“Mom delivers rare identical quadruplets”
Great story from the Associated Press this morning:
A 35-year-old Canadian woman has given birth to rare identical quadruplets, officials at a Great Falls hospital said Thursday.
Karen Jepp of Calgary, Alberta, delivered Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia by Caesarian section Sunday afternoon at Benefis Healthcare….
The babies were born about two months early and were conceived without fertility drugs, he said. They weighed between 2.6 pounds and 2.15 pounds….
The chances of giving birth to identical quadruplets is about one in 13 million, Key said….
Medical literature indicates there are less than 50 sets of identical quadruplets, said Dr. Jamie Grifo, director of the NYU Fertility Center in New York.
The last reported set were born in April 2006 to a 26-year-old Indian woman.
We love this sort of story. We love multiples. Honest pro-aborts will admit feeling bad when hearing a mom has aborted twins. Why? I’ve heard of moms changing their minds about aborting when finding they’re carrying twins. Why are twins more valuable than singletons?
Conversely, selective reduction is widely practiced on pregnancies of multiples. Recall this story. I’m sure this mom was given that option. What a wonderful miracle the world would have missed. Abortion robs us of miracles.
[Photo of Brooke Jepp being cradled by her dad is courtesy of the AP.]
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.
We love this sort of story. We love multiples. Honest pro-aborts will admit feeling bad when hearing a mom has aborted twins. Why? I’ve heard of moms changing their minds about aborting when finding they’re carrying twins. Why are twins more valuable than singletons?
Conversely, selective reduction is widely practiced on pregnancies of multiples.
Honest people don’t need buzzwords like “pro-abort.” I think it’s a cool story too. Twins aren’t always going to be wanted more than one baby. And past a point, when the number of embryos or fetuses becomes much larger than normal, it’s very understandable why many people choose to reduce the number.
Doug
…heres another story about selective reduction from a couple years ago. Michelle Malkin covered the story:
The sicko is Amy Richards, hardcore feminist.
http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/04/the-amy-richards-story-contd/
killing for convenience………..
beautiful baby!
Jasper,
I heard about that story and seriously wanted to vomit.
There has to be a way to make doctors accountable when they make wrong assumptions about babies health. I was told about a couple who were told their baby definately had DS. They knew they would never abort so they got everything they needed for a DS baby. The baby was born and guess what? YEP!!! The baby didn’t have DS. Those parents should have been able to sue the doctor. How many babies have been aborted because the doctor told them there was something wrong, and how many of them were actually healthy, and mentally and physically fine???
Doug, re: “pro-abort,” it is short for “pro-abortion,” as I’m sure you know, the accurate term for you. “Pro-choice” is a misnomer unless you spend exactly 50% of your time defending the sanctity of life. Do you? It has not been apparent on this blog.
I checked out that link Jasper, I hadn’t read about that.
I get so tired of pro-aborts trying to give valid reasons for killing their baby (or babies as the case may be). Selective reduction? Come on, call it what it is
“Those parents should have been able to sue the doctor. How many babies have been aborted because the doctor told them there was something wrong, and how many of them were actually healthy, and mentally and physically fine???”
Rosie, doctors are humans too. They make mistakes. It doesn’t make them an incompetent doctor when mistakes are made.
SH,
Selective reduction is not for convenience. They are done for heath reasons.
People aren’t built like damn rats. Carrying four or five fetii to term is NOT good for you or the fetii.
Stephanie, you should link to the page Jasper pointed out. That woman did not kill her children for health reasons. As she puts it “I
Jill:Doug, re: “pro-abort,” it is short for “pro-abortion,” as I’m sure you know, the accurate term for you. “Pro-choice” is a misnomer unless you spend exactly 50% of your time defending the sanctity of life. Do you? It has not been apparent on this blog.
Wrong, Jill. “Pro-legal abortion” would be correct, but anybody who is actually “for abortion” is not pro-choice. They would be anti-choice. If the woman doesn’t want one, them I’m not for abortion.
I am for the choice, either way. I am for the woman being free to make that choice, whether she chooses to keep the unborn life or to end it.
Doug
SH: No, we are not rats. Neither are unborn children. Which is exactly why they should not be treated as expendable waste, which is what selective reduction does.
It is not that they are “expendable waste,” as far as selective reduction, it is that there are sometimes compelling reasons for lessening the numbers of embryos or fetuses.
Doug
“Rosie, doctors are humans too. They make mistakes.”
Most people who make mistakes don’t cost people their lives, therefore they need to be held more accountable when they do make a mistake, there is way more to lose.
Doug, that we’re discussing legalized abortion goes without saying. Come on.
I don’t know why you resist the term. Is there something wrong with abortion? Usually people for rights are enthusiastic about it.
At any rate, you spend 100% here arguing vigorously in support of abortion, i.e., you support abortion, i.e., you are pro-abortion. That’s what you are. Sorry if it’s a problem for you.
Jill: Doug, that we’re discussing legalized abortion goes without saying. Come on.
Heh heh – I know, but “pro-abort” remains a buzzword. Pro-Lifers want it to be illegal for more or all women, in some circumstances if not all, to have abortions. For many pregnant women, this amounts to Pro-Lifers wanting the woman’s will subverted to their own. Slaveowners wanted the will of the slaves subverted to their own, too. “Enslavers” or “women-slavers” – do those terms appeal to you?
……….
I don’t know why you resist the term. Is there something wrong with abortion? Usually people for rights are enthusiastic about it.
I resist the term in the same way that Pro-Lifers often object to “Anti-Choicers” (or worse).
……….
At any rate, you spend 100% here arguing vigorously in support of abortion, i.e., you support abortion, i.e., you are pro-abortion. That’s what you are. Sorry if it’s a problem for you.
Nope, you’re spinning things there. Being for the choice, eiher way, is not the same as simply “supporting abortion.” Anybody that is actually “for abortion” rather than for the woman’s freedom of choice is anti-choice, rather than pro-choice.
Seriously, I am not “for abortion,” per se. I am for the choice of abortion being legal versus illegal, but I’d be fine with zero abortions if no women ever wanted them. Abortion costs more than pregnancy prevention, is “yucky,” what with the blood, tissue, gore, etc., and does have some risks for the woman to it.
By itself, I am not “for abortion” or “pro-abortion.” Better to prevent unwanted pregnancies, I say.
Doug
Really Doug,
(It is not that they are “expendable waste,” as far as selective reduction, it is that there are sometimes compelling reasons for lessening the numbers of embryos or fetuses.
Define compelling, or is this definition part of “what’s compelling for Doug may not be what’s compelling for Bill, but as long as it’s compelling for Doug it doesn’t matter what Bill thinks, because what Doug thinks is all that’s important philosophy” that you spout?
Doug,
Heh heh – I know, but “pro-abort” remains a buzzword.
You mean the way “choice” is a buzzword from your side…a term thought up by Bernard Nathanson and his cronies while walking on a beach…Naral’s idea of a cute way to obscure what the “choice” entailed?
How bout we just say that you are “pro choice to end a human’s life if it will inconvenience you in any way?” It’s a bit long, but fitting, don’t you think?
And you can call us “anti choice if it means that innocent babies have to die”…I’d be okay with that.
The problem is that your “buzzword” doesn’t define what “choices” you are making…pro-choice could mean cereal preferences or preferred shoe brands.
If you insist on using pro-choice, then at least have the balls to say what “choices” you talking about!
“Heh heh – I know, but “pro-abort” remains a buzzword.”
MK: You mean the way “choice” is a buzzword from your side…a term thought up by Bernard Nathanson and his cronies while walking on a beach…Naral’s idea of a cute way to obscure what the “choice” entailed?
Not at all – the physical reality of abortion is not the issue.
