I have a new poll question up:
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.
I’m so excited about my new hamsters!
PIP, good luck with those hamsters – cute little beasties, eh?
Being Pro-choice or for abortion being legal isn’t the same as being “for abortion,” per se.
Doug
Doug,
If I person wanted slavery to be legal, but not necessarily own slaves himself, would you call him “pro-slavery”? Or would he also be pro-choice?
Just curious.
Joe
I find the question from last week to be very biased in my opinion. Of course when you have anti-choice blog you are going to have a majority of people who do say “It is accurate. It doesn’t matter what pro aborts say. It forces them to see the truth” If you weren’t expecting that Jill, then there must be something wrong with you.
If I was dating someone who was pro-life I don’t think I’d really care that much.
Yes, Doug! And they are even cuter than regular hamsters–being Chinese dwarf hamsters and all.
http://members.shaw.ca/petitepaws/chdwf.html
I hope everyone has a great holiday! *sings Holiday to self*…. courtesy of Madonna!
Joe: If I person wanted slavery to be legal, but not necessarily own slaves himself, would you call him “pro-slavery”? Or would he also be pro-choice?
Afternoon, Joe.
He’d be “pro-choice” as far as slavery, but not “pro-slavery,” per se.
Doug
I’m sure that Jill is very pro choice with it comes to things that don’t kill babies.
I’m pro-choice. I think that people ought to be able to choose whether they want to own a handgun or not. I think people ought to be able to choose whether they want to tattoo and pierce their body (even though I think it looks trashy and I wouldn’t do it). I think people ought to be able to choose whether they want to allow smoking in their restaurants or smoke themselves. I think people ought to be able to choose to eat meat, drive an SUV or burn their own American flag.
I draw the line when another person is going to be killed. That makes me anti-abortion.
I don’t think I’d date a right-to-lifer. Then again, a right-to-lifer probably wouldn’t date me!
JM,
I actually voted that sometimes it was inappropriate. Don’t be so hard on Jill.
This argument has gone back and forth and back and forth and it was interesting to see where the majority fell. There are actually as many pro choicers on this site as pro-lifers. Sometimes we’re even outnumbered.
Tho, I must admit, it was a rather loaded question. The new one is much for “fair”, don’t you think?
Now PIP,
Don’t you mean “Cricetulus griseus I mean really, Chinese? Dwarf? Aren’t we being just a little politically incorrect. (Although I do have fondness for midgets!)
What did you name them?
Getting back on topic: when I hear or see the use of the term “pro-abort”, the effect is: I conclude that the speaker or writer has been brainwashed by the right-to-life industry or is cynically shilling for that industry.
Same as when someone claims abortion causes breast-cancer. It indicates that the speaker buys into the right-to-life industry’s party line, and doesn’t care about the facts.
SoMG,
I don’t think I’d date a right-to-lifer. Then again, a right-to-lifer probably wouldn’t date me!
So many comebacks, so little time…
I’m showing great restraint, don’t you think.
Ahhh SoMG, you’re no fun anymore:(
Doug, you wrote,
Oh don’t be silly Joe,
That’s just your “valuation”! :)
Truthfully Joe,
Enigma and Doug don’t accept sources like the dictionary, Wikipedia, the bible, anything written by anybody of faith…
Basically, I think the only source Doug will accept is Enigma and the only source Enigma will accept is Doug…
Trust me, we’ve refuted any number of things they’ve come up with and the pat response is “that’s your valuation”…unless of course it’s their “valuation” and you call them on it, then their pat response is “No it’s not, it’s fact”…
Give up. You can’t win to lose.
So if I’m against prohibition of alcohol, which was once the law of the land (USA), does that make me “pro-booze”?
SoMG,
You’re making it very hard to be good…my tongue hurts!
Actually SoMG,
You may have hit on something there…perhaps instead of pro-choice, which we feel is a misnomer, you should use pro-roe vs wade…
And that would make you anti-prohibition.
Yes MK, I think this weeks question is much better. But I think it will mostly fall on “no i wouldn’t date someone who has different beliefs than me.”
I’ll bet your right…interesting, isn’t it?
Very….
I see my flag? Am I your ONLY Portland-area reader? I mean, I know that we are few and far between, but come on! :)
By “we”, I mean “Portland area pro-lifers”, not “your readers”, of course! :)
Hello Nathan,
I’m always sending Jill your blog posts…Just read the one about the Jewish Comedian…great job. And I’d like to know more about her…
Maybe all the Portland readers are lurkers?
SoMG,
How come you never responded when Val proved that your statistics on complications in preg vs abort. were skewed?
She didn’t. She pointed out one source of random error (some states don’t track abortions, so had to be estimated) and one source of minor systematic error (some states–she didn’t say which–double-report abortion deaths as pregnancy-related), but even if you take her word for this neither source of error is enough to make a significant difference in the result that the mortality of childbirth is ABOUT ten times greater than the mortality of abortion in the USA.
i can’t see my flag… its covered up by someone elses. I think it would also be effective if we had a table to see how many people from each state picked each one.
And by the way, they’re not MY statistics, they’re JAMA’s. Also MMWR’s.
Ahhhh, SoMG,
Maybe you didn’t see the post I’m referring to…let me pull it up!
SOMG –
“Valerie, you wrote: “We are talking about 10 times more in fractions, not whole numbers. This changes alot. ”
What??”
What part is confusing you? ;-) In mathmatics .6 is actually six-tenths. And 9.1 is actually 9 and one-tenths. (I know you know this – just the set up) We are comparing those numbers to one hundred thousand NOT one hundred. This means that we are dealing with small numbers that make the difference obsolete. How many maternal deaths from abortions are there? .0006% of all abortions. How many maternal deaths from childbirth? .0091% of all births.
Mathmatically is this 10 times more? Yes. Does this mean that you are 10 times more likely to die in childbirth vs abortion? Not really. We are dealing with fractions which means that the possibility of dying for either way to end a pregnancy is less than 1%.
As a society we are not well versed in statitics and how it can be manipulated and twisted. The majority of Americans only know basic math. This means that when you and others say 10 times more likely, the immediate reaction is that for every 10 women that die in childbirth only 1 woman dies from abortion. That is not correct. Why is it not correct? Because we are dealing with one hundred thousand people in the study, not one hundred.
Now, do less women die in abortion than in childbirth? yes. In the concept of death and not injuries a woman is .0085% more likely to die in childbirth. So in reality, a woman is 0.1 times more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion. In fractions that is 10 times more. In whole numbers that is one-tenths times more.
Did that help?
Statistics by any and every organization can be manipulated to represent the outcome that they want. This is not a conspiracy thing, EVERY group, organization, business does this. Just watch commercials.
Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 8:15 AM
SOMG – I have more to say, but I have to go grocery shopping before it starts to rain here.
Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 8:40 AM
“It’s not “deceptive,” it’s fact. The exact rates do not matter. Ten or eleven (or 15, from your numbers) times more dangerous for giving birth is just that. It were 91% and 6%. would that somehow be “better”?”
I will explain again. This is confusing, I’m not being condescending.
When dealing with statistics one should consider reporting in percentages. This way there is no confusion. Percentages are the comparison of something to 100. Let me explain. If I said 30% of dogs like to hump human legs (sorry – in a weird mood today) that would mean that 30 out of 100 dogs like to hump legs. If I said 30 out of 1,000 dogs like to hump legs, that would be 3% of dogs like to hump legs. If I said 30 dogs out of 10,000 dogs hump legs; that is .3% of dogs hump…… Hopefully that makes sense…
Now for the maternal deaths. For abortion the source that SOMG cited said that .6 deaths per 100,000 women die in abortions and for deaths in childbirth it was 9.1 per 100,000. Based on the fact that a percentage is something out of 100, lets do the math.
.6 people out of 100,000 = .0006%
9.1 people out of 100,000 = .0091%
Now, lets continue and put these in numbers that we are used to. This means that .000006 out of 100 women die from abortion and .000091 out of 100 women die from childbirth. This is your 10 times more likely. We are dealing with fractions. If this was any other comparison there wouldn’t be one. If a doctor told you that a specific surgery had a .0085% failure rate, would it bother you? That is the difference between abortion and childbirth. A woman is .0085% more likely to die in childbirth than from an abortion.
(In the above post I said that in reality the difference is .1 times more likely not 10 times more likely. I have been told by my husband that this is inncorrect. Sorry. It is still 10 times more likey, but that ten times is only .0085% ; it doesn’t sound as bad when put in percentages does it? This means that abortion and childbirth have virtually the same amount of risk of death.)
More on your comments in a moment…. I have to check in on my kids…..way to quiet here…
(This may post twice.. I originally put in the link to the JAMA website that SOMG cited but for some reason, it won’t let me post it…So I took out the link and hopefully it will post.)
Valerie’s post shows that she understands that fractions can be expressed with different numerators and denomators–that if you multiply both the numerator and denominator by ten, the result does not change. Good for her! She can even express fractions as percentages!
But what difference does it make? However you choose to write the fractions, the maternal mortality of abortion in the USA remains tenfold lower than the maternal mortality of childbirth in the USA. That’s true regardless of whether you express the numbers as whole numbers, percentages, decimals, or fractions. There’s nothing in Valerie’s re-posted post that shows that this statistic is “skewed”.
That means any time you hear or read a right-to-lifer squealing about women who die getting abortions you can remember that those women would have been ten times more likely to die if they had chosen to grow their pregnancies. (That’s in the USA.)
If you want to say, they’d have been one thousand percent more likely, feel free.
SoMG: That means any time you hear or read a right-to-lifer squealing about women who die getting abortions you can remember that those women would have been ten times more likely to die if they had chosen to grow their pregnancies.
Correct, while the overall number of deaths from both remain relatively low versus the total number of cases.
And by Valerie’s figures it’s actually over 15 times more likely.
Doug, you wrote,
Oh don’t be silly Joe, That’s just your “valuation”!
No, it wasn’t his valuation, and he wasn’t being silly.
MK: Trust me, we’ve refuted any number of things they’ve come up with and the pat response is “that’s your valuation”…unless of course it’s their “valuation” and you call them on it, then their pat response is “No it’s not, it’s fact”
No you haven’t. You’ve displayed an incredible tendency to respond not to what we say, but to what you pretend we say.
You hardly ever quote what I actually do say, and I imagine in your subconscious you feel you have a good reason to do that.
There is a difference between valuation and things with external reality – physical existence, logic, etc. Some things are objective, and some are subjective.
Doug
SoMG: So if I’m against prohibition of alcohol, which was once the law of the land (USA), does that make me “pro-booze”?
Not necessarily, of course.
With respect to abortion, pro-choice could be said to be “pro-legal-abortion,” but that’s not the same as actually being “for abortion.”
In my case, if nobody wanted to end pregnancies, I’m not “for abortion” then. The argument really is choice or no choice. If we aren’t talking about the choice; let’s say that hypothetically nobody did want abortions, then almost nobody would be for them, and the few that were would obviously not be what pro-choice is about.
On balance, I see drawbacks to abortion – cost, some amount of risk, consumption of resources, etc. I’d say that pregnancy prevention is much preferable, overall. Of course, once a pregnancy is fact, it’s too late for that. So, if anything, I’d be against abortion, per se.
Doug
More off topic rambling:
The pics of my new pets are on my blog. It took me all day to find decent pics because they start getting active later int he day, and I even felt bad because I was using this flash camera on my resting rodents, but I got some good ones.
Doug,
Your last post at 10:08PM seems to suggest the argument could go either way. Am I correct in my assumption? I ask because in light of my previous statements, if pro-choicers don
Doug, you wrote, “In my case, if nobody wanted to end pregnancies, I’m not “for abortion” then.”
This is an interesting statement. If you felt free to think for yourself, would you still support abortion? I
That someone who is pro-life would even consider dating or marrying a pro-abort is sickening!
I realy dispise those couples who are really different where one is something like Catholic and the other one is Jewish as an example.
When I hear that I think “Their beliefs about God and ultimate reality are at least 2nd or further on down to their ‘attraction’ to each other.”
Making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior is not a peripheral matter.
