Rush Limbaugh, Christ Hospital, and Barack Obama
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh had a caller on who spotlighted Christ Hospital, its involvement in the hideous practice of aborting babies alive and letting them die, and the connection to Barack Obama, who as state senator spoke and voted against IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
The fired nurse mentioned in the call was, as most know, me.
Rush is currently showcasing the call on his home page. (Click to enlarge.)
You can read or listen to a transcript of the call here, or read the relevant portion on my page 2.
Until Christ Hospital stops aborting, its reputation will continue to be dragged through the mud, of couse, rightfully so.
As for Obama, there is no way he can explain this one away, although he has tried – giving four different answers by my count.
The question is whether or not MSM will force him to address his support of aborting babies alive and letting them die.
Rush is optimistic, telling the caller, “This stuff will all come out. I’m going to tell you something. Aside from the most-informed audience in media, which is you and everybody else listening to this program, most people really start paying attention to this stuff after Thanksgiving, when the primaries start.”
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Janet in… Godley, Illinois?
CALLER: (Laughs)
RUSH: Is that really Godley, Illinois?
CALLER: Yes, it is.
RUSH: Well, Janet, welcome to the program.
CALLER: Thank you. I am so excited about talking to you, and I’m so nervous. I wanted to talk about a different aspect of Obama’s candidacy. No one has touched on his very far left stance on social issues such as abortion, and there was an incident here in Illinois about seven years ago, at Christ Hospital — a suburban hospital to Chicago — where babies who were born alive after a botched abortion, were left to die in linen closets and a nurse exposed it, and she was of course fired, and there were demonstrations, and it led the Illinois legislature to formulate the Infants Born Alive Act, which stated that infants who were born alive as the result of a botched abortion, could not be left to die, and Barack Obama voted against it.
RUSH: May I stop you right there?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Don’t lose your train of thought.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: What does it say about the state of Illinois and the country in general, when such a law is required?
CALLER: Yes, I know. It is very sad.
RUSH: A baby born alive in a botched abortion can’t be killed!
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: (Gags.)
CALLER: I know. It’s pretty sick.
RUSH: Okay, what did Obama do?
CALLER: He voted against that act. He went on record and voted against a law to protect those children.
RUSH: Well, I’m sure he had a reason! What was it?
CALLER: You know, I could not for the life of me tell you. I’m sure it was to protect the right of the woman to choose.
RUSH: It is that, but I’ll tell you what it is? There is something corrupting about the Democrat Party. Do you know that both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were pro-liers?
CALLER: No, I did not know that.
RUSH: Yeah, they were. When you seek national office in the Democrat Party, one of the first things you have to do is cash in that chip, and you have to pay homage to the sacrament of the religion of that party which is abortion. You don’t stand a prayer of getting the nomination in the Democrat Party if you do anything that would make any abortion harder to accomplish or to get done. So that’s Obama. It’s clear to me he had national aspirations at the time, then he did not want to do anything that would anger the NAGs and the militant feminists, and the general leftists in the party.
CALLER: Right. I think that should be publicly known during this campaign, how far, far left he is.
RUSH: This stuff will all come out. I’m going to tell you something. Aside from the most-informed audience in media, which is you and everybody else listening to this program, most people really start paying attention to this stuff after Thanksgiving, when the primaries start.
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.
Sad, but true about the democrats.
Jill, this is totally off topic, but how do you feel about Ron Paul. I havn’t heard much talk about him on the pro-life boards, but he seems very solidly prolife.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
It makes me wonder how many other hospitals are doing the very same thing. I worked with a girl who became pregnant.She seemed so happy about it. Around her 6th month of pregnancy, she began to tell some of the co workers about problems in her relationship. The next thing I had heard was that she’d suffered a miscarriage. I called her in the hospital to give her my condolences. She returned to work with a flat belly. She finally did tell people that she’d actually had an abortion. She also told us that the hospital provided the pregnancy termination.
And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
Rush Limbaugh
Rush doesn’t have to worry about unplanned pregnancy. The cops made sure of that:
(CBS/AP) Rush Limbaugh could see a deal with prosecutors in a long-running prescription fraud case collapse after authorities found a bottle of Viagra in his bag at Palm Beach International Airport. The prescription was not in his name.
Laura, You are always judging someone. Rush, Norma McCorvey, the women from ‘Silent No More’….. Are you perfect??
Laura, You are always judging someone. Rush, Norma McCorvey, the women from ‘Silent No More’….. Are you perfect??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aaaaaaaaaaawww….
Where did I judge Rushie?
(You’ve never made comments about Hillary, Bill, Whoopie, or Rosie?)
I like Rosie.
Laura, give it up.
..This is good, I missed Rush on Friday but I’m a member on his website. If I were a Republican I would constantly let the public know where Obama stood on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, what a disgrace. The Democrat party is now controlled by the far-left/DailyKos crew… sad.
The Republican and Democrat parties are equally corrupt. They’re the same thing, painted different colors.
Laura, I’m sorry, but the famous people on the side of ‘Choice’ irk me. I hate the way they try to brainwash women into thinking that abortion is a good and necessary thing. I hate their deceit. Have any of these celebs. ever outed the conditions of these shabby abortion clinics? Why don’t we ever hear about deaths from legal abortions? Why don’t they ever talk about sexually abusive abortionists. You guys bitc*ed and bitc*ed about these perverted quacks who performed illegal abortions. What the hell is the difference? We still have boat loads of abortionist quacks, and you guys want it to stay legal!
Well, famous people are entitles to an opinion just like anyone else.
Frankly, I don’t think that there’s much difference between abortion today then there was when it was illegal.
Laura, the PC side has had their way for 30+ years. Don’t you think that things have gotten out of control with 4000 abortions a day??
Heather, you think that because the PL’s focus only on the situations–thankfully it’s a minority of them–that the conditions are dangerous for the woman seeking an abortion. What you neglect to recognize is that there are, in fact, many safe and clean facilities for women to go to to get an abortion.
“The Republican and Democrat parties are equally corrupt. They’re the same thing, painted different colors.”
The Repubs are not perfect but they’re a heck alot better than the pro-death party.
“What you neglect to recognize is that there are, in fact, many safe and clean facilities for women to go to to get an abortion.”
Satan couldn’t have said it better…..what a big lie. safe for who? clean? you call a death clinic clean?
jasper, I agree. What ever happened to ‘Let’s keep abortion safe, legal, and rare?? I thought that was the PC mantra. 4000 abortions a day? That’s NOT rare!!
Actually, I have heard that more and more people are becoming pro life.
“What ever happened to ‘Let’s keep abortion safe, legal, and rare??”
yes, the Clintons pushed that statement around first, but, as you can see the abortion rate really hasn’t dropped at all, there are still 1.3 million. At the peak it was like 1.5 mil. In the 1970’s there were like 600,000-700,000 a year.
@Leah,
articulate you may be & smart too … even went to France …
but I gotta ask Leah, “When are you gonna grow-up?” This constant baiting is silly. [Something that Laura does, need you?] You do not ask questions because you are curious, you post to show how smart you are!
jasper, Abortion is destroying this country. What problems had it solved?? How ironic is it that most pro choice women adore Bill Clinton? He was a scum bag, womanizer. Is this backwards, or is it just me?
hi John!
Why do we want abortion to be rare? Do we want other rights such as freedom of speech and religion to be rare?
Jill: I am enjoying your blog more and more! In some ways, I wonder who will be worse for our country: Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. It’s just…terrible. Ach. Sorry, no words are coming. We just gotta get someone who will help turn this country around; preferably a man of God.
Mary, excellent point. Why would we want to make it rare?
Welcome Nathan!
Hey Nathan,
I stumbled across your blog last week and sent one of your posts to Jill. Then this morning another one came on my “ProLife Alert”…You’re awesome! Welcome!
If we don’t do something about abortion soon, it won’t be long before we legalize infanticide. It’s bringing up the rear.
Nathan, thankfully I highly doubt either will be elected. I *hope* the Dems run one of them just to ensure a conservative victory. Of course the “conservatives” aren’t looking that great either…
I keep looking at mr Tiller’s face…and all I can think is “his hands…he eats with them, and touches his wife with them, and drives his car with them, and everyday, day after day, he holds children in them. Children that he killed, and maimed and mutilated…his hands…”
MK, they all look quite disgusting, don’t they?
I wonder if he has children.
I happened to be listening to Rush when this call came in. Obama is an inexperienced LOSER. Who on earth would not support this effort. Rush went on to say that the Clintons and the Gores were also pro-life until they had to cash in that chip to run on the Democratic ticket. Obama sold his soul to the devil, all in the name of his “party”. How pathetic.
MK, that is a disturbing thought. I can’t imagine being touched by those hands.
The PC message is not clear. If abortion is not an easy decision to make, then why do women call it empowering? They don’t want the government to make any decisions about their bodies. Why didn’t they make their own smart choices about their own bodies? Why do they hold up signs that read; If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would Be A Sacrament. Would abortion be any less disturbing if men were able to abort? It’s a baby. It’s not a baby. It’s a baby at 18 weeks. My body autonomy trumps the right of the fetus. Yeesh….talk about a confusing message.
“Is this backwards, or is it just me?”
No, you’re correct Heather, it’s backwards, and evil too.
“The Repubs are not perfect but they’re a heck alot better than the pro-death party.”
Huh… I’ve never heard of this so-called “pro-death” party.
Honeslty, Jasper. Let’s not reduce ourselves to petty name-calling. No one here is pro-death.
“Satan couldn’t have said it better…..what a big lie. safe for who? clean? you call a death clinic clean?”