……….
How bout we just say that you are “pro choice to end a human’s life if it will inconvenience you in any way?” It’s a bit long, but fitting, don’t you think?
Nope – I would never have need of an abortion. My wife has had a hysterectomy. Not me, not us. No way. It’s farfetched to think that a given life is really going to make that much difference to me, all in all, same as it’s farfetched to think that you “need” a given pregnancy to be continued if it’s not yours.
……….
And you can call us “anti choice if it means that innocent babies have to die”…I’d be okay with that.
Well, that’s fairly cumbersome.
………
The problem is that your “buzzword” doesn’t define what “choices” you are making…pro-choice could mean cereal preferences or preferred shoe brands. If you insist on using pro-choice, then at least have the balls to say what “choices” you talking about!
@@ This is the abortion argument, and I reckon you know the deal. If you were arguing on a Kellogg’s versus General Mills message board, you might have a point.
……….
“It is not that they are “expendable waste,” as far as selective reduction, it is that there are sometimes compelling reasons for lessening the numbers of embryos or fetuses.”
Define compelling, or is this definition part of “what’s compelling for Doug may not be what’s compelling for Bill, but as long as it’s compelling for Doug it doesn’t matter what Bill thinks, because what Doug thinks is all that’s important philosophy” that you spout?
You tell me. If Doug is the one pregnant, what does it matter what Wild Willy thinks? Coincidentally, I do have some relation with this question – I have a cousin who’s married to a woman, and they weren’t able to conceive so they went for quite aggressive fertility treatments, which in the end resulted in 7 embryos, at once. They did not choose to reduce the number, to their eventual sorrow. Do you seriously dispute there can be compelling reasons for selective reduction when there are many more than normal numbers of embryos/fetuses?
Doug
Doug,
Not at all – the physical reality of abortion is not the issue.
Really? I beg to differ…the physical reality of abortion is the only issue. Unfortunately, those living in La-La land are able to ignore this. What else would the issue be? If a human life was not being eradicated, but instead the argument was about choice of pantyhose, I would have wasted 6 months arguing on this site…Nobody cares what brand of soap you use. What we care about is the fact that you and your kind find choosing between life and death just a simple exercise in personal preference while ignoring the deaths of billions of babies…
How bout we just say that you are “pro choice to end a human’s life if it will inconvenience you in any way?” It’s a bit long, but fitting, don’t you think?
Nope – I would never have need of an abortion.
Well I’m a little confused. You don’t want to be called pro-abortion because it is insulting and implies that you like abortion. You prefer pro-CHOICE, yet when we define the choice you are talking about, you complain yet again because the choice to end a human life if it inconveniences you in anyway doesn’t apply because you will never get pregnant. Your logic is just a little teeny tiny bit FLAWED!
Let’s try this another way…you say you are pro-choice. What does that mean to you? Define the word choice, if you will. (If you can…)
And you can call us “anti choice if it means that innocent babies have to die”…I’d be okay with that.
Well, that’s fairly cumbersome.
Well I already acknowledged that it was cumbersome, but thank you so much for pointing it out again. Cumbersome it might be, but at least everyone knows exactly what we mean by pro-life, and what you mean by pro-choice. Perhaps if you had to write it every time you needed to use the word pro-life (anti-choice if it means that innocent babies have to die) the reality of what you are “for” might sink in, much the way children are made to write “I will not talk in class” a hundred times, til the lesson is learned.
The problem is that your “buzzword” doesn’t define what “choices” you are making…pro-choice could mean cereal preferences or preferred shoe brands. If you insist on using pro-choice, then at least have the balls to say what “choices” you talking about!
*
@@ This is the abortion argument, and I reckon you know the deal. If you were arguing on a Kellogg’s versus General Mills message board, you might have a point.
If I were arguing on a Kellogs/General Mills board, I would probably call my self pro-Cocoa Krispies. And you could call yourself pro-Lucky Charms. But you see this would mean that we were both FOR cereal and simply disagreeing on which cereal is best.
We are not opposing your right to choose anything. We are opposing your right to kill people. You are not supporting the right to choose something innocuous like cereal. You are supporting the right to kill people.
In using the term “choice” you are deceiving people into thinking that you are making a choice between two equal things. You are not. You are making a choice between killing someone or not killing someone.
But since you have made it clear that you have absolutely no moral code other than what the masses want the masses shall have, I see no point in arguing with you. I just think you should acknowledge what this “choice” is that you are for.
You say you don’t like our definition of “choice”?
So, tell us, what is this choice you are for? Give us your definition…
If we were, in fact, pro-aborts, then we would believe that the only conclusion for a pregnancy (unplanned or planned) would be abortion. Since I don’t force every pregnant woman I see to go get an abortion (in fact, I have never suggested to anyone I know that they should get an abortion, that is for them to decide) and I don’t look at someone’s baby and say “you should have aborted that thing”, then I feel comfortable in saying that I am not, in fact, a pro-abort.
How about you Doug?
Keller,
If we were, in fact, pro-aborts, then we would believe that the only conclusion for a pregnancy (unplanned or planned) would be abortion. Since I don’t force every pregnant woman I see to go get an abortion (in fact, I have never suggested to anyone I know that they should get an abortion, that is for them to decide) and I don’t look at someone’s baby and say “you should have aborted that thing”, then I feel comfortable in saying that I am not, in fact, a pro-abort.
I actually use the term pro-choice because I think to argue about which term is most fitting distracts us from the real argument. BUT, the fact is that the term “choice” was coined to avoid using the term abortion and thus making the “choice” less distasteful. The bottom line is that the “Choice” you support is the right for a woman to carry her child to term OR to kill it.
Therefore a more apt descrcription would be “Pro the right to choose to keep or kill your unborn child.”
We know that you also support a woman’s right to keep her child. That’s why I have no problem being called Anti-choice. As long as you define the “choice” that I am against, just like I have no problem calling you pro-choice, as long as you define the “choice” that you support.
Doug,
Nope – I would never have need of an abortion. My wife has had a hysterectomy. Not me, not us. No way. It’s farfetched to think that a given life is really going to make that much difference to me, all in all, same as it’s farfetched to think that you “need” a given pregnancy to be continued if it’s not yours.
Coincidentally, I do have some relation with this question – I have a cousin who’s married to a woman, and they weren’t able to conceive so they went for quite aggressive fertility treatments, which in the end resulted in 7 embryos, at once. They did not choose to reduce the number, to their eventual sorrow.
Which is it Doug? It doesn’t apply to you because it can’t happen to you, or it does apply to you because you “know someone” that it can happen to…?
Do you seriously dispute there can be compelling reasons for selective reduction when there are many more than normal numbers of embryos/fetuses?
How about the fact that there were 7 embryos created for selfish reasons to begin with is a compelling reason not to do IVF to begin with?
No, that would never occur to you because it wouldn’t be what your cousin “wanted and we all know that the first rule of morality in Doug’s world is “Does it interfere with our own personal desires, consequences be damned”…
Sorry babe, but just like “Choosing” to have sex can lead to pregnancy, “Choosing” to implant 7 embryos can lead to complications.
The problem is you want your cake, and you want to eat it too. You want the freedom to make choices (IVF, Having sex) but you don’t want the consequences that come with theses choices. You sound like a two year old who eats an entire package of Oreo’s and then complains cuz his tummy hurts. When mom points out that eating too many cookies can lead to stomach upset, the two year old stamps his foot and says “I didn’t CHOOSE to have a tummy ache!” No, perhaps not, but you did choose to eat too many cookies!
