Michael Phelps before conception
Aug.20, 2008 9:42 pm |
Uncategorized |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Michael Phelps’ mother chose LIFE! How awesome is that?
The sad, sad, sad truth is many Michael Phelps, yes, God’s gifts to the world, have been murdered by the genocidal policies of the Democratic Party birth by one Margaret Sanger.
The Democratic party is not qualified to lead our country and should be disbanded fot the hell they have wrought.
What are the odds that 1 in 40,000,000 would have been a better swimmer than MP. Or that 1 in 40,000,000 would have been another Edward Teller or Albert Einstein? Or that 1 in 40,000,000 would be another Ronald Reagan?
Or for liberals, what are the odds that 1 in 40,000,000 would be another Obama?
We’ll never know since we are getting close to the numbers under Stalin and Mao with no end in sight courtesy of politicians like BHO (and Lieberman and Ridge etc).
ZEE:
Every single person concieved is a gift from God.
I am 1 in 10 or 20 billion, same with you…..
What we do with the gift of life is our choice and no one else’s.
We also suffer the consequences of that choice, good or bad.
Abortion makes the choice for a person.
Why can’t Liberals understand that?
The abortion issue must be made the most important issue in every election, at every level because it goes right to the character of the person running for office.
There should be a sentence on every political office information form which says “pro-aborts need not apply”. That is the goal.
LOL-cute cartoon. ;)
HisMan,
Thank you. We are all equal in God’s eyes.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
From Nationalreview.com Aug. 19, 2008:
Obama and the Least Among Us [Peter Kirsanow]
During the Saddleback Forum, Obama responded to a question about America’s greatest moral failure as follows:
“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the lest of my brothers, you do for me.”
Apparently, Obama’s vote on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act was self-fulfilling prophecy.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU1ODEwNDg1NjBhMmM1MGQzYmQ5Mzk2NGRhYjBmZGE=
Janet:
“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the lest of my brothers, you do for me.”
Barack misquoted scripture by substituting the word “for” for the word “to”.
The verse actually says “whatever you did unto the least of these my brehteren you did unto me.”
To a Liberal, it’s what you do “for” people that counts; like taking money from one class of people by intimindation and threat of confiscation for the purpose of giving it to another class in exchange for a vote, turning them into dependent theives and sons of hell, instead of teaching them of their God given talent and ability; it’s legalizing abortion “for” those that would kill innocent children turning them into vicious murderers, etc., etc.
God is not so much interested in what we do for people as He is interested in what we do to people. Their is a difference. The bible says, “leave no debt unpaid save for the debt of love”.
Besides, the government was never intended by God to be the church and that is who Jesus was adressing in this passage, individuals in the church and especially NOT the government. More evidence that Barack does not have a clue about what true Christianity is.
Want proof, here it is: God would never advocate taking people’s money involuntarily and giving it to another poorer, class. However this is exactly what taxes do. They confiscate money from one class and give it to another.
God’s way is to have the rich take care of the poor out of love and generosity and that with a cheerful heart. The tithe is a start.
When the governemnt enacted 510c3 tax legislation it basically took over the churches role and enacted a law regarding the practice of religion and the exercise thereof, a violation of the Consitution. Abolishing this legislation would go along way toward solving our moral problems.
Zee, it is a grave error to mention Edward Teller in the same breath with Albert Einstein. Teller’s basic science discoveries were important but not in the same league with Einstein’s. The two effects named after Teller explain difficult-to-measure details of the orbitals of transition metal ions complexed with small organic ligands (Jahn-Teller Effect), and the coupling of the vibrational spectra of triatomic organic molecules to their electronic spectra (Renner-Teller Effect). He was also key in developing Monte-Carlo approximation methods. And he led the way from nuclear fission to nuclear fusion. All very important but come on, compared to relativity? The photoelectric effect? Einstein coefficients? Get serious.
Remember when Teller told President Reagan we could shoot incoming commie missiles out of the sky with x-ray lasers mounted on satallites? Zap!
SoMG:
When the bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 my father was on his way to the Pacific to take part in the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Look at the casualty numbers suffered by both sides in the Pacific Theater (especially Okinawa) and then look at the expected casualties (both military and civilian) expected in a mainland invasion.
A lot of my classmates in school had fathers that were to be part of that battle and it’s likely a lot of us would not be here had that battle taken place. As bad as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, more civilians would likely have died in an invasion. A lot of people in Japan and the U.S. were born because so many fathers did not die in 1945.
Teller, Oppenheimer, Gen Groves and the rest of the Manhattan Project will always be heroes to me.
Hisman 2:19 I agree wholeheartedly!
Zee, sure, the Manhattan Project people are heros but that doesn’t put them in Einstein’s class.
And Teller totally blew his credibility by supporting SDI.
Now Republicans are crowing about the agreement with Poland to put a “Missile Defense” base there. Like they’re gonna maintain enough counter-missiles on 24-hour standby to stop a Russian attack. That’s BS. We can’t even distinguish a real nuke from a decoy. I just hope someone has a plan for what to do if Russia bombs the base.
Also, Zee, going back to your first post, the number of possible geniuses lost to abortion is nothing compared to the number of potential geniuses whose conceptions have been prevented by chastity. How many extra Einsteins and Mozarts would we have if we prosecuted menstruation as murder?
Somg
The argument that abortion kills geniuses is flawed beyond belief, and for Pro-Choicers to fixate on it is equally flawed. The reason abortion is wrong is because it is a violation of rights to a human being. There is no difference between abortion and allowing an infant to starve.
Infants do not have any particular intelligence that sets them apart from animals or fetuses/zygotes, yet we afford them basic human rights at the expense of the parent’s/care giver’s right to privacy/property/freedom of speech/etc. Tell me why is it then that a pre-born human being has no rights and/or their rights are allowed to be violated in the face of their parent’s rights.
There is no answer. The entire pro-choice argument is a construct to support the convenience of the lifestyle and that is all. It is one of the most illogical beliefs. The proponents continue to shift in position when pinned down instead of facing the arguments presented, a lot like their hero Obama.
SoMG,
How many extra Einsteins and Mozarts would we have if we prosecuted menstruation as murder?
How is it possible that you are a doctor? What a ridiculous statement. Do you really need someone to explain the difference between fertilized and unfertilized eggs? Between the intentional killing of a human being and an act of nature?
Good Heavens, I just got done expressing my respect for your honest approach tot he abortion issue and then this…
There is no answer. The entire pro-choice argument is a construct to support the convenience of the lifestyle and that is all. It is one of the most illogical beliefs. The proponents continue to shift in position when pinned down instead of facing the arguments presented, a lot like their hero Obama.
Hear, Hear!
“How is it possible that you are a doctor?”
I teach for the Princeton Review, which is a test prep company for such tests as the MCAT, for medical school and LSAT, for law school. Let me just say this…never let it be said that doctors or lawyers are neccesarily more inteligent than anyone.
Oliver,
lol
Just more proof that you can have a great brain but still be “out of your mind”….
Also, Zee, going back to your first post, the number of possible geniuses lost to abortion is nothing compared to the number of potential geniuses whose conceptions have been prevented by chastity. How many extra Einsteins and Mozarts would we have if we prosecuted menstruation as murder?
Posted by: SoMG at August 21, 2008 8:27 AM
back this statement up!
“Oliver, Oliver, never before has a boy asked for more! Oliver, Oliver, won’t ask for more when he learns what’s in store!” You wrote: “Tell me why is it then that a pre-born human being has no rights and/or their rights are allowed to be violated in the face of their parent’s rights.”
OK, I’m happy to explain. It’s because the pre-born human being is located inside the mother’s body. RTLs often say, like it’s too obvious to dispute, that a person’s location does not determine their rights or our obligations to them. The opposite of this is what is obviously true. Our obligations to each other depend heavily on whether we are located on your property or mine. My rights depend on what country or state I’m located in. And when “location” means inside another person’s body it’s very silly to say it doesn’t affect how we’re supposed to treat people. What would you be entitled to do if I tried to locate part of myself inside your eyeball? Besides location, the pre-born human being is living on water, nutrients, and oxygen that the mother breathes, eats, drinks, and digests. And injecting metabolic end-products into her bloodstream for her to process and/or excrete. And preparing to subject her to major medical/surgical trauma. That’s why.
MK, chastity is not an “act of nature”. And regardless of whether the fertilized egg is killed or prevented from forming in the first place, a potential genius is still lost. If we required women to have twenty kids each we’d have more geniuses, right?
You would be hard pressed to back a statement like that up, but who cares? How does the issue of amazing people possibly being aborted affect anything. We need to stick to the issues and not go off on tangents that are based more in pathos than anything. Yes it is sad to think of all the great people aborted, but I would oppose abortion even if it meant more Hitlers and Stalins. The act is immoral and thats what matters, not the hypothetical consequences.
Somg,
You failed to explain the difference between an infants drain on its parent’s rights and a pre-born child’s drain on its mother’s rights.
You say that we can neglect a fetus because it imposes on its mother’s rights, but does not an infant do the same thing that you yourself brought up? Does not an infant impose directly on the parent’s right to both privacy and property to say the minimum? How is not justified then to neglect an infant?
You fail to draw any distinctions.
Patricia, the more babies you have, the more of them will be geniuses–that’s what Zee’s argument against abortion says, right? I’m just applying the same argument to other things besides abortion which also lower the number of babies and therefore the number of geniuses, one of which is chastity. Every menses could have been another genius if you’d opened your legs more often. If we really wanted to maximize the number of geniuses we’d make girls get active before menarche so as not to waste the first egg.
Also, Zee, going back to your first post, the number of possible geniuses lost to abortion is nothing compared to the number of potential geniuses whose conceptions have been prevented by chastity. How many extra Einsteins and Mozarts would we have if we prosecuted menstruation as murder?
Posted by: SoMG at August 21, 2008 8:27 AM
actually this statement is stupid beyond belief. Coming from a researcher who claims to have rigorous scientific training????
You didnt really respond to what she called into question. She wanted you to explain not how chastity lowers the number of humans in the world, but to explain how you know that chastity has lowered the same number or more of humans that abortion has.
Again though, who cares? Its a pointless argument. What matters is the violation of rights, not hypothetical consequences.
How can you draw a distinction between an infant and a fetus?
Actually, she probably wanted you to explain how the failure to fertilize an egg is murder as opposed to abortion which is the purposeful destruction of a fertilized egg…but again, it doesnt matter. We all know you were just trying to be funny.
WARREN: Tell me in one minute, why you want to be President.
OBAMA: I remember what my mother use to tell me. The one time that she’d get really angry with me if she thought I was being mean or unfair to somebody. Imagine looking through their eyes. The basic idea of empathy. What made America so special is that notion. If we see someone that can’t make it, we care for them too. I want to be President, because that’s the America I believe in and that American dream is slipping away. We’re at a critical juncture, and we’ve got to make some critical decisions…our government is so broken, I have the ability to build bridges to get people to work on common sense solutions to critical issues.
JON: Senator Obama, many pre-born children are not making it; abortionists kill them. What is your common-sense solution to this critical issue?
Great cartoon.
What the hell are you talking about??
Oh-oh, Oliver said “hell.”
Hell-o!
Oliver, I drew the distinction between what is inside your body and what is outside of it. I now add the suggestion that if you don’t understand this distinction then you may have a disorder of proprioception and you should probably consult a neuro/psych professional like Oliver Sachs, MD (author of THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS WIFE FOR A HAT).
I also made the distinction between those who are living by means of bloodstream-to-bloodstream chemical exchange with another life-supporting person and those who are not. And between those who are preparing to subject another person to major medical/surgical trauma and those who are not. That’s three clear, even obvious, distinctions, any one of which would be sufficient to answer your original question. You may call that “fail[ing] to draw distinctions” but I don’t. I think your saying that I fail to draw distinctions is an expression of an infantile wish-fulfilment fantasy. I hope you have plenty of money saved up for long-term therapy.
Actually, she probably wanted you to explain how the failure to fertilize an egg is murder as opposed to abortion which is the purposeful destruction of a fertilized egg…but again, it doesnt matter. We all know you were just trying to be funny.
Posted by: Oliver at August 21, 2008 9:40 AM
NO, Oliver, he was being somg – just stupid.
Our obligations to each other depend heavily on whether we are located on your property or mine. My rights depend on what country or state I’m located in. And when “location” means inside another person’s body it’s very silly to say it doesn’t affect how we’re supposed to treat people.
In all these cases the entities are treated as PERSONS – we don’t kill people for being on another’s property or on their own. So why should we kill an unborn baby just because it’s located in another’s property. I can’t go into MY house and just randomly kill off any person in there – even a burglar. That would be called using excessive force. Which BTW, is what I would term abortion…
Jon, the Secret Service is waiting to see you…
SoMG, I drew the distinction between what is entering the White House and what is exiting it. I now add the suggestion that if you don’t understand this distinction then you may have a disorder of proprioception and you should probably consult a neuro/psych professional like Oliver Sachs, MD (author of THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS WIFE FOR A HAT).
I also made the distinction between those who are living by means of my taxes going to another life-supporting person and those who are living on a pension. And between those who are preparing to subject another person to major political/financial trauma and those who are not. That’s three clear, even obvious, distinctions, any one of which would be sufficient to answer your original question. You may call that “fail[ing] to draw distinctions” but I don’t. I think your saying that I fail to draw distinctions is an expression of an infantile wish-fulfilment fantasy. I hope you have plenty of money saved up for long-term therapy.
PPC, pro-lifers are trying to talk to you.
Zee:
As a newcomer to this site, note these few things about SoMG:
1) SoMG wants to make sure you understand how smart she/he thinks she/he is or, at least give you the impression that she/he is real, real smart.
2) SoMG is allowed to post on this site because she/he thinks she/he is very smart, however, SoMG isn’t smart enough to know that after reading just a few of SoMG’a posts, it is evident that this she/he is one looney-toon psychopath.
2) SoMG kills unborn babies in the womb and beyond because she/he thinks she/he is real smart and that is reason enough to kill innocent babies in the womb and beyond (and Obama would agree with SoMG).
4) SoMG has determined that even though she/he understands that a baby in the womb is a human person she/he thinks that baby can be killed as long as the mother wants it killed because SoMG is real, real smart.
5) She/he thinks that cutting and pasting from google and other subject search engines is an acceptable substitution for real thought because SoMG’s only goal is to make sure you and other’s understand how smart she/he thinks she/he is.
6) SoMG’s thinks God is a sky fairy, blah, blah, blah, blah blah, blah because she/he thinks she/he is real, real smart, blah, blah, blah blah, blah.
7) SoMG’s posts are easy to counter if you just pause and ask yourself this question, “Did a real live humen being with a brain, a heart and a conscience actually say this”? Don’t worry, it just means that you do have a brain, a heart and a conscience and the question is a natural one that stems from that fact”.
8) If you make an irrefutable counter to one of SoMG’s psychopathic rants and she/he counters with a retort about your typing and spelling skills you realize that your answer is above SoMG’s pay grade and she/he’s ability to process and understand it.
Finally, as you have read in just the few posts SoMG has so gracioulsy posted on this thread just this morning, weaving a statistical/biological masterpiece of thought and reason as to why we should continue murdering innocent children in the womb and, for the world’s edification, understanding and enrichment, bathed in the rays of she/he’s words of wisdom, you come to the very same and sorry conclusion that we all have: SoMG is neither smart, nor intelligent, nor bright, nor sharp, nor a genius, nor compassionate, nor full of wisdom, nor possesses the ability to think past the words written in a textbook and is not even smart enough to understand or admit this nor understands these two simple truths that even a child of average intelligence could understand; “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, and, “a fool says in his heart, there is no God”.
So, we allow the charade to continue as this is the only merciful and humane thing to do in giving this slow learner a chance to “get it”. Besides, it’s so much fun.
Somg,
Okay, I suppose I can spell it out for you.
You failed to draw an ethical distinction.
You said specifically that property rights cannot be violated by another, yet as a parent you right to property and privacy are violated for the sake of the infant.
How is that different than a fetus violating the right to the mothers privacy and property? You say that it is because the fetus is inside the mother, but I challenge you to, ethically speaking, explain how is that right any more special than a parent’s right to privacy? If there is not distinction between those rights, which of course this isnt, what makes an infants right to not be neglected any different than a fetus’s?
I know that verbal reasoning is the hardest part of the MCAT for future doctors, so its okay if you take some time to understand what Im talking about. Just to help out…one more time…I understand there is an actual difference in circumstance in that an infant is not physically inside the mother, but I do not see any ethical difference as far as the consequences are concerned in the sense that the right to privacy is violated in both cases.
I just told the Secret Service, “My money, my choice!” They apologized and paid me $50,000 for my emotional distress.
Oliver,
Great to have you here. What you have to understand though, is that those who support abortion a priori believe that abortion is justifiable and THEN they came up with a reason to justify it. Never would the logic that they propose lead one who is undecided as to the morality of abortion to embrace it. That is why we see obscure distinctions like human being vs human person, and this idea of bodily ownership as being the ultimate in human rights. Abortion is the only time you will see rational, sane people arguing that it is morally permissible to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means to an end. What other situations do we allow the DIRECT taking of innocent human lives as a means to an end?
Jon,
Do you realize you have just broken a Federal Law?
I hope that everyone realizes that I am merely trying to consider the “pro-choice” side of the argument. Only a “pro-choice” person would seriously consider killing another person. I am not “pro-choice.”
Michael Phelps never would have been conceived if his Mom just wanted to cuddle that night.
I never would have been conceived if it wasn’t for alcohol. Should I encourage women to drink?
Hisman, I am not really “pro-choice.” Take it easy. It was a “modest proposal,” in the style of Jonathan Swift. (Wasn’t he the one to write that?)
Jon,
I realize you were being facetious and that you aren’t pro-choice, but I did have to delete your comments because they do threten public officials lives. I do realize that you weren’t serious, but I think that is a bit too far. God love you.
Bobby,
My point exactly.
What I want is for someone who is pro-choice to explain why I cant put my baby down, let her starve and go drink to my heart’s content. Why do I have to sacrifice my rights for this child when a mother does not have to sacrifice her rights for a pre-born child? Ive never had someone explain this other than with “well duh….its inside! OBVIOUSLY!”
They are making an assumption that based on the premise that the fetus is imposing a direct physical violation of a right that it is sufficient to prove that it is a significant right. They do not explain how this comes about. The more obvious stance is that a violation of a right is never supported unless there is an overwhelming reason, which is normally the violation of a greater right. In the case of an infant and also in the case of a fetus, the right to not be neglected is what is being violated.
My comments were consistent with “pro-choice” logic.
Bobby how can you not think that bodily ownership is the ultimate of human rights? If we don’t have bodily ownership then there’s nothing stopping anyone from just beating another person up or raping a person. If we don’t own our bodies then anyone can do whatever they want to them.
If we don’t own our bodies who does? God? Not everyone believes in God. What if someone believes God told them to go out and rape little girls? Does that give them the right to do it? I mean you can’t prove God didn’t tell them to do it.
Jess,
You are making it the case that either this right trumps all rights in every circumstance or it never does. There is a balance to all rights.
Believe it or not but you can have the right to not be raped but not have the right to neglect a human being under your charge in the face of that right.
“My comments were consistent with “pro-choice” logic.”
Jon, I totally agree with you there.
“Bobby how can you not think that bodily ownership is the ultimate of human rights? If we don’t have bodily ownership then there’s nothing stopping anyone from just beating another person up or raping a person. If we don’t own our bodies then anyone can do whatever they want to them.”
Jess, I’m talking about ABSOLUTE bodily ownership where THAT is considered more important than anything. The ULTIMATE, HIGHEST law of the land is bodily ownership; not a right to life, not freedom, but being able to do what you please with your body. THAT is what I find illogical. And so yes, if I own my body and no one can tell me what I can and can’t do with my body, then you can’t tell me that I can’t use my body to rape someone.
“If we don’t own our bodies who does? God?”
Yes, but I would never make that argument.
” What if someone believes God told them to go out and rape little girls? Does that give them the right to do it? I mean you can’t prove God didn’t tell them to do it.”
I’m not sure what this has to do with bodily ownership.
Jess, maybe you don’t believe in God. Maybe I don’t believe you have a body.
Jon,
Maybe you dont believe she has a body, but that doesnt factor into the equation. We have as a society upheld the right to “bodily autonomy.” However, the existence of such a right does not mean that we are free to abuse each other in its name.
Maybe Jess doesn’t believe in God, but that doesn’t factor into the equation. Western civilization has until quite recently recognized the dominion of God over all of life. He owns every human being. The fact that God owns every human being does not mean that they are not free. True freedom only comes with recognition of and adherence to God’s laws.
Oliver, if you starve a pre-born baby you starve yourself as well. Why? Because the baby is a part of you! You couldn’t just take a three week old fetus out of your uterus while you go for a drink can you?
A pre-born baby does not need to be feed, it eats when you eat, it takes its nutrients from you. And I have heard of people who killed their unborn baby by starving themselves. How do you suppose that happened?
P.S. that was pre-Roe vs. Wade.
Oliver, what you the right to not be slapped by me? And you better not say, “it’s my body!” Obviously we are supposed to be Communist, where everyone’s bodies and possessions belong to everyone else.
Jess there is an alternate way to stave a pre-born.
Abortion.
Cut it out of you and you are depriving it food, water and shelter.
How is it any different with a newborn? If I let my newborn starve to death because I want my freedom they call it neglect and I go to jail. Where is it any different?
In God we trust.
Jon, you’re right I don’t have a body. I’m actually the holy spirit. As the holy spirit and a part of the holy trinity I’m telling you that God has now given women the right to abort as many of their unborn babies as they want.
Alright, prove that I’m not the holy spirit.
Oliver a born baby is not a part of you. You might not want to accept that an unborn baby is attached to their mother but it’s true. Have you ever heard of an umbilical cord? Maybe you should look it up.
If you have a born baby you can always put it up for adoption if you don’t want it, it’s no longer attached to your body, it’s no longer attached to your uterine lining. Why can’t I shed my uterine lining any time I want?
Jess:
I strongly suggest that you not mention the Holy Spirit in your diatribes since blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an “unforgivable sin”.
Jess, Martin Luther said that if some holy spirit said something to him that was contrary to the Bible, he would smite that holy spirit on the snout.
Bobby if we don’t own our bodies then who does? God? Your God? No one else has to believe in your God. Religious freedom. We are supposed to have religious freedom in this country.
Jess, there are many things that you CAN do. You CAN shed your uterine lining. You CAN disobey God. I CAN shoot duly elected officials. And abortionists CAN (quite easily) kill pre-born children.
Jess,
So you are saying that because I have the option to adopt, I have to? Well that violates my right to privacy. I dont want to take my baby down to the adoption agency, I just want to go party, now.
Why cant I?
And why does the physical attachment matter? What makes this right win over other rights?
Jess,
Your right to protect your body flows from your ultimate right, which is life.
Without life, there is no body to protect, or at least no need to protect it.
Freedom is always limited, Jess. People who get unlimited freedom quickly find themselves enslaved to their own desires. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Jess,
Having bodily ownership doesn’t ensure that no one can beat up or rape another person, all it ensures is that someone will be charged for the injury of that person’s body if the person decides to charge the offender.
You do know there are passages in the Bible that say you are to kill people who wear two different types of fabrics and/or plant two different types of grains in their fields?
But most Christians these days just follow the parts of the Bible they like. I bet I could make the Bible say what I wanted to as well, “Kill babies and you will be happy” Psalms 137:9 (the actual passage is, happy is he who smasheth the little ones heads against the stones). Now I’m going to get the, “Oh no that’s blasphemy!” But really? I mean, it’s written right there in the Bible.
Those passages belong to the ceremonial law, Jess, and the ceremonial law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ and is obsolete. You need to study standard Christian theology.
Psalm 137:9 is for unbelievers to consider. They are not God’s people. God will judge them. Hell is horrible.
Jess,
For those of us that care, that was blasphemous. Kindly use another analogy.
Thanks.
JON: “… many pre-born children are not making it; abortionists kill them. What is your common-sense solution to this critical issue?”
How about: The most proven-effective strategy for reducing both the abortion rate and the abortion ratio is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. (In contrast, restricting the availability of professional abortion has never been proven to reduce either the abortion rate or the abortion ratio and probably never will be, partly because both numbers become unmeasurable and extremely difficult to estimate when abortion is criminalized especially now in the age of medical abortion.) In order to reduce unplanned pregnancies we support abstinence education first and foremost, and secondarily the widest practical range of contraceptive options for sexually-active people. We also support measures to make parenthood more attractive to pregnant women, including the use of DNA chemistry to establish paternity and hold fathers responsible for their children and parent-assistance programs such as WIC.
How does that sound?
What Jon, I can disobey YOUR god? Anyone can just make up a god. That doesn’t mean it’s The God.
HisMan, how are you certain I’m not the Holy Spirit? Because you don’t agree with me? Aren’t you being a heretic when you say you know what God wants us to do? How do you know God himself did not purposely give me a message that says to tell you all the things I have said?
Jess, you must also distinguish between Old Testament Israel, a theocracy, and New Testament Israel, the church that fights with spiritual weapons only. Again, you need to study standard Christian theology.
Sounds like you have a great script to read from.
Oliver,
I wish I had the same drive to argue with SoMG and Jess from a purely logical perspective as you seem to have today. Keep it up!
HisMan,
That bit about SoMG.. was awesome. I even think my unborn child leaped for joy with that comment. Just excellent.
So Jon you disregard when God told Job he know him before he was born? that tends to be a favorite line for pro-life Christians. They tend to use New-Christian philosophy only when it benefits them.
You’re right, Jess. Anybody can make up a god.
Today, Jess, there is the cult of the body. Some feminists think that they have the authority to grant or withhold life. They think they are gods.
About 137:9 Jon, so it’s ok to abort children if their parents don’t believe in God?
Carder I don’t get why we are so concerned with blasphemy. Westborro Baptist Church considers claiming that God loves everybody is blasphemous. So we cannot say “God loves you” on this site anymore? They also think their church is the only way to heaven.
Jess 11:21, I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say. Study some theology, and then maybe we can talk further.
Jamers,
The real trick is getting them to respond to my points when I propose a difficult scenario to resolve with Pro-Choice logic.
Its half the reason I dont really post anymore. Just bored today.
Care to explain to me Jess why my right to privacy can be violated with an infant outside my body but not with a pre-born inside my body?
Oh and SoMG, you can weigh in too if you would like.
Jon have you ever heard the story of Job? It’s in the Book of Job in the Old Testament of the Bible.
It just seems like there are so many different sects of Christianity and they all believe different things and think everyone else should believe exactly what they believe or they hate God or whatever.
Just for grins.
Could Jess define/explain the phrase ” Made in God’s Image”.
What does the word “incarnate
” mean to Jess?
What is the Trinity? What does the Trinity mean or represent to you Jess?
My understanding of standard Christian theology is that all or most Christians have faith or belief that God is Love.
Which leads to a simple question. Can love actually exist alone or in isolation?
Abortion is a crime against love, unless one believes that love can exist in isolation.
