McCain goes after Obama for Born Alive opposition in today’s radio address
UDPATE, 6:50p: Here is the mp3 audio of the address.
_______________
I said the next time you’d hear from me would be from Denver, but a reader just sent this and I had to post it – John McCain’s weekly radio address today, a large portion of which was spent spotlighting Obama’s Born Alive vote and cover-up as well as other life issues.
From Time/CNN, August 23:
Good morning, this is John McCain, speaking to you at the end of an eventful week in the presidential campaign….
The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church….
In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent’s view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, “above my pay grade.”
Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It’s above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, “moral and ethical element to this issue.” Americans expect more of their leaders….
Often, too, Senator Obama’s carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the IL Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting “present” on the Senate floor.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions – living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. IL had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.
At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, “lying” about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn’t withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama’s campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.
For a man who talks so often about “hope,” Senator Obama doesn’t offer much of it in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. His extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion and his refusal to provide medical care for babies surviving abortion should be of grave concern to reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn. We need more of the compassion and moral idealism that my opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.
Upholding these principles, and bringing Americans together on the side of life, is the work of leadership. And I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade. Thanks for listening.
[HT: reader Neetul]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“…if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade.”
THANK YOU!!
Finally!
hey, sweet!!!
Excellent!
Perfect! :)
Thtat IS the man for the job, period.
Tom Ridge and Lieberman, you can turn off your cell phones. Obviously Mc Cain was just kidding.
PPC:
Sorry to dash your hopes against those jagged pro-abort rocks that in no way would McCain ever select a pro-abort VP which would then guarantee the election of Barack “Tingly Man” Obama. Guess you’ve never heard of a thing called, “priming the pump” or “energizing the base”?
Mike Huckabee, guess all those face shots on Fox and McCain’s mention of your name at the Warren forum are not accidents? And, is your cell phone turned on?
Whewwwwwww, I’m pumped and ready, locked and loaded, ready for launch. Go Johnny go, go Johnny go, Johnny be good, yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh. Guitars rollin’……………….
Almost, McCain. Now if only you were against killing embryos for science.
My wife tells me that this it is an “accepted practice” to continue a bumped conversation at the top of the newest post. Let me know if I understand her incorrectly.
SoMG
“Janet, once again, what gives you the right to kill your child by denying it a life-saving transplant or transfusion from your body? Why isn’t that murder?”
No Janet…what SoMG does is avoid the parts that she doesnt want to respond to.
I explained, in a response to you SoMG no less, that there is a difference between an organ and food.
Your own DNA provides the organ for you. If you lose it because your DNA is ineffective or because of some other circumstance, the responsibility belongs to no one outside of the circumstances or your own DNA.
Food, water and shelter are not “built-in” requirements. If you deny your child of one of these things, you are denying them something that they could have in no (known) circumstance provide for themselves.
If you deny your child a kidney, you are denying them something that they could have in some circumstance, such as having proper DNA or not being the victim of circumstance, provided for themselves.
To confuse the role and origin of an organ with food and water as a doctor is pretty shocking.
Now what I would like to ask you is why does a parent have to sacrifice a portion of their rights to privacy and property but not of bodily domain under your principles?
If you claim that it is because bodily domain can never be violated, then you are vastly mistaken.
The death penalty, which is currently upheld by the same legal system that denies rights to the preborns, involves the violation of an inmates bodily domain.
I dont need to go to controversial examples though to prove my point that there are cases when bodily domain is justifiably violated.
If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.
If you claim that a violation to bodily domain always is worse than a violation to other rights, let me ask you this. Which is worse, a slap to the face or burning someone else’s house down? Unlawfully pulling a tooth or enslaving someone for life? Putting a candy into someone’s mouth without permission or arresting protesters?
We arent allowed to sell our body parts. We are not allowed to inject whatever we want into our bodies.
So what, in your opinion then, makes the violation to certain rights for your child justifiable but not bodily domain? I already provided my explanation, but Im curious what you have to say.
(By the way, if you have ever had a child, you would know that they place a rather large intrusion upon your physical being as well. You do not have to give them your blood, but if it is necessary to feed them/clothe them/shelter them through a physical process, you are required by law. You may try to argue that “hey….there… is a difference between bodily domain and using your body for an action! Its on the outside and it doesnt intrude into your body!” Try telling that to my muscles. They sure get sore at times. Yet its neglect to do otherwise.)
That was me by the way….
Jill,
You should send this issue to as many Catholic organizations as you can. I belong to my own Catholic church. I sent an email about this issue to my church’s clergy and staff with the hopes that they will spread this message out across the Catholic community in the US. I urge everyone who reads this board, to email or contact their own Catholic or Pro-life churches that they may be are part of and make them aware of this issue.
Those who have access to contact information of their preist, pastor, or reverend should such as email of the church you may be part of should put their email in Jill’s Email List so they can continually be informed on this issue.
The Born Alive issue has been close to my heart lately, however, I am shocked at how many people are not aware of what is going on!
Janet, you wrote: “I explained, in a response to you SoMG no less, that there is a difference between an organ and food.”
I missed it. Sorry. Please continue:
“Your own DNA provides the organ for you. If you lose it because your DNA is ineffective or because of some other circumstance, the responsibility belongs to no one outside of the circumstances or your own DNA.”
So what? Why does this matter?
“Food, water and shelter are not “built-in” requirements. If you deny your child of one of these things, you are denying them something that they could have in no (known) circumstance provide for themselves….If you deny your child a kidney, you are denying them something that they could have in some circumstance, such as having proper DNA or not being the victim of circumstance, provided for themselves. ”
I’m trying very hard to understand you. I agree that organs are different from food (although strictly speaking the water, oxygen, and nutrients the fetus takes are parts of the mother’s blood, and blood is technically considered an organ. However, I’m willing to call this a quibble and overlook it). What I don’t understand is, why is the difference between food and organs important? Are you saying it’s ok to kill your child by withholding a life-saving transplantable/transfusable donation because the child’s need for one is somehow its own fault (or as you said, “responsibility”)? Therefore it’s ok to let it die of it?
There’s a song about this I learned in grade school. A farmer is taking a calf to the slaughter, and the calf weeps and wails, and the farmer replies:
“Stop complaining,” said the farmer, “who told you a calf to be?
Why don’t you have wings to fly with, like the swallow so proud and free?”
The farmer’s argument seems to me the same as your “I’m gonna let you die because you could have provided healthy kidneys to yourself” argument.
You wrote: “If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.”
This justifies abortion. Attempting to live by subjecting someone to labor and delivery is an attempt to harm her. Thank you for making my point so clearly.
Oops, my previous post should have been addressed to Lauren, not Janet.
SoMG,
I find it highly amusing that you did not actually respond to over half of the points I made.
You picked the ones that you thought you had a snappy comeback and left the others empty.
I wrote: “Your own DNA provides the organ for you. If you lose it because your DNA is ineffective or because of some other circumstance, the responsibility belongs to no one outside of the circumstances or your own DNA.”
SoMG: “So what? Why does this matter?”
This matters because an organ is not in an shape or form “owed” to anyone. You come into the world with it and if you do not have one or it is taken from you, that is unfortunate, but not anyone’s responsiblity.
However, and I am sure that you would agree, food, water and shelter are all things “owed” to those who cannot provide it for themselves. They are, as I said, not “built-in.” They must in every case be supplied from another source. An organ does not have to be, and in fact, it is usual for it not to be.
SoMG: “I’m trying very hard to understand you. I agree that organs are different from food (although strictly speaking the water, oxygen, and nutrients the fetus takes are parts of the mother’s blood, and blood is technically considered an organ. However, I’m willing to call this a quibble and overlook it). What I don’t understand is, why is the difference between food and organs important?”
Food = It is required that it is supplied by someone else until you can provide for yourself.
Organ = You come with them. If they are damaged or your DNA is flawed and they are imcomplete or in some other way flawed this is not anyone’s responsibility.
SoMG: “Are you saying it’s ok to kill your child by withholding a life-saving transplantable/transfusable donation because the child’s need for one is somehow its own fault (or as you said, “responsibility”)? Therefore it’s ok to let it die of it?”
Actually yes. I would personally think anyone a monster for not supplying a blood transfusion because it is such an imperceptable intrusion, but I wouldnt think it a requirment of anyone to provide blood or an organ. Nobody is “gauranteed” blood by society, but everyone is gauranteed the right to not be neglected.
SoMG: “There’s a song about this I learned in grade school. A farmer is taking a calf to the slaughter, and the calf weeps and wails, and the farmer replies:
“Stop complaining,” said the farmer, “who told you a calf to be?
Why don’t you have wings to fly with, like the swallow so proud and free?”
The farmer’s argument seems to me the same as your “I’m gonna let you die because you could have provided healthy kidneys to yourself” argument.”
You greatly miscontrue my argument. It should read like this. “Im going let you die because I dont want to give you my kidney. I am justified in doing so because I am not in anyway obligated to you in this regard.”
I wrote: “If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.”
SoMG: “This justifies abortion. Attempting to live by subjecting someone to labor and delivery is an attempt to harm her. Thank you for making my point so clearly.”
No, this justifies the notion that bodily domain is justifiably violated in certain cases. You are making the wild assumption that because your premise is sometimes able to be violated, that the conclusion follows from that very fact.
**Again, you only responded to the points that you can “refute.” Why do not answer the questions I posed to you? Why do you think that bodily domain is not a required obligation to your child? I make it my point to answer you questions, why do you skip around when you respond to me?**
SoMG @ 3:07, Oops, my previous post should have been addressed to Lauren, not Janet.
That’s OK, telling me I’m wrong has become a habit for you. Lol.
SoMG:
Just passing through.
Of all the blogs I’ve ever visited and posts that I’ve read, yours take the cake for being the most bizarre and chlling.
You are a psychopath.
Jimmy,
We’ve already duked out that theory with SoMG a long time ago which is why some of us don’t make a huge point out of it. We assume that is the case so we move on to the next subject at hand.
This blog has been a great forum for SoMG because he is permitted to express who he is, and yes, it’s shocking. But it’s so important for others to be aware of what can take place in someone’s psyche when entrenched in that type of career.
Not to say that there aren’t other occupations that wouldn’t lend itself to that type of personality, but given the mindset of prochoice, it is perfectly logical for SoMG to arrive at his conclusions.
SoMG isnt a psychopath. She is just…how do you put it…”choosy” about what she argues on. Notice that when she gets put off guard she either disapears or responds to half of a post.
What can you expect from Liberals though? I have seen it time and time again when I debate this issue. Someone comes along and puts up the pretense that they would like to rationally debate, then eventually they end up turning into every other internet Liberal out there, purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they feel like. If you think about it, it very much reflects the mentality associated with Liberalism.
SoMG is one very wounded puppy and needs prayers!
Off-topic:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/22/pregnant.agent.runover.ap/index.html
Sad update on the NYC-pregnant-lady-ran-over story. :(
Reality, 4:53 p.m.
Yes that is a very sad update. :( I will be praying for the family, especially the father.
The McCain Campaign needs to come out with an ad hitting Obama on this issue right now. Start with his fumbling answer at Saddlebrook. Then go to someone like Jill explaining the horrors of these poor infants left to die alone. Then go to the CBN interview from last week when Obama accused his opponents of lying. His statement that he would have voted for the bill had it been like the Federal bill. Superimpose the two bills on the screen with the exact same wording. Then show the voting card record from the IL senate with his no vote. End with McCain summarizing his comments from today.
For McCain to win, and for all us who are pro-life, he must win, he still needs to appeal to the disenchanted Hillary voter so his words must respect to some degree those on the choice side but he has to show that Obama is beyond the pale.
Oliver, you wrote: “Why do not answer the questions I posed to you? Why do you think that bodily domain is not a required obligation to your child?”
I didn’t answer this because I can’t figure out how to parse it. Does it mean that we must respect the unborn child’s ownership of its body? No problem. It owns its body all right but not the mother’s body. Without which it cannot live. You have here an argument for doing abortions without violating the fetus’ body, medical abortions or labor-induction or say by pinching shut the umbilical cord and letting the fetus die of poisoning by its own metabolic end-products (unless it runs out of oxygen and nutrients first, but I’d bet on self-poisoning. When you hold your breath, what you feel is due to change in blood pH caused by accumulation of CO2. Hypoxia comes much later.)before removing it. It doesn’t matter because the outcome for the fetus is the same.
Anyway, you already answered the question (why the mother may legitimately violate the unborn’s body-ownership) when you wrote: “If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.” Which DOES justify abortion even though you seem to be trying to claim it doesn’t.
You wrote: “Food = It is required that it is supplied by someone else until you can provide for yourself.
Organ = You come with them. If they are damaged or your DNA is flawed and they are imcomplete or in some other way flawed this is not anyone’s responsibility.”
I suspect you are making an argument you don’t really believe, that you understand quite well that the reason we are not forced to donate organs even to our children is not because organs are different from food/water/shelter but because they are parts of our bodies. But I’ll address your argument as you have stated it.
You say the key question is not whether or not what the pregnant woman donates is part of her body but whether or not it is food/water/shelter. OK, my friend. Suppose the only food available for an already-born baby or child is the mother’s flesh. The mother and the baby are alone together in a remote shack and food has run out. More food is on the way but it will not arrive until after the baby has starved to death unless the mother cuts off some of her flesh and feeds it to the baby. Say she knows how to amputate part of her body safely (it CAN be done–there was a guy on Letterman once who told about the time he got pinned between a rock face and a loose boulder while on a solo hiking trip and had to amputate his own arm with a swiss army knife in order to get home.)
Is the mother legally or morally obligated to do this? Obviously not. But she’d be donating food, not organs, so by your argument she should be. (This type of argument is called “reductio ad absurdum”.)
As I say I think you know the answer–the mother is not obligated to provide the food because the food is part of her body. I can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with in order to avoid admitting it though.
Jimmy, you wrote: “You are a psychopath.”
Well my parents always told me I would be somebody.
I think what you find “bizarre and chlling” about my posts is that they present an argument for abortion rights which you cannot answer.
You are quite right to find this “chilling”. It is frightening to realize you must either change your opinion on something as important as abortion rights or else admit that your opinion is not rational. CS Lewis, one of my favorite authors, wrote about the difference between accepting religious faith and obeying it when it prompts you to do something unsettling like join the Communist Party. The same applies to accepting reason.
SoMG isnt a psychopath. She is just…how do you put it…”choosy” about what she argues on. Notice that when she gets put off guard she either disapears or responds to half of a post.
somg IS a he….
I think what you find “bizarre and chlling” about my posts is that they present an argument for abortion rights which you cannot answer.
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 5:13 PM
NOPE it is that you believe the unborn baby is a person that we can murder when we want to for whatever reason
That is what is bizarre and chilling and I might add psychopathic…
BTW, anon at 5:42pm was MOI!
…and who is MOI? Just give yourself any old name so we have something to call you. Thanks, God love you.
Heck, you could even use the name Moi.
Everyone on this board should talk or contact their priest, pastor, reverend or parish and make them aware of Obama’s distrubing position on abortion – The support of infanticide.
SoMG,
“CS Lewis, one of my favorite authors, wrote about the difference between accepting religious faith and obeying it when it prompts you to do something unsettling like join the Communist Party.”
Absolutely. Wise words from a wise man.
Have you read Mere Christianity?
Bobby B., his non-fiction blurs for me. I can’t remember what’s from which book or which ones I read. I know his fiction pretty well though. Perelandra is the most beautiful, That Hideous Strength is the most interesting, and The Screwtape Letters is funniest.
