Oh ho ho ho ho ho.

That's not tacky *at all*.

I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't abort if I was carrying a conservative baby. Nor would I abort if I had a gay baby or a Down's Syndrome baby. I probably wouldn't abort even if I were having a purple, green, and yellow baby (which would be kinda cool...I read Robert Munsch books too much as a child lol).

Anyway.

Rae,
You're up early!

I doubt this was a serious question...just trying to show the absurdity of the reasons given for abortion...

we're all up early. Rae, are you on Mountain time? MK, are you on Central?

Central. It's 10:06 here right now. You?

Eastern.

MK, I shall eventually be e-mailing you.

OMG, I just read a terrific post from a guy named Jason. He put it on the blog of the lady who was complaining about the movie "Knocked Up." He wrote: Nobody ever tells you what to do with your body? Then you must live in a town with no seat belt or helmet laws,and where cops don't bust prostitutes. SLAM!

Well, I know some conservative friends who would abort a baby with a liberal gene.

I have stated before I wouldnt have an abortion unless I was raped or my life was in danger of ending.

Now, this is honestly a stupd @$s reason to have an abortion, but alas, one that maybe available in the future. Honestly, we need liberals, and we need conservatives to balance eachother out. I am not a republican, but I am not a democrat either. I am kind of sitting on the fence in between the two. Picking out pieces that I like from all parties (to make my own party one day hehehe). Any ways, just my two cents for everyone :-) ....

OOHHH, just thought of this: I know some liberal friends who would abort their child if a conservative gene was found. So the stick can swing both ways on this one...

www.fstdt.com

I'm pretty sure some of these people would.

Liberals are busy aborting their own, sadly...

Good point Jasper!

Ah, jasper, profound answer.

A new study suggests political persuasions may be partially genetic in origin.

Fascinating stuff.

If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?

I can't imagine that people would actually do that, based on it alone. For one thing, even if "partially" determined by "nature," there is a lot of imput from parents, teachers, friends, peers, one's reading and study of history, the existing conditions - social, economic, etc., that go into one's political feelings, so "nurture" is a component of it, too.

Hard for me to think this would tip the balance between a pregnancy being wanted or unwanted.

Doug

Doug, why do they make the babies if they don't want them?

Rae: I probably wouldn't abort even if I were having a purple, green, and yellow baby (which would be kinda cool...

Heather: Rae, are you on Mountain time?

Sounds like Rae oughtta be on New Orleans time - one of my favorite places in the world even though it's too hot & steamy about ten months outta the year.

Doug

why do they make the babies if they don't want them?

Heather, because the desire not to have a baby is not always the foremost thing in their mind. It's like asking why people eat certain things if they don't want to be fat. Louie went and spent $14 at McDonald's and Jane ate the whole container of ice cream, but that doesn't mean they "want to be fat." It just means they were really hungry, wanted to pig out, etc.

Doug

Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren't these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?

I don't think there is a liberal or conservative gene, as there are more political viewpoints than just liberal and conservative. Your political leanings have everything to do with the opinions you develop from life experiences, how you perceive current events, and a lot of the times how you were raised. If Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter raised a kid together, I'm about 99.9% sure that the kid would grow up to be staunchly conservative and hate liberals, or else hate his overbearing parents. If you were, for example, the adopted kid of two gay parents, you might tend to be more liberal leaning, even if your birth mother was as conservative as, say, Ann Coulter.

Abort liberals?
Who would support this country?

The liberal Democratic blue states provide virtually all the federal tax revenue in this country, while the conservative Republican red states feed off the federal Welfare nipple. There are ten Republican red states that haven't added a dime to the federal coffers in two generations? (Clue: eight lie along the Bible Belt) Who would support them if you abort the liberals?
The conservative Republican red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, single motherhood, divorce, and violent crime. Why would you abort a nice liberal baby who could help America regain it's glory?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren't these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 18, 2007 12:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't you have an out-of-wedlock "accident" baby?
I've NEVER had sex with the intention of procreating. I just like to romp.

I have a son who I love very much.

Laura, you clearly come here to provoke people. Instead of talking @ everybody, why not talk to us? PIP, do you see what I mean now?

OK, I see what you're saying. You're ticked off that I didn't kill my son, right? You are so anti choice it's unreal. You are such a phony. You call abortions "crotch goop." Nice mouth.

Any woman who would keep writing about a$$ scratching, crotch goop and tooth scum is a piggish type.

"OK, I see what you're saying. You're ticked off that I didn't kill my son, right? You are so anti choice it's unreal. You are such a phony. You call abortions "crotch goop." Nice mouth."

Whoa, are you okay today heather?

I want to say I am happy you kept your son. How old is he? How is it being a mother. I myself can't wait to be one. But I know thats a long ways away. However, if i were to happen to me before I was ready. I'd keep it anyway.

I support choice. I support women who decide to keep their baby. And I support those who decide to abort. Does abortion make me sad... I guess I could say yes to that question. But I still believe it should be a choice for the mother. Ahhh I am prepared to get many of comments for that one.
-----------------------------------------------

"Doug, why do they make the babies if they don't want them?"

Usually people who are having an abortion aren't wanting to "make a baby" sometimes it just happens. Birth Control fails something, condoms fail and well some people don't want to abstain. If someone chooses to make a baby, then chooses to abort I say thats pretty crazy.

-------------------------------------------------

"Honestly, we need liberals, and we need conservatives to balance eachother out"

I agree completely.

--------------------------------------------------

"Liberals are busy aborting their own, sadly..."

While I see your point. I know plenty of people who consider themselves conservative that are pro-choice. I know plenty of liberals who consider themselves pro-life. I also know people who are conservative and have liberal children and people who are liberal and have conservative children. While children usually tend to follow what their parents believe that is not always the case.

-------------------------------------------------

Lastly, can everyone please keep my family in your prayers? Three of my aunts are having pretty serious health problems. And I am to far away to visit them. :( so please keep them in your thoughts.. thank you! :)

BTW- I am on AZ time... So I think that might be west coast time? I am not sure really.. All i know is AZ doesn't observe "day light savings" So when everyone changes their clocks back an hour (whenever that is) AZ will not.

Heather,
I just saw what Laura wrote. I am sorry. You have a right to be upset.

JM,
Of course we'll pray for your aunts.
It must be so hard being so far away...
My sister lives in Australia and my mother just had an episode that sent her to the emergency room. I thought my sister was going to have a meltdown. She felt so helpless! Be strong. Prayer travels fast and far...

Thanks JM. She's probably just a troll. I sure haven't forgotten Cameron. I hope your teaching job is coming along okay!

JM, I was in Vegas last year. I went to the Hoover Dam. It was so weird to see the 2 clocks with the 1 hour time change diffy. Ever been there? Did you say you needed prayer? I will do that for you.

JM,

You haven't been around for awhile. You don't know half of what our Laura has written. But we love having people like her on here. Sometimes she works in our favor. She is so crude and so vile, that even pro-choicers have to stop and reevaluate. Who knows, maybe some of you will see yourselves reflected by her, and come over to our side.

For the record, even tho we don't believe most of you guys are as foul as she is, we do see your arguments and acceptance of abortion to be just as unpalatable. While her way of expressing herself may be more crass, you share the same ideas. Now you know why we can get so uptight. To us, it doesn't matter if you are crude or as polite as the Queen. The fact that you have adopted these attitudes is repugnant to us.

No offense intended. You are extremely respectful here and I don't want you to think we put you in the same "personality" category as Laura or Sally.

Kay?

MK, I second your beautiful post! Either Laura is a troll, or she is a very wounded soul. She doesn't care to debate. Just here to hurl insults. I opened up and told my story. I was trying to show people I am a far cry from perfect. I made a mistake. Life goes on. Why does she come back with a nananananaaa post? I have to take into consideration that she hates the unborn. If she hates me too, then oh well. I'll still pray for her soul.

Heather,
come and debate with Doug and me...I could use your help...

MK, I am sooooooooooo sorry. I have to go. I hate to leave you in the lurch! I cannot return until tomorrow. I'm sure you will be able to handle him just fine! :winks! I'll e -mail you tomorrow too. Pressed for time, and I am logging off now. (hugs)

No Heather, I just find it EXTREMELY ironic that you rant about abstinance and self-control FOR EVERYBODY ELSE - even to the point of joining Rosie in a really "control freak" Fascist moment. I can just smell the self-righteousness:

Heather,
No kidding!!! Maybe we should be able to control them if they can't
control themselves. Sheesh!!
Posted by: Rosie at August 13, 2007 5:16 PM

Rosie, excellent point! No mention of adoption whatsoever. Why is
abortion their only solution? Try abstinence!
Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 5:17 PM

Laura, So what? And goodbye!

This seems a rather simplistic view of genetics. If political leanings are indeed genetic, how much is genetics and how much is determined by environment and life circumstances? Additionally, I doubt a gene would be just discreet "liberal" and "conservative" because political views are so complicated. Not many people are one sided on all issues. For example, I have a friend that is conservative on all issues except gay rights. I am liberal on pretty much everything but abortion. So it would be very hard to say "your baby has the liberal genetic marker so if you don't want a liberal you could abort." If there is indeed a connection, there would be many genetic influences, not just one gene. The combination of all of these and how the dominant traits and environmental factors play out is what determines a political side.

I couldn't explain everything besides the basic view I have gleaned from my studies so far. I am taking genetics this semester though so I would have a more detailed view of it later.

MK, Sorry I haven't been on in awhile... I have been really really busy with teaching. Having 12 hour days and such. Please pray for me too. I am having a really really hard time with my new job. The kids are rude and mean sometimes. Not all of them. But the few that are sometimes bring me home in tears. I cried so hard yesterday that I almost hyperventilated. I ended up with a terrible migraine. I miss my boyfriend and my family and Minnesota.

I totally see where you are coming from. Not offended one bit. I feel as if I fall somewhere in between the two sides. (while the pro-life side will and does disagree with me) Abortion makes me sad. It really does. Do I wish people would choose not to have an abortion? Well, yes I guess I can say I do wish that. But the other part of me says, they should have that choice. Even if I don't agree with it 100% I will still support their decision. I would never have an abortion. I know I have said this before. I can NOT WAIT to be a mother. Of course, I will wait till I am ready. hehe

MK, how have you been by the way? :)

Heather, I have never been to the hoover dam. I plan to see it someday though. Have a good weekend heather! I would love to hear about your story sometime. I promise I won't bad mouth you or anything. :)

JM,

I'm so sorry the kids are brutes. A classroom full of Laura's, eh?

Try humor. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets respect from these guys. I remember once in a CCD class I was teaching, there was this one kid that was constantly acting up. One day I turned to him in front of everyone and said "Oooooh, so you're going to be the kid that needs to constantly be paid attention to...well, there's one in every class...Everyone, meet Robert, he needs you to constantly pay attention to him. So everyone turn around and stare at him...There, Robert. Do you feel better now? The whole class is paying attention to you!" Needless to say, he wasn't quite the same troublesome young man after that.

I also used the approach that the kids needing the most attention acted out because nobody at home payed attention to them. Give them special jobs to do. Trust them to be the leaders. Let them pass out the papers. Listen to their opinions. Pick on them (in the good sense) first. They need you. If you are a good teacher, you'll make them feel like Kings and Queens. Believe that they are good. And they will meet your expectations.

Tell them how hard it is to have moved away from home and how you are counting on them to help you. Let them know that grownups can be scared and lonely too. Ask them what makes them scared or angry. And listen, listen, listen...

And meanwhile, I'll be praying...Go get 'em girl. You know you've got what it takes because you had the guts to up and start a new life all alone. So we know you're tough. You gonna let a bunch of fifth graders have that kind of power over you...no way!

I don't think many folks read Mark C's blog ... in the post set just below this one.

In it Mark makes some very interesting observations about abortion justification. We all realize that there is a justification for any action, whether quick or reflective - according to-law it does not matter when a woman desires to abort, that enough ... she wishes to.

We all know what has happened to Downe's Syndrome kids ... over 90% of them are killed via abortion. Imagine if you will a genetic test for: homosexuality, [he believes this would finish gay people, the same way DS is used] ... then how about sex-selection? [old-hat been done for decades]; other designer babies anyone - nix the non blue-eyed ones [a suit was won by a couple undergoing IVF. Their infant was black (a different race) than the parents.] There are all sorts of genetic markers .... for (breast) cancer/arthritis/genetic diseases and traits. All these can be used as a self-justification to abort.

Not found in Mark's blog: Could a genetic screening test be used prior to an abortion to relieve some of the pregnant woman's anxiety? She would then be armed with her reason to abort, even if it is self-justifying. A thorough genetic test should show up something.

Would this cause more or less anxiety?

The kid's at fault then and should be killed before becoming a burden.

Hey Everyone,

No Heather, I just find it EXTREMELY ironic that you rant about abstinance and self-control FOR EVERYBODY ELSE - even to the point of joining Rosie in a really "control freak" Fascist moment. I can just smell the self-righteousness:

Laura's gonna be that kid in class that needs to constantly be paid attention to...

Heather,
Pay no attention to the lady behind the curtain. She appears to be incapable of change. It is inconceivable to her that you might have actually learned something from the circumstances of your sons birth. This is because she herself is such an angry person that she is unable to learn anything new herself.

I think the fact that you conceived your son out of wedlock, admit it, learned from it, and try to live your life differently now, is quite admirable.

I think the fact that Laura has been trolling pro-life boards for years without ever learning a thing is, well, pretty pathetic.

I'd much rather make a mistake and learn from it than continue to believe the same lies and make the same mistakes over and over. Kudos to you Heather. Raspberries to you Laura.

John oh John,

Where the heck were you two hours ago. Doug and I have been going at it forever on the quadruplet post and I sure could have used you. He finally took his ball and went home. I'm pooped!

>i>Heather: Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren't these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?

Yes, Heather, choices. But when you say "should" then that's your opinion. Don't want to have a flat tire? "Then you shouldn't drive." But of course people are going to drive, and if they get a flat tire they're gonna fix it.

And of course people can abstain, use birth control, etc. All other things being equal, I think preventing unwanted pregnancies is better than having abortion. But once an unwanted pregnancy is fact, it's too late for that.

Those "smart choices" are not always made because people don't always have that in the forefront of their mind. They want to do other things more, or they're just not thinking about it.

If I could just wave a magic wand and have all unwanted pregnancies not occur, I think that'd be better than all those women having abortions. In the real world, though, they do occur and sometimes the best thing for the woman to do is to have an abortion. I realize you disagree with that.

Doug

Lastly, can everyone please keep my family in your prayers? Three of my aunts are having pretty serious health problems. And I am to far away to visit them. :( so please keep them in your thoughts.. thank you! :)

Hi JM. Your family and aunts have my good wishes and hopes.

I don't know how old you are, but I've been through similar times like that. My mom's last remaining aunt died last year, and now there is only my paternal grandmother remaining in that generation for me. She'll be 96 in Novemeber,and is going strong.

My parents' generation are almost all in their 60s and 70s now, and while the health there is good, it's still getting to the age where one wonders... I guess it's that way for everybody, time passing and before you know it you're "old" yourself.

Best,

Doug

MK: He finally took his ball and went home. I'm pooped!

Hey, you rascal, it wasn't a ball, it was a tar brush I had to go pick up. Did the whole roof last week; today was just touching-up time, before it gets too late in the day.

We sure did use up some bandwidth, huh?

Doug

JM:I have been really really busy with teaching. Having 12 hour days and such. Please pray for me too. I am having a really really hard time with my new job. The kids are rude and mean sometimes. Not all of them. But the few that are sometimes bring me home in tears.

JM, is this your first year teaching? Or just teaching at that location?

Last year was my wife's first year, with all 10th graders, and it was very tough in the beginning. She really didn't think she could do it, several times, in the first couple months. Was better by Christmas, but still, pretty nasty at times.

Well, by the end of the year she was feeling so much better, and realizing that the next year would be SO MUCH EASIER. This week just past was when the kids were back in school, and indeed it's a whole different world than last year.

Best,

Doug

MK to JM: You gonna let a bunch of fifth graders have that kind of power over you...no way!

Oh Geez... that can be rough, yes. I remember being a 5th grader, and we were some bad kids. Old enough to know what we were doing and really just plain malicious toward the poor teacher. Poor Mrs. Vieth - I remember her screaming, "CHILDREN!" - she was really getting out of control. Sad story there, in the end, and I still feel bad about it, and that was 1969.

I think that being firm and setting the rules right away is good, but that's easy for me to say. It was good for my wife to talk to other teachers about it, to gain information and just blow off steam too.

Good luck.

Doug

John: We all know what has happened to Downe's Syndrome kids ... over 90% of them are killed via abortion. Imagine if you will a genetic test for: homosexuality, [he believes this would finish gay people, the same way DS is used] ... then how about sex-selection? [old-hat been done for decades]; other designer babies anyone - nix the non blue-eyed ones [a suit was won by a couple undergoing IVF. Their infant was black (a different race) than the parents.] There are all sorts of genetic markers .... for (breast) cancer/arthritis/genetic diseases and traits. All these can be used as a self-justification to abort.

John, excellent topic. No big argument here from me - I know that you and I would "draw the line" at different places for abortion, perceived "deficiencies" or not.

Anyway, I am glad to have met you on this forum, and I value you very highly.

Doug

Hi MK,

right here, is where I've bee! As you know Doug and I have been doin' battle for a bit now. And like you am a bit weary from the experience. While he seems more affable, Doug imo is more dangerous than SoMG! Perhaps, he's here because he likes an audience and like Cam he is pro-choice because he likes female support????????

Anyway, I think I will end any lengthy discussion with Doug because he puts very little (almost nothing of consequence) of what he has learned here into practice. What Heather doesn't like about most pro-choice web-sites (the cursing and swearing), Doug doesn't like either. [He is fastidiously respectful.] But because we are civil to one another, does not mean that he will learn and listen.

Besides a huge case of indifference [which Jesus found THE most despicable, even more than hard-hearts], Doug has as his base what is called situation ethics. He believes there is no truth so morality is what you choose it to be. His mantra 'all morality is relative' [it means you are free to choose any morality you wish ... You are the center of your universe, so you choose what is right ... and it is right (for you)]. This sentiment is poor as a base, because the sentence itself is a true-ism. How can all morality with such an internally false base be considered true ... such moral outlooks cannot. It can be seen if we change the words a little: 'Some morality is relative!' This is more accurate, but it also means that: 'Some morality is true!' ..... now which do you prefer? ... to make up your own (as does Doug) or, to seek out the true?

"No Heather, I just find it EXTREMELY ironic that you rant about abstinance and self-control FOR EVERYBODY ELSE - even to the point of joining Rosie in a really "control freak" Fascist moment. I can just smell the self-righteousness:

Heather,
No kidding!!! Maybe we should be able to control them if they can't
control themselves. Sheesh!!
Posted by: Rosie at August 13, 2007 5:16 PM

Rosie, excellent point! No mention of adoption whatsoever. Why is
abortion their only solution? Try abstinence!"
Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 5:17 PM

Yikes! I was only half joking!!!

Correction: JM teaches 7th graders.... full of hormones and all that fun stuff. Man if I could have a class of 5th graders! hehehe... I student taught in fifth grade... they were great!

To answer Dougs question it is my first year teaching. I am confident it will get better, although that is hard for me to see right now.

My students are very diverse, which I am NOT used to that. So it will be a good experience for me. I am used to an ALL white classroom with maybe one African American or Hispanic child. Now my class is primarily Hispanic probably 70-80% followed by African American, then White. My minority is white. I even have a student that speaks ZERO english. Eeeek... I am confident it will get better. Thank you for your prayers and advice!

Johh: While he seems more affable, Doug imo is more dangerous than SoMG! Perhaps, he's here because he likes an audience and like Cam he is pro-choice because he likes female support?

@@ I like to argue, and it's a great argument. And, some of my best arguments have been with pro-choicers, be they female or male.

........

Anyway, I think I will end any lengthy discussion with Doug because he puts very little (almost nothing of consequence) of what he has learned here into practice. What Heather doesn't like about most pro-choice web-sites (the cursing and swearing), Doug doesn't like either. [He is fastidiously respectful.] But because we are civil to one another, does not mean that he will learn and listen.

I do not think I have ever not listened to you. Accepting unprovable assumptions just because somebody else likes them is not "learning." There is that which is true for both us, and for all of us, and then there is that which you like to think.

........

Besides a huge case of indifference [which Jesus found THE most despicable, even more than hard-hearts], Doug has as his base what is called situation ethics. He believes there is no truth so morality is what you choose it to be.

That is untrue. There is all manner of truth, but myth, fantasy and superstition is not that. I know there are things we don't agree upon, but I don't pretend that my subjective wishes constitute any external reality, and you do.

........

His mantra 'all morality is relative' [it means you are free to choose any morality you wish ... You are the center of your universe, so you choose what is right ... and it is right (for you)]. This sentiment is poor as a base, because the sentence itself is a true-ism.

Yes, it's relative. But it is not as you say - we live in society, so the "center of universe" is not true like that. We have the "social contract," for one thing. If you just want to make up stuff about your opposition, then no wonder you don't want "lengthy discussion." Doggone it, John.

In some things we choose for ourselves - there being no perceived need to have it otherwise. In other areas society's desire takes precedence over that of the individual.

........

How can all morality with such an internally false base be considered true ... such moral outlooks cannot. It can be seen if we change the words a little: 'Some morality is relative!' This is more accurate, but it also means that: 'Some morality is true!' ..... now which do you prefer? ... to make up your own (as does Doug) or, to seek out the true?

Desire goes to valuation which goes to morality. That is what is true. Desire and everything hence is relative to the one who has it. And of course there are moral opinions among groups of people, societies in general, and even among almost everybody on earth. A given morality may be true for a given person, group, society, etc. It's not "making up your own" to note that. John, beyond what is true for all of us is where this argument resides. You want to say that your take on it is "Truth." I know that there is no such thing, because it is nothing more than assumption. I don't blame you for having those assumptions - we all do - but they are not necessarily true for other people.

Doug

JM,

Your family are in our prayers.....be patient with the teaching, things will get better...maybe setup a reward system for good behavoir. If they don't listen after 3 trys, send them to the principles office.

oh, I thought for some reason that JM taught 1st graders...

Oh man jasper, 1st graders would be sooo hard... hehehe. Teaching little kids scare me for some reason. My brother's girlfriend teaches first grade. Perhaps I have mentioned her on here before and thats why you thought I taught them.

I am going to start being more strict with them, trying the principal thing and also calling home a lot more.

How have you been jasper?

JM teaches 7th graders

Heh heh - good, JM, from my perspective anyway. Yes, the hormones are kicking in, but my 5th grade class was so nasty.... Our teacher eventually quit and went into a mental hospital. Sounds like baloney but it happened. I feel better about saying it now.

Doug

Jill,

This is a great question to ask liberals but I like another question better which you posted on a previous thread.

I would like to ask liberals this...

Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?

http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2007/8/17/Gays-and-Baby-Killers-A-Shaky-Alliance#comments

JM,

I taught preschool for 12 years in a place called unincorporated Des Plaines. It was awesome, but most of the kids didn't speak English. I had a class once where not one child spoke English. 18 kids from all over the world. Peru, Philippines, China, India (16 different languages there), Poland, Iraq, Albania, Korea...they couldn't speak to each other, and I couldn't speak to them...but somehow by the end of the year everyone of them knew every sound of every letter in the alphabet. The kindergarten was very pleased. We gave out a lot of "toys" that year...airplanes, bubbles, cards, dice, elephant stickers, fans, globes...well you get the idea.

It was tough. I can't imagine what 7th graders would be like as they not only don't speak English but they come with attitude.

Try trading learning experiences...you know, you'll teach them English if they'll teach you Spanglish...better yet ask them what they want to learn. What subject do you teach again?

They are all so busy posturing at that age...trying to be "cool" and whatnot...I sure don't envy you!

JM,

Something else JM. It's only the beginning of the school year. But try to get to know each kid individually as best you can. Try not to lump them all into a group in your mind. You know? Cuz each one is going to need something different, and I think a good teacher teaches the child not the lesson. Make sense?

I would love to see the question posed by Mark Crutcher to Political Candidates in a nationally televised political debate for United States President.

Can you imagine Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Candidates trying to squirm out of this question??

I wish they asked this question when the Democratic Candidates were having a debate in front of the Homosexual Rights Organization they had just not long ago.

I believe the reason the Democratic Candidates refuse to have a debate on the Fox News Cable Channel is because very tough questions like this would be asked during the debates instead of the usual "softball" questions they were being asked on CNN and CNBC.

They would have no clue on how to answer the question.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2601439

Mike

Mike,

I can assure you that I'd tune in!
Imagine the ratings!?!?!?!
Imagine the polls the next day!?!?!?
But I'm afraid it will have to stay in our imaginations, as they are too smart to expose themselves this way...

MK,

Your right the Democratic Candidates are too smart to expose themselves to tough questions and forums (like Fox News Channel) which would ask them tough questions.

In High School football we had a term for those people - "wimps".

In conclusion, the Democratic Candidates run away from the tough questions -- but let's see now, the American People somehow are to believe they can defend us from "terrorism"?

Heck, it's been 33 years while over 45,000,000 babies have been murdered in their own mothers wombs and yet the Democratic Party has showed nothing to protect human beings from "terrorism" in their mothers wombs!

Mike

"I would like to ask liberals this...

Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?"

This will never happen outside of Foxnews Mike, because the MSM carries the water for the Democrat party (90% of them are Democrats from a recent poll) . The MSM are willing co-conspirators for the abortion industry as well....

