"Trackback Pings"

--sounds like submarine warfare.

hehe

I clicked ;-)

Didn't donate though. I is a poor, poor college student.

This is good, we have the killers at PP scrambling. These people are truly lifeless and callous, they have no shame whatsoever. Evil.

They had to throw that in..."p.s. we need more money to kill your babies!"

Gee, Geaorge Carlin's quote about anti-choicers comes to mind...

If this clinic didn't do abortions, would you people welcome it into your neighborhood?

What gets me is that they keep saying we are preventing women's health care for the women of Aurora...

There are 5 women's health care facilities in Aurora. Not to mention the ones in the surrounding areas.

For abortion there are 5 clinics.

2 are 20 miles away from Aurora
1 is 28 miles from Aurora
1 is 34 miles from Aurora
1 is 40 miles away and that one is an Ambulatory Health Care center.

It appears that they all do first and second trimester abortion.

Most of them accept insurance, credit cards and have financial aid services.

All information was obtained by cruising the NARAL website.

How is stopping the opening of this clinic preventing health care to the people of Aurora and surrounding area's!

oh wait - the longer we keep them closed, the longer it will be before they can put all the other clinics out of business.

"TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL!!"

Would Planned Parenthood still open the clinic if it didn't do abortions, or have the potential to do them in the future? This clinic was built for abortions. If they wanted to just "offer health care to women" they would've opened a smaller clinic (or even an express one).

Amen!

They can tie up all the pretty pink ribbons in the world, it still doesn't change the fact that they are killing children for profit.

Don't flatter yourselves. PP is just using this to get more contributions from its donors.

This motivates them to exaggerate the importance of the right-to-lifers, and that's what they're doing now.

They certainly whine a lot.

Nobody likes whiners.

Oh Rae, Oh Rae, Oh Rae,

Please still be there...

I just finished reading the Kite Runner...

OH MY GOD!!!

It was awesome and is now on my top 10 list of all time great reads. Thank you so much...Did you see it's going to be a movie...

You're the best!

I'm still here!!!!

I'm glad you liked it! It's one of my favorite books, and yes, I know it's going to be a movie. :)

It really is a fantastic book, and I just love how it shows Amir growing up from the selfish boy he was to the self-less man he became. I like how he wasn't a perfect hero. I loved Amir and all his flaws.

I still cry when I find out what happened to Hassan and his family. :(

I kept bringing it to therapy and I wouldn't talk to anybody (which is unusual for me) because I kept reading...let me tell you, it's hard to count when you're reading. At one point my therapist told me I was going to have to get off the table and give someone else a turn...lol.

Then I drove to dunkin' donuts, got a donut and coffee and sat in the parking lot and finished it.

I loved Baba too. I knew right away that there was reason he was so cold. But I also knew all along that he loved Amir. (I taught a kid named Amir once). As a parent I can tell you how hard it is to watch the one that is most like you, making the same mistakes you made, precisely because he is most like you...

Speaking of which...He's in Australia now. He actually has a job. Which means he's a more attractive catch, so if you're having second thoughts...oh, never mind.

It was also sad that the three most beautiful people in the book, Hassan, His wife and Sohrab are the ones that got hurt the most...or died horrible deaths, whereas the characters with flaws were left to live long, if sad lives. Something about the Christ figure, suffering and salvation...redemption after sin, and the sins of one having long lasting effects on others...

Absolutely beautiful!

The one feeling I vividly recall from that book was how ANGRY it made me. Reading how those people treated the Hazaras made me sick. Amir frustrated me so much at times because he was such a coward for most of the book...never standing up for Hassan or protecting him even though they were "friends" and Hassan would have done the same for him.

As much as I liked Amir and I felt very sorry for him because he was such a coward, I think he deserved the beating he got at the end (to an extent). I think to an extent, he needed to have the crap kicked out of him to realize how much he let down Hassan for most of his short life.

But I was very glad to see that he sucked it up and still got Hassan's son out of that situation and brought him home.

*sigh*

I need to read that book again, and the new one, "A Thousand Splendid Suns". But for now, I need to leave work and go home. :(

Talk to you later!

I am against killing children not for any religious reasons, but just because I happen to be against killing children. Strange, yes, I know. For religious reasons, however, I am against sterilization. Since my reasons are religious, there's no reason for others to not take advantage of sterilization services. I would gladly pay for Laura and her friends to be spayed. Perhaps Planned Parenthood could offer a two-for-one offer - you could bring your dog in with you.

...what?

...or her horse.

