ColbyCosh.com

Coby the numer is probably significantly lower than 170 as many women have several abortions in their twenties.

I'm not sure his math is right, even ignoring the multiple-abortion issue, since you have new members joining (and old members leaving) the cohort every year. If we extend O'Neill's logic, we would find that over 4 decades every woman between 20 and 30 has had an abortion. Knowing several who did not, what do I win?

If you've written something before that expands on that last sentence I'd like to read it. I can understand that divorce might be worse socially, but medically?

I'm guessing that line of argument works not at all on those that believe abortion is murder.

Matt - I'm guessing that every line of argument works not at all on those who believe abortion is murder

I'm guessing that every line of argument works not at all on those who believe abortion is murder

Wow.

Why "Wow" Andy?

Murder seems to me to be pretty absolute - what arguments do you think can be made to justify it? Matt has, I think correctly, identified that the "balance of benefits" or "balance of costs and impacts" (and similar) arguments are likely to be ineffective; I'm sure that the "woman should be sovereign over her own body" argument sways few who honestly categorize abortion as murder - what arguments do you adduce that win over someone with this mind-set? I imagine that the "abortion is murder" argument is equally unlikely to sway those who see limits on abortion as (patriarchal, high-handed, etc) interference with a woman's right to control her own medical decisions.

I make no comment on whether I think it is justified - just that for people who take such things seriously, terming an activity to be "murder" puts it as absolutely beyond the pale as anything I can think of. The comment that 'this argument won't sway the most resolutely opposed on the other side' is hardly proof of a fundamental flaw in the argument.

In case it wasn't obvious, I am thinking only of arguments in this subject area; people who term abortion to be murder are probably as open as anybody to arguments about -say- fiscal policy or the Oiler's lack of success in the free-agent market.

Murder seems to me to be pretty absolute - what arguments do you think can be made to justify it?

Our federal government has placed a highly trained killing force among a civilian population in Afghanistan. They are there for political purposes. We have no qualms about sanctioning mass murder (let's not mince words, that's what you do in a war) for political ends, so I imagine that we can in fact go quite a long way to justify murder in other contexts as well, if we're willing to be honest.

(By "political" I don't mean that the Chretien and Harper governments have put forces in Afghanistan for their own political ends, only that we are trying to effect a certain political result in Afghanistan. Though of course it does suit the political ends of both governments, but that's not what I mean - that's not how the presence is justified.)

Some info with regard to the negative effects of divorce on health.

Tybalt: it's just possible that troops are in Afghanistan for "greater good" reasons, which is to say there's a hope that in the long run (and heck, possibly even in the short run, given the Taliban's rather murderous record, and somewhat homicidal stance on issues like health care for women and the proper punishment for just about everything.

At some point, the mass murders are going to happen (so the argument goes), this is just about who and how many. The theoretical government assertion is that this way, the answers are "mostly not Canadians" and "fewer."

Gee, I guess I should read the whole damn blog before trying to sound all clever.

Tybalt: it's just possible that troops are in Afghanistan for "greater good" reasons, which is to say there's a hope that in the long run (and heck, possibly even in the short run, given the Taliban's rather murderous record, and somewhat homicidal stance on issues like health care for women and the proper punishment for just about everything.

Of course it's for "greater good" reasons. Political ones. We're trying to impose and preserve political change in Afghanistan, for the good of Afghans. I, for one, think what we are doing is perfectly justifiable, and that it forms a justification for the garden-variety murdering that happens to take place in the course of it (if conducted according to the laws of war, etc., etc.)

I was proposing that there are lots of grounds on which murder can be justified, and is justified. Another ground used to justify murders every day, one we dealt with here just the other day, is self-defense.

"We have no qualms about sanctioning mass murder (let's not mince words, that's what you do in a war)..."

By definition, killings by military forces in war time are not murder - that's the whole point of the labelling exercise of "abortion is murder" - it makes abortion, by definition, one of the most heinous acts a human being is capable of.

Google searches:

site:lds.org divorce: 1380 English and French pages
site:lds.org abortion: 351 English and French pages

I know this doesn't address the contents of all 1700+ results pages, but as a practicing Mormon for nearly thirty years a roughly four-to-one ratio bemoaning divorce over abortion is congruent with my experience.

P.S. And for good measure:
site:lds.org homosexual*: 79 English and French pages

Fascinating, Chuck.

I think the set of people who "honestly characterize abortion as murder [as opposed to a lesser but still grievous crime]" is damn near zero ever. If Eric Rudolph or James Kopp show up in the comment thread I'll be happy to cut them some slack on this, though.

By definition, killings by military forces in war time are not murder

By legal definition, I will certainly grant you. Not sure what this has to do with the moral/ethical realm, though.

Colby Cosh states in his blog:"But does anyone else ever wish there were just one flavour of Christian faith that expended more energy bemoaning “tragic” divorce rates, whose true social and medical effects are much worse than those of abortion?)"
Really Mr. Cosh! Nobody is killed by the "social and medical effects" of "divorce rates." Therefore Mr. Cosh's comparison is idiotic. As a journalist he should know that abortion kills a human life.
Check out http://www.AbortionNo.org

Thank you, Stephen. I was starting to think my hypothetical "nothing is worse than murder" proponent was going to stay that way.

....."As a journalist"???

