Singer: euthanizing preborn/postborn handicapped infants, same difference
John Jansen at Lunch Break reports that infamous Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer will speak tonight at the 18th Annual Chicago Humanities Festival. Writes John:
Yes, that Peter Singer – Peter “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all” Singer.
Singer advocates parents having the right to euthanize handicapped postborn babies up to one month of age.
Singer wrote in Practical Ethics…
[W]e have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer – and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil….
I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror….
Singer is right. If pro-lifers think euthanasiaistic infanticide is an extension of abortion and both are evil, the case for the opposite is “strong”: pro-aborts should see euthanasiaistic infanticide is an extension of abortion and find both acceptable.
I don’t want to deviate from the specific point of the rationale for aborting preborn handicapped children, which is no different than the rationale for euthanizing postborn handicapped children.
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.
I don’t know what to think of Peter Singer. On one hand, he is extremely consistent and follows the abortion mentality to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, I mean, my goodness. What does someone like, say Doug, think of this? You’re quite consistent, too. How do you feel about killing born babies if it’s in the “best interest” of the parents?
Peter Singer also advocates sex with animals as long as the animal enjoys it. I don’t know how one can know this. I don’t think animals can form a response for “Was it good for you?” Bark once for no, bark twice for yes???
Jill –
As much as Singer disgusts me, he has a point. If you think it is morally acceptable to kill disabled children in the womb, it is not a stetch to say it is okay to kill them once they are born. He really would make a great Nazi. I can’t wait to hear how pro-aborts respond to this. I think we should be asking them if they agree with Singer. If you follow the logic, abortion is acceptable for the health of the mother, so having a disabled child can be stressful on a mother’s health. So we should make sure that she doesn’t endure the stress. Afterall, diabled children aren’t “productive”, and hence has no value in a “civilized” society. Just like the elderly have no place in society after they can no longer be productive, or people who are permenantly disabled after a accident or injury. So we have the right to kill them too.
It’s just disgusting. This is why our society continues to destroy itself. If we don’t value and protect the most vulnerable, then life is cheap. We can throw away and discard anyone who isn’t “perfect”. I bet PP would offer killing postborn babies as a service if it was allowed.
When I hear Singer talk I get mad. I have friends who are disabled, who contribute more to this world than someone like Singer ever will. When I go out with them, some people are uncomfortable. I say good!! They chanllenge us to look inside and search for what being “normal” or “perfect” is. They challenge our conception of what having a fulfilling and happy life is. It is God’s way of revealing to those of us who are not disabled, if we can trully care and love someone who isn’t like us. To step outside of our comfort zones. That’s the challange isn’t it? This world would be worse off if it weren’t for those who are disabled.
And as the Germans proved, it is a very short step from accepting killing disabled children to murdering anyone you define as not “up to snuff”. If you think it was only the Nazis, and not the prevalent culture of apathy for life among Germany in general then you need to read
Jacquie,
I have friends who are disabled, who contribute more to this world than someone like Singer ever will. When I go out with them, some people are uncomfortable. I say good!! They chanllenge us to look inside and search for what being “normal” or “perfect” is.
Doesn’t parading your “disabled” friends around rank right up there with showing pictures of aborted fetuses? I mean why should we force people to look at them (either one). They are ugly, and gross and scare little children!
I mean if you want to look at them, fine. But why should you be able to “wave” them around to the public?
Singer is an apostate. He claims that we must treat animals ethically, and espouses a vegan diet….yet thinks its perfectly fine to eat animal products when presented with them. He’s an ethical hypocrite, reasoning away his moral conscience whenever it suits him.
What does someone like, say Doug, think of this? You’re quite consistent, too. How do you feel about killing born babies if it’s in the “best interest” of the parents?
Doug has already explained to me that he feels that it would be okay to kill a newborn, as long as you anesthetized it first, and it was the mother’s wish, and no one else knew about it. :(
Hey, MK, Nice parallel. Way to show people their sick, twisted thinking. It makes me sick to hear it, but it needs to be acknowledged.
My response to that Esther-esque logic would be a hearty, “Bite me.” :) Aren’t I eloquent?
My sister is a director for a disability services non-profit (she also worked as a primary caregiver in college and did respite care). After a few more years of administration are tucked under her belt, she wants to start and run her own respite house.
I was the childcare person for ARC meetings when I was in college, attended dances at the state school, and worked in a special-needs Sunday school class. I also hope to one day foster or adopt children with chronic illnesses or disabilities.
Since both my sister and I worked with people with disabilities and choose to continue doing so, apparently anyone that has ever been in a close proximity to such individuals does not find these people to be ugly, gross or scary. As a matter of fact, not to stereotype, but they give the firmest hugs. I miss those hugs.
I think that anyone bigotted towards the disabled should be forced to spend any amount of time in any of those venues, look someone right, smack in the eyes and say such things. It reminds me of a poster that feminists for life created. You can access it here.
Current attitudes towards human life nauseate me. Lord, have mercy. Christ have mercy!
Which leads me into a great segue for continuing this discussion with Esther…
If it bothers you to see those pictures, ask yourself why.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 31, 2007 9:13 AM
The pictures don’t bother me beyond the fact that I think it’s rude and weird to wave those gross signs in people’s faces. Besides, young children exposed to graphic pictures of blood and guts over and over eventually become immune to seeing it. So, ironically, you’re not doing your side any favors in the long run.
*********************************************************************
Honey, I don’t own a gun. And I am certainly not violent. So I fail to see how I could/would possibly “Force” anyone to have an illegal abortion. Just like I didn’t “force” them to get pregnant.
Sweetheart, if abortion is illegal, women who want to terminate their pregnancies will be forced to have ILLEGAL abortions.
Are women such complete idiots that you don’t believe they make any choices for themselves.
That’s what you think. You think women are deluded into thinking they need abortions.
Do you honestly think that they only do things because they are “forced”.
If a pregnant woman wants an abortion, she will be forced to have one illegally if the procedure is ever banned. She certainly won’t have the option of obtaining it legally.
Actually, women who want to terminate their pregnancies will CHOOSE to have an ILLEGAL abortion.
Rape is illegal. Are we forcing men to rape illegally?
Do we force men to diddle young boys illegally?
Do we force men to ride motorcycles without helmets, illegally?
Do we force people to drive the speed limit?
NO! We make it very unpleasant to get caught doing these things. We certainly take away their legal options.
But whether or not they do these things ALWAYS comes down to (as Doug would say) whether or not they DESIRE the illegal thing more than the legal thing.
And then they make a CHOICE. No force. Choice.
That’s what you think. You think women are deluded into thinking they need abortions.
No Esther, deluded and forced are two different words.
I believe that the women are feeling desperate and what appears to be a viable option is placed before them. I believe that they are lied to, and buy into the lies, because they need to.
But I do not believe they are forced.
And I don’t think they are deluded into thinking that they need abortions. I think they are deluded into thinking that abortions will solve their problems. Deluded into believing that their unborn child is not a person. Deluded into believing that they are for “choice” when they don’t express what that “choice” is. Believe they are deluded into thinking that there will be no repercussions for choosing an abortion. And deluded into believing that having sex is not consent to the possibility of pregnancy.
I believe you are deluded into believing these things
Then you’re not promoting a viable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Geeze. Talk about unoriginal angles! People ARE going to have sex when they aren’t ready for procreation. They always have, and they always will.
And men ARE going to rape women.
And men ARE going to diddle young boys.
And people ARE going to rob convenience stores.
And people ARE going to murder each other.
They always have and they always will.
That’s why we have laws. Because, even tho it is obvious to us that murder, rape, pedophilia and theft are wrong, there are enough people out there that think otherwise that we must make laws to deter them.
Geez! Talk about unoriginal angles!
Then you’re not promoting a viable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
No, you’re right, I’m not. I’m talking about a viable “prevention” of an unwanted pregnancy.
Adoption is a viable “solution” to an unwanted pregnancy.
MK,
Perhaps I should stop talking to Esther. I can’t muster up a reasonable amount of courtesy towards her (in part, because I’m offended on how her attitudes and behavior shame her Biblical namesake).
Ohhhhh Jacquie,
Powerful Ad! Can you find a way to post it here?
It’ll be big. Let me try:
It’s a PDF, not a GIF. Let me try something else.
I agree completely, Jaqueline. I have also started recently working at residential facility for children and adolescents(ages 6-20) with autism spectrum disorders, moderate to severe developmental disorders (mental retardation, pervasive developmental disorder, oppositional defiant disorder) and mental illness. The quality of life they live is not based on other’s perception of their worth, but rather the simple joys they enjoy everyday (such as outings and last night we took them trick or treating around campus) and the joy and challenges they contribute to our lives.
Okay, I zoomed out, took a screen shot, pasted it into Paint, cut out the image, pasted into a new file, saved the file as a BMP, uploaded it to a hosting service and here it is:
I told you all the steps it took so you can see how much I love you, MK. :)
Jacquie,
Perhaps I should stop talking to Esther.
In Esther’s defense she is new here, and hasn’t yet realized that she can put her guns away…nobody here bites.
Many of the pro-choicers here are unrecognizable now. When they first came on, they came on expecting us to be like every other pro life site. So they come on defensive. It doesn’t take to long to realize that “We come in Peace”…
Don’t give up on her. If she is sincerely here with an open mind and an open heart she will mellow eventually, and if she is hell bent on simply causing trouble she will eventually get bored and move on.
Until then, try to read between the lines and not let her get you too upset. It ain’t easy but just ask Midnite, Alyssa and Rae. They were hellions that firsts week or two and now they are my dear friends…
The quality of life they live is not based on other’s perception of their worth, but rather the simple joys they enjoy everyday (such as outings and last night we took them trick or treating around campus) and the joy and challenges they contribute to our lives.
Nicely put, Rachael S.
Hey, wait. Aren’t you Rachael C. now? MRS. Rachael C? :)
Jacquie,
WOW! That was like listening to Rae when she explains what she does at her job…
You can’t know how impressed I am…and grateful.
Thanks!
“Doug has already explained to me that he feels that it would be okay to kill a newborn”
Ah, thanks Bethany. I figured he might. He is quite consistent, and I do respect him for that, although it is quite disturbing. God love you, MK.
nobody here bites.
I wish I could say that I haven’t been biting.
and if she is hell bent on simply causing trouble she will eventually get bored and move on.
With all due respect, Sally and Laura haven’t.
Hey, wait. Aren’t you Rachael C. now? MRS. Rachael C? :)
I was wondering the same thing!!!!!
*******CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!********
Now bring on them babies!
Jacquie,
But Laura has mellowed considerably. Sally? Well, personally I think she drinks (or something). Sometimes she is actually civil, and then sometimes at night she just goes on and on, stabbing and stabbing. I think she needs a friend.
I’ve actually grown fond of Laura. She certainly keeps you on your toes. I wish she was on our side. Her wit is wicked!
Jacquie,
Hey wouldn’t you like to see our man in the ad take on Pete Singer…sort of like Ali and what’s his name?
WOW! That was like listening to Rae when she explains what she does at her job…
What does Rae do? Inquiring minds want to know…
He is quite consistent, and I do respect him for that, although it is quite disturbing.
Consistency is something we don’t get much from the pro-choice side in this debate, so I appreciate it. It entails logical thought. What disturbs me as well is that it’s consistent, but consistently EVIL. It’s just as easy to be consistently good and doesn’t involve killing your conscience and walking headforth into eternal damnation.
P.S. Bobby, did you shave today?
I shaved last night. I even took pics! Now for a full month of no shaving!
But Laura has mellowed considerably.
This is mellowed? D@mn. What was she like before?
Hey wouldn’t you like to see our man in the ad take on Pete Singer…sort of like Ali and what’s his name?
Yep, even without the use of his legs, our dude could whip Singer’s scrawny Ivy League butt.
*******CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!********
I concur! Much love, Rachael!
I’ve actually grown fond of Laura. She certainly keeps you on your toes. I wish she was on our side. Her wit is wicked!
I’ve yet to find her amusing. Perhaps someday I will.
I shaved last night. I even took pics! Now for a full month of no shaving!
I’m not taking pictures. That’s be gross. But I am participating!
Viva la Sasquatch!
Nicely put, Rachael S.
Hey, wait. Aren’t you Rachael C. now? MRS. Rachael C? :)
LOL, you caught on! :-P I didn’t think anyone had noticed yet, so I was still signing with my maiden name. But yep, the wedding was back in September. In fact, if you’d like to see some pictures (be warned, there’s a lot ;-) ), my younger sister posted a bunch on the Photobucket site: http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd58/tjsnider/wedding/
I gotta have before and after pics.
And we went from Laura to Sasquatch, why?
What did I miss? Why isn’t Bobby shaving?
Do I even want to know?
Thanks Jacqueline and MK, you’re hilarious! :-P
Off-topic, now when I think of the Sasquatch, I think of beef jerky! LOL!
Jacquie,
I wish I still had the email where Rae went on about her work…it’s all science stuff. Makes me feel smart just havin’ it in my email box. But I understood absolutely zippo about it. Except she works in a lab. Did you know that she knows 6 syllable words? lol
Beef jerky? Sasquatch? I’m so lost….
Rachel,
Good Lord Woman, it looks like the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir stood up for the wedding!
How man people were in the bridal party?!?
“What did I miss? Why isn’t Bobby shaving?
Do I even want to know?”
It’s the eighth annual No-Shave-November, MK. I’ll give you the synopsis:
“In the year 2000, it took almost 2 months for a president to be picked. During that time, I was experimenting with facial hair growing, and had grown a beard. I decided not to shave my beard until the government picked a president. Several others joined me in my cause. Now, every year, a large group of the American people (read: me and Josh Knox) shave our faces completely on Oct. 31 and do not touch a razor to our faces until at least December 1 to remind the government that if they do not pick a president in future years, the public will not stand for it, and there will be many hairy people walking around the United States. Women, of course, are also encouraged to participate in No-Shave November by not shaving either their face or legs. So join me this November for the 8th annual No-Shave November by growing a huge beard and sending a message to our government officials; pick a president or face our faces!”
That’s from the facebook page I made for it. We’ve got over 50 people nationwide joining the effort! Fun stuff, I must say.
I want to know 6 syllable words!
By the way, No-Shave November is Bobby’s thing. Here’s a link, which you may or may not be able to see.
Basically, we don’t shave for the entire month of November, rendering us Sasquatch-like.
By the way, Rachael. You looked lovely. I love the cake pictures!
Crud. You have to have a facebook account to see that page.
Tis a shame. It’s friggin’ hilarious!
“I want to know 6 syllable words!”
Sesquipedalian.
I doesn’t help if I don’t know what it means, Bobby.
That wasn’t on the GRE!
Rachel,
You looked BEAUTIFUL!!!! I adore your bouquet! What were the green flower? They looked like “Bells of Ireland”….
Jacquie,
I think we need to chip in and get them their very own “Chucky Cheese Ball Pit”, just to start them out…;)
I looked it up. Very clever, Bobby. The best I could do in that genre is “Your epidermis is showing!”
I think we need to chip in and get them their very own “Chucky Cheese Ball Pit”, just to start them out…;)
LOL!!!! It’s the ideal wedding gift, I’m tellin’ ya!
Hey, MK- and that way, you’ll get those babies! :)
Jacquie,
With all due respect, you’ll never find Mr. Right if you’re sporting a beard…
A job in the circus maybe, but not Mr. Right. Although you will probably intimidate the government.
http://tinyurl.com/28dspt
This is what it’s all about, MK.
MK,
Do you have grandbabies at all?
If not, you and my mom should form a club. My mother is quite upset with me that I haven’t paired off and given her bundles of joy. Yet, she doesn’t condemn my ridiculously high standards, either, which I appreciate.
I’m not even the oldest! I’m the youngest, but my sister has sworn off kids and I’m the quiver-full Catholic that keeps abandoned orphan animals I care for in my bra for warmth, so I think she thinks I’m her best bet. :)
In fact, when I got together when my ex, she said, “He’s a Catholic! Oh boy, I’m going to have a grandbaby every year!” I didn’t work out and I was more sorry for my mom than for myself. :)
Sesquipedalian.
makes me want to kick someone butt in scrabble!
A job in the circus maybe, but not Mr. Right. Although you will probably intimidate the government.
Well, if he can’t appreciate that intimidating the government is priority one, then he’s not really Mr. Right, is he?
;P
Jacquie,
I have two grandbabies…Charlott (1 1/2) and Joseph (4 weeks)…I’m getting ready to go with their mother to the pediatrician right now. She’s the same doc that the kids father went too…I’m getting sooooo old.
My youngest is 7, so while the grandbabies are great they came awfully close to my own. Johnny was an uncle at 5! There’s 19 years difference between the first and the last…How’s that for Catholic?
This is what it’s all about, MK.
Okay. Waaaaaayyyy too much time on their hands…!
I gotta save that and show it to the son I’m always trying to auction off. Although, these days, I think he might pull in a pretty penny. He’s matured in Australia. I actually miss him!
Jacquie,
Well, if he can’t appreciate that intimidating the government is priority one, then he’s not really Mr. Right, is he?
good point!
Tell me, which mustache are you going for?
Thanks for all the kind words concerning people with disabilities. It great to know that there are some people out there who value them. I encounter alot of horrendous attitudes when I am out with my son. I have had someone say, “Does It talk?”. Some moms grab their child’s hand and quickly move away as he approaches. There are many who want the disabled to go away. Trust me, I have had more than one showdown over this. Now that he is a teen and pretty big it is worse. There are probably more people that support what Singer says than any of us would like to believe.
Carrie…
There are probably more people that support what Singer says than any of us would like to believe.
Yeah well, not all “handicaps” are visible to the eye…who is really disabled here?
*should read It is great*
MK,
Have you ever seen the commercials or packaging for the Jack Links brand of beef jerky? They play the commericals all the time around here and the Sasquatch is their current icon.
LOL, MK, there were 4 bridesmaids, 4 groomsmen two pastors (one is from our church, but we also wanted to to be married by a close friend of his family who is also a pastor) two flower girls (I couldn’t decided between my best friend’s daughter whom is like a niece and my sister’s daughter so I included them both), my ring bearer, and 3 ushers. If my husband and I had it our way, we’d just had an intiment ceremony in a log cabin in Pigeon Forge (where we honeymooned) with only the parents, immediate family, grandparents, and bridal party and then had a large reception for extended family and friends when we got home. But you see, I come from a large extended family and my mom didn’t want to leave any aunts and uncles out, which then includes the cousins and by this point, you mine as well invite extended family and friends. We had a total of 250 guests at the wedding.
