by LauraLoo
On June 17th President Obama showed he had the knack to quiet a crying baby.
Too bad he can’t translate that knack to his voting record and personal beliefs – that all babies have the right to be knitted by God until they are ready to be born.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPtEGOp5rI[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: WLSam.com]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So adorable!! I love this man
I agree. The baby is adorable!!
Obama’s favorite way to quiet them is to leave them in a utility closet. Baby is cute but I have so much disdain for that man.
Oh please, obama has never left a baby in a utilities closet, and would not support anyone doing so.
Good grief.
What singles Obama out for “love” in a way not deserved by most human beings, who are naturally attracted to infants?
Seriously, Jane, it’s as if anything he does that’s merely normal is taken by his witless fans as evidence that he’s beyond normal — an exceeding special person, dare I say a lightworker.
Which reminds me, are we likely to see any more creepy Dear Leader singing children videos adoring The One, this campaign cycle?
“Oh, what an adorable little punishment,” Obama must be thinking. (Remember, he did say that babies were punishments during his campaign.)
Also, Jane, he has supported doing leaving infants to die in utility closets. Ever hear of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?
Lest we forget….Obama would have totally supported the mother killing that precious girly when she was in utero.
in no way would I let this man near any of my children…especially if they were crying.
Too bad, Lee. His policies are turning your children into fiscal slaves of the state. Each month the news gets worse.
Hope and Change!
But wait, pro-choicers . . . why should I be forced to support anyone other than myself? I thought radical personal autonomy was the highest value? Then why is it, I ask, that pro-choicers are uniformly communitarian leftists who think someone else’s taxes ought to pay for everything? Shouldn’t they be tea partiers?
The right wants to push grandma off a cliff! No, but if we adopted the pro-choice view we’d be under no obligation whatsoever to stop her wheelchair if it was rolling in that direction. A universal application of a pro-choice ethic, in other words, could respect human rights 100% (with the exception of the unborn) — and end up being utterly inhuman.
I saw this picture on-line somewhere else, too. It made me sick. What a PHONY “photo op” it is!
Well, really, all presidential encounters with the public are to a great extent phony. Anyone you see a president ever even near, has been screened, wanded, and background checked by the Secret Service.
It’s difficult to fault presidents as presidents for the nature of their bizarre cocoon.
(Remember, he did say that babies were punishments during his campaign.)
He said this during a discussion about the need for comprehensive sex education:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information”
For a teenager, a pregnancy and baby is not a blessed event. Unprotected sex, as a result of lack of information about birth control, can lead to a pregancy and for a teenager, that’s a punishment.
CC, babies are always gifts and blessings regardless of the circumstances of their conception. Just ask my stepsister, who is now the proud mama of a new baby boy, thanks to an incredibly generous birth mother. My mother told me that the baby has three potential fathers, so obviously the circumstances of his conception weren’t the greatest. However, despite the negative circumstances of his conception, his mother chose not to kill him, and instead gave our family one of the greatest gifts we have ever received.
Thank you for confirming that Obama did indeed call babies — specifically, his own hypothetical grandchildren — punishments. It shows just what kind of a man he is.
“No, but if we adopted the pro-choice view we’d be under no obligation whatsoever to stop her wheelchair if it was rolling in that direction.”
Really? When was the last time that a pro-choicer advocated murdering the elderly? If you’re talking about assisted suicide, that’s actually legal in some parts of the world. It’s all about personal choice.
“pro-choicers are uniformly communitarian leftists who think someone else’s taxes ought to pay for everything”
Right, we support tax payer funded programs for the “post-born” - ”welfare” that helps young mothers and families without which they would be begging in the street. We support education programs for teen mom without which they would be school drop outs with no future. We support programs for the disabled. Many of those on the board of our local and world renowed Hasbro Childrens Hospital are also connected to Planned Parenthood. We support a decent living wage so that parents can support their children. We support a strong safety net which cannot be provided by private funds or churches many of which are closing their doors as we speak. We believe in helping both pregnant women and women who have given birth. As a pro-lifer, I would expect that you would too. If you think that my work with abused children and frail elderly was “stealing” the taxpayers money, it says a lot about your pro-life philosophy!
“CC, babies are always gifts and blessings regardless of the circumstances of their conception”
You obviously never worked for Child Protective Services. I have. To say that babies are always gifts is the height of naiveté. If children were blessings, we wouldn’t have the need for therapy that, sadly, we do. Not all parents love their babies. I know it’s difficult for you to understand but not every baby story ends happily ever after.
BTW, I don’t like children which is why I’ve been blissfully child free. I knew that if a did what society once expected, I would have been a terrible mother so I chose not to reproduce. My body, by choice.
But I do note something interesting in that all the talk is about how abortion is “killing.” But that means that the woman having the abortion is a “killer.” But rather than go there, you work around it by alleging that all women are coerced into abortions. Thus, the act is separated from the actor. Intersting…
I pray daily for President Obama to have a Saul of Tarsus experience and be truly transformed to a man who would instead of promoting and embracing the “right to choose” to kill this same baby in utero and leaving it in a soiled utility closet to die, he would embrace this baby’s right to life whether preborn and born, planned or unplanned, “wanted or unwanted” (I believe every baby is wanted by someone). May God help Mr. Obama, his wife, his daughters and the United States of America.
It’s a good thing he has this talent: there are going to be a lot of crying babies in the GOP around Inauguration Day 2013.
You obviously never worked for Child Protective Services. I have. To say that babies are always gifts is the height of naiveté. If children were blessings, we wouldn’t have the need for therapy that, sadly, we do. Not all parents love their babies. I know it’s difficult for you to understand but not every baby story ends happily ever after.
If someone gives you a car and instead of using it for its intended purpose (getting to your job to provide for your family, and so forth), you go out and wreck it, set it on fire, and leave it as a hunk of melted, twisted steel – does that mean that the car itself was not given to you as a blessing? Or does that mean you simply abused what was intended and given as a blessing?
CC, a baby’s worth and value is not determined by how much someone loves him/her. Regardless, are THOUSANDS of potential adoptive families who do love those babies, would love to have them in their homes, and do consider them gifts and blessings regardless of the circumstances of their conceptions.
I’m so sorry you feel your worth is hinged on if someone loves you or not. Do you believe that all human beings who aren’t loved by anyone should die, or does your opinion only apply to the unborn?
