tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post111831752600219744..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: Bauer on Abortion....Michael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1143302073749685722006-03-25T23:54:00.000+08:002006-03-25T23:54:00.000+08:00It's a load of codswallop (godswallop?) that the r...It's a load of codswallop (godswallop?) that the religious are more moral; "good xian" is a coincidence, not a redundancy. Add to that the hypocrisy of many xians, it's clear their motivations are not human lives ethics but power and control.<BR/><BR/>I lived in Korea for several years; half the population is xian, and many of them are baptists or catholics (both strongly anti-choice), and yet, they have a massive number of abortions annually.<BR/><BR/>The reason? Males are preferred, so in some/many cases, female feotuses are aborted. Selective abortion is illegal, as is the use of ultrasound for this purpose, but it still goes on. I'm not that knowledgable about Taiwan, but in my limited time and experience here, it seems such attitudes toward males and females don't prevail.<BR/><BR/>Abortion is not, nor has it ever been, the problem. The issue is unwanted pregnancy: if there are no unwanted pregnancies, there will be no abortions. And what are the causes of unwanted pregnancy? Rape. Incest. Poverty. Threat to the mother's health. Birth defects. When the catholic crutch - sorry, church - is willing to deal with these issues, then they can talk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1120173691810266632005-07-01T07:21:00.000+08:002005-07-01T07:21:00.000+08:00t's funny that you would accuse me of being incapa...<I>t's funny that you would accuse me of being incapable of argument, seeing as how your 'argument' consisted of nothing more than a load about tautology and acne-Jesus-Mormon-blah blah.....</I><BR/><BR/>If you start by flinging insults, you'll get them back.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1120156483186750202005-07-01T02:34:00.000+08:002005-07-01T02:34:00.000+08:00Just calm down and respond to the subject at hand,...Just calm down and respond to the subject at hand, buddy. My comment mentioned nothing of Mormonism or Jesus. Listen, you said "Fetuses don't need protection". I simply responded to what you said, and I took nothing out of its proper context.<BR/><BR/>It's funny that you would accuse me of being incapable of argument, seeing as how your 'argument' consisted of nothing more than a load about tautology and acne-Jesus-Mormon-blah blah.....<BR/><BR/>You're right, I don't know much about you. But I have found your work to be very interesting, and very enjoyable at times. We have many things in common. I have posted (anonymously) positive and negative feedback in the past, and I will in the future. When a subject as fragile as abortion comes up, convictions are brought out immediately. I have never been shy about sharing mine, and that won't change.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and by the way, I know plenty about Mormonism. Much more than you, in fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1120145818871496392005-06-30T23:36:00.000+08:002005-06-30T23:36:00.000+08:00No matter how you justify it, the aborting of an u...<I>No matter how you justify it, the aborting of an unborn fetus is still aborting an unborn fetus (even if someone is given the right to do so).</I><BR/><BR/>Wow! A tautology! Brilliant. Look, it's obvious from the above that you're not very capable of argument, and you don't know much about either me or Mormonism. So why don't you cease the flow of pointless, insipid insults, and go post somewhere among the acne-and-Jesus crowd, where they will ooh and aah at your ability to make statements like: "killing a fetus is killing a fetus." What next? "Driving a car is driving a car?" "Cutting sugar cane is cutting sugar cane?" "Failing a test is failing a test?" <BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1120140155029967892005-06-30T22:02:00.000+08:002005-06-30T22:02:00.000+08:00"Fetuses do not need protection; women's bodies do..."Fetuses do not need protection; women's bodies do."<BR/><BR/><BR/>That's absolutely absurd. No doubt in my mind that the author of that statement is one who has lost a certain amount of courage and conviction along the path of life. No matter how you justify it, the aborting of an unborn fetus is still aborting an unborn fetus (even if someone is given the right to do so).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118814929922004092005-06-15T13:55:00.000+08:002005-06-15T13:55:00.000+08:00There's just no good answer to the question of abo...There's just no good answer to the question of abortion.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118811166314403542005-06-15T12:52:00.000+08:002005-06-15T12:52:00.000+08:00"you just support a position that is essentially e..."you just support a position that is essentially evil, and support allies like the Christian Right and the Catholic Church who, if given actual power, would crush the rationality you espouse."