‘Law and Order’ Tackles Abortion
by Guy BensonNBC’s venerable crime procedural, “Law & Order,” has endured a fair amount of deserved criticism around here lately. Big Hollywood’s thoughtful critiques of the show’s leftward slide and irksome predictability are, sadly, valid. Like many L&O fans, I’ve been forced to admit that recent seasons have been quite disappointing. The word “cancellation” has cropped up in my mind more than once.
That being said, this season has been refreshingly solid. Aside from the atrocious “Let’s prosecute Cheney!” season premiere, each successive episode has been vintage “Law & Order.” The most recent episode (”Dignity,” October 23) bordered on spectacular. *Spoiler alert*
It did not begin auspiciously. The opening sequence set the stage for yet another warmed-over episode wherein an abortionist is murdered, and the rest of the program consists of detectives trying to determine which anti-abortion nutter did the deed. The show’s writers usually permit one character to utter a single token pro-life line (”Just because you might disagree with abortion doesn’t justify this violence!”), while the oh-so-reasonable pro-choice characters get the last word. Having seen this template before, I almost flipped channels. It seems as though at least one of the L&O spinoff series airs a “new” abortion-doctor-murder episode every year. One wonders if more abortionists have been slain on this fictional television franchise over the past 20 years than in real life.
But last week’s episode marked a dramatic departure from the familiar, biased trope. After detective Bernard makes a few forceful pro-life points in an impromptu squad car debate with his partner, ADA Cutter jumps into the fray. He professes his pro-life views and refutes a condescending response from his pro-choice colleague (Rubirosa) by citing the “turning tide” of public opinion and mentioning that most Americans now consider themselves pro-life. Apparently Mr. Cutter’s been checking the latest Gallup stats. Rubirosa replies by pointedly referring to those who share Cutter’s views as “anti-choice,” at which point the reliably liberal District Attorney, Jack McCoy, mentions his own daughter’s change of heart on the issue. She was staunchly pro-choice, he explains, prior to seeing the image of her unborn child in an ultrasound. End of scene.
Jaw-dropping stuff.
Later in the episode, it’s revealed that the victim was performing illegal, post-birth abortions–more commonly known as murder–at his clinic. A whistle-blower nurse informs the DA office that she left the deceased doctor’s practice after witnessing a failed abortion result in a live birth, and then a callous killing. (For those who follow the abortion issue closely, this story may sound familiar. It also raises an issue that was used to highlight the radical pro-abortion record of a certain post-partisan Messiah during the 2008 campaign). On the stand, the nurse testifies about the repugnant practice, explaining that the baby’s corpse was discarded as “medical waste.” This revelation horrifies both Rubirosa and the jury.
Later in the trial, another witness describes her decision not to abort her severely disabled child. Her story moves the jury to tears.
The prosecution then calls an expert witness–a doctor–who testifies that his murdered colleague was doing good, medically necessary work. Upon cross-examination, he’s exposed as a pro-abortion zealot; willing to perform third trimester abortions for any reason, no matter what the law says. His contempt for Christians and pro-lifers is palpable, and turns off the jury. The prosecutors are left wringing their hands about how poorly he performed on the stand.
Again, stunning. I kept checking the channel guide–this really was “Law & Order.”
As the episode drew to a close, ADA Rubirosa offers the following admission:
“I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel. That a woman’s privacy was inviolate. But after hearing that woman on the stand talk about her baby dying in her arms, I don’t know. I don’t know where my privacy ends and another being’s dignity begins.”
Cutter (the pro-life one, remember) tells her that in the current case, the distinctions are pretty black and white, and that it’s their job to put away the bad guys. To which Rubirosa replies,
“I’m glad it’s so clear-cut for you, Mike. Unfortunately, I can’t leave my soul in the umbrella stand when I come into work in the morning.”
You can watch the scene described above here. In case you were curious, the trial ends with the abortionist’s killer being convicted. (A verdict that all true pro-lifers would applaud). ”Dignity” provided viewers with a nuanced, layered depiction of a hot-button social issue that did justice–and then some–to the conservative position.
To the writers and producers of “Law & Order,” Bravo.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
139 Comments
Never would have thought it. Maybe the writing on the wall is becoming more clear to more people.
Later in the episode, it’s revealed that the victim was performing illegal, post-birth abortions–more commonly known as murder–at his clinic.
I'm so old-school…being pro-life, I consider pre-birth abortions to be murder as well. But that's just me.
I'm with you, 100%!
I think I will have to watch this episode… I don't usually watch Law and Order… though I did the first episode of this season (much to my dismay) though it was on more for background noise than "entertainment"… but if they are going to give clear debates instead of one sided diatribe, then I will support that episode at least with my ratings…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: ‘Law and Order’ Tackles Abortion http://bit.ly/XHtxY [...]
I must say I'm a little shocked that NBC of all networks would take a crime show in this direction. Hopefully, it is the start of a new trend.
Are you saying someone on the L&O staff wrote a thoughtful, balanced script respectful of the pro-life position, and the executive producers okayed it, and the actors performed it under the guidance of a director, and the crew did the lights and sound and makeup and set construction and whatnot, and the network aired it — and no one put a stop to this travesty? HERETICS! ANTI-CHOICE HERETICS! BURN THEM ALL IN THE NAME OF THE ONE!!!
Agreed. I've not yet seen the pixie dust in the birth canal that turns a "lump of tissue" into a full rights-bearing person. A change in location isn't a meaningful metaphysical distinction.
Even now, years later, I remember vividly delivering two of my children myself in the hospital (ok, my wife was there, and a nurse)…in both instances, the baby decided not to wait for the doctor to respond to the frantic paging (luckily, we had great nurses each time). I wish every father could have that opportunity (responsibility?), as they have been some of the most moving and unforgettable experiences of my life.
Perhaps that has shaped my thinking….so be it.
That's me too.
It could be one of two things: 1)The media outlets are starting to look at the polls and accept reality or 2) Obama is "The Man" now so to be conservative is the only way to be cutting edge and anti-authoritarian.
