What is wrong with this flier?
A couple weeks ago a lady struck up a conversation with me as I sat enjoying the weather at an outdoor cafe in Washington, D.C. Not long into it she wondered what I did for a living. I told her pro-life work, which always elicits an interesting response.
But this one was new. “So, are you one of those pro-life crazies?” she asked.
A bit taken aback I hesitated, then answered, “By the definition I expect you use, yes, I am. I believe in protesting and showing photos of aborted babies.”
“That’s good,” she said. “I always ask that question to people who tell me they’re pro-life, and if they say they’re not radical about it, I ask them how can they consider themselves pro-life. If they really believe abortion kills babies, they should be going all out to stop it.”
I told her she’d make a great pro-lifer.
This brings me to a new flier making waves, coincidentally in that same neck of the woods. It is directed at Todd Stave, who I wrote a couple weeks ago has launched a new website, Voice of Choice, to out pro-life activists, and who is co-owner of the Germantown, Maryland, mill where late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart kills children. A pro-life activist in the area has determined “no justice, no peace” for Stave and has been distributing this flier. Click to enlarge…
The flier is getting press. From Washington Jewish Week, March 28:
When Gary Cohen first saw the flier that was left in his Rockville door last week, he was “horrified. It was horrible. It freaked my kids out. The whole thing was really over the top.”…
The fliers were distributed March 21 in one neighborhood in Rockville and another in Potomac. Living in the two neighborhoods are the landlords of a woman’s clinic in Germantown that performs abortions.
Todd Stave and his sister, Nancy Samuels, own the Germantown building, having inherited it when their [abortionist] father passed away….
I’ll have more on this in my weekend question tomorrow, but for now, what do you think of the flier? Someone from the other side sent it to me, wanting me to condemn it, but I couldn’t. I responded by asking what was inaccurate about it.
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.
I guess I have the same question, Jill. What is inaccurate about it? Seems like fair game to me. Even more to the point, the Nazis killed approximately 6 million people. Abortion has killed far more people. If anything, this flyer doesn’t go far enough.
They always get upset when you call a spade a spade. Once a pro-legal-abortionist accused me of “attacking her family” when I pointed out to her that by supporting abortion, she supports the idea that there was a point in her son’s life that she feels it should’ve been legal for her to pay a doctor to kill him. She was like, totally hysterical when I said that, but it’s the simple truth. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Keep on doin’ what we’re doin’.
On the flip side of the coin, however… I’ve had pro-choicers tell me that if I *really* believed that the unborn were people worthy of protection, I’d be bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists to save the children – so therefore, I didn’t *really* believe it..
I’d say the flyer is inaccurate if (as it looks) the abortionists is wearing a Nazi uniform (?). , unless the guy is a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party in America.
On another note, the comment box seems to be going crazy today. Is it just me? I’ve tried two different browsers..
I guess the only inaccurate thing is that they inverted and photoshopped Stave’s head onto Himmler’s. Other than that the rest is accurate.
What is inaccurate about it is that the uniform of the man on the right is an exact replica of the one on the left only flipped over. It is obviously photoshopped unless this the abortionist is a Nazi soldier. This misrepresents who he is. It is obviously not a real photo of the man and anyone with a brain can see that.. the information about abortion is accurate but the message is met with caution b/c the picture appears to be fake. I suggest that the owner of this flier redo it to have a real true picture of the man who owns the clinic. Otherwise, it is not believable.
The truth is ugly and very uncomfortable, but it is the truth. Pro-lifers will stop showing murdered children when children stop being murdered. Don’t hate the messenger, hate the injustice.
Also, according to the news section on the Voice of Choice website, Todd Stave recently talked about his organization on the Howard Stern show. Yeah, that sounds about right.
“On the flip side of the coin, however… I’ve had pro-choicers tell me that if I *really* believed that the unborn were people worthy of protection, I’d be bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists to save the children – so therefore, I didn’t *really* believe it..”
It’s a fair point, though. If the government was rounding up people and murdering them–in other words, a real genocide–wouldn’t you, at the very least, be amenable to some kind of armed resistance movement using violence to bring about an end to that, even if you yourself lack the disposition to personally get involved? Yet most people here claim to reject any kind of violent solution to ending abortion. Kind of odd, isn’t it? I don’t think anyone here would argue that it would have been morally illicit to shoot a Nazi soldier escorting a Jewish family to a death camp, or to blow up one of the rail lines to Auschwitz. If the “unborn” are on an equal moral standing to the “born” and you answer to a higher moral authority than man, what is the difference between doing that and killing an abortion doctor or blowing up an abortion clinic? Especially considering that, as many people here often lament, the “peaceful” solution to the problem has been ineffective.
I’m not sure about anyone else here, joan, but I’ll at least tell you MY reason for not engaging in violence to end the injustice of abortion. It’s the same reason I oppose abortion in the first place (well, one of the reasons). It has to do with the fact that we only get one chance to live a good life. We have to make the most of it as possible (which is why I find abortion to be an abominable horror). If I was killed in an armed confrontation, or sentenced to life in prison, that wouldn’t make for a very good life at all. I want the same thing for me that I want for every child whose life hangs in the balance of abortion-the chance to live a good, happy life while not harming anyone else, and helping anyone else in need whenever possible.
So the only reason you’re not engaging violently to end abortion is to avoid prison or death for yourself? Do I understand you correctly?
Joan, every life is sacred. That includes abortionists. The only time there is a possibility of me killing someone is if that person is trying to kill me. Even then it would be involuntary. I would rather lose my life than be responsible for taking the life of someone else. No matter who they are. I can’t even bear to feed my guppy fry to my beta.
That’s PART of the reason. Let me re-post my conclusion so that hopefully, it can sink in this time:
“I want the same thing for me that I want for every child whose life hangs in the balance of abortion-the chance to live a good, happy life while not harming anyone else!!!, and helping anyone else in need whenever possible.”
Get it yet?
Well, the flier’s certainly true. If you’ve got a problem with the truth expressed in this flier, that’s a good thing.
This is as simple as it gets, joan.
If I were the kind of person who would kill my own child to make my life easier, I might then also be the kind of person to kill abortion doctors to better accommodate “justice”. Are we connecting the dots yet?
The only problem I have with it is photoshopping a person into a Nazi party uniform.. but – other than that.. it’s fine.
Joan, you raise an important point. It is entirely crucial that pro-lifers remain consistently prolife. For some social justice Catholics, the “seamless garment” argument explains why each human life, any kind, any form is sacred and must be protected.
But that does not mean that being consistent is easy. I have taken a stand against the death penalty because of my prolife convictions. (I understand not all will agree with me here). But I would be lying if I told you I felt badly when a convicted child rapist and murderer is executed. And I would also be lying if I felt badly about an abortion doctor being killed. I stand against that BY PRINCIPLE. Because when you start to base your moral decisions on FEELINGS, things go screwy.
If my 13 year old were raped and impregnanted tonight, woudl I want her, to protect her, to abort and get back to her normal life (if that were really possible)? There would be moments I would think, wow, what an easy solution. Moments. But if I am to be a moral agent in this world (and we all are), I have to preserve my fidelity to the prolife cause. No killing. That goes for my daughter’s unplanned baby, Dr. Tiller, and anyone on death row.
The only problem I have with the flyer is actually a technicality. If those images were not generated in the clinics of Todd Stave, then there’s a problem.
Easy to solve – modify the flyer with fine print, indicating the photos above (on the flyer) are representative of the work Stave does.
One could draw a direct line between Himmler and the photos, but the same is not true with Stave.
What part of a genocide is not “real” (per one of our resident trolls) when at the end of the day 10’s of millions have their lives unjustly cut short?
Joan’s comment (I am not picking on her alone) is just one of many on the pro-abortion side that is indicative of a serious disconnect with reality. But it certainly explains alot. How else could we have gotten to this point were it not for millions of people in our society and world wide that is nothing less than a systemic disengagement from what is real.
Joan believes that women in China who are brutally forced into buildings where their wanted children are brutally ripped from their wombs “get what they deserve” because forced compliance is the law of the land. (check the archives if you don’t believe me).
So, Joan, you ask a stupid question. According to your views, the Nazis had every right to kill their own citizens and anyone else because they were in charge. Right Joan? If a Chinese mother got what she deserved, then Joan MUST agree that everyone killed by the Nazis also got what they deserved.
Come on Joan, don’t go hypocrite on us now: own it. You seem awfully disappointed when we don’t condone violence. Might Makes Right is your operating premise, isn’t it Joan? Isn’t that what abortion is all about, those who have the physical strength to kill are justified because well, they’re strong enough to do it, and after all, aren’t parents The Law when it comes to their own children? Right Joan? Come on Joan, type that I am right. Triple-dog-dare ya.
Someone from the other side sent it to me, wanting me to condemn it, but I couldn’t. I responded by asking what was inaccurate about it.
It’s really not that complicated. The flier asks pro-lifers to end the genocide by “calling or e-mailing” Todd Staves. Do you believe that the Holocaust could have been stopped by phone calls and e-mails? No? Do you believe that the Holocaust should not have been stopped by force, when peer pressure failed to end it? No? Then either you privately believe the comparison is inaccurate, in which case the flier should be condemned, or you privately believe that violence against abortion providers is defensible when e-mail campaigns fail, in which case there is nothing wrong with the Himmler analogy.
ninek, you’ve hit at a core reason the two are comparable. Under might makes right, the mighty determine Lebensunwertes Leben, or life unworthy of life.
Lisa, you’re misreading the flier. As prolifers, we are NOT going to destroy life to end murder. We live in a land ruled by law, and we know this Holocaust will not be ended by blowing up clinics and shooting doctors. It’s just not going to happen.
