Weekend question: If you could make a film about two pro-life heroes, who would they be?
Young filmmakers Martha Shane and Lana Wilson are planning to make a documentary, “Trust women: The story of two American abortion doctors,” if they raise enough seed money, which it appears they have.
The film’s two subjects will be late-term abortionists LeRoy Carhart and Warren Hern….
The filmmakers describe Carhart and Hern as “inspiring,” “courageous,” and “sacrific[ial],” certainly topic matter for a separate post. (For instance, will what the abortionists actually do to merit all this praise be shown in the film? Doubtful.)
But this weekend’s question goes a little different direction: If you could make a film about two pro-life heroes or heroines, who would they be?
(I asked the question; I can’t be an answer… not that I think of myself as such… but just so you know this isn’t a thinly veiled promotional attempt.)
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.
Jill – I know this doesn’t answer the question, but my pro-life heroes are every woman who walks away from an abortion clinic to have her child and every man that steps up to his responsibility for raising their child.
That would be my two.
the faithful prayer warriors who pray in front of abortion clinics regularly.
Great answer, Chris.
Sticking to individuals, Kristan Hawkins from SFLA would have to be one of my pro-life heroines. I would probably pick Nat Hentoff or Bernard Nathanson to fill the second slot… unless we can include historical figures, in which case yay Susan B. Anthony!
My two are from the future, the Supreme Court justices who correct the past pro-death rulings and the future generation who calls on Congress to protect all life from conception to natural death.
To try and limit to just two present and pass, not feasible.
This doesn’t answer the question specifically either but my heros would be the individuals in India who were responsible for passing legislation that made sex-selective abortions illegal and those that go and render ultrasound equipment useless when its found that that equipment is used for that purpose.
I’m kind of with everyone else. I honestly feel that the pro-life movement is made up of pretty much nothing but heroes. I suppose, if I had to choose two, Lila Rose and her LiveAction would be one. For the second, though, I would someone whose name no one knows. The director of a CPC, or someone who runs a pro-life adoption agency, and get their story. I’d want to know about the challenges they faced from pro-aborts, what challenges they still face, how they got to the place they’re at, and where they’re going next. I’d also ask about any memorable protests or events they’d been to. There are so many of those people in the pro-life movement, and I think they’re all heroes.
Anyone contemplating abortion should know the courageous story of Maria Vargas and Katherine Reed.
Stupak would have been in the mix…
but then he caved.
Reverend Walter Hoye. I think he meets the “inspiring,” “courageous,” and “sacrific[ial]” criteria.
I can’t pick two, but I have two categories. National figures: Robert P. Casey, Sr., Judie Brown, Dr. Alveda King, Father Frank Pavone and Gianna Jessen. Locally in Pennsylvania, we’ve heard from the following through the years: Peg Luksik who has run for office many times to give us an alternative to pro-aborts running, Molly Kelly a pro-life chastity advocate and George Isajiw, a pro-life doctor serving the community for many years.
The Scheidlers.
Abby Johnson: showing that the abortion industry has people who CAN leave. Jane Roe aka Norma: She HAS been “saved”: she’s now pro life…… (I have a sign that says that).
Father Frank, Dr. Alveda……and many others.
All better heroes than those who personally destroy unborn babies under the disguise of “choice”.
A great plot for a movie would be to show people heaping praise on these doctors, interviewing the doctors, basically placing them in the best light possible, and then following them in to film an abortion procedure, making sure to catch all of the details including the part where they piece the fetus back together, and then following the woman out of the surgery room where she weeps inconsolably that she just killed her baby. The end. I think that would put the previous praise in the right kind of light.
I’m with those who say that everyone in the movement is a hero. I’m also with those who say every woman who walks away from a clinic, or a father who steps up.
“(I asked the question; I can’t be an answer… not that I think of myself as such… but just so you know this isn’t a thinly veiled promotional attempt.)”
Sorry Jill, but you figure prominently here. Your story is one of a woman whose fidelity to God leads her to become an accidental prophet to a nation (accidental by human reckoning, but not by God’s design).
That really leads to the film that I would do, not one to pick from among an ocean of heroes, but a film on the different manifestations of God’s Grace:
Those who repented of their evil and witness: The former abortionists
Those who have been healed and now witness: The post-abortive moms and dads.
Those who direct healing ministries.
Those who direct clearinghouses of information.
Those who run CPC’s.
Those who wage war through prayer.
The youth who boldly witness a counter-cultural message.
Those of us who trained for careers in medicine and walked away to do this work full-time.
Those who stay in medicine to witness from within.
And so many more…
Literally, the different members of the Body of Christ all functioning together as a whole.
Yeah, nothing says “heroic” like working to take away women’s civil rights. Anti-choicers are “heroic” in the way that white supremacists are “heroic”.
Marissa,
An old African Man has the most eloquent answer to your statement. Click the link only if you have the guts to hear the truth.
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/04/our-next-pope/
you forget about the UNBORN women’s rights. Where are THEIR rights when they are being torn apart in the womb, Marissa. Where are **their** rights?
I think our young people…middle school, high school and college age are the next prolife heroes. I was blown away at the 2010 March for Life in DC, by their passion and commitment and by their numbers. They see what kind of damage “prochoice” and the wrong kind of feminism did to their mothers and grandmothers, and will hopefully learn from our mistakes.
Gerard Nadal: I’m not interested in the musings of a third world witch doctor, thank you.
LizFromNebraska: Fetuses do not have rights. I think we’ve all gone over this one plenty of times before.
“I’m not interested in the musings of a third world witch doctor, thank you.”
Posted by: Marissa at May 15, 2010 10:34 AM
It is this kind of tolerance, equality, and cultural sensitivity that characterizes the pro-choice movement.
Look, to be fair, I’m not interested in the musings of a first world witch doctor either, so that rules out Mr. Nadal as well.
Rissa,
Why are you here?
ALL of those that volunteer tirelessly outside abortion clinics to offer support to pregnant women!!
Abby Johnson
Lila Rose
Carla: I just find it fascinating to study anti-choicers in their native habitat, is all.
You hardly “study”, Rissa. You have managed to insult and instigate and condescend to almost everyone that comments here. You go, girl.
Maybe I’m not always on my best behavior, but that door swings both ways: I’ve been the receiver of plenty of insults and condescension myself here.
Marissa,
“Gerard Nadal: I’m not interested in the musings of a third world witch doctor, thank you.”
I can understand the disconnect that leads one to be pro-choice, but I had no idea that you were a racist pig as well.
“Maybe I’m not always on my best behavior, but that door swings both ways: I’ve been the receiver of plenty of insults and condescension myself here.”
Posted by: Marissa at May 15, 2010 10:59 AM
No? Really! You come onto a blog and attempt to justify child murder, which is bad enough, but then pile racism, ignorance, and…weren’t you that idiot saying people are only people if society says they are? And people aren’t being nice to you?!? Say it ain’t so!
Also? Tone argument. You’re stepping on the toes of the unborn. We’re telling you to get off. You’re supposed to get off their toes, not get mad at us for not asking nicely!
Anti-choicers are “heroic” in the way that white supremacists are “heroic”.
But Marissa, what if it’s their “choice” to be white supremacist?
After all, you’ve spent a lot of time here claiming that morality is a social construct. White supremacists’ morality, to you, is as much of a societal construct as yours, mine or anyone else’s. Why are you denigrating them?
Your inconsistency is hilarious. Go away until you learn enough to play with the big kids.
And by the way, Marissa? That “third world witch doctor” you’re denigrating is a Roman Catholic cardinal.
And tell me again how you aren’t racist?
A friendly reminder. Please refrain from name calling. That goes for all of us.
Sorry about breaking the borders with my link, I’m not sure how to adjust that.
Marissa, if you want to equivocate the pro-life movement with racist ideology, then its not wise to follow up your comment with a racist stereotype.
My hero today is Tom from Sunnyside WA for caring enough to guide that woman to a choice of Life over Death.
No you didn’t Marissa. You didn’t just call this Cardinal “a third world witch doctor”. You racist, arrogant, intolerant, hate-filled troll you. Mods please give her at least a period of suspension off of this blog. This is probably one of the most disgusting, racist things I have read on this blog. Please do NOT let her continue on this blog without disciplining her. I know there is free speach but this is a personal attack of this man of God. I am not Catholic but I am angry that this person is allowed to attack in such a racist, hateful way. Get her off of here at least for a while so no one else can think they can say such despicable things.
Carla: I just find it fascinating to study anti-choicers in their native habitat, is all.
Posted by: Marissa at May 15, 2010 10:54 AM
Marissa is a “Troll”. Spewing condescention and idealogically liberal blather without regard to truth or logic.
Marissa, when does life begin? Laughing out loud just thinking about what her response would be.
I’m sorry to bring in a question from another discussion, but it’s quite relevant on this one too…
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARISSA! Please enlighten me, because I don’t understand US laws anymore…. I hope you can help me….
You said “Children and adults have the right to live because WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE DETERMINED THAT, based on these qualitative characteristics, they are members of society who deserve society’s protection. Fetuses are not.
Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:35 PM”
“Fetuses do not have rights. I think we’ve all gone over this one plenty of times before.
Posted by: Marissa at May 15, 2010 10:34 AM”
Now tell me WHY, in 38 of the states a person is charged with 2 murders if he/she kills a pregnant woman???? Didn’t WE AS A SOCIETY already determined that fetuses have no right to life and protection anyway?
Perhaps the purpose of Marissa is to throw a bomb and interrupt an otherwise wholesome and productive dialog amongst friends.
I am sorry Marissa that you are so hurt. Fortunately for you, Marissa, you have tapped into a community, that, for all our faults, trys to live the St. Francis ideal of granting pardon to those who have (or have attempted) to injure us. We pray for those who consider us their enemies.
Now, in answer to the question, along with Janet the two pro-lifers I would nominate would be Joe and Ann Scheidler. Fr. Frank Pavone and Fr. Marx are right up there also. Lots of great people!
Janet – I’m glad you said “Scheidlers,” as in Ann, too. Too many people don’t know how much she contributes. She’s one strong pro-life woman who I really admire.
Yeah, seriously, can Marissa get banned? We’re dealing with someone who thinks slavery in America was okay back when society deemed it to be okay. Someone who thinks black people only magically “became” human beings when society decided they were human beings. I don’t think she contributes anything remotely useful, productive, or thought-provoking to this site.
Another thought just struck me about Marissa’s Consensus Morality Paradigm (or whatever we’re calling it).
If morality is simply a collection of values that a society agrees on, then no one system of morality is any more valid than the other. Different society, different consensus, different morals.
Furthermore, all morality is, at it’s root, relatively meaningless. We do or don’t do things because we’ve all agreed that’s the way we ought to behave. If, at any point in time, we come to a different consensus, then the previous morality is instantly invalidated just because we want it to be. But beyond our Societal Consensus, there’s no need for anything moral to mean anything deeper or more significant than that. All it means is that we all agreed on something.
