In Defense of Liberals

Interesting read Mike.

But I think you've just opened up the discussion to too many topics (abortion, torture, death penalty, etc). I feel like this comment section might get out of hand.

My other critique is your lack of sources for claims. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't expect you to cite sources when I expect certain conservative bloggers to.

So when you say "torture does not work", you could mention retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who was an interrogator during the Vietnam conflict. Who said, of torture:

"[I don't know] any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and in Iraq during the Iraq War.

He says "[it's] not a good way to get information... Nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones... They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Or Eric Maddox and Matthew Alexander. The two interrogators that were primarily responsible for the capture of Saddam Hussein in and for the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Who claim that torture never would have worked. And that the pictures/stories from Abu-Ghraib were a prime recruiting tool for our enemies.

I watched Keith Olbermann for about 2 minutes tonight. If anybody watch's his show and you believe he is telling any truth at all (he is just going for ratings) you are in need of help.

He is just pathetic.

wallis what does keith olbermann have to do with this particular blog at all?

Thanks for the critique jhat. There are times I completely forget to cite sources, so thanks for keeping me honest.

Mike,

You say that if abortions are illegal then they'll happen anyway so let's just let them do it because the government's way is better. In that case, we should just allow assisted suicides to anyone who wants one. Oh course, that would only apply to people who want to kill themselves. Whereas you only want to help the people who want to kill unborn children. So I suppose there is a difference there since one person decides to take their own life and the other decide to take someone else's life.

McCook1 you are trying to oversimplify what I am saying and of course twisting it away from what I originally said and even adding comments I did not make.

I have no qualms with doctor assisted suicides. I don't think it makes any sense for someone that experiences pain 24/7 having to live like that. I don't think any of us can even begin to understand what those people are going through and to pretend that we do so we can tell them what to do is a huge disservice to them.

At what point did I say I wanted to help people who want to kill unborn children. I didn't say that anywhere.

You want the government to allow people to commit abortion under the guise of saying that at least this way is safer than whatever way you think they'll do it otherwise, I don't know if you're basing that on the methods used over 35 years ago, in third world countries or maybe you just watched Dirty Dancing one too many times. If you want to let any woman get an abortion for any reason then you are helping those who kill unborn children. Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, Mike. Just so you know.

Actually, Mike, I was using doctor assisted suicides in a much broader term than the typically used term. If you want to let anyone who wants an abortion to get one then the same logic should apply to doctor assisted suicides. Anyone who wants one could get one. Some people have mental problems that makes life emotionally painful and meds don't work for them. So shouldn't they get to kill themselves just like an 18 year old kid who has a physically painful condition? I'm sorry, I'm done poking holes in your logic.

Once again McCook1 you are putting words into my blog that aren't there, still. And now you are insulting my intelligence to do it.

Where in my blog or any other blog have I ever said that anyone who wants to get abortion should be able to? I'll go ahead and answer that for you, I haven't. That's where the education portion comes that you conveniently omitted in your effort to paint me as a baby killer. That's not really surprising though since that is the MO of the right today. You don't have to really pay attention to what the opposition says or writes just so long as you can get a nugget from them that you can slam.

The education comes in for the women who want to get an abortion for no other reason than to get an abortion. There are many avenues women who are pregnant can go down other than abortion. We all know that. Pro-choices try to educate women on that. Pro-lifers are more interested in just screaming at women that they are going to hell.

Oh and by the way when you actually want to try to pick holes in my actual logic instead of making up your logic that you think is mine let me know.

Ok Mike. I'll bite. Who shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion?

Fredd,

We cannot and shouldn't outlaw religion. It's wrong, as well as unconstitutional to outlaw someone's beliefs.

(And I assume by your second comment that your first was in jest. I simply wanted to make that clear, as I doubt some people on this site would have a sense of humor about that subject).

I don't make the argument about whether God would approve of abortion because it's obvious that he wouldn't. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been too happy if Mary had an abortion but it's a moot point anyway since the argument to disallow abortion for anyone who wants it, can be made separately but with some of the same basic principles of morality about the destruction of human life.