Oliver,
Great to have you here. What you have to understand though, is that those who support abortion a priori believe that abortion is justifiable and THEN they came up with a reason to justify it. Never would the logic that they propose lead one who is undecided as to the morality of abortion to embrace it. That is why we see obscure distinctions like human being vs human person, and this idea of bodily ownership as being the ultimate in human rights. Abortion is the only time you will see rational, sane people arguing that it is morally permissible to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means to an end. What other situations do we allow the DIRECT taking of innocent human lives as a means to an end?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 21, 2008 10:26 AM
I would add to this, that only a woman in society has the absolute right to kill another person, with impunity. She can kill her unborn baby without reason, just because she wants to.
Bobby if we don’t own our bodies then who does? God? Your God? No one else has to believe in your God. Religious freedom. We are supposed to have religious freedom in this country.
Posted by: Jess at August 21, 2008 11:08 AM
The question is not whether we own our bodies but whether we have the absolute right to do with them whatever we want even to the point that that right will kill another’s body. In the case of a woman and her unborn baby, society has gone well beyond just allowing for ownership of her body and has also granted the woman the right to kill another’s body – and not just for SERIOUS reasons but for ANY reason or NO reason at all. Why should we limit this right just to women? Why only to killing unborn babies?
Oliver, if a born baby is dependent upon their mother after birth, then if the mother dies giving birth we should let the baby die with her? Or should we kill it because it’s going to die anyway because its mother isn’t their to take care of it?
Please find out what an umbilical cord is before you respond!
yllas you are just going to start swearing again so I’m not going to answer any of your questions. I once asked you if you would pray with me and your response was along the lines of “you low life scum” and some more swearing.
If you show that you can have a conversation without resorting to profane language then I’ll answer your questions.
Cue the “***** AHHH ***** Mother ******” from yllas.
Care to explain to me Jess why my right to privacy can be violated with an infant outside my body but not with a pre-born inside my body?
Posted by: Oliver at August 21, 2008 11:27 AM
Good question Oliver and goes with mine above.
Jess,
Umm….no. If a mother dies, somebody will take the responsibilty for the infant. As a society we do not let an infant be neglected, even if there is no parent. SOMEONE takes responsibility, even if it is not their child. And whoever that is, that person will be losing their rights to privacy and more than likely property.
If someone left a baby on my doorstep, I would be obligated to figure out a solution. In other words, even if I had plans to do something, my right to privacy would be violated untill I handled the responsibility laid at my feet.
So answer the question…
Why is it any different for a pre-born? Why dont mothers have to sacrifice their rights to not neglect that pre-born child but even a random stranger must sacrifice their rights for an abandoned child? Whats the difference?
where is yllas swearing Jess?
I never would have been conceived if it wasn’t for alcohol. Should I encourage women to drink?
Jess, two answers came to mind.
1.) Yes, if they are thirsty.
2.) Many guys say yes.
Jess,
“Oliver, if a born baby is dependent upon their mother after birth, then if the mother dies giving birth we should let the baby die with her? Or should we kill it because it’s going to die anyway because its mother isn’t their to take care of it?” – Jess
No a baby shouldnt be left to die simply because the mother dies. See, in our society what would happen is that since the baby has no way to advocate for itself in any way, shape or form, SOMEBODY must stand in and take responsibility.
In fact, if someone left a baby on my doorstep, I would be obligated to take care of this baby untill I could find a suitable alternative such as dropping it off with a hospital or fire station. So even if the baby is not mine, or in any way of my doing, I become responsible, and could be blamed for neglect.
So tell me, why is it different for a pre-born baby? You say because there is an umbilical cord, but I want you to explain the qualitiative difference that an umbilical cord denotes.
In contrast, restricting the availability of professional abortion has never been proven to reduce either the abortion rate or the abortion ratio and probably never will be, partly because both numbers become unmeasurable and extremely difficult to estimate when abortion is criminalized especially now in the age of medical abortion.
SoMG 11:18, initial legislation ending the slave trade eventually led to further legislation abolishing slavery. Sure, we have new forms of slavery today, e.g. the traffic of women, but there are far fewer slaves around than there used to be.
You should also note there are far fewer adults, teenagers, and born children killed than pre-born children. I would suggest that the lack of an effective deterrent in the case of the pre-born children is one factor that makes the difference.
The common-sense solution is to prohibit all forms of murder, regardless of the age of the victim. Much of your solution makes sense, but it fails to secure justice for the violated individual, the murdered human fetus. Your solution fails to criminalize induced abortion.
Also, legislation reflects public attitude. As Mr. Bush has said so well, we want to establish a culture of life. So let’s have abstinence education. Let the churches also continue crisis pregnancy centres to help distressed women. Let’s also emphasize Biblical morality: you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder. And let’s remember to legislate true morality; such legislation is the civil government’s responsibility. It must legislate.
Some feminists think that they have the authority to grant or withhold life. They think they are gods.
Jon, I think they usually say “goddesses.”
goddesses with blond tresses
double post sort of…..sorry
or Jesses with blond tresses
“Let’s also emphasize Biblical morality: you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder. And let’s remember to legislate true morality; such legislation is the civil government’s responsibility. It must legislate.”
Why stop there, should refusing to honor your mother and father be a crime? How about outlawing working on the sabbeth? Should we imprison people for using the Lord’s name in vain? God I hope not.
You seem to pick the parts of the Bible you want to turn into legislation and ignore the parts you don’t.
Hal,
How about ignoring the Bible argument and deal with the universal morals that are being infringed.
Is it okay if we legislate morality of any sort?
Oliver, you wrote: “Cut it out of you and you are depriving it food, water and shelter….How is it any different with a newborn? If I let my newborn starve to death because I want my freedom they call it neglect and I go to jail. Where is it any different?”
It’s different because the newborn is not located inside your body, nor living by means of bloodstream-to-bloodstream chemical exchange with you, nor preparing to subject you to medical/surgical trauma. Did you miss it when I explained this before?
Zee, I suppose I should take my turn and say some things about HisMan. OK, here’s something: he says he believes that the Bible is literally true and denies at least some key results of Evolutionary Biology. He says he believes faith is more important than reason. He thinks that people who don’t submit to his supernatural friend will go to Hell after they die. He voted for GWBush over Al Gore but he says Obama is underqualified for the presidency. Most recently he said–get this–that Alan Keyes has a great political mind. He thinks being tortured and confined either prepares you to be a good President or somehow demonstrates strength of character. He tries to win debates by cursing out his opponent for which even Jill has reprimanded him. Is that enough?
I do find it interesting that we find it cruel to use drugs or alcohol (etc) on a pre-born child. But when it comes to ripping it apart, not cruel? NECESSARY?
Bobby: What you have to understand though, is that those who support abortion a priori believe that abortion is justifiable and THEN they came up with a reason to justify it.
Bobby, why do you think it’s a priori? As we get older and learn about the subject, we make up our minds.
…..
Never would the logic that they propose lead one who is undecided as to the morality of abortion to embrace it.
I disagree. Person X is undecided. X knows that Y has an unwanted pregnancy, and that Y wants to end it.
It comes down to what X wants the most, and it may well be that Y is allowed to do what Y thinks is best. There’s no necessary “logic” either way – X may well also think that other things trump what Y wants. “Never say never” and all that jazz….
……
That is why we see obscure distinctions like human being vs human person, and this idea of bodily ownership as being the ultimate in human rights.
That’s not an obscure distinction at all. One is an existing organism, the other is a societal construct, an attributed status.
…..
Abortion is the only time you will see rational, sane people arguing that it is morally permissible to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means to an end. What other situations do we allow the DIRECT taking of innocent human lives as a means to an end?
I guess by “direct” you mean excluding stuff like collateral damage and killing civilians in bombing raids, etc.?
As to abortion, it’s the only time the human being is inside the body of another.
Well Jess,
Actually I thought a person, other then you might respond and explain some simple, but profound thinking that Christians have concluded on the question raised when one says,made in God’s image, the Trinity, and the problem of love existing in isolation.
In order for love to exist, you have to have someone who loves, someone who is loved, and the love between them.
Such thinking came from pondering the words of John the apostle, specifically Chapter 1, verse 1.
I’m sure those words were written earlier in the bible, something nearer the beginning of the bible.
St. Thomas, , grappled with the paradox of love existing in isolation, as did Augustine.
Abortion is love existing in isolation, and love existing in isolation is what you are professing Jess. The shorter Jess, It’s my body.
To which you will reply that sooner or latter you can plan and make some creation that is wanted.
You’ll find that your still existing in isolation, as expressed by Existential philosophy.
It’s your body, no kidding Jess. And no matter how much you seek out
Consider how you were conceived. How we all were conceived. Through the passion of our parents, sperm and egg came together to form a beginning embryo. Notice well: an embryo. To your parents, at your conception, you were not
goddesses with blond tresses
Jon – ha – good to see you have a sense of humor.
On those blondes, them’n ain’t the only ones what be goddesses…
“It’s different because the newborn is not located inside your body, nor living by means of bloodstream-to-bloodstream chemical exchange with you, nor preparing to subject you to medical/surgical trauma. Did you miss it when I explained this before? ”
And this is different how?
I know youre a doctor and its hard to understand ethical issues, but try real hard to think. How does the location of the fetus inside the body make it any different ethically speaking?
Remember, ethics SoMB.
If you arent going to respond to the actual points and just tap dance like every other pro-choicer out there, just dont come back to talk.
You continue to not be able to give a qualitative difference between the right to privacy in the case of abortion and the right to privacy in the case of infant neglect.
Why is it not okay to violate the body but it is okay to violate other rights?
Is SoMB always this terrible at understanding someones argument?
He keeps saying “but its in the body duh. Didnt you read??” in response to my question “so why does being in the body make any difference?”
Jess:
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
B-I-B-L-E
In order to reveal your total ineptitude and illiteracy pertaining to all things godly, and
regarding your blasphemous comment about Psalm 137:9, here’s the entire Psalm 139:
1By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down and wept,
When we remembered Zion.
2Upon the willows in the midst of it
We hung our harps.
3For there our captors demanded of us songs,
And our tormentors mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.”
4How can we sing the LORD’S song
In a foreign land?
5If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
May my right hand forget her skill.
6May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
If I do not remember you,
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
Above my chief joy.
7Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, “Raze it, raze it
To its very foundation.”
8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
9How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.
Verse 9 is a statement by a captive Israelite who was expressing frustration toward his captors, “hey, there is a price to pay for what you unjustly did to us and our families”. This is not God justifying the murder of children, it’s a person expressing vengeance on someone who devastated their life, something I think even a pro-abort could understand, but, maybe not. In fact, Jesus clearly stated that it would be better that a millstone be tied around someone’s neck and be thrown into the sea than he face the judgement that would follw as the result of hurting a child.
Jess, I will excuse your ignorance because I think you’re a teeny bopper. If you’re not a teeny bopper, then, well, you’re pretty dumb.
Jon: “Also, legislation reflects public attitude. As Mr. Bush has said so well, we want to establish a culture of life. So let’s have abstinence education. Let the churches also continue crisis pregnancy centres to help distressed women. Let’s also emphasize Biblical morality: you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder.”
SoMG: Why stop there, should refusing to honor your mother and father be a crime? How about outlawing working on the sabbeth? Should we imprison people for using the Lord’s name in vain? God I hope not. You seem to pick the parts of the Bible you want to turn into legislation and ignore the parts you don’t.
I pick a part of the Bible that I want to turn into pro-life legislation against abortion. “You shall not murder” is the relevant commandment. I also picked a part of the Bible that helps to establish a culture of life. “You shall not commit adultery” is the relevant commandment. It can also be legislated in the form of strong divorce laws.
Hisman,
Dont push the Bible edge. Even if you win the argument and prove that the Bible is consistent etc and that it condemns abortion, all they have to do is say “but I dont believe in the Bible.”
This is a common tactic for “fetus foes” as I now call them in response to the “abortion foes” spining in the various “reputable” news articles have represented those of us who support the Born Alive bill.
They want you to get into “Bible land” so they can dodge the universal moral issue that they are afraid to confront.
Look at how SoMB responds for example. He doesnt actually try to answer the question of how physical rights cannot be violated but others can. He just keeps reiterating that the body is involved.
OK, what, precisely, happened while I was gone? Because this is not the site I remember. I used to be excited about learning about different viewpoints here. Now I just kinda want to kick people because it reads like an Ann Coulter PoS. Seriously. Rabidity is never very becoming.
Also, if it weren’t for premaritial sex, I wouldn’t exist! So…everyone should have premaritial sex!
Oliver, where do you get your “universal morals”? Biblical morality is universal morality! Sure, people don’t believe in God’s existence; they also don’t really, practically believe in the pre-born baby’s existence. Life is religion; culture is the expression of religion. We all respond to God in some way. By nature, we respond as children of Adam and Eve: we try to replace Him with ourselves.
Jon, (* rolls eyes *) it’s much harder to get away with illegally owning slaves than with illegal abortion.
You wrote: “And let’s remember to legislate true morality; such legislation is the civil government’s responsibility. It must legislate.”
True morality: how about some really tough sanctions against any foreign government that knowingly shelters a US citizen who is under suspicion of conspiracy to allow lewd conduct with children?
Or here’s a good idea: let’s ban alcohol. And tobacco.
And legalize marijuana!
My point, Hisman, was to show that anyone can twist the words of the Bible to make a point.
I never said nor believed that passage was condoning killing babies, I was just saying it could be picked out and apart to make a point, no matter how wrong.
And I’m not teeny bopper, I’m an old maid of 20.
If it weren’t for Adam and Eve, I wouldn’t exist as a rabid sinner. And if it weren’t for Jesus Christ, I would have holiness and an expectation of my own resurrection after death.
If it weren’t for Adam and Eve, I wouldn’t exist as a rabid sinner. And if it weren’t for Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t have holiness and an expectation of my own resurrection after death.
If it weren’t for Eve disobeying God and eating the fruit then none of us would be here. Not even Jesus.
Jess, anyone can twist any text to make a point. Why do you think there’s such scrutiny paid to Supreme Court Judges? Mr. McCain says he’ll pick judges who’ll stick to the interpretation of the Constitution that the founders had in mind.
Jon,
Dear lord. Please stop. All you are doing is aggrivating the problem and drawing the Choicer’s off topic.
You have to engage them on their ground.
How do you OR McCain know exactly what people who lived 200 years ago had in mind?
Jon, abortion on demand is justifiable homicide, not murder.
Oliver, is it really not obvious to you that the special relationship you have with your body is fundamentally different from the relationships you have with other things you own? For instance, you can burn the other things you own without suffering pain. I suspect you are pretending to be stupider than you actually are.
SoMG,
MK, chastity is not an “act of nature”. And regardless of whether the fertilized egg is killed or prevented from forming in the first place, a potential genius is still lost. If we required women to have twenty kids each we’d have more geniuses, right?
SoMG,
Focus.
I NEVER use the argument that you could be killing geniuses or saints through abortion because while this is true, you could also be killing stalins and Caligulas…it is NOT my job to determine who is worthy of life and who is not. To make this argument you would have to fall into the trap of placing value on human lives. They ALL have value.
My point was not that we might be killing the next Mother Teresa, but that there is a difference between a miscarriage (The act of nature I was speaking to…NOT CHASTITY) and the willful taking of a human life.
Unlike you, I am not comfortable playing God. I’d much rather believe in Him and let Him play Himself.a
If I menstruate and eliminate an unfertilized egg I have not killed an already existing human being. If I pass a fertilized egg, it was an act of nature.
You know all this, which is why I can’t believe you would even go there. I expect so much more from you. You are a brilliant individual, but so lacking in wisdom that the contradiction is sometimes astounding.
Abortion…the willful termination of a human life.
Miscarriage…an act of nature.
Menstruation of unfertilized egg…irrelevant.
Duh.
Jon, didn’t a lot of the founding fathers own slaves?
Yes, and also many of them were deists. But maybe we should put out one of these ideas at a time, Jess. We don’t want to fracture his fragile worldview.
Jon, you wrote: ” And if it weren’t for Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t have holiness and an expectation of my own resurrection after death.”
How do you know? You might be a member of another religion that believes in resurrection. Like in THE WICKER MAN.
“I NEVER use the argument that you could be killing geniuses or saints through abortion because while this is true, you could also be killing stalins and Caligulas”
Oooh mk would you rather have lived under Stalin or Caligula? I say Satlin. I think I could make a half decent Communist and I always wanted to visit Russia.
SoMG,
“Oliver, is it really not obvious to you that the special relationship you have with your body is fundamentally different from the relationships you have with other things you own? For instance, you can burn the other things you own without suffering pain. I suspect you are pretending to be stupider than you actually are”
I am not asking for a justification of a segregation between my body and my items.
I am asking for you to justify the segregation between the right to my body and my other rights.
You are suggesting that my right to privacy/property/etc can be violated to prevent the neglect of my child, but that the right to my body can never be violated for this purpose.
I want to understand why it is okay to violate my privacy and property but not my body for the same reason.
What makes that certain right significantly different and superior to those other rights.
I would think that if my body cannot be violated then neither can my privacy.
I’d want to live under Caligula. At least I could speak the language there!
Jess, I will excuse your ignorance because I think you’re a teeny bopper. If you’re not a teeny bopper, then, well, you’re pretty dumb.
Posted by: HisMan at August 21, 2008 12:38 PM
Oh the irony of quoting the bible and saying someone else is ignorant.
MK, I think forcing women to grow pregnancies against their wills and give birth to babies they do not want is more “playing God” than doing abortions is.
“Oh the irony of quoting the bible and saying someone else is ignorant.”
Oh the ignorance of asumming absence of evidence concludes ignorance in belief, and saying someone else is ignorant.
It’s much harder to get away with illegally owning slaves than with illegal abortion.
I’m not so sure, SoMG. Despite the existing legislation, trafficking of women is a big thing in the world and exists even within the U.S. I’m not advocating the legislation’s elimination; I’m sure it helps. Same with induced abortion.
Actually, the two evils are related. Secular humanism is turning into a rabid sexism, the elevation of sex above every other concern. Children and women end up being casualties.
In Canada, pro-abortionists are complaining of lack of abortion access. There are too many prolife doctors who refuse to “help” women abort. The province of Ontario, through its “human rights” commission, is currently trying to end such “discrimination against women” by forcing all doctors to make abortion referrals. So legislation against abortion would definitely help.
Oliver, you will find that when you push somg into a “logic corner” he will retreat. His position is irrational.
He knows he cannot answer your questions because he will lose the argument.
For somg’s benefit, incase HE forgot the question:
You continue to not be able to give a qualitative difference between the right to privacy in the case of abortion and the right to privacy in the case of infant neglect.
Why is it not okay to violate the body but it is okay to violate other rights?
Posted by: Oliver at August 21, 2008 12:33 PM
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
Although a beautiful quote, I would like to think that God, if he exists, is beyond logic. We operate within his rules, not the other way around. I would like to believe that God accomplishes what he does in an unknowable format beyond logic. I like to think this is why he demands child-like faith out of us, and expects us to be like fools.
SoMG,
In contrast, restricting the availability of professional abortion has never been proven to reduce either the abortion rate or the abortion ratio and probably never will be, partly because both numbers become unmeasurable and extremely difficult to estimate when abortion is criminalized especially now in the age of medical abortion.)
What are you smokin’ today??? Put it down! Trust me, it’s makin’ you sound whacked out!
You say there is no proof that there weren’t as many abortions before it was legal than there are now…
Okkkkkaaaaaay…
If that is true, that there were 50 MILLION abortions done illegally before Roe vs Wade, then obviously it is just as safe to abort illegally as legally, so why did we make it legal again???
I thought it was something about the dangers of back alley abortions.
If you really believe that 50 MILLION abortions took place in the US in the 30 years before Roe v Wade, then I want some of what you’re smokin’…
In Canada, pro-abortionists are complaining of lack of abortion access. There are too many prolife doctors who refuse to “help” women abort. The province of Ontario, through its “human rights” commission, is currently trying to end such “discrimination against women” by forcing all doctors to make abortion referrals. So legislation against abortion would definitely help.
Posted by: Jon at August 21, 2008 1:16 PM
Jon, are you a Canadian? Did you know that the Ontario Medical Association has drafted guidelines that will force doctors to prescribe the BC pill, and refer for abortions against a doctors conscience?
The words “Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God” are never mentioned in the Constitution– not once.
Don’t believe me? Read the constitution.
And “under God” was only added to the pledge of allegiance during the Cold War because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from the anti-religious Soviet Union.
Jon, didn’t a lot of the founding fathers own slaves? Yes, and also many of them were deists.
You bet they owned slaves, Jess! Actually, one of the books of the New Testament was written to a slaveowner. His name was Philemon.
Indeed, many of the founding fathers were deists. But the influence of Christianity was much stronger then. They believed in absolute morality, a morality which was actually quite Christian. Secular humanism then was not the same as it is now. Secular humanism is a devolving religion that is rapidly becoming rabid sexism. But maybe I just see too much of the 1960s; I’m not yet far enough away.
Patricia- if a person isn’t content with the basic requirements of their career, they should choose a different one. If you’re a pacifist, you don’t join the military. If you’re a vegetarian, you don’t work at a steakhouse. If you’re a recovering alcoholic, you don’t get a job at a bar. Same principal.
“I would like to believe that God accomplishes what he does in an unknowable format beyond logic. I like to think this is why he demands child-like faith out of us, and expects us to be like fools.”
Oliver that reminds me of slave owners who made reading illegal because if the slaves could read they would learn that they could be free, there were places that they could be free. Knowledge is power.
Jess, I don’t go to the Constitution for my Christianity.
I would like to believe that God accomplishes what he does in an unknowable format beyond logic.
Oliver, my father-in-law just got an Apple computer for the first time in his life, and the last five words you said apply.
Erin,
Why EXACTLY should a doctor be forced to refer for an abortion or forced to prescribe the BC pill? There are holistic doctors you know who don’t believe in medications, but a more natural approach. Should they have chosen a different occupation?
Jon- and we don’t go to Christianity for our Constitution. So please keep it away from our civil liberties. plzkthx.
Patricia, yes I’m a Canadian, but I can’t say that I’m very proud of our once true North, once strong and free.
Oliver you wrote: “I would think that if my body cannot be violated then neither can my privacy.”
Well you’d be wrong. The body is special. Raping you is worse than robbing you.
This principle applies elsewhere besides pregnancy and parenthood. You can be compelled to give an accident victim your property or your time but not a component of your body. Even if the accident victim is your own child. It’s sort of unfortunate for the RTL movement that transplantation emerged at more or less the same time as in utero imaging technology.
I don’t think it would be good to live under Caligula. Augustus would be best, then Claudius. Then Tiberius who was a competent administrator although he was a paranoid morbid bully and a pervert who liked to put his dong in the mouths of nursing babies.
“MK, I think forcing women to grow pregnancies against their wills and give birth to babies they do not want is more “playing God” than doing abortions is.
Posted by: SoMG at August 21, 2008 1:13 PM”
Who’s forcing women to grow pregnancies??? Last time I checked, all but 1% of abortions were by women who CHOSE to have sex. In choosing to have sex they CHOOSE that they just might have to pop out a little baby. It’s called CONSEQUENCES for our actions.
It’s really very simple:
Sex = The possibility of a baby.
Our society keeps trying to get around this little “side-effect” of sex by using pills and special hormones and everything they can think of, and when that fails.. they use abortion. (Or they just use abortion instead of pills and everything else because its so easily available and free!.)
Not only are we killing innocent babies, we are destroying the women of our nation: physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
Women were made to be the nurturers, and sometimes even bringers of life. Instead women are becoming bearers of death.
Elizabeth-
If they are an OB/GYN, yes. One of the PRIMARY reasons that women, especially young women, go to an OB/GYN is to obtain birth control. If nothing else, an OB/GYN should be required to refer to a physician who CAN give them the prescriptions and referals they request. But personally, I think someone who’s THAT obsessed can find a better career. Midwifery, maybe. Something where that isn’t in their basic list of responsibilities.
Erin, the Constitution happens to have been written by men who were quite Biblical in their morality.
That explains it. God uses a Mac to program the universe.
Jess,
Why dont you try to respond to my earlier question to you instead of taking my words VASTLY out of context. I seriously doubt the slave owners said “yeah I bet God is beyond logic, lets not have our slaves read.”
I pick a part of the Bible that I want to turn into pro-life legislation against abortion. “You shall not murder” is the relevant commandment.
Jon, abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. The Jewish tradition was that the baby taking its first breath at birth meant the beginning of personhood/legal status as a citizen, etc.
Er, no. They really weren’t biblical at all. Some of them were, but the key framers weren’t. Try again.
Jon Canada has never been free its people are still subjects of Great Britain.
Yes, and at the time of the Constitution, it was considered to start at the ‘quickening’.
We aren’t talking about referrals, Erin, we’re talking about REQUIRING a doctor to prescribe something they don’t think they should be prescribing for their own reasons. Like I said, what about holistic medicine? There are doctors who don’t prescribe medication at ALL because they do the natural approach. If you want medication, then you can find a doctor that will prescribe it to you. There are plenty of doctors in this country who will, and there’s PP, so where’s the complaint again?
I don’t have a problem a doctor not prescribing something they don’t want to give to a patient. It’s THEIR choice, you don’t like it, find another doctor.
the Constitution happens to have been written by men who were quite Biblical in their morality.
Most of them, I think, Jon, but abortion was legal to “quickening” – to 5 months or so of gestation before, during and after the writing of the Constitution. The writers knew that some people desired and had abortions.
What earlier question Oliver? Why do you think God doesn’t want us to ask questions, seems pretty sketch if you ask me.
SoMG,
MK, I think forcing women to grow pregnancies against their wills and give birth to babies they do not want is more “playing God” than doing abortions is.
I agree with you. Whose forcing women to grow pregnancies? They CHOSE to get pregnant. It’s a consequence. That’s all. Just a consequence.
I assume you read my old lady baseball bat analogy.
You say you aren’t forcing me to whack an old lady with a baseball bat. But you want to retain the right to do so if you choose. I say I’m not forcing you not to. I’m just not allowing you to.
We don’t FORCE rapists not to rape. We just make their choice different. If they rape and get caught, they suffer the consequences. They can also choose not to rape.
It’s really not so much about choosing actions, as choosing the consequences of our actions.
Many a time while playing Monopoly with my kids, one will act up and pout. He is asked to leave the game, or buck up. His choice. He might see it as me forcing him to quit the game. But he has a choice. If he CHOOSES to keep acting like a moron, then he is CHOOSING to leave the game.
If you CHOOSE to have sex, then you are CHOOSING to take a chance at getting pregnant. If abortion is illegal and you CHOOSE to have one, then you are also CHOOSING the consequences of your actions.
No force involved.
I find it mildly humorous and totally ironic that people that are all for CHOICES are also for FORCING doctors to do something they object to. Where’s the doctor’s choices for what he/she thinks is best for his/her patients?
Patricia- if a person isn’t content with the basic requirements of their career, they should choose a different one. If you’re a pacifist, you don’t join the military. If you’re a vegetarian, you don’t work at a steakhouse. If you’re a recovering alcoholic, you don’t get a job at a bar. Same principal.