“I realy dispise those couples who are really different where one is something like Catholic and the other one is Jewish as an example.”
You live in America?
MK: Trust me, we’ve refuted any number of things they’ve come up with and the pat response is “that’s your valuation”…unless of course it’s their “valuation” and you call them on it, then their pat response is “No it’s not, it’s fact”
No you haven’t. You’ve displayed an incredible tendency to respond not to what we say, but to what you pretend we say.
I’m sorry, but I think before you accuse someone of something like that, you should show some examples…
You hardly ever quote what I actually do say, and I imagine in your subconscious you feel you have a good reason to do that.
Not only do I quote you directly, but I put your words in italics, so others can see who said what…
There is a difference between valuation and things with external reality – physical existence, logic, etc. Some things are objective, and some are subjective.
I’m sure there is…the problem comes in when you are the only one that gets to decide what is real and what is not. Your valuations suddenly become fact because you decide they do.
Doug
Wrong – as of now women are free to end pregnancies, to a point in gestation. You advocate that freedom being taken away.
Doug
Wrong-as of now women are free to end pregnancies, AT ANY POINT in gestation.
MK: They are/can be unwanted. But when you have cancer, there is a 100% chance of death to the “host” if not terminated therefore it must be removed in order to save a life. When you are pregnant there is a .0091% chance of the “host” dying. Ending the pregnancy would not be self defense as it is with ending the cancer. There is your difference. Treating the cancer can cause other health issues. Treating the pregnancy can cause other health issues. That is the only place where they are the same. In the treatment of the two.
Oh, okay, MK – I see now. You and Val are comparing cancer to the unborn.
Of course cancer is almost always unwanted – and of course I never said anything differently.
And yes – of course the mortality figures are vastly, vastly different. No argument there, but again – what I said was that they both can be unwanted.
I am well aware of the differences between cancer and the unborn, but you brought up cancer and there is the comparison I made, despite other areas where they are not similar.
On it’s own, cancer is almost always going to be unwanted. If there is no will to live, then it might not be – but no big deal, you get the idea.
Pregnancies are much different, since in the US anyway, most are wanted.
Nevertheless, what I said remains true – they can both be unwanted. A pregnancy can be a situation that is valued negatively, where a remedy is sought.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2007 8:46 PM
MK: I just don’t get how you can pretend it’s not a living human being and that by taking it’s life you aren’t committing murder. You may think I pretend that God exists, but since we’re both living in fantasy worlds, I prefer mine. Less blood, more joy, fewer deceptions and I have something to look forward to. Yours is like a dark cave, dank, cold, lonely and filled with the stench of selfishness and death. Thank God you are only pretending to believe these things, because if they were true you’d lead a very empty life. Viva la fantasy!
MK, I gather you are tired and exasperated from arguing with me.
I suggest then that you don’t waste time putting words in my mouth.
You and Valerie named numerous ways in which the unborn and cancer are different. All fine and good, but I never said those differences don’t exist. Things can be analogous and still be very different in many other ways.
A flat tire and cancer are very different in many ways. However, they too can both be unwanted (and in practice usually are). Anchovies on pizza too. Not saying that the little fishies are “like tires” or “like cancer” or “like the unborn” across the board. Yet – there can be similarities.
I DO think that “living human being” applies to the unborn. The unborn are not legal human beings in all aspects of the term, though in some they are, especially later in gestation. But I am fine with saying “human being” for the unborn – so why waste time saying you don’t get how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?
Murder is a legal term, not one tied to your or other people’s dislike of abortion. I am not saying it is impossible that abortion would even be deemed murder. It could be – it’s a matter of the law. But as of now it is not.
I accept that you believe as you say you do. Yet you have no proof of the god you mention. I submit that it is fact that some women want to end pregnancies. When I am giving my opinion, I want something that makes sense to me if we’re going to take away sommebody’s freedom and subvert their will. One’s brand of religion isn’t good enough, IMO.
It’s an arguable question as to who leads the “emptier” life – those who have religious beliefs such as yours or those who do not. I’d say it’s obvious that within both groups are many people who feel “empty” and otherwise.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2007 8:59 PM
“Also, if we simply want more contributors, then I say immigration is the way to go. Focus on highly-educated, highly-motivated people from around the world.”
Rosie: Instead of who???hmmm….
Instead of more babies born in the US. There, years would have to go by, in the first place, before any contributions would be made. Also, many pregnancies are unwanted because the mother would be a single parent, poor parent, etc., factors which decrease the amount of contributions the group would be expected to make.
And, we’re not denying the desire of pregnant women by having the immigrants enter our system to contribute.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2007 9:03 PM
John: Please elucidate for me what freedom means in the case of suicide: a wanting to end this life (a choice) …. to (1) enter another life … which means a belief in the after-life or, (2) enter zip … death has no meaning … a BELIEF. So, either way death is about belief …. and choice is about belief … what you call valuation is choosing beliefs.
John, several things – yes, one’s beliefs could influence a choice, for example, of suicide. Let’s say the suffering is of an extent where the person is thinking about suicide. If they are right on the edge, 50/50, then the belief in an afterlife or not may tip that balance. Yes – of course some people belief in an afterlife and some do not.
The freedom as far as suicide is being allowed to do it or not, is being physically restrained from it or not. There may be beliefs about death, but I wouldn’t say that “death is about belief.” Yes – choice can be about beliefs – it’s certainly about desire, but valuation isn’t choosing beliefs, valuation is deeming worth according to one’s desires and beliefs (which could include a god or gods, etc.)
So, as far as elucidation, I’d say it’s quite basic – are we free to kill ourselves or not? While the law most places frowns on it (I think), in reality we are free to do it, to the extent of our abilities, short of being physically restrained from it.
…….
Choosing abortion is choosing a belief that can be anywhere from a whim to a planned assessment …. same set of beliefs for Doug because your fundamental belief is death is the END.
John, that’s simply not necessarily true. You are right that I think death is the end, but in no way would that necessarily apply to a woman choosing abortion. She may believe that the unborn have souls, and that the unborn “go to a better place,” or perhaps certainly a better place than the world she sees for her potential child.
……..
Death really is an end (for you) … mk and now I too will not answer you …. you have lost big ’cause my time = my friendship [It seems you wish to not-grow to friendship, but to win! like Napoleon, will you crown yourself emperor? …. your-choice/my-choice does it really matter?
Our beliefs about death are not provable, either way. Just what have I “done to you” to “lose your friendship”? Everything we say here is our choice. If friendship to you means accepting things you say that cannot be proven, contrary to how the other person feels, then you’re the one missing out, not other people.
There are arguments that can be “won” – things based on shared assumptions, matters of logic, debates where there is an external physical reality that’s provable, etc. The abortion argument really is not that way. I don’t claim external “rightness,” while some do.
Again, distilling it down, here is how I feel – we all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2007 9:21 PM
MK: I know Doug thinks that we are being extemely condescending, but he simply cannot/will not understand what we are saying. Sadly, it will be his loss, not ours. Truth is what it is. It is NOT a matter of valuation, it is a matter of recognition. Recognition that we are not gods, we are spiritual/physical beings that answer to THE GOD.
I don’t think you’re being condescending. I think you expect other people to accept what you say without proof. I do understand what you are saying.
If I’m a pregnant woman, and you tell me not to end the pregnancy based on your beliefs, maybe I will share them and maybe I will not. If I share them, then you likely don’t have an argument with me. If I don’t, then why should I do what you say? Somebody could tell pregnant women with wanted pregnancies that they should end them, based on what they believe is “Truth,” and what they “recognize” as absolutes, etc. Same deal – why should they follow what that somebody says?
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2007 9:29 PM
MY freedom is more important than anything and anyone. Even if it is just a fraction of freedom taken away, MY freedom is more important.
No – the freedom of pregnant women is more important, IMO, than your desire for somebody else to continue a pregnancy. I know you wish they would, but you are not the one pregnant, and I don’t think what you say should trump what they say.
……..
“This argument has come up on other boards, and once the numbers are crunched, all those extra people would have a positive effect, but it’s only delaying the “collapse” – if we pinpoint one now – by a year or two. Is that worth it to me to deny women the choice they now have? ”
MY freedom is more important that an entire society having a better life for two years.
Nope – there’s no guarantee that a given woman would give birth to a contributor to SS, in the first place. She might give birth to somebody that was a net negative for the system, or even somebody that just draws off it most or all their life. Moreover, the number-crunching that I saw was fairly liberal in estimating contributions. If a little less, there wouldn’t be any “better life” in the first place.
You do have somewhat of an argument, though – an interesting question how far we’d restrict someone’s autonomy for the “greater good” in such a situation.
……..
“I know you don’t like the idea of abortion, but I do not see how it hurts you,”
MY choice doesn’t hurt you directly so who cares. Just like if I murder my mother who needs constant care, it doesn’t hurt you so it doesn’t matter as long as I have my freedom.
No, that very well might not hurt me, but society is clear on the matter – and society isn’t saying you should be free to do that. Society is thinking, feeling, people, just as I presume your mother is.
…….
“I will agree with you that the unborn are “human beings”….. I submit that you do not really need a given woman to end her pregnancy, though, not as much as that woman may need to end her pregnancy.”
MY freedom is more important than another human beings life. As long as I am not inconvienced then the termination of a human’s life is okay.
Nope, not “another human being” in such an unqualified way.
……..
“I see your argument as heaviliy depending on putting what you desire “above” or “higher on the ladder” than what other people want, as well as by pretending that your dislike of abortion makes it “murder.” ”
It doesn’t matter what YOU want. It matters what I want.
No – what the pregnant woman wants matters more than what you want. She is the one pregnant, not you. If you’re the one pregnant, then it’s up to you.
……..
I am more important than you and you don’t matter.
That’s ridiculous. I’ve never said anything to that effect. I say that your opinion should not trump the opinion of pregnant women, not without a darn good reason. Same for owning slaves — your opinion should not trump theirs, IMO. Their will need not be subverted to yours, and neither does that of pregnant women.
…….
YOU may want my mother to live because she is your friend, but it is my freedom that is being invaded, so YOU don’t matter. All that matter is ME.
If you really have a problem with born people having right-to-life, you can argue that. I suggest that you know that almost nobody will support you there.
……..
He isn’t saying that the womans freedom is being taken away because of her pregnancy, because no FREEDOM is taken away then. Having a natural occurrence that does not cause ongoing pain or death happening in your body is not the elimination of freedom. It is natural. The only FREEDOM that is taken away is when the baby is born. No other freedoms are taken away at pregnancy. She can still eat, sleep, have sex. She can still party, listen to music, go to work. She can still talk on the phone, go shopping and visit relatives. What freedoms are taken away during pregnancy. The woman won’t even notice her “organs” being used by this natural occurrence. Is HER prevention of morning sickness more important than a human life? Is HER prevention of having gas or heart burn more important than a human life? Morning sickness, heartburn ….this is NOT freedom being taken away. Is the doctor telling her to eat right and stop smoking eliminating her freedom…no. Because she can still eat horribly and still smoke. She can still drink….. No freedoms are violated……
Wrong – as of now women are free to end pregnancies, to a point in gestation. You advocate that freedom being taken away.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2007 9:43 PM
Doug,
3 questions…
1#…I’m pretty sure you believe that killing a man on the street simply because you don’t want him there would be wrong (hope I’m not putting words in your mouth). Why? Prove it.
#2…You never finished the discussion on Siamese Twins…you claim that the one twin did not have the right to take the other twins life, even though the second twin was using the first’s body to live…why? Prove it.
#3…since you are the one advocating the freedom to kill unborn children, you need to prove that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps a child’s right to life. The right to life is already granted to people. We aren’t arguing that. We assume “people” means all people, regardless of color, race, caste or stage of development. You are the one putting restrictions on what constitutes the term “person”. So you are the one that needs to prove it. Theft is wrong. But you wouldn’t expect me to prove it would you? If so, then perhaps we should take that law off the books until it can be proven that it is wrong.
I DO think that “living human being” applies to the unborn. The unborn are not legal human beings in all aspects of the term, though in some they are, especially later in gestation. But I am fine with saying “human being” for the unborn – so why waste time saying you don’t get how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?
