The Northern Kentucky University student Right to Life group, whose “Cemetery of the Innocents” was vandalized by a group of “liberal” students at the urging of an unspeakably idiotic professor who thinks destruction of property is “free speech,” is pressing charges, and according to the Kentucky Post, the students involved “could face expulsion.” Personally, I think that would be overly harsh — but I’m less charitable toward to Professor Jacobsen, who should most certainly know better. As such, I’m inclined to agree with State Representative Paul Marcotte, who is calling for the professor’s head, demanding that the university fire Jacobsen over her “illegal and irresponsible…disgusting, offensive behavior”:
“Strong punishment will send a message to other unrepentant radicals that the university is part of a larger community and that its members must abide by the community’s laws.” …
“She’s a disgrace and is actually encouraging young students to break the law,” Marcotte said Saturday.
Alas, it may not much matter. According to this report, “Jacobson is set to retire in a few weeks” anyway. Perhaps she sees this bit of vandalism as her “parting shot.” If so, what an utterly disgraceful way to end her career.
[UPDATE: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers! Just to reiterate from my previous post: I am a pro-choice, moderate Democrat who believes that Professor Jacobsen’s actions are absolutely outrageous. So, you can’t claim we don’t exist! :) As I wrote in that post:
Wow. What a disgrace to the name of “liberalism” and “feminism,” not to mention academia, “Professor” Jacobson is. I sincerely hope she doesn’t have tenure, and if she does, I sincerely hope that university officials will find some way to revoke it, unless she issues a very public apology which explains in excruciating and explicit detail why the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to vandalize other people’s expressions of free speech because they are “outraged” by them.
Michelle Malkin, of course, is using this incident as an example of the ignorance, intolerance and general contemptuousness of liberals, feminists, academics, pro-choice advocates, etc. That such an argument would be made is inevitable (liberals would do the same thing if a conservative professor and a group of conservative students did something similarly outrageous that fit in with liberal preconceptions of conservative faults), but of course, the argument is wrong — the isolated actions of a few “liberal” morons does not represent liberalism, feminism or the pro-choice movement. It may highlight certain disturbing trends, but it is an extreme example and should not be used to tar the whole Left. For that very reason, just as it’s important for moderate Muslims to condemn radical Islamism in no uncertain terms, it’s important for those of us on the social-issues Left who are not intolerant morons to condemn these un-American actions — and not just because Malkin & co. demand it, but because it’s the right thing to do, because we are genuinely outraged that anyone would commit such flagrantly intolerant acts against other people’s free expression, and especially that they would do so in the name of free speech, taking the First Amendment’s name in vain. I assume that every liberal on the blog will agree with me on this; I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t.
So, let me be the first to express my heartfelt outrage. Professor Jacobsen, what you and your students did is vile, repugnant, immoral, illegal and antithetical to everything that this country stands for. It is profoundly illiberal, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “feminism” or “choice,” and you ought to be completely and utterly ashamed of yourself. As a pro-choice feminist who is generally liberal on social issues (see for example my post yesterday about the expelled gay student), I condemn your indefensible actions, and I call on you to issue a public apology, resign your undeserved position of influence over our nation’s youth, and enroll in a remedial civics course that will allow you to learn about our great Constitution, in particular the true nature of free speech and the fact that you do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or outraged. You have an unlimited right, of course, to respond to speech that you consider outrageous through counterspeech — but the constitution does not confer upon you, should not confer upon you, and will never confer upon you, the right to silence anyone else’s speech. Period.
Just wanted to be clear about that. Okay, continuing with this post…]
Anyway, the above-linked article has more on the university’s planned response:
Officials at Northern Kentucky University are preparing an official statement to faculty and students at the college in response to a professor and her students vandalizing a pro-life display meant to oppose abortion. …
Chris Cole, a spokesman for NKU president James Votruba has said more than 100 emails have been received from faculty and staff concerned about the implications of the vandalism and denying the free speech rights of the campus Right to Life group.
“The tenor has been, ‘We don’t approve of or condone this.’ They don’t want that conduct to reflect on NKU faculty,” Cole told the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper.
He indicated that the university will definitely take action against Jacobson and the students involved once the police investigation has concluded.
“I think it will be telling our campus community that NKU doesn’t condone what took place Wednesday night, and there is an investigation going on, and action will be taken,” he told the Cincinnati paper.
Jacobson has admitted encouraging students in her class to engage in the vandalism but would not comment to the media about whether she was involved. However, a reporter from the student newspaper caught the professor on camera ripping up a sign set up next to the crosses. …
“I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom of speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,” Jacobsen said last week after the incident.
Responding to her comments, Votruba, the NKU president, said, “I don’t know if she was pulling up the crosses, but I think she was out there with the students. If so, as far as I’m concerned, she went outside the conditions of her employment.”
Editor’s note: I put the word “liberal” quotation marks because destruction of other people’s free speech is fundamentally illiberal.
UPDATE: The Cincinnati Enquirer weighs in with an editorial:
Northern Kentucky University professor Sally Jacobsen overstepped her own rights and arrogantly stomped on the First Amendment rights of others when she invited students in her class to demolish an approved anti-abortion display on campus.
As a teacher she has much to learn.
Her own “outrage” at a display she found offensive pales beside the outrage students, college staff and the rest of us should feel at her behavior. What she called a “silly display” is symbolic speech clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution, as precious as any other right Jacobsen might say she was advocating for.
She said she was offended by the display. So what? Does she think she has the right to obliterate someone else’s expression just because it offends her? Would she deface a painting she didn’t care for? Smash a statue she didn’t like? Burn books in the library if she disagreed with them?
The display of 400 crosses represented a cemetery of aborted fetuses. Jacobsen said it was dismantled by nine of her graduate students, and she acknowledged inviting them to destroy it. She would neither confirm nor deny that she took part in the activity.
Destroying such a display is a foolhardy and incendiary act for anyone, but even more so for a tenured professor at a university. Intellectual freedom of thought and expression is not only the foundation of our democratic society, but a cornerstone of institutions of higher learning as well.
It is unthinkable that, rather than using a provocative and controversial display as a tool for debate and discussion, Jacobsen’s instinct was to destroy the “provocation” and stifle free expression.
But even beyond unprofessional behavior, demolishing the display appears to be a criminal act. Anyone convicted of taking part in it or abetting it should be prosecuted.
This was not a protest in support of enlightened thinking. This was a threat to it.
In the end, the display, erected by a student Right to Life group with official permission, will be a silent reminder of more than one right and more than one cause. As such it serves as a particularly powerful - if embarrassing - teaching opportunity.
We hope NKU officials will take firm action on this issue.
They must question a faculty member’s dedication to free thought and intellectual discourse if she destroys, rather than wisely employs, controversial displays as learning opportunities for NKU students.
And, clearly, they must intercede in the strongest way if a professor illegally obstructs students’ First Amendment rights and encourages her students to join her in the endeavor.
If Jacobsen helped destroy the display, she deserves to face criminal charges.
For her crass disregard for free speech and self-righteous disdain for opinions she opposes, she deserves to lose her position on the NKU staff.