The syllogism works for this specific reason: a group of people who are mightier killed other humans who were weaker because they COULD. Germans had guns, the proaborts had a SCOTUS. The flier is saying: it happened then, and it’s happening now.
Joan, I’m a Bibilical Christian, here is the justification for violence/non violence in reference to abortionists/pro-life as it can be viewed from a Biblical lends.
After the flood God told every single person on the world that if you murder someone it was manKs job to take your life as repayment. According to God, if you murder another human being, it is moral, just, and right that your life be taken. But this was to be carried out either by A) the immediate family of the murder victim or B) the legal government. The Bible also allows for lethal force to be used to protect one’s country, one’s self, or one’s family (although the New Testament also makes the command if we are being pursecuted for our faith we are to go “meekly” but trying to use the Biblical notion of turning the other cheek to say we aren’t allowed to defend ourselves, country, or other innocents is simply indefensible. If someone points a gun and my kids and says ‘renounce Christ or I’ll kill you I say ‘no’ and we die. If someone breaks into my house and threatens the life of my family in the course of a robbery they’re getting a foot of steel through their belly) Through out the Bible it confirms that governments are legal authors of justice for the people, and that Christians are to obey the law unless it specifically contradicts the Law of God.
A random person bombing a random abortion clinic neither directly defends the life of yourself, your country, your family, or another innocent. A random person killing a random abortionists likewise simply does not follow the Bibilical allowance for self-defense nor follows the Biblical allowance for a family member to justly exact the wages of murder.
In America today there simply isn’t a (common) situation where killing an abortionists will save an innocent life in immediate mortal peril, and I’ve yet to hear of a publicized case where an abortionists lost his life to a family member of one of his victims.
if I went and killed one of the local abortionists, I would save no lives, another would simply preform the abortion. I would have no moral or legal justifications for my actions. Likewise, since no child of mine has ever died in an abortion, I have no familial justification for enacting justice upon any specific abortion provider, any more than I as a random person would have just cause to simply shoot any random serial killer. So called ‘vigilanty justice’ is both morally and legally indefensible in such a situation.
However, if I was in a closed society and there existed only one person willing to do an abortion who was putting an innocent human being in immediate mortal peril I would be morally justified in killing that person. Likewise if an abortionists killed *my* child (forced abotion) I, as parent, would have the God given right to see that his blood be shed by man, by the government or by the hand of a family member of the victim. This is not a command, I am not *required* to do this, and may forgive and not seek my just right, but it is a moral right I possess. *BUT* if I chose (or anyone so chooses) to so enforce their moral right when the legal government refuses to do so (against *any* murderer) then that person would also be under Biblical mandate to stand up under the legal law of the land, confess, and accept legal judgement. (Which is the main problem with vigilanties today, many are morally justified in that they kill the murderer of a family member, but then they try to circumvent the legal system by claiming not guilty by reason of X. It strongly negates your moral justification if you’re then not willing to stand up and say ‘i did this because it needed to be done and I had that right.’)
From a Biblical standpoint there is a moral justification for lethal actions, but they are specific and limited, and those limited justifications simply don’t exist (widespread) in America today.
Catholics, who are a large part of the pro-life community, look at things differently, as their Pope has contradicted God and demanded loyalty to his word as opposed to God’s Word. Meanwhile many Christians has decieved a priori that they would *never* take advantage of that God given right, instea choosing to forfeit it. Which is a perfectly Biblical position to take, just not a Biblically *required* one. So *most* in the pro-life community, for various reasons, would take no life, regardless of legal or moral justifications for it. In my family that is not an a priori stance we take, but no one in my family has ever been murdered, so I honestly can not tell you if I would give up that right or execute that right.
Towards the end there that should read “have decided” not “have deceived”.
Jespren, you misrepresent the Catholic Church. The Pope is Peter’s successor – the Vicar of Christ if you will – and even if you don’t will. When he declares that he speaks ex cathedra (and that is very rare), his word does not contradict Scripture. It might oppose someone’s individual interpretation of Scripture, but that only means such interpretation is erroneous.
The Church has always taught that individuals can wield force licitly. Such is the case when required for self-defense against an aggressive act already occurring. One can also defend another against an agression in progress. The operative words are “in progress”.
Here’s another big problem with the flyer. The “whoistoddstave” site is bogus. Put it in your browser. It goes to a “godaddy” advertisement. Moreover, knowing the folks behind “kickoutcarhart”, I suspect the creators of that flyer had no permission to cite that website. Coupled with the Nazi uniform on Stave, I don’t consider this acceptable for its deceit.
Thank you, Janet. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically addresses these issues regarding the sanctity of human life. CCC Article 5, 2258-2230.
Janet, God does not contradict Himself, therefore anyone speaking on behalf of God can not contradict God and still speak for Him. The Pope, throughout the years, has contradicted the Bible on numerious times, some of these were recinded by later Popes, making the whole notion of papal infallibility laughable on it’s face, most still stand today. One of the greatest of the Catholic church’s contradictions is the simply but overwelming belief and proclamation that one needs the Catholic church both for salvation and to accurately interpret the Bible, both are notions flatly contradicted by the Bible itself. We have freedom of religion, you and anyone else are free to believe in the Catholic church, but one can not believe the Bible *and* the stated beliefs of the Catholic church at the same time, without egaging in numerious, egregious, and very important (doctorinely speaking) illogical hypcracies. Furthermore I do not misrepresent the Catholic doctrine, it is stated Catholic doctrine that the word of the Pope and the Traditions and Sacraments of the Catholic church are *more* important than the Bible. According to the Catholic church one can be saved if all they had to go on was the Traditions and Sacraments of the Catholic church, but one can not be saved if all one had to go on was the Bible.
All right, he shouldn’t have been pictured in Himmler’s Nazi uniform. But for his support of abortion “doctors”, a lab coat wounldn’t have been right either, since there are doctors who actually try to do no harm.
If there were junior level outfits for medieval executioners or the Grim Reaper, that would be more appropriate.
Jespren: Not quite true — I think I’m what Ratzinger would call, in the words of his catechism, “separated brethren.” Emphasis on “brethren.” ;-)
Janet: The Nazi uniform on ‘im is obvious hyperbole, and hyperbole is not deceit. No satirist dumbs her satire down to folks that don’t “get it,” and if folks don’t “get” hyperbole that doesn’t mean creativity has to purge it from its toolbox.
Personally I think whatever he was dressed in when the picture was taken would have done better, since it would have shown that not all monsters have to were uniforms to prove it.
Rasquel, when I made the point about deceit, I had in mind the bogus website. I will say the Nazi uniform on Stave is juvenile at best.
Jespren, nothing in the Catholic Catechism contradicts Scripture, nor has any Catholic pope taught error as doctrine. I’m more than happy to discuss this with you if you want to contact me privately.
I believe that papal infallibility is restricted to a very specific type of official declaration on dogmatic teaching. Lots of popes have been wrong on lots of things but I am unsure if any of them have been wrong on something that would be covered by the infallibility thing.
Most people that do not know the Church’s Teachings confuse impeccability with infallability regarding the Pope.
@Jespren: why even bring up the Catholic Church? I have yet to meet a non-Catholic Bible Christian that has shown me where in Sacred Scripture that Scripture is your only authority/sola scriptura.
“Furthermore I do not misrepresent the Catholic doctrine, it is stated Catholic doctrine that the word of the Pope and the Traditions and Sacraments of the Catholic church are *more* important than the Bible.”
False. But I’m interested to know where you think this “doctrine” is “stated”. Source?
Todd Stave is NOT an “abortionist”. NOT. And pro-lifers showing up to his children’s schools to protest is crossing the line 100%. How would you feel if people protested outside your home, Jill? Posted signs of the incredibly racist and misogynistic comments (sweet and sour fetus, anyone?) you and your cohorts have made? All one would have to do is screencap that “wish we wouldn’t have given women the right to vote” comment and print that on a flier for your neighborhood with you in a nazi uniform.
THIS IS TOO FAR. Don’t like abortion? Fine. But approaching Todd Stave’s children and passing out a flier with him in a Nazi uniform has crossed a line.
Thanks for reminding me to sign up to volunteer for Voice for Choice. I hope I get your phone number and can call your house at all hours of the night.
@Elizabeth: People who do oncology (i.e., treat cancer) are oncologists, people who do psychology are psychologists, people who do pharmacy are pharmacists. People who do abortions are abortionists. I do not care if you don’t like that, aren’t comfortable with it, don’t want to hear it, or whatever your problem your problem is with the word. It is consistent with how our language works to call people doing abortions “abortionists,” and your pearl-clutching over people who say “abortionist” does nothing but demonstrate that your sensibilities are too easily offended.
Uh Elizabeth, the flyer states that Todd is an Abortion Cartel Operator. This sounds better than an abortionist, doncha think?
How have you commented here but you’ve forgotten to sign up for Voice for Choice? You mean where Todd says, “Voice of Choice respects your opinions, but anti-social behavior will be met with a strong, calm, measured response.”
You won’t have time to call Jill, Liz; you’ll be too busy volunteering to kill innocent children. It doesn’t get any more anti-social than this.