Then, no one group attempting to challenge society’s consensus on any issue whatsoever, including abortion, is wrong to do so for any reason. The only reason any of these things are okay or not okay to begin with is because we agree. If anyone can convince enough people to change their minds on that point, the previous consensus is instantly invalidated and the new one instantly moral. And no matter what group is trying to change which values, they’re doing nothing “wrong” or “bad” by making this attempt because morality is ultimately meaningless anyway. It’s a societal contract and nothing else. Occasionally, the terms of that contract are changed.
Therefore, pro-lifers are not wrong to challenge society’s views on abortion. In fact, pro-choicers are ultimately engaging in a pointless battle on meaningless issues in an attempt to stop pro-lifers from doing so. The “right” to abortion only exists because society says it does, but it doesn’t mean anything more than that. So trying to change the consensus is just yet another in a long list of changes to the societal contract.
Who cares if we succeed or not? Why are you even wasting energy trying to stop us? What difference does it make?
You are simply dense, Marauder. I can’t be bothered to go over this again. It would be no more productive to try and explain my views to you than it would be to try and teach a parakeet how to conduct an orchestra, because you simply can’t grasp such concepts. Best of luck in your future career as a McDonalds fry cook, because it is all you are temperamentally or intellectually suited for.
Thanks Marauder for backing me up on this. If calling the Cardinal “a third world witch doctor” is not slanderous, hate-filled, racist speech then I don’t know what is. Please Jill consider our request for her to be banned at least for a while and don’t let her get away with this.
Even though she’s anti-gay, Janet Folger is one of my favorites. I am also a fan of my gals over at Oregon Right to Life.
Marissa, perhaps we could better understand your nuanced views if you stuck around to defend them. On the tread a few days ago where you brought up your cultural relativism nonsense, you ran away before you could back up any of your assertions.
Oh, and IIRC, Marauder is a law student. She certainly has more logical reasoning ability than you.
Lila Rose- because she is so young to be leading such an effective movement and exposing the abortion industry.
Carla- because she has been behind the clinic doors and come out a warrior for the unborn.
Both excellent role models.
Scheidler and Nathanson.
“Yet just yesterday you were berating Carla for her testimony regarding her abortion. I’m really, really confused.
Posted by: Lauren at May 15, 2010 11:43 AM”
I read your link, Lauren. Really, seems like Ashley is a very confused young woman. I read on another discussion where she addmitted “Sometimes I think abortion is horrible and want to be pro-life, other times I want to be strongly pro-choice. Internal conflict? Probably.”
That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t?
Definitely Gianna Jessen. I was fortunate to attend a talk she gave at my university during my undergraduate years; a truly amazing, inspiring young woman.
If we could include the deceased, I would choose Mother Teresa as well. Her life beautifully debunks the myth that pro-lifers “don’t care about those who are already born”.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson is another good suggestion.
“Best of luck in your future career as a McDonalds fry cook, because it is all you are temperamentally or intellectually suited for.”
You seem to be projecting a bit, Marissa ;) Don’t worry; it’s understandable. It must be intimidating to go up against somebody like Marauder, who so obviously outclasses you in every possible way. Your reaction is a very human, albeit flawed, one. :)
Back on topic, I see!
My heroine is my mom, who refused to have an abortion a doctor was trying to push on her.
And I know these people have already had movies made about them, but —
Venerable Pope John Paul II, who told it like it is to the world in “The Gospel of Life” — he explained the true consistent ethic of life, and gave the culture of death its name.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta — who told it like is is about abortion before the world in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Wooh-hoo!
Not only that, she lived profoundly her love for each individual person as a being of immense dignity and worth, not only babies, but the poorest of the poor, those dying on the streets.
And let’s all pray for Marissa. She’s obviously in a heck of a lot of trouble spiritually, morally and in just about every other way. It’s understandable that so many of us, including myself, explode in anger at her, but she needs much more than that.
I definitely think Lila Rose should be one person.
Perhaps another would be a young person who is in the health care field as a front line worker but who is prolife…
CARLA! and Lila Rose :)
I agree with all the nominations above and would like to add Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano, the original Roe and Doe from 1973. They were deceived into participating and are now strongly pro-life!
Too bad you say we can’t count YOU, Jill. Your contribution to the pro-life movement is insurmountable! :)
Saint Gianna Beretta Molla.
Praxedes prompts me to think of Thomas McKenna, founder of the St Gianna Physician’s Guild. There’s also the prolife practice at the Tepeyac Family Center.
Joe and Ann Scheidler.
Lila Rose, Alveda King, Chris Smith, Gianna Jessen, and thousands more. I would have a hard time choosing just 2.
Marissa,
FYI: Abortion (e.g. the premeditated, deliberate taking of an innocent, vulnerable human life) is a barbaric wrong, NOT a civil right.
Deal with it. Wondering if it were you about to be dismembered, would you be so in favor of the right of your killer to “choose”? Ah, thought not.
Abortionists, and their allies, are zeroes; the prolifers are the heroes in this one… whether the parents of the targeted unborn, or their advocates…and all healthcare professionals who say NO. Pregnancy is not a disease, and abortion is not healthcare.
Back on topic, I nominate that a film be made of the story of Dr. Alveda King, (portraying Daddy King telling her “that is no blob of tissue you are carrying that is my grandchild, go talk to your grandmother” would be awesome), her spiritual conversion, her becoming a pro-life warrior and the difficulty of being an African American prolifer I think would make a great movie. I would also nominate The Schiedlers both Ann and Joe have suffered much for the kingdom and for the pro-life cause. The Supreme Court cases and the lies that have been told on them by the pro-aborts would make a great film as well.
Along with many others, I’d nominate Lila Rose.
My second nominee, who no one has mentioned yet, is Julie Armas. You may not recognize the name, but you’ve seen her famous picture since 1999.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17485
Keli Hu: Therefore, pro-lifers are not wrong to challenge society’s views on abortion. In fact, pro-choicers are ultimately engaging in a pointless battle on meaningless issues in an attempt to stop pro-lifers from doing so. The “right” to abortion only exists because society says it does, but it doesn’t mean anything more than that. So trying to change the consensus is just yet another in a long list of changes to the societal contract.
Who cares if we succeed or not? Why are you even wasting energy trying to stop us? What difference does it make?
To generalize, I’d say that I’d rather not have you legally control what the pregnant woman does, but rather that she be allowed to choose for herself.
The same as I’d rather not have somebody trying to make you have an abortion if you didn’t want one.
So… Who would I pick?
Bethany and Carla (if I had only 2 picks) because they’re sweethearts and truly good people, regardless of the differences in our positions.
Doug
Father Tom Eutenuer from Human Life International. He is a definate pro-life warrior along with Father Frank Pavone. I love pro-life men. Pro-choice men are creepy, IMO. Men are suppose to protect and defend woman and children. Many men stand silently by as woman parade into PP, destroy their babies and subsequently their lives too. When I see a pro-life man, I just admire true masculinity. Bravo, to men defending life! Women (like Marissa) have been fooled by radical feminism. However, I fear for Marissa. Father Tom (who is also an excorcist) states that the abortion industry is satanic. He describes how he always questions people (men and women) about cooperating with abortions in all exorcism cases. It creates a portal for satan to enter. This affects everyone, even those answering the phones in the PP clinic. We must not be afraid, God’s mercy is greater than all sins. However, we must have the sense to be repentant and I worry that Marissa will never feel this. So, we must storm the gates of heaven with prayers to soften her heart.
Posted by: Doug at May 15, 2010 8:16 PM
You haven’t been arguing morality exists only as a societal consensus, which Marissa has. My response was tailored specifically to her argument (or rather, lack-of-same, since claiming that slaves weren’t people because people who were people said that they weren’t people pretty much constitutes nonsense).
“Choice” is another argument entirely. The short version is, no human being is entitled to absolute freedom of choice when one of their choices leads to some other human being’s death. If your choice kills someone, you need a much better reason to make it than “I don’t want them around.”
I’d love to see a film about my dear, deceased friend Ruth Pakaluk. She was a prolife activist in Massachusetts for about fifteen years after becoming a Christian and converting to Catholicism. She established a prolife group at Harvard, then in Cambridge, then built up the group in Worcester. She ran the state prolife group and tried (unsuccessfully) to amend the state constitution to respect life. She bore seven children, losing one to SIDS before being diagnosed with breast cancer. She bore her youngest child against medical advice. She died at 41. I still miss her: beautiful, smart, talented, and driven to defend the unborn.
Dietrich bonhoeffer.
Eric Rudolph.
Paul Hill.
Michael Bray.
Amazing stories. Amazing pro-life testimonies.
Here is a better question. What actors/actresses would play the pro-life heroes?
Keli Hu: You haven’t been arguing morality exists only as a societal consensus, which Marissa has. My response was tailored specifically to her argument (or rather, lack-of-same, since claiming that slaves weren’t people because people who were people said that they weren’t people pretty much constitutes nonsense).
Yet what you said was correct. Morality *is* ideas and ideals. It need not be a consensus, unless we are talking about that, specifically, but, like personhood, it exists in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what entity we’re talking about.
There is the physical reality of the born, and of the unborn, for that matter, but that’s not really what the argument is about. What you *want* is a change in the status that we attribute to the unborn.
“Choice” is another argument entirely. The short version is, no human being is entitled to absolute freedom of choice when one of their choices leads to some other human being’s death. If your choice kills someone, you need a much better reason to make it than “I don’t want them around.”
Depends on what you deem a “someone” is. If you are saying that a zygote or a blastocyst is a “someone,” then yes – there is freedom of choice on the part of human beings whether they live or not, due in large part to the vast amount of opinion at odds with your own, there.
Doug and Marissa,
Be careful what you wish for. If it’s “societal consensus” or “the status that we attribute to the unborn” you’re counting on, then the consensus is tipping in favor of life (47 to 45 right now). If you depend on that, then the unborn will soon be considered human beings by “consensus.” And there won’t be anything you can do about it – except change your nonsensical arguments.
Posted by: Marissa at May 15, 2010 10:34 AM
1. “I’m not interested in the musings of a third world witch doctor, thank you.”
2. “Fetuses do not have rights.”
—————————————————-
1. But you do regurgitate the scatalogical rants of avant garde feminista and old guard feminazi witches coven known as modern feminism.
2. Tell us again the specie of fetus to whom you are referring.
Please tell us the source of our ‘human’righst.
Is it a piece of paper or the concensus of society.
Yet what you said was correct. Morality *is* ideas and ideals. It need not be a consensus, unless we are talking about that, specifically, but, like personhood, it exists in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what entity we’re talking about.
No, what I said was nonsense. I’m following Marissa’s idiotic “argument” to its logical conclusion (she actually believes this stuff, I say she’s an idiot to, try to keep up), which essentially is nothing is really right or wrong. If you’re going to agree with her there, then you are saying that she was right, and slaves weren’t people because a bunch of people who were people said that they weren’t.
You really do not want to be standing in that space.
Depends on what you deem a “someone” is. If you are saying that a zygote or a blastocyst is a “someone,” then yes – there is freedom of choice on the part of human beings whether they live or not, due in large part to the vast amount of opinion at odds with your own, there.