MY freedom is more important than another human beings life. As long as I am not inconvienced then the termination of a human’s life is okay.
*
Nope, not “another human being” in such an unqualified way.
These are your words “exactly”…are you purposely being obtuse? Do you not see how you play with our heads. You agree in one paragraph that it is a human being, then you say that it is not a human being…
When we say human being, you KNOW that we mean in every sense of the word…you don’t. So it is unfair to use the term to prove your point, when you know that we don’t think it means what you do.
Choose another term. Or understand ours. But please stop playing with terms to suit your cause…
how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?
clarification: How you can pretend it’s not a human being in every sense of the word…
These are your words “exactly”…are you purposely being obtuse? Do you not see how you play with our heads. You agree in one paragraph that it is a human being, then you say that it is not a human being…
When we say human being, you KNOW that we mean in every sense of the word…you don’t. So it is unfair to use the term to prove your point, when you know that we don’t think it means what you do.
Choose another term. Or understand ours. But please stop playing with terms to suit your cause…
how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?
clarification: How you can pretend it’s not a human being in every sense of the word…
1. PIP, when I was young I was fascinated by and raised hamsters for many years. They’re wonderful creatures except for their nasty habit of eating their young.
2. All, excellent comments. Joe, you’re thoughts are fabulous. You’re a welcome addition to the site.
3. Last week’s question wasn’t biased. The answers were indeed skewed pro-life, however. It’s no wonder why.
4. It is inconceivable to me that a pro-lifer would date a pro-abort, except if viewing it as “missionary dating,” as Christians call it. As for long-term relationships, impossible.
Per MK’s instructions to move comments about the “Her first mistake” post here….
PIP, 9/1 9:52a, said: “Just because a campus is Catholic doesn’t mean they should suppress free speech.”
PIP, you’re confusing the US Constitution with private institutions.
Christian organizations are under no obligation to follow the US Constitution on the free speech issue, to open their doors to those of opposing views to mock their teachings and institutions.
Sure, they should teach about opposing views, but that’s it.
You understand that Chrylser wouldn’t invite a Ford exec to run a meeting, denegrating Chrysler and touting Ford. Yet Chrysler will evaluate for its own good Ford cars, marketing, assembly line, and union agreements. Same principle.
@Doug,
– one more time — perhaps I’m getting a little too weary of your answers that seem IMO very quick, almost too quick. I spend literally hours answering just one question from you. [It would take me much longer, if I had not worked out most of this stuff after decades of thinking about it.] I do not wish you to take this long, but try to understand that many pro-lifers here are ‘seasoned’ and our answers are not flip.
Case in point: you asked me to prove God existed … so I articulated one of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs – the one about being ‘a Prime Mover’. You refuted this because of the online anti-Aquinas thought. I asked you to delineate counter arguments and this you did.
Here is where there is a huge problem … these counter-arguments are extremely shallow … these cannot even stand up to simple logic …. Thomas’argument is …. that the universe can be divided into animate(living) beings, and inanimate beings(things … like moons and the sun … stars). So why does inanimate things move at all? Thomas’ answer – there must have been some living being to cause movement, because in human experience only a living being can ’cause’ movement.
Your (from the internet answer) there is no God because God is not movable. Weird, weird … the question posed was: to prove God’s existence. Answer: So what is God’s movement? Do not know, so end of proof.
The line of reasoning still holds true – please explain how things move. Even if you invoke spacetime, you will likely wonder ‘Why movement?’ Is it solely tree-dimensional? At http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ has many animations. Math (even calculus) was about a static concept. These animations seem more accurate, but they move ….. in a predetermined pattern. [Another ‘proof’ why pattern?]
Anyway if we look at human creators … painters. Is it at all necessary for the human-creator to resemble anything remotely similar to his/her canvas? Must they be paint to be a painter? Then why insist that God move or He does not exist? Why do we assume some kind of material reality to God? The largest part of our universe is space … very material, eh?
The existence of God does indeed cramp the style of moral relativists …. because there is objective morality, whose base is God.
“Christian organizations are under no obligation to follow the US Constitution on the free speech issue”
Sure, but I would never associate with a school who consistantly went against freedoms of speech and religion, even at a Christian school. I would never attend a college that didn’t hold those freedoms as important! Sure they can place some limits, but always suppressing free speech in my opinion is never right..heaven forbid it might be different than Catholic teaching.
“You understand that Chrylser wouldn’t invite a Ford exec to run a meeting, denegrating Chrysler and touting Ford.”
So the Vagina Monologues are doing that how? Addressing a vagina and calling it pretty? Actually talking about the female body? God forbid, use a cussword or two? SLU let us do it for a couple years, but last year said they had to do it off campus (which many people protested). They had told them to take out any monologue that was really risque, but turns out there were only like two of them from their script like that.
For PIP,
I hope she will read it:
“Eve Ensler
Jasper,
I just don’t see it that way. There is nothing threatening about it.
Look, the way I see it is, the school is not performing it, but a small group within the school. The school can let the play be performed if they make it clear it does not reflect Catholic values. That, in my opinion, is noble in that it respects both the first amendment and their Christian values. If the school wants to suppress it, fine. But when SLU decided to do that, it lost a little respect from lots of students, including myself.
To say that allowing it is heresy is just silly!
@Pip,
ever hear the old proverb: “One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel”? that is this proverb-in-action
Could I digress and discuss the “pro-choice” “anti-choice” subject?
I think this article demonstrates why people are afraid of letting others stick their nose in anyone else’s reproductive choices:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890235/posts
Friday, August 31, 2007
Facing the Past: New generations learn about shameful forced sterilizations
By Patrick Wilson
JOURNAL REPORTER
The looks on their faces were somber as they listened to recordings of the stories of those who were forcibly sterilized under North Carolina
Joe: Your last post seems to suggest the argument could go either way. Am I correct in my assumption? I ask because in light of my previous statements, if pro-choicers don
Doug,
“A nation that kills it’s own children, is a nation without hope” valuation by Pope John Paul II
Doug,
I realize you have been busy doing lawn things, but I put my questions up at 7:15am…not being nasty now, just making sure you saw them. I see that you have been quite busy on the other post and it is entirely possible that you just haven’t gotten to them yet…or it is possible that you missed them.
Liberal schools circumvent and suppress freedom of speech all the time.
If you want to see an example of this check out some of the liberal secular schools that Ann Coulter has spoken at where the anti-Christ liberal slime attempt to shout her down or throw pies at her.
If you want to see an example of this check out some of the liberal secular schools that Ann Coulter has spoken at where the anti-Christ liberal slime attempt to shout her down or throw pies at her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throwing pies? Maybe they were just trying to feed her.
“ever hear the old proverb: “One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel”?”
Okay, let’s get rid of all the muslims then, since there are extremist views, so that might encourage the peaceful, educated people here to start blowing up buildings.
Likewise, ban all other religions in a Catholic school; they might even convert others, or not convert to Christianity! Oh no! Rotten apples!
Also, let’s not allow any sort of criticism of the policies at school–they might change their minds and want something the school doesn’t want to give! Oh no!
We should keep an eye on everything students and student groups do, even off campus–they might be risque or even talk about such things as masturbation! Oh no!
Your proverb can apply to anything. by that logic, anything can be banned, any free speech can be suppressed, etc.
Again, using the sort of logic to do such a thing is disrespectful of humans that want to think for themselves. In fact I find it quite dangerous because it puts the administration in such a position that it can feel that they can use the newspaper as their official “party line,” leave sex out of any classroom discussion, or stop liberal movies from being seen by a gathering of people. Where is the true education, the “other side” of things that makes a person well-rounded?
Who would want to live or be taught in a pseudo-communist school like that? I know I wouldn’t, and I sure as hell know that every person I’ve talked to here wouldn’t, either.
MK: Trust me, we’ve refuted any number of things they’ve come up with and the pat response is “that’s your valuation”…unless of course it’s their “valuation” and you call them on it, then their pat response is “No it’s not, it’s fact”
“No you haven’t. You’ve displayed an incredible tendency to respond not to what we say, but to what you pretend we say.”
I’m sorry, but I think before you accuse someone of something like that, you should show some examples…
Past posts are full of such examples. I am glad that here you are quoting me, though. Here is an example from “Her First Mistake.”
And when all else fails, he’ll say “that’s your valuation!” Prove I’m wrong. I’ve used scientific studies and unbiased sources for my information. What have you used?
You have yet to face the argument honestly, MK. All you’re doing is misstating my position and lamely trying to put words in my mouth. IMO you’re a little bit out of control.
Yes, some things are matters of valuation. but not all are. Physical reality is not. Logic and statistics are not, etc.
I do not pretend that my desire/opinion/moral position is “external.” Let me state it again: “We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.”
I see no need for every pregnancy to be continued, just because YOU want it that way. It is fact that most pregnancies in the US are already willingly continued. It is fact that not all pregnant women want to continue their pregnancies. I do not think what you and others say is a good enough reason to take away the freedom that women currently have in this matter.
…….
“You hardly ever quote what I actually do say, and I imagine in your subconscious you feel you have a good reason to do that.”
Not only do I quote you directly, but I put your words in italics, so others can see who said what…
You have apparently turned over a new leaf, then, and I am glad of it. Many of your past posts to me have had no quotes at all, though you have presented my position, at times inaccurately.
…….
“There is a difference between valuation and things with external reality – physical existence, logic, etc. Some things are objective, and some are subjective.”
I’m sure there is…the problem comes in when you are the only one that gets to decide what is real and what is not. Your valuations suddenly become fact because you decide they do.
No, there again I do not say that. If it’s my valuation, I note it, and do not claim it is in any way “absolute” or “external,” etc. I am clear that it’s my desire that the woman be allowed to make her own choice more than it’s my desire that every pregnancy necessarily be continued. Things do not “have” to be as I desire them to be, and I don’t say anything like that. Other people do, though. It is a fact that I have my desires, and fact that you do too. I think that is a given – I don’t think that is at issue. Beyond our shared assumptions, if I want to say that something is “real” i.e. not subjective, not internal to the mind, then I better be able to prove it, and same for other people.
Doug
“If you want to see an example of this check out some of the liberal secular schools that Ann Coulter has spoken at where the anti-Christ liberal slime attempt to shout her down or throw pies at her.”
Let’s look at it this way.
People were protesting outside the auditorium. Suppressed freedom of speech? Where?
Ann Coulter was allowed by the university to spew her tripe. She said things like “”The Democrats have no actual policy proposals of their own unless constant carping counts as a policy” and “”You take away the terrorism and liberals would hate…”
The men were punished for their disrespect and their attempt at silencing her: They had to clean and/or replace the $3,000-$4,000 backround scrim and were arrested for assault and criminal damage of property. One of them was a student, one was not.
Where was justice not served here? Where did the university try to stop her freedom of speech?
“Wrong – as of now women are free to end pregnancies, to a point in gestation. You advocate that freedom being taken away.”
MK: Wrong-as of now women are free to end pregnancies, AT ANY POINT in gestation.
I think it is 40 or 41 states and Washington D.C. that have restrictions. I guess you could say that it’s not technically illegal in the 9 or 10 states that don’t, but that is at least partly because those states had silly laws written by ill-advised legislators who tried to go beyond the spirit of Roe, and thus the laws were struck down.
In any case, I don’t know of any clinics that do abortions beyond 26 weeks on an elective basis, i.e. the reason is just that the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, in any state.
Doug
Laura said:
“Throwing pies? Maybe they were just trying to feed her.”
Hey, I wanna feed Ann Coulter myself, but to do so I will hand her a cheeseburger not throw it at her.
MK: 1#…I’m pretty sure you believe that killing a man on the street simply because you don’t want him there would be wrong (hope I’m not putting words in your mouth). Why? Prove it.
:: laughing :: You’re doing good, MK, and that was a cute picture of you, Jill, and Dan.