<BR/><BR/>I try to support the position rationally, but in my mind, the main force in this issue isn't reason, it's that unreliable yet unignorable conscience that is moved by seeing a premature baby. On the other hand, I probably lack some of the sensitivity you have for pregnant mothers.<BR/><BR/>"and reach out in love, instead of extending the mailed fist of power, dominance, and control, however velvet the glove"<BR/><BR/>Well, I think we agree on a lot. For the church to prevail in moral war, reaching out in love is far superior to anti-gay-marriage laws, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118803564961626442005-06-15T10:46:00.000+08:002005-06-15T10:46:00.000+08:00Actually, I was putting it in the terms that you d...<I>Actually, I was putting it in the terms that you described. I preferred the "protecting the defenseless" view.</I><BR/><BR/>A fetus has a protector, its mother. And also the State. You can' terminate a fetus against the mother's will.<BR/><BR/><I>Thanks for telling me my motives. I can see where this argument (isn't) going.</I><BR/><BR/>There's nothing I can do about your allies, Anonymous. You lie down with dogs....and you refuse to face the larger implications of your political stance. Being anti-abortion is just a power game for your allies. You play into their hands. Why do you support people who hate reason and rationality?<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, it's easier to attack institutions than to address the argument.</I><BR/><BR/>Institutions have to be attacked, when they claim to one thing but are actually another. I detest hypocrites who sleep with dictators but claim to be supporting life. When the Church becomes a life-affirming institution, then I'll be happy to support its views. I've been a Church volunteer here, you know, although I am an atheist. I am willing to work with anyone who loves life and looks forward. But the Catholic Church is simply an impediment to a loving world. Hence, it must be opposed.<BR/><BR/><I>That seems to be a value judgement.</I><BR/><BR/>It is!<BR/><BR/><I>For me, it also seems to be the crux of the debate. Would I be right if I described your view of a fetus as a woman's fleshy sub-human posession?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it's a fetus. But you can describe it that way if you like.<BR/><BR/><I>It may surprise you to know that I'm actually open to this type of argument. </I><BR/><BR/>Not really surprising. You seem like a nice guy, you just support a position that is essentially evil, and support allies like the Christian Right and the Catholic Church who, if given actual power, would crush the rationality you espouse. Why do you work for your own destruction? (and mine too). Do you think this argument is only about abortion?<BR/><BR/>I'd be open to restrictions on abortion if the only people advocating it were motivated by love. But the Right wants only power, and abortion is one lever to split decent people from each other. As you said, there's more at stake here than just a fetus and the mother. I'd be more open to your position, if it did not entail, in the long run, the ascendancy of a theocratic power that will brook no rights at all, much less abortion rights.<BR/><BR/><I>I wouldn't support a law that does only harm. So, to restate your positions: a 6-day wait-period will reduce the number of abortions, but banning abortions will not. Now we're getting somewhere.</I><BR/><BR/>A six-day waiting period will reduce the number of <B>legal</B> abortions in Taiwan. I suspect it will simply push up the number of illegal ones in the long run. Without cultural change, sex education and abundant resources for family planning, the law will simply backfire. Look how low abortion rates are in Western Europe -- a very good thing, I might add. I'd like to see some solid statistics on abortions in Taiwan, though.<BR/><BR/>In any case, people like Bauer need to be strongly responded to, if we want to build a forward-looking, loving society. People like Bauer who do not have to face the possibility of rape, pressure to have sex, marriage to a man they don't like, raising children in poverty, death during delivery or death terminating a pregnancy, and so on, should keep their mouths shut, and reach out in love, instead of extending the mailed fist of power, dominance, and control, however velvet the glove.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118799732913079342005-06-15T09:42:00.000+08:002005-06-15T09:42:00.000+08:00"'To protect the fetus, we have to exert control o..."'To protect the fetus, we have to exert control over her.'<BR/><BR/>Exactly my point. You people think only in terms of power and control."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I was putting it in the terms that you described. I preferred the "protecting the defenseless" view.<BR/><BR/>"The issue for anti-abortion types is not "protecting fetuses", but controlling women."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for telling me my motives. I can see where this argument (isn't) going.