Color me your color, baby
Color me your car
Color me your color, darling
I know who you are
Come up off your color chart
I know where you’re comin’ from
Call me (call me) on the line
Call me, call me any, anytime
Call me (call me) my love
You can call me any day or night
Call me
Email one of the mods, Elizabeth, and shoot me an email. I’ll give you my number, and you can feel free to just give me a call any time you like. It sounds like you really need to talk to someone. *snicker*
On a related note, I love it when pro-legal-abortionists bring out the “Well, how’d u liek it if we picketed YOU!?!?!?!!!!1111one” gem. Picketed us FOR WHAT?! If you picketed me, I’d probably laugh my rear off at you because I’ve done nothing worth picketing, like, say, presided over facilities that killed literally thousands of very young gestating children. I’ve never done that, or anything like it. So, get a grip.
Blondie made the ’80’s bearable. :)
I agree that it would be better to show the Abortion cartel guy in civilian clothes rather than a uniform. That would give the message that he may look like you or me, but what he is doing is no different than that guy in the Nazi uniform.
I have been thinking about how to get the attention of those who don’t have cement brains. Do pictures of bloody babies alone work? I don’t think so. I would love to see some large screen tvs set up on college campuses with one showing a continuous feed of the baby growing inside the womb in fast time so that young women and men can see what’s growing in there. It’s not a blob, it’s not a goat, but a human baby. Get their attention in a hopeful positive way, and then you can engage them about how precious life is. The other screen would show an actual abortion being performed – what do you think?
Alice, maybe your reading comprehension is off but he does not “do abortions”. He is a landlord. So, NO, by your definition he is NOT an “abortionist.”
Don’t worry, Prax, I signed up. I also don’t “volunteer to kill innocent children”???? So your comment makes no sense to me. I’m pretty sure they don’t just pull volunteers off the street to perform abortions so I guess my time is free to make a lot of Voice for Choice phone calls.
Xalisae, a lot of the comments I’ve seen here are enough to be embarrassed and ashamed of. Maybe you don’t see it (different perspectives, I know) but racism aren’t anything I’d want posted all around my neighborhood.
Sioux Remer, I agree with what you wrote and I am reposting this part! Yes, I think we turn more hearts by making the fetus look HUMAN and real and lovely than by showing what the fetus looks like aborted..sure it’s horrible but it just turns people off and makes them turn away. Scripture says “whatever is right, just, pure, lovely etc” dwell on these things..more mothers are going to go into denial when they see post abortive fetuses..but when they see how they look INSIDE the womb, the humanity of that child cries out to be saved and allowed to live. (yes, there is a time for those pictures but more often than not, the only shock people..once an fetus is dead, it’s easy to say.”that doesn’t look human to me”…It’s also easy for people to say we “photoshopped” the pictures…But, if we can show the living being in the womb growing up and maturing and not being a “blob” as PP says it is..then we use LIFE to help others choose LIFE! I like your idea…I also think PP shouldn’t be allowed to use their own pamphlets..the state governments should create one that is accurate so PP can’t share their deceit by making the fetus appear to not be human! Most of the stuff PP and the abortion industry gives these women is grossly medically inaccurate and just helps hold up their lie that the fetus is not really a human person!
I have been thinking about how to get the attention of those who don’t have cement brains. Do pictures of bloody babies alone work? I don’t think so. I would love to see some large screen tvs set up on college campuses with one showing a continuous feed of the baby growing inside the womb in fast time so that young women and men can see what’s growing in there. It’s not a blob, it’s not a goat, but a human baby. Get their attention in a hopeful positive way, and then you can engage them about how precious life is. The other screen would show an actual abortion being performed – what do you think?
I agree…and perhaps in high school biology classes too! Respect human life by showing human life respectfully living! Amen!
Xalisae, a lot of the comments I’ve seen here are enough to be embarrassed and ashamed of. Maybe you don’t see it (different perspectives, I know) but racism aren’t anything I’d want posted all around my neighborhood.
A lot of the comments here are things you WANT us to be embarassed about and ashamed of, because then we wouldn’t say the things we say anymore, and you could go back to gleefully skipping around carefree, supporting a heinous act that is a mother paying a doctor to kill her innocent child without having to once think about that precious life which is extinguished. So no, I don’t see it.
And accusations of racism fly about in such voluminous quantities these days that it is simply inevitable you will be hit with one, and when it hits you, it carries with it all the sting of a wet noodle being dropped upon one’s foot. You see, they get flung about so frequently nowadays because they are so insubstantial that they are easier to throw. This facilitates their lobbing.
I haven’t seen any racism here. It means all or most of a race is superior to another, not that there are differences. I go by Dennis Miller’s dictum. Why hate someone based on the color of their skin when there are so many better reasons to hate them? ;)
However, I have seen plenty of ageism on the part of trolls around here. It would simply mean one age of a human being is of superior worth to another age. That pretty succinctly describes the mindset of the “pro-choice”.
Don’t worry, Prax, I signed up. I also don’t “volunteer to kill innocent children”???? I’m pretty sure they don’t just pull volunteers off the street to perform abortions so I guess my time is free to make a lot of Voice for Choice phone calls.
Sounds just like, “I won’t be the one to turn on the gas at the chambers. I’ll just set up the appointment to make sure they are on the train.”
Alrighty then. No reason to be embarrassed.
I refuse to use the word that extremists use that sort of rhymes with pioneers. I think abortionistas is a cute word, but I don’t know if it would catch on. It’s funny though, how abortion apologists don’t like us to lump them in with each other. I don’t care if you’re sweeping the front steps, standing in the parking lot in a vest, or operating the machines, if you’re in the business, you’re in the business.
On the other hand, as a pro-lifer, I think my contribution pales in comparison to people who do more. I met a guy, let’s call him Dave, who’s taken several pregnant homeless moms into his own home. That is a commitment way beyond purchasing some formula or a stroller.
Not everyone who frequents this blog supports the idea or the practice of picketing an abortionist’s home. Personally, I don’t. I think picketing the so-called clinics is fine. But the homes? Nah. In poor taste and ineffective. Elizabeth, you can see by our comments that we don’t all agree with that. However, I do find it hilarious that there is a growing intolerance for Nazi comparisons. It really gets under people’s skin. But hey, if you walk like a duck, you might be compared to a duck.
Wow great post prolifers. Well stated Xalise. How are you doing? I continue to pray for you and wish you the best life. You are a fighter and I’m so glad you are on our side.
The real comparison is between anti-choicers and the Nazis. The Nazis, too, were anti-choice. Some women were forbidden to have abortions, and for some it was compulsory.
You just admitted that the Nazis allowed abortion for some women. Considering that pro-lifers oppose all abortions that aren’t necessary to save the mother’s life (regardless of who makes the “choice”), I’d say that your “real comparison” backfires miserably.
Well stated Xalise. How are you doing? I continue to pray for you and wish you the best life. You are a fighter and I’m so glad you are on our side.
Thank you! I really appreciate the prayers and well-wishes. I’m doing as well as I can be right now. My kids are staying with their grandparents until they finish the school year and I’m stuck up here doing training for work, so I’m pretty bummed about that, but the grandparents are happy. I’m just looking forward to their school year ending in May. In June, their new step-dad and I get married on paper, hopefully to have a modest ceremony in October when we’ll let everyone in the families know we kinda eloped in June. :P
Right now I’m studying to pass my last two insurance licensing exams (health and life), and they’re way suckier than casualty and property, that’s for sure. But I’ve been promised a job I can do from home partially and make my own hours for, so I get to raise my kids myself and hopefully go back to school in the fall when the kids start school up here, while maintaining my job on the side.
So…long story short…getting it together, slowly but surely. Kinda frazzled right now, but hopeful for the future. ^_^
Navi says:April 2, 2012 at 10:09 pm
You just admitted that the Nazis allowed abortion for some women.
Huh – is that a joke? No, not “allowed.” The Nazis were as opposed to the woman making the choice, just as much as even the most extreme pro-lifer.
You’re missing the “why?” behind the thing, Gerald. You’ve been blinded by rhetoric and think the “choice” in “pro-choice” actually means something, when in reality it just means abortion, because with the “choice” of abortion removed from the equation, Pro-Lifers support the same exact choices that “Pro-Choicers” do-parenting or adoption (see? We like choices too! ^_^ )
So, WHY do you think Nazis were so gung-ho for abortion of certain groups? Could it possibly be because abortion was just another method of killing those groups they had already started killing in other ways? See…it’s not about the “choice”, it’s about death. If abortion didn’t kill another human being, Pro-Lifers wouldn’t have a problem with women making that choice whatsoever.
And, by that logic, the mission of Nazis and the mission of Pro-Lifers would be diametrically opposed. We don’t want ANYONE to die.
The choice is to willingly continue the pregnancy or not. The “why” is up to the woman. The Nazis “took it both ways” in that they wouldn’t allow some women to continue pregnancies, and they wouldn’t allow some women to end them. Pro-lifers are only concerned with forbidding the ending of pregnancies – the woman choosing to have an abortion, but they are still as opposed to the woman’s choice, there, as were the Nazis.
Glad to hear you are doing pretty well Xalisae and will continue to pray for you.
Thanks for your insights, Lynn M – I have a videotape from National Geographic made in 1975 called the “Incredible Human Machine” – one part of it shomws the full development of a fetus in the womb that was done be a Swedish obstetrician, as I recall. This was right after Roe v. Wade. I read somewhere (the memory is pretty shot these days) that new video was made that essentially shows the same thing. I agree that it should be shown in high school, too – can you imagine the uproar when the young people get to see God’s truth as opposed to Al Gore’s Inconvenient (Un)Truth!
“Pro-lifers are only concerned with forbidding the ending of pregnancies”
Nope. Pro-lifers are concerned with LIFE.
The Nazis were pro-death for some people. (Millions of people, actually.) Just like pro-choicers are pro-death for some people. (Millions of people, actually.) Pro-lifers are pro-life for ALL people. You have to twist your brain into a pretzel to make pro-LIFE = Nazi.
