Leave it to the pros
Aug.30, 2007 9:23 am |
Industry watch |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
HAHA!
Not funny. Totally not funny.
Well, I thought it was funny…but my sense of humor is warped.
i don’t get it. Can somone please esplain.
This is extremely disrespectful. I mean…to an alarming degree. You’re comparing about half the country to a murderer. You’re implying that half the country approves of and would themselves kill a bunch of college students. You don’t see where that’s really not funny?
“You’re comparing about half the country to a murderer. You’re implying that half the country approves of and would themselves kill a bunch of college students. ”
@Erin: Of course she is comparing half the country to a murderer, she thinks “pro-aborts” ARE murderers. However, she’s not saying we would kill other college students, she’s implying that instead of killing just 32 measly college students, we kill millions of fetuses/babies each year.
That’s what she’s going for. It’s similar to other political cartoons I’ve seen in which they have the KKK and a pro-choice woman with the PC woman saying “Amateurs” to the KKK.
Oy. Sensationalism is sooooo annoying.
Hello my Rae,
How goes the new place?
Your interpretation was correct. Although I wouldn’t have marginalized the 32 college students by calling them “measly”…their deaths are tragic too.
But your point is correct…we see abortion as murder and the 1 million number makes 32 pale in comparison. If you want to rid the world of young people (spoken to the gun man) you could do a better job by donating to Planned Parenthood.
I still thought it was funny…in a twisted sort of way.
“we see abortion as murder and the 1 million number makes 32 pale in comparison.”
Which is precisely why I said “measly 32 college students”, because to you, that’s nowhere near as abhorrent as 1,000,000 fetuses/babies. It’s still “unfortunate” but at least it wasn’t Auschwitz…oh that’s right, I mean “Aurora”.
Richard Jewell died earlier this week. He – like myself – was 44.
If you don’t remember who Richard Jewell was, he was the security guard who was blamed for the deadly bomb blast at the Atlanta Olympics. His parent’s home was burned. Someone killed his dog.
It turned out that the real bomber was pro-life activist Eric Rudolph of the Army of God.
It’s kind of like denying women medical care in Aurora. These people don’t care how many REAL LIVE people they kill as long as they can save the sacred uterine goo. That’s the nature of terrorists.
Laura, time for some table turning.
First of all, aside from the Army of God nutjobs, no one supports clinic violence. My babysitter was badly injured in the Atlanta bombing (she was the one showed again and again telling the photographers to go skrew themselves), so I have seen first hand the affects of terrorism. We don’t support that man, and we don’t support violence.
We have told you that probably 20 times, yet you insist on being willfully ignorant.
Then, you insist upon building up some strongmans. Let’s stop you right there, pro-lifers care about born people.
Finally, you degrade human life by calling it “uterine goo”. You know what, Laura, I hope you never have to go through the pain of seeing your child dead within your body, or the agony of miscarriage. I hope you never have to explain to your children that you’re sorry but the baby they’re expecting has died. I hope you never have to deal with your two year old patting your belly and happily saying “baby!” months after that baby has died.
If you do, I hope you don’t have to deal with some calous, depraved person belittleing your experience in order to further their warped political agenda of selfishness.
Lauren, do you know where the term ‘white elephant’ gift originated from?
In Siam, which is now Thailand, white elephants were extrordinarily rare. If one was found, it was automatically the property of the king. No other person was allowed to use the animals. When the king wanted to punish somebody, he would ‘give’ them a white elephant. The person would be unable to use or ride the elephant due to the laws- but would still have to feed, clean up after, and care for the elephant.
Sounds kind of like a pro-life view. Someone ‘does something wrong’ (has sex without the intent to reproduce). So they are punished with a ‘white elephant'(18 years or more of taking care of, feeding, and cleaning up after a child that they didn’t want).
We have told you that probably 20 times, yet you insist on being willfully ignorant.
Then, you insist upon building up some strongmans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ignorant?
Building up “STRONGMANS?”
…are you trying to reference strawman arguments, lauren? As in the logical fallacy?
Yeah, strawmans, I made a typo.
I’m having a really hard time not yelling and screaming right now because you selfish women yes YOU, Erin and Laura, so flippantly dissregard life. I post here mainly as a ministry, but I am finding it harder and harder to patiently and lovingly respond to the filth that is spewed.
Nothing I can say is going to change your hardened hearts. I don’t see children as any sort of punishment. I am appalled that you would take that away from what I have said. I believe that we have a responsibility to the children given to us, but I certianly do not see that responsiblity as a punishment.
I do now know what has happened to you in your lives to make you so angry and bitter, but I will pray for you both. I read a good saying yesterday that I think applies here.
“When you throw a stone over a fence, it’s the hit dog that squeals.” You’re here, and you’re squealing. The truth is written on all of our hearts, and it yells loudly when spoken to.
I appologize that I have been short today. It is because of this I realize that I can no longer continue posting. I do not have the spiritual maturity to sow seeds in such harsh soil and I feel that I am being counterproductive.
It was not so long ago that I was like you, and I am evidence enough that no one is too far for God to call back into his flock. I struggled for far too long trying to forgive myself. Only through our Lord Jesus do we have peace.
He calls us to repent and be baptised and to follow him and confess him amongst men. I pray that I can bring God’s word in love to even the most hardened heart. I know that it is only through God that I may have strength. I have relied too long on my own faculties, and been far too long out of prayer. Perhaps, with prayer, I will be able to return and continue to show God’s light. Perhaps my calling on his site has ended.
I’ll end this with a question, that I hope will be thought about with sincerity.
What do you love about Jesus?
_________________________________________________
I will also tell you my answer.
I love Him because he put on the sackcloth of our suffering before He clothed Himself in magisty. From the beginning of time He was aware of our suffering, and came upon His people to bear the cross that in justice should be ours. He understands our petitions, and hears our cries.
He has given Himself for us, and moreover helped to lift us up out of our current dungeons. He has given not only eternal life, but renewed our life on Earth. I no longer walk in darkness, I for know that I have burried my flesh with Him, and may now walk with Him. Though I fail, I know that He has not left me. He gives me strength to continue walking even when I have failed. He comforts me and strengthens me to bring glory to His name.
Here are some verses of hope.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (resurrection).
God Bless.
lauren, I agree.
Erin, Laura,
I realize the beginning of my post was quite harsh. I’m sorry. I softened as I wrote and as God spoke to me, but I neglected to remove the beginning of my post.
I am truly sorry for being insulting.
The cartoon is pretty silly – it was thinking, feeling people who were at Virginia Tech, people with relationships, memories, emotions, desires, experiences, etc.
Doug
Rae,
Which is precisely why I said “measly 32 college students”, because to you, that’s nowhere near as abhorrent as 1,000,000 fetuses/babies. It’s still “unfortunate” but at least it wasn’t Auschwitz…oh that’s right, I mean “Aurora”.
While it is true that more babies are killed than the 32 students, it’s unfair for you to make it sound like we care more about the million than the 32. All of those deaths are horrible. Yes the numbers of abortion are astonishing, but the real horror is not the amount, but the apathy.
Outrage at the 32, silence for the millions…
It’s the fact that these deaths are condoned, cheered on, and legal that make it more horrifying.
Wouldn’t you be horrified if the world said that it was perfectly okay that those 32 students were murdered because their lives were unwanted by their killer? Which would be more horrible, the deaths, or the lack of concern?
Lauren,
No Way!!! You can’t leave. I love your posts!! It would be counterproductive for you to leave. I look forward to seeing your awesome insight when you post.
I’m enraged too.