<BR/><BR/>"But we all know what the Church's real position on life is"<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's easier to attack institutions than to address the argument.<BR/><BR/>"Fetuses do not need protection; women's bodies do. "<BR/><BR/>That seems to be a value judgement. For me, it also seems to be the crux of the debate. Would I be right if I described your view of a fetus as a woman's fleshy sub-human posession?<BR/><BR/>"And as experiences from all over the world show, criminalizing abortion won't reduce the number of abortions; all it will do is increase the number of maternal deaths and injuries."<BR/><BR/>It may surprise you to know that I'm actually open to this type of argument. I wouldn't support a law that does only harm. So, to restate your positions: a 6-day wait-period will reduce the number of abortions, but banning abortions will not. Now we're getting somewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118789873670764382005-06-15T06:57:00.000+08:002005-06-15T06:57:00.000+08:00Fetuses do not need protection; women's bodies do....Fetuses do not need protection; women's bodies do. They need protection from exponents of a sex-hating, neurotic religion. A women who gets an abortion asserts her right to control her own body. <BR/><BR/>And as experiences from all over the world show, criminalizing abortion won't reduce the number of abortions; all it will do is increase the number of maternal deaths and injuries. <A HREF="http://www.piwh.org/articles/newyorktimes021702.html" REL="nofollow">Here's a glimpse of the future you advocate</A>. <A HREF="http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=26165" REL="nofollow">More about Kenya where I used to live</A>. Further, we all know that one goal of many anti-abortion types is the elimination of birth control. And of course, a roll-back of women's rights. Examine your allies, my friend, because they are evil. The same evil infects your own position:<BR/><BR/><I>To protect the fetus, we have to exert control over her.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly my point. You people think only in terms of power and control. No other solution is available -- and I suspect, deep down, that many of you enjoy the idea of gaining power over the bodies of women, and of pregnancy as punishment for sex. Certainly Bauer's Church, which distinguishes between fetuses based on how they are conceived (it's OK to abort a fetus resulting from rape) is clear that they regard pregnancy as a punishment for sex. But we all know what the Church's real position on life is, as it has proved again and again over the years that it cares nothing for human beings. <BR/><BR/>The issue for anti-abortion types is not "protecting fetuses", but controlling women. The purpose of power is power, and if you really loved life, the first thing you'd renounce is your power over others. Including over the bodies of women.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118735123157816122005-06-14T15:45:00.000+08:002005-06-14T15:45:00.000+08:00"Where does your desire to control women's bodies ..."Where does your desire to control women's bodies stop? Should we also get rid of birth control? What about cohabitation? Hysterectomies and vasectomies?" <BR/><BR/>What I was trying to express is that in abortion, there are two individuals, the women and the fetus. A woman can't abort without exerting her control over the fetus. To protect the fetus, we have to exert control over her. Cohabitation, vasectomies, hysterectomies--these don't involve a defenseless being.<BR/><BR/>I posted the Thomas essay not because I found his views interesting, but just to show a more obvious case of the same problem of protecting those who can't protect themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118733585523170982005-06-14T15:19:00.000+08:002005-06-14T15:19:00.000+08:00LOL. I had to laugh at the link. Cal Thomas is a s...LOL. I had to laugh at the link. Cal Thomas is a sick theocrat. It's very easy to see the problem with the pedophilia, and the pedophiliac and the anti-abortionist are exactly alike in the perverse way they wish to control the bodies of others because of their own sexual insecurities and inabilities. Of course, by making the issue one of consent, where any progressive would place it, Thomas would undermine his own sick desire for power and control over others. So he papers over the problem with rhetoric, because any attempt at reasoned argument would expose' Thomas second-rate powers of argument for all to see. The real reason he is so irate over pedophilia is that he has exactly the same urgent needs to control others -- like fulminates against like. You want to worry about destruction? Focus on Thomas. His ilk is out to destroy democracy in the US, and he has made no bones about it.<BR/><BR/>We're back to the main issue,that of power and control, which you keep dodging. You say <I>There is more going on than just a woman making a personal decision.