I can’t quite remember, but I think the greenery in my bouquet is a breed of fern.
LOL, at the cheeseball comment. But hey, we did get a traditional foundue pot, LOL!
Jacqueline,
Thank you! The flavors of the cake were chocolate, vanilla, and bannana. The flowers on the cake actually came from a small local nursery my mom found through the local farmers market. And the cake designer as well as the photographer were recommended by friends or family members who’d had good experiences with them and were locally owned.
MK,
I’m going for a handlebar mustache with some sideburns. I’ll let you know how that works out.
My mom would be jealous of you, and your kids are very blessed. You know you’ve got someone to take care of your youngest if ever it is needed and a wide spread of ages. I’m so happy for you.
So you just want Danny married off so someone will take care of him, not cause you’ll jonesing for a baby. I see! He sounds like quite a catch. His standards are likely ridiculously high, too. The perk to that is that you’re going to like her when she comes along. Is he sure his vocation is marriage?
God told me my vocation years ago (and years before I became Catholic), otherwise I would be seriously considering consecrated virginity or other Holy Orders. My vocation makes sense since I will be in the world so much as a lobbyist, being cloistered isn’t really to our advantage in God’s purposes for my life. It has a downside, though- I love Jesus madly and it’s very much a romance. I could see considering Him a spouse. I looked at confirmation as my spiritual wedding, where I went from a non-physical relationship with Jesus to vowing my fidelty and finally having a physical relationship with Him in the Eucharist. I felt like we were consecrating our relationship after years of torrid romance, and we’d finally get to be physically close. In fact, I didn’t know how little girls dressed for their first communion, but I dressed myself in all white linen, top and skirt, with white ballet flats, and a white scarf in my hair and draped over my shoulders. I looked like every little girl there, just 20 years older. I regret not gathering them together with me for a picture.
That all has deep spiritual significance, actually that bear mention, if you’ll indulge me. :)
My patroness Saint, Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla, who picked me out years before confirmation (I fell in love with her the moment I saw her picture as a sidewalk counselor and the moment in RCIA that I was told to pick a confirmation Saint, the Holy Spirit brought her to mind). She was told her vocation long before she married at 32. She was also a avid pro-lifer, a doctor who had to work hard to do well in school (like me), and she referred to her children as “my little treasures.” I once referred to my kids that I taught in pre-school as “my little lovesongs.” So I see a lot of similarities in us, but I didn’t until I finally learned about her after I knew she was going to be my Patroness. So you can love Jesus passionately and be a wife and mother. She proved that. That makes me happy.
Beyond that, I thought the fact that I looked like every other little girl is because God the Father treats me like one. I’m eternally His 7-year-old. It’s like covering the eyes and ears of a child to shield them from violence or profanity, God does that to me. Like in 2005 when I was about to hop a plane to attend Terri Schiavo’s vigil (for the second time), He told me to stay. All my friends were calling me telling me that they praised God that I wasn’t there, because I could not have handled the evil. I know it’s true because I had a hard time enduring the evil and hatemail from Dallas. God does that for me A LOT. He also talks to me like I’m 7 and treats me like it, too. He says, “If you’ll obey Me, I’ll do [this] for you.” Much like, “if you clean your room, you can have ice cream.” but divine. Sometime I wonder if I’ll ever grow up spiritually or if I’ll eternally remain His little girl. I kind of hope to stay this way. I really like it. My looking like every other little girl at confirmation (unwittingly) brought me a ton of joy because I understood the significance.
So my relationship with Jesus is like a romance, my relationship with God is like a little child and a Father- And the Holy Spirit and I just have FUN (I obey Him, too, but most of the time we just have fun). It’s 3 separate and distinct relationships and they were all there at confirmation. That’s why I adore evening masses. Sitting there in the dim reminds me of my Easter vigil confirmation. It was indescribably amazing.
Alrighty! I’ve revealed the most personal aspects of my soul. [Enter Sally and Laura to attempt to make fun of me].
:)
Jacqueline, I’ve got your back if Sally or Laura start some nonsense.
I’ve got your back if Sally or Laura start some nonsense.
Thanks, Carrie. I’m pretty secure. It doesn’t really bother me. It’s just infuriating because they try to attack me to circumvent real discourse on the issues.
I just said that because of many threads when they can’t form a response, they say something like, “What do you know, VIRGIN?!?” As if having sex imparts some sort of knowledge. I wish I’d have known- I’d have skipped all that college and gone straight to the brothel. :)
I have a question that isn’t really related to the matter at hand, but I just thought about it while I was in the shower for some reason.
Say you have a son or daughter who is blind. Or crippled. Some form of life-altering disability. If you had the power to ‘cure’ them…would you?
sure.
Jacqueline, maybe I should stop reading so much and just have more sex with my husband. Hubby would probably endorse the idea that sex imparts knowledge.
Say you have a son or daughter who is blind. Or crippled. Some form of life-altering disability. If you had the power to ‘cure’ them…would you?
Absolutely, I’d cure them. But killing them is not curing them.
Erin, we’re not saying that disabilities are great, grand and wonderful. We’re saying that a person’s value isn’t dependent on what they can or can not do. If you lost the ability to walk, Erin, you’d still be just as much a human being as you were when you could walk. Likewise with all physical and mental abilities- They don’t make us human, and the absence of them doesn’t nullify our humanity, either.
Jacqueline, maybe I should stop reading so much and just have more sex with my husband. Hubby would probably endorse the idea that sex imparts knowledge.
Sex also CURES headaches. We’re plumb out of excuses, eh? :)
Erin, my immediate response would be no. My son has autism and I love him just like he is. I can’t picture him any other way. I strive to make his life better, but I don’t want to change who he is. Good question.
Say you have a son or daughter who is blind. Or crippled. Some form of life-altering disability. If you had the power to ‘cure’ them…would you?
I think the question you’re leading to is, “Would we accept our own children with disabilities as they are?”
In response, in a parent’s love, I think no parent wants to see their child suffer pain or struggle with everyday tasks and would want to take away the struggle and the pain, however we’d not value them less or see them as less of a child if they had a disability and to “cure” implies these children are imperfect or less worthy because of an inperfection.
Erin,
The flipside of that question is, “If your perfect child developed a disability for which there is no cure, would you cease to love them? Would you kill them?”
Oops, the anonymous was me, forgot to sign.
Jaqueline said it best: “We’re saying that a person’s value isn’t dependent on what they can or can not do. Likewise with all physical and mental abilities- They don’t make us human, and the absence of them doesn’t nullify our humanity, either.”
I have been married for 16 years and I haven’t run out of excuses yet.
It’s like asking a paralyzed person if he/she would ever want to walk again. I’m sure that lots of them would say yes.
MK: But whether or not they do these things ALWAYS comes down to (as Doug would say) whether or not they DESIRE the illegal thing more than the legal thing.
And then they make a CHOICE. No force. Choice.
As history shows, women desire abortions regardless of the legality. So, if the abortion procedure is ever banned, women who desire not to gestate will be forced to obtain their abortions illegally.
They won’t be forced, it will be their choice.
Adoption is a viable “solution” to an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 10:45 AM
Adoption is a viable solution for SOME women to their unwanted pregnancies. Just because YOU declare it’s a viable solution for everyone doesn’t make it true.
Just because you say adoption isn’t viable doesn’t make it so.
Esther, how old are you?
Esther, I can’t force anyone to have an abortion.
Perhaps I should stop talking to Esther. I can’t muster up a reasonable amount of courtesy towards her (in part, because I’m offended on how her attitudes and behavior shame her Biblical namesake).
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 10:49 AM
Now that’s just being silly and petty.
hi Bobby,
is it T-7 days ?
Adoption is a viable solution for SOME women to their unwanted pregnancies. Just because YOU declare it’s a viable solution for everyone doesn’t make it true.
Wait- are some women physically incapable or placing a child for adoption? What does abortion solve that adoption can not (besides a few months of accepting responsibility for one’s own actions)?
As history shows, women desire abortions regardless of the legality. So, if the abortion procedure is ever banned, women who desire not to gestate will be forced to obtain their abortions illegally.
History does NOT show that. Simply because there is a small faction of society that is deviant and decides to break the law makes does not make it the norm. And the fraction of women that abort despite the fact that it is illegal is a tiny, tiny percentage. Bernard Nathanson admitted that his 10,000 women a year figure was a total lie and even so, it doesn’t compare to the 1.3 million women a year who submit to abortions in the U.S.
Most people are restrained by the law and abide by it. Anyone who has sat at a red light an egregiously long time when there were no cars in any direction just waiting for that green light can attest to the fact that most people follow the law (if for no other reason, the fear of prosecution).
Even if some women make criminals of themselves and have their children dismembered, many would not. And that means everything to those whole children laughing on the playground at recess that would have otherwise been put down a garbage disposal.
Beyond that, women abort out of selfishness and self-interest. If they perceive that they might suffer legal or physical harm from killing their kids, I sooner see them painting a nursery pink or blue than risk their own lives. Sure, they’ll take their babies’ lives, but their lives are far too precious to risk.
1 week from today…
Just because you say adoption isn’t viable doesn’t make it so.
Posted by: hippie at November 1, 2007 2:20 PM
I didn’t say adoption isn’t viable. I said adoption isn’t a viable solution for ALL women. It is a viable soution for SOME — not all.
Now that’s just being silly and petty.
Have you read about Esther? She risked her own life to save her people. You are all about killing the lives of others to protect selfish lifestyles. Do you not see this?
Esther, how old are you?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 1, 2007 2:22 PM
Why are you asking?
Sure, they’ll take their babies’ lives, but their lives are far too precious to risk.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 2:26 PM
Excellent point.
If abortions were illegal, women would think twice before sleeping around. If you get caught giving yourself a criminal abortion, you deserve to be punished!
I didn’t say adoption isn’t viable. I said adoption isn’t a viable solution for ALL women. It is a viable soution for SOME — not all.
All women can place for adoption. No agency refuses a woman or a baby. These women CAN. Perhaps they choose not to.
Not that I blame them. I wouldn’t choose to place for adoption, and I worked at an adoption agency.
I had boys but if I ever had a girl she would be named Esther.
Love the name. It means lucky in Persian.
bye now
Hey folks,
I was curious how you’d handle Peter Singer’s ideas. For those who don’t know, I’m one of Jerry’s kids, but tend to think like the folks at http://www.notdeadyet.org .
In case you’re wondering, Doug does now and this fact (that he willingly tolerates my input and is not harsh) makes him a friend extraordinaire. Last week, we talked about the power that comes from believing in someone … our ancestors to us. Haven’t we all thrived on such heritage? And it doesn’t stop … except for abortion. What is murdered is hope.
In fact, the power of our faith stems from the fact that God believes in me/us to share this love with each other. I mean, just look at the scene of raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus says, “Unbind him and let him go free!” Like Jesus has just brought Lazarus to life … (jaw dropping) BIG, BIG, BIG, HUGE, BIG-MAGNIFICENT …. we are: TO TAKE HIS DEATH-WRAPPINGS OFF // remove-this-burden …. tiny small but necessary. Aren’t pro-lifers called to this task too?
Jacque, you’re the best!!!
“Why are you asking?”
It’s nice to know a little bit about the people on this blog.
Now that’s just being silly and petty.
Have you read about Esther? She risked her own life to save her people. You are all about killing the lives of others to protect selfish lifestyles. Do you not see this?
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 2:29 PM
Of course, I’ve read Esther. And, no, I am not “all about” killing the lives of others.
Hippie,
I wish I bought the whole line about deceived, desperate women who don’t know what they’re doing and are afraid and abort out of fear for themselves.
Unfortunately, I’ve done too much sidewalk counseling to believe that anymore. All of these women have their reasons to abort, all of which can be solved with placing for adoption. They MUST abort. They MUST because they’re not ready to parent. They MUST because they don’t have enough money, etc. Those that accept an invitation to a free ultrasound and see their babies moving on the screen often have a change of heart. And nearly 100%, if not 100% choose to KEEP their babies. So those reasons dire enough to choose to kill the baby are not dire enough to place the baby for adoption. It’s all about whether they want a baby or not. It’s really all about them, never the best interests of the child.
I do beleive women are coerced into aborting babies they want or intimidated by the birthfather’s reaction and abort to save the relationship. I beleive a large facet of women feel like they must choose between abortion or homelessness, abortion or abuse. But look at average, everyday women you know who have aborted. Why did they do it? Because they didn’t want to be pregnant. And that’s pretty much it.
Aren’t I a ray of sunshine?
And, no, I am not “all about” killing the lives of others.
What do you think an abortion is? Who do you think those little arms and legs in those abortion pictures you hate so much belong to? It’s not the woman.
Oh MK, you flatter me far too much. I do not know 6-syllable words, or if I do, I certainly don’t know a lot of them (can’t even think of any right now).
Did you know there is a genus of bacteria called, “Wolbachia” which is a bacteria that infects arthropods (particularly insects) which feminizes male insects by producing proteins that destroy male hormone-producing glands and promotes female hormone production to the point where a genetically male insect can produce eggs (via parthenogenesis…a 5 syllable word).
Rawk.
Jacque, I agree. Not a single woman I knew ever aborted d/t feeling scared or alone. You mean to tell me that after abortion #8,9 and 10 they still can’t figure out where babies come from? That doesn’t wash with me either.
Right, Heather. 48% of abortions are repeats. Apparently all that fear and desperation didn’t quite sink in, eh?
Jacque, no. They see it as a “right” and a “choice.” Trust me, plenty of them were using the abortion clinic as their B/Control.
I also think that abortion diminishes self esteem and self worth. This is why most post abortive women cycle back into dysfunctional, meaningless, relationships. You know the drill! Have sex, get pregnant, abort, have sex, get pregnant, abort.
Maybe we need to place importance on motherhood and family values. Young girls see plenty of examples of sexuality to emulate and chastity is a word seldom heard.
Sex is emphasized everywhere you look, and attracting the opposite sex is foremost in a lot of girls mind. And then of course, they have to figure out how to keep the guy. Motherhood is something they figure will happen at the end. Since marriage is not as popular or necessary for a sexual relationship, girls are desperate to find a means to maintain a relationship. Men do not have to commit to a relationship because sex is so readily available. Everyone has suffered the consequences of the freedom of our modern day thinking. The family as we once knew it has disintegrated. The one thing that hasn’t changed, babies are created from these uncertain relationships which noone wants to take responsibility for.
Casual sex is at the root of the problem. If girls were taught to value themselves more, maybe they wouldn’t be giving their bodies to just anyone. Lack of self esteem in young girls is more rampant than ever. If freedom of choice is so popular, why do women feel so badly about theselves? We have created a no boundaries mentality,
and as a result the respect for women no longer exists.
Although women should have the same rights as men, the feminist movement has reduced our society to a degregation of women, motherhood and family in general.
Now, anything goes! Women have bought into the idea.
They don’t seem to know any better today; that their bodies are a temple of God, bought and paid for with the price of Jesus blood. Most would laugh at that. How can men respect women when they so easily succumb to easy sex and abortion on demand. Men have no reason to get married, and they especially don?t want the responsibility of a child from a casual sexual experience. The babies suffer the consequences of our immorality. If people feel they must engage in this lifestyle, they need to make sure they do not conceive a life. Babies should not be punished for the irresponsibility of our actions. Yes, I do believe we are becoming less patient and understanding of mothers who give their bodies over for illicit sex and then to the abortionist. The issue is that sex is so exalted in our world and the importance of motherhood and family is devalued. The emphasis should be on teaching young girls that they are special and worthy of being treated with respect. To provide birth control and assume that all girls are going to have sex, only promotes the idea that they are already devalued and it is permissable for the guys to go ahead and use them for the only thing they are worth. Sex without commitment only leaves women feeling alone and insecure, no matter what their age. Committment is the basis for conceiving a child. There is none, so that’s why we have abortion. Abortion is only the result of our years of conditioning that women should enjoy the same sexual freedom as men, and men have taken advantage of that. How is it that women have aquired the idea that a man is more important than a baby? Have you ever noticed how they actually run into the abortion clinic? Often the man drives off and comes back after it is all over! I presume all she is thinking of, is getting back to her lifestyle, uninterrupted. Promotion of better self esteem in girls should be part of the sex education received. Recognition of basic family values and the importance of motherhood needs to be emphasized. If one so chooses to indulge in premarital sex, use contraception. Why not? It’s better than abortion!
Ahh, the dulcet tones of Ester on a wonderful fall day.
This above post was written by a pro life nurse. I think it sums up abortion quite well.
I agree with everything but this last line, which stepped on everything she was trying to say previously:
If one so chooses to indulge in premarital sex, use contraception.
There is no right way to do a wrong thing.
What’s this lady saying? Let’s ENABLE sin?
Erin, I have been thinking about your question some more. There is controversy within the hearing-impared community regarding cochlear implants. So, I guess in the case of hearing imparement some parents would and some wouldn’t. It is a hard question for me to answer because I accept him completely and totally.
Esther: And, no, I am not “all about” killing the lives of others.
What do you think an abortion is? Who do you think those little arms and legs in those abortion pictures you hate so much belong to? It’s not the woman.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 2:39 PM
You said I am “all about killing” which was, quite frankly, a lie.
I know what abortion is.
I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence. I know that when abortion was mostly illegal, women aborted later in pregnancy under unsafe conditions. Now, it will be less difficult (not necessarily safer) than it was prior to 1973 for women to gain access to abortion using the resources of the Internet.
I know that banning abortion again is a stupid idea.
Ester, care to back your post with actual facts?
Jacque, I knew you would disagree with the last line. I think she is throwing up her hans as if to say “Use a rubber, at least!” What can we do? People cannot control themselves.
I realize that she did contradict herself. OOps meant *hands*
Heather: How can men respect women when they so easily succumb to easy sex and abortion on demand.
So, women should abstain from sex with MEN so they can gain the respect of the very same men who want to have illicit sex with them?
Esther, abortion is not safe. Who told you that??
Esther, back to basics. Men who can easily get sex from a female, don’t respect her.