"JM,

Something else JM. It's only the beginning of the school year. But try to get to know each kid individually as best you can. Try not to lump them all into a group in your mind. You know? Cuz each one is going to need something different, and I think a good teacher teaches the child not the lesson. Make sense?"

I totally know what you mean! :) I hope it gets better. I really do.

@ Laura, Yeesh. Excuse me for telling a story. Would you have preferred that I made up a fairy tale for you? How about this? I have had a perfect life, and I live in a perfect world with my perfect children. My life has been perfect. I have perfect parents and a perfect brother. My cat is perfect too. Even a woman who has had an abortion can practice abstinence. Why not preach it? Would you rather see her back at the abortion clinic? People need to know that there is hope after you screw up. Now buzz off!

Doug, why are some of your posts signed Dawg? Are you also DC Law Dawg?

Doug, 12:01p, had a hard time imagining "liberalness" would be a good enough reason to abort, and genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.

JKeller, 1:13p, said genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.

Laura, 1:14p, said liberals shouldn't be aborted because they grow up and contribute to our economy.

The point of the weekend question was to bring the abortion question home.

And when it's brought home, you agree with pro-lifers.

The reasons you support for all other people to abort or be aborted are invalid when we're talking about you and your kind.

I actually said that I believed it wasn't a genetic disposition, but an ideology moulded by environment.

What about people who change their minds politically? Go from one party to another? If there were a political "gene" then no one would ever change their minds about an issue, which we all know, people DO change their minds about issues all the time.

So I think the question about whether you should abort a liberal or conservative is moot.

The reasons you support for all other people to abort or be aborted are invalid when we're talking about you and your kind.

Doug and I were having an intense discussion on the "quadruplet" post. I wanted to bring it here and get everyone in on it...here's where we left off:

MK: Doug, Poll all the pro lifers on this site. Every one of them will agree with me... Try it. Be amazed!

You could be right. I don't know them all, nor even who they all are.

........

I do see you putting a lot of emotional spin on it, but it's nothing I haven't seen a bunch of times already. Hmm... should I go fix the roof like I've been meaning to...?

MK: Taking our ball and going home are we? I didn't run when every argument you gave lacked emotion did I?

Oh brother.... I did need to get that roof done before it got late in the day, the coating would not dry, etc. The "emotional spin" I refer to is stuff like saying "it's a baby" as if that really matters.

........

MK: The topic is all about emotion.

Agreed

........

MK: And empathy. And compassion. If you choose to exclude these from arguments about the right to life then fail to understand the argument at all.

Not really. There is nothing there to have "empathy" with, to a point in gestation, but you pretend otherwise. You are not identifying with the feelings of the unborn, to a point in gestation, anyway, since there are no feelings on their part. Same for "connpassion." You may personify the unborn in your mind, but if there are no feelings there, there are no feelings there. Bottom line again is that this is your desire against that of the pregnant woman.

........

MK: If we approach this in a cold and calculated way, then we lower ourselves to lesser animals. Doing what we want to do with no regard for others. You said NAMBLA was wrong because it harmed a third party. Isn't that emotional? Isn't that based on your definition of "harm"? Sorry, but you can't leave emotion out of a debate about killing babies. Unless your humanity has gone out the window...has it?

I say it's more humane to have empathy for the pregnant woman, who most certainly can suffer, versus the unfeeling unborn. Your "suffering" due to people not doing what you want in this respect does not trump the desires of the pregnant woman, in my opinion. I believe that the rights of young boys prevent NAMBLAs stated ends from being permissable - it would involve too much suffering on the part of the boys. I don't think it's worth it. Same for your stated ends versus the pregnant woman. Sure it's emotional. It's valuation; it's desire - and that's what the abortion argument really is.
Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2007 7:07 PM

You can read the rest here:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/mom_delivers_ra.html#comments

One of the things we disagreed on is the definition of pro life. Doug claims that most people are pro life "except" and I claim that there is no "except" when it comes to pro life. I said that the minute you add an "except" you become pro choice.

I told him I'd poll the pro lifers here to see if they agreed.

So, Pro lifers, do you believe that to call yourself pro life you may not allow for exceptions, or is it possible to be pro life except for (ie: rape, incest, life of mother, early trimester...etc)

He also claims that a toenail clipping is a human being.

Says that every one on the pro choice side agrees that it is a human being that is being killed. No one believes that it isn't human yet.

What do you guys think?

This is a never-ending argument. Heck, a toenail clipping can be a "human being" under a broad definition, since it can have existence ("being") and be of human origin. You, for example, might favor a less-inclusive definition, like it has to be alive and able to develop, an organism, and that's fine too. Many people favor a less-inclusive meaning yet, like being born and/or having consciousness, having legal rights, etc. I am not arguing that the unborn here are not human, not alive and not organisms. Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the main issue.

Doug

MK, Doug tried telling me that pro choicers don't change their wording, after I told him that pro life is just one way. Shall we review? According to Doug and Sally, a baby is a toenail. According to Laura, an abortion is just "crotch goop." There's a fine one to add to our collection. A few more from the PC crowd: It isn't a baby, because it hasn't attained personhood yet. Diana claims that her bodily autonomy trumps "it's" right to live. I'm not quite sure what "it" is yet. Then we have the ever popular feti, zygote, and embryo. Some say that the baby is only a baby @ certain stages Doug, is that enough for you?

Bethany, those little cartoon symbols are really cute! Keep up the good work!

Jill, did you see that Sonya posted here? See post 'What women deserve.'

Doug, why are some of your posts signed Dawg? Are you also DC Law Dawg?

No, Heather - I just have gotten in the habit of doing that once in a while in e-mails and on message boards. Just a "play on words" or something like that.

Doug

Mike: Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?

Mike, I would like to see the responses to that one too.

My feeling is that elective abortion is okay to viability if the woman wants to end the pregnancy, so it wouldn't matter whether "gay genes" were there or not.

But it would indeed be interesting to hear the politicians' answers.

Doug

JM: My students are very diverse, which I am NOT used to that. So it will be a good experience for me. I am used to an ALL white classroom with maybe one African American or Hispanic child. Now my class is primarily Hispanic probably 70-80% followed by African American, then White. My minority is white. I even have a student that speaks ZERO english. Eeeek... I am confident it will get better. Thank you for your prayers and advice!

JM, my wife is half Italian (Sicilian) and half Mohawk indian, but she looks "white" - more than you'd think from my description.

The one class where I knew all the kids last year were all African American plus one Hispanic boy. The different "races" (if that's the right word) did not make any difference in the end, and in this 2nd year of teaching for my wife, lots of last year's kids come into her room between classes and hug her and talk to her.

Wanna see a picture of that class from last year? You can probably tell which one is my wife heh heh heh.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7224/10thjv2.jpg

I do think it will get better for you, and I applaud you for being a teacher in the first place! Too bad about the one student who doesn't speak English - Yikes. That is tough....

Best,

Doug

"My feeling is that elective abortion is okay to viability if the woman wants to end the pregnancy, so it wouldn't matter whether "gay genes" were there or not."

what is this world coming to....

Doug, 12:01p, had a hard time imagining "liberalness" would be a good enough reason to abort, and genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.

No, Jill, that is not what I said. I said, "I can't imagine that people would actually do that, based on it alone."

I said nothing about "good" or "good enough." That's up to the woman or woman & man. A woman's reason doesn't have to be "good" in my opinion, nor in yours.

JKeller, 1:13p, said genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.

That's not what was actually said, as JK noted.

Laura, 1:14p, said liberals shouldn't be aborted because they grow up and contribute to our economy.

That's really not what Laura said either.

The point of the weekend question was to bring the abortion question home. And when it's brought home, you agree with pro-lifers.

You can pretend anything.

........

Jill: The reasons you support for all other people to abort or be aborted are invalid when we're talking about you and your kind.

"My kind and I" don't need to take things out of context, make up stuff, etc.

Doug

Doug, COME ON! Are you for real?

Heather: Doug tried telling me that pro choicers don't change their wording, after I told him that pro life is just one way.

No, Heather, that is not what I said. How about if you quote me, rather than makin' stuff up?

........

Shall we review? According to Doug and Sally, a baby is a toenail.

You are being false. That is not what was said. The point is about how definitions can be broader or narrower, more-inclusive or less-inclusive.

........

According to Laura, an abortion is just "crotch goop." There's a fine one to add to our collection.

There is probably some intent to inflame there. You probably have also heard "a blob of cells." Well, we're all "a blob of cells," eh? To a point in gestation, "goop" and "blob" really do apply pretty well, but this is not a big deal in the real debate. Do you think it is?

........

A few more from the PC crowd: It isn't a baby, because it hasn't attained personhood yet.

Some people feel that way, yes. And for being born, too. And others think it's a baby from conception. And others think it's a baby when it gets a recongizable shape, etc. This is not a big deal - people can argue back and forth about "is a baby" and "is not a baby" all day, and the entire abortion argument remains.

........

Diana claims that her bodily autonomy trumps "it's" right to live. I'm not quite sure what "it" is yet.

Considerinng that rights haven't been attributed to the unborn, there, Diana is right.

........

Then we have the ever popular feti, zygote, and embryo. Some say that the baby is only a baby @ certain stages Doug, is that enough for you?

Heather, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are medical terms. Yes, - "baby" is a matter of many different opinions, and I've never said differently.

Doug

Doug, COME ON! Are you for real?

Yes, Heather. What prompts you to ask?

"With abortion it's because the location is inside the body of the woman. It makes a big difference, and thus there is wide disagreement about abortion"

Jasper: Yes, I understand, but just because there is wide disagreement this does not mean the location makes a difference. (i.e. Slavery; there was wide disagreement, but now today everybody in this country believes it was wrong.)

Jasper, the difference in location makes a big difference to lots of people, because even aside from all the other differences between the born and unborn, there is the woman to consider. Not to everybody, of course, and there are enough people who don't think it should that we have the large amount of disagreement.

........

"To me, in that situation though there is still a living body there, the person they were is long gone."

Doug, I guess that is where we break. From scientific evidence, there is a living body inside of the woman: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

:: laughing :: No, we agree on that one. I realize there is a living body inside the woman. It's human and it's alive in this argument. We really do agree about some things - amazing, eh? Again, I say the physical reality of the unborn is not what the abortion argument is about. The debate is about valuation, desire, and all the perceived "shoulds" and "should nots" that people feel.

I was talking about a Terri Schiavo situation, where a body has been kept alive by medical means. It's a question then if there is consciousness, any hope of recovery, etc. In that case - a permanent vegetative state - there was said to be no hope of recovery. I know that some people disagreed with that, too. The autopsy confirmed that the brain had deteriorated to a huge extent, that the structures for consciousness were "trashed," to put it bluntly. So, there was a body there, yes, a living body still using air and calories and other nutrients. But the personality, the things that made for the "her" that was Terri Schiavo, had long since departed.

Doug

If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?

We don't have to. They do it themselves.

Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren't these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?

Interesting thought. If a condom is 90% effective, and the fact that you can wear a condom leads to 10 times more illicit sexual encounters, then the chances of pregnancy are exactly the same.

If the number is actually 20 times more illicit sexual encouters, then using a condom causes twice as many babies.

The fact that people are humping like bunnies because they feel "safe" using a condom is actually leading to more out of wedlock births than when condoms weren't easily available.

Now, when condoms fails and cause twice the unwanted babies, many of them are being aborted. That is why the acceptance of contraception has led to more abortions than less as liberals are wont to try and get us to believe.

Pope Paul VI had it right.

Doug,

I'm curious...you keep throwin' around this "valuation" word. Why don't you try something else?

You know what you mean, but I'm not sure we do.
Sometimes I think you mean it's all how the individual sees it. Sometimes I think you mean it's all how society votes on it. Sometimes I think you mean it's all about an individual having value based on others perceptions of them...it's a very vague term (for those of us not versed in philosophy) and yet you're entire reasoning seems to be based on it.

We here, do not believe that value is given to something simply because a third party says so.
We believe that each human being has value simply by virtue of being a human being.

We believe that we are part spirit. We do not believe that our bodies are all there is to us. So when a Terri Schiavo's brain stops working we don't believe that what makes her, her, leaves.

When we express these notions you make snide remarks about pretending, or imagining, or living in a fantasy world. You say we have no proof. But many things that can't be seen, also cannot be proved. You cannot prove that materialism is more reasonable than faith. And yet you imply that to think otherwise is infantile. You accuse us of trying to foist our way of seeing things on the rest of society and yet you do the same thing. "Surely, any reasonable person can see that you are right and we are wrong...of course you defend our right to be wrong. You defend our right to be "silly" but it is obvious to everyone that we are indeed, "silly"..."

Why Doug? Why isn't in the realm of possibility that you are the one that appears silly?
You certainly appear silly to some of us.

We find the notion of believing only what you can see to be very silly. We think that the argument that you can't use reason to prove abortion is wrong because "reason" is subjective to be extremely silly, mostly because you used your subjective reasoning to come to that conclusion! I'm assuming that's what you mean by "valuation". You claim that "valuation" has value, and yet by it's very definition, valuation is subjective and therefore not reliable...therefore not valuable!

You simply can't have it both ways. You lose your own argument.

By your reasoning it's every man for himself, and I believe that leads to anarchy.

So, I'm asking you, to be clearer on what this word "valuation" means. Use the common man's English. Assume we're all really slow, and give it to us in words we can relate to...

Tony at August 19, 2007 11:28 AM

Tony,

Excellent post on the use of condoms leading to abortions. Another point -- At some point, don't these same people having sexual encounters with a condom rather have sex without the condom? Just another thought.

We already know the use of hormonal contraception can lead to chemical abortions.

------

Doug,

Did you realize abortion not only kills the baby inside the womb but it also hurts the woman having an abortion. There are over 750 Risks Caused by Abortion listed in Medical Literature.

Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is "LEGAL"?

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117

Mike

Tony, I would like to see more abstinence, but I was saying that if they cannot control themselves sexually, what do you think they ought to do? The only other option is permanent sterilization.

Doug, I am beginning to think that you are going round and round, just to go round and round. Some of the things you say are so off the wall, I'm beginning to wonder.

Doug, you DID TOO say something on that order. Okay. It's settled then. We're blobs of cells, because Doug said so! What makes you such an expert? Why should we take your word for it? Doug, Who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible women and Cowardly men. Case closed.

The liberal Democratic blue states provide virtually all the federal tax revenue in this country, while the conservative Republican red states feed off the federal Welfare nipple. There are ten Republican red states that haven't added a dime to the federal coffers in two generations? (Clue: eight lie along the Bible Belt) Who would support them if you abort the liberals?
The conservative Republican red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, single motherhood, divorce, and violent crime. Why would you abort a nice liberal baby who could help America regain it's glory?
-------------------------

OK, I take this whole post as offensive. I am in a republican state (Alabama), that mainly is red during election time. Not to mention, I am right in the middle of the bible belt. My state does not consist of people mainly on welfare (yes there are a few), our teen pregnancy rates/single mothers/divorce rates are not higher than any other states that I am aware of. Yes Birmingham is a high crime area, but I live in a suburb outside of the city (Vestavia). In the past four years my fair city has had only two murders. Now then, I would love to see Gary, Indiana, Compton, Detroit, or even NYC have those low numbers. You should not stero-type every state based on how the people vote. I dont automatically assume that every blue state is full of die hard liberals, nor do I assume that they all support gun control. That is just a silly assumption, and I dont like looking silly.

Here are some statistics from my state:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/t4al_ca.htm
^ Please compare any Alabama city listed to any city in Californina

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/ucrtable2.htm
^ Interesting. Our murders maybe up +1.1, but alas, the NorthEast's murders are up +2.5.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html
^ Once again, the south is not looking that shabby.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
^ The cities not in B'ham have lower crime rates than Birmingham itself.

http://ph.state.al.us/Chs/HealthStatistics/Tables/2004/mch%20table%204%202004.pdf
^ Compare this one to the one below
http://www.teenhealthfx.com/answers/General/5102.html
Yet, California, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than Alabama.

Doug, so in short, you actually do agree that pro choicers change their wording to suit themselves.

http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html
^ Well what do you know? There are states higher than Alabama (with only one other in the south) when it comes to divorces.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/caseload.htm
^ 21 states have a higher welfare rate than Alabama as well (and there is a fair number of Northern Democratic states higher as well).
----------------------------

It would seem that there are Democratic States that meet your criteria as well there.

Doug, so are you saying that an unborn baby is like a toenail. Try to keep what you've said straight.

Doug,

I would like to add you to my Pro-Choicer Christmas Card list...

http://www.votelifeamerica.com/news/031221/

Mike

midnite, thanks for that makeup link the other day!

Hi MK. Valuation - deeming the value of something. It comes down to how much or how little it's wanted. The worth of a thing is in the eye of the beholder. It may seem vague to you, but there are any number of valuations - that of the individual (what he or she likes, dislikes, etc.,) and of groups of people, and of entire societies, etc. Clearly, society values some things positively - like the life of born people. There are exceptions, of course - wartime, legal execution, self-defense, etc., but in general society makes a positive valuation on born lives. And there are plenty of things which society values negatively - things with laws against them, primarily.

........

We here, do not believe that value is given to something simply because a third party says so. We believe that each human being has value simply by virtue of being a human being.

It's really all the same thing. If you feel that "human beings have positive value," that can be due to any number of things. It can be from just liking people and the idea of life and consciousness. It can be from what other people have said - your parents, peers, teachers, writers (including those of the Bible, etc.). Whatever the case, it is thinking that positive value is there. It is feeling that the thing should continue, should be present, etc. It's liking it. It's you giving value to the thing in your mind. Whatever the reason, it is what you desire, and whatever you would ascribe it to, it is your saying, it is your deeming of value. It is your opinion, your valuation. Bottom line = it is the reflection of our desire.

........

We believe that we are part spirit. We do not believe that our bodies are all there is to us. So when a Terri Schiavo's brain stops working we don't believe that what makes her, her, leaves.

I understand such beliefs. And within your choices, it would be no surprise to see your actions reflect that. I do not think this is an argument. If it were me deciding, or if it was my body being like Terri Schiavo's, I wouldn't want to keep the body alive. I have no problem with you or anybody else wanting to, however.

.........

When we express these notions you make snide remarks about pretending, or imagining, or living in a fantasy world.

MK, you are embellishing here. "Snide" is not the right word. There are some unproven things that people pretend about. Things they imagine which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary. There are things which people have fantasies about, things which are also unproven. It is not being snide to note that. It's not being mean-spirited to point out the difference between what is true for all of us and what are unproven assumptions on the part of some of us. Everybody knows there is disagreement about abortion. There are still things which have physical reality, things which are true whether or not a given person "sees" them. Those are not what the abortion debate is about. There are also things that both sides in the argument accept which are unprovable, and there too that's not the debate. It is the differing assumptions that lead to the argument, and for anybody to say that their unprovable assumptions is necessary proof, or that it has to apply to anybody else, is false.

........

You say we have no proof. But many things that can't be seen, also cannot be proved.

Sure. You may have been intending to say that just because a thing can't be seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Either way I agree.

........

You cannot prove that materialism is more reasonable than faith. And yet you imply that to think otherwise is infantile. You accuse us of trying to foist our way of seeing things on the rest of society and yet you do the same thing. "Surely, any reasonable person can see that you are right and we are wrong...of course you defend our right to be wrong. You defend our right to be "silly" but it is obvious to everyone that we are indeed, "silly"..."

I'm really not just a materialist. And I have never said that to think otherwise is infantile. The question is if there is a good enough reason to forbid a woman from having an abortion. It is her individual desire against those who don't want her to. We "all" are for letting people do what they want, to a point, to where their actions impose on the rights of others, or really just to where we want them to, and no farther. Your way imposes your will on the pregnant woman. My way does not. If there was a demonstrable, provable reason why we should deny her the abortion, it wouldn't even be much of an argument.

"Reasonable" here is also in the eye of the beholder. I am not saying you are silly to believe as you do.

........

Why Doug? Why isn't in the realm of possibility that you are the one that appears silly? You certainly appear silly to some of us.

I have not said anybody was silly, due to their having beliefs. I have said that it's silly to pretend that a semantic argument works here. And that acting like one's subjective preferences necessarily apply to other people is silly. And it's silly to quote out-of-context, make false generalizations, construcgt straw man arguments, etc.

........

We find the notion of believing only what you can see to be very silly.

Well, I never have said that it's not. I will put the rest in a separate post.

Doug

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Vestavia+Hills&state=AL
^ My City's rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Gary&state=IN
^ Gary Indiana's rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Compton&state=CA
^ Compton's Rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Birmingham&state=AL
^ Birmingham's rates (compare to Compton's)

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Atlanta&state=GA
^ Atlanta's Rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=New+Orleans&state=LA
^ New Orleans' Rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Los+Angeles&state=CA
^ Los Angeles' Rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Detroit&state=MI
^ Detroit's Rates

Now please tell me where you would rather live?

Did you realize abortion not only kills the baby inside the womb but it also hurts the woman having an abortion. There are over 750 Risks Caused by Abortion listed in Medical Literature.

Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is "LEGAL"?

Mike, yes, I realize there are risks with abortion. There are also risks with continuing pregnancies and giving birth, greater risks in fact.

Doug

Heather:

Not a problem. I love sharing make-up tips! I've got oodles more if you ever need them! :-)

Mike, he realizes that abortion can hurt women. He just doesn't care.

Midnite,

Go! Go! Go!
You're starting to sound more and more like one of us!:)

It's nice to see that you recognize a nasty pro-choicer when you see one. The difference between you, Rae, Leah and oh Lordy, even Less and pro choicers like Laura and Sally, is like, ohhhhh, lightyears.

Good work!

Mike, yes, I realize there are risks with abortion. There are also risks with continuing pregnancies and giving birth, greater risks in fact.

Doug,

Over 750 risks with continuing pregnancies??

Please name them Doug.

Mike

Doug, I am beginning to think that you are going round and round, just to go round and round. Some of the things you say are so off the wall, I'm beginning to wonder.

Heather, if you have an actual point to make, why not copy what I have said?

........

Doug, you DID TOO say something on that order. Okay. It's settled then. We're blobs of cells, because Doug said so! What makes you such an expert? Why should we take your word for it?

Good grief, Heather - think about it. We are composed of cells. I said we all can be called a "blob" of cells. That was meant in humor, in the first place.

........

Doug, Who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible women and Cowardly men. Case closed.

You are ranting.

Doug,

Also, you never did answer my question above. Let me ask you a second time...

Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is "LEGAL"?

Mike

"Mike, yes, I realize there are risks with abortion. There are also risks with continuing pregnancies and giving birth, greater risks in fact."

Doug, Over 750 risks with continuing pregnancies?? Please name them Doug.

I don't know them all by heart.

I do know that continuing pregnancies and giving birth is much more dangerous for women than is having abortions. The mortality rate for births is 7.1 per 100,000, while for abortion it is 0.7. Continuing pregnancies is also slightly more dangerous yet since deaths from miscarriages is not included in the 7.1 figure. So overall abortion is 10 or 11 times safer.

The 0.7 for abortion is all abortions, including late-term ones, which are more dangerous than early-term ones. When the vast majority of abortions are done, abortion is some 30 - 40 times safer, and when a majority are done, i.e. less than 9 weeks gestation, abortion is 70 - 100 times safer. These figures are easily available from the Centers for Disease Control, and from Birth: Henshaw, 2004 and from Abortion, Bartlett, et al, 2004 (the references the CDC gives).

If one is really objecting to abortion on the grounds that it's dangerous for women, then one can only logically be much more against continuing pregnancies and giving birth.

Doug

Doug,

I will give you a third chance. Three strikes and your out!

Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is "LEGAL"?

Mike

Doug,
You say we have no proof. But many things that can't be seen, also cannot be proved.
*
Sure. You may have been intending to say that just because a thing can't be seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Either way I agree.

I meant what I said. There are many things that can't be seen, that also cannot be proved.
Things like truth, beauty, justice. We can understand them, but we cannot prove them.

The mind. We know we have one. Not a brain, but what we call the mind. Or you're example. Personality. Can you prove that the mind or personality exist? No. And yet you accept that they do.

You keep harping on semantics. We are not playing that game. We hold that at the moment of conception, a human being and all that that encompasses is created. Comes into being. And we believe that from that moment on, this new human being should be given every consideration, legal and otherwise that all human beings are given in our country. You are the one that insists we keep changing our "words". You say the real argument is about the "right to life"...I agree. I believe that the human being that is created has a right to life. Just like all other human beings.
I would not argue for the same right for a toenail clipping, a kangaroo or a mullet. It is precisely because it is a human being that it must be afforded these rights. I can't prove this to you, anymore than you can prove that born human beings should have these rights. It is common sense. I really don't know what you are trying to say by turning this into an argument about semantics. Human Being=right to life. period. Your side is the one that comes up with a new way to define what to call the product of conception. Not us. We know what it is. We didn't start calling them leeches, embryos, blobs of cells. We have always called them human beings in the stage of life know as embryo's or fetuses. But ALWAYS Human Beings.

So, why does a woman's right to "autonomy" trump a human being in the embryonic/fetal stage right to life. We already give human beings the right to life. So I don't feel that I need to prove my point. You on the other hand have invented a new right, that of the right to bodily autonomy, and decided it is more important than the right to life.

Why should you be able to force your belief on the rest of society? I dare you to answer without using the word valuation!

We think that the argument that you can't use reason to prove abortion is wrong because "reason" is subjective to be extremely silly, mostly because you used your subjective reasoning to come to that conclusion! I'm assuming that's what you mean by "valuation". You claim that "valuation" has value, and yet by it's very definition, valuation is subjective and therefore not reliable...therefore not valuable! You simply can't have it both ways. You lose your own argument.