It’s hard to believe that anyone could be so callous to call a life created in a mother’s womb “goo”. From this and other statements Laura has posted, one can only conclude she has some serious issues that need to be dealt with.
Laura the number is 1800-GET-HELP. Put it on your speed dial.
Shame on you Erin for comparing a child to a white elephant. Where did you learn this ridiculous argument??? Some freaked out dope smoki’n hippie college professor???
You both cheapen life to zero.
Sounds kind of like a pro-life view. Someone ‘does something wrong’ (has sex without the intent to reproduce). So they are punished with a ‘white elephant'(18 years or more of taking care of, feeding, and cleaning up after a child that they didn’t want).
Where do you get the number 18 years? Nobody has ever said that you had to “keep” the child for 18 years. Not even 18 months…just 7 months in the womb. 7 months. Why that number is so insurmountable in all of your minds is beyond me…but it remains, 7 months. Not 18 years!
it was thinking, feeling people who were at Virginia Tech, people with relationships, memories, emotions, desires, experiences, etc.
Doug
Well weren’t they lucky enough to have 20 some years in which to think, feel, have memories, emotions, desires and experiences…
Perhaps they all should have been aborted and saved the pain of being murdered later?
Doug, perhaps I have misunderstood what you wrote, but what I am hearing is that it’s okay to kill animals and babies because they don’t have specific emotions or memories that we are aware of? That we should mourn more for those at Virginia Tech then the millions of innocents that have been killed before they even had a chance at life because those at Tech had more experience with life then unborn children?
Along the same thread, since a 9 year old does not have as many memories or relationships as say a 23 year old, it is more painful and much more saddening when the 23-year old dies?
Now that is silly.
Thanks for the kind words, Sandy.
I’ll probably hang around a bit. I just get so frustrated with things sometimes, and I don’t like my response.
That post to Doug was from me, for some reason the computer didn’t save my info.
Please do not leave Lauren, you are such a blessing to this site and to everyone on it!
Where did lauren say she was leaving??
lauren, I feel like jumping ship at times too. Please don’t leave! I give up! This is what our callous society is doing to people. Ever since Roe passed. What began as a lie, has snowballed into many lies. Women are callous today. Crotch goop? That’s the worst. Right up there with parasite. Women and men have hardened hearts when it comes to the unborn. Sorry to ramble. I’m typing super fast!!
It’s ok, Heather. It is just *so* hard to stay friendly and loving in the face of statments that are so vile.
I try, but today I didn’t try very hard. I think I’ll probably stay around, but I don’t think I can respond to the things that are completely rude and uncalled for.
Lauren,
I just emailed you…
SH…you haven’t been around. Doug’s whole argument is:
A: Everything is valuation. His is correct, ours is wrong.
B. Fetus’ can be called babies, but that doesn’t mean the same as when a baby is born. Fetus’ don’t think, have no brain, have no memories…in his words, fetus’ are not sentient. (I have explained numerous times that he means salient, but his valuation is that I am wrong and he is right)
C. While the fetus’ is a human being, it does not have a right to life until it takes it’s first breath (somehow a first breath suddenly makes you sentient in his world)
D. A woman’s body trumps a fetus’ right to life IF the baby is INSIDE the woman. In the case of Siamese twins bodily autonomy doesn’t count even if one twin is unwanted because (get this) the other twin is on the OUTSIDE of the other twins body.
E. People who believe in God, are only pretending and actually believe in myths, fairytales and superstition…just like cavemen believed that there was a god of thunder.
F. bodily autonomy is a greater right than life.
G. Whether a person/baby/fetus is wanted is what determines it’s value. It has no inherent value just by virtue of existing.
Maybe now you understand why Lauren is tired. That compounded by the goo comment..and last weeks reference to the unborn as crotch goop…
Lauren,
Laura only says these things for the shock value. When you are shocked, she wins. She can’t win any other way because her arguments are sort of weak…to say the least.
So don’t let her shock you. Frankly after Less, Diana, Doug and Enigma have explained their point of view, nothing shocks me anymore.
Oh and I neglected to mention that Doug will argue that it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a full person or not, it still doesn’t have the right to the mothers body. Claims personhood is irrelevant.
BUT, in the case of the Siamese twins, it suddenly becomes relevant.
He’s good at that…inconsistencies…
lauren, I know the feeling. I just saw your post. Please don’t go. Maybe a small break? What really enrages me, is that we have a bunch of selfish, self absorbed, Holly weirdos promoting the slaughter of the unborn. Just one thread above. These are people with oodles of $$, and they could all afford to adopt. I saw Cindy Crawford on Tyra Banks the other day. She and Tyra were quipping about how they would both be too “fat” to model today. Come on girls. Don’t you have bigger fish to fry? We have world hunger. Why don’t one of these celebs. get off their dead duffs and help! I’m tired of Aniston whining about losing Pitt. She wanted to become the next Rita Hayworth. Sorry Jenn. Not in this lifetime. I’ll leave it at that. They blatantly promote killing unborn children. SELFISH, SELFISH, SELFISH!
Ahhh, thanks for saving me the trouble MK. Caught the “crotch goop” comment last week; I had to leave the site. Pretty awful!!
No prob. SH…I’m sure Doug will say I have misrepresented him but you can read all of his posts for yourself…I just don’t get it…but then, that’s my valuation!
SH, that was awful. I had trouble stomaching that too.
Lauren- you don’t seem to be able to grasp that a lot of the statements that you make seem just as distasteful and vile to us as ours do to you.
Why don’t these celebs. donate $ to pregnancy crisis centers instead of PP?
Thanks for the email, MK.
That’s what I don’t get, why the need to be “cool” and devalue others with terms like “crotch goo”. What point does that make other than that you are misinformed about biology and a very cold person?
A) Crisis Pregnancy centers are often funded by religious insititutions and can even lie to women about their pregnancy to discourage abortions. Also, many crisis pregnancy centers don’t provide birth control, STD screening, and gynocological services. PP seems like a much more efficient donation that targets many aspects of reproductive health.
Haha, Erin, that was great!
Oh, wait, you weren’t joking.
Lauren, vile, distasteful???? Please point out to me ANYWHERE that she has said anything that comes close to “crotch goop.”
Erin, I don’t make statements implying that your children have the worth of soap scum.
I don’t taunt your right to bodily auntonomy as the “right against cooties” or something equally stupid. I am very, very rarely even minutely disrespectful to the choicers on this board. You can not say the same about your actions.
I have for the most part ALWAYS spoken with respect to other people’s ideas. I’m refering to some of the actual ideas that many PLers promote. The fact that I consider Christianity bunk doesn’t help, I’m sure. I just find many of the ideas fetus-centric and (uh oh, here it comes) mysogynistic.
Yes, Erin, we throw things like crotch goop out there all the time. There is a difference between sharing ones views and simply being putrid for the sake of being putrid. You have never heard Lauren, Bethany, Jill, Val or I speak out of hate. You may have heard things you didn’t like, been hurt by stuff you’ve heard, but it was never done from hate. You know it Erin. And if you want to side with people who use phrases like crotch goop and uterine goo after she has been told repeatedly that two of the woman, Lauren and Bethany, on this site have just suffered miscarraiges in the last month, and that it is very hurtful for her to refer to their children with these terms…then so be it. Just remember how many things we could have said to you on this site, being pro-life that we have never nor would ever say, because they would hurt you…
Your call…
OH, but PP would NEVER lie. Most truthful organization on the planet.
Erin, do you find it interesting that all of the stories of these “lying crisis pregnancy centers” can not be proven. Infact, they have been disproven.
However, the logic goes that if you say it loud enough and enough times, it becomes true.
