“Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all…
The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate…
Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing.”
She added that “Yale should be more cognizant about the environment it fosters for women. We don’t need perfunctory celebrations of the anniversary of Yale’s women that accompany endorsements of misogynist dialogue.”
The editorial perfectly captures the rising intolerance and orthodoxy on our campuses. Nam insists that even allowing such debates is “an insult to our personhood, experience and rights.”
This is consistent with other editorials that we have previously discussed. A Berkeley columnist denounced civility and called for violent resistance. Dartmouth faculty and students demanded that the university shutdown a conservative newspaper. Wellesley editors endorsed shutting down conservative speakers and said that “violence may be warranted.” We have also documented repeated incidents where university newspapers have fired writers and editors for questioning Covid masks, challenging systemic racism claims, or holding other opposing views.
There has also been a repeated attack on civility as racist or reactionary. Even reporters at National Public Radio (NPR) have denounced civility as a “weapon wielded by the powerful.” Hillary Clinton has called for the end of civility toward any Republicans.
This tirade at Yale against free speech captures many of these elements from the attack on civility to the view of opposing speech as harmful. Given the increasingly anti-free speech culture in our elementary through high schools, it is not surprising to see this rising generation of censors. These students have been constantly told that free speech is harmful and that they should not have to be harmed by the exposure to opposing views.
The irony is that it is important to hear Nam’s views, which can be the basis for productive discourse — the type of civil discourse that she rejects. I would oppose any effort to silence her. This is precisely the type of open discussion that is valuable on our campuses. However, it should occur in an environment of civility and tolerance — values that Nam clearly rejects.
The Yale editorial gives an insight into what educators have created in this speech-phobic, viewpoint-intolerant generation.
What is it with all these Asians who either immigrated to here or were born to immigrants such that they are all illiberal in their beliefs. just look at Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Rshaid Talib, and Vanita Gupta of DOJ to name just a few. all of are of mind to throw over our Constitutional rights
Nikkii Haley objects to your generalization. So does Tulsi Gabbard. So does Bobby Jindal
Etc, etc et goddam cetera.
I hope you are working for Slowy’s campaign. Your efforts will drive up Big Don’s totals to the ionosphere.
The public official who has been the most successful at enacting enact extreme, leftist policies and eroding the constitutional rights of Americans is an old, Caucasian man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.
I would like to nominate Harvard University student Ericka S. Familia, a Harvard Crimson newspaper editorial editor, and her article “Why I Do Not Proudly Wave the American Flag” for your next spotlight on asinine woke student editorials: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/4/12/familia-america-proud-politics/.
Her editorial pretty much says it all about Gen Z at our nation’s elite universities, and one hardly needs mention the irony of trashing the very country that provides her the freedom to express herself, where she would be hauled off and disappeared in countless other countries for doing the same thing. It seems that Gen Z’s parents and our elite institutions have effectively trained them to hate their own country. Will be very hard to undo this and bodes terribly for the coming conflict with China. This is what you get when you put individual identity fetishes above national identity and common purpose. Very problematic, and sad.
Caroline Kitchener: “Scoop: Judge Kacsmaryk in 2017 submitted a law review article criticizing protections for trans people. Ahead of his judicial nomination, he removed his name and swapped in two others. Nominees are required to disclose all publications to the Senate.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/15/matthew-kacsmaryk-law-review/
The only hope for this county is for the great unwashed masses to wake up and employ their second amendment rights and meet leftist incivility with equal opposing force before those rights are removed These little bourgeois Maoist’s are a scourge on humanity
Sounds like you’re calling for mass murder.
Dumb.
Admissions decisions at elite colleges are often based on race and/or connections with alumni and/or connections with powerful people. It is no coincidence that George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump all had kids who attended Ivy League schools or Stanford. And, once you get into one of these schools, you will that find grade inflation is rampant, thus diminishing the pressure to study. Which leaves plenty of time to seek out things to be offended by. Many Yale students have a hair trigger for accusing people of racism but, for some reason, are doing nothing about the fact that their school is named for a slave trader.
Jonathan: The illogic of the anti-abortion position is playing out in South Carolina. There the GOP in the state House is pushing House Bill 3549, known as the “South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023”. The bill would not only ban abortion in the state but also make abortion a homicide in certain circumstances. The bill is based on the premise that “personhood” begins at conception.
There is an interesting article in MedPage Today (3/27/23) that explains some of the ramifications of the SC bill. Under SC’s criminal code anyone involved in a conspiracy to commit a homicide is equally liable. The author explains that “the state may, as punishment, execute the woman who underwent the abortion, the male partner who caused the pregnancy, the doctor who performed the abortion, the receptionist, the friend who counseled the pregnant to seek the abortion, and anyone who knew of and helped set up the abortion…Granting an embryo the status of full legal personhood is, in reality, just another fraudulent way to suppress the decision-making of women”. I doubt many prosecutors would actually prosecute everyone who involve in the procurement of an abortion under the proposed bill. But who knows in the “age of rage”.
There are other conservative states where the illogic of abortion bans is clearly evident. In Utah the GOP House recently passed a bill that would have allowed pregnant women to use the HOV lane on highways. The Utah Senate saw the illogic in the House bill and rejected it. Texas has an abortion ban. An 8 month pregnant woman was pulled over by the police for using that state’s HOV lane. The police officer told the woman “I don’t see anyone else in your car”. The woman replied “Yes there is”. The officer looked inside the car and even opened the trunk of the car. He came back and informed the woman “Nobody else is in your car so I am issuing you a citation”. The woman pointed down at her stomach and said: ” You mean this is not a person?”. The officer was not convinced and issued the citation. The pregnant woman filed an appeal.
In your column you refer to the students manning the table on the Yale campus as “pro-life” who wanted to “engage in logical debates about fetal personhood and abortion ethics”. Do you really expect those who support the right to abortion to accept the predicates “pro-life” and “fetal personhood”? When the opposing groups can’t agree on some basic terms of debate how do you expect a “civil” or “logical” discussion? The anti-abortion position is based on Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception. An abortion, by definition, is murder since an embryo has “personhood”. How do you argue with someone whose position is based on religious dogma?
Doctors who perform abortions, and clinic workers, have been murdered by anti-abortion activists. Anti-abortion activists still picket and intimidate women seeking abortions in states where it is legal. How do you expect Bianca Nam to want to engage in “civil” debate with people who use violence to enforce their views and want women go back to a time when men controlled the bodies and lives of women?
Use of HOV lanes to prove the supposed “illogic” of the pro-life position is silly. The purpose of an anti-abortion law is to prevent a human being from being violently killed. The purpose of HOV lanes is to incentivize carpooling and thus have fewer cars on the road.
Suggesting an unborn child counts for HOV lane purposes would be ridiculous. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the unborn child has a beating heart, all functioning organs, a brain, its own separate DNA, and a built-in purpose to grow into maturity as any human being should.
Is this really the best the pro-abortion position can come up with?
Initially, it doesn’t have “a beating heart, all functioning organs, a brain.”
Distinct DNA doesn’t equate to a person. A person may have two distinct kinds of DNA in their bodies (e.g., because of genetic chimerism), but that doesn’t make that person two people.
The most central feature of a person is a functioning brain. We accept brain death as biological death even if the body still has a beating heart. We refer to conjoined twins as twins because they have two separate brains, even though they’re a single organism. A functioning brain doesn’t develop for several months.
