Those conservative candidates who would have won instead
Here’s an interesting comment (the language is not quite what I’d use, but the sentiment is):
there is no evidence, in the modern era, that a person more conservative than Reagan can win on a national level.
the last person who did so successfully was fuckin’ Coolidge in the 20’s.
and Reagan, as we all know, was an abortion flip-flopper, signed international climate change treaties, was pro-amnesty, raised taxes, and was a former Democrat.
now if you want to say “hey, the country has shifted further to the right, so maybe we are ready for a guy more conservative than Reagan” – fine, make that argument. but in doing so you are purposefully going for a riskier strategy than simply “I want SCOAMF out unconditionally”. you are saying instead “I want SCOAMF out, but only if it means a *real conservative* is elected, otherwise, no thanks”.
A while back I ran a post with a list of every Republican who has run in the primaries since 1976 (at least all those who stayed in for any length of time, and even some who didn’t). Let’s take another look at it, and please tell me what available winner-conservative candidate should have been nominated instead of loser-RINO candidates Bush I (1992), Dole (1996), and McCain (2008).
Because I don’t see it. Really, what you’ve got there for conservative candidates after 1980 is Pat Buchanan (several times), Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Mike Huckabee—and (drum roll, please) Mitt Romney in 2008, when Romney was considered a conservative alternative to McCain:
2008: McCain, Romney, Huckabee
2004: Bush was the incumbent
2000: Bush, McCain, Alan Keyes (originally running but early dropouts were the likes of Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, and Dan Quayle).
1996: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes
1992: incumbent George H.W. Bush was primaried by Pat Buchanan
1988: VP George H.W. Bush (one of the few VPs running in recent years), Bob Dole, Pat Robertson
1984: no challenge to incumbent Reagan
1980: Reagan, George H.W. Bush, John Anderson (an interesting primary in which Reagan was hugely popular and his nomination a foregone conclusion, based on his showing in 1976 when he primaried incumbent Gerald Ford and did well).
So I’d love for people to stop railing that if those real conservative candidates had been nominated during those years, he/she would have won, and how the Republican establishment shoved this or that candidate down your reluctant throats. It’s somewhat moot, because there were no winner-type conservative candidates running in those years—unless you think the good ones were being held in some basement and forcibly restrained from running by the nefarious Republican establishment.
Repeat after me: in 2008, the alternative conservative candidates running against McCain were Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Which one of those would have beaten Obama?
By the way, I happen to think Romney actually might have done better against Obama than McCain did in 2008, for the same reason that McCain lost: the financial crisis that came right before the election and turned the tide for Obama. McCain was perceived (and even self-identified) as being ignorant about economics and finance, whereas Romney was considered knowledgeable and experienced on that topic. But that’s moot, too, because the nomination process locks someone in long before mid September, when the crisis hit the fan.
Pingback:Have you Seen This Article | Tracy Stanmore
I’m not one of those who believe there were any ‘more conservative’ candidates back in “the good ole days” over the last 30 years .. okay, only 28 years in your list .. but I have to say that another business as usual candidate is not what the country needs this time. Do we have one who isn’t actually a ‘moderate’ doing his best to imitate a Tea Partier? Yes, but Ron Paul for all his sensible ideas couldn’t win if the Democrats nominated John Edwards; unfortunately. The push toward Romney’s nomination is just right for the establishment of the GOP. I mean, consider that as governor of Massachusetts he strongly backed “RomneyCare”, which was in essence ObamaCare for a state. *sigh* First let’s get the House and Senate firmly GOP then next time try for a President who isn’t one of those who believe Senator Murkowski is the personification of the GOP’s virtues.
“but I have to say that another business as usual candidate is not what the country needs this time.”
And in his spare time Ike humms, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one….”
Is it conservative/libertarian principles we cherish or the moral censure of the past?
Understanding the foundational importance of Judeo/Christian principles aside, the religious right, would I suspect, place their focus upon American society returning to the religious/moral views of long ago, with some agreeable to imposing that moral censure upon those who do not share their views.
Those conservatives whose beliefs focus upon conservative, libertarian principles; such as small government, a strong military and a moral view in agreement with Heinlein’s expressed view that, “Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other ‘sins’ are invented nonsense.” –might often chose a different candidate than those on the religious right.
When those on the right seek to impose their moral views, derived from their religious beliefs, they arguably seek to control others and thus condone and promote the restriction of liberty, just as much as those on the left.
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
The fault lies not in our conservative political stars but in ourselves. Every candidate named was sufficiently conservative relative to the ‘fundamentally transform America’ candidate. The angst over Romney et al would be better earmarked for an electorate that has lost all touch with reality… or have finally had their price met.
Harold Stassen would have been sufficient to defeat a ‘fundamentally transform America’ candidate in a less self-indulgent, decadent, idiocracy.
Ike, at the very least we need a GOP POTUS to select the next Supreme.
If the House and Senate go Republican, how could it possibly be worse to have Romney in the Executive office under those circumstances than Obama?
Actually, in the 30s and 40s free markets and conservative ideas had largely lost out, and Democrats dominated our political system.
The GOP’s success in the 50s was, IMO, due to the obvious evil of communism, which many Dems flirted with in the previous decades.
By the early 60s, JFK and Nixon were men with similar views, showing how our political parties had converged. Goldwater’s ’64 campaign was seen as the right’s dying gasp.
But the ’70s showed the results of the left’s overreach, hence by 1980 Americans were ready to tack right.
There was a time when Reagan would have seemed like a poor choice, a man with an ideology that was out of step.
Geoffrey, a serious conservative candidate is going to respect the Constituion, and the limits placed upon federal power. That means they are not going to force their morals on us from federal office. They may stop federal funding of Planned Parenthood, but they are not gonna force you to go to church.
1. Reagan was an abortion flip-flopper
The issue (and it concerns Romney) is not flip flop, but rather perceived credibility and authenticity. Romney is perceived as a phony who would sell out his wife or his mother if he needed to. Reagan was the authentic article: an admirable human being; a person of high political character; a person willing to take risks for the sake of principle.
2. Reagan signed international climate change treaties
The issue is what we now know about climate change. Does anyone believe that Reagan, in 2011, would endorse climate change? No one believes that. Yet, Romney endorsed climate change.
3. Reagan was pro-amnesty
And Reagan called that his greatest mistake. And not b/c amnesty is necessarily the worst thing ever. But, rather, b/c making an amnesty agreement does not work. The agreement will be reneged upon, and wholly ineffective. IMO, most conservatives would be willing to do some type of amnesty, if only we believed amnesty would be effective policy for the nation.
4. Reagan raised taxes.
I am unfamiliar with these details.
5. Reagan was a former Democrat.
No one cares. Rick Perry is a former Democrat. Does anyone believe Rick Perry is an inauthentic conservative? Again, as re the abortion flip flop citation, the issue is credibility. Romney sets off alarms – both conscious and subconscious – in the psyches of conservative voters.
6. re
We are not looking for someone who is more conservative than Reagan. If Reagan were running today, his conservatism would reflect the lessons which have been learned since the 1980s. Reagan would not hold the same positions, in 2012, which he held in 1980. Yet, Reagan would be same person of principled conservatism.
Second, I reject the quoted assertion that campaigning as a conservative is a “riskier strategy”. The assertion is premised on the belief that the superior strategy is to appeal to “moderate voters.” So called “moderate voters” are actually uneducated voters who are looking to be convinced; who are looking to be led. So called “moderate voters” are vastly likely to be uneducated voters who do not have political convictions. In other words: there is nothing for a politician to appeal to. Moderate voters are simply uneducated. There is no there there.