I would gladly pay for Laura and her friends to be spayed. Perhaps Planned Parenthood could offer a two-for-one offer - you could bring your dog in with you.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 13, 2007 9:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd extend you the same offer but - like my dog - your pockets were picked YEARS AGO.

What's the matter, Laura? I thought you didn't want children? I figured you would jump at the chance for a free spaying. Those ovaries are just a pair of anti-woman organs taking up space and contributing dead weight to your body, after all.

Those ovaries are just a pair of anti-woman organs taking up space and contributing dead weight to your body, after all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love my ovaries! All that estrogen is responsible for my fat glossy hair, perfect skin and monster boobs.
That empty sack of yours is just ugly.

Okay, would like to get some pro-choice version of the Amnesty policy. I don't want to be a pain but I really really really want insight to bring to the meeting saturday.

Again, the website is
http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/sexual_and_reproductive_rights-eng

Oh and John, adding on what you are saying..

Do you think that the pro-life movement does itself a disservice by so tightly associating with conservative religious groups?

For example, I heard at the last right to life march, a speaker came up and started talking about gay marriage and the like, while all the college students stood there with their mouths open, watching uncomfortably.

I was also talking to my friend about my ideas and she said, "yeah, the only reason I really declared myself pro-choice was that I thought that if I was pro-life I had to be pro-everything else, and I'm a liberal. But that Feminists for Life site sounds cool.."

That got me thinking. We don't need to secularize the movement or anything, but if they tried to broaden their base a bit, and try to include the pro-life democrats (yes these politicians exist) and make it compatible with left-wing thinking we really might do a good load of work.

A lot of what turns people away ist hat they think they must be conservative, Christian, anti-gay rights, pro-Bush, anti-birth control, pro-abstinance-only education, etc. when in fact they don't have to be any of these things, it is just the prevelance and strong influence of other Christian morals that provide the thinking.

Anyones thoughts???

I know a number of Log Cabin Republicans.

They are devout Conservatives, big-ticket donators to the Republican Party and tireless campaign volunteers.

They know where they stand with Christian Conservatives.

Did you find it ironic that David Vitter was welcomed back with applause and Larry Craig was hung out to dry?
Vitter confessed to adultery with prostitutes, and all Larry Craig confessed to was tapping his footies in a men's room.
The hypocrisy is stunning.

Maybe they'll send Craig to the Dr. Dobson Three-Week "Homo No 'Mo" program! It worked for Ted Haggard!

Part of the reason Vitter was not hung out to dry is that the governer of his state is a Democrat, so would appoint a Democrat to replace Vitter. However, Idaho has a Republican governer certain to replace Craig with another Republican.

"They've made our brand new health center in Aurora ground zero in their fight against women's access to health care. "

One of the signs of a psychopath is that they lie when there's no reason to, when the lie can get them in trouble.

They know full well that nobody opposes health care for women. If they were a health facility proving health care, nobody'd bat an eyelash.

It's treating the poor and minorities as if they're bad animals that need to be spayed and neutered that we object to.

It's driving a wedge between kids and their families, for financial and political gain, that we object to.

It's killing babies that we object to.

It's treating women as if they're nothing more than a life support system for a vagina that we object to.

And they KNOW this. But they try to pretend that they're innocently attempting to provide health care.

I just want to smack them upside the head.

But even more so, I want to smack the people dumb enough to be fooled by them. How can they not see through so transparent a veil?

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.

No, there's no conspiracy to target teenagers...it's all in our imagination...

Position Description

Title: Volunteer or Internship Sexuality Educator
Location: Minneapolis, Duluth and Rochester, MN 55408
Hours: Daytime
Operated by: Minnesota, N. Dakota and S. Dakota

Primary Responsibilities: Buff up on your knowledge of issues in sexuality and share that knowledge with others. As a sexuality educator intern, you will design and deliver innovative educational presentations to targeted schools, community organizations, correctional facilities, and treatment centers. You will also coordinate and co-facilitate Planned Parenthood’s teen peer education program. Things that will help you in this position include a basic knowledge of current topics in sexuality, experience in public speaking, and the ability to relate to teenagers. If you are interested in health care, women’s issues, psychology, sociology or social service, this is a great opportunity to further explore these fields. Must be available 14 hours per week, with some daytime and some evening hours.