Esther, abstaining from sex is a good thing. I want to make sure that I’m not going to “bed down” with someone who just wants to use me for sex. For that matter, there are also men who choose abstinance.
Esther,
I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence.
Well, there you go! I told you women who abort are duped!
Imagine paying $500.00 to abort a child when you’re not even pregnant. What is that, like a preventative abortion. Abort now, get pregnant later?
What will they think of next?
For that matter, there are also men who choose abstinance.
Posted by: heather at November 1, 2007 3:28 PM
So true.
There are very nice, cool, good looking, respectful men who are looking for the same.
They do not want to date women who will have sex outside marriage because they are looking for wives not girlfriends and don’t want to waste time getting to know someone that is not really a marriage candidate.
As soon as they find out she has had a sexual relationship, she is in his mind moved into the category of friend, not potential mate.
These are real people. They only want someone who values what they value. I know plenty of them. So do you. You just may not know that is what they think.
MK, LOL!
Jacquie,
I loved your post! I think Chesterton sums it up perfectly…
Chastity does not mean abstention from sexual wrong; it means something flaming, like Joan of Arc.
I know exactly how you feel. I too, feel like a 7 year old. Everyday is new. Every morning I wake up and say “Well, what surprises do you have for me?”
I just had a birthday, and I couldn’t even recount the hundreds of little tiny things that he did for me, from my favorite priest saying mass to a phone call from my son, where he actually told me that he was proud of me. A girlfriend gave me doll that I have been searching for for over a year, and she had no idea. Just thought it was cute and knew that I collected dolls. My homemade bread turned out perfectly and on and on…nothing huge, just little present after little present. Some I can’t tell you about, but they made me very, very happy! (Alyssa, you know what I’m talking about).
Sometimes I feel like I’m His only child, because He dotes on me so much. I have to remind myself that He has lots and lots of kids. And Herself…don’t even get me started! The laughs we have. And the secrets we share. As the Mother of a son, I can count on her to understand the shenanigans that boys get up to…
Yep, if I didn’t know I was chosen to be a mother (from the age of three mind you), I too would have chosen to be a nun. And I taught pre-school, like you, and have worked with the disabled as well.
The more I know you girl, the more I’ve got to get you together with my Danny. They say boys marry their mothers, don’t they? lol
Where did you say you lived again? The first question he asked me was, “Does she have a tan?”.
Don’t know if that’s cuz he’s into tans or that it means you live in a warm climate!
Erin,
Chesterton has an answer to your question too…
Of course Chesterton has an answer to every question, so I’m not surprised…
“Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel.”
Gilbert K. Chesterton
MK, we all love you here! Well, I do! Happy birthday, and don’t ever leave. I consider you to be my friend!
………MK, you came to Jill’s blog around the same time that I did. You, Jill, and John McDonnell were the reason I stayed.
oops, and Bethany!
Esther, back to basics. Men who can easily get sex from a female, don’t respect her.
Posted by: heather at November 1, 2007 3:25 PM
Yeah, back to the studly male/whorish woman basics. No thanks.
So the men “getting” the sex from these females are in a position to feel morally superior to these females somehow? Why?
So, women should abstain from sex with MEN so they can gain the respect of the very same men who want to have illicit sex with them?
Silly girl! I would never respect or desire the respect of men that would have sex with me prior to marriage. I don’t date such men.
And it’s not about men respecting women. I am a woman and I don’t respect women who don’t respect themselves enough not to treat their bodies like public property.
I wouldn’t respect myself if I acted that way.
For that matter, there are also men who choose abstinance.
Indeed there are. I can list them. Almost every guy I’ve dated would qualify.
These are real people. They only want someone who values what they value. I know plenty of them. So do you. You just may not know that is what they think.
My last boyfriend was a virgin. Most of them have been virgins. They’re also smoking HOT.
Jacqueline: Where do you find these smoking hot boys? I cannot find any where I live. :( I are mucho jealous-o.
So the men “getting” the sex from these females are in a position to feel morally superior to these females somehow? Why?
They shouldn’t. Like I said, I think men who sleep around are not virile, but the absence of a man.
I went to see my friend this weekend who I met sidewalk counseling (she worked inside the abortion clinic). I was holding her 8 week baby daughter, whose father has 10 children by 10 different women (6 living, 4 aborted). He abandoned them when he found out my friend was pregnant. He pushed abortion; she refused. He makes 2200 a month and pays 1400 in child support, THUS FAR. He’s NOT a man. In my opinion, he’s lost the privilege of having a penis because of his failure to be responsible with it.
My friend was complaining about how men that don’t pay child support should be sterilized. Her sister, who also got pregnant by a no-good man, “amen”ed heartily in agreement. And I kept thinking, “Ladies, when you have sex with a no good man who you didn’t marry, what leads you to beleive you’re going to have a “wine and roses” life?”
Frankly, for every man that exploits a woman, there’s a woman out their that lets him. He’s not morally superior, but she’s not a “victim” either.
Esther, don’t give men the opportunity to use you for sex. Yes. I balked at that once too. “Ha!” “How old fashioned!” “Stupid!” I listened to “friends” instead. Hey, do it if it feels good. WRONG! These were the same women B lining to the abortion clinics. No thanks.
Jacqueline: Where do you find these smoking hot boys? I cannot find any where I live. :( I are mucho jealous-o.
I have a thing for virtuous pro-lifers. The sexiest thing I’ve seen in a while is when my good looking guy friends had sleveless shirts and belts full of powertools, making cribs for expectant moms. That was sexy as hell.
Jacque, I’ll bet it was!
Esther,
I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence.
Well, there you go! I told you women who abort are duped!
Imagine paying $500.00 to abort a child when you’re not even pregnant. What is that, like a preventative abortion. Abort now, get pregnant later?
What will they think of next?
Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 3:40 PM
Human development is a process. A baby doesn’t poof into existence upon conception. An embryo isn’t a baby.
If embryos were babies, IVF would be illegal as is infanticide, and nobody would advocate abortion be allowed in cases of pregnancies due to rape, molestation, or life threatening circumstances.
Now, YOU may feel that women shouldn’t be allowed to terminate under any circumstances, but most people do not hold that view, else the use of IVF would not be so prevalent, for example.
Happy Birthday, MK!!! You have your choice of birthday songs*: I know Pancho’s Mexican Buffet song, Chili’s Bar & Grill song, Olive Garden Italian Restaurant song and good old fashioned Happy Birthday. (*Note: I can’t sing). :)
I agree. This relationship with God makes life worth living. Even if we had no hope of Heaven and no afterlife at all, this relationship is the way I’d choose to live my life. It’s abundant living. I’m glad God isn’t limited by time and space as Earthly parents are. That way He can dote on us all that we’ll let Him. :) He had to teach me how to let Him love me more. That was a FUN lesson. A perfect example of this is that I used to not ever want to marry, seeing so many amazing women in bad marriages (I thought for a while that I could be a single woman that took care of foster kids). He had to teach me that He only wants good gifts for me and to trust Him in that. Now I’m looking forward to my nuptials, whenever they may be.:)
The more I know you girl, the more I’ve got to get you together with my Danny. They say boys marry their mothers, don’t they? lol
He’d be lucky to marry someone just like you. But if I married him, that whole cliche of hating your mother-in-law wouldn’t work. I adore you!
P.S. I live in Dallas, and sorry to say, I’m marshmellowy white. There’s a picture on my myspace. Rae! Click that and add me if you have myspace.
Human development is a process. A baby doesn’t poof into existence upon conception. An embryo isn’t a baby.
And exactly what part after conception does a baby poof into existence? Human development IS a process, and the human starts developing at conception and doesn’t stop until death. You want to pick an arbitrary point between the two to announce when a baby has magically formed. We believe in protecting humans in all stages of development, from embryo to elderly. You are for killing humans until they meet your criteria. Exactly when did you become God?
If embryos were babies, IVF would be illegal as is infanticide, and nobody would advocate abortion be allowed in cases of pregnancies due to rape, molestation, or life threatening circumstances.
Since when does the law decide what is and what is not? The law is not science. In 1856, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a black man was not a person. They ruled that slaves were not people. At the Emancipation Proclamation, did slaves magically become people? You can’t base reality on the law.
Oh, and ask me how I feel about IVF.
Now, YOU may feel that women shouldn’t be allowed to terminate under any circumstances, but most people do not hold that view, else the use of IVF would not be so prevalent, for example.
Since when is popular opinion the standard of correctness? For thousands of years, people thought the Earth was flat. Since a majority thought that was so, did that make it so?
What’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.
@Jacqueline: I added you on myspace…though I rarely ever use it (music only on there…and I highly suggest you try listening to Levi Weaver, he’s gorgeous, a wonderful singer, AND quite Christian, I think you’d enjoy him mucho).
You da MAN, Jacqueline!
Bobby-
Clarify- The MAN as in the good thing or the Man as in “Let’s stick it to the man!” ??? I had to clear that up with Bethany this morning.
I’m fine with either, by the way. Since I’m aspiring to world domination, I’d better be. :)
Esther,
What Jacquie said.
Jacquie,
Those are the mother in laws that want to keep their sons at home forever and don’t think any girl is good enough.
I can’t wait to get rid of him and pawn him off on some other woman. I’d adore you too.
(The poor kid is actually quite wonderful…i just can’t help having a little fun at his expense…)
MK,
Would you get us a ballpit as a wedding present? That would be ballsy. Or dysfunctional. Maybe both!
MK, if you don’t pick a birthday song I’m going to spin the wheel o’ corniness and sing one at random.
Too late. You get Olive Garden.
**a-hem**
Bona festa! What a joyous day!
Life’s good fortune’s sure to come your way!
Come on, sit back and then relax
We’ll fill your plate the Italian Way!
We’re so glad you came to celebrate with us today!
HEY!
I’ll buy you the biggest ball pit on the face of the earth. Heck, we can have the wedding reception at Chucky Cheese and I’ll pay to have new balls and the pit cleaned. Better yet, I’ll buy your very own chucky cheese for a wedding present. Then you two can fill it with kids!
Thank you veddy, veddy much for my *cough, cough* lovely birthday song.
I’m hoping this will bring up a picture of him…let’s see.
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/012_9A.jpg
Yeah!!!! It worked (see, yet another little gift) He’s the one in blue…
Hahhaha, Jacquie…that is pretty hot….not gonna lie…
I constantly think that my boyfriend is good “breeding” material. Mwahahahahahahaha. I saw him protecting a little girl (probably about 1 1/2 years old) from bumping her head at his sister’s baby shower and felt the animalistic need to procreate with him (alright, I was a female at a baby shower in which two other babies were in attendance, one of which was being coddled by my boyfriend….*thinks impure thoughts about him*)….but that’s not a good idea right now, as I’m 19 and need to finish school, get married, and rake in some dough before I start poppin out chitlins….
But it ain’t bad to look, damnit!
Jacquie, that comment above was in response to your “men making cribs” story. Mmmmm.
And here is one when all the boys were in there “Ain’t gonna comb my hair for no man phase…” They look like the Brady Bunch gone postal…
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/TandS124.jpg
Just to let you know, MK…your sons are pretty easy on the eyes. :P
Even with the hair?
You are too kind Alyssa.
I mean tooooo kind.
Ok Jacqueline, I’ll bite – how do you feel about IVF?
I have another question for you, though. If full human rights (or personhood) starts at conception, why don’t sexually active women who believe this hold funerals for their used tampons and Kotex? I mean, logically, that would be morally required, right, as every menstrual period could contain a baby?
I’ll admit it, MK, I like the shaggy look now and then. :D
I mean, logically, that would be morally required, right, as every menstrual period could contain a baby?
Huh?
Esther, don’t give men the opportunity to use you for sex. Yes. I balked at that once too. “Ha!” “How old fashioned!” “Stupid!” I listened to “friends” instead. Hey, do it if it feels good. WRONG! These were the same women B lining to the abortion clinics. No thanks.
Posted by: heather at November 1, 2007 4:49 PM
Why do you think I need a lesson from you on sexual conduct? Why do you assume I’ve been a “victim” of casual sex because I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of men who lose respect for women after having sex with them?
I can’t stand self-righteous male hypocrites and have never had anything to do with such men.
Why does a man who has sex with a woman and then turns around and calls her a slut as if HE is the paragon of virtue deserve anyone’s respect? Why do you want women to conform to twisted, hypocritical logic like this?
I believe, MK, that what phylosopher is trying to say is that an embryo may not implant in time to stop the process of menses, and be washed away during the menstrual period, or not implant correctly, and be lost to the same reason. Therefore the potential exists for there to be a human on every tampon, etc…lol…
Lyssie,
Well he stated that EVERY menstrual period was the potential of a miscarried baby. That would only be true if you had had sex prior to the period.
Someone like Jacquie for instance could throw away all of her tampons worry free…
Either way…it was a stupid statement.
I can’t stand self-righteous male hypocrites and have never had anything to do with such men.
Wow! And we thought Jacquie was finicky!
Tell me Esther, are you ever happy?
Since when is popular opinion the standard of correctness? For thousands of years, people thought the Earth was flat. Since a majority thought that was so, did that make it so?
What’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 5:20 PM
I agree that popular opinion doesn’t make something right, which is why I’m so grateful to be living in a constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition as opposed to a theocracy, dictatorship or some other such horror.
People didn’t KNOW the world was round; they were ignorant. We know that an embryo isn’t a baby, which is why most of us are fine with IVF.
Esther: I can’t stand self-righteous male hypocrites and have never had anything to do with such men.
Wow! And we thought Jacquie was finicky!
Tell me Esther, are you ever happy?
Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 7:07 PM
What’s wrong with being finicky about one’s sexual partner?
Well if it’s not a baby and EVERYONE is clear on this, why are there laws prohibiting their sale, and use for experimentation. Why would anyone care?
Esther,
I’d rather you have answered “Are you ever happy”?
I gotta put the kids to bed, but before I go, I gotta tell you Esther, you seriously need to work on your sense of humor. You’re bringin me down girl…waaaaaaaayyyyyy down. Lighten up. No one here is out to get you. We’re just talkin’ and sharin’ and gettin’ to know one another…
Seriously, chill.
Since when does the law decide what is and what is not? The law is not science. In 1856, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a black man was not a person. They ruled that slaves were not people. At the Emancipation Proclamation, did slaves magically become people? You can’t base reality on the law.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 5:20 PM
Catholic or other religious beliefs about fertilized eggs also do not qualify as science.
Esther,
Where in that post did Jacquie say a single word about the Catholic Faith, let alone that we use it as scientific fact? Do you hear yourself?
I need a negativity shower.
Well if it’s not a baby and EVERYONE is clear on this, why are there laws prohibiting their sale, and use for experimentation. Why would anyone care?
Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 7:17 PM
Making laws prohibiting the sale of embryos and their use for experimentation doesn’t mean EVERYONE thinks embryos are babies. Besides, I didn’t say EVERYONE is clear on this. Obviously, they aren’t. Most people are, however.
Esther,
I’d rather you have answered “Are you ever happy”?
Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 7:18 PM
I’ve been happily married to a great guy for 25 years. Some days more so than others, but, overall, very happily.
What’s wrong about being finicky about one’s sexual partner?
Jacqueline: And exactly what part after conception does a baby poof into existence? Human development IS a process, and the human starts developing at conception and doesn’t stop until death. You want to pick an arbitrary point between the two to announce when a baby has magically formed. We believe in protecting humans in all stages of development, from embryo to elderly. You are for killing humans until they meet your criteria. Exactly when did you become God?
You’re not exactly for protecting women and young girls or else you wouldn’t be advocating that elective abortion be banned. I am not FOR killing humans, and I don’t think I’m god. And, yes, I feel a woman should have the CHOICE to terminate a pregnancy early in gestation for any reason BEFORE a baby has developed.
@phylosopher,
sure wish you’d been around some earlier. Personhood, and a whole slew of rights begin at birth. What does begin at conception though is humanness (and that young being has HUMAN rights). Please note that HUMAN rights and person/birth rights are not the same though the second set does depend on the first set … the very first is ‘the right to life’.
Esther, 7:23PM
Please answer Jacque’s question since I’m a little curious myself. The Supreme Court declared black people as non-persons, or 3/5 persons, whatever that means. When did black people turn into persons and what happened to cause this change?
Frankly, for every man that exploits a woman, there’s a woman out there that lets him. He’s not morally superior, but she’s not a “victim” either.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 4:47 PM
I agree, but society in general tolerates men who “think” they are morally superior and excuses their bad behavior much more so than society tolerates “loose” women. Take, for example, how Paris Hilton’s behavior is vilified in the media. How many male celebrities who do much worse are criticized to that extent?
TWO SINNERS (excerpt) by Ella Wheeler Wilcox
And boys will be boys, the old folks say,
And a man is the better who’s had his day
For this is the law of the earth, we know:
That the woman is stoned, while the man may go.
MK – Would you please read the posts carefully before you respond? Note, I said “sexually active women.”
Talk about classic straw man fallacies – misread the post, go for the ad hominem – calling the poster stupid when you have misread! – and then change the subject.
Try again please! Or, Lyssie, since you read the post – I’d welcome your reply, too.
Ester: “I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence. ”
I actually wasn’t asking that question as a way to make a point or anything. There’s a whole gray area in between thing at a certain point…between being able to give a blind person their sight and a crippled person their legs, but at the same time taking away an aspect of themselves, but then how fair is it to deprive them of that, and so on and so forth. More proof that everything can’t just be black and white.
Erin, geez you’re stubborn. You can’t live in denial forever. Become pro-life.
And even though MK is already off for the night, I have to do my special family birthday song!
Today is a birthday we wonder for who!
She’s laughing and smiling, my goodness, it’s YOU!
Happy birthday, MK, from all of us to you!
Happy birthday, MK, from your guardian angel too!
May the good Lord bless you! May all your dreams come true!
Happy birthday MK, from all of us to you!
jasper- I didn’t even SAY anything regarding abortion today. Geroff.
@ John:
We differ. A brain dead adult does not have a right to be kept alive indefinitely, though we could probably do that given today’s technology. Even most interpretations of the latest word from the Vatican concur on that. We do make arbitrary distinctions about when a person receives various rights, and when we curtail them. Most benchmarks are arbitrary chronological ages. School 7, driving 16, sexual consent 17/18 and full adulthood 21, some credit/rental 25.
