Yes, one question is, when do the unborn get the full protection of the state? By the third trimester, most American would say that the unborn child deserves at least some measure of state protection. Most Americans, however, are not comfortable giving the unborn full rights from the moment of conception, partly because of the issue of birth control. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, most states would re-instate it by legislation. Some states would return to the earlier consensus of prohibition of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the preservation of the life of the mother.

The separation of church and state does not prohibit those who adhere to a religious tradition from being informed by that tradition, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinions publicly.

My own view is that we should concentrate on measures that would reduce the number of abortions within the parameters of the law, because that promises to be a more practical approach than each side yelling at the other. This practical pro-life approach would include, but not necessarily be limited to, better medical care for mothers and better social and economic opportunities and support for families with children.

It is interesting that you have repeatedly labeled my as some sort of religious zealot without even knowing. Certainly, almost every person that knows me, including Tom Grover, the ex-host at KVNU would disagree with you.

I would like to point out that you brought up the issue of religion, so I would like to point out that Obama has regularly made admissions of faith. Do you share the same distaste for him? Or are you simply looking for someone to take your frustrations out on?

I have read that you are well studied and belong to several groups including a Human Rights group. For fear of being told to “shut up” again I would like to give you a chance to answer this question if not personally as the Board Chair of The Human Rights Education Center of Utah.

When does a baby get Human Rights? A simple question for a man of your intellect and elevated position.

Oh, and I think it’s really quite touching that after being at each other’s throats all afternoon, Cliff and FF have found common ground in hatred for Bush.

Kumbaya.

Hey Cliff, Rich Okelberry will be co-hosting KVNU’s For the People tonight and I’ve scheduled this abortion thing as a topic, so if you feel like calling in, the number is 1-800-369-5868. We’ll be talking about it starting at about 5:10 p.m.

“It seems that your opinion is that anyone how believes shouldn’t be in involved in the government.”

It’s not the believers that shouldn’t be involved in government, just their religious beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem if religion informs your beliefs. But if the reason you want the government to do something (ban abortion, ban gay marriage, teach creationism, etc.) is because of your religious beliefs then I’ll kindly tell you to go fly a kite.

“It doesn’t matter if those values or principles are based on religion or not. As long as I don’t impose the requirements of my religion — women must wear a veil, men must not shave, everyone has to wear special undergarments, etc.

That is different from deriving law based on those values, we may disagree why murder is wrong but we can both agree that murder is wrong therefore against the law.”

No, it really isn’t different. What if we disagree? Let’s go back to the abortion topic. What if your religion says “life” begins at conception therefore anything that artificially removes a fertilized egg from a woman’s body should be outlawed? Should our government enforce such a law based simply on your religious belief?

A secular society that honors and sustains freedom of religious practice necessarily requires laws to be based on something other than religious principles.

What about philosophical principles? Would they be acceptable?

Cliff, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

Just saying.

Don,

“Such as?”

Well suppose someone had as a core belief that preservation of human life was their central value, apart from religion. And suppose that they concluded (apart from religion) that human life started at conception. Would that be an acceptable position in public policy?

Or suppose someone had as a core belief the preservation of the environment for no other reason than they liked nature. Would that be acceptable? Would it be more or less acceptable if they loved or even worshipped nature as opposed to merely liking nature?

Or suppose someone used religious rhetoric and even his pulpit to argue for civil rights, as was done in the sixties. Was that out of bounds?

“A secular society that honors and sustains freedom of religious practice necessarily requires laws to be based on something other than explicitly religious tenets.”

How about implicitly religious tenets? And then who decides which tenets are explicit and which are implicit?

If the criteria is “beneficence to society,” who decides what is beneficent? Are there any core values for society beyond economic utility?

A good many of our laws are based purely on lobbying, campaign donations, and personal economic self interest. Is that an acceptable “something other” on which to base our laws?

Is there a way to drive religious people or religiously motivated sentiments from the public square without doing violence to the ideas of democracy and freedom of expression? I think not.

That doesn’t mean that religious ideas should automatically prevail or that one religious group should necessarily prevail over another or that religion should be established by law. It just means that the public square should be reasonably open to all people and to all ideas.