Education:

Experience:

To Apply:

Email us at: volunteers@ppmns.org
Call us: 612.821.6113
Complete an online application: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mn-nd-sd/images/Minnesota-NDakota-SDakota/402_Volunteer_Application.pdf
and fax: 612.825.3522
or mail: Volunteer Program, Planned Parenthood, 1200 Lagoon Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55408

Erin,

Also, mk, look at how things in our society run. Everything is assumed the negative until proven the positive. We don't assume that we have every disease in the Physician's Desk Reference until it's proven that we don't- we work under the assumption that we are healthy until proven sick. In our justice system, a person is assumed NOT to have done something until it is proved that he has. Therefore, in making any assertation on personhood, burden of proof logically falls on the positive side.

And my point is that all human beings are assumed to be persons simply by the fact that there are NO human beings that are NOT considered to be persons.

There is no reason to assume that the unborn are nonpersons, therefore, because they are human beings the proof that while human, they are not "persons" should fall to you.

Especially considering the fact that nowhere is there a defintion of a difference between human beings and persons.

Doug,

MK, gotta run but I'm thinking that personhood came about over time as an extention of the "one of our tribe" feeling.

Does this fall into that "tribal" feeling? You are honestly okay with corporations being considered persons, and now apes, but can't find it in yourself to know that unborn human babies are persons? That is too twisted!

Activists Want Chimp Declared a 'Person'
May 4 12:24 PM US/Eastern
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer

View larger image

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - In some ways, Hiasl is like any other Viennese: He indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching TV.

But he doesn't care for coffee, and he isn't actually a person—at least not yet.

In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26- year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a "person."

Hiasl's supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.

"Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights," said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.

"We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions," Theuer said.

"We're not talking about the right to vote here."

The campaign began after the animal sanctuary where Hiasl (pronounced HEE-zul) and another chimp, Rosi, have lived for 25 years went bankrupt.

Activists want to ensure the apes don't wind up homeless if the shelter closes. Both have already suffered: They were captured as babies in Sierra Leone in 1982 and smuggled in a crate to Austria for use in pharmaceutical experiments. Customs officers intercepted the shipment and turned the chimps over to the shelter.

Their food and veterinary bills run about $6,800 a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal donations.

Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Hiasl, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But without basic rights, they contend, he could be sold to someone outside Austria, where the chimp is protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

"If we can get Hiasl declared a person, he would have the right to own property. Then, if people wanted to donate something to him, he'd have the right to receive it," said Theuer, who has vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

Austria isn't the only country where primate rights are being debated. Spain's parliament is considering a bill that would endorse the Great Ape Project, a Seattle-based international initiative to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes.

If Hiasl gets a guardian, "it will be the first time the species barrier will have been crossed for legal 'personhood,'" said Jan Creamer, chief executive of Animal Defenders International, which is working to end the use of primates in research.

Paula Stibbe, a Briton who teaches English in Vienna, petitioned a district court to be Hiasl's legal trustee. On April 24, Judge Barbara Bart rejected her request, ruling Hiasl didn't meet two key tests: He is neither mentally impaired nor in an emergency.

Although Bart expressed concern that awarding Hiasl a guardian could create the impression that animals enjoy the same legal status as humans, she didn't rule that he could never be considered a person.

Martin Balluch, who heads the Association Against Animal Factories, has asked a federal court for a ruling on the guardianship issue.

"Chimps share 99.4 percent of their DNA with humans," he said. "OK, they're not homo sapiens. But they're obviously also not things—the only other option the law provides."

Not all Austrian animal rights activists back the legal challenge. Michael Antolini, president of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he thinks it's absurd.

"I'm not about to make myself look like a fool" by getting involved, said Antolini, who worries that chimpanzees could gain broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.

But Stibbe, who brings Hiasl sweets and yogurt and watches him draw and clown around by dressing up in knee-high rubber boots, insists he deserves more legal rights "than bricks or apples or potatoes."

"He can be very playful but also thoughtful," she said. "Being with him is like playing with someone who can't talk."

A date for the appeal hasn't been set, but Hiasl's legal team has lined up expert witnesses, including Jane Goodall, the world's foremost observer of chimpanzee behavior.

"When you see Hiasl, he really comes across as a person," Theuer said.

"He has a real personality. It strikes you immediately: This is an individual. You just have to look him in the eye to see that."

___

Great Ape Project, http://www.greatapeproject.org

Animal Defenders International, http://www.ad-international.org

"Maybe they'll send Craig to the Dr. Dobson Three-Week "Homo No 'Mo" program! It worked for Ted Haggard!"

Hah! Love it.

Especially considering the fact that nowhere is there a defintion of a difference between human beings and persons.