Her ignorance is correctable. Her arrogance deserves a harsher fate.
Amen.
Meanwhile, the Kentucky Post has a news story which adds some new details:
A Northern Kentucky University literature professor could be disciplined for her role in the removal of nearly 400 crosses that were erected on campus as part of a display by a right to life group.
Tenured professor Sally Jacobsen, who has been teaching at NKU since 1980, said she found the display offensive and asked students in her British literature class Wednesday night if they wanted to take down the crosses.
During a break in class, Jacobsen said she asked “if any students wanted to participate in practicing their freedom of speech in destroying the very offensive right to life, anti-abortion display in the central plaza.”
“Some did,” she said.
Jacobsen wouldn’t say if she participated in taking down the crosses, which campus police later recovered in campus trash cans.
NKU President Jim Votruba said police are continuing to investigate and would turn the matter over to Campbell County prosecutors and the university administration for review.
He said Jacobsen and the 10 to 12 students involved, whom police have not yet identified, could face disciplinary action.
“In my mind, this is a serious violation of a faculty member’s responsibilities and undermines what a university is established to do,” Votruba said.
He dismissed as “a ludicrous comment” Jacobsen’s assertion that students were expressing freedom of speech, saying it doesn’t apply to vandalizing or stealing property.
NKU Police Sgt. Dave Tobergte said police received a call about the theft at about 7 p.m. Wednesday. Police recovered most of the crosses and returned them to the NKU Right to Life group.
A police report valued the crosses at $600.
A sign identifying the display as the “Cemetery of the innocents” has not been found, said Dean of Students Kent Kelso.
He said students involved in the incident could face punishment ranging from a warning to expulsion.
The newly formed NKU right-to-life group put the crosses back up shortly after they were recovered, said sophomore Lauren Macke, one of 15 members of the organization.
University officials said Northern Right to Life obtained permission to erect the display Sunday. The group plans to take it down Saturday.
Macke said each cross represents 10 abortions that occur every day. She said members would continue putting the crosses back up no matter how many times they are taken down.
“It really shocked me because of course we’re pro-life, but we try to respect other people’s opinions, and people who are pro-choice,” she said. “If anything, it will just increase our resolve and help us keep going with our mission.”
Jacobsen said she felt “horribly violated” by the display, saying any woman going through the process of abortion “should not be slapped in the face by her university by calling her a scarlet woman.”
Votruba said he would prefer Jacobsen and others who found the display offensive erect their own display.
“That’s a civilized way to let ideas play off each other,” he said.
In an e-mail sent to campus officials earlier this week and obtained by The Kentucky Post, Jacobsen demanded the display be removed immediately. She wrote that the crosses violated the separation of church and state because NKU is a state institution.
Votruba disagreed.
“If people are occasionally offended by points of view on a campus, that’s what a university is all about,” he said.
Votruba said he welcomes lively debate on such a hot-button issue on campus.
“We’re a place where ideas get vetted,” he said.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:46:30 am
Agree with you completely. The only legitimate question even related to this nonsense is: when we’re talking about “non-speech speech.” ie. symbolic displays and such, where does one draw the line between legitimate expression and illigitimate provocation or intimidation? Burning crosses on lawns isn’t permitted, and not just because of the fire hazard. That said, this anti-abortion display was clearly way, Way, WAY on the free-speech side of the line.
Ms. Jacobson gives liberalism a bad name. If she can’t stand even this most benign of challenges to her position on abortion, she ought to just shut up and stay out of the debate.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:25:24 am
Aaron - I’m going to disagree with you, only because the more often someone like Prof Jacobson proudly “expresses” herself, she reveals herself and her ilk to be what they are … and then the rest of us reasonable folk can deal with her appropriately, including the full “This is a Bad Thing” value of what she does and advocates and incites …
April 17th, 2006 at 3:09:53 am
Alasdair,
I know what you’re saying, but I just can’t get behind it. As someone who thinks abortion should remain legal, should I really be wishing for the lunatic fringe of the anti-abortion movement to become louder and more visible. Mabey I should wish for that, but I don’t.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:10:07 am
Yeah,
Us 45% of the country that think abortion should be illegal certainly constitute a “lunatic fringe.” I love being thought mentally deficient.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:43:25 am
Yeah, only a stark raving psychotic would be against killing unborn children.
PS The numbers start getting higher when you add the pro-choicers who still have a moral issue with the matter (eg me). Did those gravestones mean “Illegalize abortion” necessarily? Or did they mean “recognize the consequences of what you do”?
April 17th, 2006 at 7:51:49 am
I agree with with the idea of not trying to use free speech as a defense for shutting someone up, but I’m not sure if I agree with such an overly high respect for property. Propertry (and property rights) are important, but human life comes first. For example, if someone owns all the waterways in a country, and decides not to give anyone water, without a hefty charge, it’s not okay to say, well, if you don’t have the money, you die, sorry. Another example would be a company owning all the oil fields in another country, and giving none of the money to the people there (and probably polluting their country and killing lots of them too.) No one has the “right” to do something like that.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with the issue here, I just don’t like people thinking that property rights are a god-given right above everything else.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:05:42 am
The students “should know better” as well as we are not talking about 6th graders here teasing another student. the students should have to go in front of what ever student court there is and face the punishment just as if they would have damaged an actual cemetary.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:42:05 am
FEMINIST GONE WILD UPDATE
There’s much more on the story I blogged Friday concerning Sally Jacobsen, the Northern Kentucky University women’s studies professor who enlisted her students to wreck a pro-life display of crosses erected in memory of abortion victims. A state law…
April 17th, 2006 at 10:12:11 am
Lots of interesting and varied points of view here. But everyone seems to be shying away from the real issue here. This professor encouraged her students to utilize their freedom of speech by denying that same right to a group whose views they did not agree with. In essence she said, “Our opinion is the correct one. Anyone else must not be allowed to be heard.” Freedom of speech is not a one way street. If you want to practice or defend freedom of speech you can’t just support those issues you agree with. You must FIRST AND FOREMOST support the rights and opinions of those who you would gladly spend your life opposing. Silencing a dissenting view does not help anyone. On the contrary it only hurts YOU AND YOUR CAUSE in the long run. Just because this woman has tenure she should not be allowed to get away with what she did and encouraged her students to do. She should not be allowed to retire peacefully and draw her pension without first being held accountable. She broke the law, destroyed property, and worst of all, trampled on the rights of students. For shame professor.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:22:59 am
…and face the punishment just as if they would have damaged an actual cemetary.
They should face charges of vandelism sure, as I’ve said before, this is a piece of instellation art and not an actual cemetary… though you might be satisfied to know that it is pretty much the same charge. Holy crap, there’s a preview feature below that is showing me how this looks as I type it. Sweet! Boo-doo-dumb-da-dum, he he he… Sorry, back to the topic: If you want to burn a flag, you buy your own first. And to ‘Anony-mouse’ we’re talking about the organized destruction of a piece of instellation art. Cut and dry dude. I think I speak for myself and only myself when I say: What the hell are you talking about hippie?