Cliff- I would like to think that a persuasive and articulate Social Democrat might have headed off Germany’s move towards Nazi rule. Ultimately, my goal is to persuade. I don’t always meet that goal, because let’s face it, there’s a limit to any reasonable person’s ability to tolerate neocon nonsense. But I view my role like someone engaging in counter-terrorism, and yes, conservatives are political terrorists. They use propaganda in the same way that terrorists use roadside bombs, seeking to destroy and marginalize those different from themselves. But in the end, every person I offend has just as many votes as I do. Everyone I persuade does as well. I agree with your politics. I just try to deploy different strategies.

Two of my favorite authors are Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. However, they sometimes appear to me to be engaging in a sort of intellectual “shock and awe.” I try to engage people who may disagree in a way that is hopefully agreeable. A policy of “shock and awe” only sends them underground with the same voting rights they had before, with an even more rabid hatred for liberals.

Like you, I am a warrior, but I seek to use my ammo wisely, and pick and choose battles where a constructive result has a higher probability than one that might feel good, but ultimately be counter-productive. Even so, I’ve wasted my share of ammo on shadows, which I consider to be people where reason won’t work because reason isn’t what they are about.

Leo,
I think you’ve somewhat misconstrued my position. I don’t care what beliefs people hold. I care why it is they wish for our government to legislate based upon their beliefs. A person can hold whatever “core beliefs” they wish and they can come to them in any manner they wish. But if there is not an apparent benefit to society as a whole derived from any particular belief then our government has no purpose in legislating based upon that particular belief.

So, let’s use your example of someone concluding, apart from religion, that human life begins at conception. You ask, “Would that be an acceptable position in public policy?” To answer your question I will need more information. How did they come to this conclusion? Is there any objective evidence to support the conclusion? Having come to the conclusion itself is not a public policy position. What would this person want to legislate based upon their conclusion and what would be the societal benefit of such legislation? That’s the policy that would be up for debate. Whether or not it would be an “acceptable” public policy position would be based on the answers to the questions I’ve outlined.

Same goes for the core belief of preserving the environment based simply on the fact that someone likes nature. Legislating based on someone simply “liking” nature isn’t an acceptable public policy position. And no, loving or even worshiping nature wouldn’t change the argument.

“Or suppose someone used religious rhetoric and even his pulpit to argue for civil rights, as was done in the sixties. Was that out of bounds?”

Using religious rhetoric to effect public policy that is beneficial to society in general is not “out of bounds.” I don’t believe I’ve argued that it would be. My point is that if the religious argument cannot be translated into something that is beneficial to secular society in general, then our government should not be legislating based on that particular religious rhetoric.

“How about implicitly religious tenets? And then who decides which tenets are explicit and which are implicit?”

I think I”ll need some examples here. I’m not sure what an implicitly religious tenet would be, hence its implicitness.

“If the criteria is ‘beneficence to society,’ who decides what is beneficent? Are there any core values for society beyond economic utility?”

I think you know the answer to the first question. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not our religious leaders. As for the second question, of course there are. How about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? How about freedom, individual liberty and equality?

“A good many of our laws are based purely on lobbying, campaign donations, and personal economic self interest. Is that an acceptable ’something other’ on which to base our laws?”

No, it isn’t, at least not to me. I would hope it isn’t to you as well.

“Is there a way to drive religious people or religiously motivated sentiments from the public square without doing violence to the ideas of democracy and freedom of expression? I think not.

That doesn’t mean that religious ideas should automatically prevail or that one religious group should necessarily prevail over another or that religion should be established by law. It just means that the public square should be reasonably open to all people and to all ideas.”

Again, I don’t believe I’ve argued differently. Of course the public square should be reasonably open to all people and all ideas. But we should have valid secular reasons for legislating based upon any of those ideas, whether or not they correlate to someone’s religious beliefs as well.

I apologize Don,

This debate has spanned two blogs, this one and the one over at http://www.kvnuftp.com. My statement on this came as a response to a post to Jason Williams.