Caveat: among political junkies, exist some truly informed moderate voters … who comprise maybe .00001 of the entire population of so called “moderate voters,” and whose political desires are not uniformly shared by other truly informed political junkie moderate voters. In short, even the entire population of political junkie and highly informed moderate voters … does not comprise a political group which may be appealed to … insofar as these informed moderate voters even disagree with themselves.
7.
This again, premised on the fallacy that a successful political strategy must include a policy appeal to “moderate voters”. Here is how you win: excite politically knowledgeable voters, who will then influence politically unknowledgeable voters, i.e. moderate voters. You do not excite politically knowledgeable voters via shifting your policies in a mealy and moderate direction. Shifting your policies, in that fashion, is a losing strategy.
8. The issue is not: what conservative candidates would have won in the past?
Rather, the issue is: where does the nation stand at this moment? what is the state of our present day knowledge about climate change, amnesty, taxation and Laffer Curve, the hopelessness of leftist Keynesianism, the ineffectiveness and oppressiveness of big government … at this moment in history?
We are not fighting the last war. We are not fighting 1980 or 1992. We are fighting in this present moment, under knowledge conditions and circumstances which did not exist in 1976. The rise of conservative politicians who, compared to 1976, have EXTREMELY conservative policy views (Jindal, Perry, Santorum, Rubio, Allen West, even Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels, and a good number of other rising Republican stars) is a reflection of the knowledge conditions and circumstances of 2012 vs 1976. In 1980, the Laffer Curve was voodoo economics, and Keynesianism was still widely believed to have validity. We know more, today, than we did then.
Don,
Surely you are not so naive as to pretend that a fundamentalist, religion based, conservative candidate wouldn’t favor the overturning of the legality of abortion? The re-imposition of sodomy laws? The tight control of contraceptives? The revival of the social opprobrium against premarital sex?
The moral Nazi’s are still out there, Don. There will always be ‘ moral busybodies’ and history shows that like all ‘movements’ they wax and wane in an ebb and flow, so given the chance, they would reassert their social dominance. And while that is unlikely to occur in the near future, more than a few voters favor the return of our society readopting the moral censure of anything of which they disapprove.
Those on the right, who seek control for moral reasons are ever as active as those on the left, as they are two sides of the same coin, just mirrored versions of a nearer-to-utopia world.
“If Reagan were running today, his conservatism would reflect the lessons which have been learned since the 1980s.”
Provided he continued to learn, (not necessarily a given) true.
“Reagan would not hold the same positions, in 2012, which he held in 1980. Yet, Reagan would be same person of principled conservatism.”
True but with a caveat. A principled person, conservative or otherwise, must, to be principled, hold that any new position be consistent with the principles they hold dear. Otherwise, it would require the abandonment of principle to reach the new position.
“Surely you are not so naive as to pretend that a fundamentalist, religion based, conservative candidate wouldn’t favor the overturning of the legality of abortion? The re-imposition of sodomy laws? The tight control of contraceptives? The revival of the social opprobrium against premarital sex? ”
Wow GB, nasty enough?
I’m pro-life – IMO, abortion is murder. I am NOT a fundamentalist – maybe learning what that word actually means instead of using it as a a bashing political label would be a good start.
Roe v Wade was a bad decision based on bad reasoning and ‘untrue facts’ (aka lies). It should be overturned. Overturning it would not make abortion illegal.
NO ONE and I mean no one has come out in favor of tight birth control restrictions. For the most part it is only the Catholic Church that is doctrinally opposed to it, and we’re more concerned with educating our own fellow Catholics.
Good grief.
JuliB,
It is to that which they define as ‘nasty’ rather than merely ‘icky’, wherein their objection lies.
Many who are not fundamentalist are pro-life, myself included but views based in religious belief, which cannot be proven, cannot rationally be imposed upon those who do not share that belief. As a belief is not a provable fact. We have a perfect right to our opinions, it is when we try to impose our unprovable opinions upon others, wherein we start to curtail essential liberties.
I used the fundamentalist, religious right because it is they among conservatives who are most supportive of legalizing moral censure.
Roe vs Wade was based upon faulty reasoning but if overturned many would then seek to make abortion illegal.
Currently the Catholics are the only ones against freely available contraceptives but many of us can remember a time in our youth when contraceptives were tightly controlled.
Is it really such a stretch to imagine that such a time might come again?
I’m not ‘religious’ but I view abortion as homicide. And just as homicide can be justified in certain circumstances, IMO abortion can be justified in circumstances where the life of the mother is truly imperiled by continuing the pregnancy. I can also justify abortion in cases involving rape. Abortion upon demand for the sake of convenience however, is unjustifiable homicide. It is murder. That is the extent of my social conservatism.
“”Those on the right, who seek control for moral reasons are ever as active as those on the left,””
GB
Christian control freaks may be ever active but they are outnumbered a 1000 to 1 by leftist control freaks in 2012.
I have a few more candidates for your history list. John Ashbrook in 1972, who I voted for in the primary against incumbent Nixon. Phil Crane, who ran to the right of Reagan in 1980. Pete DuPont in 1988. Dick Lugar as a center-right candidate in 1996. Fred Thompson as a real constitutional conservative in 2008. None of them made it through the primaries.
Idea people don’t usually prevail in our system, which is designed to dampen wild swings in public opinion. The House goes before the voters every other year, only one-third of the Senate does, and Presidential candidates have to build coalitions among diverse states and slices of the electorate. The two-party system more or less settles on broadly acceptable, consensus type candidates.
And since the Presidency is an executive position, voters have to find someone who seems likely to be a successful executive, irrespective of his or her policy views. The President is not the same as a Senator, who can gab constantly about whatever is on his or her mind.
So independents finally decide the election, either party’s candidate has to clinch the deal with a lot of people who don’t constantly follow politics, and many of them are appalled by politics and dislike the argumentation. That’s reality, and it is structurally not disposed to select a “pure” candidate of the right or the left.
If by “freely available contraceptives” you mean contraceptives that I or others have to pay for, then there are a lot more people than just Catholics that are against that.
Indeed, there are a lot of Catholic women who, against the teachings of the church, use contraceptives on a regular basis. This is not the problem. The problem is when the government attempts to force others, especially religious institutions, to pay for something which goes against their moral principles.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is true whether you are on the right, the left, or somewhere in between. And everyone’s opinion is worth the same – one vote on election day. True conservative principle means following the Constitution. This means, among other things, not imposing our own religion on others, exactly as we would be opposed to others imposing their religion on us.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not naive enough to believe there are not people out on the fringes of the right who would happily impose their own religious viewpoint on everyone else. But these people are exactly that – fringe, and they are a relative few. (…and are highly outnumbered by those on the left fringe who would gladly impose their own secular atheistic “religion” on us.)
However, it is the right of the people to come to a consensus in order to set the general moral standards of the society. For example, it is okay for you to walk around naked in the privacy of your own home. It is *not* okay for you to walk around naked in the street in front of my house and in front of my kids.
This is just one example of a purely moral judgement that society has a right to impose.
“I’m not ‘religious’ but I view abortion as homicide.”
And you have a perfect right to your view, but as you can’t prove that abortion is homicide, that makes that view a personal opinion. Regardless of how sincere or how many agree with, that opinion. The real issue is, if you had the power, would you impose your opinion upon others who don’t share your opinion?