Good grief, MK, what is all that? What I have said is that desire is subjective, that valuation is subjective, that morality is subjective. IF we begin with the stated desire for the unborn to live, then certainly we can use "reason" to say that abortion is wrong. Of course, not everybody has that desire, certainly not to the extent that we'd deny an abortion to a pregnant woman who wants one. Not everybody makes that valuation.

I don't know what you mean by ' "valuation" has value.' You're setting up an imaginary hypothesis there, unrelated to what I've actually said. All morality can be traced right back to the desire at work. People have desires - that is objective fact. People and groups of people and societies make moral valuations - objective fact there too. But all the good/bad/right/wrongs in the moral realm are subjective because they arise in the minds of those entities. They do not exist outside the mind, independent of it. Pretty much right out of the dictionary for "subjective" and "objective."

Some people think it's okay to kill in self-defense. Some do not. Do you not see that this is their own personal saying of that? That it comes from their desire and their valuation? Whatever the case, whether they're religious or not, etc., it comes down to what they want and don't want. There is no "external truth" there, as with all morality. It's a matter of what a sentient mind thinks.

........

By your reasoning it's every man for himself, and I believe that leads to anarchy.

Heh - it would lead to anarchy, but I have not said it's every bloke for himself. Most people live in societies, and most people go along with society's dictates because they want to live there. A person's individual preferences may not be the same as that of "Society's" - (the majority, the ruling class; heck, might even be that of a monarch) but if they want to stay in society they pretty much have to go along with respects to many things. And it doesn't work too badly, all in all.

Doug

Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is "LEGAL"?

Mike, how in the world does that really matter? I don't know how many risks are associated with giving birth - it may be 150 or 1500 or 15,000. What difference does it make?

It is not how many separate things that can go wrong, it is the danger that actually exists that matters.

About 10 women per year die from induced abortion, while about 275 die from continuing pregnancy and childbirth, in the US. Childbirth is obviously legal.

What does it matter if in theory more things can go wrong with a Dodge, but a Ford breaks down eleven times more often?

Doug

P.S. my first vehicle was a Chevy.

Thanks MK (I think)?!

First the other day Heather cheered me on (including Bethany) and now you. WOW. I think I have hit an all time high. Who would have thought??

hahahaha...

But you believe that there is no objective morality. I do not accept this. You make it sound like I am perfectly within my rights to believe this falsehood. I find that condescending. I do not believe that moral code comes from an internal source. I believe that it comes from an external source. That people intuit it, is not the same as them imagining it.

I imagine Santa Claus and elves. I intuit good and evil. I may not get it right each and every time (which is why things like slavery are legal at one point, but not another)...

Murder has been considered wrong throughout history. Why? I'm sure you will say that it is because man has a desire to live. But I say, prove this desire. Prove that it is motivated by desire and not something put their by an outside force. Prove the will. Prove that we have a will. You can't. Anymore than I can prove there is a God. So why are you right, and we are wrong?

Strike Three Doug. Your OUT!

You need to do more homework.

Mike

What are these 750 dangers associated with abortion?
(My guess is that IF they exist that they all apply to full-term gestation and childbirth, too...)

Doug,
Good grief, MK, what is all that? What I have said is that desire is subjective, that valuation is subjective, that morality is subjective. IF we begin with the stated desire for the unborn to live, then certainly we can use "reason" to say that abortion is wrong. Of course, not everybody has that desire, certainly not to the extent that we'd deny an abortion to a pregnant woman who wants one. Not everybody makes that valuation.

I thought it was pretty clear...

You say that every person makes value judgments. Places value on things, thereby giving them value.
I said that the very act of placing value on this system of valuation is subjective. I don't value the idea of value being given by a third party. You do. Your value and mine are different. By your own definition, both things have been given value, and yet neither has any "real" value because they are both based on a subjective value system...and it cancels each others out. So where is the value in a value system based on subjective value?

What are these 750 dangers associated with abortion?

Laura,

Here's a link to the short list...

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117

You can get the complete list through...

The Rutherford Institute
P.O. Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
1-804-978-3888

and request "Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion."

My guess is that IF they exist that they all apply to full-term gestation and childbirth, too

No, actually they don't.

Mike

MK: I meant what I said. There are many things that can't be seen, that also cannot be proved. Things like truth, beauty, justice. We can understand them, but we cannot prove them.

The mind. We know we have one. Not a brain, but what we call the mind. Or you're example. Personality. Can you prove that the mind or personality exist? No. And yet you accept that they do.

Okay, MK, gotcha. I have no problem, there. As I've said - we all make unprovable assumptions and it's where they diverge that the arguing begins.

You or I could "wake up" later and find that what we have thought of as our whole life has been a "dream" and that reality is different. I don't really think that will happen, and I assume that you are I are two separate consciousnesses, etc. When you really get down to it, what beyond the old "I think therefore I am," is there, that can really be proven?

Anyway - no argument with you there. Whether or not it can be proven that mind and personality exist, I grant you that they do. We agree there.

........

I don't disagree that you hold the beliefs you do, either. And I understand them.

It is precisely because it is a human being that it must be afforded these rights. I can't prove this to you, anymore than you can prove that born human beings should have these rights. It is common sense.

Okay, you say "must be afforded rights." Prove it. You say "common sense," well, how is it really common sense? I think there should be something logical there, something that can be demonstrated, for which a persuasive argument can be made.

I do not say that born human beings "have" to have rights. There is no external "should" or "should not" there that exists outside the mind. It is a fact of human nature that we tend to attribute rights at birth. But it doesn't "have" to be that way. Likewise, I don't see how you can prove your "must" or "common sense."

........

So, why does a woman's right to "autonomy" trump a human being in the embryonic/fetal stage right to life.

Because there is the sentiment that going with the feelings of the woman is better than the non-existent feelings of the embryo/fetus. If the consensus was that we needed more life on earth, it wouldn't be much of an argument - abortion would be illegal, or at least illegal in more situations. This all goes to the desire of the observer. You more want the unborn life to continue, I more want the woman to keep the freedom she now has.

........

We already give human beings the right to life. So I don't feel that I need to prove my point. You on the other hand have invented a new right, that of the right to bodily autonomy, and decided it is more important than the right to life.

No, that's not true as stated. You include the unborn in "human beings," and we don't give the right to life to them. (After viabilility an argument can be made for some limited form of rights, though.) It is not that autonomy is more important than right to life, it is that right to life isn't attributed to the unborn in the first place. If it were, I don't think the woman would be allowed to have an abortion.

........

Why should you be able to force your belief on the rest of society? I dare you to answer without using the word valuation!

I have to laugh, MK - point taken. And I still have yet to finish answering your first post to me today. "My belief" alone shouldn't necessarily be forced on the rest of society. I mean, I think the Death Penalty should apply for going slow in the fast lane....

That "should" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. A monarch can sometimes force his will on the society, and there is good and bad to that, I imagine most people would agree. In the US, it's society that forces its will on the individual, not the other way around. The individual can go against society's dictates, but at his peril.

It's not just me in society. It's a whole bunch of people. When we are talking about the pregnant woman's desire, I feel that society needs a very good reason to forbid it. If everybody or almost everybody felt one way or the other about it, it wouldn't be much of an argument nor issue. As things are now - you and many other people want to ban or further restrict abortion. Okay, so convince the rest of us in society. Or at least enough of us that the debate isn't much.

When it comes to subverting the will of a person (or "human being") we don't vote it - it's not like the states were allowed to vote for slavery or not once the North prevailed in the Civil War. I realize that autonomy is not cast in stone, and that it's not impossible that Roe would be overturned, etc.

Doug

Laura,

Medication Abortion
Possible risks include

* incomplete abortion — the embryo and other products of conception are not entirely expelled from the uterus
* allergic reaction
* infection
* very heavy bleeding
* undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated
* in extremely rare cases death is possible from very serious complications — the risk of death from medication abortion — about one out of 100,000 — is
o about the same as it is from miscarriage — about one out of 100,000
o higher than it is from early vacuum aspiration abortion — about one out of one million
o lower than it is from carrying a pregnancy to term — about 10 out of 100,000

Vacuum Aspiration and D&E
The risks associated with vacuum aspiration and D&E increase the longer you are pregnant and if sedation or general anesthesia is used. Possible risks include

* incomplete abortion — the embryo or fetus and other products of conception are not entirely removed from the uterus
* allergic reaction
* infection
* very heavy bleeding
* undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated
* blood clots in the uterus
* injury to the cervix
* organ injury
* in extremely rare cases death is possible from very serious complications. In general, the risk of death from abortion increases the longer a woman has been pregnant. Overall, the risk of death from childbirth is 11 times greater than the risk of death from abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. After 20 weeks, the risk of death from abortion is about the same as the risk of death from childbirth.

Note to Doug: The statistics you gave were for early abortions. That means that a woman carrying her child to term has 7 months longer in which to have a complication. Comparing abortions in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy to a woman carrying a baby for 9 months is not accurate reasoning. Comparing the risks of an abortion given at 9 months gestation compared to a woman giving birth after nine months would be more sound.

You also said that 10 women will die from incuced abortions in a year while 275 women will die from giving birth full term. Well 10 out of how many abortions, and 275 out of how many births?

And Laura,
those numbers came from:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm

MK, I'd also like to know.

MK, YES!

MK, I'm fallin out of my chair! I can't believe PP actually printed that up!

MK: So, I'm asking you, to be clearer on what this word "valuation" means. Use the common man's English. Assume we're all really slow, and give it to us in words we can relate to...

I take it that we can agree that people have desires. They want things, and don't want other things. There are a multitude of reasons and factors that lie behind people's desires, but in the end it's what they want, it's all likes and dislikes.

That which goes toward what we want, we think of as "good" or "right." And "bad" and "wrong" go toward what we don't want.

We have feelings of "should" and "should not," again going toward what we want and what we don't.

In the moral realm, the should/should not deal gets experessed as all the good/bad/right/wrongs. Those are our valuations. The "worthy" things - going toward what we want, are valued positively, and the "unworthy" things, going toward what we don't want, are valued negatively. The abortion argument, IMO, commes down to the valuations being more positive for the unborn life against the woman's desires, or vice-versa.

Doug

Doug,

Because there is the sentiment that going with the feelings of the woman is better than the non-existent feelings of the embryo/fetus.

Are you kiddin' me? You want me to prove that unborn human beings must/should be afforded the same rights as we are, but you can get away with killing the same human beings based on sentiment?

No way! You prove that the feelings of the woman are "better" than the non-existent (while your at it, prove that they are non-existent...considering you just said " no argument with you there. Whether or not it can be proven that mind and personality exist, I grant you that they do. We agree there.") If the mind is different than the brain, then how can you prove that just because the brain is not completely working, the mind is not working either? You can't of course, and so I say we must err on the side of caution. We know that every human being that is born has a mind and a personality. So wouldn't it stand to reason that an unborn human being has the same? What makes you say otherwise?

Gee, all of those complications occur during pregnancy and childbirth.
There are fewer than one million abortions a year. There are more than four million births per year. If full-term pregnancy and delivery were as safe as abortion we'd see 40 pregnancy-related deaths each year - not 275.

MK, emotional problems made their list. Could that be PAS?

Doug,

If the consensus was that we needed more life on earth, it wouldn't be much of an argument - abortion would be illegal, or at least illegal in more situations.

You speak as if it's already been decided that we don't need more life on earth...was I out of school that day?

Are you aware that there in NO population explosion. Quite the contrary, Europe and the United States are not even close to replacement value?

The problem has never been too many people. The problem is too many selfish people. The wealth is there. It's just not distributed evenly.

Where is Mike when you need him?!?!...the population of the entire world could fit into the state of Texas...Mike will pop up and give you the statistic.

You seem to think that you are the consensus. As far as I know, most people do not believe that there are too many people on the earth, or that more would be a bad thing. It would certainly be good for the world in general...Read what Herb Meyer has to say...

http://www.superfactory.com/articles/meyer_what_in_the_world.htm

A woman I know had 7 abortions. She had to have a hysterectomy. The hospital doctors told her that the damage to her uterus was from the abortions.

Laura,

Really? Women giving birth have:

* incomplete abortion — the embryo and other products of conception are not entirely expelled from the uterus Now see I find that interesting...I never heard any one say "I gave birth to a leg yesterday...can't find the arms"

*undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated Now there you go...tons of women deliverin' babies all the while maintaining an ectopic pregnancy...

There are fewer than one million abortions a year. There are more than four million births per year. If full-term pregnancy and delivery were as safe as abortion we'd see 40 pregnancy-related deaths each year - not 275.

Let's try to read all of a given post shall we?
I believe I said: The statistics you gave were for early abortions. That means that a woman carrying her child to term has 7 months longer in which to have a complication. Comparing abortions in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy to a woman carrying a baby for 9 months is not accurate reasoning. Comparing the risks of an abortion given at 9 months gestation compared to a woman giving birth after nine months would be more sound.

Yep, that's what I said...

Overall, the risk of death from childbirth is 11 times greater than the risk of death from abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. After 20 weeks, the risk of death from abortion is about the same as the risk of death from childbirth.

Agreed, MK - late abortions are much more dangerous than earlier ones.

.......

Note to Doug: The statistics you gave were for early abortions.

Well, some were, as I noted. The "ten or eleven times safer," though is for all abortions versus giving birth.

........

That means that a woman carrying her child to term has 7 months longer in which to have a complication. Comparing abortions in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy to a woman carrying a baby for 9 months is not accurate reasoning.

Sure it is. Those abortions won't have the same risk as later abortions, or as abortions as a whole, but for a given individual, an abortion then is 100 or so times safer than continuing pregnancy and giving birth. Yes, not having the abortion means more time for complications, no doubt about it.

........

Comparing the risks of an abortion given at 9 months gestation compared to a woman giving birth after nine months would be more sound.

No, because almost nobody has abortions then.

........

You also said that 10 women will die from induced abortions in a year while 275 women will die from giving birth full term. Well 10 out of how many abortions, and 275 out of how many births?

I think it's about 20 or 25% of US pregnancies that are aborted, so it'd be a 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio, births over abortions. That'd give us a ratio of 7 - 9 times more deaths for births, corrected for the varying numbers. Add in the deaths from miscarriages, etc., which are not counted in the death statistics for giving birth and you get to the "10 or 11 times safer" for abortion versus choosing to continue the pregnancy.

Doug

There are fewer than one million abortions a year.

I wish that were true...

Yes Doug,
But there aren't as many late term abortions as births so the numbers don't count. There are very few if any abortions done at 9 months. Except in mr. tillers office. So they aren't comparable.

Gotta go for awhile...
be back in an hour or so...

There are 1.3 million abortions a year!

Really? Women giving birth have:

* incomplete abortion — the embryo and other products of conception are not entirely expelled from the uterus Now see I find that interesting...I never heard any one say "I gave birth to a leg yesterday...can't find the arms"

*undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated Now there you go...tons of women deliverin' babies all the while maintaining an ectopic pregnancy...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Women who deliver run the risk of retained tissue also. An undetected ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy complication.

Where is Mike when you need him?!?!...the population of the entire world could fit into the state of Texas...Mike will pop up and give you the statistic.

MK,

I had to eat some lunch. You know liberal college professors can't stand when Pro-Life students bring this up in class. Here you are...

---------

Can The Entire World Population Fit Within The Boundries of Texas?

LEGEND

1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet

1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)

——————–

World Population = 6,276,000,000 people

State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)

———————-

Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).

This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!

Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.

——————–

State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.

As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!!!

——————

You can double check my math!

Mike

"If the consensus was that we needed more life on earth, it wouldn't be much of an argument - abortion would be illegal, or at least illegal in more situations."

MK: You speak as if it's already been decided that we don't need more life on earth...was I out of school that day?

If the lesson was that the absence of a negative does not prove the positive, then perhaps you were. What I said is true. If enough people felt there was a real, demonstrable need to force women to continue pregnancies, even if unwanted, the law would reflect it.

........

Are you aware that there in NO population explosion. Quite the contrary, Europe and the United States are not even close to replacement value?

There is immigration, of course, and there's definitely a population explosion. In my lifetime alone it's gone from in the 3s as far as billions of people past 4, past, 5, and past 6. Forecast is to go to over 9, then be fairly steady for a while with some little ups and downs.

.......

The problem has never been too many people. The problem is too many selfish people. The wealth is there. It's just not distributed evenly.

It's not human nature for wealth to be distributed "evenly."

........

Where is Mike when you need him?!?!...the population of the entire world could fit into the state of Texas...Mike will pop up and give you the statistic.

So what? Who would want to live like that? Can Texas support all those people? Of course not.

.........

You seem to think that you are the consensus. As far as I know, most people do not believe that there are too many people on the earth, or that more would be a bad thing. It would certainly be good for the world in general...Read what Herb Meyer has to say...

http://www.superfactory.com/articles/meyer_what_in_the_world.htm

There are some things that nations with declining populations should be aware of, but there's nothing in there that says we need to take away the freedom that women now have in the matter. With immigration, the population of the US is still increasing. I am indeed in the consensus as far as thinking we don't need to increase the rate of population growth any faster than what it already is. That wasn't the argument, though.

What I said was IF it "was that we needed more life on earth.." Seriously - enough sentiment for it, and abortion would be banned. Obvious, no?

Doug

Planned Parenthood printed this up. I'm gonna agree with them on this one!

MK: But there aren't as many late term abortions as births so the numbers don't count. There are very few if any abortions done at 9 months. Except in mr. tillers office. So they aren't comparable.

:: laughing :: Oh come on, MK, how many 9 month abortions do you think Tiller has done?

The numbers "count." There is more risk later on in gestation, no question about it. But if a women is going to have an abortion at 20 weeks, or 10, or 6, what does the risk at 9 months have to do with it?

Doug

How many 9 month abortions has Tiller done? Doug, Tiller was performing late term abortions on women so they could attend rock concerts and rodeos. Were their lives in danger? I was reading a quote from a former abortionist. He quoted "Abortion patients are lazy." Yep.

The numbers "count." There is more risk later on in gestation, no question about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If a woman is having a late-term abortion there's a serious likelihood that it's being performed BECAUSE of a serious risk to the woman's life or health.

Lau, you are wrong!

I meant Laura. I don't know what happened there.

Here's an Audio Archived Program I would encourage everyone to listen.

Karen Malec - The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

--------

In order to hear this program now you will need to go to this link..

http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calen...h=01&year=2006

Then go to 1-20-06 and click on "The Abortion/Breast Cancer" Show.

When the window opens up, click on the link next to "Listen (Real)".

---------

It's a 55 minute talk. So if you don't have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are...

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?

-----

OTHER SEGMENTS

2:30 (minutes into the program) Studies Showing A Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

22:45 (minutes into the program) Information on the Relationship Between Oral Contraceptives & Breast Cancer.

27:30 (minutes into the program) Why Does the Susan G Komen Foundation Never Tell Women About the Link Between Abortion/Contraceptives & Breast Cancer?

36:30 (minutes into the program) Studies about Breast Cancer Risk/Who Should You Believe About Whether or Not There's A Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer?

Here's another link...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78841

Mike

"Because there is the sentiment that going with the feelings of the woman is better than the non-existent feelings of the embryo/fetus."

MK: Are you kiddin' me? You want me to prove that unborn human beings must/should be afforded the same rights as we are, but you can get away with killing the same human beings based on sentiment?

Whoa - you asked: "So, why does a woman's right to "autonomy" trump a human being in the embryonic/fetal stage right to life.

The "why" comes from people's sentiment. I didn't say it was "proven" in any external way, nor that everybody thought that way. Lots of people feel that the woman's autonomy is more important - and the law reflects that. Said another way - there is sufficient opinion for the law to be as we have it.

I already know that you disagree, that you feel the unborn life is more important. Well, you want things changed, so the burden of proof is on you. Here on this message board, I am not saying that everybody has to think like me. But if you think you have a good case for changing the law, let's hear it.

........

No way! You prove that the feelings of the woman are "better" than the non-existent (while your at it, prove that they are non-existent.

There is no "proving" it, MK. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective valuation, as always. There is, however, the sentiment that I mentioned, and it is sufficient for the law to be as it is. Granted that some of the opposite sentiment exists as well. If you think that feelings are present in the unborn at 20 weeks or less, then there too the burden of proof is on you. There's no proving a negative, many times, and it's often a logical fallacy to act like that's any proof of the opposite, i.e. the existence of thing.

In the meantime, we know that the cerebral cortex, where consciousness, mental awareness and perception of emotions, etc., resides, is not developed, connected, nor operational enough at that stage in gestation. For decades medical science has been easily able to detect the presence of brainwaves or not. If they're not there, they're not there.

........

..considering you just said " no argument with you there. Whether or not it can be proven that mind and personality exist, I grant you that they do. We agree there.") If the mind is different than the brain, then how can you prove that just because the brain is not completely working, the mind is not working either? You can't of course, and so I say we must err on the side of caution. We know that every human being that is born has a mind and a personality. So wouldn't it stand to reason that an unborn human being has the same? What makes you say otherwise?

Emotions can be detected by an E.E.G. (If the brainwaves are there, okay, and if not, then not.) "Mind" and "personality" are dependent on not just a brain, but a sufficiently-developed brain. The mind is part of the brain. Perhaps we can say, "the mind is different than the brain," but for a mind the brain still has to get to a certain point. Not a big deal, either - but not every human being is born with a mind and personality. There are cases of anencephaly, etc.

Doug

How many 9 month abortions has Tiller done? Doug, Tiller was performing late term abortions on women so they could attend rock concerts and rodeos. Were their lives in danger? I was reading a quote from a former abortionist. He quoted "Abortion patients are lazy." Yep.

Okay, Heather, so you don't know.

Gee, a 10-year Harvard study and the American Cancer Society say there's no link between abortion and breast cancer:

Abortion and Breast Cancer: No Link
No Extra Breast Cancer Risk in Women Who Have Abortions
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Medical NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDApril 23, 2007 -- There is no link between abortion and breast cancer, a 10-year study shows.

Researchers base the findings on a study in which they followed 105,716 women for 10 years. They found no link between abortion and breast cancers that occur before menopause.

Earlier large-scale studies showed no link between abortion and breast cancers that occur after

menopause.

"The globality of evidence supports no link between induced abortion and breast cancer," Harvard researcher Karin Michels, ScD, PhD, tells WebMD.

The Michels study shows a longstanding "scientific consensus," says Michael Thun, MD, vice president for epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta. Thun was not involved in the Michels study.

"There is no evidence that having had an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer," Thun tells WebMD. "This is a subject that has received a lot of visibility; something that has been looked at repeatedly. There is strong scientific consensus this is the case."

Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk
At one time, researchers did suspect a link between abortion and breast cancer. Researchers who asked women about their abortion history found that women with breast cancer were more likely than healthy women to report having had abortions.

But this kind of study -- called a case/control study -- is not considered particularly reliable. A person with a medical condition is more likely to report an unusual or embarrassing event than is a healthy person. That's particularly true when the event is an abortion.

"Abortion is such a personal and sensitive piece of information," Michel says. "If just you just ask random people, you get much more underreporting then you do when you ask women with breast cancer, who are much more likely to reveal all sorts of information if you ask them."

Three studies that looked at women's records about abortion before breast cancer developed found no link to breast cancer. Three studies that asked postmenopausal women about their abortion history and then observed them for long periods of time also found no link to breast cancer.

In 2003, the National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel to analyze these studies. It concluded that abortion did not affect breast cancer risk. Michels was a member of that panel.

"No study should be interpreted on its own," Michels warns. “This current study really supports the consensus that we came up with in 2003. So now we can close the loop and say the lack of abortion risk seen for postmenopausal breast cancer applies to premenopausal breast cancer as well."

Despite the scientific consensus, four states have laws on the books that require doctors to warn women seeking abortion that the procedure may cause breast cancer. Those states are Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas. The law in Montana has been found unconstitutional and is not enforced.

This year, there were efforts to introduce similar laws in New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. All of these bills failed to pass into law.

Thirty-one states have laws that require "biased counseling and/or mandatory delays which may include providing information on breast cancer and abortion," a spokeswoman for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health tells WebMD.

The Michels study appears in the April 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

SOURCES: Michels, K.B. Archives of Internal Medicine, April 23, 2007; vol 814: pp 820. Karin Michels, ScD, PhD, associate professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Michael Thun, MD, vice president for epidemiology and surveillance research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta. Dionne Scott, senior press officer, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York City. Amanda Davis, communications associate, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, New York City.

© 2007 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.

Everyone... it is flooding really bad where my parents live and slightly where Dan, my boyfriend lives.
http://www.winonadailynews.com/shared-content/gallery/?galleryid=6&gallery_page=0&album_page=0&albumid=13

I am getting very weak and want to go home. :(

Doug, Tiller is performing abortions on women so they can attend rock concerts and rodeos.

JM, that's awful! What state is this?

Minnesota

Its suppose to keep raining.

Are your family and boyfriend okay? Have you called?

I haven't been watching the news lately. I couldn't remember if you were from MN. or JJ.

My mom called me this morning and said she was fine. Then I called Dan and he was fine. It isn't really flooding by Dan at all as far as I know. He said he wasn't flooding by him. But its suppose to keep raining for the next couple of days

"Good grief, MK, what is all that? What I have said is that desire is subjective, that valuation is subjective, that morality is subjective. IF we begin with the stated desire for the unborn to live, then certainly we can use "reason" to say that abortion is wrong. Of course, not everybody has that desire, certainly not to the extent that we'd deny an abortion to a pregnant woman who wants one. Not everybody makes that valuation."