Moreover, even if you believe that an embryo is a person (which I clearly do not), that wouldn’t give it the right to use a woman’s body — getting oxygen through her lungs, getting nutrition through her gastrointestinal system, … — against her will. You can’t even demand that one person donate blood to save another person’s life. Someone who agrees to donate a kidney can change their mind, even if it results in the other person’s death. But you want women to count for less when they’re pregnant.
Anon – you should brush up on your embryology. A fetus’s heart starts to beat around 22 days after conception, and all major organs are present in some stage and forming during the first trimester.
Your examples about brain death, Siamese twins, and the like, have nothing to do with whether the fetus is a separate human being, which it clearly is. I have a good friend who is an atheist and a physician, and she’s pro-life. Obviously it has nothing to do with believing in God. It’s because of her medical training and experience.
that wouldn’t give it the right to use a woman’s body . . .
Do you even hear yourself with such an absurd sentence? This type of statement can only come from ideology, not science.
oldmanfromkansas, you should brush up on *your* embryology. It’s not true that “A fetus’s heart starts to beat around 22 days after conception.” Not only is it not a fetus at that point, but it doesn’t have a heart — a four-chambered organ that pumps blood. What exists at that point are heart cells that start to beat in unison. Do you understand the difference between heart cells and a heart itself?
You echo this same problem when you say “all major organs are present in some stage and forming during the first trimester.” Forming does not mean that they are complete, or even that they are sufficiently formed to be able to function if not complete.
“Your examples about brain death, Siamese twins, and the like, have nothing to do with whether the fetus is a separate human being, which it clearly is.”
First, I was very explicitly talking about whether it’s a PERSON. Even you don’t claim that an embryo is a person. Second, it absolutely is NOT “a separate human being.” It is literally inside and attached to the woman. It is not separate. Only someone in denial of facts would call it separate.
For the most part, it has distinct human DNA (though it will also have other DNA in its body, from some combination of the woman, previous pregnancies, and copy errors), but distinct human DNA is not what makes something a human being, much less a person. After pregnancy, there’s still distinct DNA in the woman’s body, yet even you don’t call that a human being in her body.
“Do you even hear yourself with such an absurd sentence?”
Yes, I absolutely heard what I was saying, and although you’re free to have the opinion that it’s “absurd,” your opinion is not a fact. You can’t even bring yourself to make an argument against it, which should be easy if it were actually absurd.
An embryo is not a person, and it has no rights, much less the right to use a woman’s uterus against her will.
“This type of statement can only come from ideology, not science.”
Of course ideology plays a role — on *both* sides of this debate. Rights are not a function solely of science, though science might sometimes inform rights. I dare you to name a single human right that derives solely from science.
I do claim an embryo is a human person. It has a right not to be violently killed. Fetal homicide laws recognize this right: even where abortion is legal, someone who kills a fetus apart from the context of abortion is guilty of a crime. So if a person kills a pregnant woman, there are two victims. States where abortion is legal have such laws (random example: Pennsylvania).
Talk about an embryo improperly “using” a woman’s uterus against her will is crazy talk. Perhaps you’re thinking of the violinist argument, which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny in this context. The fetus did not ask to be there, but the mother voluntarily consented to the sexual intercourse which placed the fetus there (I’m not talking about cases of rape which is a different subject which we can talk about separately). Did you come into this world by violating your mother’s rights? What is the function of a uterus? It is not there for the mother only, but for the baby; it has no other function.
A claim that an embryo or fetus is not a person is based on personhood depending on size, location, environment, or degree of development (the SLED test – you can look it up – but I’ve provided a link below in case you don’t want to go to the trouble). None of those factors determine personhood. And a mother’s feelings about whether she wants the baby or not certainly do not determine whether the embryo or fetus is a person.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/the-sled-test-four-top-arguments/
“I do claim an embryo is a human person”
So you think that frozen human persons sit in frozen embryo banks, and you want those frozen embryos counted as people in the decennial census?
You think that most people who ever came into existence died within a few days? Because the majority of human zygotes die shortly after creation, before even implanting. Or are you purposefully distinguishing between zygotes and embryos, and you only believe that they become people after implantation?
“It has a right not to be violently killed. Fetal homicide laws recognize this right…”
No, actually, not a single fetal homicide law says that an embryo has any rights. They say that a state has rights to prosecute. Surely you understand the difference between the embryo and the state.
“Talk about an embryo improperly “using” a woman’s uterus against her will is crazy talk. Perhaps you’re thinking of the violinist argument…”
No, it’s not crazy, and you still haven’t presented an argument for why you believe it is. I’d never heard of “the violinist argument” but looked it up, and yes, that’s somewhat analogous to what I’m saying, though it’s not analogous in other ways.
As a start: do you deny that the zygote/embryo/fetus is using the woman’s body? Because that’s basic biology. For example, it gets oxygen and eliminates CO2 through her respiratory and cardiovascular systems. How do you think it gets oxygen and gets rid of CO2?
“the mother voluntarily consented to the sexual intercourse which placed the fetus there (I’m not talking about cases of rape which is a different subject which we can talk about separately).”
But consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term. If A uninterrupted leads to B, and B uninterrupted leads to C, and so forth on to Z, consent to A is not consent to Z. It is possible to establish a dividing line and say that you only consent to what occurs before the dividing line and not what occurs after.
“Did you come into this world by violating your mother’s rights?”
My mother chose to continue her pregnancy when she was pregnant with me. Fine by me if she’d chosen to have an abortion. Her choice, not mine.
“What is the function of a uterus? It is not there for the mother only, but for the baby; it has no other function.”
That isn’t true, as should be obvious from the fact that it functions even when the woman isn’t pregnant and that an early hysterectomy affects the woman’s health. Perhaps you don’t know enough female physiology. If you’d like to learn, start off by understanding the uterus is functioning throughout the menstrual cycle.
“A claim that an embryo or fetus is not a person is based on personhood depending on size, location, environment, or degree of development (the SLED test – you can look it up – but I’ve provided a link below in case you don’t want to go to the trouble).”
First of all, size, location, environment, or degree of development are not the only differences. As I already pointed out, a woman’s body is carrying out a lot physiologically on the embryo’s behalf. Pregnancy always affects a woman’s health (anywhere from mild nausea to life-threatening complications), whereas a toddler does not. The embryo is literally getting oxygen and eliminating CO2 through the woman’s respiratory and cardiovascular systems. It is literally getting nutrition through her gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems. Etc. None of that is the case for a toddler. Anyone can care for a toddler, whereas pregnancy is a dependency on the pregnant woman and her alone. If you were able to create another body in which to gestate the embryo and a means of transplantation, you’d solve the abortion debate, because it would eliminate the unique dependency. But that doesn’t exist right now. Another key difference is that a toddler is a separate organism / capable of organismal homeostasis, whereas an embryo is not a separate organism / not capable of organismal homeostasis. These are biological facts that we should be able to agree on.
Second, I claim that it’s not a person because our laws say that it’s not a person. As a simple example, if it were a person, abortion would always be illegal, even if the pregnancy were the result of rape or the woman’s life were threatened by the pregnancy. As another example, if an embryo were a person, embryos — including frozen embryos — would have to be counted in the census, as the census constitutionally requires a count of “all persons.”
