You go on to state: “Maybe the idea is to make a point about how illegal abortions tend to be more hazardous, but again, this misses the whole point of disagreement – after all, illegal robberies are far more dangerous for robbers (and perhaps even for victims) than legalized robberies, but that’s not a good reason to legalize robbery (except maybe for some utilitarians).” Well, yes, that was my wife’s point, and I believe it was a valid one. That IS the way it was before abortion became illegal. It was a bit like alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition, in fact. People asked for a service (whether you like that service or not), which had to be provided by the black market. The black market is not known for good “quality assurance” standards, so an illegal abortion was much more dangerous than the legal kind. So when you made the statement about legalizing robbery, it sounded like when people opposed to drug legalization say,”oh yeah, well maybe we should just legalize murder.” Or at least that is what it sounded like to me. You are comparing apples and oranges.

On this topic, I tend to agree with Bill Clinton (which doesn’t happen much). Abortion should remain “safe, legal and rare” in the U.S.. It is unfortunate when women get into a position where they feel that they have to make that choice, but it should be their choice to make.

I never said that so drop the faux populism. Pro-lifers also tend to have a martyr complex, which you may share. I simply stated that “pro-lifers” tend not to appreciate science and reason. Indeed many of them seem to be afraid of both concepts. Or they think their religious beliefs ARE scientific without justification. If you refer to a zygote as a “baby,” that is simply not very scientific, but people are entitled to their opinions. Find your strawman elsewhere please. Have a nice labor day!

I don’t think the problem is that they don’t grasp “science and reason”. The problem (assuming the “problem” is with them and not their opponents) is that they endorse moral beliefs and values that “pro-choicers” do not. Of course it’s very common for people to wave off substantive disagreements of this sort as neutral methodological errors, whether by appealing off-topic to the stupidities and/or evils of Religion and Faith-Heads or Moral Relativism or Postmodernism or whatever. Perhaps people do this because it portrays one’s opponents as inherently stupid or depraved, rather than mistaken; or perhaps it’s satisfying because it portrays ones’ self as especially enlightened; then again, perhaps it’s simply something people do out of intellectual laziness. It is a clear error nonetheless.

For example, your wife dropping that coat hanger in front of them as if it proves some kind of point – I guess the idea is to call to mind that women would get abortions even if they were illegal. But this is actually a spectacularly bad argument given the point of disagreement (and yes, I think it’s just as bad when it’s used against abstinence-based sex ed or drug legalization). People, after all, commit murder and robbery and rape even though these things are illegal; few people (besides some utilitarians and pacifists, perhaps) would argue that this is a good reason to legalize them. Maybe the idea is to make a point about how illegal abortions tend to be more hazardous, but again, this misses the whole point of disagreement – after all, illegal robberies are far more dangerous for robbers (and perhaps even for victims) than legalized robberies, but that’s not a good reason to legalize robbery (except maybe for some utilitarians).

Isn’t it great how the people on your side of the issue are, you know, so much smarter and better people than the ones on the other side? Why, that phenomenon is amazingly widespread–people on both sides of every issue notice exactly the same thing. it must be some kind of weird relativity thing, like having the speed of light measured exactly the same by all observers.

I don’t think that’s entirely correct, Mr. Wetzel. I have known many more church-going “pro-life” cops in my day than I have radical socialist cops. And as much as I disagree with the behavior of the police in this case, I think it is fairly obvious that anti-abortion groups, as a whole, HAVE been quicker to endorse violence than most (non-Stalinist) leftist groups. Disagree? Then as a member of Operation Rescue in the 1980′s, maybe you can address why that organization has been trying to distance itself from Randall Terry and “re-brand” itself (From OperationRescue.org: “Mr. Terry has said, among other things, that he believes the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller “has the potential to propel us more quickly to our goal. Operation Rescue repudiates this statement as being completely false and out of touch with the reality of the situation. Operation Rescue has strongly denounced Tiller’s killing. Randall Terry is not affiliated with Operation Rescue and does not speak for this organization in any way.”).

But, like I say, the arrest in this case was utter BS. The way to engage anti-abortion people is to make them think, though that is sometimes a tremendous challenge, since they don’t take to kindly to science and reason. My wife attempted this during an abortion protest near our apartment. She simply walked up to the protesters and dropped a coat hanger in front of them. A simple but provacative act, which I totally supported. Most of them didn’t react, and the one lady that spoke to her did not seem to understand the significance of the hanger. Oh well. You may find my wife’s actions offensive, but she didn’t call for the police (the protesters were on a sidewalk and excercising their 1st amendment rights, after all) and she opted for debate over force. I think you and I can agree that that is a good thing.

Sandhillpam | August 31st, 2011 at 4:09 pm

Homeopathy is not total BS.

Yes it is.

This is a standard part of politics: when someone on my team supports a tinpot dictator in some nasty corner of the world, that’s realpolitic. When someone on another team supports a tinpot dictator, that’s proof of their essential evil. (In the same way, exactly the same comments from someone on my team and your team are evidence of a little verbal carelessness, and a deep and unrepentant racism, respectively.). This pattern of thought is one reason why politicians can so often get away with selling out their alleged ideals and voting base, without having all their voters stay home or vote third party in the next election.

To really see this, look at the partisan rhetoric surrounding the war on terror, which has been pretty consistent between the Bush and Obama administrations. It’s not hard to find Republican mouthpieces attacking Obama for being soft on terror for continuing exactly the same policies as Bush had–one example is the decision to try the underpants bomber in civilian court, just as the shoe bomber was tried in civilian court. Similarly, it’s easy to find Democratic mouthpieces who slammed the Bush administration for stuff that simply doesn’t bother them, now that it’s done by the Obama administration–one example of that is the extensive use of state secrets doctrine to keep details of our illegal torture and domestic spying programs from coming out in court.

And there are many,many other examples. This is basically how politics works.

A couple Libertarians “may” have supported a few dictators and racists, but renounced that support almost immediately after more facts emerged = HUGE reason why Libertarians are crazy.

Virtually all of the millions of non-libertarian politicians STRONGLY supporting all dictators and racists = not a big deal.

Doesn’t seem fair, but I’m crazy. I can only imagine how Libertarian support for Mubarak would’ve been the final nail in the Libertarian coffin. But for Reps/Dems, it is just ignored. Don’t like Mubarak as an example? I got a few hundred more.

Homeopathic remedies should be required to be sold apart from real drugs and the warning should say “The efficacy of this product has never been proven.”

I feel the same way about Democrat Jobs Bills and Republican Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Free marketers who get in politics and policy seem to have a mysterious ability to make prescient and profitable investments soon thereafter. Perhaps that’s why they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

Dont count on it, Theocons rationalize when one of their own gets beaten by police by either calling the government thug in question a PC liberal infiltrator or saying that their brother deserved it. Conservatives love government thugs beating on citizens at least they have the spine (kind of) to admit unlike the left who side step the matter.