David Blaska wrote:
David Blaska wrote:Abortion does take a human life.
That is my answer. It may not fit neatly into to your crude little box, but tough t's.
Is abortion "murder?" That is not a word I hear used because it is an inexact term (it's not used anywhere in Wisconsin statute) that conjures up a cold-blooded killing for hate or money. Is the teenage drunk driver a "murderer?" I would not use that term but perhaps the parents of the dead passengers might. The State of Wi calls it "homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle."
I certainly recognize the confused and troubled state of a mother with no guidance or support -- hardly a cold-blooded decision.
OK, so you're still unable to bring yourself to say either "Yes"
, or "I don't know."
You've rewritten the question ("Abortion does take a human life" -- well, so do accidents and capital punishment and warfare and suicide and self-defense). You've deferred to the technical language of Wisconsin Statutes
. You've digressed to talk about completely other topics (drunk driving). You've claimed not to have heard the word "murder" used (which is odd, considering how omnipresent it is within the antiabortion movement - see below).
But you won't say whether you
, David Blaska, believe that abortion is murder; nor have you admitted that you can't answer the question (which would itself be an acceptable answer).
I was under the impression you were a Catholic. I was also under the impression that one of the Commandments refers to murder, despite the fact that the Commandments pre-date Wisconsin Statutes
David Blaska wrote:For people who supposedly value "nuance" you certainly have a tin ear.
Ironically, I directly addressed "nuance" right here
. If your thinking about "whether abortion is murder" is too delicately nuanced to permit you to give a concise answer, just say so
. Don't keep dodging the question while still claiming to have already answered it!
David Blaska wrote:Now I ask the questions:
1) Would you legalize partial birth abortion?
2) Two seconds later, when the infant (or "birth product" if that helps) is free of the birth canal, would you approve terminating that life. (You can use the word "murder" if you like.)
3) What is the difference?
4) Should abortion be "safe and rare?"
5) Why rare?
6) Do you agree with the Foron who likened the human fetus to a cancerous growth?
(1) I would support a ban on elective late-term abortions. I would not support a ban on any procedure that is medically necessary.
(3) See "medical necessity" under (1).
(4) Yes. I'd prefer to have abortion safe, legal, widely available, and very rare. Just like open-heart surgery.
(5) Because no woman that I know of actively wants to have abortions. It's an unpleasant experience that women only choose to go through when the alternative is worse. Just like open-heart surgery.
(6) The question is unclear. Exactly what am I supposed to be agreeing or not agreeing about?
Now that I've answered five of your six questions, let's return to the topic of why exactly David Blaska has so much difficulty answering one very simple question of mine.
The problem is that, like most of the anti-abortion movement, David Blaska is very, very reluctant to give up the moral high ground of imagining that one's opponents are promoting murder
. That's a powerful psychological drug, there. At the same time, Mr Blaska is not crazy, and he knows that he doesn't really consider abortion to be exactly the same as actual murder.
When I asked Mr Blaska earlier in this thread "What do you think is an appropriate punishment for mothers who hire someone to murder their children?" he misinterpreted my question as being about abortion, when I was actually asking about the punishment for killing real, born, non-fetal children. His answer to the question was "I don't know; perhaps only moral dissuasion." I suspect Mr Blaska would agree that only a lunatic would say that about actual murder cases ... which just goes to show that, as I said above, it's pretty clear that Mr Blaska (like almost everyone) does see a vast difference between "abortion" and "actual murder of a child".
But "abortion is murder" rhetoric is very, very deeply ingrained in the anti-abortion movement. It takes only a couple seconds with Google to find things like this on the web-pages of prominent Wisconsin anti-abortion groups:
Pro-Life Wisconsin wrote:to increase awareness of abortion and the reality of how many innocent babies are murdered every day
Wisconsin Right to Life wrote:Various quotes from documents hosted on the WRTL website:
I believe that a woman is very much entitled to make a choice, but not when it is a choice of murder. Murder is defined as the terminating of a human life. In that case, abortion is murder.
What we are really talking about here is murder.
That is how God interprets for us the meaning of the commandment which says, "You shall not murder."
The rhetorical use of the claim "abortion is murder" is pretty widespread in the anti-abortion movement. So it's rather amusing for Mr Blaska to babble about "Is abortion 'murder?' That is not a word I hear used because it is an inexact term ...."
And of course earlier in this thread Mr Blaska directly analogized abortion to the Nazi death camps. Again, Mr Blaska clearly doesn't really
believe that abortion is analogous to the Nazi death camps. It's just really, really hard for people who are strongly and ideologically anti-abortion to wean themselves off the extremist rhetoric. That's
why it's so hard for Mr Blaska to answer my question.