Safe for the women undergoing the procedure, dear. And yes, the majority of abortion clinics are clean. Why wouldn’t they be? If you’re thinking of blood and fetal remains, I remind you that there are similar things in hospitals–and most hospitals are clean.
“You do not ask questions because you are curious, you post to show how smart you are!”
I’m sorry if it comes off that way to you, John. It is, however, inaccurate. I post to engage in debate–I post no questions because I am not curious. I’m not intentionally antagonizing anyone. Apologies if I come off that way–I honestly don’t mean it.
Hey Lauren, I don’t know anything about Ron Paul. I’ve been hearing his name pop up the last few days, though.
Nathan, welcome. I checked out your blog. It’s got great features. How long have you been blogging? Thanks for the compliment, btw.
Leah, Laura, back on topic: Obama voted against a law in IL that would outlaw aborting babies alive and let them die. Would you?
Honestly, Jill, I don’t know. I’d have to be more informed before I made a decision.
A lot of the time, legislators put ridiculous riders on their bills, like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, for example.
@Leah,
“Honestly, Jill, I don’t know. I’d have to be more informed before I made a decision.”
That is precisely the problem, Leah. You are very much at ease killing babies in sanitary conditions and are undetermined if these children do happen to survive, about leaving them too die anyway. Your sense of ‘humanity’ is what I was asking you to grow up about.
A person does not ask questions when they have no humility and presume to have all the answers.
There imo is little doubt you are academically one of those very rare people who are extremely intelligent and perceptive. I have only encountered two such people – both good friends. One is Timothy Colton, a classmate throughout high school, has for decades been head of the political science department at Harvard University. The other, Paul-Andre Durocher, presently a RC bishop near here.
These two people could twist my phraseology and word-selection until I was proven silly, inept or wrong. But they never do because they know that there is a large mystery to life, and all words merely scratch-the-surface. When there is no life … there is no mystery.
I think it is really a blindness that you think that death (or execution of babies) is a proper response of women to their own – children or species. There is much for you to grow-up about … give EMPATHY a try!
“there are, in fact, many safe and clean facilities for women to go to to get an abortion.”
They are NEVER safe for the babies…..
I just want to throw in another angle on the incident at Christ Hospital. The baby Jill held had Down syndrome. A “live abortion” is a very common way to abort a baby with Down syndrome. If I am not mistaken, this is still legal even with the “Born Alive Infant Protection” laws because all that is required is that the babies receive humane care. Thus, if the baby is “delivered” before viability, they are going to die anyway, so all that is needed is comfort care….no saving procedures.
This is why it is “critical” for a baby with Down syndrome to be diagnosed no later than 20-22 weeks (or whenever viability begins) because she will die on her own, and nothing needs to be done to save her. I don’t think the baby Jill held was result of a “botched” abortion; it worked just the way it was supposed to….the baby was delivered, and the baby died on his own.
A real botched abortion (one in which a baby unexpectedly survives a chemical abortion or having had limbs removed) AFTER viability, would be required to receive life-saving care.
Jill, please correct me if I am wrong.
How do you pro-aborts feel about babies being killed before birth simply because they have Down syndrome? Do you think that it is very tolerant? This is not a condition where the baby is “going to die anyway” (not saying it’s right then either). Most of the physical problems can be treated or corrected with surgery or medication. Intellectually, they have much more potential than had previously been relized. My daughter is 8 and is reading and doing simple Math. She has a great sense of humor, and is a lot of fun. They are blessings to the world, and the world is a sorrier place without them….9 out of 10 babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome en utero are aborted. It breaks my heart.
I think it’s tragic to abort a child with DS. Remember that show ‘Life Goes On’… Corkey was the actor with DS. He was a spectacular actor!!
John, Ellie, excellent posts….
Ellie, it breaks my heart too. How anyone could do that to their child just because of Downs syndrome, or any other condition (even cleft lip!) is beyond me. Would those same people be accepting of shooting a child with Down’s syndrome? I would hope not!…but for some reason, it’s okay with them to practice Eugenics as long as it’s done with these types of “procedures” by “professionals”.
Honestly, Jill, I don’t know. I’d have to be more informed before I made a decision.
What more do you possibly need to know before stating whether you would support a law to prevent the killing of born babies or not? What information is left out? What didn’t you understand?
I honestly wouldn’t be suprised to see DS children “euthenized”. I mean, what is the difference between killing a baby at 38 wks. gestation and killing a baby at 40 wks. gestation?
We live in a cruel world that has already devauled the lives of people with DS. I think this is only going to get worse unless we can stop abortion.
Lauren, I agree with that 100%. Is here 1 pro choice person out there who can tell me about anything good that came as a result of abortion legalization?
How about naming just one social problem that has been eliminated because of legal abortion.
Mary, I have honestly been thinking about this. I really can’t think of any positive outcomes. Not even 1.
Abortion obviously hasn’t eliminated infanticide. We have proof of this. Amy Grossberg’s boyfriend set up 2 abortion appointments for her. Amy was petrified to have an abortion, so she declined both appointments. She told her boyfriend “The place might be dirty, and I might get an infection.” “My mom might find out.” Ironically, her boyfriend tried to schedule Amy’s abortion at the very same clinic that almost killed Rashida Dinkins.
Heather, did you read the letter she had written while still pregnant?…. From a news article:
“Prosecutors read a letter from Grossberg to Peterson in which she said, “I don’t know how this could happen. Why us? I wish I could have my nice body back. All I want is for it to go away. I can’t get caught. I’m sorry we haven’t really been able to get it on.”
Wow, Bethany talk about some messed up priorities!
I’m amazed at the absurdities antichoicers will believe and amazed at the lies they will tell and expect to be taken seriously.
TXRed, could you be more specific?
Illinois Law – please note that the doctor is required BY LAW to insure a live delivery if at all possible in the case of late term abortions and there must be a SECOND doctor present to tend to the welfare of the infant in the event of a live birth. Pretending that doctors would deliberately break the law and that a hospital would condone it is positively laughable. The source for this information is the NARAL web page. You can find an overview of abortion laws for all the different states there.
Illinois
Post-Viability Abortion Restriction
Illinois’ post-viability restriction provides that no abortion may be performed after viability unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health. The physician must use the available abortion method most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus, and a second physician must attend to provide medical attention to any live born child. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 510/5 (Enacted 1975; Last Amended 1984), 510/6 (Enacted 1975; Last Amended 1985).
Lauren, this tall talke about ‘babies aborted and left to die’. Illinois law states that is breaking the law. To try to pretend that a doctor would deliberately break the law and a hospital would allow them to do it is preposterious. Look at the comments coming from your side in this discussion here. That anyone would MAKE such a comment and NOT realize they’ll look like a complete idiot by making the comment is mind boggling.
Lauren, why dont you tell me just where you get the information that abortions at 38 weeks ARE being performed? Where and by whom? I mean an objective credible source, not something laughable like ‘LifeNews’ or an antichoice propaganda web page.
Well, there are two options in this situation, Red.
The first is tht Jill is lying, the second is that she is telling the truth.
Judging by the fallout of her whistle blowing, I believe she is telling the truth. I’m sure Jill could address your concerns much better than I, seeing as though this is her case.
38 was a random 3rd trimester number.
However, abortionists advertise abortions as late as 33 weeks. Look at Dr. Hearn or Dr. Tiller. Tiller implies he will about later than this after “evaluation”.
My son was born at 31 weeks. This is well past the point of viability. My point was that very far past viability abortions are performed. The exact date wasn’t the point, but rather that because abortions are performed after viability, there is no rational reason for them to not be performed after birth. This is because post-viabilty abortions are not performed because of any sort of “infringement on bodily rights” (if this were the case labor would simply be induced), but rather because of an express desire to kill the child for any number of “altruistic” reasons. All of these reasons could be applied to born children with disability.
If you have someone lying and saying that doctors and a hospital are breaking the law in a BIG way then of course youre going to have some major fallout. What would you expect a hospital to do under the circumstances? Pretending that doctors break a law with impunity and a hospital lets them get away with it is laughable. As for lying, there has been a long long list of people on the antichoice side who havent hesistated to tell one lie after another to try to support their agenda. A prime example was the movie THE SILENT SCREAM which was proven to be a fabrication as soon as it was first shown. Another glaring example is the ‘nurse’ who insisted she ‘saw’ a D&X abortion. Anyone who knows anything about the procedure knows it isnt posisble for her to see what she says she saw. And it was later proven that she never held the job at that clinic she said she held. The list goes on and on and on. That there is one MORE liar on the antichoice side doesnt surprise me. That there are people simple minded enough to believe these lies doesnt surprise me either.
By the way, Tiller’s own statistics show that he performs abortions at 38 weeks.
http://www.drtiller.com/fasum.html
Lauren, so you dont have any proof at all that abortions ARE being performed that late in gestation. You just made an off the wall comment for the sake of melodramatics without anything at all to back you up. According to the JAMA (August 98 if I remember correctly) there are 500 to 600 third trimester abortions performed in the US per year. These are for atypical reasons. Women who have an abortion at seven months ‘just because’ are one more fabrication from the antichoice side of the discussion. Women who have abortions need to be portrayed as being terrible people – this antichoice urban myth of ‘late term abortions’ is an example of that need.
Lauren, all is says is ‘range’ – it doesnt say anything more than that. And removing a fetus due to fetal demise is still going to be listed as ‘an abortion’.
no, it will be listed as a spontaneous abortion.
Yes, and “range” would imply that 38 is the higher limit of abortions.
Moreover, fetal demise is not listed amongst his list of fetal complications.
In regards to your absurd statement accusing me of believing late term abortions are performed for kicks and giggles, I implore you to look at my argument and realize that I am speaking of the implications of abortion diabled fetuses on disabled infants. The crux of my argument rests on the fact that late term abortions are being performed on fetuses with abnormalities.
