« Add Yourself to the Pro-Life Category | HomePage | Pro-Punishment Conservatives »
25/07/2005
Pro-Punishment Conservatives
Once again, the anti-abortion folks come out of the woodwork to bolster their argument that they are pro-life. I will continue to disagree with their assertion, because they show no action to prove it. As I have pointed out in my previous post the majority of conservatives come down on the pro-death side of eight issues I have shown.
Well, I would propose that they are not pro-life, but pro-punishment. This is easy to see in the case of the death penalty, conservatives argue that the criminal deserves death for his crime. This is a pro-punishment argument, not a pro-life argument. Someone who is truly pro-life believes that a life is sacred and no matter what the history of that life is. Criminals can still use their life for good, because they still have free will. A person that believes in the sacredness of life could not take a life no matter what the crime, because God loves every person and who are we to choose when the life should be taken. Arguing that the person must pay the penalty for the crime makes no sense to a pro-life person, because the law may be a God given law, but it is a human made penalty. The penalty can be changed. Not only that, but surely even the most simple minded person should be able to see that a person serving a life sentence suffers every day in remembering the crime and pain they caused, while the person put to death no longer thinks about it.
But, the other issues can also be framed in the pro-punishment framework. For example, abortion is also a pro-punishment stance for radical right conservatives. We should remember forty or fifty years ago before abortion and birth control God punished women for having sex out of wedlock. The punishment was pregnancy. The radical right longs for the day when God’s punishment is still meted down on those who have sex out of matrimony. These radical conservatives not only want an end to abortion rights, but they also want an end to access to birth control for those who are not married. Of course they fight these battles one at a time and this isn’t the top of the agenda. But look at the cases we know about. Conservatives oppose the distribution of condoms in public schools. The Catholic Church opposes birth control of any kind even for married people. The evidence points to the pro-punishment view of this issue. Women should be forced to bare the fruit of their womb because it is punishment for having sex when they should have refused. Never mind the details of each case where women are raped, or coerced into having sex. Of course, the women are punished as God wants, but because of man’s nature men are not held responsible.
Other issues can also be seen in the same light of pro-punishment conservatives. The poor are lazy and they deserve the lack of material goods as punishment for not working hard enough. Of course the tax issue can also be viewed in this light. Taxes are like fines, which of course are a form of punishment. Why should God-fearing Americans be punished with taxes? The idea of funding a government for the good of all people makes no sense to pro-punishment conservatives. So, if you take taxes to help the poor you are punishing the wealthy for working hard and rewarding the poor for being lazy. This logic falls apart when you look at the reality of the situations where the poor get trapped into economic strata as a very recent study has shown.
And, the idea of universal health care falls into this pro-punishment idea that dates back to the days of Jesus. Unfortunately the radical right falls on the opposite side of the fence from Jesus here. Jesus tells us that sin has nothing to do with the illness that one suffers. But, the radical right has been heard saying in the 1980s that homosexuals were being punished by God for their lifestyle. Health care for all would give healthcare to those that God wants to suffer based on the radical rights witness. The weak are weak because God punishes these people.
And, who can forget War. Obviously war is a punishment enacted on another nation. In the case of Iraq the Radical Right conservatives in the White House decided that Saddam Hussein deserved to be punished for having nuclear weapons, even though he didn’t have them. Surely this is more pro-punishment and less pro-life, because going into a war everyone involved knows that lives will be lost. Then they decided to punish Joe Wilson for telling the American people that Iraq didn’t have any nuclear weapons, or even the uranium needed to make the weapons. Obviously the punishment theme runs deep here.
It seems to me that at least the radical right conservatives are not pro-life, but instead they are pro-punishment and they use the pro-life label to hide their true intentions.
politics, abortion and religion
11:10 Posted in Culture, Politics, Religion | Permalink | Comments (23) | Email this | Tags: religion
Comments
"Not only that, but surely even the most simple minded person should be able to see that a person serving a life sentence suffers every day in remembering the crime and pain they caused, while the person put to death no longer thinks about it."
So you're pro-suffering?
Add in the reality of prison rape, and it sounds like you are pro-rape!
Further, if you are "anti-life" for selectively ending life, then would you be "anti-freedom" for selectively ending freedom? Is anyone who believes in incarceration anti-freedom?
Or do you only redefine words when it is convenient for you?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 25/07/2005
I am merely pointing out the difference in the punishments. Death is reserved for the worse cases, however the suffering i.e. the punishment is actually worse for the person who lives the longest in guilt.