With all the technology of neonatology, I think that birth is somewhat arbitrary. C-sections, in utero surgery, etc. Using brain activity, actually extends the pre-birth time of personhood and full rights, and, would be less arbitrary and subject to the uncertainties of “guesstational age.”
But, from your comment, I’ll assume this is a rehash, then? No need to revisit further.
phylosopher: “I have another question for you, though. If full human rights (or personhood) starts at conception, why don’t sexually active women who believe this hold funerals for their used tampons and Kotex? I mean, logically, that would be morally required, right, as every menstrual period could contain a baby?”
because this is nature taking its course. You or any other pro-deather do not have the right end to end a human being’s life.
btw: The abortionist George “the baby killer” Tiller does hold funerals for the babies he kills.
Please answer Jacque’s question since I’m a little curious myself. The Supreme Court declared black people as non-persons, or 3/5 persons, whatever that means. When did black people turn into persons and what happened to cause this change?
Posted by: Mary at November 1, 2007 8:07 PM
The Supreme Court didn’t declare that a black person is three fifths of a person. The three fifths designation was actually insisted upon by the states with FEW SLAVES for counting purposes in order to reduce the states with LARGE slave populations representation in Congress and to secure ratification in the South. It was a compromise made by the Constitution writers.
The Constitution euphemistically refers to slaves as “persons held to servitude” or “all other persons.”
Esther: So, women should abstain from sex with MEN so they can gain the respect of the very same men who want to have illicit sex with them?
Jacqueline: Silly girl! I would never respect or desire the respect of men that would have sex with me prior to marriage. I don’t date such men.
And it’s not about men respecting women. I am a woman and I don’t respect women who don’t respect themselves enough not to treat their bodies like public property. I wouldn’t respect myself if I acted that way.
Silly girl! Most men and women have sex before marriage. Gosh, you must not respect MOST women, then.
December 21, 2006
Almost all Americans Have Sex before Marriage and Have for Decades
Even 9 of 10 of today’s senior women born in 40’s did it
Public opinion polls over the last 20 years have consistently shown that about 35% of adults say premarital sex is always or almost always wrong, according to the author. In the same vein, there is a common popular perception that most or all of those who came of age before the
Esther the Pesterer is quite concerned with respect. And that word hypocrisy comes forth from Esther with a vengence.
“I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of men who lose respect for women after having pleasure(see realistic defintion of “sex” by Esther, since sex is only for pleasure, right Esther?) with them”.
Let’s look at what Esther said in that sentence through a dictionary definition of the words, respect and hypocrisy.
Respect; to FEEL deferential REGARD for;esteem. houghton miflin. Now, for Esther, the word “deferential” might not be defined well enough for Esther, due to a lack of education. So we may have to get a dictionary definition for deferential before we procede.
Deference; submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or JUDGEMENT of another. Now, We must hope Esther knows the definition of regard, but let us define the word anyway;1. to look at attentively, observe closely.2.to look upon or consider in a particualr way.3 to relate or refer to.4. to take into account.
So Esther, the definition of respect is ; to FEEL submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes or JUDGEMENT of another and to take into account.
But, the main definition of respect is; to FEEL SUBMISSION, or COURTEOUS yielding to the opinion, wishes, or JUDGEMENT.
For hypocrisy , maybe a very simple defintion is needed, since Esther and her fellow abortionist, always use the crude defintion for that word; one who doesn’t practice what one preaches.
So, let us review the sentence of Esther the Pesterer. I, Esther, am pointing out(a suggestion for Esther, maybe “am accusing” is a better word selection) the men who do not practice what they preach and lose the feeling of submission or courteous yielding to the opinion,wishes or JUDGEMENT of another, after they have had pleasure with them.
So Esther, the Pesterer, how do you know these men, you accuse, have no feelings of submission and courteous yielding to wishes for another, after they have had pleasure?
Do you read the “feelings of a mind” Esther by looking at faces during acts of sexual pleasure? Or after your pleasure is satisfied, do you become a “psychic”, and then KNOWS the feelings of submission to you, are not true feelings of courteous yielding to your opinions or wishes. Or do you know BEFORE you have pleasure with this man, he has no feelings of submission to your opinions?
So, Esther the Pesterer, just where is that accused man who fails to practice his feelings of submission and courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes or judgement of you, fail to practice his feelings of yielding to your wishes?
Have you not got your wishes met Esther?
Have you not got submission Esther, from this man you accuse of not submitting to your desires?
And finally, Esther the Pesterer, do you get this upset about having pleasure with another person, if it was a women ? Say, a women who fed you the pleasure of a meal of macaroni and cheese, from being courteous and yielding to your opinion that you were hungry, and wished to eat. Then told you she has no feelings of submission or courteous yielding to your(ESTHER) opinions, or judgements, simply because she was a waitress giving you a meal you ordered?
Gee Esther, would that make her a hypocritical waitress? According to Esther it would. She gives you pleasure Esther, and then does not submit or yield to you, Esther, after she served you what you wished for. After all, Esther, she does have to pleasure others, and you would respect that, wouldn’t you Esther?
yllas: So, Esther the Pesterer, just where is that accused man who fails to practice his feelings of submission and courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes or judgement of you, fail to practice his feelings of yielding to your wishes?
Have you not got your wishes met Esther?
So, as long as a man is giving a woman pleasure, his virtue remains intact, but hers doesn’t?
I am happy to say that I have been having my wishes met quite nicely by my HUSBAND for more than a quarter of a century. Imagine that!
And, yes, a man who thinks HE’S in any position to lose respect for a woman HE sleeps as if HE’S lily white himself, is a hypocrite. If he thinks SHE’S a “loose” woman, and HE sleeps with her, what does that make him? After all, HE slept with HER, didn’t he? I’m sorry you’re unable to see the hypocrisy.
Esther,
I’ve been happily married to a great guy for 25 years. Some days more so than others, but, overall, very happily.
That’s great. Except, I didn’t ask you if you were happily married. I asked you if you were ever happy.
BTW, Esther, just so you get the point.
To paraphrase your slut logic about men and women, I will insert the waitress for men.
Esther’s sentence; Why does a man who has “sex” with a women and then calls her a slut as if he is a paragon of virtue deserve anyone’s respect.
Paraphrase; Why does a waitress who has served a meal to Esther and then calls Esther “cheap” as if the waitress is a paragon of virtue deserve anyone’s feelings of submission and courteous yielding to opinons or wishes of the waitress?
Why simply because Esther deserves to be called cheap, since Esther is cheap. Esther left a tip of a quarter, and two pennies.
See, Esther, sometimes your judgement of yourself is false, but others know your just a cheap, pro abortionist who does not submit and yield to the wishes of the waitress to leave more then a cheap tip.
I agree with the waitress, your just a person who goes from one waitress to another, kind of like a “waitress slut”, not being able to yield courteously to the opinion of the waitress, and leaves cheap tips to those waitresses, and not big tips, which the waitress would respect.
And if a man called you a cheap “waitress slutter”, would he not be telling the truth about you Esther?
And Esther, remember the time you told that male waitress, you would submit to his wishes(respect him), and not have any other waitresses except him when you went to that macaroni and cheese bar?
How the male waitress believed your judgement towards him, and wished to submit to your judgement about him? That no other male waitress could deliver your pleasure for macaroni and chesse as that male waitress did?
Then he found you with another waitress, and a female waitress at that? Then other waitresses by the dozen, and all from being unable to submit to your own opinion about being courteous and yield to the feelings of that special male waitress.
See, now you know why you were called a slut, a waitress slut.
Phylosopher,
#1 I didn’t call you stupid. I’m very careful about that. Please read the entire post before you respond. I called the argument stupid.
#2 I apologize for misreading the post. I still think it’s a ridiculous question. Although I have often said a small prayer for any babies that I may have lost without realizing it. No full out funerals however. I’m sure God doesn’t require a box and flowers.
The whole point of abortion is the “intent” and the intent is the destruction of a human life. The intent with a menstrual period is, well there is no intent. I can’t be responsible for that which I am unaware or did not cause.
Esther, you don’t have a clue about the definition of “respect” or “hypocrisy”.
First, how do you know what a man “thinks” when he sleeps with her? If a man calls a women “loose”, it has nothing to do with respect or hypocrisy.. A man can still feel submission and courteous yielding to HER WISHES OPINIONS AND JUDGEMENTS. That is the definition of RESPECT, Esther. Even if he says she is loose, it does not change the man’s feelings of submitting to her wishes, judgement, or opinions, Esther.
Next time you use the word “respect”. use the dictionary definition to avoid humpty dumptyism. A disease of Erin. Communication is only possible by two, or more people having the same definitions of words, Esther.
Since your failing to use the official definition of respect, make up a humpty dumpty definition and I’ll see if we can agree on it, Esther.
Which leads one to your understanding of hypocrisy. Where is the man’s hypocrisy if the definition of hypocrisy is ; to not practice what one preaches. What is the man preaching Esther? What is the man’s practice, Esther? Name calling is now a practice and preaching, Esther?
You see Esther, maybe your trying to convey a idea that might be considered in this manner.
A man calls a women a loose slut, which upon the women responds. Do not call me a loose slut, as I wish you to submit to my judgement, that I am not a loose slut. If the man does not call her a loose slut again, that is a feeling to submit courteously and yield to her judgement. That is RESPECT.
Your sentence containing respect and hypocrisy is pure humpty dumptyism from ignorance of the definition of those two words.
At first glance, it makes you a pure propagandist of feminism who has never thought about the definition of respect and hypocrisy.
And as for hypocrisy, it actually does not mean a failure to practice what one preaches, but a practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues which one does not hold or possess.
Because Erin is ignorant of the exact definition of the word hypocrisy, he gets pounded by me for being a hypocrite, and trys to deny her hypocrisy by appealing to more Humpty Dumptyism. Such as shame, If only Erin knew how to get the stain of being a hypocrite removed from Erin, by knowing the definition of hypocrisy. Tis the mark of bad education or pure propagandist owning her mind.
I wouldn’t imagine that any puny human would have knowledge of the omniscient mind of God. So that claim seems a bit farfetched, what hubris – and irrelevant anyway.
It’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out here. If one accidentally hits a child with a car, is it acceptable to leave the accident? If a chid dies tragically but accidentally does one just leave the body where it lies?
Why would intent matter when we have a recognized “right way” to treat human remains – with dignity and respect.
BTW,you did say the post was stupid. I like having my writing called stupid but little less than would enjoy having my self called so, at least without further elucidation. It’s intellectually lazy to dismiss with such a characterization and not submit reasons.
Yllas,
Women who have premarital sex are not cheap. They have made choices about their lives that should be respected. Who are you to judge? You do not have a monopoly on the ability to define how others should live their lives. You don’t condone what women who have premarital sex are doing. So what? It’s not your life and you have no right to judge.
It’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out here. If one accidentally hits a child with a car, is it acceptable to leave the accident? If a chid dies tragically but accidentally does one just leave the body where it lies?
Phylosopher, if a child dies in the woods, and someone drives by the woods but is unaware that the child is there, do they leave the child where he or she lies? Yes.
Likewise, if a woman miscarries and does not know it, or cannot find her baby, it is impossible for her to move the child’s body to have a funeral for that child.
And if she is unaware that she was pregnant, how can you possibly think that she would need to hold a funeral for someone she doesn’t even know she lost?
However, many women do still hold funerals after they miscarry, even if they cannot find their baby.
It all depends on whether they are aware of it, and whether they regard life in the womb as sacred or not.
It’s not your life and you have no right to judge.
Is that absolute, Enigma?
Phylospher,
BTW,you did say the post was stupid.
Which I admitted, why is this important to you?
And as you made so clear, I claimed the post was stupid because I misread it. I still think it’s ridiculous to expect us to properly bury all of our tampons…and I refuse to dignify your point by taking it seriously. I answered you by saying that I do pray for any babies that “might” be lost, and that’s as far as I’m willing to go…
I wouldn’t imagine that any puny human would have knowledge of the omniscient mind of God.
This is most likely because you have a very small imagination, a closed mind and a closed heart. You can’t see if you are blind. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the concept of the soul. Certainly not on any deep level.
It’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out here. If one accidentally hits a child with a car, is it acceptable to leave the accident
You’re analogy is flawed. To work, the person would have to be completely unaware that they had hit a child, accidentally or otherwise.
Good morning, MK!
Esther,
In the Dred Scott decision 7 out of 9 Supreme Court justices declared that no slave or descendent of a slave could be a US citizen, or had ever been one, and as such had no rights. The chief justice, Roger Taney, was a former slave owner.
All African-Americans, free or enslaved, were stripped of all rights, even the voting rights of free black men in the five original states who had been considered citizens since the Declaration of Independence.
On the basis of race, an entire group of people were stripped of all rights and legal protection.
In effect, they were legal non-persons.
Concerning 3/5th personhood for census purposes. Interesting how someone can be almost a person or less of a person on the whim of the state.
Esther,
I forgot to ask. When did black people transform back into persons? I mean, the Supreme Court stripped them of all rights, and states only declared them somewhat persons.
But thats just it, Bethany. Anti-choice folks like those on this list are so certain that an entity deserving of human rights begins at conception, and all those who have “read the literature” admit that there are many of these “beings” formed that do not implant, or implant and then are released due to malformation or a host of other reasons, it would seem that they are being willfully ignorant if they don’t treat the “corpses” with the respect due to all human remains. Pregnancy tests are getting cheaper and earlier by the day – why not a requirement to test and then accord that “life” a more decent burial than the most convenient commode?
Surprisingly, some primitive peoples do/did have specific rituals for mentrual flow disposal that was decidedly separate from human waste removal.
A woman (including most teens, and certainly those who argue on lists like this)is not unaware that a conception could have occured if she had sex. That there may well be a high probability that she is, even. Wouldn’t this be closer to modern reality?
The more appropriate analogy then would be “having heard reports of a missing child on the news, including a description of what the child wore, the woman didn’t stop when she saw the bundle on the side of the road even though the red cloth it was wrapped in matched the description.
We (societal we) don’t require women to hold funerals for miscarriages. We dont judge those who don’t as immoral, we give them the choice to deal with their life situation appropriately, public display, private grief, or even ignoring it, right? Too bad we or at least certian segments of that “societal we” can’t be consistent.
And good morning, Mary! So good to see you this morning, and great points! :)
But thats just it, Bethany. Anti-choice folks like those on this list are so certain that an entity deserving of human rights begins at conception,
The right to be allowed to live until their natural death, phylosopher. That is the right we wish to give them.
and all those who have “read the literature” admit that there are many of these “beings” formed that do not implant, or implant and then are released due to malformation or a host of other reasons, it would seem that they are being willfully ignorant if they don’t treat the “corpses” with the respect due to all human remains.
No, philosopher, you’re wrong. Your comments are very disrespectful too, to women who have actually known the hurt of a miscarriage, and having accidentally lost theirs in the toilet. You have no idea what kind of a grief a woman goes through when this happens.
At such an early age (before implantation), It would be nearly impossible for women to know for sure whether they lost an individual or not. If the child is lost before implantation, the woman cannot be held responsible if she does not know, and should not be forced to do anything which goes beyond normal measures. It is ridiculous to say that a woman should have to go to such extremes to bury her child. Would you tell a woman who lost her child at sea that she had desecrated his or her memory because she didn’t go to the depths of the sea to find him or her to give him or her a proper burial?
Bethany,
Good morning to you as well and thank you. I’m afraid I will have to get away from this computer and all you nice folks and accomplish something since I have to go to work this afternoon. Have a great day and weekend!
Hi phylosopher,
For many months, Doug and I carried on an extensive discussion in these matters. (Extensive they were, but certainly not all-encompassing. Your comments lead me to believe this idea interesting, but that you disagree with it … could you explain why this diverging in opinion?)
I often find a way of entertaining different perspectives, by paying very strict attention to how words are commonly used. In this case, Doug used the notion that fetus and personhood were NOT the same. Secondly: ‘person’ is a legal term and begins at birth. Thirdly, ALL rights are attributed to the ‘person’ status and therefore, only apply with birth. (For much of our discussion, I had a great difficulty challenging this rationale because I too perceived rights this way.)
There may be a very large problem here in understanding what ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ are. It seems to me ‘rights’ are attributed to the ‘core’/fundamental-aspect of being a living HUMAN. (We had agreed: a ‘fetus’ was a misnomer that actually refers to a living, HUMAN-fetus.) These then are values applied at conception to HUMAN life.
Accordingly, … ‘privileges’ are given in stages/’arbitrary benchmarks’ … you have kindly outlined some of these. Are there rights-privileges …… I am thinking of an education?
To focus on your earlier question: the problem here is not that the embryo has/has-not human status, but whether or not I can-ethically artificially induce its demise.
The more appropriate analogy then would be “having heard reports of a missing child on the news, including a description of what the child wore, the woman didn’t stop when she saw the bundle on the side of the road even though the red cloth it was wrapped in matched the description.
That is not a more appropriate analogy, phylosopher. Not at all.
Women don’t get pregnant every time they have a cycle.
To focus on your earlier question: the problem here is not that the embryo has/has-not human status, but whether or not I can-ethically artificially induce its demise.
THANK you, John. That is exactly it. Phylosopher entirely misses the point. You have explained the problem so well. Thank you!
mk:
You’re the one who claimed the whole difference was intent. I was addressing your distinction, sorry if I wasn’t clear on that – the distractions of intervening posts can be frustrating.
Responses to your posts, in order:
Why is prayer as far as you are willing to go? Could it be because more would be inconvenient?
Now you’ve changed stupid to ridiculuous, but you haven’t given a reason why. Rest assured, I am very serious when it comes to logical consistency. Pointing out when performance doesn’t match rhetoric id a very valid refutation – technically a “performative contradiction” or that old saw of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Based on the logic of the antichoice side, it would be consistent to bury any fertilized egg (baby). You haven’t given a reason why not respecting the remains of the “baby” on the tampon should be excepted from what is accorded other human remains.
Post two: I knew you’d get to the ad hominem eventually. I believe there are a number of Biblical injunctions and many an argument put forth by theologians that argue humans can’t truly conceive the mind of God.
