in this specific case. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:
The Gloss on title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX mentions two other kinds of apostasy: apostasy inobedientiæ, disobedience to a command given by lawful authority, and iteratio baptismatis, the repetition of baptism, “quoniam reiterantes baptismum videntur apostatare dum recedunt a priori baptismate”.
The Chicken
Good grief. I never knew I was an apostate!! (Past tense, but still….)
Then we have stories like this:
Sounds like the clinic made every effort to respect the girl’s “choice,” doesn’t it?
I do not know if this is an act of detraction, morally speaking, so I will be careful how I phrase this, but there is a report from several press sources that Bristol Palin, Sara Palin’s 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant, will be keeping the baby, and “will be marrying” the father.
I don’t know how badly this will hurt Srarh Palin’s pro-life credentials. Yes, they are keeping the baby, but being pro-life is more than just about keeping babies. I suppose this is where there is a divide in the pro-life camp that might be exploited by the Democrats. Is it alright to have sex out of wedlock as long as one is willing to keep any babies?
In the best of cases, marriage and pregnancy go hand-in-hand. I, personally, consider contraception and pre-marital sex as life issues. I suspect that some other pro-life supporters do not. There really is a distinct difference in the views of some subgroups within the pro-life camp on these issues.
Anyone want to comment on contraception and pre-marital sex, in general, as it relates to pro-life activities and in particular, how Bristol Palin’s pregnancy might affect the election?
The Chicken
I wonder if this unfortunate situation re Palin’s daughter would have happened if Sarah Palin had been home taking care of her family.
Just one extremist fruitcake’s speculation.
-JProt
Extremist fruitcakes can be as insightful and on-target as anyone…
>Extremist fruitcakes can be as insightful and on-target as anyone…
I reply: So this means women should lose the right to vote & run for office along with Jews & other non-Trinitarians?
Where was Bristol’s Father in all this? Why is it all the Mother’s fault? My Italian Maternal Grandfather worked full time & he watched my Mother & Father like a Hawk while they where dating. He also gave my Mother a moral foundation she passed on to me. This was why I was born 2 years after they married & not before.
This fruitcakery is not insightful. It’s sub-intelligent stupidity.
I have no possitive expectations of Jeb but you disappoint me Steve. Not that I’m saying you agree with Jeb fruitcake beliefs but “insightful”? Hardly. I expect his from Alan Colms.
I of course don’t know how the Palins manage their family life. Perhaps their conduct was exemplary. Children do have a mind of their own.
But other things being equal, it is better for family life for a woman to be at home, in particular if she just a had a child.
-JProt
Additionally.
I know of many religious families where the Mother stays at home & the daughter still gets pregnant out of wedlock. None of these people had abortions but I know the temptation was there because they didn’t want to be publically exposed and judged “bad parents” by the usual “insightful” pharisees.
Mark Cruncher(a truly insightful Protestant) said it best when he chastised a Christian School Principle for expelling girls who got pregnant. He said you are just going to send business to the very people we are trying to fight against.
That is really insightful.
>But other things being equal, it is better for family life for a woman to be at home, in particular if she just a had a child.
I reply: How that insight leads to taking away the right to vote from women & Jews still escapes me.
Of course, Jeb’s weird pseudo-ecumenical belief that only mere Christianity trinitarians should be allowed to vote leads me to one question: why does he think he is our equal? The Catholic Church is the one true Church. Protestants are heretics & didn’t Pius X say that error has no rights? Plus there’s a billion of us, Catholics are the clear majority among trinitarians in the world. Therefore, taken to its logical extreme Jeb shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.
Mercifully Catholics don’t believe that the Church is infallible in matters of politics.
@SDG
First as I already indicated, I don’t have any reason to believe that a medical facility that offers abortions would exclusively hire pro-choice individuals. Second it is not clear to whom you are imputing the property of being anti-choice. Whom in the clinic was anti-choice? Was it the physician in question? (Incidentally, as an aside, Tim tried to claim abortion was markedly different from the other health issues where the bulk of states allow minors to consent to without parental consent by labeling abortion as surgery … this is wrong on various factual levels but one level it is wrong on is that Tim would object all the same to laws that don’t require parental notification or consent as regards chemical abortions that don’t involve any surgery … so medical parity is clearly not the motivating factor here).
If it was the physician in question, then in what way was he anti-choice? Was he himself aware that the woman did not desire the abortion? If he was ignorant then he may have been negligent and incompetent but not anti-choice. Also, supposing he were aware that the woman did not desire abortion, is there any evidence to indicate that he “professed to be pro-choice”? If he was indeed “notorious” as you claim, then yes (as opposed to someone who only performed abortions as part of a larger much broader practice). But this question can be asked of anyone else to whom you impute the property of being anti-choice. While it may be clear in the case of that physician, it is not clear certainly of the nurse (a nurse may be there for reasons of compassion or financial support and may in fact be anti-choice pro-life — she may believe that women who choose abortion while it is still unfortunately legal deserve the best nursing care. It is also certainly not clear of say the receptionist … and of course not clear at all of the janitor. You see, unlike some fundamentalists or radicalists, many have a broad view of the meaning of service; we do not exclude someone as an object of service merely because they are engaging in something with which we disagree or even something we feel should be legal. Someone who feels not only that pre-marital sex is wrong but that it should be outlawed may nevertheless give his friend a contraceptive if she knows he is going to go ahead with it all the while voting for an extremist candidate who wishes to make pre-marital sex illegal.
Dear BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th),
Do not commit the genetic fallacy. Just because Jeb Protestant made an earlier comment that sounded as if it were straight out of the Victorian era does not mean that all of his statements need to be lumped under the same umbrella.
While he seems to hold a “very” traditional view of the place of women in society – in the home, he did, nevertheless, point out that young girls have a mind of their own and that the influence of the family may not have been enough to prevent Bristol Palin from getting pregnant, so give him some credit on this aspect of the discussion (you, yourself, made the same point about Bristol Palin – although the two of you may have cross-posted, so you may not have seen his remark until after you posted yours).
His view is, I suspect, that of a sizable fraction of Evangelical Protestants. Modern feminism has done much to muddy the waters regarding what is the best arrangement of male and female work in the best functioning society. Obviously, men and women can both hold jobs, but it is not the ideal that both members of the family should have to work. All things being equal, it would seem that children should have the constant presence of at least one parent while they are growing up. The notion of quality time is a rationalization for the fact that there cannot be quantity of time. The factors that have created the current state of family life in the West are fairly well-known (mostly, greed on either the part of employers or families).
Men and women do have different roles in a family, and as such, it would be interesting to do a study to see what the presence of a stay-at-home mom has on the future development of the psychological, social, and moral aspects of children.
In any case, the Church, in one of her most recent documents has this to say:
The development of human potential takes place in a very special way, particularly in the first phases of family life in whose context man learns to be man in life and in culture. Each family member contributes to the growth and promotion of the others. In the Middle Ages it was taught that the mother fulfilled five roles in relation to the child, similar to the roles incumbent on “Mother Church” in relation to the faithful: she conceives him, bears him in her womb, holds him in her arms, gives him her milk, brings him to the table of the father. It is the task of the latter, however, to forge the child’s personality by his example, authority and the appropriate words in the various situations. The image has changed with the times but can serve as a description of functions and roles. And it should not be forgotten that all this development is completed at school, where the teachers make their contribution of a cultural kind, providing what the family is unable to give.
As far as the Church being infallible in matters of politics, the CCC has this to say:
2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.”53
All I’m asking for is that charity should reign, even if you think your interlocutor is holding a “fruitcake” position. Jeb Protestant may be wrong (or not), but I doubt he is malicious. Treat him as a man of goodwill, even if you believe him to be misguided. “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you,” would go a long way. I realize the issues are contentious, but invective should only be used when it is best to be used and I, personally, do not see the need for it, at this time.
With all of this being said and remembering that I know very little about politics, I would say that McCain’s chances of being elected in the fall are slim-to-none, now. I don’t see how charges of hypocrisy will not be leveled against Palin and McCain. Worst case is that all of the family lives of the candidates become fair game and policy takes a back seat. What a way to start off the Republican convention: with two hurricanes.
The Chicken
I don’t see how charges of hypocrisy will not be leveled against Palin and McCain.
Palin didn’t tell her daughter to get pregnant. Somethimes, no matter what a parent says, a child doesn’t listen. It’s just that most don’t succeed in going this far.
It is hypocrisy think that a child’s mistake equals a mother’s hypocrisy. She made a very bad choice, but she is keeping the child. I thank God that he does judge men as we judge each other.
SDG,
Do you, as a father, think Sarah P. dropped the ball?
(as an aside to The Masked Chicken, I wasn’t referring to you when I talked of hypocrisy, just to be clear. )
Sure, charges of hypocrisy will be leveled at Palin and McCain, and, in fact, already have been–by people who don’t know the meaning of the word.
I think that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter, does he not? That didn’t seem to hurt Bush.
The media is eating this women alive. I suppose the reporters who gleefully reported this don’t have any skeletons of their own, or they would have not gloated so.
>Do not commit the genetic fallacy. Just because Jeb Protestant made an earlier comment that sounded as if it were straight out of the Victorian era does not mean that all of his statements need to be lumped under the same umbrella.
I reply: Rather I think he should be subjected to satirical ridicule in order to illustrate his absurd views by being equally absurd.
We did cross post FYI. My low view of him is unchanged & your views & advice are duly noted.
P.S. Stay away from the Colonel Sanders dude. Cheers.
CT writes:
>You have engaged in calumny
>John Smith wrote: “This is a flat-out lie…. Flat-out lies being uttered
by a Pro-Choice devotee” (I omitted your embarassingly poor reasoning)
>I guess then that Amy Welborn is a liar too:
>http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/10/bishop_school.html
I reply: You really should read the texts you cite CT. According to someone who quoted Canon law in Amy’s Comm Box.
QUOTE:The current Code of Canon Law states regarding bishops:
Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy,
it is required that he is:
1/ outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom,
prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him
suitable to fulfill the office in question;
2/ of good reputation;
3/ at least thirty-Five years old;
4/ ordained to the presbyterate for at least Five years;
[drum role.]
5/ in possession of a DOCTORATE or at least a licentiate in sacred
scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies
approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same
disciplines.
§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be
promoted pertains to the Apostolic See.
I reply: It seems to me trying to portray the Church as being little more than a diploma mill for granting honorary DD’s to her Bishops when her laws require either a doctorate/licentiate in the subjects pertinate to the Job & or showing one is a true expert in said areas is quite disingenuous & in my eyes you merit having your honesty called into question. But what can you expect from lying Pro-abort apostates?:-)
Now what is it that you wrote?
>it is no less real a doctorate than the D.D.’s that are automatically granted to a new bishop (or is it only a new bishop of his first diocese, I forget) who did not previously have one.
But these are not held up to be more than something along the lines of honorary.
I reply: Accept they can only be given to a person who already has a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines which is required before one becomes a bishop.
>But what is more analogous are the doctorates that the church hands out
that do not have in some places and cases any coinciding secular
recognition.
I reply: The Church is a religious institution not a secular one. I don’t expect the Harvard Law School to hand out Doctorates in Sacred Theology in place of Law Degrees. So why are you surprised a Church hands out theology degrees both honary & practical?
>In these cases the church is certainly not an accredited institution, yet
she hands out all these degrees which in some cases, yes, the person happens
to receive a secularly recognized degree (or the ecclesiastical degree is
itself recognized) but in some, is not.
I reply: Accreditation is a process by which certification of competency,authority, or credibility to teach a subject by an intitution is presented. Reason dictates the Catholic Church is eminently qualified to determine who has a professional competent understanding of Catholic doctrine, scripture & or Church Law. Just as the Goverment of the UK can extend accreditation to a Law School whom they judge to have a competent & authoritative understanding of British Law. Why would I not recognize the Mormon Church eminent ability to grant accreditation to institutions they judge competent to teach LDS doctrine, even thought I disbelieve in the LDS?
All Knowledge by virtue of it being has a secular value.
>You have engaged in calumny
I reply: Says the snarky anti-Catholic bigot who tries to portray the Church as little more then a diploma mill for issuing DD’s to Her bishops & forgets to read the sources he cites.
>but your ignorance of this matter is no excuse for your poor reasoning which is not only poor but hard to accept as honest unless your are really that obtuse (paging Tim J with the subtle irony). It wouldn’t surprise me if you were one of the several who have previously accused me of lying and then not apologized when proven wrong.
I reply: Says the guy who doesn’t even know Canon law requires a prospective Bishop be in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.
Well, will YOU show Smith how it’s done & apologize for being such a snarky
ignorant uneducated jackass?
BTW SDG I’ll be civil to this jerk when he acts civil to others for ONCE? I think that is reasonable & just don’t you?
Dear David B.,
No offense taken.
Dear BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th),
I understand your strategy in using satire. Sometimes it can be effective. Just remember the old adage: win an argument, but lose a soul. Satire should be both illustrative and redemptive, if possible (a hard trick to pull off).
As far as Colonel Sander’s – I’m more worried about baseball teams. I could tell you stories about being kidnapped, twice, by some team in San Diego, but I think I might have been drugged. All I remember is dancing around some stadium. Anyway, I escaped and I think they found somebody else to take my place, but you know, I think somebody might have slipped me some bad feed, instead. Maybe I’m still in my cage, asleep. Maybe I’m sleep pecking. Got to go, the sun will be coming up, soon.
The Chicken
CT the Pro-Choice Devotee,
I don’t care who she is. I would rather trust the bishops I know personally. Of course, what the heck would they know? After all, they are the ones who are actually bishops.
As to this:
“SDG,
Do you, as a father, think Sarah P. dropped the ball?”
Perhaps Palin’s daughter should’ve had an abortion instead of keeping her baby in order to appease the liberal populace!
CT:
If they’re not pro-choice, what are they? In American public discourse, people who oppose legal abortion describe themselves as “pro-life” and are widely known in the media as “anti-abortion,” while people who favor legal abortion are called “pro-choice.” Any clinic employees involved in facilitating the sixteen-year-old’s abortion, especially if she were unwilling and they facilitated it anyway, are almost certainly not going to be “pro-life/anti-abortion.” They may safely be assumed to favor legal abortion, and would thus certainly describe themselves as, and be described in the media as, “pro-choice.” You might scruple at that term yourself, but in American public discourse there simply is no other term to describe, e.g., people who favor legal abortion but aren’t scrupulous about respecting the woman’s choice.
How would I know? I haven’t interviewed anyone involved. Minimally, though, it seems quite likely that if everyone in the clinic were truly pro-choice, i.e., concerned with the young woman’s right to choose and making reasonable and necessary efforts to ensure her consent, the abortion would never have occurred. And this incident seems to be part of a pattern.
Masked Chicken:
Wow. I don’t see this as nearly as significant as you do. I don’t think it will make much difference at all. I still see McCain’s chances as quite good.David B:
This is my 100 percent non-political answer as a father.
My first gut instinct is to suspect that, yes, the parents did somehow drop the ball. Obviously I’m in no position to single out one parent or another; if anything, as a father and a small-t traditionalist I would tend to hold the father more responsible than the mother.
HOWEVER, my second and stronger gut instinct — both as a Christian walking in fear and trembling before God, and also as a father whose oldest is 14 and (no credit to me) a living saint, and whose other five children (one as yet unborn) are 10 and under and generally good as gold, but who knows what I’ll face in their teenaged years — is to leave judgment of parents over the conduct of their children to God.
I would like to believe that solid, faithful Christian parenting will produce solid, faithful Christian kids. That is, I would like to believe it when it comes to myself and my own children — but when I see my Christian neighbors who seem like solid, faithful Christian parents with kids who don’t always live up to that standard, I find this proposal more troubling than comforting, and can’t bring myself to conclude that it must necessarily be the parents’ fault.
God forbid that I should presume to take credit for how my kids turn out (assuming they all turn out well), or compare myself favorably to other parents based on comparative judgments about our respective broods. In all these things, I can only say: Let God be judge.
I also agree with Jeb that, all else being equal, the ideal family scenario is a working father and a stay-at-home mom. However, I don’t believe that this is necessarily workable or preferrable for all families in all circumstances, and here also I consider myself to be in no position to judge families or parents that live out other scenarios.
BenYachov:
Tread very lightly, sir. Some level of ridiculing Jeb’s views (or anyone else’s) may be permissible, as long as it doesn’t become hobby-horsing. Ridiculing Jeb himself (as your statement suggests) is highly likely to be deemed abusive and uncivil, and in violation of Da Rulz. The “extremist fruitcake” thing was dicey enough, even in the context of the present discussion. Ongoing fruitcake harassment will not be viewed lightly.
I can’t tell you how happy it would make me if you stopped playing brinksmanship and started treating everyone as civilly as possible.
Ben Yachov (Jim Scott IV) Wrote: “BTW SDG I’ll be civil to this jerk when he acts civil to others for ONCE? I think that is reasonable & just don’t you?”
No, because genuine Catholics like Ben Yachov are 2nd class citizens while those who mock the Catholic Faith are but precious gems to whom honor is given on a Catholic blog.
I just don’t get it — it’s bad enough Catholics have a challenging time with their Catholic Faith in the secular world and on secular foras.
They come to a Catholic blog, a place where they should have reasonable expectation to find better treatment of their Faith; only to find it being turned into fodder for mere derision and scorn by the likes of these.
And, yet, these are the very ones who are placed in such high regard, whose ridicule of the precious Faith is continued to be welcomed by those who are placed in charge of what is supposed to be a Catholic blog?
I think that’s quite a valid question.
Dear SDG
Along with such a demonstration of power, you could at least have been grateful to Ben Yachov’s debunking of the pro-abortion atheist cheerleader’s dirty trick that got off scot-free.
It is just astounding that both “John Smith” and Ben continue to engage in this calumny. I am not going to take the effort to refute it further (or address some further embarassingly poor reasoning) as it is apparent now that no amount of evidence would convince them otherwise. I am sure also that even if Ed Peters, after doing diligent research if need be, were to opine on the matter, that “John Smith” and Ben would nevertheless persist in their calumnous posts.
I will henceforth, ignore their calumnous postings.
>Tread very lightly, sir. Some level of ridiculing Jeb’s views (or anyone else’s) may be permissible, as long as it doesn’t become hobby-horsing. Ridiculing Jeb himself (as your statement suggests) is highly likely to be deemed abusive and uncivil, and in violation of Da Rulz. The “extremist fruitcake” thing was dicey enough, even in the context of the present discussion. Ongoing fruitcake harassment will not be viewed lightly.
I reply: Excuse me. You are the one who brought it up again with your “Extremist fruitcakes can be as insightful and on-target as anyone…” crack.
Don’t blame me. You may have the physical authority to kick me out of here but if you are not going to follow your own advice it is clear you don’t have the moral justification for it.
>I can’t tell you how happy it would make me if you stopped playing brinksmanship and started treating everyone as civilly as possible.
I reply: You are fooling yourself. There is no civility on this blog. Rosemarie (who is the embodiment of civility) tells me she has gotten verbally attacked for no reason the last couple of times she posted here. For no reason. Just to name two that clown Tony called her a liar & another others verbally savaged her because she said she liked some types of alternate medicine.
Where where you & your “RULZ”? Nowhere. Which is why Rosemarie doesn’t come here anymore. But NOW all of a sudden you care about civility & DARULEZ?
Since you have taken a set against me SDG I will spare you the trouble.
Good day Sir.
PS.Can’t help but notice you have ignored that Chris mankey character & his “magical catholic cookies!” crack. But you single me out for calling the guy who thinks Atheists have a right to steal & vandalize a “sociopath” & and the guy who thinks Women & Jews shouldn’t be allowed to vote a “fruitcake”?
But you ignore this guy? What happen to DA RULZ?
Bye.
>Tread very lightly, sir. Some level of ridiculing Jeb’s views (or anyone else’s) may be permissible, as long as it doesn’t become hobby-horsing. Ridiculing Jeb himself (as your statement suggests) is highly likely to be deemed abusive and uncivil, and in violation of Da Rulz. The “extremist fruitcake” thing was dicey enough, even in the context of the present discussion. Ongoing fruitcake harassment will not be viewed lightly.
I reply: Excuse me. You are the one who brought it up again with your “Extremist fruitcakes can be as insightful and on-target as anyone…” crack.
Don’t blame me. You may have the physical authority to kick me out of here but if you are not going to follow your own advice it is clear you don’t have the moral justification for it.
>I can’t tell you how happy it would make me if you stopped playing brinksmanship and started treating everyone as civilly as possible.
I reply: You are fooling yourself. There is no civility on this blog. Rosemarie (who is the embodiment of civility) tells me she has gotten verbally attacked for no reason the last couple of times she posted here. For no reason. Just to name two that clown Tony called her a liar & another others verbally savaged her because she said she liked some types of alternate medicine.
Where where you & your “RULZ”? Nowhere. Which is why Rosemarie doesn’t come here anymore. But NOW all of a sudden you care about civility & DARULEZ?
Since you have taken a set against me SDG I will spare you the trouble.
Good day Sir.
PS.Can’t help but notice you have ignored that Chris mankey character & his “magical catholic cookies!” crack. But you single me out for calling the guy who thinks Atheists have a right to steal & vandalize a “sociopath” & and the guy who thinks Women & Jews shouldn’t be allowed to vote a “fruitcake”?
But you ignore this guy? What happen to DA RULZ?
Bye.
Embarrasingly poor reasoning?
You mean to say that I should concede to your bullocks and not trust 4 people I know who are actually bishops?
Now that’s not only embarassingly poor reasoning but also incredible stupidity!
Upon a closer reading of what Ben wrote, I see that he at least conceded that “John Smith” was factually incorrect in his original calumny. So with humility and apology I revise my post above to simply exclude “and Ben” from the text whenever it appears. (this is not meant to be taken as an endorsement of Ben’s post or of the factual accuracy of his post or anything of the sort; I am only observing that in haste I grouped his reply with “John Smith’s” continuing denial of the facts)
I was quoted: “…these are the very ones who are placed in such high regard, whose ridicule of the precious Faith is continued to be welcomed by those who are placed in charge of what is supposed to be a Catholic blog?”
Mr. Matheus F. Ticiani kindly responded: “I think that’s quite a valid question.”
My thanks to Mr. Ticiani.
Simply put, if I wanted my Faith ridiculed to such extent, I wouldn’t be coming to a Catholic blog in the first place; there are enough foras that do that, thank-you.
>So with humility and apology I revise my post above to simply exclude “and Ben” from the text whenever it appears.
I reply: Before I go. I accept your apology but I still believe you are an arrogant, smug, condescending jerk & it has been a completely unpleasant experience to interact with you.
>(this is not meant to be taken as an endorsement of Ben’s post or of the factual accuracy of his post or anything of the sort; I am only observing that in haste I grouped his reply with “John Smith’s” continuing denial of the facts)
I reply: Regardless that I feel SDG has taken a set against me HE STILL OWNED YOU by posting
that link to the article that refuted Pasnau’s nonsense about Aquinas & abortion. Pasnau did respond to it BUT there is a counter response to it online.
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/rational_souls_and_the_beginning.htm
So don’t even TRY to claim you are all about believing facts & evidence. You jumped out of that argument real quick.
Enjoy. I’m outie.
PS I hope this doesn’t double post.
@SDG
I do not think favoring legal abortion and being pro-choice are co-extensive or co-intensive concepts. One may favor legal abortion for reasons of profit (though I doubt one would be open about it in that case) and not be pro-choice.
It appears I did not make my thoughts or writing clear to you and I apologize for that. My contention (with the definition of pro-choice “scrupled” with above) is that I see no reason to believe that a medical facility that provides among other services, abortion, would exclusively hire individuals who profess to be pro-choice. For our purposes, it is enough that someone said “I am pro-choice” or some equivalent statement “I believe in a woman’s right to choose” to count as a profession of belief in the pro-choice ideal.
I don’t think all anti-choice pro-life individuals (those who wish abortion to be illegal) would have a problem with working as say a janitor in a hospital that provides abortions or in a Planned Parenthood clinic. I also don’t think the hospital or clinic would have much of a problem there either. When you go from janitor to say receptionist or billing worker or accounting worker then you may see some drop-offs. Still more when you go to nurses. I concede that a physician whose services include many elective, non-rape or other non-hard-case cases may be inferred to be pro-choice.
You are correct that something (assuming reports are accurate — I note you cited a non-mainstream non-secular media source) was amiss at the clinic. But it is unclear that someone professedly pro-choice was at fault. It may have been someone who when hired did not express any view on the pro-choice issue in the affirmate but kept her political views to herself but told the interviewer that she nevertheless had no moral problems working there. We don’t know.
Is it likely that someone somewhere is professedly pro-choice but does not live up perfectly to the pro-choice ideal? Yes. Is it established beyond a reasonable doubt in any particular case? No.
p.s. For those who may have missed it, I made a slight correction to one of my posts above.
HE STILL OWNED YOU by posting that link….So don’t even TRY to claim you are all about believing facts & evidence. You jumped out of that argument real quick. (I see you graciously and fairly — maybe you are the fairest here relatively speaking! — noted a rebuttal and counter-rebuttal)
Um Ben, I think it’s been only about a day or so. Maybe I am still thinking about it or maybe I haven’t had a chance to read it … may I say with no intention to disparage you but rather a light-hearted intent to enliven your often bitter/anger spirits, have you considered stand up?
I don’t view a forum, whether on the internet or otherwise, as a game — be it political or video game — where comments like “OWNED YOU” are appropriate. I am sorry but those words are still evoking a wallop of laughter in me.
If I should — as I’ve expressed previously here — reply to SDG one day by saying that I read his article (or the counter-rebuttal you linked to above) and revised my opinions against Pasnau in various respects, that would be an expression of not some defeat in some game, but something for me to rejoice over. For the purpose of a forum is as far as I am concerned, mutual enlightenment. I have argued here how religious adherence (or certain forms of it) impede that mutual enlightenment due to extra-rational loyalties the participants bring to the table that if not closed to rational abandonment are at least more resistant to it.
Thank you, Ben.
I am happy to let Jeb himself judge that comment. I think he knows I was speaking tongue in cheek (much as he was himself in using that term) and affirming rather than dissing him.
You are fooling yourself if you don’t recognize that the level of civility on this blog is an order of magnitude higher than on the majority of online forums. I’ve spent some time on PZ Myers’ blog and I’m happy to say that the worst coversation EVER gets here isn’t a quarter of how bad it can get over there. (There are also some highly civil and thoughtful people over there, just as there are over here, but the civil and thoughtful people don’t make the same effort to restrain the abusive ones, who, again, are FAR more abusive than anyone here.)
I did not see Tony call Rosemarie a liar. As I told CT when he made a similar complaint, my presence here is sporadic and I can only respond to what I see.
Chris Mankey’s “magical cookies” comment was clearly way over the line. It is (I think) one of countless drive-by one-offs that are not worth responding to. If Chris were to start posting more often I would respond to him.
Unless CT believes that he has no duties whatsoever to anyone else, he is not a sociopath, and it is not right to call him one. An incorrectly delimited view of one’s duties to others and an inadequate acknowledgement of basic decency and civility does not make one a sociopath. That is why CT is not a sociopath, and also why you are not. (If it needs to be said, the dual illustration of a common principle does not imply any further comparison.)
I can only point out that this is not just a Catholic blog, but a Catholic *apologetics* blog. This means defending the faith. It’s no good claiming to defend the faith if those questioning or even attacking the faith are not tolerated to some extent.
Also, the fact that better behavior is expected of Christians than of drive-by combox trolls should surprise no one. As Sean Dailey recently quoted over at his blog, The Blue Boar;
“The world really pays the supreme compliment to the Catholic Church in being intolerant of her tolerating even the appearance of the evils which it tolerates in everything else.” – Chesterton
In other words, of course there is a double standard. That is the point. Decent people have always been at something of a disadvantage in that they feel obliged to play by the rules.
Or – Da Rulz.
In addition, I don’t have the authority to remove comments or close threads except on posts I personally authored.
It’s her husband who is the guy I really admire! See http://dustofthetime.blogspot.com/2008/09/todd-palin-american-manhood-at-its-best.html
Dear BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) and John Smith,
If somehow only Catholics were given the secret word to post on this blog, then things might (and I repeat, might) be better. As blogs go, this one is fairly decent in its decorum. Da Rulz is an attempt at makng rules that used to be called netiquette, something people on USENET groups had to learn as the price for admission to discussion back in the early days of the Internet.
Alas, those days are gone. I was there when Rosemarie was being insulted for her advocacy of colloidal silver. People, nowadays, seem to have turned off the censor in their brain that would prevent them from making rude comments. I see it in society at large, as well. In the anonymous Internet, one would expect to see it, even more.
Catholics should know better; Atheists should know better; Men of good-will should know better,
Unfortunately, there is very seldom common search for the truth anymore. We have moved, not-so-subtly, from a society that values intelligent discussion to one that values will-to-truth. Assertion, however strident, has become equal to the truth.
However, as I pointed out, the Golden Rule is still a good guide. As you did not want people calling Rosemarie a liar, should you not also have refrained from calling Jeb Protestant a fruitcake?
Some people coming here are drive-by-poster. I have been insulted by them, myself and it hurts. I have sympathy for what you and Rosemarie have suffered, but there is no perfect solution that has yet to be found, except for extensive moderation, which neither Jimmy, Tim, nor SDG have time for.
Catholics can set the standard for how the debate is to be conducted. Reply in humility and charity; turn the other cheek. These are hard to do, but will impress the regular non-Catholic posters here more than sarcasm. Drive-by posters will either not see this or will hang around only to cause trouble, but even then, the Catholic posters, here, must bear the good fruit of their beliefs.