(Original Post, 8/20/08 @ 1:00pm)

Well said Jason.
I agree, as I’ve said that there can be disagreement on whether a fetus of 6 weeks should be classified as a human life. I personally side with human life not simply because of my religious views but because there is no consensus within the scientific community on the issue which leads me to side conservatively, just in case. The argument is similar to those that support human caused global warming theories and argue that it’s better to do something about it than wait and see if the theories are right. It should also be stated that I don’t believe that abortion should be abolished completely. I believe that in rare case, when the life of the mother is at eminent risk and the fetus is not viable, an abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. A good example of this might be when a woman has diabetes and her condition has degraded to the point that she can no longer carry the child. Even then all effort should be given to the most viable life, whether it is the woman or the child. Now I know that many pro-choice advocates will disagree with this position. However, we are primarily talking about late term abortions where the child is viable and could live outside the womb and the mother’s LIFE is not in immediate danger. It is my opinion that Obama side stepped this issue by using the “health of the mother” clause for late term abortion. In essence he was trying to declare that he disagrees with lat term abortions but gives this wide loop hole for them to occur that can include simply telling your doctor you have the blues.

While this is a very hot issue, I hope that we all can engage in an adult conversation about the issue, like the one Jason and I have had where we can discover not only our differences but our common ground.

Also, thanks for backing me up FedFarmer. I’ve been debating whether or not to have my wife read Cliffs post. She certainly wouldn’t be a civil as me.

Richard,
Yes, I saw that reply to “Jason” last night but, forgive me for being literal, you still haven’t answered the question. Apparently you believe a 6-week old fetus should be classified as “human life.” I’m assuming that’s the same as saying it deserves “human rights,” correct? How about five weeks? Four? I’ve tried to avoid doing this, but can I assume you are in the “human rights begin at conception” crowd? If this is the case, what are your views on contraceptives that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?

Concerning your triage example, at what point would you equate a fetus with the mother in determining who to “save”?

You seem like a pretty reasonable guy Richard. Why such a hard line stance on abortion? Can’t reason dictate in areas where religions (or “core beliefs” if you prefer) clearly fail to match up with with secular reality? To me it’s pretty clear that viability is a reasonable point to start placing restrictions on abortion. Prior to that point I think most people realize that a fetus simply isn’t “equal” to the mother from a “human rights” standpoint. Religious people can still “choose” to manage their lives according to their dictates by not using contraception, never aborting a fetus (even under extreme circumstances) or whatever it is they “believe”. Why can’t they allow the rest of us to do the same?

BTW, while I don’t share Cliff’s anger regarding this issue (yet) I do agree with him in principle. This really isn’t the government’s business, at least not until there is a fully viable fetus in question (I know, there’s a lot of gray area in that statement.) I also agree with Cliff that Obama did give the perfect answer to the question, while McCain simply pandered. I would have liked to hear Warren follow up with McCain by asking some more specific questions, such as the one I asked of you concerning contraception.

Obama’s answer respects the views of those he may disagree with, but in the end is rooted in reason. He realizes that where viewpoints differ reasonable compromise is necessary. You chided him for not stating what he believes. Well, and this is the point Cliff is making, it doesn’t matter what he believes.

What matters is how reasonable people can come together to prevent unwanted pregnancies and improve conditions to help women make abortion a choice of last resort. Religious people apparently don’t want that. They want their beliefs codified so that the law respects their beliefs to the exclusion of all others. Whether or not that actually helps to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions doesn’t really seem to matter. Whether or not that tramples on the religious and personal freedom of others doesn’t really seem to matter. It’s a theocratic response to a secular question and frankly, I find it a wholly un-American response. We don’t codify religious beliefs; we simply don’t.

Federal Farmer, well said.

Don, I don’t personally know anyone who argues from a religious point of view that believes that his views are contrary to the general welfare. On the contrary, people argue that their views would promote the general welfare. Likewise almost every lobbyist publicly argues that what is good for his constituency ultimately benefits everyone. And who decides what is beneficent? You have tried to guess my answer. My answer is that we have a complicated and balanced legal and democratic system to do that in which religious opinions are inevitably part of the mix. I do see a lot of name calling directed towards religious adherents that I think undermines civil discourse. Not that I support what I hear on the right-wing radio including religious some broadcasts. Far from it. I am concerned that the public airways are nearly monopolized by a few private points of view. My answer is not a strict secularism, but rather a democratic pluralism, while maintaining the separation of church and state.