There is no “myth” of late term abortions. They happen. Every day. 9 out of every 10 children diagnosed with Down Syndome prentally are aborted. These are ALWAYS 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions because testing is not availible until this time. While these are not the only reasons for abortions (Tiller’s own records showed far less savory rational), they are the only ones important to the discussion on how abortion affects the disabled community as a whole.
*the implications of aborting disabled fetuses on
disable infants*
Sorry for the weird verb/tense craziness, I left and came back mid sentense.
TexasRed,
Why would it make any difference to you if abortions are early or late term? If the fetus isn’t human, what’s the problem?
Speaking of lies, I believe on a previous thread you argued that the account of the living fetus from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy was a lie. Am I correct about this? Could you explain why you think this account was a lie?
Bethany, I did. Amy continued to deny the pregnancy to herself as well as others. Did you know that while receiving a school physical, Amy’s doctor actually missed her 4 and 1/2 month extended belly, while palpating her abdomen? The entire book just made me sick. When she went into labor, Brian begged her to allow him to take her to the hospital. She refused stating, “No, my mom will find out.” She delivered the baby @ the Comfort Inn, and then she instructed Brian to “Get rid of it!!” Although her biggest fear was her mother, I believe she must have had some mental issues. She just kept asking Brian to “Make IT go away.”
TexasRed,
Not sure if my post was in your net of “lies,” but I did ask Jill to correct me if I was wrong.
If you read my post again, I was referring to PRE-VIABILITY abortions of babies with Down syndrome and how they are not really saved from the “Born Alive Infant Protection” laws. This IS the method (or at least a common method) for aborting babies with Down syndrome.
The American College of ObGyns recommends that ALL pregnant women (not just those over 35) should have their unborn babies tested for Down syndrome. The reason for this is because of higher-tech ultrasounds and blood tests which can detect Down syndrome earlier in the pregnancy.
This is the reason there is a race to find a test to detect Down syndrome earlier in the pregnancy….Much easier to kill a younger baby with Down syndrome than an older one.
@John:
John, this is just a question of our perspectives. You consider abortion to be the execution of babies–I do not.
I simply do not ask questions because I have no questions I want answered. I don’t believe I have all the answers, of course, and it was very presumptuous of you to think that of me. I ask LOTS of questions–just not here. I am an extraordinarily curious person.
I am also an empathetic person. However, I empathize with the women in these situations–not sympathize, I EMPATHIZE. They are scared and confused and very much in need of support.
You’re right, John, I have a lot of growing to do, but I have grown very much in the recent past at an unfair rate for someone my age. Yes, I am young. No, I am not ignorant or na
Bethany:
I don’t know, but I’m almost positive you’re over-simplifying it. There’s ALWAYS more to bills?laws than just the title.
Okay, Leah, defined simply as it was put, would you support it?
Ellie, 10:24a, said: “A “live abortion” is a very common way to abort a baby with Down syndrome. If I am not mistaken, this is still legal even with the “Born Alive Infant Protection” laws because all that is required is that the babies receive humane care. Thus, if the baby is “delivered” before viability, they are going to die anyway, so all that is needed is comfort care….no saving procedures…. A real botched abortion (one in which a baby unexpectedly survives a chemical abortion or having had limbs removed) AFTER viability, would be required to receive life-saving care. Jill, please correct me if I am wrong.”
The technical terms for “live birth abortion” are “induced labor abortion,” or “mid-trimester labor induction,” or even “early induction of labor.”
Yes, this procedure is common in the US, imo. A UK study released in April 2007 showed 18 of 20 hospitals in a researched region had aborted babies alive – all handicapped, btw. I am sure statistics in the US would correlate, if DHHS or CDC checked, which they won’t at this point.
Re: Born Alive, all it states is that born live babies, wanted or not, healthy or not, aborted or not, viable or not, are persons, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment speaks to being treated equally. So an unwanted aborted live baby must be given the same medical care a wanted live baby would receive. If the baby won’t survive, then yes, that means comfort care.
TexasRed, 2:59p, said: “Illinois Law – please note that the doctor is required BY LAW to insure a live delivery if at all possible in the case of late term abortions and there must be a SECOND doctor present to tend to the welfare of the infant in the event of a live birth. Pretending that doctors would deliberately break the law and that a hospital would condone it is positively laughable. The source for this information is the NARAL web page. You can find an overview of abortion laws for all the different states there.”
TR, the law states the attending physician must call for a second doctor to be present if s/he anticipates the birth of a live, viable baby. Obviously, there is motivation on the part of the abortionist not to anticipate such. Major loophole.
Actually, that your source to disprove me is NARAL is what’s laughable.
Lauren: By the way, Tiller’s own statistics show that he performs abortions at 38 weeks.
http://www.drtiller.com/fasum.html
There are situations where few people are going to argue against ending the pregnancy by abortion.
Those situations are *percisely* what I am talking about Doug. Why not “euthenize” an infant who could be legally and “mercifully” killed in the womb? I see absolutely NO argument against this.
John, to Leah: I think it is really a blindness that you think that death (or execution of babies) is a proper response of women to their own – children or species. There is much for you to grow-up about … give EMPATHY a try!
John, right from a dictionary: “empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.”
When we are talking about “elective” abortion in the US, we’re really talking about the period in gestation when there are no feelings, thoughts, attitudes, etc., on the part of the unborn. I know many people personify the unborn with their own thinking, and in no way would I advise them to have an abortion if they feel that way and if the pregenancy was wanted, on balance.
Yet this really comes down to the valuations of people like you versus the valuation of the woman who is actually pregnant. No real empathy is possible for the unborn in this argument – there’s no caring, no will, no volition, no desire on their part. I’m pro-choice because I have more empathy for the pregnant woman than I do for those who would have her will subverted to their own.
Respectfully,
Doug
Those situations are *percisely* what I am talking about Doug. Why not “euthenize” an infant who could be legally and “mercifully” killed in the womb? I see absolutely NO argument against this.
Lauren, I may be missing your point, but I don’t think there’s any contradiction going on. Some infants are allowed to die, based on the situation. It’s going to be a sad thing, IMO, but in some cases the parents and doctors agree that it’s the best way to go.
These are rare situations, to be sure, but so are 38 week abortions.
Doug
Are you kidding me, Doug? You really do believe it is okay to euthanize infants as well, based on a deformity or illness?
Doug, I’m not talking about “being allowed to die”, I’m talking about actively euthenizing born children. It has been done before, causing much public outcry. My point is, why should there be public outcry over killing a disabled child at 40 wks gestation, but not 38 weeks getation?
If one is not moral, neither is the other. If both be moral, then we have effectively allowed for the systematic killing of those less able.
We know that these “late term abortions” are not done to perserve the mother’s bodily domain. They are performed with the exclusive purpose of killing the child. My question is if this logic is sound and could be taken to its logical conclusion.
Bethany: I’m sorry, I can’t answer that question because I would never support or oppose something with such little knowledge I have of it.
Leah, what I am asking you is not to say whether you would support or oppose something you have no knowledge of. I am asking you to tell me whether you support aborting live babies, and leaving them to die. This has nothing to do with a bill. I am asking you how you feel about what I just described. Do you or don’t you?
Hi Doug,
Loved your quote on empathy and the split between Leah and I seems to be in the divisions of your definition. You said : “empathy: the intellectual identification with …” the fetus-baby …. looks like a duck … etc; … is alive; is human; a human being cannot gestate a firetruck nor another species (although some may indeed be trying such) and Leah’s “empathy: …. vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” which is a croc (think crocodile tears) because emotional instability is the norm for a pregnant teen [please, refer to my earlier posting re, zinc deficiency]; and B) this is a cop-out for someone to use as an extension of BC or as BC … there is no responsibility of action to the presence of another (I did not say ‘legal person’) but has only a negative feel … a panic situation. Is the abortion decision ever a rational one …. or is this a decided consequence even before sex?
Bethany: Are you kidding me, Doug? You really do believe it is okay to euthanize infants as well, based on a deformity or illness?
Not kidding at all, Bethany – there are some conditions where few people are going to say it’s a good thing to go to extreme measures to keep the life going. Euthanasia includes just allowing them to die, and that is sometimes what the parents and doctors decide upon.
These are rare and extreme cases I’m talking about.
Doug
Doug, so do you support generalized euthenasia of diabled children regardless of age?
Lauren: Doug, I’m not talking about “being allowed to die”, I’m talking about actively euthenizing born children. It has been done before, causing much public outcry. My point is, why should there be public outcry over killing a disabled child at 40 wks gestation, but not 38 weeks getation?
If one is not moral, neither is the other. If both be moral, then we have effectively allowed for the systematic killing of those less able.
We know that these “late term abortions” are not done to perserve the mother’s bodily domain. They are performed with the exclusive purpose of killing the child. My question is if this logic is sound and could be taken to its logical conclusion.
First of all, abortions during the third trimester are very rare, and abortions at 38 weeks would be exceedingly rare. Such an abortion is going to be for severe danger to the woman, and often severe fetal deficiency, otherwise the pregnancy can be ended by inducing delivery. Do you really think that a given woman will want to have an abortion at 38 weeks just to end her pregnancy?
“Actively euthanizing born children” can mean just allowing them to die, per the definition of euthanasia. It need not be anything special effort made to kill them. Not a big deal in the word meanings as I see it, but do you have actual cases where it is as you describe?