“If someone gives you a car and instead of using it for its intended purpose (getting to your job to provide for your family, and so forth), you go out and wreck it, set it on fire, and leave it as a hunk of melted, twisted steel – does that mean that the car itself was not given to you as a blessing? Or does that mean you simply abused what was intended and given as a blessing?”
It may have been intended as a gift, but from the perspective of society, at least, it certainly was no blessing. Some people shouldn’t drive, like irresponsible drinkers, and some people shouldn’t have children. When they do, and when they fail, it’s society that suffers and picks up the tab. I don’t accept any material thing, including infants, as an unqualified blessing or gift.
It may have been intended as a gift, but from the perspective of society, at least, it certainly was no blessing. Some people shouldn’t drive, like irresponsible drinkers, and some people shouldn’t have children. When they do, and when they fail, it’s society that suffers and picks up the tab. I don’t accept any material thing, including infants, as an unqualified blessing or gift.
Is it your opinion that society should therefore take action against those people who it deems “shouldn’t” have children?
Oh, WAIT, I forgot who I was talking to. This is joan, the person who believes the Chinese government is doing just fine with their one-child policy and forced abortions, and that women in China suffering from forced abortions knew they were breaking the rules by getting pregnant, so it’s really THEIR fault.
An infant isn’t a “thing.” An infant is a human being who has a right to live, whether the parents are irresponsible or not. The perceived irresponsibility of the parents has no bearing on the worth of their child. You cannot predict what or who that child will become. Keep talking, joan. Your eugenic roots are showing.
“who do love those babies, would love to have them in their homes, and do consider them gifts and blessings regardless of the circumstances of their conceptions”
Problem is that many children die or are very damaged before they get to these halcyon homes. And why should a woman, who doesn’t want a child, produce one just for these people who want them. That relegates women to breeding status – rather like what happened on the old plantations.
“If someone gives you a car and instead of using it for its intended purpose”
A pregnancy isn’t something that’s given to you. You do it for yourself. You can’t make a car. And if you don’t want a car because you know that you are a bad driver, you can get rid of it.
A pregnancy isn’t something that’s given to you. You do it for yourself.
You participate in the act of sex which can lead to pregnancy, but you cannot force yourself to conceive. Just ask millions of infertile women.
And why should a woman, who doesn’t want a child, produce one just for these people who want them.
If she’s pregnant, she’s already PRODUCED (with the help of a man’s sperm, of course) a child. It’s called rePRODUCtion. The child, if not hindered through natural causes or abortion, will continue to develop until birth (and of course, after birth).
Has abortion solved our problem of abused children or abusive households? Will it, at some future point, solve those problems?
And if you don’t want a car because you know that you are a bad driver, you can get rid of it.
And the question is – will you “get rid” of that car by smashing it up, burning it, and tearing it to smithereens so that no one else can ever make use of it, or will you present it, in tact and whole and in good condition, to someone who is a “good driver” in your opinion and fit to care for said vehicle?
“Problem is that many children die or are very damaged before they get to these halcyon homes.”
So those of us who were unwanted and abused as children are… better off dead? You can deal with being abused, you can’t deal with dying.
CC: Geez . . . you sure know how to walk into a reductio — like planting your face into a wall.
Thank you for establishing my point about pro-choice hypocrisy so expertly, while risibly imagining you were inferring something about me.
“Has abortion solved our problem of abused children or abusive households? Will it, at some future point, solve those problems?”
Fewer potentially abused children.
“So those of us who were unwanted and abused as children are… better off dead? You can deal with being abused, you can’t deal with dying”
No, not at all. Obviously, we shouldn’t restrict a woman’s right to have a child. But at the same time, we shouldn’t restrict her right to terminate a pregnancy which, for some, is the best possible outcome.
“Fewer potentially abused children.”
So my parents should have aborted me? I should be dead instead of being a survivor of a bad childhood? What about the millions of other people who were abused as children. You think they should have been killed too?
“will you “get rid” of that car by smashing it up, burning it, and tearing it to smithereens so that no one else can ever make use of it, or will you present it, in tact and whole and in good condition, to someone who is a “good driver” in your opinion and fit to care for said vehicle”
That’s up to the person with the car.
Carla says:
June 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Lest we forget….Obama would have totally supported the mother killing that precious girly when she was in utero.
Hi Carla. Not just Obama, but many people who love the little babies also support legal abortion.
“So my parents should have aborted me? I should be dead instead of being a survivor of a bad childhood?”
Your mother gave birth to you. I don’t know if was pre or post Roe so I don’t know if she had a choice. I don’t know your specific circumstances and even if I did, I would not presume to say that your mother should have had an abortion. But for some women, abortion is the best outcome. But for babies born to abused or psychiatrically impaired women, it’s up to society to assist that woman or, if that’s not possible, terminate her custody. That’s where it gets tricky. If the child is also impaired, it’s a lot harder to get foster or adoptive parents. But still, we try.
“Although abortion advocates have proposed otherwise, the number of child abuse cases in the United States has actually increased since Roe v Wade, from 167,000 in 1973 to 1.22 million in 1996. A study of 674 battered children, conducted by Edward Lenoski of the University of California, found that 91% of the children were the result of planned pregnancies, compared to only 63% of the control group. In short, there is no evidence that aborting unplanned pregnancies reduces child abuse.” Source: http://secularprolife.org/files/abortion_by_the_numbers.pdf
You were saying, CC?
“Not just Obama, but many people who love the little babies also support legal abortion.”
As I noted, earlier. Many of those, in my community, who support the great Hasbro Hospital for Children are also Planned Parenthood supporters. Many pro-choice clergy are connected with social service agencies which help poor parents.
“Has abortion solved our problem of abused children or abusive households? Will it, at some future point, solve those problems?”
Fewer potentially abused children.
And also fewer potentiallly non-abused children. Unless you’re claiming that those who abort are unfit parents?
“Your mother gave birth to you. I don’t know if was pre or post Roe so I don’t know if she had a choice. I don’t know your specific circumstances and even if I did, I would not presume to say that your mother should have had an abortion. But for some women, abortion is the best outcome.”
You don’t presume to say that my mother should have aborted me, but yet you argue that the way to help lessen child abuse is abortion? That doesn’t make any sense. I was born 15 years after Roe, and all my five older siblings were born after Roe too. Your argument basically states that the world would be a better place if we hadn’t been born, if you are really arguing that abortion is the way to save children from being abused.