Ditto that! Man, now I'm sorry I missed it; I saw the previews, figured this was going to be just another ode to the pro-choicers, and ignored it. (Mentally kicking myself)
"A verdict that all true pro-lifers would applaud"
Unfortunately, not all true pro-lifers, Mr. Benson. Actually you don't have to go that far to find some nutcase pro-lifers who would appaude these
Just read Greg Gutfield's archived article about his thoughts on the murdered abortionist, and the not so surprising "here-here" responses from his readers.
I was pro-life when pro life wasn't cool
Not trying to be cynical but it has to be money = ratings. I know they haven't changed their minds.
This is hope I can believe in (lefties can keep the change… to themselves)
Unfortunately, life isn't that simple. If pro-lifers want abortion to end, then, they should help supporting the women who have no means to raise their children. I dislike abortion, but I believe that the choice should be given. Who am I to judge ?
I thought the point to watching L&O was to tag the liberal bias. A video puzzle.
Amazing! Obama supported botched-abortion infanticide in Chicago so this is more than just non-PC.
As Christians we're duty bound to judge between right and wrong. We, however, cannot condemn any individual as we're all at the mercy of God. I'm just throwing that out there before someone quotes satan's favorite misused verse "judge not…."
Interesting, but yet again L&O has to have an abortionist murderer, as you point out. Obviously this episode was inspired by the Tiller case. I've had an on-and-off-again relationship with L&O, loving it when it's good but getting pissed off and going on hiatus when they bash conservatives, Christians, etc.
Why assume that pro-lifers don't support women in such situations? There are clinics that help women with going to term with the intention to put the child up for adoption. Saying "I believe that the choice should be given. Who am I to judge?" is strange if you believe abortion is wrong. What if I said, "I don't like murder/rape/theft but I believe the choice should be given"? Doesn't make much sense.
Yeah… 'cause women just spontaneously get pregnant.
<sarc/off>
It's surprising that L&O didn't take the usual tack on this issue but after so many years of dashed hopes, insults to my values and outrageous writing, it's going to take a sustained level of improvement (read: no obvious, predictable leftist bias) to get me to even CONSIDER watching any form of L&O again.
I LOVE this line of argumentation from pro-aborts who just "don't want to judge." Your statement implies that pro-lifers are obligated to offer care to poor mothers (BTW we do: more than 4000 crisis pregnancy centers nationwide), but BEING PRO-CHOICE LETS YOU OFF THE HOOK. Glad I'm upwind of your odor of personal sanctity.
Wow. When the program ran last week, I switched the channel with the assumption that the episode would be yet another pro-abortion diatribe, particularly in light of the previous week's Cheney smear. I just watched the clip and am stunned. Has Dick Wolf had an epiphany?
On the topic discussed, one of the most compelling reasons for condemning those who murder abortionists is that people have changes of heart. And those who do become the most effective pro-life advocates of all.
We do!
At my church (and churches all across America) people donate goods for women who choose life over abortion.
Every year we have drives to collect goods for these women and their children. (The past few weeks actually)
They get everything from cribs to diapers. It's awesome how a community can come together to help those in need.
I was there when my daughter was born!
I had a kick in the head moment over abortion myself. I never liked kids when I was younger adult. I thought were nothing more crumb crunching ankle biters that caused more problems than they were worth.
Then my sister had a baby girl (who was just married last month!). I was in the car with them and my sister pulled into a store, asked me to keep an eye on her while she grabbed a few items.
So I'm sitting in the front seat, she was about 2 at the time. I glanced in the rear view mirror, and she's looking back at me. I didn't think children that young were that smart.
Then she starts playing peek a boo with me. She lowers her eyes just enough so I can't see them behind the bar that secured her in the seat. Then she drops them a little more, and I can see her under the bar. Then she hides again. Then she looks t me from above the bar. And she keeps doing it, and it blew my mind. She was making up a game, playing it with me, and smiling.
That was my epiphany moment with kids, which naturally leads to pro-life, when I realized she wasn't just someone else's problem. She was a unique individual, with her own personality, she liked me, and wanted to play with me.
And if my sister had an abortion (which she never contemplated, they tried for months to have kids), this unique, singular individual would not exist. And that's just wrong, any way you cut it.
Once in this nation, an entire group of people were thought to be less than human. They could be bought and sold and killed at the whim of their owners, since they were nothing but property. This notion was enforced by law and ratified by the United States Supreme Court.
Many people thought that this "peculiar institution" though certainly distasteful was a private affair, "Who am I to judge?" And those that opposed this practice were nothing but kooks, busybodies, and religious zealots. Some asked, "If they really cared for these negroes, why don't they buy them all and set them free?"
Why here is a novel idea: let's teach people some basic values, such as promiscuity is not a right it is reckless behavior that has long term consequences. Of course that would mean actually making judgements about people's behavior, something that, since the 60's cultural revolution, the moral relativists have been preaching against. It would also mean that the entertainment industry stops using sex as a commercial quantity. It would mean rejecting much of the feminist doctrine about the "equality" of the sexes and that there is nothing wrong with women being sexually aggressive. It would mean people start making better choices about their sexual behavior. Of course it always is much easier to act irresponsibly and blame others for the negative consequences of those acts.
Since 1973 (Roe vs Wade) I can only find 10 abortion clinic personnel murdered via wikipedia. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It's a pretty rare occurrence which the left distorts in plots like Law & Order's. The subliminal message is that it's widespread. That's how the Big Lie gets spun by these folks.
Show me a lefty putting his political groupthink thoughts to a script, book or newspaper and I'll show you a bascially incurious person impervious to fact finding. I'll pass on Law & Order, thanks.
You're right, it is a rare occurrence. They hyped these rare occurrences in the 80s and were more successful then than they are now in their attempts to make martyrs of such "doctors". They do the same thing when some lunatics murder a homosexual like the young boy whose name I can't think of but the left holds him up as a Christ-like figure. Crazy politics from the religious left.
So what you're saying is, if a woman doesn't feel that she can afford to raise a child, and pro-lifers aren't willing to subsidize her existence, she should be allowed to euthanize her children.
I watched this episode and thought I must be missing something! This couldn't possibly be the standard "the rich evil white guy did it" L&O I'm used to watching! I thought it was a great episode. And kudos to Richard Thomas.