Also, how can a corporation claim to offer comprehensive women’s healthcare and NOT offer prenatal care.
cpc’s exist to help women carry to term. They do not pretend to offer medical services. They offer referals and support.
Calling PCers baby killers isn’t being vile and distasteful? When all we have done is express our perceptions and opinions, and having it downright rejected as filth and ‘blashphemy’ isn’t being extremely judgemental?
Then we have Sally and Doug comparing the unborn to toenails. UUGGHH!
LOOK AT THE CARTOON AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE.
Tell me that you find nothing dehumanizing or malicious in this cartoon. Tell me with a straight face that this cartoon is not made to demonize pro-choicers.
What should we call it? That’s what I prefer.
Erin, there is a difference between disagreeing with someones ideas and being rude and obnoxious.
I’m not saying that you are the latter, only that there are some on your side who have been. For our part, I have yet to see someone ride into town and start a tirade invovling the words “evil murdering sl*t”. The furthest I’ve seen it go is refering to abortion as murder and women who abort as selfish.
None of us, not Bethany, not Lauren, Not Jill, Not Val, has EVER called you vile, a baby killer or blasphemous. You may have heard those things. We may say that abortion is murder, but that is very different from saying “Erin, you murdered your baby”…one is arguing a point and the other is destroying your core…if you can’t see the difference, then what else can we do. You want us to refrain from saying that we think abortion should be labeled as murder and that it has been mislabeled as a “right” to spare your feelings. You tell us over and over and over that the abortion doesn’t bother you. So us saying abortion is murder shouldn’t bother you either. Bethany and Lauren on the other hand have said that their miscarriages bother them a lot, so to call their babies uterine goo is just plain foul!
Grrrr. I am in the middle of Anthro. Stop distracting me with stuff that makes me mad.
Tell me that you find nothing dehumanizing or malicious in this cartoon. Tell me with a straight face that this cartoon is not made to demonize pro-choicers.
Erin, do you consider the term “uterine goo” used to describe a early term child to be a respectful term coming from someone who wishes only to respectfully express their opinion?
How about calling someone stupid because they disagree with you?
I think the cartoon is in poor taste, but it is acurate in stating that abortion has killed far more than a deranged gunman.
However, there is no factual basis for calling a person at any stage of development “crotch goo”. Especially since, as it has been pointed out, Bethany and I have recently miscarried. I doubt you would like someone you loved who had recently died refered to as “sh*t bag” or some equally disgusting term.
What does PC mean? To me it means Pro Death. Is there a hidden meaning? It’s one or the other. Respect life, or discard it as you wish.
Rae? Doug? Hal? Help me out here. I’m outnumbered and do not have time for all of these arguments.
Heather- Are you OK?
Erin, it’s not a gang up. I have been outnumbered here too. I was bashed for being too hard on Laura. However, that should have been okay with me to be ridiculed by her. It didn’t feel too good.
Erin, yes. Look. I know your abortion was pretty recent, so I’m gonna lay off. Besides, I’ve got to go to work. One gone. I just hate to see someone like you follow Laura’s lead.
PS Sorry. Probably did get a little carried away *extinguishes fire on keyboard* sorry!
Hypothetical:
You’re sitting around in a fertility clinic when the big quake hits. You heve just enough time to get out of the building with;
a) An 8-month-old baby, OR
b) A nitrogen tank containing 800 human embryos.
Which one are you going to save? ONE baby or 800 embryos? It’s all about valuation…
Oh, it’s fine Heather. I thought you seemed a little sharper and more venomous than usual, I thought maybe something was wrong. Glad I was wrong!
Erin, I am between the bathroom and computer. Trying to do hair and make up. Cooling off. Tonight I have to go to work, and there will be few people there that I don’t really get along with. My anxiety tends to build on these days. Perhaps I took it out here. Didn’t mean to. It will all be better after a couple Xanax. LOL! *peace*
Some of the really negative things about children written here really make me sad. I remember when I once had such ideas. I am not proud to say that, but it is the truth.
My mother always complained about how much trouble we were, and how unfair it was for her etc. etc. For a long time, kids scared the daylights out of me, even made me feel angry. She always said I should have a career, said over and over not to trust a spouse. I learned to dislike children and view them as a burden.
Years later I learned she had earned a full four year college scholarship, but her dad wouldn
Hippie (hugs) Thank you for sharing your story…your understanding words I hope will touch others hearts. I have seen a very similar situation in my cousin who has 5 brothers and sisters, but her mother treats them like a burden. She is a lawyer and is too busy to raise 6 children and keep her job too. She had a nanny for a very long time who kept them for her during the day. Now my cousin doesn’t want anything to do with children..and she told me my life would be ruined if I got married and had kids. Now, she’s still in college – 8 years later, still isn’t happy (sometimes sends me a letter telling me how depressing and horrible things are). She keeps finding boyfriends and saying “he’s the one”…but it never works out, and I always know it won’t beforehand, but don’t know how to help her. She has been crushed so many times. She does view children as a burden, a burden, and (as she put it before I got married) “screaming little brats”. And guess who gave her that impression? She has tried to commit suicide over 3 times, and feels worthless. Why can’t people see that the reason they are unhappy is many times because they don’t even feel loved by their own mothers? Or that their family did not make them feel as though they were unconditionally loved?
Oh, Bethany how horrible! I feel so sorry for your cousin. Sadly, I think alot of women have been made to feel the same way. Everything around us tells us we must be *more* than just a mother. It’s easy to see how her mother would have gotten that message.
“While it is true that more babies are killed than the 32 students, it’s unfair for you to make it sound like we care more about the million than the 32. All of those deaths are horrible. Yes the numbers of abortion are astonishing, but the real horror is not the amount, but the apathy.
Outrage at the 32, silence for the millions…
It’s the fact that these deaths are condoned, cheered on, and legal that make it more horrifying.
Wouldn’t you be horrified if the world said that it was perfectly okay that those 32 students were murdered because their lives were unwanted by their killer? Which would be more horrible, the deaths, or the lack of concern?”
But you know, that is exactly what this comic is doing, it is cheapening the lives of the 32 lives lost at V-Tech by comparing it to the vast numbers killed by abortion. It’s awful to do something like that and in very poor taste. By doing that, you are in a sense saying that the 32 who died don’t matter because it was only 32 who died compared to the thousands killed by abortions everyday. That’s what I got out of this comic, MK, and that fact that some of you think it’s funny or “right” are cheapening those lives even if you think you aren’t.
“‘Erin, you murdered your baby'”
@MK: I distinctly recall a few occasions in which Jasper, Jill and HisMan have made a remark very similar to that around the time Erin began posting.
However, it is very possible they apologized.
Erin, sorry I’ve been too busy lately to come to the rescue. Boy, they seem to forget our old friend Hisman pretty quickly. I should have kept a list of all the vile things he said to me directly and to all of us generally. He very certainly did say I murdered my children. Fine, it doesn’t bother me. He’s a nut job and not worthy of any response other than to provoke an entertaining exchange.
Others here, Bethany, Heather, etc., seem okay. we just disagree.
Got to jump on a plane. Best to all of you.
If we believe that abortion is murder, how are we supposed to say it? Are we going to have to start walking on egg shells now? Perhaps a pro-abort site would be a better place to be for some, i’ve heard you can be as vile as you want and nobody cares.
@Rosie: You can say abortion is murder all you want. I think it’s rude to say, “You murdered your child.” to somebody.
It’s kind of like how people have said my mom is a babykiller because she used IVF in order to conceive me…not something I consider to be “fair”.
Fair enough Rae.