The difficulty I often see among the pro-life persuasion is admitting that it is an opinion (which I share) and understanding that an opinion,no matter how sincerely held, does not confer the right to vote to compel those who do not share that opinion.
“Christian control freaks may be ever active but they are outnumbered a 1000 to 1 by leftist control freaks in 2012.”
In 2012, the left’s control freaks almost certainly do greatly outnumber the “Christian control freaks” but when the left controls the media and academia their easier access to that media and ability to be heard is bound to skew perceptions as to the number of adherents.
I’m simply pointing out that the desire for control exists, to some extent, on both sides and that when we seek a more conservative candidate, a useful question to ask is, do they cherish conservative/libertarian principles or the moral censure of the past?
Conservatism attracts both but there is a great difference between the two. And no, religious belief, no matter how pious, does not equate per se with a desire to morally censure others.
Sorry Neo, I did not read much of the opinion that you quoted. Although I have been known to use bosun mate level language, I try hard to be discreet about the audience to whom I address myself to on those occasions. When someone gratuitously uses that kind of language because they feel it is clever, or that it adds some kind of emphasis to their thoughts, they lose me immediately. Call me a prudish old Naval person.
Some of the comments in this thread give fundamentalists the short end of the stick. I do not believe that I qualify as a fundamentalist, although I was raised a Southern Baptist. In my experience, most people whom I know that do qualify, also have a sincere respect for constitutional liberties. There is a small percentage on the fringe, but it is not at all fair to paint with too broad of a brush. Certainly the fringe at the other end of the spectrum is at least as large; and much more vocal and active.
It is humorous to read people projecting what Reagan would, or would not, do in today’s environment. Many of the people who make such predictions, do not even know where Reagan stood on key issues in his own day. They know, and believe, the urban legends.
GB – I’m a changer too. I was an atheist for 25 years. I accidentally went on to a very graphic website and was horrified to find ~ after about 45 mins~ that I had become pro-life. Not horrified that my beliefs had changed, but rather I was with those rotten, hypocritical god-people.
It only took me about 1 day to find Nat Henthoff, another atheist. My pro-life arguments are not centered on religion, but on biology and ethics. Of course, now that I’m a devout Christian, yes, the beliefs have an even deeper bedrock of natural law, God and Church. If you’re defining pro-life solely in terms of religion, you need to re-evaluate your arguments. What’s the point of having arguments if they don’t reach the listener where they are?
“It is to that which they define as ‘nasty’ rather than merely ‘icky’, wherein their objection lies. ”
Umm… ya’ lost me there. Explain please?
Now, I believe that abortion should be made illegal. If we’re destroying human life, that’s a no-brainer. But merely overturning Roe won’t do it. And for anyone pro-life to even say that is troubling.
“Currently the Catholics are the only ones against freely available contraceptives but many of us can remember a time in our youth when contraceptives were tightly controlled.”
Bull. We are against having to pay for them, or giving them out “free” in school. I have NEVER seen anyone advocating returning to the positions of your youth. And I lean “traddy”, so if it’s not there, it’s nowhere.
“Is it really such a stretch to imagine that such a time might come again?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Yes.
Yes, it is a stretch. I am in the 3rd year of a 4 year lay scripture class put on by my diocese. Big time & $$ commitment. The people who attend are the ‘workers in the field’, people who love the Church and are quite devout. And nearly every single person in there holds their own ‘conscience’ above the 2000 year teaching of the Church. Those times are long gone, but I suppose if you are not in the Church, you wouldn’t know it.
I rarely get emotionally involved with any comments to the point that I am compelled to reply and debate, but I can’t pass up fightin’ words…
I am strongly opposed to making anyone pay for contraceptives and my daughter has convinced me that I am also opposed to anyone having to pay for anothers Viagra.:-)
I’m stating, when you base your vote on religious belief and, seek through that vote to compel others to behave in a way that they do not agree with, then you are effectively attempting to impose your religious belief upon others.
About 26 million Americans report that their religion is the most important thing in their life, so perhaps that ‘fringe’ is a bit larger than you presuppose. And no, I am not implying that all of those deeply religious people are closet control freaks.
JuliB,
My pro-life arguments are not centered on religion either.
You criticized my language calling it ‘nasty’ I replied that people don’t seek to censure things they don’t consider nasty.
Personally, of that list the only one that I imagine could be defined as ‘nasty’ is sodomy but millions of Americans engage in it. It isn’t directly harmful to anyone else so what right do we have to make it illegal? Remember the 2003 Supreme Court review of the Lawrence vs Texas case in which the State of Texas tried to uphold its moral censure of sodomy?
“Now, I believe that abortion should be made illegal. If we’re destroying human life, that’s a no-brainer.”
Personally, I suspect it is, at some point, destroying a human life but we can’t prove when that fetus becomes a human being, can we? Science can’t answer that question, so we all have somewhat different opinions because we don’t know, we simply believe what we believe. No firm consensus exists other than a majority of people get uncomfortable with abortion in the third trimester.
So to make it illegal, what you’re proposing is to impose your opinion, upon others.
I remember well being told that if someone doesn’t accept Jesus as their savior, no matter how good a person they may be, they’re going to hell. That this wasn’t an opinion but God’s word. No one in their bible study group openly disagreed. Personal anecdote? Yes but I suspect that intransigent view is more commonly held than you credit.
In 1992 I was for Ross Perot. Then Perot said that Bush had hired goons to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. That sounded moonbat crazy to me, so I voted for another Third Party candidate.
Years later I made the acquaintance of someone who had done some consulting for one of Ross Perot’s companies. He said that consensus among Perot’s employees was that Perot was at least a little bit off-kilter.
Moral: vote for the least bad candidate. No one is perfect.
Geoffrey Brittain
That dog won’t hunt. From 1980 to 2008, Presidents were elected with the support of religious fundamentalists. What happened with regard to abortion laws, with regard to sodomy laws, with regard to contraceptives? Crickets. The bogeyman ain’t coming.
Given how much our illegitimacy rates have risen in the last 40 years, that might not be be such a bad idea. It is at least worth considering.
“”So to make it illegal, what you’re proposing is to impose your opinion, upon others. “”
GB
Seems to me this is how conservatism and decency in general keeps getting its ass kicked. Is there any doubt we got in the mess we’re in because of leftist worldview opinions imposed on the populace?
For some reason we’ve excepted the premise that one world view, Christianity, is prohibited from any imposing on society and all other world views are magically exempt. Our descendants won’t believe we excepted such a suicide premise.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek. He didn’t say to let them lay waste to future generations and make sure you don’t impose.
“From 1980 to 2008, Presidents were elected with the support of religious fundamentalists. What happened with regard to abortion laws, with regard to sodomy laws, with regard to contraceptives?”
Generally, people object to what they find most egregious first. Which leaves contraceptives a distant third in that list. As I recall, in the years when conservative Presidents served, the anti-abortion folks were quite active and their lack of success was not from lack of effort but because the majority of Americans felt that abortion should be legal, and hopefully, rare.
As for sodomy, in 2003 Texas was willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep it illegal in Texas.
Do you think that those most strongly opposed to abortion for religious reasons have given up trying to make it illegal?
Our illegitimacy rates are appalling but what right does anyone have to tell someone they can’t have sex outside of marriage?
SteveH,
I’m not advocating that any religion be given a pass, I share your perception that Christianity has been singled out by liberals.
