Meddling

It still shocks me how entrenched the pro-abortion view is, so much so that supporters can't even acknowledge that the central claim of pro-lifers is there's a human life at stake - the child's.  Argue against that claim.  Fine.  But usually it's just ignored and never registers.  Instead, pro-lifers are accused over and over of trying to use the power of government to be busy-bodies.

I just heard a caller to a radio show assert that "pro-lifers just want the government to meddle in people's private decisions."  To a pro-lifer, to me, that's like saying, "The government shouldn't meddle in people's private decision to murder."  Of course, government has a right to meddle in murder because lives are at stake.  That's what happens in an abortion, too.  I think we can all agree that preventing unjustified killing is something the government should meddle in.

The core principle we all share is that government can meddle when the circumstances call for it.  Let's move on to the discussion whether abortion is one of those circumstances instead of misrepresenting what pro-lifers wish the government to do.

Comments

[Kevin W]

>>”I just heard a caller to a radio show assert that "pro-lifers just want the government to meddle in people's private decisions."

The term ‘meddle’ here is used to advance ‘The Cause.’ Meddle (negative connotation) is not used when discussing higher taxes, government approval of same-sex marriage, government meddling in environmental issues, government meddling in social programs, etc.

The government inherently ‘meddles’. The caller is right. Pro-lifers do want the government to meddle to save unborn lives.

Thanks for calling in.

[alan aronson]

Conversations are often compressed and some things are implied but not stated. A person who believes that using the police power of the state to ban abortion (pick your conditions) is inappropriate likely has views on personhood, soulness, and things of that nature that differ greatly from someone who does consider such action appropriate. It is really unrealistic to expect ones opponents to confine their arguments to ones preferred talking points.

[Kevin W]

'Unrealistic' means nothing. It proves nothing and gets us nowhere. It's unrealistic to expect someone to turn in a lost wallet too. So what?

I don't see a point here; but let's not get off topic. The goverment 'meddles' by nature--Melinda's point I believe.

[Alesia]

As an effective ambassador for Christ as Greg speaks about, one must be able to make an impact for these babies...If one life is saved, it is worth it. ONE by ONE and step by step.

[alan aronson]

Actually Kevin, it isn't. "Meddling" carries the connotation of unwarranted or improper interference. Melinda's point is a perfectly valid one if one shares her theology and view of government.. If one doesn't, then not so valid.

Those who define the terms of a debate will usually win. That is how we got Gonzales and a law with no realistic protections for the physical health of the mother.

I am not a relativist here. There are proper and improper roles for government. A view of government that considers all government action to be meddling is nilistic and incoherent.

Words should also mean something. If the Coast Guard should arrive and carry me off before the flood, it isn't meddling in my personal affairs, it is saving my life by performing a proper function of government. Day before yesterday the government picked up my trash - likewise no meddling. Doing violence to the English language to make a debating point is simply wrong.

[Zasz2003]

Hey I need help, and I love STR and figured I would come here. After hours of debate on another blog I finally condensed the issue to the personhood of the fetus. However they defined personhood as consciousness. I used the coma/knocked out argument. However they claim that they once had brain function, and brain dead isn’t right for a fetus as they were never brain alive. I really need help!!! What is a good rhetoric against consciousness as the definition of personhood?

[Mo]

Thanks, Melinda. No matter how many times I pose the question, no matter how I rephrase it to be as direct as possible (and therefore get a direct answer) I have yet to have anyone address the actual act of abortion. It always, always, always gets sidetracked.

[William Wilcox]

Zasz2003,

You may find this a helpful start:

http://www.imago-dei.net/imago_dei/2005/08/brain_death_and.html

Actually, if you visit the LTI Blog and look in the archive of January 6 & 10, 2007 you will find several threads that may be of help.

[William Wilcox]

I forgot to include the LTI link:

http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/

[Kevin W]

>>"After hours of debate on another blog I finally condensed the issue to the personhood of the fetus."

- Nice job.

Zasz2003, got any time for STR? Two hours would be miraculous here.

STR does a great job on this issue; I find it amazing that certain posters use specific logic that is refuted by resources and articles right here on this site! It’s like trying to convince someone that books exist while standing at the entrance of a library. Amazing.

[Kevin W]

>>Alan wrote: "Meddling" carries the connotation of unwarranted or improper interference.”

Got it Alan; like how a murderer probably feels the government is meddling when they arrive at his front steps with handcuffs?

>>”Words should also mean something.”

Got it again; words are indeed important;

Words like:

Baby
Forceps
Head
Scissors
High-Powered
Suction
Brains
Limp

[Paul A]

Zasz2003 -- you might ask them why it is that consciousness determines personhood. Seems like an arbitrary definition. Further, how do they know the unborn isn't "brain alive"? Fetuses respond to external stimulus LONG before birth -- that seems to indicate something is going on there.

Ask them where they would stand on the case of an infant born unconscious (but otherwise healthy) -- can we kill that? On their view, it (apparently) doesn't have brain function until it exits the womb, and if it hasn't previously had consciousness, it doesn't deserve to be protected against killing.

If they want to use consciousness as the litmus test, then it seems they have the burden to show that it doesn't have consciousness before killing it (and they are going to have a tough time with that). If you wanted to implode a building, but weren't sure if a person was still inside, do you err on the side of caution, or is the default position to take down the building even if there is a reasonable question as to whether someone is still inside?