Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[aceluby]

And that's why nuances always matter.  I'm all for killing any and every last member of Isis.  Ideally in a way more surgical than targeted drone strikes, and definitely not bombing cities into the ground.  I have no problem with the death penalty when separated from the false convictions (although those alone are probably a good reason to get rid of it).  

What I do have a problem with is the death of an "innocent" human that has not done anything to lose their right to life.  Kill a bunch of civilians (or join an organization whose express purpose is doing it), you've lost your right to life.  But a life that hasn't done anything besides existing? That is where I have an issue with it.  

So I guess it should be pro-innocent-life.

Nuances matter?  How about the fact that there has never been a war in history that hasn't killed innocents?  Or the fact that innocent people have been put to death via the death penalty?

Why not just call it what it really is.  You're pro-birth.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

In HS I watched a girl repeatedly throw herself down a staircase to cause a miscarriage. I get that you see it as murder, but try to put yourself in women's shoes. Men will never have to carry a child to term. It's distasteful to make major decisions for women when us men will never have to bear that burden.

You obviously don't really "get it" if your counterpoint to acknowledging that someone views abortion as murder is that you find the alternative to be "distasteful." 

That may sound a little harsh - but you've got your moral case. Make it or don't make it. Don't try to backdoor it through someone else's analysis by suggesting that objections to murder can be overcome by allegations of gaucheness. 

[JonSnow4President]

In HS I watched a girl repeatedly throw herself down a staircase to cause a miscarriage. I get that you see it as murder, but try to put yourself in women's shoes. Men will never have to carry a child to term. It's distasteful to make major decisions for women when us men will never have to bear that burden.

It's distasteful to make major decisions for unborn children when us adults have ever been born.

It's why it's such a difficult (and fascinating) subject.  Depending on your viewpoints, it's right vs right.  I fundamentally believe a woman has a right to her own body.  I fundamentally believe a human has a right to life (although it's not unalienable based on our actions), and many people see the fetus as a human.  

So it's a case of conflicting rights for me.  If you don't view a fetus as a human life with rights, then it's a woman's right to her body vs oppression, and I can entirely see why someone on the other side of that matchup would appear to be a woman-hating asshole to you.  

[ChillyPolly]

Out of curiosity Polly what are your thoughts on organ donation.

My thought is that this is likely to be even less relevant to the motives of the killer than the sale of baby body parts, and therefore drifting ever further off topic.  

I also already expressed my view above:  If you have no moral qualms about the destruction of fetuses, then logically you will have no moral qualms about the sale of their parts.  So, as I said, this issue is entirely secondary to whether or not you think killing them is wrong in the first place.  But yes, I think most people would have an issue with murderers selling the bodies of their victims; so yes, context matters; though of course this is small potatoes compared to the wrong of having killed the victim in the first place.

For this reason, I never got much excited or interested much in the "baby parts" scandal.  I only get annoyed because I see people trying to control language based on semantic quibbles, instead of being honest and acknowledging that PP was indeed selling baby body parts.  I don't like word police.  Choose your own words and let others choose theirs.  

 

[Wise Fool]

I am a firm supporter of abortion being made available on demand and without apology, but I don't think that calling them "baby body parts" is outside the realm of reasonable discourse. To pretend that what's happening here is really a debate over the use of medically appropriate terms of obfuscatory. There's obviously a moral claim embedded in the "baby body part" language - that the moral status of a fetus doesn't change just because of which side of a womb it happens to be sitting on -  and that claim is not facially absurd. In fact, Peter Singer, noted atheist and ethicist, agrees with it as well, which is why he provides some limited support for infanticide. And "tissue" is certainly a part of the body. So while I recognize that this language is designed to frame the debate in a particular way, I don't think it's a particularly disingenuous way to do it. 

Yes, I'm certain most people are arguing about this issue in good faith. But my point is that this is a problem - people actually believing that an abortion clinic is an evil death factory. What they do based on this belief is up to them. So most people don't go around blowing up buildings, shooting people, taking hostages, etc. But those people that do inevitably have this particular viewpoint, and perhaps we as reasonable people should modify our own discourse accordingly. Because actions follow from thoughts, maybe we can reduce certain actions (ie extreme violence) just a little bit by taking the time to be "medically appropriate" by not calling a fetus a baby.