I’m simply saying that a vote based on an opinion founded in personal faith but which you can’t prove to an unbeliever is an attempt to impose your religious views upon someone else. That applies whatever the religion.
GB, what a straw man you have constructed. But, not a very convincing one.
The truth is that EVERY vote is an attempt to impose your beliefs on others, whether you are religious, agnostic, or atheist; whether you are moral, amoral, or immoral.
If that is not the fundamental purpose of any election, please tell me what your idea of the purpose is.
You claim oldflyer that I have created an unconvincing straw man, which is to advance “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position”.
Then, in the very next sentence, you support my representation by stating that “EVERY vote is an attempt to impose your beliefs on others,”…who exactly is being logically inconsistent?
In fact, I don’t agree that ‘imposing our beliefs upon others’ to be the fundamental purpose of an election, though I do agree that people far too frequently make that the unconscious basis of their vote in an election.
Ideally, the purpose of an election is to elect the person who exhibits the best understanding of the issues facing the electorate and, who demonstrates the moral fiber to be trusted with that position, while also exhibiting the qualities of leadership and wisdom necessary to that position.
My, how badly we are failing to meet that standard, yes-no?
“the financial crisis that came right before the election and turned the tide for Obama”. Have you ever wondered where that sudden spike in gas prices came from? That sudden spike that came out of nowhere and caused the precipitous housing market to begin it’s collapse. The sudden spike that suddenly ended after it did it’s job. Has anyone investigated that???
I’m warming to Romney. He has the big advantage of being tall and extremely telegenic, which McCain, alas, was Not.
Of such trifles is history made.
But also, I think it’s good to remember Milton Friedman’s advice: getting our way with politicians isn’t accomplished by “throwing the bums out” so much as by making it Easier for them to Do the Right Thing. Because, as he and others have noted, you’ll never get your dream guy. But you Can get a decent guy.
From 1980 to 2008, Presidents were elected with the support of religious fundamentalists. What happened with regard to abortion laws, with regard to sodomy laws, with regard to contraceptives?”
Nothing essential changed. That is my point. It’s like the people who get all bent out of shape about Creationists et al. Evolution has been around for 150 years. It ain’t going away, no matter what the Creationists say. No one is going to burn my copy of Origin of Species.
Our illegitimacy rates are appalling but what right does anyone have to tell someone they can’t have sex outside of marriage?
I would suspect that the laissez-faire attitude is part of the reason for the rise in our illegitimacy rates.
Bluntly spoken, if more parents or adults had told some teenagers in uncertain terms the above, there is a good possibility they wouldn’t have ended up pregnant and unmarried. If the parents had been around. In many cases, they aren’t- which is a big part of the problem.
There is an attitude among many males in our society that they have no responsibility for the children they have fathered. I consider this horrendous. There are undesirable social effects from illegitimate children. As a taxpayer I have to pay for those effects. So yes, I DO have a dog in that hunt. We all do.
When I am paying taxes to pay for the consequences of fatherless families, laissez-faire flies out the window. Your [not GB] freedom to do as you please does not include your right to steal money from my tax dollars to support your dysfunctional decisions.
GB –
You really should re-think your position on this.
Opinion 1: abortion is murder; let’s outlaw it.
Opinion 2: abortion is glorious; let’s do it.
Your resolution? Allow abortion if people want it; i.e., “impose” one opinion over another. Unless you believe it can be “proved” that abortion is not murder. And good luck with that.
Consider: “Killing an innocent person is murder” vs. “Killing an innocent person is not murder.” Would you say those are just two different opinions?
First point: I hope you’re not arguing that the people should get whatever they want, merely because a majority wants it (you seemed to suggest that in your last post). I won’t spell out the logical implications of this, because they’re obvious, and obviously disastrous. As well, the Founders held no such view, and no such view is contained in our Constitution (cf. the Bill of Rights) or any of the founding texts.
Second, I hate to say this, because I know you don’t intend it, but you are arguing exactly how the left wants you to argue on this one. The tactic goes back at least to the so-called “public reason” group – John Rawls, Laurence Tribe, Ronald Dworkin, Richard Rorty, etc. – who sought to make public discourse “reasonable” by systematically purging all metaphysical “opinions,” leaving, ostensibly, only “provable” “facts” to be debated over.
Translated out of gobbledygook, this means: shun and shame opinions not in tune with the secular worldview of the left. But secularism is every bit as much an opinion – if not more so – than any given religious conviction.
“Public reason” works as follows. I say, “The unborn baby is an innocent person; taking the life of an innocent person is murder; therefore, abortion is murder.”
They say, “A person? What’s that? Some religious notion? But that’s just a far-out opinion. PROVE it is a person.”
The clear retort is, “Prove it is NOT a person,” but at that point they’ve already bolstered their bona fides by seeming reasonable and respectful of liberty, and instead of answering, they just pin their opponents as fundamentalist or authoritarian nutjobs and rest their case on ridicule.
If you’re down with that, then I ask you to provide me the proof that abortion is not murder, for I must have missed it. I’ll go ahead and make the safe assumption that you can’t, and so I put this to you: Why do you default to imposing the pro-abortion opinion?
I think what you’re trying to say is that actual establishments of religion should not be imposed, and in that case, I agree with you. But there is a difference between a rational metaphysical view that is often incorporated into religious doctrine and a sectarian religious belief or practice. Mandating that all Americans pledge fealty to Rome and go to confession is not the same thing as (ex hypothesi) outlawing abortion, or for that matter gay marriage. I am not religious and I am not a believer, but I am against abortion and gay marriage. This is because my view on the nature of persons is metaphysically basically the same as it is in Thomistic natural law theory (that is, I am an Aristotelian).
For this discussion to not turn in circles, we have to agree on terms, and in particular on what constitutes an establishment of religion. “Imposing opinions” is a red herring. You are assuming that certain *metaphysical* (but secular) notions can be settled by… what? … social science or science or whatever, branding that as proven/provable fact, and then shouting “mere opinion!” at those with differing *metaphysical* opinions and arguments.
Third, on the “proof” question, you evidently haven’t considered that metaphysical questions are not subject to proof in any knock-down, scientific, philosophic, or statistical sense. What is a person? No “proof” is possible. Where does life begin? No “proof” either way. JuliB has this one right. As does Steven D. Smith, whose book “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse” I hope you will think about reading.
You use the (in)famous “harm principle” of John Stuart Mill – a favorite of leftists and libertarians – to assert, “What right do we have to make [sodomy] illegal?”
Glad you asked, and I’ll tell you what right: can you “prove” that sodomy does not violate the harm principle? Who is the standard for what constitutes “harm”? Why are the libertines to be preferred in their opinions on harm (“it harms me so, oh yes!, to be stigmatized and ‘forbidden’ from buggering”) to the puritans (“it harms private and thus public morals and me personally, because I don’t want me or my children to be given a thumbs up for buggering, to live in a community where this behavior is approved”).
I’m not arguing for one over the other; I’m saying that the harm principle isn’t capable of settling the matter. Mill himself came to realize that the harm principle actually can justify any imposition of the government on society, precisely because “harm” could not be defined properly. It winds up being either too broad (thus allowing the totalitarianism it is supposed to preclude) or too narrow (thus not securing consensus, as it is intended to do).
The reason sex is inevitably a public concern is because it is unfortunately a most private activity with quite severe public ramifications. I won’t go into more detail on the subject, as I don’t really feel like discoursing on the… um… ins and outs of sodomy tonight. The point is that you will have to do better than the harm principle (which in any case is just one possible philosophical approach to take – there’s also natural law, deontology, pragmatism, etc.).