OK, what blathering idiot posted in Gerald’s name? I think the moderators should take a hard line with anyone trying to smear others by feigning moronitude in their name…
The truth hurts, eh? Pro-Lifers are against the woman’s free and legal choice, just as some other groups have been, in the past.
Pro-Lifers are against the woman’s free and legal choice to kill her children, just as some other groups have been, in the past.
Fixed it for you, Gerald.
It’s already illegal to kill children in Texas, where I’m from.
Janet Baker says:
March 30, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Here’s another big problem with the flyer. The “whoistoddstave” site is bogus. Put it in your browser. It goes to a “godaddy” advertisement. Moreover, knowing the folks behind “kickoutcarhart”, I suspect the creators of that flyer had no permission to cite that website. Coupled with the Nazi uniform on Stave, I don’t consider this acceptable for its deceit.
**
Exactly, it’s a lame attempt at deception by foolish people, designed for gullible pro-lifers.
Mary K says:
It’s already illegal to kill children in Texas, where I’m from.
Nope. Abortion is legal in Texas.
I am all for choice as long as my choice doesn’t affect another person’s life! I can choose to eat at Hardee’s, I can choose a new dress..etc..but abortion is a choice that kills another person..so it is not a choice..it is murder! I am denying a God-given right to another helpless person who will not have the “choice” to live on this earth!
Abortion may be a choice but you need to finish the dang sentence…”Abortion is a woman’s right or choice to kill her child.”
and by doing so, she has denied another person the choice to live here!
God says “This day I call heaven and erth as witnesses against you that I have set befor eyou life and death, blessings and curses. NOw..choose life, so taht you and your children may live” Deuteronomy 30:19
God gives us a choice but he also tells us that choosing life gives us a blessing! God is capable of providing a woman with a blessing and help if she chooses to keep her child alive. It is a tough choice but the one that leaves her without regret. With life, comes prosperity, with death comes destruction (not only of her child but of her own life as well) With every choice there is a responsibilty and a consequence. God will always bless the choice of LIFE!
(Planned parenthood will never tell you that..they don’t want a woman to choose life b/c if she does, they are out of that money they would make if she choose abortion!)
My choice is for the child to have the life so the child can grace earth with it’s sweet presence! Now that is a true choice! Allowing another human being to live!
Mary K says:April 4, 2012 at 10:31 am
It’s already illegal to kill children in Texas, where I’m from.
**
Exactly. For all the flights of fancy we see some people engaging in, the laws are already on the books.
If you ignore that gestating human beings are the living, biological children of their parents, which includes the pregnant woman getting an abortion, then sure, you guys are correct. Unfortunately for you, though, Biology exists, and abortion is a mother paying a doctor to have her child killed.
So…WE are “foolish”? WE are “gullible”? You all don’t even seem to comprehend 5th science.
Biologically, medically, scientifically, the unborn are blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, etc. If you desire to ignore development, you could say that a 40 year old is a “child” and an 80 year old is a “baby.” Oy, you can call the unborn anything at all, but the point stands about it already being illegal to kill children, people’s pet terms notwithstanding.
Janet Baker is also correct about the website being deceitful, and Gerald is on-target as far as pro-lifers and Nazis both being against the free and legal choice of the pregnant woman.
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
child (noun) – a young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
– a son or daughter of any age.
Biologically, medically, and scientifically the unborn are human beings. You’d be hard pressed to find a single embryology textbook that disagrees with this point. And they’re children in both of these senses. So it’s not illegal to kill children in Texas if they’re in-utero.
We don’t “desire to ignore development”. There is no question that an embryo is less developed than an infant, which is less developed than an adolescent, which is less developed than an adult, etc. The point is that these differences in degree of development are not morally relevant in a way that would justify killing a human at any stage. If you have anything other than a purely semantic argument, feel free to post it.
Not much to say about the URL not working, though I’m not sure if I’d call that deceitful. Others here already thoroughly refuted the Nazi comparison. Though I’d like to add that a key component of Nazi ideology was labeling some humans as “undesirable” or “unwanted”, then using word games to make them into something less then human before brutally killing them (this sometimes was done via abortion).
I don’t think I need to specify which side of the abortion debate better fits this bill.
Bones or dust in the ground can thus be a “human being” when we broaden out the usage so far. Those bones came from parents.
Navi, going with the definition you gave, “a young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority,” – that certainly applies, but it’s also not saying it’s before birth; we do start one’s age at birth. Same with, “a son or daughter of any age” - when does age begin?
We don’t “desire to ignore development”. There is no question that an embryo is less developed than an infant, which is less developed than an adolescent, which is less developed than an adult, etc. The point is that these differences in degree of development are not morally relevant in a way that would justify killing a human at any stage. If you have anything other than a purely semantic argument, feel free to post it.
You’re the one making a semantic argument, and you’re mixing up the senses of the word – referring to cases where development makes a difference, or can make a difference, with the sense where you mean nothing more than “human being.”
Who says the development is not morally relevant? It most certainly matters to many people. Your preference won’t be shared by everybody.
++
I don’t think I need to specify which side of the abortion debate better fits this bill.
The Nazis were against the free and legal choice of the pregnant woman, just as pro-lifers are.
@Kermit, A human is a human is a human no matter what stage of development it is..and denying it’s humanity is the only way we can decide to kill it. Period. It’s the same way slaves were sold and Jews were killed.
Humans are not just another creature on the earth, like dogs and fish and cats etc. Humans have purpose and destiny and a soul. Each person is created for something bigger than who they are. To kill a human being is also to deny society the contribution that person will bring to our world..and to destroy the future of our nation. Each human that is killed in the stages of the womb is denied it’s right to finish it’s life on earth…and once they are gone, there is no turning back.
Have you EVER SEEN an abortion??? I mean really watched one up close and person. It is a choice to kill a child in a very brutal way. It is saying to that human being, because I do not value you, you do not belong here! You got to live…a woman’s ”choice” is an incomplete sentence..so finish it…A woman has a right to choose to kill her child..There, I said it..now are you comfortable with it? (Because that is what it is!..denying another human being it’s right to experience the fullness of its life!)
And, that leads me to my other question…if it’s okay to kill a child in the womb..then shouldn’t it be okay to kill a child outside the womb? Think about it. If we justify one we have to justify the other…and it just doesn’t fly.
How come scientists say, “we think we have found life on anther planet” but we find a few cells of a human being in the womb and refuse to call that life??
The stages of development do NOT make that child LESS human..It is fully human from conception and is not anything else BUT a human being! (I have yet to see a mother give birth to a fish or a shrimp or anything else that lives in water or land) It is fully human according to it’s DNA and nothing more or less!
My challenge to you is to go see the “choice” of abortion or the results thereof and then tell me it’s “okay” for a mother to pay someone to kill the human being growing inside of her.
A human is a human is a human no matter what stage of development it is..and denying it’s humanity is the only way we can decide to kill it. Period. It’s the same way slaves were sold and Jews were killed.
Lynn, the slaves and Jews are and were humans, yes, but as humans we are more than just living things with a certain genetic makeup. I’m not denying the unborn “are human” but there’s a lot more to the discussion than just that.
++
Humans are not just another creature on the earth, like dogs and fish and cats etc. Humans have purpose and destiny and a soul. Each person is created for something bigger than who they are. To kill a human being is also to deny society the contribution that person will bring to our world..and to destroy the future of our nation. Each human that is killed in the stages of the womb is denied it’s right to finish it’s life on earth…and once they are gone, there is no turning back.
These are matters of personal belief, in the same vein as one’s choice when it comes to abortion. You and I disagree on some matters of theology as well as about the abortion debate within the United States.
Seems the Texas legislature and courts have no problem calling the unborn a “child”. Turns out it is illegal to kill unborn children, sometimes, in Texas. And other times, through abortion, it is legal.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=86496
Lynn, the slaves and Jews are and were humans, yes, but as humans we are more than just living things with a certain genetic makeup. I’m not denying the unborn “are human” but there’s a lot more to the discussion than just that.
Like what? From one secular person (myself) to perhaps another secular person, please tell me why being alive and sharing our genetics is not enough to grant gestating human beings our same right to have their life protected by law. I think having concrete, provable qualities as the standard is rather important in this regard, since it quite literally IS a matter of life vs. death.
Lrning says: April 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Seems the Texas legislature and courts have no problem calling the unborn a “child”. Turns out it is illegal to kill unborn children, sometimes, in Texas.”
Oh please – if they change the wording, is your opinion going to change? It may take nothing more than one grandstanding politician to put “a word” in like that.
^ This is a classic example of moving the goalposts.
Xalisae, being alive and sharing certain genetics doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with rights – rights are ideas and feelings in the conscious mind. Whether secular or religious, “provable qualities” aren’t required; all that’s needed is for the feeling that there should be certain status to be there. If nobody argues, then everybody’s happy, and here “nobody” and “everybody” are “moral creatures of reason” – people with those conscious faculties that set us apart from the other animals, or from most of them. The “moral creatures of reason” thing is philosophical and goes way back in time, and I’m not saying we have to look at it that way, but just the fact that we are looking at things in this manner, thinking of “rights,” etc., sets us apart.
On the topic of abortion, there obviously is plenty of argument, and not everybody’s happy, and conflicting desires and feelings are at work, be we secular or religious.
Montana says:
Oh please – if they change the wording, is your opinion going to change?
My opinion about what? Abortion? That the definition of “child” includes the unborn?
I don’t believe abortion is wrong because legislators and judges call the unborn a “child”. I know abortion is wrong because it destroys an innocent human being.
child
noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person: He’s such a child about money.