Sorry, didn’t see your edit. Yes, society should step in to help children and women in abusive situations. Legalized killing of the children, however, isn’t a valid measure to be taken.
“will you “get rid” of that car by smashing it up, burning it, and tearing it to smithereens so that no one else can ever make use of it, or will you present it, in tact and whole and in good condition, to someone who is a “good driver” in your opinion and fit to care for said vehicle”
That’s up to the person with the car.
Then let’s not pretend that both results are equally good. And let’s also note that one of those actions is wholly selfish and destructive.
You seem to be saying in your posts that we should trust that people know if they’re going to be abusive parents, and therefore we should allow – or even encourage – them to kill their children to keep from abusing them. Is that correct?
“You were saying, CC?”
Right - data from an anti-choice source. One of the reasons why the child abuse caseload has increased since the early 70’s is that the reporting of child abuse has increased. Teachers and those who work with children are more trained to be alert to signs of abuse which in past times would have been ignored. There is also more acceptance, by society, of the existence of sexual abuse which, in times past, was never talked about. In the “good old days,” if a child were abused by a family member, they might have been punished if they said anything. If another family observed it, it was difficult for them to get in touch with authorities who might or might not persue the case. Since the 70’s abuse reporting hotlines are readily available and publicized extensively. Children are taught about “bad touch.” There is a much stronger mechanism in place for reporting and follow up of sexual abuse. In the early 70’s, child protective services were meager; but now they are fully functioning albeit with huge caseloads. To blame increase in child abuse on Roe is truly specious and unfounded considering all the variables.
HI Hal,
I thought I would comment on the video shown. You know. Obama, Michelle and a crying baby.
I am well aware of all other proaborts that would have supported the mother ending the life of her little girly before she was born.
And you thought I forgot you all or something?? :)
Fixed your sentence for you. You are welcome.
Not just Obama, but many people who love the little babies also support the killing of the little babies.
But for some women, abortion is the best outcome.
You would not presume to say that Jack’s mother should have aborted him, but you’re also neglecting to notice that with women for whom you believe “abortion is the best outcome,” there are also preborn children involved, just like Jack.
But for babies born to abused or psychiatrically impaired women, it’s up to society to assist that woman or, if that’s not possible, terminate her custody.
It’s not just about “assisting the woman.” If you remove a child from her custody, you are assisting the CHILD. Abortion does not assist the child.
“There is also more acceptance, by society, of the existence of sexual abuse which, in times past, was never talked about. In the “good old days,” if a child were abused by a family member, they might have been punished if they said anything.”
You are aware that child sexual abuse is still very underreported, especially when the victims are male, right? It has certainly improved, but society has a hell of a long way to go.
And those statistics weren’t blaming Roe for the increase in reported child abuse, they were showing that your claim that abortion lessens the likelihood of abuse isn’t founded.
CC: ” But for babies born to abused or psychiatrically impaired women, it’s up to society to assist that woman or, if that’s not possible, terminate her custody.”
Why?
Why would “society” have any more obligation to such women than a woman is obliged to have to her unborn child?
“In the early 70?s, child protective services were meager; but now they are fully functioning albeit with huge caseloads.”
It’s not the size of the caseloads, its the funding to turn those loads over that’s at issue. My own organization had to let 60 caseworkers go because state funding dried up. And it will continue to stay dry because the state is in thrall to economically suicidal left-of-center politics.
And endemic corruption.
There, you’ve guessed the state. ;-)
Hi Carla. Not just Obama, but many people who love the little babies also support legal abortion.
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, but only if you arrive at such time I deem “right.”
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace (not so much).
I love thee to the level of everyday’s
Most quiet need, unless my “need” is to get you out of sight.
I love thee freely, unless my pregnancy causes tension or fights;
I love thee sometimes, when I’m feeling generous.
I love myself with a passion which often causes
great griefs, but narcissism is the norm these days.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
each time I snuffed out a life, — I love thee, but
I’m the most important one in my life! — and, if I so choose,
I shall but love thee better after your death.
And those statistics weren’t blaming Roe for the increase in reported child abuse, they were showing that your claim that abortion lessens the likelihood of abuse isn’t founded.
Yep.
Kel,
Did you write that?
CC, can you demonstrate that the cited statistics are false?
Oh, I just tweaked Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poem a tad. :D
JoAnna, to CC, any and all statistics produced by “anti-choice” sources are false before they are ever published, simply because “anti-choicers” did the research.
Kel,
Isn’t that strange how they don’t apply that same standard to pro-abortion sources?
CC, can you demonstrate that the cited statistics are false?
No. But as I noted (did you even bother to read the post), there are numerous other variables most importantly, the awareness on the part of children and adults as to what constitutes abuse and the ease of reporting – two factors not present at the time of Roe. The numbers in and of themselves mean nothing. But as far as sources, something that has an agenda is definitely not in the same realm of credibilty as peer reviewed sociology data from non agenda driven sources. What does the CDC say? What does the NASW material say other than what I have cited which is standard data for anybody doing child protective social work.
“Why would “society” have any more obligation to such women than a woman is obliged to have to her unborn child?”
Because when a child is abused and neglected, they are in need of “loco parentis” to ensure that the child’s safety is not in jeopardy. Society has no right (at least till the pro-lifers get their way) to take custody of an adult who is not a danger to themselves. What’s next? Establishing state departments to ensure that pregnant women don’t smoke or drink or othewise endanger their fetuses. Should the state then take custody of these women? At present the law governing fetus care is murky. We are free to abuse ourselves – but not our post born children.Any attempts to curtail the freedom of women – and that includes criminalizing abortion and birth control – are elements of a fascist state. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. But keep your hands off of my body and any fetus that’s contained therein.
And Rasqual, what “far left” programs are being prioritized over child welfare? And as far as corruption, that could be any state including mine. Your “organization?” You are a state social worker/supervisor/administrator?
CC says: June 22, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“Obviously, we shouldn’t restrict a woman’s right to have a child. But at the same time, we shouldn’t restrict her right to terminate a pregnancy which, for some, is the best possible outcome.”
Are you saying when your momma was pregnant, aborting you would have been her best option……or yours?
[Edited by moderator]
In her book, ‘Unnatural Selection:Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men’, feminazi Mara Hvistendahl, estimates in the last 30 years, over 163 million girls who should have been born, according to biological averages, have been aborted and the decision to abort was made by a woman, either the pregnant mother or the mother-in-law.