1. You feel that property rights shouldn’t be important to people, people should be important to people. (sigh)
2. Yet in THIS here issue, no people got hurt, in fact, a display meant to ‘protect people’ was accosted…
No, property rights were not bestowed by a ‘god,’ but they were outlined by our forefathers…
April 17th, 2006 at 10:59:55 am
It is a pity that more can’t be done to the Professor, but I agree with Brendan that it seems overly harsh on students. That’s not to say I think they should go unpunished, but they CERTAINLY need a few remedial courses on Free Speech.
Here’s a thought: make all the students involved with the destruction to write a 15 page paper arguing for restrictions on abortion. It has to include at least three interviews with pro-life proponents and provide responses to criticisms from Pro-Choice groups.
Now there’s a punishment I can get behind, if properly administered.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:17:51 am
Patrick, I know you feel passionately about this issue, but you are being blatantly unfair to Aaron. He said: “As someone who thinks abortion should remain legal, should I really be wishing for the lunatic fringe of the anti-abortion movement to become louder and more visible.” He didn’t say “the anti-abortion movement is a lunatic fringe.” He was wondering aloud whether it would be beneficial for the aboriton-rights cause for the extremists on the other side who are a lunatic fringe (I’m thinking, like, people who blow up abortion clinics and such) to become “louder and more visible.” (And his clearly implied answer is, “no, I shouldn’t hope for that.”) His point is perfectly clear, not combative or insulting in any way, and your misrepresentation thereof is just that, a blatant misrepesentation.
And Nebraska, of course the students should know better, but I don’t think they should be expelled. Pay a fine, issue a public apology, take a mandatory remedial civics course with a unit on the First Amendment… and if they refuse to do those things, then they’re expelled… but I don’t think college students who make one ridiculously offensive mistake like this should be kicked out of school. The professor, though, is another story. As someone who should be “older and wiser,” her responsibility is greater and my willingness to write off her misbehavior as a mere “mistake” is much less.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:20:12 am
Lojo, your suggested punishment is illogical. Requiring them to engage the debate, and discuss the issue with those on the other side is fine. Demanding that they change their opinion is silly.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:31:20 am
Patrick, your point depends greatly on which particular survey you decide to use, and what particular question is asked. I’ve seen numbers on the subject range from the low 20 percent level up to your 45 percent is the highest support number I’ve seen. But if you phrased the question correctly I could see how a number like that could be achieved.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:31:51 am
What gets me about this story and Brendan’s posting of it from Michelle Malkin, a clearly right wing source, is that we’ve never seen any criticisim on this blog or on Malkin’s blog about REAL acts of violence against abortion clinics and doctors practicing legal abortion procedures.
Whi was the guy who assasinated an abortion clinic doctor during the Clinton administration? What about right wing websites– presumeably still functioning– that call for the MURDER of abortion doctors? Where’s the outcry over that?
I mean if you really wanted to compare this incident with others committed by right wing groups, it just pales in comparison. It isn’t even close.
And granted Brendan does not have to mention every wrong just because he mentions this wrong. But it surely presents a skewed picture of the free speech and criminal issues surrounding abortion if all we see is this story without any further context.
Here’s just one example: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2006/04/08/news/nebraska/00791645ed52313e8625714a00125639.txt
April 17th, 2006 at 11:32:24 am
Who** not Whi
April 17th, 2006 at 11:33:45 am
The reason we talk of property rights is because of how the theft or destruction of that property affects people. In this case, destroys something they spent time and effort to create and tries to silence them.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:46:34 am
nun mouse,
dude trust me, if this was regarding abortion rights and wrongs…
i’m with you and i’m sure there are quite a few others that feel the same way, but this is about Professor Jacobsen and her actions, nothing more. there are no members of the lambs of god here man…
April 17th, 2006 at 11:47:48 am
Mouse, I think it goes without saying that people who assassinate abortion clinic doctors are beneath contempt, and likewise, websites that call for the murder of abortion doctors (although the latter do raise some very interesting constitutional issues). Why would I blog about things which are a) obvious, and b) not breaking news? Since I didn’t have this blog during the Clinton administration, it’s not exactly fair to criticize me for not blogging about that case.
As for the link you posted, I personally feel that picketing outside people’s homes is going too far, but that’s a debatable issue, certainly not anywhere near as outrageous as vandalizing property in order to silence the other side’s free speech — and doing it in the name of free speech, from a position of educational authority. Now, if the protesters were throwing shit through the windows of the people they’re protesting, or keying their cars, that would be more in line with this story. But as it is, so long as they stay on public property (the street) and aren’t otherwise breaking any laws in the process, they’re exercising their rights in a perfectly valid, if distasteful, way. It’s telling that you link to that story as if it’s a counterpoint to this story… as if it provides “context” which makes this story somehow less outrageous.
What I find distressing is that “what gets you” about this story is that I’m not posting about other stories. I would hope that what would “get you” is the blatantly outrageous behavior by the professor. It would be helpful to the credibility of our side of this issue is people like you would show the slightest bit of concern. But you can’t spare even a word of condemnation for the professor, and prefer to criticize me for not talking about other cases that aren’t really relevant to the issue at hand. (See, two can play at this game.)
I also love that you find it relevant to point out that Malkin is a right-wing source, as if that’s somehow relevant to the veracity of the story, or the behavior of the professor in question. It’s not like I’m relying on Malkin’s original reporting. There is no dispute over the underlying facts of this case, so what does it matter who the source is? So far as I know, Daily Kos isn’t blogging about this, which is a shame, and reflects poorly on Daily Kos, since this story ought to outrage everyone who cares about free speech, not just conservatives.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:57:49 am
People who assassinate or support the assassination of abortion clinic doctors are obviously radical crackpots, whereas Prof. Jacobsen is . . .
April 17th, 2006 at 12:01:43 pm
Patrick and Sean,
I hope Brendan’s explanation of my meaning was sufficient for you, because he gets it exactly right. Of course, in my opinion, no explantion ought to have been necessary. My response would have been just: “bite me.”
April 17th, 2006 at 12:08:53 pm
“Requiring them to engage the debate, and discuss the issue with those on the other side is fine. Demanding that they change their opinion is silly.”
dcl, how is requiring the students involved to write a 15-page paper arguing for restrictions on abortion, which Lojo suggested, the same as “demand[ing] that they change their opinion?” Haven’t you ever taken part in a debate where you didn’t personally agree with the position you propounded? For some reason I assumed you were a lawyer or law student. You obviously skipped Moot Court . . .
April 17th, 2006 at 12:12:49 pm
I am so sick of the “you can’t condemn a group because of the behavior of some of its members”….why not? The Muslims and the liberals in this country have a lot in common…the ‘majority’ that is getting a bad name from the ‘minority’ needs to silence the minority…granted, the conservatives have some house cleaning to do too, but the liberals and the Muslims need to do something BAD!!