Not only don’t you want to acknowledge what “choices” you support, you also don’t want to take responsibility for your choices…tsk, tsk. Shame on you…
Fair enough, :-)
There are still some on this board that use the term pro-abort in order to dehumanize pro-choicers, or that actually believe that we explode with glee every time a woman has an abortion.
Similarly, being pro-abortion is being anti-choice, the choice against a woman giving birth
JKeller, Pro-abortion simply means that you support abortion…it doesn’t imply that you support it in every situation.
JKeller: If we were, in fact, pro-aborts, then we would believe that the only conclusion for a pregnancy (unplanned or planned) would be abortion. Since I don’t force every pregnant woman I see to go get an abortion (in fact, I have never suggested to anyone I know that they should get an abortion, that is for them to decide) and I don’t look at someone’s baby and say “you should have aborted that thing”, then I feel comfortable in saying that I am not, in fact, a pro-abort.
How about you Doug?
JK, yes – if you were really pro-abortion, then you would want pregnancies to be aborted, as simple as that. Same as being pro-life or anti-abortion is wanting pregnancies not to be aborted.
I fully agree that you are not pro-abortion. However, in no way does that mean that everybody else has to be just like you to not be pro-abortion.
There is more of a middle ground where people are not one or the other of those two – where one’s desire is not for anything to happen, necessarily, where one leaves the decision up to the woman who is pregnant. Pro-Choice is being for her choice, whichever it is.
I do not really see this as that big deal. There is always some “demonizing” going on by some people on one side versus the other. In the bigger picture, I think that almost all of us are “pro-life” or “anti-choice” in some situations and “pro-abortion” in others. If there is no significant danger to the woman, and the fetus is healthy and gestation has been going on for 39 weeks, do you think many people are actually “for abortion,” there? I don’t. In that situation it is only a very tiny amount of people, if any at all, who would be, or who would even be “pro-choice” about it.
Likewise, there are some cases of danger to the woman and/or such severe deficiency in the fetus that few people indeed are going to be against an abortion taking place. Might normally be “pro-life,” but in that situation many will be “for abortion” or at least “pro-choice,” not thinking it really wrong if the mother or mother and father want to end the pregnancy.
Doug
JK, I have to laugh – I took your question to be from a Pro-Life perspective, and in reading your other posts I see that I was wrong.
Sorry about that – perhaps I’m not awake yet.
Doug
Doug: Not at all – the physical reality of abortion is not the issue.
MK: Really? I beg to differ…the physical reality of abortion is the only issue. Unfortunately, those living in La-La land are able to ignore this. What else would the issue be? If a human life was not being eradicated, but instead the argument was about choice of pantyhose, I would have wasted 6 months arguing on this site…Nobody cares what brand of soap you use. What we care about is the fact that you and your kind find choosing between life and death just a simple exercise in personal preference while ignoring the deaths of billions of babies…
MK (or anybody), first let me ask you – is it better to put all answers in one big post, or to break things up into smaller ones? I know that a really big one can make people’s eyes glaze over, and often they just skip right over them. Done it myself.
Nope – the physical reality isn’t really what the argument is about. Yes, it’s human. Yes, it’s alive. Yes, it’s a human organism. Nobody is “ignoring the deaths.” Does the life end in abortion? Yes, of course. But it’s a straw man for you to act like Pro-Choicers are disputing that stuff. The argument is valuation.
Doug
MK: Well I’m a little confused. You don’t want to be called pro-abortion because it is insulting and implies that you like abortion. You prefer pro-CHOICE, yet when we define the choice you are talking about, you complain yet again because the choice to end a human life if it inconveniences you in anyway doesn’t apply because you will never get pregnant. Your logic is just a little teeny tiny bit FLAWED!
Let’s try this another way…you say you are pro-choice. What does that mean to you? Define the word choice, if you will. (If you can…)
The “pro-abortion” thing is not a huge deal. It’s a point of argument and I like to argue. In the end, it reflects as having a weak argument on those who feel compelled to use it. Abortion is the choice to end a human life, yes, but not because it “inconveniences me.” As I said, I personally don’t nor will ever “need” a given woman to have an abortion, as far as I know. There’s no lack of logic there. For some pregnant women – it may be more convenient for them to have abortions, yes, and I submit that you don’t need things to be “inconvenient” for them.
“Choice” = conscious application of desire, the picking of one alternative from two or more. Entirely my words.
………
MK: And you can call us “anti choice if it means that innocent babies have to die”…I’d be okay with that.
Well, that’s fairly cumbersome.
Well I already acknowledged that it was cumbersome, but thank you so much for pointing it out again. Cumbersome it might be, but at least everyone knows exactly what we mean by pro-life, and what you mean by pro-choice. Perhaps if you had to write it every time you needed to use the word pro-life (anti-choice if it means that innocent babies have to die) the reality of what you are “for” might sink in, much the way children are made to write “I will not talk in class” a hundred times, til the lesson is learned.
Agreed that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are fine and that (almost) everybody knows what they mean. This is the abortion debate. It is the choice of having an abortion or not that is being talked about. “Innocent” – yes, but there’s no capacity for guilt, and nobody is telling you the unborn are “guilty” of crimes, now are they? I don’t “blame” the unborn – that would make no sense. What is operative is that the unborn will be wanted or unwanted.
Doug
Not always Doug.
There are pro choicers who believe no fetus has value no matter what the age.
There are pro choicers who don’t believe the fetus is a human being.
There are pro choicers who believe it is a human being but not a person.
There are people who believe it magically becomes a person at 14 weeks.
There are people who believe it is a person but that that makes no difference.
There are people who believe that under the right circumstances abortion is right. But that under other circumstances it is wrong.
The pro choice side does not agree on when, if, how or why an abortion should be done.
The pro life takes a much simpler stance. At the moment of conception a human life (person) is created and should be protected under the constitution the same as any other human person.
No valuation. Just simple science and common sense.
I don’t see a clear valuation in your scenario either. I see a lot of people believing a lot of different things and billions of human beings being killed in the process. What do you see?
Doug,
Choice” = conscious application of desire, the picking of one alternative from two or more. Entirely my words.
I know what the word choice means. I’m asking you what it means when you use it in the abortion debate.
Define this particular choice.
And I know you can’t get pregnant. I know your wife can’t get pregnant. But you are fighting for the right of others to “Choose to kill an innocent human being because the human being is an inconvenience.” That is pro-choice. The “CHOICE” being the killing of innocent life. Why can’t you just admit that?
Doug,
What is operative is that the unborn will be wanted or unwanted.
What is sick is that the unborn are slaughtered because they are not wanted. Since when did the worth of a human life depend on whether someone else values it?
Doug,
Try just italicizing the part that you want to respond to…that should shorten the posts. You don’t have to repeat everything that was said. Just the key points…
Really the only reason we repeat it at all is that it can get awfully confusing when someone posts in the middle of a conversation…Rae likes to put the @sign in front of the name of the person she is responding to…ie: @Doug….blah,blah,blah…
MK: We are not opposing your right to choose anything. We are opposing your right to kill people. You are not supporting the right to choose something innocuous like cereal. You are supporting the right to kill people.
Nope – personhood is attributed at birth, and that reflects society’s valuation. I know your valuation is different and that you wish it was done at conception. Well, it’s not that way and I don’t see why your desire should trump the desire of a pregnant woman.
……..
MK: In using the term “choice” you are deceiving people into thinking that you are making a choice between two equal things. You are not. You are making a choice between killing someone or not killing someone.
That’s just it – there isn’t “somebody” there as far as having personality, emotion, sentience, being able to live outside the womb, often, etc. You see this one way, other people see it different ways. You want some things, but you can’t demonstrate why other people should have to do what you want in this regard.
………
MK: But since you have made it clear that you have absolutely no moral code other than what the masses want the masses shall have, I see no point in arguing with you. I just think you should acknowledge what this “choice” is that you are for.
