Jivin J’s Life Links 8-16-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- A Florida judge has denied abortion kingpin James Pendergraft a new trial:
Judge John Marshall Kest’s ruling also denied Pendergraft’s motion to set aside verdicts for compensatory and punitive damages. It means the troubled operator of the Orlando Women’s Center – and his clinic – may soon have to start paying out $36.7M in damages awarded by the jury….
Pendergraft’s attorney argued in his motion that the woman was partly responsible. Had she stayed at the clinic, “the abortion procedure would have been completed,” he argued.
It was not immediately clear if Pendergraft will appeal Kest’s ruling. … Pendergraft is uninsured.
- RH Reality Check has this post from an alternate reality by Sunsara Taylor criticizing the NY Times Magazine piece on fetal reduction:
The only basis for viewing the decision of a woman not to carry every fetus to term as a “moral” or “ethical dilemma” is the unscientific lie that treats fetuses like people, rather than as a subordinate part of a woman’s body.
And this is exactly what Padawer does. She even adopts the anti-abortion language that refers to fetuses as people, as when she writes: “Consider the choice of which fetus to eliminate: if both appear healthy (which is typical with twins), doctors aim for whichever one is easier to reach. If both are equally accessible, the decision of who lives and who dies is random.”
No. Fetuses have the potential to become human beings but they are NOT human beings – they are not independent biological or social beings at all – until they are born. In other words, there is no “who” when referring to a fetus.
How many unscientific assertions does Taylor make here?
1. The fetus is a subordinate part of the woman’s body (pay no attention to that completely different DNA code).
2. Fetuses are not human beings because…
3. They only become human beings at birth because…
4. Birth is the magical event which makes fetuses into independent biological and social beings.
- Also at RH Reality Check, there is a long article from the Guttmacher Institute’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health regarding the late George Tiller’s abortion clinic and the post-24 week patients who went there:
Patients at this meeting were also given written information on “baby plans” – (For fetal indication patients, staff used the term “baby,” rather than “fetus,” reflecting these patients’ preferences. The word “baby” was not typically used with other abortion patients at WHCS; among other women, the most common term was “pregnancy.”) – the options available to them after their abortion….
On a day-to-day basis, one of the most difficult things for staff to manage was the boycott of the clinic by local businesses, an action engineered by Operation Rescue and other groups…. Staff reported that numerous local establishments abruptly ended long-standing business relationships with WHCS….
As noted earlier, Dr. Tiller was a highly spiritual person, and he periodically referred to the clinic’s work as a “ministry.” Similarly, several staff – particularly those with the most emotionally challenging work – pointed to their own strong religious beliefs as having guided their work. “I felt I was doing the Lord’s work,” said the staff member charged with readying the stillborn babies to be seen by their parents. In almost identical terms, the woman who prepared the babies’ bodies for cremation said, “God put me here to do this work” And the clinic chaplain, referring to the comfort she tried to give to grieving parents, recounted, “This was holy work we were doing here. We gave the parents the gift of not having to make their babies suffer.”
- David Schmidt at the Live Action blog has caught Planned Parenthood chaplain Vincent Lachina (pictured right) lying about his affiliation with the Southern Baptist Church:
A current Southern Baptist Minister with personal connections to the Southern Baptist national executive committee confirmed that one must currently be connected with a Southern Baptist congregation to be a “Southern Baptist Minister.” He said that claiming to be a Southern Baptist Minister while not even attending a Southern Baptist church was “misrepresentation.” Southern Baptist North American Mission Board Chaplaincy Coordinator Dr. David E. Mullis commented of Lachina’s deception, “unbelievable hubris to think he would not be found out!”
This revelation means that a Planned Parenthood Chaplain traveled from Washington State to Mississippi and made false religious claims to influence Mississippi voters against a pro-life ballot measure.
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.
My, my, my. How the tables have turned. They used to say they were the ones fighting for equal rights. Now Pro-Lifers fight against a human rights violation. They used to say we were the ones basing our arguments on religion-“Keep your ROSARIES off my OVARIES!”-when now they are all “doing The Lord’s work” and we have various scientists and doctors testifying that gestating humans ARE human beings while “christian pro-choicers” spout off nonsense about how abortion is acceptable because the unborn is killed before he/she has a “soul”.
