Aurora Planned Parenthood’s B-2 bomb
I had lengthy conversations yesterday with pro-life IL attorneys Peter Breen and Vince Tessitore about the Aurora Planned Parenthood zoning appeal situation….
They have both spent a significant amount of time on this key plan to shut down PP Aurora, for which we are all grateful.
In fact and coincidentally, when I spoke in Charlottesville, VA, earlier this month, I connected with pro-life attorney Mike Sharmon, who has overseen that city’s successful legal effort to shut down its PP for zoning violations, and he said Peter had called him that very day.
(The Charlottesville PP is still open, despite 5, yes FIVE, straight court losses for PP and zero wins, because the county thus far has not acted on the court decision.)
So here’s the update on our zoning appeal.
First, our side has located a high profile law firm willing to take our case that specializes in zoning litigation. But the cost will run somewhere between $180-360k, and the firm requires 30% down. Money is the hold-up. If you want to donate to this endeavor that could realistically shut down PP Aurora while sending a shock through the industry, please email me.
We have already discussed two planks of the zoning appeal:
1. PP used a for-profit front corporation to construct a building actually owned by a nonprofit, for which there are different zoning rules and for which a special use permit was required.
2. PP’s front company, Gemini Office Development, lied on five separate permit applications and in response to a direct question from a city alderman in an open hearing about PP being the intended occupant. (This fraud was not without consequences. Had Aurora known this was to be PP’s largest U.S. mill, it would certainly have made PP install sidewalks, particularly for poor patrons who have to get there by mass transit or on foot. And Aurora certainly would have moved PP’s entrance from the busy Dominick’s mall thoroughfare to the better prepared Oakhurst St. Etc., etc., etc.)
But here’s a third, a B-2 bomb, if you will.
3. PP’s plans were designed according to the wrong building code. The plans were for B-2 zoning (general retail) when they should have been for B-B zoning (business boulevard district). This means, for example, the PP building should have been set back from the lot line 35 feet, when it is currently set back about 25 feet. And PP’s parking lot was calculated by the wrong multipliers. Instead of its current 71 parking spaces, it should have 90+. Etc., etc., etc.
These are three strong, valid arguments to revoke PP’s permits and oust it. The plan is try to work through Aurora’s Zoning Board of Appeals but continue on to sue PP in court if need be.
It is time for big donors to step up to the plate. The other side has billionaires willing to invest in their cause. We have are own millionaires if not billionaires that need to step up, too. And this would be a great investment. Read more details on the tenets of the zoning appeal here.
[Photo, top right, courtesy of Families Against Planned Parenthood, is of shrubs being planted at the PP Aurora mill Monday. Were they planted according to code? Which code? What about the illegal fencing you can barely see on the right side of the photo barricading the public parkway? When will Aurora remove that?]
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.
“The plans were for B-2 zoning (general retail) when they should have been for B-B zoning (business boulevard district).”
If so, they just have to get a varriance. No biggie.
Is this really how you want to win this battle for hearts and minds, over a building code issue? If you close this particular building down for non-abortion rights issues, they’ll simply build another one to code and then what?
But it’s not only one. There are only about 750 abortion clinics left in the country. Down from 2000 just fifteen years ago…
what happens if we close this one? Well, then we start on another.
Hal,
How is your wife doing? You mentioned she wasn’t well. I hope she’s doing better.
Thanks for asking MK. She’s doing okay, all things considered. Although I appreciate your concern, I’d rather not go into any more detail.
Jill, do we know which landscaping company is planting the shrubs? or did they buy them from a nursery and have the nursery plant them? I have worked in the nursery industry for several years so I am curious to find out who’s involved. I’d like to know who in the horticulture field is profiting from abortion.
Carrie, what about the company that sells them their paper for writing letters, or even the company that sells them pens? I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they should be able to get their water from the city system either, I don’t want the public water company “profiting from Abortion.”
“Is this really how you want to win this battle for hearts and minds, over a building code issue?”
PP has hood winked many people into believing that they are a trustworthy organization. They want many people to put their very lives in their hands, and have spent millions trying to convince the general public that they can trust PP.
By showing how PP as an organization routinely lies, cheats and tries to get around the law, it can begin to peel back the veneer of lies and show the ugly truth about an organization that will blantantly lie to women for profit.
Hal, you are onto something. Thanks for all the great ideas. First, the office supply company. Then, the public water company. Next, the electric company. After that, the logging company that sold the wood to the company that made the desks that sold desks to Planned Parenthood.
Hal, I do not want to make it easy for a company to profit from what happened to Baby Malachi and the millions like him. That’s was my motivation for asking the question.
Hal,
Thanks for asking MK. She’s doing okay, all things considered. Although I appreciate your concern, I’d rather not go into any more detail.
No need to, and for what it’s worth, she is on my prayer list. Cant’ hurt, might help.