Baloney. That’s a straw man argument on your part. If your argument is so weak that you have to make up silly stuff, so be it.
………
MK: You say you don’t like our definition of “choice”? So, tell us, what is this choice you are for? Give us your definition…
I didn’t say I don’t like your definition of choice. You can say anything. This is the choice of ending a pregnancy or not. Of killing the human organism or not. Of ending the life or not.
Doug
Doug,
All righty then, You are “Pro the choice to kill a human organism”
Now define that human organism.
And that wasn’t a straw man argument. If you believe that majority decides morals, then I don’t know where to go with you…I don’t think right and wrong can be something that is voted on. I believe in absolute truths. You don’t. It’s hard to argue when the premises can’t even be agreed on…
MK: Which is it Doug? It doesn’t apply to you because it can’t happen to you, or it does apply to you because you “know someone” that it can happen to…?
That it can’t happen to me. I’m not “inconvenienced” by a given pregnancy, whether it be ended or continued, and, truth be told, neither are you.
……..
Do you seriously dispute there can be compelling reasons for selective reduction when there are many more than normal numbers of embryos/fetuses?
MK: How about the fact that there were 7 embryos created for selfish reasons to begin with is a compelling reason not to do IVF to begin with?
Heh – nice way to avoid the question. Sure – “selfish” reasons. The motivation comes from the self, be it the couple or the woman alone, and whether the desire is for one kid or 20. If you have quarrels with IVF you can argue with those who choose it. Seems pretty obvious to me that some people want to have kids and have a hard time achieving that. So no wonder they try to get some help.
……..
MK: No, that would never occur to you because it wouldn’t be what your cousin “wanted and we all know that the first rule of morality in Doug’s world is “Does it interfere with our own personal desires, consequences be damned”…
Nope, you’re being false again. The point is that neither you nor I have any good reason for telling my cousin not to have kids, or to have kids.
MK: Sorry babe, but just like “Choosing” to have sex can lead to pregnancy, “Choosing” to implant 7 embryos can lead to complications.
Sure, but that’s not the argument. There are often lots of problems with IVF and other “extreme” measures. The people know that going in. What are you going to tell them – “There could be problems, and I don’t want you to try to have kids this way?”
………
MK: The problem is you want your cake, and you want to eat it too. You want the freedom to make choices (IVF, Having sex) but you don’t want the consequences that come with theses choices.
That’s silly. Sure there can be consequences. Dealing with a pregnancy or with too many embryos is sometimes the deal. That’s just the way it is.
……..
MK: You sound like a two year old who eats an entire package of Oreo’s and then complains cuz his tummy hurts. When mom points out that eating too many cookies can lead to stomach upset, the two year old stamps his foot and says “I didn’t CHOOSE to have a tummy ache!” No, perhaps not, but you did choose to eat too many cookies!
Nope – if there is a “two year old” here it’s you, stamping your feet and whining because people aren’t doing what you want in these matters. Well, it’s not up to you. It’s up to the people who are actually involved.
……..
MK: Not only don’t you want to acknowledge what “choices” you support, you also don’t want to take responsibility for your choices…tsk, tsk. Shame on you…
Silly again. The responsibility is the woman’s. It’s her call. It’s not up to you. Her choice doesn’t have to be “cleared” by you.
Doug
Doug,
You call it silly, and I might agree, if we were talking about me insisting that everyone wear bunny slippers because I like them. But you are diminishing the seriousness of this “choice”…A life is at stake.
If you believed that men had a constitutional right to rape women, and I didn’t, would you call me silly because I was trying to get a law passed that said rape was wrong?
Nambla truly believes that having sex with small boys is a perfectly natural and viable option. They can’t understand why society has a problem with it. Do you think we are being silly by insisting that men leave little boys alone?
NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
# building understanding and support for such relationships;
# educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
# cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
# supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Now to hear them tell it, we are infringing on a perfectly normal desire.
Why does society object? Why does society step in? I know, do you?
Doug,
And for the record, it’s hard to take you seriously when you accuse me of bad arguing, when the best you can come up with yourself in refutation is to constantly call my arguments silly…
MK: There are pro choicers who believe no fetus has value no matter what the age.
Okay, but so what? There are Pro-Lifers who are okay with abortion in cases of rape, anencephaly, severe enough danger to the woman, ectopic pregnancies, etc. It’s not like either side has one monolithic opinion. For third-trimester fetuses, it’s many Pro-Choicers who are okay with the restrictions on abortion, though there may indeed be some who are just as you say, too.
……..
MK: There are pro choicers who don’t believe the fetus is a human being.
This is a never-ending argument. Heck, a toenail clipping can be a “human being” under a broad definition, since it can have existence (“being”) and be of human origin. You, for example, might favor a less-inclusive definition, like it has to be alive and able to develop, an organism, and that’s fine too. Many people favor a less-inclusive meaning yet, like being born and/or having consciousness, having legal rights, etc. I am not arguing that the unborn here are not human, not alive and not organisms. Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the main issue.
……..
MK: There are pro choicers who believe it is a human being but not a person.
Sure, me for one – personhood has not yet been attrributed but I think “human being” applies.
……..
MK: There are people who believe it magically becomes a person at 14 weeks.
Heh heh – now this one does seem silly to me. It’s not impossible that it would be that way, i.e. society draws the line there, versus at birth, but it’s certainly not that way now.
……..
MK: There are people who believe it is a person but that that makes no difference.
Then they’re not including right-to-life or any certain valuation in the meaning of “person.”
……..
MK: There are people who believe that under the right circumstances abortion is right. But that under other circumstances it is wrong.
Well yeah – this is the vast majority of people, when you get right down to it.
……..
MK: The pro choice side does not agree on when, if, how or why an abortion should be done.
I think that’s a pointless generalization that also applies to pro-lifers. No, not everybody on either side thinks exactly the same, but I don’t think anybody told you they did.
……..
MK: The pro life takes a much simpler stance. At the moment of conception a human life (person) is created and should be protected under the constitution the same as any other human person.
Well, that’s part of the Pro-Life stance but in no way all of it. The given situation can make all the difference.
……..
MK: No valuation. Just simple science and common sense.
No, it indeed is valuation. Science and common sense are not in the moral realm.
……..
MK: I don’t see a clear valuation in your scenario either. I see a lot of people believing a lot of different things and billions of human beings being killed in the process. What do you see?
No doubt that pro-choicers have differing opinions. Keeping it simple, some are for first-trimester elective abortions only, others to 20 weeks, others to 24 weeks or viability, others to 26 weeks, for some examples. But so what? Why does this matter? And yes – there have been billions of abortions, but it’s not like we need all those extra billions of people or that the world would be seen as “better” were they here.
Doug
NAMBLA MEMBER: Nope – if there is a “two year old” here it’s you, stamping your feet and whining because people aren’t doing what you want in these matters. Well, it’s not up to you. It’s up to the people who are actually involved.
……..
NAMBLA MEMBER: Sure, but that’s not the argument. There are often lots of problems with man/boy sex and other “extreme” sexual behaviors. The people know that going in. What are you going to tell them – “There could be problems, and I don’t want you to have sex with kids this way?”
NAMBLA MEMBER: Silly again. The responsibility is the older man’s. It’s his call. It’s not up to you. His choice doesn’t have to be “cleared” by you.
NAMBLA MEMBER: You see this one way, other people see it different ways. You want some things, but you can’t demonstrate why other people should have to do what you want in this regard.
Don’t you see that some things are just wrong, and that you can’t prove it, but society steps in to ensure that certain things are prohibited?