Again, morality by brute force of opinion is not ground you want to hold. For a couple reasons. One, pro-choice is steadily loosing ground in the public arena and has been for a long time now. Two, it undermines every single other argument you might want to put forward. I don’t actually believe any of Marissa’s idiocy about morality being a societal consensus. If you do, then nothing else you say is valid. You can not argue abortion is a moral good because if morality is only a consensus then there is no such thing! You can not argue it undermines women’s rights because nobody really has any rights at all. Not really. You can not argue about bodily autonomy since no such thing truly exists. Under this paradigm, the only argument you can put forward is that, “Lots of people agree with me!” and that is not going to be the case for too much longer.
As someone who saw this debate go down in flames for the pro-choicer a couple of days ago, I’m going to tell you right now, you are throwing all your best arguments right out the window if you say morality only exists by societal contract. And you don’t have that many good ones, so you should hang on to the ones that you’ve got.
Dawn Stover of Portland
and
Andrew Burnett
Both have talked the talk and walked the walk.
Both have counted the cost, taken up their cross and paid the price of self denying sacrifice.
Under oath in July 1997, abortionist Carhart comments on how he performs abortions. Here he is questioned by his attorney:
Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the [human] fetus intact?
Carhart: Yes, sir.
Question: Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?
Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the oz…
Question: What do you do then?
Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the [human] fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the [human] fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Later under cross examination from the AG’S counsel, Carhart stated:
“My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy.”
[Please note the sequence of events in that last statement.]
Revised Code of Wasghington State CW 9.02.170
Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter:
(2) “Abortion” means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth.
—————————————————
Are Martha Shane and Lana Wilson performing a ‘Borat’ ambush on Carhart and Hern or is this really a serious attempt on their part to ‘lionize’ these two butchers?
To generalize, I’d say that I’d rather not have you legally control what the pregnant woman does, but rather that she be allowed to choose for herself.
The same as I’d rather not have somebody trying to make you have an abortion if you didn’t want one.
Posted by: Doug at May 15, 2010 8:16 PM
——
Hi Doug. Let’s rephrase your language with other moral wrongs to see how the logic holds up:
“To generalize, I’d say that I’d rather not have you legally control what the rapist does, but rather that he be allowed to choose for himself.”
“The same as I’d rather not have somebody trying to make you have an slave if you didn’t want one.”
—-
Looks absurd to me.
Doug, there’s only 2 possibilities for holding your position – either you are ignorant of humanity of the unborn, or you don’t care, in which case you’re a defender of “might makes right” and sound reasoning is unnecessary.
Posted by: Keli Hu at May 16, 2010 6:43 AM
Kel,
Wow! Now that is some smoking hot ass kicking butt whippin refutation!
Too bad the person with whom you are dealing does not understand the broken limb she/he is furioulsy sawing on is the self same limb upon which he/she is so precariously perched.
“Don’t fret dude/babe. We will toss you up a rope and pull you down!”
Doug! HI! Remember how I used to always accidentally type your name as Dough? I just did it again. :P
How have you been?
When you dehumanize the unborn, you dehumanize an innocent HUMAN child. I have a cousin whom is pregnant with her first child. She’s due in early July. She’s having a GIRL, not a “Fetus”, not a piece of “tissue”. Her child is ALIVE and is a separate, whole, human being who will have her own personality. She’s NOT part of my cousin’s body. She’s not going to magically become a baby during labor and delivery.
And I saw her ultrasound at Christmas, when my cousin was not very far along (about 2 1/2 months). I definitely saw a tiny little person there! Jokingly said I saw a tiny shopping bag, too. ;)
I definitely agree with Gianna Jessen being a pro life hero, as she survived an abortion attempt.
Jesus Christ and His mother Mary.
Yep, I’m a law student. I also graduated from a Seven Sisters college and, if we want to go all the way back to high school, got a 730 on the verbal SAT and a 790 on the writing SAT II.
I’d love to see a movie about Lila Rose.
How does seeing how radical some people can be on any side of any issue excuse the killing of another human?
Wow. It doesn’t.
“I was done being pro-life after doing a lot of research on “personhood amendments” and how radical the people pushing them are.”
Glad you came around. I tend to figure that “pro-life” is just a temporary phase for most people and once you get older and more mature you grow out of it. Of course, there are always going to be a few “true believers” but they’re probably in the minority.
Or probably not, Mardupissa.
Dr. Patty Giebink in SD. She was the abortion doctor in our state for many years but has become pro-life and fights for the unborn
Ashleadusnot,
Loving and raising your child/ren does not make a woman a walking womb/unpaid domestic servant for men anymore than a man enjoying contributing financially to his family makes him a walking sperm donor/open wallet to women. Whether he/she/both work outside the family, the contributions they make are both necessary and important for the family to be healthy. Believe it or not, sexism can go both ways.
Maybe the proaborts will add you to their list of proabort heroes. What a wonderful example of a convert to their mission you are.
Oh, I love the Duggars. Don’t you? Is there some reason we shouldn’t?
Ashley:
You’re a female chauvinist as you voice all the tired reasons for being a pro-abort.
Hey, got any reasons why all men should be aborted? Your hate for them is obvious.
I mean aren’t men human too, I mean, like unborn babes?
And you claim to be a Christian? Wow, how distorted. Weren’t you just dissing some people you considered “low-lifes” who were in your church? Yeah, some family with a ton of kids. You showed absolutely no willingness to give them a hand. I’m not surprised.
“There’s a ton of reasons I became pro-choice that I don’t have time to cover, but here are a few: the opposition to contraception. The utter lack of concern for women who need abortions for medical reasons. Forcing rape victims (including 10-year-olds raped by their stepfathers) to give birth to the rapist’s baby. The sneaking suspicion that antis want all women to be walking wombs/unpaid domestic servants for men, which is why you love the Duggars.”
This is a very good set of reasons. The opposition to contraception is especially disturbing to me. If anti-choicers finally achieved their goal of banning abortion, would they really stop there? Of course not, and contraception would almost certainly be the next target in their crosshairs. It’s important to know your enemy, and so pro-choicers should be aware that the intelligentsia, the power brokers of this movement, are Catholic supremacists for whom the end game is greatly expanding the reach and power of the Roman Catholic Church, plain and simple.
Posted by: Marissa at May 16, 2010 12:00 PM
Lovely hat you’re wearing! What? You made it yourself, entirely out of tin foil?!? Wow! That’s amazing!
On topic, Gianna Jessen is definitely a pro-life hero. Aside from the numerous other excellent reasons, there is the relatively minor, but always cheering one that she’s so effervescent in her interviews. :)
Tollisa, You are still posting. I am waiting for your answer to my question. When does life begin? Is a fetus a life?
Should have read Trollisa
Ashley, you don’t need to be pro-choice to kill bbies in order to be pro-choice to contraception. One kills and the other doesn’t. How can you not see that?
Ashley, I don’t know “any” pro-life people who have an utter lack of concern for a pregnant woman’s health; so it is completely ridiculous to post as a reason for supporting the anti-life side.
Amazing. There are people who are worried about contraception killing, what, microscopic 3-hour-old fertilized eggs? And I’m the tinfoil hat wearer here for pointing out that the Catholic Church is the chief promoter, and beneficiary, of this insanity?
If you can seriously say that a microscopic fertilized egg or a 3-week-old fetus has the same value as an actual baby and deserves the same legal protection, life simply isn’t worth anything to you because you would reduce all of us to the same level as some microscopic entity in a woman’s uterus. Total madness.
Murderessa,
How exactly would the Catholic Church benefit from you and other proaborts not killing unborn humans?
Marissa,
I am trying to find common ground that we can build on. Are you saying that you agree a fetus is a human life? I know that sounds like a silly question but many pro-aborts who come to this blog cannot admit that fact.
Posted by: Marissa at May 16, 2010 12:25 PM
To grab a quote from, I really don’t remember who, “It’s about the babies, stupid!” Yes, you’re a tin-foil hat-wearer if you think you need to run around making up reasons for people to oppose abortion when the big reason we do is the one we are always carping on! Because that’s the salient point: abortion kills! Focus!
As to “reduce all of us to the same level as some microscopic entity,” two points. One, I would argue I am raising the microscopic, not lowering the macroscopic. A relatively academic distinction, true, but POV is important. Two, why would it bother you so much if literally every human being was equal in value under the law? You were that small once. Your life was that valuable. In fact, if you’re as young as you sound, you could have been aborted. I am saying that you were then equally as valuable as you are now and that to kill you then would have been just as wrong. You are saying that you (you, yourself, personally, Marissa) used to have no value and could be killed indiscriminately.
If that value is indeed lower, then you are degrading your own self.
Praxedes:
Open your eyes. Social conservatism is all about power and domination, nothing more. Whoever gets to determine society’s morality gets to determine society’s laws. Why do you think the Catholic Church pushes these “social conservative” issues so hard? Because it’s making a last ditch power play to reinvigorate its waning strength in Western civilization. Once it reasserts its stranglehold on the United States, it can leverage that strength into taking back Europe as well.
truthseeker:
A wise man once responded to that question as such: that’s above my paygrade.
The questions of “when does human life begin?” or “does a fetus count as human life?” are academic. I’ll let the philosophers hash that one out.
A wise man reponded I don’t know the answer to that question…lol When you know truth is not convenient that non-answer becomes crafty but it is not “wise”. Wise (and moral) people would err on the side of caution if they were not sure wether or not the being they were killing was a person. People who claim they are not sure and kill anyway are called self-serving heathen.
Some Catholics are claim to be antilifers and some non-Catholics are prolifers. So when abortion becomes illegal, it won’t be only the Catholics who will be rejoicing but many other groups as well.
So I will repeat my question of how exactly would the Catholic Church benefit from you and other proaborts not being allowed to kill unborn humans? I also respectfully request you stop attempting to spread your obvious hate and fear of Catholics to others. As a practicing Catholic your lies about my religion offend me. Thanks.
I don’t know any wise man who said, “that’s above my paygrade.” I did however hear about an excuse-making antilifer who said something on that order.
One doesn’t have to be a philosopher to know when human life begins. A 4-year old looking at an ultrasound can tell you as much.
Sometimes they are also referred to as Democrats.
Lori: If it’s “societal consensus” or “the status that we attribute to the unborn” you’re counting on, then the consensus is tipping in favor of life (47 to 45 right now). If you depend on that, then the unborn will soon be considered human beings by “consensus.”
I don’t “depend” on that, but it makes a difference. However, in large measure we don’t vote on rights, and as far as taking away the freedom that women have, our country isn’t really geared to doing such a thing by a mere majority, and the Constitution is pretty well lined-up to keep such things in check, including a government that might be reflective of such a consensus.
Not very likely to happen, of course, but if 26 of the states or just over 50% of the population voted to make black people slaves again, it’s not going to fly. Same for taking away the freedom that women have in the matter of abortion.
Sometimes they are also referred to as the President of the United States.