Oh please – if they change the wording, is your opinion going to change?
No, because changing the wording doesn’t change what the entity is that we are talking about. Referring to a newborn as a “neonate” doesn’t make that newborn any less of a human being, and does not remove the fact that that newborn is a child of his/her parents. Changing the wording doesn’t legitimize an action, contrary to Pro-Legal-Abortionist’s beliefs.
The “moral creatures of reason” thing is philosophical and goes way back in time, and I’m not saying we have to look at it that way, but just the fact that we are looking at things in this manner, thinking of “rights,” etc., sets us apart.
Of course, but that doesn’t legitimize something like abortion-it only reinforces how wrong it is. The fact that WE are “moral creatures of reason” sets us apart from the rest of other creatures in the animal kingdom. The fact that we are “moral creatures of reason” means that, rather than what a lesser creature would do (like a rabbit or hamster eating a litter of kits, or pulling a physiological trigger to absorb gestating kits back into the body) in times of hardship to their children to spare themselves, we should be held to a higher standard. Whereas, lesser creatures in the animal kingdom would leave a sick, injured, or incapacitated member of their clan to die, we should be held to a higher standard, and use our ability as a reason to protect those of our species who can’t protect themselves-be they disabled, comatose, or simply very young.
And, I’d say that genetics certainly DO play a part in rights. Dogs and cats do not share our genetics. It is quite legal to euthanize them in a shelter when no one comes to adopt them (however tragic that may be). Please show me the euthanization room in any orphanage, and I’ll concede your point.
Of course, but that doesn’t legitimize something like abortion-it only reinforces how wrong it is.
But who even said abortion was wrong? You’re putting the cart before the horse. The feeling of “right” or “wrong” doesn’t come from certain genetic things, it comes from inside us, due to our type of consciousness.
The fact that WE are “moral creatures of reason” sets us apart from the rest of other creatures in the animal kingdom. The fact that we are “moral creatures of reason” means that, rather than what a lesser creature would do (like a rabbit or hamster eating a litter of kits, or pulling a physiological trigger to absorb gestating kits back into the body) in times of hardship to their children to spare themselves, we should be held to a higher standard. Whereas, lesser creatures in the animal kingdom would leave a sick, injured, or incapacitated member of their clan to die, we should be held to a higher standard, and use our ability as a reason to protect those of our species who can’t protect themselves-be they disabled, comatose, or simply very young.
Maybe the rabbit reabsorbs, maybe not. And the same is true for us – many times sacrifices have been made for the good of the group as a whole – the sick, the old, etc.. In the recent history of the world (since the Industrial Revolution?) many of “us” have had a comparative surplus of resources, and it’s been less common, but there’s nothing with “moral creatures of reason” that says we have to do things any certain way. Should conditions go back toward less resources – and in the long term it sure looks like that’s going to happen – then attitudes will change along with the conditions.
And, I’d say that genetics certainly DO play a part in rights. Dogs and cats do not share our genetics. It is quite legal to euthanize them in a shelter when no one comes to adopt them (however tragic that may be). Please show me the euthanization room in any orphanage, and I’ll concede your point.
It’s still coming from inside “us,” and you could as well mention legal abortion, versus a hypothetical euthanization room in an orphanage. Your feeling of “tragic” for the animals is internal to you – it doesn’t hinge on “genetics.” All I mean is that yes, we have certain genetics, same for the cats and dogs, but whether we are secular or religious, each can grant the other the validity of the genetic fact. The feelings of “right” and “wrong” for the animals and for other humans have not even been gotten to yet, and they remain on an individual level. I know plenty of people who would probably have a tougher time shooting a dog than they would with some people.
Those people need help.
So…I’ll bite. Why is it/should it be acceptable for a higher-functioning mammal such as ourselves to kill others based on ability or age?
X, you’ve never felt that way – that “that person” or “those people” ought to be shot? Even if in a joking or half-joking manner?
On the “higher-functioning,” at what stage of development do we really get to the “higher-functioning” part?
Kermit – good posts, and indeed – morality is internal to the mind, and thus – subjective by definition.
Lrning: Seems the Texas legislature and courts have no problem calling the unborn a “child”. Turns out it is illegal to kill unborn children, sometimes, in Texas.
So now it’s both legal and illegal to kill “children” in Texas, based on the preferences of what may just be one person involved in writing laws?
Okay – so what?! Call it a “Twinkie” if you want to – how does that affect the primary definition as you yourself quoted: “a person between birth and full growth”? All this indicating at subjective stuff that is a matter of personal preference as far as definition is pointless – the abortion debate itself is rooted in people’s differing subjective perceptions.
X, you’ve never felt that way – that “that person” or “those people” ought to be shot? Even if in a joking or half-joking manner?
No. I prefer alluding to hands-on physical violence: “I’d like to punch that guy in the face.”. It’s something that would most likely have no permanent repercussions, and would give the offending party a chance to defend themselves. It’s the honorable thing to do. There are quite a few people I’d enjoy engaging in fisticuffs, though. I won’t lie.
On the “higher-functioning,” at what stage of development do we really get to the “higher-functioning” part?
Always, Doug. I said, “higher-functioning mammal”. That means our entire classification as a species. Even if not every member of our species displays such function, they are still a member of our species, thus they are “higher-functioning mammals”, even if they don’t themselves display such behaviors. You STILL do not seem to comprehend this. I’m perplexed at you. And yet, I even consider YOU a “higher-functioning mammal”, because you share my species. Just don’t ask me if I’d like to punch you in the face.
There are quite a few people I’d enjoy engaging in fisticuffs, though. I won’t lie.
:) Okay, X, that fits…
____
On the “higher-functioning,” at what stage of development do we really get to the “higher-functioning” part?
Always, Doug. I said, “higher-functioning mammal”. That means our entire classification as a species. Even if not every member of our species displays such function, they are still a member of our species, thus they are “higher-functioning mammals”, even if they don’t themselves display such behaviors. You STILL do not seem to comprehend this. I’m perplexed at you. And yet, I even consider YOU a “higher-functioning mammal”, because you share my species. Just don’t ask me if I’d like to punch you in the face.
:: chuckling :: “Displaying such behavior” is what the abortion debate *is.*
I hear you on being “a member of the species,” but if they’re not higher-functioning, then they’re not higher-functioning.
Kermit’s point is well-taken: “The feeling of “right” or “wrong” doesn’t come from certain genetic things, it comes from inside us, due to our type of consciousness.”
Okay, you are perplexed. It’s likewise perplexing to see people asserting that abortion is wrong “just because,” in essence, without regard to the real motivation behind the sentiment. For somebody to say, “I think abortion is wrong because I think the first priority, above all else, is for the unborn to live,” is believable.
For somebody to say, “abortion is wrong because it’s a human being,” well – that falls far short of the above.
____
Kermit: being alive and sharing certain genetics doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with rights – rights are ideas and feelings in the conscious mind. Whether secular or religious, “provable qualities” aren’t required; all that’s needed is for the feeling that there should be certain status to be there.
Yes – it’s the “shoulds” and “should nots” that we feel that comprise morality. I can sit here all day and agree with pro-lifers about the genetic reality of the unborn, but we haven’t even gotten to the abortion argument at that point.
“Displaying such behavior” is what the abortion debate *is.*
Exactly. And none of you have yet shown me why belonging to a species which has the capacity for displaying such behavior is not sufficient, and each and every member must petition an authority and prove they are capable of displaying such behavior themselves, first, before their lives are worthy of protection under the law. So, let me know when you guys are both ready to get to this whole “abortion” thing. I’m waiting.
X, it’s because just belonging to the species isn’t sufficient for anything in the moral realm. Not saying that any “petitioning” has to be – in no way is that required. But the “worthy of protection” deal comes in on a mental basis, in the eye of the beholder. Just saying “this species” or “that species” doesn’t go toward it.
Your amorality is stunning. We’re humans here. If the human species isn’t part of your moral realm, perhaps you should go to an alien site and leave the discussion of humanity to us.
X, it’s because just belonging to the species isn’t sufficient for anything in the moral realm. Not saying that any “petitioning” has to be – in no way is that required. But the “worthy of protection” deal comes in on a mental basis, in the eye of the beholder. Just saying “this species” or “that species” doesn’t go toward it.
Aaaaand…why not? Why? That’s what I’m asking, and after 5+ years, you guys still have yet to provide an answer.
Doug says:
“So now it’s both legal and illegal to kill “children” in Texas, based on the preferences of what may just be one person involved in writing laws?”
Exactly Doug. Whether it is illegal or legal to kill an unborn child in Texas is based on the preferences of just one person. That one person is the mother.
and after 5+ years, you guys still have yet to provide an answer.
He’s really been here that long? Wow…
Yes, Navi. I started coming to Jill’s when I was pregnant with my son. He’s 4 years old now. Doug was here back then. We have literally been arguing about abortion for 5 years, going ’round and ’round in the same obnoxious circles for half a decade. So, if anyone is wondering why Doug seems to irk me a little more than usual, there you have it. Same for Megan. She showed up either right before or right after she had her abortion. At the time, I was pregnant with my son, so she’s always been ESPECIALLY unnerving for me, knowing that there is a dead child who would be around the same age as my son, and watching her come here day after day trying to legitimize what she has done for literally years.
I’ve been wasting far too much time at Jill’s blog for far too long, in short.
I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth arguing with Doug anymore. It really is a “Doug-go-Round” of beating your head against a wall. In the “eye of this beholder”, perhaps he’s just not “sentient” enough to bother with.