Simply because a handful of judges don't consider children human until a specific stage of their human development does not make those children any less human. The fact that these children are defenseless and can't make such a decision for themselves. One would think a reasonable person would conclude that these children are in need of more protection, not less. When conception occurs a life is formed and continues to develop over time. Now, ending that life before a judge thinks they're "considered human" requires complete ignorance of the life that was created in order to justify destroying that life. Sure, it would be much easier for me to turn my head and ignore that but it would be wrong for me to do so.

Part of the morality of Christians and the general morality shared by people regardless of their religion is the fact that innocent lives should be protected from harm especially children. This set of morals, while held by Christians, is not specific to the Christian religion.

I guess I just don't see protecting innocent life from irresponsible individuals as an idealistic position. I see it as a compassionate position and the human thing to do.

While you may be willing to allow abortion for everyone who wants to get one because you consider it "feasible", I can not because it only serves to open the floodgates to the destruction of millions of innocent lives. If you get married and your wife is pregnant, when will you decide to love that child as a human being deserving of all the protection that you and the law can provide? Will it come at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, birth or will it come right away because you realize you have created a new life that in 9 short months will be looking you in the eyes? If she is assaulted before the court determines the child is "viable" will you mourn the loss or take solace in your belief that it wasn't a real person yet?

My stance has been repeatedly that we should not just allow anyone who wants to get an abortion to get one for any reason whatsoever. I could no more support this than I could support the murder of newborn or a toddler. Whether you wish to acknowledge that as a moral is of no consequence to me. Perhaps we just have different morals.

I'm curious about this statement, Guille: "abortion is symptomatic of something going wrong in a society, and people interested in advancing that society (on moral, idealistic, or pragmatic grounds) would be better served working with one another rather than against." Is it possible that societies legalize abortion in order to address their ills, and therefore abortion is not a symptom of those ills but a solution? And, didn't people work together in the late 60s and early 70s in order to implement legal abortion? I agree that it still remains one of the most divisive issues in the United States, and I wonder why it is not so in other countries where it is also legal. Res Just

That is a good point Res Just.

From a historical viewpoint the reason it is such a divisive issue here is due to our religious heritage. Puritans were driven out of England for their extremist religious views and a lot of our religion is based on the Puritan example and other sects that were driven out of England.

In Europe they have old world religion and even though in a sense the religions are stricter they also can bend and evolve much easier than American sects.

Thank you, Mike and Guille, for your responses. It seems to me that in a utilitarian society like that of the United States, abortion functions as an efficient component of the promotion of the greatest good for the greatest number of people (see Jeremy Bentham's work and John Stuart Mill's philosophy as the underlying set of premises of many of our (sometimes problematic) social values in the U.S.). Individuals can decide legally to have abortions in order to carry out their lives without burdening themselves or society. This creates a difficult ethical and moral dilemma, and it causes tension in the context of utilitarianism, an ideology that promotes individuality, rationalism, and people as economic units. The fact is that people, including women and/or their partners, have the right to decide whether to carry forth or not with a pregnancy, even if all precautions (contraception, etc.) have been enacted. Res Just

"I would argue that almost everyone has, for a great many reasons, strikingly different morals."

I don't know why you feel you need to argue about that since I just said we have different morals but maybe you'll find someone to argue with.

"Then stop trying to convince me of some higher moral human principle that you don't have."

Once again, you try to take a statement out of context. I simply stated that not allowing abortion to everyone who wants one for any reason can be considered one of a person's morals. You wanted to refuse to see that as a moral principle because of your "perception". I then stated that perhaps our morals are different. I never stated a hierarchy of principles, you seemed to have manufactured that one all by yourself. I believe in protecting all innocent and defenseless human life from the moment of conception and you don't. That's not trying to convince you of anything. That's just fact.

Another thing that's even more ridiculous is how you try to come out against abortion while still being for it. You don't get to say "oh, abortion is bad, I don't like abortion" but on your other hand you say "well, it's up to them, let them do what they want" and still expect anyone to take you seriously.

" The fact is that people, including women and/or their partners, have the right to decide whether to carry forth or not with a pregnancy, even if all precautions (contraception, etc.) have been enacted"

Actually, the mother is the only one who can make that decision. Regardless of whether the father believes the child is a "burden" on him or not.