I never ask out of nosiness, just concern. It’s clear that you love her very much. Just know that despite our differences, you’re not alone.
MK
Thanks again MK, despite our differences I can tell you’re a very nice person. I get the same good vibes from Bobby.
The plans were for B-2 zoning (general retail) when they should have been for B-B zoning (business boulevard district).”
If so, they just have to get a varriance. No biggie.
Is this really how you want to win this battle for hearts and minds, over a building code issue? If you close this particular building down for non-abortion rights issues, they’ll simply build another one to code and then what?
Posted by: Hal at October 31, 2007 1:01 PM
Hal,
Why don’t you pose this same question to PP?? Is this really how they should have snuck into a city? If they are so committed to abortion rights as they say the majority of the country is, why lie?? If they are correct about this majority support, people would have been flocking in grand numbers to welcome them openly into town.
And yes. I say fight the good fight. Fight fire with fire.
I was there when the trees were being installed.
The landscaping company is: McADAM – http://www.mcadamlandscape.com/
charles, thanks for the info.
yeah, but who sells them their pencils? Do you really expect a landscaping company to say, “sorry, we don’t want to sell you $5600 in bushes because you perform abortions.”
If the code is “no biggie”, then why is there such a fuss about it with the legal folks?
http://tinyurl.com/2nx2th
Hal, and the comapny that sells to the company that sells to the company that sells to the company that sells to PP. Seriously, I don’t necessarily expect them to turn down a large job. People have boycotted companies for all kinds of reasons. Wasn’t there a boycott of certain kinds of tuna many years ago? I think it was because dolphins were being killed in the fishing nets. I guess it all comes down to what issues are important to the person doing the boycotting. Did you have a problem with the tuna boycott? Do you have a problem with prolifers boycotting or protesting companies that do business with abortion providers? Don’t we have the same rights as everyone else?
On that note, I am off to get ready for trick-or-treating.
@Carrie,
you might have just hit the right strategy. Ever since women have gained this ‘right’, there has been constant talk of lack-of-access. But of course, courts cannot mandate a right-of-access.
This is also outside State-law jurisdiction and pro-abort hand-wringing.
so, every kind of sub-service that is needed can be restricted. Then the suckers will be forced to close for non-compliance with code.
Make access a nightmare!
boycott away. Let me know how it turns out
Hal,
Forgot to ask. You said they can now go back and get a variance? What is the purpose of requring a variance to build if all you have to do is go back and get one. It doesn’t make any sense. Then anyone at anytime can build whatever and wherever they want without following city regs.
Oh wow. You know, Don Quixote’s got nothin’ on you folks.
I am going to go flush a dollar down the toilet in sympathy with your cause.
The plans were for B-2 zoning (general retail) when they should have been for B-B zoning (business boulevard district).
I am no expert in these matters, but no matter what is wrong with the plans, the City of Aurora approved them before construction started. It seems to me that as a result, the city would be required to issue a variance, or compensate PP for expenses associated in changing the building. Considering that we are talking about aesthetic zoning issues and it cost 7.5 million dollars to build, I think the taxpayers of Aurora would prefer the variance.
Good point Ray. Sandy, my point is that many things sometimes don’t get built “to code.” It happens. It happens with houses, stores, and medical clinics. Most cities and counties will work with you to fix things, they don’t destroy to many new buildings because of a violation.
If the code is “no biggie”, then why is there such a fuss about it with the legal folks?
Posted by: carder at October 31, 2007 3:06 PM
Well…you may have noticed that the “fuss” is totally one-sided. And futile, but that’s my opinion.
Actually, I ENCOURAGE all of you pro-lifers to express your moral and religious beliefs in a grisly and offensive way in a TOTALLY inappropriate venue!
LOUDER! HARDER! ASSERT YOURSELVES! SHOW THOSE FILTHY YOUNG WOMEN YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND PUNISH THEM ACCORDINGLY!
Kansas church liable in Marine funeral protest
Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:18pm EDT
By Jon Hurdle
BALTIMORE, Oct 31 (Reuters) – A jury on Wednesday ordered an anti-gay Kansas church to pay $10.9 million in damages to relatives of a U.S. Marine after church members cheered his death at his funeral.
The federal jury determined the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, and three of its principals invaded the privacy of the dead man’s family and inflicted emotional distress when they protested at his funeral last year.
Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder died in combat in Iraq in March 2006.
Snyder’s father testified that his son was not gay, but the church targeted the military as a symbol of America’s tolerance of gays.
Church members said the soldier’s death was God’s punishment of America for tolerating homosexuality.
The jury awarded Snyder’s family $2.9 million in compensatory damages and an additional $8 million in punitive damages.
The Westboro Church was sued by the Marine’s father, Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania. The case was the first civil suit against the church, which has demonstrated at some 300 military funerals in the past two years.
The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Rev. Fred Phelps, who has been waging a one-man war against homosexuality for years. Most members of the church belong to his extended family.