He may be a human being (which, he points out, just isn’t enough to merit consideration), but he’s apparently not sufficiently “feeling”. That puts him in the company of about one and a half million others this year - who are not quite as lucky as he.
There seems to be a tendency among many pro-lifers to portray those on the other side of the argument as “ogre monsters.” If anything, that is evidence of a weak position.
Hans, “beating your head against a wall”? You didn’t actually think that everybody agreed with you about abortion, did you?
There seems to be a tendency among many pro-lifers to portray those on the other side of the argument as “ogre monsters.” If anything, that is evidence of a weak position.
You must not read much material from the other side. There’s a tendency among pro-choicers to do the same. The phrase “War on Women” appears 70 times on President Obama’s website. Self-explanatory.
Navi, that is somewhat a different thing. Yes, there is political posturing going on, but that’s different from portraying somebody arguing the position of the other side as “amoral” or as a “moron” or otherwise maligning them personally.
I do think that “War on Women” is hyped-up. No question about it, although there indeed is an assault upon women’s rights being played out. We also hear about “genocide” with respect to the unborn, a silly and inapplicable thing if ever there was one. Still, a much different thing from saying, essentially, that “you’re stupid because you think that.”
Yes, because attempting to frame current political issues as that conservatives hate women and want to wage war on them is not maligning them personally in any way, because only the most intelligent, moral people are misogynists. lol!
What you meant to say is, “Navi, that is somewhat a different thing, because WE are doing it instead of you.” If it weren’t for double standards, you’d have none at all!
“There is indeed an assault upon women’s rights being played out.” O rly? What other right than (as it currently stands) abortion are we trying to take away, Kermit? Are we trying to take away the right of women to own property or vote (a position which would be utterly asinine on my part, being a woman and all)? When we mention anything about abortion being made illegal, are the reasons we cite for fighting to do so motivated by any sort of anti-woman sentiment? No? Really? The only reason we cite AT ALL for wanting to end abortion is because it kills the child of a pregnant woman?! WHERE IS THIS ASSAULT ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?!
Here you go again, making a pretty crass statement: “We also here about ‘genocide’ with respect to the unborn, a silly and inapplicable thing if ever there was one.”, and yet, you don’t say WHY the concept is “silly” and “inapplicable”. You just make a disparaging remark, assert that you are right, and drive on by, with no sort of reasoning behind your remarks whatsoever. I’m STILL waiting on an answer to “Why?” from the first time I asked you, about “why being alive and sharing our genetics is not enough to grant gestating human beings our same right to have their life protected by law [we do].”
WHY is a very important question, that is why I ask in ALL CAPS. That is webspeak for yelling something, or otherwise emphasizing those words when you speak. WHY?!
Kermit…are you a Pro-Life plant? Are you familiar with one Kermit Gosnell? You two would get along like a house on fire containing an elderly woman, 15 orphans ages 3-10 years, and a box of frozen human embryos.
Do I really need to do all the work here? Are you trying to argue that the pro-choice side doesn’t often personally malign pro-lifers? Should I find particularly damning examples, or should I just tell you to open up the comments section of any Youtube video on this subject and call it a day?
I don’t think “amoral” is an unfair portrayal of Doug’s position. “Amoral” means unconcerned with or indifferent to moral standards (ie considering them to be personal preferences rather than objective truths). It’s not a judgmental or insulting term, and I don’t think it’s particularly inaccurate. Though I will grant that some here are being less than charitable towards him.
I wouldn’t say that “genocide” with respect to the unborn is silly or inapplicable. Whether it’s an accurate descriptor depends on whether the unborn are human (which they are), and which definition of genocide you use (a semantic argument):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
If you use a broad definition, “genocide” can refer to any state sanctioned killing of humans with a sufficient death toll. If you use a narrow definition, it has to refer to the deliberate destruction of an ethnic group. Abortion probably wouldn’t satisfy the latter. I think the question of whether it’s wrong to kill the unborn is a much more important and more applicable question than how to split hairs with respect to a definition. This would be more productive dialogue.
X, it’s because just belonging to the species isn’t sufficient for anything in the moral realm. Not saying that any “petitioning” has to be – in no way is that required. But the “worthy of protection” deal comes in on a mental basis, in the eye of the beholder. Just saying “this species” or “that species” doesn’t go toward it.
Aaaaand…why not? Why? That’s what I’m asking, and after 5+ years, you guys still have yet to provide an answer.
Because, there, we haven’t even started toward it. Saying, ‘this species exists” is one thing. Saying, “I think ‘some members’ or ‘every member’ of species ‘Y’ should be protected is another. The “should” is mental, internal to the observer, etc.
Hans: Your amorality is stunning.
Hans, that’s like saying, “You are immoral or amoral because you don’t agree with me about the freedom of the pregnant woman.”
____
We’re humans here.
Indeed. On another thread, you mentioned being humane, and let’s look at the definition of “humane” – “characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.” As humans, we tend to have empathy and humane feelings. It is because of empathy, and suffering, that I am pro-choice. Even aside from that, why do you think so many people are pro-choice?
____
If the human species isn’t part of your moral realm, perhaps you should go to an alien site and leave the discussion of humanity to us.
You’re acting like I’ve said things that I most certainly have not.
Doug says: “So now it’s both legal and illegal to kill “children” in Texas, based on the preferences of what may just be one person involved in writing laws?”
Lrning: Exactly Doug. Whether it is illegal or legal to kill an unborn child in Texas is based on the preferences of just one person. That one person is the mother.
Lrning, I can see your point. Don’t know that it necessarily applies, as the language in the Texas laws begs the question of whether or not it’s a “child” in the first place. If “child” was actually being defined, there, as being prior to birth, it would be different.
However – even aside from that, the Texas language has at least rendered the point fairly moot – whether we say it’s on the mother or on the legislators. From what I see here on this thread, it’s the old “child” or “not a child” argument, which is pointless in the first place because prior to birth it’s subjective, a matter of preference for the user (or not) of the term.
Okay, so one person thinks it applies, and another does not. Even without debating the Texas laws’ language, if we say that Texas thinks it applies, and other states do not, what of it? What is settled, there? As Montana said, it could come down to the preferences of one person – hardly represenative of any “greater truth.” If we now say that in Texas it’s now perhaps legal to kill children and perhaps not – and by your take on it I see no other way for it to be – then nothing is settled.
Hans: I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth arguing with Doug anymore. It really is a “Doug-go-Round” of beating your head against a wall. In the “eye of this beholder”, perhaps he’s just not “sentient” enough to bother with.
Hans, if anything, real sentience is recognizing what is true for all of us, rather than just pretending that one’s opinion has some sort of imaginary external validity. You and I make some different fundamental assumptions, as many people do. As long as that is true, then there is no real total “reconciling” both our positions. I don”t expect you, or especially all pro-lifers as a whole, to change and make the same valuations that I do. That would be folly on my part. Likewise, it would be the same for you to do so.
___
He may be a human being (which, he points out, just isn’t enough to merit consideration), but he’s apparently not sufficiently “feeling”. That puts him in the company of about one and a half million others this year - who are not quite as lucky as he.
Oh please. On another thread you said, “Be for female rights. That means the life of a baby girl trumps her mother’s comfort level. Step back a little farther and champion human rights, and consider the male babies and those fathers who care about their offspring.
That’s the humane outlook on life. Would that you could see that.”
Okay – “humane.” “characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.”
Being “humane,” and having “empathy,” etc., involves feelings for beings that can suffer, that have emotions of their own in the first place. I am saying that prior to a point in gestation, there are no such beings present. There is “nobody” there in that way.
This question was asked of somebody else today, but just why do you think there are so many pro-choicers? Obviously, and without argument – the pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling person, etc.
Pro-lifers are seen to be personifying the unborn prior to when there are emotions, projecting their own feelings onto the unborn, there. I am not saying they are “bad people” for doing so, but as far as being humane, let’s keep it to the true – and that means considering the pregnant woman, rather than the unborn where it cannot really apply – before the unborn have the necessary characteristics.
and after 5+ years, you guys still have yet to provide an answer.
Navi: He’s really been here that long? Wow…
Navi, the answer has been provided well prior to this – the nature of morality itself.
I’ve discussed abortion for 16 years. I know of no better debate. What other one has the amount of people on both sides? What one takes us right down to the unprovable assumptions we all make?
Way back when, I was vaguely “pro-life,” thinking that “if you got pregnant and didn’t want to be then you should have done differently beforehand.” But really, what does it hurt if a given woman has an abortion? It’s not like we need every pregnancy continued. There are already “lots of people” on earth, and for that matter, the population is rising fast as well. If the unborn are not aware of anything, have no cares, no emotions, etc. – and when most abortions are done that is the case – then why should the opinion of pro-lifers, who are much less closely involved as conscious entities than is the pregnant woman, trump the opinion of the pregnant woman herself?
I still think it’s better to prevent unwanted pregnancies versus ending them by abortion, but don’t see that society has a compelling need to make all abortions illegal.
X: I started coming to Jill’s when I was pregnant with my son. He’s 4 years old now. Doug was here back then. We have literally been arguing about abortion for 5 years, going ’round and ’round in the same obnoxious circles for half a decade. So, if anyone is wondering why Doug seems to irk me a little more than usual, there you have it. Same for Megan. She showed up either right before or right after she had her abortion. At the time, I was pregnant with my son, so she’s always been ESPECIALLY unnerving for me, knowing that there is a dead child who would be around the same age as my son
X, I grant you that the abortion issue is thus more personal for you than it is for me. Despite our disagreement on that one thing, I’ve always liked you, and – like for Carla – I don’t wish you anything but the most happiness. Despite that disagreement on abortion, you and I are much alike and agree on most things, I think.
