Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I don't know how many here watched the CNN special with Rick Warren, evangelical minister and author of The Purpose Driven Life, interviewing Obama and McCain each for about an hour in front of his church. I watched the whole thing and found it rather interesting despite A) my natural disdain for Warren and B) my natural disdain for meaningless campaign-speak. In fact, I actually thought Warren did a pretty good job.
My one criticism is that I wish he had asked more follow up questions and really pressed both candidates on the details rather than allowing them to give vague and general answers. But I also understand that he was concerned about being able to ask them both the same questions in the same time frame and that's not an easy thing to do if you're going to keep asking follow up questions.
I thought the difference in approach of the two candidates was interesting. Kevin Drum captured the difference in their demeanors quite well:
For better or worse, Obama seems to have chosen to treat this event as sort of an intimate evening with Rick Warren -- that just happened to be nationally televised. McCain, by contrast, treated it as a straight campaign event: he had his stump speech talking points ready, and he was eager to cram as many of them into his 50 minutes as possible.
That's a very good description of the difference. Obama seemed almost like he was sitting in a room with Warren alone just having a conversation, while McCain was in pure campaign mode. I don't know which one was more effective with those watching, but I suspect that Obama took the approach he did intentionally. I think he knows that as a relative unknown, most people are going to judge him mostly on superficial impressions of him rather than policy positions. Does he have the right temperament for the job? Do I feel comfortable with him when I see him speak? Does he seem like a president to me? He came off as very thoughtful and moderate with both his answers and the way he delivered them; I imagine that is precisely how he needs to come off with those who are still undecided in this election.
When they discussed matters of religious faith, it certainly seemed to me that Obama was much more comfortable talking about it than McCain is. I frankly don't think McCain gives a damn about religion (and that's fine with me, of course) one way or another, but he knows he has to speak the language of Christianity to get elected. The thing is, he's not very good at faking it. He uses all the right buzzwords, but his body language shows that he's faking it.
Obama comes across as more authentic when he talks about his faith. Clearly his version of Christianity is far more liberal, both politically and theologically, than Warren's church or most of the country for that matter, but it seems to be a genuine part of his makeup and that makes him much more comfortable talking about it. Or maybe he's just a better actor than McCain is.
I thought Obama gave the two best answers of the night. The answer about John Roberts being too deferential to executive power was spot on; let's hope that Obama continues to think that if and when he's the one wielding executive authority. And the answer about how America needs to clean up its own house before criticizing others. He specifically noted that if we are going to claim to lead the world in defense of liberty, we had better make sure we respect habeas corpus rights, reject torture and indefinite detention and so forth. Very good answer and absolutely true.
Politics
Comments
McCain was supposed to be in a sound-proof room while Obama was being asked the questions to keep him from knowing them in advance. Apparently he wasn't, he was in his motorcade. The McCain camp swears he didn't hear or see anything.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/18/mccain-cone-of-silence-or-no-cone-of-silence/
Posted by: Taz | August 18, 2008 9:41 AM
I noted two big gaffes, one by each candidate:
1) Obama's answer to the question on where he believes full human rights for embroyos/fetuses should begin was answered with, "that's above my pay grade".
2) McCain's answer that "rich" starts with income of at least $5 million/yr. (Though McCain admitted that was not a good answer, he didn't try and correct it).
I also found McCain to be very emotional / shoot from the hip, where follow-up questions would have unmasked the logical fallacy of many of his answers. For example, McCain claimed full human rights begin at conception. He then followed that with his admitting he supports embroyonic stem cell research. To reconcile those two statements, McCain believes it's OK to murder human beings for research if we're going to murder them anyways through discardation. One can also extend McCain's logic on where human rights begin to assume McCain must believe birth control bills should be illegal (murder of fertilized eggs that fail to implant), and abortion rights should not be extended for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother (i.e., we don't kill a 3 year old to save this mother's life, remember in McCain/Evangel-world, fertilized eggs have full human rights). Warren's lack of follow-up is par for the course, we get few examples from journalists follow-up such ridiculous statements as well.
Overall though, I do agree that Warren was pretty good because I learned a lot about McCain. Obama has been exceedingly consistent with his rhetoric since hitting the national stage so all this did was confirm to me that Obama is a very smart, wise man with a ton of emotional intelligence, maybe even more than Reagan, which I find fascinating given Obama's relative youth v. Reagan's when he presided. It also confirmed to me that McCain deserved his 155 out of 159 college ranking.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2008 9:47 AM
I did not watch the event - it was Saturday night after all! I did see the coverage (including the McCain camps insistence that even though McCain could have heard the questions from Obama, since he was not in a "cone of silence," he didn't, because a former POW wouldn't lie - please!) and have to say I think Mr. Heath is right that Obama flubbed the human rights question. The correct response should have been:
"Isn't the question also at what point during a pregnancy do a woman's human rights end?"
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 18, 2008 9:53 AM
It was an interesting viewing although it made me uncomfortable at many times. McCain definitely "played" to the audience more than Obama. I was mostly concerned/disappointed by the brief "analysis" by the talking heads. Obama supposedly lost because he took an intellectual approach and provided thoughtful answers, whereas McCain went with knee jerk reactionary answers. Aren't people kind of sick of having our country led by the gut or is it just me?
Does evil exist and if so, how should we deal with it? Obama gave a good answer to the former part dealing with world-wide and local evil; McCain went all-Muslim. Obama decided only god can defeat evil but we must strive to battle it; McCain said we should defeat it end of story.
Sadly, after listening to CSPAN callers on the repeat, I have to agree with Buchanan. People want simplicity, assume that everything is easy, and we need more prayer to deal with our problems. McCain won, because we as a country applaud stupidity, enjoy mediocrity, and are psychologically spoiled 5 year olds.
Posted by: Lorax | August 18, 2008 9:56 AM
I think Obama "won" this event simply by showing up and showing the audience that he's not a Muslim. Honestly, the audience for this event weren't people who were going to vote FOR him, they were people who would vote AGAINST him as a radical Muslim, America-hating effete liberal.
By being there and talking to the people most likely to believe those (untrue) stereotypes, he takes away a lot of the passion for voting against him. If he can get even a small percentage of the evangelical Republican Christian vote to stay home -- the assumption being they don't like McCain all that much, they just hate the Democrat -- then he wins the election.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 18, 2008 10:04 AM
I agree that political audiences generally want to know how a candidate feels about a given issue in what amounts to a quick, easily digested sound bite.
However, both McCain and Obama have struggled at times (and who wouldn't) when trying to boil complex ideas down to easy answers.
But regarding the Saddleback forum, while the audience was friendly to Obama, McCain clearly enjoyed home field advantage by speaking to a largely conservative group - this could not have been more obvious when both candidates were asked to discuss abortion, which evangelicals see as a black & white issue, and Rick Warren gave McCain a softball to knock out of the park.
Obama, not so much.
Posted by: CHV | August 18, 2008 10:07 AM
CPT_Doom stated:
That's a great point!
Lorax - The CSPAN perspective was consistent with the after-show CNN perspective as well. Very frustrating to see CNN shill for ratings by trying to out-fox Fox News.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2008 10:12 AM
CHV - I disagree Warren gave McCain a softball question to McCain's advantage given how he uniquely phrased his question; asking when "full human rights" begin. . .
As I stated in my above comments, McCain's knee-jerk reply of conception sets him up for a whole bunch of illogical positions one must take with such a position. This was not the typical question by Warren on abortion, which is usually on when protection should start rather than when full human rights begin. The question now is whether the media and the Democrats will dig deeper to show how few Americans believe abortion should not be an option to protect the health/safety of the mother, even in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
I was very frustrated the CNN after-show pundits didn't discuss this issue within the frame-work of Warren's provocative positioning on this question. Obama clearly understood the ramifications but answered badly, McCain was clueless on the ramifications.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2008 10:21 AM
Obama's point on liberty just makes him sound like a hypocrite. Until he apologizes for his repeated votes to jail and/or fine people who chose to exercise their their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms, he has no standing to talk about protecting the Constitution or liberty.