Me too! I heard the line: "Which are you Pro Choice or No Choice?" and said hell with this and changed the channel, guess I should have stuck around.
This episode is a liberal ruse to try and get you to continue to watch in hopes that later conservative hating episode will turn you into the mindless Obamabots that they desperately need.
I swear, the man looks the same from his days on "the waltons". Hasn't aged a day.
Just checked IMDB, dude is 58. I feel old.
Ah, American "conservatives." Such an entertaining subspecies.
You can spend decades on the air off-and-on kicking the tar out of every political position they hold or are supposed to hold… but just imply you're vaugely sympathetic to the "pro-life" angle and they'll slap their fins together like trained seals at a fish fry…
Amen! But can we have a real discussion about the perils of early sex with our teens? No, we just provide condoms and cliches and then wring our collective hands when kids do what kids do because kids think they're invincible and pregnancy can't happen to them. We think they're capable of handling sex and all it's implications but their poor brains are not developed enough to really understand the consequences of promiscuity.
We, as a society, used to protect our kids from themselves – we have given up that role. And the kids pay the price as well as the poor innocents slaughtered in abortion mills.
Yeah, Yeah, kudos to L&O and NBC. The ratio of episodes slandering conservative viewpoints to those fairly representing them is still running at about 100/1. They've got a lot more work ahead of them to get me to tune back in.
Next week's episode description from tv.com – "An investigation into the death of a fashion company owner leads to a threatening website"
Who's willing to bet that their won't be several slams at conservative values in that episode?
I haven't watch anything on NBC for over a decade so I only watch L&O episodes when they're on USA and TNT. It's a shame I missed it and odds are this episode will never be seen in syndication.
Nice straw man argument. Did you bother to read any of the other posts or do any actual research yourself – there are plenty of charities that will help girls and women if they get themselves into trouble – either helping them set up adoption or helping them if they decide to keep the child.
The fact is there is help out there but it is not exactly advertised well in our society is it? No, like Obama said, he wouldn't want his girls to be "punished" – so a child is a "punishment'? No, Mr. Obama (and his followers) – it is a life.
I applaud L&O for this kind of episode. They should do more of them. Most shows should do more like this, instead of always showing the liberal side of things. Especially because the polls continue to show that we are a center right nation.
Mr. Benson, while you're entitled to your opinion, I just can't make myself sit through any "Law & Order" show. For me, the 'doink!-doink!' sound is synonymous with "Here's some barely-disguised liberal dogma".
Good try, but no sale.
Pro life/pro choice are misnomers. Everyone is pro life and pro choice, by the strictest definitions of the words. The moniker "pro choice" implies that people who are anti-abortion are anti-choice.
As for me? I was raised that if you rolled the dice, you took your chances. If you had a kid, you raised it. Taking the cost of human life out of the equation, abortion is a cop out in 95% of the abortions performed today. A way to evade responsibility for your choices. I'm just about as anti-abortion as an agnostic Constitutional libertarian can be; I just think at this juncture the issue should be in the hands of the states, and not the monolithic, uncaring federal abomination we currently call government.
Congress critters have difficulty tying their shoes in an efficient, just or moral manner, let alone legislate morality from their ivory towers on high.
It's not just you.
I just recently stopped watching all L&O shows –SVU had an episode a couple weeks ago where an abortion doctor was murdered — not bec of her occupation. But that didn't stop Wolf from getting in a few potshots first.
Olivia – a character conceived by a rape & whose mother drank herself to death bec of basically ptsd from the rape — said something like this to a clinic protester "So if a woman is raped, do you think she should have to raise the child and have them as a constant reminder of that?" The protester gave the token (i.e. what libs think is) pro-life response, but an inadequate one imo. and there were a few other shots…
Totally gratuitous — just an excuse to slam pro-lifers who don't discriminate against a child bec of how they came into this world and refuse to punish them for the sins of the "father." Gee, now this episode had a character point out that the rape is the tragedy, not the child. I'll have to watch this one and maybe start watching each series again…
I watched the episode inspite of myself, fully expecting top be bombarded with the usual liberal cheapshots and PC blather but I was pleasantly surprised with a very balanced and sensitive story about a very difficult issue. If only all of the LO episodes were so well written.
This is absolutely the wrong way to look at the problem. The lowest rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD's are found in Europe. The highest rates (in first-world countries) are found here. The primary reasons for this are: 1) they comprehensively educate their children about sexuality from a young age 2) they give their children complete access to the proven devices that guard against the above-mentioned 3) they live in a sex-positive culture, so kids/teens have an environment where they can ask questions and learn, as opposed to feeling guilty and just leaving their decisions up to guess-work. Don't believe me? Here are the numbers: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option...
If you are pro-life… you should be willing to implement whatever system works to lower the rate of abortions.. even if it doesn't jive with your personal ethical philosophy. Abstinence-only is a joke. It doesn't work. Focus on the big picture. By giving a little (i.e. adopting the Euro system for limiting the above-mentioned), you WILL have less abortions in this country by a huge number. And isn't that the point?
Hell must have frozen over in Hollywood the day they taped that episode. Stunning.
"One wonders if more abortionists have been slain on this fictional television franchise over the past 20 years than in real life."
Kind of like Kenny in South Park.
OMG! They killed and abortionist!
YOU BASTARDS!
I did read that post, and as I recall, the gist was, just how totally the entire situation was blown out of proportion.
I agree with you that killing a doctor who provides late term abortions is murder, and the if found guilty, the convict should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
The problem that arises is the left's insistence that unborn children, killed for the expedience of their parent's social lives is not merely the medical equivalent of having a mole removed.
Notice I did not say when the life of the mother is in danger, nor did I say in case of rape or incest. I said normally healthy unborn children, who, if left alone, would become people, who ironically upon birth, suddenly are bestowed with constitutional rights.
If you can not understand that, then there's no point in continuing this debate.
[...] http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/gb…kles-abortion/ [...]
“I’m glad it’s so clear-cut for you, Mike. Unfortunately, I can’t leave my soul in the umbrella stand when I come into work in the morning.”
