A Political Debate

This post has nothing to do with Oil, Nat Gas, Egypt, or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I am reposting a discussion I recently had with some friends of a friend on FaceBook. My friend is a "progressive", as are her friends. I believe that all concerned live on Cape Cod, Mass., a bastion of progressive and Gay populations.

I am very much am seeking comment on my position on the ethical question I posed... and I think the conversation is very, very telling... perhaps you will, too. It is somewhat long and involved, but my bet is thinking people here will find it worth their time.

-------------------------------------------------

My friend posted on FaceBook:

"2/10th of the taxes I pay go towards abortions of rape victims. 53 % of my taxes go towards killing and maiming people that are out of the womb. I would rather 53 % of my tax money go towards helping people raise and educate our children and I will happily keep funding abortions for victims of the violent physical and psychological crime of rape."

The following is the debate that followed:


First person:

"Politicians want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers"-George Carlin

Second Person:

Rachel Maddow was talking about this tonight...the fact that the "small, non invasive government" crowd a la the Republifascitsteabaggers want to use the government to control what a a woman does with her body is pretty revealing about what their real agenda is.

Me:

Me thinks these do not equate... and Second Person, the "her body" argument? Soooooo before DNA science... just check the DNA.... it AIN'T her body... and Maddow? Brilliant, charismatic, and eloquent... and deeply, deeply troubled.

Second Person:

Sorry Greg, not buying the whole argument of it's not her body but, that wasn't the point I was trying to make...I was pointing out that the teabaggers are FINE with expanding government and government control as long as it's for what they want. Historical fact: Since Reagan Government has grown more under every Republican administration than under any democratic administration.

Me:

Steve: Can you define that claim of growth for me? Data please.
And you don't have to buy anything... simply pointing out the science... the DNA does not match, ergo in ain't her body, its somebody else's.

Not that it matters... I will share with you some accurate demographic data: The Progressive movement is done; you can stick a fork in it. People tend to grow into much the same as the environment they come from... pro-abortion folks have fewer babies to leave a political legacy with than pro life people

2nd Person

I'll dig the data up and again, the point isn't about the discussion of when life begins, it's about using government assets when it's convenient but decrying their use when it doesn't suit

Me:

In essence, or in the final analysis, the Progressives demolished themselves and are quickly joining the Shakers in the "interesting but extinct" category

I am a Libertarian! We don't do any of that stuff! We also don't BS ourselves...
2nd Person:

wow...really...um, so this is the right wing's final solution? let me poke a hole in your reality there Greg...I was raised by VERY conservative, right wing parents...I'm a SCREAMING liberal now...must be that whole separate genetic material thing you were mentioning...

so, do you like Rand Paul? Just curious cuz he claims to be a libertarian, but he's perfectly willing to use government intervention when it suits him

Me:

Steve.... that's what's called a "hasty conclusion". Remember the famous lefty that, after Nixon's election said "I don't understand it. Everybody I know voted for McGovern".

Steve: And your Conservative family? Most Gay men are Progressives. Half of them, unscientifically, come from non-progressive families

2nd Person:

btw, on what medical basis are you making the assumption that she doesn't have the right to choose what to do with that extra mass?

Me:

i didn't say she didn't have the "right". I said it was not her body

And in short order, there won't be many people of her stripe left

2nd Person:

hmmm so, you are OK with abortion?

Me:

Not at all. But I am not willing to use government thugs to enforce my position

I feel the same about drugs, prostitution....

2nd Person:

ah, so you don't support the idea of the goverment dictating what a woman can do with her body

Me:

Not even a little bit. What's that have to do with the ethics of abortion?

Politicizing acts hasn't been that effective.... that does not make them particularly positive for either the individual or society.

But the larger point is this: Darwinism! If one group practices abortion, and another does not... it won't take long for one to breed the other out of existence.

The 54 million or so abortions since Roe v Wade have DOOMED your side of the aisle. There just aren't enough Gay people born to non-abortion populations to make up for the population loss via abortion

Let's take a demographic example... say the Supreme Court of the U.S. 5 conservative Justices have 18 children. The 4 Liberals? TOgether have just 2. See a pattern here?

Well, it appears you have lost interest in this... too bad, just getting interesting. I stand corrected: Justice Bryer has 3 children, not 2.

