.jpg)
By Morris Dean
A recent post on the blog Functional Human Being resonated with something that has been on my mind lately: how extreme focus on a single issue can derange people and throw them out of balance.
We see a lot of that these days in politics and government, with You-Know-Who so rabid about killing Obamacare they are even threatening to try to shut down the government to get their way. Childish, yes, but the "children" involved have been elected to the United States Congress, and we're all suffering for it.
We see one-issue religions everyday in the news, people who can't see as persons certain human beings they have labeled according to their prejudices, whether the label be Gay, Liberal, Muslim, Alcoholic, Smoker, or any number of others uttered to condemn and dehumanize. After applying such a label, one-issue fanatics can no longer act like reasonable human beings. They become unable to find anything in common with the people they label. Humanity has been dissolved in the acid of their religion.
Case in point, by Madison Kimrey: "An Open Letter to the Woman Who Called Me a Baby Killer.
_______________
Copyright © 2013 by Morris Dean
[Ms. Kimrey wrote "Tuesday Voice: Moral Monday" this week on Moristotle & Co., and we interviewed her last week.]
| Please comment |
Interesting topic, and a very well written article by Madison Kimrey on her blog. That an adult would call a 12-year-old a baby killer is a horrific thought, and definitely says something about a person who is so rabid on that particular topic.
ReplyDeleteThat said, as a pro-choice, vegan, strongly left-leaning environmental and animal-rights activist, there is one question those on the right have spit at me in various confrontations that leaves me struggling for a solid comeback: "Why do you care so much about trees and animals, and nothing at all for unborn children?" Anyone care to suggest a quick, clever, rock-solid retort?
Gosh, it has to be quick, clever, and rock-solid? I haven't even thought of something after an hour, so I don't think I can help you with quick. As for clever and rock-solid, I'm going to bed now—maybe I'll think something during the night.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that. I first encountered this verbal assault at least three decades ago, and I still haven't come up with an equal reply. For what it is worth, nearly 20 years ago I asked political Zen master James Carville for a fitting reply, and I still don't have a good answer from him either.
ReplyDeleteThis is why so many badly outnumbered right-wingers manage to win debates, protest standoffs and elections: they almost always have a one-liner at the ready. We lefties write essays no one reads, not even those on our side, while righties churn out sound bites that no one ever forgets.
It isn't clever, and it may be more debate CHANGING than winning, but my muse of compassion offered me a response at about 5:00 this morning:
Delete"I suffer with you the sadness of their loss."
Morris, not bad. However, what do you say when they then ask "well, if you think their loss is sad, why do you support it?"
ReplyDeletePlease note, I am not arguing against your line. I am merely pointing out how adept the righties are at grabbing control of a debate and putting us lefties back on our heels with a simple sound bite.
How about (without benefit of a night's visit from my better-angel muse):
Delete"I feel the pain you seem to be suffering trying to comprehend views that don't align with yours"?
I missed this yesterday. I too have been asked that question, this is my reply:
ReplyDelete"No one on the left or right is in favor of abortion, only an insane person would be. However, I'm in favor of a woman having the right to control what happens to their body."
It doesn't shut them up, but now they have to defend, why they hate a woman's right to decide for herself.
kono, not bad. But does that imply that those of us who are in favor of a woman having a right to an abortion are at some level insane, or at least in support of those who we think are? Your reply does indeed force the attacker into a level of defense, but I worry it also gives them more avenues of further attack.
ReplyDeleteWhat it says is, no one is in favor of abortion. What you just said was you are in favor of a woman having a choice, not abortion. As a man I don't believe I have to right to tell someone to have one or not. Most women that I have known who have had one, wished there was a way to stop the pregnancy other than an abortion. The operation isn't a walk in the park.
ReplyDeleteBack to being call out for supporting woman's rights and that is the way it should be framed. The only way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies. Once you have them there; they have no where to go because they do not believe in sex education or feeding the child after it is born. It can die sucking on a dry breast as for as little as they care.
If that last line makes no sense to you, forgive me. I get carried away in the moment sometimes.
ReplyDeleteWhat we on the left don't fully grasp is that those on the right have simplified the equation to the point they feel impregnable in what they see as their higher ground position on abortion. From their simplified viewpoint, they see themselves as condoning saving the lives of unborn children, while we are condoning giving people the right to kill unborn children. That is why any discussion with them quickly devolves to venom spitting.