Posted by: Mike | August 18, 2008 11:06 AM
I found the serial interview format interesting, and Rick Warren refreshing. Absent "gotcha" questions, and the relentless headline mongering of anchors, the program was conducted thoughtfully and sincerely. Contrast Warren's approach with that garullous gorilla the late Tim Russert, and you see a glimmer of what campaign debating ought to be.
Posted by: Howard | August 18, 2008 11:11 AM
Mike - Your point is idiotic. No elected national politician has a record that always defends our constitutional rights in all matters, they all take positions counter to the original meaning of where government power properly encroaches on our rights. No scholar that I'm aware of makes a claim that there are no limitations to any of our rights given the competing interest principle where one's rights are limited to the superior rights of others. Even originalists like Randy Barnett, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas support some gun prohibitions in order to protect the greater rights of other citizens to be safe and secure.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2008 11:14 AM
Warren is a deceptively milk evangelical--which makes him all the more dangerous. Despite his fell-good, focus-on-helping-people approach, he's every bit as conservative as his more...ah ...colorful colleagues. While Warren is relatively smart, he is by no means a deep, logical thinker; rather, his is a fuzzy-warm emotional approach that nevertheless feeds into anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a pervasive, insidious--and growing--national social phenomenon. This explains, of course, why we tend to get so many folksy, just-one-of-the-crowd (seeming) politicians. Appearing smart is NOT a political advantage. Bill Clinton, of course is brilliant, but he coupled it with a disarming folksy charm that made his intelligence palatable to the electorate.
This is, naturally, why McCain appears to have done better with Warren and his audience. McCain is proving himself a pretty dim bulb, but his go from the gut tendencies endear him to people whose brain functions don't extend much past the amygdala. If there is any issue that might cost Obama the election, other than still-prevalent racism, it's the fact that Obama comes across to so many people as being seriously intelligent, which these American doofuses automatically resent in no uncertain terms.
Posted by: gary l. day | August 18, 2008 11:48 AM
Michael,
If you believe my point is idiotic (Obama is hypocrite for lecturing about lack of liberty when he himself propagates the loss of liberty) would you also believe that Obama's point is idiotic (The US is a hypocrite for lecturing about lack of liberty when the US itself is propogates the loss of liberty)?
Posted by: Mike | August 18, 2008 12:24 PM
Jeff,
Isn't it interesting that these folks who denounce Obama can see him both as a radical anti-American Muslim and as an effete liberal? It would be hard to think of two individuals more at temperamental, religious, political, and philosophical odds than effete liberals, generally children of the European enlightenment, who are traditionally anticlerical and pro-liberty, pro-science, pro-market, and republican (or even socialist), and radical Muslims, who tend to stand against all of those things, especially when manifested in effete liberals from the English-speaking world.
Posted by: Chuck | August 18, 2008 12:24 PM
Mike - I embrace and support your last comment that we should expose our own hypocrisies; I agree and do it all the time, here and elsewhere. I can't extend your logic as far as you took it in your first post, i.e., that Obama has no right (I think you really mean moral authority) to even talk about defending the Constitution or liberty in general given his position on the 2nd amendment. Obama's position on the 2nd amendment is within the normal distribution curve of scholars from the left and the right that have influence over this issue (such as Justices Scalia and Thomas who argue for prohibition in some situations in Heller).
Obama's position on Heller, which I disagree with, in fact I'm to the right of the Heller majority, doesn't eradicate his moral authority to talk about other liberty matters such as abortion rights or religious freedom rights as you argued; in fact it doesn't negate his moral authority to argue for his position on the 2nd amendment given there are competing interest arguments to be safe and secure that should be respectfully considered (though I don't agree and believe our gun rights should be broad).
The high horse you are on in your first comment is one no national politician could possibly ride, especially in the real world where one must consider the competing rights of others that sometimes should and does limit our own rights. It's through debate we learn how to better draw those lines and Obama's position, which I don't accept, is one I'll respectfully consider, he certainly doesn't deserve to lose all his legitimacy due to this one position as you argue - that is the point I find idiotic.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2008 12:42 PM
I'll say this, I do not think that Warren's forum was about the issues, even the ones he discussed. I think that it was about the candidates trying to seem personable enough to get the Crazy Christian vote.
This is a community that has a few issues, but mostly relies on the endorsements of their pastor to decide which candidate to choose. That's how it's worked for a long time, and I don't see that changing in 2008.
Posted by: JStein | August 18, 2008 1:29 PM
I see on Andrew Sullivan's blog that Rick Warren has equated Obama's pro-choice position on abortion with holocaust denial. I could rant at some length about that, but will give Ed Brayton first dibs.
Posted by: JimV | August 18, 2008 2:23 PM
We have yet to see what John Roberts opinions towards executive authority will be under a democratic president. So far, I think he has proven himself to be a judge foremost, not a political appointee, but given the huge shifts in philosophy and behavior as it relates to executive authority on the bench witnessed in Scalia and Thomas between democrat and republican presidents, I'm going to hold my final opinion of Roberts until I've seen him under a "liberal" administration.
Of course, Mr. Obama may not win.
Posted by: Julian | August 18, 2008 2:40 PM
Lorax: I don't agree with you. I think those calls were a example of sample bias. Consider the kind of people who would watch a debate on "faith", the sample of that who would feel the need to call in, and of that, the sample that CSPAN would actually allow through to ask their questions.
Considering those three filters, I think the likelihood of a knee-jerk type getting a call picked up is more likely than say, one of the small sample of liberal religionists or atheists who might have felt the need to call in, and that this would lead to presenting a skewed picture of the nation's opinions on the issue.
Posted by: Julian | August 18, 2008 2:46 PM
Chuck: But that's not how the right sees it. To them both fall under the heading "Enemy" so of course they'd work together. You see the same thing in the Right's response to Hollywood; What town and industry is a greater example of bloodthirsty, intellectually conservative capitalism, and yet how often do they equate it to Communism?
Posted by: Julian | August 18, 2008 2:52 PM
JimV--Did I not say that Warren is no better than his hellfire colleagues?
Another example of Warren's lack of intellectual depth was the co-interview Time magazine did some months ago with Warren and Sam Harris. Of course, Sam walked all over him, and at the end, Warren was reduced to a single argument: the old hoary Pascal's Wager. And this is the man poised to be the voice of millions of "faith"ful voters?
Plus ca chance, plus ce meme chose.
Posted by: gary l. day | August 18, 2008 3:32 PM
This is, naturally, why McCain appears to have done better with Warren and his audience. McCain is proving himself a pretty dim bulb, but his go from the gut tendencies endear him to people whose brain functions don't extend much past the amygdala. If there is any issue that might cost Obama the election, other than still-prevalent racism, it's the fact that Obama comes across to so many people as being seriously intelligent, which these American doofuses automatically resent in no uncertain terms.
Gary, your entire post reeks more of bias and bigotry than actual reality. Apparently, all people who disagree with the enlightened Gary are automatically stupid. Sorry, but there are bright people on both sides of the political spectrum and there are woefully anti-intellectual people on both sides of the political spectrum. Implying that the side opposite of your political views is automatically stupid demonstrates your own bias and anti-intellectualism. Just the fact that you implied Obama might lose the election simply because of racism demonstrates shallow thinking in my view.