Third, as I pointed out earlier, for me the most central part of personhood is a functioning brain, and fetal brains doesn’t reach the most elementary baseline until close to viability. That’s why I’m generally opposed to abortions after viability, unless the woman’s life or health are seriously endangered, or it’s a multiple pregnancy with complications (e.g., where one fetus has complications that put the other(s) at risk), or the fetus is diagnosed with a condition like total anencephaly that’s incompatible with life after birth.
If you have a counter to any of those three aspects, I’m listening.
Anon – I’ll try to address your points/questions as best I can.
. . . you want those frozen embryos counted as people in the decennial census?
No, for purposes of the census, unborn humans are not persons. See my remarks to Dennis above concerning the necessity of asking the question, “for purposes of what?”
. . . are you purposefully distinguishing between zygotes and embryos, and you only believe that they become people after implantation?
I’m not making that distinction.
No, actually, not a single fetal homicide law says that an embryo has any rights. They say that a state has rights to prosecute. Surely you understand the difference between the embryo and the state.
People have rights, the state has powers or authority. The state has the authority to criminalize theft as a way of protecting the property rights of people. As for fetal homicide laws, they likewise seek to protect the unborn person’s rights.
But consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
Consent to sex is consent to the well known consequences of sex.
Fine by me if she’d chosen to have an abortion.
Sorry to hear. You may want to get counseling.
. . . the uterus is functioning throughout the menstrual cycle.
True, I was talking about its purpose for existing.
Pregnancy always affects a woman’s health. . .
True, but the topic is personhood of the fetus, which does not depend on S, L, E, or D.
These are biological facts that we should be able to agree on.
We can agree on those facts, but how does it negate personhood for purposes of having a natural right not to be violently killed? Dependence on others continues beyond birth, but I’m hoping you wouldn’t argue a newborn isn’t a person. Or would you?
Second, I claim that it’s not a person because our laws say that it’s not a person.
From a natural rights perspective, statutory laws are not that relevant. To take an extreme example, the statutory laws under Nazi Germany did not recognize Jews as persons with rights. Under natural law, they were persons with rights.
for me the most central part of personhood is a functioning brain.
One must distinguish: a person who is brain dead is different than a fetus whose brain is partially developed and continuing to develop. In the former case, a reasonable argument can be made that life that once existed has now ceased. In the latter, life clearly has not ceased. If allowed to continue without violence the brain will continue to develop and become more and more functional. I am opposed to that kind of violence.
See if any of the following helps.
All of life requires and expends energy. Plants, animals, humans all require energy to live. Energy for these lives comes in the form of ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate). Adenosine is a precursor to DNA.
Once sperm fuses with an ovum, ATP is produced on a biochemical level until we die. Rigor mortis, a stiff dead body, is literally caused because the dead body can not make ATP. The fibrils of myosin and actin of skeletal muscles remain attached because only ATP can detach them. It is no coincidence that life depends on ATP
Oxygen = life. Plants, animals, humans all require oxygen. Oxygen is so crucial for the baby in utero that fetal blood has fetal hemoglobin. Blood newborn/adult hemoglobin replaces fetal hemoglobin ~ 6 months after delivery. The fetal hemoglobin in the baby in utero literally attracts oxygen more tightly than regular adult blood hemoglobin
It is no coincidence that life depends on Oxygen, and the baby in utero attracts oxygen more tightly than adult hemoglobin. Not surprisingly, sickle anemia is treated with, wait for it, fetal hemoglobin because it is life saving.
Whether we can see ATP, Fetal Hemoglobin, DNA or biochemical processes with the naked eye are irrelevant. Life is not defined by our ability to detect molecular mechanisms unaided by instruments. If that were the case, we would not use stethoscopes, EKGs, or EEG (brain wave) diagnostics to assess whether someone has signs of life.
Life begins at conception as seen at the biochemical, molecular and physiological levels. That we recognize life at birth is merely an accident that benefits our dim awareness. It was a life 9 months before we happened to be able to notice as such. For the same reasons cancer exists in a breast, pancreas or brain long before we can see it. The goal of cancer treatment is to see it at the molecular level via blood tests or tissue biopsies. If only Pro-aborts were as honest about detecting life at the molecular level as they demand physicians detect cancer in their family
The Pro-aborts avoid talking abortion and fertilization in scientific terms for 2 reasons:
1. they shun science because it is too complex, constantly changing and not static
2. it contradicts their ideology
Fetal hemoglobin (HbF) can blunt the pathophysiology, temper the clinical course, and offer prospects for curative therapy of sickle cell disease.
Steinberg MH. Fetal hemoglobin in sickle cell anemia. Blood. 2020 Nov 19;136(21):2392-2400. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020007645.
Excellent,
If the first reading doesn’t suffice, read again.
“Life begins at conception”
There actually isn’t a scientific consensus on that. Here’s a good discussion of why not, from a developmental biology textbook: https://web.archive.org/web/20030511191256/http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=21&id=162
If you want a peer-reviewed scientific discussion by the same author, try:
Gilbert, S. F. (2023). Pseudo‐embryology and personhood: How embryological pseudoscience helps structure the American abortion debate. Natural Sciences, 3(1), e20220041.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ntls.20220041
I’m not a “proabort.” I don’t favor abortion, have never suggested to anyone that she get an abortion, and it would be fine with me if no one ever chose to have one. I’m *pro-choice* because the choice is the pregnant woman’s to make, not mine.
“they shun science because it is too complex,”
That’s BS. I love science, and I’d be quite happy to discuss the science with you. But I expect (based on past experience) that you’ll refuse.
Estovir, glad you brought up plants and other animals into the discussion. I find it quite puzzling that while no one denies plant life beings at germination and animal life at conception. But some scream at the sky and stamp their feet at the very thought of a unique human life beginning at conception and then, it’s worthiness of protection (or not) only after some unagreeable amount of time elapses.
Anon – I don’t believe the fetus has any rights; instead, I agree with the opinion in Roe that the legal issue involves a balance between the woman’s rights and the state’s interests, and after viability, I think the state’s interest is sufficiently strong to generally proscribe abortion, with a few exceptions.
Got it. One follow-up based on the above: in a state in which third-trimester abortions are legal, you’re still opposed to them based on the reason you’ve said, right?
Just to explain: your explanation based on Roe speaks to whether a state may ban certain types of abortions, but that doesn’t mean states must ban them. I’m asking about your view, rather than what states may or may not do. But I think based on what you’ve said, even where third-trimester abortions are legal, you’re still opposed, right?
“for purposes of the census, unborn humans are not persons. See my remarks to Dennis above …”
I’m not inclined to come up with different definitions for different purposes. But since you’re approaching it that way, please list the different purposes and spell out the definition for each.
“As for fetal homicide laws, they likewise seek to protect the unborn person’s rights.”
Just so I’m clear: by “rights,” are you talking about natural law rights rather than legal rights? Or are you talking about both?
AFAIC, they don’t have any natural law or legal rights, as they aren’t persons. Also, I don’t agree that fetal homicide laws are there to protect the fetus. I think they’re there to protect the parents’ and state’s interests.
“the topic is personhood of the fetus, which does not depend on S, L, E, or D.”
I’d say that the topic is also abortion, which is not limited to SLED. The impact on the woman’s health may not be relevant to the question of whether it’s a person, but it’s absolutely relevant to abortion and also to the embryo vs. toddler argument.
“We can agree on those facts [e.g., pregnancy always affects a woman’s health, whereas a toddler does not; the embryo is literally getting oxygen and eliminating CO2 through the woman’s respiratory and cardiovascular systems; a toddler is a separate organism / capable of organismal homeostasis, whereas an embryo is not a separate organism / not capable of organismal homeostasis], but how does it negate personhood for purposes of having a natural right not to be violently killed?”
