Dean Urges Dems to Court Pro-Life Voters

[pax]

I didn't get personal with you. It was a joke, but it wasn't an insult. I was curious how you could see things that just weren't there. If anything, I should be insulted. You did, after all, call me "self-righteous" and attributed things to me that I didn't say.

I called your position self-righteous. I didn't say anything about you, personally.

I couldn't possibly care less that you made a remark about me wearing glasses (I mean, there they are, right there in my avatar, for everyone to see), but I do care that you felt the need to toss off a witty remark rather than address what I said. Like I said, I expected better from you.

And you did, in your post, make a pretty strong implication that a vote based at least part on economic concerns rather than a candidate's position on abortion is, in your opinion, a vote against the concern for quality and dignity of human life.

So, yes, I stand by what I said.

 

[Irvine511]

I didn't vote against my own economic self-interest nor to further an oligarcy blah blah when I cast my vote for Bush, Irvine.

what tax bracket are you in?

it's certainly against my economic self-interests to vote for Bush.

and as someone who has gone without health care, and has had to go to the state for health services, it is also against my own health interests to vote for Bush.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Nice, 80s. Way to get personal with me. I expected better from you.

I got that from your previous post saying that your vote for "human life" (or anyone's, I guess) is more important than a vote based on "economics," when votes for those so-called "economic interests" are often based in concern for quality and dignity of human life as well.

I was simply answering the question that was asked. Since the question specifically addressed abortion and economics, it should stand to reason that the answer would have something to do with human life and economics. How did you expect someone to answer? I said that human life is more important to me than economic issues. I said nothing about those who voted for Kerry, nothing at all. If you want to read that into it, you are free to do so.

 

[Irvine511]

But I'd say it's time to understand why....

yes ... why do the rights of the fetus (a debatable statement to begin with) matter so much more important than the care of breathing children? or the elderly? or the uninsured? or the working poor?

i haven't a clue.

maybe because it's a purely emotional issue that gets some people frothing at the mouth with self-righteous indignation, and that a real culture of life involves much harder things like universal health care and free quality day care and living wages for working people.

but like i said, since i'm a pro-choice individual, i haven't a clue.

 

[pax]

Because you implied that "economic interests" and "concern for human life" are two different things.

Economic interests are inextricably linked with concern for human life. What do many of the problems of the Third World have to do with? Bad economics, poor fiscal management. Why do people argue for progressive taxes, an end to corporate welfare, an establishment of a living wage? Concern for the quality of life of working families.

Such reforms are, I suspect, just as important to the concern for human life as a push for an end to abortion.

 

[80sU2isBest]

what tax bracket are you in?

it's certainly against my economic self-interests to vote for Bush.

and as someone who has gone without health care, and has had to go to the state for health services, it is also against my own health interests to vote for Bush.

I am self-employed and have made less than 20k a year since I went into business for myself in 2001. I made 32k annually before that.

I buy my own health insurance, which costs $125 a month.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Because you implied that "economic interests" and "concern for human life" are two different things.

Economic interests are inextricably linked with concern for human life. What do many of the problems of the Third World have to do with? Bad economics, poor fiscal management. Why do people argue for progressive taxes, an end to corporate welfare, an establishment of a living wage? Concern for the quality of life of working families.

Such reforms are, I suspect, just as important to the concern for human life as a push for an end to abortion.

As I said in a previous post, the question dealt specifically with "economics vs. abortion". I answered in an "abortion vs. economics" manner. Honestly, what kind of answer would you expect someone to give?

 

[Irvine511]

I am self-employed and have made less than 20k a year since I went into business for myself in 2001. I made 32k annually before that.

I buy my own health insurance, which costs $125 a month.

well, i've been in that boat.

and voting Republican is mathematically not in your economic self-interests.

you could put that $125 a month towards Vertigo tickets if we had universal health care ...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

you could put that $125 a month towards Vertigo tickets if we had universal health care ...

Yeah, but what are the chances of either main political party introducing universal healthcare?

 

[80sU2isBest]

yes ... why do the rights of the fetus (a debatable statement to begin with) matter so much more important than the care of breathing children? or the elderly? or the uninsured? or the working poor?

i haven't a clue.

maybe because it's a purely emotional issue that gets some people frothing at the mouth with self-righteous indignation, and that a real culture of life involves much harder things like universal health care and free quality day care and living wages for working people.

but like i said, since i'm a pro-choice individual, i haven't a clue.