It is a charity to correct our neighbor when they are wrong, but it must be done fraternally, otherwise, things quickly devolve into a shouting match or hurt feelings result which make discussion impossible. This post was about Sarah Palin, not about abuse in comboxes and yet, in a way, it still is, because the unbridled passion which can result in a pregnancy out-of-wedlock is the same unbridled passion which can result in people posting hurtful things without thinking of the consequences.
We do not need to sound like a convention of butlers in these comboxes, but if the comments were isolated and read without reference to where they came from, people should still be able to tell that the people here are, generally, kind.
I, personally, do not want to see Ben go. His enthusiasm and directness shows a passion in what he believes that more Catholics need to show in the outside world. I just wish we all would use sarcasm more rarely. That would make it a better weapon when it is used.
The Chicken
My goodness! My head is spinning from all of the criss-crossing lines of argument.
CT: Just checked back and saw your comment objecting to what I think was my characterization of “pro-choicers” as “pro-aborts”. I was being deliberately provocative because I get tired of the press calling pro-lifers “anti-abortion”, or (in the case of really biased reporting) “anti-choice”. As a result I make a point of using the locution above for advocates of legal abortion. If the press wants to call pro-lifers anti-abortion, fine; the other side must be pro abortion. As to the detailed logic chopping about abortion, I have no interest in the argument. Human life begins at conception (a point conceded in modern embryology texts); choosing any other point leads to ludicrous inconsistencies. End of argument. You can keep your Nazis and Nicolae Ceauşescus because they aren’t relevant.
SDG,
Thanks for your thoughtful and timely response. Yours is a prudent, merciful, and Catholic reaction. We would do well to follow your example.
CT,
Take a chill pill.
Ben Yachov,
Maybe a double dose for you.
CT again,
As I said a few months ago, I have no use for the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. I think they’re both BS PR terms, akin to calling a crooked politician “ambitious and flexible.” Really, when the topic of abortion is being discussed, I don’t think there’s any point to that kind of slippery terminology. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion work just fine. If you’re uncomfortable with pro-abortion and would rather call yourself pro-legal abortion, fair enough; that’s an accurate term.
But anti-choice? Anti-life? Come on, people. We all like choice and life, generally speaking. The controversy isn’t over the principles of choice and life; it’s over abortion. Your reason for your position on abortion may be about choice and it may be about life, but the policy in question is, quite simply, abortion.
In fact, I’d call my own anti-abortion reasoning both pro-choice and pro-life. I am in favor of allowing babies the full range of life choices that necessitates birth, rather than eliminating their choices entirely by killing them in utero. No doubt you would consider yourself both pro-choice and pro-life as well, in your own way. The question on which we disagree is not whether we think people should be allowed to live or whether they should be allowed to choose how to live, but whether we wish to allow abortion. Almost no one is absolutely pro-choice or absolutely pro-life. Most of us recognize that choice (and even, in some cases, life) must be restricted at times to further both peace and justice in a society. As far as I can tell, plain speech requires us to drop both euphemisms. For my part, I’m happy to accept the label of “anti-abortion” as I feel abortion is one of the most abhorrent practices ever adopted by mankind, and am proud to oppose it.
Now, to your question of whether to lock up women who procure abortions:
The first order of business if and when we de-legalize abortion is to shut down abortion clinics, and otherwise eliminate access to abortions. This won’t destroy the industry entirely, but it will bring expectant mothers into a much more direct confrontation with the reality of their actions, as they will have to seek out real back-alley abortionists if they really want to abort their children. This, I suspect, will eliminate most abortions, as the industry dwindles back toward pre-1973 levels. To this end, we will have to fine and incarcerate abortionists, and those who knowingly assist them.
Once women are no longer able to walk into any Planned Parenthood and have their babies sucked out and disposed of, any woman who does go to the trouble of procuring an abortion can and should be prosecuted and punished for the crime, right along with the abortionist. I think there is substantial precedent to treat most of these women more or less as we treat other women who commit infanticide- that is, on a case-by-case basis, including sending some of them to prison, mandating therapy for others, and putting still others on probation.
Your thoughts about abortion in the case of rape are fairly illogical. If my daughter were (God forbid) ever in that position, I would welcome her innocent child into our family with open arms, even as I would wish a nice, long prison sentence on the father.
Even if an abortion would ease her mind and make her feel better (which I don’t believe for a minute) ending a person’s life for that reason alone is ridiculously unjust.
Finally, you write:
I would be open to proposals that limited voting rights to individuals who did not regard any text or person as — under whatever circumstances — in some way inherently inerrant beyond the inerrancy it would have in an ordinary text or ordinary person.
This is more or less what is meant by Pope Benedict XVI when he speaks of the dictatorship of relativism. I’ve seen this attitude in a shocking number of atheists, especially in the past few years. The attitude is, more or less, that anyone who doesn’t share your philosophy is an irresponsible member of society and ought to shut their mouths or be shut out of public life.
Chicken,
Your posts are a great example of just why I enjoy hanging out on Jimmy’s blog so dern much.
Look, folks, if Sarah Palin was such an awful mother, her daughter would have had an abortion like all the “cool chicks” out there instead of choosing to live up to the morals her mother taught her, keeping her baby and marrying the father to raise the baby in a complete family.
Now that’s a good mother! That’s a good daughter!
Of course, some folks insist on throwing stones in spite of their sinfulness.
I agree with John Smith. If anything her daughter’s pregnancy proves Sarah Palin’s pro-life views are real because she was tempted twice and did the right thing both times. Once by having a Downs child and a second time by encouraging her pregnant daughter to keep the baby. Obama of course would’nt want his daughters to be “punished” with a baby.
SP’s church (er, eclessiastical community, or whatever it’s called)–
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679
-JProt
Without leaving the main subject, I think everyone should take a look at Victor Lams’ new song (lyrics here). According to him, it’s “inspired by current events“.
If anything her daughter’s pregnancy proves Sarah Palin’s pro-life views are real because she was tempted twice and did the right thing both times.
Exactly. Her daughter made a big mistake first off, but she is taking responsibility for it and doing the right thing now.
I repeat: If they’re not pro-choice, what are they? Not pro-life, obviously. The distinction you want to make between “favoring legal abortion” and “being pro-choice” does not exist in American public discourse. In our political parlance, “favoring legal abortion” is indeed precisely interchangeable with “being pro-choice”; the two phrases mean exactly the same thing. “Pro-choice” is how individuals who favor legal abortion describe themselves, and how they are described by others. It seems to me you’re trying to sneak in the “sincerely” again under other words.
Since we’re talking about those particular individuals in the process who would have been responsible for facilitating the abortion in spite of the fact that the mother was in some way, shape or form unwilling, I think we can reasonably suppose that we are not talking about “pro-life” individuals. A pro-life individual with any level of responsibility for ascertaining the mother’s consent may reasonably be supposed to be highly motivated to ensure that non-consenting mothers are not bundled hugger-mugger through the process whether they like it or not.
This is highly unreasonable speculation since the whole point is that the projected behavior in question goes diametrcially counter to what a pro-life individual would want to to, as, e.g., the pro-life counselor on site tried to help the boyfriend stop the process. The process went awry in an anti-life direction, not a pro-life direction.
That’s the sophistry again. As far as I know, the right to life is a moral issue, not a political one. Given that life is the most fundamental right, it should be respected regardless of one’s political beliefs, but unfortunately that’s not the way it seems to be anymore…
if Sarah Palin was such an awful mother, her daughter would have had an abortion… instead of choosing to live up to the morals her mother taught her, keeping her baby and marrying the father to raise the baby in a complete family.
Many daughters of “awful” mothers have chosen to not have abortions, while many daughters of “good” mothers have had abortions.
And to the extent the daughter has yet to actually marry the teen father (who reportedly opted for “I don’t want kids” on his myspace page) and actually raise the baby in a “complete family,” the choices on those matters remain open. Might it be better that she not go through the motions of a marriage and instead give the child up for adoption?
If anything her daughter’s pregnancy proves Sarah Palin’s pro-life views are real because she was tempted twice and did the right thing both times. Once by having a Downs child and a second time by encouraging her pregnant daughter to keep the baby.
Many people engage in (or claim) behaviors for appearances sake. Such behaviors don’t “prove” their “real” views. For that reason, people attempt to look to what is hidden in order to ascertain the “real” views. For example, was there an effort to hide Bristol’s pregnancy on Friday by keeping Trig draped across her belly, and if so, is that consistent with the subsequent claim that Sarah was “proud” of Bristol’s choice to keep the baby and “even prouder to become grandparents”? Does that demonstrate “unconditional love and support” as claimed? It’s not for me to say, but people wonder.
“Sarah Palin. Babies. Guns. Jesus. Hot damn.”
Sarah Palin. Guns. Smoke. Beer. Stars and Stripes.
“It’s not for me to say, but people wonder.”
BS! You are saying. But in a cowardly, weasily way.
Might it be better that she not go through the motions of a marriage and instead give the child up for adoption?
It might, but it’s out of our hands and it’s their responsibility.
For example, was there an effort to hide Bristol’s pregnancy on Friday by keeping Trig draped across her belly, and if so, is that consistent with the subsequent claim that Sarah was “proud” of Bristol’s choice to keep the baby and “even prouder to become grandparents”?
Sarah Palin didn’t announce her own pregnancy until very close to the birth. I think that’s how they handle it. Having said that, they might have thought that announcing the pregnancy in her acceptance speech was not the right time. They probably intended to have Bristol go out of the public eye for her pregnancy, but libs on the net had other plans.
“SB” wrote:
This is more or less what is meant by Pope Benedict XVI when he speaks of the dictatorship of relativism. I’ve seen this attitude in a shocking number of atheists, especially in the past few years. The attitude is, more or less, that anyone who doesn’t share your philosophy is an irresponsible member of society and ought to shut their mouths or be shut out of public life.
That is not the attitude at all and you know it. The only way your statement could be interpreted as true is if “more or less” were to lose any ordinary meaning. Let me give you just one counterexample. I am a non-naturalistic atheist. Some, unlike myself, are commmitted to both naturalism and atheism; I would not exclude such persons who espouse a philosophy that opposes and is inconsistent with mine from public life. Here’s another example. Like I said, I am a non-naturalistic atheist. Some, however are theists while still not falling under the epistemologically vicious category I alluded to (for example AF is one such — though you may term him a deist depending on how you define “theist”); I would not exclude these, all other things being equal, from public life. The number of counter-examples is varied and in fact infinite as regards theory and supernumerous as regards fact.
And on the phrase “dictatorship of relativism,” a recent book I read written on a popular level called The Ethics Toolkit: A Compendium of Ethical Concepts and Methods exposes the poor reasoning of Benedict in his phraseology and his associated philosophy and political commentary there. The book covers a wide variety of subjects and I don’t remember the page number or chapter in which this “dicatorship of relativism” fallacy is addressed but I do believe it is in any event mentioned in a section which makes a distinction between the following concepts:
ethical realism vs. anti-realism
ethical relativism vs absolutism
ethical subjectivism vs objectivism
Some, like Benedict, conflate some of these categories with one another. BTW, this is not the first pope whose philosophy philosophers have criticized. John Paul II’s “fides et ratio” was criticized by some philosophers. As evident as their eruditeness may be in various areas, it is not evident that they are schooled in modern-day analytic philosophy the likes of Quine, David Lewis, and Saul Kripke. If you ask a priest who are I guess expected to know some philosophy what contributions Saul Kripke made to modal logic, he (unless he were the rare Jesuit with a math PhD) would most likely say something like “Kripke who?” The lack of robustness in some areas of priestly education was criticized by John Paul II himself as regards Latin IIRC. Many European school children know more Latin than Catholic priests — I don’t mean this as a disparagement; only as an interesting observation and as a token of generosity … perhaps you can use this fact in your arguments with your liberal Catholic cohorts. This is btw the only page on the Vatican website that seems to mention any of the above three philosophers (note some are named Quine who aren’t the philosopher Quine):
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2006/Acta%2011_PASS/Acta11(2_of_4).pdf
Interestingly, it is in a science academy we find knowledge of them, not in say the CDF.
Let me also clarify that the authors were not singling out Benedict above. They mention that it is not uncommon to conflate some or all of these juxtapositions and that in philosophy, sometimes terms are used with ambiguity. And the book appears to be in print and is less than 20 dollars. It may be at your library (if not inter-library loan always works)
On anti-choice pro-life:
As I thought I made clear, anti-abortion rights advocates are not anti-choice simpliciter (that’s not a typo, that’s Latin), but if I were to make more explict my syntax — actually I already did that above but here it is again — against choice when the value of choice comes at the expense of the value of life. Pro-choice individuals are not pro-abortion — whether simpliciter or in a qualified sense — as your fellow Catholic pointed out, pro-choice individuals are merely pro-freedom-to-abort. Let’s use some more formal language to make clear your dismal logic:
S is pro-freedom-to-engage-in-X
Therefore, S is pro-engaging-in-X
That is the inference you have to make to conclude that pro-choice — which can be reductively analyzed as “pro-freedom-to-engage-in-abortion” — entails being pro-abortion. Yet that inference obviously fails since:
S’ is pro-freedom-to-engage-in-burning of the flag
clearly does not entail
S’ is pro-burning-of-the-flag
I am not surprised that your logic here is dismal and I unfortunately would not be surprised due to further confirmation of certain hypotheses I have if you fail to see the fallacious reasoning you have engaged in here to justify your “pro-abortion” label.
Your label of “abortionist”, unlike “pro-abortion”, can be said to be technically truthful insofar as abortionist may mean simply someone who among other things performs abortions, it is clearly a case of your wanting to paint all those who perform some abortions with the moral stain of “abortionist” as you perceive it. Surely you do not call a physician who among other things removes warts a “wart terminator.” The label “abortionist” would be suitable only when the physician in his practice specializes in abortions. Perhaps that is the sense in which you meant it.
A woman lead over us?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/09/southern_baptists_and_their_ge.html
One thing you can count on in an uncertain world — JProt is consistent, always.
-JProt
In our political parlance, “favoring legal abortion” is indeed precisely interchangeable with “being pro-choice”
If by “favoring legal abortion,” you mean “supporting the legal authority of women to make the abortion choice”, then yes. But that’s not precisely equivalent to favoring (legal) abortion, for example in the sense that one could “favor legal abortion” but not place it under the woman’s authority to choose. And in political parlance, one can be pro-choice, i.e. support the legal authority of women to make the abortion choice, but not advocate (favor) that anyone actually get an abortion.
BS! You are saying. But in a cowardly, weasily way.
Perhaps you are listening in an uncharitable way. It’s not for me to say.
It might, but it’s out of our hands and it’s their responsibility.
Is it? Who’s your sister’s keeper?
they might have thought that announcing the pregnancy in her acceptance speech was not the right time. They probably intended to have…
Who knows? Like I said, people wonder.
I wonder if Adam is a new troll or one of the old trolls using a different handle? I recommend starvation.
Adam – “I don’t want kids” is the default setting for Myspace. I wouldn’t read too much into that.
It is a Catholic apologetics blog, which means that its purpose is to reach out to non-Catholics in an attempt to persuade them of the claims of Rome.
That means that those who aren’t members of the RCC will post here, asking questions and challenging weak answers.
SDG wrote:
I repeat: If they’re not pro-choice, what are they? Not pro-life, obviously. The distinction you want to make between “favoring legal abortion” and “being pro-choice” does not exist in American public discourse. In our political parlance, “favoring legal abortion” is indeed precisely interchangeable with “being pro-choice”; the two phrases mean exactly the same thing. “Pro-choice” is how individuals who favor legal abortion describe themselves, and how they are described by others. It seems to me you’re trying to sneak in the “sincerely” again under other words.
You seem to have made two errors: one substantive and one interpretive.
The substantive error: you seem to be assuming that popular assumptions about reality is evidence for those assumptions being truly features of reality; and, specifically here you seem to be assuming then that the set of all individuals is one and the same set as the union of the set of pro-life individuals and the set of pro-choice individuals (limiting the universe of individuals appropriately to American adults etc.). Individuals who not only are neither pro-choice nor anti-choice pro-life but who profess neither may include individuals who are ambivalent and have suspended judgment on the matter. I was once such an individual. It took me a while to transition from a “pro-life” mindset to the pro-choice ideal and during some of that period of transition I actually in my life professed to be neither pro-choice nor pro-life.
The interpretive error (and this may be partially my own fault if my writing was unclear): I thought I made explicit that for the purposes of our discussion we can simply assume that an individual utters the word “pro-choice” or a similar permutation of it “I support a woman’s right to choose” can be understood to be professing a belief in the pro-choice ideal. So even if some of these individuals are not professing a belief in the pro-choice ideal b/c they understand “pro-choice” to mean something other than what I have specified, I am saying let’s assume that they are professing a belief in the pro-choice ideal all the same. So there’s no need to worry about any issues of linguistic vagueness or anything of the sort whenever the word “choice” or “choose” etc. is used.
Since we’re talking about those particular individuals in the process who would have been responsible for facilitating the abortion in spite of the fact that the mother was in some way, shape or form unwilling, I think we can reasonably suppose that we are not talking about “pro-life” individuals. A pro-life individual with any level of responsibility for ascertaining the mother’s consent may reasonably be supposed to be highly motivated to ensure that non-consenting mothers are not bundled hugger-mugger through the process whether they like it or not.
This seems to be a subtle instance of begging the question. You are assuming “pro-life” individuals would all be virtuous enough that we can reasonable assume that they would be true to their professed ideal and not have been the one(s) responsible. Yet I could simply turn that around and say the same thing by replacing “pro-life” with “pro-choice.” And note I am not claiming that is established that no such cases have taken place; I am merely challenging your claim that the contrary has been established. I acknowledged that such cases may exist and indeed I acknowledged that it was very likely that such cases exist. So the “begging the question” conundrum unfortunately falls squarely in your lap.
This is highly unreasonable speculation since the whole point is that the projected behavior in question goes diametrcially counter to what a pro-life individual would want to to, as, e.g., the pro-life counselor on site tried to help the boyfriend stop the process. The process went awry in an anti-life direction, not a pro-life direction.
There are pro-life individuals who work at some medical facilities that provide abortions. I am sure you will not doubt that this is true of large hospitals. It is also true of some clinics. I am not sure if it is true of Planned Parenthood. If you are interested, I will try when I have time to find you an example.
Pro-life individuals work for the campaigns of pro-choice politicians all the time. I don’t see much difference there.
If by “favoring legal abortion,” you mean “supporting the legal authority of women to make the abortion choice”, then yes. But that’s not precisely equivalent to favoring (legal) abortion, for example in the sense that one could “favor legal abortion” but not place it under the woman’s authority to choose. And in political parlance, one can be pro-choice, i.e. support the legal authority of women to make the abortion choice, but not advocate (favor) that anyone actually get an abortion.
Yes that is correct Adam. You must have been the astute and fair Catholic I was alluding to.
The devout self-described Thomist-worldview Catholic Chris Matthews on a morning show today expressed an interesting argument for the pro-choice ideal. He explained how the pro-choice regime allows heroic acts like the choice of Sarah Palin to keep her child and the choice of her daughter to keep hers in turn to flourish. He explained how pro-life individuals desire that the full weight and power of the government force a woman to give birth such that such choices are no longer able to flourish as choices or heroic choices — they will still give birth but they will not have truly chosen to do so and there would also be no heroism involved.
I find it difficult to wrap my mind around a philosophical theology that claims that God may have allowed freedom relative to his power so that we might flourish morally, so that “merit” may be accumulated, which “merit” being grounded in inherent qualities of the soul or actions that proceed from the same — to the point where some Catholic “saints” even proclaimed that they would return to earth from the surety of heaven at the risk of damnation if it meant the chance to accumulate more merit and thus more glory in heaven — and yet at the same time claims that the human government should not allow freedom relative to the power of the human government! This seems obviously contradictory. Murder robs from someone the freedom to exercise freedom to moral flourishing. Abortion does not do that. For the embryo that is aborted is not able to exercise freedom in a way such that it flourishes morally. And I can anticipate the response. A comatose person cannot be murdered either (assuming her intent was to be kept alive) b/c if her intent, especially when expressed or reasonably discerned was to continue living, then her prior free act, her prior intent, her prior free choice to live in that minimally conscious state gives her current state the character of moral flourishing. The same cannot be said of an embryo who cannot make free choices unto moral flourishing and could not have previously have done likewise. So the decision rests with the mother.
Incidentally, some trivia of import:
According to Aquinas does a pregnant woman (say 7 months pregnant) have:
a. Just one guardian angel.
b. Two: one for her and one for the embryo
Answer: a
His reasons for that I will not go into here but this IMO serves an illustration of if nothing else of the fact that in matters such as these, nothing is simplistic, clear, cut, and dried. There is depth here (to this matter I mean)
Adam – “I don’t want kids” is the default setting for Myspace. I wouldn’t read too much into that.
Probably a good choice for default setting. Did you want kids when you were a teenager?
BTW, never in my life have I seen in print in any mainstream media newspaper in a hard news article (op-ed does not count) the term “anti-choice” used to refer to anti-abortion rights persons (by the journalist of course, not in a quote).
According to Aquinas does a pregnant woman (say 7 months pregnant) have:
a. Just one guardian angel.
b. Two: one for her and one for the embryo
Answer: a
Got a citation for that?
A comatose person cannot be murdered either (assuming her intent was to be kept alive) b/c if her intent, especially when expressed or reasonably discerned was to continue living, then her prior free act, her prior intent, her prior free choice to live in that minimally conscious state gives her current state the character of moral flourishing.
Which shows the inherentness silliness of your “moral flourishing” argument. By the same logic, it doesn’t have the character of moral flourishing if she didn’t express that prior free choice.
Indeed, what do you consider “moral flourishing” when you see a depressed man about to commit suicide?
Got a citation for that?
With “some degree of probability”, from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article5:
Objection 3. Further, a child has a rational soul for some time before birth, just as well as after. But it does not appear that an angel is appointed to guard a child before its birth, for they are not then admitted to the sacraments of the Church. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard men from the moment of their birth.
On the contrary, Jerome says (vide A, 4) that “each soul has an angel appointed to guard it from its birth.”
Reply to Objection 3. As long as the child is in the mother’s womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.”
Got a citation for that?
With “some degree of probability”, from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article5:
Objection 3. Further, a child has a rational soul for some time before birth, just as well as after. But it does not appear that an angel is appointed to guard a child before its birth, for they are not then admitted to the sacraments of the Church. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard men from the moment of their birth.
On the contrary, Jerome says (vide A, 4) that “each soul has an angel appointed to guard it from its birth.”
Reply to Objection 3. As long as the child is in the mother’s womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.”
@Mary
I think my statement confused you. I stand by my statement but let me first remove some complex subtleties in it and address the general case squarely:
Whether it counts as moral flourishing depends not on whether she expressed the prior free choice, but whether she made it. So if she made it in secret without telling anyone and if we as a society give the benefit of the doubt in the direction of people having made the choice when no indication is present (though I don’t know why any wouldn’t be if from nothing other than generalized polls and the reasonable though fallible generalizations that we can make from them), then it would still be moral flourishing — we just wouldn’t know whether it was or not.
It is a case of moral flourishing whether the prior free choice is expressed or not, but it is “especially” a case of moral flourishing when it is expressed. (why so is a whole other topic)
An embryo not only cannot express a free choice; it cannot make one.
On your request for a citation … perhaps this will open your mind to the possibilities out there or perhaps not … either way:
http://home.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article5
Article 5. Whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth?
(…) I answer that, as Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (1,4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him. (…)
Reply to Objection 3. As long as the child is in the mother’s womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.
So this establishes these things:
1. Aquinas held that unborn children did not have their own guardian angel but that there is some probability that the mother’s guardian angel also guarded the unborn child. (which addresses your specific question)
and further:
2. Aquinas held further that the unborn child is “not entirely separate” from the mother “as long as the child is in the mother’s womb” — so even after Thomistic delayed ensoulment has taken place. So much for the “pro-life” riduling of the pro-choice position that the child is not a being entirely separate of the mother.
3. Aquinas held that it is at birth that the baby “becomes separate from the mother” at which time “an angel guardian is appointed to it”. So much for the “pro-life” ridiculing of the pro-choice position that it is only at birth that the baby “becomes separate from the mother”.
4. Aquinas held that the unborn child “as long as the child is in the mother’s womb” — so even after Thomistic delayed ensoulment has taken place — is “still part of her”. So much for the pro-life ridiculing of the pro-choice position that the unborn child is part of the woman.
5. Aquinas used the analogy of a fruit and a tree. Ironically I have used precisely this analogy before and ignorant pro-lifers, including Catholics, lambasted it as somehow a dastardly analogy (this is particular incident is in another forum). Likewise for the other three cases above, any pro-life derision of the pro-choice analogous claim can be applied with some measure to Aquinas. The ignorant pro-life Catholics (as opposed to the non-ignorant ones) deride as inhuman their own saint and universal doctor. Note that these derisions cannot be tucked away by explaining what Aquinas would have believed with the new data of modern science as these particular views of Aquinas are essentially retained on an ensoulment-at-conception theory as well (this is not to say that Aquinas would have held to one; only to grant that for our purposes)
@Mary
I think my statement confused you. I stand by my statement but let me first remove some complex subtleties in it and address the general case squarely:
Whether it counts as moral flourishing depends not on whether she expressed the prior free choice, but whether she made it. So if she made it in secret without telling anyone and if we as a society give the benefit of the doubt in the direction of people having made the choice when no indication is present (though I don’t know why any wouldn’t be if from nothing other than generalized polls and the reasonable though fallible generalizations that we can make from them), then it would still be moral flourishing — we just wouldn’t know whether it was or not.
It is a case of moral flourishing whether the prior free choice is expressed or not, but it is “especially” a case of moral flourishing when it is expressed. (why so is a whole other topic)
An embryo not only cannot express a free choice; it cannot make one.
On your request for a citation … perhaps this will open your mind to the possibilities out there or perhaps not … either way:
http://home.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article5
Article 5. Whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth?
(…) I answer that, as Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (1,4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him. (…)
Reply to Objection 3. As long as the child is in the mother’s womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.
So this establishes these things:
1. Aquinas held that unborn children did not have their own guardian angel but that there is some probability that the mother’s guardian angel also guarded the unborn child. (which addresses your specific question)
and further:
2. Aquinas held further that the unborn child is “not entirely separate” from the mother “as long as the child is in the mother’s womb” — so even after Thomistic delayed ensoulment has taken place. So much for the “pro-life” riduling of the pro-choice position that the child is not a being entirely separate of the mother.
3. Aquinas held that it is at birth that the baby “becomes separate from the mother” at which time “an angel guardian is appointed to it”. So much for the “pro-life” ridiculing of the pro-choice position that it is only at birth that the baby “becomes separate from the mother”.
4. Aquinas held that the unborn child “as long as the child is in the mother’s womb” — so even after Thomistic delayed ensoulment has taken place — is “still part of her”. So much for the pro-life ridiculing of the pro-choice position that the unborn child is part of the woman.
5. Aquinas used the analogy of a fruit and a tree. Ironically I have used precisely this analogy before and ignorant pro-lifers, including Catholics, lambasted it as somehow a dastardly analogy (this is particular incident is in another forum). Likewise for the other three cases above, any pro-life derision of the pro-choice analogous claim can be applied with some measure to Aquinas. The ignorant pro-life Catholics (as opposed to the non-ignorant ones) deride as inhuman their own saint and universal doctor. Note that these derisions cannot be tucked away by explaining what Aquinas would have believed with the new data of modern science as these particular views of Aquinas are essentially retained on an ensoulment-at-conception theory as well (this is not to say that Aquinas would have held to one; only to grant that for our purposes)
CT,
You seem to be misreading me. My argument does not assume that everyone is necessarily either pro-life or pro-choice, nor that everyone working in an abortion clinic must be pro-choice, or even “not pro-life.”
My argument is only concerned with those recurring occasions when a woman’s lack of consent is insufficient to prevent an abortion from proceding, and specifically with the individual(s) responsible for making the judgment call(s) that the abortion may proceed despite lack of clear maternal consent.
On those occasions, the woman’s choice is bypassed by what amounts to a procedural pro-abortion bias. Rather than excessive obstacles being placed in the path of the abortion (what would amount to an anti-abortion procedural bias), the woman is bundled along through the process by one or more clinic employees responsible for ascertaining the woman’s consent (or conversely for detecting her lack of consent and preventing the procedure from going forward), who in this case make a judgment call in favor of the abortion going forward in spite of the lack of clear consent.
My brief is that the individual(s) implicated in this procedural pro-abortion bias are highly unlikely to describe themselves as anything other than pro-choice. This is especially the case if the individuals responsible for ascertaining the woman’s consent include the abortionist, which it certainly seems to be ought to be the case.
Pro-life individuals may well work in the campaigns of pro-choice politicians, but do they characteristically encourage or facilitate a pro-abortion bias in the campaign? What sort of person is most likely to make a judgment call in favor of a particular abortion going forward without proper consent: someone who sees abortion as a bad thing, someone who sees it as a necessary thing or someone with no particular view on the matter? Do you really claim that there is highly probable correlation here?
CT,
Any chance you could stop paraphrasing Aquinas without references and provide actual citations, if not quotations?
Is it? Who’s your sister’s keeper?