I reject that a zygote/embryo/fetus has any natural rights, as I don’t believe it’s a person (and you’ve yet to explain why you believe it has natural rights but shouldn’t be counted in the census, which makes no sense to me). And I also don’t see how an embryo can be a separate person when it’s not an organism in its own right (as it cannot maintain organismal homeostasis — even someone on life support can do that, or else they die no matter what intensive care is provided, just as a previable embryo or fetus dies if removed from the womb, no matter the aid provided).
I think that the size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependence argument really elides some distinctions that are key. For example, brain activity isn’t simply a matter of development (e.g., it’s active from conception and simply becomes more developed); it’s a feature that does not come into existence for many months. I believe that whenever it’s absent — whether that be in the first half of pregnancy or after brain death — there cannot be a person there. Similarly, whether or not it’s an organism capable of homeostasis can’t be argued as “it’s there at conception and slowly becomes more developed”; rather, it only comes into being at viability (that’s what makes it viable or not). And I believe that if it’s not yet a biological organism (because it cannot maintain organismal homeostasis), it cannot be a person. SLED simply doesn’t acknowledge these issues, which are much more like off/on switches than they are “level of development.”
BTW, that article that you linked to argued that you’d save a toddler who has fallen into a pool. But you actually have no legal obligation to do so, even though I’d say that there’s a moral obligation (because a toddler *is* a person — a human organism with a functioning brain), so their argument about dependence falls short.
“In the former case, a reasonable argument can be made that life that once existed has now ceased. In the latter, life clearly has not ceased.”
Actually, if someone who is brain dead is on life support, the life has not yet ceased. The person is legally dead, but the body is still living. We have to distinguish between what’s alive and what’s a person. Both the body of a brain dead person on life support and an embryo are alive, but I’d say that neither is a person: in the former case, the person has died, and in the latter case, the person has not yet come into existence.
“Both the body of a brain dead person on life support and an embryo are alive,”
If you took a gun and killed the person on life support, or the embryo life ceases. That is known as killing a life.
I’m not inclined to come up with different definitions for different purposes.
You’ve yet to explain why you believe it has natural rights but shouldn’t be counted in the census, which makes no sense to me.
This is essentially the same argument as Dennis’s claim that if a fetus is a person, then the traffic regulations governing HOV lanes must treat it as a person. The claim is that it’s inconsistent to treat it as a person for one purpose but not for another purpose. Here’s what I said to Dennis:
What we’re comparing here is whether the fetus, embryo, or unborn child (I don’t really care what term is used) is a person for purposes of having a natural right not to be violently killed, versus a traffic regulation that is aimed at incentivizing carpooling – i.e., is an unborn child a person for purposes of the HOV regulation? Those are two very different arenas with different definitions of person, and there’s no reason the same definition of “person” must be used in both contexts. What we’re arguing about here is the definition of person for purposes of having a right not to be violently killed. There is nothing inconsistent about saying that for purposes of the HOV traffic law a fetus is not a person. (Apparently we both accept the premise that a person has a right not to be violently killed, but we differ on whether an unborn human being is a person.)
So same goes for the census. The census’s purpose is evidently to count the number of people who are actually born and living in a certain place. In some countries perhaps it counts the unborn too, but not in America. So “person” has a definition for purposes of the census, but that definition does not control whether it is a person for completely different purposes, such as deciding whether it has a right not to be violently killed.
It occurs to me that one very valid reason not to count the unborn in a census is there is no way of knowing for sure that the baby will actually be born alive. But again, that has no relevance to the question of whether an unborn child has a natural right not to be violently killed.
oldmanfromkansas,
I’d already read your response to Dennis, and I do understand your general argument that we don’t have to use the same definition for different purposes. However, I don’t agree that counting car occupants for an HOV lane (a civil transportation law that doesn’t apply to anything else) is the same as counting someone for the census (which is part of our constitution, and counts someone if legal personhood exists, a characteristic that reaches far beyond census counts). The HOV count derives from the definition of a person with constitutional rights rather than having its own definition.
You say “The census’s purpose is evidently to count the number of people who are actually born and living in a certain place,” and “there is no way of knowing for sure that the baby will actually be born alive,” but the Census text in the Constitution never says anything about “born.” It only says “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” So you’re saying that you do not believe that an embryo is a “free person” in that text, but you don’t explain why. Is it just the historic interpretation of the text?
Where you say “So “person” has a definition for purposes of the census, but that definition does not control whether it is a person for completely different purposes,” I disagree that “person” has a definition for purposes of the census. Rather, I’d say that “person” has a definition for purposes of the Constitution, and one of the applications of that definition is in the census clause. However, that definition is not specific to the census and very clearly not limited to the census; the same definition is used throughout the Constitution.
I wish you’d responded to the part where I said “since you’re approaching it that way [i.e., “person” can have different definitions for different purposes], please list the different purposes and spell out the definition for each.”
One category for you is clearly a person with the natural right not to be killed. My impression is that you believe that this natural right attaches at conception. Is that correct? You don’t say whether you believe that all natural rights attach at conception, though you do say things like “[fetal homicide laws] likewise seek to protect the unborn person’s rights” (plural rights), so it’s clear that you’re not talking solely about the right not to be killed. You also don’t say what characteristic(s) the zygote has that make it a natural law person for you (simply that it’s human and unique? …). I’m trying to understand how you think about it and would appreciate your saying more.
Another category might be a person with constitutional rights. Is that another category for you? If so, when you believe that those rights attach?
Are there any key categories for you?
“The HOV count derives from the definition of a person with constitutional rights rather than having its own definition.”
Rubbish.
The ability to ride in the HOV lane is a privilege different from natural or Constitutional rights. How you came up with such an uninformed statement is beyond explanation.
The HOV lane was created to reduce traffic slowdowns, especially when going and coming from work. They could have just as easily written no children below a specified age would count as a rider. Would that mean children do not have constitutional rights and it would be OK to kill children?
Anon – thank you for your many questions. I’ll try to address all of them but I may miss one or two.
My original point was that it is silly to suggest some inconsistency between the pro-life position and the concept that unborn children aren’t counted for HOV lane purposes. One has to be cognizant of the context, and “person” can have different meanings in different contexts. So for example, if someone asks me, “I need to know how many places at the table to set, so how many people from your family are coming to our dinner?” and my wife is pregnant, I don’t include the unborn child in the count of persons, because the context indicates the fact of her pregnancy is not relevant to the number of place settings.
Other examples are: I ask my accountant, is this a deductible expense, he answers “for purposes of federal taxes yes, but for purposes of state taxes no.” Or I ask, is that 19-year-old person an underage minor. They answer, “for purposes of voting, no, but for purposes of buying alcohol, yes.” So there again the nouns (deductible expense, underage minor) have different definitions depending on the context.
As for the census, again I’m not claiming an unborn child is a person for specific constitutional provisions, or even for the Constitution at all. My argument against violent killing of the unborn child is not based on the U.S. Constitution. It’s based on the natural right to life everyone has, including unborn children, even apart from the Constitution. The fetal homicide law does not protect a constitutional right of the unborn but a natural right (by using “rights” plural I wasn’t trying to suggest others, that was just a turn of a phrase). Many laws are like that: they protect natural rights, not constitutional rights. For example, laws against theft (natural right to enjoy one’s property), laws permitting recovery for defamation (natural right to protect one’s reputation), and so on.