The best line he wrote about religion IMHO is from The Silver Chair. “….four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I
The line about being prompted by ones religion to join the Communist Party is from That Hideous Strength.
OK. You may find it interesting. I think you’d at least appreciate his [what I believe to be a] rational defense of Christianity. It’s probably worth looking into if you’ve never read or heard a decent defense of Christianity. Plus you’ll probably enjoy it anyway because Lewis is such a wonderful writer.
“Like Doestoeyevski’s admission that he would continue to believe in his religion even if it were “proven” false.”
Where does Doestoeyevski admit this? I’m reading a bit about him right now. If he means it in the sense you’re implying, then I would have to disagree with him. I think faith and reason go together and I would never completely throw reason out the window if it proved to me that any religious belief I hold is false.
My rating of the Narnia books from best to worst:
The Magician’s Nephew (by a wide margin)
The Horse and his Boy
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Prince Caspian
I don’t remember where Dostoevski said that but he’s very famous for it.
Oliver, you wrote: “Why do not answer the questions I posed to you? Why do you think that bodily domain is not a required obligation to your child?”
SoMG: “I didn’t answer this because I can’t figure out how to parse it. Does it mean that we must respect the unborn child’s ownership of its body?”
That is not the question I posed to you.
I asked you why you would say that a parent does not owe in any part their right to bodily domain, yet they owe in part several other rights. Why does a parent have to sacrifice privacy and property but not bodily domain? The right to bodily domain holds no significant weight over the right to privacy and property. Like I said earlier, a slap is not treated more severely in any realm than arson for one example.
SoMG: “No problem. It owns its body all right but not the mother’s body. Without which it cannot live. You have here an argument for doing abortions without violating the fetus’ body, medical abortions or labor-induction or say by pinching shut the umbilical cord and letting the fetus die of poisoning by its own metabolic end-products (unless it runs out of oxygen and nutrients first, but I’d bet on self-poisoning. When you hold your breath, what you feel is due to change in blood pH caused by accumulation of CO2. Hypoxia comes much later.)before removing it. It doesn’t matter because the outcome for the fetus is the same.”
At the very minimum this should be the procedure. However, again, either due to confusion, or innattention, this is not related to the question I posed to you.
“Anyway, you already answered the question (why the mother may legitimately violate the unborn’s body-ownership) when you wrote: “If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.” Which DOES justify abortion even though you seem to be trying to claim it doesn’t.”
Explain the logic if you say it seems to obvious. All it shows it that in some cases it is justified to violate the right to bodily domain.
My point with the example was just that. There are cases where this right can be overrulled at the expense of other rights, so what makes it so special in the case of childcare. Other rights routinely get violated during childcare…why wouldnt bodily domain? I gave my explanation, but you still dont provide your own.
Be careful with your inferences. If you want to establish a principle based on this example go ahead, but you cannot just jump from one point to the other without validating your assumptions.
What did you score on your verbal reasoning on the MCAT anyways?
SoMG: “I suspect you are making an argument you don’t really believe, that you understand quite well that the reason we are not forced to donate organs even to our children is not because organs are different from food/water/shelter but because they are parts of our bodies. But I’ll address your argument as you have stated it.”
See, I like to justify everything I believe based on principles. My goal is to come up with the fewest basic assumptions as possible so that I am not appealing to “what feels right” in many different sources. If I draw properly deducted conclusions that from a few underlying principles then I am only at most making a few flawed assumptions. Most people just say “oh yeah this feels right,” as Im sure you do over the issue as well.
The reason why I ask the question why bodily domain remains untouched when privacy and property do not in the case of parenthood is because Im sure your answer is “just because” deep down. Oh, and I “suspect” this is part of the reason you have avoided the question every post so far.
SoMG: “You say the key question is not whether or not what the pregnant woman donates is part of her body but whether or not it is food/water/shelter. OK, my friend. Suppose the only food available for an already-born baby or child is the mother’s flesh. The mother and the baby are alone together in a remote shack and food has run out. More food is on the way but it will not arrive until after the baby has starved to death unless the mother cuts off some of her flesh and feeds it to the baby. Say she knows how to amputate part of her body safely (it CAN be done–there was a guy on Letterman once who told about the time he got pinned between a rock face and a loose boulder while on a solo hiking trip and had to amputate his own arm with a swiss army knife in order to get home.)
Is the mother legally or morally obligated to do this? Obviously not. But she’d be donating food, not organs, so by your argument she should be. (This type of argument is called “reductio ad absurdum”.)”
I like where you are going with this analogy, but it doesnt quite relate because there is significant and permenant damage to the mother in your example, whereas the exchange of bodily parts in pregnancy is imperceptible and temporary damage.
You can modify it though to be more similar.
Suppose the exact same situation has occured, only the mother has the capability to breast feed. She does not like the feeling of breast feeding, nor the temporary damage to her nipples, however, there is no other option. She in fact does not want to sacrifice her body for the infant either. Would she be obligated to provide food through her milk to the child or would it be neglect to withhold the breat milk?
The analogy I supposed is superior to yours in several ways, just so you know. It more closely parallels the exchange of body parts/nutrients to that of pregnancy. It also more closely parallels the level of sacrifice and consequences. Your analogy takes the idea, and comes close to the underlying principle, but it takes it significantly too far.
Remember this point SoMG, which Im sure will you ignore anyways. The parent only has a partial obligation to the child. I dont have to feed my son what he wants, but I have to feed him. You can also apply that same principle in this case. I need to feed my child, but it is not my duty to go to significantly great lengths to do so.
For example, I do not need to wrestle a bear and risk my life to feed my child. There is a significant difference between wrestling a bear to feed my child and going out and picking some berries. This is what is wrong with your analogy. The sacrifice of flesh permenantly is along the same lines of wrestling a bear with a substantial risk of death.
SoMG” “As I say I think you know the answer–the mother is not obligated to provide the food because the food is part of her body. I can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with in order to avoid admitting it though.”
I would say in the case of the breast feeding, the mother would be obligated to relegate her body to provide for her child. In fact, if I could breast feed, which some men can, (and my daughter seems to think I personally can) I would feel a deep ethical obligation to provide the food through my milk.
Now, if you reworked your argument to say that the loss of flesh would be only temporary, and nearly imperceptible, I would say that a parent would in fact be obligated.
Would you say that a mother capable of breast feeding would not be obligated to feed her child if they were lost in a shack?
I like th eaudio of McCain’s address Jill. Thanks for outting it up. I am glad to know that his campaign is in the know about Obama’s extreme infanticide votes. That should get MSM exposure when McCain blasts Obama about it.
Newsflash. McCain if pro-life, Obama pro-choice. Guess which president would probably achieve more in reducing the abortion rate?
McCain.
purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they feel like
Posted by: oliver at August 23, 2008 4:07 PM
I have been doing that to Doug, and the poor puppy has not the intelligence to understand I’m mimicking him.
I chuckle and laugh when Doug replies that I’m making up things out of whole cloth,fantasies, lies and fabrications. It’s his fabrications, upon which I build my fabrications out of…. his whole cloth facts of reality.
He’s replying to me, and not gettin’ the fact, that he’s incapable of knowing that mimickry is a form of flattery. At least soo far.
Or, if there was no Doug, Yllas would not exist…. to create and to mimick the absolute facts of reality(truth) of Doug.
Im not sure how that helps, but keep on trucking I guess…
Eric, if you’re out there…
Your campaign ad has potential and I would highly recommend that you contact the McCain website and email your idea to them if you haven’t already.
In fact, if any of us prolifers are moved enough, we ALL need to let McCain know that this has to be exposed for all to see, and an ad like this would be horribly infuriating to Senator Obama.
“Like Doestoeyevski’s admission that he would continue to believe in his religion even if it were “proven” false. The admission that your faith does not depend on reality.”
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 6:05 PM
Bobby, I have a feeling that SoMG is misinterpreting Dostoevsky. Isn’t faith believing without proof but not without a reason?
Hi Eileen.
“Isn’t faith believing without proof but not without a reason?”
It somewhat has that characteristic, yes. Speaking Catholic to Catholic here, faith is the theological virtue by which the intellect ascends to conform to the will to believe all that the Catholic Church proposes as matters doctrine. So what faith is is us submitting our will to believe what the Church teaches, even if we don’t understand it. That is why it is a matter of faith that the bread and wine at mass actually become the body and blood of Jesus after the words of consecration. The faith in transubstantiation is informed by reason; namely, the reason that tells us that there is a God who established a teaching authority in the Catholic Church, and who now proposes the theology of the real presence as dogma. In other words, the only good reason to believe it is because God through his church, “said so.” But this is just like the “faith” a little child puts in his father or mother. Yet on the other hand, faith is more refined/mature than simply a “divine trust” in God.
It’s unfortunate that many people (read: Richard Dawkins) think of faith as believing something despite a lack of evidence. One can (and I would argue should at least be able to) base their membership in the Catholic Church purely on reason. God love you.
I think faith and reason go together and I would never completely throw reason out the window if it proved to me that any religious belief I hold is false.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 23, 2008 6:12 PM
Bobby you should read JP II”s Fides et Ratio. Faith and reason are two distinct sources of knowledge – each supports and confirms the other.
According to Aquinas, there are certain truths of the faith that natural reason can discover on its own – for example the existence of God. Reason also provides a deeper explanation for many precepts of the faith. Therefore, reason is capable of affirming many key doctrins of the Catholic faith. However, JP states that faith is the touchstone that helps to validate reason especially those that deal with the nature of the human self or the source of moral obligation. While reason, even in its fallen state, can attain objective truth, it needs the guidance of faith to pursue the pathways to truth htat might otherwise be ignored.
Pope Leo XIII stated that the philosopher needs a reference point in his pursuit of the truth and that “friendly star” can only be faith. Thus there can be no real conflict between faith and reason.
JP II wrote an entire encyclical on faith and reason because, the intimate connection between faith and reason, once assumed by most philosophers and theologians, has been questioned and even ridiculed in the modern secular era. Science has emerged as the only reliable source of authentic knowledge. Autonomous reason disdains and excludes the faith that once nurtured it.
This is from the Genius of John Paul II. The Great Pope’s Moral Wisdom.
Bobby get this book – you will eat it up!!
Patricia,
Excellent. Yes, I do have Fides et Ratio. I’ve only read the first chapter and haven’t gotten around to reading the rest, which is something that I need to do.
one more gem from the above book:
Etienne Gilson’s definition of “Christian philosophy” “I call Christian every philosophy which, although keeping the two orders [of faith and reason] formally distinct, nevertheless considers Christian revelation as an indispensable auxiliary to reason” Gilson’s definition, also implies that without the true light of faith, the human search for wisdom is bound to be incomplete, since philosophers must utilize all sources of truth available to human beings, including the truths of divine revelation, especially if they seek to develop and defend a metaphysical vision of reality.
(I will stop NOW!)
Mmmmm, beautiful. Gilson is one of the greatest Aquinas scholars, so it’s no wonder that he would say something profound like that.
Stud:
I don’t think SoMG has ever read “The Screwtape Letters”.
And please SoMG, please stop taking the name of C. S. Lewis in vain. He would be absolutely appalled at what you believe and practice.
Thanks Patricia and Bobby, I have a lot to learn. :D
Eileen: so do I and I’m running out of time :-D
“I have a lot to learn.”
Oh man, you’re tellin me!
“purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they feel like”
Posted by: oliver at August 23, 2008 4:07 PM
yllas: I have been doing that to Doug
Heh – no you haven’t, and you cannot even speak to anything I’ve said, but rather just conjure up the same old baloney.
Sally and everybody else in the world has your number, Girl.
I thought Sally was also pro-choice? Shes Yllas?? Its like a spy novel
Ah, I give a statement that I have been mimicking you, and in typical Doug response…..No you haven’t it.
Yes I have.
Your conjuring up your baloney, since you fail to notice the mimickry……. one sentence above.
You quote what you need, you ignore what you want, and make a world of factual reality based on deconstruction.
I like you Doug, your a typical mind that mimicks everything you’ve been told. Before you were born, the house you were raised in, was already premised on killing the fetus. After that, you have searched out every source(the bible, scratching on stone, law, religion,philosophy, even stating abortion pre-dates history) to case harden your facts of reality, until you can conclude your reality is absolutey unable to write one false thought/word in matters of abortion. Care to make a list of false statments you have made in matters of killing human beings through the freedom of abortion?
Your invincible, for the killing of human beings.
As for Sally, a sad case of anti-Catholicism using bigoted sources to confirm her facts of reality. She hasn’t kept up with modern historians from Oxford, that admit the use of sheer propaganda being used in their version of Catholic history. You know, Doug, never gettin’ the version of the “Indians pov”. Of course Sally is a result of cultural bias and bigotry, also inflamed with a personal family history which tightens its grip on her troubled deathsex experiences.
Come to think of it Doug, you remind me of that old Italian in Catcha 22. Your a rabid abortionist, since abortion is the law. You would be a rabid komsomal, since the law makes right in the land of communism. You would be a rabid Malthusian in early 19th century England, since the king couldn’t provide for his “children” or subjects, and hired a professional misanthrope to confirm his hatred of fellow Englishman. And look where the English are now? Spilling out of pubs, going to soccer matches on the dole in Europe, and unable to rule the waves outside their ports.
Then again, maybe the peasants got the message that the King and his misanthropes are right about them being, the too many, and just float around wasting time, till they die as cowards.
I find it amusing in the age of Post-modernism that soo many cling to the inalienable right to kill another human being as tightly as you do Doug. To nothing more then a idea, a cloth woven in their mind first, and then made into a fantastic, fantasy reality of making deathsex into a life affirming gift.
Now, do as you have done since you were a baby deconstructionist, at the foot of your mommy and daddy, picking and choosing those bible verses that confirmed what you already have formed as a consistent fact of reality.
Eventually, years latter, after 12 years of public preaching in matters of abortion, you’ll even be sending strangers on the net, links to some exegete of the bible named Brian, confirming what you had already confirmed, at the foot of your mommy and daddy years ago.
The shorter Doug. Women want to kill their baby, fetus,zygote,embryo,non-person human.
It’s not a matter of want.
That’s just the way it is.
Oliver, you wrote: “I asked you why you would say that a parent does not owe in any part their right to bodily domain, yet they owe in part several other rights.”
I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I would say this because it seems to me that if it were not true, then we would be forcing parents to donate blood/organs to their children if necessary. The fact that we do not force even so much as a blood donation seems to me to be clear evidence that “a parent does not owe in any part their right to bodily domain”. So far, all the other explanations of our not forcing blood donations (at least) I have heard like your “organs vs food” one seem very contrived to me. (The way the counterexample to the Universal Computability Hypothesis, which involves directing the theoretical computer to solve the Halting Problem on itself and then go into an infinite loop if the answer is yes, is contrived, for those Godel fans among you. Did you know that Godel in his old age became convinced he was being poisoned by his caretakers and starved himself to death? Alan Turing was smarter, he used cyanide. Why, you ask, would such a successful genius like Turing commit suicide? Because the British Government gave him a choice between prison forever and chemical castration. But I digress.)
You wrote: “Why does a parent have to sacrifice privacy and property but not bodily domain?”
Maybe for the same reason non-parents do? “Sacrifice” to the government, I mean? Also the same reason it’s (ALMOST always) worse to rape you than to rob you? Because there’s something special about your relationship to your body?
Speaking of which you wrote: “The right to bodily domain holds no significant weight over the right to privacy and property.”
LOL If that were true, the government would collect transfusable blood (at least), as well as property (and as well as invading your privacy as it does).