Yes, for the man in the street I do think that such killing is wrong. There is no “proof” I can present for you beyond what I feel and what I say here – he is part of society, he wants to live and I don’t see why his desire should be trumped by a desire such as mine, in your example. We are thinking, feeling people, and in general we have a desire to live. Society works best when we all get along, and I don’t see much conflicting with his desire to live, there. I don’t see anybody having nearly as much a claim as with the pregnant woman and the unborn, and the man’s not inside the body of a person. This individual, a part of society, wants to live and society works best when the individual desires are accomodated to the extent they can be, without harming society.
……..
#2…You never finished the discussion on Siamese Twins…you claim that the one twin did not have the right to take the other twins life, even though the second twin was using the first’s body to live…why? Prove it.
I did reply, but maybe you just didn’t see it or maybe the Gremlins got the post. Anyway, wrong premise there, IMO, MK. It’s not “the first’s body,” it’s both their body. To the extent that they share it, one’s desire shouldn’t trump the other’s. If one really was separate but using the other’s body to survive, then I think the one with the body should get to choose, although I think by definition that’s not going to be Siamese twins. Or is it “politically incorrect” to say that now? Thai twins?
……..
#3…since you are the one advocating the freedom to kill unborn children, you need to prove that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps a child’s right to life. The right to life is already granted to people. We aren’t arguing that. We assume “people” means all people, regardless of color, race, caste or stage of development. You are the one putting restrictions on what constitutes the term “person”. So you are the one that needs to prove it. Theft is wrong. But you wouldn’t expect me to prove it would you? If so, then perhaps we should take that law off the books until it can be proven that it is wrong.
Theft isn’t wrong in any external, absolute way, but there’s enough sentiment for property rights that it’s not much of an issue.
Yes, the right to life is granted to people, but personhood is a societal construct, deemed to be present at birth. You may assume that the unborn are “people” but in the legal sense they are not, and that’s a good bit of what the argument really is, no?
Doug
“I DO think that “living human being” applies to the unborn. The unborn are not legal human beings in all aspects of the term, though in some they are, especially later in gestation. But I am fine with saying “human being” for the unborn – so why waste time saying you don’t get how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?”
MY freedom is more important than another human beings life. As long as I am not inconvienced then the termination of a human’s life is okay.
*
“Nope, not “another human being” in such an unqualified way.”
MK: These are your words “exactly”…are you purposely being obtuse? Do you not see how you play with our heads. You agree in one paragraph that it is a human being, then you say that it is not a human being…
I see how you can feel that way, MK, but there are two different things there. As far as physical reality, I agree that the unborn are living human beings.
But when it comes to the “freedom being more important than another human being’s life,” that is more than just the unborn. With respect to the born, I don’t feel that the freedom is more important. And the born are not inside the body of a person and have already had rights attributed, so it’s a whole different deal there. To make it correct in how I feel, I’d say, The woman’s freedom is more important than the life of the human being until viability.” If you just say, “another human being” then it’s too broad to distinguish between them.
……..
When we say human being, you KNOW that we mean in every sense of the word…you don’t. So it is unfair to use the term to prove your point, when you know that we don’t think it means what you do.
Choose another term. Or understand ours. But please stop playing with terms to suit your cause…
It’s not “playing.” There is more than one meaning. There is external, physical reality (the organism) and then there is legal status, as in “legal human being.” There’s a difference. I know what you mean, but the fact is that it is the legal differences which make up a large part of the argument, eh?
……..
“how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?”
clarification: How you can pretend it’s not a human being in every sense of the word…
I don’t. I don’t pretend the unborn aren’t physically living, human and organisms or “beings.”
You, on the other hand, should not pretend that full status is granted to the unborn, as it is with the born.
Doug
Yes, for the man in the street I do think that such killing is wrong. There is no “proof” I can present for you beyond what I feel and what I say here – he is part of society, he wants to live and I don’t see why his desire should be trumped by a desire such as mine, in your example. We are thinking, feeling people, and in general we have a desire to live. Society works best when we all get along, and I don’t see much conflicting with his desire to live, there. I don’t see anybody having nearly as much a claim as with the pregnant woman and the unborn, and the man’s not inside the body of a person. This individual, a part of society, wants to live and society works best when the individual desires are accomodated to the extent they can be, without harming society.
Okay, Doug, suppose the man wanted to commit suicide, and asked me to help him? This is what he wanted. What if he was homeless, and had no family or friends who would care if he died, so I took the man out back and drugged him up, so he wouldn’t feel a thing, then shot him. What would be your argument against it then? No family to care, it didn’t hurt society. We have enough people in the world according to you…no problemo… what about his feelings? Well, he didn’t feel a thing and he got what he wanted. Did I do anything wrong, Doug?
I did reply, but maybe you just didn’t see it or maybe the Gremlins got the post. Anyway, wrong premise there, IMO, MK. It’s not “the first’s body,” it’s both their body. To the extent that they share it, one’s desire shouldn’t trump the other’s. If one really was separate but using the other’s body to survive, then I think the one with the body should get to choose, although I think by definition that’s not going to be Siamese twins. Or is it “politically incorrect” to say that now? Thai twins?
Doug, the baby and mother share a body as well. Therefore, why does not the baby, as well as the mother, own the body and share it, when the mother is pregnant? The mother invited the baby into her womb, in the vast majority of cases, with or without realizing it.
At one point, many Siamese twins were separate. And they did exist separately until their separate bodies were fused together in the womb.
Why shouldn’t one with goals and dreams be allowed to revert back to the single body they had in the womb if they so desire?
Laura,
I agree with your post on forced sterilization…the practice was despicable!
Doug,
I do not pretend that my desire/opinion/moral position is “external
Maybe not, but you do think they are more valuable and true. You constantly marginalize our position with snide remarks about believing in fantasies…
Doug,
And when all else fails, he’ll say “that’s your valuation!” Prove I’m wrong. I’ve used scientific studies and unbiased sources for my information. What have you used?
You have yet to face the argument honestly, MK. All you’re doing is misstating my position and lamely trying to put words in my mouth. IMO you’re a little bit out of control.
Wrong again! I didn’t say that, Val did. Out of control my foot!
Doug,
Not only do I quote you directly, but I put your words in italics, so others can see who said what…
You have apparently turned over a new leaf, then, and I am glad of it. Many of your past posts to me have had no quotes at all, though you have presented my position, at times inaccurately.
I have been putting other peoples words in italics since I began posting here in March…you can check. As to reiterating my take on your views sans italics…those posts were not directed “to” you, they were directed to other people “about” you.
John: one more time — perhaps I’m getting a little too weary of your answers that seem IMO very quick, almost too quick. I spend literally hours answering just one question from you. [It would take me much longer, if I had not worked out most of this stuff after decades of thinking about it.] I do not wish you to take this long, but try to understand that many pro-lifers here are ‘seasoned’ and our answers are not flip.
John, I hear that, and I don’t think your answers (or most, here) are flip. I type fast, what can I say? I do try to make honest, reasoned answers to posts. I understand the time and effort you put in, and I appreciate them – I am sure more than you realize. I apologize for not doing enough in my replies to you.
……..
Case in point: you asked me to prove God existed … so I articulated one of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs – the one about being ‘a Prime Mover’. You refuted this because of the online anti-Aquinas thought. I asked you to delineate counter arguments and this you did.
Here is where there is a huge problem … these counter-arguments are extremely shallow … these cannot even stand up to simple logic …. Thomas’ argument is …. that the universe can be divided into animate(living) beings, and inanimate beings(things … like moons and the sun … stars). So why does inanimate things move at all? Thomas’ answer – there must have been some living being to cause movement, because in human experience only a living being can ’cause’ movement.
Your (from the internet answer) there is no God because God is not movable. Weird, weird … the question posed was: to prove God’s existence. Answer: So what is God’s movement? Do not know, so end of proof.
line of reasoning still holds true – please explain how things move. Even if you invoke spacetime, you will likely wonder ‘Why movement?’ Is it solely tree-dimensional? At http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ has many animations. Math (even calculus) was about a static concept. These animations seem more accurate, but they move ….. in a predetermined pattern. [Another ‘proof’ why pattern?]
That’s not what I said in response to the “Prime mover” deal. If I said something to make you think that, then I’d like to see it – I don’t remember that, John. Perhaps I did not do your question justice the first time around. I’m sorry if you felt I didn’t.
Aquinas’ first 3 “proofs” are pointing to regressions, saying they cannot be infinite. That is thinking back along a presumed one-dimensional time axis. Yet that is not the reality of time. In Aquinas’ day, even later in Newton’s time, the separation of time and the one-dimensional view of it were common, much as the “common man” may think of it today. Reality is that we live in spacetime, and that time is an artifact of matter and its motion. It’s not correct to think of time “going back to a beginning,” because spacetime itself “curves” in our perception, versus allowing for the “straight back to the beginning,” idea. Our universe is not infinite, but it is unbounded -a difficult concept, at least at first. There is no “boundary” where time “began.”
“Why movement”? Because of energy and matter. No God (and I’ll get to God in a minute) would be necessary, as with the theory of the Big Bang. Gravity “compresses” spacetime into a singularity, and the energy state reaches a point where the attraction of matter for other matter becomes less than the repulsive force due to the high energy state. (Then the “Boom” comes.) “Out” goes the matter, (or more properly, spacetime expands), to perhaps “later” return to the singularity, under the force of gravity. Then another BB, and the cycle could continue. We tend to think of this like it’s happening “in space” – a dot expanding into an enormous “balloon” then later compressing back into the dot, but again that’s not the real deal – there is no “space” outside of spacetime, and all of that would be into the singularity, and the “balloon” wouldn’t really be three-dimensional. There is no “outside” and there is no “before” such a singularity. The universe had no such “beginning” – that’s misunderstanding the nature of spacetime. Time “before” such a singularity isn’t a meaningful idea. Without a “separate time” there is no causation, and time isn’t separate under conditions like the singularity, though here on earth, in our almost-exclusively Newtonian existence it may seem that way.
Aquinas thought of time as one-dimensional, and even forgetting the above argument with that, why did he think that? Why would he think there was a beginning of time, unless he got it from the account of Creation in the Bible? Aquinas points “back in time” and just states that it had to be God that got things going. Yet the idea of Creation supposedly comes from God, and it’s not logical to use that authority as proof of its existence. This was about proving God in the first place, not assuming that God told us about Creation. It gets into circular thinking, or you could say a tautology, we’re trying to prove God, and it’s illogical to say that “God told us about Creation” or “God proves Creation.” I think this paragraph alone is a good argument against what Aquinas was saying.
……..
Anyway if we look at human creators … painters. Is it at all necessary for the human-creator to resemble anything remotely similar to his/her canvas? Must they be paint to be a painter? Then why insist that God move or He does not exist? Why do we assume some kind of material reality to God? The largest part of our universe is space … very material, eh?
Good questions…. Again from Aquinas:
1. All real things have a real cause.
2. Most causes are effects of preceding causes.
3. One effect – the very First – has a cause which itself isn’t an effect.
4. First effect is Creation.
5. God is the cause of Creation.
I don’t insist that God doesn’t exist – no way to prove such. And yeah – there’s a lot of “space,” although there may be neutrinos, “dark matter,” or “anti-matter,” etc., theoretical constructs if they’ve not proven (much as I see God as a theoretical construct). There’s still a lot we don’t know… You’re thinking three-dimensionally but things may not be as “empty” as all that.
I would argue with Aquinas thusly:
Quantum physics and relativity – the nature of spacetime – make his point #3 suspect. In his argument, he wants it to be that way, but it really is not that way. His premise is that things can’t go back “forever,” but his view of time was not correct, as we now know. If #3 isn’t provable, then the last two points don’t follow, logically.
Also, even taking Aquinas’ God, let’s see how it goes with the argument’s premises. If God causes Creation then that’s a real effect, and hence God would have to be “real.” But if God is real then there’d have to be a cause for God. If there’s a cause for God, then his argument is done for.
So for Aquinas to be right, God cannot be “real” in that way. He wouldn’t “move” or exist as we think of “real” meaning. (But how then could he cause matter and energy to be?)
I think theologists are fairly happy with the contradictions, since it allows them to have God in an imagined “separate” place from spacetime, sort of “real” but “not-real,” and they can then go with whatever is convenient to the religious matter at hand.
……..