Not gonna fly, Adam. I pray for Bristol and her family, but it is not my place to tell them what is best to do. Sarah Palin, as a mother of five, is more qualified than I to counsel her daughter. Adopting or raising the child oneself are both acceptable within the Catholic Faith. What would you have me do?
Based upon the fact that ‘Adam’ answered, without even a ‘by your leave,’ an objection to a claim made by ‘CT’, I’d say ‘CT’ and ‘Adam’ may be violating the one name when posting.
@SDG
I don’t see why I should be unable to paraphrase Aquinas without citation when others here do the same. I don’t always recall off the top of my head where Aquinas said what and I still stand with Pasnau’s interpretation but his is not at issue here. In any event, I provided quotation and citation in response to Mary’s request above. And there was no “paraphrase” there. It is factual. It is factual as to Aquina’s position; not a paraphrase as to some text in Aquinas.
On political campaigns, there are pro-life political strategists who advised John McCain (albeit partially pro-life) to choose a pro-choice running mate.
The fact that abortion is perceived as evil lends itself to the conclusion that a pro-life person would not coerce an abortion. However it is equally true that the fact that coercion in a woman’s right to choose is considered an evil lends itself to the conclusion that a pro-choice would would not coerce an abortion. The abortive aspect of the facts does not trump the coercive aspect of the facts.
In any event, wherever the facts in this particular matter lie, they don’t seem to generate but weak evidence for either the pro-life or pro-choice position.
Incidentally, while I am certainly not an Aquinas scholar, the fact that I was cognizant of this passage in Aquinas and Mary was not suggests to me that it is Mary who should be wary of assuming things of Aquinas, not myself.
Now, one shouldn’t assume, SDG, that just because someone disagrees with your or someone’s interpretation of a text in Aquinas that they are being dishonest or somehow manipulative or whave you (as your post seemed to impy of me). Interpretive debates of texts — including those written by Aquinas happen all the time including among Catholic scholars. And some of these debates do not involve any controversial social issues. For instance, there is considerable debate as to what exactly Aquinas meant as regards a “science” (perhaps you were annoyed with my speaking of this in the other thread where you described Aquinas as prescientifc). There is no consensus among scholars on that question. There is also debate on Anselm’s response to Gaunilo — some say that Anselm was being disingenous in his response and even unethical, if you will. There is debate as to whether Tarski’s truth schema constitutes an implicit definition of a truth predicate (here the interpretation is both textual and mathematical). There are all kinds of debates in all kinds of fields regarding interpretive issues.
BTW, my interpretation of Aquinas on guardian angels here is not something that is out of left field. I think it is fairly obvious (as regards the original statement regarding the number of angels). In fact, I first read of it in a secondary source written by none other than a Dominican priest who incidentally is in Catholic circles considered an Aquinas scholar and has books published to his name on Aquinas.
David B. wrote:
Based upon the fact that ‘Adam’ answered, without even a ‘by your leave,’ an objection to a claim made by ‘CT’, I’d say ‘CT’ and ‘Adam’ may be violating the one name when posting.
I am frankly disgusted that Catholics here continue to attribute dishonesty to me (almost everyone here has without any substantiation indeed even in many cases with proof to the contrary not just in this thread but others). Even when one calumnous charge was proven false as regards D.D.’s, no one apologized for it. This is the second time now that someone has claimed that I am deceiving folks by posting under two names. The first time, no one really apologized quite frankly (what happened as far as I am concerned is that someone tried to explain how he wasn’t really intending to accuse me of dishonesty; that it was not meant to be disparaging against me at all). This second time, clearly it is a case of disparagement against me.
No one defended me the first time. No one defended me against the calumny regarding D.D’s in this thread either. And so I have no reason to believe that anyone will defend me against this again-repeated charge.
Italicising “may” does not render it innocent. I might as well then say: “Based on my experience, you may all have abandonment any love of goodness and truth for the sake of the advantage that religious adherence provides in your personal/social/financial/or some other kind of life”
Enough is enough. The Catholics who wanted me out have their wish. If Catholic claims are non irrational, nothing need be feared from rational discussion. It is clear though that it is not rational discussion, but personal attacks, rash judgment, and outright calumny that are unfortunately characteristic of this blog community.
If Catholics approach an interlocuter with the pressuposition that they have nothing to learn from him, then what’s the point? You’ll note up above I conceded a point to Jeb.
And since whether I am “officially” invited to participate here or not that is clear that no one here wants me around — even those who have in the past said they hope I do not feel unwelcome clearly no longer welcome my participation — I don’t see any social honesty in this whole arrangement.
And just so someone doesn’t make some further calumnous statement that I wrote a “non-denial denial”. I will say:
I did not post as “Adam” above and have never posted as “Adam” in any other thread. I also did not as “Eric” in the thread in which Masked Chicken accused me of doing the same thing.
I have never engaged in sock-puppeting on this blog or any other forum in my entire life.
At least this will allow me to devote more time to my paper that TMC once expressed an interest in reading.
Good day and ironically the only person I distinctly recall that didn’t insinuate some form of dishonesty with respect to me (among Catholics) is Jimmy Akin — I am speaking of those of which I distinctly recall.
[Added: CT, the comments below were written before your last comment above. Perhaps if you were feeling embattled at the moment that might account for what seemed to me unnecessary defensiveness. If nothing else, I hope my comments below may somewhat mitigate at least part of your perception of inferences of dishonesty. I cannot recall that I have ever felt you were being dishonest, although it seems to me that at times I felt your arguments were more contrarian trolling than reasonable discourse.]
For goodness sakes, CT. It is ridiculous to infer from requests for citations that a person assumes the other person is being dishonest or manipulative. It is also ridiculous to assume that I disagree with you on the interpretation of Aquinas when I hadn’t even read what Aquinas had to say. I wanted the references so that I could decide what I thought about what Aquinas had to say. How else could I know?
I looked up the Aquinas myself. Your summary is basically accurate, I think. Aquinas’s reasoning here seems at its least persuasive, even specious, evidently tailored to fit the conclusion from Jerome. He proposes that the benefits “which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature.” How that is to be reconciled with Aquinas’s own notion of quickening, when the infant receives the rational soul, is by no means clear. How can one have a rational soul but not yet the nature of a rational being?
The idea that man receives some sort of new nature at birth seems to be without warrant, supported neither by science, nor AFAIK by any particular weight of tradition, nor by magisterial teaching. Aquinas is surely wholly ignorant, for instance, of fetal learning and of the continuity of pre- and post-partum awareness. His comments here seem to be of significance principally in the history and study of Thomistic thought, with no implications for contemporary anthropology or moral theory.
“One thing you can count on in an uncertain world — JProt is consistent, always.
-JProt”
Yeah — just as consistent as his Southern Baptist Pro-Aborts turned Kinda-Pro-Abort then Kinda-Pro-Life:
“The Southern Baptist Convention initially called for legislation in 1971 that would allow for the possibility of abortions under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe to fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother. In 1976, the convention changed its position to oppose abortions used as a means of birth control. In 1980, the convention strengthened its position by supporting legislation and/or a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother. In recent years the Southern Baptist Convention has taken an active leadership role in supporting pro-life legislation, including backing the PBA Ban Act and opposing FOCA and other pro-abortion measures. The convention has also developed a broad range of pro-life educational material for all levels, including a comprehensive pro-life Sunday school curricula and materials for Sanctity of Life Sunday in January.”
Compare the above with:
“The Roman Catholic Church has continuously and steadfastly opposed the legalization of abortion and has supported virtually all meaningful pro-life legislation and public policies. The bishops have testified before Congress on numerous occasions pleading for restoration of respect for all human life. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has prepared several pastoral letters clearly defining the Catholic Church’s pro-life position. Most dioceses have active respect life offices and parish pro-life committees.”
The Catholic Church — one thing you can count on in an uncertain world where every other denomination is influenced by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
No one defended me against the calumny regarding D.D’s in this thread either. And so I have no reason to believe that anyone will defend me against this again-repeated charge.
Would it help if a “troll” defended you?
You are telling the truth to say that bishops are D.D.’s by the fact of the office they hold. How they come to hold that office is another issue.
And apart from loving CT as myself, I am not CT. But I do share his pursuit of the truth as well as his endeavor to be polite in the face of such remarks.
CT,
I take umbrage that you accuse me of calumniating you. As someone who has been viciously calumniated by people that I thought were my friends, I reject out of hand making false statements about another.
I only thought that perhaps you thought that you needed to use two different names in order to address two different topics. I wondered because Adam answered a question as though he were the one who wrote the original comment. I’m not trying to drive you off the internet, and I’m truly sorry that you took it that way.
However, the use of ‘may’ in the clause “I’d say ‘CT’ and ‘Adam’ may be violating the one name when posting,” does matter. It is the difference between stating something as fact and inquiring about a possible failure to comply with the rules. I was interested not in running you away, but in ascertaining the truth.
I didn’t say that you were dishonest. For me, dishonesty is not necessarily posting on two different lines of the discussion under two different names. Once again, I didn’t mean to cause offense, or to drive you away. I hope you’ll reconsider you decision to quit further discussions. Peace.
CT,
In my defense, there have been many people on here who use multiple names, some with bad intentions and a couple who didn’t realize the rules Jimmy had made.
I guess I should not have inquired at all, and though I assumed that ‘Adam’ was making an unlooked-for defense, I was curious to a fault and should have been more cautious in my wondering.
Looking over CT’s and Adam’s posts here and elsewhere, it is clear if anything else that this person is one of the most clever trolls in the world — to the very extent that David B. and SDG practically bowed to their grand act of manipulation.
Too bad I can’t say the same for the genuine Catholics who weren’t given even a tenth of the special treatment these kind of folks got, even in light of the fact that they often ridiculed the Catholic Faith as nothing more than cow dung.
It is one thing to invite opposition and diverse opinions on the blog; it’s quite another to allow a Catholic blog to serve as a podium for anti-Catholic pedantry.
To be fair, after looking over some of the comments (although I don’t necessarily agree with them), David B. seems like a good guy; as for SDG, except for his double-standard, he seems likewise.
Still, I stand by the sentiments in the above comments.
After I expressed my intent to discontinue participation on this blog, certain individuals (namely “John Smith” and “SDG”) have persisted in derogatory posts against me (or derogatory comments edited into posts after they learned of my intent even though my recent return was occasioned as I had indicated by a similar incident — though in that incident not so much an attack against one’s character as here)
Though it is not clear from the the contradictory grammar in “John Smith”s first sentence, some of the grammar suggests that he is repeating what I described above as the calumny of “David B.” that I am the same person as “Adam” Let me note also that the first of my double posts that followed “Adam”‘s double posts which posts led “David B.” to on the most charitable interpretation of “David B.”‘s remarks raise the possibility that I was engaging in this behavior, judging from the corresponding time stamps was a little less than 2 minutes after “Adam”‘s. I suppose that does not exonerate me, but I’ll leave that data for those who may have at least some love of truth in their hearts.
Feel free to defend yourself against any perceived derogatory statement made against you that I may make within this post but please out of courtesy to me do not do more than that in future mentions of me or specific allusions to me.
I suppose if “John Smith” or SDG or anyone else feels it necessary to refer to me in derogatory ways in their discussion about what a Catholic blog or Catholic apologetics blog means, then I certainly cannot stop you from doing so.
But if you have any decency or generosity or whatever value that is to your liking, respect with pun intended, but in all seriousness, my right to choose. I wish to choose to not participate in this blog for various reasons. It is difficult (though not impossible) for me make that choice if continued derogatory or defamatory statements regarding me are made — whether by SDG “John Smith” or “David B.” or any other individual — and I find it not only difficult but find it unfair. So please honor my wish here. I am sure you are intelligent enough to be able to have this discussion about fairness and what constitutes a Catholic blog without involving me in any way. If there is unfairness then I am sure it involves more than myself.
I could say that there seems not to be an iota of love expressed on this blog of late but then judging from experience some may say: “God is not just love; he is also justice” “admonishing the sinner is a work of mercy” etc. If that is the case, then I know in my heart that whatever intellectual merits that rejoinder may hold, that it together with certain other experiences in my life I have been reflecting on today gives me moral certainty that even if this religion be right for some, it is objectively speaking not right for me (and for those who see that as a contradiction — this is precisely the error that Benedict and others make that is addressed in the book I cited above).
When I was Catholic I was fond of Francis of Assisi. In his tradition then, I say thank you for occasioning the reflection that led to the moral certainty I now possess holistically in my being, both in intellect and heart and emotion that Catholicism and Christianity is not right for me.
Again, please remember my comments in bold. A separate thanks to those who honor my wishes here. May you all prosper and experience glorious sensual delights.
Good grief.
CT, my main issue with you in my last post was that you seemed overly sensitive to a perceived charge of dishonesty where none existed. Not only did I assure you that no implication of dishonesty was intended, I even said I couldn’t recall ever feeling that you were being dishonest.
You, OTOH, have accused me of incorrigible dishonesty — of being incapable of acknowledging countervailing evidence against my views or of modifying or retracting my views given sufficient warrant. Your evidence for this charge was specious, and although I refuted it and repeatedly invited you to clarify your position and withdraw your accusation of dishonesty, you never did that I saw (if I missed it, perhaps someone will let me know).
That, in part, is why I had to add in honesty that I did seem to recall times when I felt your arguments were more contrarian trolling than reasonable discourse.
There were also other incidents. For example, you assumed without warrant that I reduced “all judicial and constitutional issues to Roe vs Wade and other abortion law.” You tried to rebut my argument that a parent’s right to require a child to participate in religious services is an exception to the general “‘human right’ to worship (or not worship) according to the dictates of conscience, and not to be compelled to participate in religious practices unless one wishes” with the specious argument that “A parent does not have the authority to force a child to actually worship or for that matter to not worship” — as if any totalitarian state in the world could do that.
You can believe yourself ill-used if you want, but I think you’re being oversensitive.
To be fair to you, I do see evidence in your posts that you have at times made elaborate, even excessive efforts to avoid giving offense to others (including me). This suggests to me that you have a highly sensitive nature and are treating others the way you want to be treated, i.e., assuming that they are as likely to take offense as you are and taking the same care to avoid offending them that you would want others to take regarding you.
Having said that, I’d feel more sympathy if you’d been less free with charges of dishonesty against others followed by wounded feelings over perceived charges of dishonesty against yourself.
FWIW, none of this is to say that I have always been fair and charitable to you. For any offense or unfairness on my part, I am sorry and I apologize.
Mr. Smith,
I don’t quite get your point because, among a number of reasons, I’m not a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. I’ve also read that it wasn’t the convention per se, but just one committee of the SBC that took a pro-abort stance, although I could be wrong.
Do you defend everything the Catholic Church has done? I hope you don’t support the policy of shuffling pedophile priests from diocese to diocese. Was a single bishop who sanctioned this removed by John Paul the Great?
CT,
I am not going to let you have a pass so easily. Do you even know what calumny is? To refresh your memory (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):
Calumny
(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)
Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation. Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced. Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another’s good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libellous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him. In canon law the phrase juramentum calumniae is employed to indicate the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith.
My exact statement, on June 30, 2008 4:34:53 PM, was:
Please, forgive my question, but how many people here know what a false flag operation is? Is it common knowledge (I do have gaps in my knowledge base), because I have never heard of it. I have heard of “wagging the dog”, where one creates a political distraction by military means.
The reason I ask is that I have heard this term, twice, now from posts over the last two days, but not before on this site. I realize it is a small sample set and I do not mean to make any judgments, but are Eric and CT the same person, since only they have used the same term, to my knowledge. The only reason I bring this up is that if they are the same person, then would they please use a consistent handle or name. If they are not the same person, then please, ignore this?
It was a question. How in the heck do you think a non-malicious question can be calumny? We have had stealth double-posters on this site, before. There was at least circumstantial evidence that you might have been one. I simply asked the question, not to damage your character, but to get at the truth. I even said to ignore it if it turned out not to be true. How can seeking the truth be calumny? I did not impute a crime to you. Before one can do so, one has to be certain that a crime has been committed. That was the information I was seeking. That, my friend, is not calumny. LET ME BE CLEAR: your repeated accusation of calumny to people who are honestly seeking to clarify circumstantial evidence (before they charge anyone of anything) IS calumny.
Neither David nor I said you were a stealth double-poster. We pointed out circumstantial evidence and, at least tacitly, invited clarification. CONDITIONALs are not generally calumnious. If you are an academic philosopher (attached to a university), these sorts of statements, made in the “heat of battle,” happen all of the time. Patient clarification is usually the best first course, not vilifying the person who said it.
Let’s all take a deep breath. I strongly doubt that anyone here wants to impugn your character. There simply seems to be a circumstantial correlation between your phraseology and that of some new posters. That is probably a function of the fact that you (and I) make large posts that cover many different topics. Some overlap is bound to happen.
The Chicken
Mr. Smith,
And while I’m at it, if it weren’t for us benighted prots, there wouldn’t be any opposition to evolution in the US. What have the Catholic bishops done to encourage the giving of creationism and intelligent design a fair hearing in the US? Not a thing, from what I can tell.
And how come if a catholic wants to read a book defending the historical accuracy of the Bible, he has to read a prot author?
And what have your wonderful Catholic bishops done about Notre Dame and Georgetown?
-JProt
Jeb,
Creationism and Bible inerrancy are Protestant fetishes derived from the Solas. Catholics have Tradition and Authority via the Vicar of Christ and don’t view evolutionary theory as the threat to the faith Protestant do precisely because we do not rely solely on the Bible. Why should we be expected to take up your causes?
These things are far from the work of the vineyard. Talk to me about your Matthew 25 acts of mercy or opposition to the culture of death. Then you’ll see that there are more important things that bind us (the love of God) than those that separate us (the Solas).
Memphis Aggie,
Huh? Biblical inerrancy is as strongly held by Catholics as by Protestants, though perhaps not in the same way.
So CT will go out of his way to defend PZ Meyers, prostitution, pornography, abortion, call the right to be immoral a beautiful right, mock our Catholic faith and wish us all sensual delights but cries foul because his feelings were hurt? And because he asks, we are not to comment anymore about him after all the long winded comments he has posted here?
CT,
Your ideas are brilliantly looney. Your problems with the Church are moral not theological. I hope you at least understand that before you leave, that is of course, if you leave which I doubt you will or can.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The Masked Chicken,
Thanks for the red-eye defense. 🙂
CT,
I hope you read my above apology. I can say that my question about “Adam” was not out of malicious intent. I should have remember your feelings about that previous questioning by some other poster, and perhaps it would have been best to shut up. If I had known that you were acutely aware of possible calumnies, I would have avoided asking anything, even if I was not calumniating you. (calumny is a statement of falsehood, and I did not make one)
That being the case, you must admit that the intent of my post and its reception were not united in spirit ( that is, I offended you when I did not intend to). As it is, I am sorry once again that you were offended by my question.
Again, I meant and mean it when I say sorry. 🙁
CT,
My goodness.
I’m sorry your feelings have been hurt, and I hope I wasn’t partially responsible for that. Perhaps, rather than saying “take a chill pill,” I should have said “take a step back, take a deep breath, and come back to the table when you’re calm.” That’s really all I meant by it.
I certainly didn’t mean that I don’t welcome your presence here. If you don’t want to remain here, go on, and God’s peace go with you. For my part, I wouldn’t mind seeing you back, especially if you take a few days to recover your emotional equilibrium.
JProt,
You wrote:
And while I’m at it, if it weren’t for us benighted prots, there wouldn’t be any opposition to evolution in the US. What have the Catholic bishops done to encourage the giving of creationism and intelligent design a fair hearing in the US? Not a thing, from what I can tell.
And how come if a catholic wants to read a book defending the historical accuracy of the Bible, he has to read a prot author?
And what have your wonderful Catholic bishops done about Notre Dame and Georgetown?
Actually, I think we in the Church owe a lot to the Prots. Prots have been keeping Catholics honest for several hundred years now, and there were several who were actually instrumental in my conversion. A big thanks to you and to my other Protestant brothers.
Dear David B.,
What is a “red-eye” defense?
the Chicken
The Masked Chicken,
This is (assuming you are in JA’s time zone):
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Sep 3, 2008 5:57:11 AM
Bravo, Beastly. What he said.
If it hadn’t been for the Protestants who brought me back to the Christian faith, I would never have found the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Separated brethren.
I need to correct some factual errors.
1. I never accused anyone here of “incorrigible dishonesty” and I made note of that fact several days ago in the thread in which someone accused me of accusing him of “incorrigible dishonesty.” I do not wish to get into an argument about this. We can simply agree to disagree on the facts.
2. Saying that someone “may” (as David B had put it) be morally wicked (or otherwise bad) is an act of calumny. It is not a conditional. It is neither an indicative conditional involving material implication nor a subjunctive conditional involving counterfactuals or some other such. I’ve been taught by experts in this area “A may be B” is simply put not a conditional. Furthermore, the quotation by TMC above is self-servingly misleading. He omits some things which he wrote. There are also other issues here in terms of logical entailment and assertibility rules (such as “assert the stronger”): for example if someone says: “his IQ is over 75” in the normal course of conversation with respect to someone with an IQ of 150, though no false statement has been made and nothing entailed by it is false, the “assert the stronger” rule dictates that the statement is in normal contexts, inappropraite.. I am not going to analyze TMC’ original remarks, not all of which were quoted by him above. But I do know that it cannot be cashed out as merely a conditional. Prescinding wholly from this, I note also that he appears to choose to continue to express doubt as to whether “Eric” and I are one and the same person. I find that an unnecessary remark, almost gratuitous. He also adds to the original calumny by making the case for why the suggested calumny might be true. There was no “circumstantial evidence” that I was the same person as Eric anymore than there was “circumstantial evidence” that SDG possessed “incorrigible dishonesty.” (though again I did not accuse him of that — accuse him of something else, I did but not quite that) If “conditionals” are fine by TMC, then I might as well say “If this sentence is not against blog rules, then given what I find to the circumstantial evidence that The Masked Chicken and SDG are dishonest individuals, I assert that they are both dishonest and that one of the two is practically incorrigibly dishonest with respect to some things”) The fact is that the conditional nature of the sentence, given certain philosophy of language issues, does not render that sentence, if uttered, not an act of calumny (or detraction were it true).
3. The notion that saying someone “may” be morally wicked, morally deficient, have committed an immoral act or raising in the minds of others the distinct possibility more than would ordinarily exist in anyway, that someone has engaged in something morally evil is not considered in Catholic moral theology texts (none that I have read anyway) as not to be an instance of calumny. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the word “calumny.” But going by what a certain then widely used pre-Vatican II moral theology text wrote, it is calumnous to do these things. To be fair it was also calumnous of me according to this same text to raise the possibility that the numerous individuals (none whom I named but whom may be known by name) may be the same person as “John Smith” — for according to this text, even though I did not say this with certainty and even though I did not link “John Smith” with any particular individual, I would have committed calumny insofar as I diminished in a proportionate way the reputation of each of these individuals.
4. In a previous thread, someone specifically using this very word “character” impugned my character. Several did so in fact. So TMC’ suggestion that no one here intends to do so is a false. It’s also false given the numerous posts by numerous individuals that are very explicit such as “John Smith”‘s calumny where he used the term “flat out lie” with respect to me. I can only assume that TMC despite my reference to it, had not read that post nor any of the other numerous explicit posts of that nature by several different individuals.
5. Someone needs to look up the word “sensual” in the dictionary. Before when I placed *’s besides words I thought this community might be unfamiliar with, some individuals appeared to be offended by that. Now here I didn’t and one individual seems to have fallen victim to his ignorance of the primary definition of the word. I note here that I have used this word previously and have specifically explicated the sense in which I meant it. IIRC, the only persons who introduced sexual examples in that prior discussion were Catholics (this is relevant insofar as non-sexual sensual delights would not be illicit as someone appears to have taken the term to entail)
6. If you would be so kind, Sleeping Beasty, please do not make future posts that speculate on my “emotional equilibrium.” The only posts that have affected my “emotional equilibrium” in this particular thread that I recall have been your own. So if it is my well-being you are interested in — which is not to say I take that to be true (which in turn is not to say that I take it to be false) — please just remain silent on that. Thank you in advance if you choose to honor this small request.
7. I thank you SDG for the last sentence in your post addressed to me in which you express sorrow and apology.
8. Thank you also to those who have chosen to wholly or for the most part honor my small request which I reiterate here. If I may leave you with a thought: ideas are not to be defended for the sake of ideas, but the sake of men which all ideas serve; when our efforts are motivated by a defense of our own ideas and not the service of our fellow man, then both our hearts and our ideas are lacking.
9. I know that probably some individuals will respond either in accordance with my wishes or not in accordance with them. In either event, I intend not to respond. Given that, please do not take my subsequent silence to mean any form of concession or agreement or conclude that I do not have a robust answer to anything that may follow
CT,
I already told you my intent, and that I didn’t think using two handles was immoral. Calumny as making a false statement. I didn’t state that you were definitely using two handles, because I didn’t know if you were. I said that you may be using two handles, not because I was trying to damn you or drive you way, but because I thought you might be using two handles and violating a man’s (not God’s) private blog rules. I have apologized several times.
I am not requiring to stick around and watch you rip my character. CT, I think that you should realize that your right to be offended does not mean you have the privilege of continuing to accuse me of calumny while you seem to ignore my apologetic comments which followed my first post. I apologized, and now it’s time to move on.
I apologize for saying that CT seems to be ignoring my posts.
CT
I’m not going to play this game with you. Show, by example, one case where I have:
Prescinding wholly from this, I note also that he [Masked Chicken – my note, TMC] appears to choose to continue to express doubt as to whether “Eric” and I are one and the same person….I am not going to analyze TMC’ original remarks, not all of which were quoted by him above.
or stand down. I posted the entirely of the offending quote in my post, above. People can check. I gave the date and time. I have not even raised the issue except the time it occurred back in June (and to quote the post, in self-defense in my post, above). To say that I appear to choose to continue to do something, you must have evidence. Produce it.
You are being self-righteous in defining something as calumny where many others might not. I have always been careful to apologize when I have given offense, including in your case, but let’s consider the facts as they occurred at the time. You were relatively new to the blog. Eric was a first-time (indeed, only-time) poster. If you had been reading this blog for a long time, you would have seen several cases where people have posted under two or more handles and those who have have either been ignorant of Jimmy’s request for use of a single handle or they have been out to cause trouble. One of the ways this has been spotted was by language use (Jimmy, Tim, and SDG have other, more sophisticated methods). As I mentioned in the post I quoted above, I had only a limited data set, but few others (indeed, up to that point only you and Eric) had used a specific, fairly uncommon term (at least to me). Since I thought the term was rare (part of what I was asking) and since only two people had used it, I asked if Eric and you might have been the same person. It was circumstantial and I said as much. I did not say or imply that anyone was out to cause trouble. The only reason I asked was because it might have been possible that, if this were the case, then, per Da Rulz, I wanted to request that person use a consistent handle. If this were not the case, then I said to ignore it. My statement posted above is pretty self-explanatory.
Where the heck do you see any calumny there? Did I say you did something wrong? Did I say you were using a double handle? At best, I was trying to ask the question, based on limited evidence and gently make a suggestion, in the event that it were true (which were a remote possibility). If you imply I was trying to do anything else, then you are guilty of reading way too much into my statements.
Look, I once had a whole squad of police cars converge on me because I was running (they thought) away from campus just at the time someone had suspiciously left a building on campus when I was in graduate school. In reality, I was running home because it was winter and it was cold. I showed them my computer print-outs, which had the time printed on them and they let me go. One of the officers said, while they were investigating, “You might just be the victim of a big mistake.” People need to investigate. Jimmy does not have the time to monitor every post on his blog, so it is sometimes up to the regulars to do so. You were relatively new and a somewhat unknown poster, at the time. People make mistakes. All you had to do was say, “I’m not Eric. The use of the same word was totally coincidental.” That should have been enough. Strictly speaking, you were not required to defend yourself, but it would have put me at ease and been a kindness. I wasn’t asking for anything else. I didn’t say or imply that you were Eric, only that it seemed odd that two people were using the same unfamiliar term. In information theory, this is called a high-surprisal situation and this can often carry information, so, I asked.
You seem to be implying things about my statement which were not in evidence. If they were, provide the quote and if it is at least ambiguous, I will apologize for even having giving a semblance of having done evil. I am very careful to monitor my behavior in this blog. When I speak out of momentary passion or without thought, I apologize, but it is wrong of you to keep insisting that I continue to act out of malice or sneakiness – at least that is what your phrase, “he [Masked Chicken – my note, TMC] appears to choose to continue to express doubt as to whether “Eric” and I are one and the same person,” sounds like, to me. If I insulted you, then I am sorry. That was not my intent. I do not think you have tried to look at the context nor really make a fair and charitable assessment of the situation as it existed at the time. Certainly, you seem to want to make me out to be an ogre who goes around spreading innuendo about people. How dare you? I have also defended you on these blog pages, from time to time. Do you only punish wrong-doing? Is there no thanks for supporting you?
I know a heck of a lot about semantic implicature, which is the technical term for what you described in your examples of how character assassination works. I was not, nor have I ever been guilty of such activity on this blog. I pretty much say what I mean, unless I am joking and I am usually clear in making that known.
How shall we resolve this issue in a fair manner? I am sorry about my venom above. You hurt me by your suggestion that I had committed calumny. I want to make this a place where you and I are at ease to interact. How can this be done in a way that is charitable?
I have probably added more fuel to the fire by this post. I do not mean to, but I do not know how to respond any better to what you have written.