Finally, to re-cap:
1) The pure democracy argument (majorities should get whatever they want) doesn’t work, for self-evident reasons;
2) Metaphysical opinions are not provable and incorporating them in law is not the same as an illicit establishment of religion. Using religious arguments to support a metaphysical opinion is not the same as the opinion being a “merely religious” opinion.
3) The harm principle does not work as an alternative to metaphysical argument and opinion. Instead, we smuggle metaphysical views into our understanding of what constitutes “harm.”
4) I’m curious – can you tell me what, in your opinion, has been proved and can therefore be classified as a fact instead of an opinion? (My guess is you’re going to go for only economic arguments, but let’s see).
Geoffrey Britain is a very unsure man, apparently. Unsure of universally applicable morality, unsure whether conception is the start of a life, unsure whether his fellow citizens (if not a Brit) who are religious fundamentalists might tyrranize him by proscribing the disgusting anal intercourse of which he seems fond.
Meanwhile he is content in his insecurity to leave it as it is: gross social decay, inverting demographic pyramids, rampant black-on-white racism, unspeakable corruption (moral and financial)and incompetence in the highest echelons of Federal government, the coming vote fraud blitz, Homeland Security buying enough ammo to kill every American twice over, etc.
Have you done human embryology, Mr. Britain? It is an entirely wonderful process, and it never fails to amaze me that cells migrate from the opposite poles of the body, meet, and begin to make a kidney. Only a cluck or a lawyer would argue when life BEGINS. Begins– get it?
Would you reason that lighting a haystack on fire would not be the start of the fire, that a haystack must be on fire until it exceeds X volume or Y BTUs emitted before it is termed a fire? If so, there are probably some very nice GS-13 openings for you in Washington. But not when I’m Pesident, please.
P.S. – Like your blog [GB]. Nice layout, good writing. Kudos.
Not sure how we got here, but let’s also recall that while the country is right of center, that has only recently been reflected in any sort of predilection for Republican candidates. 1994 was the end of, what, 40 years of Democratic majorities in Congress? With Republican candidates splitting the Presidency?
And GB: try to be more generous. Standing up for injustice is not always a subordinate value to not controlling people . I wish someone would control Mr. Mugabe, for example.
Gringo writes:
“When I am paying taxes to pay for the consequences of fatherless families, laissez-faire flies out the window. Your [not GB] freedom to do as you please does not include your right to steal money from my tax dollars to support your dysfunctional decisions.”
I am also in principle all for letting people do what they insist on doing if I have the concomitant right of my own to let them die in ditches when their annoying behavior redounds negatively on them.
Unfortunately, what the modern liberal wants, as everyone commenting here well knows, is not that nasty old fashioned “negative [ly formulated] liberty” but affirmation, a socially provided smorgasbord of free lunches, and an underwriting of their “self-expressive” acts.
They self-express, you pick up the tab. It’s all part of community values don’t you know.
My solution to most government totalitarian policies like abortion is to decentralize the power and remove the authority from the capital and redistribute it to the people who are the most impacted by the decisions.
Right now the Leftist alliance is attempting to achieve critical point by making it so that normal Americans cannot just mind their own business, because other Americans have the power to control that business via the vote and bureacratic regulation. This sets up division and class warfare, which allows the rich and political elite to manipulate things for power mad schemes and goals.
If people paid for abortion using their own money, and didn’t have the power to appropriate the price using either the IRS or moral threats, and relied on state borders to differ between what is or is not illegal, then most people would be satisfied. But Communist Revolutions don’t work if most people are satisfied.
I’m simply saying that a vote based on an opinion founded in personal faith but which you can’t prove to an unbeliever is an attempt to impose your religious views upon someone else. That applies whatever the religion.
If I were to offer Texans out of state abortion, no tax payer funded abortion or initiatives or PR or anything related to abortion, they would take it.
If I were to offer the same deal to Leftists and pro-abortionists, they would reject it. And for all the right (wrong) reasons.
Voting is only totalitarian policy writ large when one votes in a totalitarian democracy. Without the centralized authorization to redistribute money from Texans to abortionists, most of these issues would just go away.
kolnai Says: …
The tactic goes back at least to the so-called “public reason” group … who sought to make public discourse “reasonable” by systematically purging all metaphysical “opinions,” leaving, ostensibly, only “provable” “facts” to be debated over. …
… They say, “A person? What’s that? Some religious notion? But that’s just a far-out opinion. PROVE it is a person.” …”
The comments on the Rawlsian approach were interesting. How he ever then “deduced” from his first principles as held, that what society was was a commitment to “sharing each others fate” eludes me, to say the least.
The implications regarding the banishment of teleology and ensuing definitional and descriptive problems, interesting as well.
It seems you are trying to be fair with GB.
With Neo’s permission, you might find the following link to be of some interest …
Apologies if you have already been there and commented and I missed it.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/04/reading-rosenberg-part-ix.html
unless you think the good ones were being held in some basement and forcibly restrained from running by the nefarious Republican establishment.
The establishment presents two hard Leftists candidates, Romneycare vs. Obamacare suitably corrupt, Bain Capital vs. Goldman Sachs, then pretends there is some difference between them.
The trajectory from FDR to Obama with occasional “do it more slowly” candidates like Nixon and Romney is clear, as your list of candidates shows.
Why vote for the slower of two evils? Vote Obama and reach the climax of a 100 years of history quickly.
GB,
“You criticized my language calling it ‘nasty’ I replied that people don’t seek to censure things they don’t consider nasty. ”
Not nasty as in gross, but nasty as in insulting, and needlessly so. My initial knee-jerk reaction was ‘eff you too buddy’.
“Personally, I suspect it is, at some point, destroying a human life but we can’t prove when that fetus becomes a human being, can we? Science can’t answer that question, so we all have somewhat different opinions because we don’t know, we simply believe what we believe. No firm consensus exists other than a majority of people get uncomfortable with abortion in the third trimester.”
Actually, many bio ethicists do agree that the fetus is human life. And logic tells us so as well. If people choose to ignore certain facts, that’s their choice.
While I will take you at your word, you certainly DO NOT argue like a non-religious pro-lifer.
“So to make it illegal, what you’re proposing is to impose your opinion, upon others. ”
ALL law does that. Law is focused on morality. Should I have to tell a pro-lifer that?
ErisGuy: I’m afraid you have jumped the shark and don’t even know it.
So kolnai makes the philosophical argument I wish I could construct, but I have just started with learning about natural law. I stand in awe.
Ok – GB – I’m going to make an accusation: I do not believe you are really a pro-lifer. You keep returning to religious arguments (‘opinions’) but then parrot me saying that you do not base your position on religious beliefs.
Then, “I am strongly opposed to making anyone pay for contraceptives and my daughter has convinced me that I am also opposed to anyone having to pay for anothers Viagra.:-) “. The argument the left has used for this is completely ungrounded and a decent pro-lifer should be able to spot the flaws in moments.
Finally, and most damning: “As I recall, in the years when conservative Presidents served, the anti-abortion folks were quite active “.
It’s not anti-abortion, it’s pro-life.
Sorry, I think you’ve adopted the mantle, but like that one global warming guy, you just can’t master the lingo and the thought process, so argue our beliefs like a ‘progressive’ would. And it’s not passing the smell test.