Don, I don’t think we are that far apart. Your point seems to be that certain core values are acceptable. One of them you listed is “life.” Preserving life is a key part of this thread. Our founding fathers held that this was a self-evident truth. Who is to say that one man’s self evident truth isn’t somehow implicitly linked to centuries of religious tradition? How are self-evident truths arrived at? Could environmentalism provide a set of self-evident values? It is a very dangerous position to say that someone only believes something because his religion teaches it, and therefore his position is of little value in determining what promotes the general welfare. After all, his religion was presumably freely chosen based on what he considered to be ultimate truths that he may consider self-evident.

At some point, religious, philosophy, and public policy must be based on some postulates. Once you make those postulates, everything else follows. The founding fathers left those postulates somewhat vague and open (“pursuit of happiness,” “more perfect union,” “general welfare”). The founding fathers never defined what was a legitimate basis for holding that something promotes the general welfare. Argument from authority has been recognized for centuries are a legitimate rhetorical stance and is an inherent part of human psychology. Appealing to the founding fathers is an appeal to authority. The question then is what authorities are acceptable in public discourse. Only secular ones? I think not. Only modern ones? Again, I think not. Only economic ones? Again, no. I think the founding fathers would expect a Catholic to hold Catholic teachings as authoritative. They would have expected certain scriptural opinions to be authoritative to Protestants. Likewise for Jews. They would expect many Chinese to venerate the teachings on Confucius, and Moslems to adhere to the views of Mohammed. They would have expected some people to hold no religious opinions at all, but to look out purely for their own self interests per Adam Smith’s invisible hand. None of these perspectives were considered illegitimate. They expected these varying views to balance one another with a consideration for the opinions of all. I have long been favorably impressed by the teachings of Confucius. But when you look at Chinese philosophy, it isn’t religion in the sense that we use the term, but it does come up with what it argues are self-evident truths, hence it should be a perfectly legitimate basis for public policy. I am hard pressed, however, to come up with a reason why, especially in America, the teachings of Confucius should thus be considered legitimate grounds for determining what promotes the general welfare, but not the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus have been abused over the centuries, it is true, but to therefore declare that they should not inform America’s views of what are self-evident truths and what promotes the general welfare is to tear apart the inner psyche of the country in an impossible way. To suppose they don’t inform America’s views to a large extent is to deny over two centuries of history and current reality.

I am not saying that arguments from a religious standpoint are necessarily good arguments or persuasive arguments. I am saying that they should not be automatically considered weak, unpersuasive, purely self-interested, or illegitimate arguments. Since religion is generally associated with a set core values, one cannot undermine religious sentiments in public discourse without undermining some of those core values.

Don,

You ask a perfectly legitimate question and I will do my best to explain my position. I should also commend you on your civility.

To understand how I have come to my position on human life occurring at conception I first should give you some back ground. I was raised in Lutheran schools up to the 8th grade. By this time my belief in life at conception was relatively unchallenged. While my early up bringing may seem to some as confined, I was taught through my religion to respect not only other religious views but also secular views. My religious up bringing put a large emphasis on separating church and state and always kept from dictating politics from the pulpit. Instead I was encouraged to discover for myself what the Bible says and compare it to opposing views to discover what was true. While I know this sounds like I am leading to a religious view of abortion, I ask that you bear with me. As I entered public schools my views on abortion were challenged as I learned about the terrible things that women had to endure prior to Roe v. Wade. The stories of back room abortion clinics and young girls being shipped of to “cover up” unplanned pregnancy were repulsing. This led me to view that while I personally believed that a fetus was a life because of religious views I simultaneously believed that as a man I had no right to tell a woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body.