This is not a philosophy blog. People here do not feel the need to dot every i and cross every t. Many people do not have the background to respond to you in the realm of philosophy (I probably do, at least in some areas, but this is the wrong forum for those sorts of discussions). In almost twenty years of posting to both public and private Internet forums, I have not found, in my experience, that the people, here, are especially odious (there are exceptions, now and then, as on any forum).
I do not know what to do. I am at my wits end. I am a professional academic. In my dealings on this blog I have tried to be charitable and humble. I have never tried to hurt anyone. If I have hurt you, then I apologize. I consider you a gentleman. I wish the same consideration in return.
St. Francis de Sales said in his book, An Introduction to the Devout Life, that when one is falsely accused, one may state the facts, once, because one has a duty to the truth. If the person does not listen or continues to repeat the charge, then one owes a duty to humility and should be silent. I have apologized back in June. I apologize, now, for any harm I may have caused. I will not continue to apologize for those same slights simply to appease you. This is the first time (and I hope the last time) that I have ever had to say something like this in a public forum. In my entire time in both academic and public Internet forums, I have never found myself in this situation. This entire situation is repugnant. It will go around and around in a vicious circle. I’ve had it. I simply do not know what to do.
I know philosophers. I work with philosophers. I am a reviewer for a journal that had a relatively famous philosopher as its review editor (the editor after him is a specialist in pragmatics). Talking to philosophers is not foreign to me. What is going on in the last few posts and counter-posts in this thread is foreign to me. I do not know how best to proceed.
The Chicken
I guess I do know how to proceed in this matter of calumny claims and counter-claims.
Let me tell you why I became the Masked Chicken.
During graduate school, when USENET forums were the most common and before AOL opened the Internet, so that mostly academics were still the only ones on it, I mostly hung out on Internet forums that were relevant to my thesis work. Occasionally, I would read other forums and post on places like rec.arts.early-music, but I stayed away from the wild and woolly places, like rec.arts.startrek, where the turnaround was fast and people could give and get sarcastic comments at the flip of a wrist.
After I graduated, I was off of the Internet for a while, except for professional forums. In 1997 I decided to take the risk and join a public, non-professional discussion forum on theological issues. A woman posted a chain letter and I laid into her, several times, even after, unbeknownst to me, she had recanted. My actions were called cruel by some of the forum members and I agreed with them. I was so upset at my behavior and the harm I had caused, that I stopped joining and posting to any forums from that time, on. I never wanted to hurt people. I had done so, while thinking myself doing a good deed. To see that possibility in myself made me reluctant to deal with people on the Internet, except in a professional capacity, where there were strict guidelines for conduct.
In the early 2000’s, blogs came along and I read quite a few of them, but I could never bring myself to post, because of having hurt that person, before. Finally, about a year and a half ago, I got up the nerve to allow a long e-mail of mine to be posted on a public blog, partially because it was in an area in which I was supposed to know something. Things were civil in the responses to the blogger’s post of my e-mail, although I sounded pompous in what I had written. I decided that I was not ready to post on the Internet on a regular basis. I even posted to Jimmy’s blog under my real name a few years ago, because it seemed appropriate, but I still sounded pompous and, in the end, I apologized for joining the discussion, since it was an occasion of sin for me.
I continued to enjoy reading the discussions on this blog and last year, I, hesitantly, decided to try posting regularly, but I decided that I was so disgusted and embarrassed with my prior posting habits that I needed someway not to be so self-conscious and alienating and pompous and the like. To keep people from running away in ridicule, contempt or disgust if I used my real name, I decided to try my very best to become a new and better person, including, adopting a new handle so that every time I signed my name, I would remember my sinful tendencies and try to be a good example, where before, I had been a mediocre and sometimes hurtful example, at best.
I have tried to be careful; I have tried to be charitable; I have tried to be a peacemaker. From time to time my old tendencies have re-appeared and I had to reign them in. I have been guilty of an occasional pompous post on this blog and I have shot from the hip sometimes, as well, but on the whole, I thought I was doing better than I had in the last few years. I have learned a lot from the people, here, both regulars and the occasional poster.
These charges of calumny put me right back in the same situation I was in ten years ago. Perhaps, in my innermost self I thought something like, “hey, look, maybe that new kid, CT is really this new conspiracy poster, Eric, and maybe I’ve found some evidence – look at my skill in noticing the clues.” I tried to post a neutral question and made the suggestion that I did because I really did not know if the evidence warranted anything and I did not want to ever judge unfairly, but perhaps that little piece of pride was in the background. If so, then I apologize to CT. I don’t think what I posted in writing was deliberately calumnious, but I don’t want thoughts of this sort for anyone going through my heart.
So, apparently, I have not been purified enough to post in such a way as to not to have to go to confession, afterwards. I do apologize when I have hurt someone on this blog and CT should take my apology with the pain that he may now know surrounds it. My apologies are real. They are not, pro forma. I never again want to be the cause of people suffering from my posting. I know that people are sinful and we all make mistakes. I take this into consideration when I have to forgive myself for being an idiot in my postings.
Still, if one does not gain merit by what one does, one gains condemnation. My last two posts were defensive and way over-the-top. I apologize to all who read this blog, especially, CT. I hope he returns.
He will not have me to worry about. Thomas Merton was forced back into writing after he entered the monastery because his abbot thought that it was necessary for his salvation. I do not think that my writing blog posts is necessary for my salvation and after today, I can see how they may be, in fact, responsible for harming my soul.
This is my last post on blogs on the Internet, except in professional forums or posting under my real name when I have to. No one, here, is responsible for this. Over the last year, I have looked forward to each new post on Jimmy’s blog and you guys have given me something new to think about and make comments about. It has been an honor to have been a part of this blog.
I am too embarrassed to read any posts that might be made in reply to this one. I rarely bare my soul in public. I just wanted everyone to know that I do care about how I comport myself on the Internet. I have made progress in being a better poster, but I need to post less and listen more. Maybe, in another five years or so, I might be willing to give posting another try, but I find that the Internet is getting so filled with attitudes I no longer understand, that when I do, perhaps, pick up posting, again (if I don’t die, first), I will sound like an old fossil.
Keep up the fight. Behave. The next time you have some chicken, think of me.
The Chicken
Does anyone really believe our resident self-centered, over-sensitive, sensual, agnostic is really leaving?
He will be back with an even longer post about himself. How great he is and how he has been wronged. And of course he will tell us again we are to ignorant to understand what he has written.
I have a request for you CT.
When you post your paper online do it in a format, like this blog, that allows comments to be posted.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio had written: “So CT will go out of his way to defend PZ Meyers, prostitution, pornography, abortion, call the right to be immoral a beautiful right, mock our Catholic faith and wish us all sensual delights but cries foul because his feelings were hurt? And because he asks, we are not to comment anymore about him after all the long winded comments he has posted here?”
With all the VIP treatment CT got from the likes of SDG et al.; only those who mock the Catholic Faith seem to be welcomed here.
Sleeping Beastly wrote: “Actually, I think we in the Church owe a lot to the Prots. Prots have been keeping Catholics honest for several hundred years now, and there were several who were actually instrumental in my conversion. A big thanks to you and to my other Protestant brothers.”
Yes, we all owe them thanks for their Anti-Catholic persecution through all those years that continue on unto today!
(Seperated brethren who have been Christian enough to engage in ecumenical dialogue are, of course, excepted.)
Can we talk about Sarah Palin for a minute?
Was that a take-no-prisoners speech, or what??
Sarah Palin’s speech was the best of either convention. Two incredible lines (and may I paraphrase…)
…the job of a mayor of a small town is similar to a community organizer, except it has actual responsibility.
(and)
…some people talk of change to advance their careers and others use their careers to advocate for change…
Impressive.
I loved the tactful digs at her detractors; although I could’ve done without the long “Brady Bunch” introduction.
Add to her “stick to her guns” character, Sarah Palin’s genuinely “Pro-Life”:
Sarah Palin: A politician who lives her truth
and
Sarah Palin’s Pro-Life Credentials
Dave,
Catholics hold Scripture to be divinely inspired but don’t flip out over the NIV vs KJV. Catholics are way more relaxed about the text and do not rely on it as a sole focus – the differences are huge. Perhaps inerrancy is inaccurate way to describe the divide, maybe you have a better term?
two of [McCain’s] top ten favorite songs (according to Slate) are ABBA tunes
I bet one of them has to be “Take a Chance on Me.”
CT,
Obviously you do not have much experience with crminal law. Otherwise, you would be aware that there are several degrees of the act you call murder (capital, first degree (sometimes equated with capital), second degree, third degree, criminally negligent homicide). Each of these different categories carry different punishments (capital or first degree being the one with the death penalty) taking into consideration various circumstances, the perpetrator’s mental state, etc. Thus, the pregnant teenage runaway who obtains an abortion out of desperation does not necessarily need to receive the same punishment as the abortionist doctor who makes his living tearing children from their mother’s womb.
Regarding your argument that the pro-choice position does not mean pro-abortion, that is ridiculous. What pro-choice means is that you believe abortion to be a legitimate option, if not for yourself, then at least for others. There is no such thing as “personally opposed, but..” (well there is, but it is a lie). All you are personally opposed to is (at best) obtaining one for yourself, but you support others obtaining one. How is that not supporting abortion? Would you call someone who would never own slaves themselves, but supports the rights of others to own slaves, not a supporter of slavery?
requiring medical providers to make statements they may not agree with (such as that abortion involves terminating a member of the human species — a recent development)
If your medical provider does not agree with that statement, I would get a new medical provider – obviously, that one is incompetent and needs to retake 8th grade biology.
S’ is pro-freedom-to-engage-in-burning of the flag
clearly does not entail
S’ is pro-burning-of-the-flag
Maybe. At a minimum, S’ must be “pro-burning of the flag” for at least someone, even if not for him, otherwise the freedom to engage in it would be meaningless, and hence S’s position would be meaningless. Thus he is “pro-burning of the flag”. You could say he is not “Pro-burning of the flag himself” while at the same time saying he is “pro-freedom for burning of the flag”, but once S’ admits of being “pro-freedom for X” it necessarily follows that he is pro-X for at least one someone, and in fact, for everyone engaging in X except possibly himself. Thus, the only person S can exclude from X once he is pro freedom for X is himself. By any common understanding, that would make S pro-X. At best, even if it is not a logically required result, there is no practical difference between ‘pro-freedom to engage in X’ and ‘being pro-X.’
c matt wrote:
Would you call someone who would never own slaves themselves, but supports the rights of others to own slaves, not a supporter of slavery?
What he said.
TMC,
As long as we’re all busy pointing out the specks in our neighbors’ eyes, as far as I can see, your biggest sin here is scrupulosity.
CT,
I’m laying good odds on your checking back in here, so I thought it would be worthwhile to write you here. First, thanks for your final words. They’re well-taken, although I could add that I think ideas serve people to the extent that they’re rooted in truth. I have some final words for you as well. The thing is, I genuinely like you, and I always kind of felt that you and I had something in common. I’m not quite sure why I felt that way; maybe I just liked the way you expressed yourself and ascribed that to a kinship of sorts.
In any case, I think that the conversation regarding the PZ Myers stunt riled us all up. We were all (at some time and to some degree) upset. When a person is upset, he is not quite himself, at least not in the same way that he is when he is calm, rested, and composed. At times like that, he may express himself differently than he ordinarily would, and he may receive others differently than he normally would. This became a sort of self-perpetuating problem, since we were all busy giving and taking offense at a much greater rate than normal. That’s why I stopped reading and posting in that particular thread. It was upsetting me.
It seems to me that you are upset right now, and are not receiving people’s posts the way you would if you were calm. I suggest that if you took a day or two to regain your calm, you could return to this board, re-read what people have posted, and realize that you are as welcome here as anyone. Most of us are not as careful with our words as you are, but I think it’s safe to say that none of the regular posters here bear you any ill will.
Masked Chicken, do you honestly think it’s okay for you to say, “I’m going to stop posting because I can’t guarantee that I won’t offend someone? Or someone might misinterpret what I say?”
I’ll have to (at some point) backread to see what the most recent posts were, but I can make a general statement. The first part is the unintentional offense and the second is the intentional one.
It’s true that sometimes we all say or do something that hurts another. It’s called being human. Unless you live in a cave miles from the nearest person, inevitably you will say something that will require an apology and/or making amends and note it as something to change. Then it’s done.
Then there are the intentional offenses. You want an example of calumny? Take a look at what the
Angry Left has done to Palin in since Friday. That’s calumny.
Then there is the larger area known as the flame war. Fortunately, Jimmy weeds out the hostilities and this blog has been fairly civil. But this latest batch started in a previous thread, a response to someone who deliberately provoked to get a reaction.
While prayer alone is a perfectly valid option, others are called to engage in the marketplace of discussion and debate.
You, Masked Chicken, have a lot to offer in your comments, too much to get away with “I’m not going to post anymore.”
The stakes are too high. These discussions are exactly what it means to engage the world.
I’m perfectly willing to go shopping for an asbestos suit if that’s what it will take for you to keep posting.
John Smith,
To some extent we do owe thanks to Prots for being hard on Catholics.
Protestant attacks have, on the whole, made us better Catholics. And I challenge you to show me any real persecution of Catholics by Protestants in today’s world. And no, idiotic comic books don’t count.
I for one would be extraordinarily disappointed to see The Masked Chicken stop posting. TMC’s posts have, in my experience, been consistently both insightful and charitable, and s/he has consistently brought an evenhandedness to the discourse that few others have.
Masked Chicken, please don’t go!!!
What Kasia said.
Chicken, your perspective and demeanor are needed here.
Me three.
I too hope for the Return of the Chicken.
Dear TMC
Although I just started making sporadic comments here in the last few months, I’m a “lurker” on this blog since February of 2004. Since I miss the environment of this blog from the early years very much, including the comments, I wonder what was the name under which you uesd to post, because I don’t remember having thought of anything I read here until the last year or so as pompous. I think, though, that you may have changed your style drastically since then, because as far as I remember, no one used to make comments that looked like doctoral dissertations.
I think my statement confused you. I stand by my statement but let me first remove some complex subtleties in it and address the general case squarely:
I think you are flattering yourself. Your statements were neither complex nor subtle.
So if she made it in secret without telling anyone and if we as a society give the benefit of the doubt in the direction of people having made the choice when no indication is present (though I don’t know why any wouldn’t be if from nothing other than generalized polls and the reasonable though fallible generalizations that we can make from them), then it would still be moral flourishing — we just wouldn’t know whether it was or not.
You yourself admit here that we should give the benefit of the doubt: that the person would want to live. Then we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt: that the baby would want to live as soon as it can make the choice.
Unlike your case, where, in fact, we can’t always give someone the benefit of the doubt because there is none left. A person rendered comatose by a suicide attempt has made it perfectly clear what the choice was.
And you have not answered my question, which really undercuts your claims about your “moral flourishing.”
I repeat:
Indeed, what do you consider “moral flourishing” when you see a depressed man about to commit suicide?
And I add another one on top of it: at what age do you consider children capable of making choices? Do you agree with the current Democratic candidate that dumping live children in closets to die is an acceptable practice?
On your request for a citation … perhaps this will open your mind to the possibilities out there or perhaps not … either way:
Physician, heal thyself. Open your own mind to the possibilities out there. Like, say, that I wasn’t confused at all by your “complex subtleties” but in fact, saw through your argument.
I don’t see why I should be unable to paraphrase Aquinas without citation when others here do the same.
What? There have been times when you minded this? Why didn’t you say something? What are the situations where you were wondering what Thomas Aquinas actually said? With any luck, we can look them up for you! (It would have helped if you had said so at the time, ’cause time does tend to blunt memories.)
And how come if a catholic wants to read a book defending the historical accuracy of the Bible, he has to read a prot author?
Because as far back as St. Jerome and St. Augustine, Catholics realized the Bible contains different genres of work, not all of which require historical accuracy.
As for instance, the parables are fictional stories to embody a truth. This demonstrates that God can use genres other than “history” to teach us.
Saying that someone “may” (as David B had put it) be morally wicked (or otherwise bad) is an act of calumny. It is not a conditional. It is neither an indicative conditional involving material implication nor a subjunctive conditional involving counterfactuals or some other such. I’ve been taught by experts in this area “A may be B” is simply put not a conditional.
And who said it was conditional?
And why is something that expresses a possibility calumny on the grounds that it does not fit the definition of “conditional”?
The notion that saying someone “may” be morally wicked, morally deficient, have committed an immoral act or raising in the minds of others the distinct possibility more than would ordinarily exist in anyway,
True, but this can nevertheless be legitimate. For instance, if you have reason to believe that someone may commit a certain wrong, you may warn the innocent of this possibility to prevent their being harmed. Such as being lured into a wasteful debate.
You, Masked Chicken, have a lot to offer in your comments, too much to get away with “I’m not going to post anymore.”
The stakes are too high. These discussions are exactly what it means to engage the world.
I’m perfectly willing to go shopping for an asbestos suit if that’s what it will take for you to keep posting.
We are supposed to avoid the occasion of sin, and much as I would hate to see the Masked Chicken no more, I can not judge what such an occasion is for another.
Perhaps this is scrupulosity on his part. OTOH, if so, it appears from his post that posting inspires such scrupulousity because of his history. In which case, abstaining may be wise.
If it weren’t for heretics, schismatics, and others that challenge the Faith, it would have taken much longer to hammer out as much of it as we have. Most councils were called, and much of patristic and other writing was done, in response to some heretical idea or practice floating around, weren’t they? A hammer needs an anvil to do its work.
With all the VIP treatment CT got from the likes of SDG et al.; only those who mock the Catholic Faith seem to be welcomed here.
LOL. First I’m not welcoming to non-Catholics (the impression for which I again apologize), now I’m not welcoming Catholics (self-hatred?). Hopefully, neither impression will stick. 🙂
Was that a take-no-prisoners speech, or what??
I think MSM talkers are gonna sleep on they stomachs for a while… 🙂
Masked Reader — er — The Masked Chicken;
1. Don’t go; you have valuable comments everybody can learn from
2. Are you E.G. by any chance? I abbreviated the entire name in case you are so that I don’t actually betray your real identity.
Also, I found it quite strikingly clever (as clever as some of your posts) that you chose ‘masked’ and ‘chicken’ as part of your alias given the colorful anecdote revolving around those seemingly innocuous terms that actually points to a heated exchange with Jimmy Akin himself way back when.
Let’s just say if you should go — whenever I have chicken ‘soup’, I’ll do so in honor of you!
God bless you, dear sir!
Thank you David B. for your latest post addressed to me and your apology regarding my ignoring your posts. The rest of this post is not addressed to you in particular.
I am just going to proceed on the policy of ignoring posts and portions of posts that I feel are not made in good faith or in civility (or which in my view should not be addressed due to the recent departure of a couple individuals) or which even if made in good faith and civility I find do be so obviously poor in reasoning that no academic — whether professional or amateur like JA rightly styles himself IIRC — with the relevant knowledge and training would find it as persuasive (as opposed to how a politician’s speech may be persuasive to a crowd). In the future, I will also ignore calumny including any that may have been made above since my last post and any in the future. So if you think I am ignoring you or part of what you say, you are probably correct but you won’t know for what reason. If you must know the reason, then ask and I may or may not answer.
So on both substantive points and questions of my person, please do not take my silence to be my aquiescence as to anything said. Just as you would not take JA’s silence regarding some criticisms of JA’s substantive points to be his acquiescence (for his own reasons — in response to me, he noted time IIRC; and for me my own as noted above). Generally, if I find something persuasive, I will try to make a note of it.
Since this part of one of Mary’s post, I felt was thoughtful (this is not an implication either way as to other parts or other posts — indeed at least one other part of one other post was thoughtful too but for a certain reason I am unable to respond), I will make a note of clarification for her since I clearly did not communicate well with her.
Mary wrote:
Unlike your case, where, in fact, we can’t always give someone the benefit of the doubt because there is none left. A person rendered comatose by a suicide attempt has made it perfectly clear what the choice was.
That’s true Mary and assuming that the suicide attempt was made in a free and deliberative way (as opposed to cases where the suicide attempt is made under some kind of duress). So in such cases — and there would indeed be such cases or similar cases — I would not require any hospital to sustain the comatose patient with life support, artificially delivered nutrition or hydration, and the like. I would also support requiring hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to pull the plug in those circumstances (or at mininum transfering the patient to a hospital that would).
And I do not say that we should give preference to the choice of life over death per se as regards doubt. However since death is irrevocable and sustaining life is not, it is in that non-essential distinction between death and life (if in the future we had the technology to re-animate as we do in some cases with some animals, then this distinction would not obtain) that the grounding of the operative, if you will, preference in terms of doubt is to be given.
Mary wrote:
Indeed, what do you consider “moral flourishing” when you see a depressed man about to commit suicide?
I think I have confused you partially through my own fault. I do not claim that all choices are moral choices or that all choices or all actualizations of choices are instances of moral flourishing. For example, someone may choose to maliciously malign another person but that does not make that choice nor the actualization of that choice (accomplished by way of the publisher of a book or what have you) a case of moral flourishing. A choice to live is a case of moral flourishing and the actualization of the same is a case of moral flourishing insofar as it expresses and actualizes the initial choice. A choice to die in the case of a depressed man would not necessarily be a case of moral flourishing (to know whether it would be a case of moral flourishing or not, I would have to know more details). The fact that he is depressed may (again depending on the details and what you mean by “depressed”) render his choice less free and in that respect even if it were to be a case of moral flourishing were the choice free, the character of moral flourishing it assumes may be diminished due to the lack of freedom (just as a person who loves freely for the sake of love maximalizes in that respect his moral flourishing in contrast to someone who loves somewhat freely, the freedom being diminished by a psychic fear of hell — something the conservative Catholic New Oxford Review once argued was a critical feature of Christianity, without which with the exception of a saint here and there Catholics would be doomed — this is the NOR’s opinion at least at that time)
I support the right to die, not merely for the terminally ill but for everyone of sufficient maturity with appropriate regulation to prevent persons from making rash decisions that may be influenced by conditions like depression. However that does not mean I claim that in all these cases (or even most or even any, necessarily), that these are cases of moral flourishing. My support for the right to die is grounded in something not identical to what grounds my support for the right to choose as regards abortion.
As for your question about the embryo. There is no “benefit of the doubt” to be given to the embryo. One argument that pro-lifers make against the legality of abortion is that the unborn are “potential” persons (the Catholic Bill O’Reilly for instance referred to the unborn on one occasion in that way though he said, verbatim “potential life” IIRC). In my view the logic of this argument has been thoroughly demolished. If you so desire, I can find the paper online which demolishes the logic of this argument. Some modification to this argument would in my view also demolish the logic of your own argument as regards giving the “benefit of the doubt” to the future-free-choice-capable entity (I took you to be conceding that the embryo is unable to make free choices)
There is a more fundamental problem (in my view) with the specifically rational soul at conception pro-life position. The fertilized egg is incapable of making a free choice yet it is said to have rational soul. But those with a rational soul must be hypostasis with a rational nature. But it seems to me that a hypostasis with a rational nature must have in some sense a capability to make a free choice were it not for some impeding factor (like being comatose, say — though I myself do not grant that a comatose patient lacks the capability to make free choices). I am speaking here of free choice of any degree — including when half-asleep, very drunk, with incipient reason but not at the “age of reason” etc. Anyway the fundamental problem I see is that the fertilized egg qua fertilized egg is incapable of free choice. So the only way to get around this is to say that the fertilized egg is a hypostasis with a rational nature whose state of being as a fertilized egg impedes its capability to make a free choice, ISTM. But then we are dealing with a physical evil — one which would be, I would argue not admitted as such under atheism (whether naturalistic or non-naturalistic) nor one which would be admitted as such under simple theism, unencumbered by theological committments. Then the reasonableness thus of the pro-life position cannot be brought into the realm of “natural law.” It must bring in additional theology or at least broaden natural theology to include inductive as well as deductive inferences. This would not be a problem in a society that Jeb favors; but it is in the American secular society.
Mary, I figure that Masked Chicken will “take what he likes and leave the rest.” I have no idea where MC is with scrupulousity and don’t want to go there.
Masked Chicken, if you’re reading this and I offended in any way, I’m sorry. Chalk it up to my limitations. Too outspoken (among others), mixed with forgetting that written comes across differently than spoken. If it makes any difference, I’ve had to get an asbestos suit for myself, and perhaps should have put that comment in that context.
Your comments are greatly appreciated here as others have said more graciously.
Would you call someone who would never own slaves themselves, but supports the rights of others to own slaves, not a supporter of slavery?
To borrow some words of old, “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor” (Ex 1:11). ‘Forced labor’ is what many women would claim is being imposed upon them by denying them access to abortion. Though you did not force these woman to enter the baby factory, many did so by “mistake” and others were forced to enter by rape. By eliminating their exit through the abortion door, it forces them to have babies, and as they’d call it, enslaves them.
Further, to the extent that mortal sin (and hence slavery which results from sin) is a radical possibility of human freedom, it is impossible to support freedom without also supporting (the possibility of) slavery. Indeed, what is the yoke of Christ? Wearing it, “you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God.”
Man was enticed by the Evil One and abused his freedom, but though God had instructed man, God allowed it, accepting/enabling/supporting human freedom and its radical possibility of mortal sin. Of course, he also punished man and offers redemption and liberation.
And to the extent that Jesus foretold many events to come, do you “support” the fulfillment of his word, even if what he foretold includes the death of the innocent or people being put to forced labor?
once S’ admits of being “pro-freedom for X” it necessarily follows that he is pro-X for at least one someone, and in fact, for everyone engaging in X except possibly himself
For pro-choice persons, “X” is either abortion -OR- keeping the baby, not just abortion. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a choice. Likewise, the Church proclaims it’s your choice to love God -OR- go to hell. Focusing exclusively on the abortion option is like focusing exclusively on the hell option, which according to you, “necessarily follows” that the Church is pro-hell.
All you are personally opposed to is (at best) obtaining one for yourself, but you support others obtaining one. How is that not supporting abortion?
Hell doesn’t appeal to me, but if you want to go there, that’s your choice. Does that mean I’m supporting hell? If you choose it, you would be. Likewise, a pro-choice person can say abortion doesn’t appeal to me, but if you want to get one, that’s your choice. Does that mean the pro-choice person supports abortion? If you choose abortion, you would be.
Does that mean “Yes” or “No”?
I do not agree with parts of Adam’s reply to matt (this is not meant to imply there are are any parts with which I agree)
matt wrote:
Would you call someone who would never own slaves themselves, but supports the rights of others to own slaves, not a supporter of slavery?
I was going to leave this alone for certain reasons but since I am reminded of how even the professional philosophers of acclaim can make what to me are frankly fairly obvious errors for example certain errors pointed out by Timothy Bays in these papers that are somewhat evocative to me of your own:
http://www.nd.edu/~tbays/papers/spmath.pdf
http://www.nd.edu/~tbays/papers/ketland.pdf
it seems that a minimal response is in order.
The answer to to the question posed by matt turns on what matt means by “slavery.” There is a subtle equivocation of the word (in its grammatic incarnations) that is going on and I do not mean to charge matt here with duplicity in that regard, only error.
For “slavery” can refer to, I suppose, the holding of slaves or the institution of slavery which in this historical context refers to the legalized owning of slaves and the trading of slaves and the like. Because of the philosophy of language issue of “vagueness” in this word and the logically-relevant equivocation that it seems to make possible and indeed impress upon in the minds of some, the question as such cannot be answered. Interpreting (I mean this not in a textual sense but in a technical sense of semantics) “slavery” to refer to the latter or anything other than the holding of slaves, would render matt’s argument not pertinent; i.e. it does not address the one I made. So we are left with interpreting it to mean the holding of slaves. In that event we have (I am replacing “pro” with your equivalent “support” here and I am also making more “clean” the syntax of my original form — a more perfect formalization could be provided but I feel this is suitable for our purposes)
A. T supports the freedom to engage in the holding of slaves
B. Therefore, T supports the engaging in the holding of slaves.
I deny that B is logically entailed by A (and you admit as much it seems) and I do not find that B is nomologically necessary given A, let alone metaphysically necessary given A. So I do not believe that one who supports the freedom to engage in the holding of slaves, thereby supports the engaging in the holding of slaves, necessarily (for some, as you put it). Perhaps your admission that it is not logically entailed was referring not to some inner logic but to contingent facts (like some wishing to have abortion, for example). I’ll address this below.
Let’s make it much clearer where I don’t think emotional appeals will work.
A’ T desires that everyone possess the freedom to engage in X.
B’ T desires that everyone engage in X.
This is obviously false as you acknowledge. But let’s square it with your relativisation scheme (by “scheme” nothing sinister is meant)
A” T desires that everyone possess the freedom to engage in X.
B” T desires that at least one person engages in X.
Now let’s assume that at least one person desires to engage in X (in our context, engage in the termination of her pregnancy, i.e. “abortion”). I do not find that given that fact and given that A” (with X replaced by “abortion”), that it is necessary (whether logically, metaphysically or nomologically) that B” (with X replaced by “abortion”). And the same would be true if X were replaced by “the holding of slaves”
Reasoning may appear valid but is in fact not due to some form of equivocation or something similar. For more on that, I invite exploration of the papers above.
Will wonders never cease!
Our resident self-centered, over-sensitive, sensual, agnostic is back after he said he was leaving…again.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio Remarked: “Our resident self-centered, over-sensitive, sensual, agnostic is back after he said he was leaving…again.”
Imagine, if you will, a peevish child (in particular, one who thinks the world revolves around them) that throws a temper tantrum in order to garner attention — I’ll not say more less the Catholic Mock Squad who provides sanctuary & protection to such folks give me the Ben Yachov send-off.