BTW, death row inmates can not even intereact with each other, so they are less likely to be raped. Similarly isolation for these worse case offenders could prevent rape if you cared about these people. Also, prisoners who are in jail for theft can be raped, does that mean that you would like this as a punishment for all prisoners. Maybe you would like the gay guards to rape the prisoners who haven't committed murder?
You make such lame arguments...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 25/07/2005
"I am merely pointing out the difference in the punishments. Death is reserved for the worse cases, however the suffering i.e. the punishment is actually worse for the person who lives the longest in guilt."
So you are a pro-Suffering Liberal?
"BTW, death row inmates can not even intereact with each other, so they are less likely to be raped."
Exactly my point. That is one way in which life sentences are worse than death sentences."
" Similarly isolation for these worse case offenders could prevent rape if you cared about these people."
Well, in a perfect world all crimes could be preempted, but we do not live in that world.
I'm not sure what sort of isolation you are planning. Certainly mental isolation is a form of torture..
" Also, prisoners who are in jail for theft can be raped, does that mean that you would like this as a punishment for all prisoners."
No, a mandatory death penatly for prison rapists, along with constance electronic surveillance of all inames would seem to do the job much more humanely.
"Maybe you would like the gay guards to rape the prisoners who haven't committed murder?"
How in the world did you reach that conclusion?
"You make such lame arguments..."
Is that how you repsond to critics of your scientific work, too?
BTW: Where have you published? Just curious.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 25/07/2005
This has nothing to do with what I personally believe.
And, of course, every time you loose an argument you make a personal attack. At least I know how to keep score...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 25/07/2005
Also, Yes I have publications and patents as well.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 25/07/2005
What personal attacks? Attacking your style of debate is not a personal attack!
It has everything to do with what you believe, because I am looking for consistancy. If you are arguing inconsistantly, then I rest knowing that you are incoherent and meaningless. But if you are arguing consistantly, I want to understand your beliefs.
Nice way of misdirecting and not answering the questions, btw.
PS: Under the inventor name "Michael Forbush" at the USPTO?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 25/07/2005
This entire argument was about how anti-abortion folks call themselves pro-life. Somehow you are assuming something about how I may or may not feel about suffering.
Also, I am not a liberal as you may think of. I am certainly moderate on most things. Calling me a liberal would be name calling in conservative circles. I may have refered to myself as a progressive or in desire for change, especially in the current administration. But you should also be aware that I have also supported John McCain and other moderate Republicans. So I consider the staement: "So you are a pro-Suffering Liberal?" as a personal attack that has nothing to do with the argument.
And, of course the statement: "Is that how you repsond to critics of your scientific work, too?" is a blatent personal attack that has nothing to do with the current argument.
If you are interested you will find the papers I have published after 1998 or so on the web. Earlier ones may require you to go to the library.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 25/07/2005
First, I am delighted that you find "liberal" to be a personal attack. It means that term has been so discredited that even people with liberal positions (pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty, anti-Iraq-War, etc) shy away from it. You made my day.
"And, of course the statement: "Is that how you repsond to critics of your scientific work, too?" is a blatent personal attack that has nothing to do with the current argument"
You are right that it is tangential, but it is not a personal attack. I was wondering if you are using a lower standard of civility here than in your other professional work.
Why are you so shy about giving a citation to something you wrote? While I am academically much more junior than you, I haven't been shy about exposing my work for critical review online.
Or is "you can find it on the web" without a URL rigoruous enough for the sort of publishing you have done? :)
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 25/07/2005
PS: Once again you've misdirected, dodging my questions and concerns to talk about something unrealted.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 25/07/2005
What does my work have to do with anything that we are discussing here, unless you intend to use it to attack me in some way? My work is in a totally unrelated field, hence you can find it if you want to put in the effort. However, if you plan to use it to create some sort of attack why would I offer it to you that easily.
You have continued to explain your politics as war theory and you have proclaimed yourself as my enemy. Why would I make anything easy for you?
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 26/07/2005
"Why would I make anything easy for you?"
I don’t think he’s asking you to make things easy, I think he’s asking you for constistancy in your arguments. You have spent much time quibbling over minor details and semantecs of words, while he is asking for a clear set of rules with which to engage. This is not unlike playing a game... where one side continually attempts to change the rules, not so much in their favor, but so that their opponent has no chance to score.
Posted by: Brendan | 27/07/2005
Dan,
When there is an argument one side can take a position and the other side can point out the inconsistancy of that argument without putting up their own position. It is certainly possible to disagree with both the left and right political parties in this country issue by issue. In doing so this does not mean that one is inconsistant. It only means that one does not agree with either party in entirety.