People are outraged (ie) not merely because aborting a fetus might be morally wrong if you think it through philosophically but because videos, pictures, and speech portraying abortion providers as "baby killers" - surely among the most depraved sort of human there is - is a clearly effective propaganda tactic. That a fetus is a "baby" at all is therefore a notion that we can at least not continue repeating as if it were true, lest we become mere propagandists in a war fought by the likes of Robert Lewis Dear.

The words people use matter. People are not merely rational actors with some sort of philosophy, but emotional protagonists in the journey of their own lives. Of course I'm not naive enough to think that it's going to stop, that anti-abortion agents will suddenly stop using provocative terminology in discussing abortion matters, just so we can all be nice and have a chat. Still, it'd be nice to live in a world where there weren't political conversations that went like "Baby killer!!" "No you're the Baby Killer!" "No you!"

[Chris G]

This is not a dispute about what the law is. This is a dispute about what the law should be. I don't think anybody is actually making the claim that fetal tissue donations are not legal. People are making the claim that fetal tissue donations are immoral when the fetus is killed as the result of an abortion. (Some people are also making the strictly factual claim, true or not, that what Planned Parenthood is doing is not actually tissue donation, but rather tissue sales, which are illegal. I haven't seen any actual support for this claim, and it is my understanding that Planned Parenthood has been vindicated in every single investigation into their finances.) 

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, it's simply not true that people "have no say" in this matter. In fact, just the opposite is true - the only thing most people have is their "say" - and that's political speech, protected by the First Amendment. Now I appreciate that you don't like that - but who cares? 

I support their right to say whatever they want.  They can use all the inflammatory rhetoric they want.  However, they are not absolved from responsibility when their rhetoric leads to violence as is often the case.  The right's rush to try and pin this incident on anything other than their own rhetoric is disgusting.  Without disingenuous videos and grandstanding politicians this probably doesn't happen. 

They can have their say in electing politicians and passing laws that change current law.  Shooting up a clinic is not protected speech, it's murder.  I want them held accountable for their words. Not accountable in the criminal sense, but accountable in the political sense.  Call them out for their use of deliberately inflammatory language.  Call them out for obfuscating the issues and make them accountable for encouraging violence as a solution.  Call them out for using a highly emotional topic for political gain.  Call them out for their lack of concern for after the child is born.  Call them out for blocking sensible sex education and refusing to acknowledge that abortions will happen even if they are illegal.  I want them to answer for why their supporters are the ones most responsible for the mass shootings in this country.  They can say whatever they want however disgusting I find it, but they should be held to account for their words.

[Kalbear]

Right, so he's a violent extremist with a political position he is forwarding via violence. You know, a terrorist.

What is the political position that he is forwarding? And is his intent to forward a position - or is it to seek retribution for a crime? That's sort of the deal. 

Violent extremists aren't terrorists per se. Someone with a political position is also not a terrorist per se. Taking a political position with violence is also not a terrorist action (though it can be). Again, it's his motivations that appear to be key. 

My problem with labeling him a terrorist is that it really obfuscates what actually happens when you're talking with others about it due to the connotations with terrorism. Instead of agreeing with you about how bad it is or wanting to figure out how to stop these things you end up talking about how he's not nearly as bad as ISIS or the Paris attacks (or worse, you think that they're exactly morally the same) and it becomes a fairly stupid debate. Sort of like talking about baby parts vs. fetal tissue. Does it matter?

[MerenthaClone]

I also already expressed my view above:  If you have no moral qualms about the destruction of fetuses, then logically you will have no moral qualms about the sale of their parts.  So, as I said, this issue is entirely secondary to whether or not you think killing them is wrong in the first place.  But yes, I think most people would have an issue with murderers selling the bodies of their victims; so yes, context matters; though of course this is small potatoes compared to the wrong of having killed the victim in the first place.

 

Adding a profit motive changes things, though.  

Also you can't just say "logically" without actually, you know, showing the logic.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yes, I'm certain most people are arguing about this issue in good faith. But my point is that this is a problem - people actually believing that an abortion clinic is an evil death factory. What they do based on this belief is up to them. So most people don't go around blowing up buildings, shooting people, taking hostages, etc. But those people that do inevitably have this particular viewpoint, and perhaps we as reasonable people should modify our own discourse accordingly. Because actions follow from thoughts, maybe we can reduce certain actions (ie extreme violence) just a little bit by taking the time to be "medically appropriate" by not calling a fetus a baby.