My view on abortion didn’t change until many years later as I grappled with the idea of the death penalty. Studying the issue, I came across case after case where innocent people had been put to death. I couldn’t imagine what that would be like for them and couldn’t accept the idea that a few innocent people must die to fulfill my desire for revenge. This led me to the realization that by merely supporting the issue, I was also responsible for those innocent deaths. Eventually, I turned this view towards my beliefs about abortion and began to re-examine when a fetus becomes a human life. I read extensively and found that while the majority of the scientific community puts life at viability, many scientists though in the minority still consider a fetus human life because it is merely the beginning of a natural process of cellular division that continues even through adolescence an into adulthood where we stop “growing” and begin to die. This was enough to establish in me a “reasonable” doubt on the issue. Just as if I were serving on a jury in a murder trial where capitol punishment was on the line, I would have to acquit an individual even if I had suspicion of guilt simply because of my reasonable doubt.

In essence I am saying that no person can be sure when life begins, and few can agree on an accurate description of human life. There for I will vote to acquit a fetus for fear of being mistaken and being responsible for the unnecessary loss of another human life at my hands. My guilt over the deaths of those that I have caused to die by my prior convictions on the death penalty and abortion is what drives me on this issue. While I know that many will find this argument weak and full of holes, it is enough for me.

To your question of triage, when I say all things being equal, I mean that if both lives are viable and one or both are in peril. If a doctor has determined that a woman’s life is truly at risk and the child is not viable and abortion is necessary for the survival of the mother, abortion should be allowed. On the flip side if the child in the womb is viable while it the health of the mother is in jeopardy, as in a triage situation, all measures should be taken to first save the life that the doctor knows he/she can save, then attend the failing individuals. This is a long standing medical practice in emergency rooms across the country. Now in the rarest instance, if the life of the mother and the child are equally at risk and physicians must choose which life to save I would want the life of the child to take priority. While this is a very rare possibility, I feel that it is a moral obligation to give at least some life to those who have had little. As in my sinking boat analogy, if there was only enough room in a life raft for one person and there was a grown man, a grown woman and a small child, I would hope that most would choose the small child over the adult. Hence the saying, “Women and Children first.” I am simply putting children before women or men.

For me to change my mind on abortion, a person would have to show with strong and profound scientific evidence that a fetus is not a human life. To do so they would somehow have to redefine the entire life process. If anyone has such evidence I would be more than willing to review it. Until then I will be cautious. Of course I am also realist and understand that barring Roe v. Wade being overturned or a constitutional amendment being passed, we all must work towards limiting abortion as much as possible.

P.S. I have no problem with fertilizing eggs outside of the womb as long as each egg that is fertilized is implanted.

I hope this has helped, Don.

Richard,
I’d prefer not to deal with the moderated comments over at KVNU, so here’s the response I submitted around noon today to your latest post.

————————————————————————————-

Wait a second! Cliff “believes that the 9/11 attacks may have been ‘orchestrated or at least deliberately allowed by the Bush- Cheney administration and the Pentagon’”? Well that does it! Argument over, you win, congratulations.

I’m curious though, what’s with the comment about Cliff updating his profile? If you click through to the HREC website you’ll notice that Cliff is no longer the Board Chair. I’m sure he thanks you for reminding him to properly update his profile, but it’s hardly akin to him hiding some nefarious “association” as your snide comment suggests.

BTW, it’s been a while since I’ve see Godwin’s Law invoked in a top-post blog entry. Kudos!

—————————————————————————————

I’d prefer to continue this discussion here at OneUtah, simply because I can’t wait around for comments to be approved by a moderator. It stifles the discussion.

Tolerant? Cliff, you’re about the most intolerant person I know.

That award is great. I like it most where the Alliance for Unity states as their mission:

…

We recognize and accept religious, political and cultural differences in out community, and encourage respect and civility in public discourse and actions, especially when we disagree. …

I don’t think that there is a better description of you, Cliff, when you disagree with someone than “respectful and civil”. You’r really the paradigm of respect and civility.

I hope that I’m suitably awed…

Don, You are absolutely right. I should have not gone off subject. The statement did nothing to support my argument and was only place defensively. Here is a response I wrote to another objection to it’s inclusion at KVNU For the People Blog.