Post three: But as I pointed out in my post most antecedant to this one, the great majority of women aren’t completely unaware that there is a probability that a fertilized egg exists on a tampon (or baby as you would call it. But the analogy did need improvement – read the later version of the analogy, is that better?
The argument doesn’t rest on whether or not a fertilized egg is actually present, Bethany,but on the chance that one is. The red bundle could be no more that someone’s old capeting, but aren’t we obligated to check?
Typo correction: “id” should, of course, be “is”
Phylosopher, another thing. We recognize that it is not the body that matters so much when one dies, it is the soul we are more concerned with. If our child dies and we are unaware of it, rather than worry about where it is buried, or in what condition, we are more concerned about their soul, and the fact that they are now in Heaven with God, with a new body which will never be destroyed.
I would love the opportunity to have been able to give my second child who miscarried a proper burial, but I was never able to find him or her. I was too early on. My first miscarriage, I was able to have a burial for him or her. We buried his/her body under 5 cherry willow trees. We shed many tears over both of the miscarriages, and know that we lost two very important people. Regardless of where their bodies are, we are thankful to know that their new bodies, and their eternal souls are in Heaven, where we will meet them again one day.
The argument doesn’t rest on whether or not a fertilized egg is actually present, Bethany,but on the chance that one is. The red bundle could be no more that someone’s old carpeting, but aren’t we obligated to check?
How exactly is a woman to check and see if her menstrual blood contains an unborn child that is tinier than this dot . ? Again, I ask. Would you tell a woman who lost her child at sea….or let me take it a step further- would you tell a woman who “may” have lost her child to sea, to search the depths of the water to make sure that her child would have a proper burial, on the chances that her child is in there?
Well Enigma, yes, who are you to judge also?
But, first let us get one bit of humpty dumptyism out of the way.
Judge; 1) to form a opinion or estimation after careful consideration Houghton Miflin.
3) to determine or declare after consideration or deliberation. Houghton Miflin.
I skiped definition number two, since it pertains to law. To hear or decide on in a court of law. Which this site is not a court of law.
Taking the easy one first, which is your question about me “judging”, can be stated with accuracy from ” judge” being defined for both of us.
Your question to me Enigma; Who are you “to form a opinion or estimation after careful consideration”? That is what you asked me Enigma.
Quite intolerant of you Enigma to ask me NOT to form a opinion or estimation after careful consideration. Are you asking me NOT to have a opinion(judge), Enigma, the most high, of intolerance ? Which is equal to asking me to not have a opinion unless it agrees with your opinion, evidently. In fact, your the one who is not able to feel submission or courteous yielding to my opinion, wishes or judgement. I can accept that lack of respect, but don’t tell me, or anyone. to not have a opinion after careful consideration, Enigma. It makes you into a mind controller of others, and reduces your intelligence to being a sad example of being against “free thinking”. Are you that narrow minded Enigma? To not allow others to have opinions after careful consideration?
But, you top yourself with that last silly sentence which states, “It’s not your life and you have no right to form an opinion or estimation after careful consideration(judge).
Do you see your “totalitarian intolerance” in demanding me to not have a opinion, while your demanding your opinion is a monopoly on the judgement of other lives also?
I see Enigma, others may have opinions, only if they are approved by Enigma.
Now, that I have established your character of being unable to allow others to form opinons after careful consideration, let us review your sentence about women who have pleasure before they are married, “are not cheap.”
But first Enigma, let us take the word cheap and define it.
I leave that up to you to define “cheap”‘ Enigma.
You might find I agree with you Enigma, that women are not realtively low in cost(cheap). On the other hand, you Enigma are worthy of no feelings of submission or courteous yielding to your wishes, opinions or judgements, from being incapable of allowing others to have a judgement.
Or will you atone for your totalitarianism of asking me, “Who are you to form a opinion or estimation after careful consideration?”
i will accept your acknowlegement expressing regret or pardon for your offence of asking me such a intolerant question. Thank You, Yllas.
Hey phylosopher. Not to change the subject too much, but are you a philosophy student or professor of philosophy? I just like to know a bit more about the people on here.
i will accept your acknowlegement expressing regret or pardon for your offence of asking me such a intolerant question. Thank You, Yllas.
Hi John:
(Extensive they were, but certainly not all-encompassing. Your comments lead me to believe this idea interesting, but that you disagree with it … could you explain why this diverging in opinion?)
I’d like to exchange more with you John, but I’m now pressed for time. I can’t address this partiuclar question because I’m not sure what the “it” is that you say I disagree with. I can’t go back and reread all of your and Doug’s posts, so please clarify.
I’ll think about that rights/privileges distinction, too. For now though, here’s the gist of the argument:
Birth is an arbitrary benchmark for personhood – one that maybe both sides could agree on. While initially not arbitrary, medical technology has made it so.
Is there any other benchmark that could be used that would be less arbitrary? Are there parellels to be found in other human life benchmarks which accord rights or privileges?
Are there any instances when we deny rights and privileges to those we understand to be persons?
Well Enigma, yes, who are you to judge also?
But, first let us get one bit of humpty dumptyism out of the way.**********************************************************************************************
roflmao! Yallas, you kill me.
Esther: I’ve been happily married to a great guy for 25 years. Some days more so than others, but, overall, very happily.
MK: That’s great. Except, I didn’t ask you if you were happily married. I asked you if you were ever happy.
Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 5:40 AM
Of course, I’m happy. I think that’s really an odd and catty question to ask me.
Gosh, my children are all healthy. I have the love and respect of my family, my health. I live in a nice house. I have friends and pets. We’ve been fortunate enough for me to be a SAHM for the past 20 years. Both my parents are alive and healthy. I live in a wondeful small town in a free country. I even drive a new mini-van, and I’ve never been addicted to any mind altering chemicals nor do I ingest them! And I NEVER, EVER take myself too seriously (like that yllaS character seems to, for instance geesh!)
Of course, EVERYTHING in my life isn’t perfect, but I also realize just how lucky I am at the moment, so I don’t take the good in my life for granted. What more of an explanation do you want? I get the feeling you’d feel better if I told you I was unhappy.
In the context of our discussions on this blog, (thank you, Jill Stanek) with abortion being legal and all, and so many women not keeping their pants on, and your being so worried about it, it seems you have a lot more to be unhappy about than I do.
Esther,
In the Dred Scott decision 7 out of 9 Supreme Court justices declared that no slave or descendent of a slave could be a US citizen, or had ever been one, and as such had no rights. The chief justice, Roger Taney, was a former slave owner.
All African-Americans, free or enslaved, were stripped of all rights, even the voting rights of free black men in the five original states who had been considered citizens since the Declaration of Independence.
On the basis of race, an entire group of people were stripped of all rights and legal protection.
In effect, they were legal non-persons.
Concerning 3/5th personhood for census purposes. Interesting how someone can be almost a person or less of a person on the whim of the state.
Posted by: Mary at November 2, 2007 8:26 AM
Yes, I know about the horrible Dred Scott ruling. And of the seven justices who delivered the majority opinion, the majority of THEM were slave owners. We don’t count embryos and fetuses in the census. When have embryos and fetuses ever been slaves?
Yllas: Esther, you don’t have a clue about the definition of “respect” or “hypocrisy”.
First, how do you know what a man “thinks” when he sleeps with her?
Oh, please! I know what some men and young guys SAY about women they’ve slept with. Obviously, I can’t know nor do I want to know what they were thinking when they were having sex. Ewwww!
Esther,
When were slaves ever counted in the census? It was necessary to give them a little personhood to do so.
I never said embryos and fetuses were slaves.
Esther,
When did black people transform into persons? And when did free black men who had rights prior to Dred Scott and were formerly persons become persons again?
Esther,
When did black people transform into persons? And when did free black men who had rights prior to Dred Scott and were formerly persons become persons again?
Posted by: Mary at November 2, 2007 10:38 AM
As disgusting as the three fifths designation was, people who hated slavery thought of it as a victory for their side. As I said, when have embryos and fetuses, unlike slaves/black people ever been counted in the census or been referred to as persons in the Constitution?
Yllas,
By ignoring my argument and attacking my words, you have demonstrated that you have no viable argument and thus have conceded that you have nothing intelligent to say. Additionally, those who stoop to personal attacks and insult merely demonstrate their abusive natures and their inability to encounter different points of view without flying into irrational rages that defy both logic and the rules of socially acceptable human behavior.
I see no point in continuing to address you until you have learned to debate in a respectful manner and comport yourself in a manner more befitting of a mature adult as opposed to a three year-old child in the midst of a temper tantrum.
Have a good day,
Enigma
“I never said embryos and fetuses were slaves”…
just dehumanized, legally disenfranchised, and treated like disposable property…like slaves.
Every slave was once an embryo, then a fetus…just like every slaveholder and overseer…and everyone else.
Esther 11:12am
Perhaps anti-slavers viewed any personhood as better than none. This was an acknowledgement that slaves might, just might, be persons.
Embryos and fetuses in the Constitution, no.
Are eskimos specifically mentioned in the Constitution? How about old people? Are residents of US territories such as Puerto Ricans? Is the personhood of any of these people in question because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
Again, slaves weren’t counted in the census. They had to be endowed, I’m sure grudgingly, with a little bit of personhood in order to be counted.
Again Esther, when did black people transform into persons?
Just thinking 11:23am
Excellent points.
Actually, all these groups are covered in the preamble to the Constitution of the U.S. as either
@phylosopher,
”
@ John:
We differ. A brain dead adult does not have a right to be kept alive indefinitely, though we could probably do that given today’s technology. Even most interpretations of the latest word from the Vatican concur on that. We do make arbitrary distinctions about when a person receives various rights, and when we curtail them. Most benchmarks are arbitrary chronological ages. School 7, driving 16, sexual consent 17/18 and full adulthood 21, some credit/rental 25.
With all the technology of neonatology, I think that birth is somewhat arbitrary. C-sections, in utero surgery, etc. Using brain activity, actually extends the pre-birth time of personhood and full rights, and, would be less arbitrary and subject to the uncertainties of “guesstational age.”
But, from your comment, I’ll assume this is a rehash, then? No need to revisit further.
Posted by: phylosopher at November 1, 2007 9:15PM”
Perhaps there was so sort of misunderstanding … rather than view your concepts uninteresting (as if they had already been covered). It was more of a lament (sure wish this discussion could have been a three way one. I’m not at all sure Doug would characterize his input the way that I have.
These latest series of questions are very intriguing: “Is there any other benchmark that could be used that would be less arbitrary? Are there parellels to be found in other human life benchmarks which accord rights or privileges?
Are there any instances when we deny rights and privileges to those we understand to be persons?
Posted by: phylosopher at November 2, 2007 9:13AM”
Of the top of my head, there seems to be numerous ‘benchmarks’ for maturation … Jewish bar mitzva(sp?) …. drinking/voting age and the initial personhood one of naming … for Christians baptizing-Christening … and for some sects, confirmation. Denial/curtailing rights (especially the will) is often seen in the military and imprisonment; those not self-employed curtail their will to that of the employer; and, very often the sacrificial nature of raising a family involves a self-imposed constraint by parents.
Reality 101,
The argument has been that one must be specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be a person. We hear that since the fetus and embryo aren’t mentioned, they can’t be persons. I pointed out that some of these other groups of people aren’t mentioned either. By the way eskimos and Puerto Ricans were not US citizens and their existence likely unknown to the Founding Fathers when the Preamble was written.
Your point about all life having to go through the embryonic and fetal phases is excellent, but one conveniently overlooked by those who themselves had to go through these phases.
Just dropping in today, the in-laws are coming to visit this afternoon and I’ve got a lot to do to get the apartment in decent order. So, Rae and Jaqueline, You have Myspace? I’ve love to be added to your friends! :-)
http://www.myspace.com/butterflyangel83
Well Enigma, you sure got puffy suddenly. And all from being soo judgemental of me. Are you judging me? “Who are you to judge?”. “You do not have a monopoly on how others should live their lives”, and their ability to form a opinion after careful consideration.
Gee, Enigma, can’t put words in my mouth for me, such as me “calling women cheap”, which I did not, but you want me to not have a opinion!! Well, if I can’t form a opinion, may I use your words Enigma? Still waiting to accept your acknowledgement expressing regret, or asking a pardon for your offence of asking me such a intolerant question. P.s. Enigma, that is the dictionary definition of apology!!
Esther the Pester, has actually given a statement which has nothing to do with hypocrisy and respect. Thank you Esther. Now, we can deal with a statement from Esther to which I may ask a question, since Esther enjoys asking rhetorical questions in half her post to others here.
“I know what some men and young guys SAY about women they have slept with”.
Give me a example of what these men, you accuse of having no respect, SAY Esther, PLEASE.
Let us deal with a statement of Esther, and not a question already answered by Esther. Waiting to submit and yield courteously to your statment,opinion,judgement, about what men say to women they have slept with Esther.
Thnak you. Yllas.
Ps. Esther, people form opinions and have wishes even while they are having pleasure. It is not a ewww experience. Say, when your eating, or using your eyes and ears to enjoy the pleasure of a movie. Say, the movie Bella. One never stops thinking, or should we say, forming opinions, wishes, and judgements. Is that not true Esther?
Esther,
I would never wish unhappiness on anyone. I was simply curious because all of your posts are so negative and humorless.
Most of us on here, on both sides, joke and share and let each other “in”, but you don’t. You sound bitter, and angry and well, unhappy.
I’m glad to hear that you are. Happy that is.
I only wish it would come across in your posts.
Mary,
I pointed out that some of these other groups of people aren’t mentioned either.
It always comes back to the midgets…
MK,
“Most of us on here, on both sides, joke and share and let each other “in”, but you don’t.”
Its harder to let one another “in” when one realizes that this is a public forum and that countless numbers of people we don’t even know could be reading our every word.
Enigma,
I can understand that. But I don’t mean personal information like your address. I don’t even mean your occupation. Just things like how Erin loves the theatre and Colbert. Or how PIP love Paul Simon. Or how Rae has a crush on a guy from work. It gives us a “sense” of each other. Makes us more human and less like words on a page.
Esther just came in with guns blazing. Which I also understand, because most sites on pro life or pro choice are not like ours.
The beauty of Jill’s is that you can let your defenses down. Sans a few “characters” like Laura and yllas, pretty much we’re all just regular folks, who mean each other no harm.
Wouldn’t you agree? Haven’t you, for the most part, been treated well, with respect and openness here?
HI John:
Yes, let’s look a those benchmarks some are more correctly rites of passage:
bar/bat mitzvah – physicial sexual maturity. Comes with commensurate responsibility for religious knowledge. Testable.
Drinking/voting – arbitrary but somewhat agreed upon range- federally coerced at 21 in most states. Non-tested. Many commensurate responsibilities, some at earlier age 17/18.
The similarity in the two above rites is responsibility. Take that word apart – ability to respond. That’s an important distinction that only comes with personhood.
Naming ceremonies/baptisms – chronologically this is the closest ritual to the baby/fetus/zygote/embryo. It is a recognition of the persons acceptance into a society and in the naming, a recognition of their personhood. Usually, these two occur simultaneously. In ancient Rome, the child was not recognized as a ROman citizen unitl the father picked him/her up when laid at his feet. Until then, the child could be exposed – left to die. THis is true of many cultures – uncounted as a member – not a person – until after the naming and formal acceptance. Even in Catholicism – and some protestant forms – until recently unbaptized babies birthed babies were not considered fully accepted. If death occurred before baptism (which BTW has varied from 1 week to 1 month and now to whenever convenient for Aunt Sophie to come to town) even God (presumably)didn’t count the souls as having the full right to spend eternity in heaven, but the soul of the child was relegated to Limbo.
Lot’s of parellels here, and a lot of societal baggage about recognizing personhood, I think.
Im not sure about military or prison or having children. Those are not inevitable aging rituals that everyone is expected to go through.
What say you, John?
Dear Erin,
Please accept my regret and pardon my asking you a question about your preaching for self love and not practicing the sexual act of self love.
Also, when one uses words for years and never thought about the definition of the words we use, one becomes confused in their thinking.
Actually Erin, I thought you would be able to remove my opinion about your hypocrisy, by knowing the definition of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is not exactly not practicing what one preaches.
Hypocrisy; The practice of professing/doing beliefs,feelings, or virtues which one does not hold or possess. The word profess is defined as to affirm openly. Which might be better understood by stating it this way. To perform habitually the openly affirmation of one’s beliefs, feelings, or virtues which one does not possess.
Now think about what the definition really is saying Erin!!
Let Peter Kreeft explain the definition of hypocrisy for ya Erin, in his little paper, Satan’s Battle Plan For The Third Millennium.
“Their sexual practices were always quite low, but before the revolution their principles were fairly high. Now their principles have conformed to their practice- a perfect example of the Machiavellian premise brought to its logical conclusion; since you can’t raise your practices to match your principles, lower your principles to match your practice, in this way alone can you can avoid hypocrisy, which is the greatest of evils. Of course hypocrisy is not the greatest evil, but its easy to make them think that, if they don’t think of themselves as hypocrites. And of course hypocrisy doesn’t mean failing to practice what you preach, hypocrisy means FAILING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU PREACH; but it is easy to confuse them there too, because they don’t care much about what you believe, only about what you practice”.
See Erin, your not really a hypocrite about onanism, since you sffirm your feelings openly for onanism as a principle. It was lowering your principles to match your feeling for onanism that I found matched Machiavelli’s premise in you Erin. See Erin, since you can’t raise your practice to your principles, you lowered your principles to match your practice of onanism to avoid being a hypocrite, years ago, Erin.
yllas, I don’t talk to you. You’ve been exceptionally rude to me on several occasions. I respect nothing that you say. Therefore, shove off.
even God (presumably)didn’t count the souls as having the full right to spend eternity in heaven, but the soul of the child was relegated to Limbo.
Limbo was never doctrine. It was just an idea. And nowhere was it EVER claimed that God did not recognize unbaptized babies as persons.
Look Phylosopher,
The whole thing started with Enigma asking me to give an example of something else that would fit what she was trying to say…
So here it is.
Stonehenge was built, presumably by druids hundreds of years ago.
Nothing has been added to it. It is as it was when it was first built.
In the beginning, people who saw it said, “Wow, have you guys seen the new thingy that those druids built?”…
Now we say “The ancient artifact known as Stonehenge…”
Nothing has changed. It is exactly the same. But now we refer to it as ancient. What changed to make it ancient?