This is all the more reason why we need the Masked Reader — I mean, The Masked Chicken back!!!
(E.G. — have some ‘Soup’ on behalf of Jimmy for goodness sakes, get some much needed R&R, take a break from the blog if need be but do come back!)
I do not agree with parts of CT’s reply to matt (this is not meant to imply there are are any parts with which I agree).
CT wrote:
The answer to to the question posed by matt turns on what matt means by “slavery.”
With respect to abortion, it turns on what is meant (or made manifest) by “support” and “freedom” or “right”. Does “supporting a woman’s freedom to get an abortion” include my making a check out to an abortion clinic, or driving a woman to the abortion clinic knowing what she’s wanting, or appearing in or producing/publishing an ad which makes abortion look more desirable or “ok” than it really is? If so, if the support amounts to formal or immediate material cooperation, how is that not supporting abortion? On the other hand, if my “support” of her freedom to choose does not involve any intent or desire on my part that a woman abort and there is another sufficient explanation for my support of women’s freedom to choose and that support can be offered without scandal (i.e. without giving the appearance that abortion is desirable or “ok”), then maybe it’s not supporting abortion.
A” T desires that everyone possess the freedom to engage in X.
B” T desires that at least one person engages in X.
…I do not find that given that fact and given that A” (with X replaced by “abortion”), that it is necessary (whether logically, metaphysically or nomologically) that B” (with X replaced by “abortion”).
It should be noted that “support” is broader than desire, and reducing it to desire does not necessarily clarify as perhaps to obscure. And like I mentioned, consideration would be contingent upon what constitutes “freedom.” For example, if I were to write a $10,000 check to an abortion clinic “desiring that everyone possess the freedom to engage in abortion” (on the premise that an abortion clinic provides that freedom on a practical level rather than a mere law which offers it only in principle), it would be reasonably necessary that I would “desire that at least one person engage in abortion.” Otherwise, my support (i.e. my desire expressed in the form of my check) would only be procuring the doctor’s freedom to play golf or whatever.
Alternatively, if my $10,000 check were only intended to advertise (support) my desire that everyone possess the freedom to engage in X as matter of principle and not in practice (in which case my check is not made payable to an abortion clinic), it could still be reasonably necessary from a (im)moral perspective that I (should) desire that at least one person engage in abortion because it may likely, if the distinction being made is very subtle to most eyes, be reasonable to foresee that some person would be (unintentionally) persuaded that abortion is desirable or “ok” and consequently engage in it (unless this undesired effect could be offset or avoided in some way). This would be premised upon the assumption that engaging in abortion is or would be a viable option for such persuaded person(s).
This is not to say that all desire for the freedom to engage in X necessitates a desire that someone actually engage in X, but only that some expressions of desire (support) may necessitate it.
Adam, I do not see anything in the content of your latest post which expresses any actual disagreement with my own but I do see you attributing a claim to me I did not make as regards reductive analysis. I had earlier assumed you were a certain Catholic I recalled on this blog, but evidently you are not that Catholic (and perhaps not Catholic at all) While the questions you raise regarding what “support” entails are interesting in their own right, in the context of the eariler conversation, “support” refers to desiring that abortion be legal (there’s a slight caveat here but this is good enough for our purposes … including the caveat would just make things more unwieldly than they already are … which is not unwieldly at all but the lighter the better) — and that form of support can be equivalently expressed in the manner I did in the context of the “pro” labeling issue (One can be pro-choice yet not do a thing to advance the cause, including not voting, not expressing a pro-choice opinion, etc — one might argue then that then that does not constitute support and one may be correct in that, but that while interesting in its own right is not pertinent to the original dispute). Let me just address your last sentence:
This is not to say that all desire for the freedom to engage in X necessitates a desire that someone actually engage in X, but only that some expressions of desire (support) may necessitate it.
Informally, and not caring much about free variables, and suitable restricting the domain “persons” to eliminate trivial, uninteresting cases (involving insanity or what have you — this is a convention, not a statement that the insane are not persons):
Given the fact that some wish and would had they the freedom, choose to engage in X, the original contention by matt is:
G: For all persons T and some person O, ((T supports the freedom to engage in X) -> (T supports the engaging in X relative to O))
My contention ~G does not entail that ~H where
H: For some person K and some person Q and some adverb A and some adverb B, ((K supports-A-ly the freedom to engage in X) -> (K supports-B-ly the engaging in X relative to Q))
where the truth of H is relativized over some relevant domain of models.
Now you have contended not for H (in your last sentence at least), but for something slightly different namely that it is the case or that it may very well be the case that:
I: For some person J and some person Z and some adverb C, ((J supports-C-ly the freedom to engage in X) -> (J desires the engaging in X relative to Z))
where, as above with H, the truth of I is appropriately relativized.
But neither my contention ~G nor my contention ~F where:
F: For all persons T and all persons D and for some person E, ((T desires that D possess the freedom to engage in X) -> (T desires the engaging in X relative to E))
nor the union (or sum) of ~G and ~F entails (~H or ~I)
under any appropriate relativisation parallel to your own on H and I (relativisations that introduces problems for me, I would argue would introduce problems for yourself as well)
So while your last sentence may be interesting in its own right, it does not actually contradict anything I have committed myself to.
Obviously the above involves, if we were to formalize this, working in some suitable higher order logic and a cashing out of the applied model theory with respect to the modal logic I kept syntactically hidden above. I hope I have avoided any potentially confusing typos above.
Hell doesn’t appeal to me, but if you want to go there, that’s your choice. Does that mean I’m supporting hell?
Well, as was said above, it depends upon what you mean by “support”. To acknowledge the existence of something (hell or abortion) is not the sense in which I would use support. To acknowledge that some may choose it, again, does not equate to support as I am using the term. Hell does not present as good as an analogy because, as humans, we do not possess any power to do away with, outlaw, or otherwise regulate one’s choice to go to hell. Abortion, at a minimum theoretically, we could outlaw. Thus, even agreeing that one should have the “freedom to choose hell” would not mean supporting hell becuase one simply cannot do otherwise – there is no option of “outlawing” free will. On the other hand, one could outlaw abortion, thus, agreeing to keep it legal is supporting it.
But as you say, it depends upon what you mean by “support”. Of course, black can mean white if I define black = white, so at some point the sophistry becomes rather meaningless.
Also count me among those who would like to see the return of The Masked Chicken.
An embryo not only cannot express a free choice; it cannot make one.
Neither can an unconscious adult. So what.
As to a separate being, again, it depends upon what you mean by “separate” and “being.” From a biological standpoint, the organism is separate genetically, and has its own self determinative path of development (hence, the embryo can be created in vitro, and can be maintained outside the mother’s womb as the countless frozen embryos at fertility clinics demonstrate). It seems you are confusing the fact of the embryo’s location with its etymology. It is no more the same being as the mother as say an intestinal parasite would be (not that I am equating embryos with intestinal parasites, but only as an illustration of the separate beingness).
matt wrote:
“so what”
I already addressed that pre-emptively above prior to your entry into the conversation in this thread. If you didn’t understand it, then I don’t think there’s anything I could write further to make it understandable. Some others who read it did understand it, apparently.
PS Let me amend my last post to “if you didn’t understand any of it”; if something about it was unclear then feel free to seek clarification or probe further into my position (I don’t think I have explicitly addressed the case where a person capable of choosing to live has made neither a choice to live nor a choice to die — i.e. he is not sure whether he wants to live or die — and then suddenly becomes comatose or some such. And then there’s some more fleshing out that can be done, but I am afraid that if none of what I alluded to was successfully communicative with respect to you, then what I said applies; or perhaps you just did not read it)
CT wrote:
I am just going to proceed on the policy of ignoring posts and portions of posts that I feel are not made in good faith or in civility (or which in my view should not be addressed due to the recent departure of a couple individuals) or which even if made in good faith and civility I find do be so obviously poor in reasoning that no academic — whether professional or amateur like JA rightly styles himself IIRC — with the relevant knowledge and training would find it as persuasive (as opposed to how a politician’s speech may be persuasive to a crowd). In the future, I will also ignore calumny including any that may have been made above since my last post and any in the future. So if you think I am ignoring you or part of what you say, you are probably correct but you won’t know for what reason. If you must know the reason, then ask and I may or may not answer.
No need to ask. You just told us that if you ignore something we write, it’s because you have decided it was deceptive, rude, or illogical.
But I’m going to go ahead and respond to your comments regarding terminology in the abortion debate because I regard them as illogical. I intend no disrespect to you personally; merely disagreement with your reasoning.
The abortion debate is a debate about a national policy, not an individual choice. The question before us in the public sphere is not, “Is it good and right for a given person (or any person) to have an abortion?” but rather “Will we, as a society, allow the practice of abortion?”
When asked about your position on the policy, you are not being asked why you hold that position, merely what your position is re the institution of abortion. Are you in favor of it or against it?
You may object to the term “pro-abortion” because it can also have the meaning of being in favor of the practice itself (rather than simply the policy that allows the practice.) It remains, however, the best descriptor of your position on the policy. If you want to clarify that distinction, as I said, you can use terms like “pro-legal abortion”. But to my mind, “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are both deceptive in their implications and a distraction from the actual issue in question.
Incidentally, most people who call themselves “pro-choice” do, in fact, approve of abortion itself in the same way that I approve of chemotherapy: not as something suitable for everyone, everywhere, but as a good thing for certain people in certain circumstances. I would call myself “pro-chemotherapy” without any fear that people might misconstrue the label in such a way as to think I advocate chemo for everyone and their dogs.
Because I don’t regard chemotherapy as a morally reprehensible practice, I have no shame about announcing that I am in favor of it. It seems to me that “pro-choicers” shy away from accurate terms because they sense, on some level, the enormity of the practice of abortion. This is also why they object to terms like “abortionist” and prefer to use euphemisms when referring to those who carry out abortions- terms like “reproductive healthcare practitioner”- even when those terms don’t, themselves, describe the full range of the abortionist’s job responsibilities.
If I were writing a paper on doctors (and other health care professionals) who removed warts, I would have no problem referring to them as “wart terminators” even though their jobs may often entail more than simply removing warts. In the context of that paper, “wart terminators” would be the perfect descriptor, since I wouldn’t be talking about doctors who don’t remove warts- just the ones who do. In the context of discussions about abortion, “abortionist” is a perfectly apt term for doctors (and others) who perform abortions. It is important, in these discussions, to use the term most relevant to the discussion, no?
@CT,
in the context of the eariler conversation, “support” refers to desiring that abortion be legal
To me, context includes the issue of whether it’s speaking of the real world or limited to the purity of some mathematical proposition, and with respect to “legal” in the real world, what that means in practice. In our everyday real world, if I were to do nothing more than stand in a voting booth and vote YES on such a proposition, then like I said, it may run the risk of scandal, or constitute some form of illicit cooperation, and thereby constitute support for abortion. In the real world, who votes to make X legal without expecting that it will bring about X?
As an example, if a tiger stands behind a door and I have the reasonable expectation that, were I to open the door, the tiger will likely kill your child but I open the door anyway, have I not supported the killing of your child? I don’t require that the tiger kill the child. That’s the tiger’s choice.
@Matt,
we do not possess any power to do away with, outlaw, or otherwise regulate one’s choice to go to hell.
Who chooses to go to hell without choosing to violate the moral law? Do you not have the power to teach/advocate in favor of the moral law?
@SB,
most people who call themselves “pro-choice” do, in fact, approve of abortion itself in the same way that I approve of chemotherapy: not as something suitable for everyone, everywhere, but as a good thing for certain people in certain circumstances
Though some, perhaps most (I do not know), persons who identify as “pro-choice” may approve of abortion as a good thing in certain circumstances, that is not true of all persons who may identify as “pro-choice.”
It seems to me that “pro-choicers” shy away from accurate terms… It is important, in these discussions, to use the term most relevant to the discussion, no?
The “most relevant” terms (in the sense of terms which may well-describe most but not all people) may not always be the most accurate. Unless all pro-choice persons are pro-abortion, it would not be the most accurate to call them pro-abortion.
@Sleeping Beastly (henceforth “SB” in any future posts)
I did not intend to make an exhaustive list of a reason I may not respond or ignore a post. I may simply choose not to respond for lack of time or for some other reason in no way prejudical to the person to which I did not respond. In the most general sense I would ignore a post if I felt the consequences of ignoring the post or the consequences of doing some other thing (like adhering to a rule) which entails the ignoring of the post were on balance better than the consequences of doing otherwise. Another reason I may ignore a post or a portion of it is if I felt doing so would be better for the ignored person or some other person. So for instance if someone seemed to become inordinately angry whenever the subject of her views on punctuated equilibria in the theory of evolution were being discussed then even if discusssion had merit and was otherwise apropos, I may abstain for her own sake, hoping that the bolded disclaimer I have “issued” would allow those here and in the future others just using their common sense to not read anything into my silence.
You are arguing for one thing; matt seemed to be arguing for another; and perhaps others who have since exited the conversation (not the blog just the conversation) have spoken of something else. If we define “abortion” to mean the instiution of legalized abortion, then sure pro-choice means pro-institution of legalized abortion. (Your term “legal abortion” doesn’t quite capture the concept).
Incidentally, most people who call themselves “pro-choice” do, in fact, approve of abortion itself in the same way that I approve of chemotherapy: not as something suitable for everyone, everywhere, but as a good thing for certain people in certain circumstances. I would call myself “pro-chemotherapy” without any fear that people might misconstrue the label in such a way as to think I advocate chemo for everyone and their dogs.
I personally do advocate for abortion in certain circumstances. I am also upon further reflection not 100% pro-choice with respect to abortion. However just as pro-lifers need society to evolve before outlawing abortion in all cases, I and others like me would need society to evolve before child birth is outlawed under certain extraordinary circumstances. Let’s give a bizarre hypothetical that may not even be nomologically possible, but is certainly metaphysically possible. Suppose an unborn embryo for some bizarre reason in this bizarre world had a contagious disease which was uncontagious while the embryo was in the womb (to the mother or anyone else) but would be contageous upon birth and that the only feasible way to prevent this potential tragedy would be to terminate the embryo in the womb. In such a bizarre hypothetical, I would not only advocate for abortion but I would be for requiring abortion. More realistic hypotheticals exist but I don’t feel any need to go into them. But under most circumstances I would be pro-choice and so I describe myself as pro-choice just as people who are pro-life under most circumstances (except say rape or incest or life or serious health of the mother) may describe themselves as pro-life.
I do not find abortion to be immoral however under any circumstance per se. That doesn’t mean I would be comfortable performing one myself anymore than I find it comfortable squashing a bug even though I do not find it immoral to do so (I actually feel sorry for the bug when I squash it)
@Adam
I think I did not succeed in communicating with you or I made some typo. I specifically mentioned IIRC the example of someone who was pro-choice but who did not advance the cause in any way including by voting — i.e. she is pro-choice but does not vote. JFYI.
Adam,
You write:
Though some, perhaps most (I do not know), persons who identify as “pro-choice” may approve of abortion as a good thing in certain circumstances, that is not true of all persons who may identify as “pro-choice.”
I’ve never seen anyone argue from that position, but you may be right. It’s a strange stance, but might be reasonable if one were, say, an anarchist.
The “most relevant” terms (in the sense of terms which may well-describe most but not all people) may not always be the most accurate. Unless all pro-choice persons are pro-abortion, it would not be the most accurate to call them pro-abortion.
“Pro-abortion” can mean one of two things, as shown with the “pro-slavery” example. Either it can mean support for the practice, or it can mean support for the social institution. In most cases, the positions are one and the same. No one who claims to be “pro-abortion” will be thought to approve of abortions in all circumstances anymore than someone described as being “pro-slavery” would be thought to approve of everyone’s being enslaved. The position, in the context of public debate, simply expresses approval for legislation that allows the practice.
The term “pro-choice” on the other hand is a deceptive term because it misrepresents the debate. The debate is not about choice; it’s about abortion. Most people who believe in a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby are not pro-choice across the board as regards the law, and would certainly approve of at least some legislation that limits someone’s choice somewhere. It’s also deceptive because of its implications about the opposition. Opponents of abortion don’t oppose choice in principle- just the particular choice of abortion.
My objections to the term “pro-life” are similar, and I think “anti-life” is as inaccurate a term as “anti-choice” when used to describe someone’s position on abortion.
CT,
I don’t mean to imply that you are obligated to respond to everything everyone writes to you. I certainly don’t respond to everyone who writes to me. By all means, use your judgment when choosing what to write. I appreciate the vast amount of time you already choose to contribute here. I know what a burden it is to argue a minority position in an online forum, even a civil one.
As for your example about the embryo with a soon-to-be contagious disease, what you’re arguing is a position regarding unintended consequences, and I doubt most Catholics would dispute it. We would seek to save lives from the spread of the virus, and the death of the baby would be an unintended consequence, similar to an abortion that might occur in the course of a surgery to save a pregnant woman’s life.
My objections to the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” stand.
Also, I never argued that we need society to evolve before outlawing abortion; just that there’s a reasonable order to enforcing those laws.
@CT,
I specifically mentioned IIRC the example of someone who was pro-choice but who did not advance the cause in any way including by voting — i.e. she is pro-choice but does not vote.
You also specifically mentioned that it may not be correct that such constitutes “support.” I’ve been wondering what Matt means by the term…
@Matt,
To acknowledge that some may choose it, again, does not equate to support as I am using the term… On the other hand, one could outlaw abortion, thus, agreeing to keep it legal is supporting it.
You say that to (1) “acknowledge that some may choose is” not support, but that (2) “agreeing to keep it legal” is supporting it. I’m going to guess here, but you seem to be saying that private acknowledgement (as CT has proposed above) is not support but voting to make it legal is support.
@SB,
It’s a strange stance, but might be reasonable if one were, say, an anarchist.
If you believe there’s an established order or authority with respect to the abortion decision that would be overthrown if a woman made the decision, then yes. But to those who believe that the decision rightfully falls in the hands of the woman, even if the authority is not hers so much as God’s, it would be anarchy to remove the decision from her hands.
The [“pro-abortion”] position, in the context of public debate, simply expresses approval for legislation that allows the practice.
That’s false. The term “pro-abortion” carries the distinct connotation of favoring abortion vs having the baby, not “simply” as a legal option but as favoring the abortion option over the having the baby option.
The term “pro-choice” on the other hand is a deceptive term because it misrepresents the debate.
“Pro-choice” is deceptive when (1) used to describe people who favor abortion rather than having the baby, or having the baby over having an abortion. It is not deceptive when (2) used to describe people who simply favor the existence of a legal option. The “debate” includes both people of (1) and the people of (2). Claiming that it’s deceptive because of the presence of (1) is much like saying it’s deceptive to say Catholics are against abortion and contraception because some Catholics (if not most) are not.
It’s also deceptive because of its implications about the opposition. Opponents of abortion don’t oppose choice in principle- just the particular choice of abortion.
Is it not deceptive to claim you “don’t oppose choice” in principle when in fact you oppose choice in practice? Is that not like “do as I say not as I do”? Or, “It’s ok to choose between A and B as long as you choose A.”
I’m pro-fetus.
“Pro-fetus” (the term, not the poster who identifies as such) is also associated with the notorious “pro-fetus / anti-child” movement.
That’s true Mary and assuming that the suicide attempt was made in a free and deliberative way (as opposed to cases where the suicide attempt is made under some kind of duress).
If you meant what you said about “moral flourishing” you would either have put in that proviso earlier about keeping the comatose patient alive, or left it out here. Choice is choice. If you wish to exclude “some kind of duress” you have to look for everywhere.
Furthermore, your claim that
The fact that he is depressed may (again depending on the details and what you mean by “depressed”) render his choice less free and in that respect even if it were to be a case of moral flourishing were the choice free, the character of moral flourishing it assumes may be diminished due to the lack of freedom
does not help the matter. Given that his state of mind is what it is, he has to make some choice. Unless you are claiming that he is intrinsically incapable of moral flourishing — in which case, by your own logic, anyone is entitled to kill him because he can not flourish morally.
And you still haven’t explained what you would do with the man who’s right there.
I support the right to die, not merely for the terminally ill but for everyone of sufficient maturity with appropriate regulation to prevent persons from making rash decisions that may be influenced by conditions like depression.
And I dare say you support that regulation to prevent persons from making rash decisions to live.
There is no “benefit of the doubt” to be given to the embryo.
You declare by fiat. But you offer no valid reason. “Your eyes” is merely trying to appoint yourself God. And if you consider it uncivil, that does invalidate it.
The fertilized egg is incapable of making a free choice yet it is said to have rational soul. But those with a rational soul must be hypostasis with a rational nature. But it seems to me that a hypostasis with a rational nature must have in some sense a capability to make a free choice were it not for some impeding factor (like being comatose, say — though I myself do not grant that a comatose patient lacks the capability to make free choices)
Yes. And the impeding factor is extreme immaturity. Which you admit right here:
So the only way to get around this is to say that the fertilized egg is a hypostasis with a rational nature whose state of being as a fertilized egg impedes its capability to make a free choice, ISTM
But then you call it a physical evil. Which is either nonsense or irrevelant. Given that we all of us lose the ability to make a free choice every single night, either there is no physical evil, or it does not affect your duties toward us.
And you skipped over the question of when children can make choices. It is fundamental to the entire system you lay out, as the question of when it is wrong to kill them is determined by it.
‘Forced labor’ is what many women would claim is being imposed upon them by denying them access to abortion.
Then they are making hyberbolic and false claims. Comatose women have given birth to babies, so obviously no “labor” is involve.
The only labor that arises is owing to laws that force parents to pay for the support of their children. As that is required of both parents and until the age of majority, this argument would require that the mother must undergo an abortion if the father demands it, and that both of them can kill the child up to the age of the majority.
Otherwise, your argument falls because killing the child is not a legitimate escape from forced labor.
Though you did not force these woman to enter the baby factory, many did so by “mistake”
Scare quotes about “mistake”? How fitting.
A woman who wittingly engages in behavior that is known to conceive children, and conceives a child, and claims it was a “mistake” — is too immature to consent to any medical procedure.
and others were forced to enter by rape.
Sorry though I am for women who conceive from rape, no one would permit a woman to kill an innocent person to escape any kind of slavery.
Especially in this case, where, in fact, women who conceive during rape are especially likely to be traumatized by abortion. Rape victims who carry their children full term would recommend their action to another women in the same situation. Rape victims who abort their children would not recommend their action.
That being so, I would prevent a rape victim from having an abortion even as I would her suicide; in her state of mind, she is committing an irrational and harmful act.
By eliminating their exit through the abortion door, it forces them to have babies, and as they’d call it, enslaves them.
There’s a difference between being melodramatic and having a right.
Further, to the extent that mortal sin (and hence slavery which results from sin) is a radical possibility of human freedom, it is impossible to support freedom without also supporting (the possibility of) slavery.
This is not an argument for abortion.
It is an argument for anarchy.
If forbidding an act is reducing people to slavery, the law, which by nature forbids, reduces people to slavery. ALL laws.
I already addressed that pre-emptively above prior to your entry into the conversation in this thread.
Badly. See above.
If you didn’t understand it, then I don’t think there’s anything I could write further to make it understandable.
Well, you seem to have difficulty getting your head around the idea that the problem here may not be understanding.
Your ideas are clear, however much you wrap them up in long words.
However, given that you have not offered any reason — not one — why we should accept your notion of choice and “moral flourishing”, to accuse of us of not understanding is to evade the issue.
You can not announce by fiat a principle that appears both silly and depraved and expect that any difficulties that arise are other people’s difficulties in understanding.
Mary I don’t know at what stage of development a born child is able to make choices. But it is certain that an embryo is not. A born child, due to the sudden influx of a new variety of sensory data it is presented with may very quickly be able to make choices. So I would not for example be for legalizing the killing of babies who are three weeks old or even 1 day old or even 1 hour old where there is at least some uncertainty involved (and I already addressed the benefit of the doubt issue; you didn’t seem to understand it and I don’t sense in you a desire to try to understand as opposed to just argue, frankly). Let’s consider the clearer case of a baby that is 1/2^quintillion seconds old — were a post-birth abortion possible in such a time frame, then yes I would support the right to choose in that instance though I am not sure I would make it solely the mother’s choice in that circumstance.
And yes I would support regulation that informs people of the right to die and its pros and cons for those whom the option would typically be considered.
I don’t think you really understood my initial point.
On the issue of sleeping, let’s suppose that renders the person unable to make choices. But that sleeping person was once able to make free choices and has previously made a free choice to live and that choice has been sustained in his will and (as I’ve already tried to explain; repeating myself would do no good if you don’t understand unless there’s a specific question you have) so his sleeping is a case of moral flourishing insfoar as it is an expression and actualization of his prior free choice.
An embryo not only cannot make free choices but has never had the ability to make free choices — there are no prior free choices of the embryo to consider.
Peace.
Suppose an unborn embryo for some bizarre reason in this bizarre world had a contagious disease which was uncontagious while the embryo was in the womb (to the mother or anyone else) but would be contageous upon birth and that the only feasible way to prevent this potential tragedy would be to terminate the embryo in the womb. In such a bizarre hypothetical, I would not only advocate for abortion but I would be for requiring abortion.
Suppose that we should base our laws and our moral reasonings on what exists and not what our demented imaginations can work up.
But it is certain that an embryo is not. A born child, due to the sudden influx of a new variety of sensory data it is presented with may very quickly be able to make choices.
You are ignorant of basic biology then. An unborn child is receiving an influx of sensory data long before it is born. If you sweeten the amniotic fluid, for instance, the child will drink more; if you put something bitter in, it will drink less.
Mary, you didn’t understand my statement. I wasn’t saying that embryos have not sensory data; I was only saying that a sudden influx of a new variety of sensory data is presented upon birth. This sensory data is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from that which preceded the birthing process.
I don’t think you really understood my initial point.
I don’t think you really understand what you are saying.
Repeating your fiat about “moral flourishing” does not affect the fact that if inability to make choices is a physical evil, then the physical evil is present for the sleeping. You admit that they may not be killed.
Peace.
“‘Peace, peace!’ they say, though there is no peace.”
This sensory data is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from that which preceded the birthing process.
You are ignorant of biology.
Thank you Mary for the conversation.
This sensory data is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from that which preceded the birthing process.
Mary is right — CT is ignorant in biology (among other things).
Suggestion: Try PubMed.
Adam,
You write:
The term “pro-abortion” carries the distinct connotation of favoring abortion vs having the baby, not “simply” as a legal option but as favoring the abortion option over the having the baby option.
This would be true if the question were “Should So-and-so have an abortion or give birth to the baby?” Then, you could either describe your position as pro-abortion or anti-abortion, and that would pertain to whether you thought she should have an abortion or not. But that’s not the question so-called “pro-choice” people are answering with their self-applied label. The question they are answering is “Should our society allow abortion?” In answer to that question, “pro-choice” is a dodge, and not a direct answer to the question at all.
Claiming that it’s deceptive because of the presence of (1) is much like saying it’s deceptive to say Catholics are against abortion and contraception because some Catholics (if not most) are not.
That’s not why I said it was deceptive. It’s a deceptive term because it doesn’t address the subject of controversy and attempts to gild the position’s image by associating it with an uncontroversial principle- that of choice. As I said, most of us approve of choice in general, even if we think that our society ought to forbid certain choices.
Is it not deceptive to claim you “don’t oppose choice” in principle when in fact you oppose choice in practice? Is that not like “do as I say not as I do”? Or, “It’s ok to choose between A and B as long as you choose A.”
I don’t oppose choice in principle, but I do oppose certain choices. In the same way, I might say that I don’t oppose commerce in general, although I do think that certain kinds of commerce ought to be forbidden. Being opposed to trafficking in slaves does not make me anti-capitalist.
“Pro-fetus” (the term, not the poster who identifies as such) is also associated with the notorious “pro-fetus / anti-child” movement.
Not really a movement, so much as a cute catchphrase of the pro-abortion crowd. Inaccurate, but cute.
@Mary,
The only labor that arises is owing to laws that force parents to pay for the support of their children. As that is required of both parents and until the age of majority, this argument would require that the mother must undergo an abortion if the father demands it, and that both of them can kill the child up to the age of the majority.
Just carrying a baby to term can pose a “burden” for some women, and possibly for the father as well, if he still be in the picture. As to your notion of requiring the mother to undergo an abortion if the father demands it, this obviously assumes that the mother isn’t demanding it herself. If the father were to demand an abortion but the mother disagree, then the mother would not have to get an abortion because she’s at least 50% of the decision.
though I am for women who conceive from rape, no one would permit a woman to kill an innocent person to escape any kind of slavery.
But many do support termination of pregnancy for “any” kind of slavery, so that disproves your claim.
Rape victims who carry their children full term would recommend their action to another women in the same situation. Rape victims who abort their children would not recommend their action.
And people who go through fraternity hazings are more likely to think hazing is ok. And there is a tendency for hostages to show loyalty to their hostage-takers. Does that mean we should recommend hazing and being taken hostage?
If forbidding an act is reducing people to slavery, the law, which by nature forbids, reduces people to slavery. ALL laws.
Yes, that’s one way to look at it.
@SB,
But that’s not the question so-called “pro-choice” people are answering with their self-applied label. The question they are answering is “Should our society allow abortion?” In answer to that question, “pro-choice” is a dodge, and not a direct answer to the question at all.