That being said, as I have said before I am a moderate libertarian, so arguments formed to fight liberals, or extreme libertarians hold no sway here. I am for less government intervention especially in social issues where the government should have no interest. However, I am more fiscally conservative in that my tax dollars should be spent on projects that are well thought out.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, I have said this over and over in my postings. I have voted Republican in the past and I like John McCain, but George W Bush is destroying the country through lies and deception and it is my job as a patriot to point it out to those who care about our country.
Now, I hope that helps in your issues with my inconsistancy...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 27/07/2005
Actually, it doensn't. It misdirects again, ignoring my queries.
Your criticism is invalid. I was demonstrating it by reducing your criticism to absurdity. Your attempt to protect your criticism from criticism by denying that it is a position is an attempt to dodge refutation.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 27/07/2005
And you should say that you attempted to reduce my criticism to aburdity, however you have failed. If you really want to continue down this track you should restate your case...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 27/07/2005
Misdirection, again!
Why are you so shy? When your scientific peers ask you about your published work -- assuming you have any in reputable journals -- do you say 'You may be a competitor! You may want to find something wrong with what I said!' ?
What a scientific attitude! Persue the truth -- if it's a friendly truth.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 27/07/2005
It's funny how you call "misdirection" like it is a foul in a game of basketball. However, you have never explained what you mean by any so-called misdirection?
If you want to see misdirection examine the White House!
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 27/07/2005
"Misdirection" is a standard name for a logical fallacy. I assumed that, as a man of science, you would be familiar with such a term.
Of course, I've yet to see any citations for any patents or works by you, so who knows! :) Maybe you're out of practice!
Misdirection is described, among other places, at
http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite/words.html#MD
You've yet to show that the same standards you apply to proponents of death sentences (that they are "anti-life") do not fall into absurdity (because by the same standard, anyone supporting prisons might be "anti-freedom").
You've also yet to give a citation for any published work or patent of yours, in spite of claiming time and time again that they exist.
If they exist, why not cite them?
If you don't want to cite them, then why bring them up in the first place?
If they are too trivial to be worth citing, then why brag about them?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 28/07/2005
PS: What's your view of pre-crime death sentences to preempt another crime? I'm opposed to them, but pre-crime sentences would make your criticism that capital punishment makes it impossible to reform moot, as reformation is not the goal, but preemption.
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/31/pedophiles-as-the-enemy.html
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 31/07/2005
Dan wrote:
"If they exist, why not cite them?"
They have nothing to do with this discussion.
"If you don't want to cite them, then why bring them up in the first place?"
I didn't bring any of my papers or patents up in the first place. You asked me if I had published and I answered your question affermatively and that was it.
"If they are too trivial to be worth citing, then why brag about them?"
Trivial is a matter of opinion. They have nothing to do with this discussion. They have a lot to do with other discussion with people who understand the details of my work. Obviously they would be trivial to an ignorant fool. But to a physicist they would be interesting.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/08/2005
Dan wrote:
"What's your view of pre-crime death sentences to preempt another crime?"
Obviously they are wrong. I assume you are talking about pre-emptive attacks such as the war in Iraq. Well, it turns out that just aboput every reason put forward for that invasion was wrong. Therefore we found Iraq guilty, killed thousands of people and we were wrong on the guilt all along. Obviously the exact thing can happen on a smaller scale as well.
Finding anyone guilty before a trial is pre-judgement, or prejudice.
Of course for those who want to play God and know the status of a person before hand I am sure they are willing to jump at the chance to kill Arabs, because they must be guilty of terrorism, right?
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/08/2005
Forbush,
"I assume you are talking about pre-emptive attacks such as the war in Iraq."
Actually, I was talking about predator child molesters. As the link made clear.
"Finding anyone guilty before a trial is pre-judgement, or prejudice. "
That is true by definition, and so meaningless.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 01/08/2005
And, your assumption that balls of cells are people also makes the abortion argument mute and meaningless, but you do it over and over again...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/08/2005
"And, your assumption that balls of cells are people also makes the abortion argument mute and meaningless, but you do it over and over again..."
It would, if I said that or believed it.
Find anyplace where I claim that spherical conglomerations of cells are people.
Alternatively, find any place where I personhood begins at conception.
I don't believe either.
I would ask if you jump to conclusions and trust assumptions so much in your published work, but you seem hesistant to open it up to blogger peer review ;)
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 01/08/2005
The comments are closed.