Posted by: mroberts | August 18, 2008 3:34 PM
I only heard a bit of it on the radio, but I thought that McCain, when answering, sounded like he had memorized all his answers to possible questions beforehand.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 18, 2008 3:36 PM
Would it have been "shallow thinking" to imagine that Kennedy might not have won the presidential election because he was Catholic, or that Hillary Clinton might not have won (had she gotten the Democratic nomination) because she's female, or that Kerry might have not won because enough voters were petrified of the possibility of gay marriage? Why should it be impossible for bigotry to prevent someone winning the presidency?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 18, 2008 3:39 PM
Would it have been "shallow thinking" to imagine that Kennedy might not have won the presidential election because he was Catholic, or that Hillary Clinton might not have won (had she gotten the Democratic nomination) because she's female, or that Kerry might have not won because enough voters were petrified of the possibility of gay marriage? Why should it be impossible for bigotry to prevent someone winning the presidency?
All right Gretchen fair enough. Yes, it is possible. I'm just sick of hearing people say that those who won't vote for Obama are racists and I am sick of race baiting politics. That was my first reaction when I read the post. Anyway it goes though, I highly doubt that if Obama loses it will simply be because of racism. I don't think racism is nearly as prevalent as the race-baiters say it is. Besides the racism charge is usually leveled at non-blacks, particularly whites. Why can't the same question be asked of blacks? Would it be racist for them to not vote for McCain? If blacks vote for Obama in droves, is that going to be considered racism? I think we would all be better off if racism was no longer used as a political tool.
Posted by: mroberts | August 18, 2008 3:46 PM
Wow, the guy who keeps on spewing out gay-bashing assertions he can never back up is complaining about "shallow thinking?" That's hilarious!
...I am sick of race baiting politics.
Most of which is coming from Republicans and their hatemongering mouthpieces.
I don't think racism is nearly as prevalent as the race-baiters say it is.
One look at all the "Obama is a Muslim/Atheist/Marxist/Antichrist with terrorist friends" rubbish currently polluting the Web would prove you wrong in a heartbeat. (Besides, since when was it "race-baiting" to point out that racism exists?)
If blacks vote for Obama in droves, is that going to be considered racism?
No, because those blacks are not engaging in the kind of systematic lies and deception that the white racists are using against Obama.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 18, 2008 3:54 PM
Well, this won't be the last "debate" they'll have, and I'm guessing the next time we'll be certain that Mccain doesn't know the questions in advance. If this episode only raised the expectations on him and he fails horribly later, he's done himself no favors.
Gary, I've stopped watching/listening to debates between the "new atheists" and religious people. With maybe 1-2 exceptions, it's just not sporting. It's like Sam Harris is using a bazooka on a chipmunk.
Posted by: Coriolis | August 18, 2008 3:54 PM
mroberts said:
Oh, I absolutely agree with that-- as well as the ridiculous accusations of misogyny for anyone who didn't want to vote for Hillary.
It depends entirely on why they don't vote for McCain. But whether they are voting specifically for someone because of their gender/race/etc. or specifically against them for that reason, I would say their vote is at least terribly ill-considered, and it's probably fair to say bigoted.
Is it reasonable to think that racism could be what prevents Obama from getting elected? I honestly don't know, but I don't consider the possibility absurd.
I don't think there's any way of preventing such a thing from happening. If there is bigotry in a country and a member of a group against whom such prejudice is directed decides to run for president, it's going to be used as a political tool-- on both sides. I would love for this not to be so, but it appears to be inevitable.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 18, 2008 3:58 PM
Raging Bee, sometimes I think you have hit a new low for irrationality and absurdity, and yet you stoop lower still.
Most of which is coming from Republicans and their hatemongering mouthpieces.
So all Republicans are hatemongerers? There is not a nice Republican among the whole lot?
No, because those blacks are not engaging in the kind of systematic lies and deception that the white racists are using against Obama.
So all whites who oppose Obama are racists? Not one of them is opposing Obama based on a legitimate policy basis?
One look at all the "Obama is a Muslim/Atheist/Marxist/Antichrist with terrorist friends" rubbish currently polluting the Web would prove you wrong in a heartbeat. (Besides, since when was it "race-baiting" to point out that racism exists?)>/i>
So this is representative of all who oppose Obama? You pick the nuttiest of Obama opposers to represent all who oppose Obama?
Bee, you've proved my point that people that people on right don't have a monopoly on anti-intellectual absurdity.
Goodness, take a breath and calm down.
Posted by: mroberts | August 18, 2008 4:02 PM
1) Obama's answer to the question on where he believes full human rights for embroyos/fetuses should begin was answered with, "that's above my pay grade".
That's a particularly poor rephrasing of it. Obama stated that questions of when life begins is "above his pay grade", after reiterating his basic pro-choice position, including third-trimester abortions for health reasons.
Far from a gaffe, the "paygrade" statement is actually a VERY good answer to an audience of Christians. He told them how he'd treat it as a matter of policy, then offered up the philosophical/ultimate authority on it being God. Tied in well with the general theme of his answers.
He seemed to be -- and easily and believingly quoted scripture to back it up -- cultivating a very specific aura of "The President has to make choices and is the secular authority, but must remember he is but man and not God".
Posted by: Morat20 | August 18, 2008 4:04 PM
mroberts said:
"Most of which is coming from Republicans and their hatemongering mouthpieces.
So all Republicans are hatemongerers? There is not a nice Republican among the whole lot?"
Jesus christ, mroberts - could you please read what others post before you launch into another smug riposte? Your response is quite illogical given what Raging Bee actually posted.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Given that there have been elected Republican officials who have said this, I would not think it entirely unfair to think that this segment is substantial.
Posted by: gwangung | August 18, 2008 4:29 PM
mroberts lies about RagingBee:
That isn't what he said, and even someone as obviously stupid as you should know it. You're just lying. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 18, 2008 4:39 PM
Actually, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it turned out that Raging Bee really does think that every last Republican out there is a hatemonger.
Bee also implies that no black person could refuse to vote for McCain out of racism, which I highly doubt.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 18, 2008 4:49 PM
I did not "imply that no black person could refuse to vote for McCain out of racism;" I merely said that I detected no undercurrent of anti-white racism among black Americans comparable to the racism that underlies and drives a lot of the unhinged anti-Obama nonsense I've been hearing from the loony right.
And no, I don't think EVERY Republican is a hatemonger; just the ones who are in control of the party.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 18, 2008 4:54 PM
Raging Bee said:
Well, I'm very glad to hear that.
Here's the thing, though-- if a black person votes for Obama because he is black, is that not also racism?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 18, 2008 5:13 PM
That said, there's a big difference between "Sure would be nice to see someone besides another Old White Guy in the White House" and "I ain't voting for no damn ____!"
Posted by: WScott | August 18, 2008 6:56 PM
Gretchen said:
I think the term 'racism' has been abused and misused. To use the ol' handy dictionary:
I don't think blacks, for the most part, have this feeling of superiority, "We're better than whites," we should dominate them attitude. White people have and some still do, feel that blacks (and/or other races) are inferior or just lesser in some way...you know the "other." I think black people would be showing favoritism for voting for a black candidate because of centuries old racism - they want to see "the other" get a chance, especially if they are part of that group. So, I don't agree with WScott because that feeling of superiority has to be there.
On the other hand, accusing people of racism and misogyny has gotten out of hand. It's not too hard to tell the racists and mysogynists because they have little qualm in hiding it. Your right-wing radio gasbags think Obama is a "radical socialist effete liberal" and have largely given up the "black separatist" talk. It doesn't matter if it's Kerry, Obama, Hillary or Joe Liberal. Any seeming threat to free market and social darwinism is what they care about. I don't think a day goes by the Sean Hannity doesn't mention "free market."
I agree that McCain doesn't care much for religion. I don't see much difference with this Rick Warren pandering from Reagan and Billy Graham. Reagan found Jerry Falwell meddlesome and annoying when he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to SCOTUS. The Republicans haven't managed to deliver much in regards to abortion to the Religious Right...but that doesn't keep me from being on guard. If that changes, we're probably FUBAR.