Nothing changed. Time passed. That’s all.
Some of the stones might have worn away, chipped…but in “ESSENCE” it is as it was.
Time passed. Now we call it ancient.
Could you have called it ancient at the time it was built? NO!
Just like you can’t call a baby an adult, even though nothing will be added. Time must pass…
Or how about a tree. Can I say a tree is dormant in summer? No. What is added to the tree? Nothing. It is just a different “season”…
Does saying that a tree is dormant, mean that it has changed to something other than a tree? No. It’s essences remains the same.
You are trying to apply a word and make it mean something that it doesn’t mean. Adult does not mean that the baby has become “something else”. It means that it has become older. Not changed in it essence, just changed in it’s appearance.
Bobby explained this, I’ve explained this…I don’t know what else we can do.
Hi phylosopher,
I am sure that you are aware of the Greek-Socratic philosophical distinction between ‘essence’ and ‘accident’. In recent decades (following the input of pop-psychology and realizing a more ‘practical approach), we moderns have looked upon this essence-accident split as ancient and not-practical because describing any being apart from its accidental-nature is very difficult.
In such circumstances I like to be reminded of Einstein’s equation for energy (E = mcc). All aspects of this equation are about the physical-essences and zip about the accidental/form structuring.
Any and all ‘rights of passage’ are psychological terms noting the ‘accidental-nature’ of our species, but “rights” as outlined in a Constitution/law seems to speak of the essence of humans. (This even got very tricky a few decades back when we used to often speak of one of our SPECIES as ‘man’. Too many (not accepting the essence-accident dual-use), insisted that the word ‘man’ only referred to human-adult-males and that because such cannot be pointed to: humans don’t have essence. (The modern-problem with this approach is a vast reduction in the value of “man” so-much-so that we are now killable under certain circumstances.)
Stonehenge doesn’t have rights. Adults do. Rights that children do not. Unless those rights are arbitrarily assigned, there must be some substantive basis on which they are assigned. Most would agree that while the acutal, convenient demarcation is a chronological age, 16, 18, 21, the underlying assumption is that certain, again, substantive changes have taken place in the brain. Modern neuroscience supports this.
If not, not allowing a 6 y o to drive vote or drink is merely prejudice.
So, though I understand Bobby’s argument quite well, we have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not a substantive change has taken place.
To whoever: official dogma or not, it (thesis of Limbo)was promulgated enough that an official refutation had to be made – yet it was allowed to flourish for years – so much so that it predated Lutheran schism. And much else was allowed based on it – I love Powers story in Last Catholic in America about buying and baptizing pagan babies so they wouldn’t be stuck in Limbo – he wanted to name his Trigger.
@ phylosopher,
am I to understand that by rejecting MK’s example of Stonehenge + your example of the 6 y-o, that you are refuting the essence-accident split? Part of the problem in doing so is that the framers of the US-Constitution used such an outlook. If you wish to forego this outlook in your own perspective, then consistency would have the rejection of all these particular ‘rights’ (as imaginary fantasy). If one rejects the backgound ideation that gave rise to ‘rights’, then another replacement philosophy would seem logically appropriate and necessary.
(It seems strange that we tend to pick-and-choose: on the one-hand ‘rights’ (especially the right-to-abortion) is a supreme value. But, on the other hand, rights and humans (possessing any ‘right’) have no value themselves (and are disposable).
MK,
“Wouldn’t you agree? Haven’t you, for the most part, been treated well, with respect and openness here?”
To some extent. Most of the posters here are not bullish or extremely nasty. I would like to add, however, that there is an atmosphere that supports such bulling and nastiness when it does occur.
Wow. I’m going to repost that. I have some major spelling errors.
MK,
“”Wouldn’t you agree? Haven’t you, for the most part, been treated well, with respect and openness here?”
To some extent. Most of the posters are not bullies or extremely nasty in their comments. Some of them are actually quite friendly. I would like to add, however, that there is an atmosphere in which bullying or nastiness, when it occurs, is generally supported.
Phylosopher,
Do you want to argue about whether or not rocks have rights or do you want to stick with the original argument.
I had posted an argument that cookie dough required ingredients to come together to created something unique and new, and that all that was required to make them edible was heat.
Enigma asked me to give another example like that to show that babies are not adults.
As far as I know, cookies don’t have rights either.
And what substantive change takes place? What is “added” to the mix. What is an adult that it wasn’t, in it’s essence prior to aging? Are you not substantively the same person that you were 10 years ago? You’ve had experiences yes. They have perhaps changed your outlook on things, but you are still and will be til the day you die, Phylosopher.
What does someone like, say Doug, think of this? You’re quite consistent, too. How do you feel about killing born babies if it’s in the “best interest” of the parents?
Bobby, I’m against it after viability in most cases, let alone after birth.
Doug
Doug has already explained to me that he feels that it would be okay to kill a newborn, as long as you anesthetized it first, and it was the mother’s wish, and no one else knew about it. :(
No, Bethany, I did not say that. Gotta be some other context in there.
Doug
John M: I was curious how you’d handle Peter Singer’s ideas. For those who don’t know, I’m one of Jerry’s kids, but tend to think like the folks at http://www.notdeadyet.org .
In case you’re wondering, Doug does now and this fact (that he willingly tolerates my input and is not harsh) makes him a friend extraordinaire. Last week, we talked about the power that comes from believing in someone … our ancestors to us. Haven’t we all thrived on such heritage? And it doesn’t stop … except for abortion. What is murdered is hope.
John, I really hope you do think of me as a friend – I wasn’t sure.
I do think later generations do better when the ancestors try to make provisions for them, and IMO we are in a time when that concern is vastly more important than in the past, re the environment.
Doug
Just remember, when you have a discussion with Doug, your(sic) dealing with a public pessimist, who is not a pessimist in his private life.
A public, pragmatic pessimist with a dash of hypocrisy thrown in, might be a good definition of Doug.
Doug rejects being descibed as being a pessimist for some reason. Kind of like a hypocrite, who thinks hypocrisy is the one of the great character flaws in life, as long as one does not think oneself is a pragmatic pessimistic hypocrite. Right Doug?
Remember Doug, I commit my will to the true good for ya Doug, as always, Yllas.
Just remember, when you have a discussion with Doug, your(sic) dealing with a public pessimist, who is not a pessimist in his private life.
Wrong. Abortion is the best choice for some women sometimes. Nothing pessimistic or optimistic about it to note that.
……
A public, pragmatic pessimist with a dash of hypocrisy thrown in, might be a good definition of Doug.
Not at all. You want to pretend that things are always the same, and they most certainly are not.
……
Doug rejects being descibed as being a pessimist for some reason.
The ones crying and moaning and “the-sky-is-falling” are some pro-lifers, not me. It is good for people to be free, IMO. I think it is preferable to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but once it is fact, then abortion is often the best way to go. Nothing “pessimistic” there, just reality.
……
Kind of like a hypocrite, who thinks hypocrisy is the one of the great character flaws in life, as long as one does not think oneself is a pragmatic pessimistic hypocrite. Right Doug?
In lieu of any rational argument, you go for the silly ad hominem stuff. Ho hum.
……
Remember Doug, I commit my will to the true good for ya Doug, as always, Yllas.
:: laughing :: Thanks for that.
Oh Erin, you petulant ball of self love.
Remember, I am only doing to you, what you do to others here. Such as your writing to Heather, which I consider bullying and quite vulgar.
Seems Erin, you can dish it out, but can’t take it. Most hypocrites are like that Erin, it is how you became what you are Erin, a bull for abortion, with a personal addiction to not knowing the definition of words which you use.
So, Erin, I have mercy on you Erin, and you do know the definition of mercy, right Erin?
And since you have no idea what mercy means Erin, I shall define it for you Erin, since the second you saw the word mercy being applied to you Erin, you got all petulant, and got your bully on.
Mercy is love(sacrificial) shown to those who do not love ya. Mercy is love shown to those who hate ya Doug. Mercy is love shown to those who do not deserve to be loved, and don’t have a claim on my love. Mercy is love shown to those who reject our love.
Now, if only you had mercy for babies in the womb Erin, you would understand why I still have mercy for you, Erin.
Mercy is love shown to those who hate ya Doug.
Sometimes, yeah.
Doug, killing a baby/fetus is pessimism. You appeal to pessimism. Why is abortion “often the best way to go” Doug? List the reasons Doug, and they are based on pessimism. Please Doug, you know the defintion of pessimism right?
Pessimism; 1.a tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest view.
2. The belief that this is the worst of all possible worlds, and that all things tend toward evil.(for you Doug, insert the word, wrong)
3. The doctrine or belief that the evil/wrongs of the world outweighs the good.
So, Doug, you appealer to the emotions of pessimism, list those reasons for abortion, please.
Ps. Doug, knowing and describing the character of a person is not ad hominem. Well unless you don’t believe in having the right to describe people as characters or personalities. Being a public pessimistic hypocrite, is just who you are Doug. It comes from your writings themself, Doug. And that is just reality, Doug. You did admit your a pessimist Doug. You are admitting it in public Doug. And since you can’t admit to your hypocrisy Doug, you just don’t know theyself well enough to remove that personality trait from yourself yet. But, I am working on it Doug. I have mercy for ya Doug.
Doug, killing a baby/fetus is pessimism.
I guess you could say that it is an act that reflects pessimism about the pregnancy/certain possible futures. Things don’t always go perfectly, though. It’s only natural that people will want to remedy unwanted situations.
……
You appeal to pessimism.
Wrong. Noting reality is not that.
……
Why is abortion “often the best way to go” Doug? List the reasons Doug, and they are based on pessimism.
It is the best way to go, sometimes, due to the desire of the woman who is pregnant.
……
Please Doug, you know the defintion of pessimism right? Pessimism; 1.a tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest view. 2. The belief that this is the worst of all possible worlds, and that all things tend toward evil.(for you Doug, insert the word, wrong) 3. The doctrine or belief that the evil/wrongs of the world outweighs the good.
So some people may be pessimistic about a given pregnancy and any number of other things in their lives, but being cognizant of the reality that that’s the case once in a while is not pessimistic itself.
…….
So, Doug, you appealer to the emotions of pessimism, list those reasons for abortion, please.
No need to – it’s up to the woman, and we’ve all seen the most common reasons listed quite a few times. It’s not “appealing to pessimism,” it just the way things are.
Are their sad realities in the world? Yes? I’d rather there were no unwanted pregnancies, but it’s not “pessimism” to note that there are, and that for some situations abortion is then best.
……
Ps. Doug, knowing and describing the character of a person is not ad hominem. Well unless you don’t believe in having the right to describe people as characters or personalities. Being a public pessimistic hypocrite, is just who you are Doug. It comes from your writings themself, Doug. And that is just reality, Doug. You did admit your a pessimist Doug. You are admitting it in public Doug. And since you can’t admit to your hypocrisy Doug, you just don’t know theyself well enough to remove that personality trait from yourself yet. But, I am working on it Doug. I have mercy for ya Doug.
Same deal – lacking any persuasive argument, you resort to making up stuff about people.
Doug,
It’s not worth it, trying to argue with yllas. She/he is your typical bully who uses derision and mockery in an attempt to browbeat opponents into submission.
I suggest dealing yllas the way that we were all taught to deal with bullies–by ignoring them.
Let’s make it simple Doug. List 5 reasons YOU GIVE for killing the fetus, Doug.
Thank You. Yllas.
Remember, YOUR REASONS, Doug.
Enigma, we’ll see – kind of a slow night now. Yllas does have some wild posts, and I like that, for better or worse.
Yllas, being Pro-Choice, I leave the decision to the woman or couple. So, “my reasons” would just be what the pregnant woman wants or what the couple wants.
There are some people who would not choose to have an abortion, no matter what. I have no problem with that. It’s up to them. That’s not “pessimistic” or “optimistic,” that’s just noting reality.
For others, there may be any number of reasons. I saw at AGI that the average woman had 3 or 4 reasons why she was having an abortion.
The most common reasons are:
Not enough money.
Don’t want to have the responsibility of kids.
Life would be changed too much.
Relationship problems and/or not married.
Too young.
Likewise, this is just being cognizant of how things are.
You might disagree with a given person’s reasons – saying, for example, that there actually is enough money and that help may be obtained, etc. Well okay, that’s your opinion against theirs.
It’s no “pessimism” on my part to see that sometimes people really do feel that way.
Doug
Doug, give me YOUR REASONS, for abortion, not some people, persons, characters, or personalities of which I know nothing of.
You have not listed YOUR reasons, Doug.
Second, Does not having enough money make you feel gloomy or negative, Doug? Yes or no. Does not having enough money make you feel happy and optimistic Doug? Yes or no.
reality 101: 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
Yllas: Doug, give me YOUR REASONS, for abortion, not some people, persons, characters, or personalities of which I know nothing of. You have not listed YOUR reasons, Doug.
I don’t have any, Yllas. I’ll never be pregnant and my wife has had a hysterectomy. My reason for being Pro-Choice is that I more want women to keep the freedom they have in the matter, more than I want every single pregnancy to continue.
……
Second, Does not having enough money make you feel gloomy or negative, Doug? Yes or no. Does not having enough money make you feel happy and optimistic Doug? Yes or no.
Yes, and no. And that people often feel that way is just a given. To realize that fact is not being pessimistic or optimistic, it’s just noting reality.
Pro-Choicers are not “preaching” anything in this vein to other people. Pro-Choicers are leaving it up to the other people.
Saying, “I can understand her not wanting to have a baby in that situation” is one thing.
Saying,”She ought to have an abortion in that situation” is another.
The first is Pro-Choice, the second is not.
Doug
Esther: In YOUR OPINION posterity includes embryos and fetuses.
I think that by definition some of them are included. Not all are, since there will be some miscarriages and abortions. But some of them will be people’s descendants, future generations, etc.
Doug
Adressing only one questions I asked you Doug, let us deal with the question of “Does not having enough money make you feel gloomy or negative, Doug”.
To that question you answered, Yes.
You did notice the word “feel” in that sentence Doug? Are “feelings” emotions Doug? Yes or no?
Now, Doug, give me the dictionary definition of pessimism please. You give me the definition of pessimism from any REALISTIC dictionary, so I may know what your mind is deciding is pessimism.
Esther: In YOUR OPINION posterity includes embryos and fetuses.
I think that by definition some of them are included. Not all are, since there will be some miscarriages and abortions. But some of them will be people’s descendants, future generations, etc.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 3, 2007 10:00 PM
Wait, if some embryos and fetuses are included, then how can you justify allowing women to abort them? The Constitution was ordained and established to SECURE the blessings of liberty to our posterity — not “some” of our posterity. Allowing women to abort them is not securing their liberty.
“Pro choicers are for leaving IT up to the OTHER people”. A statement by Doug. The most self-contradictory statement, ever made on this board.
Doug, did you know that truth does not contradict itself? Truth does exist Doug. Truth is the mind conforming to reality. The less the mind conforms to reality, the more insane(In=not. Sane= showing sound judgement/opinion) one becomes? True or false Doug? Truth is essential/basic to being able to think correctly/right about reality. True or false Doug?
Truth is neccessary to avoid making choices/decisions that harm a person, or you Doug, harming another person. True or false Doug?
Let us take the statement of Doug and review the truth in that statement.
First, pro(defined as FOR;etymology from Latin).
Second, Choice; To select from a number of possible alternatives; DECIDE on and pick out.
So, the first two words of Doug’s statement is;
For the selection of “ONE of a number of things for which only ONE can be choosen”(definition of alternative by language critics). Then the word “leave” must be defined, before we procede in deciding on the truth, or contradiction of truth, in Doug’s statement. Leave; to refrain from disturbing or interfering. Or Doug, pick your definition among 9 definitions of leave, please. Say, let alone. So from Doug, we have this statement.
For the selection of ONE of a number of things for which ONLY ONE must be choosen are FOR REFRAINING FROM DISTURBING OR INTERFERING , in the selection of ONE of a number of things for which ONLY ONE must be choosen, to other people.
Now Doug, are you For refraining from disturbing or interfering (in) the FOR selection of ONE of a number of things for which ONLY ONE can be CHOOSEN, of others? Yes or No.
What must you do Doug, to be true to your statement where you have stated you are FOR REFRAINING,DISTURBING, OR INTERFERING with the FOR selection of ONE of a number of things for which only ONE can be CHOOSEN, to/of others?
yllas, Great posts to Doug. I like your posts. Very unique.
Esther,
I would never wish unhappiness on anyone. I was simply curious because all of your posts are so negative and humorless.
Most of us on here, on both sides, joke and share and let each other “in”, but you don’t. You sound bitter, and angry and well, unhappy.
I’m glad to hear that you are. Happy that is.
I only wish it would come across in your posts.
Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 5:47 PM
I don’t consider the pro-life goal of making abortion illegal and unsafe particularly amusing.
Your posts lamenting the legality of abortion do not come across as humorous at all. You sound extremely bitter, angry, and unhappy unless you’re posting off topic.
I’m sure had I come on this blog laughing and joking about abortion, you would have had my head on a platter.
As I said, regarding abortion, you have a lot more to be unhappy about than I do. I’m fine with elective abortion being legal.
Esther, abortions aren’t safe. Who told you that?
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FACING INCREASING NUMBER OF LAWSUITS
WASHINGTON, DC, Mar 9, 01 (LSN.ca) – Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are facing an increasing number of successful lawsuits against them, causing the organization to lose credibility with the public.
This week, STOPP International, an arm of the American Life League, reported that Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson in New York paid a settlement in excess of $1 million to 24-year-old Lisa Joseph, whose breast cancer was misdiagnosed by Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner Ella Mary Wylie.
Wylie had told Joseph that the lump in her breast was not cancerous and that she was too young to have cancer. Two months later, she sought a second opinion elsewhere and learned that she had a cancerous lump. She had that removed; however, the cancer had by then found its way into her chest wall.
LifeSite News reported last week on the case of a 28-year-old woman in California, who was awarded $672,610 in a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood. The award stemmed from what has been called a “botched” first-trimester abortion in 1997. A baby missing two limbs was aborted from her several weeks after the first abortion. It is believed that she had twins, with the second baby being undetected by the abortionists on the first occasion.