In the slap vs arson thing, you are comparing an EXTREMELY MILD body violation with an EXTREMELY SEVERE property violation (you said before the arson burns down your house, didn’t you?). If someone inflicted damage on your body comparable in magnitude to the property damage caused by successful arson, it would be a much greater crime than the arson. Conversely if someone damaged your property to a degree equal to the damage caused to your body by a slap in the face, it would be an even less serious crime than the slap. The fact that some sumo wrestlers weigh less than some jockeys doesn’t make it untrue that sumo wrestlers are much heavier than jockeys. What you have is an exceptional case.
Skipping over the “misunderstood the question” stuff, the next thing in your long post is you bring up your unfortunate line: “If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.” You claim you don’t understand how this justifies abortion. OK let’s try step-by-step: “If someone …” Check. We agree that a fetus is someone. “…attempts to harm me,…” Check. Labor and delivery are harmful. “… and I have no other recourse,…” check. The only way for a pregnant woman to prevent L&D is by abortion. “… [then] I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.” Call me a literalist but I think “whatever means are necessary” includes abortion. Does this step-by-step analysis make it any clearer for you? I hope so.
You asked, “What did you score on your verbal reasoning on the MCAT anyways?”
That’s personal, but I’ll answer anyway cos I’m childishly proud: 13 out of 15 which is a higher percentile than the number you get if you express 13/15 as a percentage. I have always done well on verbal standardized tests, which I attribute to reading PG Wodehouse. Mom being a novelist and writing teacher didn’t hurt either.
You wrote: “exchange of bodily parts in pregnancy is imperceptible and temporary damage.”
The exchange part may be but the labor and delivery aren’t. It depends on how much money you can spend (or how much others are willing or obliged to spend on you) and on where you are. If you don’t have access to surgery you have a one-in-six chance of suffering some seriously bad sh*t. Death, sterilization, stillbirth, which can cause obstetric fistula (which in case you don’t know means you get feces or urine oozing out your birth canal all the time until you can get it surgically repaired. Sweet!) If you do have access to surgery, then you have a one in five chance of major surgery and all it entails.
I’ll come back to the breast milk in the shack question later. For now let me just remark that it reveals your gender and your youth. Most women in that situation would want to get the milk out. Retention can be painful and distort the shape of your boobs. Why do you think new moms who are not breastfeeding pump them?
You wrote: “Remember this point SoMG, which Im sure will you ignore anyways….”
Yeah.
” …The parent only has a partial obligation to the child. …You can also apply that same principle in this case. I need to feed my child, but it is not my duty to go to significantly great lengths to do so. ”
Far from ignoring your point I am grateful for it. I totally agree. Donating blood is a much less great length to go to than giving birth. Donating a kidney is, too. Much faster and less painful and less dangerous procedure than giving birth. Were you perhaps not aware of this? Your argument allows justification of forcing you to give part of your body (as long as it’s not “going to great lengths” which allows at least forced blood donations) but does NOT necessarily allow justification of forcing a pregnant woman to grow her pregnancy and endure L&D (which is going to much greater lengths for her child.) That’s what is called an “Own goal”. When you score against yourself like that.
Which brings us back to the breastfeeding in the shack question. Sure giving birth is not as bad as having to self-amputate a limb but it is a damn sight worse than breastfeeding. With few exceptions it changes your body forever. (I can tell whether a woman has children, and make a reasonable guess whether she has few, middle, or many, by feeling her cervix.) It carries a significant risk of either very bad complications or major surgery. I have encountered many young male RTLs who did not seem to understand this. Have you watched many childbirths? If yes, did you also watch the women recover from the c-sections? Do you understand that giving birth is often the worst physical challenge of the patient’s life so far and one of the worst altogether?
You wrote: “The reason why I ask the question why bodily domain remains untouched when privacy and property do not in the case of parenthood is because Im sure your answer is “just because” deep down. ”
You say this as if it were a great triumph for you. In fact every argument ends that way if one side keeps asking “why” long enough. Either “just because” or “I dunno” or an appeal to the supernatural or to intuition. Rene DesCartes’ proof of the existance of God comes down to “If there weren’t one, I wouldn’t feel so sure there is one.” I think in the end you will find “Because it’s your body” will be a good enough answer. The counterquestion “But WHY does the fact that it’s your body allow it?” will be taken as evidence of looniness or a bad-faith refusal to understand the obvious.
The question about whether a mother should be allowed to kill her already-born baby by refusing to breastfeed is interesting and I had not thought of it before. Maybe it’s an exceptional case like the slap vs the arson, where the body violation is so minor relative to the alternative that it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter as much even though it’s a body violation. No way you can say this about nine months of bloodstream-to-bloodstream life support plus L&D.
HisMan, I have read The Screwtape Letters many times. I guess there’s no way to prove it since I could look up the answer to any question you might pose about it. But I remember for instance that Screwtape gets in trouble for suggesting to Wormwood that the Devils’ Enemy actually loves humans. He quickly changes his story to we don’t know how He feels about the humans, what he’s using them for, and asks Wormwood not to report him to higher demonic authorities but he does. If you like Screwtape, read THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH. The demonic scientists and administrators are more like Screwtape than any other CSL charaters.
And I agree CSL would not like some of my work but I think would be even more appalled at what YOU believe and practice. I think he would consider you similar to the people who collaborated with Shift in THE LAST BATTLE. An agent of commercial/political/mercenary corruption of the Saviour’s religion. How do you think he would have felt about Karl Rove?
Do you understand that giving birth is often the worst physical challenge of the patient’s life so far and one of the worst altogether?
Posted by: SoMG at August 24, 2008 12:14 AM
So far as what? That before a birth challenge, a women is not often challenged physically? Depends of the women, some have been challenged physically, much more then birth.
But, being a appeal to pessimism/fear is a logical debating idea.
Do you deliever babies SOMG, or just kill them?
(I can tell whether a woman has children, and make a reasonable guess whether she has few, middle, or many, by feeling her cervix.)
Posted by: SoMG at August 24, 2008 12:14 AM
Tell me SOMG, after putting a stalk of seaweed into a cervical canal, can you guess whether she has few, middle, or many, abortions, by feeling her cervix.)
Few, middle, or many??? Are you in the middle of doing a few drugs, or many drugs SOMG?
Let’s see what SOMG knows about Dostoevsky.
Who is Vladimir Soloviev?
In what novel is Soloviev represented as a character?
“It is Rachel of old,” said the elder, “weeping for her children, and will not be comforted because they are not. Such is the lot set on earth for you mothers. Be not comforted. Consolation is not what you need. Weep and be not consoled, but weep. Only every time that you weep be sure to remember that your little son is one of the angels of God, that he looks down from there at you and sees you, and rejoices at your tears, and points at them to the Lord God; and a long while yet will you keep that great mother’s grief. But it will turn in the end into quiet joy, and your bitter tears will be only tears of tender sorrow that purifies the heart…..”
Tell me SOMG, Doug, what resonsibility, or to be called upon for one’s actions, words or deeds for abortion, do you have for the tears of a women caused by abortion?
Being that responsibility is a quantified factor in lawsuits and matters of insurance, what quantity(0 to 100%) of responsibility for the tears of a women, who regrets a abortion, and crys tears of regret,from the abortion?
SOMG?
Doug?
It’s a sensibility question.
Nope, the only Dostoevsky I know is Prestuplenie i Nakazania and Zapiski iz Podpolya.
Do you understand that giving birth is often the worst physical challenge of the patient’s life so far and one of the worst altogether?
Posted by: SoMG at August 24, 2008 12:14 AM
maybe or maybe not.
“And I agree CSL would not like some of my work but I think would be even more appalled at what YOU believe and practice.”
You THINK CSL would not LIKE some of your work! You THINK???!!!
I think CSL would be HORRIFIED, DISGUSTED and APPALLED at what you do for a living, somg. I think he would be so revolted by you somg, he would likely be unable to bear being in your presence. This was a man who produced some great Christian apologetics and who was close friends with Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic. They shared many of the same beliefs – in fact, most.
I think you have a very distorted view of how people view you and your profession and this furthers my belief that at the very least, you are a sociopath.
Do you understand that giving birth is often the worst physical challenge of the patient’s life so far and one of the worst altogether?
SoMG doesn’t mention that an induced abortion is a far worse physical challenge for the baby, a direct challenge to its life.
The apostle Paul wrote the following piece to Timothy in the context of church government (1 Tim. 2:11-15):
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
The apostle Paul did not deny the difficulty of childbirth, which was far more traumatic in his time than ours. His advice, however, was quite different than SoMG’s.
Working only from this text (of course he wouldn’t), SoMG would have to conclude that Adam would have been quite justified if he had killed Eve for violating his body. After all, he was now missing a rib. I note that Adam’s response was quite different.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.” Gen. 2:23
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. They are not two consenting bodies violating one of the two with a third. If they were, the owner of the violated body–the woman–would be justified in killing the owner of the violating body–the man–who introduced in her a third body, the owner of which–a baby–never gave its consent to be introduced (regardless of whether the woman gave her consent). But what was Eve’s response?
Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” Gen. 4:1
Cain sounds like the Hebrew for “brought forth” or “acquired.” Eve was already suffering from the curse; she showed faith by naming the fruit of her painful, damaging labour CAIN in hope of the Messiah.
Eventually God did choose a woman to bear the Messiah: “Hail, favoured one! The LORD is with you.” She would produce a baby without a man’s input. Mary, a descendant of Eve, responded obediently: “Behold, the bondslave of the LORD; be it done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). She gave birth and wrote the Magnificat.
SoMG regards Adam, Eve, Cain, Mary, and Jesus as mythological characters. If he wants hell, he will get it, just like Lewis’s mad Weston and the renegade Narnian dwarfs. I’ll take the company of Ransom and young Emeth.
“Working only from this text (of course he wouldn’t)…”
I meant to say, “Working only from the following text…”
My friends, my friends, my friends….this man is pro-choice..my friends, my friend, my friends, this man is pro war and pro death…my friends..my friends…
Hush, PeachPit, not all are friends. Mr. McCain is not so naive as to think the United States has no powerful enemies. The civil government is obliged to respond to war with war. The civil government, like individual people, also should responsibly finish what it has begun, regardless of whether the beginning was justifiable.
Jon, I just wanted to tell you how much I’ve appreciated your posts the last week or so. :)
SoMG: “I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I would say this because it seems to me that if it were not true, then we would be forcing parents to donate blood/organs to their children if necessary. The fact that we do not force even so much as a blood donation seems to me to be clear evidence that “a parent does not owe in any part their right to bodily domain”.”
So what you are saying is that the reason why we dont force parents to sacrifice a portion of their bodily domain is because we dont force parents to sacrifice a portion of their bodily domain.
Hey, Doug, remember that time we were talking about circular reasoning…
However, in light of your later admission that essentially this boils down to “I just feel like it,” I can leave it at that for now.
SoMG: “So far, all the other explanations of our not forcing blood donations (at least) I have heard like your “organs vs food” one seem very contrived to me.”
How so? It is easy to just say “well it seems contrived to me.” Explain to me why any rights are owed to a child then. I at least have some justification.
A child, or any indigent, has the right to not be neglected by whoever is responsible. This would explain why the child has partial claim on the parents right to property, but not full. (Ex. The child can demand shelter, but not the master bedroom.)
Withholding organs is not neglect because organs themselves have characteristics that set them apart from food and water etc.
Admitedly it is hard to articulate, but essentially organs are built-in. Food, water, etc, the “basic needs in life,” are never in any circumstance built in, unless you are not human or are a comic book character.
You arent required to give your child intelligence, but you are required to provide them the opportunity to learn. Most children are born with the “built-in” ability to learn, but some are not. You wouldnt be required to “repair” that by providing anything external, via property or privacy. However, if you deprive your child the chance to learn by disallowing them education, you are being neglectful.
SoMG:”(Stuff about Godel and Turing)”
Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with these concepts to understand the reference. I know who Turing is, and at least some of his suggestions, but I forgot who Godel is and I definitely do not recognize the theory you posted. Regardless, my explanation is not contrived. It is hard to articulate, but it is not contrived. If anything, it is common sense.
SoMG: “Maybe for the same reason non-parents do? “Sacrifice” to the government, I mean?”
The reasons we pay Tax is because we are a member of this society, and that is what is expected. If we do not like it, theoretically speaking anyways, we can leave.
The reason we pay for Medicaid and Social Security is for the very same reasons that we are obligated to not neglect our children. I am not responsible personally for someone who cannot provide for themselves, but our society is. This is what justifies this portion of the “tax.”
SoMG: “Also the same reason it’s (ALMOST always) worse to rape you than to rob you? Because there’s something special about your relationship to your body?”
I am not sure I know of any case where rape is trumped by robbery actually, but that does not establish that bodily domain has a SIGNIFICANT weight over the other rights.
It does have a quantitative advantage, but not a qualitative. In other words, certainly a violation of bodily domain is worse than a violation of equal magnitude of another right, but it is not in a separate category. The same holds and requirements on the rights to privacy and property are applied to bodily domain. (Ex. The state can force rectal exams on suspected criminals of non-violent crimes, such as drug trafficking.)
SoMG: “LOL If that were true [that the right to bodily domain holds no significant weight over the right to privacy and property] , the government would collect transfusable blood (at least), as well as property (and as well as invading your privacy as it does). ”
The government does in fact violate our right to bodily domain if it can justify it. I already mention cavity searches, but what about vaccinations? What about the death penalty?
The reason why the government does not go around taking organs and blood, but does go around taking money for welfare is because of the same principle that you refuse to accept. Nobody owes anyone else anything other than the ability to sustain themselves via food, water, health care, etc. Organs and blood do not fit into those categories.
You should have been able to provide that for yourself, just like an adult who is capable of working and obtaining a job at a reasonable wage should be able to provide food and water, etc for themselves. If someone is incapable of providing for themselves, that is the responsibility of society, as in a certain sense it is societies burden, however if someone is incapable of providing a kidney for themselves, that is no ones burden unfortunately.
SoMG: “In the slap vs arson thing, you are comparing an EXTREMELY MILD body violation with an EXTREMELY SEVERE property violation (you said before the arson burns down your house, didn’t you?). If someone inflicted damage on your body comparable in magnitude to the property damage caused by successful arson, it would be a much greater crime than the arson. Conversely if someone damaged your property to a degree equal to the damage caused to your body by a slap in the face, it would be an even less serious crime than the slap.”
Of course, I was only working to establish that bodily domain does not hold some greater significance. It is of course greater when compared directly to another violation of equal amount, but the very fact there exists a case where bodily domain does not not outweigh other rights establishes that it is not significantly more important. More important yes, but not significantly.
SoMG: “The fact that some sumo wrestlers weigh less than some jockeys doesn’t make it untrue that sumo wrestlers are much heavier than jockeys. What you have is an exceptional case. ”
Maybe not, but it does prove that the difference between the weights of sumo wrestlers and jockeys is quantifiable.
SoMG: “Skipping over the “misunderstood the question” stuff, the next thing in your long post is you bring up your unfortunate line: “If someone attempts to harm me, and I have no other recourse, I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.” You claim you don’t understand how this justifies abortion. OK let’s try step-by-step: “If someone …” Check. We agree that a fetus is someone. “…attempts to harm me,…” Check. Labor and delivery are harmful.”
Here is where you misstep. A fetus does not attempt to harm the mother through labor and delivery. The labor and delivery is a byproduct of the cruel accident of the conjoined mother and child. By your logic you could argue that it is the mother’s body that supports the fetus and endangers the fetus through labor and delivery by making it grow.