Laura, your encouragement means so much to me. I am so touched that you care enough to take the time to give us advice. Laura=Norma Rae?
Laura,
the leader of the westboro baptist church is a registered Democrat
Gore Political Ties to “God Hates Fags” Founders Uncovered
Gore and Wife Tipper Headlined Fundraiser at Phelps’ Topeka Home; Phelps Family Reportedly Invited to Clinton-Gore Inaugurations in 93 and 97
October 25, 2000
(WASHINGTON) Reports linking Vice President Al Gore with notorious anti-gay activist Fred Phelps, Jr., and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas were confirmed with the release of photographs showing Gore at a fundraiser at the home of Fred Phelps, Jr., who told the Conservative News Service on October 16 that he served as a Gore delegate on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta in 1988.
Gore, who was quoted by the Nashville Tennessean in 1984 saying homosexuality is not “an acceptable alternative that society should affirm” and said in his 1984 U.S. Senate race that he would not accept money from gay rights organizations and that he opposed a “gay bill of rights,” reportedly sought the support of the Phelps family in his 1988 presidential campaign, and invited the Phelps’ to the Clinton-Gore inaugurations of January 1993 and January 1997.
(Click image to copy)
Fred Phelps, Jr. (left) and Al Gore (center)
Fundraiser at Phelps Home
Topeka, Kansas
(Click image to copy)
Left to right: Fred Phelps, Jr., Tipper Gore, Betty Phelps, Al Gore
(Click image to copy)
Left to right: Timothy Phelps, Al Gore, Fred Phelps, Jr.
The Westboro Baptist Church runs a website called “www.godhatesfags.com” which includes virulent anti-gay statements and attacks on Jews, Catholics, and US troops. The site calls the religious right “lukewarm cowards” and has an animated photograph of gay murder victim Matthew Shepard surrounded by flames, with a statement entitled “Matthew Shepard’s Message from Hell.” The Phelps family has gained international notoriety for picketing the funerals of gay people and US troops with signs that say “God Hates Fags.”
Fred Phelps, Sr., pastor of the church, told CNS that the 1989 fundraiser held at his son’s home was for Al Gore, and published several photographs on the church website to substantiate it, including one showing Gore and his wife Tipper arm-in-arm with Fred and Betty Phelps. Phelps, Sr. also told CNS that he provided office space and staff accommodations for Gore campaign staffers in the 1988 campaign.
Phelps, Sr. told CNS that Gore “looked us in the eye and gave us assurance, that, based on his Bible beliefs, he was against the homosexual agenda and the killing of babies.”
“No one argues that Gore had an anti-gay record in the past. However, if it is true that he was allied with Fred Phelps as recently as 1997, then Al Gore’s got a lot of explaining to do,” said Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. “At this time the sources are themselves questionable, so the Vice President can end this mystery by denying any relationship with Phelps now. Most troubling is the charge that Al Gore invited Fred Phelps to his inaugurations as Vice President in 1993 and 1997. That was less than three years ago. We need some answers.”
Fred Phelps, Jr. also ran for Governor of Kansas in the Democratic primary in 1990, winning over 11,000 votes and placing third.
yes. It does seem that Al Gore was involved. Weren’t some just praising him about a month ago?
I like WBC. They really express the heart and soul of the religious right.
SoMG said: “I like WBC. They really express the heart and soul of the religious right.”
Yeah, right. That’s like saying that Joseph Stalin expressed the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
As someone who once joined the Patriot Guard Riders in defending the family of a fallen soldier from that disgusting Phelps family (fortunately Phelps didn’t show at the funeral), I might actually be outraged by the comments of Laura et al if they weren’t nothing but the nonsensical rants of silly pro-aborts who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
MK,
*I’m reposting this on a more current thread because apparently you missed it the first time.*
“And you don’t know the difference between a baby and an embryo.
That’s because there isn’t one.”
This little exchange reminded me of a question that I’ve been meaning to ask you for a while. Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to you a baby is created at conception because at that moment when the sperm and the egg fuse, all of the elements that are needed to create a baby are there. (Like in your cookie dough=cookies example.) Using this logic, why isn’t a child an adult? After all, the child has everything within it that it needs to become an adult (save for time and maturity), so why isn’t the child an adult?
for my shift I dressed up as a pregnant person. I even brought a bucket instead of a purse (morning sickness). It was very exciting b/c when we went out to eat I got a lot of looks!
However, I am thinking of dressing up again when I go out on friday. But I want it to be more real looking. Try as I might my belly still wasn’t perfectly round.
Ideas?
Yeah, now I have to take off a bumch of duct tape residue from my back.
PUP: Yeah, now I have to take off a bumch of duct tape residue from my back.
I’m guessin’ that would hurt me more than you.
PIP, put the tape on a T-shirt or something next time.
lol how so?
ooh jasper I didn’t even think of that?