@Rosie: Thank you. Now I know (before anybody says anything), nobody on here has explicitly called my mother a “babykiller”, but they have alluded that they think this way by stating that IVF = abortion and by that, IVF = murder as well.
However, I’m not going to lie, other people (often overly self-righteous high schoolers) have gone as far to call my mom a murderer and say that I shouldn’t even be here. Of course, they are the minority, but it has happened enough for me to be…defensive.
Love the cartoon, right on! Those pro-choicers will show ya how to kill…..
Oh Jasper, you’re such a swell guy.
why thank-you Rae!
…btw: good-luck with your new apartment, school, etc.
@Jasper: Thank you very much. I’m quite excited myself. I move out Saturday. My sibling and parentals are on their way out to Rapid City to take said sibling out to school. It shall be…interesting, to see how things go. :)
Rae, 7:08p, said: “But you know, that is exactly what this comic is doing, it is cheapening the lives of the 32 lives lost at V-Tech by comparing it to the vast numbers killed by abortion.”
No, the cartoon is equalizing them, Rae.
Hippie, 6:35p: Touching and excellently written post.
Lauren, 1:03p: Well, my goodness. As one of the pillars of this site, you’re not allowed to leave, sorry. I’ve lost my temper here, too, but that isn’t a sign I don’t belong.
I step back every now and then and realize my comments are getting too harsh, whether or not I have a right to get snippy.
And I reorient myself to the fact that we’re debating the most important topic of our time and try – again – to focus on that.
So please don’t leave. Your input is SO VALUABLE, and you are a friend. If you leave, what would be accomplished except the loss of an intelligent and articulate pro-life voice?
@Jill: It’s just my perception, that you are taking a tragedy that killed 32 people and considering that *not* as tragic as something that kills 4000 babies/fetuses each day.
However, as I stated, that’s just my perception.
Rae, you’re perceiving as a pro-abort, so that’s what you’d like to think I’m thinking. But it’s not. Children killed by abortion are as valuable and tragic as 19-year-olds killed by a gunman. As I said, equally awful.
You on the other hand freely admit you think quite the opposite, which is another kind of tragic.
*ahem*
Jill…I think both are terrible, in fact, I would consider the deaths of 4000 vs the deaths of 32 to be worse. I was sitting here, pondering about it, and as I thought about it, it also appears to be cheapening the deaths of the 4000+ fetuses/babies killed each day, considering that the “pro-choice” woman in the comic appears to think “32” is an amateur number…perhaps that woman also thinks that 4,000 deaths per day is an “amateur” number? That *that* number could be “better”?
Overall, however one perceives or look at this comic, it is very distasteful, but whatever, I think I’ll be done discussing it now, because I see nothing good coming out of it (mostly because you’re back to calling me a “pro-abort”, but whatever).
Finally, you degrade human life by calling it “uterine goo”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny-
Apparently not everyone considers every wad of cells a human being any more than I do. (Isn’t this Jill’s home state?):
Illinois Gov. Blagojevich Signs Measure Allowing Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Via the Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report:
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) on Tuesday signed into law a measure (SB 4) that prohibits human cloning but allows several kinds of stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, the Chicago Tribune reports (Garcia, Chicago Tribune, 8/29).
The law will require the Department of Public Health to further develop and administer the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute, which was established in July 2005 by an executive order issued by Blagojevich and has since distributed $15 million for stem cell research. The law also will establish an oversight committee of seven members appointed by Blagojevich to oversee the institute’s grant decisions.
This cartoon is blatantly offensive. It’s not funny at all. It implies that everyone who supports abortion supports murder and treats any loss of life as a joke.
“it was thinking, feeling people who were at Virginia Tech, people with relationships, memories, emotions, desires, experiences, etc.”
MK: Well weren’t they lucky enough to have 20 some years in which to think, feel, have memories, emotions, desires and experiences…
Perhaps they all should have been aborted and saved the pain of being murdered later?
Nope, not saying that. I mean that in an abortion or miscarriage, there is not the loss of the attributes of the college kids and there is not the suffering of their family members, friends, etc.
It makes a huge difference – and you don’t see any substantial amount of sentiment for it to be legal to kill college kids.
Is there any doubt of the sadness and suffering of the families, alone, of those kids? I’d rather have any number of unwanted pregnancies be ended versus having somebody like Cho do what he did.
Doug
SH: Doug, perhaps I have misunderstood what you wrote, but what I am hearing is that it’s okay to kill animals and babies because they don’t have specific emotions or memories that we are aware of? That we should mourn more for those at Virginia Tech then the millions of innocents that have been killed before they even had a chance at life because those at Tech had more experience with life then unborn children?
Nope – animals have emotions and can suffer, etc. “Babies” – gets into the pointless argument about “baby” or not for the unborn. I would much rather see a women end an unwanted pregnancy versus have the baby and put it in a dumpster, etc.
……..
Along the same thread, since a 9 year old does not have as many memories or relationships as say a 23 year old, it is more painful and much more saddening when the 23-year old dies? Now that is silly.
Actually, you don’t know that. A given 9 year old could have more than another given 23 year old. Anyway, those are both born, sentient, thinking and feeling people.
Doug
MK: Doug’s whole argument is:
A: Everything is valuation. His is correct, ours is wrong.
MK, you rascal, there you go again misstating things. You have me thinking that your argument is weak enough that you feel compelled to put words in your opponents’ mouths. Yes – this argument boils down to valuation, but I have never said mine is “right” in any absolute way. I leave such pretenses to others. I want to leave the valuation to the woman who is actually pregnant.
……..
B. Fetus’ can be called babies, but that doesn’t mean the same as when a baby is born. Fetus’ don’t think, have no brain, have no memories…in his words, fetus’ are not sentient. (I have explained numerous times that he means salient, but his valuation is that I am wrong and he is right)
No, no, no – you mean “sapient,” anyway, not “salient.” If you look up what “sapient” means, you’ll see that it hardly applies even to born babies. “Sentient” is the deal – being sensate, conscious of sense perceptions, being mentally aware, etc. Non-sentient beings cannot suffer. I also don’t say that fetuses are not sentient, period. Late enough in gestation I think that almost all fetuses are sentient. I am saying that to a point in gestation they are not.
And – nope – my valuation is that your preferences don’t mean enough to take away the freedom that women have in the matter. “Baby” or not is subjective; not worth arguing about.
……..
C. While the fetus’ is a human being, it does not have a right to life until it takes it’s first breath (somehow a first breath suddenly makes you sentient in his world)
Preposterous. Right to life is attributed at birth, yes. Society draws the line at birth. Doesn’t have to be that way in any external or absolute manner, but it is that way. Breathing, per se, is not what makes the difference. And no – there you go again – it is not breathing that makes us sentient. It is having enough brain and nervous system function that does.
……..
D. A woman’s body trumps a fetus’ right to life IF the baby is INSIDE the woman. In the case of Siamese twins bodily autonomy doesn’t count even if one twin is unwanted because (get this) the other twin is on the OUTSIDE of the other twins body.
You are beginning with a false premise there. There is not right to life for the fetus, first of all. I know you wish it were otherwise, but it’s the fact that it’s not granted that has you upset with the situation in the first place. You are also deliberately misstating things about the Siamese twins. Neither twin has bodily autonomy from the other, since they share the body. It is not the case that one is on the outside of the body.
……..
E. People who believe in God, are only pretending and actually believe in myths, fairytales and superstition…just like cavemen believed that there was a god of thunder.
True to some extent, but I do not say you are pretending the believe as you do. I accept that you do.
……
F. bodily autonomy is a greater right than life.
Nope – you’re just making that up, out of whole cloth, as they say.