There is no intent in pregnancy on either side. However it is an interesting window into your mindset that you assign culpability to the preborn.
SoMG: “… and I have no other recourse,…” check. The only way for a pregnant woman to prevent L&D is by abortion. “… [then] I am legally and ethically allowed to defend myself by violating the offenders body by whatever means are necessary.” Call me a literalist but I think “whatever means are necessary” includes abortion. Does this step-by-step analysis make it any clearer for you? I hope so.”
As already explained above, no it does not. It does not prove abortion as there is a key language shift.
SoMG: “That’s personal, but I’ll answer anyway cos I’m childishly proud: 13 out of 15 which is a higher percentile than the number you get if you express 13/15 as a percentage. I have always done well on verbal standardized tests, which I attribute to reading PG Wodehouse. Mom being a novelist and writing teacher didn’t hurt either.”
A 13 isnt bad, especially for a doctor. I can give you credit here. I am, however, suprised that you would miss such a key inference considering your score.
SoMG: “The exchange part may be but the labor and delivery aren’t. It depends on how much money you can spend (or how much others are willing or obliged to spend on you) and on where you are. If you don’t have access to surgery you have a one-in-six chance of suffering some seriously bad sh*t. Death, sterilization, stillbirth, which can cause obstetric fistula (which in case you don’t know means you get feces or urine oozing out your birth canal all the time until you can get it surgically repaired. Sweet!) If you do have access to surgery, then you have a one in five chance of major surgery and all it entails. ”
I never claimed that the mother was obligated to the preborn to go through labor and delivery. This is a conflict of rights on all sides. I was claiming that the exchange of “body parts” for nutrients is not the same in pregnancy as cutting your own flesh.
SoMG: “I’ll come back to the breast milk in the shack question later. For now let me just remark that it reveals your gender and your youth. Most women in that situation would want to get the milk out. Retention can be painful and distort the shape of your boobs. Why do you think new moms who are not breastfeeding pump them?”
My wife actually has gone through two pregnancies so far. The first she was unable to breastfeed and the second she was able. I understand all about the breast pumps. Heck, I operated several different kinds, including the manual. What my point reveals about me is that I wouldnt view that as relevant to the issue. Assume that she has a breast pump then, but no way of transfering the pumped milk to the child. You can see how laughable that anticipation is as it has nothing to do with the ethical considerations at hand and you know that.
SoMG: “Far from ignoring your point I am grateful for it. I totally agree. Donating blood is a much less great length to go to than giving birth. Donating a kidney is, too. Much faster and less painful and less dangerous procedure than giving birth. Were you perhaps not aware of this? Your argument allows justification of forcing you to give part of your body (as long as it’s not “going to great lengths” which allows at least forced blood donations) but does NOT necessarily allow justification of forcing a pregnant woman to grow her pregnancy and endure L&D (which is going to much greater lengths for her child.) That’s what is called an “Own goal”. When you score against yourself like that.”
I would argue that a blood donation still requires you to go to “great lengths.” Although barely. I am not even sure that I would oppose legislation forcing a parent to donate blood when there is no other option, now that I think about it.
I would however argue that a kidney donation is a critical issue. Part of what you gloss over with a kidney transplant is that you can only do so one time (as far as I know, and at best I imagine twice.) Part of what makes an organ donation so great is the permenant nature. You cannot give your kidney to anyone else. This is your right as a person to give your body to help who you want. In a certain sense, this applies to blood draws as well, considering that you cannot infinitely give your blood.
You may counter by saying that a mother cannot infinitely give her womb to who she wants, but again I would remind you that the partial sacrifice to the mother’s bodily domain is not due to some obligation of giving her body for the sake of giving her body to help, but because she is obligated to not neglect the preborn she is in charge, and she happens to require her body to provide food/etc.
The issue with L&D is the only real conflict of rights. The mother owes her rights in part to the child for the sake of providing food/water/etc, but she does not owe L&D. I will touch on this in a second…
SoMG: “Which brings us back to the breastfeeding in the shack question. Sure giving birth is not as bad as having to self-amputate a limb but it is a damn sight worse than breastfeeding. With few exceptions it changes your body forever. (I can tell whether a woman has children, and make a reasonable guess whether she has few, middle, or many, by feeling her cervix.) It carries a significant risk of either very bad complications or major surgery. I have encountered many young male RTLs who did not seem to understand this. Have you watched many childbirths? If yes, did you also watch the women recover from the c-sections? Do you understand that giving birth is often the worst physical challenge of the patient’s life so far and one of the worst altogether? ”
Actually I watched my wife twice recover from a C-section. Im sure she is a special case, but she really handled it extremely well. In both cases she was up to speed at 2-3 weeks. I had to actually consult her to take it easy. We are at currently 6 weeks, the recovery time, and she is doing fine. However, I would be naive to make a conclusion based on two births. Of course I understand that in most cases L&D is a nightmare, with on occasion awful consequences.
I wrote: “The reason why I ask the question why bodily domain remains untouched when privacy and property do not in the case of parenthood is because Im sure your answer is “just because” deep down. ”
SoMG: “You say this as if it were a great triumph for you. In fact every argument ends that way if one side keeps asking “why” long enough. Either “just because” or “I dunno” or an appeal to the supernatural or to intuition. Rene DesCartes’ proof of the existance of God comes down to “If there weren’t one, I wouldn’t feel so sure there is one.” I think in the end you will find “Because it’s your body” will be a good enough answer. The counterquestion “But WHY does the fact that it’s your body allow it?” will be taken as evidence of looniness or a bad-faith refusal to understand the obvious.”
I wouldnt reference Descartes as the end all be all of reasoning. Certainly we all come down to basic assumptions, but the difference is that we usually come down the same basic assumptions. If you make an appeal to the supernatural or intuition, you can still apply a principle that connects it all. You can also reevaluate your basic assumptions to bring them better in line with each other. My personal goal is to see as many as possible of my base principles to come from as few as possible assumptions.
I want to use the principles that we share to establish my point. Obviously you say bodily domain wins because thats the way I feel, but what I want to prompt is for you, or anyone else, to try to examine how that “feeling” applies to your other principles.
SoMG: “The question about whether a mother should be allowed to kill her already-born baby by refusing to breastfeed is interesting and I had not thought of it before.”
SoMG: “Maybe it’s an exceptional case like the slap vs the arson, where the body violation is so minor relative to the alternative that it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter as much even though it’s a body violation.”
So would you argue then that we are required to give blood? (I think we may both end up converting to this idea by the time this argument is over with.)
SoMG: “No way you can say this about nine months of bloodstream-to-bloodstream life support plus L&D.”
Now, this shows you are not a parent, or you lack sensitivity. My wife breasts feeds and she was also recently pregnant. Let me make it clear that although breast feeding is not necessarily a siginificant process, it is much less negligible than the “bloodstream to bloodstream life support” during pregnancy. A woman does not even notice it is going on, but I can assure you that at least a vast majority of women know that breast feeding is going on.
Ultimately you are left with the consequences and complications of labor and delivery. This is an issue I think I can agree with you in a sense. The preborn has no right to cause such a trauma on the mother. You however oversimplify the issue. You cannot place blame on either party involved. It is, in a certain sense, a horrible accident.
(There a couple things to consider along with this.
Number one, an abortion/DNC/miscarriage is still a painful process. It is obviously not as painful as a L&D, or even C-section recovery (although my wife says that the C-section recovery was less painful than her miscarriage…again Im sure she is an exception.)
Number two, the abortion procedure still carries with it complications of a surgical procedure, major or not, (unless it is a chemical abortion))
Suppose there is set of conjoined twins that do not desire to be separated. It happens though that a complication arises where the stronger twin is suddenly discomforted by the weaker twin and unless separation occurs, they will be both killed. There is also a method with which they may be separated that would undeniably kill the weaker twin. However, there is also a form of surgery performed that would allow both twins to be separated without death to the weaker twin. The twist is that the second surgery will cause more pain to the stronger twin, require a longer recovery time and will also pose a greater risk of long term damage. Would the stronger twin have the right to force separation at the death of the weaker twin to avoid the increased complications from the second surgery?
Remember the girls impaled by the traffic light pole? This was the exact situation. The doctors had to wait, at the pain and risk of the healthier girl, to separate in order to provide the best possible solution to the more critical girl.
Wow that was the longest post ever….
Oliver, you wrote: “Admitedly it is hard to articulate,…”
That often means “it” whatever it is is wrong.
“… but essentially organs are built-in.”
So what?
“… Food, water, etc, the “basic needs in life,” …”
Transplants/transfusions are also basic needs in life for a patient who needs them.
“…are never in any circumstance built in, unless you are not human or are a comic book character.”
So what? Why does it matter whether or not what is needed is “built in”???
You wrote: “Withholding organs is not neglect because organs themselves have characteristics that set them apart from food and water etc.”
Why do these characteristics of organs mean that withholding them is not neglect???
And an attempt to harm you does not have to be deliberate to justify self-defense. The classic example: you have a phaser set on “kill”. (As you know, a phaser set on kill disintegrates the body to nothing, as well as killing.) You look up and notice someone is falling toward you from a great height. You know somehow that he fell by accident but the fact remains that if you don’t disintigrate him with your phaser, he will land on you and kill you. Are you justified in protecting yourself with your phaser? I think yes.
You wrote: “Of course, I was only working to establish that bodily domain does not hold some greater significance. It is of course greater when compared directly to another violation of equal amount, but the very fact there exists a case where bodily domain does not not outweigh other rights establishes that it is not significantly more important. More important yes, but not significantly.”
I think sumo wrestlers are SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than jockies, exceptions notwithstanding.
Jon, you wrote: “SoMG regards Adam, Eve, Cain, Mary, and Jesus as mythological characters. ”
That is what they are, yes.
My friends, I shouldn’t of left my crippled wife for a younger richer woman…my friends, my friends, my friends…abortion is bad my friends, my friends.
Jon, you wrote: “SoMG regards Adam, Eve, Cain, Mary, and Jesus as mythological characters. “
That is what they are, yes.
People may say the same about any of us one day. It won’t make it true.
Oliver: “purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they feel like”
yllas: I have been doing that to Doug
“Heh – no you haven’t, and you cannot even speak to anything I’ve said, but rather just conjure up the same old baloney.”
Yes I have.
Nope, your approach is to pretend what other people have said.
Write clearly Doug, if you want ambiguity, you have just given a perfect example of ambiguity by stating that Exodus is being ambiguitous, or are you trying to state other passages from the bible are ambiguitous Doug? Well, state the ambiguitous bible passages you have in mind Doug.
Are you insane? Lord have mercy….. (Isn’t it a bummer how the Pro-Choicers have driven everybody away? ; )
Holy Moly we’re gonna have a hootenanny now….. a real great God-a-mighty rock and rolla Ayatollah festival. (You know, it’d be nice if you told some more tales about when you tended bar…)
……
Be honest, Doug, don’t try and make fogs appear where none exist.
:: laughing :: I will explain it in such simple terms that even you will be able to understand. You will go to bed tonight with the Light of Learning gleaming in thine eyes. Your mind will transform into an edifice of edification.
……
What’s ambiguous Doug? His bible passage ain’t got one bit of ambiguity within it. Eye for a Eye really is quite direct, containing no ambiguity in it, unless you want to redirect what he wrote to fit your version of Exodus 21; 22-25.
Nobody told you that “eye for an eye” is the ambiguous part. You are the one saying that. Sheesh…. This is like “yllas’s straw man argument # 49, 875.” There is lack of clarity here, yes, and dishonesty, and it’s all in your court.
Now then, the ambiguous part is where the men fight and the baby comes out. Going back to the Hebrew, the word “yatsa” translates to “lose her offspring.” It’s not stated whether the baby lives or dies, directly. Some Bible versions say that if the woman has a miscarriage, then the fighting men must pay the fine. Others treat is as a premature birth. Many premature births in biblical times would mean the baby dies, but not necessarily. So from this we don’t know if the baby lives or dies.
The New International Version says:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.”
It also gives, as an alternate translation:
“Footnotes: Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage ”
The two translations result in different meanings – with one, the baby dies, and with one it lives, perhaps. Thus the ambiguity.
SoMG: “I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I would say this because it seems to me that if it were not true, then we would be forcing parents to donate blood/organs to their children if necessary. The fact that we do not force even so much as a blood donation seems to me to be clear evidence that “a parent does not owe in any part their right to bodily domain”.”
Oliver: So what you are saying is that the reason why we dont force parents to sacrifice a portion of their bodily domain is because we dont force parents to sacrifice a portion of their bodily domain.
Hey, Doug, remember that time we were talking about circular reasoning…
Ahoy Oliver. I understand that “it is because it is,” doesn’t sound very persuasive, but I think SoMG has a point – the same “we” as in “we don’t force even so much as a blood donation,” is operative in what he then said – it could be restated as “we don’t hold that a parent owes anything that would mean them giving up their bodily autonomy against their will.”
Understood that some individuals in society disagree with both – we know the abortion debate is a big one, and I’d think some would say, “yes, parents should be forced to donate blood to save the life of their child.”
If the premise is that we don’t even force a blood donation, then to conclude that we don’t force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will would certainly be consistent.
“There is that of reality that is external to us, and then there are things internal to us, dependent on our perception. You confuse them and I don’t.”
yllas: Doug shows up and states that it is a consistent fact of his reality,and a objective fact of reality, that Yllas doesn’t have a house.
You’re not mimicking me, you’re just making another straw man argument, and pretending about what other people do.
I don’t do that. Either you have a house or not – that is physical reality. It’s not a matter of opinion. If I don’t know if you have a house, I’ll state that. Whether I know or not, the fact of your house doesn’t change, because that is external reality.
And you would probably agree with that, since it’s physical fact. Your errors come when you pretend that your subjective feelings necessarily apply to other people.
I thought Sally was also pro-choice? Shes Yllas?? Its like a spy novel
Posted by: oliver at August 23, 2008 10:35 PM
…………………………………………………….
No Oliver. You are confused. That’s what comes from attempting to make any kind of sense out of yllas’ lunatic ravings.
Hey Oliver,
there’s a few more ‘holes’ in SoMG’s logic:
#1 – for him abortion is done to end pregnancy, but pregnancy does not reside only within a woman’s womb ;;; EVERY cell in her body is pregnant emptying her womb will say what to the other billions and billions of non-womb cells working frantically for this pregnancy to proceed. Having an abortion (emptying the uterus) does NOT make a woman ‘un-pregnant’.
#2 – the body autonomy is the old sense of ‘will’ in philosophy. Any woman does not ‘grow her pregnancy’ because this concept affords the ‘will’ powers it does not have. Hiring an agent (abortionist) to kill her developing child underlines the powerlessness of her ‘sovereignty’/will. If she willed to end her pregnancy, she could merely ‘will’ it.
#3 – I have blogged extensively about infant growth in the womb and nutrition. SoMG never suggests that a ‘solution’ to the many problems existing in pregnancy may lie in adequate nutrition … zinc, taurine, a little copper, and flax during the 3rd trimester to lubricate the birth canal. All the birthing pain is folly.
#4 – the sense that a woman provides ‘all’ in a pregnancy is folly … as if the fetus just takes and takes. Researchers found male cells in the liver of a woman (who used to have hepatitis). Her fetus apparently sent stem cells to her liver to fix the damage … likely to improve his own nutrition post-birth.
(I’m pretty sure the above “Anonymous” is the redoubtable John McDonell.)