April 17th, 2006 at 12:13:20 pm
For the record, Sean, I am one of your “pro-choicers who still have a moral issue with the matter.” And it occurs to me that you may have been agreeing with Patrick without reference to my comment above his. In which case, I withdraw my “bite me” as directed at you.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:56:32 pm
Dayne @ 12:12 - “I am so sick of the “you can’t condemn a group because of the behavior of some of its membersâ€?….why not?” - first and foremost, because a group is made up of many members, most (one hopes) invited/welcomed and some (too often) included in spite of the wishes of the majority of the group … by all means condemn the specific members of the group if that is what you believe should be done, but each time you include others, you weaken your own credibility …
Joe Mama @ 11:57 - part of the problem is that the good Prof does not consider herself to have done anything wrong - and she is sadly part of what is not nearly a small enough group who share her beliefs that, in the name of free speech, ‘certain groups (and we all know who they are) MUST NOT BE HEARD !’ … on the other hand, the person who kills an abortion clinic doctor is a minority of a deranged minority …
April 17th, 2006 at 1:08:26 pm
dcl - On the contrary! I have no problem if they remained pro-choice after such an punishment. In fact it doesn’t require them to change their opinions at all.
But it does force humanization of their opponents on them. It forces them to actually engage in debate, but not with some pro-life advocate they can demonize. Instead, THEY are the ones making the case, and it forces them to think critically about their own held ideals.
Several times in College I had to write papers taking a contrary position to my own, but it made me critically approach my own positions. Frankly, I’d be a little surprised if they haven’t already done this type of assignment already. If your in a debate group, you get assigned a position, not one of your own to take.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:40:11 pm
Here are two public opinion polls on abortion rights.
A 2006 CBS New poll asked “What is your personal feeling about abortion?”, 27% said that abortion should be “permitted in all cases,” 15% that it should be “permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now,” 33% said that it should be “permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman’s life,” 17% said that it should “only be permitted to save the woman’s life,” and 5% said that it should “never” be permitted.
A November 2005 Pew Research Center poll asked “In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”, with 29% indicating they want it overturned, and 65% that they do not.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:43:12 pm
i dunno, dayne sold me… because greedy smurf exists, i’m killing them all.
you hear that smurf village? jar jar’s coming back and this time i’m wearing cleats.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:12:06 pm
Obviously this professor is reacting negatively to a decision she must have made herself at some time in her past, and is still hurting about. Her passive-aggressive method (getting the students to do the “dirty work” for her) is a continuation of her bad decision making. Most Universities have a designated place on campus where free speech is relegated, and I’ll bet the pro-life display was correctly on that spot, making it that much more illegal for the professor to trespass. What’s making nervous is that this person has been making an impression on young minds for her entire career. She needs therapy.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:22:50 pm
Joe, yes I do realize this is a common thing to do in debate and also something that has merit. There are many people on this site that will play devils advocate for something they don’t agree with — and certainly such arguments add value and are edifying for both sides. However, in this particular instance I was saying it is silly more from the ineffective stand point than from the it does not have value angle. I should have been more clear. The problem in this instance is the quality of the work product. Even if forced to engage with others with differing opinions I doubt very much that the work product would be very high. Especially at a 15 page length. The would be highly likely to present a splash dash product. However, the “grading” of the work product would be subjective and does not count towards anything specific making it difficult to accuse them of not completing the task. Beyond that the grader would be likely to agree with the students personal opinion regardless.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:25:27 pm
Be careful, Brendan. You’re real close to becoming Republican. ;-)
As a pretty hard-core Republican myself, I certainly applaud your post and putting condemnation where it belongs - despite the fact that this makes you somehow “less than liberal” to some on the left. If only more on both sides would see things this way…
April 17th, 2006 at 2:26:40 pm
Dayne, your comments are really quite silly in this case. The Republican party really has quite larger problem than the Democrats in regard to being “like Islam” whatever that is supposed to mean. There is not a vast evangelical wing of the Democratic Party urging people to pray for the death of political opponents. You know, glass houses, don’t throw stones eh…
April 17th, 2006 at 2:33:40 pm
Brendan,
I was not being blatantly unfair to Aaron. If you read his original post in context, it’s rather clear that the “lunatic fringe” to which he refers is that group of people who create makeshift cemeteries for the unborn, a group that I, myself, would be included.
Even if he did not mean to include “cemetery of the innocent” types into his “lunatic fringe” invective, he certainly gave enormous room for someone to interpret his language as such. If he meant to lambaste an entirely separate (and undeniably hypocritical) group such as clinic bombers, he should have said so. Otherwise, he gives the impression that he thinks a large cross section of the country is comprised of lunatics. In a nutshell, his language was either a) condemnatory of people like myself; or b) extremely careless.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:42:21 pm
Patrick,
Reading his comment in context, I absolutely do not get that at all. I think you’re inferring rather than him implying, and moreover, I think your inference comes from hypersensitivity rather than a fair reading of his actual words. It’s unfortunate, because Aaron appears to be (like myself, I’d like to think) a reasonable, rational pro-choicer. You really should focus your ire on someone like A Nun Mouse, who can’t even bring himself to criticize the professor in this case, but would rather talk about all the alleged atrocities your side has committed, like (gasp!) holding lawful protests on public property.
Moreover, your own statement that “Yeah. Us 45% of the country that think abortion should be illegal certainly constitute a ‘lunatic fringe’” belies your defense that you thought he was referring to “that group of people who create makeshift cemeteries for the unborn.” Clearly, 45% of the country do not create makeshift cemeteries for the unborn. You initially accused him of referring to the entire anti-abortion movement as a “lunatic fringe,” which he most certainly did not do. Now you’re moving the goalposts in a lame attempt to prove that you weren’t being blatantly unfair. But the thing is, you were.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:49:23 pm
Dane @ 2:26 - so it’s a “vast evangelical wing”, now, is it ? The sadder reality is that the VEWpftdopo ™ (pending) has very little power or even presence outside that afforded to it by the MSM and those on or eligible to be on the D-Llist …
Such comments from Dane lead me to wonder what his Significant Other has been telling him about the Stain-Which-Shall-Remain-Unnamed, since it appears to have had equivalent results to that which led to the term the VRWC ™ …
April 17th, 2006 at 2:49:34 pm
P.S. The “context” was, Alasdair (as a pro-lifer) said he’s glad Professor Jacobsen is such an idiot, because it makes the whole pro-choice cause look bad. Aaron — who had previously condemned the professor’s action — responded, “I know what you’re saying, but I just can’t get behind it. As someone who thinks abortion should remain legal, should I really be wishing for the lunatic fringe of the anti-abortion movement to become louder and more visible. Mabey I should wish for that, but I don’t.” Clearly — CLEARLY — his point had nothing whatsoever to do with accusing cemetery-creators of being lunatics; he was flipping Alasdair’s analogy around and asking, “Should I root for idiocy from your side so that you’ll look bad, and thus my side will triumph?” That question has NOTHING to do with what you’re painting it as. You seriously need to take a step back, erase your preconceived notions, and rethink your position on Aaron’s words, because seriously, it is completely and utterly unjustifiable.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:57:52 pm
Off topic-
It appears Hillary Clinton’s challenger in the NY Senate race is officially insane…
A Republican challenger to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is bizarrely claiming that the former first lady has been spying in her bedroom window and flying helicopters over her house in the Hamptons, the NEW YORK POST reported in a frontpage splash on Saturday.