Posted by: MsJones | August 18, 2008 9:28 PM
I frankly don't think McCain gives a damn about religion
I think this is what the whole night boiled down to. Obama was trying to reassure people that he's a Christian and not a Muslim and McCain was just trying to convince people that's he's a "Real Christian". For anyone with half a brain I think it is apparent that McCain, and Bush, Cheney and Rove for that matter, aren't really "religious" but rather use religion for purely political purposes. That they can keep fooling the sheep into voting for them is just more proof that religion makes you blind.
Posted by: Bruce | August 18, 2008 9:49 PM
Mrroberts: your simplistic misinterpreations of what I, Bee and Gretchen have posted rather makes our points. At any rate, my point was not that all those whom I oppose (conservatives, Republicans, evangelicals, etc.)are stupid (though a case can be made for frequent suspensions of reason and logic in those groups). My point was that OF COURSE the intellectually challenged McCain would appeal to the sort of crowd that buys into Warren's shallow, intellectually bankrupt and kneejerk emotionalist appeal. So, yeah, there absolutely can be smart conservatives (even the evil Rove has to be conceded to be smart)--they're just not members of Saddleback.
Posted by: gary l. day | August 19, 2008 8:53 AM
Great points, MsJones. A friend used to refer to "little-r racism" as opposed to "Big-R Racism." But racial favoitism is probably a better term.
Posted by: WScott | August 19, 2008 10:16 AM
I've lurked here for a while and never posted, but reading the transcript of the forum I thought McCain and Warren conceded that the questions were sent in advance. From the computer generated feed on Warren's website, the transcript reads:
8 Q OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO LONGER ON THAT ONE.
9 DEFINE MARRIAGE.
10 A UNION -- A UNION BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BETWEEN
11 ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, THAT'S MY DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
12 ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPREME
13 COURT JUSTICES.
14 Q WE'LL GET TO THAT.
15 A ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
16 Q YOU GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS, GOOD.
17 A WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE ISSUES OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
18 UNBORN, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT JUDGES, BUT ANYWAY GO AHEAD.
And yet on the CNN transcript it reads:
WARREN: OK, we don't have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.
MCCAIN: A union -- a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That's my definition of marriage.
Could I -- are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention --
WARREN: We will get to that.
MCCAIN:
WARREN: You're jumping ahead (inaudible).
MCCAIN: When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But, anyway, go ahead.
Did anyone see this live and recall which transcript is correct? Or if the section was really inaudible? I can't imagine the computer would have just made up the line for Warren.
Posted by: Odie | August 19, 2008 1:28 PM
I watched live and believe the computer-generated transcript appears more accurate though I didn't re-review the program. I didn't think anything of it since I assumed Warren misspoke, which was the sense in which Warren conveyed that point.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 19, 2008 2:03 PM
This the question Warren asked about abortion:
My answer would shock Warren's evangelical audience because my answer is "never." There is no point in time when a baby gets all human rights. Does Warren think that a fetus has a right to drink alcohol and vote? If there is a single point in time when we get rights then shouldn't that include all the rights? Warren's question is a fraud, loaded with simple minded evangelical assumptions. Warren should never have used the word "rights" in plural because there is only one right in question, the right of a fetus to continue living and developing. To use the plural is to subtly lie and suggest a fetus is more human than it is. It simply can't do anything else besides grow and develop. There is also a conflict between this right of the fetus versus the rights, plural, of the mother. Warren's question totally ignores the other human being, the mother; what about her rights?
The real question Warren should have been asking was "when do the rights of a fetus supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus?" Or, more precisely, "when does a fetus' right to continue living and developing supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus to deal with whatever issues her pregnancy introduces into her life by terminating that pregnancy?"
Obama answered that revised question and ignored Warren's false question. Now imagine if McCain were asked "when do the rights of a fetus supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus?" instead of the phony question?
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 19, 2008 6:42 PM
Obama's faith definitely seems more authentic than McCain's, just in general.
Posted by: KKairos | August 20, 2008 3:57 AM
My point was that OF COURSE the intellectually challenged McCain would appeal to the sort of crowd that buys into Warren's shallow, intellectually bankrupt and kneejerk emotionalist appeal. So, yeah, there absolutely can be smart conservatives (even the evil Rove has to be conceded to be smart)--they're just not members of Saddleback.
Gary, it sounds like you are making more generalizations without trying to sound like you are making generalizations. To say that McCain is intellectually challenged says more about you than him. I don't agree with McCain and I am not voting for him, but I hardly think he would have become a long-time Senator if he was stupid. Your generalizations about his intelligence and that of the people at Saddleback says more about your biases than anything else.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 12:11 PM
Warren should never have used the word "rights" in plural because there is only one right in question, the right of a fetus to continue living and developing. To use the plural is to subtly lie and suggest a fetus is more human than it is. It simply can't do anything else besides grow and develop...The real question Warren should have been asking was "when do the rights of a fetus supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus?"
Norman, first of all, a fetus doesn't really have rights if they can be overridden at will by the mother. The fact that you seem to think it does not have the rights of a full human being seems to be because, as you said, it "can't do anything else besides grow and develop". I'm curious, does this thinking also extend to the mentally handicapped, who also often cannot do anything but grow and develop, such as in the case of handicapped child?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 12:41 PM
mroberts - your reply to Norman mischaracterizes what Norman stated. He did not state that a fetus doesn't have rights like you characterized, he specifically stated,
"there is only one right in question, the right of a fetus to continue living and developing".
In fact, Norman's post made no argument where each entities' rights start or stop, contrary to your comment about his post where you state,
"a fetus doesn't really have rights if they can be overridden at will by the mother.
Norman never argued for how far a mother's rights extend and certainly did not state "at will by the mother."
We can certainly argue about where a fetus's rights are overridden by the mothers rights and vice versa. That is a worthy debate and Norman correctly pointed out that no debate on abortion should exclude arguments on the limits of mothers' rights. If a mother had no rights and fetuses had full human rights which Warren advocated for post-interview and McCain claimed in the interview by implication, than mothers would have no right to abortion even if the pregnancy risked their life, a position I've never experienced any American make.
Why must you frequently mischaracterize others' arguments?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2008 1:03 PM
Why must you frequently mischaracterize others' arguments?
Michael, I'm not trying to mischaracterize anything. I only read what he said and drew conclusions based on it. In your post, you seem to be clouding up an issue that is really not that complicated. In fact, the issue only seems to be complicated for people that try to rationalize the killing of an innocent being. I think Obama absolutely blew his answer on the abortion question asked by Warren. Above his "pay grade"? A man as strongly pro-choice as Obama is (NARAL loves him) should be able to articulate his position well, particularly if he thinks he has truth on this side. I find it interesting that so many people don't see that proponents of abortion do exactly the same thing as the proponents of slavery did: take away the humanity of the being in question in order to justify injustice. After all, you have to deny the personhood of an innocent person in order to justify killing them.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 1:25 PM
You assume your conclusion, mroberts-- the personhood (or non-personhood) of the fetus is the very thing in question. You're like an ID proponent who wonders how there can be a design without a designer.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 1:32 PM
You assume your conclusion, mroberts-- the personhood (or non-personhood) of the fetus is the very thing in question. You're like an ID proponent who wonders how there can be a design without a designer.
Gretchen, what the heck does that mean? How am I "assuming the conclusion"? Maybe you're assuming the conclusion.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 1:34 PM
What I mean is that you can't simply declare that a fetus is a person and then accuse pro-choicers of denying its personhood. Taking as a given what you are supposedly trying to prove-- that's assuming your conclusion. Obviously you have to demonstrate that a fetus actually should be considered a person before you can accuse people of denying anything.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 1:40 PM
Taking as a given what you are supposedly trying to prove-- that's assuming your conclusion.