As for the question, does the right to life attach at conception, the major premise is that a living human person has a natural right to life in the sense that they have the right to be free from purposeful violent death. So as for the question, does that right attach at conception, I’d say yes, because it’s at conception that the unborn child becomes a person. That’s the minor premise (that the unborn child becomes a person at conception). If I was convinced somehow that the minor premise was wrong – that an unborn child becomes a person at some point later than conception – then I’d say the right attaches at that point – the point where it becomes a living human person, consistent with the major premise.
I’ve tried to answer your questions. I recognize you said that you want me to list all different situations in which the word “person” has some meaning and its definition for each setting. I’m afraid I can’t do that, there are just too many. But I’m content to discuss the contexts relevant to this topic – which so far are: (1) abortion, (2) HOV lanes, (3) the census, and (4) dinner parties.
oldmanfromkansas,
Thanks for your response. You’ll be pleased to know 😉 that it raises additional questions for me (a couple of which I asked earlier, plus a couple of new ones):
* Why do you believe that the natural right not to be killed attaches at conception / what characteristics of the zygote are key for you (i.e., the way brain activity is key for me later)?
* Why do you think that constitutional rights shouldn’t attach until birth? (This question is less important that the others, so if you’re feeling swamped with questions, ignore it.)
* Do you believe that elective abortions should be legal in any of the following situations, and why or why not: rape? threat to the mother’s life or health? selective reduction (e.g., a multiple pregnancy in which one fetus is creating a risk to another fetus’s life)? medical reasons for the fetus (e.g., newly diagnosed with a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth)?
* You’re generally silent about the mother. She clearly has natural law and legal rights. Why do you conclude that her rights matter less than the natural law right you believe the embryo has? That is, even if you believe that an embryo has a natural law right not to be killed, why do you also believe that the embryo’s right outweighs the mother’s right against involuntary servitude? If it were possible to remove the embryo/fetus without killing it, but knowing that it would die prior to viability once removed, would that change the calculus for you? (I’m trying to get at whether your argument against abortion is about killing per se versus some right to use the woman’s/girl’s body.)
I recognize that that’s a lot of questions, but I’m curious about these elements of your thinking.
If you have any questions for me, let me know.
Anon – good questions. I’ll mull these over and respond in due time. For most of today I’ll have to be busy with activities off line. As for my silence on the mother, it’s not that I don’t believe she has rights, it just hasn’t been central to our discussion yet. But I’ll give a fuller response when I am able. Also it’s not that I don’t have questions for you, but so much room has been taken up answering yours that I haven’t yet posed them. I’ll do so. Enjoy your day,
-Uncle Henry
In the mean time what I’d be interested to hearing from you is: do you believe abortion is okay through all three trimesters, including on an unborn baby of nine-months’ gestation? If not, where along the way from zero to nine months does it go from okay to not okay? If so, (a) why, and (b) do you also believe infanticide of a newborn is okay?
oldmanfromkansas,
“do you believe abortion is okay through all three trimesters, including on an unborn baby of nine-months’ gestation?”
No.
“If not, where along the way from zero to nine months does it go from okay to not okay?”
As I said earlier, for me the most central part of personhood is a functioning brain, and fetal brains doesn’t reach the most elementary baseline until around the same times as viability (to be clear: I’m not talking about the brainstem but about the main part of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex). Viability is also the dividing line where a fetus first develops the possibility of living as an independent organism, capable of organismal homeostasis. For both reasons, I’m generally opposed to abortions after viability, with a few exceptions. But viability is a condition, not a date, so there is no precise cut-off for me; if you need an estimate between 0 and 9 months, I’d say ~22 weeks. The exceptions:
* the woman’s life or health are seriously endangered
* it’s a multiple pregnancy where one fetus has complications that put the other(s) at risk, and only the fetus that’s endangering the other(s) is aborted
* the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth (in which case it never actually becomes viable, even though it may be far along in the pregnancy).
Anon – thank you for your answers. I can certain understand where you’re coming from on the question of personhood even if we don’t ultimately agree. And also I appreciate the explanation about multiple people going by the name Anonymous. I guess that should have been obvious but in this discussion it didn’t occur to me. Finally, this particular board is becoming difficult to continue this conversation. So . . . if there’s another Turley article that touches on abortion maybe we can continue there.
In the interests of not copping out, though, I don’t want to just leave it at that, so I’ll address a few other points/questions you raised.
(1) do you believe that it should be illegal to discard IVF embryos, and if not, why not? I’m all for advances in reproductive technology. A good friend of mine was able to have a baby through in vitro fertilization and she otherwise would have remained childless. However, I do not favor discarding embryos as they are, in my view, human persons. Thus, I believe every effort should be made to allow them to develop. What that looks in reality would be an interesting discussion.
(2) “Doesn’t the position still depend on the premise that an unborn child has no natural right not to be violently killed?” Yes. I believe that natural law rights and constitutional rights both attach at birth.
So you are not opposed to third-trimester abortions?
(3) But I still don’t understand why you think natural law rights should attach at conception (if that’s what you think) and constitutional rights should attach later. I’m still hoping that you’ll elaborate on these things.. The reason I don’t view the Constitution as guaranteeing any specific rights in favor of the unborn is that the rights it does guarantee – such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly – make no sense for someone who is unborn. The only possible exception is life. The Fourteenth Amendment says, in relevant part, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Unborn children are not citizens, and they cannot be deprived of liberty or property. They can potentially be deprived of life – but the thing to notice is that the Fourteenth Amendment is not a restriction of private action, but of state action. So I suppose if the government were ever to begin using force to abort a baby against the mother’s will, then an argument could be made that that violates its constitutional right to life. But that never happens that I know of; the legal abortions in America are decided on by private individuals, not the state.
With the constitution out of the way, what right does an unborn child have to continue living? The only such right I know of is a natural right.
“So you are not opposed to third-trimester abortions?”
As I said, I generally believe that abortions should be illegal after viability/brain activity, with the exceptions that I specified. That includes all of the third trimester plus the end of the second trimester, unless the fetus has a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth, in which case it’s not actually viable even at 9 months. I don’t believe the fetus has any rights; instead, I agree with the opinion in Roe that the legal issue involves a balance between the woman’s rights and the state’s interests, and after viability, I think the state’s interest is sufficiently strong to generally proscribe abortion, with a few exceptions.
Anon – I asked a follow-up above concerning third-trimester. It appeared in a different place than I expected.
The gist of it is: your explanation based on Roe speaks to whether a state may ban certain types of abortions, but that doesn’t mean states must ban them. I’m asking about your view, rather than what states may or may not do. But I think based on what you’ve said, even where third-trimester abortions are legal, you’re still opposed, right?
“even where third-trimester abortions are legal, you’re still opposed, right?”
Yes, with the 3 exceptions that I listed earlier.
I still wish that you’d answered more of the questions in my April 17, 6:02 AM comment, but accept that you’d rather draw the exchange to a close.
oldmanfromkansas,
P.S. Thanks for the sustained good faith exchange. I think people need to be able to talk this way with those whose views are different from our own.
P.P.S. to oldmanfromkansas:
Re: “this particular board is becoming difficult to continue this conversation,” another possibility is simply to post a new top-level comment on the main page for this column — https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/14/their-smug-civility-was-infuriating-yale-editorial-denounces-the-politeness-of-pro-life-students-questions-right-to-speak-on-campus/#comments — and continue the discussion from there, where we wouldn’t have to wade through so many levels of previous comments.