According to missy H, the consequences of this ‘gendercide’ has resulted in an ‘unnatural’ demographic proportion between males and females in the population, which in turn has resulted in violence. In Chinese populations where this ‘unnatural’ ratio has spiked, a crime wave has followed. In India the best predictor for violence and crime for any given area is not income level, but the ’unnatural’ male/female ratio.
She [Mara Hvistendahl ] believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to “feminists’ worst nightmare: a ban on all abortions.”
It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the “worst nightmare” of feminism.
[God help us if these loons every figure out a way to control the weather.]
Too bad he couldn’t be a Republican…he’d shift a little funding to foreign countries in the Mexico City Policy (which some folks say less funding leads to more abortions, but, whatever) – and he’d talk a good game about how abortion is bad…though abortions would continue happening, and no substantial votes would come up or even be proposed…but you folks would swoon. You’d talk about how “fabulously pro-life” they are, even while millions are slaughtered under their watch. At least they’d talk go for you though. You love the talk.
Cc@ You are aware aren’t you that “terminate a pregnancy” includes killing a human? So, lets stop playing word games shall we and say it like it is.
“Obviously, we shouldn’t restrict a woman’s right to have a child. But at the same time, we shouldn’t restrict her right to kill a human which, for some, is the best possible outcome.”
Sounds a bit different now doesn’t it?
Or what about this? “Obviously, we shouldn’t restrict a woman’s right to have a child. But at the same time, we shouldn’t restrict her right to have her unborn baby dismembered and it’s head cut off, it’s parts sold to the highest bidder, and the leftovers thrown out with the trash which, for some, is the best possible outcome.”
Ex-GOP – just curious, but… do you vote for pro-choice Democrats?
Kel –
I have and will vote for Democrats (not a straight ticket voter) who are pro-choice – not because they are pro-choice, but in spite of it. I find that while politicians talk about it a lot, pro-life/pro-choice seems to boil down to not much more than some funding differences here and there. If abortion is going to continue to be the law of the land, and I see no reason why it won’t – then I think policy that leads to more health care access and a stronger working and lower class will ultimately have the biggest affect on abortion rates.
Ex-GOP – I don’t really see that you have room to criticize GOP voters about voting for pro-life politicians. If you believe there is no difference between a politician fighting against public funding of abortion vs. one fighting for public funding of abortion, then I don’t really know what to say to that.
It sounds to me like you’ve always leaned Democrat. ;)
Do you believe poverty is the reason why most people abort?
Kel – please don’t say “just curious” if you’re looking to pick a fight. At least be honest about it.
I’m just saying, GOP was in office what, 20 of 28 years? Did the abortion rates slow? Did we get grand sweeping laws and pushes to ban abortions? I’m just tired of the game of saying “oh, this politician is so darn evil because of his abortion stance…I mean, if OUR guy was in…” So seriously, if McCain was in, what would be the difference?
Why do you get the thought I’ve always leaned Democrat? What was my post…80 words? You have a history figured out by that?
I think statistically, poverty is one of the most significant factors.
I voted for McCain while holding my nose, frankly.
I wasn’t trying to pick a fight with you. I was curious, since you seem so hell-bent on mocking the rest of us here for voting for pro-life candidates in the hopes that they might actually make some headway. And I’ve seen you post here for a very long time, so no, it wasn’t just that post. I just hadn’t seen you say whether or not you, yourself, actually voted for pro-abortion candidates.
I disagree on the poverty issue, for what it’s worth.
Abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse.
So sad that the precious life of this baby is so disposable to you pro-aborts including the President, if this little one he held had been born alive and her mother had intended for her to die during an abortion she could have been just like the baby Jill held for 45 minutes while he took his last breaths. Dead.
Biggest bunch of BS ever promoted by pro-aborts “abortion will reduce poverty and child abuse because every baby will be a “wanted” baby”. “Abortion will free women to get out of poverty”. Lies, and more lies. Abortion is bondage, degrading and the ultimate form of child abuse, killing your own innocent, unborn child when it is inconvenient then cherry-picking to keep only the babies you “want” or that are “convenient” is indeed schizophrenic. I think it was Mother Teresa who said something like “Abortion is the greatest form of poverty”. It is a total poverty of values to kill your unborn child. It is straight out of the pit of hell. This would be a perfect time for Hisman’s to post his essay “Abortion Is” because he expresses it perfectly. Haven’t seen him around here in a long time.
CC: I asked: “Why would ‘society’ have any more obligation to such women than a woman is obliged to have to her unborn child?”
You didn’t answer the question–apparently not understanding syntax, grammar, and my likely point.
It’s nice to know that if I ever need CPS to protect my children I might have the privilege of working with CC, who doesn’t like children and would rather see them DEAD since she deems violent dismemberment as “the best possible outcome” for their lives.
I would rather have gone through all the abuse and trauma I went through as a child and have my children and family today, than to have been ripped to shreds before being born. How dare you assume to claim that my life, and anyone else’s who has survived abuse, wasn’t going to be worth living since I/we would suffer TEMPORARY torment and pain every so often! Enduring hardship is a FACT of LIFE. Show me a life completely void of pain and hardship, a life you might deem worthy to live. Even Christ Himself suffered and died a horrible death. According to your logic EVERYONE including you should just DIE now since we all have and all will suffer at some point. Who are you to judge whether someone else’s life is worth living??? You’re just so compassionate for those children you hate aren’t you? Do you feel good about yourself when you do them the favor of wishing they had never been born? You’re philosophy is vile. So vile.
I know a woman who’s mother attempted to abort her three times. She grew up being horrifically abused. HORRIFICALLY. Her body is COVERED in scars. Today she is a Godsend who helps other women HEAL. Her life is valuable. Worthy. You would rather her abortions be successful to spare her her childhood, ignoring the fact that her ADULTHOOD would be a blessing to herself and many many others. That terror was necessary to give her the tools she would use to save others through Jesus. You are so horribly short sighted. You have such little faith. God save you.