Posted by: mk at September 14, 2007 8:37 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...And nowhere is it said that an embryo is a human being - especially in 'Joisey:

U.S. & WORLD NEWS: NJ court scraps trial on abortion data

NJBIZ Staff
9/12/2007

A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an "existing human being," a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, averting a trial over when human life begins. The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins. The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel. The Associated Press

PIP -

"Do you think that the pro-life movement does itself a disservice by so tightly associating with conservative religious groups?"

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I do think that the Pro-Life groups need to minimize the "religion" when speaking.

All it does it make people turn away and not learn anything. The minute you start bashing Homosexuals, almost everyone stops listening. It is a waste of time.

Science is what the Pro-Life community needs in public. Ultrasounds have provided us a tremendous amount of information on the development of the human. It serves no purpose to start quoting the bible when the majority of Pro-Choicers (and some Pro-Lifers) will stop listening.

"We don't need to secularize the movement or anything, but if they tried to broaden their base a bit, and try to include the pro-life democrats (yes these politicians exist) and make it compatible with left-wing thinking we really might do a good load of work."

When are you running for office? Even though we disagree alot on politics, you may be a democrat that I would vote for!

Jill once said "if there is no God, then abortion is not wrong." This is a huge mistake for you guys I think. I can easily imagine a pro-life position that is not based on religion at all.

PIP -

Email me akavarmint@gmail.com

Let me know what it is about the Amnesty Policy you want an opinion on. I have been doing alot of reading on this. I might be able to give you a personal, Catholic and political answers if you want them. To much to go into on here (not worth all the fighting it would cause ) ;-)

(FYI - The Catholic and Political views are from what I have read and not what I personally think of it.)

Hal-

"I can easily imagine a pro-life position that is not based on religion at all."

Indeed. Check out http://godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Bobby -

Thank you for that info...

Hi Hal,

for months and months you have been lucid - and by no means silly, then this: "Jill once said "if there is no God, then abortion is not wrong." This is a huge mistake for you guys I think. I can easily imagine a pro-life position that is not based on religion at all."

A reference to God is both philosophical and religious. When you talk of Jesus, or Christian, Hindu, Muslim you are referring to religion, but just a reference to 'God' is a philosophic stance. Such is the one taken by the framers of the US Constitution, by many civil-rights activists, and we do so here. Abortion is not a 'religious' question as such but a human-ethics one. And human-ethics can/cannot refer to God.

I would love to hear how you derive any value/rights at all (intrinsic ones that are self-evident) for humans, especially if they have no proven worth beyond the 8 cents of chemicals that makes-up our physicality. Strange how a simple value like bodily-integrity can be easily claimed for a person that has no intrinsic value! And in the same breath hold that unborn children have no value .... even if they are alive and human.

"All it does it make people turn away and not learn anything. The minute you start bashing Homosexuals, almost everyone stops listening. It is a waste of time"

"Science is what the Pro-Life community needs in public. Ultrasounds have provided us a tremendous amount of information on the development of the human. It serves no purpose to start quoting the bible when the majority of Pro-Choicers (and some Pro-Lifers) will stop listening."

"Jill once said "if there is no God, then abortion is not wrong." This is a huge mistake for you guys I think. I can easily imagine a pro-life position that is not based on religion at all."

I totally agree will all of this! Yay!

"When are you running for office? Even though we disagree alot on politics, you may be a democrat that I would vote for!"
Well, first of all, I could NEVER be a lawyer...

But, there have been doctors voted into office. Maybe after I practice for a bit and if people really ask me to... ;)

My only problem with getting into politics (and yes people have asked me this question before) is becoming a bureaucrat! The political system tends to breed those kind of politicians here... but I do plan on being involved in in some kind of political movement, even if it means grassroots organizations or volunteering for a specific candidate or whatever.

"Email me akavarmint@gmail.com"
Okay, I will email you in a few hours!

Bobby,
I have seen that site before, and I hope there will be more groups like this speaking out!

John: I would love to hear how you derive any value/rights at all (intrinsic ones that are self-evident) for humans, especially if they have no proven worth beyond the 8 cents of chemicals that makes-up our physicality.

I have no idea. Many smarter than I (or more interested in philosophy than I) have grappled with this question. I know only that I have values, I have rights, and I have worth. None, for me, is based directly or indirectly on "god."

Hey there Hal.

"I know only that I have values, I have rights, and I have worth. None, for me, is based directly or indirectly on "god.""

I actually would agree with this, although I know many religious do not. While I do believe God gave us the natural law, I think it can be understood, appreciated, and lived out by a well meaning atheist or agnostic. I don't think the existence of morals and one's moral worth imply the existence of God (of course one of my heroes William Lane Craig would disagree with me). But the abortion issue and other issues I think can be dealt with using only the natural law, and in particular, human exceptionalism. God love you, Hal.