Posted by: Erin at August 21, 2008 1:26 PM
No Erin it is not by a long shot. A doctor bases his mode of treatment on what he deems will be the best course of action for the patient. (The idea that he should do no harm)
A prolife doctor not only believes that abortion involves the taking of an innocent life, and that he may never directly take a life (commit evil – in this case abortion) to achieve a good outcome, but the prolife doctor also KNOWS that abortion carries considerable medical risks to both patients. He could also not, in good conscience, therefore resort to referring. This would violate both his medical and personal ethics. Why is everyone else allowed to do what they like, but a doctor/pharmacist cannot?
It would be the same if a cancer patient came to an oncologist and the specialist told him that he could not offer any successful treatment to save his life. If the patient demanded the treatment or some other harmful treatment, it would be well within the oncologist’s rights to deny him the treatment. Why would it be any different for a family doctor?
Why? because it’s abortion/birth control – and the entire women’s rights movement is based on these two planks (along with easy, no fault divorce).
Elizabeth- I think that generally holistic doctors are listed as such. I know I’d be pretty pissed if I went into a psychiatrist’s office and the doc told me, “No, I’m not going to give you any medication. Just eat some fish oil and whatever-the-bloody-else-they-use and you’ll be cured!”
Medicine IS a business. My recent hospitalization cost over $10,000. I am a customer, and they are my employee. If the employee doesn’t do what they’re hired to do, they get fired. That’s medicine for you.
Woo hoo go Patricia!
Patricia, yes I’m a Canadian, but I can’t say that I’m very proud of our once true North, once strong and free.
Posted by: Jon at August 21, 2008 1:31 PM
Likewise on both accounts! It’s pretty darn awful here – what with our hrc, the CMA, the OMA, Morgentaler, the liberal party etc, etc, etc…..
OK, lets say I’m a teetotaler. I refuse to serve alcohol, but I want to work at a bar. How long you think before the manager fires me?
“This principle applies elsewhere besides pregnancy and parenthood. You can be compelled to give an accident victim your property or your time but not a component of your body. Even if the accident victim is your own child. It’s sort of unfortunate for the RTL movement that transplantation emerged at more or less the same time as in utero imaging technology.”
You are not compelled to help an accident victim. In fact, helping can get you sued if you arent properly trained.
There may be a difference between the right,s but my question is if there is a “significant” difference.
You bring up transplantation, which I find interesting. Of course you are not obligated to give to your child your organs, but this is where the concept of “neglect” comes in.
You must sacrifice all your rights to not neglect your child untill the rights trade off.
The requirement for an organ transplant goes beyond basic needs for survival – shelter, food and water. A fetus is not in need of an organ transplant, in the sense that it takes the mother organ away from her. A fetus requires shelter, food and water, the basic human neccesities.
To confuse the idea with organ transplant is to confuse the obligation any parent has to their child.
What makes pregnancy a special case is that the only way for the first 6 months for the neccesities of life to be passed on are in fact by the violation of the mother’s body.
The reason organ transplants are never manditory, even for a child, is that it is not in any way an obligation, as it is not an obligation to give up an organ to a fetus to not neglect the fetus.
The distinction is still not there. The right to your body is still no more special than privacy. I am not required to give food to help a stranger who comes to my house. I am not required to house a homeless person. So why is it that I am required to house and provide food for my children? What makes my childen special? And how does that not make the same relationship the same with a fetus? You claim the body, but your only example that they are different is the idea of organ transplant which does not apply. How is it different then?
Doug: Abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. The Jewish tradition was that the baby taking its first breath at birth meant the beginning of personhood/legal status as a citizen, etc.
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21:22-25)
Doug: Abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. The Jewish tradition was that the baby taking its first breath at birth meant the beginning of personhood/legal status as a citizen, etc.
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21:22-25, New American Standard)
Except the doctor doesn’t get fired from the PRACTICE, they may get fired from being YOUR doctor, but they don’t deserve to be fired from their practice because of what they feel is best for the patient. As long as they aren’t putting the patient in harms way, there’s pretty much nothing you can do about that. Plenty of doctors to choose from, pick the one that works best for you, but don’t make ALL doctors do what YOU think is best for everybody else. Kinda gets rid of the choices doesn’t it?
Sorry for the double post. I thought that I had stopped my browser the first time before its information was submitted to Jill’s server.
Jess, we are no longer British subjects – we are members of the British Commonwealth. Canada is a separate country, you know, like the US!
We have our own laws, our own government, our own armed forces – I love our guys/gals in uniform!!! – and we even get to leave the country.
A doctor’s only job is not to prescribe medications, Erin. That’s the difference between a bartender and a doctor. ALL a bartender does is serve drinks. That’s it. If he wants to clean the bar, be the bus boy, if he wants to serve the food, be a waiter. But a bartender HAS to serve drinks, a doctor does not HAVE to prescribe prescriptions. BIG difference!
SoMG: Or here’s a good idea: let’s ban alcohol. And tobacco.
Now just wait a minute, Bucko….
Thank you MK 1:20
Erin
OK, lets say I’m a teetotaler. I refuse to serve alcohol, but I want to work at a bar. How long you think before the manager fires me?
Not even close. Abortions are NOT the only or even primary task of an ob/gyn. It is a small part of a large practice.
IF you were to make the argument that a doctor who applies for a job at an ABORTION clinic, and then refuses to do abortions you might have something!
MK: I NEVER use the argument that you could be killing geniuses or saints through abortion because while this is true, you could also be killing stalins and Caligulas..
A+, MK.
…..
It is NOT my job to determine who is worthy of life and who is not. To make this argument you would have to fall into the trap of placing value on human lives. They ALL have value.
Well, you just placed value on them right there.
A doctor who doesn’t prescribe medications could be very easily sued for malpractice if he does not give a patient the medicine he/she needs. Here’s a good one. An 18 year old gets pregnant. She wants an abortion. The doctor won’t refer her or give her any information. So she kills herself.
Hmmm…..
Jess,
“What earlier question Oliver? Why do you think God doesn’t want us to ask questions, seems pretty sketch if you ask me”
Dont put words in my mouth. Take an illogical argument all you want but if you put words in my mouth I will not converse with you. It is out of respect of Jill that I dont tell you what I really feel about people who do this. Read what I said and dont put another dang thing into it.
Now the question I asked you was to make a distinction between the right to privacy in the case of abortion and the right to privacy in the case of parenthood.
In abortion is is okay to neglect your child for the sake of upholding your rights but in parenthood is it not okay. What makes the difference?
To keep you up to date, SoMG suggested that the difference is evident if you look at organ transplant. However, I just explained that organ transplant is a different case not applicable to either scenario because it is not “neglect” to withhold your bodily organs. However it is neglect to withhold food and shelter etc from a child.
How do you respond to that? If you have no response, its okay to say so, but dont warp my words.
MK, I don’t argue that. I WOULD argue, though, that one of the primary functions of an OB/GYN is to prescribe birth control.
Oh Doug Shut up! :)
You’re such a literalist.
To make this argument you would have to fall into the trap of placing different values on different human lives…they ALL have value.
Erin,
REALLY? How is it the doctors FAULT she killed herself exactly?
She has a NUMBER of options like the internet, OTHER doctors, friends, teachers, local health clinics, ETC. so your whole point makes NO sense whatsoever.
MK, I don’t argue that. I WOULD argue, though, that one of the primary functions of an OB/GYN is to prescribe birth control.
Posted by: Erin at August 21, 2008 2:03 PM
NOT if you are a prolife gyn/ob!
Elizabeth, if I go of my meds by myself, bottom out, and commit suicide, that’s my fault. If a doctor refuses to prescribe my medication for me and therefore I bottom out and kill myself, it’s malpractice.
Erin,
MK, I don’t argue that. I WOULD argue, though, that one of the primary functions of an OB/GYN is to prescribe birth control.
While that is true now, it wasn’t always true. I think the fact that the pill is a new invention should be taken into consideration. There is no “we’ve always done it this way”…
For instance, if bars started serving heroin because it became legal. Or doctors for that matter. Would you require all doctors to prescribe an addictive drug simply because the law said so? Even if it went against everything they believed in medically and morally?
Or how about serving someone too much alcohol. Maybe your boss says “give him another one” and you think he’s already had enough and you know he’s going to be driving…should you go against your morals because your job is to serve drinks?
Doug 1:59: Well, you just placed value on them right there.
Mr. Hitler, Mr. Tiller, and I are also descendants of the man who was created in the image of God. Our lives have value because of His image that we originally had. We are all, in ourselves, evil. We can speak of relatively good and evil people, but before God’s face, only Jesus Christ was good.
Mk,
You did a good job of salvaging that analogy.
Erin,
If you kill yourself because a doctor doesnt give you birth control you cannot blame him. You could use a freaking condom. Obviously you have other problems.
That could go the other way too, though, MK. Maybe you refuse to treat internal injuries because you didn’t used to be able to do anything about them. Maybe you don’t treat someone who’s having a heart attack because we didn’t used to have asprin or defibrilators.
You’ve hit on what I consider one of the most distinct foundations of conservativism- the fear and hostility towards change.
Erin,
People aren’t given birth control to treat severe depression. No doctor can be responsible for a woman getting pregnant, let alone for her subsequent suicide.
If birth control was the ONLY way to prevent a pregnancy, maybe. But the ONLY way to absolutely prevent a pregnancy is not birth control, but SELF control. No doctor can accomplish that for someone else.
Actually, Oliver, I DO! I was referring to my Lithium, not to birth control. And it was analogy towards supplying aid to a person in extreme emotional distress because of a pregnancy, not someone who wants birth control.
Wow, the blog is booming today! I wish I could join in, but I have lots of work to do. So nice to see all the new people like Oliver, Jon, and TG. Welcome, we hope you’ll stick around.
Oliver: The argument that abortion kills geniuses is flawed beyond belief, and for Pro-Choicers to fixate on it is equally flawed.
Agreed.
…..
The reason abortion is wrong is because it is a violation of rights to a human being.
That’s not true. What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed, at least to a point in gestation. It is not that rights are violated, it’s that they haven’t been granted in the first place.
……
There is no difference between abortion and allowing an infant to starve.
Not in one respect – that the life ends – no. But in others there are great differences. With the abortion, the baby is inside the body of a person. Now I know you’ve heard that a lot of times, and that SoMG has said some of this, but the mother has had rights attributed to her, and the state does not see fit to impact her bodily autonomy in the matter.
Parents/guardians are indeed expected to care for born babies, but that is not the same as giving up bodily autonomy. The requirement for caring for the baby is theirs only if they choose to take on the responsibility, i.e. they can have the baby adopted, etc. Even when they do keep the baby, they aren’t required by law to give up a part of their body for the baby.
Let’s say a child will die if it does not get an organ transplant. The parents, even if perfect matches, are not required to give an organ. It’s looking at it dispassionately, I know, but they are not forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, give organs, give blood, etc., and they are free to keep everything of their own body and have the child die.
The father, for instance, doesn’t have to give an organ, give the use of his body, etc., to save the life, and that’s even after it’s born, is a citizen, etc.
The mother doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy in like manner.
“You’ve hit on what I consider one of the most distinct foundations of conservativism- the fear and hostility towards change.”
Really? I cant believe you said that…
Why is it then that we want to change abortion law?
OK, OK, let’s clear this up. I was referring to a pregnant teenagers emotional state being fragile to the same level of someone who’s bottomed-out. A refusal to give her information about the type of help she needs could shatter her psyche. It happens to trapped teenagers all the time.
Elizabeth: Where’s the doctor’s choices for what he/she thinks is best for his/her patients?
Hey E. The doctor’s choice doesn’t necessarily overrule what the patient thinks is best.
Patricia, there is no way to know how many abortions there were before abortion was legal. There’s not even a good way to count the complications from back then and even if we knew that number then the total number of abortions would be a function of their safety and without one of those two numbers there’s no way to get the other one. Partly it depends how well the bans were enforced which anecdotally seems to be not well at all. The worse enforcement was, the safer the abortions would have been, so the more of them there would have been (that is, the number of complications would represent a smaller fraction of the total number of abortions).
And if you were to succeed in banning abortion, it might reduce the abortion rate or it might not but in either case you’d never know.
No I wouldn’t be all that shocked if the Angel Gabriel told me that there were fifty million abortions in the thirty years before Roe/Wade or if not that the difference was caused by demographics. I guess the pre-R/W time has the sixties but the post-R/W time has disco.
Why was abortion legalized? Well as I recall Roe/Wade began as a motion to make the Attorney General of Texas lay off the abortion docs. For me the first reason it OUGHT to remain legal is that it’s a bad idea to make criminals of so many women. This kind of thing is very bad for public respect for the rule of law.
Erin,
I have to laugh! My husband gets very
frustrated with me because I thrive on change! He’ll get a kick out me
being accused of being afraid of change…lol.
The difference between aspirin and abortion/birth control is that there is no MORAL dilemma in giving a heart attack victim an excedrin. There is a MORAL component to abortion/birth control. It goes to the heart of who we are.
Nobody should be required to perform actions that go against their conscience in what claims to be a free country…
Elizabeth, if I go of my meds by myself, bottom out, and commit suicide, that’s my fault. If a doctor refuses to prescribe my medication for me and therefore I bottom out and kill myself, it’s malpractice.
Posted by: Erin at August 21, 2008 2:07 PM
depends upon WHY he wouldn’t prescribe them Erin?
somg, what are you ranting about in your 2:22pm post?
Oliver- Roe v. Wade is only what, 30 some years old? The people most passionate about still fighting it are trying to reinstitute a former standard of living because they’re uncomfortable with how that change affected their lives and perceptions.
You continue to not be able to give a qualitative difference between the right to privacy in the case of abortion and the right to privacy in the case of infant neglect.
This is kind of a restatement, but the “neglect” is only possible if the parent or guardian has willingly consented to care for the infant.
Likewise, while consenting to continue a pregnancy is just fine, the woman is not forced to do it against her will.
Nobody should be required to perform actions that go against their conscience in what claims to be a free country…
Posted by: mk at August 21, 2008 2:25 PM
especially when it involves the DEATH of another person and one whom the doctor is to treat as a patient, noless….
“That’s not true. What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed, at least to a point in gestation. It is not that rights are violated, it’s that they haven’t been granted in the first place.”
I know what the law is Doug. I am not talking from a legal point of view. I am talking from an ethical point of view. I believe that no matter the law there are certain inherent rights that all human beings have. If you want to argue whether or not a fetus is a human being this is another issue, but dont tell me that the law doesnt currently support the right that therefore they do not have them. I know what the law is, thats the problem.
“Not in one respect – that the life ends – no. But in others there are great differences. With the abortion, the baby is inside the body of a person. Now I know you’ve heard that a lot of times, and that SoMG has said some of this, but the mother has had rights attributed to her, and the state does not see fit to impact her bodily autonomy in the matter.”
Yes I know the mother has rights attributed to her. I have rights attributed to me too, however when it comes to starving my child to uphold those rights, I am in the wrong but a pregnant mother is not. Where is the difference?
“Parents/guardians are indeed expected to care for born babies, but that is not the same as giving up bodily autonomy. The requirement for caring for the baby is theirs only if they choose to take on the responsibility, i.e. they can have the baby adopted, etc.”
Yes sure I can adopt out, but what if I dont want to take the baby to the adoption agency/fire station? I still have to carry the baby for a temporary time period untill a suitable alternative is reached. How is pregnancy any different? You say simply because its the right to their body, but I say that the right to your body, albeit an important right, does not ultimately trump the responsibility that you have to your pre-born child anymore than your right to privacy and property trumps the responsibility to your infant.
“Even when they do keep the baby, they aren’t required by law to give up a part of their body for the baby.”
Does a mother have to “give up” her body? The only means of providing food is through the use of the uterus. I have to use my body to feed my child. Try feeding a baby without using your physical body. Although I use my body to help feed my children, I do not “give up” any part of it. A mother does not either. She uses her organs to feed, she does not sacrifice them.
“Let’s say a child will die if it does not get an organ transplant. The parents, even if perfect matches, are not required to give an organ. It’s looking at it dispassionately, I know, but they are not forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, give organs, give blood, etc., and they are free to keep everything of their own body and have the child die.
The father, for instance, doesn’t have to give an organ, give the use of his body, etc., to save the life, and that’s even after it’s born, is a citizen, etc.”
Sure. I already covered this. A parent is not obligated to provide anything other food, shelter, water and the other basics of life to a child. Withholding organs is not neglect. A pregnant mother does not have to give her organs either. She only is required to provide food and shelter.
“The mother doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy in like manner”
I agree. A pregnant mother does not have to have her organs transplanted into the fetus either.
Well Doug, and Erin for that matter,
The doctor I went to talk to about my anxiety attacks wanted to put me on antidepressants, and I don’t think that is what is best for me, especially since my anxiety isn’t constant. I would actually just like some Xanax for those times when I’m especially anxious, which usually fall around that certain time of the month. So no, Doug, what the patient thinks is best for themselves isn’t always taken into consideration. Or trumps what the doctor thinks is best.
And Erin, a doctor wouldn’t just NOT give a patient ANY information. If the doctor won’t give info about abortions, I’m pretty sure they’d give her advice about other options. And what year are we living in now? If a person is so out of it, they can’t google something on the computer to find out information for what they want, they have more problems that are NOT the doctor’s fault.
Doug: “Abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. The Jewish tradition was that the baby taking its first breath at birth meant the beginning of personhood/legal status as a citizen, etc.”
Jon: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21:22-25)
Jon, that’s really ambiguous. Some Bible versions have the fine being levied for miscarriage, not just premature birth.
I’ve argued this one a lot, and it can be interpreted either way.
Yep, Erin, I would consider myself pretty uncomfortable with how we went from the shift that it was not okay to kill babies still in the womb to when it was okay to kill babies still in the womb. Call me old-fashioned.
OK, lets say I’m a teetotaler. I refuse to serve alcohol, but I want to work at a bar. How long you think before the manager fires me?
Erin, I guess you’ll have to be the bouncer. ; )
Oliver, is it “neglect” to withhold the contents of your bloodstream? How about refusing to go through major medical/surgical trauma?
And WHY isn’t it “neglect” to withold a kidney or 200 mls of blood from one of your children who needs it? Donating is a small fraction as painful and expensive and dangerous as childbirth.
Erin, why haven’t you switched to Depakote?
Patricia: Jess, we are no longer British subjects – we are members of the British Commonwealth. Canada is a separate country, you know, like the US!
Patricia, I love Canada and its people. (Lived there for 4 years, worked there for 9.) Canadians, on average, are nicer than Americans.
Respectfully, there was the “Canada Act” back in 1982 which cut Canada entirely free from the British parliament, but isn’t Canada still a “constitutional monarchy” as well as a parliamentary democracy, and isn’t Queen Elizabeth still the head of state?
MK: Oh Doug Shut up! :)
No. (chuckling)
…..
You’re such a literalist. To make this argument you would have to fall into the trap of placing different values on different human lives…they ALL have value.
:: shaking head ::
MK, isn’t it agreed that we are all individuals here, having our say, giving our opinions, etc.?
You are saying they all have value. Okay. Somebody else says differently as with one being unwanted. We’re all placing value.
What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed, at least to a point in gestation. It is not that rights are violated, it’s that they haven’t been granted in the first place.
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 2:18 PM
Would you stand up in court and say those exact words, if you were defending a murderer named Scott Peterson?
Now, esteemed ladys and gentleman of the jury, “what you want is rights of the son of Scott Peterson to be attributed to his unborn son. As of now, that is not the case”.
That is not the case??? Really Doug, your making things up out of whole cloth in matters of abortion propaganda.
Ain’t it fun getting out that nail puller and metaphysical pry bar and bending other people’s words and thoughts to match your version of reality?
You know, deconstructing another person’s writing until you reconstruct the world you want to live in concerning matters of abortion, and the reality of abortion you attribute to those matters.
Elizabeth,
You are so old fashioned!! Me too!!
SoMG- my Bipolar was just recently(as in within the last month) diagnosed. I had been diagnosed with Major Depression before that, but none of the meds were working and I bottomed out. I’m just taking what the doc gave me right now- and I’ve never felt better in my life, so I’m reluctant to switch.
Mr. Hitler, Mr. Tiller, and I are also descendants of the man who was created in the image of God. Our lives have value because of His image that we originally had.
Jon, so you say, but that doesn’t mean it’s so. Regardless of what you ascribe it to, this is still you saying that (positive) value is there.
The pregnant woman may have similar beliefs to you, or different, and either way she may also feel that positive value is there, that on balance the pregnancy is wanted, or she may not want it, feel that overall it’s a net negative, and want to end it.
Is isnt neglect to withhold blood or a kidney because they do not constitute the basic needs in life.
A parent, society, etc cannot be obligated to supply body parts or repair other physical or mental deficiencies. What a parent/society/etc is required to do for all people is to provide food, water and shelter to those who cannot provide it for themselves for various reasons. We can obviously see how infants and pre-born infants cannot provide for themselves food/etc. Organs are not a basic need of life.
If your DNA has failed to provide this for you, or if you are injured in such a way, this is either due to your own deficiency or circumstantial complications. It is not up to the responsibility of others.
It is neglect to withhold nutrients to those you are responsible for, so if the method applying those nutrients is through your bloodstream, than yes it would be neglect.
The only part of the pregnancy that has nothing to do with neglect is in fact the birth. You are right. Nobody should be held responsible to have major surgery or trauma.
However, this is unavoidable with a pregnancy. You cant abuse the zygote for what may happen in the future. When the pregnancy does come to the point that there will be a physical conflict, the only solution would be to preserve the rights as much as possible of all involved. Remember that the fetus did not decide to exist any more than that mother decided for it to exist. If these two beings both have rights, they should both again be preserved as much as possible.
No, Patricia, not every person is your patient. Your patient is the one you are hired to take care of.
Oliver, a pregnant woman has components of her blood, which is technically considered a transplantable tissue, transferred into the fetus. Also she suffers damage to her organs.
Erin,
You don’t have to answer this.
Are you the same Erin who had an abortion almost a year ago? Do you think your severe depression has anything to do with that?
Respectfully, there was the “Canada Act” back in 1982 which cut Canada entirely free from the British parliament, but isn’t Canada still a “constitutional monarchy” as well as a parliamentary democracy, and isn’t Queen Elizabeth still the head of state?
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 2:39 PM
yes but figuratively
The governor general is her representative in Canada
But Canada IS a nation sovereign nation!
No, Patricia, not every person is your patient. Your patient is the one you are hired to take care of.
Of course not! But when a pregnant woman walks into a gyn/ob’s office or any other doctor’s office for that matter, he is treating TWO patients and the doctor KNOWS it.
In fact this is soooo taken for granted that a pregnant mother is treated very differently in many situations.
example, you are not allowed to be in the x-ray room with your child at the hospital, even WITH a lead gown on
It’s only for abortions that suddenly the second patient is regarded as a blob of tissue to be rid of….. literally
Wow, the blog is booming today! I wish I could join in, but I have lots of work to do.
Hey Bobby, I was gonna say something about that – you’ve been slackin’ here…. (wink)
Seriously, people like you and Bethany amaze me. You do a lot.
And – wasn’t somebody moaning about how people aren’t going to stay on Jill’s blog a couple days ago….? //.^)
Nobody should be required to perform actions that go against their conscience in what claims to be a free country…
MK, does that apply to continuing a pregnancy?
Carla- yes, that’s me! And no, I’ve dealt with depression since I was 11 years old. Just recently we discovered that I was actually Bipolar and had been being treated for the wrong thing for going on 9 years.
and isn’t Queen Elizabeth still the head of state?
“yes but figuratively. The governor general is her representative in Canada, But Canada IS a nation sovereign nation!”
Okay, thanks, Patricia. Indeed – sovereign nation.
Hi Erin,
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if it was you. :)
I am sorry for all of “stuff.” Drugs are tricky and getting a wrong diagnosis hardly helps!!
Jon, that’s really ambiguous
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 2:34 PM
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.
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.
Be honest, Doug, don’t try and make fogs appear where none exist.
Erin,
What was your emotional state when you decided for the abortion? Were you in the manic state or depressed end of the condition?
My bro-in-law is on Depakote. He used to be this aggressive, in-your-face, my-way-or-no-way kind of guy, but now he is so passive he doesn’t even seek employment!
And he’s gained tons of weight because he’s become so unmotivated, and his poor mother has been basically babysitting for almost a year and a half.
Not trying to bash Depakote. I know the milligrams have alot to do with it.
State your name, yllas.
carder- to be honest, I have no idea what my emotional state was. But I also know that that had been a ready-made decision for me. I knew exactly what I would do in that situation and had made it clear to my boyfriend what would happen in that situation. It was hardly rash.
Induced abortion damages the organs of many women who submit to it…as though you care.
How many geniuses have been killed? Why? Does one have to have a certain IQ level to deserve to live? We can get closer to an estimate, though, than some people care to admit. About 50 million people have been deliberately/premeditatedly and unjustly slaughtered in utero via induced abortion. That is the equivalent of the total population of about 18 states combined. Although some were killed for being “defective” (Down’s syndrome, female, etc.) the vast majority of them had no known defects (being female is not a defect, actually; however, it is often a reason for aborting a child, especially in China where abortions are forced after 1 or 2 children and male children are preferred for their ability to work fields and other ventures) or handicapped; e.g., they were perfectly healthy babies.
So you can get a fair estimate of how many policemen, musicians, writers, attorneys, doctors, nurses, athletes, artists, truck drivers, delivery drivers, servers, store clerks, educators, businesspeople, librarians, handicapped people, homeless, caregivers, landscapers, managers, receptionists, secretaries, grocers, etc., etc., etc, have been killed in this holocaust simply by tallying up how many such individuals actually reside in 18 states whose combined populations total 50 million.
Carla- I know! Though let me say, finally being treated for the right thing has made a massive difference. I feel fantastic now that I’m on something that’s treating me the way my body needs to be treated.
Silly brain chemistry!
Erin,
Someone very close to me was diagnosed depressed and on the wrong drugs for years as well. Put on something else for bipolar and tried to commit suicide. Off that and now going the natural route.
I know of what you speak!! Glad things are better for you!!
Have you donedid graduate from college yet??
Oliver, you wrote: “Is isnt neglect to withhold blood or a kidney because they do not constitute the basic needs in life.”
They do to the patients!
Patricia, your two-patient hypothesis is silly. The dermatologist who removes a wart from a pregnant woman’s finger and the orthopedic surgeon who sets her broken arm are treating ONE patient. Sure you try to avoid hurting the fetus but that doesn’t make it your patient. You also try to avoid doing anything that might somehow hurt the patient’s favorite actor but he’s not your patient either.
Doug 2:47, I don’t subscribe to your secular humanist assumptions; I’m a Christian. We don’t share the same religion; we don’t talk the same language. But we can still try to understand our opponents’ arguments; I sometimes do.