Typical liberalism which makes law by constitution and living as free people impossible.
I couldn't believe it either. My roommate watches L&O religiuosly, and every once and a while I'll try to get through an episode – until the conservative bashing starts, then I leave the room – but this episode wasn't full of the typical rabid right wingers the L&O characters love to shake their heads at. I am still amazed!
You are far from alone on this.
very well said!
Europe and America are apples and oranges on the subject of this and almost everything else. The most important reason is that there are hardly any children there. A declining birthrate will do a lot to keep your stats down.
Another thing is the lack of independence of adolescents. I've spent time in France and I can tell you that I was years ahead of my French sisters who were 18 and 21 in independence and self sufficiency. They couldn't do anything on their own and they rarely did. I don't know how they would even find a way to get a boyfriend, let alone have sex. Most of my other friends who also exchanged said the same thing: "I thought I was rooming with a 12 year old!"
And I don't think abstinence only teaching is a joke. And if it is, expecting a 16 year old male to put on a condom is equally comedic. Or believing that a 15 year old girl is going to remember to take her pill every day is also hilarious. I think all three have the same amount of failure if there is not a strong parental presence in the home.
As long as the pro-life message gets out, then I could care less when the L&O producers were motivated by morality or money.
[...] See the original post here: ‘Law and Order’ Tackles Abortion [...]
On that note, Andrew Klavan explains why those who support abortion often are "pro-Big Government":
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aklavan/2009/10...
And it came out that the guys who killed Matthew Shepard didn't do it because he was gay, they did it because they needed drug money.
Abstinence does work. If a person abstains from drinking alcohol they will not get drunk; if a person abstains from using drugs they will not get high; if a person abstains from sexual intercourse there will be no pregnancy. Abstinence education will not work as long as the liberal power structure, which includes all aspects of pop culture, not only encourages young people to explore their sexuality and give in to their most base urges, but also actively ridicules the very idea that people should try to control those urges. Next, pardon me while I chuckle about being more like Europe. Here is a list of what European ideas and values have given to the world since the Enlightenment: The French Terror, racial slavery, racial imperialism, scientific racism, Jewish pograms, WWI and WWII, Nazism, Fascism, and Marxist/Communism, racialized/negative eugenics, the Holocaust, the murder of perhaps over 100 million people by Communist ideologues.
And since the 1960s, this country has been trying to be too much like the Europeans, not too little. I know teaching people to be responsible, to practice self-control and to actually have a little shame when they engage in stupid behavior is a foreign concept to many liberals in this day and age, but that is what being an adult is all about. But then again, fully self-realized adults do not always need the government to come to their aid and take care of them. And if more people acted like real adults, then there would less need for the nanny state government.
When people ask why I'm pro-life, I say one phrase:
"Because I believe in the rights of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
That usually shuts them up.
By giving a little (i.e. adopting the Euro system for limiting the above-mentioned), you WILL have less abortions in this country by a huge number. And isn't that the point?
Uh, no, Andrea, it's not the point. The point is to recognize and uphold the true human dignity of each individual.
Planned Parenthood ahd SEICUS have had full access to the curricula of our public schools for more than forty years, with little result in slowing either out-of-wedlock birthrates or abortions. They have succeeded, however, in introducing many young people to venereal diseases which only used to turn up in brothels in exotic seaports.
BTW, have you looked at European birthrates lately? They are in the fast lane to self-extinction.
That's why this L&O episode has ticked of the abortion industry:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102603...
Intentionally or not, the show is an ad for why being pro-life makes perfect sense.
Ah MovieBob,
We poor conservatives haven't yet evolved into the exalted being of pure light energy like you; we still have to put on our pants one leg at a time.
Agreed!
Lovely story!
You "dislike" abortion? Don't you think you should have a little stronger word about your feelings about murdering a human being than simply "disliking" it?
And don't child murder advocates (or those who claim to just "dislike" it) ever get tired of spewing forth the same tired old arguments? They're not even arguments, they are nonsensical statements meant to cause false guilt.
I love how you conveniently forget that if you look up any pro-life/crisis pregnancy center in the nation, they all offer help both mother and the child, whether through referrals, counseling, meeting of practical needs like clothing, etc.
Who are you to judge? In your view then, we should just let all criminals go free? Because it seems to me the entire legal system is based upon what you call "judging" – as though such judgments are wrong in themselves. Some things are morally right, others morally wrong. There is nothing wrong with saying that murdering a baby is wrong. If you call it judging, so be it.
I call it maintaing a civilized society.
Ah, American conservatives, able to watch a program and admire the effort put into depicting both sides of a controversial issue, and doing so fairly well.
I agree with your statement that:
"The moniker "pro choice" implies that people who are anti-abortion are anti-choice."
After all, you can 1) keep your child, 2) put it up for adoption or 3) kill it. All three are choices. The labels we use are at best misleading and at worst outright false. But I'm not sure there are better ones, or ones that could be easily put into practice when talking about this issue.
"Who am I to judge?"
The biggest cop-out line ever invented. While I agree that we should never judge the moral value of the individual, we can and must judge the moral value of their actions. God knows, I'm far from perfect in that regard myself, but our own imperfection does not prevent us from drawing a line and stating that some things, such as abortion, are wrong.
Killing a child AFTER it is born?
Didn't Obama defend this practice while working in the Illinois Senate?
Regarding the first half of your statement….. good luck with that. It's never worked, and it's not likely to. In the meantime, more of your precious so-called "humans" will be aborted while you holler from your bully pulpit.
Regarding the second half. I didn't say we needed to mimic Europe in every socio-political way. What I said was that their method of sex education clearly works better than ours does. A sign of intelligence is when you can put away your personal prejudices and recognize a good idea when you see one… particularly when it involves solving a problem you hold near and dear, effectively.
Oh, and you're right. Europe did all those terrible things. And we invented the Nuclear weapon. And Napalm. And Big Macs. And reality TV. What's worse?
I haven't been watching this show (one of old favorites before it became too pro-liberal-biased), so maybe I'll check it out again. Hollywood should understand that many Americans are sick and tired of their politicizing every entertainment venue that we formerly enjoyed.
