10 comments
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
kjh23
The law IS draconian in that it allows someone else, a total stranger even, to come in between a doctor and his patient, the patient being a consenting adult who is making a medical decision about her body. It grossly violates that patient's right to privacy and tries to prevent that patient from getting a medical procedure(abortion) that under the constitution is that patient's right. It is being a vigilante because the state has NO right to allow to citizens to interfere in the medical procedures a consenting adult gets or come between that consenting adult and her doctor. It does not matter if the laws were created by elected officials. those elected officals
have no right to interfere in the medical procedures of private citizens or direct others to do so, elected officials are elected to run the state, not to make decisions about women's medical decisions. Adolf Hitler was elected but that didn't give him the right to do what he did.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
Many laws set limits on the doctor-patient relationship. For example, it’s illegal for a doctor to give thalidomide to a pregnant woman even if she consents to it (or begs the doctor to prescribe it). Likewise, everything Kermit Gosnell did was in the context of the doctor-patient relationship but he was rightly convicted of murder. Roe v. Wade has been criticized by legal scholars on all sides of the abortion issue because it was not based on any real constitutional principles. The Supreme Court looks to be on track to finally admit its mistake and overrule the decision.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
kjh23
No, what goes on between a doctor and patient in regards to legal procedures is between the doctor and the patient and that include abortion. Comparing thalidomide is not relevant because thalidomide is not an approved drug. Kermit Gosnell killed babies that were full term and born alive, very different from first trimester abortion. Roe vs Wade was not a mistake and based on constitutional principles of the right to liberty of people to make medical decisions about their bodies and the right to privacy free of the state to make medical decision about theri bodies. What the current Supreme Court will do I don't know
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
Thalidomide is an approved drug. You just can’t get it if you’re pregnant. Same goes for other drugs like acutane. Hence there are legal limits on the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to pregnancy, and virtually everyone accepts these limits (even the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade accepted that there can be limits). Kermit Gosnell’s crimes were still in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. Yes, Roe was a mistake. That’s why none of the three pro-choice lawyers that argued against Mississippi’s abortion ban tried to argue that it was constitutionally sound (only that the Supreme Court had already decided it and should respect its precedents).
Enter your email to vote. We won't send you any marketing or solicitation emails.
Avatar Placeholder
Acyutananda
"At base, rhetoric simply refers to the arrangement and presentation of words in order to convince people to hold a certain position."

Thanks. Is there a difference between rhetoric, so defined, and apologetics?

"The only answer to bad rhetoric, to rhetoric misused to shut down and divide, is a rhetoric of hope."

If there's a difference, why is only a certain type of rhetoric the answer to bad rhetoric, while apologetics is not an answer?
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
Administrator
andrewkaake
I would consider apologetics a species of rhetoric.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Acyutananda
Thanks. In that case, apologetics could qualify as an answer to bad rhetoric – but only if it was an apologetics of hope (a species not simply of rhetoric, but of the rhetoric of hope).
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
I agree that equating pro-lifers to terrorists or the Taliban is highly inappropriate. It's an insult to everyone that's actually been murdered, raped, tortured, mutilated, or oppressed by the Taliban (mainly women). That being said, we need to be extremely careful about labelling others' speech as "incitement to violence". I think it should be done only when they actually call for violence or try to rationalize it (see Trevor Noah's response to the BLM riots, for example). Many brave women have come forward and publicly accused famous men of rape or sexual assault. This has the effect or intended effect of removing them from the political community, but nobody would say that what the women did was wrong (assuming the accusations are true of course). And the pro-life movement has itself used strong rhetoric to condemn abortion. Highlighting similarities between abortion and the Holocaust, slavery, and other genocides. Accusing abortion practitioners of dismembering children and stopping beating hearts. Calling out Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts and its cover up of statutory rape. Simply describing partial-birth abortion and other procedures, and showing the effects they have on their victims. Some of this language has been cited by people that have bombed clinics or attacked abortionists. Abortion advocates waste no time in connecting the two and demanding that pro-life activists water down their rhetoric or be subject to censorship (bubble zones, removal from social media, etc). Even a rather innocuous tweet stating the basic thesis of the pro-life movement is labelled as "violent rhetoric" by abortion practitioners.

https://twitter.com/LeahNTorres/status/1347331638863212544

I am not denying that some pro-life rhetoric is more appropriate than others, obviously it is. But the point remains that if we're going to blame speakers for what the nuttiest fringe does with their words, pretty much all pro-life activity must be stopped. One could argue that the Taliban comparison is different because it's false and pro-life arguments are true, but in most jurisdictions the Ministry of Truth (governments, the media, experts, Big Tech, and others in power) will be firmly in favour of abortion on demand and pro-life advocates will be silenced accordingly. The ultimate distinction needs to be that even if killer of children, terrorist, or rapist may be the sort of person it would be right for someone to kill, or at least strip of all other rights, that we still live in a system of due process and rule of law (albeit an imperfect one) rather than one where lynch mobs like the KKK should rule the streets. Thus vigilanteism must be condemned unequivocally (as all noteworthy pro-life groups have done).
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
It is the comparison of ideologies, not the scale of crimes. In my opinion, the pro-life ideology is inherently totalitarian, and degrades women.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
There are two basic premises of the pro-life position: the unborn is a human person deserving of equal protection from violence and bodily autonomy does not include a right to kill another human person. If one or both premises of the pro-life position are false, then I think we agree; pro-life people would be trying to make a medical procedure tantamount to getting a mole removed illegal, and that would be totalitarian and degrading to women! But if the premises of the pro-life position are true, then that's a big deal. Legislating against killing is a perfectly normal and I would argue crucial function of government. The big question then is whether or not the pro-life premises are correct.