Hal and Bobby,

there was a question posed to Jill - if there was no God, would abortion be wrong. She replied: if there was no God, then abortion would not be wrong.

This is a strange answer to an even more strange question. Because if living only in our heads, can even imagine a universe without God [its much like creating something from chaos (the Bible) ... in mathematics its like saying zero exists. Returning to this discussion: we all are aware that the universe ... that we exist. Some take this to mean that we are the master of these processes merely because we are aware of them. [We go to school to find out more about what already exists. we do not CREATE.] Applying philosophy: abortion would not even exist ... humans, nature would not even exist ... no Big Bang, no spacetime (aka nor-Doug) too! Ducking the question as to where did it all come from, is a popular evasion tactic.

For males only: unless you've been given a swift kick -in-the-(figurative)groin it is possible to envisage numerous scenarios.

[[for me: it was being born with a genetic disorder ... an uncorrectable disorder. Just where do I find value, eh? [I cannot DO most physical stuff!] Am I to see value in myself only to the extent that medicine can fix me? Can medicine make me human? ... make me acceptable to whom?]]

An answer to the question THE BIG WHY is a religious one. The answer to THE BIG WHERE is a philosophic one.

Interesting comments John. But I think you are dodging the question more than Jill did. In essence you are saying, you can't ask if abortion is wrong without reference to God, because there would be no abortion, or people, or Earth without God.

That doesn't address the real question, is abortion is wrong because of religious reasons or is it just wrong no matter what religion says?

It is easy to say "murder is wrong whether God exists or not," why can't you say the same about abortion?

Of course, you can easily say that. That is why I was so shocked by Jill's answer "if there is no God then abortion is not wrong." Maybe I misunderstood her meaning. Jill?

How's that ducking anything ... without a philosophic (not religious) reference to God ... there is no anything ... no earth, no universe, no life, no Mother nature, no morality, no communication, nothing, zip! And no abortion because there are no humans either. Because God is ... we is [basic philosophy .... NO religion]!

Religious people believe that our activity and God's activity intersect. So abortion is both a rights/philosophic issue + a religious issue.

We all realize that everything listed above does indeed exist. So what do we do? It's something like waking up one morning and finding a Porches parked outside your door. If it's not yours, you'll wonder about it? What questions will you ask? Will one of them be: where did it come from? Or, would you just claim it as 'yours' .... then proceed to smash it with a sledge hammer because such is your right?

The immediate response is: Are you nuts? To which you say - nope ... MY right! [Notice: the question about your being 'nuts' was not answered.] The problem remains about not understanding/valuing a Porches. In much the same way what you perceive as junk (fodder for a sledge hammer), even if not ours, is still a Porches.

This in some way is a bit about why abortion is such an abomination. Such a characterization as 'murder', does it so little justice!

John,

If we operate on the assumption that there is no god, or that he is a Deist, would the pro-life argument still stand? I think that is what we are asking here.

Regarding existence,

I posted the following on another topic just a few minutes ago, but I think it's worth posting here and pondering, for the pro-choicers, that is.

Let's talk about YOU.

You are who you say you are.

Were you here yesterday?


Yes?


Okay. Were you here last week?


Yes? Okay.


Last year?


Yes? Okay.


15 years ago?


Yes?


25 years ago?


How old are you?


Okay, whatever your age is, it's based on the day you were born, right?


Okay, agreed.


Now, we're you "YOU" the moment before you were delivered from your mother's womb?


Hmm? What was that?


I didn't hear you?


You're not sure?


Okay, let's say you answered,


"Yes. A moment before I was born, I existed. I "was".


What about an hour (60 minutes) before you were born. We're you "YOU" at that time?


What? What did you say?


Not sure?


What about the day before you were born?


Were you "YOU"???
Okay, I know this is really getting difficult for you to answer. But stay with me.

Let's go back 30 days before you were born.


We're you "YOU" 30 days before you were born?


What about 60 days, or let's say, two months before you were born. Were you "YOU" two months before you were born??

What?


You don't know?


I thought you had all the answers.


Oh, sorry.


What?


It doesn't make any difference!?


You mean "YOU" the identity of "YOU" doesn't make any difference?


What about 4 months before you were born.


Were you "YOU" four whole months before your own birthday?

You see. You don't want to answer.


Why not?


I thought you had all the answers to lifes biggest questions.


What could be more important than YOUR OWN IDENTITY??