Former Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen “KT” McFarland stunned a crowd of Suffolk County Republicans on Thursday by saying:
“Hillary Clinton is really worried about me, and is so worried, in fact, that she had helicopters flying over my house in Southampton today taking pictures,” according to a prominent GOP activist who was at the event.
“She wasn’t joking, she was very, very serious, and she also claimed that Clinton’s people were taking pictures across the street from her house in Manhattan, taking pictures from an apartment across the street from her bedroom,” added the eyewitness, who is not involved in the Senate race.
Suffolk County Republican Chairman Harry Withers, who hosted the reception in East Islip, confirmed McFarland’s paranoid statements.
“Yes, she said that,” Withers told the POST.
…Are Rudy Guiliani and George Pataki the only sane Republicans in New York State?
April 17th, 2006 at 3:48:25 pm
I’m not going to defend any statements that Patrick has made (I’m not even sure they need defending but I’m going to make that qualifier) I don’t have a dog in this fight but I read the entire thread and got the exact same thing he did from Aarons two posts.
After reading the very detailed analysis that Brendan put up there I can see how the exchange between him and Alasdair would change the meaning of his second post.
But I think it might be a stretch to say that his ‘hypersensitivity’ to the topic led him to read it that way. I’m certainly not hypersensitive in any way about this and derived the exact same thing.
I’m not willing to vouch for any responses he may have had to that inference but I’m just going to buck up and say it’s not that outlandish.
my two cents.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:56:30 pm
rational pro-choicer
I assume you are claiming to be both rational AND a pro-choicer, because frankly I find the pro-choice position to be entirely irrational to begin with.
Think about it, in our society there have been (up until Roe v Wade atleast) two circumstances where one may kill something. Either it can not be a person, or if it is a person you must be killing them as your only reasonable recourse to prevent them from harming you or others (i.e a police officer shooting a perp).
Any reasonable person will admit that in the case of an unborn childe we don’t know whether or not they are a person, there is no agreed upon, deterministic scientific method for proving this. Personhood occurs, depending on your definition, sometime between conception and birth. Given that, we are left with two choices. At any point that unborn child may or may not be a person. If we assume the negative and allow abortion and we are wrong we are killing innocent people for no other reason, in most cases, then because its inconvenient. Given that situation it is not remotely moral or logical to assume the negative. We must, as a society which values the right to life especially of those who are innocent of wrong doing, not commit potential murder.
Now the second case clearly allows for abortion in the case in which the baby presents a serious health risk to the mother. And as Ricardo points out above, clearly the majority, vast majority of people in this country agree that that is an acceptable, although regretable occurence.
So, it would seem to me, that the only way in which you could reasonably argue that abortion is a morally acceptable practice, short of being able to prove the unborn is NOT a person, would be if carrying the baby to term would provide sufficient harm on the mother to warrant murdering her unborn child. Seems like a pretty tall order to me, especially since in most cases atleast, it was the mothers choice to engage in an activity which she knew could lead to pregnancy.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:32:32 pm
And again, David, we run into your insistence that personhood is an objective standard. You know full well that a number of us have argued repeatedly in the past that personhood is instead a legal construct, and thus defined in whatever way society chooses to define it with no need for proof, much as we define the age of consent however we as a society choose to do so. From that position, there is no logical disconnect between rationality and a pro-choice mentality, unless you wish to argue that the entire concept of personhood being a legal construct rather than an objective scientific state is irrational. If that’s your argument, go ahead and make it, but your arguments about the irrationality of the pro-choice mindset and the dangers of guessing whether the developing organism is or is not a person are predicated on prior views not shared by a substantial fraction of your opponents, so your logical chain is unlikely to win you any converts.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:32:47 pm
Are Rudy Guiliani and George Pataki the only sane Republicans in New York State?
probably, why would sane republicans want to live in that socialist nightmare of a state? hmmm, sane republicans can hide up in NH or trade their quality of life for sales tax, income tax, traffic nightmares, welfare nightmares, high crime and political corruption…
April 17th, 2006 at 4:48:30 pm
Patrick, we don’t know each other. If we did, you would know that I have a great deal of respect for your position on abortion. Since we don’t know each other, all either of us can do is read what the other writes and make a good faith effort to understand the point they are trying to convey. I don’t believe you have done that. As I said once already, Brendan’s at-length description of what he thought I meant is exactly correct. Like Brendan, I think my meaning was clear, and that your interpretation is beyond strained. I don’t know what I can possibly say to convince you otherwise, and at this point I’m not much interested in trying.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:51:50 pm
Brendan,
At second blush, I must admit that Aaron was not necessarily labeling any particular group of Pro-Lifers as the “lunatic fringe.” He was using the term to demonstrate a point. If an apology is in order, so be it. Sorry.
However, I remain critical of both Aaron’s language and his logic. His statement assumes that there is a “lunatic fringe” on both sides of the abortion debate. I respond with two questions. First, what qualifies as a “lunatic fringe” position…or, what makes one part of a “lunatic fringe.” Secondly, if Professor Jacobsen is the “lunatic fringe” on the pro-choice side of the debate, what is the equivalent “lunatic fringe” on the pro-life side?
In my not-so-humble opinion, simply holding a religious, ideological, ethical, or political position rarely amounts to lunacy. I can think of a few exceptions, but generally speaking, this holds true. An opinion can constitute a “fringe” position if it’s the furthest to the right or left in a spectrum of opinions on an issue, but simply holding a fringe position does not make one a lunatic. The abolitionist position pre-Civil Was was certainly a “fringe” position, but we certainly wouldn’t consider it “lunacy” in hindsight. I think one should be a bit more careful than to throw around the word “lunatic” in a discussion about a topic as volatile as abortion.
Furthermore, Aaron’s language seems to suggest that the only tenable positions are those that lie between the fringe positions, ( i.e. advocating modified legality or adopting a “personally opposed but..” position). Aaron’s language also tacitly implies that the truth (or at least the soundest public policy) lies somewhere between the fringe positions, an assertion I reject outright. Again, as history has shown us repeatedly, the fringe positions can and often are correct. For example, the fringe position that slavery is a grave and unjustifiable evil is nearly universally accepted in the modern world. For centuries, this was unquestionably a “fringe position,” but it was correct.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:57:46 pm
You know, jar jar, there is life in NY state outside of NYC, where traffic issues are not a substantial cause for concern. The state, and even the city, also don’t really have high crime rates, as rates are measured based upon population sizes. A lot of crime occurs in NYC, but there are also a lot of people in NYC, resulting in a low probability of any of them being affected. Take a look at this study of crime rates in major metropolitan areas. Of the 32 cities of 500,000+ people, NYC is the 4th safest. I’m also not convinced that political corruption in NY is substantially worse than it is in other states, but I don’t happen to know of a good source for stats on that. The tax rates, however, can’t be argued–they are indeed higher than in much of the rest of the country.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:57:54 pm
Aaron,
Again, you have my apologies. Brendan is correct in that I’m hypersensitive about Pro-Lifers being labeled “lunatics.” I misread your post and overreacted.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:04:23 pm
Brendan @ 2:49 - you have managed to surprise me !