MK: I thought it was pretty clear... You say that every person makes value judgments. Places value on things, thereby giving them value.

Yes - giving them value according to that person. Another person may disagree, and there are of course group valuations, as well as societal, etc. Is killing in self-defense "good" or "bad"? Some individuals will say yes, and some no. Most of the time, society says yes. There are grouups of people where the answer is yes, and other groups where it's no. This is valuation going on. These are valuations being made.

........

I said that the very act of placing value on this system of valuation is subjective.

Yes, it is subjective, but it is objective fact that we do it. In this argument I say the woman's feelings, and my desire for her not to suffer, are more important than the unfeeling unborn, and the feelings of those who would deny the woman an abortion. You do it too - you have your desires and have made your valuations. They are different from mine in this case, but it is fact that we've both done it. It's a subjective process that occurs in sentient minds, but it is objective fact that it occurs, same as it's objective, external fact that people have desires.

.......

I don't value the idea of value being given by a third party. You do. Your value and mine are different.

I know - you want to believe in something else. But again, do you not see that the moral good/bad/right/wrong always has to in the opinion of some mind or group of minds? A thing may exist, and that is true regardless if a mind knows of it or cares. But the feelings of "good" and "bad" come from the mind.

........

By your own definition, both things have been given value, and yet neither has any "real" value because they are both based on a subjective value system...and it cancels each others out. So where is the value in a value system based on subjective value?

People (and other sentient minds) simply have desires. I don't think that is arguable. There is no external nor absolute value outside of sentient conception. But value is real to the minds that make the valuations, because the desire is real. I believe that you feel the unborn lives should be protected. It is real that you are having those thoughts. No argument there.

Sometimes two valuations will "cancel each other out," but not like you were thinkinng. Person A wants to do one thing, and B wants to do something else. One's desire could win out, or perhaps they do cancel, and both people choose a third thing. Your valuation and mine are real - the thoughts have occurred, the emotions and desires were really felt, etc. They are not external to us, though, no matter what we might ascribe them to. They are still in our mind.

Doug

WOW! As if MN didn't have enough with the bridge collapse! When it rains it pours....Absolutely no pun intended! Thank God they are alright. I'll pray for everyone there!

Heather: Doug, Tiller is performing abortions on women so they can attend rock concerts and rodeos.

What does this have to do with you knowing how many 9 month abortions Tiller has done. I submit that you do not know (this has been obvious to me all along).

Doug

Thank you Heather.

Harvard Study on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Seriously Flawed

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3063.html

Mike

A big study in the New England journal of Medicine:

Results: In the cohort of 1.5 million women (28.5 million person-years), we identified 370,715 induced abortions among 280,965 women (2.7 million person-years) and 10,246 women with breast cancer. After adjustment for known risk factors, induced abortion was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (relative risk, 1.00; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.06). No increases in risk were found in subgroups defined according to age at abortion, parity, time since abortion, or age at diagnosis of breast cancer.

Conclusions: Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

@JM: I heard about the floods in Winona! My friend's boyfriend just went back down there for college and he called her up this morning about it! It's been raining constantly in the Twin Cities since yesterday morning.

@MK et al: Yeeeeah...I was up early yesterday because my friend called me to wake me up so I would have time to get ready because we went to the Renaissance Fair in Shakopee yesterday. It was pouring most of the day but it was sooooo fun. Ren-Fest people are craaaaazy but so awesome! :D

It was the seriously the best weekend of the summer. ^_^

I don't think the twin cities got to much rain. I could be wrong though. Winona is about 2.5 hours from the twin cities. I hope you friend's boyfriend is okay Rae, parts of Winona were evacuated.

@JM: It's been storming on and off here, and we've had heavy rains since yesterday, and I suppose the Mississippi flooded in Winona from the Twin Cities' rain water plus their own.

He's fine, it flooded more in the area down by the river I heard. :)

Believe me, we had a lot of rain...it's so gloomy, I feel like I'm in Seattle or something lol.

Rae, I didn't know you lived in MN. My mom told me Winona got 13 inches of rain. Other areas got over 15 inches. I bet the Mississippi did flood. My mom said parts of the East side of winona were evacuated. Its pretty bad in a lot of the towns around winona. Have you ever been to winona rae?

@JM: No, I haven't been to Winona. I know a few people who lived there or went to college there though. I don't travel to that area of the state much. :-/

But yeah, I'm from the White Bear Lake area of Minnesota originally, but I am relocating to Minneapolis permanently for school. :) What part of Minnesota are you from?

Rae, I went to Seattle with a friend of mine. We stayed 2 weeks. It rained every day. Bummer!

Anyway, I'm glad you 2 are okay, as well as your loved ones.

Abortion/Breast Cancer Link - Biological Explanation

-------

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

Mike

Mike, I definitely believe that the 2 are linked, even though there are conflicting studies. My reason? 2 of my former co workers died of breast CA. They both had abortions, and they were both in their 40's.

In 2003, the National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel to analyze these studies. It concluded that abortion did not affect breast cancer risk. Michels was a member of that panel.

Laura,

Here is something you should read...

------

How National Cancer Institute Scientists Betrayed Women Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Scientific Debate That Never Happened

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3661/CWA/life/

Mike

Doug,

If enough people felt there was a real, demonstrable need to force women to continue pregnancies, even if unwanted, the law would reflect it.

All in due time, all in due time...although when abortion is made illegal, I still won't take that as proof that people want a larger population. I'll just take it to mean that the Satan's pawns have finally been outnumbered...or they've come back to their senses...and realize that human life is sacred. ALL human life.

Doug,
People (and other sentient minds) simply have desires. I don't think that is arguable. There is no external nor absolute value outside of sentient conception

Have you replace the word valuation with the word sentient?

Not having an external value system is your subjective valuation. (hah! I can use that word too:) Therefore it has no value to me.

While I would not argue that people have desires and that these desires (mine being to please God) drive their value system, but I do not think this proves that their isn't also a value system that is external. I believe that natural law and morality is written in the hearts of man. I believe there is an absolute truth. I understand (believe me, I understand!) that you don't believe this...that's not my argument. My argument is that you can't prove your "theory" anymore than I can prove mine. Why must I prove mine, and you don't have to prove yours? Why is yours right and mine wrong? That is the question. And everytime I ask it you simply repeat that it is based on valuation and sentient minds...

No it's not. It's based on I see it one way. You see it another. And you believe your way should be forced on me, and get upset that I believe my way should be forced on you.

The bottom line is, it's a human life. I believe it should be protected. You don't...why should you get your way?

Doug,

Ahhhh, you'll love this...semantics again...

But the feelings of "good" and "bad" come from the mind.

I believe the knowledge (not the feelings) of good and evil (not bad) come through (not from) the mind...

Thank you Mike...I knew I could count on you...

Do you see that Doug...no over population. UNDERpopulation in most countries. I'm thinking whether we value it or not, we NEED more people...

Doug,

Emotions can be detected by an E.E.G. (If the brainwaves are there, okay, and if not, then not.) "Mind" and "personality" are dependent on not just a brain, but a sufficiently-developed brain. The mind is part of the brain. Perhaps we can say, "the mind is different than the brain," but for a mind the brain still has to get to a certain point. Not a big deal, either - but not every human being is born with a mind and personality. There are cases of anencephaly, etc.

But that is my point...I believe it is possible to have a mind without a functioning brain. Angels have no pysical matter, they are pure mind...When we die the part of us that is not dependent on the brain goes to a different place. The brain stays, the mind/soul moves on...

MK,

Your right. Doug believes his way (man's way)is right, we believe God's way is right. We are Pro-Life and Pro God's Choice. Doug is Pro-Abortion period.

It's time Doug opened his eyes and saw what "choice" is all about (because driving with your eyes closed is dangerous. hah hah)...

http://www.prolifeaction.org/home/2007/tour02x.jpg

Mike

JM,

No panicking now! Mom says she fine. Boyfriend says he's not even wet. Rae says Minnesota is on the map...and you have school tomorrow. Deep breath.,.,.hold it.,.,.okay, now repeat after me.
"There is no place like home. And right now my home is in Arizona. Those rotten punks need me and by God I'm going to love them if it kills me. I'd rather call my mom and tell her that I'm making a difference in their lives, then call and tell her I'm quitting and coming home..." No use crying over spilt rain!

If you were Catholic I'd tell you to find a church with an adoration chapel and go and spill your guts to the Eucharist...instead I'm gonna tell you to spill them to Him anyway. Tell Him how ya feel! Cry on His shoulder...make a cup of tea and come up with a crazy idea for school tomorrow! Got it?
Good! Now buck up!

Was that too harsh? How bout a hug ((((*)))) and a prayer...

MK and all of you that will, Please pray for a girl I know. She has discovered that she is pregnant, and she pretty much told me that she is going to have an abortion. It will be done this week, if she goes through with it. She is feeling a lot of pressure from her parents. I wish I could give you more details. I have tried to talk her out of this, but she told me that she really doesn't feel that there is any other way out. I really don't know what to do.

Rae,

I was going to the Ren Faires before you were born. A friend of mine works at the one here in Illinois. I used to love them. Had to give them up, because unlike most patrons, I wasn't just visiting. I was one of the crazy Ren people you mentioned. It's a crazy life and my soul couldn't take it anymore...let alone my body. Used to love the drum dance at the end! And the roasted almonds, and the face painting and those guys who fought in the mud and the pig and whistle and...

Ahhhhh...memories! I'm glad you had fun. We used to camp for 5 days and go to the Faire for two. Ate off of china and drank out of tankards and crystal...used real silver. I had to do all the cooking. We'd have steak and portabella mushrooms, garlic chicken, champagne, illegal substances, more champagne, shrimp in garlic butter, french bread, more champagne, roasted peppers, grilled potatoes...I still make something called a Ren Meal...food that requires no utensils, everything can be eaten with your fingers.

Of all the money that 'er I spent,
I have spent it in good company,
and of all the harm that 'er I've done,
alas it was to none but me.
And all I've done
for want of wit,
to memory now I can't recall.
So fill to me now this parting glass,
good night and joy be with ye all...

wow...that was a trip down memory lane. Thanks!

Mike,
I was there that day? Were you? I know we know each other...I need to see your face tho...

Of course Heather,
Tho I must say my prayer list has gotten quite long in the last few days...

No MK, it was not harsh. Thank you.

MK, thanks. She's in a really sticky situation.

heather4life,

I am not sure where you are from but if you are from IL, then get into contact with Women's Choice Services (western burbs of Chicago) at ...

630-261-9564 Office
630-261-9221 Consultation

If not here are the phone numbers on Priests for Life website...

http://www.priestsforlife.org/crisis.html

Try to get her in somewhere to see an ultrasound of her baby. 80% of women thinking about abortion change their mind after seeing an ultrasound of their baby.

We will be praying for her!

Mike

MK,

No I was not there that day. Although it is close to my neighborhood. I have done the Truth Tour before about 5 years ago. Right now I am busy praying at the new Aurora Planned Parenhood mansion in my spare time. The killing begins Sept 18th.

Mike

Thanks Mike. I have to leave for a while.I wish I could give out more details, but I am trying to respect her privacy about the situation. Let's just say that she is already involved with someone, and she had an affair. The other person is of a different race.

Hi Heather,

My prayers are with that girl...

J

@MK: Oooh! I would LOVE to work at the Ren Fest someday (preferably as a face painter!). I'm currently working on my "Medieval Wench" costume. Someday I'll move up on the Middle Ages "Social" ladder. :)

Oooooh, I love Darren Hayes' new album, it is sonic bliss. :) I can't wait to get my mitts on the actual album instead of just streaming it! Two more days! ^_^

@MK, Doug, Heather, Mike ... etc, ... this is Part I ... there is more to come ... I really think Diana (and now Doug) argue this way and believe everyone of us is in the 'box' (see below). So, their arguments (they believe) do not go round and round, but we hear the chains dragging. Abortion fits those chains on a woman's heart - it does not 'free' her but enslaves.

.......................

This is a wee bit tricky … just thought of it last night so it is not fleshed-out ... I have gone through this process years ago (I almost forgot that I had) so it is rough …

The thrust of this is to acquire a very different understanding of what it means to be human. [In Dougs termiology , if we can shift the self-valuation of aborting women, then abortion would never be even entertained in thought.]

What you, Doug and Diana are in is called the Cartesian box – you are not the only person in this mind-trap but you are alone/an-isolate – this is what ‘the box’ is. The ‘box’ says that a human being is a solitary being – an independent being by nature, and reinforced by the American constitution.

To maintain this ‘box’ requires (to your minds) an emphasis of the objective truth of physical science (usually biology and medicine) + a bend towards philosophy (… especially those refuting God’s existence or involvement in concluding our moral compass). To be in this situation means that human have two aspects … physical and intellectual. Emotions are considered as ungoverned/uncontrolled-powers. So, a human is an entity (physical) with a governing logical mind + powerful emotional receptors, but remains a life-long isolate …. That either physically (sexually) masturbates – gathers a variety of emotions to please oneself; or, intellectually (debates) masturbates – gathers points in logic to maintain this stance.

It seems that you desire to remain in this box, Doug. There is at least one way out … if you wish to use it, feel free! Others may feel trapped and remain, only because they do not know of a way out.

Instead of pitting one aspect/power of humans against another, view them as complimentary. There seems to be 4 aspects to a human – physical, emotional, intellect and ‘faith’. In turn each of these has it own goal/end-point ::: for physical it is ‘purpose’; for emotions that is ‘meaning’; for intellect - understanding’ ….. and, for ‘faith’-] ‘significance’. Almost all the words (of any language used) used fall within this schema.
[In Doug’s schema these four would account for his term ‘valuation’. The next thing to ask is what KIND of valuation – there is a hierarchy of values (reflected in the terms of punishment metered out to the convicted in trials) … a living being is of more value than a thing …usually.]

[The critics of ancient philosophical schools in Greece were the Cynics. One story has a Cynic sitting by a roadway, saying not a word – just wagging a finger. A student of philosophy said, “I wonder what he means by that!”] Very, very profound! The Cynic is stuck and he knows it … so every word, every gesture we make or fail-to-make in communication is interpreted some way. This comprehension seems to be a basis for all communication … not only that of our species.

By the way, Doug the emotions are not even part-of the cerebral cortex but are formed by a whole different brain region called the R-complex or amygdala. So the autopsy that showed destruction of frontal lobe tissue does not mean Terri did not emote ... also was this destruction as a result of her accident or starvation? Again - how much of her cerebral cortex functions could have been repaired via stem cells? - refused by her husband ... the treatment was offered gratis!

Mike,
I'm going to try to make an appearance in Aurora...don't know if I can...definitely been praying tho...

Exactly John,

If you stay locked in the box you miss the point of the "wall" - home.

As an aside I just read that one way of knowing that there are angels is to look at the way the physical kingdom is built. First we have minerals, then plants (and the plants become more complex as you go up the scale) then animals (same thing, sponges to chimps) then humans. But humans are part spirit. So it only stands to reason that we are the missing link:) to the spirit world...the next step being the lowest pure spirits or the angels, then archangels, and up the nine choirs. From the most base physical (I don't know...a rock? A cell? an atom?)to the highest spiritual (God).

To ignore an entire half of who we are (spiritual) is to not understand the term human at all...and this is the problem Doug and Diana seem to have. They don't acknowledge that there is a part of them that does not belong to the physical plane. That works up to a point...like explaining that a particular color is called red. But it can't explain where red came from or why some people like it...

I love that...physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual (faith)...we are mind, body, heart and soul...why do people have such a hard time with the last one? It's the most significant and exciting one of all...can't wait to meet you on the other side of the wall...

John,

Remember my posts about the Fibonacci Rule? It sort of encompasses all of this. You might be able to recognize it (physical) and it might be pleasing to you (emotional rush when you view something perfect), and it might stimulate your mind (wow, what's that all about?) but you can't really explain where it comes from or why it works. I think that's why Van Gogh loved sunflowers. They illustrated this "magical" formula. Perfection in nature. Over and over we see the sequence. Not just in one species, but everywhere, from dolphins to seashells to planets to ourselves...it's the one commonality.

Why? Where did it come from? Why does it repeat in unrelated subjects?

love you MK,

I used the ones I did with purpose and one of the main ones was to get-away-from old categorizing and the concepts of hierarchy that was prevalent in concepts like mind/body/heart/soul, sorry. I use the word faith and put it in parenthesis because it seems most accurate. I could not come up with a better fit - any suggestions? There is little doubt that we all are 'faith'- driven beings even if aetheists or religion non-believes. Anyone opf us who communicates BELIEVES -(1) the words themselves will be understood - I do not say ba6^0&- Ty42**5 and expect anyone to understand me! (2) the words written are English - so, I BELIEVE several things - the person who reads this will understand these words and they also BELIEVE that these words are both coherent and helpful enough to other reading.

The word of faith extends into physical reality too. There are much, much more unseen vs seen even on this level .... for instance: time; space; distance; speed; energy; and, forces. Even matter itself is 99.99% space - well divided space - but nonetheless SPACE. We are much closer to nothingness than 'something-ness'! [Doug continuously talks about assumptions. Every assumption is faith-filled - there is absolutely no other kind. (skipping ahead) IMO we should never get into the stupidity of seeking validation or proof rather than the sheer bliss of being in each others presence.

I have this bone-to-pick with Doug - over and over (as if this were a mantra) he says that there is no proof of God's existence. Sorry Doug, there is an abundance of proof and I have pointed out two of them [1 - cause of motion for non-animated being; 2 - why is the universe ordered?].... want more, why do you still believe there is no God? Is the problem really that God is not like you expect?

Latest Quinnipiac Poll results:
American voters continue to support the Roe v Wade decision 62 - 32 percent, consistent with past poll findings.

On the subject of abortion:
21 percent say it should be legal in all cases;
36 percent say it should be legal in most cases;
24 percent say it should be illegal in most cases;
13 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.

"It's bi-partisan: Most Americans say they'll consider the next president's likely ability to name several Supreme Court justices in their presidential vote," Carroll said.

"Original intent or consideration of changing mores? Voters go with Mr. Dooley - the Supreme Court should heed the headlines.

"And on abortion, we still find most Americans - 60 percent - in the middle."

From August 7 - 13, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,545 American voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent, including 611 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percent, and 717 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and nationwide as a public service and for research.

For more data -- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml, or call (203) 582-5201.

Laura,

Thats a bad poll, I don't agree...

@Jasper: It's a bad poll because you don't agree with it?

Or do you have a *real* reason for finding it to be a faulty poll?

Hi MK,

the Fibonacci Rule I love - because for me it shows a very playful God ,,, trying to tickle control-freaks. Each time I see these, I find them so beautiful, just to see them - and I have no understanding at all as to 'why' I find them so gorgeous.

Hi Rae,

is this good-news? what if 80%of Americans wanted to commit suicide tomorrow? Would you (A)join them ... (B) try to dissuade them ... (C) find out just what your life would be like with 8 of 10 people in your life no more? ... parents; sibs; friends; your favourite musicians; your classmate - your teachers; the authors of your books .. etc ... the runaway is a comin', will you take a poll, please?

@John:

What on earth are you even talking about? I was just asking what exactly about the poll did he disagree with?

And actually, I would join them...but not because everybody else was doing it, but because I had been thinking about doing so for the past 8 years.

@MK, Doug, Heather, Mike ... etc, ... this is Part I ... there is more to come ... I really think Diana (and now Doug) argue this way and believe everyone of us is in the 'box' (see below). So, their arguments (they believe) do not go round and round, but we hear the chains dragging. Abortion fits those chains on a woman's heart - it does not 'free' her but enslaves.

John, I have to drive to Michigan today for work, but I'm glad to see your post and I'll reply tonight. You have a nice turn of phrase.

Doug

Rae...you promised. No more thinking like that!
Don't make me get the mullets....

John,

Just to add to God's sense of humor list, did you know that lightening whelk is the only whelk that for some reason builds it's (Fibonacci rule) shell with the opening on the left side? All others have the opening on the right side! Just one of those things that makes me giggle...

Good points about physical things belonging to the unseen world...

"Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities." - What's Wrong With the World GK Chesterton

By the way, Doug the emotions are not even part-of the cerebral cortex but are formed by a whole different brain region called the R-complex or amygdala. So the autopsy that showed destruction of frontal lobe tissue does not mean Terri did not emote ... also was this destruction as a result of her accident or starvation? Again - how much of her cerebral cortex functions could have been repaired via stem cells? - refused by her husband ... the treatment was offered gratis!

John - I hear you on the R-complex, amygdala, etc., but being conscious of the emotions involves the cortex. It could be said that lower-order animals "emote," but as far as being sentient and "mental anguish" or suffering it's a different deal.

One thing I don't know is if an EEG was done on her - it'd be interesting to see what showed up.

Stem cells - good question there too. She was on the feeding tube for 15 years, I think - and I don't know if that's a reasonable explanation for the brain damage or not. Much of it happened in the accident (?) I'm pretty sure.

Doug

Doug,
There was no accident. Part of the problem is that we have no idea what happened to her, and the only other person in the room is the very same man that killed her.

Her brother was on here a few months ago...let me see if I can provide a link to that post...

Here, read through this, then you can discuss Terri. It was really an extraordinary case, and a very compelling one.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/death_angel_vs.html#comments

"People (and other sentient minds) simply have desires. I don't think that is arguable. There is no external nor absolute value outside of sentient conception."

MK: Have you replace the word valuation with the word sentient?

:: laughing :: No, but I'm allowing for the presence of gods or other "higher" beings than us earthly humans, though there's no proof of them. Just trying to be consistent.

........

Not having an external value system is your subjective valuation. (hah! I can use that word too:) Therefore it has no value to me.

Okay, but it's fact that people have desires and make valuations. There isn't proof of the supernatural stuff you ascribe some things to. Does it not make sense that between you and me it's your desire for the unborn to live versus my desire for women to keep the freedom and choices they now have in the matter?

........

While I would not argue that people have desires and that these desires (mine being to please God) drive their value system, but I do not think this proves that their isn't also a value system that is external. I believe that natural law and morality is written in the hearts of man. I believe there is an absolute truth. I understand (believe me, I understand!) that you don't believe this...that's not my argument. My argument is that you can't prove your "theory" anymore than I can prove mine. Why must I prove mine, and you don't have to prove yours? Why is yours right and mine wrong? That is the question. And everytime I ask it you simply repeat that it is based on valuation and sentient minds...

"Written in the hearts of man" doesn't contradict what I've said. Yes - there is vast commonality of desire among people, and there are some items of "human nature" that are as you say. We're really not talking about different stuff there.

I think it is obvious that your desire in this argument is more for the unborn life to continue, and mine is more for women to retain the freedom they now have in the matter. Do you disagree with that? I would say my way "works" as far as explaining what goes on, without involving unprovable assumptions.

I haven't said my way is "right" in any external way. It's internal to me, and to many other people. Same for yours.

........

No it's not. It's based on I see it one way. You see it another. And you believe your way should be forced on me, and get upset that I believe my way should be forced on you. The bottom line is, it's a human life. I believe it should be protected. You don't...why should you get your way?

On the "forcing" - the will that is affected the most is that of the woman. You may not "get your way" about this, but I say you don't suffer as much as the woman does if she loses the freedom she now has.

When we take away or restrict the freedom of a sentient person, I think we should have a darn good reason. Even if this is just MK versus Doug, I don't think either of us should be able to subvert the woman's will to our own in the matter.

Yes, you see it one way, and that's because of your desire. You have a "saying" about the abortion debate, and it arises from your desire and your valuation, regardless of whether you attribute all or part to supernatural things. It's still yousaying it. It's you stating what you want - and my "saying," my statement of valuation is different.

You believe in a god - and as a sentient mind that god/being/entity has desires and has made valuations - that is obvious from what you say and from what others have said who have the same beliefs as you. Correct me if I'm wrong. That god wants things, and does not want other things, right? I am saying it's all one thing - desire/valuation/morality, even in the case of a god or gods - as we think of them they'd be sentient minds too.

Doug

MK: Ahhhh, you'll love this...semantics again...

"But the feelings of "good" and "bad" come from the mind."

I believe the knowledge (not the feelings) of good and evil (not bad) come through (not from) the mind...

We're not really disagreeing, IMO, here. You and I know what we want. You see it as you knowing what God wants, correct? Well, that god would have a mind, and I've never excluded the possibility that "higher"beings exist. Not proven but also obviously cannot be proven to not exist. So, if they exist then they too may have their desire/valuation/morality.

It's still feelings of good/bad/right/wrong in the mind.

Doug

"Emotions can be detected by an E.E.G. (If the brainwaves are there, okay, and if not, then not.) "Mind" and "personality" are dependent on not just a brain, but a sufficiently-developed brain. The mind is part of the brain. Perhaps we can say, "the mind is different than the brain," but for a mind the brain still has to get to a certain point. Not a big deal, either - but not every human being is born with a mind and personality. There are cases of anencephaly, etc."

MK: But that is my point...I believe it is possible to have a mind without a functioning brain. Angels have no physical matter, they are pure mind...When we die the part of us that is not dependent on the brain goes to a different place. The brain stays, the mind/soul moves on..

I know that you and many people believe such or similar. Yet the "mind without a brain," and angels etc., aren't proven. If I said that "Well, my God thinks abortion is okay," where does the argument go, then? Nowhere.

There is that which is true for all of us, and I try to stay with that. Going into the "because I said so" stuff never gets anywhere.