I think that an “elective” 38 week abortion would be in big disfavor with the general public. Not to the extent of killing born children, because the fetus is still inside the body of a person, hasn’t had rights attributed to it, etc., but I do think there would be public outcry. As to the morality of it, I have no problems with the restrictions on abortion that most states have late in gestation. Personally, I feel that 38 weeks is too late for “elective” abortions since the fetus is then usually getting substantially similar to a full-term born baby.
“Less able” is such a broad thing that it goes way, way beyond the kind of cases I’m talking about where fetal deficencies are huge and/or there’s severe danger to the woman. For Down’s Syndrome, for example, I’d leave it up to the pregnant woman to the end of the 2nd trimester, or to viability (and I know the point of “viability” can be argued). After that I don’t see it as enough reason to abort, on it’s own – my opinion.
As far as “preserving the mother’s bodily domain,” I think that most late abortions are done for that, and/or for really bad problems with the fetus.
Pediatric Pathology
Doug
Oops – the link for Pediatric Pathology is:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED026.html
Lauren: Doug, so do you support generalized euthenasia of diabled children regardless of age?
No, not at all.
Doug, Why are you pro choice? Did you ever have a person close to you abort?
Doug, if it was a matter of perserving the mother’s bodily domain they could easily to an emergency c-section. If the mother’s life is in danger…again, emergency c-section.
I know this first hand. I had an emergency c-section at 31 weeks because I was developing an infection that could have killed both me and my son.
Interestingly, they would have performed the emergency c-section much earlier had I developed an infection ealier in the pregnancy.
This is NOT an issue of maternal bodily domain. It is an issue of actively seeking to kill the unborn child due to deformity. It is absurd to think that a 4 day abortion w/ seaweed and blind grabbing is better for the mother’s health than a 30 minute surgery.
These abortions would not be performed were in not for the fact that the mother wants the child dead. Simply born is not enough. This is a matter of actively killing disabled members of our society, not simply allowing them to die.
As for cases dealing with active euthenasia of born children see-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/ (euthenasia in the netherlands)
http://www.parenting.com/parenting/pregnancy/article/0,19840,646915,00.html
(Premiee mom wishes her daugher was euthenised)
See also Not Dead Yet to see what disabled persons think about this issue
http://www.notdeadyet.org/
Doug,I responded but it got held up in moderation…
The Euthenization program in the Netherlands allows children up to 8 to be killed without their consent if I’m remembering correctly.
John: Loved your quote on empathy and the split between Leah and I seems to be in the divisions of your definition. You said : “empathy: the intellectual identification with …” the fetus-baby …. looks like a duck … etc; … is alive; is human; a human being cannot gestate a firetruck nor another species (although some may indeed be trying such) and Leah’s “empathy: …. vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” which is a croc (think crocodile tears) because emotional instability is the norm for a pregnant teen [please, refer to my earlier posting re, zinc deficiency]; and B) this is a cop-out for someone to use as an extension of BC or as BC … there is no responsibility of action to the presence of another (I did not say ‘legal person’) but has only a negative feel … a panic situation. Is the abortion decision ever a rational one …. or is this a decided consequence even before sex?
Hey John. Yes, “human and alive” applies to the unborn in this argument, but prior to the unborn being sentient, sensate, etc., I don’t see it to be possible to have “empathy” with them, per the meaning of the word. The “presence of another” may apply to the unborn being a separate human organism, but there is no “other” there as far as desire, volition, caring, valuation, etc., at least to when the fetus becomes conscious. We may “personify” the unborn (even before conception), but I weigh the presence of personality or not in this too, and while I see the presence, usually, of personality, etc., late in gestatation, along with some consciousness, I don’t see it during the time when most abortions are done.
I hear you on emotional instability for pregnant teens, but it works both ways – are we to trust the decision to continue a pregnancy if we distrust the choosing to end one?
My opinion is that yes, of course the abortion decision is often a rational decision, same as for electing to keep going with a pregnancy. The bottom line is what the woman wants. Sometimes, the woman or girl knows ahead of time which she would pick – to continue a pregnancy or to end one. If not, I certainly still don’t see anything better than letting her make up her own mind. There are no guarantees, of course, and there may be regrets regardless of what the choice is.
There was a big Ann Landers poll in the 1970s where the question was “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?? There were over 10,000 replies, and 70% said ?No. If I had it to do over again, I would not have children.?
That’s surprisingly high to me, and I suspect that a more scientific poll would not have as high a percentage saying they’d not have kids if they could do things over. But it’s significant in that it shows that many who choose to have kids aren’t glad, on balance, in the long run. Obviously, some who choose to have abortions will later regret it, and some who choose to have kids will later regret it. That’s just the way life is, and that doesn’t constitute any good reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter.
Doug
“Doug, Why are you pro choice? Did you ever have a person close to you abort?”
I suppose that’s a fair question to Doug, but I would not assume you’d have to know someone who aborted to be pro-choice. Nor would being close to someone who aborted make you pro-choice necessarily.
I was pro-choice way before I knew anyone who had an abortion.
Heather: Doug, Why are you pro choice? Did you ever have a person close to you abort?
Good question, Heather. No, nobody close to me has ever had an abortion. Not my mom, and not my only sister. I’ve never been involved with a girlfriend who had one, either, even before meeting me. Prior to meeting my wife, I had 7 girlfriends (not all at once ;), and I guess it’d be possible for some to have had abortions and just not tell me about it, but I really don’t think that’s the case – I feel I knew them well enough to know.
I’ve argued abortion for over ten years, and in the beginning I was vaguely pro-life in that I felt that if a person didn’t want to be pregnant then they shouldn’t get pregnant. Hadn’t thought much about it, hadn’t ever been faced with it, as above.
In really thinking about it, though, I concluded that I have no reason to want a woman forced to continue a pregnancy she does not want. I certainly don’t need more people on earth. Certainly already have lots of pregnancies being continued willingly.
For me, much of the argument comes down to suffering. To force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy often means great suffering for her. Likewise, being “for the choice” I would not force a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion. I do not want that to happen. I don’t see the unborn suffering (to viability or so, anyway)and I don’t put the desire of pro-lifers above that of the pregnant woman herself.
Best,
Doug
Lauren, I’ve heard of the deal in the Netherlands – understandably controversial.
“The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child
The Euthenization program in the Netherlands allows children up to 8 to be killed without their consent if I’m remembering correctly.
Well Lauren, 8 seems pretty old to me, considering the types of situations I was envisioning; anencephalic babies, etc. If 8 years have gone by, then there was “hope” and the suffering was presumably able to be endured. I’d have to look at what the specific deal was, but harder still for me to see it age 8 than with a (hopeless) newborn.
8 is by no means adult, but my gut feeling there is that a wait-and-see attitude is likely the way to go. Not sure where I’d draw the line but eventually I’d say the individual is competent to say whether they want to live or not, and I’d go with their decision.
Doug
sorry Doug, my computer is still acting up,
part of the assertion made is that the recipient must in some way be of similar faculties to one emoting empathy. I think perhaps you have empathy and sympathy confused. In your notions (Leah’s as well) there seems a prevalence for sympathy and very little empathy.
In the latter case of empathy at work, let’s think of an ambulance attendant at the scene of a car accident … while he/she does empathize with the victim(s), any emotional involvement (sympathy) that supersedes working effectively is strongly curtailed. The same emotion is sought of jurors at a trail (and very often are dismissed if they had similar occurrences to the accused); we are often asked to ’empathize’ with poor folk; … with refugees; … with elderly folk ((extra courtesy)); with victims of floods, tornadoes, house-fires … All these differing circumstances and not a single requirement of ability is required or even asked for. In the case of the aborted living human being, I ask not for any projected personification or even a projected personality … I am asking though for an empathy merely on the basis of being a human being. Kind of like the people at Auschwitz death camp. We ask for a cease-fire … is this too much?
John, nice to see you back!
@Doug,
sorry re-read your previous post Doug and wanted to comment on this: “I hear you on emotional instability for pregnant teens, but it works both ways – are we to trust the decision to continue a pregnancy if we distrust the choosing to end one?”
Must surmise that you are not a medical professional – any such decision, either way is held in abeyance. Depression of any sort is considered as contraindicated of any surgical procedure. Then why is abortion used any time there are high emotions? Is it supposed to be some kind of cure-all for depression? The concept of a noted zinc-deficiency status is that is the reason for the depression, not the baby and not the pregnancy.
In short – why is abortion the procedure of choice, when depressions and high anxiety are both noted? Would anyone request the execution of the babe’s father? Then why is the baby’s death necessary? If women are not allowed to kill their babies, should they be allowed to kill their lovers – their choice?
It seems we should be giving zinc (and taurine) as treatment … not abortion. Abortion does not solve psychological states … but it may deepen such because any surgery requires an amount of zinc to physically heal. [It is not at all surprising that some women will actually become infertile following an abortion. Fertility itself is highly zinc-dependent.]
Doug said: “For Down’s Syndrome, for example, I’d leave it up to the pregnant woman to the end of the 2nd trimester, or to viability (and I know the point of “viability” can be argued).”
Doug, as a mother of a child with Down syndrome, I am deeply offended by your remark. It is the reality that this attitude has brought about that scares the heck out of me for the future of my daughter. The elimination of 8 to 9 babies with ds for every one that is born is taking a terrible toll. Not only is that innocent life robbed of her inalienble right to life, but those that are left have a more lonely life because there are not many others like them. We know of no one who has a child with ds my daughter’s age…maybe one or two older or younger. She can’t even participate in team sports in Special Olympics because there aren’t enough kids her age. She will become more of an anomaly as time goes on because there will be less and less others like her being born. She has deeply touched the lives of those who know her….those who were aborted would have too.
I could go on and on, but it is so painful to know that there are people (too many imo) who think like you do. My, haven’t we come a long way from the days when we hid them in institutions.