“P.S. The “contextâ€? was, Alasdair (as a pro-lifer) said he’s glad Professor Jacobsen is such an idiot, because it makes the whole pro-choice cause look bad.”
Actually, what I said was “Aaron - I’m going to disagree with you, only because the more often someone like Prof Jacobson proudly “expressesâ€? herself, she reveals herself and her ilk to be what they are … and then the rest of us reasonable folk can deal with her appropriately, including the full “This is a Bad Thingâ€? value of what she does and advocates and incites … “
“and her ilk” in no way encompasses the perceived majority of pro-choicers who are rational thinking human beings … it *does* encompass those who seek to ban opposing speech in a pretence of promoting free speech … it does encompass those who, even after becoming fully-informed about what is involved with partial-birth abortion, still comfortably support it as ’should be allowed any time, anywhere, at the convenience of the person choosing NOT to be a birth-mother’ …
The not-so-sublime irony is that, in the situation of the life of a mother being threatened, the indicated way to get the as-yet-unborn out is a crash c-section, rather than a protracted partial-birth abortion …
Oh - and, unless Brendan was so short on sleep as to be resorting to sweeping (and inaccurate) generalisations, I am by very little stretch of the imagination a “pro-lifer” … as I believe I have said before (in comments in this blog) - 1st trimester is fair game (albeit a terrible form of birth control) … 2nd and 3rd trimester had better be for acephalics or to save the life of the mother … and partial-birth abortion - when the technique for this procedure had to be modified to explicitly state that the as-yet-unborn being so delivered was exiting feet-first, even if the as-yet-unborn had to be turned around in utero, so as to conform with the laws in at least one state back east, cuz said laws stated that if more than a very small percentage of the head showed outside the uterus, the delivery was deemed to be a live birth, that tells us what partial-birth abortion is about …
Nowadays, 2+ pound as-yet-unborn is deemed sufficiently-viable that doctors do their level best to save his/her life when the mother wishes … how can we justify aborting an as-yet-unborn at 6+ pounds ?
So - since I’m pro-choice 1st trimester, pro-life wrt PBA, health-of-the-mother for 2nd and 3rd trimester, where does that put me, Brendan, on your scale when you’ve had enough sleep ?
April 17th, 2006 at 5:08:07 pm
To Tigger, David, and anyone else who thought I meant to include the people who made the crosses display as part of the “lunatic fringe.”
I can’t overstate how I think that interpretation is, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that my meaning was as ambiguous as you say. Doesn’t your interpretation pretty much require that I be either an idiot or a moral cretin? Why would you choose to assume such a thing of someone based on a single offhand remark? And, given my complete confidence in my lack of idiocy and moral cretinism, what do you expect to be my reaction to be?
The absence of charity-of-intrerpretation is the cause of more idiotic flame wars than anything else.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:10:07 pm
how strained I think that interpretation is.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:19:19 pm
Patrick,
I disagree with nothing in your post of 4:51:50, except for the parts where you read vast quantities of meaning into my comment which was all of 48 words long.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:21:07 pm
Aaron,
Fair enough. You’re more than welcome to refute anything that I infer from your words. After all, you know what your words meant better than anyone else. That said, to put my mind aright, might you answer the questions that I raised in my 4:51:50 post? Here they are again:
First, what qualifies as a “lunatic fringe� position…or, what makes one part of a “lunatic fringe?� Secondly, if Professor Jacobsen is the “lunatic fringe� on the pro-choice side of the debate, what is the equivalent “lunatic fringe� on the pro-life side?
I would also ask a third question that builds off of the second. How does the this lunatic pro-life position correspond to the lunatic pro-choice position? In other words, what similarities do they share that renders them “lunatic fringe” positions?
I’m asking these questions genuinely. I want to understand what you really think.
Thanks.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:26:30 pm
Mike
How convenient that those you are declaring as not people don’t have a say in the proccess.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:35:07 pm
Convenience has nothing to do with it, David. It’s no more convenient for my arguments that a fertilized egg has no way to voice an opinion on its status as a person than it is convenient to your arguments that no reliable means of communication with one exists, given that it has no nervous system with which to even attempt to process communication. As always, it falls to those who currently have rights to determine whether or not to extend them to others.
In any event, my point wasn’t to disagree with your views on abortion. My point was to explain that your argument is unlikely to be persuasive to people who disagree with a base level tenet you accept as true but with which many of your opponents disagree. If you can’t convince your opponents that personhood is an objective state, rather than a socially-created status along the lines of adulthood, arguments that derive from it being an objective state, no matter how internally consistent, will not be compelling to your opponents.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:53:58 pm
Funny. Lots of MEN with opinions on abortion here. Maybe this is why pro-choice isn’t such a bad idea, given that you folks will never DIRECTLY deal with this issue. (And don’t give me this shit about paternal rights. It is HER decision regardless of what you think).
April 17th, 2006 at 8:04:40 pm
You know, Max, I’ve heard that opinion more often than I care to count. It’s still bull. Particularly in the case of people like David and Patrick who honestly believe that at all stages the unborn are fully people and that abortion is therefore a form of murder. To people who earnestly hold that viewpoint, it can’t be entirely a woman’s decision, any more than that it’s up to her if she feels like killing the baby a week after it’s born. Statements that it’s entirely a woman’s choice are as dismissive of the basis for the opponent’s views as everything I’m criticizing David for doing in his own current arguments. And yes, the potential father is dealing with it directly, even though it’s not to quite the same degree as the potential mother is. And I say this all while still feeling that the final decision should almost always be made by the woman who is pregnant. Fundamentally, I’m not OK with disregarding the views of people simply because of their reproductive status. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, only the views of fertile women should matter, as those who are sterile due to age, illness, medical condition, etc. don’t have to make these choices, so their views are also irrelevant.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:36:19 pm
To those perseverating on “personhood,”
Excuse me for being crude, but I don’t give a flying f*ck about “personhood.” A newborn child cannot articulate a coherent thought any more than an unborn child can, so why does our legal system afford them the legal status of personhood but not unborn children? The legal definition of “personhood” (if their even is one) is so convoluted and imprecise that it’s effectively meaningless. The only truth that I point to is that unborn children are undeniably, factually, scientifically, and genetically members of the human species. For that reason alone they deserve protection of their human rights, and included under that umbrella is, first and foremost, the right to live.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:54:52 pm
Patrick,
Will you allow me one more rhetorical harumph before I answer your questions? You write You’re more than welcome to refute anything that I infer from your words. Wouldn’t you agree that, to the extent that your inferences were unreasonable, I shouldn’t have to? We may of course disagree on the extent to which they were unreasonable, which is fine.
With that out of the way… your questions do deserve a response. I didn’t answer before because I was still annoyed. I’m over that now ;) So:
First off, I do regret using the phrase “lunatic fringe,” not because I think it was overly inflamatory, but because it provides a poor basis for the comparison you are asking me to make. Still, I did use the phrase, so I’ll try to run with it.