Keli Hu-
I agree with Ken’s sentiment except I would say it this way. The way you make your points leads me to the conclusion that you are very analytical probably very good at math and if you aren’t thinking about politics should and or a political columnist. When you shine your light for life, you whether your aware of it or not, bring validation to those of us who are parents to children who don’t quite fit into the eugenics code of thinking. Be blessed.
Keli: I’m following Marissa’s idiotic “argument” to its logical conclusion (she actually believes this stuff, I say she’s an idiot to, try to keep up), which essentially is nothing is really right or wrong. If you’re going to agree with her there, then you are saying that she was right, and slaves weren’t people because a bunch of people who were people said that they weren’t.
I realize where you were coming from, Keli, but as far as nothing being externally right or wrong in the moral realm, that’s true. There has to be “somebody” – some consciousness – to have desires and likes and dislikes, or else there would be no such thing as morality. It’s always in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what entity that is.
While the slaves were certainly human beings in the biological sense, the physical sense, that’s not what the argument is about. It’s about the status we attribute, and as far as being full legal human beings (with the protection we say they should have), at the time the slaves were not accorded that status.
_____
Again, morality by brute force of opinion is not ground you want to hold. For a couple reasons. One, pro-choice is steadily loosing ground in the public arena and has been for a long time now. Two, it undermines every single other argument you might want to put forward. I don’t actually believe any of Marissa’s idiocy about morality being a societal consensus. If you do, then nothing else you say is valid. You can not argue abortion is a moral good because if morality is only a consensus then there is no such thing! You can not argue it undermines women’s rights because nobody really has any rights at all. Not really. You can not argue about bodily autonomy since no such thing truly exists. Under this paradigm, the only argument you can put forward is that, “Lots of people agree with me!” and that is not going to be the case for too much longer.
I have never said that the majority is necessarily “right” in any absolute way, nor that I will necessarily agree with it. There certainly is society’s consensus on things, but of course that is not all that morality is. There are our personal feelings as individuals, the feelings of various groups of people, etc. There are areas of such vast commonality of opinion, country-by-country, or even worldwide, that there’s not much disagreement about them. The abortion debate is not that (of course).
There certainly are perceptions of moral good and bad – you know that as well as I do, as we all do. Women have the rights they do, and while it’s not impossible they would be reduced, a good bit of the pro-life position would indeed undermine them. As far as bodily autonomy, the idea certainly exists, and that is what morality is – sentient minds having their thoughts of the good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm.
On the “lots of people agree with me” – there are lots of people who would again have slavery be legal (presumably with the idea that they won’t be the slaves… ; )
_____
As someone who saw this debate go down in flames for the pro-choicer a couple of days ago, I’m going to tell you right now, you are throwing all your best arguments right out the window if you say morality only exists by societal contract. And you don’t have that many good ones, so you should hang on to the ones that you’ve got.
There are the various positions we have as individuals, as groups, and as “pro-lifers” and “pro-choicers” in general here, and the societal contract and any consensus of society are in no way the end-all of morality.
There is also what is true for all of us, and that’s what I’m sticking with. I’m not claiming my position “has to be right” as if in some magic, absolute, external way. I’m also noting that regardless of what others ascribe their positions to, the same is true for them.
Chris: Hi Doug. Let’s rephrase your language with other moral wrongs to see how the logic holds up:
“To generalize, I’d say that I’d rather not have you legally control what the rapist does, but rather that he be allowed to choose for himself.”
“The same as I’d rather not have somebody trying to make you have an slave if you didn’t want one.”
—-
Looks absurd to me.
Hey Chris. : ) Well sure, you picked something about which there is huge agreement, and yeah – it’s pretty absurd to think we’d allow that.
—-
Doug, there’s only 2 possibilities for holding your position – either you are ignorant of humanity of the unborn, or you don’t care, in which case you’re a defender of “might makes right” and sound reasoning is unnecessary.
Chris, I’m sure that you and I have been over this before, but what the heck…. “Humanity of the unborn” – hey, I know the unborn in this debate are totally human, as human as you and I and Greta Garbo and Claudette Colbert. That’s not the argument.
I’m not saying that might makes right here, either. I may or may not agree with the “mightiest” position in our country. Yet there still will be a sufficient opinion – an opinion with enough force behind it – to become law. Might be that of the majority, might be that of a vast majority, or of a monarch, ruling council, etc. I’m not saying that any of the opinions have any external source – they still come from sentient minds with desires – and maybe I agree or maybe I don’t.
Slavery legal or illegal. Rape legal or illegal. Those are pretty clear. Abortion, though, isn’t going to be all one way or all the other. Hey, maybe we will get more restrictions on abortion, move the time in gestation when it’s generally prohibited up a little. Could happen – I don’t know. But it’s not going to be the case that abortion is legal, no restrictions at all, right to full-term, nor will it be absolutely legally forbidden. Not speaking idealogically here, just practically.
It’s pretty close on the pro-choice/pro-life portions of society. But as we tend toward the extremes – no restrictions at all or complete prohibition, then people become more one-sided about things. I would be okay with restricting abortion to 22 weeks, even 20, rather than just within the third trimester.
Alexandra: Doug! HI! Remember how I used to always accidentally type your name as Dough? I just did it again. :P
How have you been?
Hey A. : D
Been good, and it’s good to see familiar people here on Jill’s site. Nothing much new here – lots of work, lots of online gaming, 10th wedding anniversary was this past April.
Watched the movie ‘Silverado’ last night, the western with Kevin Costner, Kevin Cline, etc., in it. Good grief, it was made in 1985, a quarter-century ago! Where did the time go? : P
P.S. I need to cut down on the dough…. ; )
What “Pro-life heroes”? That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one. Anti-choicers aren’t heroes to me and other pro-choice Americans.
How can any one be a hero who wants to force women to bear children against their will whether or not they would be able to support them adequately or a pregnancy would kill are seriously harm them, and who doesn’t want the government to give any help to poor pregnant women to take decent care of their children and who foolishly thinks that private charities can provide everything they need, who wants to make contraceptives illegal,who stupidly thinks that no one should have sex unless married,and all that garbage.
Some heroes.
“I was done being pro-life after doing a lot of research on “personhood amendments” and how radical the people pushing them are.”
Marissa: Glad you came around. I tend to figure that “pro-life” is just a temporary phase for most people and once you get older and more mature you grow out of it. Of course, there are always going to be a few “true believers” but they’re probably in the minority.
Marissa – as far as totally prohibiting abortion, yes, such a minority that women don’t really have to worry about it, in my opinion.
Yet on “pro-life” in general, don’t you think that there really is a lot of opinion for keeping things the way they are now – having abortion restricted after a point in gestation? It seems obvious to me that we’re going to have abortion be legal, but restricted after a given number of weeks of pregnancy.
Doug-
Your right because as a nation we were made aware that all citizens have intrinsic value something Christians already knew or should have known. Your second to last sentence is so true. I hope your last sentence though someday will read as “Same for taking away the freedom that babies have in the matter of life!” To those women who are truly victims what’s wrong with adoption when they chose not to keep their babies? The damsel in distress thing is getting old. Most of the time it’s not the damsel in distress it’s the baby. The subject of rape is very serious but needs to be addressed in a court of law and not compounded by the taking of a babies life.
Posted by: myrtle miller at May 16, 2010 1:53 PM
Oh, wow. Thanks. :)
“Maybe people’s opinions can change?”
No. I am calling fraud on you. Either you’re not who you claim to be, or you are deceiving either the pro-life or pro-choice movements.
None of your reasons for supporting the pro-abortion (as you called it in your book) cause rationalize the fact that you talk about Rachel’s Vinyard and post abortion stress in your book, yet just yesterday feigned suprise that anyone could hold Carla’s feelings after abortion.
That’s not the writing of someone who simply changed sides. Sorry. Who are you, really?
“Itend to figure that “pro-life” is just a temporary phase for most people and once you get older and more mature you grow out of it.”
Right. Like all the sudden, you realize that all the sudden unborn human beings really do deserve to be torn limb from limb. It’s really the enlightened view after all…
It really helps when we have such intellectual giants like you around to help lead us on this path, Marissa. Though, it might help if you could actually make a cogent arguement every once in a while.
Doug,
Still a moral relativist with no hope of conversion, I see….
Well, congrats on your tenth wedding anniversary!
Hi Myrtle,
Citizens – yes, we deem them as having rights. Born persons, too, whether citizens or not.
It’s not intrinsic, though – it’s a position, it’s a point of view, it’s feelings. When the country was founded and when the Constitution was founded, there were plenty of Christians and Deists (the “Founding Fathers” were heavily Deist) and abortion was legal to a point in gestation.
To a point in gestation, I don’t think the unborn have consciousness, nor any desire at all, so what I see is your opinion versus the opinion of the pregnant woman, and I’d rather see her determine things than others.
The best thing, in my opinion, would be to have no unwanted pregnancies at all – then, in this matter I think everybody’d be happy.
Hi Janet. : )
Yes, still a moral relativist, since morality is relative.
Robert Berger,
“Pro-life hero” is an oxymoron?
What about the middle-aged mother who offers to let her pregnant daughter move in with her and sit for daughter’s baby so her daughter can return to work after the baby is born? I’d call her a pro-life hero. Please open your mind, Robert.
“Yes, still a moral relativist, since morality is relative.”
No. It’s not. It’s objective. Moral relativism has no option but to fall under the weight of its own terminal non-judgementalism.
If we accept personal moral relativism, we accept a hedonistic culture that embraces all evils as individual choice. Rape? Well, how can we say judge the rapist if his own moral code allows it? Ect.
We are not much better accepting cultural relativism. In such cases we must accept any social evil as long as the individual society embraces it, and indeed, must condemn the reformers since they are acting outside the collective conciousness of the society. It ends in the same place as personal relativism, but worse since a collective group can inflict much more harm than an individual.
Objective morality based on core prinicples is the only ethical system that adequtely addresses interpersonal/ intercommunal relations. Since this is the purpose of morality, it is absurd to claim that morality is anything but objective.
Doug said: “To a point in gestation, I don’t think the unborn have consciousness”
Doug, consciousness begins at conception to Christians because we look to the life of jesus as our guide and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is sen as being the giver of Life.
A wise man once responded to that question as such: that’s above my paygrade.
The questions of “when does human life begin?” or “does a fetus count as human life?” are academic. I’ll let the philosophers hash that one out.
Posted by: Marissa at May 16, 2010 12:59 PM
—————————————————–
The fool who to whom you are obliquely referring is now our prince of fools.
b.o. lies as easy as he breathes.
And you are being as disengenuos as b.o. when you say you would leave it up to philosphers to settle the issue.
If the ‘wise men’ arrived at even a ‘concensus’ which you did not like, you would be on them like a bum on a bologna sandwhich.
God, I can’t believe you actually hold up Obama’s pathetic answer as some sort of “wise response.”
The question “when does human life begin” is not one of philosophy. It’s one of science. It begins at amphimixis.