Are the components used to provide nutrients to the fetus? If so, the fact that they are easily replaced, hard to notice gone and that they are required to nuture the fetus, the conflict of rights would clearly lean towards the fetus. If a case arises that a woman does not want to carry the fetus because of blood components being transfered, there would definitely need some more debate. As it is, due to the imperceptable nature, there is little to be concerned about.
There is no doubt that the fetus places strain on the woman’s body. This is where the complications arise.
It is not as cut and dried as an organ transplant such as in the case of a kidney, unfortunately.
Essentially there are now two rights competing. The mother’s right to not have her non-vital organs temporarily, and possibly permenantly, damaged as well as her right to not be physically injured, etc against the rights of the fetus to not be physcially injured as well as its right to not be neglected.
I think the most important element to remind ourselves of when we really get into this is to consider the concept that intent cannot be prescribed to the fetus and in almost every case to the mother either.
I like to think about this in light of a really interesting injury I once watched on some documentary. Essentially what happened is that two girls were impaled during a car accident with a lightpost or street sign post or something. Both girls were essentially linked together through this horrible accident. However one girl was in a more critical situation than the other. In order to save the girl who was most in danger the doctors has to take their time in handling the problem, at the expense of the less endangered girl.
I like to think of this in light of a pregnancy because essentially there are two beings caught together without intent on either side. It is also similar in the sense that the fetus imposes discomfort and temporary damage against the mother.
The mother is in no way obligated to the fetus in this sense from a duty of “gaurdianship.” The duties that the mother owes to the fetus are to provide food and shelter. If this infringes on her body, this is no problem. Parents sacrfice their rights to prevent neglect all the time as established earlier.
The problem is that the mother more than likely is actually mildly damaged. How do we resolve this issue? This to me is the crux of the abortion debate. Because both the fetus and the mother are not at fault for the accidental relationship, and because immediate separation causes death for the fetus and because birth provides a solution that preseves both the long term health of the fetus and that of the mother, it is the case that the only solution to benefit both parties without long term detrement to either at the expense of the other is to carry to viability.
I think that mothers should be allowed to give birth at around 32 weeks, when the fetus’s chance of survival is high and long term damage is low. The mothers that dont want to continue the pregnancy should, ethically speaking, be allowed to opt out at that point because there is a reasonable alternative.
Carla- Hah, I wish! Nope, still trekking through school.
JTM, how many “policemen, musicians, writers, attorneys, doctors, nurses, athletes, artists, truck drivers, delivery drivers, servers, store clerks, educators, businesspeople, librarians, handicapped people, homeless, caregivers, landscapers, managers, receptionists, secretaries, grocers, etc., ” have been prevented from living by our policy of allowing women to have fewer than ten children each? What’s worse than being aborted? Having your whole existance, including the in utero part, cancelled, like the crew of the Enterprise in “The City on the Edge of Forever”.
Oliver: I believe that no matter the law there are certain inherent rights that all human beings have. If you want to argue whether or not a fetus is a human being this is another issue, but dont tell me that the law doesnt currently support the right that therefore they do not have them. I know what the law is, thats the problem.
Okay, so we are talking about legal status for the unborn, not anything “inherent.” I accept you believe as you do, but your beliefs won’t necessarily apply to others. On “human being” – no argument – that’s physical state and here the unborn are definitely living human organisms, more than enough for “human being” to be in effect.
…..
“Not in one respect – that the life ends – no. But in others there are great differences. With the abortion, the baby is inside the body of a person. Now I know you’ve heard that a lot of times, and that SoMG has said some of this, but the mother has had rights attributed to her, and the state does not see fit to impact her bodily autonomy in the matter.”
Yes I know the mother has rights attributed to her. I have rights attributed to me too, however when it comes to starving my child to uphold those rights, I am in the wrong but a pregnant mother is not. Where is the difference?
The pregnant woman is free to continue her pregnancy. You are free to care for your child. Neither are required by law to do so – you can give up your child for adoption, state care, etc., and the pregnant woman can elect to end the pregnancy.
IF you say, in effect, “I am going to care for the child,” then the state does expect a certain level of care since the child has been attributed rights too.
……
“Parents/guardians are indeed expected to care for born babies, but that is not the same as giving up bodily autonomy. The requirement for caring for the baby is theirs only if they choose to take on the responsibility, i.e. they can have the baby adopted, etc.”
Yes sure I can adopt out, but what if I dont want to take the baby to the adoption agency/fire station? I still have to carry the baby for a temporary time period untill a suitable alternative is reached. How is pregnancy any different? You say simply because its the right to their body, but I say that the right to your body, albeit an important right, does not ultimately trump the responsibility that you have to your pre-born child anymore than your right to privacy and property trumps the responsibility to your infant.
To the extent you have the child in your care, then yes the state expects some things, but you’re not forced to have the child in your care. You said “I don’t want to take the baby to the adoption agency..” Okay, that’s your choice. Likewise, the pregnant woman can choose to continue the pregnancy. And, just as you can choose to give the child up, so can the pregnant woman choose to end the pregnancy.
…..
“Even when they do keep the baby, they aren’t required by law to give up a part of their body for the baby.”
Does a mother have to “give up” her body? The only means of providing food is through the use of the uterus. I have to use my body to feed my child. Try feeding a baby without using your physical body. Although I use my body to help feed my children, I do not “give up” any part of it. A mother does not either. She uses her organs to feed, she does not sacrifice them.
Again – two different things. You are agreeing to care for the child, and that leads to the state expecting you to “use your body to feed your child.” It’s per your will, it’s dependent on your will. The analogous thing would be when pregnancy is continued, and then the woman is held liable by the state if she uses certain drugs, etc. I think a case or two like that has gone to court already…? This is a “new” thing as far as legality – is the woman responsible in what she ingests when she is pregnant? An interesting area IMO.
The other side is where you give up the child, and aren’t expected to care for it, and where the pregnant woman gives up the pregnancy.
…..
“Let’s say a child will die if it does not get an organ transplant. The parents, even if perfect matches, are not required to give an organ. It’s looking at it dispassionately, I know, but they are not forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, give organs, give blood, etc., and they are free to keep everything of their own body and have the child die.
The father, for instance, doesn’t have to give an organ, give the use of his body, etc., to save the life, and that’s even after it’s born, is a citizen, etc.”
Sure. I already covered this. A parent is not obligated to provide anything other food, shelter, water and the other basics of life to a child. Withholding organs is not neglect. A pregnant mother does not have to give her organs either. She only is required to provide food and shelter.
The parent isn’t obligated to provide anything to the child unless they willingly accept the responsibility. If the parent does not choose to care for the child, the state in effect says, “Okay,” and the child isn’t with the parent any longer. Heretofore, should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy, she wasn’t regulated much at all as far as how she cared for it.
…..
“The mother doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy in like manner”
I agree. A pregnant mother does not have to have her organs transplanted into the fetus either.
Heh – well, no doubt there, Oliver.
In the end we have 4 cases.
1.) Parent chooses to care for the child = the state expects some things.
2.) Woman chooses to continue pregnancy = the state expects little or nothing.
3.) Parent chooses to give up the child = the state says “okay,” nothing expected of the parent then.
4.) Woman chooses to end the pregnancy = the state says “okay,” nothing expected of the woman then.
Ok Erin. No pressure!! :)
“Oliver, you wrote: “Is isnt neglect to withhold blood or a kidney because they do not constitute the basic needs in life.”
They do to the patients”
Let me clarify a bit, as I know it was not entirely obvious what I was intending by the statement “basic needs in life”
What I mean by that statement is that the basic needs are the resources required that cannot be expected to be provided by a human being internally. No human can expect to internally provide their own food, water and/or shelter. However, we can be expected to provide our own kidneys. If we do not, it is in a certain sense, our fault or the fault of circumstance. In either case it is not something that needs to be supplied by others. Untill you are capable of foraging for your own food, you can in no way be expected to provide it for yourself. That is why it is a basic need.
Doug 2:34, I wasn’t being generous in my last comment. I see that you were trying to understand my argument. Time for me to go to bed now!
Patricia, it was interesting and helpful to hear a fellow Canadian (with whom I’m in agreement yet too).
I can’t go into MY house and just randomly kill off any person in there – even a burglar. That would be called using excessive force. Which BTW, is what I would term abortion…
Posted by: Patricia at August 21, 2008 10:05 AM
Amen, Patricia!
And – wasn’t somebody moaning about how people aren’t going to stay on Jill’s blog a couple days ago….? //.^)
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 3:01 PM
One day Doug.
Some will come for a day, some for a week, but the professional abortion propagandist they meet will drive them away.
Why, because there is no argument with a person that knows “that no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
Besides, already SOMG has dumbed down his argument to “Well you’d be wrong. The body is special”. Posted by: SoMG at August 21, 2008 1:32 PM.
And if my interpretation of the SOMG is right, it’s a principle too. Whooo, the body is special principle, while riping bodies apart inside bodies is his profession.
Now, there is a contradiction so large not even a professional deconstuctionist propagandist can ……… reconstruct to his facts of reality.
“To the extent you have the child in your care, then yes the state expects some things, but you’re not forced to have the child in your care. You said “I don’t want to take the baby to the adoption agency..” Okay, that’s your choice. Likewise, the pregnant woman can choose to continue the pregnancy. And, just as you can choose to give the child up, so can the pregnant woman choose to end the pregnancy.”
I think this is where we are both defining key terms differently.
You say that by taking a child home, you are commiting yourself to the care of this child untill you provide alternative solution. Unfortunately there is no such contract that you sign when you take a child home.
The only understanding is that if the child is in your care you owe it to take care of it. Now if I decide to quit taking care of it, which is analogous to an abortion, why should I have to wait for this ceasation of responsibility? You say I have to take it to the adoption agency in order to supply a suitable alternative and fill out paper work and wait and wait…I dont want to. Why can a woman who is pregnant simply have it aborted? Why does she not have to wait until a suitable alternative is provided by birth?
“In the end we have 4 cases.
1.) Parent chooses to care for the child = the state expects some things.”
Yes, but when I want to stop my responsibility, why do I have to carry the baby until an I achieve a suitable alternative when a pregnant woman does not?
“2.) Woman chooses to continue pregnancy = the state expects little or nothing.
3.) Parent chooses to give up the child = the state says “okay,” nothing expected of the parent then.
4.) Woman chooses to end the pregnancy = the state says “okay,” nothing expected of the woman then.”
So a woman can decide “yeah Id rather just stop feeding the child and remove it from my shelter” only when its a pregnany, but when its a born child she has to find a suitable alternative before she can relinquish the responsibility?
I dont see how you can draw a distinction there. In both cases the “guardian” is responsible until an alternative is found, which in both cases is adoption, and in both cases, the parent must wait and uphold those responsibilities until adoption is achieved.
Patricia, it was interesting and helpful to hear a fellow Canadian (with whom I’m in agreement yet too).
Posted by: Jon at August 21, 2008 3:35 PM
hey anytime
keep an eye out for stray polar bears…..
Erin,
*whispering cause this is just between you and me*
I care about you. If you should EVER feel that your abortion experience is affecting you negatively please don’t hesitate to contact me through this blog, my blog or facebook. That is the only time I will ever say that, ok?
Carry on, collegegirl!! :)
Patricia, your two-patient hypothesis is silly. The dermatologist who removes a wart from a pregnant woman’s finger and the orthopedic surgeon who sets her broken arm are treating ONE patient. Sure you try to avoid hurting the fetus but that doesn’t make it your patient. You also try to avoid doing anything that might somehow hurt the patient’s favorite actor but he’s not your patient either.
Posted by: SoMG at August 21, 2008 3:24 PM
the ob/gyn’s position is DIFFERENT by its very nature
He is treating two patients and he KNOWS it – he trains for it and he deals with the patients as though he recognizes it
It is only when abortion is mentioned that suddenly that second patient becomes less than that- it becomes a “tissue”, conceptus, contents of pregnancy, fetus whatever term needed to accomplish the task of destroying the patient….
Yes, but when I want to stop my responsibility, why do I have to carry the baby until an I achieve a suitable alternative when a pregnant woman does not?
If you really wanted to do nothing, you could probably call CPS on yourself and then just sit there until they showed up. Or maybe the police. Which is significantly less work than you need to put in to have an abortion. I mean, it’s not like women can just abort merely by thinking, “I want an abortion!”
A woman I know had a severely mentally ill daughter. When the girl was 14, she grabbed a knife and threatened to cut anyone who came near her. Her mom called the police and told them that she was concerned someone was going to hurt someone — the daughter might hurt her, she might hurt the daughter, etc. They took the daughter to a ward until things were a bit more calm.
Alexandra,
It doesnt matter the effort implied. If I am allowed to relinguish my responsiblities as a parent when I want, I am not obligated to provide an alternative solution.
If I am driving down the road and decide I dont want my kid in the car I cant just force them out the door. They have a hold on my right to property and privacy untill I can safely take them to a police station or call a police officer etc.
If there is this requirement for parents, even in the face of violated privacy and property rights, then explain to me why there is not this requirement for a pregnant mother in face of her privacy rights?
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? Is this yllas? 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.
Many theologians have pointed out that the Exodus passage originates in some earlier Pagan laws. I quote:
Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: “If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”
Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.
There is also an author, Brian McKinley, who is a born-again Christian, and he sums the passage thusly: “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence — it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”‘
I don’t subscribe to your secular humanist assumptions; I’m a Christian. We don’t share the same religion; we don’t talk the same language. But we can still try to understand our opponents’ arguments; I sometimes do.
Jon, thank you, and well said.
Agreed – we make assumptions, and not all yours and mine are the same.
It really comes down to you more wanting the unborn life to continue and me more wanting the woman to retain the freedom she now has.
It really comes down to you more wanting the unborn life to continue and me more wanting the woman to retain the freedom she now has.
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 4:18 PM
sad, freedom at the cost of the life of another.
And that’s freedom? so sad……………
Have you donedid graduate from college yet??
Carla, I ain’t tha mos’ edjikatud persin but that thar’s some qwesshinnable grammar.
Oliver, clearly there is a difference between voluntarily putting your kid in your car, and taking precautions to avoid pregnancy but finding yourself pregnant anyway. Or being raped. Especially given the physical difficulties some women experience during pregnancy.
Additionally, there is a difference between waiting twenty minutes, and waiting the better part of a year. So the two aren’t really all that comparable. Can you conclusively draw a line and say, “This amount of time is okay to make people wait before they are no longer forced to support another person, but anything more is not?” Obviously not.
Some will come for a day, some for a week, but the professional abortion propagandist they meet will drive them away.
yllas, are we wearing our “Nostradamus” hat today? You may be right, but lively discourse generates LOTS of hits and pageviews and it keeps people coming back too. So, in the end there will be a net effect, and I betcha Jill’s blog is busier the way it is now.
…..
Why, because there is no argument with a person that knows “that no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
Now hold on a minute here, Sister. Sure there’s argument. I gave my opinion. Anyone and everyone is free to argue with it.
Indeed, I don’t think anyone has a good enough argument that we should take away the freedom women currently have in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies. Believe me – plenty of people argue all the time. There are other opinions than mine, ya know….
……
Besides, already SOMG has dumbed down his argument to “Well you’d be wrong. The body is special”.
You both have a lot of information in your brains. Is SoMG “the end of the world” for you? I doubt it.
….
And if my interpretation of the SOMG is right, it’s a principle too. Whooo, the body is special principle, while riping bodies apart inside bodies is his profession. Now, there is a contradiction so large not even a professional deconstuctionist propagandist can ……… reconstruct to his facts of reality.
Well, okay, rant on. You’re flashing over into incoherence once again.
Yikes! Oliver, taking no prisoners! Talk about a heavyweight defender of the unborn!
“It really comes down to you more wanting the unborn life to continue and me more wanting the woman to retain the freedom she now has.”
Patricia: sad, freedom at the cost of the life of another. And that’s freedom? so sad…
P, aside from arguing over the differences – that “another” does not apply in certain ways, ways that people often care about – I understand that you feel it’s sad, and thus you’re on the “wanting the unborn life to continue” side.
“Additionally, there is a difference between waiting twenty minutes, and waiting the better part of a year. So the two aren’t really all that comparable. Can you conclusively draw a line and say, “This amount of time is okay to make people wait before they are no longer forced to support another person, but anything more is not?” Obviously not”
So whats the answer then? You say the two time periods are not comparable, but I say the very principle underlying the scenario is all that matters. If it is the case that I have to wait any period of time to find a suitable alternative then there is a required to do so, and if you want to get into the nitty gritty of determining time lengths go for it. You will find it very hard to take a quantifiable concept such as time and turn it into a qualitative one where a significant decision regarding human rights is made.
You say that there is a difference between putting a child in a car and getting pregnant by using contraceptive. Are you implying that if you do not use contraceptives that you should not be allowed to have an abortion? I would imagine that a good portion of abortions are from either the misuse or lack of contraceptive, so I would take that win for now.
Personally speaking I do not think you can make any sort of distinction based on intent. The issue is that in both cases the “gaurdians” are responsible, whether it be from personal choice or from circumstance. If you are a member of society and benefit from society then you are in position to take on certain responsibilities when they are placed at your feet. If a baby is on your doorstep, you better do something about it, even if it isnt your “fault.”
It is NOT my job to determine who is worthy of life and who is not. To make this argument you would have to fall into the trap of placing value on human lives. They ALL have value.
Doug, I think that she means that value should not be subjectively bestowed or removed on an individual basis.
The doctor won’t refer her or give her any information. So she kills herself.
Hmmm…..
I’m sorry! I messed up — the above is me and I didn’t get to finish.
So whats the answer then?
I suppose I think that the answer varies from person to person, which is why I am in favor of legal abortion. I think that anyone barring the most severely ill should be capable of waiting the five minutes it takes to pull a car over and make a phone call, so I don’t view that as an unreasonable expectation to hold people to. I think, however, that pregnancy is affected by a lot more variables.
Of course, the question goes the other way as well. What if we had a gestation period of nearly two years, like elephants? Would you still consider that reasonable? What if it were longer? Is there a point where a person is no longer required to share their body with another?
I’m not going to reply to Erin’s post since so much has been written while I have been reading but I can’t resist this —- SoMG, are you using that silly transplant analogy again?!
Unfortunately I’m over-due for a nap — I’ve been a bit ‘out of commission’ for a couple days now.
“To the extent you have the child in your care, then yes the state expects some things, but you’re not forced to have the child in your care. You said “I don’t want to take the baby to the adoption agency..” Okay, that’s your choice. Likewise, the pregnant woman can choose to continue the pregnancy. And, just as you can choose to give the child up, so can the pregnant woman choose to end the pregnancy.”
Oliver: I think this is where we are both defining key terms differently.
You say that by taking a child home, you are commiting yourself to the care of this child untill you provide alternative solution. Unfortunately there is no such contract that you sign when you take a child home.
Nevertheless, the state’s position is that the child deserves care – that’s a premise here, rights are already attributed, etc., so somebody is supposed to do it. No, no contract, but so what? Anyway, carry on…
The only understanding is that if the child is in your care you owe it to take care of it. Now if I decide to quit taking care of it, which is analogous to an abortion, why should I have to wait for this ceasation of responsibility? You say I have to take it to the adoption agency in order to supply a suitable alternative and fill out paper work and wait and wait…I dont want to. Why can a woman who is pregnant simply have it aborted? Why does she not have to wait until a suitable alternative is provided by birth?
No, quitting taking care of the child is not analogous to abortion in that the first is not permitted and the second is. You’re supposed to care for the child until somebody else is caring for it. With abortion, you can end it when you want to, to viability anyway, and that’s not contingent upon somebody else taking over The woman has no responsibility to continue the pregnancy. Yet you do have a responsibility to the child as long as it’s in your care.
…..
“In the end we have 4 cases.
1.) Parent chooses to care for the child = the state expects some things.”
Yes, but when I want to stop my responsibility, why do I have to carry the baby until an I achieve a suitable alternative when a pregnant woman does not?
Because the baby is going to continue, because it’s had rights attributed to it, citizenship, etc., and because the state says so. With abortion the baby is not going to continue.
…..
“2.) Woman chooses to continue pregnancy = the state expects little or nothing.
3.) Parent chooses to give up the child = the state says “okay,” nothing expected of the parent then.
4.) Woman chooses to end the pregnancy = the state says “okay,” nothing expected of the woman then.”
So a woman can decide “yeah I’d rather just stop feeding the child and remove it from my shelter” only when its a pregnany, but when its a born child she has to find a suitable alternative before she can relinquish the responsibility?
There’s no necessary agreement that “child” applies in the case of abortion. People have different opinions on it. I mean, really – is the conceptus a “child”? Is the blastocyst? It gets pretty extreme….
Yes, the woman can decide to have an abortion. Nobody’s going to “take over” the embryo or fetus.
Yes, with a born child a suitable alternative has to be found. Somebody is goinig to take over the child.
…..
I dont see how you can draw a distinction there. In both cases the “guardian” is responsible until an alternative is found, which in both cases is adoption, and in both cases, the parent must wait and uphold those responsibilities until adoption is achieved.
No, the pregnant woman has no responsibility to continue the pregnancy. I know you wish the state said she did. Legally, “possession” of the born child implies responsibility for care. Not so with the pregnancy. I’m not saying it “has” to be this way, in any external manner. The law could change. Rights could be attributed to the unborn (though what a can of worms that’d be opening up..).
P, aside from arguing over the differences – that “another” does not apply in certain ways, ways that people often care about – I understand that you feel it’s sad, and thus you’re on the “wanting the unborn life to continue” side.
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 4:29 PM
NO actually Doug you do not understand at all…..
and that’s another very sad thing……
Hey doug, Oliver’s at work now, but he’ll be back around 9. :)
Doug,
MK, does that apply to continuing a pregnancy?
you would have a hard time convincing me that a woman’s conscience was being tread upon by continuing a pregnancy.
I certainly know of no instance where allowing an innocent person to live goes against someones conscience.
Inconvenient? Sure. Troublesome. Okay. Difficult. Yeah.
But a moral dilemma? Can you think of any instance where a woman could kill her five year old because allowing him to live would conflict with her moral code????
Not that I’m challenging Bethany’s artistic mastery (especially with Microsoft ‘Paint’ and a touchpad) but that egg in the Michael Phelps cartoon looks like a chick’s head:
Patricia: NO actually Doug you do not understand at all…..
You feel it’s sad when a woman chooses to end a pregnancy and the baby dies.
Doug,
MK, isn’t it agreed that we are all individuals here, having our say, giving our opinions, etc.?
You are saying they all have value. Okay. Somebody else says differently as with one being unwanted. We’re all placing value.
My statement was that I would then have to take the stance of prochoicers and say that people had different values. I admitted that to believe that would be to think like you. And that is the reason that I don’t argue that we might be killing saints and heroes…because I DON’T think like you. I think like me. And my thoughts are that all people have equal value. Therefore I will not engage in the mentality that says one person is worth more than another, as you and other pro choicers do…
capiche?
(and before you even go there I mean value as in worthy of life, not that I am as valuable in the business world as Bill Gates)
you would have a hard time convincing me that a woman’s conscience was being tread upon by continuing a pregnancy.
MK, it’d be that she simply felt that bringing a child into the world at the given time was not right, for example. Or that there would be too much suffering, etc.
Just saying she could feel that way – some women do.
……
I certainly know of no instance where allowing an innocent person to live goes against someones conscience.
Been here and done this: There’s not agreement that it’s a “child,” and “innocence” isn’t the issue – we’re not saying the baby is “guilty” nor that it even has the capacity for guilt.
….
Inconvenient? Sure. Troublesome. Okay. Difficult. Yeah.
Okay, I do get your point. It’s certainly very far from the norm in our developed world.
…..
But a moral dilemma? Can you think of any instance where a woman could kill her five year old because allowing him to live would conflict with her moral code????
Well, as far as going against her conscience, if she feels it’s just too “bad” to bring a baby into the world. I’m sure it’s a foreign feeling to you, but in some parts of the world, i.e. the Sudan, Darfur, it’s a different story – and I’m not even saying it’s prevalent there.
Doug,
The parent isn’t obligated to provide anything to the child unless they willingly accept the responsibility. If the parent does not choose to care for the child, the state in effect says, “Okay,” and the child isn’t with the parent any longer. Heretofore, should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy, she wasn’t regulated much at all as far as how she cared for it.
You’re missing Olivers point. The parent IS required to care for the child UNTIl an alternative is found. Even if that simply means dropping the child off at a hospital or police station. But they cannot just leave the child on a street corner. They are responsible UNTIL someone else takes over their responsibility.
His question is why isn’t this required of a pregnant woman? That she be responsible for her child until an alternate situation is found?
BTW OLIVER:
I LOVE YOU!
Doug,
No, the pregnant woman has no responsibility to continue the pregnancy. I know you wish the state said she did. Legally, “possession” of the born child implies responsibility for care. Not so with the pregnancy. I’m not saying it “has” to be this way, in any external manner. The law could change. Rights could be attributed to the unborn (though what a can of worms that’d be opening up..).
This is one of the reasons people get so frustrated arguing with you…
If Oliver has said it once, he’s said it a thousand times…He knows the law. He’s not talking about the law. He is talking ETHICALLY! He wants to know why it is ETHICALLY acceptable. Not legally acceptable. ETHICALLY acceptable.
Doug,
MK, it’d be that she simply felt that bringing a child into the world at the given time was not right, for example. Or that there would be too much suffering, etc.
That is not “conscience”. Conscience is and understanding of right and wrong and choosing right because it is right. Not because it’s inconvenient, or the wrong time, or will cause her suffering…
It means she would have an abortion because she would feel GUILTY, as if she was doing something WRONG, by not having the abortion.
Not wrong for her, but WRONG. A concept you don’t subscribe to, as you don’t believe it is possible to do something wrong, only something wrong for “you”.
Been here and done this: There’s not agreement that it’s a “child,” and “innocence” isn’t the issue – we’re not saying the baby is “guilty” nor that it even has the capacity for guilt.
….
Blah blah blah.
Yeah we’ve been here and you know exactly what we mean by innocent. The child has committed no crime that deserves the death penalty…
Which one of these does NOT describe an unborn baby?
Definitions of innocent on the Web:
* free from evil or guilt; “an innocent child”; “the principle that one is innocent until proved guilty”
* lacking intent or capacity to injure; “an innocent prank”
* impeccant: free from sin
* lacking in sophistication or worldliness; “a child’s innocent stare”; “his ingenuous explanation that he would not have burned the church if he had not thought the bishop was in it”
* innocent(p): not knowledgeable about something specified; “American tourists wholly innocent of French”; “a person unacquainted with our customs”
* barren: completely wanting or lacking; “writing barren of insight”; “young recruits destitute of experience”; “innocent of literary merit”; “the sentence was devoid of meaning”
* (used of things) lacking sense or awareness; “fine innocent weather”
* a person who lacks knowledge of evil
You’re missing Olivers point. The parent IS required to care for the child UNTIl an alternative is found. Even if that simply means dropping the child off at a hospital or police station. But they cannot just leave the child on a street corner. They are responsible UNTIL someone else takes over their responsibility.
His question is why isn’t this required of a pregnant woman? That she be responsible for her child until an alternate situation is found?