……..
G. Whether a person/baby/fetus is wanted is what determines it’s value. It has no inherent value just by virtue of existing.
:: applause :: There, ya got one right. “Value” is in the eye of the beholder, yes. It’s a process that occurs in sentient minds. If there was “nobody” to have desires and thoughts of the good/bad/right/wrong of the moral realm, there would be no value. It’s conscious phenomenon of the mind; it does not exist outside it. Here, the “mind” could be that of a god or gods or other “higher” beings than us earthly people, if they exist.
Doug
Heather: Then we have Sally and Doug comparing the unborn to toenails. UUGGHH!
:: laughing :: Well, sorry about that, Heather, but the point is that a definition can often be used in less-restrictive and more-inclusive ways, or as more restrictive and not including as much.
Doug
MK: Oh and I neglected to mention that Doug will argue that it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a full person or not, it still doesn’t have the right to the mothers body. Claims personhood is irrelevant.
Massively and incredibly false on your part, MK. If the fetus would be a full person, then it would have right-to-life attributed, and this argument would not be, or would be quite different.
Doug
MK: I’m sure Doug will say I have misrepresented him but you can read all of his posts for yourself…I just don’t get it…but then, that’s my valuation!
Yes, you have misrepresented many things. You are unwilling to “get it,” and you feel compelled to misstate things.
Doug
MK, you rascal, there you go again misstating things. You have me thinking that your argument is weak enough that you feel compelled to put words in your opponents’ mouths. Yes – this argument boils down to valuation, but I have never said mine is “right” in any absolute way. I leave such pretenses to others. I want to leave the valuation to the woman who is actually pregnant.
Doug, what you’re not understanding is that simply by your stating that “its all about valuation”- that is an absolute statement- and it is actually implying strongly that you are correct and we are wrong about our premise.
Your premise is that it is all about valuation. Our premise is that it is NOT all about valuation.
Therefore, when you continue to say that that is the *true* premise that *we should acknowledge*, you are saying indeed that what you are saying is externally true, and what we are saying is not. See what I’m saying?
Preposterous. Right to life is attributed at birth, yes. Society draws the line at birth. Doesn’t have to be that way in any external or absolute manner, but it is that way. Breathing, per se, is not what makes the difference. And no – there you go again – it is not breathing that makes us sentient. It is having enough brain and nervous system function that does.
If that is true, Doug, then why don’t you think that right to life should be attributed to those in the womb who are viable? Why are you satisfied with what society says? If an unborn child in the second trimester is sentient, then why does it deserve to die, just because society says so?
Erin: Rae? Doug? Hal? Help me out here. I’m outnumbered and do not have time for all of these arguments.
Erin, the more the merrier, right? Okay – let me see what people were saying to you.
Here’s one from Lauren:
Erin, do you consider the term “uterine goo” used to describe a early term child to be a respectful term coming from someone who wishes only to respectfully express their opinion?
Often, there is the intent to inflame with the “goo” comments, etc. However, that is not spinning things any more than to say “early term child.” For many people, a child is most definitely after birth, not before. I would say that real respect for other posters is using terms that all can agree upon, or that at least the two people arguing can. Otherwise it quickly devolves into semantic runarounds. “Blob of cells” is another one, but heck – we’re all a “blob of cells,” looking at it one way. Terminology is not the real argument here, and saying deliberately provocative stuff doesn’t achieve much in the long run, whether it’s “goo” stuff or personifying the unborn far beyond what is true.
……..
How about calling someone stupid because they disagree with you?
It depends – most often it’s a matter of opinion and then it’s cruel to do so. However, there are matters of physical reality where it can indeed be stupid to maintain other than what the truth is.
……..
I think the cartoon is in poor taste, but it is accurate in stating that abortion has killed far more than a deranged gunman.
Yep, no question about it. But raw numbers are not the whole story. There is the comparison of the unborn to the college kids, come what may.
……..
However, there is no factual basis for calling a person at any stage of development “crotch goo”. Especially since, as it has been pointed out, Bethany and I have recently miscarried. I doubt you would like someone you loved who had recently died refered to as “sh*t bag” or some equally disgusting term.
There is also no factual basis for calling the unborn “persons,” since personhood is a societal construct that is deemed to be present at birth. I’m sorry that you and Bethany had miscarriages. A very sad thing.
Doug
You are beginning with a false premise there. There is not right to life for the fetus, first of all. I know you wish it were otherwise, but it’s the fact that it’s not granted that has you upset with the situation in the first place. You are also deliberately misstating things about the Siamese twins. Neither twin has bodily autonomy from the other, since they share the body. It is not the case that one is on the outside of the body.
Doug, they don’t always share one body. Many times there are two separate bodies which have been fused together. These particular siamese twins may share 1 or 2 organs, but they have separate bodies which happen to be “glued” together. Why should they not be given the right to bodily autonomy, just like every other human being?
Rosie: If we believe that abortion is murder, how are we supposed to say it? Are we going to have to start walking on egg shells now?
Rosie, murder or not is not a matter of your belief. The law is what defines it. You evidently do not like abortion, hate it, wish it would not happen, etc. That is what is true, then, for you – your feelings about it. You may think it’s wrong, wrong, wrong, but “murder” that does not make.
Doug
Often, there is the intent to inflame with the “goo” comments, etc. However, that is not spinning things any more than to say “early term child.”
For many people, a child is most definitely after birth, not before.
So what? Why does it matter what another person thinks?
Does it matter if I think the sky is red, when it’s really blue? Does that change reality? Of course not!
Arg, you are so frustrating when you say that people’s opinions can change reality—and then especially, when even though you say this, and yet you don’t give us that same right as you give those who agree with you!
See, Joe Schmoe can say “I don’t think a fetus is a person”, and you say, Ok I respect your opinion, and I agree. Your beliefs about the personhood of the fetus is valid.
I can say, “I do think a fetus is a person”, and you say, Oh but you can’t say that. Because others don’t agree with you.
“You are beginning with a false premise there. There is not right to life for the fetus, first of all. I know you wish it were otherwise, but it’s the fact that it’s not granted that has you upset with the situation in the first place. You are also deliberately misstating things about the Siamese twins. Neither twin has bodily autonomy from the other, since they share the body. It is not the case that one is on the outside of the body.”
Bethany: Doug, they don’t always share one body. Many times there are two separate bodies which have been fused together. These particular siamese twins may share 1 or 2 organs, but they have separate bodies which happen to be “glued” together. Why should they not be given the right to bodily autonomy, just like every other human being?
If they share the organs, then they cannot be separated leaving both alive, no? They just don’t have bodily autonomy from each other in that case. Neither one is really (completely) outside the body of the other, though each may have some of “his” body separate.
Society considers them to be two separate persons, right, even though they share a body to some extent. I would not think that society would let one separate if it meant the other would die.
Doug
If they share the organs, then they cannot be separated leaving both alive, no? They just don’t have bodily autonomy from each other in that case. Neither one is really (completely) outside the body of the other, though each may have some of “his” body separate.
Society considers them to be two separate persons, right, even though they share a body to some extent. I would not think that society would let one separate if it meant the other would die.
Stop hanging on “Society’s” coattails, for goodness sake. Please! Be man enough to state your own opinion, without relying on “what society says” to form your opinions for you. Honestly, that just seems so cowardly. I’m not trying to be mean, but it is just so frustrating!
Can you not see right and wrong outside of society?
When slavery was legal, and society said , “IT IS OKAY” to have slaves…would you have just gone along with it, because society deemed certain people non-persons? How would you have argued it was wrong? After all, personhood was NOT given to these people by SOCIETY.