The question “does a fetus count as human life” is the most idiotic question I’ve ever seen. Yes, obviously, it does. It is a human being, it is alive thus it counts as human life.
So, now that we’ve answered those important “questions” let’s move on with the debate.
Abortion takes a human life. Why should that be allowed?
Lauren: If we accept personal moral relativism, we accept a hedonistic culture that embraces all evils as individual choice. Rape? Well, how can we say judge the rapist if his own moral code allows it? Ect.
Hi Lauren. We *do* judge the rapist. It’s not a matter of “can” or “cannot.” Don’t you agree that we are separate individuals with our own consciousnesses and valuations? There are many things that people mention in the course of the abortion argument that cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary, but I think you and I can agree on some things, and that we do judge rapists and pretty much universally hold rape to be wrong are among them.
We are not much better accepting cultural relativism. In such cases we must accept any social evil as long as the individual society embraces it, and indeed, must condemn the reformers since they are acting outside the collective conciousness of the society. It ends in the same place as personal relativism, but worse since a collective group can inflict much more harm than an individual.
Well, it’s going to depend on what the topic is, and on the people discussing it. Some things – we’re pretty much okay with other societies being different. But then there’s a deal like female genital mutilation – deeply ingrained in some cultures, and I imagine that you and I are both really against that.
Culture is relative, sure – and for most of us it makes a big difference where we grow up, what family we’re in, etc. But whether you, I, some of us, most of us, all of us, etc., agree or disagree with another culture on a thing will be case-by-case.
Objective morality based on core prinicples is the only ethical system that adequtely addresses interpersonal/ intercommunal relations. Since this is the purpose of morality, it is absurd to claim that morality is anything but objective.
Everything can be traced back to the desire behind it, here. Subjective all the way. Morality is ideas, concepts of the mind. It’s a product of the mind, not anything external. It fits the definition of “subjective,” and does not fit the definition of “objective.”
And anyway – you have all these different groups, claiming that their way is the objective one…. Hello…. : D
“And anyway – you have all these different groups, claiming that their way is the objective one…. Hello…. : D”
Not really. There are about 10 core values that all advanced cultures profess to share. The differences are in how they order these values, and if they uphold what they profess to vaule.
For instance, one society might value honesty more highly than protecting life, or visa versa, but that does not negate the fact that both societies can agree that both honesty and upholding life are objective values that both support.
Since there is a vast professed agreement across cultures, we can judge a society in how it upholds these values.
If, for example, a society professes to uphold the liberty of its inhabitants but acts in as a tyrant, we can comment on this discrepency.
If, instead, we embrace relativism, we can only look at how the society applies its values and shrug our shoulders at the results. Objectivism forces us to look to an agreed set of values and judge accordingly. It prevents us from degrading into cultural caos, though quite honestly the last 50 years have been quite the coup for relativism, leading to much of the problems we face today.
Doug, since you basepersonhood on consciousness, wah is your definition of consciousness? Does a fetus that tries to avoid the suction of an abortionist qualify as having a consciousness?
Sure the unborn have intrinsic value. If the unborn do not have intrinsic value where does that leave humanity. The unborn actually should have more intrinsic value because of their dependance on “adults”. The unborn or just that there unborn but they are. If an individual fails to put value on the unborn because it is in the beginning stages of it’s journey subject them to this type of treatment. If they are a builder sabotage their building in it’s beginning stages and see what happens. When women learn to fight like men or even better when women start fighting like women it will be hard to convince them to sabotage a part of themselves.
The unborn child is indeed ALIVE and AWARE and conscious! Babies learn their mother’s voices when they are still in the womb.
I felt my oldest niece HICCUP in the WOMB at least a month before she was born. You say she wasn’t conscious or aware?
I am pretty sure my newest niece probably knows her 3 year old brother’s voice because he was quite noisy before her birth. My sister in law said she was quite the kicker.
HI DOUG!! :)
So glad you stop in now and again!!
“It’s not intrinsic, though – it’s a position, it’s a point of view, it’s feelings. When the country was founded and when the Constitution was founded, there were plenty of Christians and Deists (the “Founding Fathers” were heavily Deist) and abortion was legal to a point in gestation.”
Posted by: Doug at May 16, 2010 3:14 PM
Okay, whoa. You did not just honestly appeal to the authority of the Founders to support a morally relative viewpoint did you? *rereads* You did. Okay…
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident…” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
“Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice…” – John Jay, The Federalist Papers
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams, in a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
There are many more examples, but basically, if you’re looking for authoritative voices in US history to support moral relativism, you’re barking up the wrongest tree of all to start off with the Founders.
As to Obama’s not-so-wise “above my paygrade” quote, I’m a drop a link here. This is the Life Report podcast crew, treating that idiotic comment the way it deserves to be treated. The relevant portion of the comment begins at about 18:00.
When my son had leukemia he had mucocitis because of one of the chemo drugs he was on. This was diagnosed by a R.N. and his primary care giver at the time it was so bad he had to be hospitalized and he had to be given morphine. When he went for his visit with his oncologist she was upset with me and told me I was being subjective. And what proof did I have that it was mucositis so I gave her the proof again. Often when people are in denial they tend to make the opposing side’s arguments look subjective so they feel a little less guilty. The fact that babies are very much alive in the womb is objective. The fact that when they are killed they experience pain is objective. The way you feel about killing a defenseless baby is subjective.
There are about 10 core values that all advanced cultures profess to share. The differences are in how they order these values, and if they uphold what they profess to value.
For instance, one society might value honesty more highly than protecting life, or visa versa, but that does not negate the fact that both societies can agree that both honesty and upholding life are objective values that both support.
Lauren, if we say that “objective” means what has great commonality, then okay, but that’s really just circumstantial; the fact that such subjective opinions are really prevalent. It’s also not as simple as just “upholding life” or not. Plenty of times – war, legal execution, self-defense, legal abortion, etc., life is not necessarily upheld because some other desire takes precedence. It’s case-by-case.
There are also plenty of things about which some groups, countries, etc., think are “objectively right” while others think, “objectively wrong.”
Since there is a vast professed agreement across cultures, we can judge a society in how it upholds these values.
If, for example, a society professes to uphold the liberty of its inhabitants but acts in as a tyrant, we can comment on this discrepency.
If, instead, we embrace relativism, we can only look at how the society applies its values and shrug our shoulders at the results. Objectivism forces us to look to an agreed set of values and judge accordingly. It prevents us from degrading into cultural caos, though quite honestly the last 50 years have been quite the coup for relativism, leading to much of the problems we face today.
Well, we do embrace relativism – it’s just the way things work, here. In no way do we necessarily “shrug our shoulders” – some things we feel strongly about, as a world population, as countries, tribes, groups, families, etc., and as individuals. It’s always been that way.
Doug, since you base personhood on consciousness, wah is your definition of consciousness Does a fetus that tries to avoid the suction of an abortionist qualify as having a consciousness?
Ahoy, Truthseeker. It’s not that I base personhood on consciousness, i.e. that alone would not qualify. However, I do think it’s part and parcel of it. You could have a living human body, metabolism going on, but if there is no brain, no consciousness, then is that really a “person”? My opinion is that it’s not.
If a fetus is actually mentally aware, then I say there is some consciousness there. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think it’s reasonable to say that most fetuses get there sometime during the weeks in the 20’s. My opinion. Having sensations, thoughts, emotions – I’d say that’s being conscious.
Sure the unborn have intrinsic value. If the unborn do not have intrinsic value where does that leave humanity. The unborn actually should have more intrinsic value because of their dependance on “adults”.
Myrtle, no intrinsic value. Maybe they’re wanted and maybe they’re not. Different situations will have them valued in different ways. Not every pregnancy is wanted, and it leaves humanity right where it is – while many people want to have kids, not everybody does, and not every situation is right for having kids even if the people who are considering the situation would want to at a different time.
“It’s not intrinsic, though – it’s a position, it’s a point of view, it’s feelings. When the country was founded and when the Constitution was founded, there were plenty of Christians and Deists (the “Founding Fathers” were heavily Deist) and abortion was legal to a point in gestation.”
Keli: Okay, whoa. You did not just honestly appeal to the authority of the Founders to support a morally relative viewpoint did you? *rereads* You did. Okay…
No, I’m not appealing to it, but I note that some of the Founders did. I was replying to someone who brought up Christianity, and my point is that while there was a good bit of religion there in the 1700’s, abortion was legal before, during, and after the founding of the country and the writing of the Constitution. For that matter, huge numbers of Christians want abortion to be legal, certainly to a point in gestation, and huge numbers of Christians sometimes have unwanted pregnancies and choose to end them.
Some of the “Founding Fathers” did feel that their beliefs reflected objective morality, yes. I think you’ll always have that….
The Declaration of Independence was mainly telling England and King Georgie to go screw off. Nice language and memorable quotes, but nothing truly “intrinsic” there.
I see it as all the same thing, whether on their part, then, or on our part now. However, if we are to go with what they felt, then again – abortion was legal to a point in gestation, as it is now.
The fact that babies are very much alive in the womb is objective.
Myrtle, agreed. It’s physical reality. It’s independently verifiable, etc., it meets the definition of “objective.” No argument, there.
The fact that when they are killed they experience pain is objective.
?? No, because while eventually the unborn babies are far enough along in gestation for most of them to experience pain – I will agree with you on a 30 week fetus, say – most abortions take place before that is true – we don’t see any physical response, brainwave response, etc.
HI DOUG!! :)
HEY CARLA!! : D
“As for hating men, I have a boyfriend. He probably has more testosterone in his left nut than you do in your entire body.”
Alot of men who hate women are married. What does your using someone and calling him your boyfriend prove? Your statement above says so much about your maturity level and your true feelings about men. You are an embarrassment to my gender. Men, please don’t ever base any perception on women on the comments made by Ashallowgal. Thank goodness, she is in a very small league of immensely insecure ‘ladies’.
Doug,
A person who lives his life based on his own desires will sin a million times over in his lifetime. Do you believe in sin? How do you define sin?
Intrinsic value is not predicated on what other’s think or feel about it. There are great examples in history of people that had great pieces of art in their home and were oblivious to the fact. If you had a priceless vase in your home and used it to hold pigeon food in and put absolutely no value on it that would be your error. You would still have an item in your home that had intrinsic value. The unborn child has intrinsic value. And should be protected by procedural due process.
Doug said:
For that matter, huge numbers of Christians want abortion to be legal, certainly to a point in gestation, and huge numbers of Christians sometimes have unwanted pregnancies and choose to end them.
Doug, this is just not true. If you said huge numbers of people who call themselves Christians want abortion to be legal that “could” be true. But just cause huge numbers of people who call themselves Christians do something, that does not not mean it is Christian to do it. The example I gave you about Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit (who is the giver of life) is irrefutable from a Christian perspective. You can do all kinds of evil and call yourself Christian, but you can’t do all kinds of evil and “knowingly” act in ways opposed to Jesus life and teachings and “be” Christian. Knowingly is the key word there and the liberal mind can bend the truth, and even their reality, to suit there own self-serving agenda.