MK, it’s not required because the pregnant woman isn’t continuing the pregnancy by her own will, if it’s unwanted.
In the case of the parent, it was their own will to have the child, even if for just a short time. If they don’t want to do it at all, they wouldn’t take the baby (protected by the state, with rights attributed) home from the hospital. Likewise, a pregnant woman, to viability anyway, doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy if they don’t want to.
Yeah we’ve been here and you know exactly what we mean by innocent. The child has committed no crime that deserves the death penalty…
So what, MK? Pro-Choicers are not saying the baby has. It’s not that the baby is being blamed, and it’s not that it’s said to be “guilty.” It’s just up to the pregnant woman.
MK: It means she would have an abortion because she would feel GUILTY, as if she was doing something WRONG, by not having the abortion.
Not wrong for her, but WRONG. A concept you don’t subscribe to, as you don’t believe it is possible to do something wrong, only something wrong for “you”.
No, that’s not true. It can be that the woman feels that “to bring a baby into this world is just not RIGHT – it will suffer too much.”
Not saying you or I would necessarily agree with her, for our part, but sometimes people do feel that way.
Doug,
So what, MK? Pro-Choicers are not saying the baby has. It’s not that the baby is being blamed, and it’s not that it’s said to be “guilty.” It’s just up to the pregnant woman.
And no lifers are saying that you do say the baby is guilty. That’s your inference, not my impplication. I am saying the child is innocent. Are you saying it isn’t?
My statement was that I would then have to take the stance of prochoicers and say that people had different values. I admitted that to believe that would be to think like you. And that is the reason that I don’t argue that we might be killing saints and heroes…because I DON’T think like you. I think like me. And my thoughts are that all people have equal value. Therefore I will not engage in the mentality that says one person is worth more than another, as you and other pro choicers do…
capiche?
Yeah, MK, no problem. I don’t blame you for your beliefs and feelings and don’t expect you to do anything you don’t want to. You don’t want to be subject to the “other thinking” and in this case you don’t have to be.
So all is well….until it comes to legislating, stemming from that. It’s not that you “have to think like others,” but for a pregnant woman, she may well not want to be subject to your thinking, and laws based upon such.
Doug,
In the case of the parent, it was their own will to have the child, even if for just a short time. If they don’t want to do it at all, they wouldn’t take the baby (protected by the state, with rights attributed) home from the hospital. Likewise, a pregnant woman, to viability anyway, doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy if they don’t want to.
If a woman has a baby and takes it home can she change her mind and decide she can no longer care for it?
No, the pregnant woman has no responsibility to continue the pregnancy. I know you wish the state said she did. Legally, “possession” of the born child implies responsibility for care. Not so with the pregnancy. I’m not saying it “has” to be this way, in any external manner. The law could change. Rights could be attributed to the unborn (though what a can of worms that’d be opening up..).
This is one of the reasons people get so frustrated arguing with you…
Ya.
If Oliver has said it once, he’s said it a thousand times…He knows the law. He’s not talking about the law. He is talking ETHICALLY! He wants to know why it is ETHICALLY acceptable. Not legally acceptable. ETHICALLY acceptable.
Because Oliver’s idea of what is ethical is not shared by everybody. He’s taking it as a premise that “his way” is the right way. The fact is that that’s not always going to be the case, and that’s what’s really frustrating for those who assume that their ethics are necessarily externally correct, and applicable to other people.
If a woman has a baby and takes it home can she change her mind and decide she can no longer care for it?
Posted by: mk at August 21, 2008 6:58 PM
In most states she can drop it off at a fire station or hospital, no questions asked.
Patricia: NO actually Doug you do not understand at all…..
You feel it’s sad when a woman chooses to end a pregnancy and the baby dies.
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 5:42 PM
SAD. That’s what you think I feel? You haven’t gotta clue buddy…………
Doug,
I’m sure plenty of rapists think that women will benefit from their prowess and would feel guilty if they didn’t “Share”…however, we would recognize that their thinking was skewed.
If a woman told me she was feeling guilty about bringing a child into the world, I would seriously question her ability to think rationally.
Off topic, sort of, do you believe in mental illness? Schizophrenia, for example? Do you believe it exists?
mk: remember EVERYTHING, is relative to Doug. There are no absolutes. I surprised he can decide what side of the bed to get up from in the morning…..
In the case of the parent, it was their own will to have the child, even if for just a short time. If they don’t want to do it at all, they wouldn’t take the baby (protected by the state, with rights attributed) home from the hospital. Likewise, a pregnant woman, to viability anyway, doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy if they don’t want to.
If a woman has a baby and takes it home can she change her mind and decide she can no longer care for it?
Posted by: mk at August 21, 2008 6:58 PM
so what’s to stop me from killing my child if I decide I no longer want to look after it, especially if it is disabled…..
the law?
there WAS a law against abortion
why should I NOT be allowed to do this?
OLIVER!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry wanted to make sure you saw this : )
“I think that mothers should be allowed to give birth at around 32 weeks, when the fetus’s chance of survival is high and long term damage is low. The mothers that dont want to continue the pregnancy should, ethically speaking, be allowed to opt out at that point because there is a reasonable alternative.”
You and I are a lot more alike then you might think. I, for example, am only for abortions that do not directly effect the baby, early labor, you might say.
You and I are a lot more alike then you might think. I, for example, am only for abortions that do not directly effect the baby, early labor, you might say.
Posted by: Jess at August 21, 2008 7:19 PM
how is this an abortion Jess? It’s induced labour from which the baby may or may not survive….
Fine then I guess I’m for making “abortion” illegal then Patricia!
Fine then I guess I’m for making “abortion” illegal then Patricia!
Oh my sweet Jess, if only you meant that…and kept meaning it…:)
And no lifers are saying that you do say the baby is guilty. That’s your inference, not my impplication. I am saying the child is innocent. Are you saying it isn’t?
MK, no, of course the baby is innocent. However, in the absence of the capacity for guilt, it’s a moot point – it can be no other way, same as a sheep, a rock, or a steam calliope.
So, totally agreed on “innocent,” but since Pro-Choicers are not saying that abortion is justifed since the unborn are “guilty”, is it at issue?
Doug,
Yes. Because in this country we don’t kill people that are innocent of any crimes…
We are simply saying that you are killing a person that has done nothing to deserve it.
Save the person speech. If you can. I already know it. By heart.
Mk what makes you think I don’t mean that? Am I always so sarcastic that I have become incredible ?
Wait, Jess are you saying that you’re pro=life now?
Mk what makes you think I don’t mean that? Am I always so sarcastic that I have become incredible ?
No baby girl…but sometimes it’s hard to know if you mean things just for today or forever…you know? That quirky thing?
If you do mean it, I can guarantee that a lot of joyful tears and one heck of a party will take place…if not, I still love you.
Hey Jess,
You sleep on it, and if you feel the same way tomorrow I’ll send you a bunch of balloons, flowers and pictures of hamsters!
“In the case of the parent, it was their own will to have the child, even if for just a short time. If they don’t want to do it at all, they wouldn’t take the baby (protected by the state, with rights attributed) home from the hospital. Likewise, a pregnant woman, to viability anyway, doesn’t have to continue the pregnancy if they don’t want to.”
MK: If a woman has a baby and takes it home can she change her mind and decide she can no longer care for it?
Yes, MK, though society wants her to care for the baby until somebody else is caring for it.
It’s circumstantial as far as how long she has to do it. If she has a roommate that’s a social worker, she may be able to just do a ‘hand-off.” Or she could walk around the corner to the mission. Or she might have to travel a hundred miles.
In thinking how not to just go around and around about this with you & Oliver, I’m wondering how to approach it.
Society is saying that somebody has to care for the born baby. With the pregnancy, however, society is not saying that anybody has to care for it, so there are two different situations.
And you & Oliver certainly already know society’s position, the laws, the rules, etc. So, where do we go from here?
Oliver asks, “Why is it any different for a pre-born?” It’s because they are not granted the same status as is a born baby. If they were, then I’d say it’s obvious that there would be standards of care that the pregnant woman is supposed to adhere to, let alone that she would have to continue the pregnancy.
Doug,
Yes, MK, though society wants her to care for the baby until somebody else is caring for it.
BINGO!!!!
Now, Oliver wants to know why the mother of an unborn baby does not have the same responsibility…to feed and shelter her child until such a time as she can pass on the responsibility.
If a woman with a five year old wants to relinquish her, but is told it will be three weeks until the state can take the child off her hands, can she then say she doesn’t wish to wait that long and kill her 5 year old?
Then why can a pregnant woman, when told that she WILL be able to relinquish responsibility of HER child but not for 7 more months, have the option of killing HER responsibility?
“You feel it’s sad when a woman chooses to end a pregnancy and the baby dies.”
Patricia: SAD. That’s what you think I feel? You haven’t gotta clue buddy
_____
Well, you no doubt have other feelings too, but here is what I was going on:
Doug: “It really comes down to you more wanting the unborn life to continue and me more wanting the woman to retain the freedom she now has.”
Patricia: sad, freedom at the cost of the life of another. And that’s freedom? so sad….
Doug,
We go round and round because you are incapable of making an ethical decision without bringing the law into it. Oliver is asking why the law is this way? Should it be this way? Why is it right that it is this way?
And he doesn’t want to hear because society deemed it so. He wants to know why it is ETHICALLY acceptable.
You say there is no objective moral truth. I assume you don’t believe in ethics either? Since they are moral decisions? Do you believe a person can even be Ethical???
My gosh, it just occurred to me. You don’t believe in ethics. Wow! Okay, so then this argument is over. Bummer.
Meta-ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ethics
Theoretical
Meta-ethics
Normative
I just got done teaching, so I am not really up to debate anymore tonight, I just wanted to respond to one point made…
“No, quitting taking care of the child is not analogous to abortion in that the first is not permitted and the second is.” – Doug
Are you serious? Im practically speechless, (believe it or not.) I know what the current status is dude, I am trying to say that it is wrong. Is your debate seriously built upon the premise that it is already legal to have abortions?
Why dont you just say “well duh abortion shouldnt be illegal, because it is legal!”
Do you know what circular reasoning is? You should look it up.
Again…
“Oliver asks, “Why is it any different for a pre-born?” It’s because they are not granted the same status as is a born baby. If they were, then I’d say it’s obvious that there would be standards of care that the pregnant woman is supposed to adhere to, let alone that she would have to continue the pregnancy.” Doug
So what youre saying is that if it were illegal to have abortions that would prove that it would be illegal. Nice.
Doug.
You can rant and rave about the bible all you want.
You can find whatever you want to “interpret” from the bible.
My point is that Jon’s bible passage, Exodus, has no ambiguity within the passage he quoted in matters concerning abortion.
You can argue about what some “person” has said some words “meant” thousands of years ago.
Such as the person you mention, Brian Mckinley, you appeal to as a interpreter, or shall we say the “opinion” of Brian Mckinley.
Tell me Doug, did this Brian Mckinley have the holy spirit tell him, “his opinion was the correct opinion” of some words written thousands of years ago?
I could care less about someone’s opinion or interpretation of some person’s words from thousands of years ago.
In fact, what you have is another deconstructionist, applying deconstruction to some words, and arriving at his “new construction” of some words written thousands of years ago. That includes any past event in which another person, besides the author himself,begins to deconstruct/interpret/conjure the authors thoughts, expressed as words.
But, I shall say that moral relativism can be traced directly to Protestantism, since for some Protestants, abortion is simply “wrong” or not allowed, as found in their absolute moral authority, the bible, and for other Protestants, it is allowed or not mentioned.
Tell me Doug, how’s that court case going defending Scott Peterson, arguing that “What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed”
Is the jury still stunned at such reasoning and cruelty towards the unborn?
The reason I brought up your court case again Doug, is that is exaclty what a dishonest deconstructionist propagandist for abortion matters does…….. pulls out his tools of deconstruction, and prys out some word or sentences of another person, and begins building his facts and reality to fit his whole cloth reality he is constructing from another person’s thoughts.
Still mimicking you Doug.
mk: remember EVERYTHING, is relative to Doug. There are no absolutes.
Why do you say that, Patricia? It’s not true.
……
so what’s to stop me from killing my child if I decide I no longer want to look after it, especially if it is disabled…..the law?
The law is of course not going to physically prevent you from doing it, but it is not legal for you to do so. Your child has had rights attributed.
…..
there WAS a law against abortion. why should I NOT be allowed to do this?
Yes, and when abortion was illegal you were not supposed to have abortions. However, that was rather a special case because it was rarely, if ever, prosecuted.
The procedure of abortion was prohibited, but rights were not attributed to the unborn, and it was not treated like murder, etc. In practice it was often tacitly permitted.
The “should” as far as “why should you not be allowed to do this” comes from the sentiment of the people who got the law passed. And if abortion became illegal again, the same would apply.
My point is that Jon’s bible passage, Exodus, has no ambiguity within the passage he quoted in matters concerning abortion.
Well yllas, then you’re wrong. It does not make clear whether the baby lives or dies, and thus it’s ambiguous. One result would support the pro-choice interpretation, and the other would support the pro-life interpretation. Even you are able to understand this.
…..
I realize that Brian McKinley is no final authority, but his point is well taken, given the immense similarity between the Exodus passage and the earlier Pagan laws.
…..
Tell me Doug, how’s that court case going defending Scott Peterson, arguing that “What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed”
Why do you even ask that? There are special circumstances laws on the books now that provide for the prosecution in such cases. I am aware of them.
That does not mean that rights are attributed to the unborn, there. It means that it’s not legal for some people to end the life of the unborn, not to mention attacking the pregnant woman. If rights were attributed to the unborn, then abortion would not be legal, and without due process nobody would be allowed to end the unborn life.
Do you know what circular reasoning is? You should look it up.
A question asked to Doug by Oliver.
Now Doug, another poster named Chris stated your a example of “circular reasoning” also.
See a pattern Doug?
MK: I’m sure plenty of rapists think that women will benefit from their prowess and would feel guilty if they didn’t “Share”…however, we would recognize that their thinking was skewed.
MK, there’s really no argument about rape.
…..
If a woman told me she was feeling guilty about bringing a child into the world, I would seriously question her ability to think rationally.
Okay, but there are places in the world where people feel that way.
…..
Off topic, sort of, do you believe in mental illness? Schizophrenia, for example? Do you believe it exists?
You know, I think Johnny McD. asked me that. Yes indeed I do. If there is a problem with the amount of dopamine (a neurotransmitter) in the brain, then things get screwed up, and the person commonly exhibits odd reactions to situations, delusions, hallucinations, etc.
I think John’s point was that perhaps they are “seeing” something hidden from us, not something that is really imaginary, hallucinogenic, etc., and who knows? The vast majority of us are “one way” in general and then we say that such a person has a split personality, is “sick,” withdrawn, etc. To the extent that the person exhibits psychotic behavior, I do think they are “ill.”
You see Doug,
You make a statement that, “What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed”
I didn’t see anywhere in that statement “special circumstance laws”.
What is this special circumstances you write of?
Does this special circumstances attribute a right to the unborn? Such as not being killed?
I’m only quoting you Doug, and nowhere in your words do you attribute rights to the unborn and that they can be legally killed.
Above post was me, Yllas.
“Yes, MK, though society wants her to care for the baby until somebody else is caring for it.”
BINGO!!!!
Woo hoo we’re makin’ progress.
…..
Now, Oliver wants to know why the mother of an unborn baby does not have the same responsibility…to feed and shelter her child until such a time as she can pass on the responsibility.
Well, there you are talking about legal responsibility. Beyond talking about the law, the attribution of rights, etc., there is no answer I can give you.
…..
If a woman with a five year old wants to relinquish her, but is told it will be three weeks until the state can take the child off her hands, can she then say she doesn’t wish to wait that long and kill her 5 year old?
Of course not. And if abortion was illegal then the same proscription would apply to the pregnant woman.
…..
Then why can a pregnant woman, when told that she WILL be able to relinquish responsibility of HER child but not for 7 more months, have the option of killing HER responsibility?
She’s not killing her responsibility. She doesn’t have any such “responsibility” as you mention her “relinquishing.”
We go round and round because you are incapable of making an ethical decision without bringing the law into it. Oliver is asking why the law is this way? Should it be this way? Why is it right that it is this way?
That’s not true, MK. I say it is more ethical to allow the pregnant woman to either continue the pregnancy or end it, to viability, than it is to forbid one or the other choice.
…..
And he doesn’t want to hear because society deemed it so.
Well, that’s why the law is that way….
…..
He wants to know why it is ETHICALLY acceptable.
Because those who feel it is have certain desires and make certain valuations. Their opinion of “right” follows. In no way does this mean that everybody will feel the same way nor that Oliver will necessarily agree.
…..
You say there is no objective moral truth. I assume you don’t believe in ethics either?
Good grief, of course not, MK. Here, right off dictionary.com:
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Certainly, these considerations exist. I believe in them, MK.
….
Since they are moral decisions? Do you believe a person can even be Ethical??? My gosh, it just occurred to me. You don’t believe in ethics. Wow! Okay, so then this argument is over. Bummer.
Very funny. Yes, it’s moral decisions, as above – it’s ideas of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm, on the individual level, from groups, cultures, religions etc. These opinions and these decisions, as you said, are indeed had and made. We are agreed on that.
Are we going for the new comment record?
That does not mean that rights are attributed to the unborn Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 8:40 PM
Your contradicting yourself Doug.
The unborn have rights. Ask Scott Peterson, and other murderers who think just as you do. You know, the unborn do not have rights alloted to them.
Tell me Doug, before the law of the USA gave rights to the unborn; you may not murder a unborn child, under special circumstances, did you know that right existed?
I’m using the word allot since it is the root of the word attribute. In fact Doug, your a one pony word guy, please give me a definition of attribute
Again, post above was Yllas.
I just got done teaching, so I am not really up to debate anymore tonight, I just wanted to respond to one point made…
“No, quitting taking care of the child is not analogous to abortion in that the first is not permitted and the second is.” – Doug
Are you serious? Im practically speechless, (believe it or not.) I know what the current status is dude, I am trying to say that it is wrong. Is your debate seriously built upon the premise that it is already legal to have abortions?
Oliver, no. You asked:
Why can a woman who is pregnant simply have it aborted? Why does she not have to wait until a suitable alternative is provided by birth?
I realize you think it is wrong, but that “why” you ask about comes from the law. If the law were different in certain ways, then it would be “why a pregnant woman cannot have an abortion.”
The law does not “have” to protect born children. In times past in some societies around the world, isn’t it true that born babies could be killed or left to die until a certain age? Well, in the here and now we attribute rights at birth, and we do not attribute (full) rights, citizenship, etc., prior to birth.
Again, I’m not saying that status quo cannot change, nor that it “has” to be this way in any external way. But when you ask for that “why,” the “can” and “cannot” comes from the law.
…..
Why dont you just say “well duh abortion shouldnt be illegal, because it is legal!”
Because you’re the one putting that “should” in there, not me. You asked, I answered.
…..
Do you know what circular reasoning is? You should look it up.
Yeah, it’s like saying, “The Bible is true because it says so.”
Often, the reasoning is based on grounds that cannot be accepted as true, and that is the problem because those grounds are what is disputed.
You seem to be asserting that a certain position, on abortion, for example, will be ethical and that another one will not be. Yet that’s what’s being disputed. If you and I were in agreement from the get-go, then there wouldn’t be that dispute.
…..
Again… “Oliver asks, “Why is it any different for a pre-born?”
“It’s because they are not granted the same status as is a born baby. If they were, then I’d say it’s obvious that there would be standards of care that the pregnant woman is supposed to adhere to, let alone that she would have to continue the pregnancy.”
So what youre saying is that if it were illegal to have abortions that would prove that it would be illegal. Nice.
No, you asked about “why is it different?” The answer is that they are not accorded the same status. We don’t treat them the same way. I know that you know that, and that you don’t like it, but that is where the “why” comes from.
Do you know what circular reasoning is? You should look it up.
yllas: A question asked to Doug by Oliver.
Now Doug, another poster named Chris stated your a example of “circular reasoning” also.
See a pattern Doug?
Yes ma’am, I sure do. Oliver was mistaken about my position – and I have replied to him about that.
Chris is actually the one with the circular reasoning. As I said to Oliver, circular reasoning is often based on grounds that cannot be accepted as true, because they are what is being disputed.
And that is what Chris does – proceeds as if his opinion or morality is what is “right,” as if it’s a premise we start the discussion with. And that’s not true – there’s no agreement that it’s that way.
yllas: You make a statement that,
“What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. As of now, that is not the case – they can be legally killed”
I didn’t see anywhere in that statement “special circumstance laws”.
:: laughing ::
So what? The special-circumstances laws are for situations like the Peterson case – a wanted pregnancy where the woman is attacked and the unborn killed. Not legal.
The normal circumstance where the unborn are killed is with unwanted pregnancies where abortion is done. Legal.
Whoever I was talking to was not speaking of anything like the Peterson case. They were talking about abortion.
…..
What is this special circumstances you write of?
As above, and it’s not like it’s some big secret, Homie:
“The California code lists 22 different findings of special circumstances under which a defendant came be found guilty. In the Scott Peterson case, the special circumstance that applies is that “the defendant was convicted of more than one offense of murder in either the first or second degree.””
http://crime.about.com/od/news/a/scott_verdict.htm
Don’t tell me this is hard for you. Heck, you’re learning all sorts of things today, eh? ; )Does this special circumstances attribute a right to the unborn? Such as not being killed?
No, the special circumstances provisions do not attribute rights to the unborn. Laci could still legally have had an abortion (at least to viability) – the fetus would have been killed – the special circumstances provisions do not affect that.
…..
I’m only quoting you Doug, and nowhere in your words do you attribute rights to the unborn and that they can be legally killed.
Now you’re getting incoherent again. Of course it’s not the case that right-to-life (if that’s what you mean by “rights”) would be attributed to the unborn “and that they can be legally killed.”
If rights were attributed to the unborn then they could not be legally killed, as with Laci (or anybody) having an unwanted pregnancy and getting an abortion. Not rocket science.
She’s not killing her responsibility. She doesn’t have any such “responsibility”
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 9:13 PM
What meaning are you ascribing/using to the word “responsibility”
responsible , answerable , liable , accountable , amenable
These adjectives share the meaning obliged to answer, as for one’s actions, to an authority that may impose a penalty for failure.
Are you constructing a insane person Doug?
A person that is not obliged to answer to anyone, including herself, for a action?
Or, are you constructing a person who is obliged to answer only to herself for her actions?
Or, a person that acts with out knowing why they act?
Say that phrase in another way, Doug, paraphrase yourself, and help others understand how a person writes; that she is not killing her obligation to answer for one’s actions, she doesn’t have any actions to answer for or to anyone.
Gee, killing a unborn human being is now being reduced to “she has no actions, much less answer to actions that do not exist”. .
Look up circular reasoning Doug. You are assuming the conclusion, that a fetus does not have the same rights as a human child, to be true without a premise.
I cant debate with you if you use circular reasoning.
Seriously…
You need help man….
“That does not mean that rights are attributed to the unborn.”
Your contradicting yourself Doug.
No, yllas. Sheesh – see the previous post.
…..
The unborn have rights. Ask Scott Peterson, and other murderers who think just as you do. You know, the unborn do not have rights alloted to them.
You’re being ridiculous about “murderers.” And you’re wrong about the unborn; again, see prior posts.
…..
Tell me Doug, before the law of the USA gave rights to the unborn; you may not murder a unborn child, under special circumstances, did you know that right existed?
Incoherent and incorrect. You’re not getting what the deal is with the special-circumstances provisions. If rights had been granted to the unborn then abortion would be illegal, for one thing.
…..
I’m using the word allot since it is the root of the word attribute. In fact Doug, your a one pony word guy, please give me a definition of attribute
Keep it together, Babe. You’re all over the place, mixing stuff up, using untrue premises, etc., and I’m hangin’ in…
To credit or assign, to ascribe, think of as belonging, to grant, bestow, accord, etc.
“One pony word guy” – Ha!
I like my prolix verbosity, but also have a fondness for floribund circumlocution.
Do you really think that the pro-life movement is confused and thinks that it currently is the law that a fetus has rights or that it is currently the law that abortion is illegal? We know what the law is…we disagree with the law! Thats what all our points of argument are based on! If you take the law as absolute fact you dont need to debate…you just need to look up what the law says and be done with it. Im flabergasted….
That’s right Oliver.
And no amount of trying to make Doug understand his circular reasoning is driving his reasoning at this site.
He is invincible.
Waste you time Oliver, and ask him to give a example of circular reasoning.
You are assuming the conclusion, that a fetus does not have the same rights as a human child, to be true without a premise.
No I’m not, Oliver. Rights are not attributed to the unborn in the United States. If they were, then abortion would be illegal, for one thing. It’s not the case that the presence of illegal abortion, alone, means that rights are attributed, but the other way it’s true – were the right to life granted, then obviously abortion would not be legal as it is now.
What you want is rights to be attributed to the unborn. You want it deemed that “the right to life, liberty, etc.,” is present for the unborn.
The premise is that (full) right-to-life is granted at birth. Prior to birth, the unborn can be killed, even past viability per doctor decision. At birth that changes – rights, the full legal status of personhood, citizenship, etc., are conferred.
Are we going for the new comment record?
Jess, I rather doubt that. But….ya ne’er know.
“She’s not killing her responsibility. She doesn’t have any such “responsibility”
yllas: What meaning are you ascribing/using to the word “responsibility”
Ahem – you haven’t been reading. Come on.
MK said: Then why can a pregnant woman, when told that she WILL be able to relinquish responsibility of HER child but not for 7 more months, have the option of killing HER responsibility?
She’s not killing her responsibility. She doesn’t have any such “responsibility” as you mention her “relinquishing.”
MK is picturing the law being that the woman would have to keep going with the pregnancy for 7 more months, and that’s not the way it is.
No Jess, there was a 3000+ comment debate on here one time, it was mostly discussing Catholism vs. Protestant/Evangelicals.
I believe HisMan and MK put it best: Our belief in Christ is bigger than any disagreement we may have…
Do you really think that the pro-life movement is confused and thinks that it currently is the law that a fetus has rights or that it is currently the law that abortion is illegal?
No, Oliver, not at all.
…..
We know what the law is…we disagree with the law! Thats what all our points of argument are based on!
There too – sure. But when you ask “why” about certain things, as you did, the law is the answer. There is no necessary answer to “why” for those questions beyond that.
Okay, you disagree with the law. What I said doesn’t hinge on me agreeing with it. I was just answering your question.
…..
If you take the law as absolute fact you dont need to debate…you just need to look up what the law says and be done with it. Im flabergasted….
Oh please. Nobody said the law “has” to be the way it is. I’ve said that repeatedly, and of course it’s not “absolute” or originating in external reality.
Again, you asked “why” about some things. Without the law being the way it is, those things would not be that way. This is not me saying the law can’t be changed – obviously it could be – and it’s not me saying my opinion about the law is correct beyond my valuation.
yllas: And no amount of trying to make Doug understand his circular reasoning is driving his reasoning at this site.