“Thank you, Tim. You’re are right. I simply felt that I should reply to Cliff Lyon’s repeated attempts to classify me as an extreme religious zealot bent on forcing my religious views on the world. In hind sight it was not necessary. It is difficult sometimes to take such slander without responding and giving some prospective. I will remove it but leave the responses to it so that people will know there is a correction in the original post.”

Oh yeah, Don… The posts aren’t moderated, (at least no more than here) Only run through a spam filter like here. Feel free to post there. You will likely find that there is a much broader range of opinions from both the left and the right. Plus it sounds like Cliff is getting ready to start ban people. Gotta control the message ya know?

Recognizing and respecting differences in beliefs, is not an acknowledgement of the correctness of any dogma, merely that, deep down inside, we’re all very likey equally misguided.

Larry’s notion that the abortion ‘debate’ is used as a rallying point and election season diversion, nearly hits the mark. It is also a bludgeon, used to beat non-believers into submission, It is more tiresome than debating torture. If someone takes the preposterous and / or ugly into thier world-view, who am I to say they can’t vehemently and sometimes violently express those cock-eyed beliefs?

Don,

I didn’t get to finish answering some of your previous questions about my stand on abortion. I guess I got caught up trying to smooth things over with Cliff. Several posts back, you made the following statement:

“I hope you realize how extreme your position is. If your views were codified then all contraception, except for barrier methods, would be against the law. In Vitro clinics as they currently operate would be against the law. Even though you’ve personally wriggled around the religious aspects of “when life begins” in order to justify your personal stance on abortion, I doubt highly that many people would follow your same logic.”

I doubt you truly believe based on my previous post that I have simply “wriggled around” to make a strong non-religious argument against debate. If fact, I fully suspect that my explanation is probably one of the strongest ant-abortion arguments you have ever come across and you are still trying to figure out a way to defeat it. I certainly also don’t believe my stance is radical at all. Here is the most recent Gallop Study on the topic, done May 8-11, 2008:

“Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
Legal Under Any – 28%
Legal Only Under Certain – 54%
Illegal In All– 17%
Unsure – 2%

I have repeatedly expressed that my position is one that would allow abortion to protect the LIFE of the mother as long as the baby is not viable. Even then I have not ruled out abortion completely and have only called for consideration for the human rights of the child. This would give a woman the right to choose an abortion usually up to the 6th month of pregnancy if her life was threatened. That view, according to this poll seems pretty in line with 54% of the population and would be considered by few to be extreme.

As far as birth control goes, I don’t believe this stance would change a thing with regards to birth control. I believe that for full fertilization, the zygote must implant in the uterine wall. My opposition to the current practice of mass fertilizations as used by in vitro clinics has to do with my fear that it may lead to fetal experimentation and genetic selection. No in vitro clinic would close under my proposition. It would only slow the process down because each fertilized egg would have to be implanted and given a “chance.”

Now it’s your turn Don… I have given you every opportunity to ask me questions and shoot down my answers. Where do you stand on abortion?
Do you agree with Obama, whose voting record indicates that even a child that survives a late term abortion should be denied medical treatment and the basic necessities of life?

Is a minor case of depression a strong enough reason for a woman to “chose” to abort a child at 8.5 months, term, as used in the Tiller cases?

When does a baby get Human Rights?

How have you come to your conclusions about abortion?

What evidence have you used to determine what constitutes human rights? How do you decide which side of the scientific debate you fall? Is it purely a matter of numbers? If science were to change its definitions, would your stance change as well?

Finally, back to politics, I think it is clear that this is by far the number one hurdle for Obama and the most feared issue by Democrats. Certainly, even Cliff who has declared that my wife, “can run off and have an abortion and you can’t so shit,” must understand that if McCain is elected he will likely have the opportunity to replace two liberal judges on the supreme court during his presidency. If this where to happen and Roe v. Wade is overturned, will you change your position on abortion?

Let us know your position and please feel free to put your full name behind your comments. Someday, future generations might like to know where we all stood in this debate.

Gee Cliff, Still controlling the message by any means possible?