Irvine, you have accused people of faith of ignoring science to believe in the Bible. But with abortion, you actually have fetal development timelines that show human functions, such as a beating heart, beginning at very early stages, not to mention the consensus of embryologists worldwide saying that human life begins at fertilization, and yet you still stick by your prochoice guns. That's ignoring with a capital I.

Living breathing people matter to me as much as fetuses do.

 

[pax]

As I said in a previous post, the question dealt specifically with "economics vs. abortion". I answered in an "abortion vs. economics" manner. Honestly, what kind of answer would you expect someone to give?

I believe you are completely missing the point. Economic issues are not just about economics! People don't vote on economic issues because of some kind of abiding academic interest in the issues; they vote on those issues because they believe they will have a positive effect on the quality of human life.

I'm saying that votes for certain economic principles show a deep concern for human life.

 

[pax]

Also, fwiw, embryologists and other scientists are not, as you state, in perfect agreement over when life starts.

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm for some other perspectives.

I believe this question is absolutely impossible for human beings to fully answer.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine, you have accused people of faith of ignoring science to believe in the Bible. But with abortion, you actually have fetal development timelines that show human functions, such as a beating heart, beginning at very early stages, not to mention the consensus of embryologists worldwide saying that human life begins at fertilization, and yet you still stick by your prochoice guns. That's ignoring with a capital I.

Living breathing people matter to me as much as fetuses do.

firstly, it is not my intention to get into an abortion debate that centers on the fetus and when it is or is not a human being. i think that misses what the issue is about entirely.

i also think you're making huge, huge sweeping statements about a "worldwide consensus" -- my father is a doctor, and i know that he hasn't reached that consensus yet and is unaware that such a position exists. i do think the science is complex, and often in the eye of the beholder, and as such i take a rather agnostic approach. from a layman's perspective, i have a very, very difficult time seeing how a fertalized egg is the equivalent of a breathing, crying, eating, pooping baby. it doesn't make any rational sense.

as for the rest of the science, i'll step aside and let Pax handle that -- she did a beautiful job with this in another thread, and i couldn't possibly improve upon it.

for me, the issue is less about biology and more about quality of life for both mother and fetus. i view it as a woman's issue, and the fact remains that until women are able to determine exactly when and how they get pregnant they will never achieve equal economic status as men. i don't like abortion, i think it's a very sad choice, but i also think that outlawing abortion is probably the worst way to reduce the incidence of abortion. let's start with comprehensive sex education, and then universal health care, and let's truly be pro-child instead of pro-birth.

we have a different understanding of the issue rooted in our different views on life. i don't mean this to come across as patronizing, but it probably will: you tend to see the world in very black-and-white terms, and as such abortion is either murder or it is not. i see a very, very grey world, and i see abortion as a symptom of a much greater problem and i see the science of the fetus as very murky indeed. as such, i'd rather keep women in control of their uterus and have every child be a wanted child.

 

[pax]

for me, the issue is less about biology and more about quality of life for both mother and fetus. i view it as a woman's issue, and the fact remains that until women are able to determine exactly when and how they get pregnant they will never achieve equal economic status as men. i don't like abortion, i think it's a very sad choice, but i also think that outlawing abortion is probably the worst way to reduce the incidence of abortion. let's start with comprehensive sex education, and then universal health care, and let's truly be pro-child instead of pro-birth.

we have a different understanding of the issue rooted in our different views on life. i don't mean this to come across as patronizing, but it probably will: you tend to see the world in very black-and-white terms, and as such abortion is either murder or it is not. i see a very, very grey world, and i see abortion as a symptom of a much greater problem and i see the science of the fetus as very murky indeed. as such, i'd rather keep women in control of their uterus and have every child be a wanted child.

Couldn't have said it better, and thanks for the compliment.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Couldn't have said it better

I'll second that .

Angela

 

[MadelynIris]

maybe because it's a purely emotional issue that gets some people frothing at the mouth with self-righteous indignation, and that a real culture of life involves much harder things like universal health care and free quality day care and living wages for working people.

Right - but why does the left so easily dismiss all of the pro-life people as emotional, anti-science, etc...

If the Democratic party is going to start courting, the constant attacks on the pro-lifers by the far left will have to cease.