ReplyDeleteThere are many pro-gun people who will never vote for, or have rational conversation with, any liberal. And there are many anti-abortion people who are in league with them. No matter how clever the words, as a liberal I still feel a bit mired in muck to find myself supporting the idea of somehow limiting the opportunity for people to kill others with guns, while at the same time supporting the opportunity for people to kill unborn children with medical procedures.
Paul, I long ago grasped that certain people on the right proceed as though they are right, period. What do you mean by "fully"? I also long ago stopped trying to discuss with them anything about which they feel that way. Since you seem to have continued discussions with them way past grasping that yourself, I can only conclude that you are either a masochist or a debater who just loves to debate—perhaps to keep your debating skills razor sharp and lethal. :)
ReplyDeleteThe situation identified in your second paragraph seems symmetrical. One side is both AGAINST women's having the right to kill their unborn babies and FOR people's having high-powered, many-round arms; the other side (you, in this case, as you suggest in your comment) FOR the former and AGAINST unlimited-the-latter (to put it quickly and imprecisely).
That symmetry seemingly being the case, maybe both sides could sit down together for a moment (I mean, uncurl their fists and move their hands away from the butts of their six-shooters), and help each other try to understand their mirror-opposite paradoxes.
GOOD FIND! An interesting pair of reverse-image paradoxes! You are SHARP today! (I mean a little sharper than usual; you're always sharp.)
Morris, by "fully" I meant that most people on the left don't realize how locked in those on the right can be. Nor do they realize that by refining the argument to its essence, those on the right don't just think they are right (as in correct) they are right. For they have so tilted the playing field by eliminating all the variables not in their favor, they can't possibly be wrong. If you have sorted that out, Morris, good for you! Most liberal thinkers don't "get it" and that is why they constantly lose debates - and elections - to those they outnumber and figuratively outgun.
ReplyDeleteWhen you figure out how to get those of polar-opposite beliefs to sit down and have rational discussion, please do let us know. I haven't found the formula, yet I do actively engage at every opportunity. There may be some masochism involved, but for whatever reason I prefer to invest my time in lively conversation with real people I completely disagree with, than waste it watching the most slickly produced TV shows or movies filled with fictional people I do agree with: So that is what I do. I can't say it makes me or anyone else sharper for the effort, but it at least keeps us aware.
Hey, wait a minute, Paul! Who do you know who invests their time watching TV shows or movies filled with fictional people some of whom they agree with rather than waste their time in frustrating, futile conversation with people they completely disagree with and have no chance of getting through to?
DeleteMorris, wouldn't it be easier to list the people who don't waste their time on such TV shows and movies? And for the record, I did not say frustrating, futile conversation; I said lively. The "lively" is what makes it worthwhile and interesting.
DeletePaul, I made other slight alterations as well, in my light-hearted attempt to turn the tables on you. But, while you are possibly right in your implication that there are many more TV watchers than "lively" conversationalists, you might of course at least have listed ME as among the former and rarely among the latter, for of course my response was mainly self-defensive, as I attempted to justify my miserable use of time watching movies and TV serials when I could be getting so much more out of life and doing so much more good in the world if I would only engage right-wingers in debate as often as I spotted one yearning to slobber all over me.
DeleteI believe I'll take the advise above and debate no more. I will say this I have had this debate many times and have never been backed into a corner. Debating one of these people is not about changing their mind, but showing them their ground is not as high as they think it is. They believe their words can justify them calling you names, while being saintly. I take their halo off and shove it where the sun don't shine. Like I said I don't change their mind, but they never come back for seconds.
ReplyDeleteEd, I sheepishly admit that I'm motivated similarly. A difference between us, however, is that you (and Paul) seem to be able to do this IN PERSON, in conversation, whereas I can't (or don't generally think of myself as being able to do).
DeletePerhaps I have gotten soft as I have aged and spent part of a decade away from the killing fields of the Third World, for even though I am completely pro-choice and think women should make their own decisions about what happens with their bodies, I don't seem to have the stomach to get into a vicious argument with anyone who very earnestly wants to save the lives of the unborn. On any other topic I am fairly adept at wedging just about any right-winger into a corner on any topic they choose to debate. But on this one they have me. I never knew why, but I recently sat with my wife for an ultrasound of our son, who is due in January, and now I think perhaps I do know why.
ReplyDeleteI do believe it is true that the "pro-lifers" are coming from a very, very visceral place.