The existence of God does indeed cramp the style of moral relativists …. because there is objective morality, whose base is God.
Well, that’s a statement, but if there was proof it it, it wouldn’t really be up for argument. Personally, even assuming a God, then his morality would be relative to him. The nature of that god and our relationship to him would still be at issue.
Best,
Doug
Doug, “A nation that kills it’s own children, is a nation without hope” valuation by Pope John Paul II
MK, the usual “child” or not argument would apply, but he may well feel that way. I disagree in other areas with him too – like not letting Catholic women be priests.
…….
I realize you have been busy doing lawn things, but I put my questions up at 7:15am…not being nasty now, just making sure you saw them. I see that you have been quite busy on the other post and it is entirely possible that you just haven’t gotten to them yet…or it is possible that you missed them.
MK, I try to answer e v e r y t h i n g. I’ll do my best.
Doug
Doug,
You, on the other hand, should not pretend that full status is granted to the unborn, as it is with the born.should be
Doug,
I swear sometimes I think you ARE pro-life but you’re playing devil’s advocate and trying to get us to come up solid arguments to win our case…lol.
Doug,
MK: 1#…I’m pretty sure you believe that killing a man on the street simply because you don’t want him there would be wrong (hope I’m not putting words in your mouth). Why? Prove it.
:: laughing :: You’re doing good, MK, and that was a cute picture of you, Jill, and Dan.
Yes, for the man in the street I do think that such killing is wrong. There is no “proof” I can present for you beyond what I feel and what I say here – he is part of society, he wants to live and I don’t see why his desire should be trumped by a desire such as mine, in your example. We are thinking, feeling people, and in general we have a desire to live. Society works best when we all get along, and I don’t see much conflicting with his desire to live, there. I don’t see anybody having nearly as much a claim as with the pregnant woman and the unborn, and the man’s not inside the body of a person. This individual, a part of society, wants to live and society works best when the individual desires are accomodated to the extent they can be, without harming society.
I wasn’t asking to see what you believed or why, just to see if you could prove why taking the man’s life was wrong. So without misconstruing what you have said (God forbid), would it be safe to say that it is your valuation that taking the man’s life would be a “wrong” but not an “external” wrong, and certainly not one that you could prove?
“Yes, for the man in the street I do think that such killing is wrong. There is no “proof” I can present for you beyond what I feel and what I say here – he is part of society, he wants to live and I don’t see why his desire should be trumped by a desire such as mine, in your example. We are thinking, feeling people, and in general we have a desire to live. Society works best when we all get along, and I don’t see much conflicting with his desire to live, there. I don’t see anybody having nearly as much a claim as with the pregnant woman and the unborn, and the man’s not inside the body of a person. This individual, a part of society, wants to live and society works best when the individual desires are accomodated to the extent they can be, without harming society.”
Bethany: Okay, Doug, suppose the man wanted to commit suicide, and asked me to help him? This is what he wanted. What if he was homeless, and had no family or friends who would care if he died, so I took the man out back and drugged him up, so he wouldn’t feel a thing, then shot him. What would be your argument against it then? No family to care, it didn’t hurt society. We have enough people in the world according to you…no problemo… what about his feelings? Well, he didn’t feel a thing and he got what he wanted. Did I do anything wrong, Doug?
It’s not the “enough people in the world” that matters to me there, B. If an adult like that really wants to die, I’m okay with it. In a different case, if he had children to support, then I sure hope he doesn’t really want to die, for the sake of less suffering on their part. But in your example I don’t think you did wrong – for whatever reason the guy really didn’t want to live, and I don’t see much wrong with that – if he’s suffering in some ways, which I must think is involved, then I say let that suffering end if it’s what he desires.
Doug
“I do not pretend that my desire/opinion/moral position is “external”
MK: Maybe not, but you do think they are more valuable and true. You constantly marginalize our position with snide remarks about believing in fantasies…
No, you’re wrong about how I think. There is no external “true” like that. And I don’t maintain that my valuation “has” to be nor that it’s anything more than desire. I really have not been “snide” other than perhaps in replying in kind. As far as fantasy, can you prove that your “faith” is more than that? If you really object to the word, I won’t use it, but I don’t think you can prove it.
……..
And when all else fails, he’ll say “that’s your valuation!” Prove I’m wrong. I’ve used scientific studies and unbiased sources for my information. What have you used?
“You have yet to face the argument honestly, MK. All you’re doing is misstating my position and lamely trying to put words in my mouth. IMO you’re a little bit out of control.”
Wrong again! I didn’t say that, Val did. Out of control my foot!
:: laughing :: Okay, MK, I’m sorry if I was wrong there. You did say some stuff was from Val and I must have been mixed up about it.
………
Not only do I quote you directly, but I put your words in italics, so others can see who said what…
“You have apparently turned over a new leaf, then, and I am glad of it. Many of your past posts to me have had no quotes at all, though you have presented my position, at times inaccurately.”
I have been putting other peoples words in italics since I began posting here in March…you can check. As to reiterating my take on your views sans italics…those posts were not directed “to” you, they were directed to other people “about” you.
I believe that what you say is true, in general. Yet some of your posts were indeed to me, without quotes, and did misrepresent my position. I answered them all, though, I think, and no problems from here on out, I expect…..
Doug
Doug,
I did reply, but maybe you just didn’t see it or maybe the Gremlins got the post. Anyway, wrong premise there, IMO, MK. It’s not “the first’s body,” it’s both their body. To the extent that they share it, one’s desire shouldn’t trump the other’s. If one really was separate but using the other’s body to survive, then I think the one with the body should get to choose, although I think by definition that’s not going to be Siamese twins. Or is it “politically incorrect” to say that now? Thai twins?
It is my valuation that the two are a near perfect analogy.
Siamese twins do not share one body, but they do share at least one organ. If one twin no longer wants to be “attached” to the other, and desires her death in order to be autonomous, why would you object.
To take it further, suppose the twin was told that if she would just wait 9 months, an operation would become available which would allow a separation that did not result in either twins death, and personal autonomy for both.
But twin number one does not wish to wait. She has a hot date, and wants “out” now. She will end up with bodily autonomy and the other will end up dead. Why is this different than an abortion?
Since you cannot prove that a fetus is not salient, I will not accept this argument. You will have to come up with something else.
Doug,
Yes, the right to life is granted to people, but personhood is a societal construct, deemed to be present at birth. You may assume that the unborn are “people” but in the legal sense they are not, and that’s a good bit of what the argument really is, no?
Well of course it is, but everytime we try to point that out to you, your response is to play semantics games with the words “human being” or claim that regardless of salience, the womans right is still greater.
MK: I wasn’t asking to see what you believed or why, just to see if you could prove why taking the man’s life was wrong. So without misconstruing what you have said (God forbid), would it be safe to say that it is your valuation that taking the man’s life would be a “wrong” but not an “external” wrong, and certainly not one that you could prove?
Yes, and right on. Obviously most people think it’s wrong, and some relatively very few (total anarchists?) don’t.
It could be wrong from a multitude of viewpoints.
Doug
Doug,
MK, the usual “child” or not argument would apply, but he may well feel that way. I disagree in other areas with him too – like not letting Catholic women be priests.
Boy, you sure have a lot of opinions about the Catholic Church…tell me, do you give this much thought to the specific doctrines of Hinduism and Islam?
MK: I wasn’t asking to see what you believed or why, just to see if you could prove why taking the man’s life was wrong. So without misconstruing what you have said (God forbid), would it be safe to say that it is your valuation that taking the man’s life would be a “wrong” but not an “external” wrong, and certainly not one that you could prove?
Yes, and right on. Obviously most people think it’s wrong, and some relatively very few (total anarchists?) don’t.
It could be wrong from a multitude of viewpoints.
Am I also correct when I say that your best “reasoning” for this to be so is that most of society agrees with you?
I should clarify…you’re best reasoning for it to be considered wrong is that most of society agrees with you?
MK: Well of course it is, but everytime we try to point that out to you, your response is to play semantics games with the words “human being” or claim that regardless of salience, the womans right is still greater.
Heh heh – you sure you don’t mean sentience or sapience?
MK, you never have to point that out to me, because I know there are two different senses of the term here (biological “human being” and legal “human being.”)
So, right to life is granted to people. Yes, that is true. But that does not mean that all the beings you see as people will have right to life. There’s no “semantic game” here.
Doug
Doug,
I believe that what you say is true, in general. Yet some of your posts were indeed to me, without quotes, and did misrepresent my position. I answered them all, though, I think, and no problems from here on out, I expect…..
Isn’t it possible that on the posts where I was responding to you directly, sans quotes, were because it was only you and I talking back and forth and there was no need to specify who said what?
And isn’t it possible that when I “misrepresented” you it was not intentional but rather because I misunderstood you? It’s not like we’re talking about our favorite member of the animal kingdom here, and you can be frustrating as hell with all your “valuation” posts…
Try to remember that I don’t agree with where you are coming from, yet it is always me who argues on your terms. You have yet to come to our territory and argue while suspending your disbelief in God, to meet us halfway. It is always us who have to use the “Valuation” terms that you set out.
“Yes, and right on. Obviously most people think it’s wrong, and some relatively very few (total anarchists?) don’t. It could be wrong from a multitude of viewpoints.”
MK: I should clarify…your best reasoning for it to be considered wrong is that most of society agrees with you?
No, I don’t say that is necessarily the best. Society may have it’s position, but I won’t necessarily agree with it, though in this specific case I do.
The many viewpoints – care about the man’s family, friends, co-workers, etc. (won’t his absence mean suffering for them?). Care about his other obligations – will others be hurt because of his absence? And on and on….
Doug
So, right to life is granted to people. Yes, that is true. But that does not mean that all the beings you see as people will have right to life. There’s no “semantic game” here.
Yes, of course I mean sapience…but you make my head hurt.
And I beg to differ, because you know what we mean when we use the term human being and you only agree to it so that you can then come back with the argument that it’s not a “legal” human being.
Whatever that is…
Which is just another example of how we always meet you on your terms but you won’t come to our house.
So PLEASE, if you will, come up with a term for a human being as we mean it, and a human being as you mean it, and we will stick to those terms henceforth…
You know, I ain’t had a lick o’ college and am extremely unfamiliar with a lot of terms that get thrown around here…like strawman and circular argument…believe me, I know what they mean now, but a scholar I’m not!
Isn’t it possible that on the posts where I was responding to you directly, sans quotes, were because it was only you and I talking back and forth and there was no need to specify who said what?
MK, that certainly can be the case, but I maintain that you still did reply to me as if I had said other than what I did. I can go back and search, if you really want.
………
And isn’t it possible that when I “misrepresented” you it was not intentional but rather because I misunderstood you? It’s not like we’re talking about our favorite member of the animal kingdom here, and you can be frustrating as hell with all your “valuation” posts…
Yes, it’s possible, but what do sheep have to do with it? ; )
I understand I can be frustrating to you, and I do not mean you any personal harm nor ill-will.
……..
Try to remember that I don’t agree with where you are coming from, yet it is always me who argues on your terms. You have yet to come to our territory and argue while suspending your disbelief in God, to meet us halfway. It is always us who have to use the “Valuation” terms that you set out.
To some extent that is because I often don’t go beyond what we all accept as true or as externally true, i.e. that we all have our opinions and desires.
And – I have posted a couple times, going with the idea of God, and didn’t see an answer. Here is one question:
If there is an all-knowing God, then wouldn’t “He” know of what we consider to be the “future”? If so, then we’d be predestined and would not have free will.
Doug
Doug,
The many viewpoints – care about the man’s family, friends, co-workers, etc. (won’t his absence mean suffering for them?). Care about his other obligations – will others be hurt because of his absence? And on and on….
Why aren’t these considerations taken into consideration with the unborn…will others be hurt by his absence/death.
Father, grandparents, siblings…etc.
And I do believe society suffers as a whole because once you can kill your own child you become a culture of death, and all societal morals begin to erode. Look at the disintegration of marriage, school shootings, missing fathers, etc. all of which have become immeasurably worse since the onset of legal abortion…
Doug,
Yes, it’s possible, but what do sheep have to do with it? ; )
*
I understand I can be frustrating to you, and I do not mean you any personal harm nor ill-will.