Huckabee now far outdistances his rivals as candidate to be nominated for VP by the GOP.
HUCKABEE.VP.REP.NOM is trading for 30.
Try as I might my belly still wasn’t perfectly round.
Ideas?
Posted by: prettyinpink at October 31, 2007 9:50 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Birdseed.
It’s an old Hollywood trick. You sew or glue fabric to the correct shape and size of a pregnant belly and fill it with birdseed. The birdseed provides the correct hang and heft.
Laura: It’s an old Hollywood trick. You sew or glue fabric to the correct shape and size…. and fill it with birdseed. The birdseed provides the correct hang and heft.
Oh…. is that what it was for Tom Jones, or was it really just a salami?
Fred Phelps, Jr. also ran for Governor of Kansas in the Democratic primary in 1990, winning over 11,000 votes and placing third.
This is just my opinion, but he and his family are nutjobs, and the “Westover Baptist Church” is idiotic. They just had a judgment against them for $11 million, for their clownishness.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html
The birdseed provides the correct hang and heft.
Oh…. is that what it was for Tom Jones, or was it really just a salami?
Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 11:06 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yanno, I didn’t even catch how dirty that was when I wrote it…
Doug, I’ve read that they don’t allow marriage to outsiders. There are only 75 members. They are probably going to have to start inbreeding soon if they haven’t already.
I go away for five minutes and it’s bird see and salamis. Last time it was Chucky Cheeses balls…
Good Heavens people! Get you minds out of the gutter!
(Or at least wait for me, so I can play too)
Enigma,
That’s a very good question.
Child, Adult, embryo, teenager…these are words that describe a human being at different “stages”…
Just a way to define which part of their life they are living at any given moment.
I think the problem (and Laura actually touched on this) is that we rely on our eyes to tell us what something is. An embryo doesn’t look like a baby. So it must not be. Or Doug’s argument. A fetus can’t think, so it isn’t a person.
But the term person is a relatively new term, created to give credence to the idea that somehow a person in a particular stage of life is not a person at all. But it’s an erroneous assumption.
I love the Kangaroo. It so exemplifies what I am talking about. This tiny creature must actually crawl from the mothers womb up her body and into her pouch…all the time looking NOTHING like a kangaroo. Doug claims that an embryo of this stage is not sentient. And yet, somehow it manages to “know” that to survive it must make this long and arduous journey…don’t you think that a human “embryo” at the same gestational age should be given at least as much credit?
Note that the joey is referred to as BOTH a newborn and an embryo….
Read this…
http://tinyurl.com/yqmy6h
Note that this tiny “creature” no more developed than a 7 week old human embryo, does all the work himself.
“There is, in fact, no necessity to postulate that the young needs assistance to get to the pouch and attach to a teat, for it is endowed with all the necessary equipment at birth. It has well-developed and active forelimbs, jaw muscles and tongue. Although it has no functional eyes or ears, it has large nostrils and presumably a well-developed sense of smell which probably plays a major part in its location of the pouch. It has often been stated that the newborn young is incapable of sucking and the mother therefore forces milk into its mouth by means of certain abdominal muscles, but this is incorrect.”
“As with all marsupials, the young are born at a very early stage of development after a gestation of 31-36 days. At this stage, only the forelimbs are somewhat developed, to allow the newborn to climb to the pouch and attach to a teat. In comparison, a human embryo at a similar stage of development would be about 7 weeks old
http://tinyurl.com/28uqu9
Laura,
Take note:
Fun Fact #3 Marsupial babies are an embryo, and once born they must swim through the Momma’s fur into the pouch.
Oh horrors…did they say FACT? babies are an embryo? Now what?
http://tinyurl.com/29g4hp
MK,
You didn’t actually answer my question. I didn’t ask about human developmental stages.
I asked: Why, using your logic that a baby is created at the moment of conception because at that moment everything that is needed to produce a baby is present, a child isn’t considered an adult because the child also has within it everything that is needed for it to become an adult? What’s the difference?
I’m not asking for a description of developmental stages and why the entity is or is not human at each. I’m asking a very specific question asking you to apply the logic of your argument to something else and explain to me why it works.
Enigma,
I believe that I did answer you question. The definition of the words.
Fetus means young one. Baby means young one. Both are simply describing a stage. Adult means reaching the age of 18. Toddler means walking.
The ability to do different things is what defines these words. You can vote and drink at 21, so you are considered a “young adult”.
You were born less than a month ago, so you are considered a newborn.
Baby defines a longer stretch than fetus. But both are defining stage of early life.
Fetus defines a 7 month stage. Baby includes fetus, but also includes any child up to the stage where he is considered a toddler. Baby is simply a broader term.
Adult can mean 18 or 81. It’s broader than young adult or elderly. But it includes them.
So all elderly are adults but not all adults are elderly.
OR
All fetuses are babies but not all babies are fetuses.
Is that what you mean?