“You didn’t answer the question–apparently not understanding syntax, grammar, and my likely point”
I provided an extensive response to your question so why don’t you respond to the points I made? And whilst you accuse me of not answering your question, you didn’t answer mine which was quite shocking considering your usual overly inflated, self absorbed pontificating “full of the sound and fury” yada, yada, yada. I do find your rhetoric, regarding the evils of what you see as the Paris Commune of local politics, interesting given that you might be in social services which, by their nature, lean to the left. Whatever…
And while we have a responsibility to care for ourselves (not an “obligation” as there is no law that says that we do), sadly, not all people are responsible. Given our present social and legal compacts, society does step in to try to assist those who can’t and don’t help themselves. The libertarian argument would say that society doesn’t have a responsibility to others. If a woman is pregnant she “should” take care of herself. If she can’t, social services can, if she wishes, provide material or mental health assistance. If she is a danger to herself, she can be court ordered to treatment or institutionalization. But society should not dictate that once a woman becomes pregnant she has an “obligation” to give birth – or to stop smoking – or to stop drinking. Once a child is born, the equation changes. But prior to that it’s all about choice and at present, that includes access to legal abortion.
“CC, who doesn’t like children and would rather see them DEAD since she deems violent dismemberment as “the best possible outcome” for their lives”
Where did I say that I would rather see children “dead.” Nice hyperbole there. Yes, I do maintain that for many women, my friends and relatives included, their abortions worked out for the best given the circumstances. But I do love the histrionics about “dismembering” of fetuses which provides a propagandistic linguistic enhancement for a basic surgical procedure. But as “words matter” this framing of the process can serve to scare and shame women. So it’s all good…
Kel -
I’ve made it known quite a few times I voted for Obama, and would again if we could move back in time a couple of years. And I think everyone holds their noses when they vote quite frankly!
I’ve only been on the board for about a year though – my voting history goes way beyond that.
My goal is only partially to mock – I just am trying to make the point that I think it is either foolish, or setting a massively low bar, to continue to hammer the thought that voting for Democrats (in the case of this post, Obama) is a terrible evil, while voting for Republicans is the enlightened choice of those who love life. Last I checked, millions of babies were aborted during Bush’s presidency. And quite frankly, it’s a very easy argument that Obama has been the greatest gift to the pro-life movement in a long time. McCain wins, the Democrats would have cleaned house in 2010, and the momentum seen in states would be non-existent.
CC: You still didn’t answer the question at all. Your response avoided the question.
Let me be pedestrian for a simple mind: You claim a woman has no obligation to provide nurture for an unborn child. What if I claim I have no obligation to provide taxes to fund nurture for born ones?
Idiotically, you prove your hypocrisy in your remarks: “If you think that my work with abused children and frail elderly was ‘stealing’ the taxpayers money, it says a lot about your pro-life philosophy!”
It’s not my pro-life philosophy that I’m proposing — it’s a consistent application of the pro-choice one.
Who are you to assume that my labor should be taxed to support layabouts and misfits?
Remember, I’m exploring pro-choice premises, not asserting my own. And if you think it’s unfair for me to demonize those in need of help by calling them names, don’t forget the language pro-choice folk use of the fetus, considering it little different than a cancer, or a parasite. Again, I’m just trying to consistently apply the pro-choice ethic of radical personal autonomy.
If a woman has no obligation to nurture her unborn child, by what reason why should I pay for some welfare leech’s pop tarts?
Again, repeating things for a simple mind, I’m adopting the fetus-demonizing language of pro-choice, and applying pro-choice radical autonomy consistently.
(edited by mod)
CC says:
But I do love the histrionics about “dismembering” of fetuses which provides a propagandistic linguistic enhancement for a basic surgical procedure. But as “words matter” this framing of the process can serve to scare and shame women.
_____________________________________________________________
Interesting. You object to the term “dismembering” being used when discussing abortion?
/d?s?m?mb?r/ Show Spelled[dis-mem-ber]
–verb (used with object)
to divide into parts; cut to pieces; mutilate.
Here’s a video that describes a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure, one of the most common in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9McAyyHC3sk
Sorry, but in this “basic surgical procedure” the fetus is torn apart as it enters the cannula. Dismember is an accurate term to be used. I guess “torn apart” could be used instead. How would an accurate description of what actually transpires in a medical procedure “scare and shame” women? Full knowledge empowers women to make educated choices for themselves. Hiding details or treating women as if they are too delicate to know the full details of a proposed surgical procedure does women a great disservice.
If you stand behind legal abortion, then stand behind it! All of it. Every last detail of what it entails. Knowledge is power and women armed with full knowledge regarding the choices they make are empowered women. If pro-choicers were truly concerned about women they would have no fear of the full details of this “basic surgical procedure” being made known.
Ex-GOP: So our record financial problems — with record numbers of people on food stamps — are all Bush’s fault. Right? How long into the future is Obama entitled to morph his failures into the idea that “wow, Bush’s legacy is even worse than anyone imagined because not even my powerful lightworker Obama magic can defeat it with dispatch!” The guy doubles down on his most failed policies. He’s lost respect from the left, failed to earn it from the center, and never had it from the right.
His litany of FAIL is extensive.
The only people I hear still saying “I’d vote for him again,” on closer inspection, are in denial about his failures or simply have a hard time admitting they helped a majority of Americans set us up for someone worse than Jimmy Carter.
Which are you? ;-)
Lrning: Pro-choice folk are merely being semantically consistent when they object to properly descriptive language of an abortion procedure. They aren’t interested in properly describing the unborn (parasite, cancer, blob), so it’s no surprise that they fail to properly describe much else. Their descriptions are political and tendentious — because the unborn are the handiest darned silent scapegoats EVAH.
ChristianHippie: Your last paragraph is interesting. Just as some with horrendous upbringing grew up to help others embrace life to its fullest, others with a wonderful upbringing grew up to actively support the destruction of unborn life. And the latter are at ease in saying that one great reason for abortion is to prevent people like the former. To be fair, they don’t know how those whose abortion they advocate will grow up or how valuable they’ll prove to be, but lacking any such knowledge they’re nevertheless willing to find abortion salutary in the case that some inference concerning the child’s likely welcome in life (or rather, lack thereof) seems at least somewhat plausible to their augurific little brains.
Cc@ But I do love the histrionics about “dismembering” of fetuses which provides a propagandistic linguistic enhancement for a basic surgical procedure.