New Guy, 3rd Person:

I'm confused: when did scientists discover the ideology gene? I missed that discovery. Is it a dominant or recessive gene? Okay, I'm being flip, but i don't see how we can use science to demonstrate that conservatives breed conservatives and liberals breed liberals.

Me:

Tom: No need to be flip... I enjoy a proper co-examination of the facts with a fellow thinking person... though I do thoroughly reject debating anything with "true believers"...

My assertion is simple: The Liberal Birth Dirth/Baby Bust whatever term of art you prefer is really not up for debate... you can use google as well as I.

Which groups have the highest birth rates? Amish, Orthodox Jews, Observant Catholics, Observant Muslims come to mind... groups highly uncorrelated with progressive political thought...

And the lowest birth rates? Members of the Board of NOW, Liberal Supreme Court Justices (and members of Congress and Senate), Gays.

The 55 million abortions since Roe V Wade has decimated the demographics of groups whose members accept abortion as a viable option.

Its just math Tom. I assert that Its the reason Progressives DESPERATELY need to addict certain segments of society to dependency on social programs as a means of controlling their vote - on their own the progressives simply don't have the votes... and in fact will not have them again in my lifetime... The fastest growing minority groups? Hispanics and Asians... two groups not highly correlated to progressive policies.

Now I think you asserted that there is no correlation between parent/child political/religious beliefs? If so, I would streneously disagree... but feel free to show me data showing that the majority of children to do not evolve into the same socio/economic/political/r

eligious groups as their parents and families.

I reject the politicization of abortion... what does that have to do with the ETHICS of abortion? In the end DNA wins all wars... those who breed, succeed.

It is difficult to even have a conversation about these issues as it seems that people have internalized them and that they are no longer up for debate... at such times, violence is substituted for politics... something to be avoided, if I may make use of understatement.

And just because I make an assertion that is an anathema to someone does not make my assertion incorrect. Likewise, just because I am ugly and my mother dresses me funny doesn't mean I am not intelligent. Yet is seems TO ME that the response from progressives when challenged on the issues is Ad Hominem attacks and eye rolling gestures.

My assertion: the 55 million abortions since Roe V Wade have harmed the demographics of the progressives infinitely more than their opponents.

Feel free to counter. I would enjoy the discussion.

3rd Person:

What i asserted is that there is no DNA-based scientific equivalence between the parent-child religious beliefs. Your point the separation between the existence of the fetus and its mother is rooted in DNA evidence. It sounded like the same was being applied to population. My mistake if that's not the case; your argument is more about the basic facts of numbers, not genetics. I will accept your numbers regarding the population growths, though I am dubious about the Amish (they've been driven out of Lancaster County, that's for sure), and I think that with certain populations you mention it's a matter of picking and choosing in terms of political views. Hispanics, as Catholics, may be opposed to abortion, but ask them about Arizona's new laws and it's hard to call them conservative. And even again, Hispanics in one part of the country are more conservative than others broadly speaking. The same might hold of Muslims as well: conservative on abortion but not on the PATRIOT act. (Broad statements here, yes.)

Birth rates are also connected to education and income levels, not just political views.

Politics and ethics of abortion have always been intertwined. Laws forbidding abortion were passed by people not born with wombs and never faced with the implications of pregnancy. Institutions had to make statements on the issue based often on their values but also on ideology. Those who sought legal abortion recognized that women and girls were dying because they did not have legal access to abortion -- either because they tried unsafe procedures or because they committed suicide in despair. Once Roe v. Wade was passed, the politics of abortion went into full swing. It often seems like the only question that matters to Senators during Supreme Court confirmation hearings is, "where are you on Roe v. Wade"? Science is not immune to the political issues.

I do agree that too often we go into personalized attacks in public discourse -- though again, even the acknowledgment of this, I can explain the kind of shoutfests that exists based on my understanding of broadcast media history of the last forty years and my ideological viewpoints. I will be fair and say that you've given me something to chew over.

I do think that SECOND PERSON was making a separate point that probably does not apply to your ideas and views, exactly: what we deem as acceptable government spending is often driven by ideology. Conservatives don't want government to regulate business but they are fine with censorship. Conservatives don't want to fund abortion but bombing Iraqi citizens is okay, as is the death penalty. McGovern's point was general, of course: the Catholic Church opposes both the death penalty and abortion -- and one of JP II's last public statements as Pope was to condemn the invasion of Iraq. Liberals are fine with regulating guns but not fine with restriction access to abortion or teaching Creationism in public schools. and once again, facts are put aside and ideology reins.