DeleteAnd possibly their coveting their "right to bear arms" comes from a visceral place, too, so strong is their fantasy of blowing away anyone they see as a dangerous threat to their righteous way of life, or their fear that they might not have a gun if such a threat should menacingly approach them on their own turf.
Morris, yes, "coming from a very, very visceral place" is an excellent way to describe it. And when you have people coming from such a place - whether they be American Patriots in the Revolutionary War, or Viet Cong in the Viet Nam War, or anti-abortion and pro-gun types in our modern social wars - they always win out over people are tactically involved in the fight, but don't really have their heart in it.
ReplyDeleteI often find the best way to facilitate (even moderate) rational discourse in this discussion is to have both right and left speakers define "the unborn" and "a woman's body." The conflict often lies in how they understand these points of interest. Then you can start to have a discussion about the credibility of the sources of those definitions.
ReplyDeleteKyle I believe you have a very good point and I would welcome the discussion. However, very few of the anti-abortion people have any knowledge of the history of abortion. They are anti-abortion because a right wing preacher told them it's God's will.
DeleteAsk a Republican why they are a Republican and all they can tell you is why they are not a Democrat.
There are a few, but very few that know why they are Republicans and, or, Anti- Abortionist. They normally are not the ones who shout bummer stinker slogans at people to show how Godly they are.
Morris and Paul, please understand, I don't go looking for these fights----they have always found me. In the south white people think that all other white people believe as they do. They have no problem spouting bummer sticker wisdom at you in a conversation, because you are one of them. For a person to hear a lie and say nothing, makes them part of that lie. These people believe there was no abortion before Roe v Wade and if they can only get it appealed it will end abortions. They have no idea what the debate was about before that court case, so I try and educate them.
These are the people that are so locked into a way of thinking however that nothing will change with in them until they or a loved one comes face to face with the decision to have or not have an abortion. But, that doesn't mean we should remain quiet and surrender the field to them.
I certainly don't think we need to bring in preachers to decide the matter for us. If there are scientists defining a zygote as a person separate from the mother, then we ought to take the matter for what it really is: a question of science and not the history of case law.
ReplyDeleteKyle, excellent to see someone else dueling with kono. My advice: never stop moving, bob and weave, use your jab. More later to both of you when I have time for coherent thoughts and words.
DeleteKyle that would be true if it were a question of science. However, it is not; it's a question of human behavior. Also, I'm not trying to justify abortion. If those who on the right who call us on the left: baby killers and murders; would be willing to work toward removing the need, or at least reducing the need for abortions; they would find willing partners. To say abortion is wrong and pass laws to do a way with the right of a woman to make that choice didn't stop abortions before, and it won't stop them now. Since we live in a land of Laws that is where the debate lays.
ReplyDeleteI worked it a church 'Out Reach Program' once. Well let's say it was the beginning of a program. We had a number of meetings and the group had agreed on the approach and the area we were going to cover. That Sunday morning the preacher had the ten of us stand as he led the assembly in a prayer for our venture to succeed.
A few minutes later he broke in a rant about abortion. He called women who had one murders, as were those who preformed, and supported such acts, against God.
I quit that church that day but before I left, I asked him who the hell he thought the out reach program was trying to help. His answer was: "God, put it in my heart to preach against abortion today and it was from his mouth to my ear."
That is why I bring the preachers into the conversation, they are the ones who whip up the debate and are a roadblock to finding answers to the problem.
The churches have turned the question about abortion from one of public heath and social conduct into one of morals. By doing so, we are no longer, as a Nation, dealing with the root cause of abortion but instead arguing over a moral stand. A moral stand, which has had the intent to divide us into warring camps fighting over nothing. While those in power rape the countryside.
The adulteress was brought before Jesus and told that their law called for her to be stoned to death, and everybody knows how he said let you without sin cast the first stone. However, it also says he wrote something in the sand. Some bible historians believe he wrote: "Where is the man?"
I have noticed anything dealing with sex and the church, always takes the woman to task and says nothing of the mans involvement.
If for every abortion the man involved had his testicles removed, I'm sure the need for abortions would drop very rapidly.[Smiley here]
Let me first acknowledge, konotahe, that you make several good points about the power of diction in this issue, but this is exactly why I think it is most important to first define our terms. Words are vehicles for meaning, so we must be very careful in how we toss out the words “murderers” and “a woman’s body.” This is why I can’t assent to the idea that the debate lies in a matter of laws. Laws are composed of words, so we need to get our words straight before assessing the laws, especially insofar as it involves defining humanity (or lack thereof) in the womb.