There is an element of “going ’round and ’round,” yes, but it’s really the playing out, more than once, of a quite linear thing – that we start from a different philosophical position, and that we go from there.
If a tree is brutally slaughtered by its progenitor in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does anyone else care?
HAH.
Do I really need to do all the work here?
Get to work, Navi! :P
____
Are you trying to argue that the pro-choice side doesn’t often personally malign pro-lifers? Should I find particularly damning examples, or should I just tell you to open up the comments section of any Youtube video on this subject and call it a day?
I realize you were replying to Kermit, but there is a difference from political posturing – as Kermit mentioned – and personal ad hominems here on Jill’s site.
Youtube, etc. – no question about it, and I’m sure there are plenty of pro-choice sites where pro-lifers are abused. Also, in this upcoming Presidential race, I expect we’ll see all manner of negative compaigning. Yet with respect to Jill’s site, I think Kermit’s comment stands.
_____
I don’t think “amoral” is an unfair portrayal of Doug’s position. “Amoral” means unconcerned with or indifferent to moral standards (ie considering them to be personal preferences rather than objective truths). It’s not a judgmental or insulting term, and I don’t think it’s particularly inaccurate. Though I will grant that some here are being less than charitable towards him.
I appreciate that, but hey – hold on a minute here. “Amoral” really means “not involving questions of right or wrong, having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong.”
Your personal spin on morality, i.e. “objective truths” (which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary) is in no way the necessary deal. I certainly have feelings of right and wrong, have moral standards, am aware of moral questions etc. My opinion may not agree with yours, but in no way is that being ‘amoral.’
____
I wouldn’t say that “genocide” with respect to the unborn is silly or inapplicable. Whether it’s an accurate descriptor depends on whether the unborn are human (which they are), and which definition of genocide you use (a semantic argument): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
If you use a broad definition, “genocide” can refer to any state sanctioned killing of humans with a sufficient death toll. If you use a narrow definition, it has to refer to the deliberate destruction of an ethnic group. Abortion probably wouldn’t satisfy the latter. I think the question of whether it’s wrong to kill the unborn is a much more important and more applicable question than how to split hairs with respect to a definition. This would be more productive dialogue.
It really includes the meaning of “extermination,” and we are pretty much at the opposite end of that. Not only are there vast numbers of people on earth, and a rapidly growing number of people, but most pregnancies are already willingly continued, even with abortion being legal.
X, if the tree is heard by somebody, then noise is there. If not, then not. Sound, however, is there all the time.
I think the question of whether it’s wrong to kill the unborn is a much more important and more applicable question than how to split hairs with respect to a definition. This would be more productive dialogue.
Navi, good point and I agree. Seeing the above arguing about “child” I once again have the image of two people, standing opposite each other, one shouting, “IS a child!” and the other shouting “Is NOT a child!” Where does anybody get, that way?
I realize you were replying to Kermit, but there is a difference from political posturing – as Kermit mentioned – and personal ad hominems here on Jill’s site.
Youtube, etc. – no question about it, and I’m sure there are plenty of pro-choice sites where pro-lifers are abused. Also, in this upcoming Presidential race, I expect we’ll see all manner of negative compaigning. Yet with respect to Jill’s site, I think Kermit’s comment stands.
His comment seemed to be unfairly generalizing. Though, reading it over again, I suppose he said “many pro-lifers” as opposed to “all” or even “most”. Still, it’s worth pointing out that his side probably fares no better in this regard (albeit in other environments).
______________________________________
I certainly have feelings of right and wrong, have moral standards, am aware of moral questions etc. My opinion may not agree with yours, but in no way is that being ‘amoral.’
Fair point. Sorry if I misrepresented you. You are obviously interested in moral questions, even if your understanding of how morality works is very different from mine. So you can’t really be “amoral”.
______________________________________
[The term genocide] really includes the meaning of “extermination,” and we are pretty much at the opposite end of that. Not only are there vast numbers of people on earth, and a rapidly growing number of people, but most pregnancies are already willingly continued, even with abortion being legal.
No, it doesn’t always. For example, one of the definitions given simply states that “Genocide is the deliberate destruction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such.” No mention of extermination. Another says that “Genocide in the generic sense means the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defencelessness of the victim.”
You might prefer your definition, but not everyone agrees. You haven’t shown why yours is better than the others.
______________________________________
Navi, the answer has been provided well prior to this – the nature of morality itself.
I’ve discussed abortion for 16 years. I know of no better debate. What other one has the amount of people on both sides? What one takes us right down to the unprovable assumptions we all make?
Way back when, I was vaguely “pro-life,” thinking that “if you got pregnant and didn’t want to be then you should have done differently beforehand.” But really, what does it hurt if a given woman has an abortion? It’s not like we need every pregnancy continued. There are already “lots of people” on earth, and for that matter, the population is rising fast as well. If the unborn are not aware of anything, have no cares, no emotions, etc. – and when most abortions are done that is the case – then why should the opinion of pro-lifers, who are much less closely involved as conscious entities than is the pregnant woman, trump the opinion of the pregnant woman herself?
I still think it’s better to prevent unwanted pregnancies versus ending them by abortion, but don’t see that society has a compelling need to make all abortions illegal.
Thanks for that, it was very interesting to read. There are compelling rebuttals to each of your points, and I really do think you deserve a thorough response. However, I don’t currently have the time to discuss everything in detail (ie moral relativism, whether sentience or capacity to suffer are necessary, whether rights are solely dependent on conscious desires, why a fetus has the right to life, etc). I’m sure we’ll get another chance. I look forward to learning something from the experience.
Doug, Doug, Doug,
(Does that make you appear? Like Bloody Mary or the Candyman?)
Okay. So apparently your criterion for being humane towards a creature is at the point it can suffer. You do know that every lifeform from a virus on up responds to stimuli? Self-preservation is wired into all life.
If a woman is being bothered by a gnat, she can go ahead and swat it. If she is being bothered by the presence of her very own offspring, it is AMORAL for her to have her or him killed.
With power comes great responsibility. A mother is bigger, stronger, and yes, more aware than her child. Not harming her child is the human, moral, and humane thing to do.
If you disagree with that, YOU ARE WRONG!
Doug: “One of the questions I’ve never heard you ask is “what kind of people are we to abort the unborn?”
Interesting what never comes to mind in pro-choice minds.
The question of what we become just never occurs to some of you people.
Doug says: Don’t know that it necessarily applies, as the language in the Texas laws begs the question of whether or not it’s a “child” in the first place. If “child” was actually being defined, there, as being prior to birth, it would be different.
In defining who it is illegal to kill, the Texas penal code does indeed include the “unborn child”:
“Individual” means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07
What is settled, there?
Just the minor point that to say “It’s already illegal to kill children in Texas” is inaccurate, due to abortion.
In defining who it is illegal to kill, the Texas penal code does indeed include the “unborn child”: “Individual” means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07
What is settled, there?
Just the minor point that to say “It’s already illegal to kill children in Texas” is inaccurate, due to abortion.
Lrning – agree entirely, the word “child” does appear there. What strikes me is the contradiction – you end up stating that “it is legal to kill children in Texas,” whereas you began by saying, “In defining who it is illegal to kill.”
I am not saying this is a big deal, not even saying it’s a minor point. ;) If anything, I’m looking at the difference between language used in the the Texas Penal Code, versus an outright definition of the word with legal force behind it. What’s defined is “individual,” rather than “child.” The Penal Code in Texas sounds like it is taken for granted that the unborn are “children,” and I’d be asking, “Well wait a minute – just who is saying they are?”
We end up, if we take the word appearing there at face value, with it being either legal or illegal to kill children in Texas, which is just about as far as we can get from the sentiment that “abortion is wrong because the unborn are children.”
Doug: “One of the questions I’ve never heard you ask is “what kind of people are we to abort the unborn?”
Interesting what never comes to mind in pro-choice minds.
The question of what we become just never occurs to some of you people.
Rasqual, good question. It would depend on what one thought of the unborn, and what one thought of pregnant women, for starters.
I realize that you and others see abortion as a tremendous social evil. Early enough in gestation I don’t see it as bad enough that we need make it illegal.
“What we become” – I don’t think we change. There have always been some unwanted pregnancies ended per the will of the pregnant woman. I grant you that then as now, a life does end in abortion. As I’ve said before, while the miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy can be a very sad thing for the woman or couple involved, the failure to implant or a miscarriage they don’t know about isn’t that way. And if they don’t want to have a baby in the first place, neither is an abortion.
I understand that you disagree. If you say, “that life is precious, and it’s a sad thing to lose it,” I totally accept that you do feel that way.
Doug, Doug, Doug, (Does that make you appear? Like Bloody Mary or the Candyman?)
Hans, I was thinking “Beetlejuice” after Courtnay made it to two… ;)
___
Okay. So apparently your criterion for being humane towards a creature is at the point it can suffer. You do know that every lifeform from a virus on up responds to stimuli? Self-preservation is wired into all life.
Hans, looking at the first definition at dictionary.com: “characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.” My point is that we definitely can have empathy and humane feelings for the pregnant woman. As for the unborn, you can certainly “have compassion” for the unborn, whether they are aware or not. But if there is no suffering, no awareness, nothing perceived to be sad or bad, etc., on the part of the unborn, then all the emotion is on your part – you’re personifying the unborn as you could personify any number of non-sentient entities.
I’m saying that to a point in gestation, there is “nobody” there as far as having any awareness. Any and all caring is not on their part, but rather on the part of other, sentient entitites. I’m not saying “you’re wrong,” to feel as you do, nor that you’re a bad person for doing so.