Oh please. It is circular reasoning to assume as a premise that which is in dispute.
It’s supporting a premise with a premise rather than a conclusion.
Saying “abortion is wrong because the unborn have right to life” is circular reasoning.
There’s no agreement that the unborn have right to life. It’s in dispute (to say the least).
Considering you do not see the problem, I am going to explain your error in logic.
Me: “You are assuming the conclusion, that a fetus does not have the same rights as a human child, to be true without a premise.”
Doug: “No I’m not, Oliver. Rights are not attributed to the unborn in the United States. If they were, then abortion would be illegal, for one thing. It’s not the case that the presence of illegal abortion, alone, means that rights are attributed, but the other way it’s true – were the right to life granted, then obviously abortion would not be legal as it is now.
What you want is rights to be attributed to the unborn. You want it deemed that “the right to life, liberty, etc.,” is present for the unborn.
The premise is that (full) right-to-life is granted at birth. Prior to birth, the unborn can be killed, even past viability per doctor decision. At birth that changes – rights, the full legal status of personhood, citizenship, etc., are conferred.”
We are saying…Doug….that full human rights should be given to the un-born. There is no significant different between a newborn and a preborn. A newborn does not have self awareness so it is not anymore special than, say, I dont know a snake. In fact several species of animals have been shown to have cognitive abilities beyond those of an infant.
What the pro-life movement wants to establish is that human beings have intrinsic rights regardless of mental capacity or incapacity whether due to immaturity such as in the case of newborns and preborns or mental retardation.
What you are saying is that because they are currently not attributed to preborns that they are currently not attributed to preborns. This is circular reasoning. In other words you are assuming that the law in place is justification alone to support the idea that the law in place should be the law in place. This is the problem.
If we went by the law, why would we discuss anything? Why woudlnt we just go by the law?
The whole pro-life movement is centered around removing a law.
Oh and by the way, most informed pro-choicers understand that even if a preborn was given rights it would still not be sufficient to establish that it has the right to infringe upon its mother’s right to privacy, so even if it were the case that preborns had such rights there would be need of further debate on whether or not they should also trump the mother’s rights to a degree.
Lol Jasper remember I posted the 3000 comment? I skipped lunch to sit at my laptop and I ended winning the book, “On Message” which was really good by the way : )
Its Revelations. If anyone says they know what it means without a doubt, they dont know what they are talking about. Most Christians I know anyways believe it to be allegorical. However, I wouldnt be suprised if a few Christians on here even believe it to be literal.
Personally, I dont believe anyone’s direct interpretation of “what will happen.”
Christianity is for today, not for the future. I dont know why God put Revelations in honestly. It must have some sort of every day application like every other part of the Bible does…I just dont know what!
Maybe Revelations is like the “Warning” label on a pack of cigarets. Like, if you sin this is what’s going to happen to you. Just like if you smoke this is the road you’re going down : /
Dont bring it down to such a low level. Christianity is not really about the long term consequences of sins. I personally wouldnt be suprised if God did in fact save everyone. Christianity is more concerned with the short-term effect of sins in how they hurt us in every day life.
Revelations is a huge enigma. I wouldnt bring it down to strictly the concept of “what will happen if you sin!!!”
Well, Jess, we all sin you know. :)
But yeah, I hope this isn’t a 3000 comment or I’ll just have to stop reading. I haven’t even bothered really getting into it in this thread, but I do read them.
Well Elizabeth feel free to dip your toes in, or splash around for a bit : )
Saying “abortion is wrong because the unborn have right to life” is circular reasoning
Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 10:39 PM
Gee Doug, turn the statement around.
Abortion is right because the unborn have no right to life.
Now, here comes the fun, abortion is right because the unborn have no right to life.
Go ahead Doug, one statement is circular reasoning, and one is not circular reasoning.
Right Doug?
Neither are directly circular reasoning.
His circular reasoning is that the law is justified based on a premise that is justified by the law.
He wont understand though that we want the law that he uses as his basis to support the said law to change. We want hte preborns to have rights even though the law does not support this. He doesnt get it though.
Oliver: His circular reasoning is that the law is justified based on a premise that is justified by the law.
No – I am not saying the law is justified by that, not at all. The law is a certain way, and that is the answer to some of the questions you asked, but I didn’t say those laws were necessarily right or wrong. If you want my opinion, I’ll gladly give it.
…..
He wont understand though that we want the law that he uses as his basis to support the said law to change.
Of course not – I certainly understand that. The law is not “my basis.” I am fine with the way things are now, but not because “it’s the law,” but because I more value having women keep the freedom in the matter then currently have, versus having every pregnancy continued, especially against the will of the pregnant woman.
…..
We want hte preborns to have rights even though the law does not support this. He doesnt get it though.
Oh please. I’ve repeatedly said that you want rights attributed to the unborn.
“Saying “abortion is wrong because the unborn have right to life” is circular reasoning”
yllas: Gee Doug, turn the statement around.,/i>
Abortion is right because the unborn have no right to life.
I agree with Oliver – that’s not directly circular. Rather, I’d say it’s just not necessarily so. That is because though the unborn don’t have that right, in no way does that necessarily mean that abortion will be seen as right. Numerous things are legal but won’t be chosen by a given person, nor be desired.
And of course, I don’t say that. It is not that “abortion is right,” per se, in the first place – I don’t claim that. I say it’s up to the woman, and she may not want an abortion, period.
The unborn not having the right means that abortion can be legally right, but that alone is not sufficient for it. The right wasn’t attributed prior to 1970 in all (?) states, for example, but abortion was still illegal.
……
Now, here comes the fun, abortion is right because the unborn have no right to life.
No, I’m not telling you that “abortion is right” beyond what the pregnant woman wants, in any external way, or just because of the law, in the first place.
And why do you think that’s “fun”? You just stated the same thing again, a thing which I don’t say anyway.
….
Go ahead Doug, one statement is circular reasoning, and one is not circular reasoning. Right Doug?
No, your progression does not logically follow.
Here you go:
“Abortion may be right because the unborn have no right to life.” (As in the woman choosing it – she legally can.)
Were the unborn to have right-to-life, then she would not be able to legally choose it.
I want to enter this very serious post with an unserious photo:
(for more see facebook).
“Chris is actually the one with the circular reasoning.”
Spare me, Doug.
PIP,
Pregnancy absolutely becomes you. Are you “waddling”?
Half of the belly is full of birdseed, so it is wide and heavy enough I have no choice but to bend backwards a little and waddle my way around. It’s hilarious.
Alright Doug so explain to me why you ever brought the law into it then?
If you get it, then why are you saying “well its the law so I guess that the way it is oh well.”
If you get it, then why are you not arguing that the law should be the way it is.
You have yet to answer my questions otherwise.
If you would like to now explain why a preborn is treated differently than a newborn, feel free to explain. What makes this belief justified?
Oliver: Considering you do not see the problem, I am going to explain your error in logic.
Oliver, I’m not going to agree that I erred in logic (at least I don’t think so prior to going through the post) but I appreciate the effort you are making. We all need sleep, and I’m nuts to be here now – I’m working 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. CDST all week, and I’ve been staying up to like 2 a.m. all week too…crazy. O’course, I can be online a lot on the job, which is sweet….
…….
Me: “You are assuming the conclusion, that a fetus does not have the same rights as a human child, to be true without a premise.”
Doug: “No I’m not, Oliver. Rights are not attributed to the unborn in the United States. If they were, then abortion would be illegal, for one thing. It’s not the case that the presence of illegal abortion, alone, means that rights are attributed, but the other way it’s true – were the right to life granted, then obviously abortion would not be legal as it is now.
What you want is rights to be attributed to the unborn. You want it deemed that “the right to life, liberty, etc.,” is present for the unborn.
The premise is that (full) right-to-life is granted at birth. Prior to birth, the unborn can be killed, even past viability per doctor decision. At birth that changes – rights, the full legal status of personhood, citizenship, etc., are conferred.”
We are saying…Doug….that full human rights should be given to the un-born. There is no significant different between a newborn and a preborn. A newborn does not have self awareness so it is not anymore special than, say, I dont know a snake. In fact several species of animals have been shown to have cognitive abilities beyond those of an infant.
I certainly understand your “full human rights should be given to the un-born,” position, but this is one area where there’s no agreement. I, for one, disagree. I see a “significant” difference between the born and the unborn because the latter are inside the body of a person. (Not saying this “has” to make a difference – just saying that it does to many, including me, and that we have our “shoulds” just as you do.) Agreed on the infant not really being self-aware.
…….
What the pro-life movement wants to establish is that human beings have intrinsic rights regardless of mental capacity or incapacity whether due to immaturity such as in the case of newborns and preborns or mental retardation.
Agreed again, and that’s a good summary. I disagree that there are any “inherent rights” because they are a societal construct, they are attributed status, they exist in the eye of the beholder, etc., rather than having external, independent existence. But I do understand your position.
…..
What you are saying is that because they are currently not attributed to preborns that they are currently not attributed to preborns. This is circular reasoning. In other words you are assuming that the law in place is justification alone to support the idea that the law in place should be the law in place. This is the problem.
Okay, there is the error, and it’s you misstating my position. I begin with the premise that rights aren’t so attributed. The legal status is not there. It’s legal to kill the unborn via abortion (in general) for example. Were right-to-life to be accorded, then abortion could not be legal as it is now.
And that’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying it “has” to be that way necessarily. Heck, right-to-life could be granted to the unborn. And I’m not saying, “They’re not attributed because they’re not attributed.”
There are causes of them not being attributed – not enough sentiment for it within the American populace, for one thing.
And there are results of them not being attributed – such as that abortion can be legal.
…….
If we went by the law, why would we discuss anything? Why wouldn’t we just go by the law?
Sure – no doubt. And likewise, if I agreed with you that human beings had intrinsic/inherent rights, then it’d de a different deal in our discussion.
…..
The whole pro-life movement is centered around removing a law.
Yep.
…..
Oh and by the way, most informed pro-choicers understand that even if a preborn was given rights it would still not be sufficient to establish that it has the right to infringe upon its mother’s right to privacy, so even if it were the case that preborns had such rights there would be need of further debate on whether or not they should also trump the mother’s rights to a degree.
Depends on how we define “right to privacy.” Other than that, I don’t disagree with you there. There’d be cases of “necessary but not sufficient” to be argued, etc.
One thing that is very interesting, IMO, and as far as I know has gone to court (?) is the idea that a woman can be prosecuted for harming her unborn baby, as by doing drugs during pregnancy. It sort of starts in the direction you are talking about – rights for the unborn and/or the state regulating the woman’s behavior during pregnancy.
Alright Doug so explain to me why you ever brought the law into it then?
Oliver, for example, you asked:
Tell me why is it then that a pre-born human being has no rights
Because they do not have the legal status that we deem to be present upon birth. They don’t have rights because as a society we don’t attribute them. That’s the answer to the next question too.
…..
If you get it, then why are you saying “well its the law so I guess that the way it is oh well.”
I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that we don’t attribute rights that way. Not that we can’t, just that we don’t and thus the unborn don’t have the same legal status as the born. You asked for “why” and that’s why.
“Why are they lacking this status?” –Because we don’t give it to them.
If you want to keep going, then more “whys” are that there’s not enough sentiment for granting the rights (at this time anyway). That the unborn are not covered under the Constitution, etc.
…..
If you get it, then why are you not arguing that the law should be the way it is.
That’s a different matter, but okay. I do feel the law should be the way it is now, because I more want women to keep the rights they have. I want that more than I want every pregnancy continued. I know the miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy can be horrible for a woman, couple, and family, but that is not to say that I think miscarriges and abortions are “the end of the world.” They happen, and I wish that all wanted pregnancies would be untroubled, but I also think there is no demonstrable reason why we as a society need ban or further restrict abortion.
…..
You have yet to answer my questions otherwise. If you would like to now explain why a preborn is treated differently than a newborn, feel free to explain. What makes this belief justified?,/i>
Why they are treated differently has been abundantly explained.
On the “justified” – whose opinion are you asking about? There is my own individual opinion – that it’s better to let the woman decide, to viability, versus forbidding her a legal abortion. I see the pregnant woman’s desire as trumping those who would forbid her a legal abortion – the baby is in her body, not theirs.
There are the opinions of various groups, of the nation as a whole, etc., as well.
“Chris is actually the one with the circular reasoning.”
Spare me, Doug.
Not this time, Carder. It is circular reasoning to support the premise with the premise, and that is what saying “The Bible is true because it says so” is, for example.
It’s disputed that the assumptions Chris makes are true. He makes claims on grounds that are not accepted as true, but rather are disputed.
PIP, very cute and realistic too.
Doug,
I dont understand why you are even posting. Your whole purpose is to just post what the current social situation is? How is that helpful to any degree? You say that you dont even neccesarily believe that the laws should stay that way. Why then are you posting?
I have to say that yes I misunderstood your position because you essentially didnt take a position. You apparently just came in and said the current situation that everybody knows for the most part and that pro-lifers want to change.
Now lets talk about that change, not what is the situation currently.
Now you say
“Agreed again, and that’s a good summary. I disagree that there are any “inherent rights” because they are a societal construct, they are attributed status, they exist in the eye of the beholder, etc., rather than having external, independent existence. But I do understand your position.”
I agree with you here. Rights are established based on societal constructs. The principle however that affords post-birth humans rights would require us to extend those rights to preborns as well. You claim that by being located someplace that a human being loses its rights. This makes no sense and has no precedent. If you want to argue that rights, depending on your location, can be overrulled or violated with justification, you would have a little precedent, but to say the rights simply disapear based on location is absurd.
In order to support our position, us pro-life “folks” are trying to appeal to common morals. In other words we are combining the basic principles that other people believe in to establish that the most consistent belief system is to oppose abortion.
Its a lot like opposing slavery. The opponents of slavery made appeals to the basic human rights that everyone believed in to make the case that slavery was wrong. They tried to establish that all human, men anyways, had rights and they tried to establish that Africans were in fact human men, so that they could point that slavery was wrong ultimately.
We want to use the same base principles that you believe in to establish that abortion is in fact immoral and that preborns do in fact have rights.
Please do not respond back by saying “but hey the law currently says …” I dont give a flying crap about the law and what it says. What I care about is “universal truth” based on our society’s principles. Abortion is in violation of these principles based on the argument I presented hours ago that you tried to tear down using the current law scheme.
Now I notice you throwing around a lot of “logic” wording similar to the language used on the LSAT. Are you by any chance a lawyer/law student or somehow affiliated with the LSAT?
Please note that this comment is legal. (Induced abortion is legal. Ask Doug, if you’re not sure.) However, this comment is far more offensive than my original comments and may hurt some women who have already suffered much. Because the illegal comments were deleted, this more offensive one will have to take their place.
Harry, John, and George were my pre-born children.
Harry, I don’t believe that you are a person. Being pro-choice–“my body, my choice”–I will abort you. But if you can delay me until birth, I will at that time let you live.
John, I don’t believe that you are a person. Being pro-choice–“my body, my choice”–I will not abort you. You will be a wanted child, I think. I think so now, anyway. Be assured that if you are safely born, you will at that time have my unquestioned support. Every child should be a wanted child.
George, I believe that maybe you are a person. You are already very close to be being born, and I find Partial Birth Abortion abhorrent. Having supported you so long already, I am loathe to kill you now. Please note that my assurance to you in no way invalidates my freedom of choice on such nonentities as Harry and John. My body, my choice.
Oh, I’m so sorry, George. Yes, I have to kill you. I was mistaken: the doctor said you’re not yet viable but you’re invading my privacy. So we’ll have to let him invade our privacy (does it hurt?) so as to secure my absolute privacy from him and you. Then I’ll again give my privacy to those like your father.
Doug,
“Not this time, Carder. It is circular reasoning to support the premise with the premise, and that is what saying “The Bible is true because it says so” is, for example”
No circular reasoning is when you use a conclusion as a premise, or to put it more simply, it is when you assume the conclusion to be true, a lot like many evolution theories.
However, after reading some more of your posts, I see that you are just dense. I am not sure if it is a very strong lack of comprehension skills or if it a mixture of a mild lack of comrprehension skills and ill-will to purposefully miscontrue statements, but either way I dont see any reasonable argument coming from you. You dont show the ability to actually respond to the points being presented.
I wont be talking with you anymore, and I suggest that everyone else responds likewise. You just dont have the ability…
I begin with the premise that rights aren’t so attributed. The legal status is not there.
there is the error, and it’s you misstating my position.
Posted by: Doug at August 22, 2008 12:25 AM.
The rights aren’t there because of SCOTUS.
They created a legal decision that made abortion legal or lawful.
Your still going in that circle Doug.
Before the SCOTUS decision, rights were attributed or given, alloted to the pre-born.
Oliver is not mistating your circular logic Doug.
In other words you are assuming that the law in place is justification alone to support the idea that the law in place should be the law in place. This is the problem.
“Legal status”; appealing to the law to justify abortion, since abortion is allowed by the legal status.
It’s a circle Doug.
Why is it that people are always mistating your position, Doug?
I begin with the premise that rights aren’t so attributed. The legal status is not there.
there is the error, and it’s you misstating my position.
Posted by: Doug at August 22, 2008 12:25 AM.
The rights aren’t there because of SCOTUS.
They created a legal decision that made abortion legal or lawful.
Your still going in that circle Doug.
Before the SCOTUS decision, rights were attributed or given, alloted to the pre-born.
Oliver is not mistating your circular logic Doug.
In other words you are assuming that the law in place is justification alone to support the idea that the law in place should be the law in place. This is the problem.
“Legal status”; appealing to the law to justify abortion, since abortion is allowed by the legal status.
It’s a circle Doug.
Why is it that people are always mistating your position, Doug?
Dude, dont talk to Doug anymore, check the other thread, I already did every conversation that Doug will ever have. You need to just ignore him.
I dont understand why you are even posting. Your whole purpose is to just post what the current social situation is? How is that helpful to any degree? You say that you dont even neccesarily believe that the laws should stay that way. Why then are you posting?
Good grief, Oliver. “Your whole purpose is to just post what the current social situation is?” No – but you asked questions pursuant to that. I post because I like to. I enjoy the arguing and discussing and having fun and getting to know people.
“Why don’t the unborn have the legal status of the born?” The answer is because we don’t give it to them.
…..
I have to say that yes I misunderstood your position because you essentially didnt take a position. You apparently just came in and said the current situation that everybody knows for the most part and that pro-lifers want to change.
Dude. You asked. Anyway, rock and roll on…
…..
Now lets talk about that change, not what is the situation currently.
Now you say
“Agreed again, and that’s a good summary. I disagree that there are any “inherent rights” because they are a societal construct, they are attributed status, they exist in the eye of the beholder, etc., rather than having external, independent existence. But I do understand your position.”
I agree with you here. Rights are established based on societal constructs. The principle however that affords post-birth humans rights would require us to extend those rights to preborns as well. You claim that by being located someplace that a human being loses its rights. This makes no sense and has no precedent. If you want to argue that rights, depending on your location, can be overrulled or violated with justification, you would have a little precedent, but to say the rights simply disapear based on location is absurd.
No, it is not that the unborn have “lost rights.” It is that rights have not been extended to them in the first place. There’s no necessary logic that says the unborn have to have rights if the born do. For thousands of years personhood has been attributed at birth, but not before. And again, not saying that it can’t be – just that there’s no “have to do it” present.
Tell you what though – the “disappear based on location” has come up before. MK brought up the hypothetical of fetal surgery and how a baby could be brought outside the womb in order to operate on it. To me, that certainly equates to being born, and thus rights are there. Then, if the baby was placed back in the womb, the situation would be the same as prior to being brought out – that if certain complications arose, that even after viability the baby’s life could be ended, which was not the case as in “born” – when it was outside the womb. I don’t know if a fetus has actually been brought out like that, but it would be a case of “rights disappearing.” I’m sure you think it’s absurd, but as of now that’s what the deal would be, IMO.
…..
In order to support our position, us pro-life “folks” are trying to appeal to common morals. In other words we are combining the basic principles that other people believe in to establish that the most consistent belief system is to oppose abortion.
And lots of people share your morals. But for lots of others, the woman’s rights are more important than the feeling that the unborn should have rights.
…..
Its a lot like opposing slavery. The opponents of slavery made appeals to the basic human rights that everyone believed in to make the case that slavery was wrong. They tried to establish that all human, men anyways, had rights and they tried to establish that Africans were in fact human men, so that they could point that slavery was wrong ultimately.
Well, not everybody believed that the slaves should have had human rights, then. Heck, there are people now that’d be for slavery (obviously they don’t pictrure themselves as the slaves) – and some forms of it do go on in the world.
Eventually there was enough sentiment for the abolition of slavery.
…..
We want to use the same base principles that you believe in to establish that abortion is in fact immoral and that preborns do in fact have rights.
Okay, and that sounds like an effective course, but you and I make different assumptions at some pretty basic levels.
…..
Please do not respond back by saying “but hey the law currently says …” I dont give a flying crap about the law and what it says. What I care about is “universal truth” based on our society’s principles. Abortion is in violation of these principles based on the argument I presented hours ago that you tried to tear down using the current law scheme.
Heh – you got a deal, Oliver. I disagree that abortion is in violation of our society’s principles, however. One big thing in our society is not having the government mess with the individual/restrict their rights without a really good reason for doing so. I don’t see any “universal truth” from the US that would state or imply that abortion is necessarily wrong. If we are to take away the freedom that women currently have in the matter of abortion, then I think there needs to be a demonstrable reason for doing so, one that all or almost all of us acknowledge, me included.
…..
Now I notice you throwing around a lot of “logic” wording similar to the language used on the LSAT. Are you by any chance a lawyer/law student or somehow affiliated with the LSAT?
No – the closest I am to a lawyer is that my wife’s sister’s husband is one.
I quit a Computer Science major in college, then was a bricklayer for 7 years and now have worked on electrical transformers, primarily, purifying the oil in them, destroying PCB’s mixed in with that oil, taking them apart, putting them back together, etc., for almost 24 years. :: shaking head :: “Where has the time gone?” Traveled like crazy, all the states save Hawaii, Jamaica, Switzerland, all the Canadian Provinces and Territories, Suriname, Argentina, Netherlands, Italy… Still like it.
As I said, I like to post – that’s why I do it. And one can learn a lot, and get better at thinking. The abortion debate gets philosophical and takes us down to our most basic and unprovable assumptions. You learn a lot about other people too.
Doug,
I am not going to respond man. You already wasted your chances to engage me by either purposefully misinterpreting me or by just demonstrating the incapacity to understand anybody else.
“It is circular reasoning to support the premise with the premise, and that is what saying “The Bible is true because it says so” is, for example”
Oliver: No circular reasoning is when you use a conclusion as a premise, or to put it more simply, it is when you assume the conclusion to be true, a lot like many evolution theories.
Sheesh – that’s not the only deal.
“Circular Reasoning
I said “Tell me why is it then that a pre-born human being has no rights”
You said “Because they do not have the legal status that we deem to be present upon birth.”
You know that I meant the purpose and justification behind the law because I had brought it up repeatedly behind this, and you should logically speaking be able to infer that anyways. So either you are unable to infer this or you are purposefully not infering it. Either way, there really is not need to discuss any further.
By the way, look at the definition that you provided for me.
“In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. ”
The reason is the premise, hence the premise is based on the premise.
Now as to why the heading says “supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion” I have no clue.
The construct of an argument is that the conclusion is supported by the premise. You do not support anything with the conclusion. Trust me I know. I teach this stuff. I would imagine that they just accidentally swicthed their wording considering that they got the definition right when they explained it as shown in my quote.
The rights aren’t there because of SCOTUS.
No, yllas. The Roe decision was with respect to state laws on abortion; it did not take away personhood or rights from the unborn.
…..
They created a legal decision that made abortion legal or lawful.
Okay..
….
Your still going in that circle Doug.
Heh – anybody can say that, but you have not one example of me doing so.
…..
Before the SCOTUS decision, rights were attributed or given, alloted to the pre-born.
Nope – the unborn could still be killed, on the opinion of two doctors. Right-to-life was not attributed, though abortion was in general illegal.
…..
Oliver is not mistating your circular logic Doug.
Yeah he was – he was making the same mistake you do.
….
In other words you are assuming that the law in place is justification alone to support the idea that the law in place should be the law in place. This is the problem.
I did not say that. I didn’t say “justified.” He asked why the unborn did not have the legal status that the born do, and the answer is that we have not given it to them. I made no presumptions of “justified” on that.
…..
“Legal status”; appealing to the law to justify abortion, since abortion is allowed by the legal status.
Nope – it wasn’t about “justification” but rather why the situation is the way it is.
…..
It’s a circle Doug.
Heh – – anybody can say that, but you have not one example of me doing so. Quote me where I said it was justified, per se, or anything similar, due to the fact of it being legal. You cannot.
….
Why is it that people are always mistating your position, Doug?
Nobody told you it was always.
In Oliver’s case it was saying,
In other words you are assuming that the law in place is justification alone to support the idea that the law in place should be the law in place. This is the problem.
My reply: “Okay, there is the error, and it’s you misstating my position. I begin with the premise that rights aren’t so attributed. The legal status is not there. It’s legal to kill the unborn via abortion (in general) for example. Were right-to-life to be accorded, then abortion could not be legal as it is now. ”
I did not say “justified.” I didn’t get into opinions of right/wrong/good/bad about it. I only commented on the legal status.
By the way, this site is not very good. Where did you find this? These examples are very weak and the last one isnt even circular reasoning. Its a conditional statement that makes a questionable assumption sure, but its not circular reasoning. You could make the case that the middle argument is also not circular reasoning but actually a language shift between “best” and “successful.”
I will admit though that it is rather difficult to create circular reasoning arguments….
I am not going to respond man. You already wasted your chances to engage me by either purposefully misinterpreting me or by just demonstrating the incapacity to understand anybody else.
Oliver, you do not have one instance of me purposefully misunderstanding.
And just where was I incapable of understanding anybody else?
You are just saying stuff, and not one quote or example to back it up.
By the way, this site is not very good. Where did you find this? These examples are very weak and the last one isnt even circular reasoning. Its a conditional statement that makes a questionable assumption sure, but its not circular reasoning. You could make the case that the middle argument is also not circular reasoning but actually a language shift between “best” and “successful.”
I will admit though that it is rather difficult to create circular reasoning arguments….
I found it through a Google search. Maybe there are far better sites…
Anyway, then what do you think is wrong with saying, “The Bible is true because it says so.”?
Or that, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Yes I do, I quoted it earlier.
Basically I asked, after explaining repeatedly that I was looking for an ethical justification, why preborns have a different status than newborns and you responded by saying its the law, or its how we currently attribute rights.
This is either a purposeful misinterpreting of my point of view or a mistaken one. In either case you are not responding to my point.
“Anyway, then what do you think is wrong with saying, “The Bible is true because it says so.”?
Or that, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.””