Life Dynamics: Phoenix Abortionist Arrested Today, Jailed,
And Held On $225,000 Bail; Inspired Web Site
To: National Desk, State Desk
Contact: Dzintra Tuttle of Life Dynamics, 940-380-8800
Web: http://www.ldi.org
PHOENIX, Oct. 24 /U.S. Newswire/ — At 8:30 this morning, abortionist Brian Finkel, medical director of the Metro Phoenix Women’s Center, was arrested and is currently in jail on $225,000 bail. Finkel has been indicted for 16 counts of sexual abuse and one count of sexual assault. The charges involve 9 patients, dating back to 1993 and continue through August of this year.
Life Dynamics Incorporated has exposed the criminal behavior of abortionist Brian Finkel for years. Last week Life Dynamics introduced a Web site they claim was in part inspired by Finkel’s conduct. At the site, ClinicWorker.com, employees of abortion clinics are given details on how to bring legal action against their bosses.
“We have seen employees who have been subjected to everything from repeated sexual harassment to rape. And those who run abortion clinics think they are immune from prosecution,” states Life Dynamics founder Mark Crutcher. “We’ve helped clinic workers who were terrified that they might go to jail. But the reality is that the authorities were much more interested in the boss.”
By logging on to ClincWorker.com Life Dynamics has made it easy for abortion clinic workers to protect themselves from their employers, bring civil or criminal charges against the boss, and protect themselves from criminal prosecution.
“We know that these employees do not start out planning to participate in insurance fraud, Medicaid fraud, or tax-evasion. Often they don’t even realize that what their employer told them to do is illegal,” added Dzintra Tuttle, an investigator for Life Dynamics. Tuttle continues, “This is why the site exists, to help these women, most of them are women, to protect themselves.”
Life Dynamics, described by the New York Times as “the CIA of the pro-life movement,” uses clinic staff to work undercover at exposing illegal and unethical behavior in abortion clinics. In 1996, Crutcher published Lime 5 exposing the shadowy world of legal abortion clinics. Since then, many abortion clinic employees have come to his organization with details of similar abuses committed upon the clinic staff.
Despite the fact that ClinicWorker.com has only been online for a few days it has already received over 32,000 attacks by hackers.
To schedule an interview with Mark Crutcher call 940-380-8800.
Esther, abortions aren’t safe. Who told you that?
Posted by: heather at November 4, 2007 1:13 PM
So, thousands of women are being maimed and are dying daily from having abortions? I haven’t seen that being reported in the media anywhere. What’s your source?
12/19/2005
Sen. Barbara Boxer Demands Immediate Suspension of Abortionist’s License
Operation Rescue Applauds Boxer’s Effort to Stop Laurence Reich
PANORAMA CITY, Calif., Dec. 19 /Christian Wire Service/ — Senator Barbara Boxer, known for her rabidly pro-abortion views, has demanded that the Osteopathic Medical Board of California immediately suspend the license of Abortionist Laurence Reich.
In a strongly worded letter, Boxer referred to a recent CNN report about Reich that detailed Reich’s criminal past as a sexual predator, but failed to mention that he is an abortionist.
“I never thought I would agree with Barbara Boxer on anything, but I whole-heartedly support her demand for the immediate suspension of abortionist Laurence Reich’s license in the interest of public safety,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If someone like Sen. Boxer can see that this abortionist is a danger to the community, you know he must be a very dangerous man.”
Operation Rescue reported on October 31, 2005, that Reich, a frequent focus of Operation Rescue demonstrations, had been convicted of sexually molesting his patients in 2002, but three years later the Osteopathic Medical Board still had not decided upon appropriate discipline. Reich had previously been convicted of sexually abusing his patients in incidents stemming back to the 1970s and was placed on 10 years probation, which was completed in 1994.
Reich is listed as the “medical director” for a small chain of Southern California abortion mills called Clinica Medica Para La Mujer De Hoy. According to the owner of the abortion mills, Bertha Bugarin, the chain targets women in the Hispanic community.
“We believe that Reich has found that the Hispanic Community is the perfect stalking grounds for his sexual attacks,” said OR spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger, who has followed Reich’s nefarious career and lodged complaints against him. “Women who may be in the U.S. illegally are especially vulnerable to exploitation because they are less likely to report a man like him to the authorities. We applaud Senator Boxer’s efforts to stop Reich from further exploiting women.”
Apparently it isn’t safe to have a pelvic exam:
Gynecologist charged with rape, sexual battery
The Associated Press
CLEVELAND – A gynecologist was indicted on charges accusing him of raping and fondling patients during examinations.
A Cuyahoga County grand jury returned a 53-count indictment against Dr. Azzam Ahmed, 56, of suburban Moreland Hills, for rape, sexual battery and other charges.
Thirty-seven women ages 21 to 55 accused Ahmed, a doctor with 25 years’ experience, of sexual wrongdoing, Assistant County Prosecutor James Gutierrez said.
The indictment covers examinations that took place in Ahmed’s offices in Parma, Twinsburg and Newbury Township during 2001 and 2002.
Ahmed, accompanied by his attorneys, surrendered to sheriff’s deputies Wednesday and pleaded not guilty.
Judge Christopher Boyko freed Ahmed on $50,000 bond and ordered him to surrender his passport, stay away from his accusers and not to leave the county.
Gutierrez asked for a high bond, calling the Palestinian doctor a risk to flee the country based on his frequent visits to the Middle East, his wealth and the prospect of a lengthy prison term if convicted.
The penalty for rape is three to 10 years in prison.
At least eight women have sued Ahmed, seeking more than $10 million.
Ahmed’s attorneys said his accusers are leveling the criminal allegations to strengthen their civil suits against the doctor.
“I am confident that we will be able to defend Dr. Ahmed and his conduct, and nothing the grand jury has done in this case changes my conclusions in that regard,” attorney Richard Haber said.
Abortionists More Prone to Crime, Pro-Lifers Charge
Dawn Rizzoni, CNSNews.com
Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2002
A Texas pro-life activist says he has collected 8,000 examples over the last decade of abortionists participating in crimes, including sexual assault, sexual harassment and murder.
Mark Crutcher, founder and president of Life Dynamics, says he hopes that by sharing his information, he can “better educate the public on the evils surrounding abortion.” Today marks the 29th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.
Through television appearances, books, speaking engagements and articles, Crutcher uses his files as a public education tool. He also runs an Internet site, ClinicWorker.com, that encourages abortion workers to report possible crimes before being implicated themselves.
Crutcher focuses not only on the act of abortion, “but also the kind of people involved, and the things that happen to women who enter these clinics.”
One high-profile case involves Arizona abortionist Brian Finkle, who is scheduled to go on trial in August for allegedly sexually assaulting nine of his patients. After Finkle was arrested last October, roughly 80 women came forward to accuse the doctor of sexual misconduct.
The case involving Oklahoma abortionist John Hamilton has also attracted a lot of publicity. Hamilton was sentenced Jan. 9 to life in prison without parole for the Valentine’s Day 2001 murder of his wife, Susan, who was beaten and strangled.
“When you’re a medical person, you know what you’re doing when you take a human life” through abortion, Crutcher said. “And if you can do that, there’s not much else you won’t do.”
However, a representative from National Abortion Federation insisted, “The history of violence clearly lies on the side of those against choice.”
NAF keeps track of the violence targeting abortionists and abortion clinics. According to the group’s Web site, seven “abortion providers” have been murdered in America since 1993. The most recent of these is New York’s Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was shot and killed in his home in 1998. NAF also lists 17 cases of attempted murder since 1991 and 41 bombings since 1977, all targeting “abortion providers.”
The NAF representative refused to identify herself, and requests for more reaction to Crutcher’s findings were ignored. Telephone calls seeking comment from National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League also were not returned.
‘Easier to Hurt Other People’
British Columbia psychiatrist Philip Ney said he has worked with former abortionists who admitted that something inside of them changed for the worse after performing abortions. “There’s an instinctual restraint in humans that keeps them from harming a helpless child. If that restraint is damaged, it becomes easier to hurt other people,” Ney said.
A common crime committed by abortionists, Crutcher said, is the sexual assault of patients. He dedicated a chapter in his pro-life book “Lime 5” to the issue, documenting dozens of cases in which abortionists sexually violated women.
But tracking all instances of sexual assault by abortionists is impossible, Crutcher said, because there are many “clandestine” doctors who perform abortions as part of their regular ob-gyn practice without the public’s knowledge. Also, many rapes go unreported, especially if the woman has something to hide such as an abortion, he said.
According to Crutcher, teen-age patients are easy prey for abortionists who know their victims are unlikely to speak out about the crime.
“If your morals and human instincts are so corrupted that you can kill an unborn human baby, sex with a 15-year-old girl isn’t a big deal,” he said.
Another group, Operation Rescue of Boston, also maintains a record of abortionists involved in crime. One abortionist on their list, Daniel Holschauer, was found to have been involved in sexual misconduct, harassment, stalking, extortion and drug abuse in a study by the New York State Department of Health.
California Right to Life also issued an “Abortion Crime Report” that listed crimes such as murder, kidnapping, rape, stalking, death threats and more, committed by abortionists. One former abortionist on its list, Ivan Namihas, was charged with four counts of rape, 45 incidents of sexual abuse, gross negligence and mail fraud.
A spokesman for American Medical Association said the organization knew of no studies comparing the number of crimes committed by abortionists with the number of crimes committed by doctors in other fields.
Copyright CNSNews.com
Former Abortion Clinic Owner Carol Everett
Joy Davis went from working at one abortion clinic to directing six clinics and eventually began to perform abortions without a license. Her involvement in a negligent homicide led her to get out of the abortion business and cooperate with authorities in revoking the license of her boss, abortionist Tommy Tucker.
In despair over her involvement with abortion, she finally turned to God for forgiveness and later was received into the Catholic Church.
Joy Davis
I’d like to tell you about the person that I used to be and through God’s love and forgiveness, the person I am today.
Fourteen years ago, I was offered a job in an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. I thought about the offer for some time and came to the conclusion that it was a good opportunity to help women and the money was real good (keep in mind I was a single parent of two children, Jeff and Allen). So I accepted the job.
A very short time after working there, I realized one thing — we were not there to help women. We were a business — a money-making organization.
Exploiting Women for Money
When I first started working there, I had to sit and listen to women answering the phone for at least a month before they would allow me to answer the phone. We had to know exactly what we were doing when we were talking to these women. We had to find out very quickly what their problem was, play on that and get them in the clinic for an abortion. We were very good salespeople.
We had to find out very quickly what their problem was, play on that and get them in the clinic for an abortion.
The conditions in the clinic that I worked at were very, very poor. We had no life support systems. Our people were not very well trained — most of them did not even have a medical background. The doctors rotated in and out. We never had the same doctor. A lot of these doctors actually hated women. They were there and doing abortions because they hated women.
It was a real bad experience. But because the money was good and because I had two children to take care of, I put it all out of my mind. I didn’t let it make me feel guilty.
The fact that I was killing children for a living didn’t bother me at all, and I knew that’s what we were doing. You see, I was an ultrasound technician, so I knew that it was a living baby in the womb, but it just didn’t matter and it didn’t bother me.
[Back to Top]
Regional Director of Six Clinics
I met a doctor at the clinic. His name was Tommy Tucker, and he came up to me one day and said that he wanted to open his own clinic. He said he wanted to do things right. He wanted to have the best equipment possible. He wanted to have highly trained and qualified people working at the clinic. He wanted to do general anesthesia and have anesthetists come in and put these women to sleep so they wouldn’t suffer, because in the clinic we worked at they did suffer a great deal.
I thought that this was a wonderful idea and I accepted Dr. Tucker’s offer. I became the regional director of six abortion clinics in Mississippi and Alabama. We had the best equipment, a highly trained, qualified staff, and we would only see a very few women a day because we didn’t want to rush them through like cattle. We wanted to take time and give them the kind of medical attention that they needed.
But we still lied to the women, it was just something we had to do to make money.
Abortionist’s Mounting Greed
But that didn’t last long. After just a few months, his greed took over. He wasn’t making enough money, so the first thing to go was the anesthetist, because they made a lot of money. Through just the few months of watching them put patients to sleep, we started putting patients to sleep ourselves and we had no idea what we were doing. We just knew what we had seen them do, so we started doing it.
Then our registered nurses that worked in our recovery room were the next people to go. Then our lab technician and on and on.
I started interviewing people that had no medical background at all, bringing them in to do the job of anesthetist, lab technicians, nurses and even physicians. The people that I looked for when I was interviewing would always be one thing and that was a single mother. If they had a husband that made a good living, I wasn’t interested in them. I wanted the women that needed us and needed the money. That way I knew that I would have their loyalty and that they would stick with it no matter how tough it got.
So I brought in people off the street with no medical background and trained them.
Heather,
Individual examples of people behaving badly in no way condemns an entire field.
For comparison, let’s look at the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal. Some of the priests did terrible things. Does that mean that all people who follow a priestly vocation are terrible people who are prone to molesting children?
Unless you can answer that question in the affirmative I don’t believe that you can logically condemn every doctor who performs abortions on the basis of the actions of a few.
Esther, abortionists are not doctors. They are the scum of the earth.
Esther, abortionists are not doctors. They are the scum of the earth.
Posted by: heather at November 4, 2007 1:49 PM
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you blatantly lie?
These are real people. They only want someone who values what they value. I know plenty of them. So do you. You just may not know that is what they think.
My last boyfriend was a virgin. Most of them have been virgins. They’re also smoking HOT.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 4:33 PM
MOST, not ALL, of your “smoking HOT” boyfriends have been virgins? How could you date someone you didn’t respect? I couldn’t date a man I didn’t respect.
And just a reminder: Jesus says lust is a sin.
Esther,
Your posts lamenting the legality of abortion do not come across as humorous at all. You sound extremely bitter, angry, and unhappy unless you’re posting off topic.
That’s just my point Esther. You NEVER sound light hearted. Everything is doom and gloom. And if as you say, you have nothing to worry about, then why all the angst.
By your own logic, when it comes to the topic of aboriton, we SHOULD be bitter and unhappy and angry, as this heinous act is allowed to go on legally for 30 years.
But I digress. My point is that you do not make debating with you pleasant. Even when I am dead serious, I take into consideration that it is people I am dealing with, and I treat them as such.
Perhaps it is best that we avoid each other as your seriousness is not conducive to open debate and my humor leads you to believe that I am insincere.
Your call.
Esther,
I’m sure had I come on this blog laughing and joking about abortion, you would have had my head on a platter.
You have only to read my responses to Laura to know that this is simply not true.
Esther,
So, thousands of women are being maimed and are dying daily from having abortions? I haven’t seen that being reported in the media anywhere. What’s your source?
Harm is not always physical or apparent to the eye.
Esther: I know what some men and young guys SAY about women they have slept with”.
Yllas: Give me a example of what these men, you accuse of having no respect, SAY Esther, PLEASE.
This discussion reminds me of an incident that happened during my senior graduation trip to Kings Island, Ohio. There was a young man from another state who approached one of my classmates “Danny,” who was a very good friend of mine, and asked him if I was a “nice” girl. When Danny told me about it, he said he told the other boy, “Of course, she’s a nice girl!” Danny was so offended. LOL! I actually felt very flattered.
Anyway, to answer your question, I have heard boys and men discussing women and girls who “sleep around” saying things like, “Yeah, I slept with her. She’s a slut.”
Now, if you want to deny any existence of a sexual double standard, feel free. I originally responded to Heather’s claim that “men who get sex from women don’t respect them.”
Do you agree with Heather?
But I digress. My point is that you do not make debating with you pleasant. Even when I am dead serious, I take into consideration that it is people I am dealing with, and I treat them as such.
Perhaps it is best that we avoid each other as your seriousness is not conducive to open debate and my humor leads you to believe that I am insincere.
Your call.
Posted by: mk at November 4, 2007 2:33 PM
YOU’RE not making debating with you very pleasant for me by accusing me of being unhappy! I take that as personal insult. That was a gratuitous dig.
Ironically, if you knew me personally, you would know that I have a great sense of humor. One of the best compliments I’ve ever received was from my 16 year old nephew who described me to his friend as his funny (not weird, thank goodness!) aunt.
MK: Your posts lamenting the legality of abortion do not come across as humorous at all. You sound extremely bitter, angry, and unhappy unless you’re posting off topic.
That’s just my point Esther. You NEVER sound light hearted. Everything is doom and gloom. And if as you say, you have nothing to worry about, then why all the angst.
I read this blog a long time before I posted anything. I don’t ususally respond to something unless I strongly disagree.
And where did I say I have nothing to worry about?I said I’m FINE with elective abortion being safe and legal. I don’t remember saying I have nothing to worry about.
Esther: So, thousands of women are being maimed and are dying daily from having abortions? I haven’t seen that being reported in the media anywhere. What’s your source?
Harm is not always physical or apparent to the eye.
Posted by: mk at November 4, 2007 2:36 PM
Heather said abortion isn’t safe. I haven’t read anywhere that the abortion procedure is unsafe.
Perhaps it is best that we avoid each other as your seriousness is not conducive to open debate and my humor leads you to believe that I am insincere.
Your call.
Posted by: mk at November 4, 2007 2:33 PM
How is being serious about the abortion issue not conducive to open debate? Gosh, I’ve been attacked personally several times by a few posters. I think I’ve been very civil to everyone considering the insults I have received either directly or indirectly: from being asked sarcastically how old I am to reading snide remarks about how I don’t deserve to be called Esther because I’m such a horrible person.
I do not think you are insincere. I’m sure you feel just as passionately about the evils of legal abortion, as I do about the evils of banning abortion. You are an excellent debater and write very intelligent posts on abortion, which I strongly disagree with, of course.
I just thought it ironic that you would accuse ME of being unhappy when the impetus behind the pro-life cause is unhappiness with the legality of abortion. I didn’t mean to imply you’re insincere.
Esther,
Let’s call a truce, start over and try again. Okay?
I try to approach my debates with humor. And I try to get to know the people that I am debating with.
As you probably know by now, I’m 49, have six kids from 7 to 27. 2 grandkids. And an evil, bad dog that tore my ACL. That was back in May and I just finished therapy last Friday. I’m still not speaking to the dog.
I’ve been married for 28 years and most of it’s been good.
The reason we wanted to know your age is because it gives us a sense of each other.