Enigma,
Try this…
I say: “I have a collie”
Bill says: “I have a cocker spaniel”
We both say we have dogs.
You say, “No, you have a collie, Bill has a cocker spaniel. Are you trying to tell me that collies and cocker spaniels are the same thing?”
I say: “No. Collies and Cocker Spaniels are both dogs, but they are different expressions.
All collies and cocker spaniels are dogs. But not all dogs are collies or cocker spaniels.
Would I not be right in saying either “I have a dog” or “I have a collie”. Does one exclude the other? No. You understand that by saying I have a collie, I mean that I have a dog.
If I say I have a baby, you still do not know anything about my particular baby. It could be in utero, a newborn or an 11 month old. But I would still be correct in calling it a baby.
I’ve been thinking about something that Jill wrote in the post above since last night:
“First, our side has located a high profile law firm willing to take our case that specializes in zoning litigation. But the cost will run somewhere between $180-360k, and the firm requires 30% down.”
I just wanted to comment that if that’s really the projection for the cost of a zoning appeal and a possible suit to follow, you are getting ripped off. There is no reason for a budget that high for a case like this, unless of course they’re budgeting in for a bribe to the judge. Seriously. Also, “high profile” firms frequently have very little actual litigation experience. You might be better off finding a firm with a lower profile who has the appropriate experience, and who bills at lower rates.
As an example, when I was working in mass litigation for an insurance company, I hired a firm to defend a highly complex radiation exposure case. It went through the course of discovery, pre-trial motions, and the mandatory mediation, and I only spent about $120,000. This included expert witness fees for both a medical expert and an expert to evaluate the plaintiff’s actual damages. The partner who did the most work on the file billed at a fairly high rate too.
Your firm is planning on taking you to the cleaners. I would consider finding someone else.
Theres a problem with the comment box in all the posts above this one, right?
Bobby, yes, The page is saying “unavailable.”
MK,
“I believe that I did answer you question. The definition of the words.”
No, you did not. You performed what is referred to as a bate-and-switch.
Let’s Review:
I asked: “This little exchange reminded me of a question that I’ve been meaning to ask you for a while. Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to you a baby is created at conception because at that moment when the sperm and the egg fuse, all of the elements that are needed to create a baby are there. (Like in your cookie dough=cookies example.) Using this logic, why isn’t a child an adult? After all, the child has everything within it that it needs to become an adult (save for time and maturity), so why isn’t the child an adult?”
You answered: “Child, Adult, embryo, teenager…these are words that describe a human being at different “stages”…
Just a way to define which part of their life they are living at any given moment.”
How does this even begin to answer the question? I didn’t ask you to describe human developmental stages and to explain how one was human at each of them. I’d like to note that I never argued that being in different developmental stages meant that one was not human. I didn’t ask for a comparison between human and kangaroo reproduction (they’re not comparable, by the way). Your attempt to say that having different types of dogs is an analogous situation is frankly absurd. I asked you to apply your logic of “conception creates baby” to explain why, using this logic, a child is not considered an adult.
A response that actually answers the question would likely be structured as follows:
“A child isn’t an adult because…”
“Using this logic, an embryo is a baby but a child is not an adult because…”
I see nothing even remotely similar in your answer.
You say that it has to do with how we define words. Fine. Let’s go with that. Your definition of baby extends from conception because at that moment everything that is needed to produce a baby is present. I’m asking you why, using your logic that potential equals actualization, that your definition of adulthood does not likewise encompass children because, after all, children have everything within them that they need to become adults just as surely as the zygote has everything within it that it needs to become a baby.
First off,
If you believe that was a case of bait and switch, it certainly wasn’t intended to be.
Obviously, I don’t understand what you are asking me.
I have tried to show you what I mean 10 ways to Sunday, so I’m pretty sure I don’t know what you are really asking.
Baby defines a broad stage of a persons life.
All babies are not fetuses, but all fetuses are babies.
A baby is not an adult because it has not reached the “age” of adulthood.
All adults were once babies, but not all babies will be adults.
A baby is not an adult by virtue of the definition of baby and adult…
Quite honestly, I don’t know what you want from me?
It seems so obvious, that I must be missing something.
Baby means a living being from the moment of conception til it passes into another stage. Like adult, or teenager.
Fetus means a baby during the last 7 months of gestation.
Adult means a living being that has reached full physical maturity…
“Adulthood is generally understood as the time when physical maturation is complete. One reaches their maximum height and secondary sex characteristics form such as body hair and facial hair, voice lowers in pitch (especially noticeable in men), and menses begin (women). Natural sleep patterns change in adulthood, as adults typically require less sleep than during adolescence. One thing people don’t specify is what (psychologically) an adult is. A common theory is that adulthood is the real test of life, to experience the world from a first-person standpoint instead of through the parents. Then the adult can pass those experiences down to younger people and they can experience them when they grow up.”