Ellie, sorry if it sounded like I was singling out Down’s Syndrome, there. I’m Pro-Choice without reservation to viability or for the first two trimesters, but we had been talking about Down’s.
I understand you wanting more in the way of companions/peers for your daughter, but I also understand people wanting to avoid having a Down’s child. Yes – “innocent” but there’s no capacity for guilt, and I don’t “blame” the unborn for anything. They will either be wanted or unwanted, on balance, and I leave it up to the woman who is pregnant. You may think of an inalienable right to life, and I think that’s fine for you, but I would not put your opinion above the opinion of the woman who is actually pregnant.
Again, I’m sorry for the way it sounded to you. I truly meant no insult nor judgment about your daughter.
Best,
Doug
John: part of the assertion made is that the recipient must in some way be of similar faculties to one emoting empathy. I think perhaps you have empathy and sympathy confused. In your notions (Leah’s as well) there seems a prevalence for sympathy and very little empathy.
Agreed, John – similar faculties or at least some emotion, etc., on the part of the recipient.
In the latter case of empathy at work, let’s think of an ambulance attendant at the scene of a car accident … while he/she does empathize with the victim(s), any emotional involvement (sympathy) that supersedes working effectively is strongly curtailed. The same emotion is sought of jurors at a trail (and very often are dismissed if they had similar occurrences to the accused); we are often asked to ’empathize’ with poor folk; … with refugees; … with elderly folk ((extra courtesy)); with victims of floods, tornadoes, house-fires … All these differing circumstances and not a single requirement of ability is required or even asked for.
It doesn’t need to be asked for. They are already emotional, experiential, mentally aware, sentient people with desires and the capability to suffer.
In the case of the aborted living human being, I ask not for any projected personification or even a projected personality … I am asking though for an empathy merely on the basis of being a human being. Kind of like the people at Auschwitz death camp. We ask for a cease-fire … is this too much?
No, it’s not too much because the Auschwitz victims’ personality was never in doubt, nor their capacity for suffering. There is little argument about the right/wrong/good/bad of the Nazis’ concentration camp because of that. If we broaden things out to merely “human being” as you use the term, then we’ve removed the presence of personality, societally-granted personhood, emotion, ability to suffer, etc., from the term.
The unborn in this argument do not care. I have more empathy for the pregnant women than for those who would have their opinions and valuations forced on her.
Doug
John, “abeyance” – great word. I like the heck out of you and appreciate your posts.
I’m certainly not a medical professional. I quit college – a Computer Science major – in 1978 (have to laugh now – just as Microsoft et al were getting up and going : / ). Was a bricklayer for 7 years, and have worked on electrical transformers for the past 23. I’m really just a guy who likes to argue.
Maybe it’s good to hold the decision to have an abortion in abeyance or maybe not. The mineral-induced depression you mention may be a factor and maybe not. On that alone, I would not forbid women to have abortions. I question what percentage of abortions are due to that. If there is a zinc and taurine deficency, correcting that is fine with me – it seems a very good thing to do.
Even if depression and high anxiety are present, I see no evidence that having an abortion leads to regrets, on balance, later on (when presumably the mineral-related depression would be gone). Some women do have those regrets, sure, and so do some women who choose to continue pregnancies. Again, what percentage of those are related to zinc, etc., is unknown.
The “baby’s” death is necessary because that is a result of ending the pregnancy, and that’s what’s desired. And no – the lover of the woman is a born person with rights already granted, so the woman should not be allowed to kill the lover. There’s really not much comparison between the amount of sentiment for being allowed to kill the lover and the sentiment for abortion being legal.
Doug
Hi Doug,
I should tell you about my friend Rita. At the time, I was very distraught that men had forced pregnancy on women.
Rita had other ideas. She (her words) loved being pregnant. She even cried when she was not pregnant. She said that she even knew the sex of her (6)children months before they were conceived … and she was never wrong.
I am not saying ALL women are as sensitive as Rita, but her assertions sure gave me pause. There seems to be much more happening in pregnancy than the vast majority of us are aware!
Rights, I do not perceive as minimalist values, but ones that pervade the spirit of the law … and so are applied to folks in comas without self-cognition. And these are applied to severally disabled folk and to seniors.
It is strange to me that these rights are withheld on the pretense of superiority. Hey, these are living human beings … get over it!
Yo John,
Being pro-choice is being for Rita and all women to make their own best choice. Why did you think that “men had forced” anything on her? I would not force her to have an abortion nor force women with unwanted pregnancies to continue them.
Disabled folk and seniors are not at issue. Some comatose patients, deemed to be in a permanent vegetative state, are allowed to die, as with Terri Schiavo. I realize this is fertile ground for argument, but I have no problem with cases like that. There was a body there, yes, but the person that Terri Schiavo was had departed long ago. Is it worth it to keep the body alive in such a case? I say that the answer is at least “not always.” If I am to lose my consciousness and have no reasonable hope of regaining it, I don’t want my body on life support. What good is that?
“Superiority”? Well, society grants rights. It’s not a pretense of superiority when we’re talking about the unborn in the abortion argument. Society is made up of conscious individuals, and the unborn in this argument (to viability anyway, which is where most of the debate is) are not conscious, so “superiority” is a given in that respect, but that’s just a tangential fact. We’re taller and wider and heavier and more tanned in general as well. And better at Pinochle.
There are different states of “being,” but I agree that under a relatively broad and less-specific usage we can call the unborn “human beings.” In the legal sense the unborn are not that way, as are born people, and as far as having humane attributes they’re also not, but as a human organism the term can be applied. It gets into such a semantic argument that I don’t think it’s a huge deal nor worth spending much time on. Going with your usage, I see no real need on the part of society for more human beings on earth. If there *was* a demonstrable need, it’d be a lot different and I don’t think there’d be nearly as much argument over abortion as there is.
Doug
Hi Doug,
finally … I think perhaps through your words “society grants rights” where the point of disagreement is. In the preamble to the American Constitution, it is called ‘self evident’ that ‘rights are inherent FROM the creator’. So in a strong sense, Americans do-not (never did) grant rights but accept these from the creator. It is most interesting, that you accede rights to yourself and those who are born even though you are not yours … pretending that Americans are the author of these [and who is ‘in’ or ‘out’]. At the very same time you refuse such rights to unborn humans, citing that you ‘grant’ these. This is outside your jurisdiction! [Rights are granted TO YOU.]
Its really weird how much of our present world mimes Jesus’ parables. We are often called to be ‘good stewards’ of God’s gifts. We are not the owners and therefore, lack the owner’s control. So it is not up to us to judge another’s worthiness [in John’s epistle – NOT even our own].
John, you articulated that so well. I completely agree.
sorry,
instead of “you are not yours” it should read – “these are not yours to dispense”
Doug, this is a question of human integrity and what makes us human. I, and others here believe that the innate human capacity, regardless of actualization, is what gives us dignity.
From this perspective every member of our species is given the same respect.
You seem to give dignity based on the functionality of the individual person. If someone does not meet X critera, they do not deserve even the most basic rights. In your world view the mother and child are not equal in terms of dignity and worth. One is disposable. This worldview is at odds with one that embraces humanity. While I understand your view that only one is “aware”, I can never agree. To me it seems like discrimination based on a incredibly temperal condition.
John,
Thank you for your post. You did articulate it well. I attempted to write a post saying something similar (that the U.S. was founded on the principle that the rights are God-given and are not granted by the government), but gave up because I knew that nothing I could say would change Doug’s mind. This is a basic AMERICAN principle…in fact the very basis of our freedom…and it is frightening to me how many people either don’t even know it or reject it.
Thanks, Ellie
How about naming just one social problem that has been eliminated because of legal abortion.
Mary dear, name one example of aborition that has had an impact on societey.
@ Sally,
“name one example of abortion that has had an impact on society.”
The impacts are muted by their inclusion in statistics that have to do with falling birth rate. I assume manufacturers of baby needs like diapers, baby-foods and baby-clothes, strollers, etc were the first to notice this downturn. No doubt insurance coverage has also altered; as has school-room size [even the number of schools]; now it is a much diminished university crowd; and, it is starting to show … a lot of jobs searching to be filled … examples – the US imports nurses from Canada, in turn Canada imports nurses from 3rd-world countries. The same thing happens for doctors, university teachers, researchers and engineers. Miners are the latest group! Soon it will be???
Just who will feed you, make your clothes; grow your food; maintain your streets; houses; sewers; etc when you are old …. like retired (age 75)? The future is not bright for us old geezers. Will our generation prove to be a burden on our surviving children? We rejected them as babies; will they reject us as unwanted/inconvenient folk when we are older? Our only ‘problem’ is in reaching a certain age level … one movie had this level at 24-years.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/aug/03082105.html
Sally, you skipped answering the question. Typical, because you have no answer. John has given you a great answer to your question. I don’t think that we would have any groups like ‘SILENT NO MORE’ and ‘Rachel’s Vineyard’ if we didn’t have major problems with abortion. Women are being killed from legal abortions. Abortionists have molested, raped, and stalked abortion patients. Nurses are resigning from abortion clinics and “outing” these loser abortionists. We’ve got more problems than you could shake a stick at.
John: I think perhaps through your words “society grants rights” where the point of disagreement is. In the preamble to the American Constitution, it is called ‘self evident’ that ‘rights are inherent FROM the creator’. So in a strong sense, Americans do-not (never did) grant rights but accept these from the creator. It is most interesting, that you accede rights to yourself and those who are born even though you are not yours … pretending that Americans are the author of these [and who is ‘in’ or ‘out’]. At the very same time you refuse such rights to unborn humans, citing that you ‘grant’ these. This is outside your jurisdiction! [Rights are granted TO YOU.]