Up to you whether you’d like to continue.
Anon – I hope you see this. I’ve been preoccupied the last few days. I’d like to continue this on a new thread. And thanks to you too for a polite discussion. One thing I like about this is that I’m not trying to convince you, and I get the feeling you’re not trying to convince me, which makes it much easier to just have a relaxed conversation . . . and in doing so to learn something from the other person.
I was wondering, in light of the multiple people commenting anonymously, could you at least give me your initials so I know it’s you when this starts up again?
Thanks,
Uncle Henry
oldmanfromkansas,
If we restart the discussion on another thread, you’ll know me in part because I’ll refer back to some of what we figured out here.
See you on another thread,
A.N.D.
Anon – got it, thanks.
I forgot to respond to one point:
“Consent to sex is consent to the well known consequences of sex.”
The consequence may be pregnancy. But bringing the pregnancy to term is distinct from becoming pregnant, and recognizing that one may become pregnant is not consent to bringing the pregnancy to term, precisely because it’s possible to choose to terminate it.
Double-talk.
The consequence may be pregnancy. But bringing the pregnancy to term is distinct from becoming pregnant, and recognizing that one may become pregnant is not consent to bringing the pregnancy to term.
Wait, so you’re saying a woman can consent to getting pregnant without consenting to the consequences of that pregnancy (a child)? Doesn’t the position still depend on the premise that an unborn child has no natural right not to be violently killed? To my mind that’s the sticking point. You accept the premise, whereas I don’t.
“so you’re saying a woman can consent to getting pregnant without consenting to the consequences of that pregnancy (a child)?”
I’m saying a woman can consent to *the possibility of* getting pregnant without consenting to giving birth, as the former need not lead to the latter. There are all sorts of health conditions where A leads to B if untreated, which leads to C if untreated, …, but where we interrupt the progression, precisely because we’re able to treat the condition. One way of treating a pregnancy is with prenatal care. Another way of treating a pregnancy is with an elective abortion. Which treatment is selected is up to the pregnant woman.
“Doesn’t the position still depend on the premise that an unborn child has no natural right not to be violently killed?”
Yes. I believe that natural law rights and constitutional rights both attach at birth.
Since you believe that a zygote has a natural right not to be electively killed, how do you deal with pregnancies that result from rape, where consent did not occur?
“To my mind that’s the sticking point. You accept the premise, whereas I don’t.”
Indeed, that’s the sticking point. But I still don’t understand why you think natural law rights should attach at conception (if that’s what you think) and constitutional rights should attach later. I’m still hoping that you’ll elaborate on these things.
“I’m saying a woman can consent to *the possibility of* getting pregnant without consenting to giving birth”
When robbing a bank, a woman can consent to *the possibility of* getting caught without consenting to being put in jail.
You aren’t making much sense, but that is your right.
Isn’t that like saying “abortion should be legal because abortion is legal”?
Can a person consent to being entertained at a gambling casino by betting money, without consenting to the possibility of losing that money? If stealing from casino operators is legal, then yes. But that’s not an argument for why stealing from casino operators should be legal.
When robbing a bank, a woman can consent to *the possibility of* getting caught without consenting to being put in jail.
I don’t think that’s your best argument. It’s actually a good argument for my side: even though the bank robber doesn’t consent to going to jail, it is right for him to be forced to go to jail.
oldmanfromkansas,
First, a clarification: anyone who wants to post anonymously can do so; simply don’t fill in the name and email. Multiple people comment anonymously on this website. I’m not the only anonymous commenter who is responding to you in this particular subthread of this one blog post. I think it’s only one other anonymous commenter besides me, and that person also posts under the name S Meyer. I consider him a troll, as he is a bad faith discussant (he posts a lot of insults, he lies about people’s beliefs, …). I used to respond to him, but because he showed himself to be a bad faith discussant, I now generally ignore him, as I’m doing here. I recognize that it can be confusing for you to not know which of us posted a particular comment, sorry about that. He’s the one who introduced the jail example. I consider is a bad analogy: not only do people go to jail by force rather than consent, but we have a system where the person must be found guilty by a jury and can present a defense, so in fact, being arrested for a bank robbery doesn’t guarantee that you go to jail. Some people also get away with crimes (e.g., they still haven’t identified the person who left the pipe bombs on Jan. 6).
Re: your question, “Isn’t that [i.e., consent to the risk of becoming pregnant not being consent to bringing the pregnancy to term] like saying “abortion should be legal because abortion is legal”?”
First, I hope that I correctly interpreted what “that” referred to, when I added the parenthetic. If I misinterpreted, just clarify what you actually meant by “that.”
To answer, no, it has nothing to do with legality. My point is that whenever there is a long process, consent to the start of the process generally is not consent to continuing the process to a predetermined end. There are lots of counterexamples. For example, when I was donating platelets at the Red Cross, I became nauseous and then vomited. (Not sure if you’re familiar with platelet donations, but they take your whole blood out of your body, use an apheresis machine to separate out the platelets, red blood cells and plasma, and then feed the red blood cells and most of the plasma back into your body while keeping the platelets and a bit of plasma. They add something to the blood to keep it from coagulating while it’s out of your body, and that anticoagulant makes some people nauseous.) I had consented to be a platelet donor, and I consented to starting the process, but I withdrew my consent after I vomited, and the donation ended even though otherwise they would have collected a bit more from me: consent to the beginning of the process was not consent to continuing. (I’ve tried it a few times and usually ended up vomiting, so I now I just donate blood.) Similarly if you plan to run a marathon, you can start it but decide partway through that you’re not going to finish it. Or you can start a major at school and decide not to complete that major. Or … There are lots of situations in life where there’s a long process, and consent to initiating it is not consent to continuing the process to a predetermined end. And the situation is actually a bit more complex with pregnancy, because in many cases, consent to sex is only consent to the *risk* of becoming pregnant, not actively choosing to become pregnant, as occurs with IVF.
IVF reminds me of one other strand of questions for you, since you say that the right not to be killed attaches at conception: do you believe that it should be illegal to discard IVF embryos, and if not, why not? If so, do you believe that any couple that creates IVF embryos must either use them or donate them to someone else who will use them, or is it OK with you for them to remain frozen for decades as long as they’re not killed?
“I think it’s only one other anonymous commenter besides me, and that person also posts under the name S Meyer. ”
ATS, that anonymous made a point. Did you understand it?
You brought me into this discussion by calling me a troll. Why? Because you are living up to your name, Anonymous the Stupid.
“he is a bad faith discussant”
It’s funny that you can’t quote what is in bad faith. You are a troll using an address to delete your comments and any responses to it. You have pretend friends to boost your ego and have used multiple aliases. You lie and deceive. All of that is proven.
You are correct. I insult you. Everyone dealing with your lies and deceit should do the same. Not infrequently, others refer to you as ATS or Anonymous the Stupid or just stupid.
” I used to respond to him, but because he showed himself to be a bad faith discussant”
That is almost correct, except you are talking about your bad faith that I highlight in many of your postings. I called you out on your lies and deceit. That is when, like most cowards, you ran. It’s smart of you to run when faced with the truth.
You have an awkward understanding of the word consent. Consent = agreement to an action. When you agree to an action you have to stand ready for the results of that action whether it is pregnancy or jail. You don’t always have a right to kill the results of your action.