This would probably be a good time to say that wish you now harm or ill will either. While I can get sarcastic and testy, I hope you know that it is always directed at your arguments and not you…although I have been tempted to get out the mullet a few times…
and now…
back to the fight!
(You know G K Chesterton used to fight tooth and nail with George Bernard Shaw in public debates, but they’d always share a pint afterwards…)
Doug,
By the way, SHEEP? SHEEP? I knew you were twisted!
NO WAY…it’s chimpanzees or death!
“So, right to life is granted to people. Yes, that is true. But that does not mean that all the beings you see as people will have right to life. There’s no “semantic game” here.”
MK: Yes, of course I mean sapience…but you make my head hurt.
Well, let me kindly add to the ache, because I think “sentience” is best. “Sapience” really more means “wisdom” and even full-term born infants can’t be said to have that, can they? Not any huge deal…
…….
And I beg to differ, because you know what we mean when we use the term human being and you only agree to it so that you can then come back with the argument that it’s not a “legal” human being. Whatever that is…
Legal human being is one protected under the law, right to life already having been attributed, etc. I say again, there is a difference between biological reality and statuses that are granted.
…….
Which is just another example of how we always meet you on your terms but you won’t come to our house.
Well Geez, MK – “my house” is where we realize that it really is two different things.
……..
So PLEASE, if you will, come up with a term for a human being as we mean it, and a human being as you mean it, and we will stick to those terms henceforth…
Why don’t you just get an enormous styrofoam baseball bat, and beat me over the head with it? No yard work today – I’ve been sitting at this computer for 10.5 hours…..
I think “biological human being” is how you use it, and that’s fine with me, but too long, and I think “unborn” covers it well – I understand that it means “human” and “living” and “organism” (as opposed to just tissue, etc.), and that it usually will continue to develop if it continues to live. When you say “human being” there are both senses involved – the physical reality, which I don’t argue with, and then your presumption that rights should be granted – two different things.
……
You know, I ain’t had a lick o’ college and am extremely unfamiliar with a lot of terms that get thrown around here…like strawman and circular argument…believe me, I know what they mean now, but a scholar I’m not!
I have to laugh, MK – I quit college, a Computer Science major, in 1978. Right when Microsoft, etc., were getting up and going. Yeah, Doug…. Often wondered what might have been.
Doug
“MK, the usual “child” or not argument would apply, but he may well feel that way. I disagree in other areas with him too – like not letting Catholic women be priests.”
Boy, you sure have a lot of opinions about the Catholic Church…tell me, do you give this much thought to the specific doctrines of Hinduism and Islam?
Don’t know much about Hinduism – sacred cows, right? I’m not trying to personally insult you, but I do feel the RCC has done some bad things and continues to do them.
Islam – quite bad, quite often, in the treatment of women. Some real horror there.
Doug
Doug,
I’m just curious why you know the intimate details of the Catholic church if you believe it is a fantasy. Do you even know why women can’t be priests or have you just “valuated” that out of your imagination. There is a solid and quite beautiful reason for it actually…
And do tell, what other horrors is the “Church” committing today…please don’t give me the priest scandal either, because just as there is a difference between a human being and a legal human being, there is a difference between the Church and her members.
“The many viewpoints – care about the man’s family, friends, co-workers, etc. (won’t his absence mean suffering for them?). Care about his other obligations – will others be hurt because of his absence? And on and on….”
MK: Why aren’t these considerations taken into consideration with the unborn…will others be hurt by his absence/death. Father, grandparents, siblings…etc.
Because then there is the desire of the pregnant woman to be considered. No argument that some men are affected, and even some grandparents, but again, it’s weighed against the effect on the woman. Siblings – we’re really getting into speculation there.
I’m not saying it “has” to be that the will of the woman is satisfied, but I think hers should be the primary.
…..
And I do believe society suffers as a whole because once you can kill your own child you become a culture of death, and all societal morals begin to erode. Look at the disintegration of marriage, school shootings, missing fathers, etc. all of which have become immeasurably worse since the onset of legal abortion…
People have been having abortions for thousands and thousands of years. You could also say that those things have gotten worse since the NASA programs started.
So, for me, it still comes down to acknowledging the way you feel, but not feeling myself that it means we should further restrict or ban abortion.
Doug,
Well Geez, MK – “my house” is where we realize that it really is two different things.
No, you’re house is where we allow you the illusion of control…you get to choose the snacks and what movie we watch…and it doesn’t threaten you…I’m afraid you wouldn’t last ten minutes in our house.
Doug,
Because then there is the desire of the pregnant woman to be considered. No argument that some men are affected, and even some grandparents, but again, it’s weighed against the effect on the woman. Siblings – we’re really getting into speculation there.
But it is MY desire to whack that guy with 200 lb lemming…I mean I considered that his friends might be bummed, but that shouldn’t override my right to do what I wanted. He’s irritating me. I don’t like him. I want him gone. Besides he is sitting in my seat. If I kill him, I can get my seat back! So why isn’t my desire being considered?
I’m just curious why you know the intimate details of the Catholic church if you believe it is a fantasy. Do you even know why women can’t be priests or have you just “valuated” that out of your imagination. There is a solid and quite beautiful reason for it actually…
I don’t think the RCC is a “fantasy.” I know it exists, that people believe certain things, that there is a certain hierarchy, etc. Okay, I’ve forgotten if I ever knew – what’s the reason only men can be priests? I know that in theory any Catoloic male can be Pope….
……
And do tell, what other horrors is the “Church” committing today…please don’t give me the priest scandal either, because just as there is a difference between a human being and a legal human being, there is a difference between the Church and her members.
Still, to an extent the Church is her members, and especially “is the gov’t of the Church” – the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. But, enough, here, MK – I’m not really worried about the RCC too much.
Doug,
People have been having abortions for thousands and thousands of years. You could also say that those things have gotten worse since the NASA programs started.
People have NOT been having them at a rate of one and a half million a year, a billion if count the world, and it has been considered a woman’s right before. Certainly not in this country. And if we were sending people up in space ships specifically to kill them, you might have a point about NASA.
Doug,
Still, to an extent the Church is her members, and especially “is the gov’t of the Church” – the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. But, enough, here, MK – I’m not really worried about the RCC too much.\
Told you you wouldn’t last in my house 10 minutes…what did it take. 2 posts?
Any member of the church that is not following church teaching, especially if he is in a position of power, is no longer a member of the church. We’re not talking small grievances here, I assume. See the other post for a lesson on excommunication.
Fine, I’ll come back to your comfort zone.
People have been having abortions for thousands of years…………………and it was as wrong back then as it is now.
“I did reply, but maybe you just didn’t see it or maybe the Gremlins got the post. Anyway, wrong premise there, IMO, MK. It’s not “the first’s body,” it’s both their body. To the extent that they share it, one’s desire shouldn’t trump the other’s. If one really was separate but using the other’s body to survive, then I think the one with the body should get to choose, although I think by definition that’s not going to be Siamese twins. Or is it “politically incorrect” to say that now? Thai twins?”
MK: It is my valuation that the two are a near perfect analogy.
Siamese twins do not share one body, but they do share at least one organ. If one twin no longer wants to be “attached” to the other, and desires her death in order to be autonomous, why would you object.
Sometimes they really do share one body, even to the point of just having two heads, or even one head with two faces. I would object because I do not see that the desire of the one should trump the desire of the other. If the other has no consciousness, no awareness, then I’d be okay with it. There is “inclusion twinning” or “parasitic twinning” where one will be inside the other – I’d say the inner one could be removed there, most similar to the pregnant woman situation.
…….
To take it further, suppose the twin was told that if she would just wait 9 months, an operation would become available which would allow a separation that did not result in either twins death, and personal autonomy for both.
But twin number one does not wish to wait. She has a hot date, and wants “out” now. She will end up with bodily autonomy and the other will end up dead. Why is this different than an abortion? Because the will of #1 doesn’t overrule the will of #2 in that case. That’s my opinion and also the judgment of society.
…..
Since you cannot prove that a fetus is not salient, I will not accept this argument. You will have to come up with something else.
I’m taking for granted that both twins are sentient, mentally aware, etc. If not, then say so. Meanwhile, if you think the unborn in this argument – really, to viability – are sentient or sapient, then the burden of proof is on you.
More later, MK, I gotta get ready and hit the road – driving to a motel on the way to tomorrow’s work; too far to do it all tomorrow.
Doug
Doug,
2 lousy posts about the Catholic Church and you turn tail and run…coward! lol :)
Doug,
And again I’m saying to you that you are the one that wants to end a life…you must prove that you have the right to do so. The personhood is in question. The law already says that you can’t kill a person. (Don’t start, you know what I mean by person) so you must prove that it ISN’T a person and that you have the right to kill it. Prove that it isn’t sentient, because otherwise you might be wrong and taking the life a (fill in the word you’ve decided to use).
“Still, to an extent the Church is her members, and especially “is the gov’t of the Church” – the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. But, enough, here, MK – I’m not really worried about the RCC too much.”
MK: Told you you wouldn’t last in my house 10 minutes…what did it take. 2 posts?
Oh come on – the RCC is responsible for many horrors in history. If you really want to get into it, I certainly can.
……..
Any member of the church that is not following church teaching, especially if he is in a position of power, is no longer a member of the church. We’re not talking small grievances here, I assume. See the other post for a lesson on excommunication. Fine, I’ll come back to your comfort zone.
Throughout history, bad has been done in the name of “following church teaching.” I agree that the “upper management” of the church did not specifically say “go abuse children,” but much was done under the auspices of the church. There may be an idea of the “Church” that is spearate from everybody (I guess except the Pope) but in reality the Church is very much the people in it.
Okay, now I really gotta scoot. More later.
Best,
Doug
Doug,
You can go, but I asked you to point out where the church is doing this today…not 500 years ago.
Or point to a church teaching that you disagree with not, not with people distorting that teaching. There is none of us perfect, but the constructs of the Church are as close as you’ll get to a “perfect” standard.
2Doug,
just read your answer … and the problems multiply. Is Einstein’s theory re. relativity not based on Newtonian principles … before concepts like spacetime and quantum physics even existed (or is the BIG Bang after Einstein’s theories)? Isn’t relativity Newtonian?
At any rate, Einstein held that the speed of light was a constant. [In physical terms: constants are ‘fixed points’ around which things have meaning … like e = mcc where e is energy; m is mass, and c is the speed of light] In moral terms: the fixed points (truths) are mostly external to your conceptualization and yield significance. The fretting that MK, Bethany and I have, is that you (and Diana) refused to acknowledge a reality beyond your intellectual-reach.
Part of the problem is the “Cartesian box” that you are in. It severally restricts your ‘experience of life’. So, because you can’t see beyond your ‘box’: you act and reason as if the universe had no significance – you latch-on-to ‘opinion’ as your ultimate [are you sure you aren’t a polls-junkie!], even if you freely admit most people do live in a Newtonian world. You seem adamant to think that our take on moral reality is even smaller than yours …. ’tis your ideation at work … Aquinas might have called it unfettered-pride.
Wish Diana were here, because she knows a bit about string theory and Hawking’s concepts of multiple universes.
I find it strange that modern physicists kinda use a ‘quantum physics’ rationale every time they are faced with a phenomenon that doesn’t quite fit their theorizing. Do you use it thus. Is quantum physics real?
I can relate with your probs with Aquinas Doug
I don’t think much of Aquinas or Augustine’s stuff because of their reliance on Aristotle’s metaphysics and ideas of what “perfection” is. It just isn’t compatible at all with God becoming man and dying for the sins of the world.
I can relate with your probs with Aquinas Doug
I don’t think much of Aquinas or Augustine’s stuff because of their reliance on Aristotle’s metaphysics and ideas of what “perfection” is. It just isn’t compatible at all with God becoming man and dying for the sins of the world.
Zeke, I’m surprised to see you say that, but you’re right – he went with an Aristotlian view. As far as “God becoming man” – interesting thought, anyway. Wonder what Aristotle would have thought of that?
