TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A new view for antiabortionists/prolifers
A new view for antiabortionists/prolifers
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...ostPop_Emailed4
| quote: |
| As abortion foes grow more intense, a new view surfaces By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff October 30, 2008 In New York, Cardinal Edward M. Egan published a picture last week of a 20-week-old fetus in his newspaper column and declared that abortion is a crime "no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin." In Dallas and Fort Worth, two bishops jointly declared that voting for a politician who supports abortion rights is "morally impermissible." In Pennsylvania, a bishop made a surprise visit to a parish politics forum, declared, "I own this building," and dismissed the bishops' own voting guide that says Catholics are not single-issue voters. Over the last few weeks, more than 60 Catholic bishops, articulating their traditional views in ever stronger language, have urged voters to make abortion their top priority in an election dominated by the nation's economic turmoil. But the urgency of the bishops reflects an increasing concern about a new argument posed by some antiabortion intellectuals and organizations: that the legislative battle to outlaw abortion is hopeless and that antiabortion groups would be better off devoting themselves to preventing unwanted pregnancies and persuading pregnant women to carry their fetuses to term rather than trying to change the laws of the land. The discussion is taking place within evangelical Protestantism, as well as among Roman Catholics, but it is more visible in the Catholic Church because of the high profile of Catholic bishops. The debate, which Trinity College professor Mark Silk termed "an emerging civil war within the upper reaches of American Catholicism," is playing out in diocesan newspapers, speeches, blogs, and op-ed pages. But the bishops' views do not appear to be having much impact on voters. Recent polls have suggested that Catholics are tilting increasingly toward Democrat Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, and some polls have suggested that Obama is also making incremental gains among evangelicals. "The banning-abortion position, conservatives will admit, is not a realistic one in this country - it's never going to happen, and they admit it's not going to happen," said Jim Wallis, a leading progressive evangelical. "Maybe abortion reduction could result in a more prolife outcome than taking what have become symbolic stances that are never going to be achieved" in the United States. Within the Catholic Church, the argument has been made most prominently by Nicholas Cafardi, a legal scholar at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh who has held several important church positions, and who wrote last month: "While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle - permanently." The reason, Cafardi and others have argued, is that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the battle would return to the states, many of which would not outlaw the procedure. Church leaders are responding loudly. Cafardi, who was the legal counsel for the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and who was appointed by the bishops to a sexual abuse prevention panel, resigned from the board of a conservative Catholic university after making public his case for Obama. And another leading Catholic legal scholar, Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University professor who is the former dean of the Catholic University of America law school, drew protesters during a speech at a Catholic university after he publicly outlined a case for supporting Obama. Antiabortion Obama supporters have been using the Internet to fuel an argument that has captivated a corner of the blogosphere. A new organization called Catholic Democrats has posted a Q&A on its website suggesting that Democrats would do a better job than Republicans at reducing the abortion rate, and Catholics United, another liberal organization, has launched a direct-mail campaign in swing states urging Catholics to rethink what it means to be "pro-life." Earlier this week, a group called the Matthew 25 Network began broadcasting on Christian radio stations in swing states an ad featuring Kmiec with the theme "Pro-Life, Pro-Obama," and today, a coalition of Catholic and evangelical activists plans to hold a news conference to speak out against single-issue voting and to launch a radio ad campaign urging a more comprehensive strategy to reduce the abortion rate. "There's been a lot of evidence among evangelical leaders, not on the hard Christian right, but among more moderate conservatives, of an openness to the kinds of initiatives we saw from members of Congress trying to figure out ways to reduce the prevalence of abortion," said James L. Guth, a professor of political science at Furman University in Greenville, S.C. Guth said Obama "certainly has been the most prochoice imaginable over the years, but that doesn't seem to have picked up much traction except among the usual folks who pay attention among the issue." Scholars say the idea of abortion reduction is not new. As president, Bill Clinton wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." But it has gathered new currency as the Democratic Party included the idea in its platform and two Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives - Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who supports abortion rights, and Tim Ryan of Ohio, who opposes abortion rights - have pushed an abortion reduction package in Congress. Obama raised the issue in the last presidential debate, saying, "there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together." Republican John McCain, an opponent of abortion, disagreed, saying: "We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn." Clearly, the bishops have noticed the new line of argument. Last week, two officials of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a direct and detailed response to critics, rejecting the strategy of abandoning legislative efforts in favor of behavioral change. "The Catholic community is second to no one in providing and advocating for support for women and families facing problems during pregnancy," the bishops said. "These efforts, however, are not an adequate or complete response to the injustice of Roe v. Wade." Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver addressed the issue in a recent speech, saying, "People who claim that the abortion struggle is lost as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow prolife, are not just wrong; they're betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child." A high-ranking American at the Vatican warned that the Democratic Party is becoming a "party of death," and nearly every day, another bishop speaks out; the count of more than 60 bishops to date was generated by blogger Rocco Palmo. Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston has weighed in somewhat gingerly, criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments on abortion in his blog, and, at the annual March for Life, praising Sarah Palin's choice to carry to term a fetus with Down syndrome. In a written statement to the Globe for this story, he said, "The leading cause of death in the United States is abortion." "If we had the opportunity to vote as a nation there would certainly be limitations imposed on the abortion industry that destroys not just the lives of the babies but also the lives of all involved," O'Malley said. "A dictatorial court has imposed an unethical decision on our country and divided the American people. We pray for the opportunity to allow the American people to have a voice in such a crucial issue." Michael Paulson can be reached at [email protected]. |
Re: A new view for antiabortionists/prolifers
| quote: |
| Originally posted by verndogs http://www.boston.com/news/politics...ostPop_Emailed4 It's nice to see the antiabortion/pro-life movement be practical for once. It's too bad the bishops STILL stress that Catholics make abortion a top issue when asking their contigents to vote. |
| quote: |
that the legislative battle to outlaw abortion is hopeless |
Anti-abortionists are crazy. I read parts of the opening post of this thread, and I immediately remembered this.
Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
quote:
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
Corollaries and usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]
[edit] History
Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's Law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[3]
Linking by implication the fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum to online discussion length had been done prior to 1990 by a poster named Richard Sexton in 1989: "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."[8] Godwin's Law does not, however, claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written. It has not been established whether Sexton's quip had any influence on Godwin's law, though Sexton continues, citing an apparent joke by Godwin, to claim Godwin borrowed the idea from Sexton and named it.[9]
[edit] Local variations of Godwin's law
In some countries such as Poland due to Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles which caused the death of over 2 million Polish citizens actual comparison of someone to Hitler or Nazi is very rare during an online discussion. Using a "nazi analogy" is not only considered to be an inadequate hyperbole, it is also considered to be a sign of one's total lack of historic knowledge. Instead in democratic countries severely affected by Nazi war crimes as an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving communism or Stalin approaches one.
[edit] In popular culture
While Godwin's Law initially was best known in Usenet, it has clearly spread to other forms of online communication. In 2007, Slashdot noted that Godwin's law affected an ongoing, highly public dispute between Linux founder Linus Torvalds and the GNOME project.[10] A May 2007 issue of Randall Munroe's webcomic xkcd anachronistically portrays Allied officers trying to discuss Axis military tactics, but being interrupted by Godwin's Law.[11] Similarly, a November 2007 issue of Jeph Jacques's webcomic Questionable Content, entitled "Godwin Wars", referenced (and contrasted) Godwin's law and the reductio ad Hitlerum.[12] In its October 2007 issue and on its website, Wired published a "Geekipedia" piece that includes an entry for "Godwin's law" among "people, place, ideas, and trends you need to know now".[13]
The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge.[14] By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."[15] And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."[16]
On October 20, 2008 Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed a corollary to Godwin's law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probabilty that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches 1.
[edit] Corollaries
As Godwin's Law has become more and more popular, its use in daily arguments increased. The rising use of Godwin's Law led to the implementation of the Dodds Corollary. The Dodds Corollary states:
"When debating a particular subject, if a comparison or implied connection is drawn between the opponent's argument and Hitler and the Nazi Party, the maker of that statement is automatically discredited and the debate is automatically lost by the person or group who referenced the connection to Hitler or the Nazis."
The Dodds Corollary is widely accepted as an appropriate argument in the NCFL and NFL debate leagues [17].
Pretty clear, it now seems.
Anti-abortionists have been waging a "war" for quite some time, and have been degrading in their attacks and campaigning since. It was only a matter of time before they invoked this law. Retards?
I am anti abortion myself, however I am not anti choice until things change.
If the Government here wants to make the adoption process easier, wants to make orphanages better and wants to invest it's time and money in unwanted children then I don't think there is any reason why abortion should be legal in the first place. 9 months of crappy moods, morning sickness etc is a small price to pay for bringing a new life into the world. (Yes I know it's awful to put a rape victim through the process of having their rapists kid but to kill the kid for his "dad's" crime isn't exactly fair either.)
However, all that being said...
As it currently stands, I am pro choice in that I think people should be able to make the choice themselves and deal with god or whoever about the issue personally instead of having the religious right tell them it's right or wrong.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex I am anti abortion myself, however I am not anti choice until things change. If the Government here wants to make the adoption process easier, wants to make orphanages better and wants to invest it's time and money in unwanted children then I don't think there is any reason why abortion should be legal in the first place. 9 months of crappy moods, morning sickness etc is a small price to pay for bringing a new life into the world. (Yes I know it's awful to put a rape victim through the process of having their rapists kid but to kill the kid for his "dad's" crime isn't exactly fair either.) However, all that being said... As it currently stands, I am pro choice in that I think people should be able to make the choice themselves and deal with god or whoever about the issue personally instead of having the religious right tell them it's right or wrong. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and what is it that you're doing exactly? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex I'm not actively campaigning against abortion? I can believe something is wrong and not force someone to agree with me by law, you know. Or do people not disagree with each other in your third world country |
What's silly is how religious types (yes I am sort of religious but ya, not me) use certain passages of the bible to defend their extreme views on abortion.
The core principles written in the bible aren't absolute, yet those who use it as grounds for extreme positions love to deal purely in absolutes.
Same thing goes with christians that frown upon drinking/smoking/partying/laughing/smiling/breathing. There is evidence in their favor, but so little that it wouldn't fly anywhere and could easily be turned around on them but it's hard to argue or even discuss with most Christians based on the inevitability of the "well that's what I believe" statement that appears to negate all reason.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex What's silly is how religious types (yes I am sort of religious but ya, not me) use certain passages of the bible to defend their extreme views on abortion. The core principles written in the bible aren't absolute, yet those who use it as grounds for extreme positions love to deal purely in absolutes. Same thing goes with christians that frown upon drinking/smoking/partying/laughing/smiling/breathing. There is evidence in their favor, but so little that it wouldn't fly anywhere and could easily be turned around on them but it's hard to argue or even discuss with most Christians based on the inevitability of the "well that's what I believe" statement that appears to negate all reason. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex I'm not actively campaigning against abortion? I can believe something is wrong and not force someone to agree with me by law, you know. Or do people not disagree with each other in your third world country |
I can go crazy if you guys want, start seeing religious messages in my Alphabits.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.