I know you think children are burdens. Obama didn't want his children to be burdened with an early child either. Society should be more concerned with the burden placed on them by the lazy who refuse to pick themselves up and those who defraud them for more money from their government. They are the real "burdens" on society.

When you say the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The only people that don't factor into the equation are the innocent children who are killed for that so-called "good".

McCook1 -- let's not be relativists...perhaps you should turn your attention to the more than 11 million children who live below the poverty line and live each day in hunger, a type of torture that should be unacceptable in our society. You and I both have the obligation to do something about that because we bear that burden socially, legally, morally, and financially. I maintain that while (religious, moral, ethical) concerns about unwanted pregnancies should be voiced and examined, people still have the legal option to choose abortion. I don't think we have the option to ignore the more than 11 million children who are poor in this country, yet we do. Perhaps you might offer some policy solutions to improve their condition since these children are living all around you.

Guille,

I appreciate your welcoming comment and the opportunity to respond to your ballsy argument. The utilitarian discourse system can be summarized by the following, and here I quote from Scollon and Scollon, 2001, p. 116:

1. "Good" is defined as what will give the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

2. Progress (toward greater happiness, wealth, and individuality) is the goal of society.

3. The free and equal individual is the basis of society.

4. Humans are defined as rational, economic entities.

5. Technology and invention are the sources of societal wealth.

6. Creative,inventive (wealth-producing) individuals are the most valuable for society.

7. Quantitative measures such as statistics are the best means of determining values.

I would argue that legalizing abortion was/is viewed as social progress for women in this and other countries, as is sex education, as is access and especially free access to contraception.

Of course, our socialization within utilitarian ideology is problematic. Many people do not want to see themselves as economic entities, and we know that there are ways of knowing the world without statistics (which is one angle from which to measure our progress), and these are often more valuable and illuminating. I think people grapple with the social issues (through law, public media, war, art, etc.) you raise while simultaneously adhering to many of the principles and discourse of utilitarianism. Perhaps your compromise is a way to get to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, or perhaps it is a relativist position, a non-stance that appeases multiple audiences, and that may inadvertently create the conditions for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Res Just

Guille--

You pose thoughtful questions that beg further examination in connection to a key point: "who am I as I consider my stance in relation to society's great issues of the day?" That is the existential dilemma.

On the one hand you would like for us to determine if something is good or bad, and on the other hand, you ask for compromise if people can't determine if something is good or bad. That seems contradictory, and that's why I called it a non-stance, which in of itself, may be valuable in certain circumstances. However, the law is clear. In exemplary utilitarian discourse fashion, the law on the abortion issue in relation to women's rights makes it her choice, and she takes a stance either way, regardless of its "badness" or "goodness." Indeed, that is both pragmatic and democratic. Res Just

You're being optimally utilitarian in your offer to develop a third option "that we can all live with", i.e., the greatest happiness for the greatest number, Guille, and it's not necessary because the 1973 decision gave people choice,and arguably, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Even the most individualist of individuals can't possibly argue against having choice in this country, at least if the premise is based on pragmatic, freedom, and democratic values. Res Just

You're being optimally utilitarian in your offer to develop a third option "that we can all live with", i.e., the greatest happiness for the greatest number, Guille, and it's not necessary because the 1973 decision gave people choice,and arguably, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Even the most individualist of individuals can't possibly argue against having choice in this country, at least if the premise is based on pragmatic, freedom, and democratic values. Res Just

You're being optimally utilitarian in your offer to develop a third option "that we can all live with", i.e., the greatest happiness for the greatest number, Guille, and it's not necessary because the 1973 decision gave people choice,and arguably, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Even the most individualist of individuals can't possibly argue against having choice in this country, at least if the premise is based on pragmatic, freedom, and democratic values. Res Just

Maybe, Guille. I don't advocate for utilitarianism. It's an ideology that often helps erase agency. We tend to lose sight of individuals that way. I was merely pointing out that by having choice, women are not lost in the system, in society, regardless of their access to education, contraception, financial resources, etc. As always, I appreciate the debate on this blog.

It must be absolutely embarrassing that conservative leaders in Washington, despite claiming to be better Americans, don't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance or the difference between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.