And you're not taking as a given that a fetus is not a person? I'll tell you what, if truth is on your side, you should have no problem giving me some reasons why a fetus is not a person. List a few for me and we can test each one of them.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 1:45 PM
mroberts said:
My reasons for not considering a fetus a person are both constitutive and pragmatic. In order to be a considered person, I think an entity must be capable of a certain level of cognition which a fetus simply is not. Any number of animals which we happily eat for breakfast are more cognitively advanced than a human fetus-- if a fetus is to be considered a person, then so must they. For reference, a chimpanzee has roughly the cognitive capacity of a two year old child (not that we should eat chimps for breakfast, or two year olds for that matter). So perhaps you should be campaigning for human rights for chimpanzees as well, in order to be consistent. The non-vegan pro-lifer really has, or should have, some serious cognitive dissonance going on. Being biologically human is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition to be considered a person, otherwise we also need to be talking about the rights of living cadavers.
On the pragmatics side, it's not like fetuses are free range. They are entirely dependent, and therefore parasitic, on the body of someone who is unquestionably a person and therefore whose rights are confirmed and paramount.
I don't believe that an entity needs to be able to respect the rights of others in order to have rights him/herself. Children and the mentally disabled still have rights, because they are still self-aware, thinking beings who have the capacity to enjoy life and fear death. The same cannot be said of a fetus.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 2:01 PM
And thus Gretchen (@2:01pm) demonstrates how NOT to take something as a given.
A fetus is certainly an instance of a living being. Whether that is the same thing as a "person" or whether it implies being a person or is implied by being a person are all open questions. That is the subject of this discussion, not its foregone conclusion. You, mrroberts, need to learn the difference.
(I know that I'm just talking to a wall, but sometimes one must try.)
Paul
Posted by: prn | August 20, 2008 2:11 PM
mroberts wrote:
Then you had better improve your reading comprehension. You most certainly did mischaracterize my argument. Nowhere in my entire post, if you care to read it, do I say anything about a fetus having no right to continue to grow. Please read my post here and find the point where I say that?
No, you did not. You jumped the gun because you know what happens when we make the rights of the mother visible -- everything gets complicated. You, I think, refuse to deal with those complications and prefer simple minded absolutes.
No, it is complicated. It's complicated because women have all sorts of issues to deal with and different women have different motives for wanting an abortion. The only way you can get rid of that complication is to make the mother invisible.
You mean like the cow you had killed so you could eat supper? Or the innocents that get killed when we drop bombs in foreign countries? Or the innocent bug that get splattered across your windshield when you drive?
Why don't you stick to the word fetus, or human embryo? We kill mere innocent beings all the time.
I agree, and I criticize Obama in my blog post. But "well" doesn't mean simple-minded sound bite positions you seem to like.
Yes, I would deny that an embryo is a "person." It is only a potential person. You on the other hand deny that mothers are persons.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 2:13 PM
In order to be a considered person, I think an entity must be capable of a certain level of cognition which a fetus simply is not.
OK Gretchen. There are fully grown adults that have little to no cognitive abilities, such as the severely mentally retarded. Should we be able to kill them? Clearly we give personhood status to individuals with limited cognitive abilities, so I don't see why the unborn should be exempted from that - unless, of course, you have other reasons that a fetus should not be considered a person.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 2:25 PM
Yes, I would deny that an embryo is a "person." It is only a potential person. You on the other hand deny that mothers are persons.
Wow Norman, you accuse me of mischaracterizations, then you say that. Where did I ever even imply that a mother is not a person? Show me the post please.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 2:28 PM
mroberts wrote:
The term "limited cognitive abilities" includes everything from a kid with minor mental retardation to Terri Schiavo who spent most of her days lying in a bed with a feeding tube. Hell, "limited cognitive abilities" includes everyone. We're all limited.
It's because these things are necessarily complicated that we leave them up to the families involved rather than jumping in with simple minded absolutes and denying the complications exist.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 2:33 PM
mroberts,
I knew that would be your next step. The difference is, of course, that fetuses are not mentally disabled-- they have almost no mental capacity whatsoever. The most drooling idiot you could find is leaps and bounds ahead of a fetus. We're not talking severe mental disability; we're talking Terri Schiavo. And was it okay to pull the plug on her? Absolutely.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 2:35 PM
mroberts wrote:
You imply it when you never take her circumstances into account.
What about a woman who has been raped, must she be forced to bring the child of the rapist to term?
What about a woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy, does she have to risk her life for the child?
Those are just two examples.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 2:39 PM
mrroberts - you dodged my point. However, you bring up another way of asking.
Do you believe a mother's right to life is greater than the right to life of the fetus when her pregnancy threatens her life? If so, how do you square that with the absolute claims made by Warren, McCain, and the anti-abortion interest groups who argue for full human rights for the unborn? The term "full human rights" was what Warren used in his post-interview interviews on CNN and Fox News Monday evening.
Secondly, who do you believe is the optimal decision-maker when it comes to pregnancies that put the risk of the mother at stake, including her future ability to have children? The state? A judge? Her husband? Herself? Her doctor? Or some combination of these entities? Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but they can't if people make false arguments like Warren, McCain, and you, as pointed out by Norman's brilliant post and your response to this by again earlier in this thread.
As for Obama, please see my first comment in this thread, I believe it was the one big gaffe he made. However, the fact he missed it is not entirely surprising given that Warren didn't ask a stock abortion question, instead he talked about human rights for "babies", that is a much more intricate question as Norman pointed out. I would have preferred both candidates received the questions up front and gotten more well-thought out answers, they could have received the questions mere hours prior to the interview to prevent having them run through focus groups and all the other riff raff that get a say in talking points. While Obama blew his answer from a political perspective, McCain's was just plain stupid from a logical perspective though it served well as raw meat to the unthinking he hopes makes up the majority of his voters.
As for Norman, I think you owe him an apology for putting words and positions into his writing that clearly did not make.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2008 2:41 PM
It's because these things are necessarily complicated that we leave them up to the families involved rather than jumping in with simple minded absolutes and denying the complications exist.
Wow, an issue of life and death is a "simple minded absolute".
It seems that you are affirming what Gretchen said about limited cognitive abilities being a justification for denying personhood, so I am going to run with it. Based on that, and your statement that "we're all limited", including you, who is to say that a decision on your life cannot be left "up to the families involved", ie, your family? After all, you're limited to some extent, as you said. So by your reasoning that would mean that you could be denied personhood, right? Or are things too complicated to determine that?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 2:43 PM
The difference is, of course, that fetuses are not mentally disabled-- they have almost no mental capacity whatsoever. The most drooling idiot you could find is leaps and bounds ahead of a fetus.
And on what basis are you saying that? What is your scientific evidence to support your assertion? After all, we are talking about life and death here, so certainly there must be evidence to support your assertion that a fetus - which is almost fully developed long before full term - has "no mental capacity whatsoever". And if not that, there at least has to be evidence that a fetus has less mental capabilities than even the most severely mentally handicapped person.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 2:51 PM
Do you believe a mother's right to life is greater than the right to life of the fetus when her pregnancy threatens her life? If so, how do you square that with the absolute claims made by Warren, McCain, and the anti-abortion interest groups who argue for full human rights for the unborn?
OK, so based on that, would you support a complete ban on abortion except for instances where the life of the mother is verifiably in danger?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 2:57 PM
mroberts wrote:
Considering the money my family has spent on our pets when they were near to dying my worries are just the opposite. I'm afraid they would try to keep me alive if I wound up like Terri Schiavo.
I would trust them to make the right choice, yes. Better them than congress.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 3:13 PM
mrobets wrote:
That question is so weird, it makes me wonder if mroberts family wants to have him killed because they think he is too stupid to live.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 3:17 PM
That question is so weird, it makes me wonder if mroberts family wants to have him killed because they think he is too stupid to live.