John, it’s the Declaration of Independence, not any part of the Constitution. Many of the writers of the Declaration liked the idea of a creator, etc. The fact remains that it is from society that rights come. It is up to society to think of them, and deem them present or not. The declaration, in saying, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.was talking about almost exclusively white, male landowners. The thinking was not applied to women, most minorities, etc. It certainly was not applied to the unborn, and abortion up to 4 or 5 or 6 months gestation was legal before, during, and after the Declaration came to be. I know some people believe in gods or a god, but there is no proof of them.
Its really weird how much of our present world mimes Jesus’ parables. We are often called to be ‘good stewards’ of God’s gifts. We are not the owners and therefore, lack the owner’s control. So it is not up to us to judge another’s worthiness [in John’s epistle – NOT even our own].
Well, the fact is that we all do judge, though, regardless of what we ascribe our desire to, i.e. religion or not. The abortion argument is all about desire and valuation.
Doug
Doug,
Yes, those words are from the Delcaration of Independence, not from the preamble. I noticed that but didn’t bother correcting John.
The words, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a founding PRINCIPLE. It is this very principle that led to slaves being freed and women having the right to vote. And it will be the one that someday recognizes the personhood of unborn babies….even those “imperfect” ones with Down syndrome. In a famous speech (I think a debate with Douglas?), Abraham Lincoln addressed this very point….that the F.F. couldn’t have meant just white men descending from England and he goes on to say why. I’ll try to find the link and post it, can’t find it off the bat.
Lauren: Doug, this is a question of human integrity and what makes us human. I, and others here believe that the innate human capacity, regardless of actualization, is what gives us dignity.
Okay, that’s your valuation. I do not think that is any reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter of abortion.
What makes us really “human” is our brains. We are a unique species on earth, yes, and the unborn in this argument are certainly of the same species, but there are many other species just as unique. What really sets us apart is our tool-using and tool-making, our talent for communication and recording of information that is passed along through the years. I see no more necessary “dignity” on our part than for other species. It’s a subjective thing, of course, but if anything I’d say people have had some very bad effects on our planet.
From this perspective every member of our species is given the same respect.
Sure, valuation again, and that’s fine for you. However, it’s no demonstrable proof that we, as a society, need to ban or further restrict abortion. We already have lots and lots of members of our species. The unborn don’t care, and this argument is between born, thinking people. It’s that you more want the unborn life to continue and I more want for women to retain the freedom they have.
You seem to give dignity based on the functionality of the individual person. If someone does not meet X critera, they do not deserve even the most basic rights. In your world view the mother and child are not equal in terms of dignity and worth. One is disposable. This worldview is at odds with one that embraces humanity. While I understand your view that only one is “aware”, I can never agree. To me it seems like discrimination based on a incredibly temperal condition.
I am not saying the unborn are “disposable.” It is not up to me – it’s up to the woman who is pregnant, first and foremost. The unborn may be wanted, to a huge degree, or not wanted at all. The “deserving” or not really comes from the woman/the woman and man. I am not saying there is any necessary worth or lack of it on the part of the unborn. The valuation is made by the woman. I don’t say the unborn have to live nor that they have to die. I don’t need to force women with wanted pregnancies to have abortions, and I don’t need to force women with unwanted pregnancies to continue them.
As far as “humanity,” there is a big difference between merely being human and having the conscious awareness we do as individuals and as a race. Compared to born people, yes, the unborn are “discriminated” against. So what? Why does it really *need* to be any different? Why should a given woman continue her pregnancy, if it is unwanted? The embryo or fetus does not care. What persuasive argument can you present that your desire should overrule the desire of the woman?
Doug
Ellie: The words, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a founding PRINCIPLE. It is this very principle that led to slaves being freed and women having the right to vote. And it will be the one that someday recognizes the personhood of unborn babies….even those “imperfect” ones with Down syndrome. In a famous speech (I think a debate with Douglas?), Abraham Lincoln addressed this very point….that the F.F. couldn’t have meant just white men descending from England and he goes on to say why. I’ll try to find the link and post it, can’t find it off the bat.
Okay, yes – principle, idea, etc. And it did indeed change as the years went by, there eventually being enough sentiment for the slaves to be freed and for women to vote, etc. Lincoln may have had some logical points, but the “Founding Fathers” really did not mean women, slaves, etc. It’s not totally either/or, as I think that they did feel that women had the right to life, but that they did not think the slaves had the right of liberty, etc., – those seem obvious to me.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible that personhood would ever be attributed to the unborn. It’d be quite a deal, a massive can of woms opened up, and a thing far beyond the legality of abortion or not.
Doug
John: Just who will feed you, make your clothes; grow your food; maintain your streets; houses; sewers; etc when you are old …. like retired (age 75)?
Perfectly good questions, John, but that does not mean that a woman “owes” anybody to have a baby she does not want.
Doug
@Doug,
“I know some people believe in gods or a god, but there is no proof of them.” Got into this before on this site. Thomas Aquinas centuries ago proved God’s existence 6 different ways. [I think that since then two more have been added.]
One of Thomas’ ‘proofs’ had to do with motion. Since only living (animate) objects self-move. How come things not living move … includes movement of electrons, atoms, quarks, oceans, rain, rivers, planets, moons, galaxies? [In more modern jargon, what caused the Big Bang?] He called God: the Prime Mover. These had to be set-in-motion, no? This even becomes more fascinating if you include in movement … aging, acceleration, history etc, etc.
If you find this silly – this is one of six and he considered this one of his ‘minor’ proofs.
……………………
you also said: “The fact remains that it is from society that rights come. It is up to society to think of them, and deem them present or not.” This then is where we diverge … besides I was always taught that the Declaration of Independence was the preamble to the US-Constitution. As a preamble it is not legally binding, but to claim that these two are fundamentally different speaks volumes to me.
We are still at the point of divergence if rights “come from a society”, just how did they come to be? [Ah, tis magic!] …. who/what bestowed on this society these intrinsic values … that we call rights. If individual humans have no value … then multiplying this hundreds of millions of times still yields no value at all. This style of human rights [whose source is human] yields an empty nest.
Weeks ago HisMan chided you for a morality that was relative. I have heard: “All is relative!” Oh really? Is that statement a non-relative one?
How can there even exist a base for relativistic thinking, without going logically mad?
@Doug,
I’ve heard this: “a woman “owes” anybody to have a baby she does not want.” before. But how do you get from privilege/gift to obligation, Doug? Is this not about feelings? … anticipated rejection? Why does a woman feel more accepted if she kills her baby?
John: One of Thomas’ ‘proofs’ had to do with motion. Since only living (animate) objects self-move. How come things not living move … includes movement of electrons, atoms, quarks, oceans, rain, rivers, planets, moons, galaxies? [In more modern jargon, what caused the Big Bang?] He called God: the Prime Mover. These had to be set-in-motion, no? This even becomes more fascinating if you include in movement … aging, acceleration, history etc, etc.
If you find this silly – this is one of six and he considered this one of his ‘minor’ proofs.
As stated that seems very silly to me. Who says electrons, etc. “self-move”? What in the world would that have to do with any supernatural stuff? Those “proofs” involve unprovable supposition. If we begin with subjective belief, we may build all sorts of logical constructions therefrom, but in no way is that any external truth or objective reality,. necessarily. One could just as well ask “what created God?”
……………………
you also said: “The fact remains that it is from society that rights come. It is up to society to think of them, and deem them present or not.” This then is where we diverge … besides I was always taught that the Declaration of Independence was the preamble to the US-Constitution. As a preamble it is not legally binding, but to claim that these two are fundamentally different speaks volumes to me.
The Preamble is just this: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. The Constitution was written 11 years later in 1787, and the Preamble and most of the final draft of the text of the Constitution are attributed to a dude named Gouverneur Morris. I’m not sure what you mean about “fundamentally different,” but they really are different. The Preamble isn’t talking about any “Creator” stuff or “intrinsic” rights.
…………………..
We are still at the point of divergence if rights “come from a society”, just how did they come to be? [Ah, tis magic!] …. who/what bestowed on this society these intrinsic values … that we call rights. If individual humans have no value … then multiplying this hundreds of millions of times still yields no value at all. This style of human rights [whose source is human] yields an empty nest.
It’s not magic, it’s desire at work. Most people, all around the world, want similar things, and thus we have the great commonality of laws and oft-granted rights. There’s nothing “intrinsic” going on. People want to live and thus came about the “right to life” concept. I did not say that individual humans have no value. Heck, many are valued very, very highly. No “empty nest,” just reality.
…………………
Weeks ago HisMan chided you for a morality that was relative. I have heard: “All is relative!” Oh really? Is that statement a non-relative one? How can there even exist a base for relativistic thinking, without going logically mad?
I know that the idea of absolute morality appeals to some people, but that is not what really goes on. In the moral realm, all is relative, yes. And yes – that’s a blanket statement, an absolute, if you will. It’s the way things work, there. People have desires – that’s the base for moral thinking. People have feelings about all the good/bad/right/wrong aspects of many things, and that leads to their moral opinion. Rights are concepts of thought. They don’t exist outside the mind, beyond “somebody” thinking of them. If there is a god, or gods, or other “higher” beings than us earthly humans, they likely have their own desires and morality too – that’s my guess.
I don’t think one has to go logically mad, heh heh. People want to live, in general, and also want other people to live (for the most part). They are conscious and they know that others have that consciousness, and similar feelings, too. That gives rise to the idea that it is wrong to kill people, in general. We don’t want people to suffer, so we feel that it’s wrong to hurt them, do certain things to them, etc., and the idea of one person’s rights ending where another’s begin is aimed at the least amount of suffering.