Looking back at history…I wonder if they’re getting scared now?
“is the unscientific lie that treats fetuses like people, rather than as a subordinate part of a woman’s body.”
She is confusing the law and science.
It is the law, not science, that treats fetuses as though they are subhuman.
Science clearly demonstrates that we are all unique individual human beings from conception. The gametes fuse and there is a new unique individual.
“This was holy work we were doing here. We gave the parents the gift of not having to make their babies suffer.”
Ooh whee, talk about religious nut-jobs! Making it up as they go along.
The parents weren’t making the babies suffer, and those cold blooded killers weren’t giving the parents any gifts.
My son and I were just discussing Last Days of Socrates by Plato. People have been rationalizing since forever. What is not real is real, but what is real is not real. Oh, brother.
xalisae
I’m not sure but I think when the premises are false the conclusion is too.
Hehe, myrtle… actually, if you start with a false premise, you can prove anything, including a true conclusion. Furthermore, for those who are down with truth tables, this is a true implication; that is, let A be a false statement and B any statement (true or false). Then the implication “A -> B” is true!
Bobby,
Could you repeat that, with an example?
Tee heheh, sure. So the first claim I made is that if you start with a false statement, you can prove something true (it doesn’t always have to be false). For example,
Any act of killing something that is alive is evil.
Abortion is an act of killing something that is alive.
Thus, abortion is evil.
Now it is true that abortion is evil, but the first statement is clearly false. Any act of killing something that is alive is NOT evil; for example, killing a bug or a plant or even an unjust aggressor is not evil. Yet, with this false statement, we logically deduced something that is true.
Now the next claim I made was that if you start with something false and deduce something false or true, the IMPLICATION is true. So consider for example
If I am a mouse, then I have a tail.
Now it is not true that “I am a mouse.” But it IS true that “If I am a mouse, then I have a tail.” It is also true that “If I am a mouse, then the moon is made of green cheese.”
Or to use an example that might hit more close to home, consider some of the ways in which we try and show pro-choicers that their “bodily rights” arguments lead to absurdities. We may very well make the argument:
If a woman has absolute bodily autonomy, then she can torture her fetus for fun.
It is certainly not true that a woman has absolute bodily autonomy. But the IMPLICATION is true; that is, it is true that “If a woman has absolute bodily autonomy, then she can torture her fetus for fun.” So we logically deduce conclusions that are false starting from false premises to show the absurdity of a position. But the reason this works, the reason that false implies false works, is because the implication is true, even though neither the premise nor conclusion is true.
Really what is going on here is the logical formality of the popular adage “If you start with a false assumption, you can prove anything.” I can prove not only false things from false assumptions, I can prove true things from false assumptions. I can also prove true things from true assumptions. The only way one can have a false implication is if you start with something true and deduce something false. If -> denotes “implies”, we have
T- > T
F- > T
F- > F
are all true IMPLICATIONS and
T- > F
is the only kind of false implication.
Hope that makes some sense!
Thanks for the explaination! It does make sense. (Actually, I got it after I read the example, but following explaination helped too.)
Now only if my students would get it…
Those killers in the Tiller clinic sure have a messed up view of God if they think they were doing God’s holy work. I’m so sure God was smiling with pride and pleasure as Tiller aimed the needle dripping with deadly poison at the babies’ hearts.
:) You’re tantalising me, Bobby…
The example I use in class, for that principle (of false premises logically implying any conclusion, true or false, and still being a valid deduction), is usually a silly one, like so:
If 2 + 2 = 4, then roses are flowers. (logically valid, logically sound)
This is the easy case of a true premise leading to a true conclusion; it’s not only valid, but “sound” and useful. The next two can be harder to see as valid:
If 2 + 2 = 5, then roses are flowers. (logically valid, unsound)
(or)
If 2 + 2 = 5, then roses are not flowers. (logically valid, unsound)
In a sense, “if-then” statements “wait” until the first part is true, before logically flowing to the second part; with a false starting point, you can never do that. To say, “If 2 + 2 = 5, then 9 is an even number” is “valid”, because there’s really no way to disprove the conclusion! Only if 2 + 2 were equal to 5 could we actually “test” it, and see if the second part were needed; but since that never happens, no one can “convict” the problem of invalidity. It’s “innocent until proven guilty”, as such. :) (It’s also quite useless, I’m afraid! It doesn’t get off, scot-free, for using a false premise, never fear!)