The question generally debated is, “Should women have the (legal and practical) choice available to abort or should that choice be taken away.” (Most) “pro-choice” persons believe women should have the (legal and practical) choice available to abort. That makes the term “pro-choice” directly appropriate. People opposed to their position believe abortion should be illegal which would effectively eliminate the woman’s choice on the matter. For example, there’s no (legal or practical) choice between driving a red car or a blue car if driving blue cars is illegal.
It’s a deceptive term because it doesn’t address the subject of controversy and attempts to gild the position’s image by associating it with an uncontroversial principle- that of choice.
The principle of whether women should have the (legal and practical) choice available to them to abort is controversial. The term “pro-choice” directly addresses the position that women should have that (legal and practical) choice available to them. Hence “pro-choice.”
Good bye for now. Thank you all for the discussion.
Adam,
You write:
Just carrying a baby to term can pose a “burden” for some women, and possibly for the father as well, if he still be in the picture.
In the case of consent, the mother and father have both agreed to accept the possibility of pregnancy when they conceived. At that point, killing the baby to prevent inconvenience to the parents is unjust.
In the case of rape, the rapist (and not society) has forced the burden of pregnancy on the mother, and ought to be brought to justice including, possibly, making recompense to the mother. At that point, killing the baby to prevent the inconvenience to the mother is still unjust.
The question generally debated is, “Should women have the (legal and practical) choice available to abort or should that choice be taken away.” (Most) “pro-choice” persons believe women should have the (legal and practical) choice available to abort. That makes the term “pro-choice” directly appropriate. People opposed to their position believe abortion should be illegal which would effectively eliminate the woman’s choice on the matter. For example, there’s no (legal or practical) choice between driving a red car or a blue car if driving blue cars is illegal.
Then call your position “pro-choice-to-abort”. As you point out, pro-choice could have meant so many other things.
” ‘pro-fetus / anti-child” movement.’ ”
There is such a thing? Who is in it? Where are their main offices?
I’ve not only never met, but never heard of anyone who described themselves as “anti-child” in any context.
Being pro-fetus IS pro-child by definition.
Well, I have, but I agree that adding “pro-fetus” is pretty incomprehensible. It sounds like a pro-abortion sneer at pro-lifers who, e.g., oppose social programs that advocates say help children.
Okay, call me Pro-Human, then.
Yes, it reminds me of George Carlin’s line about those who oppose abortion. There’s a lot to criticize in his rant, but he’s still pretty darn funny. “Chickens are decent people!” He’s also right that the central question is: “Is a fetus a human being?”
I was being a little flippant, above, on the whole “pro-life” thing because I just don’t see the controversy.
Everyone knows – in the current cultural context – that “pro-life” means effectively “anti-legal abortion” and “pro-choice” means “pro-legal abortion”.
I don’t see that getting hung up on semantics accomplishes much in either direction.
It seems to me that it lends itself to skewing the conversation. I’ve seen way too many news stories and editorials that talk about “anti-choice” protesters, which just isn’t conducive to dialogue at all. I agree that we’re stuck with the terms, but personally I refuse to use them. If you mean that this combox argument is going around in circles and is boring and pointless, you’re probably right. I’m hopping down off my hobby horse now. 8]
Thanks for your kind support in the comboxes, above. I haven’t been sleeping the last week or so (if you call being unable to sleep until 2:30 am and then waking up every fifteen minutes thereafter, sleeping). It seems to be a combination of a lot of physical/medical factors (don’t want to get into specifics – I have a fairly rare and somewhat serious, but untreatable condition). This has made me really tired and overly emotional. I’m not, ordinarily, as scrupulous or intense as I appeared in my last post and the situation I mentioned with the person I hurt in the past was over and done with, long ago. Still, I don’t like to be posting when I can hardly remember what I’m supposed to be doing when I wake up in the morning.
I have finals and grading, next week. I need to try to be rested for that. I’m going to take some time off and see if the change in weather with the coming of fall helps. I’ll continue to read the comboxes – you guys better behave 🙂
Again, I appreciate the sentiments. I knew things weren’t quite right last Wednesday night when I posted, but sometimes, especially when you haven’t slept soundly in about a month-and-a-half, its hard to be able to be objective (I’ve had good and bad days – last week was really bad). Its amazing I sounded as coherent as I did.
Mary K – I really don’t know what size I take in an asbestos suits, but if you want to hand-knit one for Christmas, I am sure we can work something out (and I want a red tie!).
I’ll drop in, from time to time, until things get back to normal (hopefully). Then, I’m sure I’ll be back to my normal long-windedness.
The Chicken
Woo hoo! Good to have you around, Chicken.
Masked Chicken, good to see your post. Boo hiss on the medical stuff. (heading out for asbestos yarn and a red tie…)
Well now that TMC is back I wish to make one factual correction. It may be true that the entirety of the post TMC referred to was quoted. But that was not the only post in which TMC had made the suggestion that I may very well be the same person as Eric in that particular thread. This is all I have to say on this matter. This is the only exception I will make to the self-imposed rule I announced above, the reason for the exception being that this is a correction of something said about me prior to my decision to impose the rule on myself and which normally I would have addressed had it not been for TMC’s departure. Also, in answer to one of Mary’s question as to “who” did it with respect to saying it was a conditional. IIRC it was TMC. But that really is not important, but since Mary asked, I have answered.
Back to substantive issues.
I am not aware of anyone who claims that the sensory data that a newborn is exposed to is not quantitatively and qualitatively different than that the embryo is exposed to. The word “qualitatively” here is not a reference to the senses. If someone is placed in a locked room with only the color purple surrounding him and he is there constantly, he is exposed to sensory data that is quantitatively and qualitatively different than a person who is out in some field where there are a multitude of colors, patterns and so forth which would provide stimuli for the brain. There are theories regarding the brain’s ability to provide self-stimulus of course.
Anyway, a lot more than mere “biology” (none of which supports the nonsensical idea that Mary and John Smith seemed to affirm) is involved here and we don’t have enough understanding in neuroscience to determine when sentience emerges or even a good philosophical account of what sentience involves in terms of the brain. There are epiphenomenal accounts and various other accounts of the mental experience including dualist accounts.
There are also different accounts as to the nature of sensory experience. One account — not convincing in my view — is the account of David Armstrong (this is the brilliant David Armstrong known in philosophy circles, not to be associated with the Catholic apologist David Armstrong). A full analysis of the issue of sensory data and how that may contribute to the emergence of sentience would have to resolve this matter as well.
A clearer example would be simply humans that are born without a certain portion of the brain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anencephaly&oldid=235312735
In these cases I would support a right to kill the non-personal entity, though if it is to be a choice I would make it a choice of either both parents or one or the other even with the other’s objection. I would also be open to making post-birth abortion required in such cases and for hospitals that have ethical problems with it to perform the procedure or at mininum transport the non-personal entity to a medical facility that would.
I am ignorant of much of biology, but that ignorance does not play a role here.
Oh brother! Here comes Mr. Wiki again.
CT must be the Atheist equivalent of a Fundamentalist Protestant — quoting Wiki as if Scripture…again!
Why don’t you try prominent Medical Journals, for goodness sakes!
I don’t have my MEDLINE Full Access, but why don’t you try this (assuming it works here on a public access):
http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymai/medline/related/MDLN.9773369
Besides, I have my own research to complete and I’m not going to waste my time especially on somebody so undeserving of any such assistance.
John Smith,
I don’t think you understand.
I am not denying that there is neural activity in the brain of an embryo. But the presence of neural activity in the brain of an embryo does not entail that that embryo is sentient. It is rather surprising to me that you, even with your prejudice in this matter, would not understand this. But let me with patient point out a counterexample (I think this is the only time I have chuckled when using a sentence with that term). A cat has neural activity in its brain; that does not entail that it is sentient. A cat may be said to “learn” depending on you define “learn” (these definitions fall outside of the expertise of physical scientists except those who also work as philosophers and may hold dual degrees) just as even artificial neural networks may be said to “learn” depending on how you define “learn” — but in neither case does the “learning” (semantically interpreted to different objects as appropriate where “objects” may include relata and so forth contra convention) entail that sentience exists.
One can certainly argue that the pre-birth human is sentient; but that was not what you were initially arguing about. I was making a factual observation with which you seemed to disagree on the facts not on the conclusions drawn from those facts. If you are now acknowledging the facts but disagree with me as to the conclusions drawn from those facts, then that’s reasonable. Let me pre-empt future confusion my pointing this out as well:
Arguing that the pre-birth human can be sentient does not entail arguing that the pre-birth human receives sensory data that is not quantitatively and qualitatively scarce relative to the post-birth human.
Neither does arguing that the pre-birth human can learn entail arguig that it can be sentient.
There are folks who argue that the pre-birth human is sentient (no biologists in peer-reviewed journals that claim that as a conclusion though that I know of), but there are none as far as I know who denied the fact of the matter as regards my initial statement which Mary and then you took issue with. There is the fact and then there is the interpretation or conclusion drawn from it.
The statement that John Smith continues to contest was really rather unremarkable. I can only attribute it to Mary’s and John Smith’s failure to understand me and my failure to communicate to an audience unaccustomed to philosophical verbiage.
Upon looking closer at John Smith’s link (btw I don’t he understood that my link to wikipedia bears no relevance; it was only provided in case someone was ignorant of what I was referring to — it can omitted wholly without any affect …. and it bears no relevance to the original disute in any event), it seems that he is referring to how pre-birth humans may be able to be receive to sensory data such as music and so forth. But none of that contradicts my original statement. It takes either a man of immense stupidity or immense bias or a confluence of stupidity and bias which taken together is immense to fail to see that. But let me give a rather trivial non-formalized sketch of a proof.
The fetus cannot see outside of the womb.
At birth the fetus can thus be exposed to sensory data that was unavailable to it while within the womb on the assumption that there are things outside the womb that are unseen in the womb but which can be seen outside it.
There are things outside the womb that are unseen in the womb but which can be seen outside it.
It is nomologically possible that these things render the sensory exposure of the newborn qualitatively and quantitatively different from its exposure within the womb given the range of epistemic possibilities as regards neuroscience, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind.
My impression is that both of you misunderstood my statement to be referring to a belief that the embryo was incapable of sensing things. If that was your misunderstanding, then please simply acknowledge it rather than continuing a fruitless argument for what is a nonsensical position. One could certainly if one chooses to advance a philosophy of the mind account informed by neurobiology and neuropsychology that renders it not nomologically possible that the sensory exposure is qualitatively different (btw: qualitatively does NOT refer to smell versus taste or sight versus sound …. perhaps that confused you as well), but given the infancy of those two physical science fields and the unresolved issues in philosophy of the mind, I doubt that you would be presently equipped to give one. If you were, then you would be the only person in the world able to do so.
CT –
Do you KNOW that an embryo is not sentient? Not a human being?
I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but anyone who is actually trying to convince me that abortion is not a horrendous evil, HAS to BEGIN by providing evidence that life does NOT begin at conception. That’s the first evidence he must present. If he doesn’t start from there, he’s wasting his time.
@Tim J,
I may or may not “KNOW” that the embryo* at all stages of development is not sentient or not able to make free choices (I have since noticed I’ve interchanged these two; I personally would find one to entail the other, but I’m just noting that oversight of mine) depending on what one means by “KNOW.”
There are numerous accounts of the definition of propositional knowledge and under for instance some contextualist** accounts, your capitalization may render it true while it is also nevertheless true that in the context of this sentence I do indeed know that the embryo is not sentient. However I do not commit myself to contextualism in epistemology. But I also have not settled on any account of the definition of propositional knowledge, so I can only give but a tentative answer … so let me instead just reformulate your question and answer thusly:
Am I CERTAIN that an embryo is (ordinarily) not sentient?
I am not absolutely certain insofar as I cannot definitively rule out the epistemic possibility that embryos are at some point sentient. However, I am REASONABLY certain just as I am reasonably certain that when I drive my car and I don’t see anyone in front of it that there is no alien with an invisibility cloak there who has forgotton to bring along his invincibility cloak. So the whole “deer” argument does not work. If one is morally certain, then one can shoot even if one can’t rule out definitively the possibility that some whacko spent millions of dollars on a Hollywood quality costume to be shot down by a hunter and that he also spent millions bribing some secret govt agency to give him an exoskeleton that would enable him mimic the movements of a deer.
Besides, the deer argument only considers the value of life versus the fun of hunting. Here we are dealing with the value of a life chosen freely by an embryo under the assumption it is sentient versus the value of the freedom of a woman to choose and determine her personal destiny under the assumption that the embryo is not sentient (I do not see one value as to be so greater than the other that they are incommensurate such that under all circumstances one outweighs the other) So the level of certainty needed to reach moral certainty in the deer argument is greater than the level of certainty needed to reach moral certainty in the abortion argument as I have outlined it (maybe other abortion arguments that others have laid out would be more open to this attack, but not this particular one of mine)
*I am using the word “embryo” here not in its technical sense which may exclude the fetus or zygote or what have you, but in a non-technical sense that encompasses any stage of development prior to birth. I find this usage legitimate just as we do not limit the word “theory” to its usage in physical science or mathematics (the way it is used in mathematics in say the field of mathematical logic incidentally differs from how it is used in physical science). I am pre-emptively placing this note b/c in my experience in both of these cases some person for whatever motivation feels it necessary to point out what the “correct” usage is.
**I refer here to accounts that are in some cases motivated in part by the problem of skepticism by claiming the skeptic changes the meaning of “know” in the course of the dialogue with the non-skeptic. Here’s some pointers for further reading (it is very accessible; nothing too technical; anyone of any background should be able to dive in and swim):
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/Context-Bib.htm
CT is obviously right to state that post partum sensory input is substantially different from ante partum sensory input. Others are correct to emphasize the continuity of experience. For instance, IIRC, experiments have shown that from birth newborns recognize the voices of family members. Newborns can also differentiate the smell of their own mother from other mothers.
I am not sure what CT means to argue by this. If, e.g., a baby were born blind, its post partum sensory experience would differ far less dramatically from ordinary ante partum experience than would that of ordinary post partum infants. What follows? Is a one-year-old blind baby less human, less a person or less entitled to human rights than a seeing baby?
Nobody can dispute that life — human life — begins at conception. It’s a fact. An embryo is a human being. That’s a fact. One must argue that human beings per se are not entitled to human rights — that some other condition is required. One must distinguish, e.g., between a human being and a human person. Whatever arguments are put forward in this regard, this is not the view of the historic Western moral tradition.
John Smith: Let’s argue the issues, please, and not be personally abusive. Thank you.
SDG, if I were to just make a drastic simplification:
if a baby were born incapable of any sensory reception (not merely sight, but somehow in some bizarre way also touch, etc.), then I would feel confident in supporting the right to a post-birth abortion in such a case.
If Aquinas is right (I won’t cite this since I believe this SHOULD be common knowledge for Catholics such as yourself — and I believe it IS indeed in your own case) that all human knowledge comes via the senses, then it is difficult for me to see how an entity with no knowledge could be sentient.
This skirts of course the other cases you mentioned of blindness but here still I would argue that the post-birth sensory experience differs substantially, though of course it would certainly be more difficult for me to prove that it were the case. (And I note that you did not deny that it differed substantially, only that to whatever degree it differs, it differs less dramatically then the ordinary case).
I am not sure what genuine purpose there is to this either but I was answering IIRC a question from Mary where she was asking about a position allegedly held by Obama — that was what initiated IIRC. Initially I ignored that question, but then IIRC Mary brought it up again.
The only real thing to “take away” as regards my practical position is that I do not support a right to post-birth abortion except (a) in cases where the baby can be determined (with moral certainty) to not only not be sentient but never have been sentient or (b) in cases of sever abnormality which would make the life of the child a cruel experience*
*Even in one moral theology text, it mentions that while desiring, seriously, that one’s life was no more was gravely sinful, that it not gravely sinful when one’s life is faced with — I forget the exact words used but if one were facing continuous torture for the rest of one’s life until natural or torture-induced death, then that would certainly count — that wasn’t any example used, but it would fit. (this wasn’t saying that it was good to desire the end of one’s life; only that it wasn’t gravely sinful to do so … I don’t recall if “mortal” or “grave” was used; the little moral theology handbook in question was Moral Theoly by Herbert Jone). What relevance is that? If an expectation of severe suffering can change the moral character of a desire to no longer live then couldn’t it change it in the case of an individual other than one’s self? It also raises the question as to whether it changes it in a way such that the state should not prohibit such choices (in both the case of reasonable suicide with govt regulatory safeguards and post-birth abortion in cases of newborns who would face suffering of great cruelty). In any event if the pro-life position is correct, there is no moral difference between a post versus pre birth termination.
I mispelled (typo — and I won’t correct my other typos … I’ll try to be more careful or turn on my spell checker) the name: Heribert
SDG said: “John Smith: Let’s argue the issues, please, and not be personally abusive. Thank you.”
Oh, I apologize — I had forgotten only those who mock the Catholic Faith receive good treatment here.
Not that the things CT has said such as “It takes either a man of immense stupidity or immense bias or a confluence of stupidity and bias which taken together is immense to fail to see that. But let me give a rather trivial non-formalized sketch of a proof.” is anything of the sort.
WHY WIKI IS BETTER THAN ANY PROMINENT MEDICAL JOURNAL
Although, I notice that CT had, instead of reading any of the eminent medical research studies provided, deliberately glossed over them. Perhaps because it didn’t come from the Wiki “Scripture” that he holds ever so dearly (though only a man of immense stupidity or immense bias or a confluence of both would actually rely on something that can be so easily doctored).
Let me put things in the most simple terms so that even the likes of CT can understand: a thing cannot “learn” unless there is knowledge that is being received by that thing and because that thing is actually “learning” not only is the new knowledge being assimilated but it becomes bloody evident that there is some means by which that thing is receiving that new knowledge. Capisce?
This is why that “mythical” narrative of John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth’s womb in Scripture in the context of Mary’s Visitation becomes all the more believable given the prenatal studies that would almost seem to suggest that.
Dear John,
I never claimed that an ordinary embryo (not the hypothetical case I referred to in my reply to SDG), is devoid of knowledge. However “learning” depending on how defines it does not entail the presence of knowledge understood here in a philosophical sense. It is relatively easy to construct an artificial neural network (in software that is; in hardware, it would be easy too, but that is not something I personally would be able to do easily) that is able to “learn”; but that network is not thereby in possession of any knowledge whether prior to the learning or after the learning or during the learning. Of course if one defines “learning” in a specifically philosophical way then depending on the definition, learning may entail knowledge but in that event, none of the articles you refer to give much evidence if at all for that kind of learning. And, in addition, removed from the limitations of computer hardware and dealing stricting in the theoretical world of computer science or mathematics, it is simple to construct algorithms that may be termed “artificial neural networks” (except existent only in theory) which would display impressive “learning”, again depending on how learning is defined.
In any event, a cat “learns” under some definitons of “learn” but that does not entail that a cat possess knowledge — at least not the kind of knowledge which would entail the obtaining of sentience or the capability of free choice as a free agent.
The mythical story may be evidence for your position (what it is it is difficult for me to discern quite frankly) but to me it is simply additional evidence that the document from which it comes is unreliable and is not inerrant.
Just carrying a baby to term can pose a “burden” for some women, and possibly for the father as well, if he still be in the picture.
But it’s not forced labor.
As to your notion of requiring the mother to undergo an abortion if the father demands it, this obviously assumes that the mother isn’t demanding it herself. If the father were to demand an abortion but the mother disagree, then the mother would not have to get an abortion because she’s at least 50% of the decision.
She has 0% right to force the father into slavery. He has the perfect right to demand an abortion if you are entitled to an abortion to avoid forced labor.
Notice that CT can neither bring himself to admit that the counterexample disproves the rule, nor prove a different way to look at it.
It sounds like a pro-abortion sneer at pro-lifers who, e.g., oppose social programs that advocates say help children.
I’ve certainly heard that. I’ve also seen the same pro-aborts sing the praises of social programs that they say help unborn babies.
And such “pro-born-children” people never, ever, ever favor sterner punishments for anyone who harms or even kills anyone already born. It is notorious that people who support abortion also oppose capital punishment, but they also tend to leniency on — well, everything.
From which it can be rapidly deduced that what they really like is social programs.
I can only attribute it to Mary’s and John Smith’s failure to understand me and my failure to communicate to an audience unaccustomed to philosophical verbiage.
If you really can’t attribute it to anything else, you should go away until you understand that we understand you and that you are talking bosh.
As for “philosophical verbiage” — perhaps you should try reading some real philosophers and boning up on the language.
The fetus cannot see outside of the womb.
At birth the fetus can thus be exposed to sensory data that was unavailable to it while within the womb on the assumption that there are things outside the womb that are unseen in the womb but which can be seen outside it.
If the baby is blind, it can’t see in either place.
if a baby were born incapable of any sensory reception (not merely sight, but somehow in some bizarre way also touch, etc.), then I would feel confident in supporting the right to a post-birth abortion in such a case.
Considering that you are quite willing to off babies that have considerable sensory experience which they have learned from — this does not exactly come as a shock.
If Aquinas is right (I won’t cite this since I believe this SHOULD be common knowledge for Catholics such as yourself — and I believe it IS indeed in your own case) that all human knowledge comes via the senses, then it is difficult for me to see how an entity with no knowledge could be sentient.
And why in blue blazes SHOULD it be common knowledge for Catholics?
Especially since you start with the big IF. It’s like saying, “If that voice inside the house was really the radio, there’s no evidence that there’s anyone there.” If you accidentially killed a person inside, there’s no way that plea would stand at trial.
I am not sure what genuine purpose there is to this either but I was answering IIRC a question from Mary where she was asking about a position allegedly held by Obama
There’s nothing alleged about it. Obama spoke against and voted against a bill that would require that live-born babies receive medical treatment, despite reports that such babies were dumped in closets to die. He explicitly said that treating such baby is a “burden.”
Mary, I am not here to defend Obama against alleged statements he may or may not have made. I refer readers again to the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, especially the bolded portion of my post of Sep 4, 2008 7:37:25 PM and the clarification I made to SB. I do not intend to respond further to the 5 (as of now) above posts Mary has newly made addressed to me. Thank you again for the conversation. Peace
In any event, a cat “learns” under some definitons of “learn” but that does not entail that a cat possess knowledge — at least not the kind of knowledge which would entail the obtaining of sentience or the capability of free choice as a free agent.
Are you kidding me???
We’re not talking about a “cat”; we’re talking about a human being, for bloody sake!
Look, mr. ersatz philosopher; why don’t you try this, if you’re so incapable of understanding the extant medical research on the matter:
operatio sequitur esse
Comprende?
Let me see just how much of a philosopher you are — just try to unpack exactly what I am referring to here.
But I’m convinced: Mary’s got you completely pegged.
Dear John,
JFYI, I will be ignoring future posts made by you. So regardless of how meritorious they may be I may probably will not even read them except those portions which may be quoted by others. Thank you for the conversation. Peace.
P.S. Should anyone wish to discuss the issue (which is not as simplistic as John may seem to think as some do not agree with that principle he alluded to: for example some assert esse sequitur operari and the larger issue is considerably more complex than John seems to realize … whole tomes can and have been written on these kinds of issues*), then I would be happy to do so. However, I choose not to do so with John Smith. And the “issue” I refer to would be any substantive issue, not any egoistic contest. I personally am much more impressed by a person of average intelligence and average education who is willing to admit a mistake and conduct himself amicably in discourse than I am with a (hypothetical) person of above-average intelligence and above-average intelligence who touts his credentials in gratuitous fashion in a way not pertinent to the discussion.
BTW, I have never to my knowledge claimed I was a philosopher here; I think people assumed that from my posts. That is not to say I am not a philosopher. There are plenty of areas of philosophy which I am far from a specialist in or even far from competent in. Prescinding any question of competence or speciality, my areas of greatest personal interest in philosophy are in: foundations of mathematics, philosophy of mathematics, epistemology, and philosophy of religion. In mathematics, again prescinding from any question of speciality or competence, apart from foundational mathematics I like to dabble in some game theory (and I also like to dabble in its counterparts in philosophy).
*just off the top of my head, philosophy of mind and other philosophical issues that are of significance to the debate regarding sentience and free choice and the like would include (this is not an exhaustive list):
compatibilist versus incompatibilist accounts of freedom
dualism verus physicalism
various reductive accounts of learning that make learning reductive to a functionalist reality
various reductive accounts of learning that make learning reductive to a non-functionalist reality
non-reductive views of knowledge
reductive views of knowledge that make knowledge reductive to physical properties
views of knowledge that do not commit as to reduction but which assert supervenience of knowledge on physical properties
John Searle’s Chinese Room argument and his view that the obtaining of sentience is not entailed by an algorithmic process which is isomorphic to an algorithmic process present in a human
the possibility raised by some Christian philosophers of human-appearing simulcra indistinguishable to us from real humans as their answer to the problem of hell/evil (of course the indiscernibility of identicals and identity of indiscernibles can still be held to on the existence of simulcra)
actually … there’s too many to list!
@The Masked Chicken (henceforth “TMC” in future posts)
I would like to make a truly friendly recommendation — I hesitate to make it as I think it may be harmful to you in terms of confirming you in your Christian beliefs, but I thought I’d place what might be your own wishes above what I judge to be best (non-naturalistic atheism) for you.
http://www.siu.edu/~scp/listserv.htm
I have no idea what the present state of the discourse on the above email list is, but it is probably something that would be amenable to you in different ways. You do not need to be a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers to participate in that email list and you do not even need to be a professional philosopher. However you are requested to sign any emails you send with your real name.
A blog that may interest you is:
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/
You may be asked to sign comments with your real name there as well.
And as an aside a piece of amateur theology that may interest you (authored by a non-Catholic but I am presuming you could try to approach it with an open mind) and which in my view argues for a variant of Christianity better than some other variants is here:
http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm
On the blog mentioned above, the same author has made this post on the PZM issue:
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2008/07/pz-myerss-plan.html
which may interest you as well.
I have not read your posts fully but I noticed you mentioned some medical problems you were having; I hope you get better and that these links might serve as diversions if not something better down the road. Peace.
Let me ask you, in all seriousness: And your attitude doesn’t constitute mocking the Catholic Faith?
Even if you disagree with my efforts, I try to hold everyone to the same standard. After repeated warnings, I have banned Muslims, Fundamentalists, and — less often — Catholics who were unwilling to abide by the rules and keep things civil. A very small number in all. Most guests — even anti-Catholics — have been willing to abide by the rules and keep things civil. For Catholics to be unwilling to do the same is nothing less than scandal.
Even if it were true, which it is not, that Catholics were held to a higher standard, why on earth should we not be? Does grace make a difference, or not?
Righteous anger and prophetic denunciation, I can understand and respect. Contempt in the face of a request for civility strikes me as an affront to the spirit of Christ as well as common decency. As Christians we have no proof to the world of our bona fides but charity, supernatural love. Not apologetical arguments, not theological rectitude, not crushing rhetorical rejoinders, not defiant political activism (none of which I have a problem with, as far as they go). St. Paul was not whistling Dixie in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (not that there’s anything wrong with whistling Dixie).
I’ve tried to appeal to charity and civility. Here is my last appeal: Do you or don’t you recognize an obligation as a guest to respect your host’s wishes with regard to your conduct in the space he pays for?
Mary, I am not here to defend Obama against alleged [sic] statements he may or may not have made.
Did I ask you to? Of course not. I merely pointed out that what you called “alleged” is fact.
Peace
“For the very reason that they led my people astray, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there was no peace, and that, as one built a wall, they would cover it with whitewash, say then to the whitewashers: I will bring down a flooding rain; hailstones shall fall, and a stormwind shall break out. And when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked: Where is the whitewash you spread on?”
However “learning” depending on how defines it does not entail the presence of knowledge understood here in a philosophical sense
Of course, I have no reason to believe that your posts here show that you have “the presence of knowledge understood here in a philosophical sense.”
Indeed, we have direct knowledge only of our own knowledge; by the logic you are using here, you have no argument against a soliphist who kills you because he thinks you are just a neural net.
I personally am much more impressed by a person of average intelligence and average education who is willing to admit a mistake and conduct himself amicably in discourse than I am with a (hypothetical) person of above-average intelligence and above-average intelligence who touts his credentials in gratuitous fashion in a way not pertinent to the discussion.
Tell me you didn’t say this.
No, you said it.
Oh my.
This from a character who not only can’t admit a mistake, but can’t even admit that someone else can both understand him and think him mistaken.
Dear Mary,
The issue of skepticism including skepticism as to the existence of other minds is distinct from the issue raised here. The fetus may exhibit signs of some forms of learning using certain definitions of learning (say some accounts that reduce it to some form of information processing) but the kind or form of cognizance that would suggest (assuming that this information processing account of learning is such that learning always corresponds with some kind or form of cognizance where cognizance is also analyzed if not reduced in an information-theoretic way) is not the same as the kind or form of cognizance that is suggested by the learning exhibited by an adult as well as the adult’s other observable behaviors. It is true that no behavior exhibited by a newborn gives us reason to believe that it is sentient or capable of free choice. But I was not contending that a newborn was sentient or capable of free choice. I was contending only that we lack moral certainty that it isn’t whereas we possess moral certainty that the preborn isn’t.
In any event even should it be determined that the embryo (understood here non-technically) at some point in development is sentient, then I would be pro-life with respect to those stages of development and pro-choice with respect to earlier stages of development where it is still certain that it is not. So these changes in fact would change my political view; note however that no fundamental ethical theory or other theory was changed. The facts changed and the same theory was applied to the new set of facts producing a slightly different result for our application.
Let me make some tangential comments.