I think you would have supported it, soley because society said it was okay! If you wouldn’t, please explain to me how that would be consistent with how you argue things today.
“Often, there is the intent to inflame with the “goo” comments, etc. However, that is not spinning things any more than to say “early term child.”
For many people, a child is most definitely after birth, not before.”
Bethany: So what? Why does it matter what another person thinks? Does it matter if I think the sky is red, when it’s really blue? Does that change reality? Of course not!
Well good grief, Bethany, in that very same post I said: “However, there are matters of physical reality where it can indeed be stupid to maintain other than what the truth is.” We all define the sky as blue, don’t we? This is one of those things that is true for all of us. (And I know it can be other colors at times, but please – I think you know what I mean.)
…….
Arg, you are so frustrating when you say that people’s opinions can change reality—and then especially, when even though you say this, and yet you don’t give us that same right as you give those who agree with you!
Geez – that’s not what I say. If there is an external reality, like with physical existence, the color of the sky, etc., then I do not say that people’s opinions can change that. Such things are not defined by opinion as are the good/bad/right/wrongs of the moral realm.
……..
See, Joe Schmoe can say “I don’t think a fetus is a person”, and you say, Ok I respect your opinion, and I agree. Your beliefs about the personhood of the fetus is valid.
I can say, “I do think a fetus is a person”, and you say, Oh but you can’t say that. Because others don’t agree with you.
It’s not up to us as individuals whether personhood is present or not. It’s a societal construct, it’s an idea, a granted status. The unborn are living human organisms that most times will continue to develop – I think we can agree on that. I would say that ol’ Joe is right because of society’s position, but it’s not up to him to say yea or nay.
Maybe we’re also missing each other as to how we define “person.” I go with legal personhood – where the right to life is attributed, where the full status of legal human being is present.
I don’t have a problem with you thinking of the unborn as “people,” but don’t think it’s any meaningful argument to simply state it. Late enough in gestation, I think there is some personality there, myself – I feel that at that point some of the characteristics that most full-term born babies have are present, that some of the mental qualities that make us who we are have already become fact. So personally, I feel that most of the unborn late in gestation are tending toward being “people,” or have made it, to some extent, but that is not the real personhood that is in question in the abortion argument.
Doug
Okay I have to go to homeschool the kids, but before I go, I just gotta say:
“Preposterous. Right to life is attributed at birth, yes. Society draws the line at birth. Doesn’t have to be that way in any external or absolute manner, but it is that way. Breathing, per se, is not what makes the difference. And no – there you go again – it is not breathing that makes us sentient. It is having enough brain and nervous system function that does.”
Bethany: If that is true, Doug, then why don’t you think that right to life should be attributed to those in the womb who are viable? Why are you satisfied with what society says? If an unborn child in the second trimester is sentient, then why does it deserve to die, just because society says so?
Society does see it in its’ interest to protect unborn lives after viability (as per the wording in the Roe decision) – most states have restrictions on abortion after viability. This is only to an extent, though. If right to life would be attributed, then what happens if the woman is in real danger due to the pregnancy? I realize it’s a comparitively rare situation, but the restrictions we have address this – allowing for abortions for the woman’s sake while restricting abortion in most cases.
I’m satisfied with this because I have no problem with it being that way. Actually attributing right to life would be opening up a huge can of worms, as they say. I also don’t see society saying that the unborn “deserve to die.” I see society leaving it up to the woman, in the time of gestation when abortion is not restricted.
It’s quite late in the second trimester if sentience is present, and after viability abortion is not the only solution for ending the pregnancy, most times. If delivery is induced and somebody else ends up caring for the baby, I do not have a problem with that at all.
Doug
“MK, you rascal, there you go again misstating things. You have me thinking that your argument is weak enough that you feel compelled to put words in your opponents’ mouths. Yes – this argument boils down to valuation, but I have never said mine is “right” in any absolute way. I leave such pretenses to others. I want to leave the valuation to the woman who is actually pregnant.”
Bethany: Doug, what you’re not understanding is that simply by your stating that “its all about valuation”- that is an absolute statement- and it is actually implying strongly that you are correct and we are wrong about our premise.
I am correct that it’s all about valuation, but I have never said that my moral position on abortion is correct in any external or absolute way. There is no such thing. I more value the freedom that women have in the matter, and you more value the unborn lives. I am not saying you are “wrong” to feel that way, and again – nor am I right in any way that “has” to be. I favor leaving the choice up to the woman, because when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon.
……..
Your premise is that it is all about valuation. Our premise is that it is NOT all about valuation. Therefore, when you continue to say that that is the *true* premise that *we should acknowledge*, you are saying indeed that what you are saying is externally true, and what we are saying is not. See what I’m saying?
Yes, but you actually are going with valuation, even if you say it comes from God.
Doug
“If they share the organs, then they cannot be separated leaving both alive, no? They just don’t have bodily autonomy from each other in that case. Neither one is really (completely) outside the body of the other, though each may have some of “his” body separate. Society considers them to be two separate persons, right, even though they share a body to some extent. I would not think that society would let one separate if it meant the other would die.”
Bethany: Stop hanging on “Society’s” coattails, for goodness sake. Please! Be man enough to state your own opinion, without relying on “what society says” to form your opinions for you. Honestly, that just seems so cowardly. I’m not trying to be mean, but it is just so frustrating!
I don’t think you’re trying to be mean, Bethany. I also don’t think you need to feel frustrated here. You asked:
Why should they not be given the right….
Well, that is what society does or does not do. If you want my own personal opinion, you are always free to ask, and I will give you the best answer I can.
In the case where they share organs, then no, I do not feel that one should be allowed to separate from the other if the other would die. Do I desire that the will of the one is placed that much over the will of the other? No.
……..
Can you not see right and wrong outside of society?
Most definitely, and I don’t always agree with society.
……..
When slavery was legal, and society said , “IT IS OKAY” to have slaves…would you have just gone along with it, because society deemed certain people non-persons? How would you have argued it was wrong? After all, personhood was NOT given to these people by SOCIETY.
Honestly, I don’t think I know just how I would have felt, had I grown up in those times – and I feel that would apply to all of us to an extent. As I feel now, I would say that the slaves were thinking, feeling people, and that the desire of the slaveowners to have the will of the slaves subverted to their own is not justification.
……..
I think you would have supported it, soley because society said it was okay! If you wouldn’t, please explain to me how that would be consistent with how you argue things today.
It’s possible I would have supported it – again, I can’t know for sure how I’d have been. There is no guarantee I’d be the same as now, just as there’s no guarantee for any of us. Our environment makes a lot of difference and times were certainly different back then.
I do not feel that slavery is right. Again – thinking, feeling people, and it’s not worth it to me to have their desires trumped by those who would own them. Likewise, it’s not worth it to me to have the will of pregnant women trumped by those who would tell them what to do with their pregnancies.
Doug
It’s possible I would have supported it – again, I can’t know for sure how I’d have been. There is no guarantee I’d be the same as now, just as there’s no guarantee for any of us. Our environment makes a lot of difference and times were certainly different back then.
Doug, it astounds me. You really aren’t sure enough of your morals to know whether you would stick by them in different environments, through different lifestyles, cultures etc.
You really do seem to believe that had you grown up in a different society, you might be a different person than you are today, and your morals would bend to society’s bending. And that might be true. You might be the type of person who would…it certainly does seem so.
I understand and agree that to a certain extent, our experiences do shape the way we see things in life. But I do not believe that our principles should be that easily swayed. Like the song says, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”…it’s so true. That’s why I adhere to the principles of the Bible, principles which are solid and never changing, and which are life affirming.