Yep. That's why I couldn't vote for him despite all the hype of electing the "first Black President."
On the plus side, some pro-Obama Black voters are now having buyer's remorse:
http://www.urbancure.org/article.asp?idCategory=3...
2010 is going to be VERY interesting.
Agreed — and this goes for most TV. I've already lost interest before I turned on the tube.
There you go, inserting facts.. We already drew the politically convenient conclusions before hearing what the investigators had to say, thank you very much!
Europeans are in the fast-lane to self-extinction? How IS that dollar doing versus the euro, anyway? I know, I know… go forth and multiply and all that junk. It's wrong. We need less people on this planet, not more. And considering that Americans use up way more resources than anyone else, and contribute the most pollution, perhaps we should start with a little self-extinction here, eh? True human dignity involves being well-educated, and religion-based, abstinence-oriented, (along with creationist-theory, etc) "education", makes our kids stupider and they make stupid decisions because of it. Look at the south, for instance. One of the most religiously-dense areas of the country and the absolute pit of human despair when it comes to all of these issues we are discussing. Where are the abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates, and std rates the lowest? SURPRISE! The states with better, secularly-educated kids. There is a time and place for a group of people to admit they are wrong in their approach to solving a problem, but getting right-wing evangelicals to admit they are wrong is like trying to take a chew toy away from a pit bull.
How, precisely, were we trying to be more like Europeans from 2001-2008? Freedom fries, baby.
Abstinence has never worked? Well, let's see. If the goal is not to get pregnant, not having sex will prevent that from happening. It's cause and effect; pretty simple stuff.
*TEACHING* abstinence-based sex ed hasn't worked.
Looks like you and JSBurke are in agreement on that one.
So many generalizations… so little time…
Excellent example of an obvious subject change: "Europeans are in the fast-lane to self-extinction? How IS that dollar doing versus the euro, anyway?"
Sentence two does not support opposition to the theory posited in sentence one.
Also, I know it's the Internet and a certain level of informality is expected, but saying that religion-based, abstinence-oriented, etc. education makes kids "stupider" doesn't help you. Neither does lumping all religions together, or refering to the South as a "pit of human despair" (as if the entire southern half of the United States could possibly all be the same! Many places in the south have much higher standards of living at lower cost with better schools than many places in the north, particularly the NYC area. How do I know? I lived in more than one town in both regions).
They were doing drugs? In that case, maybe the should get reduced sentences.
"able to watch a program and admire the effort put into depicting both sides of a controversial issue, and doing so fairly well."
WHEN, exactly? The thread just above this one is people theorizing about a sinister conspiracy afoot at "CSI: Miami" because a famous person being parodied in a recent episode was in the news for badmouthing the public option months ago. Up above that is a communal gripe-fest about a blasphemous joke on "Curb Your Enthusiasm" which somehow makes HBO "complicit" in some unspecified eeeeevil doings.
Meanwhile, this here is GUSHING praise for "Law & Order" doing the exact same abortion episode they've done four or five times now. It's ALWAYS about a murdered doctor and the current cast is ALWAYS split into "for" and "against" camps, and it ALWAYS ends with a vauge sense of ambiguity – again, it's LAW & ORDER… even the most "clearcut" good-beats-evil episodes make sure to climax with a sullen "yeah but.." from the DA.
In other words, they have problems with leftist crap in shows but if someone shows some fairness to a viewpoint they hold they'll express appreciation for it.
That, in your view, is some sort of blind, Pavlovian response. No wonder people think you're a tool.
So have I. I grew up in the buckle of the bible belt, and luckily escaped. I've seen the kind of harm that that sort of evangelical indoctrination can do to young people, firsthand.
You are correct that there are some very good schools in the south. If we're looking at the top 100 lists, there are about 25 of the top schools in "southern" states…. roughly proportional to the geographic distribution. But if you look at the worst schools…. almost half are in southern states. Public education, as a whole, rates far worse in the south when compared to any other region in the country.
And as far as standards of living go? You will not find ONE peer-reviewed, quantitative poll that puts the south ahead of anywhere else in the country. Even among random polls….. I googled and got about 10 different ones, and they all looked like this: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_bes_sta_to_l...
And so what if the EU has a lower than 2.1 birthrate? Frankly, when has over-population ever improved the quality of life for the population of a country or region? Especially when we are living in a time of increasingly limited resources.
Finally, I'm not backing down from my assessment that evangelical-based education makes children stupider. When I make that claim, I am stating that an educational upbringing that ignores science, emphasizes faith, emotion-based belief, and socially-conditioned bigotry, puts a child intellectually behind a child who has been raised in an educational system where objective, science-based, quantifiable curricula is the norm. The former doesn't prepare our children for a modern world which is increasingly abandoning the outmoded and mystical world of ghosts and goblins. Thank god (pun intended).
[...] Source var addthis_pub = 'vincenzof'; var addthis_language = 'en';var addthis_options = 'email, favorites, twitter, digg, delicious, myspace, google, facebook, reddit, live, more'; [...]
[...] is a great deal that I could write about the most recent episode of Law & Order, “Dignity,” but I think I will simply encourage FT’s readers to view this [...]
[...] to the George Tiller slaying. The episode, titled Dignity, aired a few nights ago, and Guy Benson provides a summary of the episode. It turns out that they presented the pro-life position seriously and without the [...]
Weapons and foodstuff are not inherently good or evil. Only actions and ideas can have moral worth. As to reality TV, last time I checked, those shows actually started in Europe and migrated to America.
Well, if you're a product of it, someone who can't even form a cognitive logical point and instead quickly resorts to ad hominem attacks, begging the question, and appeals to authority over coming up with a salient and proper argument, then you may have a point.
Then again, I was homeschooled and grew up in an Evangelical Church, and I actually know what I just wrote, so maybe not.