So how could a baby be an adult?
ba
MK, I answered this a few posts down as well, where I discuss accidents and substance of a being.
Enigma,
At the moment that an egg and sperm meet they cease being an egg and a sperm and become something completely different. An entity all it’s own. They have combined to become something new.
This new thing (a baby, presumably human since that is what we are talking about) will now grow and develop throughout it’s life although physically it will mature at around age 21.
But it will never become something else. It will always remain exactly what it became at the moment of conception. Which is human person at a particular stage of development.
Bobby,
What am I missing here? I don’t understand what she is asking. Help.
It’s a philosophical distinction. You know how in the Eucharist bread and wine cease to exist and they become the body and blood of Jesus? In philosophical terms, we say that the accidents (how it looks, tastes, feels, smells, the ingredients in it) remain, but the substance (what it is) changes. So while all scientific inquiry into a consecrated host will tell you that it is bread, what it is in actuality is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, of course, Enigma doesn’t have to believe any of this, that’s fine. But the point is the distinction between accidence and substance (or nature). From the moment of conception, our nature is that of a human person. That never changes, whether you’re a little boy, a man, or an embryo. However, your accidents change. These are outward appearances, so of course a little boy is not a man, but a little boy and a man are both human beings. That is key. This distinction, BTW, is essential, because without it, one can’t even talk about, say, Darwinian evolution. (Maybe PIP can help me out if i start to digress into nonsense.) How do we tell the difference between apes and human beings? We need to be able to say that even though we may have had the same beginnings, at some point, there was an evolutionary change which caused the same organisms to produce beings with different natures. One had the nature of an ape and one had the nature of a human. I hope that makes sense. God love you, MK.
“Now, of course, Enigma doesn’t have to believe any of this”
BTW, by “this” I mean that the Eucharist is Jesus. I was using that as an example to help MK understand stuff.
Bobby,
It’s so funny that you say that, because it’s one of the things I thought of. But I dismissed it because I knew that Enigma couldn’t even comprehend let alone accept the concept of the Eucharist. But yes, that is exactly the same thing. AND it is the very union of the Bride (the church) and the groom (Christ) that made this “conception” possible. The Eucharist exists because of the spiritual marriage bed that is the altar. (Jesus) created something completely new. Love (something spiritual) is turned into Christ (something physical)…
We, when we unite with our spouse are doing the same thing…creating something physical (a new life/baby) out of something spiritual (our love for one another)…
But that still doesn’t help me answer Enigmas question…
Ahhh Bobby,
I just found your other post.
Here is the answer: you are confusing the accidents with the substance. This also happens in the old “an acorn is not an oak tree” argument. The difference between a child and an adult is accidental i.e. how they look, their size, etc. But the a child and an adult are of the same substance i.e. they have the same nature which is a human nature. What MK is saying (and what any book on human embryology will tell you) is that at the moment of conception egg and sperm cease to exist and a new “thing” is present. There is an ontological difference between an egg and a fertilized egg. Any other changes that the fertilized egg undergoes are then accidental. You will never find any other ontological change that the fertilized egg goes through, all the way up to adulthood. This is a crucial distinction in philosophy: the accidents and substance of a being. Hope that helps. God love you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 1, 2007 8:42 AM
Good work…I just don’t have the scientific terms at my fingertips like you do…I really should have gone to college…
Oh man, the Eucharist is so deep, isn’t it? What a wonderful gift!
But alas, MK, I learned none of that in college. Just reading on my own. But I also wanted to say that this whole distinction takes care of the whole “it’s baby, not a fetus” or “it’s a fetus, not a baby” business. Those are just terms to describe a human being’s state in life. They are accidental terms. So I have no problem calling the being growing inside of a women a fetus. That’s the scientific term, great. But what it is, it’s nature, is that of a human person, and THAT is what gives him/her his/her dignity, and hence right to life. God love you, MK.
Thanks Laura! I’ll give it a shot.
Bobby and enigma:
Perhaps I can help here – what Enigma is asking, is that if you want to claim that a fetus is a child because of the nature link, then a child is also an adult. And this is where it gets scary, because that argument leads to a 6 y o claiming a right to drive, vote, and drink (not to mention skipping school and eating all the candy they want.) We accord rights based on what something “is.” And the criteria for the granting of rights or the determination of what soemthing ontologically “is” must be other than arbitrary – if its arbitrary, it is just bias.
We don’t accord rights based on humanity(although that is the mis-title of many documents.) We make them based on personhood. There are two routes to a definition of personhood – one is the religious – presence of a soul. The existence of a soul is a matter of faith – try as one might, there is no way to prove that souls exist.
The other route is that the soul is a convenient euphemism for the processes of the brain. Thus, when certain processes are measurable or detectable, a person exists. That is why brain death means that medical means for sustaining life can be withdrawn-brain activity, thus personhood has ceased. It can also be the argument for allowing abortion up to a certain gestational age.