Take any activity that society has deemed morally wrong, and you can plug in your arguments. They don’t sound silly when you’re the pedophile or the rapist…in this case you are the one who thinks that mothers should have the right to kill their children. To me, you sound just as morally bereft as the NAMBLA member who wants the right to have sex with 8 year olds…
What is operative is that the unborn will be wanted or unwanted.
MK: What is sick is that the unborn are slaughtered because they are not wanted. Since when did the worth of a human life depend on whether someone else values it?
All worth is valuation. If nobody cares, then nobody cares. There has to be a sentient mind to make the valuation. “Sick” is your word, because you don’t like abortion. If there were enough people on earth, most would think that situation “sick” too.
Sometimes a human life depends on whether someone values it positively or negatively. You may not like that, but that’s the deal.
Doug
MK, right on!!!
Okay, but so what? There are Pro-Lifers who are okay with abortion in cases of rape, anencephaly, severe enough danger to the woman, ectopic pregnancies, etc. It’s not like either side has one monolithic opinion. For third-trimester fetuses, it’s many Pro-Choicers who are okay with the restrictions on abortion, though there may indeed be some who are just as you say, too.
No Doug, no pro lifers are ever okay with abortion in the case of rape. NO pro lifers are okay with abortion in the case of anything. If they tell you that they are, then they are either lying or mistaken. The Catholic churches stance is very clear. Sometimes a child must be removed from a mother (as in ectopic pregnancy) to save her life. But the intent is never to end the childs life. The child may die, but the operation was not performed to end the childs life. It was performed to save the mothers. The child’s death was a consequence. Every thing possible would be done to keep the child alive as well. There is a difference, although I don’t expect you to see it.
You mistakenly believe that pro life has “exceptions” attached to it. But you are wrong. We do not recognize the option of choice when it comes to intentionally taking the life of a child. Period. The people you describe are pro-choice, but put parmeters on their idea of when abortion is acceptable.
And yes – there have been billions of abortions, but it’s not like we need all those extra billions of people or that the world would be seen as “better” were they here.
Why Doug, because you say so? Now who’s stamping their foot and saying it should be done their way?
All worth is valuation. If nobody cares, then nobody cares. There has to be a sentient mind to make the valuation. “Sick” is your word, because you don’t like abortion. If there were enough people on earth, most would think that situation “sick” too.
*
Sometimes a human life depends on whether someone values it positively or negatively. You may not like that, but that’s the deal.
Not only don’t I not like it, I don’t accept it. You want me to be forced to live by your rules but you don’t want to live by mine. Where I come from that’s called a stalemate. Which is why I accede to a higher authority. I recognize that humans can have different views. Therefore I turn to an authority that I believe is infallible. Perfect. Incapable of being wrong. I am not falling on my own judgments. Are you?
This is a never-ending argument. Heck, a toenail clipping can be a “human being” under a broad definition, since it can have existence (“being”) and be of human origin. You, for example, might favor a less-inclusive definition, like it has to be alive and able to develop, an organism, and that’s fine too. Many people favor a less-inclusive meaning yet, like being born and/or having consciousness, having legal rights, etc. I am not arguing that the unborn here are not human, not alive and not organisms. Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the main issue.
Human being: # homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for “knowing man”): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being
hu
Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the main issue.
Again, it’s the only issue.
Heather,
Feel free to jump in! Where’s Val? And Bethany?
And Mary…?
Doug,
MK: There are people who believe it magically becomes a person at 14 weeks.
*
Heh heh – now this one does seem silly to me. It’s not impossible that it would be that way, i.e. society draws the line there, versus at birth, but it’s certainly not that way now.
Not only do we have people here on this board who believe that abortion should only be allowed up to fourteen weeks, but there are laws in many, many states that use that number…are you unfamiliar with this? The fact is, it IS that way now…Every clinic that performs abortions has a number where they cut off the age at which they are willing to perform the procedure.
For some it is 24 weeks. For some it is 14. For some, like our esteemed mr. tiller, it is whenever he decides, for others it’s 9 weeks…
……..
MK: All righty then, You are “Pro the choice to kill a human organism”
Now define that human organism.
Living and human, usually developing (in this argument). Let me know what else you’re talking about, there.
……..
MK: And that wasn’t a straw man argument. If you believe that majority decides morals, then I don’t know where to go with you…I don’t think right and wrong can be something that is voted on. I believe in absolute truths. You don’t. It’s hard to argue when the premises can’t even be agreed on…
Here is what you said: “you have made it clear that you have absolutely no moral code other than what the masses want the masses shall have”
That is a straw man argument, as stated. It’s a false generalization. I have never made such an unqualified statement about my morality.
The majority decides morality, “for the majority”. A group of people can have a moral opinion, sure. With respect to some things, I would go along with the majority, yes, as would many people, because we don’t feel strongly enough about the issue to outweigh the benefits of most people in society getting along and agreeing on rules. Or maybe we just agree in the first place. But in no way is your unqualified statement about me correct, or what I said.
I know the idea of absolute truth appeals to you, but morality is not in that realm. Do you not see that there has to be a conscious mind or minds involved, to make valuations, to have feelings of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm? Physical reality is one thing. Let us say that a planet exists, or not. That will be true regardless of whether “somebody” knows it and regardless of whether a mind thinks it’s “good” or not. If the planet does not exist, is it “bad” if no mind is aware of it? What if everybody on earth vanished, but no consciousness knew of it – what feeling of “good” or “bad” would there be about it?
………
MK: You call it silly, and I might agree, if we were talking about me insisting that everyone wear bunny slippers because I like them. But you are diminishing the seriousness of this “choice”…A life is at stake.
Sure, but is there an actual, demonstrable need for that life to continue, to the extent that we would deny the desire of the pregnant woman to end it? You know there is disagreement about this. At the very least, it’s an argument. I’m not diminishing the seriousness of the choice. If there was a persuasive argument why we really needed to ban or further restrict abortion, why we need to increase the rate of population growth faster than it already is, it would be different.
……..
MK: If you believed that men had a constitutional right to rape women, and I didn’t, would you call me silly because I was trying to get a law passed that said rape was wrong?
Well, that’s quite a hypothetical. Who knows, on that one? If I was different, how can I now know just how I’d be? What I said was silly is:
“You want the freedom to make choices (IVF, Having sex) but you don’t want the consequences that come with theses choices.”
If you are saying that your desire (for the pregnancy to be continued, for one example) is a “consequence,” then that is not true. The consequences of having sex may often include a pregnancy, sure, but I don’t see people arguing with you about that. Continuing the pregnancy is not any necessary consequence, though. Having sex is no ‘agreement” to remain pregnant. Yes, people have the freedom to make choices, and yes, they may regret what happens afterwards, sometimes, but it should be no surprise that any unwanted condition is remedied, nor that the people involved will want to remedy it.
……..
MK: Nambla truly believes that having sex with small boys is a perfectly natural and viable option. They can’t understand why society has a problem with it. Do you think we are being silly by insisting that men leave little boys alone?
Nope, and there’s not much sentiment on the side of NAMBLA, overall, and of course you already know that. With some issues there is an overwhelming majority of opinion on one side or another.
NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
# building understanding and support for such relationships;
# educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
# cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
# supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Now to hear them tell it, we are infringing on a perfectly normal desire.
Why does society object? Why does society step in? I know, do you?
Sure – because there is sufficient opinion within society for those relations between kids of certain ages and older men (in this case) to be prohibited.
MK: And for the record, it’s hard to take you seriously when you accuse me of bad arguing, when the best you can come up with yourself in refutation is to constantly call my arguments silly…
I maintain it is silly to make false generalizations, take things out of context, and pretend that one’s desire is external truth.
I am not saying you have “bad arguing” overall, and I’ve noted the exceptions.