The truth is not propaganda: “”I hate it when people put it [the aborted fetus] together to look like a baby. I hate that…” (2)
Clinic Worker “Risa”
“It was disturbing for me to see recognizable body parts in the removed tissue, usually an arm or a leg. My intent is not to be gruesome, but there is a reality behind all the political jargon that I believe I allowed myself to ignore until this experience. I have images now that accompany phrases such as, “Potential for life” and I understand the emotions that drive pro-life forces.”(7)
Medical student working at Planned Parenthood
“I went up to the lab one day and on the pathologist’s table was what I thought was a little rubber doll until I realized it was a fetus. I got really shook up and upset and I couldn’t believe it. It had all its fingers and toes, you know, hands and feet, and I didn’t know what a fetus was going to look like. I never thought it would look – so real. I didn’t like it…” (10)
Clinic worker (Controller) Nancy Stein
“This was a perfect little fetus inside, and now it no longer is. I try not to focus on that too much…it is upsetting, and it’s embarrassing as well. I always feel uncomfortable if other people are watching me do this. I don’t like to expose them to this, well, carnage….because all it does it upset them…” (27) Abortionist Dr. G
There are lots more where those come from. The numbers are foot notes where this is documented. To see more go to clinicquotes.com
So how is the truth propaganda? Is it because the truth is nasty and brutal and you don’t want to know about it?
If women are going to do this to their child then they need to at least know exactly what they are doing. You guys want to hide behind statements like “ending the pregnancy” when the truth is a human is being dismembered. Saying so is not propaganda. It is educating.
But I do love the histrionics about “dismembering” of fetuses which provides a propagandistic linguistic enhancement for a basic surgical procedure.
That callous comment literally made me sick to my stomach.
ChristianHippe@ I came from a dysfunctional abusive impoverished home. My parents tried to abort me. As an adult I have adopted 4 children, ran a crisis pregnancy center, work in orphan rescue, am a youth leader and a foster parent. I have six children in all including one who is a sergeant in the Air Force and has been in war protecting the lives of Americans. I am emotionally healthy and actually counsel many people on how to be emotionally healthy. According to the “abuse, poverty, mothers choice” crowd I would be voted off the planet. They have no idea what they are talking about. That mind set comes from ignorance usually by people who have had nothing put ease in their lives and want to speak for us who know better.
If all of the “abuse+ poverty= death” crowd were to take a poll of all of us who overcame bad situations and are healthy I am sure they would find that every one of us wants to live and are glad that we are here AND I am sure they will find that we are not laying in a ditch somewhere counting our woes and wishing someone had done us in while we were in the womb.
Ex-GOP, this is a timely blog post: And this is why I vote for those useless Republicans
The truth is not propaganda: “”I hate it when people put it [the aborted fetus] together to look like a baby. I hate that…” (2)
Clinic Worker “Risa
Link?
C’mon, CC, this stuff’s a bit of a no-brainer:
http://goo.gl/WFv2M
Also, CC, aside from my earlier response above, I’d like to offer this: you read terribly. You reason terribly. I had said this: “My own organization had to let 60 caseworkers go because state funding dried up. And it will continue to stay dry because the state is in thrall to economically suicidal left-of-center politics.”
And your response was to ask, “what ‘far left’ programs are being prioritized over child welfare?”
Note that my remark addressed why there are no funds available — because of the state’s “economically suicidal left-of-center politics.” The reason is not that “‘far left’ programs are being prioritized.” You could not possibly have inferred that from my remark. My remarks would even be consistent with far-RIGHT programs being prioritized — because I said nothing that implied that any other programs whatsoever are competing for funds. Nor was “far left” my phrase, though you park quotes around it.
In short, CC, if you wish to reason at all on this stuff you’ll have to think better.
“If a woman has no obligation to nurture her unborn child, by what reason why should I pay for some welfare leech’s pop tarts?”
I know you’re quite impressed with your ontological gymnastics; but your words games are neither incisive nor amusing. In fact, this last comment is truly bizarre as it posits a connection between what women do with their own bodies and your requirement to pay taxes. Put into the common parlance, it’s apples and oranges. But you still didn’t answer my question as to the nature of your social service function. Oh, you’re such a tease!
But seriously, dude, if you really believe that “welfare leech pop tart” thing, you shouldn’t be in social services. It also doesn’t do much for your pro-life creds as it shows that once the fetus is born, it’s on it’s own. Even though I disagree with the pro-life positions of many folks on this blog, I know that they remain committed to women who give birth especially those who are poor and on welfare. They’re also not overly inflated with a sense of self importance. Nuff said.
CC: You find a categorical imperative for pro-choice radical autonomy so offensive that you wish to tar me with it. LOL
Q.E.D.
But I’m going to push this — because you’re obviously really uncomfortable with it. And you deserve discomfort.
Why should I do anything at all — including paying taxes — to help anyone at all?
If a woman should not be expected to care for her unborn child by reason of her personal autonomy, why should I be expected to bear an obligation to others at all, in violation of my personal autonomy?
What right do you have to the fruit of my labor to help your parasitic charges?
Remember, now (I know this is really, really tough), I’m not asserting a pro-life ethic, nor talking the way pro-life folk do. I’m adopting a pro-choice ethic of absolute personal autonomy and using pro-choice language of demonizing the “deserving recipient of nurture/care.”
If you don’t like what I’m saying or how I’m saying it, what you’re not liking is a pro-choice ethic — not a pro-life one.
Do you understand reductio ad absurdum in the least?
Meanwhile, any well-constructed Google search’s first few hits will acquaint you with how my state’s economic issues have affected social services. Our loss of 60 caseworkers was a drop in a statewide bucket. http://goo.gl/V62ER
But that’s fine, because it takes us in the direction of a pro-choice ethic where people can’t be expected to nurture anyone against their choice!
“you read terribly. You reason terribly”
And you are highly snark challenged as you don’t recognize sarcasm when you see it because you’re just so blinded by your own brilliance. I was merely playing off your earlier comment, “pro-choicers are uniformly communitarian leftists who think someone else’s taxes ought to pay for everything.” Such a statement would imply that you might think that librul politics would engender librul social policies with which you might have a teensie problem. But “communitarian” – very impressive use of language. Yes, I’m building my barricades as we speak. Aux armes, citoyens!
“If a woman should not be expected to care for her unborn child by reason of her personal autonomy, why should I be expected to bear an obligation to others at all, in violation of my personal autonomy”
Wow, a short and succinct comment – Quelle Surprise!