The precedent of brain development is also used for granting full rights – children can’t drive (sorry, kid) or vote or drink. We also curtail some rights if full mental function ceases, as in cases of brain injury or dementia.
Some criteria used to determine personhood (more specific brain functions of which there are outward manifestations) would be self-awareness, sentience, and intelligence.
Perhaps whoever that original question was directed to can try to answer it, now, instead of digressing into discussions of religious experience.
Phylosoper, all your criteria for describing personhhod is based on persnhood theory, which is a theory that leads to people like our friend Peter Singer. I would define a person as a being with the natural potential to think, feel, love, and reflect on one’s self and others. Any other definition denies that a person has intrinsic and moral dignity simply for the fact that he is a human being.
“Perhaps whoever that original question was directed to can try to answer it, now, instead of digressing into discussions of religious experience.”
I’m not quite sure where we digressed into religious experience.
To keep things simple: An unborn child is human.
Singer doesn’t have a monopoly on personhood theory. We (humans acting as a society) award/recognize rights based on certain criteria. Meeting that criteria adds up to personhood. In some cases, we fudge or average it. There is no test to determine adulthood, 21 is arbitrary. And recent research suggests it should be somewhat later, like 26. And guess what that is based on – brain development.
But most folks are comfortable with that age, it seems, until something makes them question it, like research or a spate of fatal accidents for teen drivers.
I think it was mk who was trying to answer the original query. She pointed to physical signs of adulthood like facial hair and menarche. If we used these as the criteria, 9 year old girls would be legally voting and some 13 y o boys would be fighting in Iraq (as US soldiers). In some societies that is the case. But we choose to use other criteria – and the argument can be made that the criteria we use for end of life issues can be applied to beginning of life issues, too. Bookend consistency.
The digression was the Eucharist one. A specifically Catholic experience that would be incomprehensible to the majority of folks religious or not, outside that particular religious idiom. And rather snidely to Enigma, too.
Somehow, I think the the spirit of the Spirit got missed.
Phylosopher,
We wereen’t discussing a Eucharistic experience, though. We were discussing Eucharistic theology. And that was only between MK and me. I was trying to explain accidents and substance more fully to MK. I thought she had read my post on accidents and substance from a different thread, so I just wanted to help clarify with an example that she would understand. I tried to clarify, though, to Enigma that I wasn’t saying all that for her or to her because I know she doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, which is fine, I don’t expect her to. I had no intention of being snide to her. Enigma and I always have polite discussions. If I came off snide or condescending toward her, I sincerely apologize. I respect Enigma greatly.
Also I was saying that Singer is a product of the personhood theory philosophy.
BTW, I hope I”m not snide to you either, Phylosopher. It’s very easy to get carried away on these blogs. My apologies if I was. God love you.
To make things simple..Abortion is murder.
Bobby:
You haven’t been snide to me at all. I think reading whole threads or multiple ones at once gives an impression of tone, that can carry over when reading to individual posts. Sorry for committing the fallacy of partition re: the tone of your post.
I’m looking forward to reading mk’s answer though.
This blending that mk brings up doesn’t work though – her description of the man/woman love becoming a physical being falls apart, though it’s a pretty thought. The logical question(s) would be:
Why does rape result in children?
How is AI possible. (or other in vitro process)?
Phylosopher,
Sorry to disappoint, but I have no answer. Mostly because I am still unclear on the question.
All I can tell you is that all the above are human persons. We use terms like adult or child to help others understand what stage of development they are in. And like Bobby said, the conversation on the Eucharist was an aside. Of course if you abuse the gift of love, it can still result in a child. Conception, is after all, also a scientific process. But making it only a scientific process, to us, is morally wrong.
You can also abuse the Eucharist. But that doesn’t make it any less miraculous.
Life begins at conception. What else is there to know or say? I’m sure that Enigma is trying to make a point, but I’m am clearly missing it.
Why can’t an embryo be an adult? It seems self evident to me.
Wine is wine. But if you age it, it is “aged wine”…meat is meat, but if you age it, it’s “aged meat” It doesn’t change what it is, it just gets older.
It can be an adult. In about 20 years.
As for IVF, the very scenario you propose is the reason the Catholic church frowns upon it. Because it, like rape, removes the unitive component of intercourse between a married man and woman.
And seriously, if you want the definition of snide read Enigmas reply to my “Kangaroo Post”.
I was trying to point out that the joey is called a baby and a fetus in the same breath. That what she defines as a fetus is actually a baby.
A joey leaves it’s mother womb at the human equivalent of a 7 week old fetus, and manages to climb to and attach to it’s mother’s teat.
My point was that while all fetuses are babies, not all babies are fetuses. I was trying to give her an honest reply to what I believed she was asking me. I was not trying to be snide.
Trust me, her reply was not “nice”. And quite honestly I don’t know why.