Doug
MK: Take any activity that society has deemed morally wrong, and you can plug in your arguments. They don’t sound silly when you’re the pedophile or the rapist…in this case you are the one who thinks that mothers should have the right to kill their children. To me, you sound just as morally bereft as the NAMBLA member who wants the right to have sex with 8 year olds…
MK, 8 year olds and people who are raped are not inside the body of a person, have had rights attributed to them, and are sentient, experiential, aware, sensate, have the abiliity to suffer, etc. It should be no surprise that society isn’t going to let them suffer for the sake of NAMBLA’s desire.
“Children” – subjective. Many people don’t think it applies. Heck, you can say anything but a semantic argument isn’t a big deal here.
Pedophiles want the will of children subverted to their own will.
You want the will of pregnant women subverted to your own will. It should be no surprise that society isn’t letting you have that
Doug
Well,
You’ve called me “silly” six or seven times now. That just seems like a cop out. addressed the And I maintain it is silly for you to say that a toenail clipping is a human being. That’s like saying a dead leaf is a tree.
I don’t believe that I have made any false generalizations, nor that you have successfully pointed any out. I have also not taken anything (that I am aware of) out of context. And I don’t pretend that my desire is external truth. I recognize external truth and capitulating to it becomes my desire. You on the other hand have created your truth out of thin air and want others to have to abide by it. I can show you a beating heart. I can show you the separate DNA. I can show you arms and legs and kidneys. You cannot show me a “fetus” without these things. I have proven that at the moment of conception a human being is created. You now must prove that that human being is not a person. Until you can, I suggest you refrain from fighting for the right to kill it.
“Children” – subjective. Many people don’t think it applies. Heck, you can say anything but a semantic argument isn’t a big deal here.
“Fetus” -subjective. Many people don’t think it applies. Heck, you can say anything but a semantic argument isn’t a big deal here.
Pedophiles want the will of children subverted to their own will.
Pro choice people want the will of children subverted to their own will
You want the will of pregnant women subverted to your own will. It should be no surprise that society isn’t letting you have that
You want the will of unborn children subverted to your own will and the will of their mothers. It should be no surprise that a segment of society is trying not to let you have that.”
Okay, but so what? There are Pro-Lifers who are okay with abortion in cases of rape, anencephaly, severe enough danger to the woman, ectopic pregnancies, etc. It’s not like either side has one monolithic opinion. For third-trimester fetuses, it’s many Pro-Choicers who are okay with the restrictions on abortion, though there may indeed be some who are just as you say, too.
MK: No Doug, no pro lifers are ever okay with abortion in the case of rape.
I’ve seen many who are.
……..
MK: NO pro lifers are okay with abortion in the case of anything. If they tell you that they are, then they are either lying or mistaken. The Catholic churches stance is very clear. Sometimes a child must be removed from a mother (as in ectopic pregnancy) to save her life. But the intent is never to end the childs life. The child may die, but the operation was not performed to end the childs life. It was performed to save the mothers. The child’s death was a consequence. Every thing possible would be done to keep the child alive as well. There is a difference, although I don’t expect you to see it.
The mother’s life is valued positively, enough so that it’s said to be okay to have the abortion. And anyway, the Catholic Church isn’t the totality of “pro-life.”
There are also many other conditions where people will think that abortion is okay, even though in general they are pro-life:
Pediatric Pathology
……..
MK: You mistakenly believe that pro life has “exceptions” attached to it. But you are wrong. We do not recognize the option of choice when it comes to intentionally taking the life of a child. Period. The people you describe are pro-choice, but put parmeters on their idea of when abortion is acceptable.
You’re attempting to speak for many people who do not agree with you. However, going with what you say, then the vast, overwhelming majority of people are pro-choice.
……….
And yes – there have been billions of abortions, but it’s not like we need all those extra billions of people or that the world would be seen as “better” were they here.
MK: Why Doug, because you say so? Now who’s stamping their foot and saying it should be done their way?
I’m not stamping my foot nor saying it should be done “my way.” I don’t have any “way” – I leave it up to the woman. I’m just saying that extra billions of people is not necessarily a good thing. And if we had them, the sentiment against abortion could be quite a good deal less.
MK, I just read your post. AAK, I was on the first post off and on. Unfortunately, I have to go in about 1/2 hour. Otherwise I would stay!
MK: No Doug, no pro lifers are ever okay with abortion in the case of rape.
*
I’ve seen many who are.
Then either you are being deceived or they are. Either way if there is a “but” in their pro-life statement or an “except for” then they are not truly pro life.
All worth is valuation. If nobody cares, then nobody cares. There has to be a sentient mind to make the valuation. “Sick” is your word, because you don’t like abortion. If there were enough people on earth, most would think that situation “sick” too.
Sometimes a human life depends on whether someone values it positively or negatively. You may not like that, but that’s the deal.
MK: Not only don’t I not like it, I don’t accept it. You want me to be forced to live by your rules but you don’t want to live by mine.
My way lets the consciousness involved – the woman – make her own choice. Your way has your desire being forced on her.
……
Where I come from that’s called a stalemate.
Well, there’s sure a lot of arguing about it, eh?
……..
Which is why I accede to a higher authority.
This is still your desire at work, regardless of what you ascribe it to. You cannot prove the existence of “higher authority,” but it is fact that you have your desires, and that pregnant women do too.
……..
I recognize that humans can have different views. Therefore I turn to an authority that I believe is infallible. Perfect. Incapable of being wrong. I am not falling on my own judgments. Are you?
Your belief in the “higher authority” is your judgment, and there is no proof that it’s anything more than imaginary. I certainly don’t see that as any good reason why your wishes whould trump those of a pregnant woman.
Doug
I’m not stamping my foot nor saying it should be done “my way.” I don’t have any “way” – I leave it up to the woman. I’m just saying that extra billions of people is not necessarily a good thing. And if we had them, the sentiment against abortion could be quite a good deal less.Z
By voting pro choice candidates in, and by supporting a womans right to kill her child, you ARE stamping your foot and saying do it “my way”…you are telling me that I must live in a country where ending the life of human beings for convenience sake is legal. That takes away my choice to live in a country where the unborn are protected.
And you are right. Right now the majority of people in this country are pro choice. And that is why people like Val, Mary, Bethany, Jill and I are working ceaselessly to educate and inform the public as to what abortion is. One of the things we do is let them know how many abortions are done for convenience.
And it’s working. While they are still pro-choice, the criteria for abortion is getting narrower. In time, we believe it will be so narrow as to not exist.
This is a never-ending argument. Heck, a toenail clipping can be a “human being” under a broad definition, since it can have existence (“being”) and be of human origin. You, for example, might favor a less-inclusive definition, like it has to be alive and able to develop, an organism, and that’s fine too. Many people favor a less-inclusive meaning yet, like being born and/or having consciousness, having legal rights, etc. I am not arguing that the unborn here are not human, not alive and not organisms. Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the main issue.
MK: Human being: # homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for “knowing man”): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being
hu?man be?ing (plural hu?man be?ings)
noun
Definition:
1. member of human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens.
2. person: a person, viewed especially as having imperfections and weaknesses
I’m a human being, not a machine.
Sorry, I looked, but nowhere could I find a human being defined as a toenail. Methinks the “argument” ends here.
The toenail can be a “being” – a thing having existence, and of course be human too. That’s why such semantic arguments aren’t really the deal here. It’s like “child” or not or “baby” or not. Stating one or the other is not a meaningful argument. Heck, a “person” can be “a corporation, an estate, a partnership, or other legal entity in the as having rights and duties.” It is that the unborn are not legal human beings, i.e. don’t have rights attributed to them that has you upset in the first place. I have been around and around with many people over the years about “human being,” and the abortion argument always remains. You can call the unborn anything (and I agree with you that “human being” applies to the unborn) but the debate is over right-to-life, isn’t it?