Finally! There's a shift afoot in our culture agreeing that pre-born babies are humans too. Thirty years too late. There was an episode of Frasier where Martin says it's funny about birth, one minute the baby's a blob, the next a baby. Blob, baby and snaps his fingers. A baby is a baby, is a baby. All the libs and others who think killing (killing, killing, think of that word) a pre-born baby is a right and good thing are desperately sick. And when one thinks of the procedure of "partial birth" abortion one cannot help but think of the barbaric ritual of child sacrifice. Think of that term "partial birth." What kind of Orwellian world has the left created…
How does abstinence not work? I'm 20-years-old and attending a co-ed university, where people profess it to be "so hard" to stay away from sex. Please. I'm abstaining until marriage, and I have zero desire to stray from that. Haven't gotten pregnant, so abstinence worked there. But those STDs have been such a bother…/sarc
This decision wasn't forced upon me by others, and even though I'm a Christian, that wasn't my main motivation. It was my own personal choice. All it takes is an ounce of self-control, a moral compass, and some self-respect. Are there any moral standards out there anymore? Or is the left going to just continue applauding the fact that they've "liberated" all those horny teenagers from those pesky morals?
The libertarian in you should take umbrage from the fact that the "right" to abortion was created by the fiat of an activist Supreme Court, who "discovered" this amazing new right to kill unborn babies in an "emanation" from a "penumbra" of the Fourth Amendment.
After reading the text of the Constitution and bill of rights as if it was the entrails of a chicken, they proceeded to strike down all 50 state laws regarding abortion, and forbade them from drafting any new ones. They then interpreted their new "restrictions" in such a nebulous manner as to allow abortions for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.
Now THAT's "legislating morality from their ivory towers on high."
Scratch the "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I can't judge others" surface of a "pro-choice" advocate, and the Malthusian core with all its judgements on all the other "human weeds" (Magaret Sanger's term) shows up.
Nice of you to climb out of your elite vacuum chamber to mingle with all of us unwashed hoi polloi. If you stick around long enough, you might be surprised to discover that much of what constitutes your PC worldview is based upon unquestioned assumptions about others.
For instance, my friends from the South will be shocked to learn that they're living in "the absolute pit of despair." That's how they feel about us up here in Seattle.
You might also discover the fact that the best educated students according to every measure are those who are either home-schooled or attend religious-affiliated schools which yes, teach abstinence and other evolutionary theories alongside Darwin's.
Lots of nice big words, but unfortunately, you failed to use them properly. If you read my argument properly, you'd see it was a very logical set of points laid out to support my premise. I used statistics, referenced sources, and any claims that I made (that you mistook for ad hominem) were simply objective observations about the world as it is. Now, can you show me any statistics that prove my argument wrong, or do you want to just keep using your thesaurus?
Well, good for you, but understand that not all of us think that se outside of marriage is bad and evil. It's actually fun and is good practice for future LTR's. I always recoil at the thought of two 28 year old virgins who have "saved themselves" until they got married, only to discover on their wedding night that they are totally physically incompatible. But hey, that's your business, and by all means live your own life. But to counter your argument, I've been sexually active for 24 years (I'm 38) with zero pregnancies or std's to my record, so it IS possible to have fun and not suffer dire consequences.
The reasoning employed in the Dred Scott case in 1857 was identical to that employed by Blackmun in Roe v Wade.
Taney (who was truly personally opposed to slavery and had freed his own family's slaves) argued that as the status of the humanity of the African slave was debated by "reasonable men", and that property rights were clearly delineated in the Fourth Amendment, that the slave-owners right to his property trumped the disputed right to liberty for the slave, and denied states any right to limit it.
Blackmun similarly argued that since there was "dispute" (there really wasn't any, except from abortion proponents who didn't want to acknowledge it) as to the fully-human status of the unborn, that a woman's right to decide for her own body (which he claimed to find in an "emanation" from a "penumbra" of the same Fourth Amendment), trumped any right of the unborn to life, or the state to protect it.
The reasoning employed in the Dred Scott case in 1857 was identical to that employed by Blackmun in Roe v Wade.
Taney (who was truly personally opposed to slavery and had freed his own family's slaves) argued that as the status of the humanity of the African slave was debated by "reasonable men", and that property rights were clearly delineated in the Fourth Amendment, that the slave-owners right to his property trumped the disputed right to liberty for the slave, and denied states any right to limit it.
Blackmun similarly argued that since there was "dispute" (there really wasn't any, except from abortion proponents who didn't want to acknowledge it) as to the fully-human status of the unborn, that a woman's right to decide for her own body (which he claimed to find in an "emanation" from a "penumbra" of the same Fourth Amendment), trumped any right of the unborn to life, or the state to protect it.
…"more of your precious so-called 'humans'"…
What are you, an alien?
I frankly agree that most of the Bible belt are backwards-thumping tards. Growing up Catholic, I was ostracised for being raised by demons. So I don't get along well with most of those kinds of Protestants either. Hey, that gives us something in common!
I agree. Public schools in the South suck. Mostly the black schools, like Miami Edison. Poverty rates for minorties are worse in the South, so I guess that might explain some of the statistics there in the urban neighborhoods where the blacks and other minorities are. Since the Supreme Court ruled that public education systems only need to provide "adequate" rather than "equal" education, the public school kids are learning only enough to perform "adequately" in their roles as employees or workers who serve the higher educated. Anyway, that's why I went to private school, so I wouldn't get beat up. [Actually, my parents chose to make the sacrifice and pay extra money while paying their taxes just for the priviledge of sending me to a "better" school when they could have sent me to public school. And let me know it too. Good enough motivation to do well in school as a kid.]
I must also disagree that a truly faith-based education system discounts ghosts and goblins as the product of superstitious pagan fantasy that has no place in the modern world, teaches tolerance and the value of objective, science-based, quantifiable curricula as the means to understand and explain the world and enrich our lives (which Baby Jesus doesn't have a problem with), while recognizing that fiath is something else that you can't explain, hear or see, but unlike hope distinguishes itself by offering some sort of intrinsic reward value back to the person who believes, by grace or some other means. Or at least mine did.
Already resorting to ad hominem attacks on me. Implying I did not read your arguments and implying that all I did was use a standard research tool to compose my retort. This, therefor implies that I am merely an ignoramus who happens to know how to use tools.