John, that #1 is some wild stuff.
#4 – the sense that a woman provides ‘all’ in a pregnancy is folly … as if the fetus just takes and takes. Researchers found male cells in the liver of a woman (who used to have hepatitis). Her fetus apparently sent stem cells to her liver to fix the damage … likely to improve his own nutrition post-birth.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 24, 2008 8:05 PM
This is amazing!
John, also – all the birthing pain is folly”?
Whoa…
emptying her womb will say what to the other billions and billions of non-womb cells working frantically for this pregnancy to proceed.?
It’s like the immortal Gilda Radner as Emily Litella on Saturday Night Live, turning to the audience and saying, “Oh…never mind.”
#1 – for him abortion is done to end pregnancy, but pregnancy does not reside only within a woman’s womb ;;; EVERY cell in her body is pregnant emptying her womb will say what to the other billions and billions of non-womb cells working frantically for this pregnancy to proceed. Having an abortion (emptying the uterus) does NOT make a woman ‘un-pregnant’
…………………….
Unless of course, all those bazillion non-womb cells are working frantically to end a pregnancy. @@
#2 – the body autonomy is the old sense of ‘will’ in philosophy. Any woman does not ‘grow her pregnancy’ because this concept affords the ‘will’ powers it does not have. Hiring an agent (abortionist) to kill her developing child underlines the powerlessness of her ‘sovereignty’/will. If she willed to end her pregnancy, she could merely ‘will’ it.
………………………………..
Women cannot ‘will’ themselves to become pregnant, avoid pregnancy or miscarriage. All the more reason her will to continue a pregnancy be considered the only one that matters.
SoMG,
I wrote: “Admitedly it is hard to articulate,…”
SoMG “That often means “it” whatever it is is wrong.”
So what? That has no bearing on the conversation. Thats like saying “most people try to justify what profits them” to discredit you as an abortionist. It may be true, but it doesnt mean anything to your logic.
I wrote “… but essentially organs are built-in.”
SoMG: “So what?”
It means they are different than external needs.
SoMG: “Transplants/transfusions are also basic needs in life for a patient who needs them.
So what? Why does it matter whether or not what is needed is “built in”???”
Its critical to the whole issue. Because organs are intended to be supplied by the original person, they are in no way an obligation of somebody else.
Its like all you can eat night at the ballpark. If you forget your ticket, the ballpark does not owe you the ticket. They only owe you the food that you require to satisfy your experience at all you can eat night.
SoMG: “Why do these characteristics of organs mean that withholding them is not neglect???”
Because neglect is the deprivation of what is reasonably considered to be provided by the parent. Because the organ is supposed to “come with the package” the parent is not considered to provide it.
In addition to this, I also already adressed how an organ is special, in that it is a permenant loss. Even if your body can replace the functions of a kindey, you are limited in that you cannot give your kidney away anymore.
As far as the blood donations go…it is similar in that you can only give blood ocasionally. Now, personally, I am starting to think that according to the principles that have been brought up here that I would condone a forced blood donation as long as it remained unsubstantial in its infringement.
I think you would agree with the blood donation considering that you suggested that obligated breast feeding is justified because the “alternative” is so severe and the sacrifice is so small.
I suggest that the same principle applies to the feeding of a preborn during pregnancy. I already suggested that breast feeding is far more noticable than “bloodstream to bloodstream life support.”
Why would you suggest that breastfeeding is in some cases required but something of less magnitude would not?
SoMG: “And an attempt to harm you does not have to be deliberate to justify self-defense.”
I never said that. I said that you cannot infer from the example of intended harm that abortion is justified.
SoMG: “The classic example: you have a phaser set on “kill”. (As you know, a phaser set on kill disintegrates the body to nothing, as well as killing.) You look up and notice someone is falling toward you from a great height. You know somehow that he fell by accident but the fact remains that if you don’t disintigrate him with your phaser, he will land on you and kill you. Are you justified in protecting yourself with your phaser? I think yes.”
Of course yes. But, what if his fall will only cause you temporary harm, such as a busted lip or a broken arm? Do you have the right to kill him? This would be, Im sure even you would admit, at the very least a complicated question.
SoMG: “I think sumo wrestlers are SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than jockies, exceptions notwithstanding.”
It depends on how you define significant. I define significant as set into its own category when it comes to analyzing rights. I wouldnt say that they are significantly heavier…just heavier.
I also know that you didnt respond to 99% of my post. I understand that it was insanely long, but if you are going to respond, I would expect you to at least respond to each point in part, if not in full. You brought up the organ issue 3 times at least in your response but never reacted to several points. The main example I want you to see though is the twin scenario. I will repost it.
I wrote: “Suppose there is set of conjoined twins that do not desire to be separated. It happens though that a complication arises where the stronger twin is suddenly discomforted by the weaker twin and unless separation occurs, they will be both killed. There is also a method with which they may be separated that would undeniably kill the weaker twin. However, there is also a form of surgery performed that would allow both twins to be separated without death to the weaker twin. The twist is that the second surgery will cause more pain to the stronger twin, require a longer recovery time and will also pose a greater risk of long term damage. Would the stronger twin have the right to force separation at the death of the weaker twin to avoid the increased complications from the second surgery?”
#3 – I have blogged extensively about infant growth in the womb and nutrition. SoMG never suggests that a ‘solution’ to the many problems existing in pregnancy may lie in adequate nutrition … zinc, taurine, a little copper, and flax during the 3rd trimester to lubricate the birth canal. All the birthing pain is folly.
……………………………………….
Huh? The pain of labor has nothing to do with ‘the birth canal’ needing lubrication. A little KY and there you go? Good grief!
Doug,
Doug :”Ahoy Oliver. I understand that “it is because it is,” doesn’t sound very persuasive, but I think SoMG has a point – the same “we” as in “we don’t force even so much as a blood donation,” is operative in what he then said – it could be restated as “we don’t hold that a parent owes anything that would mean them giving up their bodily autonomy against their will.””
Im not sure how you can establish that. You and SoMG would be making a huge assumption here.
You are assuming that because blood donations are not required by society that one of the reasons this is is because “we dont hold that a parent owes anything etc.” It could be the case that the bodily domain aspect is not a factor at all, and in fact, it is an altogether other reason that sets it apart.
By the way Doug, if you let your child starve by not breastfeeding you can at the very least be brought to court for neglect. There is a case going on right now about this very issue.
Why would the government require a parent to give up a part of their bodily autonomy in this case but not in the blood transfusion case? Maybe there is a factor other than “bodily domain” that affects it then.
Doug: “Understood that some individuals in society disagree with both – we know the abortion debate is a big one, and I’d think some would say, “yes, parents should be forced to donate blood to save the life of their child.”
If the premise is that we don’t even force a blood donation, then to conclude that we don’t force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will would certainly be consistent.”
It would only be consistent if the assumption that there is no other restriction on required blood donations holds constant. Hell, not even then. It could be the case that the underlying principle behind the motivation to restrict required blood donations is inconsistent anyways.
Women cannot ‘will’ themselves to become pregnant, avoid pregnancy or miscarriage. All the more reason her will to continue a pregnancy be considered the only one that matters.
Posted by: Sally at August 24, 2008 10:53 PM
Yep, you don’t get it.
Do you understand that giving birth is often the worst physical challenge of the patient’s life so far and one of the worst altogether?
Posted by: SoMG at August 24, 2008 12:14 AM
SoMG: You really don’t have a clue do you?
Luke 17:33 If you cling to your life, you will lose it, and if you let your life go, you will save it.
Annonymous,
Those are interesting points you bring up. I would love to go down those roads, but Im afraid that both my biological and onotological “chops” are too weak to cut it. However, I do believe that there are multiple explanations as to why abortion is an immoral practice. I “know” it to be wrong, but I am not satisfied unless I can find the proper combinations of principles to justify it. By examining different viewpoints of my belief, I feel confident that the “feeling” I have is in fact a justified one.
Doug Doug Doug,
purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they feel like”
yllas: I have been doing that to Doug
“Heh – no you haven’t, and you cannot even speak to anything I’ve said, but rather just conjure up the same old baloney.”
Yes I have.
Nope, your approach is to pretend what other people have said.Posted by: Doug at August 24, 2008 7:35 PM
Now get your eyes real close to the screen Doug, and read these words without using a metaphysical nail puller and pry bar to deconstruct the next sentence.
I have been purposely twisting(your) words and only reacting to parts of the post(your) I feel like.
Now, think a second Doug, and remember, only the person writing his words in a post, knows the purpose and intent of his words. The words and thoughts of my post are mine. Not your words.
I have been purposely twisting your words and only reacting to parts of your post that I feel like.
And your reply;”Heh – no you haven’t”
I reply; Yes I have.
You reply; Nope.
Your deconstruction arrogance has now crossed into not only knowing the truth of your words, but have now become so powerful that you are now informing the author of a sentence that declares, “I have been purposely twisting your words and only reacting to parts of your post that I feel like”, is not true(facts of reality) to the author of that statement.
There is no “approach”, there is no “speak to anything you say”. There is no baloney.
There is only Yllas purposely twisting your words and only reacting to parts of your post that I feel like.
You see Doug, the only words that I wrote is via Oliver;purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they I feel like.
The rest is your invincible mind making up facts and reality as you saw them in your mind.
The purpose and intent of my post to you, and about your words is ………..to twist your words and only react to the parts of your post that I feel like.
Strawman? Baloney? Speak to anything you say? Those are your words Doug, and to equal the ignorance of you, a failure to understand from years of deconstruction, I must reply……..No there not, those are not your words, Doug. To which you reply; yes they are. To which I reply, “Nope, your approach is to pretend what other people have said”.
I am speaking to the things you say, by doing what you do so well Doug, by mimicking you.
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE ON MURDER? WE ARE OUTRAGED ABOUT WOMEN WHO CHOOSE ABORTION FOR WHATEVER REASON. THEN WE JUSTIFY IN GOOD CONSCIENCE AND ACCEPT MURDER OF INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET AS LONG AS WE BELIEVE IT’S IN THE NATION’S INTEREST?
MURDER IS MURDER. WE SHOULDN’T BE LEGISLATING THINGS WE CAN’T CONTROL…..WE ARE ABLE TO CONTROL TO SOME EXTENT OUR NATION’S EAGERNESS TO CONTROL THE WORLD.
SoMG,
My rating of the Narnia books from best to worst:
The Magician’s Nephew (by a wide margin)
The Horse and his Boy
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Prince Caspian
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 6:13 PM
The Chronicles are my favorite books in the world…
Their simplicity and ability to be read and understood by EVERYONE is what makes them Genius.
I ADORE the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but still love the Chronicles more, because of that simplicity.
I agree, The Magicians Nephew is by far the best.
I wonder tho, which characters do you relate to?
Uncle Andrew, I’m thinking! I can just picture you planted upside down in the ground by all of the animals, who found you so confounding that they didn’t know quite what to do with you…or what you were…lol
I wish however, that you were more like Eustace. If we could just peel those layers upon layers of sin and evil, we might just find a remarkable boy in there.
So which are you? Andrew or Eustace?
Man, I could discuss the Chronicles all day. Maybe we should read them together and discuss them as we go…
Oliver, you wrote: “So what you are saying is that the reason why we dont force parents to sacrifice a portion of their bodily domain is because we dont force parents to sacrifice a portion of their bodily domain.”
As Cary Grant’s character said, “I don’t deduce; I observe.”
You wrote: “”… but essentially organs are built-in.”….SoMG: “So what?”….It means they are different than external needs.”
To a patient who needs an organ transplant, the organ transplant IS an external need.
Regarding my responding to 99% of your post, I try to respond to the interesting and relevent parts.
You wrote: “Because organs are intended to be supplied by the original person, they are in no way an obligation of somebody else.”
“Intended” by whom or what?
In the case of conjoined twins I would say either has the right to be separated whenever he wants by the quickest possible method.
Oliver, knowing the Goedel Theorem is an essential part of being an educated person in the Computer Age. Just as knowing the Pythagorean Theorem is in the Age of Geometry. You don’t need to know the proof but you do need to know the Goedel Theorem and why it is important. Have no fear! I will explain.
With the development of theoretical computers with infinite capacity (Turing Machines) came the hope that the discipline of Mathematics could in principle be fully automated. Postulates and theorems are strings of symbols, right? And you reason from one to the other by manipulating those symbols according to fixed rules, right? So why can’t a computer do it? Does math really require a mind?
The answer which shoots this ambition to hell is the Goedel Theorem, which states that any system of arithmetic notation, postulates, and deduction which is strong enough to describe the Integers must be either inconsistant or incomplete. “Inconsistant” means there is a proposition you can write down in the hypothesized notation which can be both proved and disproved by the system. A contradiction. “Incomplete” means there is a proposition you can write down in the hypothesized notation which can neither be proved nor disproved by the system. An undecidable question. Hence mind-free (automated) math must always end up incomplete.
Anon, I would say the most funny thing in your ridiculous post is “Having an abortion (emptying the uterus) does NOT make a woman ‘un-pregnant’.”
ROTFL.
MK, yes, in CS Lewis the villians are the most interesting characters. Same as in Wagner. And Milton. Have you read CSLewis’ space trilogy (OUT OF THE SILENT PLANT, PERELANDRA, THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH)?
Also, MK, if you like Tolkein, you will probably also like Wagner, especially DAS RHEINGOLD and SIEGFRIED and GOTTERDAMMERUNG. About a very similar Ring.
SoMG: “As Cary Grant’s character said, “I don’t deduce; I observe.””
It would have been more apt if he said he didnt deduce, he assumed whatever he wants to conclude.
SoMG: “To a patient who needs an organ transplant, the organ transplant IS an external need.”
It may become an external need at the moment, but it was originally supplied by the person involved. Again, if your child is born without the ability to learn, you are in no way obligated to even sacrifice extra property or privacy to repair this defeciency, but you are in every case required to provide the opportunity to learn. Or if you lose your ticket to the baseball game, nobody is required to provide it, but they are required to fulfill the anticipations of the game.
SoMG: “Regarding my responding to 99% of your post, I try to respond to the interesting and relevent parts.”
Yet you so deftly avoid the “breast feeding” concept that you yourself quoted as “interesting.” Im sure thats just a coincidence. Right.
SoMG: “”Intended” by whom or what?”
You have me here. Intented would not be the right word. I guess, inherent to the design of the human DNA would be a better way of expressing that. The organs are inherent to the design of the human DNA, whereas food/water/shelter etc etc are in no way inherent. Therefore they need to be supplied from an outside source, hence it would be neglect to withhold those things.
SoMG: “In the case of conjoined twins I would say either has the right to be separated whenever he wants by the quickest possible method.”
Quickest? I didnt bring speed into it unless I made a typo. Read my example again. The only consideration is that the second operation would cause more pain to the stronger twin, but would in fact save the life of the weaker twin.
SoMG: “Oliver, knowing the Goedel Theorem is an essential part of being an educated person in the Computer Age. Just as knowing the Pythagorean Theorem is in the Age of Geometry. You don’t need to know the proof but you do need to know the Goedel Theorem and why it is important. Have no fear! I will explain.”
You may be suprised how many college educated people do not even know the Pythagorean Theorem. I also teach GRE and GMAT test preparation. You may be suprised how many college educated people add by counting on their fingers. Let it never be said that a college education is sufficient to say you are an “educated” person!
SoMG: “With the development of theoretical computers with infinite capacity (Turing Machines) came the hope that the discipline of Mathematics could in principle be fully automated. Postulates and theorems are strings of symbols, right? And you reason from one to the other by manipulating those symbols according to fixed rules, right? So why can’t a computer do it? Does math really require a mind?”