You claim you have the answers for life and death.


You call us pro-life people extremists. Maybe you think we are stupid.


Radical Right-wing religious nuts.


Whatever.


But if you can't even tell me when "YOU" came into existence, then you haven't the slightest clue as to WHO YOU ARE.

What? What was that?


Now listen, there's no need for using obscenities in a civil discussion.




Just sit down now, relax. Get a cup of coffee, tea or coke and think for about 30 minutes about when you came into being.




It's not so hard. Just trace it back from this very moment. Go back like I said, back to your birth.




Then think about each moment, each hour, each day before that.

Try to think, now.

When did "YOU" become "YOU"?

When you spend some time thinking about it, then let us know what your answer is.




Okay?




Now relax and get that cup of java, tea, or coke.

Hi PiP,

the question is skewed because even the mention of God automatically connotes religion. So if there is 'no God'... this is in a 'religious sense'. In a philosophic sense it IMO - this is the ultimate oxymoron.

Remember I said that many religious people think that human life and God's intersect - atheists do not. This does not mean that God does not exist ... it only means that they do not see any intersection. [If God did exist and the intersection was strong then His very existence is an admission that another perspective than my-own is necessary.]

If abortion means nothing more than a bother - then involvement of God is not too critical. But since abortion means life or death, God's involvement is critical.

'Can there be a pro-life argument without reference to God?' is a very strange stance because without God there is no argument and no reference. Try it and see if you are left with more-than-opinion.

@PiP,

guess you don't gamble - the 'God' argument is out Ace-in-the-hole ... why be without it? If you wish to win ... or to just live and experience ... do you wish to do it alone???? I cannot fathom such abandonment as a mother for her own child ... the reliance of the fetus on the nutrients of the mother is IMO a symbol of the intimacy/necessity of this complete and utter relationship. We NEED each other, don't we. Not one of us is an isolate .... touting 'independence' is foolhardy!

I'm not saying that I am an Athiest by any means, John. I get what you are saying, but I think to convince people who don't believe in God to become pro-life, then we need to come up with a reason besides God says so. It will turn them away. Right?

@PiP,

right, but the 'God says so' connotes a relationship = religion. However, noting the existence of God (philosophical) places some boundaries on the human will (body-integrity). It positions such arguments within reach.

Ever tried 'rationalizing' with someone who is psychotic or someone 2 yrs old ... good luck! If a person says 'I do what I want, as often as I want and no one can convince me otherwise (even if you try)!' Over and over we hear this ... so sometimes forcing another look is appropriate; or, saying 'God says no!'; or, ?????????????? and babies die while we yack ... is this 'debate' another stall tactic??

"MK, gotta run but I'm thinking that personhood came about over time as an extention of the "one of our tribe" feeling."

Does this fall into that "tribal" feeling? You are honestly okay with corporations being considered persons, and now apes, but can't find it in yourself to know that unborn human babies are persons? That is too twisted!

Activists Want Chimp Declared a 'Person'

No, MK, I think some people are seeing a sentient creature that can suffer, a thinking, feeling being there, in the chimp. That's very understandable.

The corporate sense of "person" isn't a big deal to me. It's just a legal concept and I don't see it mattering here.

There is no "finding it" as far as personhood for the unborn. Either it's attributed or not, and as of now it's not. There is the physical reality of the unborn, and then there is the personification that you do, but we're still talking about legal status when we get to the bottom line.

I'd say that to a very large extent, granting personhood is really granting right to life.

Doug

John: there was a question posed to Jill - if there was no God, would abortion be wrong. She replied: if there was no God, then abortion would not be wrong.

"Wrong" has to have "somebody" to think it, whether it's a god or not. Regardless if one believes in a god or gods, one may still feel abortion is wrong or not.

......

This is a strange answer to an even more strange question. Because if living only in our heads, can even imagine a universe without God [its much like creating something from chaos (the Bible) ... in mathematics its like saying zero exists. Returning to this discussion: we all are aware that the universe ... that we exist. Some take this to mean that we are the master of these processes merely because we are aware of them. [We go to school to find out more about what already exists. we do not CREATE.] Applying philosophy: abortion would not even exist ... humans, nature would not even exist ... no Big Bang, no spacetime (aka nor-Doug) too! Ducking the question as to where did it all come from, is a popular evasion tactic.

I agree that it was a "strange" answer, but just because in no way do there have to be any supernatural entities like gods for there to be the feeling of "wrong." Joe Blow or Jane Doe can say "abortion is wrong" because they don't like it, don't want it to happen, want the unborn lives to continue, and they don't have to believe in God.