Also, looking over your little links, you link to a websource that gives no details as to methodology of gathering their information. It was a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy, as there is nothing any of us can easily do to retort to said authority and the reason you're pointing to them is that they agree with you. We can't know why they ranked things the way they did, and may even use a methodology that disagrees with some of our base beliefs (IE, many world health surveys penalize the US for not have a socialized medical system, even if overall population wellness is the same).
The ONLY OTHER source you've cited outside your own words, just throws statistics out there and says "we should do things more like Europe and our statistics will be similar." This, of course, ignores the tremendous social, political, and cultural differences between the US and those European countries. In fact, I question ANY study that compares the US as a whole to one specific European country. A fairer comparison would be between the US and all of Europe, not just specific countries. The US is as diverse, if not more so, than the entire European continent. A comparison of the US to individual European countries is like comparing a pizza to an pepperoni, doable, but in the end meaningless due to the very different nature of the two things.
I don't consider fetuses to be humans. That's why we call it a "birthday."
"Sexually Incompatible" ????
I thought the "key" fit in any lock? After all guys put it in places were it was not specifically designed to go… giving the idea of an "incompatible" physiological argument no legs…
As to the only other way you mean "sexually incompatible"–namely the inexperience question–even sexually active teens go through a period of time where "incompatibility" is pronounced and accepted as "normal growth".
So why is it a thought to "recoil" at when considering two healthy adults who choose to wait to express their devotion to each other, and who might actually be unversed in the mechanics of the act?
Seems a bit dishonest to me.
If you have to ask…….
Your obtuse writing style fails to obfuscate the fact that you have yet to obviate the thrust of my argument. Still waiting on those statistics, Mr. Hominem. Oh, and by the way, ad hominem means that an argument is discounted because of WHO the person issuing the argument is. I'm discounting it because of what you've SAID (or in this case, not said). Two different things.
Your second paragraph sounds very familiar, indeed. Forking over major $$ was the only way I could get a decent education in the town I grew up in….
If all faith-based education was like yours, I would have no problem with it whatsoever. It sounds like you got a good one, and your thoughts here show a great intelligence and thoughtfulness. My personal experiences with schools that teach a faith-based curriculum have, unfortunately, been very different than that. They were social issue/crusade heavy, and 3 R's light.
Well, the problem here is that modern medicine is the greatest threat to Malthus' theory. We can prop people up and defy "selection" ad infinitum these days, thus obviating the natural control techniques the he argues were the normal population controls. And in the areas where population goes unchecked… well.. we've seen the consequences. I'm not sure if you were referring to my beliefs in the first sentence, but I certainly don't fit in that category. I'm not personally opposed to abortion in any way. I'm pro-population control, and I have chosen not to have children, personally.
And interesting that you mention Seattle, my hometown. I can't imagine being a conservative and living here. You have my sympathies. But since I grew up in the deep south, I don't feel that I'm making some vacuous claim out of thin air. I fully experienced all of the elements that have led me come to the conclusions that I have about the south… elements which are supported by statistical evidence.
Speaking of which, can you provide any statistical proof that religiously home-schooled children are the best educated?
I don't necessarily see it as "bad and evil," but more irresponsible and emotionally risky. I know myself well enough to realize that I am far too private a person to have sex with someone I wasn't DEEPLY committed to (ie., married to). I put a lot of stock in human emotions, the value of relationships, and classiness, things that I believe have been cheapened in recent decades. The idea that I would one day have to explain to my husband that several other men had that kind of knowledge of me feels so wrong. I'm not looking for a long series of "LTRs", I'm looking for one lifelong marriage, and the decisions I make now will affect that.
And to counter, "I always recoil at the thought" of a 14-year-old being sexually active.
Andrea, peregry is correct. He has countered your argument numerous times and all you've done is mock him and use an extremely flippant tone. What exactly are your "logical points" and your "objective observations"? The term "objective observation" is a fallacy within itself. One of the first things we learned in Research Methods is that bias creeps in one way or another and the best way to control is to be aware of your own prejudices and worldview.
If your main point is that secular education produces more intelligent students (according to the Stanford Binet) or students who achieve higher scores on national tests, you have consistently failed to prove that. The sources that you have cited rate "best schools" on a criteria that ranges from money spent per student to quality of the cafeteria food. Obviously, these factors have little to do with intelligence or achievement. Produce a study where a secular school, a control school and a religious school (all along a similar size and socio-economic background) were studied and the secular school was found to produce students who performed better at a standardized test of intelligence. Otherwise, your sweeping generalization is as faulty and as bigoted as someone who says that blacks are obviously dumber than whites because there isn't a single predominantly black school (over 50% population African American) in the top 25 either
Well, I won't judge your choices as long as you don't judge mine. I don't consider what I've done to be irresponsible or classless, but I also have a much different view of sex than you do. Then again, me having had a lot of it, while you've had none, you must admit that you are basing your opinions on conjecture and theory, whereas I'm basing mine on fact and experience.
And, for the record, I don't for a second regret my first experience at 14. It was the right time with the right person.
http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf
There ya go, sunshine.
I stand corrected on reality tv. Regarding "actions," Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo firebombing, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan…… the list goes on.
I'll need to do a thorough reading on the methods before I can say whether the study is valid and reliable. I also wish that they had studied some private schools with religious bents other than Christian. There are Hebrew and Muslim schools, after all. However, congratulations on manning up and producing a scientific study. I must say though that it's a little strange that you produced a study trumpeting the benefit of public schools over private schools, when 2 hours ago, you posted the comment:
Forking over major $$ was the only way I could get a decent education in the town I grew up in
"And in the areas where population goes unchecked… well.. we've seen the consequences."
Where? I recommend you read Dr Frederick Wertham's 1966 book of essays "A Sign For Cain" (don't worry, he was a big anti-Vietnam War liberal), particularly his chapter on the myths of overpopulation from Malthus through Erlich. To summarize: "overpopulation is not overcopulation."
The most densely populated segments of our globe are usually the wealthiest. Point out to me an overpopulated hell-hole like Calcutta, Rio, or Tijuana, and I'll show you a dysfunctional economic state which drives the poor to congregate where they have a better chance for survival. The poor aren't poor because they have many children; they have many children because they are poor. They will be the safety net for their parents and each other. Italian peasant proverb: "Along with every new mouth comes a pair of hands."