I know that if I lived in the time of slavery, I would have absolutely opposed it. I would have known instinctively that it was wrong, just as I instinctively felt a churning in my heart when I first heard about abortion, and I first learned that a mother would turn one of the most nurturing environments and safe havens for a child in the youngest stages of life, into a death trap, which the baby could never escape. I instinctively knew that was unfair! My mother never had to tell me abortion was wrong. I knew it from the moment I heard about it. I couldn’t believe at the time that a person would actually do such a thing to someone so small and helpless. That is exactly the way I would feel if I heard about a black man being hanged for no real reason. I would have fought it, and I would have supported going to war against it.
Suppose that you were in the time of slavery, and you did oppose it, against all odds.
How would you go about trying to convince others of their error?
Or would you even try? Would you just go along with society, regardless of the fact that you disagreed, because you feel that you have to bend according to what society wants?
I’m satisfied with this because I have no problem with it being that way. Actually attributing right to life would be opening up a huge can of worms, as they say.
Wasn’t it “opening up a can of worms” for the black people to be given the status of personhood, after they were denied it for so long?
I also don’t see society saying that the unborn “deserve to die.” I see society leaving it up to the woman, in the time of gestation when abortion is not restricted.
That is the same as saying that the unborn don’t deserve to live unless they are wanted, which is in essence saying that they deserve to die, IF they are deemed unwanted or undesirable. What is the difference?
Most definitely, and I don’t always agree with society.
What don’t you agree with society on, and do you try to change it?
It’s quite late in the second trimester if sentience is present, and after viability abortion is not the only solution for ending the pregnancy, most times. If delivery is induced and somebody else ends up caring for the baby, I do not have a problem with that at all.
Doug
So you freely admit that after a certain point that a baby is sentient and can feel pain. Why do you then still support abortions after that point, if it is the sentient mind that makes all the difference?
I do not feel that slavery is right. Again – thinking, feeling people, and it’s not worth it to me to have their desires trumped by those who would own them. Likewise, it’s not worth it to me to have the will of pregnant women trumped by those who would tell them what to do with their pregnancies.
What if society changed it’s perspective? What if 90 percent of America said that the fetus is just as much a human as you or me AND abortion was illegal. Would your feelings on that change accordingly?
If not, why not?
And would you fight for abortion to become legal again?
Yes, but you actually are going with valuation, even if you say it comes from God.
I disagree. Truth comes from God. “Valuation” is human.
I am correct that it’s all about valuation,
I do not agree with this statement. I do not agree that it is all about valuation. And you cannot prove it to me, so your opinion and my opinion on that are equal in validity, correct? Because they are both only truths that we self created, right?
but I have never said that my moral position on abortion is correct in any external or absolute way. There is no such thing.
There is another absolute coming from you, Doug! It just drives me nuts that you will keep saying that all beliefs are self created and then say that there IS NO SUCH THING as an external or absolute way. That very statement itself is an oxymoron, as it is an absolute statement…don’t you see? Oh don’t you see, Doug?
I more value the freedom that women have in the matter, and you more value the unborn lives.
Now, who was talking about MK misstating things? I absolutely do NOT value the unborn MORE than a woman. I value them the same. They are equal and both are worthy of life and liberty!
I am not saying you are “wrong” to feel that way, and again – nor am I right in any way that “has” to be.
It certainly comes across that way to me!
Okay,…you keep saying that you aren’t here to try to say that your position is any more valid than our position. If that is true, then what is the point of posting anything here, contradicting the things we say? It appears to me that you are trying to persuade (which there’s nothing wrong with- that is what I am trying to do as well). But if you’re going to try to persuade, please don’t be deceitful about it.
If not that, what is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish by being here? Is it just fun to debate and that’s why you do it? If I can just understand what you are trying to accomplish by your debating here, I would perhaps understand you better.
“It’s possible I would have supported it – again, I can’t know for sure how I’d have been. There is no guarantee I’d be the same as now, just as there’s no guarantee for any of us. Our environment makes a lot of difference and times were certainly different back then.”
Bethany: Doug, it astounds me. You really aren’t sure enough of your morals to know whether you would stick by them in different environments, through different lifestyles, cultures etc.
The point is that one’s morals might have been different had one grown up in another environment. Had you been born many years ago, and/or in another country, you might see things very differently too. I know how I feel now, but that isn’t saying that I’d necessarily feel the same way back when – and the same is true for everybody: our environment makes a lot of difference.
……..
You really do seem to believe that had you grown up in a different society, you might be a different person than you are today, and your morals would bend to society’s bending. And that might be true. You might be the type of person who would…it certainly does seem so.
I think it’s just being honest. I think you have a need for some “faith,” and had you grown up in a Muslim country, for example, I think you could very well think differently than you do now, and believe it just as fervently.
……..
I understand and agree that to a certain extent, our experiences do shape the way we see things in life. But I do not believe that our principles should be that easily swayed. Like the song says, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”…it’s so true. That’s why I adhere to the principles of the Bible, principles which are solid and never changing, and which are life affirming.
Okay, you like some absolutes in there.
……..
I know that if I lived in the time of slavery, I would have absolutely opposed it. I would have known instinctively that it was wrong, just as I instinctively felt a churning in my heart when I first heard about abortion, and I first learned that a mother would turn one of the most nurturing environments and safe havens for a child in the youngest stages of life, into a death trap, which the baby could never escape. I instinctively knew that was unfair! My mother never had to tell me abortion was wrong. I knew it from the moment I heard about it. I couldn’t believe at the time that a person would actually do such a thing to someone so small and helpless. That is exactly the way I would feel if I heard about a black man being hanged for no real reason. I would have fought it, and I would have supported going to war against it.
I certainly accept that you feel that way. You see the unborn as “someone,” etc.
……..
Suppose that you were in the time of slavery, and you did oppose it, against all odds. How would you go about trying to convince others of their error?
Or would you even try? Would you just go along with society, regardless of the fact that you disagreed, because you feel that you have to bend according to what society wants?
Again, no way to really know. I might try to convince others that the slaves were thinking and feeling people, just like the slaveowners themselves.
Doug
“I’m satisfied with this because I have no problem with it being that way. Actually attributing right to life would be opening up a huge can of worms, as they say.”
Bethany: Wasn’t it “opening up a can of worms” for the black people to be given the status of personhood, after they were denied it for so long?
Heck yes (and a good point there) – but it was quite a different can. The slaves weren’t inside the body of a person.
……..
“I also don’t see society saying that the unborn “deserve to die.” I see society leaving it up to the woman, in the time of gestation when abortion is not restricted.”
That is the same as saying that the unborn don’t deserve to live unless they are wanted, which is in essence saying that they deserve to die, IF they are deemed unwanted or undesirable. What is the difference?
That “wanting” or valuing positively is where the “deserve” comes from. You are right – society isn’t valuing the unborn any certain way, to the point where restrictions kick in, and is leaving it to the pregnant woman, first and foremost. Society isn’t saying yea or nay.
Doug
“Most definitely, and I don’t always agree with society.”
Bethany: What don’t you agree with society on, and do you try to change it?
Go Bethany! Good line of questioning. I do vote, sometimes, not every time, and there’s some input there. But I don’t feel so strongly against anything that I feel compelled to take other action. Not that I don’t care, but that I don’t think much can be done. I don’t want for people to suffer, but also don’t think it’s human nature that there won’t be suffering – it’s not our nature to constuct perfect systems or even always look out for our personal long-term good.
I really dislike people going slow in the fast lane, but is there any reasonable chance that law enforcement efforts would be substantially devoted to lessening it? I doubt it, enough that I end up not worrying all that much about it – just one more “imperfect” thing in a society that I don’t think is too bad overall.