The first example is circular reasoning. The Bible is true because it said a statement and since the Bible is true it the follows that all its statements are also true and that the statement that it is true proves it to be true”
The second is a language shift between the word of God and the the Bible says so. Essentially in the second argument you would be assuming that the Bible is true and its statement that it is the word of God would then have to be true. However, it wouldnt be circular reasoning because it does not try to prove that the Bible is true because it is the word of God and we know that it is the word of God because the Bible says so and it is true.
I said “Tell me why is it then that a pre-born human being has no rights”
You said “Because they do not have the legal status that we deem to be present upon birth.”
You know that I meant the purpose and justification behind the law because I had brought it up repeatedly behind this, and you should logically speaking be able to infer that anyways. So either you are unable to infer this or you are purposefully not infering it. Either way, there really is not need to discuss any further.
No, I did not know you meant the justification. You asked about the “why,” there. You didn’t ask about the “shoulds” and “should nots” etc., behind it. The purpose of the law, for one thing, is to maintain the rights of the pregnant woman.
Later, when you did say “justifed” or “justification,” I asked about whose opinion were you inquiring. I wasn’t being non-responsive.
…..
By the way, look at the definition that you provided for me.
“In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. ”
The reason is the premise, hence the premise is based on the premise.
Now as to why the heading says “supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion” I have no clue.
Well, if the site is wrong, then it’s wrong. If I was wrong, then I admit it.
To me, saying, “The book is true because the book says so,” does sound circular. So what would that be – a mere restatement of the conclusion?
….
The construct of an argument is that the conclusion is supported by the premise. You do not support anything with the conclusion. Trust me I know. I teach this stuff. I would imagine that they just accidentally swicthed their wording considering that they got the definition right when they explained it as shown in my quote.
Okay, Oliver, that sounds right, even as tired as I am.
So you are honestly telling me that you thought my question was about what was literally going on in the law? Do you think I am that stupid? Have you not read any other posts Ive made? How could you honestly not infer what my meaning was with that statement….this is the part that just makes me think its hopeless from either end to discuss any further with you.
Oliver: Basically I asked, after explaining repeatedly that I was looking for an ethical justification, why preborns have a different status than newborns and you responded by saying its the law, or its how we currently attribute rights.
Okay. I didn’t follow all your posts and your discourse with SoMG and others through the whole thread. What I saw was just the “why” question.
….
This is either a purposeful misinterpreting of my point of view or a mistaken one. In either case you are not responding to my point.
I hadn’t seen what your point of view was, there.
I did say:
“On the “justified” – whose opinion are you asking about? There is my own individual opinion – that it’s better to let the woman decide, to viability, versus forbidding her a legal abortion. I see the pregnant woman’s desire as trumping those who would forbid her a legal abortion – the baby is in her body, not theirs.”
So, is it more ethical to preserve the life of the unborn, or to allow the woman the freedom she now has?
Well this is why I posed the question earlier. Why is it that a parent’s rights are partially voided for the sake of a newborn, but not for a preborn?
What significant difference separates a preborn from a newborn inherently? You said earlier that the distinction is that the preborn is inside the mother, but I am not asking whose rights would win, but what makes a preborn itself any different inherently from a newborn.
Oh and in answer to your question, the conflict between the two needs to be resolved with the least violation of rights. Obviously if the preborn has none because of the law my point makes no sense, but if the preborn has the same rights as a newborn, then it is our duty as a society to resolve this conflict as best as possible. Early birth at around 32 weeks would provide in my opinion thus far the most complete solution upholding the long term rights of both involved with the least amount of short term right vilation for either involved.
So you are honestly telling me that you thought my question was about what was literally going on in the law? Do you think I am that stupid? Have you not read any other posts Ive made? How could you honestly not infer what my meaning was with that statement….this is the part that just makes me think its hopeless from either end to discuss any further with you.
Oliver, no. What I saw was your question, which amounted to, “Why do the unborn not have the status of the born?”
I know you’re not stupid. I hadn’t gone through this whole thread or all your posts. I really was only responding to the one or two sentence question, and the “why” there is quite simple.
There are root causes, valuations made by various entities, etc., and we could get into it some time.
The first example is circular reasoning. The Bible is true because it said a statement and since the Bible is true it the follows that all its statements are also true and that the statement that it is true proves it to be true”,
All right. Thank you, Oliver. And you took it well – I probably should have not used the Bible as the example.
…..
The second (“The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.”) is a language shift between the word of God and the the Bible says so. Essentially in the second argument you would be assuming that the Bible is true and its statement that it is the word of God would then have to be true. However, it wouldnt be circular reasoning because it does not try to prove that the Bible is true because it is the word of God and we know that it is the word of God because the Bible says so and it is true.
Okay – language shift and I’ll have to think more about this stuff when I’m not dog-tired. Again, maybe this isn’t a good example for this site, but:
The conclusion is that the Bible is the word of God, no? To me, the Bible saying so is not proof, though, since we don’t know for sure (outside of unprovable belief) that what the Bible says is true. So the premise would be disputed.
Thanks for your replies. Definitely gotta go to bed now. Have to work ten hours tomorrow then drive for nine. Ay yi yi….
Doug
“The conclusion is that the Bible is the word of God, no? To me, the Bible saying so is not proof, though, since we don’t know for sure (outside of unprovable belief) that what the Bible says is true. So the premise would be disputed.”
The premise would not be disputed. The Bible does in fact say that the Bible is the Word of God. You would be disputing the assumption that the Bible is always true, which would weaken the connection between the conclusion and premise. Keep in mind though that it would still not prohibit the conclusion from being true. It would only disconnect the logic.
Sorry for all the…confusion. From now on I would say it is safe to assume that I am not curious what the law is, but what the ethical justification is.
Well this is why I posed the question earlier. Why is it that a parent’s rights are partially voided for the sake of a newborn, but not for a preborn?
Okay, what the heck – one more little reply. I don’t see that the parent’s rights are impacted nearly as much by the newborn. There is nothing as “big” a deal as bodily autonomy that is compromised then, is there?
And, again – it’s by the parent’s choice that they are caring for the newborn. They can opt out if they wish. If it’s not their wish, the newborn can be given up, just as the pregnant woman can opt out of the pregnancy and have an abortion.
If society felt that the preborn deserved the same care as the newborn, and if there wasn’t the issue of the woman’s bodily autonomy, then you’d get your wish.
You cannot “opt” out of care for a newborn. You are responsible for this newborn until a suitable alternative is found. You cant just dump it in the dumpster when you are done with it, so why can a pregnant mother do the same, if the rights are the same?
You claim that the right to bodily autonomy is the most important right, and I may even be inclined to agree with you, but how can it be that it is significantly more important so that it cannot be violated but other important rights, such as the right to privacy and property, are okay to be violated?
The distinctions are very flimsy. Sure bodily harm is worse than property harm right? Well would a slap to the face be treated as harshly as say burning someone’s house down? Of course not. Even though the right to bodily autonomy is of great import and maybe even greater in certain scenarios, it is not significantly greater. There are cases when a violation of privacy or property outweighs a violation to bodily autonomy.
This introduces the possibility that there is some balance to be made. You cant just say “Bodily Autonomy! I win!”
The issue is complicated because if you afford all human rights to a preborn, you have to also afford them the right to bodily autonomy. The rights are in conflict, but the solution of abortion causes temporary harm to the mother’s organs and death to the preborn. I believe that 30 weeks is a reasonable time period for a mother to undergo a temporary and partial violation of her right to bodily autonomy to prevent the entire violation of a preborns right to life. If birth is the solution, all parties involved have their long term rights upheld at the most minumum sacrifice to their short term rights as possible.
Doug,
I think John’s point was that perhaps they are “seeing” something hidden from us, not something that is really imaginary, hallucinogenic, etc., and who knows? The vast majority of us are “one way” in general and then we say that such a person has a split personality, is “sick,” withdrawn, etc. To the extent that the person exhibits psychotic behavior, I do think they are “ill.”
And John’s slant sounds very interesting. My point, tho, is that if the person themself does not think that anything is wrong with them, as is often the case with schizophrenics, then how do you prove that something is. If they behave “oddly” that is just a subjective interpretation. Who is to say what “odd” behavior is. Are you saying that there is an objective standard of behavior and if you deviate from it enough you have a mental illness? Who makes this criteria? There are no “tests’ for bi-polar. A psychiatrist makes a subjective diagnosis based not on MRI’s or blood tests (no way to know how much dopamine is being produced), but on his own assessment of “behavior”…If there is no objective MORAL code, then how can you say there is an objective “Behavior” code, and diagnose someone as mentally ill based on personal observation alone?
Doug,
Well, there you are talking about legal responsibility. Beyond talking about the law, the attribution of rights, etc., there is no answer I can give you.
…..
Then I guess we’re back to the question…Are your morals based solely on what the law says? Do you have no moral code of your own?
We are asking you Doug, what you Doug think the reason that pregnant woman are not asked to be responsible for their child until such a time as their responsibility can be passed off to someone else, just like the parent of a born child.
You respond, outside the law, I can’t give you an answer.
Which is why I don’t believe that you believe in Ethics. Ethics is not based on law, it’s based on an objective understanding of right an wrong. It’s based on a moral code outside of the law. Many things that are legal, are not considered ethical.
My husband will not accept gifts from the people he does business with. There is no “law” prohibiting him from doing so. Not even a company law. But it would be unethical.
Of course not. And if abortion was illegal then the same proscription would apply to the pregnant woman.
…..
So you’re saying that if the law allowed it, you’d be fine with a woman killing her five year old because she didn’t want it anymore? The only reason you think it is wrong is because the law says so?
If the law said that anyone that was tired of parenting could dismember their child and dump it, you’d then believe that this behavior was “right”?
PIP,
You look amazing (that shirt is GORGEOUS! I want one) and I think what you are doing is so very way cool! Keep on it!
Oliver, you wrote: “I believe that 30 weeks is a reasonable time period for a mother to undergo a temporary and partial violation of her right to bodily autonomy to prevent the entire violation of a preborns right to life.”
Well I believe that thirty minutes is a reasonable time period for you to undergo a temporary and partial violation of your right to bodily autonomy to prevent the entire violation of an already-born’s right to life. So I will be coming by your home to take blood from you and if you try to stop me I will throw you in jail. Now on what grounds can you object to this? I could even take a kidney–that’s still “temporary and partial” because the other kidney grows bigger and replaces the tissue you have donated.
Doug,
Look at it this way. Oliver and I are lawyers that are trying to get a law changed because we believe the law is wrong.
You are a lawyer who believes the law is right.
We lay out all of the reasons that we think the law is wrong. We show that in no other circumstance can a parent relinquish their responsibility without first finding someone new to take on that responsibility. We show that in some cases an unborn childs rights ARE protected…etc, etc. etc.
You argue that we can’t change the law because the law says that abortion is legal. Period. Look, right here, it says that abortion is legal. Therefore, your honor, I submit to the court that the law stand, because it says right here that it’s the law.
How long do you think you make it in the legal world?
Oliver,
I had a very similar discussion with Doug months back. It also took me about a day and half (ask Bethany) to get Doug to understand that we don’t give a flippin’ fudge for what the law says. We wanted to know why DOUG thinks the way he does.
It’s very, very frustrating. Even when you finally get him to focus, he will slip back into “because it’s the law mode”…
In his defense I have found two things to be true…one, he is a literalist and unless you explain VERY clearly to him what you mean when you use a word, he will take it at face value. Nuances, implications, suggestions are all lost on him.
Second, he tends to read only posts that have his name in them. So if you replied to him, but didn’t use his name, he most likely skipped over those comments.
I don’t think he is being obtuse, just as you said, dense. He’s smart, but you have to be really, really clear about what you’re asking.
Even now, you’ll see that he says “There are root causes, valuations made by various entities, etc., and we could get into it some time.”, completely oblivious to the fact that you have been discussing this all along…
I love Doug. He’s a good guy. But very difficult to debate with. Mostly because he debates from one place and one place only and getting him to debate from his heart is really difficult. Worth the time? I’d say so, but then I’m ALWAYS bored and looking for something to do…lol.
At any rate, I’d gladly pay you to stay on here. While I understand the principles of what you say, I do not teach ethics, nor have I ever had a class in it, so I do not have the tools that you do. Never would have thought to say “ethical justification”…brilliant. I just kept saying WHY????? and as we have seen, Doug’s answer is always “Because it’s the law”…
Now if we could only get him to give “ethical justification” (Gosh I love that term) as to WHY the unborn should NOT have the same rights as the born, I’d die a happy woman….
You rock!
Mornin’ MK.
You argue that we can’t change the law because the law says that abortion is legal.
No, that is not my argument. Never said that.
Less than five hours from last post to first for me…whew.
Doug,
Well then argue for the law. Tell me why the law should stand as is refuting Olivers counter arguments…
Doug,
I have to take MP camping with the girlscouts today…I’ll be back Sunday…UGH! I mean…hooray!
I’m really bummed that I’m gonna miss this. I’ve waited over a year for it!
Maybe you should catch up your sleep and pick it up on Monday??? Ahhh well, it was worth a try…
Oliver: What significant difference separates a preborn from a newborn inherently? You said earlier that the distinction is that the preborn is inside the mother, but I am not asking whose rights would win, but what makes a preborn itself any different inherently from a newborn.
Good morning to you too, Oliver. As far as “inherently” – nothing (in the moral realm, aside from physical state, development in general, etc.). Same as I mentioned earlier – rights don’t “have” to be attributed at birth, either, and there have been societies that didn’t do it. It could even be the case that rights were accorded to the unborn, but not the born.
Ah, first cup of coffee down.
…..
Oh and in answer to your question, the conflict between the two needs to be resolved with the least violation of rights. Obviously if the preborn has none because of the law my point makes no sense, but if the preborn has the same rights as a newborn, then it is our duty as a society to resolve this conflict as best as possible. Early birth at around 32 weeks would provide in my opinion thus far the most complete solution upholding the long term rights of both involved with the least amount of short term right vilation for either involved.
All right – and yeah, that sounds good to me too. If rights are deemed to be there on the part of the unborn, then it’s a “splitting of the difference” with the timing of the birth.
I’m glad you didn’t just “write me off” last night. There are many logical fallacies as well as “circular reasoning,” and it’s an interesting area.
“The conclusion is that the Bible is the word of God, no? To me, the Bible saying so is not proof, though, since we don’t know for sure (outside of unprovable belief) that what the Bible says is true. So the premise would be disputed.”
Oliver: The premise would not be disputed. The Bible does in fact say that the Bible is the Word of God. You would be disputing the assumption that the Bible is always true, which would weaken the connection between the conclusion and premise. Keep in mind though that it would still not prohibit the conclusion from being true. It would only disconnect the logic.
(“The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.”)
2nd cup of coffee down. Little better but not much. Coffee is our friend, but it’s not the wonder drug, at least not on mornings like this.
Yes – of course you’re right – the premise would not be disputed, since the Bible does say that. Sheesh, I was tired last night.
Indeed – the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Basically it’s an “if/then” statement.
…..
Sorry for all the…confusion. From now on I would say it is safe to assume that I am not curious what the law is, but what the ethical justification is.
Not a problem, and I’m sorry too – with your background in this thread I can see why you thought I was being deliberately obtuse, etc. I was going through all the threads for the last six days or so, and just had not “been there” all along on this matter as you had.
I’ve gotta shut this computer down in a while, and do some actual work, then drive 450 miles, get up tomorrow and head for another job 330 miles away, then work there, real work, no computer, so it won’t be until tomorrow night at the earliest that I’ll be back online.
Oliver, you wrote: “The issue is complicated because if you afford all human rights to a preborn, you have to also afford them the right to bodily autonomy. ”
That’s silly. It’s like saying the trespasser’s bodily autonomy rights give him the right not to be forcibly kicked off your property, or the mugger’s bodily autonomy gives him the right not to be forcibly prevented from assaulting you.
The preborn gets to survive just as well as it would survive without access to the mother’s bloodstream (that is not at all). You can argue that what we do to the unborn is worse than merely depriving it of life support (killing vs allowing to die) but that’s just hairsplitting, the outcome is the same for the unborn, and besides it doesn’t apply to labor-induction abortions which have Jill’s panties in a wad.
Oliver: You cannot “opt” out of care for a newborn. You are responsible for this newborn until a suitable alternative is found. You cant just dump it in the dumpster when you are done with it, so why can a pregnant mother do the same, if the rights are the same?
You can opt out, you just have to give the newborn to somebody else, a matter of circumstance. If the rights would be the same, then the pregnant woman would have to continue the pregnancy until such time as delivery could take place, with consideration of both woman and baby, as we talked about above.
…..
You claim that the right to bodily autonomy is the most important right, and I may even be inclined to agree with you, but how can it be that it is significantly more important so that it cannot be violated but other important rights, such as the right to privacy and property, are okay to be violated?
I meant that to violate the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy is a much bigger thing than the fact that parents/guardians are expected to provide food, shelter, etc. And again, the parents don’t have to do that, ever – they can go home from the hospital and leave the baby there. If they take the baby home, it’s by their choice, while we are talking about the pregnant woman having to continue the pregnancy against her will.
…..
The distinctions are very flimsy. Sure bodily harm is worse than property harm right? Well would a slap to the face be treated as harshly as say burning someone’s house down? Of course not. Even though the right to bodily autonomy is of great import and maybe even greater in certain scenarios, it is not significantly greater. There are cases when a violation of privacy or property outweighs a violation to bodily autonomy.
Point taken about the face slap and the house burned down – that is something like what I’d say myself. I don’t see the parents with the newborn as having their privacy violated nor their property rights. If they take the newborn home, it’s by their own free will, and their right to privacy and property aren’t unlimited even if they have no kids. If the pregnant woman continues the pregnancy by her own free will, then fine – nobody’s bumming out.
……
This introduces the possibility that there is some balance to be made. You cant just say “Bodily Autonomy! I win!”
I haven’t just said “I win!” I don’t claim that my valuation is “inherently right” nor that society has to be in line with my position .
……
The issue is complicated because if you afford all human rights to a preborn, you have to also afford them the right to bodily autonomy. The rights are in conflict, but the solution of abortion causes temporary harm to the mother’s organs and death to the preborn. I believe that 30 weeks is a reasonable time period for a mother to undergo a temporary and partial violation of her right to bodily autonomy to prevent the entire violation of a preborns right to life. If birth is the solution, all parties involved have their long term rights upheld at the most minumum sacrifice to their short term rights as possible.
Yeah, “complicated,” to say the least.
MK: And John’s slant sounds very interesting. My point, tho, is that if the person themself does not think that anything is wrong with them, as is often the case with schizophrenics, then how do you prove that something is. If they behave “oddly” that is just a subjective interpretation. Who is to say what “odd” behavior is. Are you saying that there is an objective standard of behavior and if you deviate from it enough you have a mental illness? Who makes this criteria? There are no “tests’ for bi-polar. A psychiatrist makes a subjective diagnosis based not on MRI’s or blood tests (no way to know how much dopamine is being produced), but on his own assessment of “behavior”…If there is no objective MORAL code, then how can you say there is an objective “Behavior” code, and diagnose someone as mentally ill based on personal observation alone?
It’s not just that they behave “oddly.” If there are 21 of us in a room, and 20 of us do not hear a thing, but the patient says he hears it, loud enough that everybody else would, then the 20 can reasonably conclude that the patient is having a hallucination.
Sure, some of the diagnosis is going to be subjective, but not all, as above. The diagnosis will be based on the patient’s behavior and experiences – those experiences being reported by the patient himself. Yeah, there isn’t a “lab test” for the condition, but the diagnosis can be additionally confirmed by using anti-psychotic drugs. Mostly, they damp down the dopamine in the brain, and if afterward the patient does not display the bahavior and hallucinations, for example, then that’s strong evidence that schizophrenia is present.
This is not to say there is an “objective behavior code,” but if a person is not cognizant of physical reality when they should be, again for example as with the existence or non-existence of sounds, that fact points to mental illness and we can say that something is indeed wrong.
Doug,
This is not to say there is an “objective behavior code,” but if a person is not cognizant of physical reality when they should be, again for example as with the existence or non-existence of sounds, that fact points to mental illness and we can say that something is indeed wrong.
But wouldn’t that be just opinion? Can you prove that the “patient” ISN’T hearing something? Can you prove that the other 19 people who can’t hear it are right? How can we ever know that the 19 who can’t hear it aren’t the ones that have a problem? That it isn’t a hallucination, but a lack of some sort in the 19 “normal” people?
My point is that you are making a determination based on what the popular consensus is, just like you are doing with the abortion issue.
Except in the case of mental illness you are saying that it is an objective truth as opposed to a subjective one. And yet you have no proof either way.
I believe God exists. For me, I have evidence. I know that without Him in my life (just like Depakote) I behaved a certain way, but with Him, I behaved a different way. So to me, just like to the mentally ill person, I have evidence that “something” has made my behavior more in line with what society considers normal.
No proof there either. Yet you accept as objective, a mentally ill diagnosis based on subjective observations, but do not afford me the same consideration.
Objective normal behavior based on observation but no proof.
Objective moral behavior based on observation but no proof.
Surely, you would agree that someone following the ten commandments was by default also following “law” and thereby acting according to societal norms.
Doug,
The diagnosis will be based on the patient’s behavior and experiences – those experiences being reported by the patient himself.
You mean the very same patient that was hearing things? Hardly a reliable source.
What if you were on a psychiatric ward? Where 19 out of 20 heard something and you didn’t? Would you be considered mentally ill?
But wouldn’t that be just opinion? Can you prove that the “patient” ISN’T hearing something? Can you prove that the other 19 people who can’t hear it are right? How can we ever know that the 19 who can’t hear it aren’t the ones that have a problem? That it isn’t a hallucination, but a lack of some sort in the 19 “normal” people?
MK, that goes to the fact that a consciousness cannot be sure of anything but its own existence. Everything beyond that requires assumptions. Looking at it as you do, above, there is no way to be “objectively sure” that any other people are even really there.
…..
My point is that you are making a determination based on what the popular consensus is, just like you are doing with the abortion issue.
With mental illness – yes, it is the majority deeming their own experience as “normal.” But I do not say that the popular consensus on abortion will necessarily be right in any objective way, nor that I would necessarily agree with it.
……
Except in the case of mental illness you are saying that it is an objective truth as opposed to a subjective one. And yet you have no proof either way.
Well, do you accept that either the sound will be there, or not? It’s a matter of physical reality. If you accept that, then to maintain what is not true, versus what is true, will be seen as “ill.”
……
I believe God exists. For me, I have evidence. I know that without Him in my life (just like Depakote) I behaved a certain way, but with Him, I behaved a different way. So to me, just like to the mentally ill person, I have evidence that “something” has made my behavior more in line with what society considers normal.
No proof there either. Yet you accept as objective, a mentally ill diagnosis based on subjective observations, but do not afford me the same consideration.
No, because it’s not subjective observations, as with the presence or absence of the sound. Either it’s an accurate perception of reality, or it’s a hallucination, and the premise is that we know if the sound is there or not.
I do believe in your experience, but it can be accounted for by your belief, rather than the necessary existence of God.
……
Objective normal behavior based on observation but no proof.
Objective moral behavior based on observation but no proof.
Same as above, though – the premise with the patient is that we have proof of the sound or not, while as you said with the “objective moral behavior” there isn’t such proof.
……
Surely, you would agree that someone following the ten commandments was by default also following “law” and thereby acting according to societal norms.
Are you trying to get me in trouble with HisMan? ; )
If we start out by saying the Commandments were law, then yes indeed. And of course some of them are societal norms even today – I accept that they were back a couple thousand years ago. That’s not “objective morality,” but it is beginning with a subjective premise, i.e. “The Commandments are law,” and then going from there, and we do the same thing today – we begin with a law, desire, accepted principle, etc., and go from there.
“The diagnosis will be based on the patient’s behavior and experiences – those experiences being reported by the patient himself.”
You mean the very same patient that was hearing things? Hardly a reliable source.
MK, do you believe that the patient thinks he’s hearing sounds if he says he is? I’d say you have to accept that, same as I accept that you believe as you say you do.
……
What if you were on a psychiatric ward? Where 19 out of 20 heard something and you didn’t? Would you be considered mentally ill?
By those 19 or 20, sure, certainly possible.
Doug,
MK, do you believe that the patient thinks he’s hearing sounds if he says he is? I’d say you have to accept that, same as I accept that you believe as you say you do.
……
I’m not asking if you think the patient thinks he’s hearing sounds…I’m saying you can’t prove that he actually ISN’T hearing sounds. And neither can anyone else.
By those 19 or 20, sure, certainly possible.
Duh Doug, but would you be considered mentally ill by objective standards. 19 people believe one thing, you believe another. Does this make you mentally ill? What objective criteria do you base mental illness on, if not that 1 person is acting differently than most others.
I could slip you some acid and then you too would be hearing things. Would you then be considered normal? Is there an objective mental state that we call healthy? What is it? How is it determined? How is it proven? Or is it, like your morality, subjective?
I had a very similar discussion with Doug months back. It also took me about a day and half (ask Bethany) to get Doug to understand that we don’t give a flippin’ fudge for what the law says. We wanted to know why DOUG thinks the way he does. It’s very, very frustrating. Even when you finally get him to focus, he will slip back into “because it’s the law mode”…
MK, when somebody asks, in effect, “Why is this situation like it is?” then on a societal level it’s never my own thinking that determines things. You want my personal opinion – all you have to do is ask for it – and that has always been true.
All along I’ve said I care about suffering, that I value the freedom that women now have in the matter, etc.
…..
In his defense I have found two things to be true…one, he is a literalist and unless you explain VERY clearly to him what you mean when you use a word, he will take it at face value. Nuances, implications, suggestions are all lost on him.
No, they are not lost on me, but unless there is a good reason to suspect them, then yes, of course I’m going to take what you say at face value. Not everybody makes the same unprovable assumptions you do. If I did make them, then I would approach things the same way you do, and there I would impute the same stuff to what is said as you did, regardless if it was “spelled out” or not. It’s not sensible to expect that somebody who doesn’t share your assumptions will get your “hidden” meanings, necessarily, though.
……
Second, he tends to read only posts that have his name in them. So if you replied to him, but didn’t use his name, he most likely skipped over those comments.
Yeah. In a thread like this, once I really get going, I do read everything, but as to coming to Jill’s blog, which I usually do several times a day, there are going to be 10 to 20 threads with probably 500 to 1500 posts in them, and I do just blast through, looking to see if anybody replied to me. Or I’ll go to the point where I left off reading the last time.
……
I don’t think he is being obtuse, just as you said, dense. He’s smart, but you have to be really, really clear about what you’re asking.
Oy very…. MK, it is not “dense” to not assume facts which are not in evidence. This is like women expecting men to be mind-readers (LOL).
…..
Even now, you’ll see that he says “There are root causes, valuations made by various entities, etc., and we could get into it some time.”, completely oblivious to the fact that you have been discussing this all along…
Same song, second verse. I did get what Oliver meant, there, but was so tired that I had to put it off into the future. I wasn’t oblivious. And you know I’ll always discuss valuations, etc.
……
I love Doug. He’s a good guy. But very difficult to debate with. Mostly because he debates from one place and one place only and getting him to debate from his heart is really difficult. Worth the time? I’d say so, but then I’m ALWAYS bored and looking for something to do…lol.