It’s only when we start with true premises that we could possibly have an invalid deduction:
If 2 + 2 = 4, then roses are not flowers. (logically invalid)
Here, we can actually “test” this, since 2 + 2 actually is 4, and we can now proceed to the second part (which is wrong, and which makes the whole sentence fail).
Hm. Actually, I think I prefer Bobby’s explanation! :)
(BTW, Sydney… I didn’t catch you on the other thread, but hearty congratulations and God’s blessings to you, in expecting the birth of your new child!)
Oh, wow. I was raised by some religious whack jobs, but I don’t think even they would claim that killing babies was God’s work. What Bible verse supports that?
Oh, and congrats Sidney!! Are you still naming him Jack if he is a boy? ;)
Jack,
Well… it depends on the technicality of which “god” we mean. If it happens to be Molech, then there are plenty of references (such as 2 Kings 23:10, etc.) for it being that “god’s” work.
“This revelation means that a Planned Parenthood Chaplain traveled from Washington State to Mississippi and made false religious claims to influence Mississippi voters against a pro-life ballot measure.”
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, pretenders (hypocrites)! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces; for you neither enter yourselves, nor do you allow those who are about to go in to do so.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, pretenders (hypocrites)! For you travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes one [a proselyte], you make him doubly as much a child of hell (Gehenna) as you are.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you dressed as sheep, but inside they are devouring wolves. [Ezek 22:27.]
You will fully recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
Look out for those dogs [Judaizers, legalists], look out for those mischief-makers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
For we [Christians] are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit and by the Spirit of God and exult and glory and pride ourselves in Jesus Christ, and put no confidence or dependence [on what we are] in the flesh and on outward privileges and physical advantages and external appearances —
But these men revile (scoff and sneer at) anything they do not happen to be acquainted with and do not understand; and whatever they do understand physically [that which they know by mere instinct], like irrational beasts — by these they corrupt themselves and are destroyed (perish).
Woe to them! For they have run riotously in the way of Cain, and have abandoned themselves for the sake of gain [it offers them, following] the error of Balaam, and have perished in rebellion [like that] of Korah! [Gen 4:3-8; Num 16:1; 22:1-24:25.]
These are hidden reefs (elements of danger) in your love feasts, where they boldly feast sumptuously [carousing together in your midst], without scruples providing for themselves [alone]. They are clouds without water, swept along by the winds; trees, without fruit at the late autumn gathering time — twice (doubly) dead, [lifeless and] plucked up by the roots;
Wild waves of the sea, flinging up the foam of their own shame and disgrace; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of eternal darkness has been reserved forever.
This whole fake SBC minister thing is just…weird. If PP wanted to have a dog in the Mississippi fight, why not just send this guy as he is? Obviously he is ordained in some denomination or another. Or why not find an actual Mississippi pastor who is abortion friendly (probably not a large field, I grant, but still). Outside of the whole part where they are lying (and being really, really stupid about it, too, because once you put something on the internet, it’s forever…and everyone should know this by now), and the whole part where they’re being ferociously insulting to Mississippians by assuming they’re all too stupid to use Google and the SBC by having a man pretend to be a member of that denomination when he is not, this entire charade is unnecessary. Either he, or someone similar, could surely have been sent as a representative without lying about their credentials.
Bobby
Thank you. I was planning on taking Critical Thinking a little further down the road but I’m not sure what the purpose would be if it does not allow you to determine when an argument is valid or not. If you have students who really aren’t getting it try peer groups. They’re probably just embarrassed to admit when they don’t understand. Something that would really help is to make it clear in a very nice way that vocal or riducule of any kind when someone is asking a question will have some type of negative consequence. Try passing out gum too, this for some reason improves brain function.