Doug
Your belief in the “higher authority” is your judgment, and there is no proof that it’s anything more than imaginary. I certainly don’t see that as any good reason why your wishes would trump those of a pregnant woman.
For those that believe, no proof is necessary. For those that don’t, no proof is sufficient.
The proof is all around you. You just refuse to see it. The same way you refuse to see that abortion is wrong.
You want so desperately to live in a world where everything is seeable and knowable. But there is a whole other world out there. An unseen one. And that is the one that is important. I’m not expecting you to understand. You’re not capable.
But your disbelief has no impact on the reality of it. It is there. And a war is being waged. A spiritual war. You are on one side, being played like a pawn or a puppet, if you will, blindly doing the enemies bidding, and furthering his agenda, while all the time denying his existence. You are a dupe. And I am on the other, a willing soldier, completely aware of the battle being fought. No one is using me, I have joined my team with both eyes open. Now which one of us is freer? The prisoner of his unbelief or the soldier, aware of his duty?
“Children” – subjective. Many people don’t think it applies. Heck, you can say anything but a semantic argument isn’t a big deal here.
MK: “Fetus” -subjective. Many people don’t think it applies. Heck, you can say anything but a semantic argument isn’t a big deal here.
No, MK, fetus is not subjective. Anyway, as I’ve said, terminology is not the argument here. Valuation is.
……
Pedophiles want the will of children subverted to their own will.
MK: Pro choice people want the will of children subverted to their own will.
Nope – there is no will on the part of the unborn in this argument.
……..
You want the will of pregnant women subverted to your own will. It should be no surprise that society isn’t letting you have that.
MK: You want the will of unborn children subverted to your own will and the will of their mothers.
Nope, again, there’s no will there.
……..
It should be no surprise that a segment of society is trying not to let you have that.
Who told you it was a surprise?
It is that the unborn are not legal human beings, i.e. don’t have rights attributed to them that has you upset in the first place
Well duh. And that is why we are fighting for these “human beings/fetuses/entities/babies/children/unborn to have legal status.
sheesh!
But to call a toenail a human being is a bit of a stretch…a part of a human being, okay, but not A HUMAN BEING. When you say something like that you lose all credibility. It’s the fact that these “beings” are human that is the point. They are human beings and for the first time in history the world has accepted it as morally right to kill them. The need to “define” them as “Legal human beings” has not arisen before. But it has now, and the fact that the law has been twisted to suit the selfish needs to be addressed. These little persons need to be recognized, validated and protected under the law. What do you think we are doing here? Just trying to change terminology? We are trying to get them recognized as PEOPLE!!!!
No, MK, fetus is not subjective. Anyway, as I’ve said, terminology is not the argument here. Valuation is.
Says who? The Gospel of Doug?
You keep harpin’ on valuation and I couldn’t care less what you value. These are human beings and they need to be protected as such!
Nope – there is no will on the part of the unborn in this argument.
How do you know what these children want? How do you know they have no will?
MK: No Doug, no pro lifers are ever okay with abortion in the case of rape.
I’ve seen many who are.
Then either you are being deceived or they are. Either way if there is a “but” in their pro-life statement or an “except for” then they are not truly pro life.
Then there are so few “truly pro life” people” that it’s a moot point. Sure – there is often a “but” in there or “except for” applications, and that’s true for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. There is almost nobody who doesn’t have some exceptions, etc.
Okay, so you’re really pretty hard-core “pro-life,” but surely you see that the abortion argument is often about “the middle ground” (which makes no difference to you), and that the legislative realities don’t really include what you would wish for.
Doug
Who told you it was a surprise?
Ummm…you did.
here:
Having sex is no ‘agreement” to remain pregnant. Yes, people have the freedom to make choices, and yes, they may regret what happens afterwards, sometimes, but it should be no surprise that any unwanted condition is remedied, nor that the people involved will want to remedy it.
and here:
You want the will of pregnant women subverted to your own will. It should be no surprise that society isn’t letting you have that
And if you’re so convinced that the world would be better off with less people then why don’t you volunteer yourself and your family?
I’m not stamping my foot nor saying it should be done “my way.” I don’t have any “way” – I leave it up to the woman. I’m just saying that extra billions of people is not necessarily a good thing. And if we had them, the sentiment against abortion could be quite a good deal less.
MK: By voting pro choice candidates in, and by supporting a womans right to kill her child, you ARE stamping your foot and saying do it “my way”…you are telling me that I must live in a country where ending the life of human beings for convenience sake is legal. That takes away my choice to live in a country where the unborn are protected.
MK, you are not the one who is pregnant. If you would be, then Pro-Choice isn’t forcing you either to continue the pregnancy or to end it. As for where you live, there are always going to be applications of desire through law in societies. And yes, people may vote opposite ways and in effect be trying to tell other people what to do. There is still an enormous difference in being the person who is actually pregnant, and being a totally different person, almost always unaware of a given specific abortion or continuance of a pregnancy.
And you are right. Right now the majority of people in this country are pro choice. And that is why people like Val, Mary, Bethany, Jill and I are working ceaselessly to educate and inform the public as to what abortion is. One of the things we do is let them know how many abortions are done for convenience.
And it’s working. While they are still pro-choice, the criteria for abortion is getting narrower. In time, we believe it will be so narrow as to not exist.
I don’t have much argument with you there, except for it getting so narrow as to not exist. “As to what abortion is” – I so see you putting a lot of emotional spin on it, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen a bunch of times already. Hmm… should I go fix the roof like I’ve been meaning to…?
Doug,
Poll all the pro lifers on this site. Every one of them will agree with me…
Try it. Be amazed!
I so see you putting a lot of emotional spin on it, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen a bunch of times already. Hmm… should I go fix the roof like I’ve been meaning to…?
Taking our ball and going home are we? I didn’t run when every argument you gave lacked emotion did I?
The topic is all about emotion. And empathy. And compassion. If you choose to exclude these from arguments about the right to life then fail to understand the argument at all. If we approach this in a cold and calculated way, then we lower ourselves to lesser animals. Doing what we want to do with no regard for others. You said NAMBLA was wrong because it harmed a third party. Isn’t that emotional? Isn’t that based on your definition of “harm”? Sorry, but you can’t leave emotion out of a debate about killing babies. Unless your humanity has gone out the window…has it?
Your belief in the “higher authority” is your judgment, and there is no proof that it’s anything more than imaginary. I certainly don’t see that as any good reason why your wishes would trump those of a pregnant woman.
MK: For those that believe, no proof is necessary.
Agreed
For those that don’t, no proof is sufficient.
Nope. The point is that there’s no proof at all.
……..
MK: The proof is all around you. You just refuse to see it. The same way you refuse to see that abortion is wrong.
This is nothing more than you saying “Because I say so.” We already know that there are disagreements about this stuff. It still boils down to your desire against that of the pregnant woman. Your opinion of “wrong” in no way reflects any external truth. I say let her be free to choose – that is more important than you getting your way.
……..
MK: You want so desperately to live in a world where everything is seeable and knowable.
I live in a world where I don’t pretend that imaginary stuff is real.
……..
MK: But there is a whole other world out there. An unseen one. And that is the one that is important. I’m not expecting you to understand. You’re not capable.
Baloney. Not everybody has the same emotional need you do to make such unprovable assumptions. Either you can prove what you say or you cannot. You cannot. Meanwhile it is fact that not all pregnancies are wanted.
……..
But your disbelief has no impact on the reality of it. It is there.