“Debate from the heart” – hey, we already know that people disagree about this stuff, that they feel different things in their “heart.” You feel one way, I feel another. There isn’t much if any “debating” to be done there. It’s only when we accept the same premises that logical debate can follow. I’m never bored – there are so many things I’d like to do but can’t get to because I’m busy doing stuff that I want to do even more. Yet you see how much time I spend here, so you know I like it a lot, you included, Sister.
On accepting the same premises – that gets us to what is true for all of us, or at least true for the people in the discussion. Once there, even if on a given issue it’s only that “one place” you mention, then at least we can go forward logically. Otherwise, it’s often just one person saying, “I think this,” and the other saying, “I think that..”
……
At any rate, I’d gladly pay you to stay on here. While I understand the principles of what you say, I do not teach ethics, nor have I ever had a class in it, so I do not have the tools that you do. Never would have thought to say “ethical justification”…brilliant. I just kept saying WHY????? and as we have seen, Doug’s answer is always “Because it’s the law”…
That’s quite an oversimplification, MK. It’s not just the law. I’ve gone into the opinion behind many laws, that there will be a sufficient opinion for an existing law, the different places it can come from, etc., many times.
On “ethical justification,” there is not going to be any huge revelation. It’s going to depend on what group or entity we are talking about – society, me personally, you personally, Americans, Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, etc., and then we go from there. I was not careful nor thorough enough with Oliver, but usually I do try hard to make things plain and answer honestly and completely.
……
Now if we could only get him to give “ethical justification” (Gosh I love that term) as to WHY the unborn should NOT have the same rights as the born, I’d die a happy woman….
For me personally, it is because I don’t see them suffering to a point in gestation, while I do see a pregnant woman who wants to end the pregnancy but is denied it, legally, as suffering. I don’t want people to suffer. It’s because at a very basic level I do want people to be able to do what they want, short of interfering with what I consider essential, and I don’t consider it essential that every single pregnancy be continued.
A wanted pregnancy ends in miscarriage – often very sad. An unwanted pregnancy is aborted, not necessarily sad. This is my opinion, of course.
The born are attributed rights, and I say that is good – there is nothing interfered with there that I think trumps born people having rights.
To grant rights to the unborn would interfere with many pregnant women, and I think their desire trumps the desire of people who want abortion made illegal. So haven’t we really done this before?
It’s now raining here, and my internet connection is SO tenuous…. Have to hope I can post this, then I gotta get to work. I lost the connection, (via a wireless aircard), now have it back, but it’s taken over two minutes for the thread to open up so I can post, and not there yet….
Doug,
Well, do you accept that either the sound will be there, or not? It’s a matter of physical reality. If you accept that, then to maintain what is not true, versus what is true, will be seen as “ill.”
……
I can blow a dog whistle and a dog will hear it, but I will not. If there are no dogs around, does that mean the sound does not exist? How do we know that this person is not just hearing something that we cannot percieve, whether it is out of our “Physical” hearing range, or coming from another dimension?
One more –
“MK, do you believe that the patient thinks he’s hearing sounds if he says he is? I’d say you have to accept that, same as I accept that you believe as you say you do.”
I’m not asking if you think the patient thinks he’s hearing sounds…I’m saying you can’t prove that he actually ISN’T hearing sounds. And neither can anyone else.
Like I said before then – there is no real proof of anything for me beyond the fact of my own consciousness, when I look at it like that, can’t be sure that you exist or the patient or “anybody else.” There’s no proof that I won’t “wake up” later and find that all I’ve perceived beyond my consciousness to this point was like a “dream,” and that reality is quite different.
….
“By those 19 or 20, sure, certainly possible.”
Duh Doug, but would you be considered mentally ill by objective standards.
Above, you are saying that there isn’t any real proof either way, so by that there would be no objective standards in the first place. That’s why I asked if you accept what the patient says. Also, you’d have to accept that the sound is there or that it’s not there.
Once we deal with those, and it’d be the same for me and the 19 or 20 – then we could get to “objectively ill” or not.
…..
19 people believe one thing, you believe another. Does this make you mentally ill? What objective criteria do you base mental illness on, if not that 1 person is acting differently than most others.
Well, we’ve got to accept the same premise there – that something, whatever it is, will be the marker for “ill” or “not ill.” If you’ll grant me that a physical object, for example, is either present in the room or not, then if the patient is able to perceive, and is perceiving the truth – again either the presence of the object or the absence of it – then that could be our objective criteria.
…..
I could slip you some acid and then you too would be hearing things. Would you then be considered normal?
Nope.
…..
Is there an objective mental state that we call healthy? What is it? How is it determined? How is it proven? Or is it, like your morality, subjective?
It’s subjective – it originates in how we want mental states to be. It’s proven by observation, by the actions and ideas of the person in question.
“Well I believe that thirty minutes is a reasonable time period for you to undergo a temporary and partial violation of your right to bodily autonomy to prevent the entire violation of an already-born’s right to life. So I will be coming by your home to take blood from you and if you try to stop me I will throw you in jail. Now on what grounds can you object to this? I could even take a kidney–that’s still “temporary and partial” because the other kidney grows bigger and replaces the tissue you have donated.”
I would object because I am in no way currently obligated to give you anything. A preborn, due to no one’s fault, is currently in a position of need directly with the mother. They are put in that position by chance. I am not put in the position to offer you blood or a kidney.
Now if we suddenly and randomly became attached so that I had to sacrifice my blood at an imperceptible level, I would say that we would need to reach a solution that would jeopordize the fewest rights.
“because the other kidney grows bigger and replaces the tissue you have donated.”
You are saying that your second kindey completely recovers for the lost kidney 100%? You have no disadvantages? Interesting. I dindt know that. I thought that if you had an infection the lack of a kidney, even if partially compensated by the second kidney would still pose a disadvantage…but youre the doctor supposedly.
“Oliver, you wrote: “The issue is complicated because if you afford all human rights to a preborn, you have to also afford them the right to bodily autonomy. ”
That’s silly. It’s like saying the trespasser’s bodily autonomy rights give him the right not to be forcibly kicked off your property, or the mugger’s bodily autonomy gives him the right not to be forcibly prevented from assaulting you.”
Actually no, what it is like saying is that if you afford preborns all human rights you have to afford them the right to bodily autonomy. This complicates the issue.
Your analogies are both flawed because you are placing intent with the preborn. Nobody caused this, but especially not the preborn.
A better analogy would be a guy falling from a plane and crashing in your house injured. Certainly you can pick him up and throw him out of your house, in effect killing him, but because there is an alternative that does the least damage to everyone’s rights by allowing the ambulence to come and help him, this is the right path.
You dont have to actively go out and help people, but if a situation arises where everyone’s rights are in conflict, there has to be a solution to provide the least amount of right violation. You cant just say one person wins over the other and therefore they can react however they want.
“The preborn gets to survive just as well as it would survive without access to the mother’s bloodstream (that is not at all). You can argue that what we do to the unborn is worse than merely depriving it of life support (killing vs allowing to die) but that’s just hairsplitting, the outcome is the same for the unborn, and besides it doesn’t apply to labor-induction abortions which have Jill’s panties in a wad.”
The problem with this is that if the preborn has all the rights of a human, the mother is obligated as the default gaurdian to provide that support. Her blood tissue is not being violated at any perceptible level, and if I remember correctly from anatomy class, the presence of the preborn actually boosts the mothers blood flow and the health of the blood, not damages it. If anything the preborn is entitled to that increased blood flow as it was the required stimulus that created it.
The only conflict is with the preborns right to life and with the mothers right to bodily autonomy. Certainly I would argue that if we had to choose, the mother would win out, however it isnt that cut and dried. The mother does not live with the preborn for her whole life, but on the contrary the preborn if removed too early completely dies.
If you consider this like a horrible accident between two individuals, it is easier to understand that it isnt so cut and dried. The use of the mother for food and nutrients is an obligation of the mother, you cannot factor that into the decision.
“Well, do you accept that either the sound will be there, or not? It’s a matter of physical reality. If you accept that, then to maintain what is not true, versus what is true, will be seen as “ill.”
MK: I can blow a dog whistle and a dog will hear it, but I will not. If there are no dogs around, does that mean the sound does not exist? How do we know that this person is not just hearing something that we cannot percieve, whether it is out of our “Physical” hearing range, or coming from another dimension?
I was falling asleep driving, so I shut it down for the day.
No, the sound is there – external physical fact – whether any dogs hear it or not.
We can’t prove the negative, MK, as per the other dimension. Maybe a Ouija board? However, for the range, instruments could detect it if the was anything there. If the patient is tuned into another dimension, then he’ll probably be called nuts if he exhibits the same symptoms we usually associate with “nuts,” (so to speak).
MK: Well then argue for the law. Tell me why the law should stand as is refuting Olivers counter arguments…
MK, Oliver has said, “The issue is complicated because if you afford all human rights to a preborn….”
And that’s right on – he makes an “if/then” statement. He’s postulating that rights would be granted to the unborn. If they were, then I agree with him, as I said – I see he’s done a lot of good thinking about it.
As things are now, it is not the case that rights are attributed. Not trying to bum you out here – and I know you know that and have heard it a crillion times – but the conditions of his proposal are not met.
That “if” isn’t satisfied. My position remains that the rights of the woman and her desire, to viability, trump all conflicting desires.
MK: If a woman with a five year old wants to relinquish her, but is told it will be three weeks until the state can take the child off her hands, can she then say she doesn’t wish to wait that long and kill her 5 year old?
“Of course not. And if abortion was illegal then the same proscription would apply to the pregnant woman.”
So you’re saying that if the law allowed it, you’d be fine with a woman killing her five year old because she didn’t want it anymore? The only reason you think it is wrong is because the law says so?
If the law said that anyone that was tired of parenting could dismember their child and dump it, you’d then believe that this behavior was “right”?
MK, why in the world are you asking me if I’d be fine with it? What can you possibly see in my response that said I’d be okay with it or favor that in any way?
That first “is told” part would apply to the pregnant woman should rights be accorded to the unborn. That’s the response to your question – no, she can’t kill her five year old, and since we ought to extend it to the case of abortion if the unborn had rights as does the five year old, then she’d be prohibited there too.
It’s not my opinion that determines that.
Doug,
Now all we have to do is establish the if. If you were convinced ethically that preborns SHOULD in fact have all the same rights as a newborn (considering that there is no significant difference between them) wouldnt you consider the law unethical?
Oliver, yes.
How’s that for a cut-to-the-chase reply? :P
Alright, so now it opens the debate as to whether or not the current practice of witholding full human rights from preborns is justified based on the same principles that we apply to establish rights in the first place.
I dont think it is justified. We give rights to newborns that have no special characteristic that make them significantly different from animals or preborns. Either we establish rights based on some sort of “achievement” such as self awareness, which would not include infants and would include theoretically speaking anyways, several kinds of animals, or we have rights as humans simply because we are humans, which would then extend the rights to the preborns.
To me there is not justification to give individual human beings rights based on their physical accomplishments because I believe that rights are a societal construct based on the idea that humans are “special” versus other animals in that we have the capability as a species to change our environment and make impacts beyond our ecological roles (albeit usually negative.)
To get at the right answer regarding preborn rights, the correct question must be asked. That question is: “From whence do rights originate”.
Pro-aborts may argue that rights come from the law. The problem with that is that laws change, therefore, rights based soley on law are not based on truth but opinion. Nazi Germany is an extreme example of the perversion of law v. rights. So, to a pro-abort I would then ask, if rights eminate from law from whence do laws originate?
Pro-life believers know where rights and laws come from, they come from the Creator and are established by His Word. The ultimate right bestowed and granted on every creature created, even ones that we know nothing about, is the right to choose God or choose themselves or, choosing life or choosing death. God’s laws are designed to preserve that right.
A pro-abort may then say. “you’ve just answered why abortion must be a choice”. Yes, that would be true if another person and God were not involved. But, God and a another person are involved, that person being the baby growing inside the mother. And God is not a respector of persons, he does not favor the mother over the child. If He did, then conception is just a whim and not an expresion of intention.
Since God is the originator of rights and rights eminate from the expression of His will, all evidences of that expression must be the starting point for every right.
Since conception can only be wrought at the hand of God and is therefore an expression of the intent of His will, the right to life begins at conception.
The right is instinctively protected by a mother’s inate desire to protect the fetus. This desire to protect the fetus is perverted when sin and selfishness enter the mix and abortion then becomes the virus that seeks to destroy the race, ah, the expression of the will of the anti-God, satan himself.
This is why the definition of personhood and when life begins are so vital to the debate of whether abortion is moral or immoral.
As a Harvard graduate lawyer, Mr. Obama, knows all of this. He chooses to foregoe logic and truth and exchange it for a lie, hence, “it’s above his pay grade” is his answer to the question, “when does life begin”, is slick, but worthy of no cigar. For any thinking, honest person not to see through this smoke screen is evidence of their willingness to be decieved. It is not a fair exchange. Accepting a lie at the expense of one’s intergity is always a bad deal. Even pro-aborts know this sub-consciously, unless their consciences have been murdered, and no about of obfuscation, denial of the existence of God, redefining or feigning ignorance as to when life begins, etc., will excuse them from the folly of their self-deception.
HisMan,
Although I like how you start this off and I agree with a lot of the points here, you have to understand that if you ONLY take the point that rights originate from God alone, then you will see that you cannot convert most pro-choicers.
Think of it this way instead.
God does not directly give us rights. Instead he has constructed the universe, which follows certain rules based on logic and physics etc etc. The rights that you understand to come directly from God, are in a sense a product of the universe within which he has placed us. Instead of appealing to God for the justification of preborn rights, appeal to the logic of the universe that we all live in, believers or not.
You brought up an interesting point though…
You said that the laws dont create rights. You are correct! The law is created from the rights that we believe in as a society. In a sense, to take the law as the basis for rights is to confuse the conditional statement, and societal construct of the law. The law is put in place to uphold rights that “we hold to be self evident.” If our values and rights change, so should the law, but more importantly, if we reevaluate our basic premises and assumptions to realize new rights or re interpret new rights, we should do the same to the law, which is of course what we want to do.
Oliver: “The law is put in place to uphold rights that “we hold to be self evident.”
HisMan gave a wonderful assessment from a God-centered point of view. I’ll play devil’s advocate for you. Forgive me if you’ve addressed this already. What about CHOICE? Isn’t choice a right? I can’t tell other people what choices to make, can I?
Oliver, you wrote: “I would object because I am in no way currently obligated to give you anything.”
Yes you are. The patient’s right to life obligates you. (Your body-ownership is what de-obligates you.)
And a normal person has SIX times more kidney tissue than (s)he need. You could donate a kidney and half of the other kidney and never notice the difference.
SoMG, “Yes you are. The patient’s right to life obligates you. (Your body-ownership is what de-obligates you.)”
I suppose only pro-lifers are subject to your odd interpretation of one’s moral obligation to donate a kidney to anyone and everyone they meet who needs a transplant.
No, Janet. The patient’s right to life obligates EVERYONE to donate blood/organs to him. But their body-ownership de-obligates them.
SoMG, what religion do you live, and what is its moral code?
Jon, I am a radical agnost. My moral code is not based on religion.
SoMG,
I guess it would take a doctor to complete misinterpret ethics. A patients need does not not obligate anyone. It isnt my rights that prevent me from providing for someone else. There must be some sort of principle creating the obligation. In your blood donation/kidney donation theory there is no such principle. However, with a child, the care-giver is obligated to provide the basic needs in life based on the principles that underlie society. There is a difference.
If there is no difference. Why does a parent’s rights not prevent them from their obligation to provide shelter to their child?
But, of course there is a difference. There is no principle that obligates us to a random stranger in any such way.
Oliver, you wrote: “There is no principle that obligates us to a random stranger in any such way.”
OK, then suppose the patient isn’t a random stranger. Suppose it’s your child. What gives you the right to kill your child by refusing a life-saving blood/organ donation?
I just thought about it….
What SoMG is asserting is that there is an obligation that we all have, that by definition, nobody has.
Why would there even be such a thing! That cracks me up.
You arent obligated to your child to give up blood or a kidney either.
Think about it like this SoMG.
Are you obligated to give your child whatever dinner they want? Are you obligated to give them whatever room in the house they want?
No of course not. They dont have complete reign over your right to privacy or property in that sense. They have a partial command on your rights because they have the right to not be neglected.
The only obligation you have to your child is to provide the neccesities of life that the child could in no circumstance provide for itself.
This obligation is upheld even at the partial expense of the parent’s rights.
Similarly a pregnant mother has a partial violation of her right to her body, largely at an imperceptable level of course, but still a partial violation to satisfy the obligation to not neglect her preborn.
The only conflict of rights is the actual damage to her body through the birth and the pregnancy.
SoMG, your definition of religion must be different than mine. Religion is man’s response to the God who has spoken to man in creation and in the Bible. Everyone responds; everyone lives a religion.
So where do you get your morality? Where do you get a person’s right to life and his greater right to body ownership? I note that you are not even logically consistent on his right to body ownership. You mutilate the body he owns even as you deprive him of his life.
Why should your morality (or immorality) apply to me? Why is mine not as good as yours?
Oliver, you wrote: “You arent obligated to your child to give up blood or a kidney either.”
Of course not. What I’m trying to get you to explain is, why not???”
So far you have claimed that it’s because the patient is a stranger. That’s not true if it’s your child. So try again.
You wrote: “The only obligation you have to your child is to provide the neccesities of life that the child could in no circumstance provide for itself.”
If your child needs a transplant/transfusion, then that is a “neccesit[y] of life that the child could in no circumstance provide for itself.”
Jon, you wrote: “Religion is man’s response to the God who has spoken to man in creation and in the Bible. ”
So pre-Biblical religions are not “religion”? How about contemporary non-biblical religions like Hinduism? Do you read what you post before posting it? Do you care that your post makes you look like a moron?
You wrote: “Why should your morality (or immorality) apply to me? Why is mine not as good as yours?”
Maybe because I am smarter and better-informed than you?
[P]re-Biblical religions are not “religion”? How about contemporary non-biblical religions like Hinduism?
SoMG, every religion is a religion. Of course! They are responses to God. Hinduism is a false religion. So is yours. Did you think about my comment before you posted yours?
I am smarter and better-informed than you
And you’re smarter than everyone else, including God. For all intents and purposes, you’re an atheist. If it weren’t for the church and God’s protection of it, the world would be full of atheists who would fill the earth with violence–as in the days of Noah.
Jon, so the Ancient Greeks who sacrificed to Athene, they were responding to your God? Explain.
You wrote: “Hinduism is a false religion.”
That may be but it’s still religion and it is NOT a response to your God.
You wrote: “And you’re smarter than everyone else, including God.”
Interesting. How do you measure the IQ of an imaginary entity?
You wrote: “For all intents and purposes, you’re an atheist.”
Nope.
[I]t’s still religion and it is NOT a response to your God.
Yes, it is a response to my God. As a Christian, I believe that God is the only God. You are a polytheist? I suppose that an agnostic can be whatever he feels like being at the moment. For all practical purposes, you are an atheist. You have nobody higher than yourself or another man to whom you can appeal.
Bye. I’ve other things to do now, we’re not getting anywhere, and you’re mocking my God.
Oliver:
I cannot convert anyone, that is the Spirit’s job. I can only plant the seeds of truth, so they can fall on the soil of men’s hearts, and, by choice, be cultivated into the realization and acceptance of truth or killed by self-deception and denial. The parable of the sower and the seeds is the basis for the statement coupled with an understanding of my role in the Kingdom. I am simply an obedient servant trying to do God’s will for my life.
I could possibly accept your rationale as to the origins and construct of rights as being a result of the laws and rules established by God in His creation if this was all there is, however, God’s entire creation has not been revealed here on earth and in the physical universe except in the appearance of His Son or Love Incarnate to mankind. Jesus walked through walls at His appearance to the Apostles after His resurrection and then rose into the heavens defying gravity violating every known law of physics. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the highest law. Besides, in heaven, which exists in a dimension we can’t even fathom, only one law exists, that is, the Law of Love. When Jesus was asked what were the greatest laws His answer was, love God, love your neighbor.
Here on earth, the way we show our love for God is how we treat or love our neighbor. Loving one’s neighbor is actually a supernatural act.
Another reason I cannot accept your premise is that the world and universe we live in is fallen and polluted by sin. Evidence this in the law of entropy; that ordered systems tend to chaos, does not lead to any law mankind would want to follow and live by, but instead to anarchy and decay. And Newton’s third law (action/reaction) actually contradicts Jesus’ prescription to turn the other cheek.
Being an engineer and having a pretty good grasp on physics, with a Master’s Degree in Theology, gives me a unique perspective. It is easy for me to jump in and out of each world and that without ambiguity. Since God created both, this should not be seen as confusion.
In conclusion, abortion violates the Law of Love, since the duty of the mother is to love the neighbor in her womb and the duty of the neighbor outside of her womb is to insure the protection of both the mother and the child. Abortion does nither and is therefore a perversion of the highest law in the Universe, not those demonstated and revealed in creation, but by God Himself, in the Presence of Jesus Christ, simultaneously human and God, the formulae of which cannot be derived, only believed. If what you said was true, all rational scientists would believe in God as teh source of law and rights and violate God’s conditional promise that, “if you seek Me with all your heart you will find Me”…In actuality, most scientists want proof of God’s existence and truth before they even start the journey of discovery, they get it backwards.
This is why it is so very difficult for me to understand Barack Obama as one who claims to know God but fails to connect with and proclaim His truth.
Having said all that, I would like you to read the words I beliwve God gave me regarding His thoughts on abortion because they are relevant to this converation:
Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan
HisMan, did Paul Hill and Michael Griffin commit murder or justifiable homicide? No waffling allowed: please include “Murder” or “Justifiable Homicide” as the first part of your answer.
Jon, you wrote: “For all practical purposes, you are an atheist.”
Nope. For all practical AND IMPRACTICAL purposes I am a radical agnost. Not an atheist and not a polytheist. If I were to worship a god, it would be the (hypothetical) child-god conceived by the union of Loge (god of fire which means physical chemistry) and Erda (god of the Earth which means life) to produce biotech. To learn more about Loge and Erda, listen to Wagner’s excellent opera DAS RHEINGOLD.
You wrote: “You have nobody higher than yourself or another man to whom you can appeal.”
Neither do you. Imagining a thing does not make it so.
And if you claim pre-Biblical religions were/are responses to your God, then you have a very strange definition of the word “response”.
SoMG @ 6:40: No, Janet. The patient’s right to life obligates EVERYONE to donate blood/organs to him. But their body-ownership de-obligates them.
Oliver and Jon,
SoMG has used this silly argument before, and all she’s trying to do is debunk the “pro-life” stance on abortion by inferring that it must apply to organ transplants as well. She knows it’s completely illogical. De-obligate isn’t even a word. Obviously she also believes that one’s right to bodily ownership trumps any right to life. No sense in arguing with her on this one.
When Janet cannot answer an argument, she calls it “silly” or “illogical” instead.
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?
SoMG:
With regards to your questions: “HisMan, did Paul Hill and Michael Griffin commit murder or justifiable homicide? No waffling allowed: please include “Murder” or “Justifiable Homicide” as the first part of your answer.”
No warning against waffling SoMG is needed for I stand on the rock solid foundation of Jesus Christ. And for you to somehow justify the ongoing murder of inncoent children, 50,000,000 or so now, by expressing outrage at the murder of just two abortionists is evidence of your cowardice and gross hyprocrisy.
SoMG, if I could give my life for just one of the babies you have murdered, I would. You however, continue on your murdereous quest, decieved by what you think is a noble cause. And if you are so concerned about the murder of your abortionist colleagues and the false sense that somehow you engage in a high calling, why then are you not outraged at the murder of born alive infants targeted for abortion? Your duplicitous and waffling morals are everywhere for the world to see.
Paul Hill and Michael Griffin committed murder SoMG, and were punished by the state for doing so. No human has the right to take the life of another human being. Only the state has that God-given right either by execution or the just declaration of war. Hill and Griffin should have focused their efforts on changing the law so that anyone committing an abortion would be appropriately convicted and punished by the state. No one should take the law into their own hands.
This is what I try to do SoMG, change the laws so that someday, if you then break the law by killing an innocent child, you would be righteously punished by the state. What would even be better, that the law could be enforced retroactively. That means you would probably get a few thousand life sentences.
No worry though SoMG. While I wish no one end up in hell, your continued allegiance to the “prince of darkness” guarantees your destiny.
When Janet cannot answer an argument, she calls it “silly” or “illogical” instead.
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?
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 11:22 AM
You’ve heard all the arguments before – if not from me, from others at Jill’s. I have no desire to argue such silly, illogical things, as you know. You don’t understand the first thing about killing. Now you can poke fun at me all you want. I’ll be running away now, ha ha, so go for it. Oh, and have fun. :oP
When the governemnt enacted 510c3 tax legislation it basically took over the churches role and enacted a law regarding the practice of religion and the exercise thereof, a violation of the Consitution. Abolishing this legislation would go along way toward solving our moral problems.
Posted by: HisMan at August 21, 2008 2:19 AM
Before I go, I think this is a very interesting questions. Has there been much debate on this issue?
Oliver: Alright, so now it opens the debate as to whether or not the current practice of witholding full human rights from preborns is justified based on the same principles that we apply to establish rights in the first place.
Oliver, a couple bones to pick. It’s not really “withhold.” The question is whether to attribute them or not in the first place (it’s not like they’re “sitting” out there in storage, etc.). Not a huge deal, though – just reading away here.
The “establish” comes from the sentiment for doing it. Enough sentiment equals a law in place. Not enough equals no such law.
…..
I don’t think it is justified. We give rights to newborns that have no special characteristic that make them significantly different from animals or preborns. Either we establish rights based on some sort of “achievement” such as self awareness, which would not include infants and would include theoretically speaking anyways, several kinds of animals, or we have rights as humans simply because we are humans, which would then extend the rights to the preborns.
No, that’s not true. We can grant rights to most anything – “achievement” not withstanding It could be the unborn, for example.. After birth, we see the baby as one of “us,” more, and they are not inside the body of a person any longer, so the issue of according rights is much simpler. Now certainly – many people see the baby as one of “us” earlier, and wiith respect to some things they are, and with respect to some things they are not, especially in the case of earlier-term pregnancies.
…..
To me there is not justification to give individual human beings rights based on their physical accomplishments because I believe that rights are a societal construct based on the idea that humans are “special” versus other animals in that we have the capability as a species to change our environment and make impacts beyond our ecological roles (albeit usually negative.)
Nicely said. I don’t agree on the “justification,” but that’s my opinion versus yours and then both of us versus the way society handles it. Maybe no difference; maybe a lot of difference.
Hey man – I really like the way you said: “(albeit usually negative).” You really are aware of a lot, and it’s a pleasure to talk to you. No doubt – “societal construct.”
We really are a singular species on earth, because of our brains, because of our tool-making and using abiliities, and because of our capacity to store information and pass it on to those who come later.