Doug
MK: I swear sometimes I think you ARE pro-life but you’re playing devil’s advocate and trying to get us to come up solid arguments to win our case…lol.
MK, I’m glad to hear that, because it sounds like you think I can see some of what “your side” thinks. And I can – I understand the feelings that are portrayed here.
It’s a great debate/argument/discussion. It takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.
Doug
John: just read your answer … and the problems multiply. Is Einstein’s theory re. relativity not based on Newtonian principles … before concepts like spacetime and quantum physics even existed (or is the BIG Bang after Einstein’s theories)? Isn’t relativity Newtonian?
Hi John. No, relativity is not Newtonian. It’s “Einsteinian,” and people have worked on it more since Big Al’s time. And nope, relativity isn’t based on Newtonian principles.
…….
At any rate, Einstein held that the speed of light was a constant. [In physical terms: constants are ‘fixed points’ around which things have meaning … like e = mcc where e is energy; m is mass, and c is the speed of light] In moral terms: the fixed points (truths) are mostly external to your conceptualization and yield significance. The fretting that MK, Bethany and I have, is that you (and Diana) refused to acknowledge a reality beyond your intellectual-reach.
Yes, C is a constant. It’s a quantity of velocity. It is not that there is “fixed morality” external to the mind (and again this leaves the possibility of God open), it is that some of us like the idea of such a thing. It is not a “reality beyond my intellectual reach,” it is that intellectually some of us don’t accept that which is presented without proof or necessary logic. If I had the same “faith” you did, you and the others would be applauding, but it would be no more provable than it is now. And if we all made the same unprovable assumptions there wouldn’t be the abortion debate in the first place.
……..
Part of the problem is the “Cartesian box” that you are in. It severally restricts your ‘experience of life’. So, because you can’t see beyond your ‘box’: you act and reason as if the universe had no significance – you latch-on-to ‘opinion’ as your ultimate [are you sure you aren’t a polls-junkie!], even if you freely admit most people do live in a Newtonian world. You seem adamant to think that our take on moral reality is even smaller than yours …. ’tis your ideation at work … Aquinas might have called it unfettered-pride.
You really haven’t addressed my arguments at all. You say I’m in the “Cartesian Box,” I say you’re caught up with wishful thinking rather than true logic and what can be demonstrated as being true.
Not everybody has the need to accept the things you do, on “faith.” One’s “experience of life” need not suffer at all because of that. The universe has plenty of significance – I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
Sure, most people here live in a “Newtonian world.” That perception works just fine for most of us in our daily lives. But that is really not the way the universe is. I am not at all saying your take on morality is “smaller” than mine – it is just different. I am going with what can be proven and what you and I both accept as true. You wish for it to be more than that, and I say “fine,” to that, but do not feel it’s a good reason for taking away other people’s freedom and subverting their will.
“Ideation” – that’s you, here, not me. Aquinas could say anything, but he did make some serious logical errors in his “proofs.”
…….
Wish Diana were here, because she knows a bit about string theory and Hawking’s concepts of multiple universes.
I’ve read about them, but it was years ago and I haven’t kept up on it at all. Last I saw, there was compelling mathematics for at least ten dimensions, overall – two time dimensions and eight spatial. Pretty wild….
……..
I find it strange that modern physicists kinda use a ‘quantum physics’ rationale every time they are faced with a phenomenon that doesn’t quite fit their theorizing. Do you use it thus. Is quantum physics real?
Well, now I feel like I imagine you did when you felt I perhaps answered “too quickly.” I think you’re mischaracterizing physicists and quantum physics. Frankly, it sounds like you’re just saying, in essence, “you’re not getting it, Doug,” rather than refuting what I have to say.
Yes, quantum physics is real. As little as I know, I do know that. Traditional physics quits working when we get down small enough. Gluons get together and form glueballs (yes, that sounds dorky but that’s the term they go with). Glueballs form quarks, which have different “colors” and “flavors” – I swear I’m not making this stuff up. Quarks combine to form protons and neutrons. And electrons don’t “orbit” like we first learn – they actually form “probability clouds” about the nucleus, and in all of this, the operation is seen by calculus, not by “standard” mathematics and our earthly three-dimensional conceptualization.
Oh well.
Best,
Doug
MK: You can go, but I asked you to point out where the church is doing this today…not 500 years ago.
Or point to a church teaching that you disagree with not, not with people distorting that teaching. There is none of us perfect, but the constructs of the Church are as close as you’ll get to a “perfect” standard.
MK, I don’t see current church teachings as “evil” with the possible exception of the no abortion and no contraception polices it advocates in some countries. I think contraception should be okay. If I’m wrong about that being the case, then I apologize.
I see what you mean about the constructs of the church, but in another very real way, the people in the church are it.
Doug
MK: And again I’m saying to you that you are the one that wants to end a life…you must prove that you have the right to do so. The personhood is in question. The law already says that you can’t kill a person. (Don’t start, you know what I mean by person) so you must prove that it ISN’T a person and that you have the right to kill it. Prove that it isn’t sentient, because otherwise you might be wrong and taking the life a (fill in the word you’ve decided to use).
Yes, the law says you can’t kill a person just because you want to. But I don’t need to prove the unborn aren’t persons in that respect. If they were, abortion would not be legal. You wouldn’t be arguing if they were in that respect, anyway.
As far as proving no sentience, that’s asking for the proof of a negative, and that’s a logical fallacy. What we do know is that to a point in gestation, there are not the patterns of organized electrical activity in the brain that we call true “brainwaves.” There is not sufficient development nor operation of parts of the brain we understand to be related to consciousness. Bottom line – we have no reason to think that sentience is there.
Doug
“People have been having abortions for thousands and thousands of years. You could also say that those things have gotten worse since the NASA programs started.”
MK: People have NOT been having them at a rate of one and a half million a year, a billion if count the world, and it has been considered a woman’s right before. Certainly not in this country. And if we were sending people up in space ships specifically to kill them, you might have a point about NASA.
I do have a point about NASA. Coincidence is not causation.
Sure – I agree there are more abortions than in the past. There’s a lot more people on earth, so it’s gonna happen. Do I see a real need for there to be less, to the extent that we deny woman abortions? No.
Doug
“Because then there is the desire of the pregnant woman to be considered. No argument that some men are affected, and even some grandparents, but again, it’s weighed against the effect on the woman. Siblings – we’re really getting into speculation there.”
MK: But it is MY desire to whack that guy with 200 lb lemming…I mean I considered that his friends might be bummed, but that shouldn’t override my right to do what I wanted. He’s irritating me. I don’t like him. I want him gone. Besides he is sitting in my seat. If I kill him, I can get my seat back! So why isn’t my desire being considered?
Why do you say it shouldn’t override your right to do what you wanted? He’s not inside your body, for starters. He’s had rights attributed. He’s emotional, sentient, etc. Your rights end where his begin. Late in gestation, this applies, to some extent anyway. There, the restrictions we have on abortion mean that the woman’s desire is not all that’s considered.
Your desire may be considered, but it’s not going to be seen trumping his desire, nor the rights that society has attributed to him.
Doug
“Well Geez, MK – “my house” is where we realize that it really is two different things.”
MK: No, you’re house is where we allow you the illusion of control…you get to choose the snacks and what movie we watch…and it doesn’t threaten you…I’m afraid you wouldn’t last ten minutes in our house.
Nope, nope, nope, and nope. It really is two different things, the physical reality of the unborn and then attributed status, if any.
Doug
Doug,
Yes, the law says you can’t kill a person just because you want to. But I don’t need to prove the unborn aren’t persons in that respect. If they were, abortion would not be legal. You wouldn’t be arguing if they were in that respect, anyway.
You can hardly use the “law” that we are contesting to prove that the unborn aren’t persons.
Pretend that the “law” had not been decided yet.
Then show me why these little ones are not “persons”. And I still say the proof falls to you. Without the law, the argument becomes more even. Again, pretend that there is no “law” and that we are simply arguing whether or not it is right to kill these specific human beings (your def.). You need to prove that they are not persons in order to pass the “law”…this is part of the problem with Roe V Wade…they skipped a big part of the equation when they said we could kill the unborn, without FIRST asking if the unborn qualified as persons…
“Yes, the law says you can’t kill a person just because you want to. But I don’t need to prove the unborn aren’t persons in that respect. If they were, abortion would not be legal. You wouldn’t be arguing if they were in that respect, anyway.”
MK: You can hardly use the “law” that we are contesting to prove that the unborn aren’t persons.
No proof needed. Rights aren’t attributed. Could be different but as of now it’s not.
……..
Pretend that the “law” had not been decided yet. Then show me why these little ones are not “persons”. And I still say the proof falls to you. Without the law, the argument becomes more even. Again, pretend that there is no “law” and that we are simply arguing whether or not it is right to kill these specific human beings (your def.). You need to prove that they are not persons in order to pass the “law”…this is part of the problem with Roe V Wade…they skipped a big part of the equation when they said we could kill the unborn, without FIRST asking if the unborn qualified as persons…
Well okay. If the law had not been decided yet, then it’s not up to me what the legal status is, anymore than it is now. You’re right – without the law the argument is more even, but it’s not my opinion nor yours which makes for personhood as we’re arguing over it.
At that point, you give me the definition of “person” and I can tell you whether or not it applies. As it is now, some definitions apply and some don’t. There is no “proving they are not persons in order to pass the law.” The law is what defines that type of personhood. We can advocate for the law to be one way or the other, but there’s no establishing personhood or the lack of it before the law is settled.
Roe did address this –
THE APPELLEE AND CERTAIN AMICI ARGUE THAT THE FETUS IS A “PERSON”
WITHIN THE LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. IN SUPPORT
OF THIS, THEY OUTLINE AT LENGTH AND IN DETAIL THE WELL-KNOWN FACTS OF
FETAL DEVELOPMENT. IF THIS SUGGESTION OF PERSONHOOD IS ESTABLISHED, THE
APPELLANT’S CASE, OF COURSE, COLLAPSES, FOR THE FETUS’ RIGHT TO LIFE
WOULD THEN BE GUARANTEED SPECIFICALLY BY THE AMENDMENT. THE APPELLANT
CONCEDED AS MUCH ON REARGUMENT. /51/ ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLEE
CONCEDED ON REARGUMENT /52/ THAT NO CASE COULD BE CITED THAT HOLDS THAT
A FETUS IS A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEFINE “PERSON” IN SO MANY WORDS. SECTION 1 OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONTAINS THREE REFERENCES TO “PERSON.” THE
FIRST, IN DEFINING “CITIZENS,” SPEAKS OF “PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN
THE UNITED STATES.” THE WORD ALSO APPEARS BOTH IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
AND IN THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. “PERSON” IS USED IN OTHER PLACES IN
THE CONSTITUTION: IN THE LISTING OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES
AND SENATORS, ART. I, SEC. 2, CL. 2, AND SEC. 3, CL. 3; IN THE
APPORTIONMENT CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 2, CL. 3; /53/ IN THE MIGRATION AND
IMPORTATION PROVISION, ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 1; IN THE EMOLUMENT CLAUSE,
ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 8; IN THE ELECTORS PROVISIONS, ART. II, SEC. 1 CL. 2,
AND THE SUPERSEDED CL. 3; IN THE PROVISION OUTLINING QUALIFICATIONS FOR
THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, ART. II, SEC. 1, CL. 5; IN THE EXTRADITION
PROVISION, ART. IV, SEC. 2, CL. 2, AND THE SUPERSEDED FUGITIVE SLAVE
CLAUSE 3; AND IN THE FIFTH, TWELFTH, AND TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENTS, AS
WELL AS IN SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. BUT IN NEARLY ALL
THESE INSTANCES, THE USE OF THE WORD IS SUCH THAT IT HAS APPLICATION ONLY
POSTNATALLY. NONE INDICATES, WITH ANY ASSURANCE, THAT IT HAS ANY
POSSIBLE PRE-NATAL APPLICATION.
So, this type of personhood is after birth, but the court said that if it was established for the unborn, then right to life would necessarily follow perr the 14th Amendment.