People are outraged (ie) not merely because aborting a fetus might be morally wrong if you think it through philosophically but because videos, pictures, and speech portraying abortion providers as "baby killers" - surely among the most depraved sort of human there is - is a clearly effective propaganda tactic. That a fetus is a "baby" at all is therefore a notion that we can at least not continue repeating as if it were true, lest we become mere propagandists in a war fought by the likes of Robert Lewis Dear.

The words people use matter. People are not merely rational actors with some sort of philosophy, but emotional protagonists in the journey of their own lives. Of course I'm not naive enough to think that it's going to stop, that anti-abortion agents will suddenly stop using provocative terminology in discussing abortion matters, just so we can all be nice and have a chat. Still, it'd be nice to live in a world where there weren't political conversations that went like "Baby killer!!" "No you're the Baby Killer!" "No you!"

WF,

Should government ban the use of those phrases you find so inciting?

[Wise Fool]

WF,

Should government ban the use of those phrases you find so inciting?

No, that would be a wrong reaction, and a tough one to make happen besides.

And it is again not that *I* find these phrases inciting... it's that Robert Lewis Dear and those like him find them so inciting. 

[Wise Fool]

 

I use my vote to try and elect someone who claims that they will reduce/eliminate the legal protections for "baby murder." That's the society we signed up for as Americans. 

Agreed, But apparently not everybody remembers what they signed up for, and take matters into their own hands.

[JonSnow4President]

Agreed, But apparently not everybody remembers what they signed up for, and take matters into their own hands.

The alternative to not use that speech is then to say nothing that could conceivably be taken out of context as something violent?  To never discuss morally divisive issues?  Strong feelings always bring strong words.  

You're proposing limiting millions (or pressuring millions, even if it's not from a legal standpoint) from speaking strongly on the basis that one in a million (which would be 300+ abortion clinic shootings) will take it to that extreme?

[Seventh Pup]

You obviously don't really "get it" if your counterpoint to acknowledging that someone views abortion as murder is that you find the alternative to be "distasteful." 

That may sound a little harsh - but you've got your moral case. Make it or don't make it. Don't try to backdoor it through someone else's analysis by suggesting that objections to murder can be overcome by allegations of gaucheness. 

Nestor I have been trying to understand what point you are trying to make on this thread is. You seem to in lawyer mode, where you enjoy tearing down other's arguments with out actually adding much to the conversation other then the obvious. "If someone views abortion as murder then they are working with a fame work they think is moral to try to kill people who are providing abortions." Perhaps I have not read this thread carefully enough but I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. I think they are disagreeing with the idea that abortions are murder; or that murdering people in order to stop abortions is wrong.  

[Wise Fool]

The alternative to not use that speech is then to say nothing that could conceivably be taken out of context as something violent?  To never discuss morally divisive issues?  Strong feelings always bring strong words.  

You're proposing limiting millions (or pressuring millions, even if it's not from a legal standpoint) from speaking strongly on the basis that one in a million (which would be 300+ abortion clinic shootings) will take it to that extreme?

I am not proposing they refrain from speaking strongly so much as strongly and wrongly about a subject. Strong feelings may bring strong words, but they need not bring wrong words as well. Cooler heads shall prevail so we need not hot headed words.

[Seventh Pup]

My thought is that this is likely to be even less relevant to the motives of the killer than the sale of baby body parts, and therefore drifting ever further off topic.  

I also already expressed my view above:  If you have no moral qualms about the destruction of fetuses, then logically you will have no moral qualms about the sale of their parts.  So, as I said, this issue is entirely secondary to whether or not you think killing them is wrong in the first place.  But yes, I think most people would have an issue with murderers selling the bodies of their victims; so yes, context matters; though of course this is small potatoes compared to the wrong of having killed the victim in the first place.

For this reason, I never got much excited or interested much in the "baby parts" scandal.  I only get annoyed because I see people trying to control language based on semantic quibbles, instead of being honest and acknowledging that PP was indeed selling baby body parts.  I don't like word police.  Choose your own words and let others choose theirs.  