I’ll cease this debate on neo’s blog.
DNW –
Hey, if I could afford to make one shirt (yes, I’m that poor [no, not really]), it would say,
“Everything I learned about natural law, I learned from Feser.”
That’s not strictly true, but he was the one who forced me to take it more seriously than I had before. I read his blog everyday, and it’s great to see another Feser reader here.
JuliB –
Thanks for the nod. To continue with my previous remarks, Feser is someone who I stand in awe of. If you want to get a superb, clear, compelling overview of natural law theory and Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics in general, Feser’s “The Last Superstition” and “Aquinas” cannot be recommended with too much enthusiasm (if you haven’t already read them). After that, you can move on to David Oderberg’s “Real Essentialism,” and you’re off to the races.
Or you can just peruse Feser’s blog, which is a treasure trove of serious thinking on topics I’m sure would be off great interest to you.
Derp – “of” not “off.” Someone has not learned to use the new spell-check toy.
Gringo,
When I asked rhetorically what right anyone has to tell someone that they can’t have sex before marriage, I was referring to adults engaging in that activity. Lack of parental supervision and influence is a major factor in teenage pregnancy rates.
Kolnai,
“GB -You really should re-think your position on this.
Opinion 1: abortion is murder; let’s outlaw it.
Opinion 2: abortion is glorious; let’s do it.
Your resolution? Allow abortion if people want it; i.e., “impose” one opinion over another. Unless you believe it can be “proved” that abortion is not murder. And good luck with that.”
No, I can’t prove that abortion isn’t murder but you can’t prove that it is murder… that is why it is left up to the individual’s conscience.
No I’m not arguing that people should get whatever they want, merely because a majority wants it
Nor is it my aim to make the left’s points for them, reason and logic (as we personally understand it) however, sometimes demands expression.
“They say, “A person? What’s that? Some religious notion? But that’s just a far-out opinion. PROVE it is a person.”
The clear retort is, “Prove it is NOT a person,”
Your “clear retort” is a fallacy in logic; no one can ‘prove’ a negative. As in ‘prove’ you’re not secretly a rapist. You’re the one stating that the fetus is a person, so prove it and, when it becomes a person. At what stage of gestation does the fetus become a person? Conception? Late first trimester? Beginning or middle of end of second trimester? Viability? Birth? Since there is such a diversity of opinion and no one can prove their view to be factual, to make abortion illegal requires the imposition of personal opinion upon those who do not share it. If that is a faith based opinion, then it is effectively if unintentionally, an attempt to impose religious premise upon others.
Remember we are not talking about society’s consensus on where to draw the line, we’re discussing the desire for some to make abortion illegal for either everyone or, only in the case of a clear medical case involving the health of the mother.
““Why do you default to imposing the pro-abortion opinion?”
Because I believe it to be logically inescapable. I can’t impose my personal beliefs upon another who doesn’t share them when I can’t prove my view to be factual, regardless of how sincerely I may deplore their action.
If the fetus does become a person prior to birth, (but when?) then of course its murder. But since we can’t prove that, we are left with the only fair solution being to leave it up to the individual’s conscience. Which is not the imposition of the pro-abortion position but the refraining from making it illegal based upon personal opinion.
“You are assuming that certain *metaphysical* (but secular) notions can be settled by… what? … social science or science or whatever, branding that as proven/provable fact, and then shouting “mere opinion!” at those with differing *metaphysical* opinions and arguments.”
Here, in my view, you get to the heart of the matter. Actually, I do not assume that some questions can be settled by science. Such as if there is a soul and if so, when it enters the body, which is, I believe at the heart of when a fetus becomes a person.
Some questions may never be answered by science but regardless of the strength of our personal intuition or religious belief, imposing a view upon someone who does not share it, when we cannot prove to a neutral party that we are factually correct is a clear restriction upon the other persons liberty.
“can you “prove” that sodomy does not violate the harm principle?”
Within the parameters of consensual adults who suffer no resultant medical harm, yes absolutely.
Personally, I find the practice somewhat ‘icky’ as the rectum was designed for expulsion, not the opposite but there are a heavy concentration of nerve endings in the region and many people find the practice stimulating and pleasurable. So, by what moral right do I or anyone else have, to make illegal that practice for consensual adults?
Yes, sex does have the potential to create severe public ramifications, which does make it a public concern. The greater the restriction upon individual’s liberties however, the greater the burden upon society to demonstrate the necessity of that restriction.
“Using religious arguments to support a metaphysical opinion is not the same as the opinion being a “merely religious” opinion.”
Perhaps true but irrelevant to my point that an unprovable opinion imposed upon another to make illegal an issue with which the other does not agree is an infringement upon their liberties.
“I’m curious — can you tell me what, in your opinion, has been proved and can therefore be classified as a fact instead of an opinion?”
That’s a bit disingenuous but sure; the laws of physical reality (gravity, death, taxes;-) Despite history being written by the winners, certain historical fact is undeniable. So far, the US Constitution and the principles upon which it is founded have provided for the highest quality of life (life, liberty and the [individual] pursuit of happiness) for the greatest number ever achieved.
It’s a fact that never before has a society attempted to create a harmonious multiracial, multiethnic society and despite lapses succeeded to an astonishing degree. It’s a fact that much of Mozart’s music is incredibly beautiful, as studies of both babies and plants attest.
I’m afraid you have jumped the shark and don’t even know it.
A shark is a better ride than elephant or donkey. 😉
Don Carlos,
I’m sure of many things. I’m also in agreement with Socrates’ observation that the beginning of wisdom is to realize how much we don’t know… Lastly, I try to embrace the dictum that, “the truly educated never graduate”.
Morality is the individual and social determination of what is inherently acceptable and unacceptable. I accept that there is a “universally applicable morality” but take Lincoln’s view of embodying it, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
IMO, Lincoln was acknowledging that he didn’t know that God was on his side but prayed that God would lead him to God’s side in his perception of the issues. I nor you can ‘perfectly know the full particulars of that “universally applicable morality” all we can hope is that God leads us more fully into its embrace.
I am not content but concerned about all of the social issues to which you refer and any long time visitor to this blog will I trust, so attest. I simply do not agree that in certain matters, the imposition of personal opinion upon others is justified.
I am not arguing as to when life begins, for the baby that is clearly at conception. The matter of abortion however rests upon when we become a person, which I believe is when the soul enters the body. No one however, can prove there even is a soul, much less when it enters the body. So, since I cannot agree to the imposition of personal belief upon those who disagree, I cannot support making abortion illegal. In my view, abortion must be a matter of the individual’s conscience.
Finally, you might examine your tendency to make this personal and then engage in personal attacks, emotion driven responses are generally a sign of the initiators inability to respond rationally.
ErisGuy: oh, yeah?
JuliB,
Actually, many bio ethicists do agree that the fetus is human life.
I never indicated otherwise. The issue however isn’t when life begins but when we become a person.
Pro-lifers take the position that we become a person before birth, I suspect that to be true. The pro-abortion folks take the position that we essentially become a person at birth.
On either side only rests personal opinion, as neither side can prove the other to be incorrect.
You and I have a perfect right to our opinions, we do not have the right to impose them upon others by making illegal what we cannot factually support.
Society does have the right to enact laws based upon social consensus, which is not to say that a particular consensus is logically valid.
“While I will take you at your word, you certainly DO NOT argue like a non-religious pro-lifer.”