Norman, is that really the best you can do? You are the one who said that the decision about life should be left to the families, I just took your statements to their logical conclusion. If you are going to argue, great, argue the issue. If you are just going to make stupid statements then we're done.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 3:24 PM
mroberts, would you want to keep living if you wound up like Terri Schiavo?
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 3:34 PM
would you want to keep living if you wound up like Terri Schiavo?
Don't know, depends on the circumstances. What does that have to do with the abortion issue?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 3:40 PM
You tell me. You brought it up here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/08/the_rick_warren_show.php#comment-1060881
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 3:43 PM
No Norman, I was not the one that brought up the issue of cognitive ability and abortion. Now, are you going to dodge the question or answer it? What point are you trying to make by asking the following question?
would you want to keep living if you wound up like Terri Schiavo?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 3:51 PM
The point is that even you would choose death if you were to become as mentally crippled as a fetus with no hope of recovery from that condition.
Children are ultimately dependent and demanding. No one who is unwilling to give what it takes to raise a child should ever be forced to do so, it's not only unfair to the unwilling parent, it's unfair to the child.
And don't say adoption is the answer. There are more kids wanting adoption then there are families to raise them.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 4:11 PM
The point is that even you would choose death if you were to become as mentally crippled as a fetus with no hope of recovery from that condition.
Key point here: I have the choice
Does the unborn child have the same choice I do? Would you want somebody else determining you are not fit to live without your input, Norman?
Children are ultimately dependent and demanding. No one who is unwilling to give what it takes to raise a child should ever be forced to do so, it's not only unfair to the unwilling parent, it's unfair to the child.
Yes, I agree that children are demanding. If nobody should be forced to raise a child they don't want to raise, then why make birth the point at which they can no longer kill them? What about the parent who decides that their 3-year-old is too demanding? Should they be able to kill them if they wish? After all, it is unfair to the child if the parent doesn't want them anymore, right?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 4:28 PM
Mroberts wrote:
There is no evidence that there is a "you" there - that is, until a functioning brain can identify itself as a distinct entity, there is no concept of "I". Prior to higher order brain function, just as with post higher order brain function, there is no "I" - no person - to consider, just a slab of meat, even if that slab happens to have a pulse.
We don't allow the killing of three year olds because, as a society, we have determined that such a killing would be unethical. There is no such consensus regarding the destruction of embryonic life. Should there be one, then and only then will the practice of abortion become prohibited. Until such time, any law that would seek to legislate the personal behavior of human beings that harms no other person will continue to be massively violated, as our drug laws are.
Posted by: Bobber | August 20, 2008 4:37 PM
mroberts said:
I don't think I can summarize developmental psychology here-- you're going to have to do your own research. Suffice it to say that newborn infants do not have a grasp of object permanence-- that is to say, they do not understand that a thing which is covered or otherwise obscured still exists. "As Flavell, Miller, & Miller (2002,30) write, they "have very poor motor skills. They cannot control and coordinate well the movements of their heads, trunks, and especially limbs. On the motor side, they fairly radiate behavioral incompetence." Newborns' eyesight is at best 20/200 and at worse 20/660 (Courage & Adams, 1990; Dobson & Teller, 1978) and only improves over time. It may be fair to compare newborns with slightly comatose patients, with healthy reflexes, limited cognitive capacity, little behavioral control, and only an impressionist memory of a life before." -- from Cognitive Development, edited by Flavell et al.
Even severely mentally disabled adults do not exist in a state of being near-comatose. They understand that covered objects still exist. They can enjoy life and fear death, as I said before. I think it is safe to say that their lives should have more value, for both themselves and others, than that of a fetus.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 4:49 PM
mroberts wrote:
No, not if you wound up like Terri Schiavo. If you want a choice in that situation you have to make it now with a living will.
It probably doesn't even know it's alive if it is unborn. It certainly doesn't before it develops a primitive brain.
What do you propose to do, ask every fetus its opinion? I don't think you'll get an answer.
What would I want? Loving parents. Got 'em. They wouldn't kill me even if they had the right. If they would have, I wouldn't be me anyway -- maybe I'd be you?
Why do you think that is some kind of challenge to my position? I don't think the world would change that much if parents had the right to kill their kids -- most wouldn't do it.
I wouldn't necessarily stop at birth. I once saw an episode of L.A. Law where a couple was charged with killing their child and it turned out they did it because the child had some horrible medical condition that required a near fortune to keep it alive. It was a good episode, but I won't go into detail except to say when the condition was revealed almost everyone had sympathy for their choice.
Too late, it's assumed you've taken on a commitment when you bring a child to term. This commitment is not assumed because you've merely had sex.
It is unfair to the child, but then life is rarely fair. If they can pass the child off to a parent or other member of their family, at least for awhile, maybe they should.
But the truth is, I think your example is idiotic. Parents mostly know what commitments they've made and don't go around killing their kids unless mentally ill. Even if given the right to do so it wouldn't happen often. When it does happen, I would certainly suspect the sanity of the parent and not necessarily be willing to bring down the full force of the law.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 5:05 PM
Suffice it to say that newborn infants do not have a grasp of object permanence-- that is to say, they do not understand that a thing which is covered or otherwise obscured still exists. "As Flavell, Miller, & Miller (2002,30) write, they "have very poor motor skills. They cannot control and coordinate well the movements of their heads, trunks, and especially limbs. On the motor side, they fairly radiate behavioral incompetence." Newborns' eyesight is at best 20/200 and at worse 20/660 (Courage & Adams, 1990; Dobson & Teller, 1978) and only improves over time. It may be fair to compare newborns with slightly comatose patients, with healthy reflexes, limited cognitive capacity, little behavioral control, and only an impressionist memory of a life before." -- from Cognitive Development, edited by Flavell et al.
Gretchen, all of that could be said of people who are severely injured and/or mentally handicapped, could it not? Are you arguing that these symptoms/characteristics (or whatever you want to call them) are ample justification for ending a life? There are fully grown people that could be described exactly that way, so would you support killing them too?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 6:02 PM
mroberts wrote:
I'm almost to the point where I'd support killing mroberts for being too dense to argue with, so, I think I better quit.
Anyone care to adopt him?
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 6:09 PM
Why do you think that is some kind of challenge to my position? I don't think the world would change that much if parents had the right to kill their kids -- most wouldn't do it. . . . I wouldn't necessarily stop at birth. I once saw an episode of L.A. Law where a couple was charged with killing their child and it turned out they did it because the child had some horrible medical condition that required a near fortune to keep it alive. It was a good episode, but I won't go into detail except to say when the condition was revealed almost everyone had sympathy for their choice.
Norman, you are headed for some scary territory with statements like that. I would consider you "Exhibit A" for the natural progression of logic that results when human life is no longer held in high regard. It is no surprise to me that we have gone in this country from abortion to assisted-suicide (in Oregon). In Europe, they have taken it even further to euthanizing people that are deemed to not have any quality of life - such as handicapped people. Quality of life is awfully gray and subjective. It is scary to me that people are deciding life and death on such hazy criteria. Take it even further and you have the thinking of Peter Singer of Princeton who openly advocates infanticide. To me, one step further puts you in the shoes of the worst tyrants in the world like Hitler and Mao.
Look, I gotta go, but it's been interesting talking to you.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 6:15 PM
Mroberts said:
No, sorry. I am unwilling to describe the huge body of people with severe injuries and/or mental handicaps using any, much less all, of those terms. If you are not, I think you need to learn a bit more about variety of ways in which people can be handicapped.