At the extremist edge of the anti-abortion position are those who would commit or advocate violence to prevent abortions. These people are clearly “fringe”, and I have no problem calling them “lunatic.” I realize that they form a tiny minority. I further realize that there is in fact an argument one might make in their defense. That is: if they truly believe that every abortion is a murder, it’s hardly lunacy to want to prevent it, even with violence. Or even with lethal violence. After all, we permit lethal violence for self-defense, and in some cases for the defense of others. I find this line of argument extrodinarily unpersuasive. Everyone agrees that self-defense is a legitimate form of violence. (well, most everyone) The kind of moral certainty required to commit violence in the prevention of something that roughly half of your fellow citizens think should be legal… well, that’s another matter. The comparison between this group and Professor Jacobson is imperfect at best. Her lunacy is frivolous, hysterical, and silly, but it’s not dangerous in the same way the clinic bombers’ is.
So what about the next step down the extremism ladder? Those who would ban abortion even when the life of the mother is at stake. They are still “fringe”, but are they “lunatic.”? Eh, I don’t know. And again, when I said lunatic fringe, I wasn’t really using the word in the clinical sense. I do believe this faction is horribly mistaken. Even if one assumes an absolute right to life for the unborn child, doesn’t the mother have the same right? The common way around this dilema is to argue that it was the woman’s fault to have sex and pregnant, so that at least a portion of her right to life has been forfieted, giving the unborn a better claim. I guess there is a kind of twisted perverse logic to this argument, but it’s one that frankly makes me sick. I find arguments against the rape exception pretty disturbing as well… but I don’t know if I would describe them as lunatic. And that’s it. We are now firmly out of the realm of the lunatic fringe. I do not hold people who maintain maintream or even strong anti-abortion beliefs in any kind of contempt.
What is the luinatic equivalent on the pro-choice side? Well, i’m not sure. On the one hand, there are plenty of hysterics like (or nearly like) Jacobson. I expect that there are more of them than there are anti-abortion extremists. But (from my point of view) they are not as dangerous or as wrong as the extremists on the other side. (Mabey that’s a good way of putting it. The pro-life fringe is less lunatic but more profoundly wrong than the pro-choice fringe) Now I know, if abortion is murder, then everyone who advocates its legality is in fact an extremist of sorts. But this is begging the question.
Ultimately I would describe my position as “uncomfortably pro-choice.” Uncomfortably because, as I alluded to before, the pro-choice argument rests on some shaky ground. If any being has an absolute right-to life, that right cannot possibly be superceded by anyone’s right to choose. It just can’t. So the pro-life side can concede the other side’s central premise and still win the argument. The pro-choice side cannot make any such concession.
But the thing is, I don’t believe that a fetus (going to use that word now, for the first time you’ll notice) has that kind of absolute right. That’s a whole ‘nother discussion, and I’ve gone on long enough for now.
Hope you’re happy Patrick. I’m sure I’ve said enough to get the pro-lifers around here mad at me, and if any hard-core pro-choicers decide to respond I’m going to get it for the third to last paragraph. Thanks alot ;)
April 17th, 2006 at 8:56:45 pm
Mike-
First, I believe capital punishment is immoral. Does that mean my beliefs should hold as much weight as the families of the victims of capital murderers?
I also happen to believe abortion is immoral. I believe women who have abortions will have to deal with their immorality at some point. However, the law doesn’t define first term abortions as murder and probably never will.
As for my point about men making comments about abortion, I think men have no business telling women what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies. Especially the neanderthals that populate this blog.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:10:42 pm
As far as whether or not to allow legal capital punishment, Max? Yes. Your vote matters just as much as does any other voting individual’s. Being directly impacted by the law does not make you more important in the debate about whether the law should or should not exist. It gives you legal standing to challenge the law in the courts, but it doesn’t–and I feel it fundamentally shouldn’t–have any impact on your ability to deal with it through the legislature. It’s the same way that I don’t think that antiwar protestors who have lost children have any more importance in their viewpoints than people who haven’t lost loved ones in wars. They may make more convincing arguments, in the minds of many, but I reject the notion that only those directly affected have opinions which matter on subjects of what should or should not be allowed.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:13:37 pm
Max, have you ever served in the military? If not I’d kindly ask you to not voice your opinion on war anymore.
Have you ever been raped? If not I’d kindly ask you not to express any outrage should you or anyone you know is ever raped.
Have you ever been killed before? If not I’d kindly ask you not to express any opinion when it comes to murder.
Have you ever had the government spy on you? If not I’d ask you to stop crticizing the Bush administration about anything related to government spying.
Get it yet?
April 18th, 2006 at 1:24:32 am
Game, Set, and Match, David…well, at least with regard to Max’s flimsy “you’re not a woman so your opinion is irrelevant” argument.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:00:56 am
Good Lord, looks like I missed the cocktail hour.
I’m only left with housecleaning questions:
1. Ever more than 60 comments on an IT posting? I’m guessing 55-19 brought in some traffic, but I wasn’t around then, alas. And I was either delivering crap to the Astrodome or running for my life (i.e. idling on I-45) during the hurricanes. So I don’t know.
2. Is Mad Max “Esquire” the same Mad Max who stormed off this site a few weeks ago? Maybe I’m wrong. Wouldn’t be the first.
3. A conversation about abortion is impossible, simply because the rhetoric of ither side excludes the other. Fetus, parasite, unborn child: concede the language and you’ve conceded the argument.
4. Sixty comments in, does ANYONE want to defend this lady’s actions? Her retirement is probably the best thing; some sort of hearing would have been stacked in her favor and brought out the daughters of Molly Yard to march on her behalf, which would not have been the point. I’m pro-choice, with some restrictions and some reservations, but that woman should have gone to jail. But her day in court would be just what she wanted. So let her retire and go far, far, away.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:50:44 am
I defend David’s right to comment on abortion. He is obviously a little girl.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:15:42 am
Oh, i’m soooo hurt. Guess that means you have no logical response to my criticizm of the lefts position on abortion if all you can do is resort to name calling. How sad.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:42:24 am
David-
I might, if you had presented a logical criticism.
“And as Ricardo points out above, clearly the majority, vast majority of people in this country agree that that is an acceptable, although regretable occurence.”
Yeah. A majority of people also believe women have the right to choose. So what’s your point?
April 18th, 2006 at 1:13:11 pm
Ummm, your point? The quote you are referencing was directed at the fact that abortion when it comes to the mothers health is going to be acceptable to even most Pro-Lifers, so in this instance THATS my point.
