[Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 13:17:21 PDT 2009
I'm pro-life, too, so there's not much here I disagree with. I'm less
comfortable applying the term 'person' to the fetus than you are but I
maintain that the issue is the sanctity of human life, so it's status
as a person does not matter. It is not a shoelace, though I appreciate
Chas' point, too.
Joe Campbell
On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:52 AM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
> I disagree that simply "imposing one's personal religious beliefs on
> others" is at the core of the abortion debate -- a debate not
> furthered constructively by rhetoric appearing to compare the unborn
> child with a shoelace, by the way.
>
> (I don't think Chas intended to make the comparison people will see
> in his words, but to express the "un-person" he believes the fetus
> to be; I just wish he hadn't used "shoelace" to express the point).
>
> Joe, it's not just our religious faith that makes people like me and
> Gary view the unborn child as not only a human being biologically
> but, at least later in inter-uterine development, as a person,
> ontologically, whose life should be protected. Advances in science
> demonstrate to us that even a week after conception, the fetus has
> systematic organic function that, if allowed to develop, will mature
> into a baby capable of living outside of the womb even at 22 weeks
> of a normal 40-week gestation. That's a surprise to many women. It
> may factor into her decision to continue or abort the pregnancy, and
> that decision may well be affected by her religious beliefs. But
> it's not just "faith" that compels reverence for unborn human life.
> While it's undoubtedly a significant influence, recognition of the
> personhood of the unborn -- not the biological species of the fetus,
> but the "personhood" confirmed by self-awareness, volition, and
> recognition of the "other," for example -- is what motivates anti-
> abortion believers.
>
> I am uncomfortable with legislation prohibiting abortion, even as I
> believe that abortion ends a human life. My reasons are practical;
> I regret that pragmatism in this case trumps ideology. As a woman
> who has miscarried very early in a pregnancy, I'm concerned that
> outlawing first-trimester abortion may -- may -- require the
> investigation of normal, unintended miscarriages to see if the
> termination of the pregnancy was, in fact, natural. While I believe
> the IUD to be an abortifacent, I don't believe birth control pills
> are, and so I wonder if outlawing all abortion, always, under every
> circumstance, could result in pulling the pill from the market.
> Further, while I understand arguments about "killing the victim," I
> cannot support legislation that would deny rape victims access to
> abortion. Legislating that a woman whose pregnancy resulted from
> the devastation of rape or incest carry the baby to term is, to me,
> unreasonable. And the nature of "partial-birth" abortion is so
> grotesque that its very horror argues for its rare, but necessary,
> legitimacy. It seems to me that a woman requesting a procedure so
> horrible, so late in her pregnancy, is making that request for
> medical reasons that only she and her doctor understand -- a casual,
> "what the hell" approach isn't what motivates partial-birth
> abortion, I'm sure.
>
> So, Joe, those are my reasons for being pro-life -- and, regretfully
> and painfully, opposed to most legislation prohibiting abortion. I
> am opposed to capital punishment, always, and wish I lived in a
> world where abortion was never needed. I don't.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> > From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > To: jampot at roadrunner.com
> > Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:17:26 -0700
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth
> Catholic?
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > If you think the abortion debate can't be settle by rational debate,
> > then why on earth are you in favor of laws restricting access to
> > abortions? Isn't that clearly a case of impossing one's personal
> > religious beliefs on others? Why not leave issues like this up to
> > adults to decide for themselves?
> >
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:20 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Chas is right in one respect, this issue has been argued
> > > exhaustively on
> > > this forum and I can't believe that giving it one more lap around
> > > the block
> > > will produce anything of value.
> > >
> > > Suffice it to say that I don't believe that there is any kind of
> > > strange
> > > dichotomy between having respect and reverence for innocent human
> > > life while
> > > wanting to be rid of those who have proven beyond a doubt to be
> > > capable of
> > > maliciously taking the lives of others for no better reason then
> > > because
> > > they can for their own pleasure and gain.
> > >
> > > I can't help but go back to the Duncan analogy.
> > >
> > > g
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <bear at moscow.com>
> > > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> > > Cc: <bear at moscow.com>; "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>;
> > > "Moscow
> > > Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:48 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth
> > > Catholic?
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So, the rights of a 30 week old shoe lace equate to that of a 40
> > >> week old
> > >> fetus based on what you wrote?