This I am familiar with…
SoMG: “The answer which shoots this ambition to hell is the Goedel Theorem, which states that any system of arithmetic notation, postulates, and deduction which is strong enough to describe the Integers must be either inconsistant or incomplete. “Inconsistant” means there is a proposition you can write down in the hypothesized notation which can be both proved and disproved by the system. A contradiction. “Incomplete” means there is a proposition you can write down in the hypothesized notation which can neither be proved nor disproved by the system. An undecidable question. Hence mind-free (automated) math must always end up incomplete.”
See, I believe you brought this up simply to frustrate me. I understand what you are implying, but I in no way see how that is obviously deduced. And I am sure Godel wrote more about it than one paragraph. I dont want to go off on a tangent, considering that I am currently considering switching my major to a Math/Physics/Philosophy triple major, and I am sure I will run into this concept at least once. I suppose that if the machine were to create a contradiction it would not be able to “know” where the problem is, or to assess the basic premises, but I would definitely need to read more.
SoMG,
I read Silent Planet, and the Great Divorce…but not Perelandra or Hideous Strength. Other than the Chronicles, I prefer his non-fiction.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the opera tho. The music is so intense. I’ve never been able to listen to anything harder than Fleetwood Mac! I love folk music, because for me the words are what make a song. I love my melodies to be simple, but the words and harmonies to be the focal point. Which is why like PIP, I love Paul Simon. I do think of the voice as an instrument (the most important one) tho, and this is why I might (and I emphasize “might”, be able to eventually wrap my head around opera. As I’ve mentioned before, not being able to understand the lyrics is posing a problem for me.
But I’ll discuss Lewis ANYTIME!
I’ll agree with you that his “villains” are actually likable and very interesting. I often use Uncle Andrews line “She’s a dem fine woman” in every day conversation. He reminds me of you because like Eustace (There once was a boy named Eustance Clarence Scrubb…and he almost deserved it) they are all redeemable. I think you remind me of Uncle Andrew because like him, your flaws are almost endearing. It’s like they are so exaggerated that you are almost a parody of evil.
I wish that you, unlike Uncle Andrew, would learn from what we say here, see yourself as we do and NOT cling to your old self. But rather learn, and change and become the man you were meant to be…
I think you could really be someone that others looked up to. You have such ENORMOUS potential. Which is what Lewis was always able to convey with his “bad” characters. You always feel that “If only”…then they would join the good side.
I think Shift in the Last Battle was the only character I was never able to empathize with!
Thanks, Bethany 2:42! God bless Jill and you and all the other moderators.
Oliver,
“See, I believe you brought this up simply to frustrate me. I understand what you are implying, but I in no way see how that is obviously deduced.”
Wait, what do you think he is implying? And switching to a math major is a very, VERY good idea! Do you mind if I ask which school you go to?
I guess wikipedia will have to do. Good thing I dont teach until 4 today….
I go to the University of Texas at Austin. Well, actually I am re enrolling in the Spring, so I am not there yet technically speaking.
Also, I meant to say, I know what Godel is implying, not what SoMG himself is implying. In other words, I understand the concept of what Godel is saying, I just dont quite get how he gets there.
Oh excellent. They have a great math program. Huge faculty. Man, that will be awesome. Make sure to take point-set topology.
Ah yes. I haven’t actually gone through the proof, but I don’t think it’s too bad. It certainly came as a shock to everyone, especially Hilbert who was probably the greatest mathematician of the 20th century.
So Oliver, here is one thing that has been proven that we can’t prove (at least in the axioms for math that we normally use). It’s called the continuum hypothesis. So this mathematician Cantor came up with a concept of different sizes of infinity. It turns out that according to his theory, the rational numbers (all numbers of the form a/b) are one size of infinity and all the real numbers (the rationals plus numbers like pi, e, sqrt(2) etc) form a “bigger” size of infinity. Cantor asked the question as to whether or not there was a set which had a size IN BETWEEN those two. Something “bigger” than the rationals, but not as big as the reals. But using Godel’s incompleteness ideas, it was proven that the continuum hypothesis could not be answered. So you can PROVE that you can neither prove nor disprove the continuum hypothesis, at least using the standard mathematical axioms. I think it can be proved using other axioms. Crazy, ehh? God love you.
Bobby,
See that is the kind of stuff that makes me all oozy inside. The Master trainer for the GMAT in Austin was a whiz kid and started college when he was 13. He has a masters degree in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Forensics, and 4 others that I forget (mostly sciences.) I wish that I could do that, just sit in college all day.
As it is, I am trying to satiate myself as much as possible with my undergrad before I go on to get my graduate degree….
“I wish that I could do that, just sit in college all day.”
I hear ya…
“As it is, I am trying to satiate myself as much as possible with my undergrad before I go on to get my graduate degree….”
Oh of course, of course. One thing at a time. Plus if you have three majors, who knows which one you’ll want to study in grad school? The thing is though, I don’t think you can get paid to go to grad school in philosophy. I’m pretty sure you do for physics, and I’m definitely sure it’s standard for math. But on the other hand, we need more philosophers who actually seek wisdom and not money or their own fame by putting forth asinine concepts…
Bobby,
I am actually planning on Law school. As it stands, still 2 years out from my undergrad of course, I am looking at some joint MD/JD programs at a couple colleges. Who knows though…maybe I will wimp out and do a joint PHD in philosophy/JD! I havent decided it all out, and one of the big considerations is the money I will need at the time…
Oh also Oliver, never worry about trying to accomplish as much as others. The Lord gives us all different gifts and has different plans for all of us. Don’t worry about being like or comparing yourself to this guy who knew everything at the age of 13. Work with what the Lord has given you. And remember that virtues are on an infinitely higher plane than intelligence. Intelligence and “smarts” are natural gifts, but things like faith, hope, justice, temperance, etc. are supernatural gifts. You obviously possess the gift of faith (and I’m sure others), which is a far greater gift than the minds of Einstein, Godel, and Aquinas combined. God love you.
“I am actually planning on Law school.”
Oh… booooo… haha jk. That’ll be harder financially at first, but obviously the payoff will be much greater in the long run than academia.
Well I am not ruling anything out…
”
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE ON MURDER? WE ARE OUTRAGED ABOUT WOMEN WHO CHOOSE ABORTION FOR WHATEVER REASON. THEN WE JUSTIFY IN GOOD CONSCIENCE AND ACCEPT MURDER OF INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET AS LONG AS WE BELIEVE IT’S IN THE NATION’S INTEREST?
MURDER IS MURDER. WE SHOULDN’T BE LEGISLATING THINGS WE CAN’T CONTROL…..WE ARE ABLE TO CONTROL TO SOME EXTENT OUR NATION’S EAGERNESS TO CONTROL THE WORLD.”
Posted by: MEMI at August 25, 2008 3:53 AM
You don’t have to yell, MEMI, we can all hear you… :)
Your anger would be better directed toward the terrorists who are responsible for the majority of deaths of women and children. They deliberately hide among the civilian population and coerce them into cooperating with their hideous tactics. Fortunately, the tide is turning and Iraqi civilians are defending themselves against these terrorists and rooting them out of their midst.
The U.S. Military goes to extremes to avoid civilian casualties. I notice that people who speak out against the so-called atrocities that our military men and women commit are not in any hurry to go over and assist foreigners. Aren’t we fortunate that we can state our opinions in the public square without threat of rape, torture, imprisonment, beheading, threat to our family members, etc.
If you want to see peace in the world then work to ensure that the most helpless and vulnerable among us are protected. Mother Teresa of Calcutta said that the fruit of abortion is nuclear war. If women are encouraged to declare war on life in the womb then how can we prevent war anywhere else?
Well if you ever have any questions about math or math grad school…
Sure thing. Im reading about Godel right now, and Im just getting to the juicy part. I may have questions.
Sorry! Anon is me.
Sorry folks,
Doug was right, the ‘anon’ (above) is me, John McDonell.
I find the conversation between SoMG and Oliver fascinating, because Oliver complained that SoMG hadn’t answered 99% of Oliver’s post. Oliver, SoMG believes he is so correct. That what interests his arrogance (getting a 13 of 15 is ‘proof’ that he is so smart) is 1% of what you wrote. SoMG is too smart to be corrected by a PL’er named Oliver. He is only interested in what does not confront his ego.
Now see if this response fits with SoMG’s own words: “Anon, I would say the most funny thing in your ridiculous post is “Having an abortion (emptying the uterus) does NOT make a woman ‘un-pregnant’.”
ROTFL.” Every single cell in a pregnant woman’s body supplies the nutrients/energy that a developing child needs. When we say ‘the woman is pregnant’ we are more correct, than if we say ‘A woman’s uterus is pregnant.’
The word ‘pregnant’ is much like the phrase ‘seat of government’. Just as assassination of rulers does not destroy any government, so too killing via abortion is not limited to the procedure. A very similar thing is noted via suicide.
Is SoMG lazy? Don’t the other cells of the body need time to adjust to the vacancy? How has SoMG procedures directed to those other cells?
John
Oh Oliver, I also sometimes skip answering if I have given the answer before.
You wrote: “Intented [sic] would not be the right word. I guess, inherent to the design of the human DNA would be a better way of expressing that. ”
Nope. “Design” implies intention. Swapping the one for the other does absolutely nothing for you. Sorry.
You wrote: “The organs are inherent to the design of the human DNA, whereas food/water/shelter etc etc are in no way inherent.”
** Shrug ** Suppose the child’s need for an organ transplant from its parent is caused by a genetic disease? Inherent in the DNA?
Anon, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing bewtween pregnancy and post-pregnancy. “Pregnant” means full or with child. Offspring in the body. Aftereffects on the cells are parts of post-pregnancy. This is less arbitrary than many similar distinctions in medicine, like between stages of a disease or between a blastocyst and an embryo.
MK, you should read the rest of the Space Trilogy (a misnomer because THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH takes place in conventional terrestrial settings.) Both of them are much less boring than OotSP, less aimless wandering and more plot and physicality. CSL is very good at physicality. Also more is at stake than three guys on a trip.
Perelandra is as otherworldly-fairy-tale as Narnia, but the fairy tale is more closely related to a Biblical story than any of the Narnia books and the other world is Venus. What else can I tell you without spoiling anything? Well, Ransom has to philosophize for his life (and more). The villian is the most interesting, Uncle Andrew-like villian except Uncle Andrew. Imagine someone whose mind works like Uncle Andrew’s but he’s also big, successful, confident, and physical like Miraz…oh I guess you already know him, Dr. Weston from OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET is back but now he has a major role and unsurprisingly he’s very much worse.
That Hideous Strength is more of a Satanic thriller about a young academic which starts slowly and you will find yourself wondering what it all has to do with Ransom and the extraterrestrial supernaturals from the previous two books but don’t worry they’re coming. In the meantime you will meet an all-young-sexy-female security force headed by a sadistic killer-lesbian policewoman. I kid you not. It also features a diabolical hierarchy like the one in THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS but more serious. Ransom and Divine from the previous novels play small but critical roles.
OMG the “Interfaith Gathering of the DNCC” is on Cspan. Excuse me while I go puke.
SoMG: “Oh Oliver, I also sometimes skip answering if I have given the answer before.”
That may be the case, but it is not applicable to the questions I posed to you.
You also dont actually respond to everything as written. You normally quote me, but when you responded to the twin scenario, you didnt quote me and you incorrectly responded to it. Do you just not have an answer?
SoMG: “Nope. “Design” implies intention. Swapping the one for the other does absolutely nothing for you. Sorry.”
Im not sure you know the concept of secondary meanings. Design has a few. One of the meanings for design is “organization structure” or “arrangment.”
Regardless, I could also word it as “inherent to the nature of human DNA.” You know what it means.
SoMG: “** Shrug ** Suppose the child’s need for an organ transplant from its parent is caused by a genetic disease? Inherent in the DNA?”
How is that any different? The parent is not in control of their child’s DNA. It still is the case that in our society, because of the quality of organs that they are inherent to the structure of DNA, that they cannot be expected to be provided, but food/water/shelter on the contrary is in fact expected to be provided because it is in no way inherent to the child.
Just let me know, is it that you are too lazy to respond in full or that you dont know what to say? Obviously its not because of lack of interest, as you openly admited a portion of what I brought up was interesting, and yet do not respond, and obviously its not because you have answered it before, because in my last post I brought up several points that I had never personally brought up before, including the conjoined twin scenario.
SoMG,
I do not have a dictionary present, but can assure you that ‘pregnant’ has more definitions than being ‘with child’. The word ‘abortion’ means ‘the deliberate cessation of a process’ like ‘aborting a space mission’, … so too a ‘person can be pregnant with worry’.
The definition of words is not limited to the medical use of words.
As a side note many would site Mme Currie or Albert Schweitzer as medical-heroes. I wonder how you would rate Josef Mengele considering Tiller is one of your medical-heroes.
Oliver, you wrote: “Regardless, I could also word it as “inherent to the nature of human DNA.” You know what it means.
No, I’m not sure I do know what you mean by that. And I don’t know why it matters. Who cares whether something is inherent to the nature of human DNA? Suppose you had an organ in your body that wasn’t inherent to the nature of human DNA. An internal prosthesis inserted long ago. Your child needs part of it but you don’t wanna donate.
You wrote: “SoMG: “** Shrug ** Suppose the child’s need for an organ transplant from its parent is caused by a genetic disease? Inherent in the DNA?” How is that any different? ”
YOU seem to think it matters that the organ is “inherent in the DNA” whatever that means. I’m pointing out that in some cases the absence of a needed organ is just as inherent in the DNA as the sufficiency of it. That’s all.
You wrote: “The parent is not in control of their child’s DNA.”
Not yet. Soon. Some time this millenium.
You wrote: “It still is the case that in our society, because of the quality of organs that they are inherent to the structure of DNA, that they cannot be expected to be provided, but food/water/shelter on the contrary is in fact expected to be provided because it is in no way inherent to the child.”
Once again, in some cases the needed organ is also in no way inherent to the child. As I say I don’t see why this matters but if yer gonna say non-inherency is the reason you must provide f/w/s then it’s also a reason you must provide organs in cases when they are non-inherent. I mean, isn’t it?
I’m sorry, I went over so many variations of the “conjoined twins who disagree” theme in med school that I have no appetite for it any more and I don’t see that it is ever relevent to anything but itself.
Anon, maybe I’m missing something but I see very little commonality between Josef Mengele and Dr. Tiller. I don’t think people travelled from all over the country to seek care from Dr. Mengele. At least not willingly.
): Patricia, Bobby, Oliver and even SoMG…
I WANNA BE SMART TOO!!!!!
Doug :”Ahoy Oliver. I understand that “it is because it is,” doesn’t sound very persuasive, but I think SoMG has a point – the same “we” as in “we don’t force even so much as a blood donation,” is operative in what he then said – it could be restated as “we don’t hold that a parent owes anything that would mean them giving up their bodily autonomy against their will.””
Im not sure how you can establish that. You and SoMG would be making a huge assumption here.
You are assuming that because blood donations are not required by society that one of the reasons this is is because “we dont hold that a parent owes anything etc.” It could be the case that the bodily domain aspect is not a factor at all, and in fact, it is an altogether other reason that sets it apart.
Oliver, we’re not compromising bodily autonomy here, even when it’s just a case of having blood taken. The motivation, as per SoMG’s example, would be to keep the child alive, same as those who want to further restrict or ban abortion want to keep the unborn alive. Do you see another reason, other than the personal “bodily domain”/ bodily autonomy that we don’t force blood donation?