DeleteBut I struggle to agree with the idea that all “right-wing” folks are just trying to be divisive because of the sweeping generalization in the statement. Granted, there probably is a large group of folks making a moral stand on the issue of abortion, and that stand is not coming from an informed position (like you said—their pastor just told them it’s wrong). Still, I think most pastors’ stance is coming from their understanding of Psalm 139:13—it’s this idea that God knows people even when they’re in the womb. So if that’s where the “religious” folks think human life starts, then we need to figure out where the scientists say it does. Then we’ll see if we’re really dealing with a clash between faith and reason.
Again, I think the issue is rooted in how we define what it means to be human, but it manifests itself in these political/moral standoffs. The debate rests in where we ascribe humanity to the zygote’s stage of development—is it at the zygote stage or some point in one of the trimesters?
I also need to comment on your reference to “the woman caught in adultery.” Here you seem to be confusing terms: if “the church” refers to Christians (the Christian church), then the church should be the one saying everything about the man’s involvement, and that’s actually what we see happening in John 8. It was the Jewish authorities that were bringing the woman before Jesus. I think we ought not miss verse 6: “They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.” The whole scenario was a setup. The woman’s dignity was never taken into account. The Pharisees were using her for ulterior motives (sound familiar to the root of today’s problem?); Jesus saw through the trap, and I agree with you about the speculation that he was probably pointing the finger back at them. After all, John specifically notes that Jesus wrote in the dirt “with his finger,” the same prepositional phrase used to describe God’s writing of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18). If we want to deal with the heart of the issue and start placing the onus on the men, we ought to be more like Jesus and less like Pharisees.
Remember, the Pharisees were the uppity holy rollers in Jesus’ day. I doubt the sincerity of anyone claiming to be Christian if they act like a Pharisee.
You have placed a lot on the table to think about and very well stated. However, my goal has been to remove the conversation from the church teachings.{Christian or otherwise} ( A side note: If you don't like Christians that act like Pharisees, you need to stay out of Mississippi.)
DeleteI understand where you are coming from and respect your belief that the bible says it is wrong. My point is if we go down that road, we end up with no answer to the problem at hand.The answer does not lay in the bible; that way only points a finger at the wrong doer.
The event that brings on an abortion is the unwanted pregnancy. I lived through the debate about legalizing abortion and it never was about the right or wrong. It was about stopping the butcher shops that were doing abortions illegally.
I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there is only one true way to stop abortions. That is to stop the unwanted pregnancy. You can change every law in the land, place a brand on their forehead and none of it will stop a woman if she wants to have an abortion.
All that happens when it is made illegal is the butcher shops open back up. I was too young at the time to remember the figures of the deaths and near deaths, but it was a lot higher than most people would have thought.
It is not our right to judge or punish the women. It was said by some back then: that if they died at the hands of a butcher it would serve them right. I'm happy to say most people did not agree with them.
But what the court ruled on was that the rich were getting abortions in hospitals while the poor were being butchered. An abortion was illegal back then but a DNC wasn't.(That's not how the law is stated but that was the point) Sometime after that along came Roe v Wade. That was a case where a woman wanted to have a legal abortion and the man said you can't. The court took the opportunity to set some ground rules for having an abortion, but it was never a question of if it was legal. The case was about a woman having the right to control her on body. The court said she had that right.
Kyle if you have any other answer to how, we can do away with the need for abortion. Please tell me, because in all these years and all the debates, I have yet to hear anything that made any sense.
Let me apologize in advance for how verbose I am. I’m working on it.
DeleteI agree with the first half of this, but not the latter. I’ll address how I think we can take positive steps towards stopping unwanted pregnancies at the end of this post. For now, you seem to be making an argument parallel to that of illegal weapons/drugs/immigration: “Making it illegal won’t stop it, so don’t bother.” Is that the argument you intended to make?
Secondly, I now better understand your platform regarding the history of the law; I’m one that acknowledges my place as a “youngster” in the latter days of the issue, so I sincerely appreciate the vicarious experience of what it was like to see the issue contested in its prime. Still, I think there is something valuable to be gained in retrospectively looking at the language used in the case that tried addressing the issue of “butcher shops” as you put it. As you said, “The case was about a woman having the right to control her on [sic] body. The court said she had that right.”