Oh and hey to you Doug. How are things in the beautiful Smokies?
FATHER TOM OF HLI–FATHER NORMAN WESLIN—AND
RANDALL TERRY——THE GREATEST PRO LIFE HEREOS
Doug-
I would think at the point of gestation that they have nerves they would be capable of feeling pain.
Ashley,
It isn’t about how feminine you look, or how much testosterone is produced by this or that gonad, or about your having been on TV, or how intellectual we fancy ourselves.
All of that will pass with the sands of time. You won’t be a highly sought after author/barbie doll forever.
What most endures is character and a loving, tender heart. Judging from your commentary on this thread, I’d say that you have your work cut out for you.
Nothing is more chilling than a woman who cares not that babies are slaughtered in the womb. It reveals the most fundamental break with human nature, the loss of maternal instinct.
Doug:
” ‘The fact that when they are killed they experience pain is objective.’
“?? No, because while eventually the unborn babies are far enough along in gestation for most of them to experience pain – I will agree with you on a 30 week fetus, say – most abortions take place before that is true – we don’t see any physical response, brainwave response, etc.”
Pain is ultimately the wrong argument here. It is wrong to kill a human organism at ANY stage of development, with any degree of cognitive faculty simply because of the KIND of thing it is: HUMAN.
However, the argument that says the late embryo/early fetus does not feel pain based on brainwave activity is DANGEROUSLY flawed from the scientific perspective.
How are we measuring brainwave activity??? How are we calibrating the instrumentation??
It’s simply wrong to look upon the early fetus with a set of neural expectations issuing from the reality of later fetuses. Our instruments may not be able to register the early fetuses milder intensity of brainwave activity, or pain may be registering in a different manner than we are currently configured to detect.
Brainwaves are just one more fiction invented by pro-aborts to assuage themselves of a guilty conscience.
It also says that we can do violence so long as the victim does not perceive it to be such, or feel it. The morality of an action is not predicated on whether the victim will suffer, but on the intrinsic evil contained within the action. Ultimately, the actor is the one who suffers the worst effects of their actions.
For example, ultimately Judas didn’t sell Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus wasn’t his to sell. What Judas did was sell himself out for those 30 coins, and then he destroyed himself.
Handpicked by God Himself, Judas sold himself awfully cheap.
It’s that way with abortion.
Dr.Nadal,
True the very fact that it’s a baby should be reason enough but if they don’t put enough value on themselves or women they might not put value on the baby. The purpose of an argument I would think is to convince and you can kind of judge the way a person writes what type of conscious they have or don’t have the way he writes I think he puts a lot on value on women and babies he just views an unborn baby as a little more abstract because he cannot see him/her. That’s why I brought up the subject of pain.
What I read was that all of the internal organs were present at 3 months and at 4 months the nerve cells were rapidly forming at the front part of the brain. I think the reason most individuals not all have or pressure an individual to have an abortion is because they just don’t want to grow up. Children take away from self and a lot of people can’t or won’t handle that. Also based on the way he wrote I thought he would understand intrinsic value. Those are still my observations.
Was the barbie-doll comment really necessary? Yeah, okay, Ashley shared her pictures to defend against accusations of man-hating hairy-legged lesbianism – I’ve shared pictures here before when a certain commenter kept relentlessly accusing me of being a post-op MTF. I shared them willingly, even to make a direct statement about my appearance, but I’d have been pretty hurt if someone took my pictures and turned them around into an accusation in and of themselves.
Ashley, I have a question for you, if you don’t mind – just because I’m curious about your thought process; I think we tend to be the opposite, where I’m kind of oblivious to who else is on my side as long as my own intellectual reasoning is sound, whereas you describe changing your mind because of the crazy fringe you saw on your own side. Do you think there is an equally crazy pro-choice fringe? Who do you think these people are/what are the points that make them the crazy fringe?
How is it you are offended by the barbie doll comment but say nothing about the left nut comment?
Please quit enabling strong women to remain in the helpless victim role.
Another way to put the barbie doll comment: Being young and attractive is both a blessing and a curse. You better have more depth to you because youth and good looks are fleeting. If looks (and the amount of testosterone you think someone has)is what you base your and others’ worth on, that shallowness will eventually come out — as it did with Ashley.
Sorry, Praxedes, I didn’t see a left-nut comment – I was just skimming the thread. Obviously I object to anyone commenting on anyone’s sex life, masculinity, femininity, or appearance. I do think that there is an often-nasty strain of criticising the appearance of pro-choice women here – they are either “manly lesbians” or “shallow barbie dolls,” depending on how they look, etc. It just tends to jump out at me precisely because it’s so unnecessary.
I am not enabling anyone to play any sort of role. I find much of what Ashley has said here to be absolutely unacceptable, on a personal level.
Yeah, the science is solid at this site. If the science doesn’t convince them them name calling sure won’t. And when Ashley cursed one time she was called out for it but Ken wasn’t. Name calling though has been addressed. And I probably shouldn’t have said I agree with that sentiment when Ken used expletives to describle his appreciation of Keli’s argument. It just makes me really happy when people with obvious intellect address the subject of life and do it so well. It’s because I think the unborn are worthy of defending and I find that apathy like enthusiam tends to be contagious.
Myrtle, Alexandra, Praxedes,
The barbie doll comment was deliberate and calibrated to match Ashley’s use of male genitalia as an attack on another male at this site. She’s a big girl, who has decided to cast off civility in exchange for full-contact sport. Her approach is one of imperiousness toward pro-lifers and she crossed the line.
As a male, I simply refuse to be bound by a double-standard which demands that sort of commentary on male anatomy by women not be reciprocated. That’s straight from the radical feminist playbook. It doesn’t wash with me. I certainly would never, ever, make reference to specific parts of female anatomy. However, the barbie doll comment was innocuous enough to respond in kind without being vulgar.
I am sorry if the comment was an occasion of offense to any of you. Such was not my intention, or characteristic of the respect that I have for women, having written about that respect only yesterday:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/15/women-respond-to-fatherlessness/
However, women such as Ashley should know that men increasingly refuse to sit for that sort of double-standard.
As for the critique of pro-choice women noted by Alexandra, I engage in none of that as a means of explaining their beliefs or putting them down. It’s irrelevant. The barbie doll comment was a shot across Ashley’s bow in response to her commentary on male anatomy as a means of putting down other men here. Not only was it necessary, Alexandra, but long overdue for Ashley. This was far from her first time at that sort of thing.
God Bless
Nice try with the story of the excommunicated nun, Ashley.
The bottom line with that story is that the woman did not require an on-the-spot abortion, lest she die. She could have been told that St. Joseph’s simply does not do abortions, period. Her husband could have transported her from St. Joseph’s to a nearby hospital for the ‘procedure’.
We’re talking about the city of Phoenix, with 1.5 million people in the city proper, and 4.5 million people in the metro area. The disingenuous part of the narrative is the implicit suggestion that St. Joseph’s is the only act in town.
Also, there are medications to treat pulmonary hypertension. These medications have the potential (though by no means certitude) of harming the baby. But then abortion isn’t exactly without risk for the child, eh?
The next lie is that the woman would have had to carry to term, where the risks are greatest to the mother. Medical management followed by C-section at 25 weeks would have allowed the baby a fighting chance in the NICU, and preserved the life of the mother.
One renegade nun, so many lies and half-truths.
The late great Robert Casey, former governor of Pennsylvania.
Along with John LaFalce and a few others, he was an old-time Democrat– pro working people, pro-unions, and pro-life.
There will never be another one like him.
I get what you’re saying, Gerard. There are two instances of name-calling in this debate that I’m particularly sensitive to, depending on who I’m talking to – accusations of “missionary position ONLY, anti-sex freaks” from pro-choicers towards pro-lifers, and accusations of man-hating hairy-leggedness (or, if the woman in question is too conventionally beautiful for this, accusations of shallow bimboheaded barbie-ness) from pro-lifers towards pro-choice women. They are often the go-to insult of choice for name-callers on either side, and having had experience on both sides, I have a hard time tolerating such laziness from people I otherwise consider intelligent. When I’m at a predominantly pro-choice venue, I jump all over people for the anti-sex-freak comments, because they’re unlikely to hear it from anyone else. At a pro-life site, someone like Ashley is getting plenty of grief from everyone else already. Other people – yourself included – have that covered.
I know that your comment wasn’t the same as, say, the commenters here who laugh at pictures of pro-choice protestors and remark that they’re pro-choice because they’re just fat, ugly, and jealous. Or the “which side has hotter women?” meme that went around for a while, complete with pictures. Or for that matter the commenter who repeatedly insisted I am actually a man in disguise (ha!). But it’s a bit too close to that kind of argument for me to feel comfortable with. Ashley’s comments are wrong on many levels, but dismissing her as a barbie doll dismisses lots of other women as well – even if your intent was just to point out the idiocy of such an argument. I have been dismissed as both “ugly” and “barbie-doll bimbo” myself, and it is rarely a productive argument. I think your points are strong enough to stand on their own, and are in fact stronger when they do stand on their own.
Ashley: Your reasons for changing sides aren’t particularly well-thought-out. It’s along the lines of an antebellum former abolitionist saying, “I was an abolitionist, but then that madman John Brown and his followers made me realize how insane other abolitionists were, so now I support slavery.”
There are several gay rights activsts who I think are disrespectful towards straight people, intellectual lightweights, or who support other causes that I don’t support. They didn’t make me decide that I don’t believe in gay rights.
To Whom It May Concern: Here we go again: not all prolifers are Catholics, or Republicans, or conservatives. I’m neither. I am Christian, but at the present time I don’t attend church because I have had some bad experiences with organized religion. I don’t hate gay people. Not all prolifers are against contraception. I’m certainly not. Never watched the Duggar show and they’re not heroes of mine. Reality shows in general are boring.
I am for population MANAGEMENT, not control. I’ve said many times on this blog that the best way to lower birth rates is to RAISE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF WOMEN. This means better educational, social, and economic opportunities (funding microbusinesses, for example).
So how is this being “anti-woman?”
Dr.Nadal
If the moms life is really at risk before the baby is viable are physicians required by law to do a C-Section? And if they are required to do a C-Section are they also required to do everything possible to save the babies life? And what medical conditions exist that would not permit carrying of the baby until 25 weeks? And because the pro-abort always play the sympathy card in your opinion when moms are shown genuine concern, that being real medical care provided, do you think the pro-aborts will lose serious ground? Sorry for so many questions.
Oh. My. Gosh.
Marissa is back with her amazing posts.
I truley enjoy reading them… they are so funny.
I wonder if she has ever considered a career in comedy?
Marissa could probably be the greatest women in the biz… of course, I’ve yet to see a truly funny female comedian, so it wouldn’t be much of a task.
I’m going to assume her posts are meant to be taken in an amusing way… why else would she post them?
I find the humor in her trying to argue this opinion she claims to have… doesn’t everyone else?
It’s a sick humor, don’t get me wrong…. kinda like joking about going on a murderous rampage and laughing, claiming you can understand why the murderer did it.