Your desire is more for the unborn lives to continue, so your morality is that abortion is wrong. I more want the woman to be free to make her own choice, so my morality is that abortion isn’t necessarily wrong. If all our desires were the same on the subject, there wouldn’ be the debate about abortion, and it’d be more like the things about which there isn’t significant disagreement now.
On many things there is great commonality ’round the world, and most countries have very similar laws. There are some issues of morality where great divergences exist, though. Abortion is one of them, as is female genital mutilation. In the US we think it’s wrong, bigtime. In some other cultures it’s considered “right.”
Doug
@Doug,
just thought of something …. a pregnant woman has an unwanted pregnancy (@50% of the time, 1/2 of these end in abortion). Her values (based on her emotions, not her rights) supersede the rights of a baby because it does not emote, has no intellect (but can take-over her womb and direct its growth), [an intellect we cannot perceive] but it does have rights.
you are quite correct then is saying that this is not about rights at all, but about wanted vs unwanted which are transitory and changeable value-emotions. You think them fixed, I do not (the zinc thing is just one thing). But why does she feel the baby unwanted?
Your belief about over-population is used to entrench her feelings (and yours). But it’s the straight-arm … ‘this-is-your-decision; not-mine’ that has pregnant women thinking that there is no support for an ‘us’ (my baby and me). I think we could count on you to not-help = unwanted.
John: I’ve heard this: “a woman “owes” anybody to have a baby she does not want.” before. But how do you get from privilege/gift to obligation, Doug? Is this not about feelings? … anticipated rejection? Why does a woman feel more accepted if she kills her baby?
John, you’re a very interesting guy.
Obligation is in the eye of the beholder. Yes indeed it’s about feelings. I don’t think a woman will feel “more accepted” if she has an abortion. Some people will accept her just fine all along, and others will condemn her for it. She knows this, so I don’t see how she can “gain” acceptance by it. If anything, more people are going to accept her if she does not have an abortion.
You hear the “pro-abortion” silliness quite a lot, but that’s not the real deal. If somebody is actually “for abortion,” per se, then they are not pro-choice, but anti-choice.
Perhaps I missed your point about acceptance. I think a woman should do what is best for her, what she wants the most. Often (most of the time) a pregnant woman continues the pregnancy. Sometimes she has an abortion. The vast majority of women are happy, overall, with their choice, whichever it is.
Doug
Doug: “Well, society grants rights.”
No, only societies (governments)that are NOT free grant rights. This is what you are not understanding about the United States. What makes the U.S. unique is that it recoginizes that certain rights (such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) are GOD-GIVEN, and it is the goverment’s role to SECURE (NOT grant) those rights.
Fr. Frank Pavone puts it this way (paraphrasing): Out of all the governments in the world, they can be fall into two types: 1) Those that recognize that rights are God-given, and it is the government’s role to SECURE those rights, and 2)Those that grant those “rights” as they see fit. The U.S. is of the first type. Only the first type is truly a free government.
Our F.F. understood that there were certain natural rights (such as life) that were not to be infringed by any “postive” laws that government enacted.
If our government rejects God, it also rejects any concept of “God-given.” If this happens, we are no longer the first type, but the second type, and we would no longer be free. Life was seen as “God-given” and above any positive laws. This doesn’t mean that they were able to perfectly adhere to this; they were imperfect humans beings. They were men, after all :-)
just thought of something …. a pregnant woman has an unwanted pregnancy (@50% of the time, 1/2 of these end in abortion). Her values (based on her emotions, not her rights) supersede the rights of a baby because it does not emote, has no intellect (but can take-over her womb and direct its growth), [an intellect we cannot perceive] but it does have rights.
John, cells are programmed by DNA to do things – I don’t see that as “intellect.” I disagree about the rights – the woman’s values take precedence because it’s her body. Not that it’s impossible that rights would be attributed to the unborn – many states already do a limited form of it late in gestation, i.e. telling the woman she cannot have an abortion then just because she wants to end the pregnancy. But as of now right-to-life is not granted to the unborn. And I know many people wish that were different.
………
you are quite correct then is saying that this is not about rights at all, but about wanted vs unwanted which are transitory and changeable value-emotions. You think them fixed, I do not (the zinc thing is just one thing). But why does she feel the baby unwanted?
A variety of reasons are often why a woman wants an abortion. Not wanting to be responsible for a child, not having enough money, not wanting a baby to interfere with job, schooling, caring for other dependents; not wanting to be a single parent, or having relationship problems; not wanting to have any more kids, period – those are the most frequently held feelings.
I don’t think desires and valuations are fixed. They can be, but in no way do they have to be. Do some women later regret having abortions, on balance? Yes. Same for some women that continue pregnancies and have kids. I am not saying that a woman’s values cannot change, not at all. Many times, a woman will have an abortion and later have kids and be very satisfied with the whole progression. I hear you on the zinc, but again – do we take away the woman’s freedom to choose based on that? I say no.
……….
Your belief about over-population is used to entrench her feelings (and yours). But it’s the straight-arm … ‘this-is-your-decision; not-mine’ that has pregnant women thinking that there is no support for an ‘us’ (my baby and me). I think we could count on you to not-help = unwanted.
I think you are misstating my position. My point about population is that we do not need to ban abortion or further restrict it. If we were demonstrably under-populated, then there would be more sentiment against abortion. As things are now, though, I’m saying there’s no reason to deny a woman an abortion (to a point in gestation). Nor do I say we need force abortions on any women. If anything we have recently seen population pressure affecting valuation, as with China’s “One Child” policy. I am not advocating that, though. I’m saying let the woman do what she wants, that we don’t need to force her, either way. The current rate of population growth is “plenty,” in my opinion.
I don’t think my opinion matters much to a given pregnant woman. She knows the deal – what she has, what her family is likely to do, how a baby would impact her life.
You think you could count on me to not help…. Hmm…. Well, I do think that people should only do what they can be responsible for. For a woman to have babies because other taxpayers will pay for them is not good, in my opinion. But I do not want children suffering. I support the non-custodial parent having to pay, when it’s an issue. I favor societal programs to feed and clothe kids. If a woman has an abortion just because she thinks that society won’t be there to help her, at all, then I think that is sad, and that such women probably suffer from that feeling themselves, often.
Doug
Doug: “Well, society grants rights.”
Ellie: No, only societies (governments)that are NOT free grant rights. This is what you are not understanding about the United States. What makes the U.S. unique is that it recoginizes that certain rights (such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) are GOD-GIVEN, and it is the goverment’s role to SECURE (NOT grant) those rights.
I disagree, Ellie. All rights come from society, period, regardless of what society is in question. There’s no proof of a god or gods. I know that some people have certain beliefs, and that some of the Founding Fathers did too, but it is society that says born people have right-to-life, etc. It would be society whether or not there was belief in certain supernatural things. Rights are a mental concept in the mind of people in society, regardless of whether a given person has religious beliefs or not.
……….
Fr. Frank Pavone puts it this way (paraphrasing): Out of all the governments in the world, they can be fall into two types: 1) Those that recognize that rights are God-given, and it is the government’s role to SECURE those rights, and 2)Those that grant those “rights” as they see fit. The U.S. is of the first type. Only the first type is truly a free government.
It’s not “free or not free” that’s the question there. Pavone is saying that either gov’ts make policy on religious belief or not, and he’s correct, but all gov’ts grant rights as they see fit (whether they attribute anything to religion or not).
……….
Our F.F. understood that there were certain natural rights (such as life) that were not to be infringed by any “postive” laws that government enacted.
Well, some of the F.F. thought that, yes, but that was an idea in their minds, not the reflection of anything provable, not anything that can be demonstrated to be anything beyond imaginary. In practice, rights are granted or not on the basis of there being sufficient opinion for it to be so, or not, again regardless of religion.
……….
If our government rejects God, it also rejects any concept of “God-given.” If this happens, we are no longer the first type, but the second type, and we would no longer be free. Life was seen as “God-given” and above any positive laws. This doesn’t mean that they were able to perfectly adhere to this; they were imperfect humans beings. They were men, after all :-)
Well, we do have separation of church and state, for good reasons IMO. The bottom line is, for example, that born people are granted the right to life. This is because enough people want it that way. It’s because there is sufficient opinion for it. A given person may think this way because of their religion, or not. We’re just as free either way. People desire to be free, religion notwithstanding.
Doug
Doug: “A given person may think this way because of their religion, or not.”
This is not about religion; it is about “natural rights.” It is American.
We do have separation of church and state, but we do not have separation of God and country. And once we do, good-bye Ameria, good-bye freedom; including yours. (This does not mean you have to believe in God; it only means that that our laws cannot violate God-given rights.)
Separation of church and state means something very different than the way your applying it here. If we applied it the way you are using it, murder, theft, rape, etc. would merely be “choices.” These things happen to violate most religions; that does not make these beliefs strictly religious. They violate natural rights….just as abortion does.
Claps for Ellie!!
Ellie, good discussion. I guess I would ask you to prove that there is a god. Prove that there is anything such as “natural rights.” It’s fact that most people around the world have great commonality in their desires, and thus it’s no surprise to me to see the similarity in laws.
Murder, theft, rape, etc. ARE choices, but they go against what almost everybody wants. There is not enough sentiment for them to be legal, and there is well more than enough opinion for them to be illegal. Has nothing to do with God or intrinsic rights, etc. What is operative is that peoples’ desires are being expressed.
It’s evident to me that “rights” are concepts of thought. They, as morality, fit the definition of “subjective.” “Relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.” “Existing in the mind,” etc.