Answer - The libertarian argument is that you shouldn’t be obligated to pay “the fruits of your labor” (which is?). Uncle Sam doesn’t buy the bodily autonomy argument. But presently, you pay. And presently, abortion is legal. If you want to argue philosophy, you really should be teaching in university – but instead you’re in an organization that laid off 60 workers and you didn’t get a pink slip so the fruits of your labor will continue to be taxed. Pauvre Rasqual!
And BTW, the post-born recipients of public money are not fetuses so your clever attempt to create a reverse argument using what you claim is “pro-choice” logic is rather lame. Reductio ad absurdum this. If Illinois taxpayers are providing your labor fruits, all I can say is that I’m glad I live in Lil Rhody.
It’s creepy to watch that man trying to comfort a crying baby, knowing that he would be okay with leaving that baby alone in a closet to die, crying, just a few months earlier. :( What a despicable man.
And as to all those who are saying abortion would prevent child abuse… They are operating from a world view that places little value on human life and they appear to have no concept of human resiliency and hope. I know many who have been abused as children and grew up to be wonderful people. Is poverty/abuse really worse than death? Amen to what Jack said about being able to heal from abuse, but not from death.
No, CC, you don’t get to pretend that it was sarcasm. Let’s look at this again.
When I said “you read terribly. You reason terribly,” I followed that with the germane instance by quoting your reply to me and pointing out how incompetent to even understand my remark it was: “What ‘far left’ programs are being prioritized over child welfare?”
Now you’re claiming that was sarcasm? Please explain. It sounded like a question. It was part of a full paragraph that could not have been reasonably construed as sarcasm:
“And Rasqual, what ‘far left’ programs are being prioritized over child welfare? And as far as corruption, that could be any state including mine. Your ‘organization?’ You are a state social worker/supervisor/administrator?”
But let’s further prove your incapacity to reason well. In damage control mode for your lousy thinking, you stumble into yet further mere silliness. You say:
” I was merely playing off your earlier comment, ‘pro-choicers are uniformly communitarian leftists who think someone else’s taxes ought to pay for everything.’ Such a statement would imply that you might think that librul politics would engender librul social policies with which you might have a teensie problem. “
The problem with this, CC is that the actual remark you were replying to was explicit, relieving you of the burden of inferring anything from any previous tangential remarks. So your defense is risible. But it’s classic rhetorical gamesmanship. Not wishing to face your rational FAIL, you imply the inadequacy of the context of my remark by pretending a need to go far afield to draw an inference so as to understand what you thereby imply was my poorly communicated meaning.
You’re quite a card, CC.
Actually, I think only half the time you’re rationally incompetent. The rest of the time when you appear so, you’re merely being disingenuous or outright dishonest: “the post-born recipients of public money are not fetuses so your clever attempt to create a reverse argument using what you claim is ‘pro-choice’ logic is rather lame.”
Non sequitur. The consistent application of the principle of radical autonomy doesn’t depend on whether we’re talking about fetuses or adults. You know that. Because you know that and don’t wish to face it in honest argument, you try a rhetorical ruse. Apparently you imagine that anyone reading your remarks is too stupid to see that.
Have you noticed how many people here aren’t as stupid as you imagine?
When do the nervous giggles begin, CC? It’s one of few defense mechanisms I’ve not seen yet from you.
::raises hand::
I grew up in an abusive home. As did my husband.
We are part of the Should Have Been Aborted Club.
By way of actually providing something of bipartisan interest in response to CC’s curiosity, here’s one of many articles recounting just one chapter in Illinois’ miserable chronicle of fiscal fail: http://goo.gl/V62ER
That’s the timeframe when the social services side of our organization lost funding. It wasn’t a problem for our people — I’m quite certain they all did fine. They’re mostly young, well-credentialed, and mobile. But it was a serious problem for their young clients, and a far more serious problem for other organizations with much larger caseloads and much more seriously needy clients.
The hearings in Springfield that year demonstrated something frightful: when one generation of pols implement and fund social safety nets for reasons evident in the hearings THEY hold, later generations of legislators — who have not had to acquaint themselves with that root data — are utterly oblivious to what these safety nets do, and are careless about funding because nothing compelling is ever in front of them to make them as literate about such things as those who put the programs in place. The hearings are largely for show after they’ve already made up their minds.
What made this obvious to me was their incredulity when they discovered, to their horror, just what the consequences of defunding would be. They genuinely didn’t know. (several organizations offered heart-wrenching testimony with no need to exaggerate the deleterious effect of the crisis)
So did they at least care? I don’t know. All I know is that the fiscal comet did strike social services in Illinois.
Basically, a bureaucracy in time loses its heart, and waxes senescent.
Been camping… late to comment. This video makes me want to puke. I wouldn’t let either Barack or Michelle near any of my grandbabies. Mr. Infanticide and Mrs. Partial Birth Abortion, quite a pair.
Hi Jill,
You double posted so I unpublished you! HA! :)
Camping? bleh
Carla, when I camp it rains. All 3 days this time. And it gets cold. 65 degrees on the 3rd day of summer. Bleh is right. But the grandkids didn’t care.
You must have camped in my backyard. Still waiting for summer to OFFICIALLY begin.
CC
You obviously never worked for Child Protective Services. I have.
I don’t like children
I would have been a terrible mother
we shouldn’t restrict her right to terminate a pregnancy which, for some, is the best possible outcome
And since we know that by “terminate a pregnancy” you mean “dismembered to death” in abortion, it is not such a leap to say that; “CC doesn’t like children and would rather see them DEAD since she deems violent dismemberment as “the best possible outcome” for their lives”. You said it. You were there for that? Right?
And there is no “hyperbole” involved. DEATH is the very literal reality for the victims of abortion. Their bloody corpses and absence from our society are not exaggerations but FACTS. I do not play word games.
“Where did I say that I would rather see children “dead.””
June 22, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You said “fewer potentially abused children” in response to the question “Has abortion solved our problem of abused children or abusive households? Will it, at some future point, solve those problems?”
How does abortion make fewer children? IT KILLS THEM BEFORE THEY ARE BORN. E.I. MAKES THEM DEAD. This is kindergarten here, not even a leap in logic. just follow the dots. And if abuse is baaaad and killing the child (which you somehow magically know is guaranteed abuse) before birth (you call this “abortion”) is goooood then……. they are better off dead.
You shouldn’t be on here “debating” and using big words if you don’t understand what you yourself are saying, let alone what others are saying. I agree with Rasqual. sheesh.