Doug

Mike: MK, Your right. Doug believes his way (man's way)is right, we believe God's way is right. We are Pro-Life and Pro God's Choice.

Mike, that is no rational argument. You could say that "God is okay with abortion," in just the same way. No proof of such supernatural beings in the first place - this is you saying what you want whether you mention entities which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary or not.

Doug

John: I have this bone-to-pick with Doug - over and over (as if this were a mantra) he says that there is no proof of God's existence. Sorry Doug, there is an abundance of proof and I have pointed out two of them [1 - cause of motion for non-animated being; 2 - why is the universe ordered?].... want more, why do you still believe there is no God? Is the problem really that God is not like you expect?

John, that's St. Thomas of Aquinas's stuff, right? It involves assumptions that are not provable and illogical leaps (of faith). Been disproved many times.

Anyway, if there really was proof, it wouldn't even be an argument.

Doug

Hi MK, the Fibonacci Rule I love - because for me it shows a very playful God ,,, trying to tickle control-freaks. Each time I see these, I find them so beautiful, just to see them - and I have no understanding at all as to 'why' I find them so gorgeous.

MK and John, I too feel the same thing you do there. People have a tendency to find the Golden Ratio, etc., pleasing. It's like "why is it pleasing to people to see colors?"

No big argument here but if anything I do agree there are "laws" in nature - physical, and of behavior. If somebody wants to call that "God," that's fine with me but I'd say it's internal to us, rather than any necessary external sentience.

Best,

Doug

But Doug,
That's just it...it's not feelings of right and wrong...it's knowledge of right and wrong. Something that does come from and external source...

It's not because I said so, it's because it's the truth.

You keep agreeing that we don't need to prove our "sides" but then say yours should win because I can't prove mine. You can't prove yours either.

Until you can prove that the unborn don't have awareness, you can't use that as proof that women have the greater right.

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)

This is where we differ. I'm talking about knowing and you're talking about feeling...

Truth be told, listening to you, Diana and Less talk, I would infer that you guys are the non-sentient beings. You are the ones that dismiss the possibility that the unborn have an awareness that has nothing to do with the physical.

But that is not really even the point. Killing human life, (innocent, in the sense that they don't deserve it) is ALWAYS wrong, on principle.
You don't have the right to decide who lives and dies. It's not your job. Because if you claim that right, then you must also give it to every other human being, and that's where the Dahmers and Gacy's start to gain moral ground.

If we can't agree that the right to life (human life) is the greatest and first right, then all other rights lose their significance!

Doug,

Yes - there is vast commonality of desire among people, and there are some items of "human nature" that are as you say

Why? Where does this "VAST" commonality come from?
What do you think some of these commonalities are?

John: The word of faith extends into physical reality too. There are much, much more unseen vs seen even on this level .... for instance: time; space; distance; speed; energy; and, forces. Even matter itself is 99.99% space - well divided space - but nonetheless SPACE. We are much closer to nothingness than 'something-ness'! [Doug continuously talks about assumptions. Every assumption is faith-filled - there is absolutely no other kind. (skipping ahead) IMO we should never get into the stupidity of seeking validation or proof rather than the sheer bliss of being in each others presence.

John, once again - thanks for posting.

Okay, so we're really agreeing about assumptions. And agreed on the bliss. However, I don't see it as 'stupid" to seek proof for things. Are we go with stuff just because "somebody says so"?

On "space" - you appear to be picturing things in a very Newtonian way - three dimensional, and without regard to time. You are correct that there is much that is "unseen" by us, or at least it's very hard for us to conceive of it, since we don't perceive it directly. We live in spacetime, really, not just in the spatial dimensions we can "see." I hear you about the nucleus of atoms and the electrons - with all that "space" in-between, but that is not an accurate way to look at it as far as how the universe really is.

It is not that an orbiting body goes "around in a circle" about another body, it is that the gravitational field of the body or bodies alters spacetime, or "curves" it (distorts) it - (if we must think in 3 dimensions). The moon is not really going around in a "circle" or snakelike pattern relative to the sun, it is actually still taking the path of least resistance through spacetime which is now warped from our limited perspective.

It's not easy to visualize this, either, and my head starts hurting just talking about it.

Doug

Are we go with stuff just because "somebody says so"?

Exactly...which is why we don't go along with the stuff you say just because Doug says so...

I have found plenty of evidence in my world to prove to myself there is a God. I don't need anyone else's confirmation of this. I have had direct answers to prayer, I have seen and studied the intricate and complex designs in nature, and have concluded that there is absolutely no way that such order could exist without a God.

I find it silly when one tries to prove to me that I can't possibly have proof of God, when I can see evidence of His Creation every day. I find it silly when people try to put human beings on the same plane of animals, when I know that we are unique and exceptional by virtue of being human. I don't need scientific proof, because I have all the evidence that I need right in front of me.

Good Morning, MaryKay...great job last night!

John, you too!

There is that which is true for all of us, and I try to stay with that. Going into the "because I said so" stuff never gets anywhere.

Doug, everything you have asserted to us, is "because you said so". You say that it's all about valuation. Because you say so.
You say it's all about whether we have sentient minds or not. Because you say so.
You say a person has "left the building" if they go into a coma. Because you say so.
You say that there are only assumptions, no knowledge. Because you say so.
You say that you can't prove that God exists. Because you don't accept any evidence, and you say so.
You say that our desires drive our value system. Because you say so.
You say bodily autonomy trumps right to life. Because you say so.
You say morality is relative. Because you say so.

I could go on and on, but the point is...everything you believe that you are going to tell us is true, is because you say so.

If you don't post here to persuade others into thinking like you do, why are you here?

If you believe there are really no absolutes, and everything is relative, why do you try so hard to be "right"?

@Doug,

"John, that's St. Thomas of Aquinas's stuff, right? It involves assumptions that are not provable and illogical leaps (of faith). Been disproved many times."

Correct Doug, it is his stuff. But when studying this stuff some 35 years ago there was at-that-time no mention of any kind of proof as a rebuttal (and believe me, there would have been a mention if there was any). And I have not been privy to one since ... so, since you say that they have been refuted many times - I am grossly ignorant of any, so ... just one shouldn't be too hard to find and post. Would love to read even the outlines of one!

Rather than refute these arguments, most philosophers just ignore that these exist ... that is not a rebuttal but a refusal to engage - huge difference.

I would love to hear what kind of assumptions Aquinas makes ... as for the leaps of intellect ... genius is rare. What Steven Hawking does today in astrophysics, St. Thomas did centuries ago in philosophy ... we're still trying to catch up. At one point, he had 6 secretaries writing on 6 completely different subjects (one secretary = one subject) SIMULTANEOUSLY! [I can't even walk and chew-gum at the same time, lol!]

@Rae,

that's one reason I posted what I did! Rae,
"there's a demon on your back". You know it ... you have an lot of folks here who love you dearly (I'm one too) ... "Take out your saber-mullet and throw him off your back ... your weakness ... (a strong penchant for truth) ... is much more powerful than any demon .... THROW HIM OFF!!! ... by simply giggling and loving yourself (demons hate both)."

Rae, I missed your post till John made the above post.

And actually, I would join them...but not because everybody else was doing it, but because I had been thinking about doing so for the past 8 years.

Rae, I don't know why you have been having these feelings, but John is right... We love you dearly...we really do! You have such a sweet spirit... I hate to see you suffering. Please, remember that you are loved, you are cared about, you are special to so many people. Don't give up on life...you're still just beginning. Circumstances in your life will change from day to day, and some days you may not feel like life is worth living, but hang in there and I promise you will find the answers you are seeking. You are worth living and you deserve to be happy!

Doug,

However, I don't see it as 'stupid" to seek proof for things.

No it is not stupid to seek proof for things. But lack of proof is not proof in itself. This is where you make your mistake. You won't accept anything that can't be proven, and yet whether you realize it or not you accept all kinds of things that can't be proven.

Read about Padre Pio...read about the stimata, and the bi-locution and "mysterious" illness (fevers so high that a horse thermometer had to be used)...Read about Medjugorge. Explain how 6 children can, for over twenty years, in different places across the globe, report the same things. Explain the apparitions at Rwanda. How did those children know exactly what was going to happen 3 years down the road. Explain Fatima. Explain Zeitun Egypt. The virgin Mary appearing (and video taped) to Muslims as well as Christians....in the millions!

Like John says, there is a difference between seeking proof and demanding it. If small children had the same requirements we'd all be in a "vegatative" state. Or dead. Can you just see it..."Jimmy, eat your dinner or you'll starve." Prove it! "Jimmy, everyone knows that vegetables are good for you..." Prove it. Well it can be proven, but Jimmy's mind is not ready to accept the proof.

I contend that God can be proven, but that your mind is not developed enough to understand the proof. The problem lies with the inferiority of your mind, not the inferiority of the truth.

You want to say that because you can't understand something, it must not be so.

This is why abortion happens. People don't understand the sacredness of life, and therefore believe it must not be important. Your ability to understand something must not be the criteria for it's value.

Before ultra-sound it was believed that the child wasn't alive at all. Now we know differently. I could not have proved to you that it's heart was beating in the 14th century, but I can now. Does that mean the proof wasn't there? Or that I didn't have the means to attain it?

"@Jasper: It's a bad poll because you don't agree with it?

Or do you have a *real* reason for finding it to be a faulty poll?"

Because the questioning is faulty, for instance, they have a question about abortion being illegal in all cases (most pro-lifers agree that there should an exception to save the mothers life).

13 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.

..it's all in the wording of the question, if asks in a different way, you get different results. i.e. how about explaing why abortion really does to unborn baby before asking the question??

Jasper,

Please clarify to Doug that "abortion to save the life of the mother" is only a term we agree to because it's what the secular world would agree to.

I just explained to him that to be truly Pro-life there is no exception, and that when you are saving the life of the mother, the death of the child is not the intent, just the consequence. So to us Catholics there is a difference between "abortion" and a procedure that must be done to save a womans life, yet will result in the infant's death.

If a mother was in a burning building holding her almost dead child and the fireman could only carry one of them to safety, he might choose to save the woman, since the child would die anyway. He didn't "kill" the child, and he certainly didn't "intend" for it to die. But it did die as a consequence of pulling the mother away from it...

"I just explained to him that to be truly Pro-life there is no exception, and that when you are saving the life of the mother, the death of the child is not the intent, just the consequence."

yes, I agree with that MK, thanks for the correction.

...

Jasper,

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

This poll shows that 57% of the people believe it should be legal in all or most cases and 42% believe it should be illegal in all or most cases...

A much narrower margin...This was an ABC NEWS/Washington Post poll...

MK,

I also feel it would be much narrower if people were edjucated on the horrendous nature of abortion. As about 65-70% believed PBA should be illegal. With a little more edjucation on the subject, more people would agree the all abortions should be illegal.

Jasper,

I wouldn't have said anything, but on another post Doug was claiming that most pro-lifers say there are exceptions (like rape, health...) and I said no, that these weren't really pro-lifers...I took a poll up above (tho not too many people answered it)...

Here's the post:
One of the things we disagreed on is the definition of pro life. Doug claims that most people are pro life "except" and I claim that there is no "except" when it comes to pro life. I said that the minute you add an "except" you become pro choice.

I told him I'd poll the pro lifers here to see if they agreed.
*
So, Pro lifers, do you believe that to call yourself pro life you may not allow for exceptions, or is it possible to be pro life except for (ie: rape, incest, life of mother, early trimester...etc)
*
What do you guys think?
Posted by: mk at August 19, 2007 7:56 AM

It's kind of the like the "prayin' to Mary" thing.
We know that we aren't praying "to" her, but asking her to pray "for/with" us, but people outside the faith, misunderstand.

We know that life of the mother doesn't mean you "kill the baby", but people on the pro choice side don't.

Thanks for clarifying...have another biscuit!

Jasper,

I also feel it would be much narrower if people were edjucated on the horrendous nature of abortion. As about 65-70% believed PBA should be illegal. With a little more edjucation on the subject, more people would agree the all abortions should be illegal.

Exactly! Which is really what we're trying to do here...Where do you live again? Any chance you'll be going to Aurora for the Planned Parenthood demo?

"We know that life of the mother doesn't mean you "kill the baby", but people on the pro choice side don't."

yes, and they twist that around, saying "you would let the mother die to save the fetus ?"

which is false.....

Good morning MK, Bethany, John, jasper!

Good Morning Heather !

Good morning to you all! :)

Bethany, I just noticed that you put John and MK's names in the cartoon signs! Very cool!!

I'm glad you like it, Heather! Here, I made one just for you:

Ooooh Bethany, where art thou getting those delightful li'l emoticons?

www.clicksmilies.com (click on "Smilie generator")
:)

Bethany, thank you!! It's funny because there is a guy I know who always says that to me! LOL!

It looks like I'm the only Heather here, so I'm gonna drop the 4 life.

Testing

Did anyone see that Sonya responded to us on the 'What Women Deserve' post. Check out her post. Where did everyone go? * sound of crickets*

good morning folks -

loved your comments Bethany and MK, Jasper, et all, perhaps exposing the crassness of abortion is only a small part of this battle. It is a mindset that humans are ho-hum creatures. So, like their mother, babies are nothing too ... at least nothing to give a second thought about.

Last night I asked a friend about whether she had ever been thrilled just to be in her son's presence, when he was a baby. She said that she loved to stand in absolute awe at the beauty of her son as he lay sleeping.

Isn't it strange, I said (after she thought hers an almost universal experience) that we grow-up and that means to grow out of this powerful feeling and replace it with the hum-drum. We are a different kind of creature that deserves awe and hugs ... scratches behind the ears ... And each pregnancy fulfills this promise.

Can't do without it ... we wish to live free to be filled with awe .... And MK there are no exceptions because there are no exceptions to awe.

got this by e-mail .... am with this very much ...

"A Gift...
The other day a young person asked me how I felt about being old. I was taken aback, for I do not think of myself as old. Upon seeing my reaction, he was immediately embarrassed, but I explained that it was an interesting question, and I would ponder it, and let him know.

Growing Older, I decided, is a gift.

I am now, probably for the first time in my life, the person I have always wanted to be.
Oh, not my body! I sometime despair over my body ... the wrinkles, the baggy eyes, and the cellulite.
And often I am taken aback by that old person that lives in my mirror, but I don't agonize over those things for long.
I would never trade my amazing friends, my wonderful life, and my loving family for less gray hair or a flatter belly.
As I've aged, I've become kinder to myself, and less critical of me. I've become my own friend.
I don't chide myself for eating that extra cookie, or for not making my bed, or for buying that silly cement gecko that I didn't need, but looks so avant-garde on my patio. I am entitled to be messy, to be extravagant and smell the flowers.
I have seen too many dear friends leave this world too soon, before they understood the great freedom that comes with aging.
Whose business is it if I choose to read or play on the computer until 4AM and then sleep until --?
I will dance with myself to those wonderful tunes of the 50's & 60's, and if I, at the same time, wish to weep over a lost love... I will.
I will walk the beach in a swim suit that is stretched over a bulging body, and will dive into the waves with abandon if I choose to,
despite the pitying glances from the bikini set.
They, too, will get old. (if they're lucky)
I know I am sometimes forgetful.
But then again, some of life is just as well forgotten and I
eventually remember the important things.
Sure, over the years my heart has been broken.
How can your heart not break when you lose a loved one, or when a
Child suffers, or even when a beloved pet gets hit by a car? But broken
hearts are what give us strength and understanding and compassion.
A heart never broken is pristine and sterile and will never know the
Joy of being imperfect. I am so blessed to have lived long enough to
have
My hair turn gray, and to have my youthful laughs be forever etched into
deep grooves on my face.

So many have never laughed, and so many have died before their hair
could turn silver.
I can say 'no,' and mean it.
I can say 'yes.' and mean it.
As you get older, it is easier to be positive.
You care less about what other people think. I don't question myself
anymore.
I've even earned the right to be wrong.
So, to answer your question, I like being older.
It has set me free.
I like the person I have become.
I am not going to live forever, but while I am still here, I will
Not waste time lamenting what could have been, or worrying about what
will
be. And I shall eat dessert every single day... (if I want).

Today,
I wish you a day of ordinary miracles.
Love simply.
Love generously.
Care deeply
Speak kindly.
Leave the rest to God.

John, that is BEAUTIFUL!

Tony,
About earlier...
I don't think that is how it works. If condom use is 90% effective, that doesn't mean the total amount of encounters adds up to 90%, in which consequences would be greater. Every encounter itself is 90%, in which every "chance" has its own 10% liklihood to fail. Furthermore, there is every chance that the egg or embryo never implants on its own (which happens about 15-20% of the time, last time I checked). This is also not taking into account where a second form of birth control and condoms are used simultaneously. But someone correct me if I'm wrong...

Oh John,
That was superb...it echoes my sentiments exactly. I don't sweat the dust bunnies and I always touch the lavender. I'll sit for an hour and watch the bunny on my lawn, or go to the movies by myself, sometimes two in a row. I read junk (sometimes forget and read a book I've read), don't answer the phone when it rings, and eat the creme out an oreo, throwing the cookie part away. I wear comfortable shoes and Johns old shirts...watch "old" movies with the kids when I should be cleaning the bathroom and have breakfast for dinner once a week...

All things I didn't do when I was younger and had "place to be and things to do"...while I'm sure that living in a wheelchair seems like a curse most of the time, at least it slows you down and forces you to breathe! Ever since I've hurt my knee and had to hobble everywhere, I've been made to practice patience and stillness...and I don't even bother with the bathing suit...I just where my clothes right into the ocean. Yep, I like the age I'm at now very much. Although I've always like the age I "was" best. Loved being 20 and starting my family, loved being thirty and camping in the smokies, loved being forty and getting pregnant...twice! And I think I'll love 50 just fine.

Thanks for the lovely post...

PIP,

We don't really need numbers to know that more people are practicing sex outside of marriage and more people are aborting their babies, now more than ever...

Ever since the 60's and the so called sexual revolution we have become obsessed with sex in this culture...oddly enough with all that sex, actual birth rates are down. Weird!

On an earlier post I pointed out to Doug that never before in history has the entire world accepted abortion as a societal "norm"...he responded that abortion has been around since the beginning of time.

That is true, but it has never been accepted as the "norm" until now. Not throughout the ENTIRE world. And at no time in history can you point to billions of children being put to death by their parents...

And all of this came about at the same time that contraception was being pushed on the younger generation. Up until 1930 birth control was illegal in this country. While there were still unwanted pregnancies, they weren't on the scale that we have now.

Mostly, this is because society itself valued children and marriage. This is no longer true. We change spouses as often as we change shoes and we spend our entire lives trying NOT to have children. Something is screwed up there.

80 years ago birth control was illegal and abortion was a dirty word. We had few abortions and less unwanted pregnancies.

Now abortion is an every minute occurrence and unwanted pregnancies are astronomical. Coincidence that this started occurring at the same time that sex ed was introduced into the schools? I think not. I think they are directly related. And the "family" as well as society is suffering.

Laura, jasper, all, I've been writing this morning and am just now catching up on comments. Laura, you saw by now I posted on the very poll you quoted, showing its bias.

Heather, yes, I spotted Sonya's response in my "What women deserve" post. Sonya is the poet whose video I spotlighted. She had interesting thoughts.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/women_deserve_b.html

"Are we go with stuff just because "somebody says so"?"

Bethany: Exactly...which is why we don't go along with the stuff you say just because Doug says so...

Bethany, I understand what you mean, but I don't go beyond what is true for all of us or what we share as assumptions. Your "saying so," as below, is not proof.

........

I have found plenty of evidence in my world to prove to myself there is a God. I don't need anyone else's confirmation of this. I have had direct answers to prayer, I have seen and studied the intricate and complex designs in nature, and have concluded that there is absolutely no way that such order could exist without a God.

Honestly, you're a heck of a nice person, but that is not proof. That is wishful thinking on your part, involving some assumptions on your part which aren't shared by everyone. (And if everyone had the same unprovable beliefs as you, there wouldn't be argument in the first place.) Meanwhile, I submit that it is a given that we people have desires. In this case, you more want the unborn life to continue, and I more want the woman to retain the freedom and the choices she now has. I submit that is our motivation, you and I, regardless of any supernatural stuff that you attribute it to. It's still you saying what you want.

.......

I find it silly when one tries to prove to me that I can't possibly have proof of God, when I can see evidence of His Creation every day. I find it silly when people try to put human beings on the same plane of animals, when I know that we are unique and exceptional by virtue of being human. I don't need scientific proof, because I have all the evidence that I need right in front of me.

Your opinion. Earlier humans heard thunder, saw lightning, and didn't know how to explain it. "A god did it," appealed to some people.

Doug

Doug, while I appreciate your kind words, you have just used an absolute to refute my absolutes.

You said:
Honestly, you're a heck of a nice person, but that is not proof. That is wishful thinking on your part, involving some assumptions on your part which aren't shared by everyone.

That is wishful thinking - an absolute statement

How do you know, with absolute certainty, that what I believe is merely wishful thinking? How do you know? Do you have proof that God does not exist, and if so, please do share.

If you believe you are absolutely correct in saying that my beliefs are wishful thinking, you should have some way to prove that, shouldn't you?

Perhaps you are wrong, Doug. Maybe your beliefs are wishful thinking, and mine are correct.

MK: But Doug, That's just it...it's not feelings of right and wrong...it's knowledge of right and wrong. Something that does come from and external source... It's not because I said so, it's because it's the truth.

Then prove it, MK. Good grief - is it not obvious that we have desires? That you more desire the unborn life to continue, and I more desire the woman to keep the freedom and the choices she now has? I don't think you can argue with what I have said, there, but you just *say* "it's the truth."

.........

You keep agreeing that we don't need to prove our "sides" but then say yours should win because I can't prove mine. You can't prove yours either.

Once again you are not quoting what I actually said. There is no "proving" subjective assumptions in any external way. I grant you this is a matter of valuation - you putting the life of the unborn first, me putting the woman first. There is no external way it "has" to be. It's a matter of opinion. It's desire and valuation, as is all morality.

........

Until you can prove that the unborn don't have awareness, you can't use that as proof that women have the greater right.

Oh no - that's the logical fallacy of proof of the negative. We KNOW the woman is a thinking, feeling person. If you assert the unborn have feelings and thoughts, the burden of proof is on you.

........

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness ? the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)

This is where we differ. I'm talking about knowing and you're talking about feeling...

Wrong again. I am talking about conscious feeling, if feeling is the deal. I am talking about mental awareness. Your unproven "knowing" is nothing more than your opinion, in lieu of any proof that the stated opinion is in any way external to you. One could as well say, "Well, my god says abortion is okay, and I know that." Again - unproven belief.

.........

Truth be told, listening to you, Diana and Less talk, I would infer that you guys are the non-sentient beings. You are the ones that dismiss the possibility that the unborn have an awareness that has nothing to do with the physical.

Again, the logical fallacy. You want the unborn to have awareness? Prove it. Your assertion - the burden of proof is on you. This is your wishful thinking talking - nothing beyond that is provable. I am not dismissing the possibility. I am not saying there is proof of the negative (that's pointless, anyway). Heck, MK, prove there's no Tooth Fairy.... Prove there's no Santa Claus, etc., etc.

........

But that is not really even the point. Killing human life, (innocent, in the sense that they don't deserve it) is ALWAYS wrong, on principle.

Nope. You saying that in no way makes it true in any external way.

........

You don't have the right to decide who lives and dies. It's not your job. Because if you claim that right, then you must also give it to every other human being, and that's where the Dahmers and Gacy's start to gain moral ground.

Nope - the pregnant woman is the one who decides, as far as elective abortion. Yes - not me, but also not you either.

........

If we can't agree that the right to life (human life) is the greatest and first right, then all other rights lose their significance!

In this case, that is a meaningless hypothetical. I understand what you mean, but that would apply if other rights were attributed, but not right t life. However, that is not the case with the unborn.

Doug

involving some assumptions on your part which aren't shared by everyone.

Since the majority of the world believes that a God exists, and your beliefs and assumptions are not shared by everyone, why are your assumptions valid?

Then prove it, MK. Good grief - is it not obvious that we have desires? That you more desire the unborn life to continue, and I more desire the woman to keep the freedom and the choices she now has? I don't think you can argue with what I have said, there, but you just *say* "it's the truth."

I know I'm not MK, but...

Of course it is obvious we have desires. But we believe that our desires aren't all there is to it. If I have half a gallon of Ice Cream in my freezer and I deeply desire for it to be a full gallon, my desires do not alter the reality which is that there actually is a half gallon of ice cream in the freezer. Likewise, my desires, whether good or bad, do not alter the truths of life in any way.

There is no external way it "has" to be.

It's a matter of opinion.

It's desire and valuation, as is all morality.

These are all absolute statements.

Oh no - that's the logical fallacy of proof of the negative. We KNOW the woman is a thinking, feeling person. If you assert the unborn have feelings and thoughts, the burden of proof is on you.

We believe human beings deserve to be protected whether they are conscious or not. So it's a moot point, isn't it? I don't really see why this keeps being brought up, when we see each person, aware or not, as fully human and entitled to the right to life.

Wrong again. I am talking about conscious feeling, if feeling is the deal. I am talking about mental awareness. Your unproven "knowing" is nothing more than your opinion, in lieu of any proof that the stated opinion is in any way external to you. One could as well say, "Well, my god says abortion is okay, and I know that." Again - unproven belief.

You say that you know that all morals are relative, but this is an unproven belief. Cultural norms are relative, but how can you know absolutely about morality?

Nope. You saying that in no way makes it true in any external way.