> > >>
> > >> Ok, so then what would be the abortion problem?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >> ---
> > >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> I am hard pressed to think of a right I would extend to a 40
> week
> > >>> old
> > >>> person
> > >>> that I wouldn't be happy to afford a 30 week old "shoelace."
> What
> > >>> rights
> > >>> did
> > >>> you have in mind
> > >>> that shouldn't apply?
> > >>>
> > >>> g
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: <bear at moscow.com>
> > >>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> > >>> Cc: <bear at moscow.com>; "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>;
> > >>> "Moscow
> > >>> Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:12 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth
> > >>> Catholic?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Gary,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I see your point, but then the unborn child, or "pre-born" if
> you
> > >>>> will
> > >>>> has
> > >>>> the same rights as the post born?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Isn't a pre-born child the very definition of innocence
> while a
> > >>>>> convicted
> > >>>>> murderer epitomizes its polar opposite? The notion of having
> no
> > >>>>> regard
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>> the former while extending all consideration to the later
> seems
> > >>>>> screwed
> > >>>>> up
> > >>>>> and backward in the extreme.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Murder the infant and lavish mercy on Joseph Duncan? This
> seems
> > >>>>> just?
> > >>>>> Really?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> g
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>> From: <bear at moscow.com>
> > >>>>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> > >>>>> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:31 PM
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth
> > >>>>> Catholic?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ted and Paul,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I guess i have to ask the question, "Does it make a
> difference
> > >>>>>> one way
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>>> the other"?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Taking myself as an example, I was raised and am a practicing
> > >>>>>> Catholic.
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>>> do not believe in abortions at all, however, I do believe in
> > >>>>>> choice.
> > >>>>>> Pro
> > >>>>>> choice does NOT equal pro-abortion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And just as an aside, have you ever noticed how the "anti-
> > >>>>>> abortion"
> > >>>>>> folks
> > >>>>>> are usually pro death penalty? I think those of us that
> oppose
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> death
> > >>>>>> penalty (which I do), should just call it post-birth
> abortions
> > >>>>>> and we
> > >>>>>> could get most of the anti-abortion folks on board!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Wayne
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> Ted Moffett wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 6/5/09, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I used to speculate wildly about whether or not our former
> > >>>>>>>> President was
> > >>>>>>>> really a believer or if he was blatantly manipulating the
> > >>>>>>>> religious
> > >>>>>>>> right through their own predilictions (or both). What it
> > >>>>>>>> comes
> > >>>>>>>> down to
> > >>>>>>>> is this: we can't look into their hearts. Sotomayor may
> > >>>>>>>> be the
> > >>>>>>>> most
> > >>>>>>>> devout Catholic evar, but doesn't outwardly show it on a
> > >>>>>>>> day-to-day
> > >>>>>>>> basis. For all I know, she goes to church three times a
> > >>>>>>>> week
> > >>>>>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> get away from her family. We just can't know.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Why do you state "we just can't know" about Sotomayor's
> > >>>>>>>> regularity
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> church attendance?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Rereading that, I see I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying
> "we
> > >>>>>>> just
> > >>>>>>> can't know" about her regularity of church attendance. I'm
> > >>>>>>> saying
> > >>>>>>> "we
> > >>>>>>> just can't know" what's in her heart, what she actually
> > >>>>>>> believes deep
> > >>>>>>> down inside. The most regular church attender might be a
> closet
> > >>>>>>> Luciferan Satanist, people who never go to church may be
> > >>>>>>> extremely
> > >>>>>>> spiritual Christians. We can speculate wildly about what
> they
> > >>>>>>> actually
> > >>>>>>> believe. We can even read what they claim to believe, but
> we'll
> > >>>>>>> never
> > >>>>>>> know exactly what they actually believe, because we can't
> get
> > >>>>>>> inside
> > >>>>>>> their heads or their hearts.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> At the time I wrote it, I didn't know how often she attended
> > >>>>>>> church,
> > >>>>>>> so
> > >>>>>>> I covered both sides of the spectrum. My point still
> stands -
> > >>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>> can't
> > >>>>>>> look into her heart so we can't know for certain if she's a
> > >>>>>>> "true
> > >>>>>>> believer" or not.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Paul
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> =======================================================
> > >>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> > >>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >>>>>>> =======================================================
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> =======================================================
> > >>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> > >>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >>>>>> =======================================================
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage
> limits. Check it out. =================
>
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage
> limits. Check it out. ml>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090611/c72e8211/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list