They’re not “objective” as “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.” They are not external to the mind, they are internal to it. They don’t have physical reality. They are ideas, often very commonly-held ideas, but nothing more than that.
Morality is all desire and valuation, and the concepts of rights come from the same stuff.
Doug
@Doug,
the reason for this ‘debate’ to be full of emotions is that it involves a questionable activity on (and by) human beings, so the high-emotions are part-of-this-package. It would be a disservice to treat this decision-to-abort as a fully-reasoned neutral decision in either its beginnings or its effects …. eg. China’s 1-Child policy has incredible consequences especially for Asia. Because of this policy China (in a few years hence) will have an excess of 30 million males. [That’s the whole population of Canada!] It is thought that the majority of these males will end up in the Red army. So you have 30 million frustrated, armed males …. with no god-figure except a deceased Mao Tse Tung. Do I hear: ‘Duck, Vietnam!’ or, ‘Duck, Cambodia!’ or, ‘Duck Russia!’ ?
……………………….
Had to smile a bit about Thomas’ proofs [many centuries of the best minds have attempted to refute these. they have not succeeded.] as being not supernatural enough. So, here’s another. All things in our universe are ordered. Typically this is called ‘Mother Nature’. Why are things ordered at all? How did they get this way?
This on the surface seems easy. There are things … like horses and chairs and mountains, and humans … and, and … Ah yes, but there is a large part of immateriality to our material world … like, time, space, energy, vacuum, forces, even mass. One physicist talked about the atom. He said that if an atom were the size of St. Peter’s Dome … the electrons are the dust floating in the air and the core of the atoms are like a few crystals of sand on the floor. When a kid, I learned that if all space is removed from atoms, 1/3 teaspoon would weigh 13 tons.
CONCLUSION: We are space – well divided space. The phenomenon of our existence is strange because we are much closer to non-existence than actual real existing. [I presume that space for you is of no value at all.]
There is the (3rd?) Law of Thermo-dynamics that is about Entropy: it says all systems tend to end by falling apart …. except living things that regenerate old to new through fertility and birth.
Death has societal consequences … should we as part of society remain neutral about death?
Doug: “Murder, theft, rape, etc. ARE choices, but they go against what almost everybody wants.”
Ah, but only the “powerful” people (those with voices, votes, etc.) have a say in whether those activities are “wanted” or not. These activities violate those who we can see, hear, and know, that’s why many don’t want them. Just because we can’t see, hear, and know the unborn, we think we can violate them.
What you are talkng about is the powerful versus the weak. This is exactly what the FF were attempting to prevent. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not; the fact is America was founded upon that principle stated in the Declaration of Independence (created equal, endowed by our Creator….certain inalienble rights…Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.) Abortion is a clear violation of that principle.
Actually, the majority has never voted on whether abortion should be legal or not. It was really a handful of powerful men in black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court who decided. If Americans had a say in it, the abortion picture would look quite different. (My personal opinion is that it is not a matter for the people to decide either….it falls under the God-given or natural rights category, and not the positive law category.)
Rush is such a loser.
Today I heard him say there are no ill effects of smoking in front of your children and the government has no business telling you how to raise your children to what to put in your body. “My mom smoked and look at me!”
A. Yes, Rush, look at you. You’ve had some drug problems yourself
B. Are you advocating a repeal in anti-child abuse and anti-drug laws…?
C. Are you INSANE?! You think it’s OKAY to smoke in front of your children?!
Talk about responsibility. If Rush values life so much, how about America’s BORN children too..
My husband smokes and neither one of his parents has ever smoked. My brother in-law smokes and he has 6 kids who are very healthy.
My grandfather died from smoking complications. My mom and dad never smoked, but when I was younger for a long time I seriously didn’t want to visit my grandparents at their house for a while because the smoke made it harder to breathe.
It just seems irresponsible to me to promote smoking in front of young children. I have several married friends who only smoke in their room and close the door. They refuse to let their kids into their room.
My grandfather died from smoking complications. My mom and dad never smoked, but when I was younger for a long time I seriously didn’t want to visit my grandparents at their house for a while because the smoke made it harder to breathe.
It just seems irresponsible to me to promote smoking in front of young children. I have several married friends who only smoke in their room and close the door. They refuse to let their kids into their room.
whoops, double post.
http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/tobacco/secondhand_smoke.cfm
Doug: “Murder, theft, rape, etc. ARE choices, but they go against what almost everybody wants.”
Ellie: Ah, but only the “powerful” people (those with voices, votes, etc.) have a say in whether those activities are “wanted” or not. These activities violate those who we can see, hear, and know, that’s why many don’t want them. Just because we can’t see, hear, and know the unborn, we think we can violate them.
What “violation” do you think is there? The unborn don’t care. This is your opinion against the opinion of a pregnant woman. There is no “wanting” on the part of the unborn.
……….
What you are talkng about is the powerful versus the weak. This is exactly what the FF were attempting to prevent. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not; the fact is America was founded upon that principle stated in the Declaration of Independence (created equal, endowed by our Creator….certain inalienble rights…Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.) Abortion is a clear violation of that principle.
It’s an idea, yes, but we don’t need it. We’ve not attributed personhood to the unborn, and I don’t think any society on earth ever has. The Founding Fathers said “men” were the ones created equal, etc. The unborn were not included. Abortion for most of pregnancy was legal before, during, and after that was written. I know you like the idea of it, but they did not mean the unborn to be included.
……….
Actually, the majority has never voted on whether abortion should be legal or not. It was really a handful of powerful men in black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court who decided. If Americans had a say in it, the abortion picture would look quite different. (My personal opinion is that it is not a matter for the people to decide either….it falls under the God-given or natural rights category, and not the positive law category.)
Again – there’s no proof of your beliefs, there. I say that as a country we do not need to take away the freedom women currently have in this matter. It’s an individual matter. What real need can you demonstrate that America should decide for the woman? What persuasive argument can you present? The slaveowners wanted their will to be forced on other sentient beings, the slaves. Pro-lifers want their will to be forced on other sentient beings, pregnant women.
Doug
John: the reason for this ‘debate’ to be full of emotions is that it involves a questionable activity on (and by) human beings, so the high-emotions are part-of-this-package. It would be a disservice to treat this decision-to-abort as a fully-reasoned neutral decision in either its beginnings or its effects …. eg. China’s 1-Child policy has incredible consequences especially for Asia. Because of this policy China (in a few years hence) will have an excess of 30 million males. [That’s the whole population of Canada!] It is thought that the majority of these males will end up in the Red army. So you have 30 million frustrated, armed males …. with no god-figure except a deceased Mao Tse Tung. Do I hear: ‘Duck, Vietnam!’ or, ‘Duck, Cambodia!’ or, ‘Duck Russia!’ ?
I hear you, John, but again, it’s all desire at work, and the above really is not part of the abortion debate. The deal with China is that they were feeling population pressure. I’m not saying there aren’t or won’t be some bad results of their policies. I’m not saying that we have to abort more or less due to population pressure. I’d leave it up to the woman. My point about the population, all along, is that it does not argue for banning or further restricting abortion. Nothing more than that. I do not say we need to force women to have abortions, but we also sure as heck don’t need to force them to continue unwanted pregnancies.
……………………….
Had to smile a bit about Thomas’ proofs [many centuries of the best minds have attempted to refute these. they have not succeeded.] as being not supernatural enough.
You mean St. Thomas Aquinas, right? If so, you’re absolutely wrong – they are easily refuted. They involve gaps in logic, undefined or badly defined concepts, and unsupported premises. If there was actually any “proof” there, it couldn’t be argued and it’d be able to be demonstrated and repeatedly observed. But that’s not the way it is. What is there are illogical convolutions and, as I said before, unsupported assumptions.
……….
So, here’s another. All things in our universe are ordered. Typically this is called ‘Mother Nature’. Why are things ordered at all? How did they get this way?
This on the surface seems easy. There are things … like horses and chairs and mountains, and humans … and, and … Ah yes, but there is a large part of immateriality to our material world … like, time, space, energy, vacuum, forces, even mass. One physicist talked about the atom. He said that if an atom were the size of St. Peter’s Dome … the electrons are the dust floating in the air and the core of the atoms are like a few crystals of sand on the floor. When a kid, I learned that if all space is removed from atoms, 1/3 teaspoon would weigh 13 tons.
CONCLUSION: We are space – well divided space. The phenomenon of our existence is strange because we are much closer to non-existence than actual real existing. [I presume that space for you is of no value at all.]
What “value” would there be? I know the deal with the nucleus of atoms and the electrons. That’s the way things are. And what in the world does this have to do with any proof of a creator?
……….
There is the (3rd?) Law of Thermo-dynamics that is about Entropy: it says all systems tend to end by falling apart …. except living things that regenerate old to new through fertility and birth.
Oh man, you’re making my poor old brain work…. 3rd law is saying that entropy tends toward zero as the temperature does. 2nd law is what you’re thinking of, I’m pretty sure – entropy increases, differences in temperature, density and pressure tend to lessen. These are for closed systems, of course. Living things involve additions of energy so they’re not closed systems.
……….
Death has societal consequences … should we as part of society remain neutral about death?
Heavy stuff…. That “should” is in the eye of the beholder. As always, it depends on what is desired. My opinion is that we need not increase the number of deaths nor decrease the number of deaths to the extent that we would deny the desire of pregnant women.
Doug
PIP, my only disagreement with Rush is his position on smoking and also second-hand smoke. I’m one of those reformed smokers (almost 30 years ago, yikes) who HATES cigarette smoke. I get an instant headache. I have to wash my hair asap. And I’m sure it hurts children who are forced by parents to inhale it.