Don't see it happening.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i also think you're making huge, huge sweeping statements about a "worldwide consensus" -- my father is a doctor, and i know that he hasn't reached that consensus yet and is unaware that such a position exists. i do think the science is complex, and often in the eye of the beholder, and as such i take a rather agnostic approach. from a layman's perspective, i have a very, very difficult time seeing how a fertalized egg is the equivalent of a breathing, crying, eating, pooping baby. it doesn't make any rational sense.

Is your father an embryologist? The claim I made was about embryologists.

And it may make no rational sense to you, but it does to me, and neither of us are doctors.

we have a different understanding of the issue rooted in our different views on life. i don't mean this to come across as patronizing, but it probably will: you tend to see the world in very black-and-white terms, and as such abortion is either murder or it is not. i see a very, very grey world, and i see abortion as a symptom of a much greater problem and i see the science of the fetus as very murky indeed.

Actually, that didn't come across as patronizing at all. It's pretty much an accurate statement.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I called your position self-righteous. I didn't say anything about you, personally.

How can a "self-righteous" remark not reflect on the person who made it? The key word is "self". A person who makes a "self-righteous" remark does so because he feels he is "righteous".

I couldn't possibly care less that you made a remark about me wearing glasses (I mean, there they are, right there in my avatar, for everyone to see), but I do care that you felt the need to toss off a witty remark rather than address what I said. Like I said, I expected better from you.

I didn't know you wear glasses. I don't pay attention to people's avatars unless it's something really strange. I wear contacts most of the time because my glasses are bottle-thick. When I was growing up, I was called "4 Eyes" all the time. I wouldn't make fun of anyone wearing glasses. If you thought I was insulting you, I'm sorry, but I want you to know I wasn't.

I didn't just make a witty remark without addressing what you said. In that evry same post, I also asked you where I said what you accused me of saying. Do you not consider that addressing what you said?

And you did, in your post, make a pretty strong implication that a vote based at least part on economic concerns rather than a candidate's position on abortion is, in your opinion, a vote against the concern for quality and dignity of human life.

So, yes, I stand by what I said.

That's what you read into it, Pax. That's not what I said. I said nothing about the values of those who voted Democrat.

But now please address my question to you. If someone posed the question in an "economics vs. abortion" context, how else could I answer the question, unless in that same "economics vs. abortion" context?

 

[Irvine511]

Right - but why does the left so easily dismiss all of the pro-life people as emotional, anti-science, etc...

If the Democratic party is going to start courting, the constant attacks on the pro-lifers by the far left will have to cease.

Don't see it happening.

it might have something to do with the techniques of many pro-lifers -- from the fringe shooting doctors, to the constant protesting outside of abortion clinics, to the screams of "baby killer."

i suppose i don't see an equivalent on the Left. i think they might be guilty of painting all pro-lifers/anti-choicers with one brush, and i do think there are more nuanced arguments presented by the pro-life/anti-choice crowd. i really do. but i don't see the rigidity of understanding on the Left that i do on the Right. as 80s agreed, he sees it as a simple issue: it is murder. whereas the Left (as it always does ... often to it's political detriment) embraces a million-and-one interpretations of the issue, and they make the issue about *choice* -- as in, let women decide what to do with their pregnancies, and God (or whomever) will sort out the rest.

i also think you're wrong about the Dems.

just look at HRC's masterful triangulation of the issue earlier this year, calling abortion a "tragic choice" and that the goal should be to work towards a world where there are no abortions.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Also, fwiw, embryologists and other scientists are not, as you state, in perfect agreement over when life starts.

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm for some other perspectives.

I believe this question is absolutely impossible for human beings to fully answer.

For the record, I didn't say "perfect agreement", I said consensus. But the web site you linked to actually supports what I said:

"There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction.

Its reproductive ability is only demonstrated in about on in 250 births, when it reproduces itself through twinning. This can happen at any time up to about 14 days after conception. This is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins are caused.

An embryo is also a form of human life.

A fetus is still another, more developed, form of human life.

A newborn baby is both a form of human life and a human person."

 

[pax]

I believe you are completely missing the point. Economic issues are not just about economics! People don't vote on economic issues because of some kind of abiding academic interest in the issues; they vote on those issues because they believe they will have a positive effect on the quality of human life.