You’d have to prove it’s there before that could have any validity at all.
……..
MK: And a war is being waged. A spiritual war. You are on one side, being played like a pawn or a puppet, if you will, blindly doing the enemies bidding, and furthering his agenda, while all the time denying his existence. You are a dupe. And I am on the other, a willing soldier, completely aware of the battle being fought. No one is using me, I have joined my team with both eyes open. Now which one of us is freer? The prisoner of his unbelief or the soldier, aware of his duty?
It is more free to be free of pretenses such as you have made. I think that had you grown up in an Islamic country, for example, you would have different unprovable beliefs, and be just as vehement about them.
I really gotta get on that roof. Good talking with you, MK.
Later, Gator.
Actually Doug,
many people have grown up in Islamic countries and still managed to find their way to Christianity. The truth will out no matter your circumstances. But only if you are interested in finding the Truth. Apparently you are not. You are satisfied with your own little definition of “world” and until you are willing to look around with “new” eyes, you’ll never understand how very big the world really is! Go fix your roof. And while your up there, see if you can’t get a new perspective on things. You know, being closer to the heavens and all:)
It is that the unborn are not legal human beings, i.e. don’t have rights attributed to them that has you upset in the first place
MK: Well duh. And that is why we are fighting for these “human beings/fetuses/entities/babies/children/unborn to have legal status. sheesh!
Well there ya go – terminology is really not the argument, as I’ve been saying.
……..
MK: But to call a toenail a human being is a bit of a stretch…a part of a human being, okay, but not A HUMAN BEING. When you say something like that you lose all credibility.
Nope, it’s just making the point that insisting on a certain term or not is not a meaningful argument here.
……..
MK: It’s the fact that these “beings” are human that is the point.
Nope – that’s not at issue. If you see somebody who says, “The unborn in this argument are not human,” then they are wrong and neither I nor Pro-Choice is on their side as far as that.
……..
MK: They are human beings and for the first time in history the world has accepted it as morally right to kill them.
Holy Crow, that’s not true. Abortion has been around for thousands and thousands of years. It was not seen as murder in biblical times nor has it been in the history of the US. Even when abortion was illegal in the US, it was not deemed to be murder. At our coutnry’s founding in 1776, abortion had been legal under English common law, practically forever in the “new world” timeframe. It continued to be legal to a point in gestation for many years afterwards, too.
……..
MK: The need to “define” them as “Legal human beings” has not arisen before. But it has now, and the fact that the law has been twisted to suit the selfish needs to be addressed. These little persons need to be recognized, validated and protected under the law. What do you think we are doing here? Just trying to change terminology? We are trying to get them recognized as PEOPLE!
Well okay – I agree with some of that. But some people were against abortion in past decades and centuries, so they too felt a need to have the unborn be legally protected. Nothin’ “new” about it. As far as “persons” you do indeed want to change the terminology there, with respect to the unborn. You want right-to-life attributed. You want personhood granted. You want “person” to be applied to the unborn with legal force.
No, MK, fetus is not subjective. Anyway, as I’ve said, terminology is not the argument here. Valuation is.
MK: Says who? The Gospel of Doug? You keep harpin’ on valuation and I couldn’t care less what you value. These are human beings and they need to be protected as such!
Fetus is a medically defined and accepted term. You don’t care what I value and you don’t care what the pregnant woman may value. She is not going to blindly accept what you want, any more than you would, if the situation were reversed. I see that she does not need to do that, in any way. There is no good reason for your desire to be forced on her.
……..
Nope – there is no will on the part of the unborn in this argument.
MK: How do you know what these children want? How do you know they have no will?
It takes a while in gestation before consciousness can be present, desire and will included. I realize it’s an argument late in gestation. Yet for the overwhelming majority of abortions the brain has not developed to the point where it can be true.
MK: It should be no surprise that a segment of society is trying not to let you have that.
Who told you it was a surprise?
Ummm…you did. here:
“Having sex is no ‘agreement” to remain pregnant. Yes, people have the freedom to make choices, and yes, they may regret what happens afterwards, sometimes, but it should be no surprise that any unwanted condition is remedied, nor that the people involved will want to remedy it.”
and here:
“You want the will of pregnant women subverted to your own will. It should be no surprise that society isn’t letting you have that.”
No, MK, I was not telling you it was a surprise. I was saying that it should not be a surprise that people will remedy unwanted situations. That applies to flat tires, unwanted pregnancies, illnesses, etc. It is also not a surprise that a segment of society is trying to ban abortion. Who doesn’t know that?
———-
MK: And if you’re so convinced that the world would be better off with less people then why don’t you volunteer yourself and your family?
Well, I didn’t say that, though, now did I?
The point about population pressure is not that we have some desperate need to cut population. I have never said any such thing. However, it is also true that we do not need to increase the population any faster than what the current rate is. Banning or further restricting abortion would do that, so on the grounds of population there is certainly no need for that.
MK: Actually Doug, many people have grown up in Islamic countries and still managed to find their way to Christianity. The truth will out no matter your circumstances. But only if you are interested in finding the Truth. Apparently you are not. You are satisfied with your own little definition of “world” and until you are willing to look around with “new” eyes, you’ll never understand how very big the world really is! Go fix your roof. And while your up there, see if you can’t get a new perspective on things. You know, being closer to the heavens and all :)
People have also gone from Christianity to Islam. Muslims believe that their way is the “truth” just as strongly as you think your way is. There are any number of subjective and unprovable beliefs, and the adherents are of course going to think that they are the correct ones.
We all make unprovable assumptions, but I don’t pretend that mine are “external truth.” It is where those assumptions diverge that the arguments begin. This comes down to you wanting a pregnant woman to continue a pregnancy. She may not want to. You don’t have any demonstrable reason for your desire to trump hers.
Doug
MK: Doug, Poll all the pro lifers on this site. Every one of them will agree with me… Try it. Be amazed!
You could be right. I don’t know them all, nor even who they all are.
……..
I do see you putting a lot of emotional spin on it, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen a bunch of times already. Hmm… should I go fix the roof like I’ve been meaning to…?
MK: Taking our ball and going home are we? I didn’t run when every argument you gave lacked emotion did I?
Oh brother…. I did need to get that roof done before it got late in the day, the coating would not dry, etc. The “emotional spin” I refer to is stuff like saying “it’s a baby” as if that really matters.
……..
MK: The topic is all about emotion.
Agreed
……..
MK: And empathy. And compassion. If you choose to exclude these from arguments about the right to life then fail to understand the argument at all.
Not really. There is nothing there to have “empathy” with, to a point in gestation, but you pretend otherwise. You are not identifying with the feelings of the unborn, to a point in gestation, anyway, since there are no feelings on their part. Same for “connpassion.” You may personify the unborn in your mind, but if there are no feelings there, there are no feelings there. Bottom line again is that this is your desire against that of the pregnant woman.
……..
MK: If we approach this in a cold and calculated way, then we lower ourselves to lesser animals. Doing what we want to do with no regard for others. You said NAMBLA was wrong because it harmed a third party. Isn’t that emotional? Isn’t that based on your definition of “harm”? Sorry, but you can’t leave emotion out of a debate about killing babies. Unless your humanity has gone out the window…has it?
I say it’s more humane to have empathy for the pregnant woman, who most certainly can suffer, versus the unfeeling unborn. Your “suffering” due to people not doing what you want in this respect does not trump the desires of the pregnant woman, in my opinion. I believe that the rights of young boys prevent NAMBLAs stated ends from being permissable – it would involve too much suffering on the part of the boys. I don’t think it’s worth it. Same for your stated ends versus the pregnant woman. Sure it’s emotional. It’s valuation; it’s desire – and that’s what the abortion argument really is.