Doug
MK: Doug, 2 lousy posts about the Catholic Church and you turn tail and run…coward! lol :)
Well, if I missed an answer to this question, I’m sorry.
Accepting the idea of God, if that God is all-knowing, then does it not follow that “He” already knows that which we think of as our future?
This would mean we are predestined, for even if we are not aware of what will happen, God is, and thus we don’t have free will.
Doug
Doug,
Human life begins at conception. We know much more about when life begins today in 2007, than apparently those seven
@Doug,
I loves giving Doug headaches, lol …. if timespace is the universe so timespace is also part of God’s life (maybe) and therefore, no predestination …. in Godspeak … “I am”… the eternal ‘now’.
Apply this to abortion; to conception; to death … do beginnings and endings mean we live in a Newtonian world and these do NOT exist in spacetime?
Jasper: Human life begins at conception. We know much more about when life begins today in 2007, than apparently those seven
John: I loves giving Doug headaches, lol …. if timespace is the universe so timespace is also part of God’s life (maybe) and therefore, no predestination …. in Godspeak … “I am”… the eternal ‘now’.
That really does not speak to the question. What you say there could be right – God being part of spacetime or vice-versa, and “real” as Aquinas would have to have it be, and as long as God knows of what we consider to be our future, then we are predestined, no “maybe” about it, and thus do not have free will.
……..
Apply this to abortion; to conception; to death … do beginnings and endings mean we live in a Newtonian world and these do NOT exist in spacetime?
No, they exist in our relativistic universe, certainly, given the assumptions we are making here.
Doug
Doug,
Per the Roe v Wade post…
This is the point of my question. Personhood has not been granted yet. But before a decision was made as to the unborn’s personhood, Roe v Wade happened.
Again, I am asking you to go back to 1972 and “pretend” that you must argue that the unborn is NOT a person. I say the proof should fall to you. You point out that the definitions don’t jive. So I’m asking you, Doug, to show me why the unborn should not be considered persons. I say the burden of proof falls to you, since you are the one that wants to end the life of this human being. I don’t want to do anything. I want things to remain as they are. You want to change them…so YOU must carry the burden of proof.
And if you are wrong, then 45 million persons will be killed in the following years. You will be responsible for that. If you are right, whatever, but since it can’t be proven and you come down on the side of “non-person” then you will bear the guilt of all those deaths…
So, it’s pre-Roe v Wade. And you are the deciding factor. Show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these human beings are not persons.
Doug,
Accepting the idea of God, if that God is all-knowing, then does it not follow that “He” already knows that which we think of as our future?
This would mean we are predestined, for even if we are not aware of what will happen, God is, and thus we don’t have free will.
What you are not understanding here and what John was trying to say, I think, is that to God there is no linear time. So it’s not like he is looking into the future. He sees past present and future all at the same time. He knows what you are thinking yesterday, what you are doing today and what choices you will make tomorrow not because he has a crystal ball, but because he can see all of them at once.
John is right. You have really boxed yourself in.
You have made your boundaries so tight and so rigid that anything that doesn’t fit into your little square is incomprehensible to you. You believe we are close minded, but it is really you.
You live in this little world where you have convinced yourself that everything makes perfect sense and works a certain way, and I’m sorry, but I find that sad. You close the door on so many new things. You will miss so many wonders because you can’t comprehend them. Worrying about all your little ducks being in a row, while theres a crocodile creeping up on you. You can’t possibly understand the Catholic Church, God or anything mystical, because it doesn’t fit into the narrow little tunnel you look through! I can only assume that you find comfort there, but I find it suffocating. You need to get out more!
Doug,
I bet you’re an only child or have one older sister…
You should have grown up in a family of ten kids! Then you know joy and wonder…
MK: I bet you’re an only child or have one older sister…
I’m the oldest, then two boys, a girl, and another boy – five total. I’ll take the “only child” though, as an independent thinker.
……
You should have grown up in a family of ten kids! Then you know joy and wonder…
Oh brother….
Doug
“Accepting the idea of God, if that God is all-knowing, then does it not follow that “He” already knows that which we think of as our future?”
“This would mean we are predestined, for even if we are not aware of what will happen, God is, and thus we don’t have free will.”
MK: What you are not understanding here and what John was trying to say, I think, is that to God there is no linear time. So it’s not like he is looking into the future. He sees past present and future all at the same time. He knows what you are thinking yesterday, what you are doing today and what choices you will make tomorrow not because he has a crystal ball, but because he can see all of them at once.
It’s not that God would have to see things any certain way. There is that which we think of as the future, and if God is omniscient then he knows that – from our point of view he’d know what’s coming. If he sees them all at once, fine and dandy, but we’d still be predestined and have free will, for our future is known.
…….
John is right. You have really boxed yourself in. You have made your boundaries so tight and so rigid that anything that doesn’t fit into your little square is incomprehensible to you.
Not at all. Inserting “God” in the gaps of knowledge makes things tight and closed in, if anything does.
…….
You believe we are close minded, but it is really you.
I believe you have an emotional need to accept dogma from other people. For many, had they grown up in a different part of the world and been exposed to different dogma, they would believe differently, but just as fervently.
…….
You live in this little world where you have convinced yourself that everything makes perfect sense and works a certain way, and I’m sorry, but I find that sad.
I would say that’s not surprising, for you, consciously or unconsciously, think that everybody has the same needs as you.
…….
You close the door on so many new things. You will miss so many wonders because you can’t comprehend them.
I think the opposite is true. Religion closes the doors by insisting on “faith” in lieu of rational or logical explanations. I may not be able to close the door with the same surety that your faith allows you to do, but it remains open for me, to see true wonders, to learn new things.
……..
Worrying about all your little ducks being in a row, while theres a crocodile creeping up on you. You can’t possibly understand the Catholic Church, God or anything mystical, because it doesn’t fit into the narrow little tunnel you look through!
An apt description of the way vast numbers of people view most religions. Come on – “worrying about all your little ducks being in a row” – can we say Catholicism?
……..
I can only assume that you find comfort there, but I find it suffocating. You need to get out more!
:: laughing :: Definitely works both ways, MK. Like a big dog. In spades.
Doug
MK: Per the Roe v Wade post…
This is the point of my question. Personhood has not been granted yet. But before a decision was made as to the unborn’s personhood, Roe v Wade happened.
Again, I am asking you to go back to 1972 and “pretend” that you must argue that the unborn is NOT a person. I say the proof should fall to you. You point out that the definitions don’t jive. So I’m asking you, Doug, to show me why the unborn should not be considered persons. I say the burden of proof falls to you, since you are the one that wants to end the life of this human being. I don’t want to do anything. I want things to remain as they are. You want to change them…so YOU must carry the burden of proof.
MK, let me be my argumentative self here for a minute. I say the definitions jive. They jive like a big old jive turkey, riding high on the back of the lead sheep in the Sheeplechase.
They jive because they are not supposed to be the same. They jive with the intention of each. One is physical state, and one – the one pertinent to Roe and noted as such in the opinion – is according to law.
You still really are asking for the proof of a negative, though. In no way would the burden of proof fall to me. You’re the one asserting the positive. You’re the one who wants a change, from no attribution of right to life to the attribution of it for the unborn. You got the weight.
Personhood wasn’t atributed to the unborn in 1972, nor in 1952, nor 1902, 1852, 1792, etc. Abortion being legal in no way did that. The act itself was illegal, at least in theory, or at least in the letter of the law (though it wasn’t often treated that way in practice), but that is not the same thing as attributing right to life or personhood.
……
So here ya go…
Anyway, going with what you asked me to do, I’d say that personhood had never been established for the unborn, not under English common law, and not since the founding of this country.
I’d say there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions the unborn. I’d say that nothing in the Constitution has ever been applied to the unborn. That any mention of the term in the Constitution has to do with after birth. There is no precedent for saying the unborn are legal “persons.”
And indeed some of those concepts were considered by both sides in the Roe case.
……..
And if you are wrong, then 45 million persons will be killed in the following years. You will be responsible for that. If you are right, whatever, but since it can’t be proven and you come down on the side of “non-person” then you will bear the guilt of all those deaths…
Very funny. Presupposes “guilt” – not proven, Your Honor.
…..
So, it’s pre-Roe v Wade. And you are the deciding factor. Show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these human beings are not persons.
Again, MK, it’s very simple. They were not, and never had been, according to law. I am not arguing to change the precedent, I only need to note it. There is no doubt at all of that. I know that you and many other want to change that, but I think you are again crossing up the definitions – you want me to prove the unborn are not “human beings” as far as physical state, but that’s not the argument under Roe, and that’s not what the abortion debate is about.
Doug
Doug wondered:
“Wonder what Aristotle would have thought of that [God becoming man]?”
he would have absolutely rejected that such a thing could ever occur since he believed that the perfect was not something that could “become” in any way because that would imply that God became something “greater” than what He previously was.
If you wanna see how Aristotle helped ruin Christian philosophy for well over 1,000 years check out some of the stuff Augustine said about the bible based upon his strongly held beliefs he received from Aristotle referenced in this article.
http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Immutability%20of%20God.htm
Doug,
Three key ideas here…
1. No law.
They were not, and never had been, according to law.
2. Pre Roe v Wade
but that’s not the argument under Roe, and that’s not what the abortion debate is about.
3. YOU
And you are the deciding factor.
Is this too hard for you? Which part don’t you get?
Sheesh, didn’t you ever play make believe when you were a kid?
Let’s try again…
It’s pre-Roe v Wade. And YOU are the deciding factor. Show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these human beings are not persons,
keeping in mind that depending on YOUR answer 45,000,000 persons might die if you are wrong.
YOU make the decree…everyone has agreed to go by Dougs answer…that will be the law…no one elses opinion matters…
Make a choice and back it up…
Doug,
watch this…how does this fit into your box?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVXEh4Jzs2s&mode=related&search=
MK – okay, so I am to make the law. Now I see. Sorry it took me so long – but it’s foreign to me to think of deciding personhood outside of existing law.
Yes, I played “Make Believe” when I was little. When I was 8 and my little brother Scott was 4 he became the “Camping Baby” and had to stay under the dining room table, which I had covered with blankets so they draped down to the floor, making a “tent.” Poor little guy wanted out after a while, but oh no, he had to stay because after all he was the “Camping Baby..”
But okay…
……
It’s pre-Roe v Wade. And YOU are the deciding factor. Show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these human beings are not persons, keeping in mind that depending on YOUR answer 45,000,000 persons might die if you are wrong.
Well, that’s a contradiction. If I’m the deciding factor, then there isn’t any “wrong” beyond what I decide. There is no “reasonable doubt” beyond what I decree. Truth be told, MK, if I am to avoid that “wrong” you mentioned, then you have to define it for me – you have to lay out the standard ahead of time.
Still, here we go. People must be “Homo Sapiens” and have to have personality. They can go to sleep, or be in a coma or be otherwise incapacitated for some time, but the capacity for sentience and mentally aware perception must be there. People will have the right to life, but it is not absolute. Killing is allowed under due process of law, in wartime, in cases of self-defense, and guilt will not be deemed if the cause is accidental with no negligence involved. Personhood will be deemed at 24 weeks gestation, for that is when personality appears, though the right to life is not absolute there, either. If the physical danger to the pregnant woman is such that the pregnancy should be ended, delivery will then be induced. In cases where the induction of labor would cause greater danger to the woman than would abortion, then abortion will be done.
His Royal Majesty,
Doug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVXEh4Jzs2s&mode=related&search=
MK, I know there are phenomena we cannot explain.
Doug,
Yes, I played “Make Believe” when I was little. When I was 8 and my little brother Scott was 4 he became the “Camping Baby” and had to stay under the dining room table, which I had covered with blankets so they draped down to the floor, making a “tent.” Poor little guy wanted out after a while, but oh no, he had to stay because after all he was the “Camping Baby..”
Could heavens, you mean even back then you were trying to put people into “little boxes”…
And you played make believe so rarely that you remember the “one” time…
No wonder I’m having such a hard time getting through to you…lol
Doug,
I can feel Jill’s brain on overdrive, so this post will probably be dropped today…I’ve moved it to “Pro-Lifer Blog”….see you there…