…..
By the way Doug, if you let your child starve by not breastfeeding you can at the very least be brought to court for neglect. There is a case going on right now about this very issue.
Very interesting – I think if that’s the only way the baby is kept alive, then the same requirement from the state to care for the baby applies there too.
…..
Why would the government require a parent to give up a part of their bodily autonomy in this case but not in the blood transfusion case? Maybe there is a factor other than “bodily domain” that affects it then.
Again, the parent has chosen to care for the baby, and then the state’s gonna require that care is given, as far as feeding, though it doesn’t extend to blood donation.
……
Doug: “Understood that some individuals in society disagree with both – we know the abortion debate is a big one, and I’d think some would say, “yes, parents should be forced to donate blood to save the life of their child.”
“If the premise is that we don’t even force a blood donation, then to conclude that we don’t force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will would certainly be consistent.”
It would only be consistent if the assumption that there is no other restriction on required blood donations holds constant. Hell, not even then. It could be the case that the underlying principle behind the motivation to restrict required blood donations is inconsistent anyways.
Maybe it would be “inconsistent” in the opinion of some inddividuals/groups, but if it exists, then to allow the woman her bodily autonomy as far as continuing her pregnancy or ending it wouldn’t be any surprise.
I didn’t mean that “If we allow blood donations to be voluntary, then we will (necessarily) allow the matter of continuing pregnancies or not to be voluntary.” Didn’t mean it was necessarily a “logical conclusion,” just that it certainly should be no surprise, and that’s what I think SoMG’s example spoke to.
“Heh – no you haven’t, and you cannot even speak to anything I’ve said, but rather just conjure up the same old baloney.”
yllas: Yes I have.
“Nope, your approach is to pretend what other people have said.”
Now get your eyes real close to the screen Doug, and read these words without using a metaphysical nail puller and pry bar to deconstruct the next sentence.
I have been purposely twisting(your) words and only reacting to parts of the post(your) I feel like.
That may be, and what then occurs is that you just make up psychobabble and don’t reply to the salient points, and/or you are simply wrong about factual matters, as with the ambiguity of the Exodus passage.
If it’s just the usual crazy stuff from you, then okay.
And if you talk about stuff that’s true for all of us, like the ambiguity in the Exodus passage, then you are usually incorrect.
There too, okay – it’s your posts, your behavior.
I wrote: “Regardless, I could also word it as “inherent to the nature of human DNA.” You know what it means.
SoMG :”No, I’m not sure I do know what you mean by that.”
It means organs are a obvious aspect of functioning human DNA.
SoMG: “And I don’t know why it matters. Who cares whether something is inherent to the nature of human DNA?”
Because it is inherent, it cannot be a reasonable expectation that someone else should supply it. Food is not inherent to human DNA, therefore it is in fact a reasonable expectation that it provided.
SoMG: “Suppose you had an organ in your body that wasn’t inherent to the nature of human DNA. An internal prosthesis inserted long ago. Your child needs part of it but you don’t wanna donate.”
I think you have confused the intent of my definition. The inherent nature of organs does not protect them from being allocated. The inherent nature of organs precludes them from being a reasonable requirement from a parent.
SoMG: “YOU seem to think it matters that the organ is “inherent in the DNA” whatever that means. I’m pointing out that in some cases the absence of a needed organ is just as inherent in the DNA as the sufficiency of it. That’s all.”
Alright, functioning human DNA inherently provides organs. Food is not in any way. That make its significantly different.
SoMG: “Not yet. Soon. Some time this millenium.”
Im sure that a parent that purposfully programs their child to not have a kidney will be brought up on charges are assault as well. It still doesnt change the fact that functioning human DNA accounts for a kidney, but does not for food/etc.
SoMG: “Once again, in some cases the needed organ is also in no way inherent to the child. As I say I don’t see why this matters but if yer gonna say non-inherency is the reason you must provide f/w/s then it’s also a reason you must provide organs in cases when they are non-inherent. I mean, isn’t it?”
I dont mean inherent to the individual DNA, but to the functioning human DNA. This makes it unreasonable to expect a parent to repair it.
SoMG: “I’m sorry, I went over so many variations of the “conjoined twins who disagree” theme in med school that I have no appetite for it any more and I don’t see that it is ever relevent to anything but itself.”
I would normally agree. I hate going to the conjoined twin route, but I believe this case to be relevant.
Again…. Two twins have no desire to separate, except that there has recently been a complication that threatens both of their lives. There are two surgical operations available to them. The first will kill the weaker twin, but will cause the stronger twin to only undergo a mild recovery with limited complications. The second will allow both twins to live with a relatively low chance of long term complications for both, but a higher chance of complication for the stronger twin. The second surgery also will require a longer recovery time for the stronger twin.
I also find your parent with an internal prosthesis example to be interesting. For whatever reason it triggered a thought process in me. Maybe because the prosthesis isnt a physical part of the parent so it brought me down the road to property.
A parent is not required to sell the property that they have to buy a kidney for their child, yet they are required to feed their child via money/work if there is any money to spare. This clearly demonstrates the difference between an organ and food/water/etc. A parent isnt even required to sacrifice property/privacy to provide an ogran for their child. It is no wonder that they are not required to sacrifice their right to bodily domain either.
Dangit, that was me again
Doug: “Oliver, we’re not compromising bodily autonomy here, even when it’s just a case of having blood taken. The motivation, as per SoMG’s example, would be to keep the child alive, same as those who want to further restrict or ban abortion want to keep the unborn alive. Do you see another reason, other than the personal “bodily domain”/ bodily autonomy that we don’t force blood donation?”
Yes, the same reason that doesnt require a parent to pay for an organ but still requires a mother to breast feed if there is no other option.
Doug: “Very interesting – I think if that’s the only way the baby is kept alive, then the same requirement from the state to care for the baby applies there too.”
What then if the parent doesnt want to give it up the state but still doesnt want to breast feed? Would you not consider that neglect? Of course you would.
Doug: “Again, the parent has chosen to care for the baby, and then the state’s gonna require that care is given, as far as feeding, though it doesn’t extend to blood donation.”
Thats like saying it isnt neglect to refuse to feed your child because the state could take over. It still is neglect, just like refusing to breast feed is still neglect.
Doug: “Maybe it would be “inconsistent” in the opinion of some inddividuals/groups, but if it exists, then to allow the woman her bodily autonomy as far as continuing her pregnancy or ending it wouldn’t be any surprise.”
It may be “no suprise” but if you claim that the reason parents are not required to give blood is the same that parents are not required to be pregnant to provide food and shelter is to make a huge assumption. You have to prove that the reason between them is the same, not just say that they both revolve around the same right. I could take the point a step further and claim that you have no right to harm someone physically who is attempting to kill you. There is something that makes this case different, and I just spent a huge long post trying to explain why the case of blood donation is different than pregnancy.
Doug: “I didn’t mean that “If we allow blood donations to be voluntary, then we will (necessarily) allow the matter of continuing pregnancies or not to be voluntary.” Didn’t mean it was necessarily a “logical conclusion,” just that it certainly should be no surprise, and that’s what I think SoMG’s example spoke to.”
You give SoMG too much credit. He is just bored and wants to talk. Otherwise I would expect him to respond to the points I am making. He was not bringing it up to say “I wouldnt be suprised that they have the same underlying principle,” he was trying to say that they DO have the same underlying principle.
Eileen: You are a genius.
Strawman? Baloney? Speak to anything you say? Those are your words Doug, and to equal the ignorance of you, a failure to understand from years of deconstruction, I must reply……..No there not, those are not your words, Doug. To which you reply; yes they are. To which I reply , “Nope, your approach is to pretend what other people have said”.
Posted by: yllas at August 25, 2008 12:32 AM
purposefully twisting words and only reacting to the parts of the posts they feel like”
yllas: I have been doing that to Doug
“Heh – no you haven’t, and you cannot even speak to anything I’ve said, but rather just conjure up the same old baloney.”
Yes I have.
Nope, your approach is to pretend what other people have said.Posted by: Doug at August 24, 2008 7:35 PM
I’m going to help ya Doug, by deconstructing my post of August 25, 2008 12:32 AM. The point my post is all contained in that paragraph of 12;32am.
You didn’t paste, as a reply to me, that paragraph contained within the 12;32am post of mine. You missed the mimickry, and got on a horse that led you exactly where your mind always leads you Doug, to reply only to the parts of a post you feel like. Zero in on the words following “I must reply”, within the paragraph.
You are reacting to my post, to the parts “that you feel like” replying to.
My 12;32am post, is mimicking your August 24, 2008 7:35 PM post.
No you haven’t.
Yes you have.
Nope, your approach is….
I have been purposely twisting(your) words and only reacting to parts of the post(your) I feel like.
That may be, and what then occurs is that you just make up psychobabble
Posted by: Doug at August 25, 2008 9:40 PM
You see Doug, there is a example of your twisting my words and only replying to the parts of my post that you feel like.
First, there is “no maybe” about my twisting your words and replying only to the parts I feel like. I find it amusing that after writing and repeating the statement(more then once) that ………
“I have been purposely twisting(your) words and only reacting to parts of the post(your) I feel like”, … that you reply with “that may be”.
You see Doug, the fact of reality, as Yllas has written his facts of reality, is that you are making “maybe’s” where there are none.
There is no psychobabble, there is Yllas mimicking your ability to take a nail puller and pry bar to another person’s post, and deconstruct another person’s post, then reconstruct the parts of that post to fit your facts of their post.
Your mind has been conditioned from 12 years of preaching in matters of abortion, and the attributes you self assign to yourself, makes you incapable of not knowing when your actually being mimicked.
But, tell the world Doug,, just once, in all the words you have written in the 12 years of preaching for the death of human beings, have you not once written a false statement in matters of abortion?
II THE MANIAC
Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world;
they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not
true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher,
who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed,
almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once
too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it.
The publisher said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes
in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen,
my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.” I said to him,
“Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves?
For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves
more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames
the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to
the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in
themselves are all in lunatic asylums.” He said mildly that
there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves
and who were not in lunatic asylums. “Yes, there are,” I retorted,
“and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom
you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself.
That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room,
he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience
instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that
believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter.
Actors who can’t act believe in themselves; and debtors who won’t pay.
It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail,
because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is
not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness.
Believing utterly in one’s self is a hysterical and superstitious
belief.
G.K. Chesterton.
Your hysterical Doug, especially after stating that ” no one has a good argument against abortion they just think they do”.
I WANNA BE SMART TOO!!!!!
Posted by: mk at August 25, 2008 7:47 PM
You don’t know how smart you are! :)
Yllas, GK Chesterton was too fat. PG Wodehouse once described a loud crash as as sound like Chesterton falling on to a sheet of tin.
Oliver (or lauren or whoever), you wrote: “I dont mean inherent to the individual DNA, but to the functioning human DNA. This makes it unreasonable to expect a parent to repair it.”
Why? If the organ isn’t inherent to the patient’s DNA, who cares about the “human species’ DNA”? You’re saying you don’t have to keep your child alive because other human children without genetic diseases have the organs your child needs???
You wrote: “A parent is not required to sell the property that they have to buy a kidney for their child, yet they are required to feed their child via money/work if there is any money to spare. This clearly demonstrates the difference between an organ and food/water/etc.”
I think it illustrates the fact that it’s illegal to buy or sell part of someone’s body.
You wrote: “It is no wonder that they are not required to sacrifice their right to bodily domain either.”
I agree with you. To deny abortion to a woman who wants one requires her to sacrifice her right to bodily domain.
SoMG: “Why? If the organ isn’t inherent to the patient’s DNA, who cares about the “human species’ DNA”? You’re saying you don’t have to keep your child alive because other human children without genetic diseases have the organs your child needs???”
Absolutely. It isnt a reasonable expectation for anyone to provide an organ.
I wrote: “A parent is not required to sell the property that they have to buy a kidney for their child, yet they are required to feed their child via money/work if there is any money to spare. This clearly demonstrates the difference between an organ and food/water/etc.”
SoMG: “I think it illustrates the fact that it’s illegal to buy or sell part of someone’s body.”
Okay, a parent has to provide the medical care for their child to recieve an organ, but they are not required to take a harder job to make more money to provide for that medical care. They are also not required to sell their objects to provide this medical care. So again, a parent is in no way required to sacrifice their property or privacy in such a way, of course they wouldnt require to sacrifice their body in such a way either. However, a child has the right to demand food and shelter to the degree that a parent is capable to provide it. Hence, a pregnant woman is required to provide food and shelter as long as she is capable at the partial sacrifice of her bodily domain.
SoMG: “I agree with you. To deny abortion to a woman who wants one requires her to sacrifice her right to bodily domain.”
Certainly. It is a just sacrifice though.
You still refuse to respond to the majority of the new and “interesting” points that I bring up.
Why does a mother have to sacrifice her right to her body by supplying breast milk?
Would the stronger twin have the right to choose a relatively less damaging operation that would kill the weaker twin, or would the twins be required to take the second operation?
Oliver, you wrote: “Why does a mother have to sacrifice her right to her body by supplying breast milk?”
I’m not sure she does, but if she does it’s because the body-violation is so minor, like the slap vs arson case.
You wrote: “Would the stronger twin have the right to choose a relatively less damaging operation that would kill the weaker twin, or would the twins be required to take the second operation?”
Dunno. Not my field.
You wrote: “It isnt a reasonable expectation for anyone to provide an organ. ”
Right. The question is, why not? Given that the organ is NOT inherent to the patient’s DNA.
I you wrote: “Why does a mother have to sacrifice her right to her body by supplying breast milk?”
SoMG: “I’m not sure she does, but if she does it’s because the body-violation is so minor, like the slap vs arson case.”
And the body violation during pregnancy is much more minor than breast feeding. In fact is imperceptible.
I wrote: “Would the stronger twin have the right to choose a relatively less damaging operation that would kill the weaker twin, or would the twins be required to take the second operation?”
SoMG: “Dunno. Not my field”
Yeah ethics is not your field. Why would you be posting about a topic that you have no idea how to fully respond to?
You dont want to answer because you know that it would contradict the “labor and delivery” argument.
SoMG: “Right. The question is, why not? Given that the organ is NOT inherent to the patient’s DNA.”
For the same reason that a parent doesnt have to sacrifice their property for this very purpose but does for food and shelter.
Oliver, you wrote: “Okay, a parent has to provide the medical care for their child to recieve an organ, but they are not required to take a harder job to make more money to provide for that medical care. ”
They’re not?
You wrote: “They are also not required to sell their objects to provide this medical care.”
Picture this: “You see, your Honor, I let my son bleed to death because I would have had to sell some of my property to pay for his medical care!”
I don’t think that would fly.
You wrote: “And the body violation during pregnancy is much more minor than breast feeding. In fact is imperceptible.”
Imperceptible? When your belly swells up like a pufferfish?
And I think the body violation during pregnancy includes L&D.
I bet anything that it would fly. Now you would be in trouble for not taking them to the hospital anyways. However, no court would require you to sell your property to afford an elective surgery to save your child if your insurance doesnt cover it.
I wrote: “And the body violation during pregnancy is much more minor than breast feeding. In fact is imperceptible.”
SoMG: “Imperceptible? When your belly swells up like a pufferfish?
And I think the body violation during pregnancy includes L&D.”
The part of pregnancy that requires providing food is imperceptible. The part that requires providing shelter is much more noticable, but more negligable than breast feeding. In fact, it only becomes a serious concern in the last few months, and I support a woman inducing early labor at around 32 weeks anyways.