You're right...her saying it is not what makes it true. Just as your statement that "we all have desires" isn't what makes that statement true. It is already true, and you happen to be an observer of that fact.

Doug,

Oh no - that's the logical fallacy of proof of the negative. We KNOW the woman is a thinking, feeling person. If you assert the unborn have feelings and thoughts, the burden of proof is on you.

And that would hold water if "lives" weren't on the line. While that's all well and good in a theoretical argument, I think that in order to kill someone that you think isn't "real" you better be able to prove they aren't "real", not place that burden on me...

Bethany: You say that you know that all morals are relative, but this is an unproven belief. Cultural norms are relative, but how can you know absolutely about morality?

Then go through this with me, Bethany. Do you not see that saying "good" or "bad" or any of the "shoulds" and "should nots" of morality are dependent on a mind thinking them to be that way? That there has to be a desire in the first place for any of it to matter? That without a mind (and I'm not ruling out a god, gods, of other "higher beings" here) has to care and make valuations in the first place?

..........

"Nope. You saying that in no way makes it true in any external way."

You're right...her saying it is not what makes it true. Just as your statement that "we all have desires" isn't what makes that statement true. It is already true, and you happen to be an observer of that fact

Okay, good. That we all have desires is something we all agree on. (I hope, anyway.) To that point, we don't disagree. We accept it. It's not the argument, and we can go on from there. However, where we make unprovable assumptions that another person doesn't accept - that is where the debate begins. That is where the person making the assumption is asked to prove it to the other.

Doug

Then go through this with me, Bethany. Do you not see that saying "good" or "bad" or any of the "should" and "should not's" of morality are dependent on a mind thinking them to be that way?

No, I think the laws of morality are written on our hearts, by someone external. This is where we differ.

That there has to be a desire in the first place for any of it to matter? That without a mind (and I'm not ruling out a god, gods, of other "higher beings" here) has to care and make valuations in the first place?

Yes, God is the one who I believe set the standards of morality.

. However, where we make unprovable assumptions that another person doesn't accept - that is where the debate begins. That is where the person making the assumption is asked to prove it to the other.
And I guess we'll probably really never get anywhere, because it will go like this:

Doug: prove to me that God exists
Bethany: Prove to me that morals are relative
Doug: Prove to me that they are not
Bethany: Prove to me that they are

And so on.... over and over and over...with different wording, but basically the same idea. lol

"Yes - there is vast commonality of desire among people, and there are some items of "human nature" that are as you say."

MK: Why? Where does this "VAST" commonality come from? What do you think some of these commonalities are?

It comes from the fact that many people (almost everynbody in some respects) are very similar, sharing the same opinions about many things, having the same desires, making the same valuations. For some things, it's just a fact that most people want the same thing, i.e. to live, to be free, etc. There really are some generalizations that can be made about most people like that.

Doug

It comes from the fact that many people (almost everynbody in some respects) are very similar, sharing the same opinions about many things, having the same desires, making the same valuations. For some things, it's just a fact that most people want the same thing, i.e. to live, to be free, etc.

Why?

I have a one year old granddaughter. She likes to play with electrical sockets. I have tried to explain to her that electricity runs through these sockets and if she keeps poking her finger in them she is going to get electrocuted. I could prove this to her by causing an electrical short.

Of course she just looks at me like I have four heads and puts her finger right back in the socket!

It's not that it can't be proven, it's that her mind is not capable of understanding the proof.
Proof of God is every where. See my post on Padre Pio, and Zeitun Egypt. Explain miracles. Explain existence. Explain life. You can't. You can prove that we are here but you can't prove how we got here. I believe that the angels are sitting around laughing at your doubt because they have seen God and recognize His hand in everything. They look at you like I look at Charlotte, and shake their heads while you continue to put your finger back in the socket.

Here I quote Peter Kreeft:
"There are both good and bad subjective motives; and both good and bad objective reasons. Perhaps the need for security is a good subjective motive (I do not think that it is), and perhaps the faith that the Bible is God's word is a bad objective reason (I do not think that it is). But my point is simply that psychological motives are inadequate. The only honest reason for anyone ever to believe anything is that it is true."

And:

"The major heresies of our day are not about God but about man.
The two most destructive of these heresies-and the two most popular-are angelism, confusing man with an angel by denying his likeness to animals, and animalism, confusing man with an animal by dnying his likeness to angels...

Doug, what did/do your parents believe about God? Are they part of any religion or faith? Just out of curiosity. :-)

Bethan y: Doug, everything you have asserted to us, is "because you said so". You say that it's all about valuation. Because you say so.

No. First of all, we all have our valuations (our likes and dislikes - that which we want and don't want) - you at least do agree with that, right?

........

You say it's all about whether we have sentient minds or not. Because you say so.

No. That is just being logical - that there has to be a sentient mind to care about anything in the first place. Yes, I say that's so, but do you disagree?

........

You say a person has "left the building" if they go into a coma. Because you say so.

Ahem. First of all, that is not true. I was talking about people in a permanent vegetative state, with no reasonable hope of recovery. "Coma" by itself is not the deal.

........

You say that there are only assumptions, no knowledge. Because you say so.

Nope - you are being false there. That is not what I said. How about quoting what I actually did say?

........

You say that you can't prove that God exists. Because you don't accept any evidence, and you say so.

There is no demonstrable proof of any gods nor any supernatural entities like that. If there was, it wouldn't even be at issue.

........

You say that our desires drive our value system. Because you say so.

Yes - our desires lead to our values. In this debate, your primary desire is that the unborn life continue - you most value the unborn life, and thus it's "right" in your opinion to continue the pregnancy. My primary desire here is that the woman keep the freedom and the choices she has, so for me it's "right" that abortion stays legal. Yes, I say so, but do you really disagree?

........

You say bodily autonomy trumps right to life. Because you say so.

No, no, no. I have said that this is a subjective deal. I've said it is my valuation that in this case the woman's desire is paramount. It is not that "autonomy trumps right to life," it is that the right to life has not been attributed to the unborn in the first place. I don't pretend that my valuation is external nor absolute, but some other people do.

......

If you believe there are really no absolutes, and everything is relative, why do you try so hard to be "right"?

Good grief, Bethany, again - that is not what I said. Sheesh. Morality is relative, not "everything." There are matters of physical reality, where the truth is not dependent on subjective valuation. It is independently verifiable. That kind of stuff can be argued, and proof or "right" or "wrong" can be had. If I say there are only 800,000 abortions per year in the US, you can argue with me and prove me wrong. If you say that "there are brainwaves at 3 days' gestation," then .... you get the idea (I hope).

There are also unprovable assumptions that we all make. If you and I both agree on them, if we both make the same assumptions, then there's not going to be argument over those things. We accept plenty of things that way. And there can be logical proofs like, "If the stated desire is for the unborn lives to continue, then abortion will be seen as wrong." That kind of thing can be argued and one person can be "right" or "wrong." For physical reality and logical proofs, I like to argue. Beyond that - I don't pretend my valuation "has" to be followed nor that my opinion is right or true or valid in any external way. And I also point out that it's true for other people.

Doug

Which one of us will wear the other out first, I wonder? :D

No. First of all, we all have our valuations (our likes and dislikes - that which we want and don't want) - you at least do agree with that, right?

Yes, I agree we all have desires, likes, and dislikes, and that we do not all agree on the value of different things. So where do you want to go from there?

No. That is just being logical - that there has to be a sentient mind to care about anything in the first place. Yes, I say that's so, but do you disagree?

This is sort of like the 'tree falling in the forest analogy'. Does the tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it? I personally believe it does, because regardless of if there is someone there to hear it or not, the vibrations are there..."vibration" equals "sound" to the human ear. Therefore, what makes the sound happen is there, but is not perceived as sound unless a person is there to hear it.

I believe that morality exists without humankind present to perceive it. It is there, it comes from God, and we are able to perceive it. because He shares it with us. If we are gone, morality (sense of good and evil) is still there, we just are not there to perceive it.

Ahem. First of all, that is not true. I was talking about people in a permanent vegetative state, with no reasonable hope of recovery. "Coma" by itself is not the deal.

If I could provide evidence that Terri Schiavo was not in a permanent vegetative state, would you change your opinion on whether it was right or wrong to starve her to death for 14 days? Or would you still say it was within her husband's rights to kill her by removing, not life support, but basic nutrition from her body?

Nope - you are being false there. That is not what I said. How about quoting what I actually did say?

I don't remember where the exact quote was, but you had written to MK that she did not have knowledge, that she had assumptions. And I do not see how you can know absolutely 100 percent sure that this is true.

There is no demonstrable proof of any gods nor any supernatural entities like that. If there was, it wouldn't even be at issue.

You have ignored John's attempts to share with you evidence of God's hand in creating the world, and to even try to refute it yourself. Why is this?

Yes - our desires lead to our values. In this debate, your primary desire is that the unborn life continue - you most value the unborn life, and thus it's "right" in your opinion to continue the pregnancy. My primary desire here is that the woman keep the freedom and the choices she has, so for me it's "right" that abortion stays legal. Yes, I say so, but do you really disagree?

I believe the exact opposite of that. I believe that our values lead to our desires. If we value human life (because we know human life is inherently valuable) we will desire to protect it automatically.

No, no, no. I have said that this is a subjective deal. I've said it is my valuation that in this case the woman's desire is paramount. It is not that "autonomy trumps right to life," it is that the right to life has not been attributed to the unborn in the first place. I don't pretend that my valuation is external nor absolute, but some other people do.

Noted.

Good grief, Bethany, again - that is not what I said. Sheesh. Morality is relative, not "everything." There are matters of physical reality, where the truth is not dependent on subjective valuation. It is independently verifiable. That kind of stuff can be argued, and proof or "right" or "wrong" can be had. If I say there are only 800,000 abortions per year in the US, you can argue with me and prove me wrong. If you say that "there are brainwaves at 3 days' gestation," then .... you get the idea (I hope).

I completely understand what you are saying, Doug, and I have from the beginning. I understand that you must have proof that everyone can see in order to believe things.

But the area where you do not think you need proof is in saying that others simply have "wishful thinking" when it comes to God, even though you have no verifiable proof of this. You assume your assumptions are valid just because you want it to be that way. You also seem to not think you need proof for the absolute blanket statements you make, such as "all morality is relative", and "there is no external way it has to be".
I don't see proof for that either. You must admit that at least some of what you believe stems from faith, not proof.

"John, that's St. Thomas of Aquinas's stuff, right? It involves assumptions that are not provable and illogical leaps (of faith). Been disproved many times."

Correct Doug, it is his stuff. But when studying this stuff some 35 years ago there was at-that-time no mention of any kind of proof as a rebuttal (and believe me, there would have been a mention if there was any). And I have not been privy to one since ... so, since you say that they have been refuted many times - I am grossly ignorant of any, so ... just one shouldn't be too hard to find and post. Would love to read even the outlines of one!

Quite reasonable.

........

Rather than refute these arguments, most philosophers just ignore that these exist ... that is not a rebuttal but a refusal to engage - huge difference.

I disagree. Online there is plenty of refutation.

........

I would love to hear what kind of assumptions Aquinas makes ... as for the leaps of intellect ... genius is rare. What Steven Hawking does today in astrophysics, St. Thomas did centuries ago in philosophy ... we're still trying to catch up. At one point, he had 6 secretaries writing on 6 completely different subjects (one secretary = one subject) SIMULTANEOUSLY! [I can't even walk and chew-gum at the same time, lol!]

You're a good guy, John. You really up for this? I don't know if I am - I still have to go to your "Cartesian Box" post, and I will, eventually...

Aquinas's "Ways":

The first three are basically regressions into the past, going back with the idea that everything that moves has to be put in motion, to a "first mover" or "unmoved mover," and Aquinas just assumes this would have to be God. His statement is that this is what "everyone understands to be God." This is assumption/wishful thinking, not proof.

An obvious question is "what first moved God?"

Or going into the past re cause-and-effect, we would eventually come to a "first efficient cause," and voila - it's "God" again. He says this is "to which everyone gives the name of God." Same deal - assumption.

Obvious question - "what caused God?"

Or that we perceive things that did not "have to exist," - that didn't exist for awhile and won't exist in the future. The theory is that these things can only be caused be something that already exists, so there has to be some certain being to do it, and again he says it's what "all men spoeak of as God." Still the wishful thinking - that's no real "proof" of a god.

Same - "what caused God?"

These first three assume that a god would be immune to the regression described, which is arbitrary.

How about a larger quote for Tommy's 4th deal:

"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But ?more? and ?less? are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."

Now what kind of "proof" is that? It's just flawed science. Yes, there is gradation in things, but so what? And it's silly to say that the "maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus." We know that to be false. "Fire is the cause of all hot things"? Nope...

For the fitfh one:

"
whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Well good grief, there are plenty of natural things for which there is no proof of being moved/directed by an intelligence. One could say, "Well, I believe that God directed it." Fine and dandy, but inserting "God" into where there is merely a supposition of necessity is no proof of all, nor is saying, basically, "I believe in God" and "God directs" any kind of external proof.

"However, I don't see it as 'stupid" to seek proof for things."

MK: No it is not stupid to seek proof for things. But lack of proof is not proof in itself. This is where you make your mistake. You won't accept anything that can't be proven, and yet whether you realize it or not you accept all kinds of things that can't be proven.

Holy Moly.. MK, I've said repeatedly that we all make unprovable assumptions. I did not say that lack of proof is proof in itself. In fact, I have pointed out ad infinitum that the lack of proof of no god is not proof of any god. I made no such mistake.

........

Read about Padre Pio...read about the stimata, and the bi-locution and "mysterious" illness (fevers so high that a horse thermometer had to be used)...Read about Medjugorge. Explain how 6 children can, for over twenty years, in different places across the globe, report the same things. Explain the apparitions at Rwanda. How did those children know exactly what was going to happen 3 years down the road. Explain Fatima. Explain Zeitun Egypt. The virgin Mary appearing (and video taped) to Muslims as well as Christians....in the millions!

I grant you there are things we do not know. I grant you there may be supernatural things. In no way does that mean that your assumed beliefs are correct in any external way.

........

Like John says, there is a difference between seeking proof and demanding it. If small children had the same requirements we'd all be in a "vegatative" state. Or dead. Can you just see it..."Jimmy, eat your dinner or you'll starve." Prove it! "Jimmy, everyone knows that vegetables are good for you..." Prove it. Well it can be proven, but Jimmy's mind is not ready to accept the proof.

Jimmy just needs a while to get hungry.

........

I contend that God can be proven, but that your mind is not developed enough to understand the proof. The problem lies with the inferiority of your mind, not the inferiority of the truth.

No - you have an emotional need to go for such stuff. Way back when, people saw lightning and thunder, feared it, didn't know what it was, and the explanation of "a god did it," took hold with many fearful people. No different today - there are beliefs which deal with the notion of the time after death, for example.

........

You want to say that because you can't understand something, it must not be so.

No, I did not say that.

........

This is why abortion happens. People don't understand the sacredness of life, and therefore believe it must not be important. Your ability to understand something must not be the criteria for it's value

You are merely pretending there is intrinsic value there in the first place.

........

Before ultra-sound it was believed that the child wasn't alive at all. Now we know differently. I could not have proved to you that it's heart was beating in the 14th century, but I can now. Does that mean the proof wasn't there? Or that I didn't have the means to attain it?

Oh please. When was the ultrasound developed? Are you seriously saying that prior to that it was believed that the unborn were "not alive"? At such time as there is proof of your now-assumed but unprovable statements, I will accept them. In the meantime, it is fact that we all have our desires and that they are our motivation in this argument.

Doug

Bethany: Doug, while I appreciate your kind words, you have just used an absolute to refute my absolutes.You said: "Honestly, you're a heck of a nice person, but that is not proof. That is wishful thinking on your part, involving some assumptions on your part which aren't shared by everyone."

That is wishful thinking - an absolute statement.

You do have a point. Good job, Bethany. I should have said that though you imagine that, there is no proof of it being anything beyond imaginary. You do assume those things, and not everybody shares those assumptions, and in lieu of demonstrable proof I would say it is wishful thinking on your part. It's not what you can prove to be true, it's what you want to be true, IMO.

.........

How do you know, with absolute certainty, that what I believe is merely wishful thinking? How do you know? Do you have proof that God does not exist, and if so, please do share.

Point taken. An obvious thing to say would be that somebody could say, "No, you're wrong, and God is okay with abortion." The same things apply to that one, too - nobody can know with absolute certainty that's not true, and nobody has proof that that's not the case.

........

If you believe you are absolutely correct in saying that my beliefs are wishful thinking, you should have some way to prove that, shouldn't you?

I hear you, but such negatives cannot be proven. You can't prove there is no Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Boogeyman. You can't prove that in three weeks little green men from Mars won't land and give us all pizza. I should have said, yes, you imagine that, but you can't prove it's anything but imaginary.

.......

Perhaps you are wrong, Doug. Maybe your beliefs are wishful thinking, and mine are correct.

There is a difference, in the main - I don't go beyond what is true for all of us, or beyond that which we agree upon, as far as assumptions. I say that people have desire, etc., - things which are really not at argument. If a thing is my opinion, I note it, and don't claim it is external or absolute.

Doug

Bethany: Doug, what did/do your parents believe about God? Are they part of any religion or faith? Just out of curiosity. :-)

My mom is a Quaker - a member of The Society of Friends. The Silent-meeting type (there are also Quakers who have ministers). All her life. "There is that of God in every person." - that sums up a good bit of Quaker belief.

My dad now goes to a Methodist church, for about the last 20 years or more. His parents were pretty much fundamentalist Christians. He's pretty much of a humanist, though I think he does believe in some "intelligence" as far as God.

Doug

Bethany: Which one of us will wear the other out first, I wonder? :D

I gotta quit for tonight, after this post. I was up at 4 a.m. this morning and it's almost Midnight. Long days ahead this week.... I will do my best to answer any and all posts, though, later on.

......

"No. First of all, we all have our valuations (our likes and dislikes - that which we want and don't want) - you at least do agree with that, right?"

Yes, I agree we all have desires, likes, and dislikes, and that we do not all agree on the value of different things. So where do you want to go from there?

Well, it's like this, from another post:

"Then go through this with me, Bethany. Do you not see that saying "good" or "bad" or any of the "should" and "should not's" of morality are dependent on a mind thinking them to be that way?"

No, I think the laws of morality are written on our hearts, by someone external. This is where we differ.

We're talking about the same thing - "someone external" is a mind, just as I am talking about. I'ved always said that gods, a god, or other "higher beings" could well have their desires and morality too. If you think that God has "his" desires and morality - it's still the same thing - it's taking place in the "mind." We know that you and I disagree about the existence, provability of that god, of course, but regardless, morality is a process of valuation that occurs in sentient minds, as I've been saying all along.

........

"No. That is just being logical - that there has to be a sentient mind to care about anything in the first place. Yes, I say that's so, but do you disagree?"

This is sort of like the 'tree falling in the forest analogy'. Does the tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it? I personally believe it does, because regardless of if there is someone there to hear it or not, the vibrations are there..."vibration" equals "sound" to the human ear. Therefore, what makes the sound happen is there, but is not perceived as sound unless a person is there to hear it.

YES - very good! Tthe sound waves have physical reality. They exist, whether perceived or not. Or, if there aren't any, then they don't exist no matter what anybody else thinks - same deal. I've heard it said that there is sound, but no noise, because noise is dependent on on observer/receiver. Now contrast that with morality - while the sound waves exist (or not) independent of any mind, any feelings of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm can ONLY come from a mind. Morality is in the mind - even if we're talking about a sentient god.

.......

I believe that morality exists without humankind present to perceive it. It is there, it comes from God, and we are able to perceive it. because He shares it with us. If we are gone, morality (sense of good and evil) is still there, we just are not there to perceive it.

Going with the assumption of that God, then I agree -- we are not so far apart on this after all. If there was no God, no people, no minds at all, don't you agree that there would be no morality (because there would be "nobody" to care)?

........

"Ahem. First of all, that is not true. I was talking about people in a permanent vegetative state, with no reasonable hope of recovery. "Coma" by itself is not the deal."

If I could provide evidence that Terri Schiavo was not in a permanent vegetative state, would you change your opinion on whether it was right or wrong to starve her to death for 14 days? Or would you still say it was within her husband's rights to kill her by removing, not life support, but basic nutrition from her body?

Bethany - thank you for replying to what I actually said. I don't know that PVS is the whole deal. And I'm so tired I may be messing up... I would say that if there was a "decent" chance that her mind was not gone for good, then she should have stayed on the feeding tube. As I see the situation - her mind was gone, period, confirmed by the autopsy.

.........

"There is no demonstrable proof of any gods nor any supernatural entities like that. If there was, it wouldn't even be at issue."

You have ignored John's attempts to share with you evidence of God's hand in creating the world, and to even try to refute it yourself. Why is this?

I haven't ignored them, but they are not true "evidence" as they are not independently verifiable, i.e. they require certain unprovable assumptions in the beginning. Look, if there really was proof of one religion being right, it wouldn't even be an argument. Who is really "right"? Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Disaporic (or African traditional), Jews, Muslims, Bahai, Shinto, etc? There are all manner of such beliefs, but none are provable.

........

"Yes - our desires lead to our values. In this debate, your primary desire is that the unborn life continue - you most value the unborn life, and thus it's "right" in your opinion to continue the pregnancy. My primary desire here is that the woman keep the freedom and the choices she has, so for me it's "right" that abortion stays legal. Yes, I say so, but do you really disagree?"

I believe the exact opposite of that. I believe that our values lead to our desires. If we value human life (because we know human life is inherently valuable) we will desire to protect it automatically.

Okay, and we've pretty well settled this - between you and me - above. So, your values say it's most important to protect the unborn life, and mine say it's most important to let the woman keep the freedom and choices she has.

.........

I completely understand what you are saying, Doug, and I have from the beginning. I understand that you must have proof that everyone can see in order to believe things.

Very good - and that was a great post by you. Yes - proof that everyone (or at least enough that there's no significant doubt) "sees," if we're going to force an opinion over somebody's will. If it's a matter of physical reality, then it doesn't matter if everyone knows it or not. If you and I agree on a thing already, then no proof needed - it's a shared assumption.

........

But the area where you do not think you need proof is in saying that others simply have "wishful thinking" when it comes to God, even though you have no verifiable proof of this. You assume your assumptions are valid just because you want it to be that way.

Okay, I should have said there is no proof that it's anything beyond wishful thinking.

........

You also seem to not think you need proof for the absolute blanket statements you make, such as "all morality is relative", and "there is no external way it has to be". I don't see proof for that either. You must admit that at least some of what you believe stems from faith, not proof.

I think there is proof for this one. It's relative to the mind where it resides, even if assuming a god. It has to be in a mind, or it doesn't exist. The is nothing such external to minds.

I have numerous beliefs that are just "faith" - yes, and I don't pretend they are external.

Doug

Doug,
I have numerous beliefs that are just "faith" - yes, and I don't pretend they are external.

As well you shouldn't. To pretend anything with matters of Faith would be dishonest...at the very least to yourself.

But your faith, (and you do have one) is secular and humanist, materialistic and void of an external truth. You aren't pretending that, you believe it.

By the same token, we aren't pretending anything either, and to imply that we are makes you sound condescending. Children pretend to be princesses, but they aren't really princesses and pretending to be doesn't make them princesses.

Definitions of pretend on the Web:

# feign: make believe with the intent to deceive; "He feigned that he was ill"; "He shammed a headache"
# dissemble: behave unnaturally or affectedly; "She's just acting"
# put forward a claim and assert right or possession of; "pretend the title of King"
# guess: put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation; "I am guessing that the price of real estate will rise again"; "I cannot pretend to say that you are wrong"
# make: represent fictitiously, as in a play, or pretend to be or act like; "She makes like an actress"
# make-believe: the enactment of a pretense; "it was just pretend"
# profess: state insincerely; "He professed innocence but later admitted his guilt"; "She pretended not to have known the suicide bomber"; "She pretends to be an expert on wine"
# make-believe: imagined as in a play; "the make-believe world of theater"; "play money"; "dangling their legs in the water to catch pretend fish"

We are in no way trying to deceive anyone and we are not putting forth a lie, knowingly. We believe what we say to be true, just as you believe what you say to be true.

The only difference is that you are wrong;)

I said:
That is wishful thinking - an absolute statement.

You replied:
You do have a point. Good job, Bethany. I should have said that though you imagine that, there is no proof of it being anything beyond imaginary. You do assume those things, and not everybody shares those assumptions, and in lieu of demonstrable proof I would say it is wishful thinking on your part. It's not what you can prove to be true, it's what you want to be true, IMO.

Doug, you have made some points that I thought were good too. And by the way, I like that you say "good grief". That's one phrase that I use a lot around here...no one else seems to. lol I got it from Charlie Brown when I was young, and it's stuck ever since. :)

I wish these points being acknowledged could mean that we were getting somewhere with this. I feel like we're basically going back and forth and saying the same things, just wording them differently.

I understand that you do not believe my beliefs are true, because you deem them to be assumptions, but I disagree. I wholeheartedly agree that it (God's existence) is something I desire to be true, but I do not believe it is something merely in my head, as you do. Just as my belief that my children exist is not what makes them exist. They exist, and I am a witness to that. God exists, and I am a witness to that. I have seen the evidence in God's creation. Too many intricate and complex works of art in nature exist to not have an artist/designer who created them. Could you look at a watch and assume it had no maker? Could you look at a skyscraper and assume no one had brought it into being with time, patience, and intelligence? In the same way, I cannot look at nature, in all it's beauty and complexity, and say that there was no intelligent designer who created it. It would be just as silly to me to do that, as it would be to say a watch had no maker. I do not see how anyone can look at things through a microscope, and not marvel at the astounding perfection nature reveals.
I think your type of faith in no God takes WAY more faith than my faith in God. My faith in God takes very little to no effort. Your faith requires much work. You have to explain away so many things in nature.