</I> a statement that no one has denied here. But the existence of larger social issues (a point that I have made a centerpiece of my response to Bauer) seems, at least from your perspective, to legitimate almost anything in response. Where does your desire to control women's bodies stop? Should we also get rid of birth control? What about cohabitation? Hysterectomies and vasectomies? <BR/><BR/>Note that I do not believe in abortion either. The difference is that I do not think that others should be compelled to accept my morals as the only possible way to live. <BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118727973603858972005-06-14T13:46:00.000+08:002005-06-14T13:46:00.000+08:00There is more going on than just a woman making a ...There is more going on than just a woman making a personal decision. Restricting abortion also means protecting fetuses (from a germ of a human to an amphibian-like creature to a literally unborn baby). Of course, you may not believe they deserve to be protected. Some people (I'm not implying you) even think that minors don't need to be protected. I saw an article about that today. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031125.shtmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118657379493542952005-06-13T18:09:00.000+08:002005-06-13T18:09:00.000+08:00I didn't say you shouldn't use your own value syst...I didn't say you shouldn't use your own value system. If you do not wish to have an abortion, no one is forcing you. I merely ask why you feel the urgent need to bring the bodies of others under the control of your value system. What's under discussion is not the validity of your values, but their will-to-power.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118656917183659422005-06-13T18:01:00.000+08:002005-06-13T18:01:00.000+08:00I'll never have to have an abortion, but if my vot...I'll never have to have an abortion, but if my votes for elected officials and political actions cause there to be more abortions, then I'll have to have that on my conscience. (And as I implied earlier, that weighs on my conscience more than the negative results of restricting abortion.) Maybe I'm missing some special reason why, in this case, I shouldn't use my own value system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118647324415737262005-06-13T15:22:00.000+08:002005-06-13T15:22:00.000+08:00But you're right, why should you adopt my values? ...<I>But you're right, why should you adopt my values? Why you should you believe that the act of abortion is wrong? Why should you do my moral thinking for me? Let's just stick with our own values and our own arguments and our own conclusions.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree, so long as you agree that those who want an abortion can get one when they want one. YOU don't have to have an abortion. <BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118641685488120342005-06-13T13:48:00.000+08:002005-06-13T13:48:00.000+08:00Your argument addressed the negative effects of re...Your argument addressed the negative effects of restricting abortion. I was asking you to weigh the good effects resulting from abortion (which you partially described) versus the bad of killing/terminating a fetus (which you didn't describe, and which is difficult to make concrete). But you're right, why should you adopt my values? Why you should you believe that the act of abortion is wrong? Why should you do my moral thinking for me? Let's just stick with our own values and our own arguments and our own conclusions...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118414385729304972005-06-10T22:39:00.000+08:002005-06-10T22:39:00.000+08:00There may be other factors behind Belgium's lower ...<I>There may be other factors behind Belgium's lower rate of abortion than their lack of religious conviction. </I><BR/><BR/>Not to get OT, but the recent Economist rankings said Ireland was the best country to live in the world, partly because of their strong society. It turns out this measure is based on divorce rate. So Ireland has a low divorce rate. Is that because everyone is happy? Or is it because the authoritarian Papists force people to stay in unhappy marriages. Incidentally, Ireland scores very high on child abuse. Economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. <BR/><BR/>The other patriarchal crime against women here in Taiwan is the immigration policy that brings in 100,000 Southeast Asian brides. I know so many fine women here will die spinsters because of this policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118397802350700552005-06-10T18:03:00.000+08:002005-06-10T18:03:00.000+08:00There may be other factors behind Belgium's lower ...There may be other factors behind Belgium's lower rate of abortion than their lack of religious conviction.<BR/><BR/>Generous maternity and welfare benefits could be one, for example, since in my mind the most compelling reason to have an abortion would be lack of resources to raise the child. <BR/><BR/>I guess we could check with places like Singapore or Hsinchu where they pay you to have kids.Red Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699964464336470134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118371687235998782005-06-10T10:48:00.000+08:002005-06-10T10:48:00.000+08:00Mike,Nice post and your comments are all well-plac...Mike,<BR/>Nice post and your comments are all well-placed.