Me:

Tom: I certainly was NOT making any connection between DNA and political beliefs... only that the fetus is not the woman's body, just check the DNA... take that for what you will.

The Amish represent a population of over 250,000 individuals, and are spread far and wide... this from 5,000 individuals 1 century ago... I have written extensively on the Amish at my blog. The explosion ins population of certain orthodox or fundamentalist religious groups is hardly up for debate. BTW, I am as secular as one could possibly be...

No question that hispanics are not of one mindset on the ideological spectrum... but there is clearly but one reason why they have surpassed blacks as the most numerous ethnic minority... and that is certainly not abortion.

I was not debating Roe v Wade. I refuse to politicize abortion. Some people believe that abortion is a legitimate option... I think they are out of their freaking minds, are self-absorbed, lack maturity and vision, and lack something deep within their character - and still I would not even consider the use government thugs on them. In this matter I am a "true believer"... and there is no point in debating a true believer....

"Laws are passed by people without a womb"... Laws are passed by adults that harm children to no end... medicare, social security, war, abortion... I find your assertion to be rooted in your association with those sharing your belief system - and you should find the same thing true in me.

My great grandmother was a well known radical in the woman's suffrage movement in the New York in the early part of the 20th century, and worked as a detective for then Chief of Police Theodore Roosevelt... she then lectured against the Feminist movement, saying they had overstepped their raison d'etre. every special interest group outlives its purpose and usefulness, and then begins to function only to perpetuate its existence...

I maintain my assertion: Progressives will join Shakers in the "interesting but extinct" group. Abortion and Gay Marriage are simply not issues that can sustain a special interest group for long. People die, and will straight couples will continue to create Gay offspring, those that abort will not create Progressive offspring.

Me:

Tom: Sorry I just read your next comment.

The "conservatives" are just as dead as the progressives. I publish a well followed blog here:

http://americanenergycrisi

s.blogspot.com/

There MILLIONS of folks in my camp - reject abortion, death penalty, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as SS/Medicare/Medicaid?Foods

tamps/military spending... please don't lump us all in with the Social Control Conservatives (and I won't lump you in with the social control Liberals).

I don't know your background, but if you have any training in math I rest all of my assertions for the above on "e"

otherwise known as (1 +1/n) to the n.... you likely know it as the equation that governs compound interest.

Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi

ki/Exponential_function

4th Person:

It would be nice if most tax money went to education.

5th Person:

mmhmm – 4th Person-- I hope you might consider spreading the word about the screening of Consuming Kids-- Free at Willy's Eastham at 7 Pm --
discussion to follow. If you do consider-- plz send me yr email so I can send you a flyer.

Me:

This has been a substantive thread... still, given the makeup of Diana's friend's list, I had hoped for more commentary and rational discussion. It seems that once the politicization of abortion is abandoned and the issue has to stand or fall on the ethics, it falls, and the progressive argument fails, utterly.

I look forward to a counter to that assertion, rather than a one liner about budgets that may or may not be accurate.

And with the unsupportable ethics of the issue, the balance of the progressive position collapses utterly.

This would be an excellent time for progressives to evolve to that higher state of Libertariansim!

I would also assert that the Right to Life movement has the progressive movement in the palm of its hands... and does not realize it. If that movement were to abandon the political enforcement of their core belief, and use the proper tool - ethics - the progressives would be immediately removed from nearly all political discussion.

Think about it: Once the "right" to abortion is no longer contested... how does the progressive movement respond to the ethics charge? That abortion is somehow a higher minded calling, like feeding the hungry? I am trying to remain composed... but it is amusing to think about...

Any thinking people on the progressive side wish to comment? I am ALL EARS.

And, please, let us remain germane to the discussion... this is usually the point where one hears "Oh, yea? Well, what about Iraq?" We are not discussing Iraq, though you would find me in complete agreement on that issue... or the death penalty, anther issue you would find me to completely oppose on ethical grounds.

------------------------------------

I have not heard back from anyone... I will post any further discussion.