The feeling of "wrong" IS "in our heads." We certainly aren't "masters" of the big stuff in the universe, at least not now. It's not ducking the question to say we don't know all the answers.

.......

For males only: unless you've been given a swift kick -in-the-(figurative)groin it is possible to envisage numerous scenarios.

[[for me: it was being born with a genetic disorder ... an uncorrectable disorder. Just where do I find value, eh? [I cannot DO most physical stuff!] Am I to see value in myself only to the extent that medicine can fix me? Can medicine make me human? ... make me acceptable to whom?]]

John, you are to see value in yourself any darn place you want to.

.......

An answer to the question THE BIG WHY is a religious one. The answer to THE BIG WHERE is a philosophic one.

Could be....

Doug

@ Doug,

it's been so many years ... but attributing 'right' or 'wrong' to any activity was seen by the philosopher Hegel (I think) as the 'proof' of God's existence. Such a classification is a tough one to refute, especially in the public mode of activity. [There are quite a slew of private human activities that are automatic and very much beyond our willing them. Having a moral slant on these is stretching this a bit, IMO.]

It is very easy to superimpose a moral dimension on any human activity. Such a thrust would in itself be paralyzing to a religion that did also not embrace forgiveness or a come-back scenario where guilt is not inherited into other lives.

The thrust of this line of 'debate' IMO not to find out what Jill meant by her words, but to help understnd the reverence forf life that is her motivating-force. Hal talks about our use of the word 'murder'. He seems, like you, getting comforatable witgh the word. [In much the same way you term an unborn human a non-person .... even though this baby/child is living and human ... not being officially recognized by our laws = killable.]

Say we stick yours and Hal's (perhaps notions together -- unborn babies (even if alive)are not being officially recognized as a person = murder-able. As long as that doesn't disturb you .... because such was chosen ... then it's OK.

Perhaps SoMG had a better grasp of the situation - the 'personhood' argument doesn't amount to squat because there is no way to force a person to yield their own body integrity for however long, to another 'person'.

John: it's been so many years ... but attributing 'right' or 'wrong' to any activity was seen by the philosopher Hegel (I think) as the 'proof' of God's existence. Such a classification is a tough one to refute, especially in the public mode of activity. [There are quite a slew of private human activities that are automatic and very much beyond our willing them. Having a moral slant on these is stretching this a bit, IMO.]

Agreed that there are things where there isn't much "morality" about them. Yet I don't see why Hegel's position would be difficult to refute. For example, some people think abortion is wrong because they want the unborn life to continue. Very understandable, and no "God" necessarily involved. Others feel differently, wanting the woman's freedom to be paramount.

......

It is very easy to superimpose a moral dimension on any human activity. Such a thrust would in itself be paralyzing to a religion that did also not embrace forgiveness or a come-back scenario where guilt is not inherited into other lives.

To me that sounds contradictory with what is above - that putting a moral slant on some things is a stretch (at the least). However, I guess one could look at anything and give it a basic thumbs-up or down.....

......

The thrust of this line of 'debate' IMO not to find out what Jill meant by her words, but to help understnd the reverence forf life that is her motivating-force. Hal talks about our use of the word 'murder'. He seems, like you, getting comforatable witgh the word. [In much the same way you term an unborn human a non-person .... even though this baby/child is living and human ... not being officially recognized by our laws = killable.]

Hal and I are confortable (as far as I know) with the fact of how murder is defined. Society's attribution of personhood does not mean that anybody is saying the unborn in this argument are not living or not human.

I do understand the reverence for life, and it's not surprising to me at all that many people are against abortion. That is not the only consideration, though - if nothing else there is the woman to consider.

......

Say we stick yours and Hal's (perhaps notions together -- unborn babies (even if alive)are not being officially recognized as a person = murder-able. As long as that doesn't disturb you .... because such was chosen ... then it's OK.

That's not the whole deal, though. Society has its position, but in no way is that saying that a given person will agree with it. Let's say that personhood was granted to the unborn or abortion was made illegal across the board. I would not agree with society's position in those cases. And again - it's not just the unborn that are the deal, there, it's also the pregnant woman.

......

Perhaps SoMG had a better grasp of the situation - the 'personhood' argument doesn't amount to squat because there is no way to force a person to yield their own body integrity for however long, to another 'person'.