Yes, I have heard the same thing, and I heard it from gay Conservatives that the left is holding up Matthew Shepherd as a martyr when in fact Shepherd was into drugs and went with his killers willingly. This was not a murder that was hate motivated because Shepherd was gay.
You mean, wo-manning up.
Agreed. The post seemingly contradicts my own personal experience, however the public schools in my hometown were so awful that private was the only choice to make, in that I wanted to escape from the southeast as quickly as possible. That said, it was a decidedly secular school (albeit a "southern preparatory academy").
Sure, although the other side of the debate is that overpopulation has less to due with population density than it does lack of resources. The influence of the Catholic church in Africa has had devastating effects to this end. In these resource-poor areas, the lack of birth control (not to mention a Catholic-laden ideology about procreation) has done far more damage in human terms than, say, the slums of a city like Tijuana. At least there, you can still get cheap tequila in abundance. It's a dicey problem, either way you look at it, and one that will become increasingly important to deal with as resources go down and the human population goes up. That's a major reason why I've chosen not to breed.
Some would say that it's actually the Catholic Church's charity efforts that's causing all the dying, because without the foreign aid and other efforts, sick people die faster, those who survive are the fittest, let Darwinism do its work. Not saying I agree with it, but I've heard the argument made and it has a certain cold-blooded logic to it. There's also generations of superstition (totally non-Catholic related) that isn't helping. Ever read about dry sex and how the idea of lubrication is supposed to be the sign of a promiscuous woman? They've been trying to pound that one with science for years with no luck. There was also the public scandal of the recalled, defective condoms in Uganda
It's a huge mess with lots of causes and not many solutions, to be sure. Makes me feel very lucky to live in the country I do.
"I've chosen not to breed."
My Catholic-laden ideology prompts me to stifle the impulse to get snarky.
Your materialist-laden ideology leads you to look at humanity through the wrong end of the glass, and see multi-dimensional economic and human interactions as a two-dimensional cartoons.
Economists like Julian Simon and Hernando De Soto have demonstrated conclusively that the poor of the Third World possess the resources and initiative to transform the moribund economies in which they live, if the "bell jar" which concentrates legitimate commerce to priveleged elites could be lifted. In such countries, rigid economic controls lead most of the actual commerce to take place on the black market. Legitimizing these businesses would triple the GDP's of Third World nations.
But environmental insanity which demands "sustainable development" in the Third World will prevent this from happening. The real "sacrifices" are being pushed onto the poor of the Third World by adherents of Global Warming.
But the Catholic Church fits your narrow little template.
I don't care what their reasons were I am just glad the producers agreed to do this powerful jaw dropping episode. Who wrote it?
To answer your first paragraph, I have decided not to breed. Period.
And lets turn that second paragraph around on you. Are you willing to try and prevent a 12 year old who has been raped and impregnated by her father, from having an abortion? God's plan, and all that? This isn't about my choices. This is about taking theocratic philosophy and trying to make it the law of the land. It was wrong in the attempt to justify slavery. It is wrong in the current Gay rights battle, and it will always be wrong in the battle to preserve a woman's right to choose.
Yeah, it IS a travesty how many of these West Africa countries actually grow enough food, but their dictatorship governments sell the bulk of it off to European nations for livestock feed. Yet another reason to give up meat. The political unrest alone, is cause for total dismay, to say nothing of the religious, racial, and tribal problems that plague that part of the world.
And to address your first sentence….. I hope that that Catholic-laden ideology bit wasn't to imply that it's my "god-given duty" to breed. 'Cos if it was, you can take that patriarchal nonsense and shove it where your priests like to……eh……I won't finish that statement. Too mean.
So, in other words, you qualify any war post-Korea and any legitimate uses of large-scale strategic bombardment as evil? Way to generalize and fail at history and ignore nuisance.
Every one of those things you cited is the typical liberal laundry list of "evil things America has done." Actually, no, I will give you props for remembering the Firebombing of Toukyou, most folks forget that.
However, if you do a little more digging, about the only thing on that list that can truly qualify as "evil" may be the Firebombing, and even that was done in wartime, to an enemy who had done things far worse, and was originally targeted at military targets (but due to Japanese architecture and weather, it spread to become much larger and more deadly than intended).
Another fun fact, all those things you listed can be directly traced to European origins and European Colonialism, and America was left to clean up the general mess. So, explain to me why we should be more like Europe, who pretty much screwed up the world?
Debating with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it's frustrating, and the pig gets annoyed.
Interesting that you chose slavery as an example for your argument. Slaves were considered to be 'less than human" because they were black, so it was okay to own them, sell them, beat them, kill them,etc., because they were just "property." As long as you deny someone his humanity, based on their color or their stage of development, you can do any wrong to them and justify it. Where do you draw the line? Do you become a person at conception? at viability? at birth? at the age of reason? at adulthood? The anti-slavery movement was the really the early equivalent of the pro-life movement.
Andrea, you seem to have difficulty reading simple sentences. Stergeye said, "My Catholic-laden ideology prompts me to stifle the impulse to get snarky". If you need a simpler translation, that means "I am not going to be rude and make ad hominem attacks against you because my Catholic faith demands that I treat you with dignity." You might consider trying that yourself.
I read through this article and comments with interest. However, I didn't find a comprehensive answer to a question that I have to write about for my Ethics class. Can someone who is pro-choice please help me out?
My assignment is to ask someone who is pro-choice,
"What is your position on abortion, and what are your specific reasons (perhaps three or four?) for that position?"
I would really appreciate your response.
[...] Business – Reuters • Dem Split Over Abortion Imperils Health Bill – The Washington Post • ‘Law and Order’ Tackles Abortion – Breitbart These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]
[...] Business – Reuters • Dem Split Over Abortion Imperils Health Bill – The Washington Post • ‘Law and Order’ Tackles Abortion – Breitbart These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]
[...] ‘Law and Order’ Tackles Abortion [...]
[...] Big Hollywood gives a recap of the episode here. [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.