As I have said to my knowledge I have not mentioned whether I am a philosopher on this blog (though on several occasions, several different persons seem to have assumed that I probably was). I do not wish to disclose whether or not I am a professional philosopher so let me say this instead: prescinding from any question as to whether I am a professional philosopher, as a philosopher I am not in any special way impressed by assertions by M.D.s or D.O.s or “hard” science Ph.D.s (trivia: what does the Ph. in Ph.D. mean?), or any other person who may have expertise in a “hard” science field. So to me for example, hypothetically speaking if an M.D. were to assert that a newborn is sentient, then knowing only that information alone, I would actually be less inclined to give credence to her assertion for I often find that those in “hard” science fields or with knowledge of “hard” science opine on matters that they are not really equipped in knowledge or training to deal with.
There is in some subfields of philosophy some debate regarding in what ways findings from empirical experimental sciences like psychology and so forth should inform the philosophy. Those who resist it may be described as advocating for “arm-chair philosophy.”
I don’t even give much credence to the work of scientists working in their own “domains”; the embarassing error of psychologists in some of their evidence for the theory of Cognitive Dissonance exposed by a mathematician/economist [whatever his profession, his work here is mathematical so I consider him a mathematician] as told by this NY Times story which unfortunately misreports what actually happened as regards the mathematicians; there was an error of communication as I understand it, not an error on the part of the mathematicians is just one example. Truthfully, the only two fields I do have much respect for are mathematics and philosophy. Of course those whose work crosses one or both of those fields such as the work of John Polkinghorne I also may respect. He also incidentally is the only living cleric whose intellectual work I admire (this is not to say I agree with it indeed I find much of what he says to be gravely deficient nor to say that there are not others out there whose work I would admire had I acquaintance with it); he seems to have even the respect of Richard Dawkins as expressed on p.99 of The God Delusion where he is listed along with two others as good British scientists who are religious in the full traditional sense. Dawkins also notes Jim Watson saying with respect to the existence of fully traditionally religious scientists: “Virtually none. Occasionally I meet them, and I’m a bit embarassed [laughs] because, you know, I can’t believe anyone accepts truth by revelation” on the same page. Anyway, I invite you all to explore JP’s work if you are unfamiliar with it.
I think the reason for my special respect for mathematics and philosophy is that findings in mathematics proper are able to more or less (setting aside the epistemology of mathematics) stand on their own. However findings in any other scientific field require some of the resources or training in philosophy to not only properly appropriate and understand as regards their significance but also to properly make. Mathematics provides the technical footing for other sciences, and philosophy the conceptual; with respect to each other, mathematics provides philosophy both actual data and technical tools while philosophy speaks to for example the ontology and epistemology of mathematics.
To give one final example: I would be more likely to give credence to something written by a philosopher of physics on some interpretive question in quantum mechanics than I would to a physicist if I only had the piece of information in this sentence to go by [of course if I read what both wrote, I would judge based on what they actually wrote, not on their background]
Peace.
“I was not contending that a newborn was sentient or capable of free choice. I was contending only that we lack moral certainty that it isn’t”
Where do you get this moral certainty? Based on what *evidence* is the newborn sentient and the pre-born not?
Would you have approved of the abortion of Helen Keller? She seemed for several years – by all external measures – to be incapable of learning or interaction with humans (beyond animal responses).
It may be, CT, that some confuse you with a professional philosopher because you utilze tremendous numbers of lengthy words to make (or avoid making) very simple statements and you construct complex paragraphs, laced with qualifiers and studded with parenthetical asides (which have their place, as was so well argued by Funk & Wagnall in their landmark work, with which I’m sure you are familiar, though it was not without its detractors and even now a few prominent scholars argue against its main premises).
For the same reason, I doubt you are a professional philosopher.
This is the sort of writing that one expects to see in graduate school, where instructors seem to reward, to some extent, the student’s ability to talk around a subject and blow smoke up the posterior orifices of uninitiated readers.
My experience has been that those who have a substantial point to make don’t need to bury it in an avalanche of verbiage.
Re: your assertion (a negative assertion, BTW) “embryos are not sentient”… if a pre-born child *were* sentient, how could this be detected? By what means?
But that is all rabbit chasing, as sentience does not exhaustively define the term “human”. We are talking about the rights of human beings.
You seem to be okay with the idea of destroying those we don’t deem to be “sentient”, is that accurate?
“The issue of skepticism including skepticism as to the existence of other minds is distinct from the issue raised here.”
Not at all. You are skeptical of the existence of a mind in a pre-born child.
Sorry, instead of asking “Would you have approved of the abortion of Helen Keller” above, I meant to ask;
“Would you have approved of euthanizing the newborn Helen Keller?”.
Presumably, then, you would equally support killing a ten-year-old, or a thirty-year-old, who had lived with this bizarre condition from in utero? Likewise, when knowledge or consciousness is lost, as in the so-called permanent vegetative state? I don’t mean just withholding nutrition and water, but actual killing, just as you would kill a fetus — say, puncturing the back of the head and sucking the brains out. Sure, we have tidier ways of killing born humans, but in principle, would you regard this as a crime against human dignity? If so, why?
FWIW, even without sensory input of any kind, even without knowledge (if Aquinas is right), there might still be some sort of consciousness and self-awareness. Maybe not — maybe sensory stimulation is needed to promote adequate neurological development. I don’t know.
Conversely, for all I know, the individual in a so-called PVS might lack consciousness, but his knowledge and memories might remain encoded in his brain, just as it is encoded in your brain when you lack consciousness in deep sleep, or while under anaesthesia.
Obviously, because your brain is fully developed and not severely impaired, you do return to full consciousness and make use of your knowledge — assuming, that is, you don’t get killed or die in your sleep. IOW, you have the potential to return to consciousness and make use of your knowledge.
But then the fetus also has the potential to achieve consciousness and gain knowledge. If you kill it, you deprive a specific human being of a lifetime of conscious awareness and knowledge, just as I deprive you of the same if I murder you in your sleep.
Of course, having already acquired conscious awareness and knowledge, you have gained the capacity to value your life, while the fetus has not. But does that mean I have done you a greater wrong or more harm if I kill you than is done to the fetus?
If I kill you, I deprive you of however many decades of life and experience and memory that you might otherwise have acquired, but I can’t erase the fact that you have already lived for as many decades as you have and have gained the experiences and memories that you have. The fetus that is killed is deprived of the entirety of the life and experiences and learning he or she would otherwise have enjoyed. I cannot see that the fact that he or she has not yet acquired the capacity to value that life and those future experiences and knowledge lessens the harm or the wrong done.
I’m prescinding here of course from such “accidental” evils that may accompany the murder of an adult or a sentient child, such as terror and fear and pain. One could be murdered painlessly in one’s sleep in such a way that these evils never occur, so that you never know or have any experience whatsoever of the wrong done to you. You go to sleep that night just as happy as if you weren’t about to die.
The murder of fetuses, of course, is not so merciful, and theories discounting fetal pain prior to the third trimester, or prior to birth, or even longer (one researcher has gone so far as to argue that babies under a year old don’t feel pain!) are increasingly challenged by arguments and evidence that the capacity for pain not only exists much earlier — around 20 weeks — but may well be more intensely felt, not less, than at more developed stages (recent NY Times article with some useful discussion).
Be that as it may, I have yet to see it persuasively argued that a developed capacity for sentience confers upon human life a value qualitatively different from the value it had while that the capacity for sentience was still in development. While it is true that the capacity for sentience is a crucial component of the value we place on human life, I cannot see why the developing capacity for sentience should qualify one for less than fully human value or rights, on a par with an animal in which there is no developing capacity for sentience, rather than on a par with any other human being in which the capacity for sentience has developed.
We were all fetuses once. And the fetus that was you really was you. You already were. You just didn’t know it yet.
It may be, CT, that some confuse you with a professional philosopher
I think the confusion here is CT’s. Who here has claimed that he was? Probably, he is flattering himself in public.
He does that a lot. Witness the way he paraded his self-proclaimed generosity toward the Masked Chicken before he recommended those lists.
But that is all rabbit chasing, as sentience does not exhaustively define the term “human”. We are talking about the rights of human beings.
You seem to be okay with the idea of destroying those we don’t deem to be “sentient”, is that accurate?
Strictly speaking, he defined, by fiat, “moral flourishing” as a result of the choices made by a person being carried out. So someone in PVS is a instance of “moral flourishing” if this person chose to be kept alive.
He has not, of course, advanced any reason for us to accept that this “moral flourishing” does indeed stem from such choices and that it is the sole determinant of what is good. Even when explicitly asked.
The whole talk about “sentient” stems from his claims that
I don’t know at what stage of development a born child is able to make choices. But it is certain that an embryo is not. A born child, due to the sudden influx of a new variety of sensory data it is presented with may very quickly be able to make choices.
Note that not only is CT’s claims about sensory data not well-founded, the question of choices had dropped by the wayside.
Unborn babies certainly do make choices. If you sweeten the amniotic fluid, for instance, the child will drink more; if you put something bitter in, it will drink less. Which I pointed out early but has not been addressed by CT.
However findings in any other scientific field require some of the resources or training in philosophy to not only properly appropriate and understand as regards their significance but also to properly make. Mathematics provides the technical footing for other sciences, and philosophy the conceptual; with respect to each other, mathematics provides philosophy both actual data and technical tools while philosophy speaks to for example the ontology and epistemology of mathematics.
To give one final example: I would be more likely to give credence to something written by a philosopher of physics on some interpretive question in quantum mechanics than I would to a physicist if I only had the piece of information in this sentence to go by [of course if I read what both wrote, I would judge based on what they actually wrote, not on their background]
Ah, CT? You really would have been wise to keep this to yourself.
Peace.
“They would repair, as though it were nought, the injury to the daughter of my people: ‘Peace, peace!’ they say, though there is no peace. They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD.”
@SDG
Presumably, then, you would equally support killing a ten-year-old, or a thirty-year-old, who had lived with this bizarre condition from in utero?
I would support establishing a right to do so in society, though in these cases it is unclear who might exercise the right. Of course, in the absence of the right to do so established in society, I would not support the parents or caretakers of such individauls engaging in vigilante killing.
Likewise, when knowledge or consciousness is lost, as in the so-called permanent vegetative state? I don’t mean just withholding nutrition and water, but actual killing, just as you would kill a fetus — say, puncturing the back of the head and sucking the brains out. Sure, we have tidier ways of killing born humans, but in principle, would you regard this as a crime against human dignity? If so, why?
I already addressed this and I’ll try to succinctly and clearly explain.
Let’s suppose that the individual in the PVS (henceforth IPVS) is capable of making free choices. But the IPVS was at one time capable of making free choices and one of those free choices may have been a choice to live (or a desire to live), including when becoming an IPVS In these cases, the person once becoming an IPVS in so becoming and in our sustaining its life engages in moral flourishing insfoar as the state of being/activity of an IPVS is expressive of the prior free choice of the person who became an IPVS. In the case of the embryo (defined non-technically), however, if we likewise suppose that it is incapable of making free choices, there are no prior free choices that it may have made for us to consider.
Now let’s in addition suppose that the IPVS made a choice (or had a desire) to die or die in the event of becoming prior to becoming an IPVS and that this choice was sustained til that moment of becoming and we were morally certain of that fact. As I’ve already indicated I would support passive euthansia in these cases. I would also support active euthanasia in these cases. The degree of certainty that is sufficient to constitute moral certainty here, I would argue, is contingent on a variety of factors including the economic opportunity cost of keeping the IPVS alive.
Of course, having already acquired conscious awareness and knowledge, you have gained the capacity to value your life, while the fetus has not. But does that mean I have done you a greater wrong or more harm if I kill you than is done to the fetus?
If I kill you, I deprive you of however many decades of life and experience and memory that you might otherwise have acquired, but I can’t erase the fact that you have already lived for as many decades as you have and have gained the experiences and memories that you have. The fetus that is killed is deprived of the entirety of the life and experiences and learning he or she would otherwise have enjoyed. I cannot see that the fact that he or she has not yet acquired the capacity to value that life and those future experiences and knowledge lessens the harm or the wrong done.
You seem perhaps to be advancing a distinct argument here. Your argument here seems to assume that the fetus is a moral subject (to say that something is a moral subject is not to say it is a moral agent; see chapter 3.21 of The Ethics Toolkit I mentioned earlier), an entity capable of being morally wronged, i.e. capable of not being given its moral due and incapable of not being given its moral due. I actually would grant that the fetus is a moral subject so defined. However I would argue that non-sentient beings such as cats would also be moral subjects so defined. It would be not giving a cat its moral due were one to torture it for no good reason. Let’s suppose that 1 million years from now, cats still exist as they do now, but we have the technology via some form of nanotechnology to enhance the cats brain such that sentience would emerge in the cat and the newly sentient cat would lead a fruitful and meaningful life. I would argue that we do not have any obligation to then impart sentience on the cat even if this procedure would not be any kind of burden to us. The same is true of the fetus. There is no obligation that the woman bring about the state of affairs which would lead to the emerging of sentience in the post-birth human.
Let me “ramp it up” further. Suppose the cat in question *already had* nanotechnology implants present in its brain from a very young age and that in the normal course of affairs this nanotechnology would one day bring about sentience. I see no moral problem in such a case with killing the cat for food (assuming this is a country where the eating and killing of cats is legal) prior to the emergence of sentience which would have come about without any intervention. So this anticipates an objection you might make that the cases are not parallel.
As for fetal pain, cows may feel pain but we have no moral qualms about killing cows.
On the general issue of the rights of potential persons, I invite you to read “Why potentiality cannot matter” by Aleksandar Jokic. It does not appear to be available for free without some form of subscription online and it is has been a while since I have read it but I can say there was much of value in it. [Incidentally, though it is written by a philosopher, it appears to be indexed on PubMed as well as on websites that provide access to philosophical articles]
We were all fetuses once. And the fetus that was you really was you. You already were. You just didn’t know it yet.
There is much in the literature that disagrees with you (including some that is for whatever reason, though written by philosophers, indexed on PubMed as well as more traditional places)
I was never a zygote etc. The reason is that the existence of the object referred to by “I” in the previous sentence does not supervene on the existence of any organism that is a member of the human species. For the object referred to by “I” began to exist only when there emerged from within a particular human organism a being capable of free will. Since it is inherent impossible to will without an intellect, the zygote does not give rise to any being capable of free will. The same is true of the embryo (understood non-technically) in its later stages of development. For to will something, that something must be apprehended by the intellect for it to be elected by the will.
Let’s consider a non-emotionally invested example. Consider a marvelously sculpted ocean wave that came about through the sculpting of a block of stone. One could colloquially say that that the sculpted ocean wave was once a block of stone, but philosophically I would argue that is incorrect. The sculpted ocean wave did not exist at all before the sculpting began and there was but a block of stone present. Now let’s suppose that the technique used to sculpt the block of stone was bizarre such that the sculpter would first sculpt the block of stone into a pyramid before then scultping the remaining stone into an ocean wave. There was also clearly no sculpted ocean wave in existence from the beginning of sculpting to the intermediate stage of a pyramid. One could argue that at some point thereafter a sculpted ocean wave emerged in a way such that it is numerically identical with the sculpted ocean wave in existence once sculpting ceased, but one would be hard pressed to argue that the first chip of the pyramid resulted in the existence of the sculpted ocean wave.
Something cannot both be and not be. An embryo is composed of 46 chromosomes (23 each from mother and father), and is completely human and unique. It is also alive. For most people, being human and alive means others can’t off you ’cause you’re in their way.
I have not read fully Mary’s posts since my last post and do not intend to read them fully, but she misstated at least one of my positions. If my position is unclear for whatever reason, please rely on me to clarify it, not anyone else as I may not make note of misstatements in the future especially if I have not read the misstatements in question.
SDG, in case my own reply to you was unclear or you did not read the clarification to Mary I made after her first expression of miscomprehension of my position, it is not always the case that the realization of things freely chosen, expressive of the same, are cases of moral flourishing. It is so generally in the choice to live. It is not so in numerous other cases, including for instance, generally speaking, the choice to torture, ridicule, malign, deceive, steal, etc. As I had mentioned, I already explicitly clarified this to Mary as she seemed to be confused as to my position and since she has repeated her misunderstanding here it appears I was correct that I did not communicate my position successfully to her and that my clarification to her she either did not read or failed to understand. I would have thought this would be obvious but in case it isn’t:
It is moral flourishing when the things freely chosen are good things.
It is not moral flourishing when the things freely chosen are not good things.
And as I had already mentioned to Mary, my support for the right to die is grounded in something which is not identical to that which grounds my support for the right to abortion. Perhaps the way I phrased that confused her; or perhaps she did not read it. Peace.
Dear David,
you wrote:
For most people, being human and alive means others can’t off you ’cause you’re in their way.
You raise an important issue here. Consider the hypothetical cat (let’s say the “ramped” up version of the cat) I mentioned in my reply to SDG. Now let’s suppose that this cat is not killed and thus becomes sentient. Presumably then you would be either for according it a right to choose life after becoming sentient OR according it a right to life even prior to becoming sentient. In either case, however, the entity in question though alive is clearly not human, not a member of the human species. So whether one accords an entity the right to choose life or the right to life cannot in a fundamental way turn on whether it is a member of the human species or not. Perhaps it could turn fundamentally on something which is entailed by membership in the human species — but then that something would be a part of the fundamental consideration, not membership in the human species itself. Why is this significant? This means that one must argue for the rectitude of that other fundamental consideration which membership in the human species entails as opposed to taking it as intuitive that membership in the human species is a special and unique status which serves as the fundamental consideration since this latter has been contradicted by my counter-example* here.
*Whether it is a counter-example would depend of course on whether one views certain ethical truths to be constant over certain possible worlds. Since Catholicism posits that ethics is an outflowing of God, of God’s very nature and state of being which is constant in all possible worlds and given some other trivial considerations, this would indeed be a counter example in this case for the Catholic.
Let me ask you, in all seriousness: And your attitude doesn’t constitute mocking the Catholic Faith? Even if you disagree with my efforts, I try to hold everyone to the same standard.
SDG: If you truly believe that, then you have (tragically) deceived yourself. Many examples of your egregious double standard is evident even in this thread alone (although there are quite a many other examples in others). Notice how many personal swipes from CT was deliberately overlooked while those like Yachov’s were the ones that were targetted with such striking prejudice.
There are many other things I would like to address; however, I feel such comments are only going to go unheeded as before (just like CT’s personal swipes).
(Besides, with Catholics like Mary here; I feel rather comfortable leaving the entire matter in her hands. As long as there are Catholics like her who don’t turn a blind eye and continue to oppose such forces of evil — yes, there is such a thing, the Iscariots of the world matter not in the long run.)
And, mind you, you asked the question, and I am merely answering that question; therefore, if you ban me just because my having merely answered your question, so be it; it would hardly come any surprise.
The Truth itself is many times hard to countenance; in short, perhaps you should be asking yourself: “And your attitude doesn’t constitute mocking the Catholic Faith?”
John Smith:
Let’s say you’re right, that I am (tragically) self-deceived and egregiously unfair to Catholics comboxers (though I very much doubt that this assessment would be borne out by the vast majority of Catholic comboxers here, especially regulars who best know my actual behavior).
Well, bad on me, then. What follows? Do you take this as license against your obligation, first, to show charity and to overcome evil with good rather than returning evil for evil, and secondly as a guest to honor the house rules of your host? Do you object in principle to Catholics being held to a higher standard, if that is indeed what’s happening?
If I am unfair to Catholics at JA.o, it certainly won’t be the worst count against me before almighty God. I see no compelling need to defend myself against the charge, or to do anything other than continue to try to address egregious rudeness when and where I see it, as I have always tried to do.
FWIW, if Catholic posters in any significant number — particularly those whose civility is not itself directly at issue — were to concur with your judgment, I would be strongly inclined to take that to heart and to consider taking a much more hands-off approach to the combox. (At present I see no sign of any such independent confirmation of your view. AFAICT, it looks as if virtually the only ones — Catholic or otherwise — who ever have a problem with my moderation are a subset of the few I’ve had to moderate.)
Beyond that, you are more than welcome to appeal my efforts at moderation to the blog owner. I’ll even make sure that he reads it and looks into the question, if you like. Let me know.
For now, I’m not all that concerned for my own sake with your opinion of me or my efforts. My request to you is to keep it civil and avoid abusive or contemptuous language, in deference to Da Rulz if you can’t muster up a better reason. Can you manage that? Thanks.
CT,
I’m not up for hypothetical arguments at this time, unfortunately. I have answers, and (I believe) good ones, to the hypothetical you present, but I think that debating it would just serve to distract from the clear and present discussion. I think it’s important to talk about what is, not what some believe could be. A cat is a cat. A man is a man. Any future problems are for the scientists and theologians of that time to understand.
CT: Ingenious, but I think your attempted parallel still fails. A cat even with nanobots actively transforming it into something more than a cat is still being transformed from outside its own nature into something more than what its own nature is capable of becoming if “left to itself.” The fetus-becoming-a-sentient-person has the capacity for sentience within its own nature.
It is obvious that CT will write a million words (if he hasn’t already) to make himself feel better about the immorality he supports. Only he knows why he feels obligated to defend prostitution, pornography and abortion.
He needs to mock the Catholic Church because it teaches the sinful, immoral behavior he supports (again, only he knows why) is wrong.
He wants license not freedom.
As long as we believe that we were created to know, love and serve God in this life time and spend eternity with Him in the next CT will mock us in an effort to make himself feel better. It won’t work.
CT,
You are and remain in my prayers. Lord, Have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
SDG,
You said what I was thinking, but way better. 🙂
Dear SDG
If my opinion fit your criteria of “independence”, let me say again that I think you are indeed being unfair to John Smith, as you has been with Ben Yachov.
I really don’t think things should get that paltry. It will just foster even more discord between regular readers and spoil even more the atheist and pro-abortion brownshirts.
SDG, you are dead-on right, and have no need to defend yourself against bogus charges.
I have not read fully Mary’s posts since my last post and do not intend to read them fully, but she misstated at least one of my positions. If my position is unclear for whatever reason, please rely on me to clarify it, not anyone else as I may not make note of misstatements in the future especially if I have not read the misstatements in question.
He says, without elucidating what position it was or how I misstated it.
Which is to say, in so vacuous a manner that I can’t refute it.
You also have a LOT more patience than I do.
Matheus: Be assured that your concerns have never been overlooked.
It is moral flourishing when the things freely chosen are good things.
It is not moral flourishing when the things freely chosen are not good things.
You are expressing your complete accordance with orthodox Christianity. Evil is the deliberate preference of a lesser good over a greater good.
And, BTW, contradicting yourself. You would compel people to turn off life-support for and kill people who had tried to commit suicide. This shows that where life and death are considered, you consider the choice absolute there.
And also, committing a bait and switch. We aren’t talking about the person who acts. We are talking about the person acted upon. You have given no reason why the person’s ability to make choice — or to have made choices — affects other people’s duties toward him.
@David B.
@SDG
SDG’s response is fine. However, David I could simply reformulate my line of attack so that instead of dealing with a freaky nanotech enhanced cat, we are dealing with an alien species which by its “nature” is already or left to its own devices “naturally” becomes sentient. So the essence of my point in response to you David stands. However if you are expressing agreement with SDG’s philosophical claim in his response to me in its totality, then your position suitably revised would be fine too. By “fine” I just mean well defended against the particular arguments I have set forth and alluded to in this post.
@Mary
You commit a logical error there. Let me formalize it some:
G(x) refers to “x is good” and O(x) to “x obtains”; FC(x,y) to “x freely chooses y”; MF(x,y) to “x morally flourishes in the freely choosing of y”
P: For all x, all persons y, ((FC(y,x) & G(x)) -> MF(y,x))
Q: For all x, all persons y, ((FC(y,x) & ~G(x)) -> ~MF(y,x))
Now it is a little unclear what exactly you are identifying as the contradiction, but let’s give it the best account possible. You seem to be taking me to be committed to:
R: For some x, some b, some person y, some person z, ((FC(y,x) & ~G(x) & FC(z,b) & G(b) & (O(b) <-> ~O(x)) & MF(z,b))
The problem is that the theory {P, Q, R} has a model which satisfies it. So to introduce a contradiction, additional committments need to be introduced — some which you may be committed to but I, not. There are some sentences that could be introduced uncontroversially and some which can be if more relata are added to the language. For example:
For all sentences x let SOA(x) be “the state of affairs asserted in x”
S: For all x, all y (MF(x,y)->G(SOA(MF(x,y)))
Constructing a model that satisfies the theory {P,Q,R,S} while it would be more difficult due to technical issues, is still “simple”
Divorcing your statement from claims of strict contradiction and re-interpreting your statement to refer to this kind of argument:
“You favor respecting the choice of those who seek to live and also the choice of those who seek to die but you do not favor respecting the choice of those who seek not to facilitate the choice of those who seek to die.”
That’s an interesting statement, but I have not claimed that respect for another’s choices simpliciter to be a sufficient ground for either the right to choose abortion nor the right to die. If I have claimed that — and I don’t think I have — then I must have misspoken. And in any event, these choices can be placed in a kind of type-like hiearchy with choices seeking to live or die at the bottom of the type-like hiearchy and choices regarding the seeking to respect or not respect the members of the bottom of the hiearchy in the next level up in the hiearchy. So a consistent view could entail supposing that it is the choices at the bottom of the hiearchy that are to be respected (generally speaking) and that the choices at the next level up in the hiearchy (i.e. choices regarding persons’ choices) to be respected only when they do not conflict with the duty to respect the choices at the bottom of the hiearchy. This hiearchy could be theoretically infinite. This kind of type-like hiearchy is analagous to various formulations of type theory. And in application to ethics, I would use a type-theoretic analysis of the virtues and duties related to choice. However that would not be in itself a comprehensive explanation as to my own position (as opposed to a sufficient defense against a supposed inconsistency or tension)
Evil is the deliberate preference of a lesser good over a greater good.
My apologies to Mary; I missed this significant portion of her post.
I do not believe that it is not good to prefer a lesser good over a greater good and I am not sure that Mary would be committed to that proposition either.
Suppose that an item of food was quite tasty and another food item was even more tasty and was otherwise identical in nutritional benefits and so forth and the spiritual consequences were the same as you had been perfected in your detachment from tasty things. And suppose it were not some penitential season. IOW, ceteris paribus.
Well the first food item would be a lesser good than the latter, but surely it would not be “evil” (Mary’s formulation) or “not good” (my formulation) to choose it over the latter?
It seems then that the maxim holds only when there is some duty to choose the greater good. But in that case, the careful reader will have realized by now that that duty cannot be grounded simply in that greater good’s being greater. So it must be grounded in something else (such as divine command, etc.)
John Smith,
If you object that SDG has let CT slide on his rude comments, perhaps you can quote them and show how they were worse than the comments you and Ben Yachov made. I’d be interested to see them as well, since I don’t recall anything of the sort.
And at that point, if you are talking about a species in which individual members, without mutating into something else and remaining the same genetically identical individual, develop naturally of their own nature into sentient beings, then I’m going to ask exactly the same question I ask of the fetus: why we should consider it morally licit to deprive this individual of the sentient life that is already within its developmental capacity.
CT,
I didn’t read much of your posts because I find it tedious to translate them into English. Every time I do so, I find broad holes that would have been glaringly obvious to you had you simply tried to state your arguments in plain speech.
But I did notice that what seems to be the central point on which we disagree is whether a human being has a right to life by his very nature, or whether a right to life is contingent on passing some sort of sentience test. As far as I (and probably most other Catholics on the board) am concerned, the human right to life is axiomatic.
As sentient cat or alien may also have a right to life. I’m not sure about that, and absent any compelling reasons to think otherwise, I would err on the side of caution and attempt to protect their lives as well. But that doesn’t mean that the right-to-life test is a test for sentience, and in any case I’m sure not going to put that kind of test in the hands of my government.
CT,
I see that I came back rather late. My response (which again was about 30 years less intelligent than SDG) would be the essentially the same, but with smaller words. 😉
Ditto that, Beastly. That’s why I said I would “ask the same question.” I find developed-sentience-as-opposed-to-developing-sentience an unpersuasive criterion, and I’ve argued that point. Just to clarify, that doesn’t imply any firm conclusions either about sentient-to-be alien cats or humans incapable of sentience.
P.S. Thanks, and thanks, David B! :‑)
P.P.S. “Sentient-to-be alien cats.” What is better than a sentence or phrase you are absolutely certain has never before been framed in the history of language? :‑)
Just to clarify, that doesn’t imply any firm conclusions either about sentient-to-be alien cats
It might be that I’m tired, but that line has me laughing out loud! 😀
I am going to be spending some time doing some other things for a while including possibly setting up my own blog. Tentatively, my first post to my own blog will be a proof (already sketched by me but not published in any way) that Catholic dogma entails that God does not possess transworld immutability. Whether Catholic dogma asserts transworld immutability (as regards that which is covered by the extension of the Catholic concept “God”… I am aware of divine simplicity here) is not something I am presently able to opine on. But if Catholic dogma entailed transworld immutability with respect to the extension of “God” then of course Catholic dogma would be inconsistent. (The claim that Catholic dogma is inconsistent is nothing new; one of my educators had claimed that the Catholic Trinity and divine simplicity are inconsistent with each other and that Aquinas’ attempts to reconcile the two fail miserably — this educator is a Christian himself)
I may still drop in here if something of special interest is posted or if someone replies to the post I made in the Perma Post on the “Holocaust”. Once my other business is complete, I may resume more regular participation.