Why not just cut to the chase-- do you consider personhood a matter of sentience, or not? Because if so, it's simply a matter of degree, and if not then this conversation is fruitless because we're speaking on two entirely different issues. If a human being is mentally a vegetable (as a fetus is, and as Terri Schiavo was), do they have rights, or not? I say no. If you say yes, please offer an argument for it, especially given what has been noted about non-human animal awareness.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 6:21 PM
I'm almost to the point where I'd support killing mroberts for being too dense to argue with, so, I think I better quit.
Wow, I think Norman is headed over the brink. Ed, is this the kind of crap that is actually allowed on your blog? Some people might actually take that as a serious threat, Norman, and it's on the web for all to see. Apparently wisdom and common sense are not one of your more notable characteristics.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 6:22 PM
It's not legally a threat, but it's certainly way over any reasonable line. If you can't restrain yourself better than that, Mr. Doering, you won't be commenting here any longer.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 20, 2008 6:28 PM
Why not just cut to the chase-- do you consider personhood a matter of sentience, or not?
No, I don't. If it is human in any stage of development, it is a person. There are too many grays in deciding what has what mental capacity, viability, human qualities, etc. There is too much room for error, which is my point with hounding you on all the stuff you were saying about mental capacity and functioning. I'm not trying to start a discussion on the death penalty, but I do want to make the point that I find it ironic that death penalty opponents (who often are on the same side of the political spectrum as abortion advocates) demand the highest standard of criteria for innocence (which is a good thing mind you) yet allow for the most incredible haziness on the criteria for what is human when it comes to abortion. If we are so concerned about killing innocent life, why do we allow such haziness on what constitutes human life with the abortion issue? Every single thing that an abortion advocate can think up as to why a fetus is not human could be said about a severely handicapped person or underage person. I don't want a single innocent life to end as a result of deciding wrongly about mental capacity, functioning, etc., so my thinking is that if it is human and innocent, it is not to be killed.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 6:31 PM
Mroberts said:
Why include "innocent"? Why not simply say, "if it is human, then it is not to be killed?" Isn't "innocent" a value judgment - and couldn't that be as slippery an argument as the "gray area" of sentience? To further your own logic, shouldn't we simply treasure human life, under all circumstances, for any reason? For, if you can seek to justify the ending of SOME humans for SOME reasons - criminal guilt, warfare, what have you - aren't you being inconsistent in your logic?
And no, you cannot equate persons with serious mental handicaps to a fetus, let alone an embryo. I have worked with people who suffer from quite severe cognitive limitations, but, as Gretchen indicates, they are far more "functional" than an embryo or fetus.
Posted by: Bobber | August 20, 2008 6:45 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
I apologize to both you and mroberts. I got frustrated and attempted a joke -- it was in bad taste.
However, in my defense, I would point to mroberts comment, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/08/the_rick_warren_show.php#comment-1060881
mroberts wrote:
In context being "denied personhood" means killing.
Not only is that a veiled threat, it's a complete twisting of my position.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 6:45 PM
mroberts said:
If you think that's true, then haven't read a word I've said, and dearly need to educate yourself. Your "gray areas" are only as gray as they are because you haven't bothered to learn much about human cognition. The problem is not with the nebulousness of the human mind; it's with your ignorance of it.
Because we're not "so concerned about killing innocent life"-- we're concerned about killing innocent people. We kill innocent life every day without the slightest concern, and you well know it.
Great, then become a Jain. That's the only way for you to be morally consistent. Since you don't know everything there is to know about the consciousness of a fly, you have no right to kill one.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 6:47 PM
Because we're not "so concerned about killing innocent life"-- we're concerned about killing innocent people. We kill innocent life every day without the slightest concern, and you well know it.
My reference in "life" was to people, sorry that wasn't clear. Yes, I am aware we kill innocent life everyday. My standard only applies to human life, though we shouldn't just go around killing bugs and animals willy-nilly for no reason, either.
If you think that's true, then haven't read a word I've said, and dearly need to educate yourself. Your "gray areas" are only as gray as they are because you haven't bothered to learn much about human cognition. The problem is not with the nebulousness of the human mind; it's with your ignorance of it.
No, the issue is that you think consciousness is relevant, and it is not. You might think that a fetus bears some lack of consciousness that makes it less than a person, but you have no way of verifying that for each and every fetus about to be aborted. Secondly, lack of consciousness can be used to describe adults, too. If you are consistent in your reasoning, then you ought to be advocating killing adults with a lack of consciousness too, because the fact that they have limited consciousness makes them less than a person, in your thinking. Understand what I am saying? All I am doing is applying your reasoning for denying personhood to a fetus to an adult with characteristics that can be described in exactly the same way .
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 6:56 PM
In context being "denied personhood" means killing.
Not only is that a veiled threat, it's a complete twisting of my position.
Norman, you're just unbelievable. I'm done with you. Have a nice day, whatever that looks like in your alternate universe.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 7:00 PM
Why include "innocent"? Why not simply say, "if it is human, then it is not to be killed?" Isn't "innocent" a value judgment - and couldn't that be as slippery an argument as the "gray area" of sentience?
What?? You lost me on that one. Of course innocence is the dividing line. A violent criminal, who willingly incurs a severe penalty for horrific behavior, should be removed from society. If they willingly put themselves in debt to society, why shouldn't that debt be paid and society protected from them as a result?
And no, you cannot equate persons with serious mental handicaps to a fetus, let alone an embryo. I have worked with people who suffer from quite severe cognitive limitations, but, as Gretchen indicates, they are far more "functional" than an embryo or fetus.
OK, let's go with that. What criteria determines just enough functionality to support a judgment of personhood? What do we need to look for to determine that we are not killing an innocent person?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 7:07 PM
Mroberts said:
Because you have declared that we have no right to take the life of a human being, at whatever stage of development. That you have chosen to qualify this assertion with the term "innocent" indicates that you yourself are open to equivocation on the matter - that is, that you have no absolute criteria for respecting of human life, but that you are willing to apply certain other factors in when deciding your stance. My question then becomes, why should YOUR specific criteria be "more legitimate" that MINE? You said
but you have yet to make an argument why "innocence" trumps "consciousness" (as you term it).
I would also remind you that the term innocent is irrelevant. A fetus is not a moral agent; it cannot make decisions, it cannot decide on actions. It is morally and ethically neutral, and therefore "innocent" is less accurate and more emotive; for example, no one speaks of an innocent tumor or bladder infection.
Is there the capability for the being to have a sense of self? And to what degree? Do you feel the same guilt for the killing of a chicken, for instance, as you do for the "death" of a zygote? I would first have to understand what you would regard as qualification for personhood. Is an alien being, just arrived on earth aboard its spacecraft, a person? If so, why? If not, why not? Is being genetically human all that is necessary to qualify an entity as a person?
Posted by: Bobber | August 20, 2008 7:23 PM
I don't plan to lay out any substantive pro-life arguments here (it's far too tedious, and I've been involved in debates like this too many times to think they can really be reasonably resolved), but I think the comparison between the cognitive abilities of someone like Terri Schiavo and those of a fetus is useless. The reason can be expressed in one word: direction. Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state - in other words, she wasn't going to improve cognitively; her cognitive development had no positive direction. On the other hand, the same thing cannot be said (at least in broadly sweeping terms) of a fetus: it clearly is (absent any interfering circumstances or conditions) developing cognitively in such a way that it will almost certainly cross the threshold most would consider necessary for sentience (hence guaranteeing it the moral status of a person, by the argument given here). That would seem to undercut the argument quite a bit; it's probably better for the pro-choice advocate who argues that personhood is derived (or emerges) from sentience simply to state that there is a point at which a developing neonate becomes conscious without resorting to comparisons of cognitive ability.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 20, 2008 7:26 PM
mroberts: Of course innocence is the dividing line. A violent criminal, who willingly incurs a severe penalty for horrific behavior, should be removed from society. If they willingly put themselves in debt to society, why shouldn't that debt be paid and society protected from them as a result?