I'm saying that votes for certain economic principles show a deep concern for human life.

see above.

 

[pax]

For the record, I didn't say "perfect agreement", I said consensus. But the web site you linked to actually supports what I said:

"There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction.

Its reproductive ability is only demonstrated in about on in 250 births, when it reproduces itself through twinning. This can happen at any time up to about 14 days after conception. This is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins are caused.

An embryo is also a form of human life.

A fetus is still another, more developed, form of human life.

A newborn baby is both a form of human life and a human person."

It says that, aye, but it also gives a variety of different religious and secular viewpoints as to when life begins.

 

[Irvine511]

An embryo is also a form of human life.

A fetus is still another, more developed, form of human life.

A newborn baby is both a form of human life and a human person."

so can you murder human life?

or is murder the intentional killing of a human person?

 

[80sU2isBest]

so can you murder human life?

or is murder the intentional killing of a human person?

The only time I believe killing a human is right is in self-defense or in defense of others. Although I don't support the death penalty, I only oppose it because the system is open to failure, and innocent people do get executed. If that never happened, and I somehow knew it for 100% fact, I might support the death penalty, to make sure that murderers and rapists don't escape and kill and rape others. But that's academic, because the system will never be fail-proof, and therfore, I will always be anti-death penalty.

 

[Irvine511]

The only time I believe killing a human is right is in self-defense or in defense of others. Although I don't support the death penalty, I only oppose it because the system is open to failure, and innocent people do get executed. If that never happened, and I somehow knew it for 100% fact, I might support the death penalty, to make sure that murderers and rapists don't escape and kill and rape others. But that's academic, because the system will never be fail-proof, and therfore, I will always be anti-death penalty.

but that's not the question.

the website made a distinction between "human life" and "a human person."

therefore, since you think abortion is murder, is the abortion of a "human life" a murder if it is distinguished from "a human person"?

my guess is that while abortion might (and i say *might* because we're testing out arguments here) be the ending of human life, it is not the murder of a human person.

 

[80sU2isBest]

but that's not the question.

the website made a distinction between "human life" and "a human person."

therefore, since you think abortion is murder, is the abortion of a "human life" a murder if it is distinguished from "a human person"?

my guess is that while abortion might (and i say *might* because we're testing out arguments here) be the ending of human life, it is not the murder of a human person.

Oh I understand the question now.

No, I don't think it's right to murder a "human life", because I believe that a human life is a human, whether it's considered a "human person" or not.

 

[Irvine511]

Oh I understand the question now.

No, I don't think it's right to murder a "human life", because I believe that a human life is a human, whether it's considered a "human person" or not.

no -- not whether or not it's okay to murder "human life" (as distinguished from "a human person") but whether or not it can be conceived of as murder at all since the fetus is by definition *not* a person.

 

[80sU2isBest]

no -- not whether or not it's okay to murder "human life" (as distinguished from "a human person") but whether or not it can be conceived of as murder at all since the fetus is by definition *not* a person.

well, one of the definitions of "person" is living human.

I'd say that it can be considered murder, and should be, even if the fetus is considered a "human life" rather than "human person", the term "human" being key word.

 

[Irvine511]

well, one of the definitions of "person" is living human.

I'd say that it can be considered murder, and should be, even if the fetus is considered a "human life" rather than "human person", the term "human" being key word.

so, following this further ... a person must be living and human, but something that is living and human is not, then, necessarily a person. and also, it's not "a human life" but "human life."

what i suppose i'm saying is that if this website makes a distinction, then shouldn't we treat "human life" as different from "a human person"? why would we apply the same rules to both? aren't distinctions there for a reason?

 

[80sU2isBest]

so, following this further ... a person must be living and human, but something that is living and human is not, then, necessarily a person. and also, it's not "a human life" but "human life."

I am confused now...

what i suppose i'm saying is that if this website makes a distinction, then shouldn't we treat "human life" as different from "a human person"? why would we apply the same rules to both? aren't distinctions there for a reason?

I don't know why there is a dinstinction between "human life" and "human person", so I'm not really sure if I beleive it. As I said, one of the definitions of "person" is "a living human". That may not be how the medical world defines it, however, so I just don't know.

But it makes no difference to me, because the way I see it, a "human life" is a "human that's living", and therefore abortion is murder.