How about you try and address the rest of my argumetn, or are you afraid that your liberal/pc mindset can’t handle informed debate.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:53:39 pm
How do you know I am A. Liberal or B. PC? If you hadn’t noticed, I am vehemently anti-illegal immigration, anti-socialized medicine and anti-deficit spending. You know zilch about me.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:01:44 pm
Mike,
i am aware that there are other parts of NY other than the city which is why i included: sales tax, income tax, welfare nightmares and political corruption…
now, not all areas of NY suffer from high crime, but if we were to compare NY as a state to NH as a state as was the example that I set you’d find my statement is still true. no offense to NY but the city drains the state and corruption is rampant. no reason to deny that. hence… no sane republican etc…
April 18th, 2006 at 4:42:22 pm
I know that you are afraid of addressing actual arguments and instead need to resort to insults when none were offered. Seems like that is all I need to know in this case. Guess you just can’t take being wrong.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:54:25 pm
And Patrick, even in his dismissal of the personhood argument, gets points at least for recognizing that there are people who hold that view, and addressing why he thinks it’s crap. :)
Seriously, I find his argument problematic (if the zygote has the immediate right to life, how is that to be weighed against the woman’s right to life? At what point of risk of death to the mother would an abortion be permissible–does she need a 10% chance of death in order to justify preventing that zygote from implanting? 50%? Is there any health exception at all? Does it matter if the sex was consensual–so, for example, a 5% chance of death is enough to end the pregnancy resulting frome rape, but a 25% chance is needed if she willingly had sex? Does it not change over the course of the pregnancy, which if it did could imply that personhood is developing along with embryo/fetal development? Is it no worse to kill the 8-month-old fetus than the 5-day-old blastocyst which has yet to implant? There are a number of ways these questions can be answered in a logically-consistent manner, but the legal ramifications of instant and full human rights upon conception no matter the circumstances are unlikely to lead to popular support for that position.), but that’s not the point. The important point is that his argument is more likely to be fruitful. To co-opt one of the basic arguments from another major debate in this country–if you want to change the status quo by extending rights to individuals currently lacking them, pragmatically you need to explain why they deserve those rights, not force others to explain why they don’t. It may make a lot of sense to you that others need to explain the denial of rights, and maybe that will win out long-term, but in the short-term, those seeking a change have the burden placed on them, not those seeking to retain the current situation. The argument presented by Patrick has a chance of changing the mind of someone who disagrees with him about the importance of personhood given that he at least addresses the concept and why he feels it’s flawed.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:58:14 pm
“I know that you are afraid of addressing actual arguments and instead need to resort to insults when none were offered”
You want to get off your high horse here, David? After you insulted both Brendan and me yesterday on this very topic when we didn’t insult you, that’s a bit rich. I suppose I should be grateful that you did insult me–it’s the first time you’ve directly responded to anything I’ve said in a couple of weeks–but in the arena of how you’ve been arguing, you don’t have the moral high ground here. In content, perhaps you do, but certainly not in form.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:34:27 pm
Well mike, since I didn’t insult you I fail to see how this applies to you in any way shape or form and since you brought it up I apologized to Brendan for overeacting to him. Where exactly did I insult you? I said it was convenient that you want to declare as not people those who will then never have a say in the argument. Seems that is pretty much true.
As for directly responding to anything you’ve said in the past couple of weeks, I’m not exactly sure what you are talking about, but ok, if you say so. I didn’t respond to what you said here because Patrick addressed it, but if you want a response, fine.
Our government, our society specifically grants rights to people. Our society also has a tradition that if you want to deny people rights it behooves YOU as the person taking away their rights to give a sufficient reason why.
My argument for taking away the “right” of the mother to have an abortion is that by granting her this right you are taking away the greater “right” of the unborn child to life, and that of the two, the woman has allready (in most cases) made a choice that led to that situation, where as the unborn child is a victim of circumstances and has done nothing, NOTHING to put themselves in that situation. If the woman did not want to get pregnant she had options open to her. The baby, has had NO OTHER CHOICE.
Your counter argument is that the baby isn’t a person. You just claim that you believe personhood is purely a social construct. If that is true then why was it wrong for slavery to exist? Are you saying its only wrong if society decided that blacks are people, and that before that it was a morally defensible position? Sorry but I don’t buy it for one second. Personhood, as our society has decided in the past is in fact an innate quality, our entire society is BASED on the idea of personhood and the innate rights of people.
So again, given that the only comment I have addressed at you is the following:
Mike
How convenient that those you are declaring as not people don’t have a say in the proccess.
If you feel that that is some sort of insult, well I’m sorry but it is merely a statement, certainly not a polite one, but I hardly think it qualifies as an insult. So unless i have completely missed in my re-reading of something else you said, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:47:40 pm
On rethinking, perhaps I could have worded what I wrote in a better fashion, and for that I apologize.
I do feel that the underlying intent of what I said, that your claim that personhood is someone something that we bestow on people is absolutely wrong, and that granting the people in power the right to make that decision for those who have no power is a dangerous method to choose, as evidenced by the example I gave above regarding blacks and slavery.
And yes, I find it incredibly convenient that those who seek to keep abortion legal put forth as one of their main justifications the idea that we, those who are doing the potential killing, get to decide who is and is not a person.
Either there personhood is an inate quality of human beings or it is not, if it is not then every decision ever made in the past by any group who sought to declare another group to be less the people is completely and utterly valid, the only determining factor at that point is whether or not they had the power to do so. Personally, as I have stated above, I find this to be a frightening frightening belief.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:23:23 pm
Is David still yammering about this? Weird how he is so obsessed about pregnant women when he has very few opportunities to actually impregnate one himself.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:36:33 pm
If there’s one thing you display consistently, Max, it’s a total lack of respect for your opposition in an argument. In case you were unsure, this is not generally regarded as a good thing.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:42:43 pm
Brendan-
If people here displayed respect, each post would have two or three comments.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:48:39 pm
Yes Max, because clearly discussing an issue we feel passionate about is a bad thing. I may have made the mistake of letting my passion get the better of me and insulting my friends, but you apparently made the mistake of letting your stupid get the better of you and basically just looking like an idiot.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:55:05 pm
That’s not true at all, Max. Most of the comments on here are respectful, and when they’re not, it’s usually because somebody has gotten really fired up about an issue and let their emotions get the better of them. But comments like yours toward David are just insulting for no reason and having no bearing on any issue.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:55:54 pm
“but you apparently made the mistake of letting your stupid get the better of you and basically just looking like an idiot.”
David-
With such rhetorical gymnastics, Donald Ogden Stewart has nothing on you.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:57:00 pm
Brendan-
Apparently you don’t spend much time reading your own blog.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:03:54 pm
Actually, I spend way too much time reading my own blog. :) But considering that you think anytime Andrew opens his mouth, he’s saying something racist, no matter how well-articulated and completely non-racist his point is, I suppose I should know better than to trust your judgment on the true nature of dialogue on this blog.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:35:20 pm
Brendan - that raises an intersting point …
Does this blog tend to have dialogue ? Or diatribes ? Or poly-monologues ? Or even poly-monotribes ? (As opposed to diatribes ?)
Do we need a poll to see what the commenters and readers think ?
April 18th, 2006 at 11:06:57 pm
well Max, when you are dumb enough to insult someone who is normally on your side it begs the question of how intellignet you can possibly be.
besides, why try and have an actual discussion with you when you are only interested in insults? might as well have fun and join in.