Thank you for taking me at my word, it is a sincere one. We shall just have to disagree as to how a non-religious pro-lifer argues but perhaps it would clarify the discussion to know that while I consider myself Christian, I am a non-denominational one. One that does not accept that the Bible is literally true and who believes that it is more important to attempt to follow Christ’s example than to hold to conventional strictures. I also do not see religious belief and rationality to be mutually exclusive, though they must be if one holds to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
“So to make it illegal, what you’re proposing is to impose your opinion, upon others. ”
“ALL law does that. Law is focused on morality. Should I have to tell a pro-lifer that?”
That’s a bit testy, yes-no? No, all law does not impose our opinion upon others. That way lies the tyranny of the majority. My rights stop where yours begin and vice versa. When you hold a view based in personal opinion and cannot prove that view to be factually correct, yet try to make actions based upon the others opinion illegal, then unintentionally or not, you seek to restrict anothers liberty.
JuliB,
“Ok — GB — I’m going to make an accusation: I do not believe you are really a pro-lifer.”
Certainly not one who holds to the conventional view. I simply make a distinction between personal views and the imposition of them upon society. Based upon acknowledging that as I cannot prove my view as factual, I haven’t the right to impose it upon society.
A ‘decent’ pro-lifer?
“It’s not anti-abortion, it’s pro-life.”
Yes, just as it’s not pro-abortion but pro-choice.
“I’ll cease this debate on neo’s blog.”
As you wish.
GB –
Thanks for the reply.
1) First, I assure you that you can prove a negative, simply as an implication, if nothing else, from a positive proof. Arguments from ignorance and inductive arguments are not the same as contrapositives, and they do not imply – as they are often taken to imply – that you can’t prove a negative. Contrapositives are negatives that can be proved.
Here’s a paper for your edification, and hopefully for your information:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
Showing that some proposition is internally contradictory is proving a negative – and indeed, the pro-life is argument is, if anything, that the pro-abortion side’s position is self-contradictory, like arguing for a square circle (or, in this case, a non-person person).
Frankly, I don’t know a single logician who believes that you can’t prove a negative (nor does the author of the paper above). The law of contradiction is a negative, after all. The rule of the double negative states that any positive proposition can be phrased as a negative (P = not-not-P). And so forth.
But be that as it may, no one is making an argument from ignorance here, i.e., no one is saying, “You can’t prove the fetus isn’t a person, therefore it is.” Rather, a lot of argument is used to support the proposition that the fetus is a person, and the burden of proof is put on those who would deny it. This is not unusual or, heaven forfend, a fallacy.
We are dancing around how to define “proof,” but the usual reason for making the “can’t prove a negative” argument is to support some atheistic or secular argument. And it’s not a little ironic. Can you prove the negative “You can’t prove a negative”? I’d love to see it.
We’re not talking – once again – about a question decidable on science or logic alone; nonetheless, it is a question that must be decided. This is a metaphysical question – i.e., not like saying, “prove I didn’t eat dinner with a unicorn yesterday,” but like saying, “prove that personhood only arrives at point x in the womb.” Applying “no proof of a negative” to such questions is a rhetorical trick. Nothing more.
2) The rest of your reply, unfortunately, just restates what I took issue with. I’m not going to accuse you of being disingenuous, but you are stubborn.
Once again: “…that is what it is left up to the individual’s conscience.”
Prove that killing an innocent person is murder, or prove that it is not. This is how the pro-life side views the question. For you to say that we should just default to individual conscience because a bunch of people think there’s no innocent person involved is quite possibly to sanction murder. If you accept it, then ipso facto you do not believe it is murder (or else, you think murdering is ok, so long as people do it with a clean conscience?).
Imagine if a bunch of people came to believe that black people were not really persons, and so could be killed and enslaved at will. Would you say we just have a difference of opinion here, and since we who disagree are fallaciously asking the racists to “prove a negative” we have to leave it up to the individual’s conscience?
Why is murder wrong? Why is slavery wrong? Why is theft wrong? At some level ALL of these “opinions” come down to what our view of persons and their rights are, and NONE of it can be proved in an absolute Cartesian sense, precisely because personhood is a metaphysical question. The Soviets differed in their view of personhood – a legitimate difference of opinion? The Muslim fanatics disagree as well – legitimate difference? Why do secularists get your blessing but not the Soviets or the Muslims? Because secularists are not “religious”? Neither were the Soviets, who, you will recall, were just good ol’ rational, scientifically-minded progressives.
We can’t escape this debate so easily. Simply mouthing the Mario Cuomo mantra isn’t a resolution, but a cop out.
3) On the sodomy question, I hate to break it to you, but lots of people who engage in it suffer resultant medical harm. But regardless, and to reiterate, this is not a workable principle. Slaves who are treated well and given great medical care suffer no obvious medical harm. People fornicating with sanitized corpses in public cause no medical harm. Hell, live people fornicating in public cause no medical harm. And so on.
I’ll leave you with my recommendation of Smith’s book and leave the harm principle where it belongs.
4) I never disagreed with a *stiff burden* of justification for forbidding private behavior – you’re shifting the goalposts there. The argument is whether the burden has been met, and you seem to be agreeing now that IF it has been, then it IS legitimate to impose opinions on others. If so, I agree, and we can back to arguing the real issue, which is the personhood of the fetus.
5) “…perhaps true but irrelevant…”
No. It is relevant, because you wrote this:
“I’m simply saying that a vote based on an opinion founded in personal faith but which you can’t prove to an unbeliever is an attempt to impose your religious views upon someone else.”
My argument directly addressed that, and the upshot was that there is a difference between “your religious views” and “views that are often justified with religious argument.”
But ok, I’ll bite on your reformulation. The statement is that to pass laws rooted in an opinion not provable/convincing to a “neutral third party” is an unjustifiable infringement of liberty.
First of all, I never said that banning abortion is not an infringement, in some neutral sense, on liberty. My point, and the point of pro-lifers, is that there is no *legitimate* liberty to murder innocent persons. It is not a liberty worth having. Liberty is not the be-all and end-all of civic values.
Second of all, I’m not sure why you consistently fail to see this, but licensing abortion is not an opinion that can be proved to a neutral third party. So again, why do you default to it? I presume it’s because of the magic charm the word “liberty” has for you, and the argument goes like this:
1) Either an opinion can be neutrally proved correct or not.
2) Liberty is the fundamental value of political life.
3) If an opinion cannot be neutrally proved, then to use it to restrict people’s choices is an infringement on the fundamental value of political life.
4) Therefore, if an opinion cannot be neutrally proved, we ought to default to the non-restrictive option.
But no opinion on personhood can be neutrally proved, so this whole argument is moot. You can’t argue that allowing abortion is not an infringement on liberty, because that is – to use your terms – a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Killing a person is a rather severe infringement of liberty.
This is already too long, so I’ll leave it at that.
>> Which one of those would have beaten Obama?
In a no-holds-barred cage match, ALL of them, I’d wager…
😀
If I understand the estimable GB correctly, a fetus becomes a person only when it has a soul, Since we cannot (‘scientifically’) ‘prove’ when that occurs, it seems he’s OK with killing (possibly soulless) fetuses. Further, the belief in souls deems them immortal; souls thus survive murders of ‘persons’. By that logic, killing becomes always OK.
I would ask him when a preemie weighing 600 grams becomes a soulful person. After 48 hours? after 2 weeks? Is it OK to kill a viable preemie because it is deemed soulless? We do keep them alive, some of them, at great effort.
kolnai,
It’s getting late, so I’ll give your comment full consideration tomorrow.