I already admited that labor and delivery is not required to nurish the preborn, so the mother is in not obligated to go through with it for that reason. She however is expected to go through with it because the alternative kills the preborn at only a relatively smaller pain and recovery time. My wife had both a miscarriage and a c-section. She also has had several surgeries. She revovered 2 weeks slower from the c-section than from the miscarriage at only a few days more of pain. In fact she described the pain from the miscarriage as worse, just shorter. The danger of a c-section is worse than for an abortion, but they both carry risks.
Its like the conjoined twin example I gave you. The mother doesnt have the right to have the baby die to avoid a slightly worse alternative with slightly worse complications.
Oliver, you wrote: “no court would require you to sell your property to afford an elective surgery to save your child if your insurance doesnt cover it.”
Are you serious???
I would be suprised if they expected it. I cant imagine that the court would require you to sell your car to provide a bone marrow transplant for your child. I cant imagine they would even require you to not buy a car to provide for such a surgery.
Would I personally find it loathesome for someone to do such a thing? Sure. I would also personally find it loathesome for a parent to not donate blood, or provide an expendable kidney. Its not something I would force on anybody though, as it is not a reasonable expectatopm.
Hi folks,
it strikes me as odd when it is assumed that body integrity and the will are exactly in step or are the same. I thought so too …. when a pregnant woman seeks an abortion, SoMG cries … that he follows her ‘right’ to do so, the unborn child is violating her body domain … BAD, BAD … . In this he (and Doug assume her wishes/will are aligned so closely with body integrity they are one.
So let’s take a look when they are not copasetic: how’s about when the call to defecate or urinate. Seems these processes are instrumental in maintaining a strong body integrity, but I have yet to meet an adult who does not delay this need only to have it fulfilled later. A very similar argument can be made of thirst and hunger. Both are integral to body integrity and both are often delayed (even scheduled).
There is no compulsion to fulfill a pregnant woman’s desire to end-her-pregnancy. The immediacy comes in when she wishes to kill-her-offspring …. the EXCUSE put forward by SoMG: to maintain her body integrity. Her desires are not necessarily about body-integrity.
I see, so deciding not to grow a pregnancy and endure labor and delivery is like taking a dump in a public place? I don’t think I’ve heard that argument before!
No SoMG,
Having an abortion is like “taking that proverbial dump”…waiting responsibly until you can do so in private is like taking a pregnancy in stride. Something a mature person would do.
Doug: “Oliver, we’re not compromising bodily autonomy here, even when it’s just a case of having blood taken. The motivation, as per SoMG’s example, would be to keep the child alive, same as those who want to further restrict or ban abortion want to keep the unborn alive. Do you see another reason, other than the personal “bodily domain”/ bodily autonomy that we don’t force blood donation?”
O: Yes, the same reason that doesnt require a parent to pay for an organ but still requires a mother to breast feed if there is no other option.
Not having to pay for an organ is not the same thing at all. That’s coming from someone else, very likely a dead person, so it’s not on the donor (and even if alive they’re not compelled to) which is what we’re talking about. Even if payment from the recipient was required, if the donor was compelled to give up the organ against their will, it’d be a vastly different deal from what we have now.
…..
Doug: “Very interesting – I think if that’s the only way the baby is kept alive, then the same requirement from the state to care for the baby applies there too.”
What then if the parent doesnt want to give it up the state but still doesnt want to breast feed? Would you not consider that neglect? Of course you would.
Yes, same as not having an abortion, giving birth, and then not caring for the baby. I agree with the state’s position on born babies, and unborn babies past viability.
…..
Doug: “Again, the parent has chosen to care for the baby, and then the state’s gonna require that care is given, as far as feeding, though it doesn’t extend to blood donation.”
Thats like saying it isnt neglect to refuse to feed your child because the state could take over. It still is neglect, just like refusing to breast feed is still neglect.
No, Oliver, it’s saying the state does say it’s neglect. If the parent chooses to care for the baby, then the state does have a position, there. If the parent doesn’t take the baby home from the hospital, nothing’s required. If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, nothing’s required.
Otherwise, though circumstantial, there are “requirements,” i.e. the parent/guardian of the born baby has to “give it up” to somebody else, and the pregnant woman has to “give it up” via abortion before all state-imposed requiriements end.
…..
Doug: “Maybe it would be “inconsistent” in the opinion of some individuals/groups, but if it exists, then to allow the woman her bodily autonomy as far as continuing her pregnancy or ending it wouldn’t be any surprise.”
It may be “no suprise” but if you claim that the reason parents are not required to give blood is the same that parents are not required to be pregnant to provide food and shelter is to make a huge assumption. You have to prove that the reason between them is the same, not just say that they both revolve around the same right. I could take the point a step further and claim that you have no right to harm someone physically who is attempting to kill you. There is something that makes this case different, and I just spent a huge long post trying to explain why the case of blood donation is different than pregnancy.
I said nothing about “not being pregnant.” The states, per the Roe decision, are free to impose the restrictions that most have, past viability, when pregnancy is still a fact. On “not being pregnant” – it doesn’t matter if the one(s) held liable are the biological parents or not – we’ve no disagreement about this.
I’d say the point, going back to SoMG, is that if we don’t curtail bodily autonomy to the extent that we’d require blood donation against one’s will, then surely it’s entirely believeable, if not very much expected, that we wouldn’t curtail it as far as legally compelling the continuance of pregnancy against one’s will – it being a much greater incursion. It would not *have* to logically follow, but that it does would be expected.
…..
you have no right to harm someone physically who is attempting to kill you. \
Oliver, I gotta say that in most states I think that’s just plain false. What’s the deal?
…..
Doug: “I didn’t mean that “If we allow blood donations to be voluntary, then we will (necessarily) allow the matter of continuing pregnancies or not to be voluntary.” Didn’t mean it was necessarily a “logical conclusion,” just that it certainly should be no surprise, and that’s what I think SoMG’s example spoke to.”
“You give SoMG too much credit. He is just bored and wants to talk. Otherwise I would expect him to respond to the points I am making. He was not bringing it up to say “I wouldnt be suprised that they have the same underlying principle,” he was trying to say that they DO have the same underlying principle.
I don’t think SoMG is wrong, there – the principle is that we don’t disturb people’s bodily autonomy without a good enough reason. I don’t know if saying that parents/guardians have to care for their kids actually qualifiies as “disturbing bodily autonomy,” but even if we say it does, it’s not as much a thing as requiring blood donation, nor as requiring the continuance of pregnancy against one’s will, so even in the latter case it’d be a contiuum, and past the line (drawn somewhere in-between requiring the care and requiring the blood donation).
yllas: Strawman?
Yes, yllas, you do it all the time, as pretending that “an eye for an eye” was what was disputed as far as the Exodus passage. You just don’t know your Bible very well at all, or something….
The passage really is ambiguous, and you were just wrong, that’s all. You came up with the imaginary dispute over “an eye for an eye,”when that was not the deal.
Once again:
Doug: “your approach is to pretend what other people have said.”
yllas: Write clearly Doug, if you want ambiguity, you have just given a perfect example of ambiguity by stating that Exodus is being ambiguitous, or are you trying to state other passages from the bible are ambiguitous Doug? Well, state the ambiguitous bible passages you have in mind Doug.
“Are you insane? Lord have mercy….. (Isn’t it a bummer how the Pro-Choicers have driven everybody away? ; )”
“Holy Moly we’re gonna have a hootenanny now….. a real great God-a-mighty rock and rolla Ayatollah festival. (You know, it’d be nice if you told some more tales about when you tended bar…)”
……
Be honest, Doug, don’t try and make fogs appear where none exist.
“:: laughing :: I will explain it in such simple terms that even you will be able to understand. You will go to bed tonight with the Light of Learning gleaming in thine eyes. Your mind will transform into an edifice of edification.”
……
What’s ambiguous Doug? His bible passage ain’t got one bit of ambiguity within it. Eye for a Eye really is quite direct, containing no ambiguity in it, unless you want to redirect what he wrote to fit your version of Exodus 21; 22-25.
“Nobody told you that “eye for an eye” is the ambiguous part. You are the one saying that. Sheesh…. This is like “yllas’s straw man argument # 49, 875.” There is lack of clarity here, yes, and dishonesty, and it’s all in your court.”
“Now then, the ambiguous part is where the men fight and the baby comes out. Going back to the Hebrew, the word “yatsa” translates to “lose her offspring.” It’s not stated whether the baby lives or dies, directly. Some Bible versions say that if the woman has a miscarriage, then the fighting men must pay the fine. Others treat is as a premature birth. Many premature births in biblical times would mean the baby dies, but not necessarily. So from this we don’t know if the baby lives or dies.”
“The New International Version says:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.”
It also gives, as an alternate translation:
“Footnotes: Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage ”
The two translations result in different meanings – with one, the baby dies, and with one it lives, perhaps. Thus the ambiguity.”
_______
And that’s not hard to understand.
So, we have the “usual” yllas – the one with the blathering nonsense.
Then we have the “semi-rational” yllas, where you attempt to dispute, as above, but even there you can’t be honest, but rather have to go with straw men arguments, etc.
And then we have the “real” yllas, who’s always there, trying to bubble up, and once in a while, as you did with Jess, it comes through.
John: There is no compulsion to fulfill a pregnant woman’s desire to end-her-pregnancy. The immediacy comes in when she wishes to kill-her-offspring …. the EXCUSE put forward by SoMG: to maintain her body integrity. Her desires are not necessarily about body-integrity.
John, it’s two different things. One is the desire of the individual. The other is the extent to which the state is going to allow the individual to exercise control over their “bodily domain” (as SoMG puts it.)
No, people don’t want to poop in public, but they don’t tend to give birth in public nor have abortions in public either.
Individual will and the state’s recognition of bodily autonomy are not at all “the same thing.” If anything, it’s going to be an area of conflict, not “the same.”
Hi Doug,
my thought was not about the state vs individual-will but how each person defines what body autonomy incorporates. You and SoMG seem to say that her expressing to want an abortion is sacrosanct because it is her body (autonomy).
By her not pooping in public but waiting means two things. First her will CAN be self controlled. And if self controllable there is not immediacy in the will. Similarly there is no immediacy/hurry to regain what body autonomy was ‘lost’ …. according to SoMG.
The immediacy comes from the age of the fetus. Its a crock to claim that the justification to perform an abortion is to end a pregnancy to regain body autonomy. THE REASON for the rapid movement in abortion, is to kill the developing child.
The second thing it means is that any person is under no obligation (you; SoMG; the state; etc) to follow her will … she need not become a patient because the ‘in-need’ status does not come from her being pregnant, but from the age of her fetus.
Its not an area of conflict Doug except for too much bs obscuring the picture.
Oliver talked about the design of humans. One part of this design is the womb. It’s designed to nourish babies. To contend that being ‘with child’ is a violation of this design is rather strange wording. If there are problems with the emotional/physical aspects of pregnancy, these should be worked on rather than killing the child. I know, I know …. the way to ‘solve’ rape is kill the kid!!!!! …. the way to ‘solve’ the pain-of-delivery is kill the Kid … eh, SoMG?
Anon,
We all know why a woman has an abortion. It isnt the sense of “bodily violation.” Their concern is that they do not want a child, or to be “forced” to give up a child after birth. We all know why they have abortions, however, in order to rule the operation out entirely it is apparently our burden to prove it immoral for even the motive of protecting bodily domain.
But, tell the world Doug,, just once, in all the words you have written in the 12 years of preaching for the death of human beings, have you not once written a false statement in matters of abortion? No reply.Again, re-enforcing your facts of reality by reacting to the parts of a post you feel like.
I have been purposely twisting(your) words and only reacting to parts of the post(your) I feel like.
You’re not mimicking me, you’re just making another straw man argument.
I’m purposely twisting your words and replying to parts of your post that I feel like. Just as I have noted once again in the first paragraph of this post.
I’m mimicking you Doug. There is no strawman.
There is you Doug, always reacting to a post and replying to what you like to reply. Beyound that comes the tedious post where you take apart a sentence or two of a post with that metaphyiscal nail puller and pry bar, and make yourself absolutely factual and consistently true to your self made matters of abortion….or the bible.
Tell me SOMG, Doug, what resonsibility, or to be called upon for one’s actions, words or deeds for abortion, do you have for the tears of a women caused by abortion. No reply, or always reacting to, and replying to the parts of a post you feel like.
Your hillarious Doug.
Why dont the 2 of you ues an IM and slug it out there.
Hi Oliver,
Maybe I should start by giving a brief overview of the ‘debate’ here so far. The PC so far have stuck very strongly to argumentation based on ‘we want to be free so to have an abortion is NOT about killing-kids, it is about maintaining body autonomy.’
The largest proponent of this view was Diana (shortly after MK first arrived here). Her arguments are still by far the most eloquent in this concept … probably because she was a graduate student in philosophy.
I think the argument is ludicrous, but it allows for a deflection/escape for women who do not wish to be confronted by the starkness of what is actually happening with an abortion.
So you have engaged SoMG. Congrats! He has rarely said more than a few words …. very difficult to discern anything that way.
To me the NECESSITY of abortion is about the speed of the abortion procedure(s) occurring. This ‘speed’ is mandated solely by the age of the fetus. Body autonomy can and often does WAIT, as a part of maturation. It does not have any sense of ‘immediacy’ involved.
So the thrust that says, abortions occur to maintain body-autonomy are false because THE critical aspect of abortion is SPEED, totally governed by the age of the fetus. So, the act of abortion is primarily: to kill-the-kid/fetus and the goal of bodily autonomy is a corollary to this, at best.
John McDonell
lynn: Why dont the 2 of you ues an IM and slug it out there.
Lynn, we just like posting, I reckon.
yllas: But, tell the world Doug,, just once, in all the words you have written in the 12 years of preaching for the death of human beings, have you not once written a false statement in matters of abortion? No reply.
Well, that’s just one more lie from you, yllas.
I’ve replied many times. I’ve been mistaken on occasion, and there have been instances where I didn’t know something, and in both cases I’ve learned from people right here on Jill’s blog, and I’ve said as much. Bethany especially comes to mind, and I’ve told her that she was right and that I was wrong.
…..
Again, re-enforcing your facts of reality by reacting to the parts of a post you feel like.
:: laughing ::
Yeah, you whine when I reply to your whole post, and you whine when I don’t.
You’re a troll, and I pay you more attention than anybody. You ought to be grateful.
…..
There is no strawman.
(snicker)
There are straw men from you, frequently. The discussion of the Exodus passage is a perfect example. It’s ambiguous, and here you come in with, Eye for an Eye really is quite direct, containing no ambiguity in it.
Well, that was a straw man.
“An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.”
Nobody had said anything to the contrary about “an eye for an eye.” Yet you try and set that up as the argument, you try and pretend that the other person’s position is that, which in reality is merely conjured up in your mind.
As so often, you were once again incorrect on a matter of physical reality or logic – things which are true for all of us – and rather than reply, you slink off and act like it never happened.
And then you talk about other people not replying. ; )
…..
Tell me SOMG, Doug, what resonsibility, or to be called upon for one’s actions, words or deeds for abortion, do you have for the tears of a women caused by abortion. No reply, or always reacting to, and replying to the parts of a post you feel like.
In this incoherence there is yet another lie. I’ve spoken to that many times. No doubt that abortion is wrong for some women, and that some women suffer from having abortions, and that it would have been better for them if they continued the pregnancy. I’ve told Carla that, for example.