ATS, you have shown yourself for what you are, immoral. Please spare me and don’t respond. LOL
As I already provided citations for, scientists do not agree that “no one denies plant life beings at germination and animal life at conception.”
Since she put that embryo there, she has a responsibility to it. If she didn’t want to be “used” she should use birth control, like a normal mature adult person.
All birth control sometimes fails. Women and girls are sometimes raped. People sometimes need abortions with wanted pregnancies. Telling people to use birth control doesn’t resolve the issue.
oldmanfromkansas: I know the purpose of HOV lanes and I agree that “suggesting am unborn child counts for HOV lane purposes would be ridiculous”. But that’s exactly what the GOP Utah House did in passing its bill. You can’t escape the logical consequences from deeming a fetus a “person”. You say an “unborn child has a beating heart, all the functioning organs, a brain…” etc. If that’s so then why should that “person” be denied the right to use the HOV lane along with its mother? Like Anonymous I disagree with your term “unborn child”. But that’s beside the point. You can’t have it both ways. Either a fetus is a “person” for all purposes or it is not–including HOV lanes!
Since you asked, here is another example of the illogic of the anti-abortion position. In all states that have passed anti-abortion laws there is a vehicular manslaughter statute. Suppose a pregnant woman is driving drunk and causes a traffic accident. She is severely injured and her fetus has to be aborted and does not survive due directly from the accident. Do you think the mother should be prosecuted for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter because she caused the death of another “person”? These are the logical consequences from defining a embryo/fetus as a “person”.
We won’t solve the argument on this blog. The chasm between our views is too large to bridge. That’s why Bianca Nam refused to engage in a “civil” debate with the anti-abortion students at Yale. What would be the point?
Dennis – thanks for the response. I appreciate the opportunity to debate with you on civil, intelligent terms.
You can’t have it both ways. Either a fetus is a “person” for all purposes or it is not–including HOV lanes!
Ah but that’s where you err. I can have it both ways. The same word can have different definitions for different situations, depending on the law in question. So . . . the HOV lane law may define person one way, whereas the fetal homicide law may define it in a different way, and they are both valid definitions for their respective contexts. That type of thing is common in the law. When faced with a definitional question, it’s a good idea to ask “for purposes of what?”
What we’re comparing here is whether the fetus, embryo, or unborn child (I don’t really care what term is used) is a person for purposes of having a natural right not to be violently killed, versus a traffic regulation that is aimed at incentivizing carpooling – i.e., is an unborn child a person for purposes of the HOV regulation? Those are two very different arenas with different definitions of person, and there’s no reason the same definition of “person” must be used in both contexts. What we’re arguing about here is the definition of person for purposes of having a right not to be violently killed. There is nothing inconsistent about saying that for purposes of the HOV traffic law a fetus is not a person. (Apparently we both accept the premise that a person has a right not to be violently killed, but we differ on whether an unborn human being is a person.)
Okay, enough about that. Now: Do you think the mother should be prosecuted for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter because she caused the death of another “person”?. It depends on how the statute is written. Most fetal homicide laws exempt the mother entirely from criminal culpability, no matter the means by which her fetus is killed. So if she attempts suicide, or overdoses on drugs, she still can’t be prosecuted if her fetus dies. If I were the DA in such a state, I’d say no, I don’t think the mother should be prosecuted because the legislature determined that she should not be; I don’t make the law, I just enforce it. However, if your real question is: should we make the law so that the mother is culpable in that situation, given that her actions were unintentional, I’d probably say no. She’s already lost her child and her actions were not willful.
Can you see how that’s different than a willful destruction of an innocent unborn life through abortion? So I don’t believe my position is internally inconsistent.
That’s why Bianca Nam refused to engage in a “civil” debate with the anti-abortion students at Yale. What would be the point?
Perhaps for her there’d be no point, but I don’t fault the students for that. There are any number of sensitive political topics on which people have widely differing opinions, and engaging in civil debate on such issues is the only way forward.
oldmanfromkansas,
I agree about the need for civil debate — as long as it is also debate in good faith — and am glad that you’re willing to engage that way. Unlike Dennis, I think the discussion can be productive even when neither side is convinced by the other’s argument (for example, it can help both people get clearer about their own thinking).
Anon – true, I had been thinking the same thing.
The South Carolina bill will not pass. Support for the bill, even among legislators who are pro-life, is approximately zero.
Your position gets to the point Turley is making. You are able to express your views, but you believe that anyone who disagrees shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Hypocrisy at its finest. Free speech for you but not for anyone who disagrees with you—even if they are polite and civil. Abortion was not the real subject of Turley’s piece. It’s about the double standard of the left on free speech. You believe you are right and how can you argue with people who oppose you. You have demonstrated your intolerance and unwillingness to discuss the issue with civility and politeness. Only the left knows all, so don’t even try to debate us. Sadly people like you are not even interested in debating bc a topic may by triggering or traumatic to even listen to.
@Dennis McIntyre
Your position gets to the point Turley is making. You are able to express your views, but you believe that anyone who disagrees shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Hypocrisy at its finest. Free speech for you but not for anyone who disagrees with you—even if they are polite and civil. Abortion was not the real subject of Turley’s piece. It’s about the double standard of the left on free speech. You believe you are right and how can you argue with people who oppose you. You have demonstrated your intolerance and unwillingness to discuss the issue with civility and politeness. Only the left knows all, so don’t even try to debate us. Sadly people like you are not even interested in debating bc a topic may by triggering or traumatic to even listen to.
Maybe I misunderstood the blog post on which you commented. I was not under the impression that Bianca Nam was placed under any obligation by Yale to “engage” with anyone.
PoetNam Channeling her inner Browning…
“Their smug civility was infuriating;
their invitations for debate, inflammatory.
I could barely seethe out my opinion…”
…so viciously nice they could be.
Their docile tranquilly was wretched;
their provocations most ingrate, horror story.
I could squarely wreathe out their words
and silence them; in glory.
Their polite geniality was hateful;
their eviction from this school, most divine,
I could fairly cancel their resistance.
Ave, Virgo! Gr-r-r–you swine!
~+~
Kind and friendly protesters, The brothers Laurence of today’s colleges.
Darren – well done sir!
And from the prophet of old:
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
The prophet adds:
Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
and their flowers blow away like dust . . .
Isaiah 5:20, 24
Here is the quote from Khaled Alqahtani: “Radical love” my ass. It disgusts me that the oppressors’ emotions and well-being (in all contexts, from institutions to individuals) are the first to be considered and accommodated whenever people question the validity of armed or violent resistance.
Not much room for interpretation there. He’s for actual violence, not mere “verbal hostility.”
These women are brainwashed. They have internalized hysterical positions of old feminists from the 60s and 70s when there was no truly reliable birth control, no morning after pill for rape, and girls’ and single women’s lives not infrequently were ruined by having an unintended pregnancy.
On the other hand, a law such as Florida’s new 6 week limit doesn’t give a woman adequate time even to know that she is pregnant. Solution: doctors count pregnancy from date of the last period. How do they know when that was? They ask the woman…
Outhouse – I got a kick out of your screen name. Clever.
Professor Turley,
Please retract this article. Not a single article you reference advocates for violence. You misquote one student who refers to “hostility” not “violence.” The articles makes clear she means verbal hostility, not physical altercation.