The world, in my opinion, is nothing that could have just happened into existence. Answer MaryKay's question about the Fibonacci spirals, and how they keep occurring in nature:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418, 317811…

How does this perfect mathematical pattern keep occurring in completely different things in nature, without having been designed by a creator?

How can you look our bodies, which are all so complicatedly designed, with the abilities that we have, and not see evidence of intelligent design? Each part of our body serves some function. Even the ones that scientists long ago (and even today) deemed "vestigial", have now been shown to serve some purpose. (for example, the spleen, the appendix, the coccyx).

Do you not marvel at the fact that the sun is the exact amount of space away from earth, so as not to freeze up the earth, and so as to not burn up the earth? I see this also as evidence of a Creator, and I do not feel a need for much more, as you seem to need.

"The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."

Much of my belief stems from faith. But I have never argued this with you. I have only argued that I know that it is an external source that I believe from, not just my own desires that brought God into my own mind's existence.

By the way, I am just curious. Why would you feel the need to try to dissuade others from believing in God? Is it a case of misery loves company?

Do you think that life of hope, believing with all your heart that one day you will go to Heaven, whether you deem it valid or not, should be destroyed for some reason? These people are happy knowing that their life doesn't end at death. Knowing they have somewhere to go afterwards gives them an enormous comfort. Whether you believe it is a valid belief or not, do you think all should be like you, without hope, feeling inherently worthless, as nothing more than animals, feeling that when they die, they will be non-existent? Do you really feel that your beliefs are going to make the majority of people happier in life? Why don't people deserve the right to be happy?

And, since you keep saying that my assumptions are not shared by everyone, why do you ignore the fact that your assumptions about God are not shared by everyone as well, and therefore are most likely a figment of your imagination as well?

I don't need scientific proof that God exists. Scientific proof changes from day to day. What was scientifically proven yesterday, becomes proven wrong tomorrow. My God never changes.

Another thought... There were times that I doubted God...does that mean that at those times I did not desire Him to exist?

Doug,

There is a difference, in the main - I don't go beyond what is true for all of us, or beyond that which we agree upon, as far as assumptions. I say that people have desire, etc., - things which are really not at argument. If a thing is my opinion, I note it, and don't claim it is external or absolute.

Yes you do! You assume their is no God. You assume that everything is in our "minds"...that is NOT true for all of us. You have chosen to believe it, yes, but you are still assuming that we all agree.

It is one thing to say that we all have desires and another entirely to say that desires are the only things that drive us.

The minute we agree that man has desires, you are going to "assume" that you have won this argument, when in fact all you have done is gotten us to agree that some men are driven sometimes by some desires...

But this does not then prove that desire is the only force at work...

Doug,

(By the way, beautiful post Bethany...)

Read about Padre Pio...read about the stimata, and the bi-locution and "mysterious" illness (fevers so high that a horse thermometer had to be used)...Read about Medjugorge. Explain how 6 children can, for over twenty years, in different places across the globe, report the same things. Explain the apparitions at Rwanda. How did those children know exactly what was going to happen 3 years down the road. Explain Fatima. Explain Zeitun Egypt. The virgin Mary appearing (and video taped) to Muslims as well as Christians....in the millions!

I grant you there are things we do not know. I grant you there may be supernatural things. In no way does that mean that your assumed beliefs are correct in any external way.

Thank you for granting me that there are things that we do not know...what is your explanation for these things. How do you find peace in your "mind" knowing that miracles occur? No mind, now or ever, has been able to explain them. Do they exist or don't they. If they do, how is it possible when there is no "mind" that can comprehend them?

Doug,

You say it's all about whether we have sentient minds or not. Because you say so.

No. That is just being logical - that there has to be a sentient mind to care about anything in the first place. Yes, I say that's so, but do you disagree?

Now there you go again...God does not have a sentient mind. He does not feel that good and evil exist. This is what I was trying to say before. He knows it...no, he created it. Well not evil, that's just a perversion of all he did create. But you make it sound like God feels such and such is evil, or such and such is good.

Hello...He decides what is good. He decides what is evil. That would be what makes Him God...

I gotta quit for tonight, after this post. I was up at 4 a.m. this morning and it's almost Midnight. Long days ahead this week.... I will do my best to answer any and all posts, though, later on.

I understand... I also have a long day today, and won't be able to post after about 9:00 today, so I'm trying to get as much in as possible before then.

We're talking about the same thing - "someone external" is a mind, just as I am talking about. I'ved always said that gods, a god, or other "higher beings" could well have their desires and morality too. If you think that God has "his" desires and morality - it's still the same thing - it's taking place in the "mind." We know that you and I disagree about the existence, provability of that god, of course, but regardless, morality is a process of valuation that occurs in sentient minds, as I've been saying all along.

My point is that God set standards of morality, and those are absolute. Our human desires and valuations are not always based on God's desires, and that is really what it boils down to, in my opinion. Believe me, I already know you disagree.

YES - very good! Tthe sound waves have physical reality. They exist, whether perceived or not. Or, if there aren't any, then they don't exist no matter what anybody else thinks - same deal. I've heard it said that there is sound, but no noise, because noise is dependent on on observer/receiver. Now contrast that with morality - while the sound waves exist (or not) independent of any mind, any feelings of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm can ONLY come from a mind. Morality is in the mind - even if we're talking about a sentient god.

Yes, but why would we rely solely on feelings, which change from day to day? Why not base your values on something solid, never fluctuating?

****
MaryKay said:
Like John says, there is a difference between seeking proof and demanding it. If small children had the same requirements we'd all be in a "vegatative" state. Or dead. Can you just see it..."Jimmy, eat your dinner or you'll starve." Prove it! "Jimmy, everyone knows that vegetables are good for you..." Prove it. Well it can be proven, but Jimmy's mind is not ready to accept the proof.

Doug said:
Jimmy just needs a while to get hungry.

Wow, Doug...do you realize you have just hit on something very profound?

"Jimmy just needs a while to get hungry." Think about that, as it would be applied to you in this situation.

***
Going with the assumption of that God, then I agree -- we are not so far apart on this after all. If there was no God, no people, no minds at all, don't you agree that there would be no morality (because there would be "nobody" to care)?

Doug, without God, anything goes. Morality is what people say it is. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy are just misunderstood. Murder isn't even wrong, and rape is fine. Without God, who can truly say that anything is really wrong? But I do not agree with this. I believe that Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were evil. That they were absolutely wrong, and there is absolutely no justification for their evil deeds.
But this is only because I have a value system not based on something arbitrary. It is solid as a rock. If I based it on no god, I would say, well, you can't really blame them for doing what they naturally felt inclined to do, can you?

Very good - and that was a great post by you. Yes - proof that everyone (or at least enough that there's no significant doubt) "sees," if we're going to force an opinion over somebody's will. If it's a matter of physical reality, then it doesn't matter if everyone knows it or not. If you and I agree on a thing already, then no proof needed - it's a shared assumption.

Doug, some people still doubt things that have absolutely been proven true. Some people still believe that the world is flat, even though we have evidence that it is round.

The majority of people on this earth do believe that a diety exists. With as many people having this belief, why do you still assume there is no evidence? Perhaps the rest of the world knows and understands something you don't.

I think there is proof for this one. It's relative to the mind where it resides, even if assuming a god. It has to be in a mind, or it doesn't exist. The is nothing such external to minds.
I have numerous beliefs that are just "faith" - yes, and I don't pretend they are external.

If you don't pretend your beliefs are actually correct, as in, not just in your head, then why are you trying to convince me to believe the way you do?

Have a good day at work, Doug! :)

Doug,

"Then go through this with me, Bethany. Do you not see that saying "good" or "bad" or any of the "should" and "should not's" of morality are dependent on a mind thinking them to be that way?"

No Doug,
Neither of us will agree that good and bad are dependent on a mind thinking them to be that way.

To reduce God to simply a "mind" is to completely misunderstand the concept of God. He transcends anything so mundane as being called a "mind"...if that's all that God was, I wouldn't believe in Him either.

Doug,

No - you have an emotional need to go for such stuff. Way back when, people saw lightning and thunder, feared it, didn't know what it was, and the explanation of "a god did it," took hold with many fearful people. No different today - there are beliefs which deal with the notion of the time after death, for example.

And you are "assuming" that they were wrong. They may have gotten the details wrong, but the main concept was right on the money. God did do it! Maybe not the way they thought He did, and I'm sure we have a few things wrong about Him now, but He did make the lightening happen, He did created nature, and nature is fearsome. So why were they wrong?

Mk, good morning, and good points! Now there you go again...God does not have a sentient mind. He does not feel that good and evil exist. This is what I was trying to say before. He knows it...no, he created it. Well not evil, that's just a perversion of all he did create. But you make it sound like God feels such and such is evil, or such and such is good.
Hello...He decides what is good. He decides what is evil. That would be what makes Him God...

THANK YOU for clarifying this! (You know, I actually didn't know what Sentient meant, and I should have looked it up.)

No - you have an emotional need to go for such stuff. Way back when, people saw lightning and thunder, feared it, didn't know what it was, and the explanation of "a god did it," took hold with many fearful people. No different today - there are beliefs which deal with the notion of the time after death, for example.

Based on your own philosophy, you also have an emotional need - to believe God doesn't exist.
What is that need? Why do you feel the need to disprove God's existence to yourself and others, or to deny He does exist? Where does it come from? Does it stem from a desire not to be controlled?

I haven't ignored them, but they are not true "evidence" as they are not independently verifiable, i.e. they require certain unprovable assumptions in the beginning. Look, if there really was proof of one religion being right, it wouldn't even be an argument. Who is really "right"? Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Disaporic (or African traditional), Jews, Muslims, Bahai, Shinto, etc? There are all manner of such beliefs, but none are provable.

Most of those have at least 1 thing in common. They believe in a deity.
Why can't you at least start there?

Point taken. An obvious thing to say would be that somebody could say, "No, you're wrong, and God is okay with abortion." The same things apply to that one, too - nobody can know with absolute certainty that's not true, and nobody has proof that that's not the case.

Many people do say that, but they do not believe in the same God that I do. Their god IS okay with abortion. I think their god is "self".

Doug,k

Before ultra-sound it was believed that the child wasn't alive at all. Now we know differently. I could not have proved to you that it's heart was beating in the 14th century, but I can now. Does that mean the proof wasn't there? Or that I didn't have the means to attain it?

Oh please. When was the ultrasound developed? Are you seriously saying that prior to that it was believed that the unborn were "not alive"? At such time as there is proof of your now-assumed but unprovable statements, I will accept them. In the meantime, it is fact that we all have our desires and that they are our motivation in this argument.

While Ancient Romans may not have openly approved of the practice of abortion, it was not considered a serious offence. Indeed, Seneca disapprovingly states that it was common practice for a woman to induce abortion in order to maintain the beauty of her figure (Tribe 1990). The Stoics held that the fetus was no more than a part of the woman's body during the entire duration of pregnancy and was ensouled only at birth by a species of cooling by the air, which transformed a lump of flesh into a living and sentient being (Tribe 1990)

Aristotle detailed the notion of the "animation" of the fetus, and associated individuality, life, and form as those features for which the "soul" was responsible at a certain point in gestation. Aristotle asserted that when soul was added to the matter in the womb, a living individuated creature was created, which had the form and rational power of a man (O'Donovan 1975). This process of formation or animation, manifested by the movement of the fetus in the womb, took place, in Aristotle's opinion, on the fortieth day after conception in the case of a male child and on the ninetieth day after conception for a female child (Bonner 1985)

Pythagoreans stressed that the human soul was created at the time of conception and this is reflected in the Hippocratic oath. Hippocrates was of seemingly a minority position in ancient Greece, in that he disapproved of abortion. The Oath expressly forbids giving a woman "an instrument to produce abortion," and it has been interpreted to forbid inducing abortion by any other method (Tribe 1990). Hippocrates' outright disapproval of abortion stemmed from his belief that conception marked the beginning of a human life (Tribe 1990).

In the late nineteenth century, following the discovery of fertilization, the debate about abortion within the church tipped in favor of its now familiar position that human life begins at conception.

The abortion laws in Britain originally roughly coincided with the belief of when human life begins, but gradually the multifaceted political aspects of abortion resulted in the abortion laws deviating from the general opinion of when human life begins. English common law located the beginning of a human soul at "quickening," believed to be the stage when the soul enters the body and the embryo could be felt moving within the uterus, which occurs at about four months. Abortion laws became more stringent in 1803, when abortion was criminalized. Punishment for abortion before quickening was set at exile, whipping, or imprisonment. Post-quickening abortion was punishable with death (Tribe 1990).

The United States does not have a set definition of when human life begins. Many of the historical and contemporary abortion laws are based on either the opinion that life begins at conception, quickening, or the viability of the fetus outside the womb. Abortion was also permitted as a matter of public health in America, in an attempt to prevent the loss of lives of women who would be injured when trying to obtain illegal abortions. In 1821 Connecticut first enacted abortion laws though abortions of a non-quickened fetus were often permitted, or treated more leniently than others, and were generally permitted to save the life of the mother. The decision of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 was based on the survivability of the fetus outside of the womb.

My mother called and I got interrupted, but the point is that until we could see the child via ultrasound, when it "became" alive was greatly debated. Even you admit that it is "alive"...something you couldn't have know or proven until the advent of the ultrasound...

Doug,

No. That is just being logical - that there has to be a sentient mind to care about anything in the first place. Yes, I say that's so, but do you disagree?
*
This is sort of like the 'tree falling in the forest analogy'. Does the tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it? I personally believe it does, because regardless of if there is someone there to hear it or not, the vibrations are there..."vibration" equals "sound" to the human ear. Therefore, what makes the sound happen is there, but is not perceived as sound unless a person is there to hear it.

Okay, so you admit that sound can exist even if there is no "mind" (or ears) to perceive it.

Well by the same token, Bethany, Most Christians, and I believe that good and evil exist whether there is someone there to percieve it or not. (By the way, we don't pretend this, we believe it.

God, is all good. His good was perverted and became evil. If there was not a single human being on the face of the earth (or anywhere else) God would still exist and by definition He is "Good"...not good as in "I think that is good" but good as in "the definition of pure good is "God".

The beings that He created (Angels, not humans) perverted His goodness and transformed it into evil. No people, no one to perceive or not perceive it, and yet it still exists.

Now Bethany and I can perceive this innate good and evil. We believe that it is a living breathing thing. And that we can "know" it.

You are like the person who has no ears and can't hear the tree. It doesn't change the reality of the tree's sound. It only changes your ability to perceive the reality of the tree's sound.

You do not believe in "good" and "evil" so you can't perceive them. You only know what you are capable of, because you don't have "ears"...

Answer me this. If a tree falls in the woods and a deaf person is standing underneath it, will it hurt less because they couldn't hear it? No, of course not. The tree (good and evil) is a reality. The only thing in question is the ability of the deaf person to "know" that it is there. Only in your case, the "blind" person to know that God is there.

Doug- you rock. Wonderful arguments, and your perspective on relative morality is right on target. You get 10 awesome points!

Doug,

Going with the assumption of that God, then I agree -- we are not so far apart on this after all. If there was no God, no people, no minds at all, don't you agree that there would be no morality (because there would be "nobody" to care)?

No, Doug, because God is morality! You would be more correct in saying that there would then be no immorality as there would be no one to pervert was is essentially all good. Morality (God) would exist regardless. Morality (God) did exist regardless. There was nothing but Him, therefore any morality that existed was determined by Him...

Erin,

What exactly has gotten you so excited? With what part(s) of Doug's philosophy do you agree so wholeheartedly? And don't say all of it. Tell me which parts appeal to you?

His arguments on relative morality. I can never seem to articulate it quite as well as he seems to have done. That, and his argument on the existence of God. Its probably something that I can appreciate more than a lot of the lifers on here because it's such a lovely and precise explaination of a belief system that I largely share.

Hi Doug,

I'll be out for most of the day so won't likely 'debate' until tomorrow. I assume what you mean by 'proof' is a positive expression of reality. It is a weird form of proof, but it seems to be as close as it gets.

Your internet 'proofs' or 'disproofs' leave enough room for a Mac truck. I see all sorts of logical flaws in these, and I'm not even a philosopher. For example: what moved God = not a thing; one needs space and physicality 'to move' and God is neither. God is spirit.

Here is a real puzzler ... since God can do everything ... can he make a mountain so large he cannot move it? Answer (mine): He already has - the human heart. [Think about the none-movement towards Jeus' Cross ... even Laura's picture of the starving boy and the vulture. Why do we not help, or is killing the unborn your expressing help?]

Time I think for you to join those Cynics (wagging finger.) Prove that proof exists and that you require such validation. Will anything change for you? (2) Prove others exist ... outside yourself. If you cannot prove it how can such a thing as a society with values even exist? [I can take multiple examples of this... what is the nature of 'nature'.]

Again Doug,

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness ? the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)

If you don't use these words correctly then you miss some salient points.

God is not "sentient"...He is all "KNOWING".

You are sentient. You feel this and you feel that.

God is Sapient!

Break down the definition...

Sentient: capacity for basic consciousness ? the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness.

Notice, NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDING THE FACULTY OF SELF AWARENESS...

You claim that a fetus is not sentient. Or that Terri Schiavo was not sentient. But Terri could perceive. She could hear and react to music. She flinched if she was stuck with a pin.

A fetus in utero pulls away from a person "pushing on them", they react to music, or foods that the mother has eaten. They drink more amniotic fluid if it is sweeter, they suck their thumbs...

Sapient: which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception.
(apperception
n. perception of inner meaning, and of relation of new facts to facts already known; mental assimilation; state of being conscious of perceiving. apperceptive, a. apperceive, v.t.)

No, perhaps fetuses or people in Terri's state are not Sapient...but that is not the term you used. So are you going to change that to say they must be sapient to be considered "person's" with the same rights as born people? If not, then I contend that they already are sentient, and by your definition, deserve the legal right to life.

Doug,

And what of the newborn? Is this a person endowed with the right to life?

If so, why? They have no conscious "desires". They don't eat because they desire food. They don't cry because they believe it will get them what they desire.

Or why do you urinate? Do you have a desire to rid your body of poisons? Or does your body "know" something that you don't? Why do you breathe? Do you desire air?

No, you just "know" that you need these things. In the same way, I believe that you just "know" right from wrong because it was put there by and external force. Just like your need to breathe, and eliminate was put their by the "force" that created our bodies...

Erin,

His arguments on relative morality. I can never seem to articulate it quite as well as he seems to have done. That, and his argument on the existence of God. Its probably something that I can appreciate more than a lot of the lifers on here because it's such a lovely and precise explaination of a belief system that I largely share.

That's exactly what I didn't want you to do...simply ride on Doug's coattails...show me which things express your exact understanding of God. Show me which things express your understanding of morality...

You can even use his words as a jumping off point. Find something he said and tell me why you, in your own words, agree...

John,
Exactly! It all goes back to the Charlotte and the electrical socket. Doug can't understand, so he claims it can't be so. The fault lies with his inability to perceive, not with the reality itself.

MK- I shall, but you will have to wait about an hour or so. I have to go to Anthro :-P

John - it's all good. I'm going to answer your "Cartesian Box" post from a couple days ago first, tonight (after this one) because otherwise I doubt I'll get around to it. "Proof" = "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true." Right from dictionary.com. Good enough, IMO. And things where we both agree, even if subjective - I think we can keep going from there.

........

Your internet 'proofs' or 'disproofs' leave enough room for a Mac truck. I see all sorts of logical flaws in these, and I'm not even a philosopher. For example: what moved God = not a thing; one needs space and physicality 'to move' and God is neither. God is spirit.

Honestly, John.... you've gotta prove "God" first before that would even matter. Once again, unprovable belief is not "proof." Geez..... Looking around on the internet you can see that Aquinas's stuff isn't even seriously regarded much anymore. God is not a premise, there, but a conclusion, and you can't go insertinng mumbo-jumbo about supernatural beings as part of the unproven premise.

........

Here is a real puzzler ... since God can do everything ... can he make a mountain so large he cannot move it? Answer (mine): He already has - the human heart. [Think about the none-movement towards Jeus' Cross ... even Laura's picture of the starving boy and the vulture. Why do we not help, or is killing the unborn your expressing help?]

Logical paradox - not a big deal.

There is a good point about an all-knowing god, though - if he's all-knowing, then he knows who is going to abort and when, i.e. no free will for us.

......

Time I think for you to join those Cynics (wagging finger.) Prove that proof exists and that you require such validation. Will anything change for you?

Here, if you and I agree on it, that's good enough. Or - if it's a matter of physical reality of logic, then it may be able to be proven independent of what one of us says.

.......

(2) Prove others exist ... outside yourself. If you cannot prove it how can such a thing as a society with values even exist? [I can take multiple examples of this... what is the nature of 'nature'.]

I've already said that to a given consciousness it cannot really be proven. Descarte - and that may be what prompted your "box" post. I'm assuming you exist and have consciousness. What more, really, is there? Same for you. You could wake up in the future, as you conceive of it, and find that your entire life and awareness to this point has been akin to a "dream," and that reality is different.

Doug

@Doug,

latest mind-blower - Does nothing exist? How's about zero? Is death not existing? You have thought that abortion is merely a reflection of a pregnant woman's desires. Are these correct?

Is it much more important that she choose wanted (not-wanted) or, if she chooses correctly/incorrectly? There is a lot of mileage on both sides re. the existence of PAS. Could one of the reason's for medicine to not admit that PAS exists, is that to do so then wanting an abortion will become a decision (decided by a depression). The 'no-fault' abortion law becomes poor law because it is medicine and making any kind of medical intervention during depression is poor medicine. [Treat the depression!]

John: This is a wee bit tricky ? just thought of it last night so it is not fleshed-out ... I have gone through this process years ago (I almost forgot that I had) so it is rough ?

John, when I first read this, I was mighty glad you posted it. You said you were gonna be away for a bit, so reply whenever - bump it up to the most recent thread, if you want. I'll be looking.

........

The thrust of this is to acquire a very different understanding of what it means to be human. [In Dougs termiology , if we can shift the self-valuation of aborting women, then abortion would never be even entertained in thought.]

Sounds to me like casting aside our own desire, and going with what others have told us "should" be the case. Well, if we actually want to do that more than follow our own hearts, so be it, but in no way is that going to be good for everybody. "Self-valuation" need not necessarily matter. Abortion couuld be entertained in thought, and not only that, but widely desired, based not on "self-valuation" but on the perception that we need to slow down population growth, as has already happened in China. It's still the same motivation we all have - what we want - but now it's people wanting to slow down populatin growth enough that they're even willing to force their will on pregnant women. It's a feeling of "external" need for abortion, the individual pregnant woman's desire notwithstanding.

........

What you, Doug and Diana are in is called the Cartesian box ? you are not the only person in this mind-trap but you are alone/an-isolate ? this is what ?the box? is. The ?box? says that a human being is a solitary being ? an independent being by nature, and reinforced by the American constitution.

To maintain this ?box? requires (to your minds) an emphasis of the objective truth of physical science (usually biology and medicine) + a bend towards philosophy (? especially those refuting God?s existence or involvement in concluding our moral compass). To be in this situation means that human have two aspects ? physical and intellectual. Emotions are considered as ungoverned/uncontrolled-powers. So, a human is an entity (physical) with a governing logical mind + powerful emotional receptors, but remains a life-long isolate ?. That either physically (sexually) masturbates ? gathers a variety of emotions to please oneself; or, intellectually (debates) masturbates ? gathers points in logic to maintain this stance.

Emotions simply are; they are a fact of human existence, same as physical reality. We don't "govern" physical science. Physical reality is as uncontrolled for us as is the existence of emotions. If you could do a Vulcan mind-meld, that might reduce the isolation between us people. There is external truth or "objective truth" if you wish, but that has nothing to do with what we're arguing here. That is there for both you and I, and neither of us is saying differently. It is also not really "refuting God's existence." If there was proof of gods or other supernatural beings, that would be one thing. But noting the lack of proof is just that - it's not saying there is any proof of the negative, i.e. "there cannot be a god or gods."

........

It seems that you desire to remain in this box, Doug. There is at least one way out ? if you wish to use it, feel free! Others may feel trapped and remain, only because they do not know of a way out.

Mumbo-jumbo. There are always people, to this point in time, anyway, that have an emotional need to follow the unprovable stuff that others tell them, be it any of many religions, etc. Is it "freeing" to trade freedom of thought for the dubious security in "absolute" beliefs? You tell me. One thing for sure - in no way is it "freeing" for everybody. John, had you grown up in a Muslim couuntry, I think it's exceedingly likely that your faith would be different. I'm not saying that religious belief is "bad," per se, and lots of people get lots of good out of religion, but not everybody needs it. Blind belief appeals to some, sure, but not needing it is not "desiring to remain in the box," unless we're just saying the box of what we know to be true, rather than one that includes what some people want us to think is true.

........