Paladin
I think you explained it very well.
I forget that this isn’t facebook and you can’t tell that its me if I liked a comment. Thanks Paladin and Jack for the well wishes! I am just starting my 9th week and have my first doctor’s appointment on Thursday and I am stoked! And yes, Jack is a top contender if I have another boy. Its probably #1 for a boy’s name!
Well I am super excited for you, I remember you talking about how much you wanted another child. And if you have a son Jack is the best name. All men named Jack are incredibly intelligent, have a great sense of humor, and are devilishly handsome. :D
Sydney
I can’t even remember if I congratulated you but if I didn’t congratulations and if I did congratulations again!
How many unscientific assertions does Taylor make here?
1. The fetus is a subordinate part of the woman’s body (pay no attention to that completely different DNA code).
Well, if this is what was actually said: “the unscientific lie that treats fetuses like people, rather than as a subordinate part of a woman’s body,”, then it goes both ways – granted that it’s not agreed that the unborn are “merely subordinate parts of the woman’s body,” but there is an argument to be made over just how we define “subordinate.” On the flipside, the claim is that it’s unscientific to treat the unborn like people – and this too can at least be argued. Science does not pronounce upon personhood.
___
2. Fetuses are not human beings because…
This goes to how “human being” is defined. The speaker is imputing more to the term than just “living human organism.” I’m not saying they have any claim on just how the term is used, but indeed – it is sometimes used that way, as in the legal sense.
____
3. They only become human beings at birth because…
The speaker is saying that independence matters. (I guess it’s like size?) ; )
Again, this is far from the only definition, but yeah, there is such usage. After birth, there certainly is more biological and social independence.
____
4. Birth is the magical event which makes fetuses into independent biological and social beings.
No “magic” implied, but it does make one heck of a difference; it’s then “out” versus “in.”
Bobby: for those who are down with truth tables…
Ahahahhahaaaa!!! Dude, you kill me – the wisdom of the ages combined with Generation X or Generation Y-speak. : )
Tell you what, though – if, algebraically, you allow division by zero, a la something divided by a quantity which ends up being zero, then you can do some crazy stuff. ;)
Say hi to Euler for me. :P
Thanks Myrtle!!! We had two friends die suddenly in June in a terrible car crash. They were very close friends and my husband was devastated. It made him realize how short life is and how our son needed a sibling. Life is precious no matter how long or how little we have!
Division by 0,Doug??? That is the ULTIMATE no-no!
Paladin: In a sense, “if-then” statements “wait” until the first part is true, before logically flowing to the second part; with a false starting point, you can never do that. To say, “If 2 + 2 = 5, then 9 is an even number” is “valid”, because there’s really no way to disprove the conclusion! Only if 2 + 2 were equal to 5 could we actually “test” it, and see if the second part were needed; but since that never happens, no one can “convict” the problem of invalidity. It’s “innocent until proven guilty”, as such. (It’s also quite useless, I’m afraid! It doesn’t get off, scot-free, for using a false premise, never fear!)
Okay, Jefe, a number of questions. How can it be “valid” to state that “9 is an even number,” because we “can’t disprove the conclusion,” based on what was previously stated? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t there have to be some sense of positive proof, rather than just a proof of the negative of the conclusion. Have mercy – I”m hoping I’m expressing this correctly.
If we are waiting for proof of the first part of the statement, why do we even worry about the second part, if said proof is not forthcoming? Would we not just discard the deal, there?
Contrast it with saying, “If 2 + 2 = 5, then 9 is an odd number.” Here too, I see the “waiting” part, and we’re going to say the first part is false. So, do we then simply discard the rest, or is there some sense of the conclusion being positive whether or not the first part is true?
Division by 0, Doug??? That is the ULTIMATE no-no!
Yeah, Bobby, but that’s why it’s so cool and why it unleashes so many crazy things.
Sydney
I know your happy and I’m so happy for you.