Clearly, these are misguided opinions. But don’t put words in their mouth! By spreading your misinformation, YOU sir are fueling the age of rage
(Please dear readers. Don’t trust his articles without reading the sources first I challenge anyone here to find a single pro-violence position in any of the above mentioned articles.)
“Not a single article you reference advocates for violence.”
I read the articles. You lie.
I read the articles and you lied. To which ATS responded
“Quotes?”
He self-deleted and my answer got deleted as well. It said:
“As you probably knew when you made the comment, the article was taken down. That way you felt you could lie and no one could prove differently. However, there were quotes left that tell people otherwise.
Once again you prove yourself a liar.”
This demonstrates how far ATS will go in his deceit and lies. One cannot trust ATS for he will misquote or take things out of context. If anyone with a solid basis thinks they are right and ATS is wrong, the chances are they are right. ATS is making things up.
LOL that you think the person you call “ATS” says things like “Please dear readers.” You’re only demonstrating again that most liberal Anonymouses look alike to you.
ATS, is his alias, Anonymous? Yes. Is his icon the same as yours? Yes. Don’t expect anyone to believe you when the ideas are the same as yours and when the posting is deleted. You cannot blame another whenever you wish. If you accept attachment to Bug or anyone else for praise, be prepared to accept the scorn.
I will repeat what I said below. It absolutely pertains to you and your habits, even if another mimicked your screwiness. It makes no difference since I referred to your attributes and believe you added those words. Your type of deceit never ends.
“As you probably knew when you commented, the article was taken down. That way you felt you could lie and no one could prove it differently. However, there were quotes left that tell people otherwise.
Once again you prove yourself a liar.”
This demonstrates how far ATS will go in his deceit and lies. One cannot trust ATS for he will misquote or take things out of context. If anyone with a solid basis thinks they are right and ATS is wrong, the chances are they are right. ATS is making things up.
From linked article you claim does not advocate violence
“In his column entitled “This War Can’t Be Civil,” Alqahtani mocks those who seek non-violent change and while “quoting Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. about peaceful protest and resistance.” He declared “‘Radical love’ my ass. It disgusts me that the oppressors’ emotions and well-being (in all contexts, from institutions to individuals) are the first to be considered and accommodated whenever people question the validity of armed or violent resistance.”Alqahtani is willing to accept a role for peaceful protests but insists that people need to give violence a chance:”
We have to learn that when ATS speaks or types he is lying. The article referred to was taken down so ATS probably assumed no one could prove him a liar. He didn’t bother to check what Turley said. This is not a mistake. This is part of ATS’s character.
“Not a single article you reference advocates for violence.”
That is false and a half-truth.
The Berkeley piece openly endorses violence. The Wellesley piece veers into that lane (while playing games with words).
Do you have access to the retracted Berkeley piece, or are you relying on Turley’s quote of it?
If the latter, ask yourself, “Has Professor Turley accurately quoted the other articles referenced in this note?” NO. (No acknowledgement of Turley’s false quote in the Wellesley piece, by the way. What part of that is a “half” truth?
My statement stands. You can’t find a single primary source referenced above that openly advocates for violence.
Also: if you have to rely on a second-hand reference in a retracted article as the only one of FOUR articles Turley points to as advocating for violence to find a SINGLE one that might, perhaps Turley is being disingenuous by summarizing ALL of them as advocating for violence.
Come on, man. Always check the primary sources. (Not just with Turley. But with anything you read online.)
Human evolution from conception. Human rights from six weeks when baby meets granny in biological and legal state. The wicked solution, the final solution,
is neither a good nor exclusive choice. Women, men, and “our Posterity” deserve better, life-oriented care. #HateLovesAbortion
OT:
Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth on Friday issued a statement in response to the backlash.
“As the CEO of a company founded in America’s heartland more than 165 years ago, I am responsible for ensuring every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew. We’re honored to be part of the fabric of this country. Anheuser-Busch employs more than 18,000 people and our independent distributors employ an additional 47,000 valued colleagues. We have thousands of partners, millions of fans and a proud history supporting our communities, military, first responders, sports fans and hard-working Americans everywhere,” Whitworth said. “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.”
“We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people.”
the boycott worked.
Americans should be alert for angry, violent trans people shooting and killing more people.
I am responsible for ensuring every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew.
Guess you failed at your job.
Gavin Newsom:
“Florida will now require rape and incest victims to show “documents” to prove they got raped. If they can’t provide them, the government will mandate they give birth to their rapist’s child.”
Peter Shill: I have never had carnal knowledge with a womyn….euuuuwwwww…..so none of this really interests me. Where are all of the hot boys going tonight? I keep getting banned from Grindr!!!!!
REGARDING ABOVE:
I have never been banned from Grindr. Tinder for LGBTQIAeieioooo, yes, but not Grindr
The Shill
Evidence of a crime? Why is that even something to question? Like that con artist suing Trump. If you got assaulted, file a report….or it didn’t happen.
Reports aren’t always filed for sexual assaults. You know this, because elsewhere, you’ve talked about assaults carried out by Bill Clinton where no report was filed.
They need to spend more time at the gym if they want to get results using violence
Amy Howe (SCOTUSblog):
“Justice Samuel Alito has put lower court rulings restricting access to abortion pill mifepristone on hold until Wednesday night [a temporary administrative stay], instructs challengers to file their brief by noon on Tuesday.”
Our founding fathers were prophetic. They understood the nature of humans and that evil has a way of warping people’s outlook on their fellow humans.
Gosh, who could have seen this coming? The College Fix provide the results of a survey conducted at 71 universities around the country and they discovered a direct correlation between the growth of DEI bureaucracies at colleges and universities and the loss of free speech protections.
DEI bureaucracies did not seem to influence how students tolerated one another, but there was a relationship between diversity personnel and support for speech, the professor wrote in his analysis, headlined: “Is DEI Destroying Free Speech on Campus?”
The political scientist wrote that “the overall reduction of intolerance is entirely a function of how DEI personnel increase tolerance for liberal speakers. Students at universities with more DEI personnel per 1,000 students are far more tolerant of liberal speakers. Students at universities with more DEI personnel per student are not, however, more tolerant of conservative speakers.”
“…While conservatives remain the targets of censorship efforts in these accounts, explicitly hostile DEI personnel (rather than the combination of effete administrators and disgruntled leftist youth) have become the main villains of the story,” Wallsten wrote.
DEI bureaucracies also had a moderately positive correlation to creating more difficulty for students to express free speech and expression outside of the classroom as well as encouraging disruption of campus speech through violence, blockages, and shouting down speakers.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/political-scientist-dei-policies-linked-to-decrease-in-free-speech-support-on-campus-surveys-show/
I want nothing better than to be a fly on the wall when she rereads her comments years from now and is likely embarrassed by her youthful arrogance.
I know just who to call for whiney, crybaby Hyerim Blanca Nam: A Waaaambulance!
Hyerim Bianca Nam’s editorial offers nothing substantial of what she and members of the pro-life club talked about. Did in fact the pro-life members “bring the legality of abortion into question” or was that simply Nam’s sense of it. Might her entering such an unsafe space also have allowed her to discuss the values, morals, and ethics of abortion and how that may impact a person’s regard for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights? Not knowing whether or not the pro-life members are the misogynists Nam impugns them to be, it is not possible to give her any benefit of the doubt that her opinion offers the entirety of what occurred, or what might have occurred but for prejudices and biases. Perhaps she will offer something more in another editorial opinion. Until then, Turley has given us what she had to say and now his readers can move on with their own.