There really isn't any meaningful argument ABOUT personhood - either it's attributed or not, and as of now it's not. That is not to say that there isn't a huge amount of sentiment for and against that as the status quo, and all manner of "shoulds" and "should nots" in the opinion of people. The "to another person" wouldn't even be an issue here unless personhood was granted to the unborn. Then, it'd be a huge issue - I think of it as a mega-can of worms being opened up. At the least, the principles of bodily integrity and autonomy would be forced to change.

Doug

John, to Hal: I would love to hear how you derive any value/rights at all (intrinsic ones that are self-evident) for humans, especially if they have no proven worth beyond the 8 cents of chemicals that makes-up our physicality. Strange how a simple value like bodily-integrity can be easily claimed for a person that has no intrinsic value! And in the same breath hold that unborn children have no value .... even if they are alive and human.

Well, it IS proven that society attributes rights and personhood at birth. It's not "intrinsic," no, but it's such a prevalent part of human nature to do so that I question whether it's a big deal. "No intrinsic value" - yes, but it's fact that the granting of right to life, many liberties, etc., take place, the idea that people deserve to exercise their desires to a point, the point where we say the rights stop, and bodily integrity and autonomy, etc., are part-and-parcel of that.

It is also not saying that the unborn "have no value." They may be positively valued to a huge extent. Many people want to have kids very much. Of course they are "alive and human," but that's not the end of the story. Those are givens, and we haven't even got to the valuation yet.

Doug

@Doug,

maybe your answers seem clear to you but they sure are not to me: (based on what SoMG said) the attribution of personhood status to the fetus does not change anything because an abortionist is just following a pregnant woman's wishes and emptying her womb of its contents. These contents could in fact be anything ... a mass of cells, a tumor, a boot, a firetruck, a person, a dependent-fetus ... whatever. THE only criteria for consideration is maintaining her bodily autonomy anytime she wishes.

And apparently, it does not even matter if her views are suspect .... like (1) if she is already highly depressed (in any other medical situation: depression is a contraindication) and/or (2) she is underage and she can obtain an abortion without her parents even knowing ... [just wonder, if it is possible for an underage girl to retain her pregnancy contra to her parents wishes.] Is the law pro-choice or pro-abortion?

@Doug, ... (just in)

What a difference a sad event in someone's life makes.
GEORGE CARLIN (His wife Recently died...)

Isn't it amazing that George Carlin - comedian of the 70's and 80's - could write something so very eloquent...and so very appropriate?

A wonderful Message by George Carlin:

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much , and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete...

Remember; spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.

Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.

Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.

Remember, to say, "I love you" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.

Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.

Give time to love, give time to speak! And give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.

AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

If you don't send this to at least 8 people....Who cares?

George Carlin

Do you care, Doug. Prove it ..............

Love you, Doug! .... God made me do it! - crazy Guy.

John: maybe your answers seem clear to you but they sure are not to me: (based on what SoMG said) the attribution of personhood status to the fetus does not change anything because an abortionist is just following a pregnant woman's wishes and emptying her womb of its contents. These contents could in fact be anything ... a mass of cells, a tumor, a boot, a firetruck, a person, a dependent-fetus ... whatever. THE only criteria for consideration is maintaining her bodily autonomy anytime she wishes.

John, from a certain perspective, there might be only one criterion, yes. Doesn't have anything to do with anything else, necessarily, and the societal attribution isn't even necessarily involved, there.

.......

And apparently, it does not even matter if her views are suspect .

Not really, no - anymore than we take away other peoples' freedom just because there is a lack of guarantee the a given decision will forever be seen to be correct. That's human nature - we know it - and we still want to be free.

.....

... like (1) if she is already highly depressed (in any other medical situation: depression is a contraindication) and/or (2) she is underage and she can obtain an abortion without her parents even knowing ... [just wonder, if it is possible for an underage girl to retain her pregnancy contra to her parents wishes.] Is the law pro-choice or pro-abortion?

That's like asking if we refuse to let a woman give birth because we think she's depressed.

For the young girl, Pro-Choicers are going to be for her doing what she wants, not what her parents want, although there are situations, much more frequent as the age of the girl gets younger, where fewer and fewer people will be purely "pro-choice," i.e., there will be more and more situations where people think that it's best for the pregnancy to be ended, regardless of what the girl wants, Same as there will be less and less people who will be purely "pro-life" as the severity of fetal deficicency mounts and/ort as the danger to the pregnant woman increases, if she's pregnant.

Doug

John: Do you care, Doug. Prove it ......

Love you, Doug! .... God made me do it! - crazy Guy.

John, I love you.

I do care. And I appreciate everything you say, though I obviously disagree with some of it.

I've never met anybody like you. And I am grateful for your sentiment.

Doug