Oh… wait… that’s never really funny at all, is it?
Fair points, Gerard. I am not particularly bothered by personal attacks from people I disagree with, because all they do is turn others away from the intellectual argument behind them. It’s more crap to wade through to get to the things that might actually change minds, but aside from that all it does is make the person speaking look bad.
No one who called me manly, or then called me an airhead when I supplied a picture so that they could more accurately judge, has ever changed my mind. Someone who called me stupid did actually once change my mind in a way I did not think possible, but it took a VERY long time and a firmly patient mind for me to look past the insults.
Of course the real point is that it doesn’t matter whether Ashley is sporting a buzz cut and Birkenstocks, or whether she’s straight out of Barbie Fairytopia. Abortion should either be legal, or it shouldn’t be. Why distract from that conversation? I guess that’s the way I feel about it. I always liked Kumbaya best of all the campfire songs, though… ;)
hey Doug, {he and I really d0 go-back some way!)
He does seem mired in the same arguments though. Its so strange that for a person to espouse moral relativism by giving us the same arguments that ‘there are no truths’. There is an easy way to refute all moral-relativists. Just ask if their moral outlook is absolute …. true. If the answer is ‘yes’, then the answer itself defeats the concept ‘there is no moral truth.
Doug does seem to have hit upon two ‘problems’ which does seem ‘open’. The first is the ‘wanted/unwanted’ scenario…. or feelings. Its as if somehow feelings are fixed realities, as opposed to fleeting changeable realities. [As one who saw ‘WANTED :: DEAD OR ALIVE’ posters as a kid before ‘grass’ was marijuana, I know meanings change.]
On a more serious note it does recognize that there are indeed certain periods of depression within pregnancy (Dr. Patrick Dunn) that occurs for many (not all) women. Actively killing her offspring does not ‘solve’ these depressions. Its like killing a rapist to solve a rape.
The second problem is a phsiological one. Each side of this debate uses a process we call logic. The whole area of language and making distinguishing features between things … categories, etc. …. comes from a very small region of the left-hemisphere of our brain. If there is to be found a ‘oneness’ in human experience …a ‘oneness between male and female; between me and you; between wanted and unwanted; between us and our progeny; between adults and their inner-child/themselves, maybe just maybe , we should become more whole beings. Please see drjilltaylor.com
Alexandra,
You get the fire going and I’ll bring my guitar and marshmallows ;-)!!
You’re right on all counts. I’m taking myself to the woodshed now.
Hey Bethany,
Glad to see you. I’ll give a call, but figured the first several weeks are plenty hectic with a new baby. You’ve all been in my prayers.
Myrtle, I wrote this post today. Let me know if it doesn’t answer all of your questions:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/17/the-bishop-the-nun-the-mother-and-child/
God Bless
Janet: A person who lives his life based on his own desires will sin a million times over in his lifetime. Do you believe in sin? How do you define sin?
Janet, good question. I don’t believe in “original sin” or anything like that, but we certainly can do things for which we are very sorry later on. I think it’s a way of looking at an action, like there truly was not a good enough reason to do something or not do something. And it totally makes sense to me that some people say that abortion is a sin, thinking along those lines without any religious sense being necessarily invoked.
Not trying to be funny here, but also what came to mind is what I consider a very grave sin, that of going slow in the fast lane. And, horror of horrors, I’ve seen people take a glass of good red wine and add icecubes to it…. : (
Looking at “sin” as going against a “greater power” and trying for some universality, I personally don’t think there is a conscious God that we can sin against, but there are things against the laws in just about every country, things that pretty much everybody on earth thinks, “Yeah, that’s really bad.”
On desire – that’s still what motivates us, regardless of what we attribute it to. You still do or try to do what you want the most, or that which you have the least distaste for, from among your available options. True whether one says it’s because God wants them to do it, the law says they should do it, etc.
Myrtle: Intrinsic value is not predicated on what other’s think or feel about it. There are great examples in history of people that had great pieces of art in their home and were oblivious to the fact. If you had a priceless vase in your home and used it to hold pigeon food in and put absolutely no value on it that would be your error. You would still have an item in your home that had intrinsic value. The unborn child has intrinsic value. And should be protected by procedural due process.
Myrtle, I’m saying there is no such thing as intrinsic value in the first place. If “nobody” wanted the vase, then just what real “intrinsic value” is there? Nothing – there has to be “somebody” desiring something in the first place, somebody doing the valuation.
I understand how you feel about the unborn, but somebody else could say there is more intrinsic value in the woman being free to end an unwanted pregnancy if she has one. I don’t agree with either position, there, but once again it’s a matter of opinion.
Truthseeker: If you said huge numbers of people who call themselves Christians want abortion to be legal that “could” be true. But just cause huge numbers of people who call themselves Christians do something, that does not not mean it is Christian to do it.
Hey TS. You’re going to have different opinions, even among Christians. And who among Christians professes to act “perfectly” all the time anyway? Nobody, right?
I’m not very up on it, but I’ve seen arguments made based upon the biblical valuation of life in the Old Testament, arguments to the effect that the biblical God in no way wanted every unborn life to continue. On Jesus in the Bible, it seems very farfetched that if he was against abortion, he would have neglected to address it.
Gerard: Pain is ultimately the wrong argument here. It is wrong to kill a human organism at ANY stage of development, with any degree of cognitive faculty simply because of the KIND of thing it is: HUMAN.
Hi Gerard. Well, somebody else brought it up, and we’ve argued it a lot in the past here. I disagree with you on the “simply wrong,” deal. We have plenty of people on earth already, and it’s not just about numbers here, always more, more, more, to the exclusion of all else. I agree that the unborn are “human,” but that alone isn’t enough that we should forbid women from ending unwanted pregnancies, early enough in gestation – my opinion.
However, the argument that says the late embryo/early fetus does not feel pain based on brainwave activity is DANGEROUSLY flawed from the scientific perspective. How are we measuring brainwave activity??? How are we calibrating the instrumentation?? It’s simply wrong to look upon the early fetus with a set of neural expectations issuing from the reality of later fetuses. Our instruments may not be able to register the early fetuses milder intensity of brainwave activity, or pain may be registering in a different manner than we are currently configured to detect.
I’d say that modern technology has long been able to detect brainwaves, even “faint” ones. Is anything registering, consciously, in the unborn at X weeks of gestation? It’s a question.
Brainwaves are just one more fiction invented by pro-aborts to assuage themselves of a guilty conscience.
Heh. I’d say it’s more accurate to say that anti-choicers have to spin things so far from provable reality since their position is weak in the beginning – they can claim such things as fetal pain before we can detect it, but that’s hardly enough to forbid the undeniably conscious woman from ending her unwanted pregnancy.
It also says that we can do violence so long as the victim does not perceive it to be such, or feel it. The morality of an action is not predicated on whether the victim will suffer, but on the intrinsic evil contained within the action. Ultimately, the actor is the one who suffers the worst effects of their actions.
You can say anything, but again – you’ve no proof of any intrinsic value, morality, etc. It’s just your opinion against other people’s, and when it’s you against the pregnant woman, I’m usually going to go with what she wants, not what you want.
John McD! A big hug for you, my friend!
He does seem mired in the same arguments though. Its so strange that for a person to espouse moral relativism by giving us the same arguments that ‘there are no truths’. There is an easy way to refute all moral-relativists. Just ask if their moral outlook is absolute …. true. If the answer is ‘yes’, then the answer itself defeats the concept ‘there is no moral truth.
I would say that there are no external truths in the moral realm. Even looking at a God or gods or other “higher” beings than us earthly humans, they too could have their desires and opinions about all the good/bad/right/wrong of things.
I’d also say that there are plenty of truths. It’s true that you think certain things, that I do, that most of us do, etc. Yet when the frequent logical fallacies of appealing to this authority or that begin, it’s always without proof, and person A can claim they are relating “objective truth” and it’s at odds with what person B claims.
What really *is* true is that they are having their say, regardless of them ascribing it to entities which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.
_______
Doug does seem to have hit upon two ‘problems’ which does seem ‘open’. The first is the ‘wanted/unwanted’ scenario…. or feelings. It’s as if somehow feelings are fixed realities, as opposed to fleeting changeable realities.
John, I doubt we’ll uncover anything new here – but I’m tremendously pleased to see you posting.
Back when I was a teenager, I didn’t think much about this debate, and felt vaguely like, “Well if you didn’t want to get pregnant then you should have prevented it.”
20 years went by, and I got a computer and started arguing online. And I more felt like, “What does it really hurt if a given woman has an abortion?” If there will be one less birth in the coming year? Is it enough to make it against the law?
_______
On “oneness” – I think the best way to go is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that way most of us are going to be fine with things. And of course in reality there are still going to be lots of them, and the debate continues….
On Jesus in the Bible, it seems very farfetched that if he was against abortion, he would have neglected to address it.
Posted by: Doug at May 17, 2010 11:05 PM
Doug, Are you being for real or just trying to provoke a response? You’d have to be really really liberaly minded to bend your reality that far because there is no part of Jesus’ life and teachings that would support you thinking Jesus would condone a woman “killing” her baby. It would be like saying that Jesus was for war because he never specifically spoke against it. ugh!
Truthseeker, the question would be if Jesus thought of the unborn as a “child,” etc. I’m not just trying to provoke you, and I said I’m not really up on that….
In the Bible, does Jesus never say anything against war?
Beyond that, given the vast number of things addressed in the Mosaic Law, it does seem farfetched that the God of the Bible would have been against abortion yet not mention it.
Doug, Jesus never specifically addressed pedophilia. Are we to conclude that he was “for” it?
Janet: A person who lives his life based on his own desires will sin a million times over in his lifetime. Do you believe in sin? How do you define sin?
“Janet, good question. I don’t believe in “original sin” or anything like that, but we certainly can do things for which we are very sorry later on. I think it’s a way of looking at an action, like there truly was not a good enough reason to do something or not do something. And it totally makes sense to me that some people say that abortion is a sin, thinking along those lines without any religious sense being necessarily invoked.”
Doug @ 10:50,
Are you saying we can’t identify a sin except in hindsight?
My two picks would be Angele(Baby Rowan’s mother) And Sycloria Williams (Baby shanice’s mother) Marissa, You truly do not have any feeling what so ever! So what Dr. Renelique did was not wrong? Lieving a living baby to die and he knowing helped cover it up? You Abortionist Pigs have hearts of stone, Go ahead and give praise to your god Abortion, and give praise to bail, but in the end the plans of satan will be brought to nothing! Well did Sycloria williams speak of you pigs when she said the abortionist didn’t tell her it was a baby! And your Racist coments make want to vomit!
“I would say that there are no external truths in the moral realm.”
You Doug (and most moral relativists) still do not see the fault in logic in this statement. You cannot say that there are no moral truths. This is an absolute statement saying there are no absolutes. Like … huh?
All you can say are that you have not found any of these truths, yet. Such a statement does not discount that there may indeed be some. These are ‘outside’ your experience.