What I am saying is that we need to re-asses what we define as “a woman’s own body,” given what we now know about genetics. I, too, want to put aside the religious portion of the discussion and discuss it in terms that I think anyone would consider rational and evidence-based. Whenever we have this discussion, it seems that the zygote in question is considered a part of the woman’s body and not apart from the woman’s body. There is an unstated a priori claim that the zygote is not itself a human being. Two scientific statements come to mind that I think we ought not ignore:
“I think I can now also say that the question of the beginning of life—when life begins—is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception. I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading… that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by the human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against.” (Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic.) I would hear note that Dr. Gordon died in 1995, so this perspective has been around for a while now.
“So, therefore, it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.” (Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, principal research associate, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School)
In absolutely no way do I want to understate how imperatively we need to respectfully and graciously treat women with unwanted pregnancies; however, the language of the discussion is where the chasm lies. Once we establish that we all care about the two lives in question, I think we can get both sides to start looking for the best interests of mother and child. Again, I assert the existence of two lives because scientists do. There is also an example I could draw from in vitro fertilization, but this is getting lengthy enough.
DeleteLastly, as promised, I think we can do away with the need for abortion if we assess the pinnacle upon which sex stands in our culture. The swinger spirit of the sexual revolution was quickly adopted by the media and broadcasted in full force once some genius intern discovered that “sex sells.” I know this just sounds like an abstinence answer, but less so, it is a media answer. Media is selling sex, and people (especially young people) are buying. Schools teach kids about sex, but TV and the internet teach kids about permissible sexual activity with no consequences; at least, they usually do this. I recognize there are shows like Teen Mom nowadays. So long as the media is encouraging sex and influencing the youth more than their parents, the issue will remain.
Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but there's one thing I cannot let pass. Your quotes from Drs. Gordon and Matthews-Ross are NOT scientific findings. They are in fact philosophical/political OPINIONS, one which many others at least equally qualified would strongly disagree with. There is no scientific standard according to which the concept "a human life" can be given an unambiguous meaning. Hell, biologists are still debating about the exact definition of "life"!
DeleteEvery attempt I've ever made to have a reasonable discussion with an anti-abortionist has foundered on this point. They take the claim that a newly fertilized egg is a human life from the moment of conception as a demonstrated fact. It is, rather, an ab initio definition that by its very nature can be neither true nor false.
I find the whole question, which Kyle has put forth and you, Chuck have denounced as a separate debate. The one reason(this maybe not you Kyle,) there are people who are pushing for the courts to rule on when life begins, is in order to charge the woman who has an abortion with murder.
DeleteI'm sorry Kyle but I don't see that as an answer to stopping abortion. It will only be used to punish, not to help.
It has been interesting, but I believe we have beat this horse to death, so I go in search of a new topic.
You are a very good writer Kyle, but remember you can said anything you want, but once you write it---its there for ever!
I am sure both Kyle and I can't wait for you to jump into the water. However, I do find it refreshing to exchange ideas, with someone that doesn't grab me and jump off a cliff.
ReplyDeleteAs you may notice Kyle, Moto goes first and foremost to shooting or blowing someone up as an answer to all questions.[smiley here]
Oh master of IEDs are you sure you should be casting stones? (yes smiley)
ReplyDeleteWhen I grab someone and take them off a cliff with me, I at least make sure the water is deep enough that I will survive if I land on top of them. (I will let you decide if a smiley goes there)
Good to have you back, I hate doing all the work. I was trying to picture the discussion on the way down to the water. [Yes a smiley all around]
ReplyDeleteMotomynd, such a long string, I couldn't find time to read all the posts, but to answer your first request of a comeback for the following: "Why do you care so much about trees and animals, and nothing at all for unborn children?" A rock-solid retort is to tell them to look at the data. Many republicans and red states are pro-choice, though not all democrats are. See article link below.
ReplyDelete"One potentially significant finding for Republicans who want to shake the iron grip of anti-abortion activists on their party is that the proportion of their own partisans who say they want to make all abortions illegal has dropped from 21 percent in 2021 to 14 percent in 2022. "There is a sizable pro-choice minority among Republicans, as we saw in some of the 2022 ballot measure votes. PRRI finds that 37 percent of Republicans want abortion to be legal in all or most cases. In contrast, the anti-abortion faction of Democrats has all but disappeared; 86 percent of Democrats want all or most abortions to be legal, up from 71 percent as recently as 2010."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/majority-americans-pro-choice-red-states.html