___
If a woman is being bothered by a gnat, she can go ahead and swat it. If she is being bothered by the presence of her very own offspring, it is AMORAL for her to have her or him killed.
Who is to say? The pregnant woman, herself, may feel it is wrong to have an abortion, though she still chooses to do so because she sees the alternative as worse. Hardly amoral, there. Or – you may be right – perhaps she doesn’t see it as a moral issue. Or, she may feel that the situation may make for having an abortion to be the moral thing to do.
____
With power comes great responsibility. A mother is bigger, stronger, and yes, more aware than her child. Not harming her child is the human, moral, and humane thing to do. If you disagree with that, YOU ARE WRONG!
That’s based on your opinion. The woman is not responsible to what *you* want, there.
For example, one of the definitions given simply states that “Genocide is the deliberate destruction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such.” No mention of extermination. Another says that “Genocide in the generic sense means the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defencelessness of the victim.”
You might prefer your definition, but not everyone agrees. You haven’t shown why yours is better than the others.
Navi, good post, and we can discuss it more in the future. Yes, I think “deliberate” is required for “genocide,” but there also needs to be an element of organization and systemic application. If it was gov’t policy that abortions were mandated for women, that would fit. But nothing like that is the case in the US. It is not “organized mass killing,” it is the individual choice of pregnant women, case-by-case. Several threads at Jill’s site have mentioned “black genocide.” Well hey – the black birthrate is higher than is the white birthrate in the US. There is nothing like, “We’re going to wipe out this tribe, this nationality,” etc.
______________________________________
As for moral relativism, I think it’s self-evident. If there was no mind to care one way or another, how could there be any morality? There has to be “somebody” there to have ideas and ideals in the moral realm, first of all, before any such thing could exist. I don’t believe in a sentient god, but if you want to posit that God exists and cares about things in that way, then that would fit – there it’s still a “mind” involved, the mind of God, and those feelings would then be relative to God. If there are other “higher beings” than us earthly humans, they too may have their feelings.
In lieu of proof of other beings, we as individuals still have our say, regardless of what our beliefs are. And regardless of anything there that we might ascribe our feelings to, it’s still our own morality, our own “saying,” and thus relative to us.
:) Doug, my dear fellow, do remember what I told you about moral relativism, and the only three possible outcomes from embracing it:
1) solipsism
2) insanity (including utter moral and intellectual incoherence)
3) conversion away from moral relativism
“abortion is wrong because the unborn are children”
I don’t hold to that sentiment. Abortion is wrong because the unborn are innocent human beings.
What strikes me is the contradiction – you end up stating that “it is legal to kill children in Texas,” whereas you began by saying, “In defining who it is illegal to kill.”
The contradiction strikes me too. I can barely stomach it. The fact that our laws count the killing of the unborn as murder in one instance and as a “reproductive choice” in another is sickening.
1) solipsism
2) insanity (including utter moral and intellectual incoherence)
3) conversion away from moral relativism
Paladin, I disagree. Yes, it’s an assumption, but I’m going with the premise that “you all” are other conscious beings, that “society” is the group I think it is, etc.
“Insanity”? Hardly. I’m going with what is true for all of us, versus what is only true for some, via unprovable belief. My way works, regardless of what we may be attributing our feelings to, as individuals.
As for that conversion – that really depends on one’s need for unprovable belief, as far as external things.
“abortion is wrong because the unborn are children”
I don’t hold to that sentiment. Abortion is wrong because the unborn are innocent human beings.
Well, Lrning, I understand that. The unborn certainly are not “guilty.”
Navi, good post, and we can discuss it more in the future. Yes, I think “deliberate” is required for “genocide,” but there also needs to be an element of organization and systemic application. If it was gov’t policy that abortions were mandated for women, that would fit. But nothing like that is the case in the US. It is not “organized mass killing,” it is the individual choice of pregnant women, case-by-case. Several threads at Jill’s site have mentioned “black genocide.” Well hey – the black birthrate is higher than is the white birthrate in the US. There is nothing like, “We’re going to wipe out this tribe, this nationality,” etc.
Again, that’s certainly not universal across the definitions of genocide. If Nazi Germany had changed its policies so that you could kill your neighbours if they were Jewish (as opposed to rounding people up and sending them to death camps to be killed), I think that some scholars would still have still considered it genocide if enough people were killed (even if the main goal or result wasn’t systematic elimination). I’m sure you would consider this morally abhorrent either way, regardless of whether it’s genocide.
_________________________
As for moral relativism, I think it’s self-evident. If there was no mind to care one way or another, how could there be any morality? There has to be “somebody” there to have ideas and ideals in the moral realm, first of all, before any such thing could exist. I don’t believe in a sentient god, but if you want to posit that God exists and cares about things in that way, then that would fit – there it’s still a “mind” involved, the mind of God, and those feelings would then be relative to God. If there are other “higher beings” than us earthly humans, they too may have their feelings.
In lieu of proof of other beings, we as individuals still have our say, regardless of what our beliefs are. And regardless of anything there that we might ascribe our feelings to, it’s still our own morality, our own “saying,” and thus relative to us.
I think it’s self-refuting. We’ll definitely have lots to talk about though :)
Still gotta disagree, Navi. “Genocide” – you need to be getting rid of the Genus, or at least an organized extermination, the getting rid of an ethnic or national group.
Doug,
I’ll say it loud and I’ll say it proud. YOU ARE WRONG!
You are, as Paladin pointed out, a moral realativist. We are not conscious or aware or even totally feeling 24 hours a day. You can’t murder someone in their sleep or in an induced coma. They will be sufficiently sentient for your approval in due time.
As will a human at any early time in their gestation. Not just at some magical point that you so bless.
Hans, neither sleeping people nor coma patients are the issue. If we want to stretch things a long way and think about the coma patients, then at some point what happens may be up to their nearest kin. Who do you see advocating for the legality of killing sleeping people? Compare that to those who support legal abortion, a group variously and usually around 50% of the population. Do you think that great divide is some “mystery,” or might there just be some enormous difference?
Yes – moral relativism. We all are moral relativists, even if we ascribe our feelings to “external” or “objective” sources that we conceive of, sources which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary.
A million and a half babies per year are slaughtered because they’re not quite aware enough to know what’s hitting them. Their vulnerability puts them in the company of millions of others you would be arrested for killing.
That is the issue. If I were comparing kumquats to coma patients or scuba divers, it would be invalid. But those latter two are only older versions of not-yet-born babies. They have more intrinsic value than kumquats. To disagree with that is to have a “morality” with which I cannot relate.
A million and a half babies per year are slaughtered because they’re not quite aware enough to know what’s hitting them.
No, Hans, that is not why. The reason is because they are unwanted. The reason is because they are inside the body of a woman. Take away those two things, and the “why” is no longer there.
____
Their vulnerability puts them in the company of millions of others you would be arrested for killing.
With all due respect, that is nonsensical – Just who do you see wanting to kill unconscious, born people? Not me, man.
____
That is the issue. If I were comparing kumquats to coma patients or scuba divers, it would be invalid. But those latter two are only older versions of not-yet-born babies. They have more intrinsic value than kumquats. To disagree with that is to have a “morality” with which I cannot relate.
Hans, don’t you agree that there has to be “somebody” – some conscious mind, to care about things one way or another, before there can be morality, at all? Where else would you propose that “value” comes from? The idea of “instrinsic value” in the moral realm is preposterous. Now, if you want to say that “God sees things this way,” and go from there – that is different. That is having God be the “somebody,” the “conscious mind” that makes valuations. I don’t share the same beliefs as some people, there, but that would still fit as far as a theory, rather than just purely “magical” value on an “intrinsic basis.”
I agree that the unborn are not “kumquats.” :P And yes – if most unborn babies continue to live they will become conscious, aware, etc. But in no way does that mean there aren’t the very real and substantive difference in characteristics at that point.
There are different characteristics to life forms at all points in their life cycle. The fact that a human is at any point on that continuum ought to be good enough for you.
Now, if we go much further in this thread, I’m afraid I’m going to be spinning around on the floor going, “Moe! Larry! Cheese!”
Hans, you probably know – there is a new 3 Stooges movie out or coming out – it looked horrible to me, but who knows.
There are different characteristics to life forms at all points in their life cycle.
Agreed 100%.
___
The fact that a human is at ‘any’ point on that continuum ought to be good enough for you.
Hans, where does that “ought” come from? We don’t have to go any farther at all to know that different people begin from different points, and that another one is that “in this case it ought to be the woman’s choice.”
Sigh. Because, Doug, life is all about “oughts” and “shoulds” and choices. You oughtn’t to rape someone. You shouldn’t steal from someone. And when a mother is given the choice between having her very own offspring shredded like he or she was mere sushi, or going through an unpleasant, even difficult seven months, she must make the humane choice.
To do otherwise calls into question her humanity, not that of her child’s.
Nyaah, nyaah, nyaah! Whoo-whoo- whoo- whoo- whoo- whoo! (Slaps face.)
It’s a question, though, which is the more humane thing to do – try and legally force the continuance of the pregnancy, or let the woman decide, herself?
Hans, I’m really just asking – I’m not going to say you’re “evil” or “wrong” or “stupid.” I accept that you feel as you do. So much of pro-lifers’ arguments are essentially stomping their feet and saying, in effect, that their way has to be right.
Doug says:
It’s a question, though, which is the more humane thing to do – try and legally force the continuance of the pregnancy, or let the woman decide, herself?
Wrong question Doug. Which is the more humane thing to do – kill the child, or continue the pregnancy?