There are a couple of pro lifers here that push the envelope. We tolerate them because they are so obviously out there, that you can’t possibly take what they say to heart. I hope. They are our resident eccentrics.
Mostly tho, while sarcastic, we try hard not to attack the person, only the post. It ain’t easy, and we sometimes fail, but we honestly try.
We also have couple of posters that snipe back and forth at each other and we let them as long as they keep it to themselves.
Sometimes we go off topic, just to give ourselves a break. These are the times where, despite our differences, friendships have been born.
I will not lie to you. I, personally, am not only insterested in converting you and everyone to pro life, but also to try and convert you to Catholicism. Can’t help myself. I’m interested in souls. I hope I’m not preachy or pushy, but I do speak my mind and tie God into much of what I say.
There are others here that are more interested in the actual debate. Find a good fit and go whoever feels comfortable.
I’m sorry we got off to a bumpy start. I never know quite how to break the ice…I hope it’s beginning to melt a little anyway.
Friends?
MK
Esther,
And where did I say I have nothing to worry about?I said I’m FINE with elective abortion being safe and legal. I don’t remember saying I have nothing to worry about.
well, that’s true. You didn’t. Sorry.
And you’re right Heather did say “unsafe” not unharmful…
I just think that safety can also mean to your mental state, and not just your body.
Esther,
Do you agree with Heather?
I think there are men who don’t respect women that “sleep around” and men that couldn’t care less. I respect a man more that doesn’t sleep around. And I respect women more that don’t sleep around.
But I guess it all depends on the person.
I do think that men were made to be providers and protectors. And that women were made to be nurturers.
I believe that when men can get sex without feeling they have to “provide” and “protec”, that they tend to view women as objects, placed there for their pleasure.
And women allow this. As cold as it sounds I think that a certain protection we women have is the “control of our bodies”…It’s our leverage in a world where men have the physical strength.
I’m sure this sounds manipulative, but men are simple creatures. I have no problem with manipulating them, as long as the intentions are to “nurture” them into being responsible.
so yeah, I think you should definitely hold back on sexual favors until there is a committment (ie marriage), because it’s almost a guarantee that when the going gets tough, the guy will run. Men are like that. Not all of them, but a lot of them.
The ones that aren’t probably wont’ be sleepin’ with you to begin with.
For the most part men only need a few things to keep them happy. I call them the 5 S’s.
Sleep. Sex. Suds. Sustenance. and Sports (Computer geeks get their sports fix from computer games)
They can get sleep. Suds usually goes with other guys. As do sports. Sustenance can now be gotten at McDonalds or moms (something else men used to need women for) and that leaves sex. If you give that to them for free, why on earth would they stick around?
Hi Esther and Enigma,
both you ladies (and this is NOT your fault) are caught in time lapses for answers to arguments that have been ongoing here for many months. Every day Heather has posted some of the newer listed atrocities of abortionists in response to the glib “safe abortion” … first off – abortion is never ‘safe’ for the human-fetus (a living human being) and is so unimportant (according to PC), that these do not merit counting. secondly, this never-ending list of poor behaviors, has some PL charging that the ‘back-alley gang’ is the same crowd; they now have space on front street. thirdly, I made a small quip to Heather: “Its the 95% of abortionists who give the rest a bad name.”
@Esther, when MK first came-on-the-scene she quoted an observation from G. K. Chesterton “Men talk about ideas (topics); women talk to each other.” She has applied this over the months and has had incredible success doing so. (Her abundant wit and enthusiasm are contageous for many of us here. She uses wit (like some cultures) as a quasi-measure to see how with-it a person is. If a woman argues like a man … which is what you do …. then MK’s approach will seem odd.
John,
You do care!
Esther, I would also like to apologize if I have offended you. Esther, I get the feeling that someone has hurt you. Am I right? I wasn’t trying to condem you. I am trying to be helpful. I don’t think you’re a “slut” or a “whore” at all. I have put myself into “that” position before….No pun intended. Live, learn, and share. So, I didn’t mean to come off in attack mode. Welcome to the site. We like having you. Nobody is perfect. Nobody is claiming to be.
Enigma, the same goes for you. Welcome. I generally don’t like the personhood debates. Jonn McDonell, MK, and Bethany are all good at those. They are all very intelligent. Please listen to them. BTW, John thank you for the compliment the other day. Coming from you, that meant a lot to me!:}
Esther, women are dying in America’s abortion clinics today. Please go to these 2 sites…Death roe.com and The Real Choice/abortion deaths. There are lists of women who were killed at the hands of abortionists. Hope this helps.
Esther, here is one more site. Visit “Victims of Choice.” That will take you to The Cemetery of Choice. It will also show you how many women have died as a result of legalized abortion.
noting MK’s quote of Chesterton , I am curious as to what you think,
is abortion a male solution (simple) to a female (complex) fertility (problem ..????)
Question #1: why is fertility a ‘problem’? … maybe responsibility is necessary!
Question #2: why is it OK for women to take synthesized hormones? If pregnancy-control were really demanded, wouldn’t we have by now a reversible vasectomy (or a patch) for males? It sure seems weird that a male impregnated a woman and turns around and says (at best) he is neutral(indifferent) to her choice … hint, hint — please, CHOOSE DEATH! (To show how ‘responsible’ he is, he’ll even pay for the procedure. Is PP and PC just a front to protect irresponsibility specially the male variety?)
John,
“when MK first came-on-the-scene she quoted an observation from G. K. Chesterton “Men talk about ideas (topics); women talk to each other.””
And how do I argue? I know what I think but I’d be curious to hear what others who’ve debated me believe.
“Question #1: why is fertility a ‘problem’? … maybe responsibility is necessary!”
Fertility itself isn’t the problem, per say. It can lead to problems but that doesn’t mean that it itself is the problem.
I would argue that the responsibility angle that you’re arguing here is really society’s attempt to control women and “put them in their place.”
“Question #2: why is it OK for women to take synthesized hormones? ”
It would be sexist to insist that women can’t ingest synthesized hormones when men can. Steroids are used in medicine all the time. Their use is not limited to female reproduction.
Women can ingest synthesized hormones to control their fertility because they should be able to decide what they want to do with their bodies.
Birth control has evolved in the way in which it has because of the reality of sex. Men can’t get pregnant. It is possible for a man to have sex and simply walk away, especially in the days before paternity tests were available. A woman couldn’t “walk away” from sex in a similar manner until quite recently. Thus birth control evolved to address the consequences of sex which women, and not men, had to deal with. That is why we have birth control pills for women and, as of yet, nothing similar for men.
Enigma, please don’t act as if women are helpless victims. We have the same choices as men do. We can choose to have sex. We can choose not to have sex.
Heather,
“Enigma, please don’t act as if women are helpless victims.”
I don’t. Women can choose to have sex or to abstain from it. That is their choice and no one has the right to make it for anyone else.
Stating a brief history of the evolution of birth control is not sexist and does not mean that one thinks or acts as though women are helpless. There is nothing “helpless” about stating that men can’t get pregnant or that women should be able to decide whether or not they wish to be pregnant in a manner other than abstaining from sex. Sex is not a contract for pregnancy, regardless of whether the one making the decision is male or female.
Pregnancy is a consequence of sex.
Enigma, we know that men cannot get pregnant, but they have the ability to make us pregnant. So, 50% is the male’s responsibility, and 50% is the female’s responsibility. You should both be making smart choices before you decide to have sex.
Heather,
“Pregnancy is a consequence of sex.”
Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
Regardless, what’s your point? Dying from a car accident is a possible consequence of driving. Does that mean that driving is consent for dying via car crash?
Getting infected by a tapeworm is a possible consequence of eating raw meat. Does that mean eating raw meat is a contract to be infected with tapeworms?
Lung cancer is a consequence of smoking. Does that mean that smoking is a contract to get lung cancer?
“You should both be making smart choices before you decide to have sex.”
Agreed, but neither you nor I get to define what those smart choices are.
Thank you Heather. Doug prides himself on “deconstructing” a post, so he can then avoid the issue of a post. He twist and turns one sentence in a post, so the person who wrote the sentence, gets into arguing about one sentence within the post.
It is the stock and trade of those who preferr rhetoric when one is going to lose, or concede a point in a discussion.
You chase your tail with Doug, simply because Doug is not interested in truth but being no more and no less a polemicist. Or maybe a solipsist.
Thanks. Yllas.
Well Esther. First you must define “double standard” before I engage you on that topic. Please define “double standard” Esther. And remember Esther, a definition does not contradict itself within its definition.
Now, for your statement which read, “Yea, I slept with her. She is a slut.”
I do not read anywhere in that statement of yours Esther, the male not feeling submission, or courteousy yielding to wishes,opinions, or judgments of the “she” within your statement.
Remember, respect is defined; feeling submission, courteous yielding to the wishes, opinions or judgements of others.
Yes or no Esther, please. You may expand on a yes or no answer which gives your reasons for a yes or no answer, but your statement is simple, therefore, a simple yes or no answer to my simple statement, is all that is required.
Second Esther.
I also detect no hypocrisy within your statement which declares a women a “slut”.
For more clarity of discussion between us Esther, may you please define “slut”?
Remember Esther, the definition of hypocrisy; the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues which one does not hold or possess.
Esther, you have been drinking at the fountain of humpty dumptyism which is normal for post modernist.
Trouble is, post modernist cannot answer one question about anything, since they hold nothing is true Esther.
Which means Esther, your statement about a “double standard”, is some myth you have constructed, with no truth in it anyway, as far as my truth is concerned . Right Esther? My truth is my truth, and your truth about “double standards”, is just your truth being made up in your mind, from being unable to know the definition of truth.
Is that statement not true Esther? Yes or no, please.
But Enigma,
Men didn’t CONSENT to not getting pregnant. We have no right to force them to remain barren. What about their rights?
Regardless, what’s your point? Dying from a car accident is a possible consequence of driving. Does that mean that driving is consent for dying via car crash?
It means consent to the possibility of dying in a car crash. Or just getting into a car crash. It’s a chance you take. And then your insurance pays out the *** or you go to jail. You pay the price.
Enigma,
We know that not only is pregnancy a consequence of sex, but that physically, it is the intended consequence. Until the advent of birth control, no one questioned what the practical use of sex was.
Pleasure was secondary. Getting pregnant was the primary goal.
Getting into a car accident is NOT the primary goal of driving. Getting to your destination is.
Sure, some people drive for the pure pleasure of it, with no destination in mind, but the majority of us drive to get somewhere.
The primary goal of taking a shower is to get clean. You may take the shower because your body aches and it will feel good, but when you get out of the shower, you will still be clean. Did you consent to getting clean? Maybe not in actuality, but certainly tacitly since it is a natural consequence of standing under running water.
Enigma cont…
You could in theory cover yourself in plastic before you step into the shower, but doesn’t that seem a little ridiculous?
I guess the problem is that you view pregnancy as a negative consequence of sex (like getting clean from a shower) while we view getting pregnant as a “natural” consequence of sex.
We have a hard time imagining why you would engage in it in the first place if you aren’t willing to accept the natural consequences.
Like we’d have a hard time understanding why that guy is wrapping himself in a rubber suit so he can take a shower. Why not just skip the shower altogether, until such a time as “getting clean” sounds more palatable.
It just seems crazy to us.
Souls, posterity, and species
Some, even certain Christians, argue humans don’t become persons with souls until birth. Therefore, human embryos can be dissected and preborns can be aborted. (See examples here and here.) They base this argument on Genesis 2:7: Then the LORD God…
Hi Enigma,
getting back to your question about a debating style. I view it much more like a recipe to make a cake … a lot of this + a lot of that + a little of this + a little of that + + +
rather than seeking a common view, you seem to argue that your personal view ‘has to be the correct one’, except for things you have never considered even possible. So arguing with you is very much like arguing with Doug – “I’ve made up my mind; just don’t bother disturbing me with the facts!” You do have a real penchant for rejecting the whole argument, if you can find the smallest loophole or exception. That way you have deluded yourself by thinking yourself too smart to get trapped and ‘lose’ … far too much pride to listen … not hear, listen!
sorry That post was me – computer ***??##%&@
back to Peter Singer … always wondered about his recommendations re. people like me, who’s medical problem doesn’t show at birth … sometimes not until age 5 years. And how’s about the teen who develops leukemia … should we not have the right to dispose of such children?
John, that is a great point! How about children with leukemia?
Enigma, You asked: does a smoker contract to get lung cancer?…………….. Lung cancer is a possible consequence of smoking. I smoke on occasion. I know that I could be placing myself at risk for lung cancer or COPD. The smoker knows the risks.
John M, to Enigma: So arguing with you is very much like arguing with Doug – “I’ve made up my mind; just don’t bother disturbing me with the facts!” You do have a real penchant for rejecting the whole argument, if you can find the smallest loophole or exception. That way you have deluded yourself by thinking yourself too smart to get trapped and ‘lose’ … far too much pride to listen … not hear, listen!
Oh brother…. Enigma and I do stay with facts, or identify things as our opinion. You pretend that some of your unprovable opinions are facts.
Doug
Adressing only one questions I asked you Doug, let us deal with the question of “Does not having enough money make you feel gloomy or negative, Doug”.
To that question you answered, Yes.You did notice the word “feel” in that sentence Doug? Are “feelings” emotions Doug? Yes or no? Now, Doug, give me the dictionary definition of pessimism please. You give me the definition of pessimism from any REALISTIC dictionary, so I may know what your mind is deciding is pessimism.
yllas, yes – “feel” and yes – emotion. From dictionary.com:
1. the tendency to see, anticipate, or emphasize only bad or undesirable outcomes, results, conditions, problems, etc.: His pessimism about the future of our country depresses me.
2. the doctrine that the existing world is the worst of all possible worlds, or that all things naturally tend to evil.
3. the belief that the evil and pain in the world are not compensated for by goodness and happiness.
And as before: That people often feel that way is just a given. To realize that fact is not being pessimistic or optimistic, it’s just noting reality.
Pro-Choicers are not “preaching” anything in this vein to other people. Pro-Choicers are leaving it up to the other people.
Let us take the statement of Doug and review the truth in that statement.
First, pro(defined as FOR;etymology from Latin).
Second, Choice; To select from a number of possible alternatives; DECIDE on and pick out.
So, the first two words of Doug’s statement is;
For the selection of “ONE of a number of things for which only ONE can be choosen”(definition of alternative by language critics). Then the word “leave” must be defined, before we procede in deciding on the truth, or contradiction of truth, in Doug’s statement. Leave; to refrain from disturbing or interfering. Or Doug, pick your definition among 9 definitions of leave, please. Say, let alone. So from Doug, we have this statement.
For the selection of ONE of a number of things for which ONLY ONE must be choosen are FOR REFRAINING FROM DISTURBING OR INTERFERING , in the selection of ONE of a number of things for which ONLY ONE must be choosen, to other people.
Now Doug, are you For refraining from disturbing or interfering (in) the FOR selection of ONE of a number of things for which ONLY ONE can be CHOOSEN, of others? Yes or No.
What must you do Doug, to be true to your statement where you have stated you are FOR REFRAINING,DISTURBING, OR INTERFERING with the FOR selection of ONE of a number of things for which only ONE can be CHOOSEN, to/of others?
Holy Mackeral, yllas…
Yes, I’m for not interfering with the selection of one of those.
yllas: Doug prides himself on “deconstructing” a post, so he can then avoid the issue of a post.
Sometimes that’s the best way to respond.
……
He twist and turns one sentence in a post, so the person who wrote the sentence, gets into arguing about one sentence within the post.
Nope, if there is a logical error or false statement of fact early on, then all that follows and is based on falsehood or error may be false as well. You make a lot of mistakes and people are going to notice that, often.
……
It is the stock and trade of those who preferr rhetoric when one is going to lose, or concede a point in a discussion.
You have yet to produce any persuasive argument, and seem to have some skill only at ad hominem fallacies.
……
You chase your tail with Doug, simply because Doug is not interested in truth but being no more and no less a polemicist. Or maybe a solipsist.
Wrong again. I’ve responded to you truthfully and logically, and in the end the best you can to is to make up silly stuff.
Doug
Doug, I must agree with yllas. You really do twist and turn things to suit yourself. No offense, but I prefer to stay away from your “personhood” arguements. Personhood should be a given when it comes to an unborn child. I refuse to indulge you. It’s a waste of my time.
Heather, to yllas: yllas, ……I like your posts. Very unique.
Hee hee, Heather, that they are.
Esther (the pesterer): In YOUR OPINION posterity includes embryos and fetuses. Embryos and fetuses exist only INSIDE the bodies of women who ALSO have the right to liberty, to freedom. You know, those PEOPLE, the female CITIZENS of this country who must risk THEIR lives bringing embryos and fetuses into existence OUTSIDE their bodies?
It certainly isn’t as black and white as you’re pretending.
————————————————
No embryos/fetuses, NO POSTERITY. Of course they exist, for a naturally limited amount of time, inside the bodies of their mothers; but no place of residence, however temporary, makes them any less posterity.
Those moms, incidentally, would have no liberty or freedom had their basic human right to life been denied them in utero.
A woman who is pregnant has reproductive freedom and has already used it. No one should have the liberty to kill an innocent human being, ESPECIALLY if they are related, more especially if the victim is dependent upon the would-be killer for his/her existence at a vulnerable time in his/her life.
It would be much safer for
You really do twist and turn things to suit yourself.
No I don’t, Heather. I’ve responded truthfully and logically.
….
No offense, but I prefer to stay away from your “personhood” arguements.
Fine and dandy.
……
Personhood should be a given when it comes to an unborn child.
So you really don’t prefer to stay away from the argument. Didn’t take long for you to switch around on that one.
……
I refuse to indulge you. It’s a waste of my time.
It’s not indulging me. It’s indulging yourself.
Doug
Some embryos and fetuses will be “our posterity” because they will become descendants and future generations, and some will not, because they won’t – there will be some abortions and miscarriages.
Thank you for that realistic post, reality!!
Doug, what I meant was that prior to coming to this blog, I had NEVER met anyone who said that an unborn baby wasn’t human. It’s a given, and I think you do know that. That’s all I am saying.
Heather – agreed – heck, the egg and sperm are human, and yes, it’s a given.
Who do you see saying that the embryos, fetuses, etc., in this argument are “not human,” though?