One thing I really don’t agree on – the finances of the US gov’t, which I consider a long-term disaster in the making. Our system is predicated not only upon so much debt, but also upon ever-increasing debt, that in the end it’s unstable. Things like this “end ugly,” as they say. I see almost zero political will to change this. Doesn’t matter which party is in power, doesn’t matter what year it is – governments often abuse the power of the printing press, and ours has done it in spades for so long that it’s institutionalized and that we’re dependent on it.
This is going to end up being a very bad thing for the standard of living of many if not most Americans. I see no real point in trying to put the genie back in the bottle – it can’t be done at this late date, and even trying to do so would have its own nasty consequences now. I’d rather focus my energies on protecting me and mine from what I see approaching. I’m very cynical about our gov’t’s ability and will to do what is best for the most people in the long run here. That ship has long sailed away….
Doug
“It’s quite late in the second trimester if sentience is present, and after viability abortion is not the only solution for ending the pregnancy, most times. If delivery is induced and somebody else ends up caring for the baby, I do not have a problem with that at all.”
Bethany: So you freely admit that after a certain point that a baby is sentient and can feel pain. Why do you then still support abortions after that point, if it is the sentient mind that makes all the difference?
In general I don’t support abortions after that point. I’ve said I’m fine with the restrictions that most states have after viability, which corresponds well with when I think sentience may be there or shortly to arrive for most fetuses.
If there is enough danger to the mother, or severe enough fetal deficiency (I realize that’s a big argument too), then I’m okay with abortion after viability, but these are a very few number of cases relative to all pregnancies. It’s not a sentient mind that makes all the difference to me, but it’s one big factor.
Doug
“I do not feel that slavery is right. Again – thinking, feeling people, and it’s not worth it to me to have their desires trumped by those who would own them. Likewise, it’s not worth it to me to have the will of pregnant women trumped by those who would tell them what to do with their pregnancies.”
Bethany: What if society changed it’s perspective? What if 90 percent of America said that the fetus is just as much a human as you or me AND abortion was illegal. Would your feelings on that change accordingly? If not, why not? And would you fight for abortion to become legal again?
Regardless of what society says, I don’t think there is any demonstrable reason why we really *need* to force a woman to remain pregnant. She is a thinking, feeling person, and why do I need her will trumped by the will of others? I don’t. Same as I don’t need the will of minorities, etc., trumped by slaveowners.
If I saw some serious need to increase the world’s population faster than what is already the case, that’d make a difference, for example. For now, I don’t think there is a good enough reason not to let her do what she wants in this matter. I would indeed want abortion to be legal again, and would advocate for that.
Doug
“Yes, but you actually are going with valuation, even if you say it comes from God.”
Bethany: I disagree. Truth comes from God. “Valuation” is human.
I don’t know that it’s worth it for us to go around and around on this. I understand what you mean, but the bottom line is that this is still what yousay, and in effect you are saying it to pregnant women. You believe it comes from elsewhere, but in this matter you’re still giving your opinion, your desire, your valuation, etc. This is what you think, even if you think it’s from God.
Doug
Bethany, this one first posted on the next-later topic…don’t know why it did that but I’ll put it here too.
“I am correct that it’s all about valuation,”
Bethany: I do not agree with this statement. I do not agree that it is all about valuation. And you cannot prove it to me, so your opinion and my opinion on that are equal in validity, correct? Because they are both only truths that we self created, right?
No – by definition we are perceiving value here. You have your “shoulds” and “should nots” just as I do, though we don’t ascribe them to the same origins. You can say that the most valuable thing is “life” for whatever reason, and I can say no – the given life isn’t worth denying the pregnant woman her desire. You really are valuing the unborn positively, though you say it comes from God, etc.
……..
“but I have never said that my moral position on abortion is correct in any external or absolute way. There is no such thing.”
There is another absolute coming from you, Doug! It just drives me nuts that you will keep saying that all beliefs are self created and then say that there IS NO SUCH THING as an external or absolute way. That very statement itself is an oxymoron, as it is an absolute statement…don’t you see? Oh don’t you see, Doug?
You don’t need to go nuts, IMO, but you’re talking about two different things. Saying that morality comes from the mind, even the mind of “God,” is one thing. Saying that Doug’s moral position is right in some external way is another. I do the first, but not the second. I’m saying there has to be “somebody” to care, have desires, etc., or there would be no morality. That is not saying that my desire, my caring, is in any way absolute.
……..
“I more value the freedom that women have in the matter, and you more value the unborn lives.”
Now, who was talking about MK misstating things? I absolutely do NOT value the unborn MORE than a woman. I value them the same. They are equal and both are worthy of life and liberty!
It was me talking about MK misstating things. You did it right there, too. What I said and meant is that I value the freedom of the women more (than I value the unborn) while you value the unborn lives more (than you value the freedom of the women in this matter). No biggie, I don’t think – just misunderstanding.
……..
I am not saying you are “wrong” to feel that way, and again – nor am I right in any way that “has” to be.
It certainly comes across that way to me!
Again – there is more than one thing here. There is the nature of morality, and then there are the things that we say as individuals. On the one hand I say it’s okay if the woman chooses to have an abortion, and you say it’s not. On the other there is the idea of external absolutes. If I’m a pregnant woman, then I know darn well that different people have different opinions about abortion. But if you say, “Abortion is wrong because of….God,” then I’m going to want some proof, and that’s where the lack of proof comes up.
Doug
Bethany: Okay,…you keep saying that you aren’t here to try to say that your position is any more valid than our position. If that is true, then what is the point of posting anything here, contradicting the things we say? It appears to me that you are trying to persuade (which there’s nothing wrong with- that is what I am trying to do as well). But if you’re going to try to persuade, please don’t be deceitful about it.
If not that, what is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish by being here? Is it just fun to debate and that’s why you do it? If I can just understand what you are trying to accomplish by your debating here, I would perhaps understand you better.
It’s not that simple. I say that both our positions are not reflecting any external absolutes. I don’t claim to be “right” as far as my own position on abortion beyond my own feelings in the matter. But for validity I would argue, not based on absolutes but on the fact that in general we people favor letting others do what they want, to a point. I don’t see that abortion is past that point, because I don’t see any demonstrable need for more people on earth, nor any other persuasive reason why abortion is necessarily “bad,” at this time.
I know that if the unborn were not something you care about, you wouldn’t argue, or wouldn’t argue in the same way. I acknowledge these facts – that there are different desires at work. Yours, mine, the pregnant woman’s, etc. I acknowledge you have your faith, too, but in the argument I don’t think you can prove it, nor that it should apply to a woman who doesn’t share it. If I’m the pregnant woman, I’m going to feel like, “Okay, you don’t want me to have this abortion because of what you believe. Well, you’re gonna have to prove it before I go with it.”
I do like to argue, and about physical reality, logic, etc., there are things which are definitively arguable. That’s part of the point of posting too. And yes – I try to be persuasive. I think the best way to do that is to stay with what is true for all of us, because when it gets to nothing more than different (and unprovable) beliefs then what resolution can there be?
I do not think I have been deceitful. I don’t say that my desire – for the woman to be free to make her own choice – “has” to be.
If I boil it down, it’s something like this – similar to what I said to MK: We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
Doug
AWESOME CARTOON!!!!!
The only thing that could make it better is a little bit of info on the pro-choice button that says something to the affect of 3,700 per day.
Doug, I’m going to post replies to your posts in another thread since this one has been bumped down.
I’ve responded here:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/09/do_over_long_we.html