I wish btw, that there were was some kind of registration ability that would prevent someone from impersonating me or in the future should I not post here, accidentally assuming the name “CT”. I guess it’s not that important. I suppose also that once I have my blog up and running that someone could post a comment there asking if a post made under the name “CT” was indeed my own if it was really important.
My terminology was misleading and unconventional. By “transworld immutability” I mean not immutabable in every possible word but that the extension of “God” in any possible world is identical to the extension of “God” in any other possible world.
Sorry and cheers!
Right. Thanks for clearing that up, CT. Of course I knew what you meant, but here at JA.o we do appreciate conventional and non-misleading terminology, so, again, thanks.
(…”extension of ‘God’…?)
I am of course just funning you CT. I’d hate to lose my reputation for giving VIP treatment to unbelievers. 🙂
Sleeping Beastly,
John Smith,
If you object that SDG has let CT slide on his rude comments, perhaps you can quote them and show how they were worse than the comments you and Ben Yachov made. I’d be interested to see them as well, since I don’t recall anything of the sort.
Posted by: Sleeping Beastly | Sep 7, 2008 6:12:39 PM
If I were to do that, several pages of the blog would be filled with the kind of Anti-Catholic vitriol that came forth from CT here and on several other threads — sadly, only a few faithful Catholics as Mattheus, Inocencio, Yachov took critical observation of these.
As far as my comments go, why don’t you list those comments of mine that you consider equally heinous or worse?
As for SDG, it’s too sad that he lacks even the humility to admit his faults in spite of “2 or more witnesses” who have spoken thus.
I can only pray for such people.
Whereas he has enabled such folks as CT to promote their anti-Catholic views on the blog without so much as allowing Catholics to oppose them and express their distaste for them; I’m encouraged by the presence of folks like Mr. Matheus F. Ticiani, Ms. Mary Catelli and Inocencio.
Pride, Power & Deception.
Seriously, SDG, you should look over this thread and past ones and reflect on the seriousness of your faults; the fact that you do not even so much consider anything you have done wrong speaks volumes of how you have deceived yourself.
Return to Christ, SDG, and remember what a Catholic blog is supposed to be.
Keep in mind the good Catholics here who have observed thus:
The way I am using the term in this context, the extension of the concept ‘God’ are exactly those things which ‘are God.’ (or the set which has exactly those things as members etc.) To give a non-theological example, the extension of the concept ‘prime number less than 5’ is {2, 3}. The extension of the concept ‘square root of a perfect square less than than 10’ is also {2, 3}. But these two concepts while having identical extensions have, arguably, distinct intensions (the nature of the concept itself is different).
So my first blog post will endeavor to show that Catholic dogma logically entails that the extension of the concept ‘God’ is not constant with respect to every world. So there is some possible world x and some possible world y where when we apply the Catholic concept (the concept as it exists in this actual world in current Catholic dogma) of ‘God’, the extension of ‘God’ applied to x includes something z not included in the extension of ‘God’ applied to y.
That’s not the proof of course. It’s just the conclusion.
I hope this clears it up for you. BTW, I would like to apologize for some lack of realized charity for you SDG without getting into any specifics. This is not motivated by a desire to conform to a custom of “returning” an apology and is meant in sincerity. I do not believe I ever lacked charity for you but it was certainly in some cases not fully or well realized. Peace.
I noticed I made a mathematical error in my example above. Let me revise
‘square root of a perfect square less than than 10’
to read
‘square root of a perfect square less than than 10 and greater than 3’
John Smith:
Thank you for your moral concern for my soul. My tolerance for your social liberties in this regard is now at an end. Since you say you “can only pray” for me, I will be grateful for your prayers, and for your strict observance of the relevant adverb henceforth. Further accusations or public expressions of sorrow for my moral failings will serve no good purpose and will be construed as incorrigible rudeness.
Inocencio and Mary, whom you cite in your comments, are among the vast majority of regular Catholic posters whose equable civility I have never had any reason to address and who have never objected to my moderation efforts, a group that also includes the Masked Chicken, Sleeping Beastly, bill912, David B, Tim J, JoAnna, Shane, Brian Walden, Rosemarie, Blackadder, Ed Peters, BobCatholic, and bklyn catholic, to name just a few.
With no exceptions that I can recall, the only Catholics who have ever objected to my moderation belong to the very small subset of Catholic posters — I expect I could count them on one hand — whose social interactions with others I have already had to address.
If your withering assessment of me and my moderation efforts were to be confirmed by two or more individuals named in my second paragraph above, I would be happy to apologize to you and take a serious look at recalibrating my moderation style. What implications you draw for yourself if two or more were to confirm my assessment of your inexcusable rudeness, I leave up to you.
You are completely correct, SDG, as if it needed to be said.
You have more patience than I do, but I at least have the grace to recognize this as a virtue.
It seems that I’ve been included in the basket of rotten oranges, along with Ben Yachov and John Smith.
I’m very honored to be in such a good company.
Matheus, while it’s true as you know that you are among the tiny subset* of Catholic posters whose behavior I’ve had to push back on in the past, you don’t have to feel insulted (or martyr-proud) if you don’t want to. “Rotten oranges” is your characterization, not mine. I would like to count you a friend, but you know I can’t pretend I’ve always been comfortable with your style. I would rather not dredge stuff up.
*A tiny subset which, good Lord, I suddenly suspect may be even smaller than I thought. John Smith: Have you ever posted to JA.o under other handles? Particularly a handle that I — wishing to protect the anonymity of someone I counted, and would like to still count, as a friend — have euphemistically called “the anti-Jacobite”? Because it just hit me that your language bears striking similarities to his — and it looks like you live in the same neighborhood of the same state, too. I ask you in trust and candor: The person I knew as the anti-Jacobite might disdain me as you have done, but I don’t believe he would lie to me.
Well, Ct,
I would be very interested in reading the post on your blog that you mention you are setting up, since it would be about:
By “transworld immutability” I mean not immutabable in every possible word but that the extension of “God” in any possible world is identical to the extension of “God” in any other possible world.
I do happen to do research in this area (I won’t explain why, but it has nothing directly to do with theology and to explain would directly reveal my identity). In fact, I presented a paper at an international conference a few years ago on projection mapping of objects and relationships across possible world sets. I’m sure you are familiar with David Kaplan’s famous paper: Transworld Heir Lines, which involved the notion of counterpart theory and transworld identity, since you mentioned transworld immutability.
Since you mentioned Plantinga in one of your earlier posts, I suspect I know where you are going with all of this. Yes, I have read Plantinga’s formulation of possible world theory as a way of supporting the Christian worldview and I have found it problematic, as well, but probably not exactly for the reason I suspect you are going to post about, if, in fact, you will be using Plantinga’s work as a jumping off point. I will reserve judgment until I can actually read your post.
I don’t want to get into any extended discussion on these topics in the combox because it would take some time to get everyone else up to speed so that they could get involved in the conversation. I’ll make any comments if I happen to drop by your blog. Post a link in the comboxes, when you are finished, if you like.
For those who want a non-simple introduction to the ideas that CT is using, the recent book by John Divers should have most of the relevant information. There are other, more accessible introductions, however, that do not involve a detailed background in philosophy. One such is:
Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and Its Philosophy (Paperback)
by Raymond Bradley (Author), Norman Swartz (Author), which anyone can find by googling.
The Still Tired Chicken
I will merely note that apparently I have not been the first person to be questioned on the meaning of a Latin term.
@TMC
Let me be absolutely clear, my friend. I mean in no way whatsoever to embarass you or “beat you over the head” or to not accept your apology or anything of the sort. With that in mind, I would like to point out to you just for your own re-assurance that others on this blog have used the term “false flag” contrary to what you assumed and expressed a few times. I actually have known this to be the case from the “beginning” (using the technical tip I describe below) but I didn’t feel it wise to correct you on it. I am pointing it out now not to “correct” you, but only to just give you further re-assurance in your mind so that whether expressed or not, your mind is more free from doubt should any still linger — I do this both for your sake and my own. I hope you can trust my intention here. Anyway here is one example of a prior use of the term “false flag”
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/07/what_is_happeni.html
“(…) Israel is no stranger to false flag ….” Posted by: MaryC | Jul 31, 2006 12:11:02 PM
and as far as I can tell, no one in that thread asked MaryC or anyone else what the term meant (the term is not repeated in that thread)
technical tip
1. Go to http://www.google.com
2. type in with the “‘s included:
“PHRASE HERE” site:jimmyakin.typepad.com
or
KEYWORD1 KEYWORD2 site:jimmyakin.typepad.com
The first method will search for the exact phrase — all instances found by google’s “robots”; the second will use IIRC an AND construction. In both cases the search results are confined to the URLs that begin with jimmyakin.typepad.com
On your question, no it doesn’t rely on any work of Plantinga’s.
And with humility, let me apologize to you TMC for not being sufficiently easy going with respect to you. Peace.
P.S. On the general issue of pride, prescinding from any particular context, the impression I had when I was a Catholic from those of spiritual leadership in the Church was that they felt that pride is something that is an ever present struggle and that the more spiritual growth, the more humility one possesses, the more pride one sees, not because more pride is created, but because the greater humility allows for greater insight, a greater unveiling. Now it may or may not be true that an instance of confession blots out not only all the mortal but also all the venial sins that one is sorry for. But “sin” is something that requires the movement of the will. But the Catechism recognizes:
1770 Moral perfection consists in man’s being moved to the good not by his will alone, but also by his sensitive appetite, as in the words of the psalm: “My heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God.”
So pride not in the sense of the will and “technical” sins but in the sense of how it may be said to be present in the sensitive appetite (just as an improper attraction to the same sex may be present in the sensitive appetite which makes one fall short of “moral perfection” even if somehow one always rejects temptation in this regard; Christ of course is said to possess moral perfection and a perfect ordering of his passions). Anyway, if I were still Catholic I personally would be more concerned about someone who saw not any pride in himself than someone who saw pride in herself, generally speaking.
As for me, what I believe FWIW — I suspect very little since I am not a theist — I believe this whole talk of pride is important but also misses something more important. I don’t see humility as the lack of pride but pride as the lack of humility (traditional views of what “evil” is would seem to entail this too). So for me the issue would be one of developing greater and greater humility. Even a sinless person is not thereby infinite in her depth in humility. And when I was Catholic I was taught by spiritually and theologically learned persons that it is in accordance with this depth of humility that in heaven do we have our fill of glory (that’s not to say that should necessarily be the motivation)
I’m sure if you reply TMC, that your reply will be as interesting as your latest, but assuming (using the traditional Catholic analysis) my cardinal virtues are successfully operative, then I probably would not reply for a while.
…. and if my recollection is correct there are these kinds of consciences: scrupulous, lax, and sensitive/tender. When I was a Catholic in confession the priest described my own conscience once as tender or sensitive (I forget which word he used) — he seemed to think it was a positive thing but also seemed to tell me think things through from a different perspective.
PPS O and I have discovered your “identity” TMC. You gave too many hints and your last post made me too curious to not try and figure it out! 🙂 Fear not I do not have any intention of sharing this with anyone on this blog. I figured out these following things
1. The international conference you referred to in your latest post. It was in 2002, no?
2. Your first initial corresponds to a prime number and the second to a composite number.
I think I have sufficiently veiled this for you.
I highly doubt that anyone reading this would be able to “discover” your identity (assuming I am even correct) here any more successfully than prior to this post of mine, but if you feel otherwise, just let someone know and I freely consent to and welcome the post’s deletion or piecemeal excisions
John Smith,
You wrote:
As far as my comments go, why don’t you list those comments of mine that you consider equally heinous or worse?
Well, here are a few of the epithets with which you referred to CT:
“CT the Pro-Choice Devotee”
“one of the most clever trolls in the world”
“a peevish child (in particular, one who thinks the world revolves around them) that throws a temper tantrum in order to garner attention”
“Mr. Wiki”
“somebody so undeserving of any such assistance”
“mr. ersatz philosopher”
…and to his arguments:
“your bullocks”
“not only embarassingly poor reasoning but also incredible stupidity”
“Flat-out lies”
These phrases are inflammatory without doing anything to advance your arguments.
Now, has CT said things that are equally inflammatory and equally unproductive? Certainly. His comment about “a man of immense stupidity or immense bias” ticked me off and did nothing to convince me of the merits of his arguments.
Unlike SDG, I do hold Christians to a higher standard than atheists. I expect you not to hide your light under a bushel or lose your savor, and I’m more disappointed when I hear these kinds of arguments from you than when I hear them from CT.
But that’s beside the point. The main point is that “he’s doing it too” isn’t an argument in favor of your behavior. One of your hosts asked you to be more polite, and instead of doing so, you proceeded to ridicule him. It seems like bad manners to me.
Oh my gosh. I was right. The more I dig, the more evidence there is.
“John Smith,” you are “Anti-Jacobite” … aka Zeno, aka Vesa, aka … Esau. My old friend.
I’ve booted you before, at a different IP address. You deserved it then. Apparently you haven’t learned much.
You are still as always my brother, and I still expect to embrace you in the Kingdom. And you’re still a grade-A jerk.
John Smith is Esau? How can this be? I must say John, that if you are Esau, I am more disappointed in your characterization of me and SDG as shills than previously. Maybe that’s a stupid reaction.
I thought that we were, if not ‘friends,’ then at least once amicably acquainted, as any two anonymous Catholics talking on the net can be. I wish I could understand why you’ve turned to simplistic and insulting name-calling of your fellow Catholics, but perhaps that is just my seeking to satisfy my own selfish ego. God’s blessings and Peace be with you, John Smith.
Didn’t anyone of you have the idea of using the search bar? I did, just out of curiosity and found the comment below on this post.
I think that answers your question, which I don’t think John/Esau would answer, after being banned.
Matheus: Of course I used the search bar, as well as other tools at my disposal, but since I was already familiar with Esau’s sign-off email that wasn’t a significant new factor for me.
John/Esau is quite capable of replying, if he wishes to do so.
BTW, my curiousity got the better of me and I was also able to figure out the identity (which I do not intend to reveal) of the “[…]-Jacobite” to which SDG referred. With some measure of irony allow me to link to wikipedia’s entry on Jacobite for those who may wish to be enlightened regarding the many definitions of the term “Jacobite”
If this post is out of line I freely consent to and welcome its deletion. The only additional information provided besides that which SDG has already provided here and elsewhere is just a link to wikipedia.
BTW, there are speech forensic tools that can be used to determine or rather “guess” whether two samples are written by the same person. I don’t think it’s any more (this does not imply that it is as equally; only that it is not more) reliable than a polygraph though.
SDG:
Oh my gosh. I was right. The more I dig, the more evidence there is.
“John Smith,” you are “Anti-Jacobite” … aka Zeno, aka Vesa, aka … Esau. My old friend.
I’ve booted you before, at a different IP address. You deserved it then. Apparently you haven’t learned much.
You are still as always my brother, and I still expect to embrace you in the Kingdom. And you’re still a grade-A jerk.
I can’t believe this is the level to which you have sunk: calumny, pure & simple.
As if associating me with folks you consider as your “Hitler” figures automatically renders you Right in the sight of God.
God forgive you.
My point still stands:
[Catholics] come to a Catholic blog, a place where they should have reasonable expectation to find better treatment of their Faith; only to find it being turned into fodder for mere derision and scorn by the likes of these.
And, yet, these are the very ones who are placed in such high regard, whose ridicule of the precious Faith is continued to be welcomed by those who are placed in charge of what is supposed to be a Catholic blog?
Nice non-denial there,
John SmithEsau.@TMC
Since you requested it, here is the URL of my blog CourageousThought.blogspot.com
Here is a permanent link to the post you inquired about “Catholicism entails that God could have been inherently different”
The other project which I told you about I will probably shelve.
Right. Hitler figure. That’s what I always say to Hitler: “Hitler,” I say, “you are still as always my brother, and I still expect to embrace you in the Kingdom. And you’re still a grade-A jerk.”
I have no further fraternal admonition to offer you. Once upon a time, you would occasionally accept admonitions from me. No longer, apparently.
You also won’t take combox correction, or a hint, or a Rulz request. I said as plainly as I knew how:
And you responded as above. So it comes to this. Again.
John Smith, you are disinvited from participating in the blog. Again. Under any handle or identity. Further attempts to participate after repeated disinvitations will be construed as harassment. I would like to be able to rely on your honor in this regard. Please don’t make it any more difficult.
As always, you are welcome to write to me privately at Decent Films to protest your treatment. If you ever wanted me to write back, you know what to do.
Say a prayer for me, if you meant it, and I’ll say one for you.
Courageous Thought? Concupiscent Thought would have been more apt.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dear SDG,
Sigh. I really do miss Esau. I don’t know if John Smith is Esau. These are issues I will let the two of you sort out. Back when Esau was posting, I simply ignored his darker moods while trying to find the good points buried in the anger. A combox is a bit like a pick-up band – you never know who’s going to show up to play. You only hope they’ve practiced. I think Esau makes a good cymbal – it shouldn’t be used every measure, but when you really want to make an impact, there is nothing better to use.
Back to you, Maestro…
The Chicken
I had no idea Esau was disinvited, when did that happen?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau wasn’t disinvited as Esau. He dropped that identity of his own accord and began posting as “Vesa” and “Zeno.”
You might remember Zeno from the “Christian Ramadan” combox, where his behavior caused some to suspect he was the same as the Muslim trolls “Rusta” and “Rashid.”
His behavior had degenerated somewhat from his Esau days, I think, and on this occasion he wouldn’t stop demonizing another poster named Deusdonat. And, just as he has done here (before I even figured out who he was) he accused me then of giving preferential treatment to others against him and of giving more license to non-Catholics in attacking the faith.
The attacks above regarding my pride ruining a Catholic blog, etc., are an indication of what he wrote to me privately. He has never given me an email address to write back to, and I still have too much affection for Esau to answer him publicly.
It was because of the affection many of us have for Esau that I didn’t want to out him as Vesa/Zeno. I didn’t want to write this now. I have never stopped reaching out to him with affection.
But now it’s gotten to the point where I think the whole pattern should be clear to everyone. Since Esau has raised this exact charge against me under multiple identities — again, even when I didn’t always know who he was — I want it to be clear that it’s all coming from one person.
John Smith was wrong when saying that Catholics receive discriminatory treatment here. This is a Catholic blog, and one that (with no credit to me:-]) is tolerant and up for a debate. We all lose it sometimes (myself included), but that doesn’t make it okay. John Smith ignored and continued to ignore rational and reasonable calls for limits on his rhetoric. It has nothing to do with “Catholic” or “Agnostic/Atheist”: it has to do with civility.
He’s [Carlin] also right that the central question is: “Is a fetus a human being?”
Not really. The fetus is a human being that is in its early stage of development, and will continue to develop throughout its life until it dies. The central question is at what stage of development does a human being deserve protection. Or put another way (and there are many ways to put it) at what point of a human being’s life does it deserve to be respected by the rest of society (in the sense of letting it live, continue its development, etc.). That the fetus is a human being is beyond question or doubt. What many have done is cast doubt upon the rights attributable to human beings at that developmental stage.
Or to use current terminology, at what point does a human being become a person? Answering that question anything short of “as soon as a human being comes into existence” implies that there are some human beings that are not persons – a dangerous road that we have been down too many times before.
c matt,
You’re right.
matt had a fine post until the “a dangerous road…” part. That part is not a logical point. It is a rhetorical point. To give it logical force an actual argument has to be made like:
Doing c where c is similar in ways x, y, and x to what has been done before in cases t, u, and v which involved morally wrongs of a nature d, gives one reason to believe that doing c is morally wrong.
Except such an argument is either outright fallacious or is true if “reason” is interpreted to mean “a very weak reason”
matt’s rhetorical move there is no different than the rhetorical move by politicians who speak of someone’s economic plan and note how it is similar to Bush’s or Reagans as regards supply side economics and then say, “we have already tried trickle down economics and it resulted in ballooning deficits” The supply side economics involved may not entail the deficit just as denying that members of the human species need all be accorded the same civilly recognized or established rights as regards life may not entail morally wrong things. Just to give an example, we do not accord certain criminals the same right to life as non-criminals yet this in the view of the church catholic is not morally wrong in principle.
When persons are swayed by the art of rhetoric rather than the use of reason, my optimism meter goes down a notch… or two. To say it is one thing; to find it persuasive or present it so as to persuade is another; and to be persuaded by it is yet another. Peace.
PS When I say “fine” I do not mean to express agreement as I noted previously.
In addition I would add to matt’s mostly fine post to say that the issue of personhood is not merely a legal one, but an ontological one. It may be so that a member of the human species exists from fertilization. But that does not entail that ontologically a human person exists from fertilization. A human person may ontologically emerge at some stage in human development at which point the human person begins to exist whereas before the human organism was not the body of any human person. I posted a link in reply to SDG in another thread on Pelosi. There is useful reading there. It is not hostile to the pro-life view.
Well since SDG has said it, unless I am mistaken, I believe his reference to “anti-Jacobite” was referring to Esau as in “Jacob I[God] loved but Esau I[God] hated”
BTW, let me clarify my intent on the D.D. issue without dwelling on matter previously addressed. My intent there was to encourage Catholics to not knock someone such as James White and whoever it was that Jeb Protestant mentioned who are alleged to have unaccredited doctorates. My intent was to show that knocking such individuals for that reason would involve to be consistent, knocking bishops (btw prescinding from any interpretation of canon law or any comment on anyone’s interpretation of canon law, a licentiate is not the equivalent of a doctorate; for example a J.C.D. is a “doctorate” but it is a higher degree than the mere J.C.L which is just a “licentiate”; Ed Peters has a J.C.D. (as well as a J.D.) as opposed to merely a J.C.L. which Pete Vere may have IIRC unless he has since obtained a J.C.D.). As I mentioned above with respect to something else, I chose not to clarify this matter for I did not feel it wise. I am doing so only now b/c of what has transpired with respect to a certain person.
I find myself to be in the same position that a WD claimed himself to be with respect to PZM, saying that PZM misinterpreted WD when desecrating the Koran, that the aim of WD’s remarks was that PZM desecrate neither. My aim is first for consistency and second, the hope that you would choose to be consistent on the side of courtesy and not gratuitously knock someone such as JW or whoever for having an unaccreddited degree. There are many Christians in the US who go to unaccredited “bible colleges” (some “bible colleges are accredited; but some aren’t). You also thus to be consistent knocking all these Christians as well.
I find this experience to be enlightening in terms of how prejudice against a person can blind one’s self to that person’s intention or to even the possibility of an intention other than the one formed by one’s prejudice against her.
“Real-life” Catholics do not seem to be as boisterous in their reaction to criticism as “online” Catholics. I don’t know whether that difference is accounted for by the lack of social restraint present in the online medium for those not committed internally to courtesy as opposed to being committed only due to the disadvantage being incourteous results in; or whether it is accounted for by what kind of Catholics are attracted to online forums versus those whom I may come into contact with in person; or whether something else accounts for it in terms of the different social stressors placed on online Catholics in online forums; etc, some not mutually exclusive of each other.
May our morally licit enjoyment of sensual* delights inspire our souls to a beautiful and contemplative love.
*check the dictionary; the term is not exclusive to carnal pleasures
CT wrote:
matt had a fine post until the “a dangerous road…” part. That part is not a logical point. It is a rhetorical point.
So what? He’s allowed to make rhetorical points, in addition to making logical points. And in this instance, his point is borne out by the fact that wherever certain human beings are not considered persons, they are generally not accorded rights as persons. This may not bother you in cases where you don’t consider the humans in question to be persons, but for those of us that do, it is very troubling. Which has kind of been the point of this whole discussion.
To give it logical force an actual argument has to be made like:
Doing c where c is similar in ways x, y, and x to what has been done before in cases t, u, and v which involved morally wrongs of a nature d, gives one reason to believe that doing c is morally wrong.
Except such an argument is either outright fallacious or is true if “reason” is interpreted to mean “a very weak reason”
Why would you consider such a reason to be very weak?
matt’s rhetorical move there is no different than the rhetorical move by politicians who speak of someone’s economic plan and note how it is similar to Bush’s or Reagans as regards supply side economics and then say, “we have already tried trickle down economics and it resulted in ballooning deficits” The supply side economics involved may not entail the deficit
…or they may. More evidence may be needed, but such a “rhetorical point” isn’t a bad place to start such an argument.
just as denying that members of the human species need all be accorded the same civilly recognized or established rights as regards life may not entail morally wrong things.
Maybe not, but in every case I’m aware of, that’s exactly what it has entailed. Nazi Germany, and antebellum America stand as examples. I’m curious as to whether you have any counterexamples.
Just to give an example, we do not accord certain criminals the same right to life as non-criminals yet this in the view of the church catholic is not morally wrong in principle.
Yes, we do, actually. A criminal has the same right to life as an innocent man, although there may be times when the public good necessitates taking his life. The catechism is pretty clear that the death penalty is only just when it’s necessary to protect other human lives. This doesn’t mean that the criminal in question loses his right to life- merely that protecting the life rights of other people has become a more pressing matter.
When persons are swayed by the art of rhetoric rather than the use of reason, my optimism meter goes down a notch… or two. To say it is one thing; to find it persuasive or present it so as to persuade is another; and to be persuaded by it is yet another.
It’s not the art of rhetoric that makes his statements persuasive, and he needn’t drape his logic in the trappings of mathematics to make it convincing. He should be able to make a statement, and you should be able to ask him to back that statement up with evidence. But this new superiority kick you’re on doesn’t add to the weight of your arguments either.
In addition I would add to matt’s mostly fine post to say that the issue of personhood is not merely a legal one, but an ontological one. It may be so that a member of the human species exists from fertilization. But that does not entail that ontologically a human person exists from fertilization. A human person may ontologically emerge at some stage in human development at which point the human person begins to exist whereas before the human organism was not the body of any human person.
Yes, okay. And we should base our laws on reality, no? At the point when a human being becomes a person in reality, it should be accorded the rights of a person, no?
So the question becomes how we define personhood. As far as I can tell, there is no scientific basis for any such a definition, and we’re stuck arguing about it. As far as I’m concerned, being human makes you a person. You clearly have different criteria. And that, as c matt said, is the source of the disagreement.
CT wrote:
“Real-life” Catholics do not seem to be as boisterous in their reaction to criticism as “online” Catholics.
Welcome to the internet. 8]
May our morally licit enjoyment of sensual* delights inspire our souls to a beautiful and contemplative love.
*check the dictionary; the term is not exclusive to carnal pleasures
It is, actually, by definition, unless you adhere to a very narrow definition of “carnal”. “Carnal” actually means “of the flesh”, which would, I should think, include all sensual experiences. As long as we’re picking nits.
Be that as it may on carnal [different dictionaries will give it slightly different spins but some do associate it in a unique way with sexual pleasure in the primary definition], in the Catholic context, “carnal” traditionally means (unless I have sorely misunderstood the various Catholic authors who have used the term) sexual (it’s unclear in what exact manner it is sexual). The impression I received when reading various Catholic authors (not just moralists but theologians opining on how there will be delights of taste and sight in heaven but no “carnal” pleasure — so here “carnal” clearly means sexual) is that these Catholic theologians use this semi-euphemistic term because they feel it is socially improper (or feel others would find it so) to use a more explicit term.
More could be said on the word “carnal” (assuming the broad definition that includes all sensual pleasures does not actually render it intensively or properly speaking extensively the same as “sensual”) … but I don’t mean to argue; I just wanted to share with you where I was coming from and the interesting stuff that Catholic theologians and moralists did pre-Vatican II (the ones I referred to above are all pre-Vatican II; of course the “theologian” Christopher West or the theologian John Paul II probably do not shy away from using explicit (such as in clinically accurate) terms).
BTW, just a suggestion from a nobody 🙂
Perhaps this blog could incorporate OpenID?
CT,
Sorry, I didn’t really mean that I misunderstood you; I was teasing. Your super-qualified and parenthesis-laden response is charmingly hilarious, and actually reminds me of a lot of some of the emails I get from one of my gaming buddies.
BTW, I appreciate your linking to your new blog, and look forward to reading your first post in English.
Confidential to TMC: Yes. (And thanks for the vote of confidence! I also am a big Francis de Sales fan.)
“Real-life” Catholics do not seem to be as boisterous in their reaction to criticism as “online” Catholics.
Hmm. You’ve never met me in ‘real life,’ have you? ;-D
That is not to say that I’m am rude in person. Just boisterous. 🙂
CT:
You remind me of Reagan’s remark:
“An economist is someone who proves that what works in practice doesn’t work in theory.”
FWIW, no specific reference to that text was intended (and indeed I have often thought of a reverse play on that text to the effect that Esau also I loved).
Rather, I was simply obliquely alluding to Zeno/Vesa’s identity as Esau and thus not Jacob (hence “non-Jacobite” or “anti-Jacobite”).
I did, however, rely on various available meanings of “Jacobite” to obfuscate my veiled meaning.
Hmmm, my darling wife JoAnna made your good list, SDG. I’ll have to let her know, it may pick her day up.
I’m trying to figure if I’m off the list for no longer being a regular, or for being on the OTHER kind of list… Most likely both. 😉
Heh. I gathered that list basically by scanning back through recent comments in a Typepad authoring tool. Nearly every regular poster whose name I saw was eligible.
BTW, Jimmy continues to be tied up with other things, but I’m about to begin a new series of blog posts that should liven things up around here… :‑)
Confidential to Esau:
I will always read the messages you send me through Decent Films.
I will never respond to them in public.
I have no other way to respond to you that would not be damaging to your personal life.
bounce?