‘What really *is* true is that they are having their say, regardless of them ascribing it to entities which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.” I assume that this remark is geared toward Christians who profess Jesus is Truth. It is valid that we have wandered into the realm of faith here and that personal interpretation does make this seem like a multiplicity. Until a Christian also espouses God and he/he are one. Then this ‘objective’ thought does not seem like a trip into fantasy land.
” And I more felt like, “What does it really hurt if a given woman has an abortion?” If there will be one less birth in the coming year? Is it enough to make it against the law? ”
Well Doug you might not have learned much in those 29 years mainly, I guess because you presume (falsely) that others view an objective/scientific world the same way that you do. You are locked into a perception that ha been called the Cartesian-box.
In it reality (especially moral reality (and its attachments like God) are intricate figments of an active imagination. These are just fantasies (as far as you espouse) but desires are real..
“On “oneness” – I think the best way to go is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that way most of us are going to be fine with things. And of course in reality there are still going to be lots of them, and the debate continues….
Posted by: Doug at May 17, 2010 11:45 PM
——————————-
Doug, you obviously do not understand. Please go to the site http://www.drjilltaylor.com . Reflect about what she has experienced. Our so-called ‘logic’ is solidified into its own Cartesian box. It is natural and a thought process (emanating from the right hemisphere) that we are ‘one’.
How do we know that ‘objective reality’ exists as a personified being and is not a mere dream. Well I guess, the only thorough refute of dream-state is pain. A swift kick in the groin should be enough to convince anyone about the truth that objective reality exists.
These are seemingly trite concepts to many ‘average’ people. They are not trite to many disabled folk like me. We know first-hand on how our disability intrudes on our choosing. We are not stuck in our isolation, but are “in” or ‘have oneness’ with each other.
It also may be the platform from which to reconcile the fear we have of the ‘other-side’.
Doug-
Google intrinsic value. I cannot see intrinsic value in a woman killing her baby. I can see the beauty of choice though. As a human choice is good choosing what kind of coffee you drink, what kind of car you drive, what shirt you want to wear. I believe as a woman that women like men should have choices. But to choose to kill your baby or any baby is murder. It violates the spirit of true choice because it interferes with the babies choices.
“I would say that there are no external truths in the moral realm.”
John McD: You Doug (and most moral relativists) still do not see the fault in logic in this statement. You cannot say that there are no moral truths. This is an absolute statement saying there are no absolutes. Like … huh?
John, you’re presuming that we are insisting on the proof of a negative, and that’s not so. I’ve said plenty of times that there are plenty of moral truths – but it’s always in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what entity we’re considering. My point is that there always has to be “somebody” to desire this or that, or else there would be no morality, period.
____
All you can say are that you have not found any of these truths, yet. Such a statement does not discount that there may indeed be some. These are ‘outside’ your experience.
We’d have to have some proof of such, to start with. What we have are various people insisting that their way is the “right way,” and they claim it’s because it comes from that “outside,” you mention. And it’s always without proof. Well hey, anybody can say that.
Meanwhile, again – what we have is different people having their say. Fine and dandy, but it’s one thing to say, “This is what I want and here’s why…” and another to say, “This is what I want because of (stuff I maintain is external moral truth even though I can’t prove it).
____
“‘What really *is* true is that they are having their say, regardless of them ascribing it to entities which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.”
I assume that this remark is geared toward Christians who profess Jesus is Truth. It is valid that we have wandered into the realm of faith here and that personal interpretation does make this seem like a multiplicity. Until a Christian also espouses God and he/he are one. Then this ‘objective’ thought does not seem like a trip into fantasy land.
It’s all the same thing, Christian or not.
____
” And I more felt like, “What does it really hurt if a given woman has an abortion?” If there will be one less birth in the coming year? Is it enough to make it against the law? ”
Well Doug you might not have learned much in those 29 years mainly, I guess because you presume (falsely) that others view an objective/scientific world the same way that you do. You are locked into a perception that ha been called the Cartesian-box.
John, don’t you agree that we are separate individuals talking here? There are objective things, sure, but morality is not one of them, by definition. A thing that is scientifically true is one thing, and somebody saying “good/bad/right/wrong” in the moral realm is another.
On the “Cartesian box,” there are people who have the need to believe in things that cannot be proven. They are a segment of humanity, but I am looking at what is true for all of us, not just what some of us want to believe.
Bethany: Doug, Jesus never specifically addressed pedophilia. Are we to conclude that he was “for” it?
No, Bethany, not saying that. I’m also not saying that in the Bible Jesus was “for abortion.” Yet in biblical times, people did have abortions, and as far as I know, Jesus never addresses abortion in the Bible.
Janet: A person who lives his life based on his own desires will sin a million times over in his lifetime. Do you believe in sin? How do you define sin?
“Janet, good question. I don’t believe in “original sin” or anything like that, but we certainly can do things for which we are very sorry later on. I think it’s a way of looking at an action, like there truly was not a good enough reason to do something or not do something. And it totally makes sense to me that some people say that abortion is a sin, thinking along those lines without any religious sense being necessarily invoked.”
Are you saying we can’t identify a sin except in hindsight?
No, J – nothing more need be involved that not wanting a thing to occur, and saying, “If this happend then it will be a sin.”
Hey Doug,
“John, don’t you agree that we are separate individuals talking here? There are objective things, sure, but morality is not one of them, by definition. A thing that is scientifically true is one thing, and somebody saying “good/bad/right/wrong” in the moral realm is another. ‘ And then yo make reference go the ‘Cartesian box’ ….
The whole ‘newness about what Dr. Taylor’s (at http://www.drjilltaylor.com ) experience was that her left-hemisphere/rational-side of her brain was shut down by a stroke that was killing her. Hers were then only had pure right-brain hemisphere experiences. [ Concepts such as ‘separateness’ is as much defined as reality by our left-brain influence.] The notion that we are separate beings is totally an interpretation of reality that is imposed upon us by our left-brain hemisphere (actually by a 2 cm-strip known as our language centre). Much about what is good/bad may be (like most distinctions) come from here too!
The ‘Cartesian box’ thing is a way to describe your thinking pattern and apply this process into other areas. It is very difficult to intellectually refute this as anything more than an option. One can (from the safety of our heads) say that life is only a dream. One of the very few convincing things that realty (especially moral reality) is NOT a dream is the shock/experience of pain.
No, Bethany, not saying that.
I’m also not saying that in the Bible Jesus was “for abortion.”
Well, then what are you saying?
Yet in biblical times, people did have abortions, and as far as I know, Jesus never addresses abortion in the Bible.
Well, in Biblical times, there was pedophilia, and as far as I know, Jesus never specifically addresses pedophilia in the Bible.
What is the conclusion, Doug?
John, I’ve heard what Jill Taylor has to say – from “long ago” when you mentioned it. I hear you on the right-brain stuff, but how does that actually apply to us in the here and now? We, to varying degrees, are a mixture of both right and left, there.
If you mean that we are all more “one” than most of us commonly perceive, then the question remains about when the unborn would be in the group.
____
The ‘Cartesian box’ thing is a way to describe your thinking pattern and apply this process into other areas. It is very difficult to intellectually refute this as anything more than an option. One can (from the safety of our heads) say that life is only a dream. One of the very few convincing things that realty (especially moral reality) is NOT a dream is the shock/experience of pain.
As far as Descartes, the “Morality comes from God” idea is right in the zone – just like scooting along the X axis. Or the Y axis, for that matter. ; )
Dreams can feature pain as real in perceived intensity as that which we can feel in what I’m assuming is our non-dream state.
“Moral reality” is in the eye of the beholder. Some people “feel” moral pain about a given action or inaction, but others may not or do not. Depends on what the person in question wants.
“Yet in biblical times, people did have abortions, and as far as I know, Jesus never addresses abortion in the Bible.”
Well, in Biblical times, there was pedophilia, and as far as I know, Jesus never specifically addresses pedophilia in the Bible. What is the conclusion, Doug?
Bethany, I don’t know that pedophilia was permitted, nor do I know the incidence rate. We do know that people had abortions back then, and even thousands of years earlier.
If you can make a case that pedophilia was seen as okay by society, then I guess the comparison is valid.
“I don’t know that pedophilia was permitted, nor do I know the incidence rate. We do know that people had abortions back then, and even thousands of years earlier.”
But did society accept abortion back then? If so, by how much? Were 1/3 of women aborting back then? Even if it abortion had a 100% acceptance rate, this doesn’t prove it is a moral choice.
Jesus does stress the Golden Rule in the Bible. Do you believe in this Rule?
Unless you want to be sucked apart, cut apart or injected with saline solution until you die, you shouldn’t do it or promote it be done to any of your fellow human beings even if you don’t believe fetuses can feel pain like you can.
I don’t believe you can feel some of the pain I do but I sure don’t advocate aborting you.
Don’t you think it’s time to step out of the fog and into the Light?
Bethany, I don’t know that pedophilia was permitted, nor do I know the incidence rate.
And yet, somehow you are able to determine whether abortion was permissible from that time, and you know the incidence rate? Please.
We do know that people had abortions back then, and even thousands of years earlier.
As we know about pedophilia….
“John, I’ve heard what Jill Taylor has to say – from “long ago” when you mentioned it. I hear you on the right-brain stuff, but how does that actually apply to us in the here and now?”
We do not (often-enough) accept much of what the right-brain ‘says’ about reality. First -off all reality is beyond what we commonly identify as ‘self’ (an almost total left-rain rational function). Somehow you equate all that exists with the aspect of desires. However desires are the transition between non-possession and possession. A person stops desiring once the object has been obtained.
Many folks, like Carla believe the non-possession phase to be presented as a fraud …..her regrets then are about accepting the falsehood that so-called choice is anything but truthful.
Such assessment may not be of importance to you and those-who-abort but it sure is to Carla and many others. This is deciding whether ignorance (not knowing) is bliss or is knowing better/best. Is confusion (and acting upon confusion) better, Doug? Is ignorance somehow better because it is preferred/chosen? Why?
A wee mental thingy …. the input of the right brain allows for you (or anyone) to identify with another human. Having an abortion produces many victims … the ‘choice’ while seemingly favoring a distressed victim actually creates multi moral victims … and you are on oh them, according to your own right-brain. The act of choice is an attempt to lobotomize and alienate all contra-voices. Does it? Should it?
Doug, just thought of this last night: there is little doubt that Christian mysticism stating with St. john’s gospel is replete with such ‘oneness’ concepts as ‘being one in’ etc. Are there any non-religious examples? I saw this tv show on Long John Baldrey. His music influence many peers and many of the next generation of British pop musicians.
He at one time, got in some trouble. The argument that absolved him is intriguing because it breaks down to the ‘oneness’ aspect of the right hemisphere vs the separational, common-sense/status-quo opinions of the left-brain. Is there a truth – because the right-brain perceived a unity despite a perceived difference?
Do PC choose only left-brain logic because it absolves the unative activity of the right-brain that would make these pregnant ladies to be one with her offspring and the PL’ers?