Instead of pitting one aspect/power of humans against another, view them as complimentary. There seems to be 4 aspects to a human ? physical, emotional, intellect and ?faith?. In turn each of these has it own goal/end-point ::: for physical it is ?purpose?; for emotions that is ?meaning?; for intellect - understanding? ?.. and, for ?faith?-] ?significance?. Almost all the words (of any language used) used fall within this schema. [In Doug?s schema these four would account for his term ?valuation?. The next thing to ask is what KIND of valuation ? there is a hierarchy of values (reflected in the terms of punishment metered out to the convicted in trials) ? a living being is of more value than a thing ?usually.]

It's not "pitting them against one another." It's realizing that we all make unprovable assumptions. It's our nature to do so. That's where "faith" is, though it need have nothing to do with religion nor the supernatural. Intellect may recognize this, and emotions may come from it. Physical reality is not altered by it. They all exist just fine, no "infighting" required.

........

[The critics of ancient philosophical schools in Greece were the Cynics. One story has a Cynic sitting by a roadway, saying not a word ? just wagging a finger. A student of philosophy said, ?I wonder what he means by that!?] Very, very profound! The Cynic is stuck and he knows it ? so every word, every gesture we make or fail-to-make in communication is interpreted some way. This comprehension seems to be a basis for all communication ? not only that of our species.

Hume was a good skeptic who cut through a lot of BS, by the way. "Criticizing" philosophical schools is one thing - again motivated by desire, but what of it? We can look back at earlier man's faith in the "god of thunder" with some skepticsm, even some cynicism. What of it? Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Doug

Hi Doug,

jut read your answer ... my Cartesian 'box' was something I took in philosophy but wasn't too happy about the proofs that this was not 'real'. I was in that space once, and I know far too many people inside this mental framework (it was too constraining) & took some effort to gain a way out.

We will get back to St. Thomas' proofs later, because your argumentation is so circular, IMO. However, having been there too, my argumentation would be very similar and I would never call it circular. Far too many good, smart friends just shook-their-heads. They knew I had brains but somewhere I got it wrong.

"I have numerous beliefs that are just "faith" - yes, and I don't pretend they are external."

MK: As well you shouldn't. To pretend anything with matters of Faith would be dishonest...at the very least to yourself.

It's always dishonest to pretend that our subjective belief is any kind of external proof or belief. I don't do it, but that's not true of everybody.

.......

But your faith, (and you do have one) is secular and humanist, materialistic and void of an external truth. You aren't pretending that, you believe it.

There is no "external truth" as far as this stuff. Might as well stay with what is true.

.......

By the same token, we aren't pretending anything either, and to imply that we are makes you sound condescending. Children pretend to be princesses, but they aren't really princesses and pretending to be doesn't make them princesses.

You do pretend that your unprovable beliefs are "proven" externally, and that is not so. My beliefs/assumptions are in my opinion, and I note that and have never said otherwise. If it's physical reality or a commonly-held assumption between you and I, that is one thing, but one of us just saying something that we can't prove to the other is not "proof."

........

Definitions of pretend on the Web:

# feign: make believe with the intent to deceive; "He feigned that he was ill"; "He shammed a headache" # dissemble: behave unnaturally or affectedly; "She's just acting" # put forward a claim and assert right or possession of; "pretend the title of King" # guess: put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation; "I am guessing that the price of real estate will rise again"; "I cannot pretend to say that you are wrong" # make: represent fictitiously, as in a play, or pretend to be or act like; "She makes like an actress" # make-believe: the enactment of a pretense; "it was just pretend" # profess: state insincerely; "He professed innocence but later admitted his guilt"; "She pretended not to have known the suicide bomber"; "She pretends to be an expert on wine" # make-believe: imagined as in a play; "the make-believe world of theater"; "play money"; "dangling their legs in the water to catch pretend fish"

We are in no way trying to deceive anyone and we are not putting forth a lie, knowingly.

Well, you do "put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation" just like most other religions do. You can't prove some things, though you think them (have "faith" in them). There is of course possible refutation, since they're not proven.

.........

We believe what we say to be true, just as you believe what you say to be true.

The difference is that I don't say my unprovable assumptions are anything external.

Doug

Doug, you have made some points that I thought were good too. And by the way, I like that you say "good grief". That's one phrase that I use a lot around here...no one else seems to. lol I got it from Charlie Brown when I was young, and it's stuck ever since. :)

Thanks, Bethany. It's somewhat of a rare thing when people on the opposite sides of the argument can come to some common ground. "What is true for all of us" is very important, however limited it may be.

.......

I wish these points being acknowledged could mean that we were getting somewhere with this. I feel like we're basically going back and forth and saying the same things, just wording them differently.

I understand that you do not believe my beliefs are true, because you deem them to be assumptions, but I disagree. I wholeheartedly agree that it (God's existence) is something I desire to be true, but I do not believe it is something merely in my head, as you do. Just as my belief that my children exist is not what makes them exist. They exist, and I am a witness to that. God exists, and I am a witness to that. I have seen the evidence in God's creation. Too many intricate and complex works of art in nature exist to not have an artist/designer who created them. Could you look at a watch and assume it had no maker? Could you look at a skyscraper and assume no one had brought it into being with time, patience, and intelligence? In the same way, I cannot look at nature, in all it's beauty and complexity, and say that there was no intelligent designer who created it. It would be just as silly to me to do that, as it would be to say a watch had no maker. I do not see how anyone can look at things through a microscope, and not marvel at the astounding perfection nature reveals.

That your kids exist is not at argument, while the existence of supernatural stuff is.

........

I think your type of faith in no God takes WAY more faith than my faith in God. My faith in God takes very little to no effort. Your faith requires much work. You have to explain away so many things in nature.

Nope. Heh heh - if I don't know, I can admit that. There is lots we don't know, but I don't need to say that God or ghosts or the Boogeyman did it. I don't need to insert God in the "gaps,"( from Wikipedia:) "The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature. The concept involves an interaction of religious explanations of nature with those derived from science (see also Relationship between religion and science). Within the traditional theistic view of God as existing in a realm "beyond nature", as science progresses to explain more and more, the perceived scope of the role of God tends to shrink as a result."

........

The world, in my opinion, is nothing that could have just happened into existence. Answer MaryKay's question about the Fibonacci spirals, and how they keep occurring in nature.

There are frequently recurring relationships in the universe. Tendencies of growth and decay, and it applies in human emotion, too, as expressed in the financial markets. Does this prove there was an intelligent creator? I don't think it has anything to do with it. There are some common things in the universe, that's all. What makes thunder? Early humans thought that "God did it," or that "a god did it," because they didn't understand it. Lots of us tend to put God in "the gaps."

........

How does this perfect mathematical pattern keep occurring in completely different things in nature, without having been designed by a creator?

What does it have to do with it? Things are the way they are. Why is there always gravity, for masses?

........

How can you look our bodies, which are all so complicatedly designed, with the abilities that we have, and not see evidence of intelligent design? Each part of our body serves some function. Even the ones that scientists long ago (and even today) deemed "vestigial", have now been shown to serve some purpose. (for example, the spleen, the appendix, the coccyx).

...the third eye in the forehead of some of my co-workers....

.......

Do you not marvel at the fact that the sun is the exact amount of space away from earth, so as not to freeze up the earth, and so as to not burn up the earth? I see this also as evidence of a Creator, and I do not feel a need for much more, as you seem to need.

Many times the freezing or burning up do occur. Looked at another way, life can only evolve when certain conditions exist in the first place.

........

"The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Much of my belief stems from faith. But I have never argued this with you. I have only argued that I know that it is an external source that I believe from, not just my own desires that brought God into my own mind's existence.

There is certainly the external source of other people telling you stuff, writing stuff, etc., but when it comes to "divine" or not, it's going to be the same old deal - you think it but can't prove it. No real end to thatt argument.

........

By the way, I am just curious. Why would you feel the need to try to dissuade others from believing in God? Is it a case of misery loves company?

There is no shortage of miserable religious people. I don't think I try to "dissuade," but I do say that unprovable assumptions don't constitute proof for other people.

........

Do you think that life of hope, believing with all your heart that one day you will go to Heaven, whether you deem it valid or not, should be destroyed for some reason?

No. Overall, lots of people get lots of good from religion, and it can be a force for good. There is and also has been untold suffering due to religion. On balance, I don't know whether it's good or bad. I realize that it IS, and go from there.

........

These people are happy knowing that their life doesn't end at death.

Or it mitigates their fear of death, same as for old-time belief in the "god of thunder." To each their own...

........

Knowing they have somewhere to go afterwards gives them an enormous comfort. Whether you believe it is a valid belief or not, do you think all should be like you, without hope, feeling inherently worthless, as nothing more than animals, feeling that when they die, they will be non-existent? Do you really feel that your beliefs are going to make the majority of people happier in life? Why don't people deserve the right to be happy?

That's just it, Bethany - non-religous people are not necessarily "uncomfortable," nor without hope, nor feeling worthless, nor nothing more than animals, etc. You have the emotional need to believe as you do, and you are picturing other people as you imagine yourself could be without your beliefs. Not everybody is like you, though.

.........

And, since you keep saying that my assumptions are not shared by everyone, why do you ignore the fact that your assumptions about God are not shared by everyone as well, and therefore are most likely a figment of your imagination as well?

That's simply untrue. It's not my imagination that there is no proof of your religious beliefs as anything beyond imaginary. It's not my imagination that some people believe as you do, and that some people do not. I cannot state, with surety, that "there is no God." And I don't say that. Likewise, you saying there is isn't proof either.

........

Another thought... There were times that I doubted God...does that mean that at those times I did not desire Him to exist?

I don't know. Did you come across things that challenged your belief? Were you really questioning the existence of God, or were you doubting the intent of God, or something else?

Doug

MK: Thank you for granting me that there are things that we do not know...what is your explanation for these things. How do you find peace in your "mind" knowing that miracles occur? No mind, now or ever, has been able to explain them. Do they exist or don't they. If they do, how is it possible when there is no "mind" that can comprehend them?

If we don't know, then we have no good explanation. Attributing it to magic, gods, etc., is one thing, but not everybody will do it or wants to do it.

There are unexplained phenomena, sure. Nobody has to understand them at a given time. Nobody has to ever understand them. Our scientific knowledge is increasing, but obviously not complete. We didn't know what made for thunder, static electricty, etc., once upon a time.

Doug

"I think there is proof for this one. It's relative to the mind where it resides, even if assuming a god. It has to be in a mind, or it doesn't exist. The is nothing such external to minds. I have numerous beliefs that are just "faith" - yes, and I don't pretend they are external."

Bethany: If you don't pretend your beliefs are actually correct, as in, not just in your head, then why are you trying to convince me to believe the way you do?

What have I actually tried to convince you of, that I cannot prove? I've never said "there is no God," etc. Last night we at least approached common ground on moral thoughts - be they of people of or God, etc.

Doug

"There is a difference, in the main - I don't go beyond what is true for all of us, or beyond that which we agree upon, as far as assumptions. I say that people have desire, etc., - things which are really not at argument. If a thing is my opinion, I note it, and don't claim it is external or absolute."

MK: Yes you do! You assume their is no God. You assume that everything is in our "minds"...that is NOT true for all of us. You have chosen to believe it, yes, but you are still assuming that we all agree.

Good grief, MK, now that is a straw man. I do not assume there is no God. There being no proof of one is not that. You can't prove there is one, and I can't prove there's not.

Beyond that, you actually can't prove there is anything beyond your mind. What if you "woke up" in what you now conceive of as the future, and found that your whole life to this point was akin to a "dream," and that reality is much different?

.........

It is one thing to say that we all have desires and another entirely to say that desires are the only things that drive us.

Then let's argue it.

........

The minute we agree that man has desires, you are going to "assume" that you have won this argument, when in fact all you have done is gotten us to agree that some men are driven sometimes by some desires...

No - man has desires, period. Nothing more than that implied. It's a starting point but in no way the end of any argument.

........

But this does not then prove that desire is the only force at work...

Here is my thesis: "Short of physical compulsion otherwise, people do what they want the most, or what they have the least distaste for, among their available choices." I think that covers it all. What do you think?

Doug

You say it's all about whether we have sentient minds or not. Because you say so."

"No. That is just being logical - that there has to be a sentient mind to care about anything in the first place. Yes, I say that's so, but do you disagree?"

MK: Now there you go again...God does not have a sentient mind. He does not feel that good and evil exist. This is what I was trying to say before. He knows it...no, he created it. Well not evil, that's just a perversion of all he did create. But you make it sound like God feels such and such is evil, or such and such is good.

Hello...He decides what is good. He decides what is evil. That would be what makes Him God...

It's all the same thing, MK. The God of the Bible is definitely sentient. He feels things are good and bad ("He saw that it was good" etc.), he has desires, he wants stuff to happen and not happen. Sure - even going with him "creating" things, it's per his desire. And some people obviously approach it as if "God wants this or doesn't want that," etc.

Doug

Bethany: Based on your own philosophy, you also have an emotional need - to believe God doesn't exist.

No, for about the 18 crillionth time - realizing that there is no proof of something is not the same thing as saying it does not exist or cannot exist.

Doug

"I haven't ignored them, but they are not true "evidence" as they are not independently verifiable, i.e. they require certain unprovable assumptions in the beginning. Look, if there really was proof of one religion being right, it wouldn't even be an argument. Who is really "right"? Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Disaporic (or African traditional), Jews, Muslims, Bahai, Shinto, etc? There are all manner of such beliefs, but none are provable."

Bethany: Most of those have at least 1 thing in common. They believe in a deity. Why can't you at least start there?

Who says I haven't started there? I realize that. That's not at issue (although I'm glad you said "most" heh heh heh).

The point is that when it comes to the differences, most will say, "My way is right, and your way is wrong," (although a Buddhist, for example, might say, "whatever...").

Obviously, they can't all be right. Unprovable belief is not "proof."

Doug

MK: Okay, so you admit that sound can exist even if there is no "mind" (or ears) to perceive it.

Well by the same token, Bethany, Most Christians, and I believe that good and evil exist whether there is someone there to percieve it or not. (By the way, we don't pretend this, we believe it.

My point remains there has to be "somebody" to think of it, even if it would be a god, etc. "No mind" would eliminate all mental awareness, even of gods, etc.

........

God, is all good. His good was perverted and became evil. If there was not a single human being on the face of the earth (or anywhere else) God would still exist and by definition He is "Good"...not good as in "I think that is good" but good as in "the definition of pure good is "God".

The beings that He created (Angels, not humans) perverted His goodness and transformed it into evil. No people, no one to perceive or not perceive it, and yet it still exists.

Now Bethany and I can perceive this innate good and evil. We believe that it is a living breathing thing. And that we can "know" it.

Okay, MK - that you think this is a given.

........

You are like the person who has no ears and can't hear the tree. It doesn't change the reality of the tree's sound. It only changes your ability to perceive the reality of the tree's sound.

No, I am like the person who hears the tree and sees if fall because a beaver had gnawed through the bottom. There are other people who would think "God did it."

........

You do not believe in "good" and "evil" so you can't perceive them. You only know what you are capable of, because you don't have "ears"...

Wrong again. There is certainly good and evil. They are conceptions in the minds of people (whether religious or not). You can't prove there is anything supernatural in the deal, but you know darn well that people think about good and evil.

........

Answer me this. If a tree falls in the woods and a deaf person is standing underneath it, will it hurt less because they couldn't hear it? No, of course not. The tree (good and evil) is a reality.

You are comparing a thing with physical reality - the tree - with your unprovable belief. Not the same deal.

........

The only thing in question is the ability of the deaf person to "know" that it is there. Only in your case, the "blind" person to know that God is there.

Oh brother..... You could as well be saying, "You're blind because you don't see there is no God." It's just the same - "faith" but no meaningful proof.

Doug

Johnny McD: latest mind-blower - Does nothing exist? How's about zero? Is death not existing? You have thought that abortion is merely a reflection of a pregnant woman's desires. Are these correct?

Going down deep, now, Dr. J. Yes, something exists. A consciousness is aware of its own awareness. So, no, it is not true that nothing exists. Or do you just mean as a concept? Yes, death exists - given many assumptions that go beyond the consciousness being aware of itself. I agree with you that death is real, FWIW. Abortion is due to somebody wanting to end the pregnancy - it wouldn't have to be the woman, after all.

........

Is it much more important that she choose wanted (not-wanted) or, if she chooses correctly/incorrectly?

"Correctly" or "incorrectly" - if coming from outside the woman, is going to be in somebody else's opinion. Even in the opinion of a god or gods if we are postulating that they exist.

........

There is a lot of mileage on both sides re. the existence of PAS. Could one of the reason's for medicine to not admit that PAS exists, is that to do so then wanting an abortion will become a decision (decided by a depression). The 'no-fault' abortion law becomes poor law because it is medicine and making any kind of medical intervention during depression is poor medicine. [Treat the depression!]

There is post-traumatic stress in some women after abortions, sure, just like there is in some women who give birth and have babies. The "PAS" argument isn't a big deal to me. I don't get what you mean about "PAS" would lead to abortion being a decision decided by a depression.

If women are deficient in those minerals/proteins (?) you mentioned then I'm for supplementation and curing depression - I have no argument with that.

Doug

And what of the newborn? Is this a person endowed with the right to life?

Yes.

........

If so, why?

Because there is sufficient opinion that it be so. If there were not, it wouldn't be.

........

They have no conscious "desires". They don't eat because they desire food. They don't cry because they believe it will get them what they desire.

There is some consciousness in most newborns. They are sensate. They can suffer, etc.

........

Or why do you urinate? Do you have a desire to rid your body of poisons? Or does your body "know" something that you don't? Why do you breathe? Do you desire air?

There are physiological realities that apply to us. We can often consciously urinate or not, but the process of making urine isn't a conscious one. Same for breathing - we can consciously control it, but short of preventing it from happening (as with suicide), if we stop it enough we'll pass out and start again. Yes - I desire air, but again - most times breathing isn't a conscious deal for us.

........

No, you just "know" that you need these things. In the same way, I believe that you just "know" right from wrong because it was put there by and external force. Just like your need to breathe, and eliminate was put their by the "force" that created our bodies...

It's physical reality that urination and respiration are part of our deal if we want to keep living. That's not unprovable belief, MK. But your theory of external good and evil is.

Doug

MK: Exactly! It all goes back to the Charlotte and the electrical socket. Doug can't understand, so he claims it can't be so. The fault lies with his inability to perceive, not with the reality itself.

I do understand, I just don't have the emotional need to believe in mumbo-jumbo, to be blunt about it.

Doug

We will get back to St. Thomas' proofs later, because your argumentation is so circular, IMO. However, having been there too, my argumentation would be very similar and I would never call it circular. Far too many good, smart friends just shook-their-heads. They knew I had brains but somewhere I got it wrong.

John, as I said before, looking around the internet there is no shortage of refutation of The Tomster's "ways." Not a big deal, I say. Many better minds than me have shot it full of holes.

Here is one question - if God is all-knowing, does he not know what will happen in that which we think of as the future?

Doug

Doug,

I've moved this to the "Ducky" post...

Okay- It's obvious. Doug knows everything, and anyone else who believes something Doug doesn't believe is a believer in "mumbo jumbo"...why? Because Doug says so.

Some more absolutes from Doug, who doesn't believe in Absolutes:

Doug's Recent Absolutes number 1: "It's always dishonest to pretend that our subjective belief is any kind of external proof or belief. I don't do it, but that's not true of everybody."

First of all, Doug, we don't believe in Subjective beliefs. We with honesty and integrity submit to you our knowledge of what we know to be the truth. And even if you don't believe it, calling us "pretending" when we are being honest, is very, very insulting. And why, by the way, is it always dishonest to state what you believe, since you believe that morals and beliefs are subjective in the first place? Do you now believe that there are absolute morals? It is now "wrong" to "pretend" things? Why? Prove to me that it is wrong. Because you say so doesn't count.

Doug's Recent Absolutes Number 2: There is no "external truth" as far as this stuff. Might as well stay with what is true.

What is true is always what Doug says is true because Doug says so. If there is no external truth, where are you getting this "truth" that there "is no external truth"??

Doug's Recent Absolutes Number 3:

You do pretend that your unprovable beliefs are "proven" externally, and that is not so.

Wow, Doug knows everything! He even knows whether we believe something in our own mind or not! Well, Doug, try this on for size: You do pretend that your unproven beliefs (that God does not exist, that morality is subjective, etc etc) are proven externally, and that is not so. If you are SO sure about it...prove it. Don't worry about proving the negative. Focus on the positives first. Prove that good and evil are subjective. Prove that we are pretending to believe in God. You can't. It's your opinion...and I would suppose that it's a strong emotional need that you are fulfilling by believing such.

My beliefs/assumptions are in my opinion, and I note that and have never said otherwise.

Yes you did!

If it's physical reality or a commonly-held assumption between you and I, that is one thing, but one of us just saying something that we can't prove to the other is not "proof."

Then our beliefs are equally valid as yours. And calling us "pretenders" (liars), and calling our beliefs "mumbo jumbo", is condescending and rude and it is attempting to tell us that your beliefs are MORE valid than ours, when you can't really know that if morality and beliefs are truly subjective!

That's just it, Bethany - non-religous people are not necessarily "uncomfortable," nor without hope, nor feeling worthless, nor nothing more than animals, etc.

Where is their hope? Where is their worth? You say worth is determined by the number of people who value a person. I say they are valuable regardless. Where do atheists believe they worth more than animals? Each and every one of you believes that we are on the same plane as animals, that "putting us to sleep" would be an act of mercy, just as it is to an animal. That we can just kill our children in the womb (and in your case, out of the womb and beyond, if there are enough people to support it) and there is no problem. I want to know where you derive your hope, joy, peace, etc. Where is your solid foundation for these things, when you are as worthless as others say you are?

Doug's recent absolutes number 4: It's not my imagination that there is no proof of your religious beliefs as anything beyond imaginary.

Prove that! How do you know everything in your entire life isn't imaginary? How do you know we're not all part of a large dream?
And by the way, if it's not your imagination, you are contradicting yourself, because you say that all beliefs and morals come straight from sentient minds, and your imagination comes from your sentient mind. Which means that anything that you believe or imagine is your imagination. Your beliefs that there is no evidence or proof of our God doesn't mean there is no proof, simply that you haven't found it for yourself!
How about this one Doug, I don't believe in a Heliocentric universe. I believe in a Geocentric universe. I bet you'll have a problem with that. But until you can prove to ME beyond a shadow of a doubt that one exists (oh and you can send me all the mathematical formulas you want...they wont prove a thing to me), then I'll have to say that you pretend to think that a heliocentric universe exists.

It's not my imagination that some people believe as you do, and that some people do not.

Differing beliefs among people does not prove there is no absolute moral system! You say this as though it has some significance to us.

What have I actually tried to convince you of, that I cannot prove?

That we are liars, pretenders, and only imagine to believe things where you somehow have an internal/external force proving to you that Duog is right no matter what.

I've never said "there is no God," etc. Last night we at least approached common ground on moral thoughts - be they of people of or God, etc.

Yes, you have. When you tell us that we are pretending to believe in a God, and when you tell us that what we believe is "mumbo jumbo", you are being honest about how you feel. You believe there is no God, and you have said it here many times in your own way.

You can't prove there is one, and I can't prove there's not.

Then are our beliefs equal, Doug? Are my beliefs about God exactly as valid as your beliefs about evolution?

Beyond that, you actually can't prove there is anything beyond your mind. What if you "woke up" in what you now conceive of as the future, and found that your whole life to this point was akin to a "dream," and that reality is much different?

What if you did, Doug? And what if it was God's dream, this life was a test, and you had rejected Him? What exactly is your point by this question?

Here is my thesis: "Short of physical compulsion otherwise, people do what they want the most, or what they have the least distaste for, among their available choices." I think that covers it all. What do you think?

I completely disagree. Some people spend their lives doing things they don't necessarily want to do, for the greater good.

No, for about the 18 crillionth time - realizing that there is no proof of something is not the same thing as saying it does not exist or cannot exist.

It must be, because I have heard you say that God doesn't exist in many different ways here already.
You have insulted us by claiming our beliefs are inferior to yours because you assume you, and you alone, hold all the truths to be held in the universe.

I wrote: They believe in a deity. Why can't you at least start there?

Doug replied: Who says I haven't started there? I realize that. That's not at issue (although I'm glad you said "most" heh heh heh).

Actually, that is exactly what is at issue, Doug.

My point remains there has to be "somebody" to think of it, even if it would be a god, etc. "No mind" would eliminate all mental awareness, even of gods, etc.

It wouldn't eliminate God though. Just as if I die, the dying wouldn't eliminate my kids...it would only eliminate my ability to see or hear them in my mortal body.

Okay, MK - that you think this is a given.

Another condescending insult.

Okay Doug, you think and pretend that morality being subjective is a given.

No, I am like the person who hears the tree and sees if fall because a beaver had gnawed through the bottom. There are other people who would think "God did it."

Another insult. "Doug knows more than those stupid God believers."

Wrong again. There is certainly good and evil. They are conceptions in the minds of people (whether religious or not). You can't prove there is anything supernatural in the deal, but you know darn well that people think about good and evil.

Prove it. Prove that these exist only in the mind. You can't.

You are comparing a thing with physical reality - the tree - with your unprovable belief. Not the same deal.

The majority of the world disagrees with you, Doug. So by your idea of subjective morality and beliefs, you're wrong simply because you're outnumbered.

Prove that you deserve to live, Doug. Not that you have a right to it protected by the constitution, but that you deserve to live just because you have the capacity want to. Prove that your feelings and self awareness make you worth living.

doug's recent absolutes number 5: I do understand, I just don't have the emotional need to believe in mumbo-jumbo, to be blunt about it.

Insult after insult.

I'm going to repost at the Ducky post too.