 

Wording is important. In adds dignity, or disrespect to a conversation. No one is saying that you can say that Planned Parenthood is 'selling baby parts'; what people are saying is that it's not an accurate way to describe what is actually going on. The same way you don't say that someone was "scrapped for parts" when their organs are donated when they die.  The same way you don't say that a hospital "sold grandma" to a medical school for a cadaver lab, even though in all these case money, and a lot of it, was moved around in order for tissue donation to happen.  

 

[ChillyPolly]

Adding a profit motive changes things, though.  

No, not really, given my premise, which was "no moral qualms".  If there is really nothing wrong with it, then why not make a buck?  

But yes, for those with SOME moral qualms, this might matter.  For instance, a person who was kinda "Pro-Choice" (in terms fo political philosophy) while at the same time being sorta "Anti-Abortion" (in terms of personal beliefs), might care about such things.  If you think about abortion as being (at the very least) regrettable and not to be encouraged, then I can see how one would see a profit motive as a "moral hazard" encouraging something that you don't really want to encourage.

Hence, it becomes important in the context of a political battleground, where those on either side fight for the minds and hearts of those in the middle.

Which bring me back to my point:  I don't think the sale of fetal tissue is going to influence anyone to blow up abortion clinics.

[JonSnow4President]

I am not proposing they refrain from speaking strongly so much as strongly and wrongly about a subject. Strong feelings may bring strong words, but they need not bring wrong words as well. Cooler heads shall prevail so we need not hot headed words.

So, factual statements here.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no way to objectively determine where human life begins.

Therefore, some people believe it starts at conception, some at birth, some at other points throughout pregnancy, and apparently some think after birth (saw someone quoting the guy thinking limited infanticide is okay, which I can only assume he comes to this thinking that doesn't qualify as a citizen entitled to life).  

Therefore, if someone sees human life as beginning pre-birth, then an act of abortion is killing that life.  Speaking strongly, this is legalized murder.  

How is calling this baby murder WRONG and not just strong?  Are you the magic oracle who gets to discern what is right and wrong when there is no objectively verifiable truth?  Surely you believe it is wrong, but that doesn't mean it actually is wrong.  Unless you are narcissistic enough to think that your belief is what everyone should adhere to?  That sounds a lot like what you criticize religious people for in the religious threads, unless I'm misunderstanding what you are writing. 

[Wise Fool]

So, factual statements here.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no way to objectively determine where human life begins.

Therefore, some people believe it starts at conception, some at birth, some at other points throughout pregnancy, and apparently some think after birth (saw someone quoting the guy thinking limited infanticide is okay, which I can only assume he comes to this thinking that doesn't qualify as a citizen entitled to life).  

Therefore, if someone sees human life as beginning pre-birth, then an act of abortion is killing that life.  Speaking strongly, this is legalized murder.  

How is calling this baby murder WRONG and not just strong?  Are you the magic oracle who gets to discern what is right and wrong when there is no objectively verifiable truth?  Surely you believe it is wrong, but that doesn't mean it actually is wrong.  Unless you are narcissistic enough to think that your belief is what everyone should adhere to?  That sounds a lot like what you criticize religious people for in the religious threads, unless I'm misunderstanding what you are writing. 

Because fetuses, not babies, are aborted. Regardless of where you believe human life begins, there is a meaningful distinction between babies and aborted fetuses.

[aceluby]

How is calling this baby murder WRONG and not just strong?  Are you the magic oracle who gets to discern what is right and wrong when there is no objectively verifiable truth?  Surely you believe it is wrong, but that doesn't mean it actually is wrong.  Unless you are narcissistic enough to think that your belief is what everyone should adhere to?  That sounds a lot like what you criticize religious people for in the religious threads, unless I'm misunderstanding what you are writing. 

Is this not exactly what the pro-birth crowd is saying?  That what they believe should be law and everyone should be forced to adhere to those beliefs under punishment of law?  Is this not your view as well?  

[JonSnow4President]

Because fetuses, not babies, are aborted. Regardless of where you believe human life begins, there is a meaningful distinction between babies and aborted fetuses.

Technical semantics.  Outside of abortion discussions and potentially Dr's visits, a fetus is refered to as a baby in common speech the vast majority of the time.  If that is not the case outside of the South or where I've lived in Michigan, I apologize for projecting 5 states worth of life onto the remaining 45.  

But that's like complaining about someone calling the Tomato a vegetable.