I just read something REALLY spooky. According to a Stats Canada report, roughly 500 out of every 1000 Canadians are men. If my math is correct, this means that in TWO years, EVERY Canadian will be a man! No more women! Sure, that will probably result in a huge drop in the abortion rate, but I'm guessing the incidence of homosexuality will rise sharply. Why aren't our politicians doing something about this?! Why is the MSM not reporting this?! Why is the world such a scary place, especially for those of us who are stupid?!

Wade, are you actually asserting that the population of women in their 20s getting abortions is invariant year-upon-year, and so each of those 2.5% of women in their 20s is destined to go back to the abortionist every year until they hit 30?

Your analogy is far stupider than O'Neill's original comment - there's no contest. His math is closer than yours, too.

Not sure what this has to do with the moral/ethical realm, though

I think it is much easier to make the case for killing by military forces than for abortion - not least because I don't believe that what they are doing is "comitting murder" - definitions matter as much (and perhaps more) in the "moral/ethical realm" as anywhere else.

Colby, if you're talking about first-trimester abortion, you're probably right that very few people see that as morally equivalent to the murder of an older child or adult - and I've been active in non-political branches of the anti-abortion movement most of my adult life so I am including many, many "pro-life" people I know personally in this assessment. Once you are talking about third-trimester abortion and especially intact dilation and extraction, I know very few people who do not think that is murder, although in circles other than mine I have no doubt mileage can vary.

not least because I don't believe that what they are doing is "comitting murder" - definitions matter as much (and perhaps more) in the "moral/ethical realm"

A killing is a killing, though, is it not? (This presupposes rather a lot, especially that abortion is a "killing", but I'll let that slide.) If we are to justify killing, it must be with a view to its effects and purposes. You can justify the act on those grounds, it seems, but that doesn't make aborting afetus and blowing someone's head off with an assault rifle qualitatively different in some way that justifies a normative difference between them.

Tybalt, of course my analogy was more stupid; that was kind of the point. I was trying to outstupid the orginal assertion, and to do so I had to veer out of the lane of reason, bounce through the ditch of ignorance, crash through the fence of wtf?, and come to rest in the field of silly.

The point is, "25 out of a thousand" is a fraction, not a head count. If my math is correct, it's somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5%. If 2.5% of women under twenty have abortions this year, and 2.5% do so next year, the rate will still be 2.5%. The only way his math would work is if there are only 1000 women in total, period, and that number remains constant, and the 25 women are different women every year. None of which is the case.

As one of the first commenters pointed out, here's what the original math looks like:
Year 1: 25 out of 1000
Year 10: 250 out of 1000
Year 40: 1000 out of 1000
Year 80: 2000 out of 1000

My analogy was stupider. Just not by much.

Killing is killing, indeed, but not all killing is morally equivalent. And not all killing is murder. If you don't grasp those two points, you'd be better off commenting on another topic.

Killing is killing, indeed, but not all killing is morally equivalent.

Well, no kidding. The question I am asking is, on what normative basis are two killings not equivalent? Is it something to do with the results that that killing effects (or is intended to effect)? Or is it something else? And if it's something else, what would that something else be?

One thing I do know is that it can't be the legal status of that killing (i.e. whether it is "murder" or not), because we all hopefully know and agree that questions of ethics and morality are antecedent to the law, and not dependent upon it (in other words, it's not OK morally to kill just because the state has sanctioned it.)

It must therefore be some other thing. I'm suggesting that the only grounds on which one intentional killing of a human being (and I still recognize that that's granting an awful lot in the case of abortion, because that was the example given) can be distinguished from another are the effects that that killing has or is intended to have.

Surely the obligations, and thus the status, of the killer have a great deal more to do with it. Do you seriously recognize no difference between an execution according to law of a proven criminal, and a lynching? They both seem to have the identical intent and effect. Yet it really is all right to throw the first stone when you do so without sin.

Do you seriously recognize no difference between an execution according to law of a proven criminal, and a lynching?

They don't have the same effects, though; far from it. A criminal execution is the end product of a process and system of criminal trial and punishment. A lynching is mob rule, generally with a primary goal of encourager les autres.

They have vastly different effects, particularly as how they effect the innocent in the community at large. Remember, we must not only look to the first-order effects but also to second-order, third-order and beyond.

But no, I don't believe that the hangman is absolved because he is just doing his job (any more than the judge is). He must weigh his own moral acts the same as any other man.

it really is all right to throw the first stone when you do so without sin

The Decalogue doesn't allow mulligans for the pure of heart.

whose true social and medical effects are much worse than those of abortion?

The baby would beg to differ.

That is if the baby wasn't, ummmm, dead. But I suppose there are worse "medical effects" than death. And heck, since the vast majority of children of divorces parents commit suicide, you must be right about divorce being worse - oh wait, that doesn't happen. But I'm sure many divorces happen because of abortion.

All killing may not be morally equivalent, but all killing sure is physically equivalent. In reality, manslaughter and murder are differentiated in law, not in reality. Our man-made legal construct separates the two for the benefit of the accused and the legal system. The dead person doesn't know the difference.

With respect to abortion - the only reason it remains unlimited and unchallenged in Canada has nothing to do with morals and ethics and everything to do with retaining political power. Many women voters like having the abortion escape-hatch available to them in case their game of pretending that their uterus is equivalent to a prostate takes a nasty turn for the worst.