<BR/>Even so, we're still left with the ongoing and pervasive problem (based on my longtime Taipei residency, as always, down south YMMV) of abortion-as-birth control, and, even more reprehensible, abortion-as-gender preselection. God knows, I don't have a clue as to a feasible solution, and I certainly don't consider imposition of the waiting period to be one.<BR/>(off topic, just spitballing here, but isn't getting sex/procreation/OB-GYN counsel from a Catholic priest kind of like getting Taipei taxi drivers to direct traffic?? Oh right, sorry, never mind)<BR/>Irrespective of one's stand on the issue, and I admit to being quite torn myself, the idea of thirtysomething married women who've had 7, 10, or more abortions, as is common here, well, that's pretty buggered up.<BR/>Again, I'm at a loss, what do you see as a workable remedy?<BR/>Keep up the great work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118368555837293102005-06-10T09:55:00.000+08:002005-06-10T09:55:00.000+08:00then you go through a list of practical reasons yo...<I>then you go through a list of practical reasons you oppose the law. Where are the spiritual convictions?</I><BR/><BR/>I never said I personally had any, but many supporters of abortion do. Typically, in English, when you make a general statement such as "Americans talk loudly" or "Astronauts are brave" both speaker and hearer understand that such generalizations do not apply to each member of the class.<BR/><BR/><I>Laws are a mixture of the two, and people put different weights on the moral and the practical.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, all "practical" arguments are moral ones as well. There's no escaping values in arguments. It's a fact that fewer abortions coupled with the lack of social service infrastructure will mean more single mothers and in the future, more broken families and more criminals and other welfare costs, but our dislike of such outcomes is a <B>value</B>, not a fact. By calling such arguments "practical" I am both disguising my own appeal to values, and implying that Bauer's ethics are ill-considered. <BR/><BR/><I>For a closer look at the moral issue, first consider the problem without the practical considerations.</I><BR/><BR/>Why should I adopt those values over my own values? There's no escape from "practical considerations." Bauer lives and works in a self-contained community sheltered from the problems his politics will engender. He will never be a single mother, or face the question of having to marry one. He is protected for the most part from the kind of violent gangsterism his policies will increase. Not having sex, he will never have to worry about birth control and make those difficult choices. To consider the "practical" side of things is the ultimate in humanistic ethics. Anything else is anti-human -- pure nihilism.<BR/><BR/>Divorcing reality from ethical considerations, even initially, the position you call for, is morally empty. There are no gods, so Bauer's position amounts to yelling "Shut up and listen to me!" The purpose of such moral absolutism is self-evident: power and control, in this case over the minds and bodies of women. The claim to a "spiritual" position is really a rhetorical device for gaining the moral upper hand over the people one has to dialogue with in the real world. All you do is provide cheerleading for this device to shut me up. And of course, if I don't shut up, behind every claim of ethical authoritarianism is a sword itching to come out. <BR/><BR/>Focusing on "practicalities" has two powerful benefits: (1) itis one way to restore the human to the ethical conversation, and the human has precedence over the fictitious divine any day, and (2) it heads off any attempt by Ethical Absolutists to gain control of the conversation by rhetorical devices and make everyone else shut up. <BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1118367446464989082005-06-10T09:37:00.000+08:002005-06-10T09:37:00.000+08:00"Believe it or not, Dan, opponents of this rule al..."Believe it or not, Dan, opponents of this rule also have spiritual convictions. And practical ones as well..."<BR/><BR/>First, you pretend he is against abortion because he wants to increase the population, then you go through a list of practical reasons you oppose the law. Where are the spiritual convictions? Although it didn't convince me, it's a valid ethical argument to say that a six-day waiting period will cause great harm, but that still doesn't sound like a spiritual conviction. For a closer look at the moral issue, first consider the problem without the practical considerations. If abortion rights supporters want to argue against the reasons that anti-abortionist give, there needs to be more consideration than "sure it's not ideal, but..." After that is clear, weigh in the practicalities. Laws are a mixture of the two, and people put different weights on the moral and the practical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com