GB says, “And you have a perfect right to your view, but as you can’t prove that abortion is homicide, that makes that view a personal opinion.”
That which is aborted dies. Its not an oak tree that dies, its not a gnat that dies, its not a jelly fish that dies; it is a human being that dies. Perhaps in your world it is merely a matter of opinion if someone chooses to kill a premature baby inside or outside the womb; in my world it is homicide. When one or more humans kill another human it is homicide, justifiable or not.
Sophistry ain’t the way.
Whew kolnai, what a treatise to respond to. A bit much for a blog but as this is an important, if also an exhausting subject, here goes.
”I assure you that you can prove a negative”
In certain circumstances, perhaps. Again, prove that you’re not a closet rapist.
The reason we have the standard that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty is because it can be near impossible to prove that one hasn’t done something of which they’ve been accused. Especially if they haven’t a verifiable alibi and had the means and motive to commit the crime of which they’ve been accused.
”Contrapositives are negatives that can be proved”
OK but not all negative things are contrapositive.
Sorry but I find Professor Hales argument less than convincing because it’s a categorical one. I would be less skeptical had he posited that “sometimes or even often, you can prove a negative” but as he gave no examples of when you can’t prove a negative, his implication is that you can always prove a negative. Outside the ivory tower of philosophy, it’s just too easy to find real world examples of negatives that can’t be proven.
”no one is saying, “You can’t prove the fetus isn’t a person, therefore it is.” Rather, a lot of argument is used to support the proposition that the fetus is a person, and the burden of proof is put on those who would deny it.”
The pro-life argument is that a fetus is a baby and the support or ‘evidence’ they offer is almost entirely faith based or intuitive. Clearly, pro-choice people do not accept that evidence and without scientific evidence that one side or the other is correct, all that is left is the matter of individual conscience. If Pro-life advocates managed to make illegal abortion, how would that not be imposing a mostly faith based opinion upon the minority?
”Can you prove the negative “You can’t prove a negative”?”
Sure. By giving a real world example. Someone has been accused of murder. They are completely innocent but circumstantial evidence makes them a strong suspect. They hated the victim. They have no verifiable alibi. They had the means and even the motive for committing the crime. The DA decides to prosecute the accused. The crime and trial is taking place in England. The accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Prove they didn’t commit the crime. Prove the negative.
”We’re not talking — once again — about a question decidable on science or logic alone;
That’s exactly my point. And without empirically provable evidence, all you have are opinions.
”nonetheless, it is a question that must be decided.”
And we have decided to leave it up to the individual’s conscience. But out of the sincerest beliefs and an inability to face and accept what a separation of church and state sometimes requires, the Pro-Life faction cannot allow the matter to rest.
It’s not stubbornness that you see upon my part, it’s an inadequate attempt upon my part to make myself clear and/or a futile attempt to repeat a message that some do not want to hear.
”Prove that killing an innocent person is murder, or prove that it is not. This is how the pro-life side views the question.”
Unfortunately, that view is illogical because the Pro-choice side doesn’t have to prove that it’s not murder, since it’s the pro-life side which is making the claim that the fetus is a person. So it’s up to them to prove their assertions because it is upon that assertion that they rest their case that abortion should be illegal. But again, unfortunately all they can offer is faith based beliefs and intuition based opinion.
”For you to say that we should just default to individual conscience because a bunch of people think there’s no innocent person involved is quite possibly to sanction murder. If you accept it, then ipso facto you do not believe it is murder (or else, you think murdering is ok, so long as people do it with a clean conscience?).“
It’s not a ‘bunch’, it’s the majority and just as importantly, several iterations of the the Supreme Court have found that there is no lawful basis, other than faith based opinion or an intuitive sense, to legally agree that a fetus is a person.
If, there is a soul or spirit, then whenever that spirit/soul enters the body is when that fetus becomes a person and any killing after that event would indeed be murder. The problem is that we can’t prove when a fetus becomes a person, at least not with empirical evidence, upon which the entire ‘hinge’ of the issue hangs…
And the majority of people don’t feel that the fetus becomes a person until sometime after the third trimester. It’s not that it’s ok to kill with a clear conscience, it’s that you can’t demonstrate that it is murder, all that you can offer is your opinion.
A bunch of white people did believe that black people were not really persons and some did so sincerely. In time, the preponderance of evidence convinced more and more people that people of any color were people too.
Eventually, the reality that Shakespeare used in his soliloquy about the Jews, who also were thought by many, to not be ‘persons’ carried the tide; “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”
”Why is murder wrong? Why is slavery wrong? Why is theft wrong? At some level ALL of these “opinions” come down to what our view of persons and their rights are, and NONE of it can be proved in an absolute Cartesian sense, precisely because personhood is a metaphysical question.”
Metaphysics isn’t need my friend. Those things are wrong because in order to commit them, you have to accept the premise that others haven’t the rights you claim for yourself and there’s no objective basis for that opinion.
Yes, resultant medical harm can come with sodomy but as long as the activity is between consenting adults who pose no financial burden to society, you and I have no right to deny them that activity. It’s their lesson to learn, not ours to impose upon them.
Slaves are, by definition under coercion and sanitized corpses (?) cannot give their consent.
Yes, opinion based it clearly is but public fornication, as salacious or natural, as some may find it, imposes a burden upon the ‘public’s sensibility’, as it violates established cultural norms and taboos.
”I never disagreed with a *stiff burden* of justification for forbidding private behavior — you’re shifting the goalposts there.”
Not intentionally, I’m responding to more than one person here and trying different avenues of communication to try to make my point clear. When people raise objections without addressing my premise, I assume understanding is lacking or that they are being obtuse.
A view that is “justified with religious argument” to make something illegal with which another does not agree is nevertheless an attempt to impose that religious belief.
”I never said that banning abortion is not an infringement, in some neutral sense, on liberty.”
Nor did I ever accuse you of saying that, I was attempting to make clearer my point, again by offering a slightly different take in discussing the issue.
”My point, and the point of pro-lifers, is that there is no *legitimate* liberty to murder innocent persons.”
Your point is well understood by everyone. Now prove that a fetus is a person as that is the basis of your point and upon which rests the assertion that abortion should be illegal.
”Liberty is not the be-all and end-all of civic values.”
No it is not but without liberty there are no civic virtues, except what the tyrant allows.
”If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
” licensing abortion is not an opinion that can be proved to a neutral third party”
It doesn’t need to be proven. Not until the fetus can be proven to be a person. You’re the one who wants to deny the woman the right to individually decide for herself where she stands on the issue.
When someone can prove if and when the fetus becomes a person, there will be no justification for dispute.
It’s not “the magic charm” of the word “liberty” but the necessary burden upon all of us to show why someone elses liberty (who holds a different view) should be curtailed, demanding as justification for that infringement, more than faith based opinion or intuition is their perfect right.
”Killing a person is a rather severe infringement of liberty. “
Yes it is. Now prove that it is a person without resorting to personal opinion. If you can’t and still insist that others should be made to comply with your opinion, then you unwittingly or not, support tyranny.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson
Laws made supported only by personal opinion are but the will of the mob made real.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
For those who would point out that we have a republic, of course and, it has spoken, reflecting both the will of the representatives elected to serve them and that judgment by several Supreme Courts, that no basis for making abortion illegal exists, other than that of personal opinion.
Finally, if our discussion is to continue past this point, perhaps it should be conducted through email?