MK,
“Trust me, her reply was not “nice”. And quite honestly I don’t know why.”
Sorry about that. I get extremely frustrated when I think someone is deliberately hedging a question. I know that you aren’t now, but at the moment I thought you were.
Phylospher’s reading of my question is correct.
You argue that since there are no substantive changes between the moment of conception and birth, that the entity in question is a baby from the moment of conception onward.
There are also no substantive changes between a child and an adult. Applying the logic that you use above, one should then conclude that a child is an adult because there are no substantive changes between the two stages. So I’m asking you how you can differentiate between the two. How can you logically argue that an entity is a baby from the moment of conception onward due to the lack of substantive changes without simultaneously admitting that a child is an adult because there are no substantive changes between the two phases?
Abortion is murder, and abortionists are murderers.
Then we’re cool enigma…
But I still stand by my answer. The change that occurs (while not substantive) is that time has passed. By definition, until time has passed a person is not considered an adult.
It’s like you want me to give you a physical definition of adulthood when it isn’t a physical thing. It’s a philosophical thing. It’s a subjective word that defines the “mindset” of a person, not something that happens to the body.
MK,
That’s what I don’t get. You’re arguing that time is irrelevant in determining when a baby is created and then that time matters when drawing the line between a child and an adult. Time either matters or it doesn’t. Logical rules either hold in all cases or they don’t hold at all.
Bobby,
“you are confusing the accidents with the substance.”
No, I”m not actually. I never argued that the entity in question wasn’t human. I simply disputed which “accidental stage” (I’m not sure I but this theory) it is at and how one defines each accidental stage.
See my above post for my clarification.
mk posted:
“It’s a philosophical thing. It’s a subjective word that defines the “mindset” of a person, not something that happens to the body.”
That isn’t the way the legal definition works, though. A 15 y o can feel adult all s/he wants to, but would still be arrested for curfew violation (for instance) if they hadn’t gone through the emancipated minor process. And there probably exist a few 50 or even 90 y o who never obtain an adult mindset, yet are granted all the rights of adulthood clarifier that’s meant as a gentle joke, all.(Is a accepted as designating such here – animated emoticons set my teeth on edge.)
In the case of a zygote, there exists no mind to have a mindset, what happens to this philosophical distinction then?
That question not necessarily directed only to mk.
But this to mk:
when you claim it’s a subjective word it’s confusing. Are you claiming that the designation “adult” is subjective dependent upon the view of an observer, which would actually be objective, or the experiential view of the individual undergoing the aging process?
I mean that by Law my 21 year is considered an adult but by no means is he self sufficient. There are a number of definitions of adult. You’d have to tell me which one you are referring to…
Home > Library > Words > Dictionary
a
Self-sufficiency isn’t included as a criteria under either, but should we take your inclusion of it to mean you see it as meaningful to the definition?
It is only by accident that he isn’t self- sufficient in actuality- whether that accident is a handicap or just being lucky to be born to tolerant and supportive parent(s).
The legal definition is based on the biological one. Note how both contain the word maturity. The first is a codification of the underlying reality of the second. It addresses what is required of those interacting with the adult, but also what is required of the adult who has reached this stage. Again though, since there is no test for this “maturity” required of all, the legal is an arbitrary assignment (and in light of recent neuropsychological discoveries, an incorrect one.)
In my own instance, I “became an adult” 4 times how could that be?
Phylosopher,
In my own instance, I “became an adult” 4 times how could that be?
You’re just proving my point.
Enigmas question was, if a fetus has all the things it needs to be an adult then why isn’t it considered an adult and my response is because it is lacking “age”…
She never mentioned the legal definition, and I don’t think she meant the legal definition.
You’ve taken this argument to a place I don’t believe it was meant to go. If you want to continue it fine, but it’s not the “argument” that Enigma put forth…
Hi Enigma. I looked at your original question again. It is the following, correct?
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to you a baby is created at conception because at that moment when the sperm and the egg fuse, all of the elements that are needed to create a baby are there. (Like in your cookie dough=cookies example.) Using this logic, why isn’t a child an adult? After all, the child has everything within it that it needs to become an adult (save for time and maturity), so why isn’t the child an adult?”
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what you mean by “all of the elements that are needed to create a baby are there.” I thought that you were referring to a standard pro-life argument which says that “once the egg is fertilized, egg and sperm cease to exist, and the fertilized egg has its own DNA different from the parents.” If that was what you meant, then you were confusing accidents and substance because the above pro-life argument is one of the substance of the being. So I guess I don’t know what you meant. I haven’t read everything above, so maybe you clarify there.
Aurora Planned Parenthood: rats in the zone
In yesterday’s autumn 2007 Aurora Borealis, the City of Aurora’s quarterly newsletter, Mayor Tom Weisner rationalized allowing Planned Parenthood to lie its way into his city by saying he investigated PP from every angle for naught. But all along, pro-…