CC. @The Link:
http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=24
“How does abortion make fewer children? IT KILLS THEM BEFORE THEY ARE BORN. E.I. MAKES THEM DEAD.”
Right. Fewer post born fetuses who would be born into dysfunctional situations. But again,that’s not my decision. It’s the decision of she who carries the fetus who become vicious murderers when they have abortions.
“because nothing compelling is ever in front of them to make them as literate about such things as those who put the programs in place. The hearings are largely for show after they’ve already made up their minds”
Ah-ha, so it is about policies and programs, I think? Trying to sift through the self absorbed rhetorical flourishes is best left to the scatologist, if ya catch my drift.
And Rasqual, if you are a state employee, you do know that if you are blogging from a state computer, on state time, that’s stealing from taxpayers – even if you’re on your coffee break. Let’s hope that your mysterious “organization” isn’t part of the state system because if so, you’re not in compliance with policy.
Seriously CC? You are arguing for and condoning the killing of humans and you have the nerve to scold Rasqual for possibly blogging on a state computer? My word! If you want to police somebody go police the baby killers!
the christian hippie
That is so true what you posted. If I had the resources I would pay for a billboard that read, abortion is government endorsed child abuse. ;(
I agree with ChristianHippie and all. The “abortion saves people from abuse” is possibly one of the most offensive arguments for abortion, at least to me. I do find it funny, however, that none of them have the guts to tell me I should have been aborted to “save me” from my lifetime of abuse, and then they turn around and talk about how abortion is preferable. Some amazing mental gymnastics, there.
jack borsch
If it hurts you to read those comments just remember that their lack of real depth is only surpassed by their audacity to speak for others and be thankful that unlike the unborn you have a voice. Hopefully their lack of response is because they feel a little remorseful over their poorly chosen words.
@CC – But I do love the histrionics about “dismembering” of fetuses which provides a propagandistic linguistic enhancement for a basic surgical procedure.
http://www.gloria.tv/?media=142574 Warning: VERY GRAPHIC !
Tell me what is THIS?
Basic surgical procedure?
@myrtle, nah it is just annoying to me. I really want one of them to admit they think I should not exist though, Then at least they would be consistent.
CC: “Ah-ha, so it is about policies and programs, I think? Trying to sift through the self absorbed rhetorical flourishes is best left to the scatologist, if ya catch my drift.”
I do, and I wish the wind were contrary.
“And Rasqual, if you are a state employee, you do know that if you are blogging from a state computer, on state time, that’s stealing from taxpayers – even if you’re on your coffee break. Let’s hope that your mysterious ‘organization’ isn’t part of the state system because if so, you’re not in compliance with policy.”
Wow! You’re capable of pedantry and idle speculation in one paragraph! I salute you, CC–I underestimated you.
How about this: I’m not a government employee, I work weird hours, and I’m on call for problems day or night?
The hearings I was speaking of were for private organizations to express their issues with the cuts. Also, the article I linked concerned itself with these private organizations. The lion’s share of social service work on this planet is provided by private organizations often funded by government. But you knew that.
But you give me a crappy excuse to drop a pun joke that’s actually original. I’m quite proud of how bad it is.
Bob was a research scatologist with the museum until he went bonkers. One night after his forced retirement he broke into the facility. The next morning, his former colleagues noticed that one of several carts full of dung samples was missing. Guessing what had happened, they also knew why the other carts weren’t taken: one turd gurney serves a nutter.
rasqual – I don’t think the current economy is all Bush’s fault, nor all Obama’s fault, nor all of congresses fault. Look, we’ve seen this before – when the economy is on the brink of a huge collapse, things get worse before they better. Look at the stats in the early 80’s. Couple it with a huge deficit that has grown over the years that is holding back properly stimulating the economy, and we have a real mess on our hands. That’s what I really see as the problem. In proper handling of recession, we’d raise spending, cut taxes, not worry about short term deficit until things are growing. Now, we’re cutting spending, which weakens the recovery (which Stockman, Reagan’s former budget guy hit on pretty well the other day with Fareed Zakaria).
End of the day – I think Obama has been far from perfect. I think if McCain would have been in office, we’d have as bad, if not worse economic numbers because I think the stimulus would have been a bit lower.
@Jack Borsch
I agree. They like to say babies form abusive and impoverished homes should be aborted. I want to hear them say I shouldn’t be here. Because that is exactly what they are saying. When they say it about the unborn they make it sound so placid. But in reality they are saying we should be dead.
To all the pro-aborts who use that line: Do you realize when you say that line that you are saying that millions of well rounded productive citizens should be dead?
Deanna: Yah, there’s always the two issues. There’s why someone might–or should, or should not–make a particular choice. And then there’s whether there ought to even be a choice.
On the latter point, it seems a bit like why the denied fruit was there in the garden — with the exception that partaking of the fruit destroys not only your own life, but an innocent’s.
Whether legal or not, abortion is always a woman’s possible choice.
So there are two other issues, really — there’s personal virtue, and then there’s the pedagogical effect of law. What kind of persons are we, and what kind of civilization are we?
ChristianHippie: “You shouldn’t be on here ‘debating’ and using big words if you don’t understand what you yourself are saying, let alone what others are saying. I agree with Rasqual. sheesh.”
CC — and many others in these parts — run afoul of the ghost’s reductio in Dickens. Imagine CC faced with an abortion s/he (I forget) would NOT want to happen:
“No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind Spirit. Say he will be spared.”
“If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.
“Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! To hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.”
There are more applicable points here than first meet the eye. And many are immediately relevant to CC’s and like remarks seen in these parts. I’ll just note that Scrooge evaluated human worth based on their fated condition of life. Heaven (proxy for reality, to our atheist friends) apparently evaluates human worth in the face of, at the expense of, and in mockery of that judgment of an insect.
The reductio ad absurdum works because it aims not to win an argument, but to arrive at truth. It starts with truth, and its design is to compel respect for truth. It provisionally detours through the lie to hook those who believe the lie. This is why some faced with a reductio squirm like a fish when they finally see where it’s leading. Or, in the case of the eventually redeemed Scrooge, they humbly accept the reductio’s evisceration of their unfaithful-to-reality worldview.
(Rasqual, you wouldn’t happen to have a blog, would you? If so, I’d be quite interested…)
Paladin: I follow Stephen Wright’s example: ”I have an enormous sea-shell collection. I keep it scattered on beaches all over the world. Perhaps you’ve seen it.” ;-)