Well, it can be one dividing line. Specifically, it is but one of the rationales one could use with a utilitarian ethic.
Are you meaning to base your ethics surrounding personhood on arbitrary criteria meant to enforce a particular outcome? Or, do you instead have a more absolute ethic regarding personhood that you mean to uphold?
Posted by: Q | August 20, 2008 7:31 PM
Bobber, I guess you're adopting mroberts. I leave him in your more qualified hands.
Before I leave, you may eventually find these Bible verses useful: Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21
Children who are disobedient, or who curse or strike their parents are to be killed.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 20, 2008 7:33 PM
Because you have declared that we have no right to take the life of a human being, at whatever stage of development. That you have chosen to qualify this assertion with the term "innocent" indicates that you yourself are open to equivocation on the matter - that is, that you have no absolute criteria for respecting of human life, but that you are willing to apply certain other factors in when deciding your stance. My question then becomes, why should YOUR specific criteria be "more legitimate" that MINE? You said
No, the issue is that you think consciousness is relevant, and it is not. but you have yet to make an argument why "innocence" trumps "consciousness" (as you term it).
Bobber, sorry, but I honestly have no clue where you are going with this. I don't think I was ever trying to make the point that innocence trumps consciousness. And if you think by reading my posts that I don't have an absolute criteria for respecting human life, then the issue is yours not mine. I DO, and it hinges on innocence. It is simple: if it is human life and innocent of a capital crime, the life is not to be taken. I don't know how much more absolute I can get. There IS no room for equivocation; that is my thinking, period.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 7:41 PM
Are you meaning to base your ethics surrounding personhood on arbitrary criteria meant to enforce a particular outcome? Or, do you instead have a more absolute ethic regarding personhood that you mean to uphold?
Yes, my absolute ethic is that if it is human in any stage of development and innocent of a capital crime, it is not to be harmed.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 7:45 PM
>> Yes, my absolute ethic is that if it is human in any stage of development and innocent of a capital crime, it is not to be harmed.
Sub "killed" instead of "harmed". It's getting late, sorry :).
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2008 7:49 PM
mroberts:Yes, my absolute ethic is that if it is human in any stage of development and innocent of a capital crime, it is not to be harmed.
And are you are letting other people determine what is a capital crime?
If so, doesn't that put your absolute ethics into the hands of others - adding some arbitrariness and removing the absoluteness?
Posted by: Q | August 20, 2008 7:58 PM
Mroberts said:
But you are, even if you didn't explicitly state it. I don't understand why you question that. You stated that consciousness doesn't matter to the argument regarding termination of fetal life. You have stated several times that innocent fetal life is worthy of - what, legal protection, I assume. You are therefore saying that the innocent fetus' right to exist trump the (less than innocent) conscious woman's right to bodily integrity. Also, innocence trumps consciousness because you are also in favor of killing those conscious human beings who have committed capital crimes.
My issue is that your criteria is not actually absolute, from the position of a far more "right to life" person, for example, the Pope. Offical Catholic doctrine is what I would call as close to absolute right to life as we get - anti-abortion rights, anti-capital punishment, and almost anti-war ("just war" exceptions). You are not actually pro-life, you are pro-certain kinds of life; and I question why the criteria you use to determine what kinds of life are deserving of the title of "person" should be taken as more legitimate than my own. THAT is my question - why is my stance, that of regarding consciousness/sentience, somehow more arbitary than you own?
I'm going along the lines of Q, but not nearly as succinctly.
Posted by: Bobber | August 20, 2008 8:43 PM
This is an asinine objection that I see frequently, based on some implicit assumption that being pro-X means that you must be for X under any circumstance. One only need to turn this reasoning the opposite reaction to see how stupid it is: those who are "pro-choice" are certainly not in favor of every choice, at least not in the same way they are in favor of the legality of all choices (as with abortion). What pro-choice advocate would argue for a Catholic priest's (legal) right to choose to sodomize young boys? The answer is of course "None" (and rightfully so).
Now, one could argue that "pro-lifers" (by the way, a term I don't much care for, anyway) might have a prima facie inconsistency in opposing abortion while supporting, say, the death penalty, but that just means that any person in such a situation needs to explicate some reason for the differentiation, as they certainly aren't logically inconsistent. In the same way, "pro-choicers" can make rational differentiation between the permissibility of abortion and the immorality of pederasty.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 20, 2008 9:09 PM
CC: ... but that just means that any person in such a situation needs to explicate some reason for the differentiation, as they certainly aren't logically inconsistent.
And if they don't explicate such a reason, then their argument will remain logically inconsistent.
Additionally, they may also be ethically inconsistent. If they are ethically inconsistent, then they haven't an ethically sound position from which to argue their case.
Posted by: Q | August 20, 2008 9:23 PM
CC: ... but that just means that any person in such a situation needs to explicate some reason for the differentiation, as they certainly aren't logically inconsistent.
And if they don't explicate such a reason, then their argument will remain logically inconsistent.
Additionally, their argument may also be ethically inconsistent. If so, then they haven't an ethically sound position from which to argue their case.
Posted by: Q | August 20, 2008 9:25 PM
mroberts said:
1. If you didn't think consciousness was relevant, you wouldn't be asking me to provide evidence of a fetus's lack of consciousness.
2. It is beyond the scope of blog commentary to ask me to demonstrate you how conscious or non-conscious a fetus is. You will have to find that out for yourself-- it shouldn't be difficult, but it will take a bit of reading and I sure am not going to copy large swaths of text on the matter here.
Yes I ought to, and I do. That's why I said that it was okay to pull the plug on Terri Schiavo. Or did you not bother to read that part?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2008 9:48 PM
Norman:
Don't threatn mroberts with termination; although he is too stupid to argue with he is not, afaia, guilty of any capital crimes/mortal sins--except those I used to be accused of by AF NCOIC, "Killing time and fucking off".
Posted by: democommie | August 20, 2008 9:55 PM
Yes, my absolute ethic is that if it is human in any stage of development and innocent of a capital crime, it is not to be [killed].
Your "absolute ethic" depends on how you define "human." What makes a first-trimester fetus more "human" than, say, the connective tissues in your intestines? MOre to the point, what makes a first-trimester fetus "human" enough to have "rights" that supercede the rights of the mother? (Or does your "absolute ethic" define mothers as less "human?")
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 21, 2008 9:32 AM
mroberts: here's two questions the anti-abortion faction need to answer:
One: There is a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room there is a 3-month-old baby. In another is a thermos with 3,000 fertilized eggs. You have time to save the baby or the thermos, but NOT BOTH. Which do you save?
Two: If a woman has intercourse and an egg is fertilized, but the woman stands up before three days pass, the egg might not implant properly. Is it murder if a woman stands up within three days of intercourse?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 21, 2008 10:02 AM
Bee-
If your spouse and your daughter in two rooms of your house and it is on fire ... yada, yada.. Which do you save? Have you murdered the one you don't?
If lightening hits and kills a woman whose preganancy has passed the point where even you would consider the fetus a person, and the baby dies as a result as well, would you consider that murder?
These life-boat ethics questions are all BS because they are just versions of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Posted by: Spike | August 22, 2008 7:29 PM
Spike:
HAVE you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by: democommie | August 23, 2008 7:45 PM
Warren is a deceptively milk evangelical--which makes him all the more dangerous. Despite his fell-good, focus-on-helping-people approach, he's every bit as conservative as his more...ah ...colorful colleagues. While Warren is relatively smart, he is by no means a deep, logical thinker; rather, his is a fuzzy-warm emotional approach that nevertheless feeds into anti-intellectualism.
Warren thinks that dinosaurs and people lived together at the same time.
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/08/for_the_next_debate_thingee_ca.php
Cuckoo!
Posted by: 386sx | August 25, 2008 8:21 AM