Wait, so for the “If 2 + 2 = 5, then 9 is an even number” statement, you don’t need to to appeal to the idea that there is no way to disprove the conclusion, because we can POSITIVELY prove it. If 2+2=5 then
2+2=5
2+2+4=9
Now the left hand side of the equation is the sum of even numbers, which is even. Because parity (evenness or odness) is preserve under equality, it follows that if 2+2+4 is even, then anything that it is equal to is also even. Thus 9 is even.
Does that answer that question Doug?
Sydney, congratulations! I am so happy for you to be having the child you so wanted.
JackBorsch:
All men named Jack are incredibly intelligent, have a great sense of humor, and are devilishly handsome.
My dad is named Jack and it’s all true!
Wow, I never expected to see comments about truth tables on a prolife blog!
Fun thread on implications. Don’t forget modus tollens!
Doug: “After birth, there certainly is more biological and social independence.”
Right, it’s a matter of degree. In a world before formula, newborns were still dependent on their mothers for milk, and so in a pro-choice but primitive world the little parasites ought to have been killed at whim.
Thus, what lives are worth protecting depends, apparently, on whether means of weaning them from a mother’s care are available.
Mothers can be really cruel and selfish people. In a world where the choice to be cruel and selfish is really important, it’s important to celebrate being cruel and selfish lest we forget the importance of having a choice to be so, and risk allowing those who think mothers ought not be cruel and selfish to forbid cruelty and selfishness when it snuffs out lives.
I think I’m finally getting this pro-choice stuff straight in my head! ;-)
Sydney –
I’m remiss too! I’ve been meaning to congratulate you since you first mentioned it, but when comments got closed I forgot. So CONGRATULATIONS!! I know how much you’ve longed for this. Very happy for you!
Congratulations Sydney M. Best wishes.
chemdork says:
August 16, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Wow, I never expected to see comments about truth tables on a prolife blog!
Why not? We’re Pro-Life. Truth is our specialty. :)
And Sydney: CONGRATS!!!!!! I’m sooo happy for you!!
Wait, so for the “If 2 + 2 = 5, then 9 is an even number” statement, you don’t need to to appeal to the idea that there is no way to disprove the conclusion, because we can POSITIVELY prove it. If 2+2=5 then
2+2=5
2+2+4=9
Now the left hand side of the equation is the sum of even numbers, which is even. Because parity (evenness or odness) is preserve under equality, it follows that if 2+2+4 is even, then anything that it is equal to is also even. Thus 9 is even.
Does that answer that question Doug?
Bobby, not as I saw it – I was going with Paladin saying that if-then statements “wait” until the first part is true, before logically flowing to the second part. If so, then without the first part being true, why even go to the second part? That contrasts with considering the conclusion as “valid” because there’s no way to disprove it.
“After birth, there certainly is more biological and social independence.”
Rasqual: Right, it’s a matter of degree. In a world before formula, newborns were still dependent on their mothers for milk, and so in a pro-choice but primitive world the little parasites ought to have been killed at whim.
Neither what I said nor what was quoted – which I took to be meaning that we do give independence some weight – implies that “ought,” but yeah – definitely the “matter of degree” applies too.
Thank you Lori, Reality and Xalisae!!!
:) Bobby… too cool! That’s all I can say!
Doug: “Neither what I said nor what was quoted…implies that ‘ought’…”
Right. But if abortion “ought” to happen if a woman chooses it (an obvious concomitant of pro-choice logic), then infanticide “ought” to happen if, in some primitive society, the rubric of “viability” permits “choice” to extend into the neonatal order of things. Not that their choice “ought” to be to kill infants — but given that the choice to do so is warranted on the merits of arguments concerned with viability, a choice to do so means, indeed, that the infant ought to die.
Congrats Sydney :<) ts
Rasqual: if abortion “ought” to happen if a woman chooses it (an obvious concomitant of pro-choice logic), then infanticide “ought” to happen if, in some primitive society, the rubric of “viability” permits “choice” to extend into the neonatal order of things. Not that their choice “ought” to be to kill infants — but given that the choice to do so is warranted on the merits of arguments concerned with viability, a choice to do so means, indeed, that the infant ought to die.
Well yeah, Rasqual, I do agree with that, though the legal choice of killing the neonates is pretty far-fetched currently.