TX abortion backers chant “Hail, satan!” Mob cheers for late abortions
Click all photos to enlarge…
UPDATE 7/7, 7:50a: Some have complained that the “Hail, satan” in most post yesterday is only chanted once at the end by by kooky mocker.
Yet tweeters wrote it was being chanted all day. Thanks to commenter Lrning for providing a link to another video, posted by Bryan Preston at PJMedia.com, who noted, “This incident apparently occurred earlier than the other ‘Hail Satan’ chant that was caught on tape.” Between 5:15-5:50 on this video, and you can clearly hear the eerie chant, “Hail, satan.” Incidentally, it comes midway through the compelling testimony of a post-abortive mother….
[youtube]http://youtu.be/1OgfAAIpHns[/youtube]
7/3, 11:27a: In the film, The Exorcist, the demons become more frenzied when their human abode is threatened, in this case by a priest.
And even though that’s just a movie, Scripture backs up this concept (Mark 5:1-20, Mark 9:14-29, etc.).
Thanks to pro-abortion Democrat state Senator Wendy Davis’s grandstanding filibuster to try to defeat a package of pro-life bills in the Texas legislature last week, and the media’s captivation with her and her cause, Austin has become an abortion battleground. And threatened demonic forces are getting bolder.
Yesterday while pro-lifers were singing, “Amazing Grace,” abortion backers began chanting “Hail, satan!” Several tweets corroborated the spectacle, and Cahnman’s Musings got video, adding, “For the record: They’ve been doing this all day, this is just the first time we caught it”…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB44dBJOm3g[/youtube]
Abortion fanatics also prayed to some semblance of satan….
This made me laugh. These people meditating in the Capitol were the ones yelling "f*** you" this morning. pic.twitter.com/q8lhx4frJB
— Abby Johnson (@AbbyJohnson) July 3, 2013
Drum circles vs prayer circles at the TX Statehouse. pic.twitter.com/w4pz9b4Jwc
— Josh Rubin (@JoshRubinCNN) July 3, 2013
It’s all so very creepy, macabre even, considering not only who they’re praying to but what they’re praying for. But it gets worse. Pro-aborts even involved children in their vulgar displays…
As pro-lifer Jennie wrote on Facebook, “Because nothing says ‘I want my 6-year-old to grow up empowered’ like giving her a sign that says ‘I’d f*** a senator’ to hold at the Capitol.”
But for me, the most disturbing scene was the pro-abortion mob that cheered Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ announcement at 3:00 a.m. on June 26 that they had won the first round – that torturous late-term abortions would continue in Texas unfettered.
Here are two views of the announcement and mob response. The scene reminded me of how it must have appeared when Romans cheered the death of Christians in the Coliseum…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/rY838HJ-cHY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtu.be/B9lciOG6id0[/youtube]
[HT for photo of children: Andy Moore; top photo via CNN; second photo via Washington Post]
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.
Truth will out itself…And the sad truth is…the militant marketers of “abortion on demand” want the cruel child sacrifice…and they (directly or indirectly) are influenced by satanic beings.
And dear people who have suffered an abortion (believing the MEGA lies so charmingly marketed for decades) should know there is healing and restoration.
We ALL are responsible to make safe places and to give encouragement, wise help to women, couples experiencing crisis pregnancies.
A representative of hospitals opposed the bill because it would require abortionists to have admitting privileges which she explained hospitals do not extend to those who do not have a practice which includes procedures done in the hospitals. She sounded like a lawyer and I had to think about what she meant. I finally came to the conclusion that she must be referring to doctors whose business is limited almost completely to doing abortions, because an ob/gyn would generally have a practice which would mean she would have patients in the hospital for labor and delivery as well as gyn surgeries. Only an abortionist who just does abortion and little else would have a practice so limited that he would otherwise never need to admit a patient to a hospital…We got up at 4:00 am and to the capitol at about 8:30 am, waited 2 hours to register to speak. I was called about 8:30 pm to speak. Anyway, all morning the crowd was pretty much all blue shirts, pro-life. By the time the pro aborts got out of bed and down to the capitol it was mid afternoon. And by the time we left at almost 11:00 pm, the pro aborts were whining that there were more pro aborts than pro lifers and that the committee should have to listen to thousands more speakers 90% of them off topic. Some big dollars were spent by pro aborts because they had mountains of food down on the capitol extension floor on E2. Basically they just told the college kids to put on their orange UT shirts and show up to the capitol just a couple of blocks from campus for all the free food and party at the capitol. That was about 9:00 pm and they were still partying at about 11:00 pm when we left.
The Wendy Davis deal has utterly and completely backfired on them. Half of me is very happy, the other half sad that these people are just chock full of hate and think nobody cares that they conduct themselves in this way.
Yeah, Chris, they were making complete fools of themselves. The state had its act together, however, because there were just tons on state police called in from all over the state. We visited with some and asked where they were from and they were telling us towns that were 200-300 miles away. The fire marshall were calling the shots and closing off areas.
.
.
Also, the BS about people not being allowed to speak is not true. The committee would call out a list of names to come into the committee room and then later they would be called to the podium, 80% no shows. If people really wanted to see the committee proceedings, and speak, they would have been sitting in the overflow rooms watching it on tv. The prolifers were doing that, but the pro aborts were out in the hallway and on the capitol extension patio partying and hootin’ and hollering. They just registered to speak, they did not actually wait for their names to be called and show up. Many that actually did speak were totally off topic. One was ranting about the KKK in Montana in the ’60’s. It was just embarrassing.
they’re trollin’.
Thanks Hippie for being there and giving us eyewitness news!
My daughter is an analyst for one of our Senators and she is not sure the bill will pass this session. Please keep praying
This is definitely a spiritual battle ground. The people in Texas need all our prayers. Please commit to praying the St. Michael the Archangel prayer daily during the special session for their protection.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen
(It is also good for trolls.)
As far as the sign “Every Child a Wanted Child,” that is already true. I recently read that 36 couples are ready and willing adopt every available infant. As an adoptee, I can tell you that 40 years of legalized abortion has done nothing to make every child wanted. Child abuse in all its forms, abandonment, and neglect are still pervasive problems.
One speaker who addressed the committee was from the valley where I lived when I was a little kid. She noted that the valley is like 90% hispanic and that minority women that she called black and brown would not have access to abortion, blah, blah, brown women, blah, blah etc. Seriously she used those words. I was expecting her to close with, “Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, please vote against the bill and for the deaths of more brown women and their babies.” She was another piece of work.
Amen Ann. Prayer is so critical.
You can see the spiritual warfare raging. I was reading an account by a former satan worshiper who said that demonic forces go to places of abortion, human or animal sacrifice, warfare and sexual immorality to become refreshed and strengthened. This is why you see these heathen raging.
It’s a real war.
The thing is, there really weren’t a bazillion chanting etc. More like 50 rent a mob crazies screaming, etc, and then thousands of bored students milling around in a non alcoholic boring party choking down on the mountain of free food. Plus, there had to be hundreds of state police. To a man, they were big, tall, fit dudes, not a beer belly among them. They looked like Marines in cowboy hats. Goofy bored college students aren’t going to riot. They don’t want to get arrested. They were mostly gawking in the hallways. The overflow rooms were filled with pro lifers sitting in chairs watching the proceedings on the monitors and waiting/hoping to be called.
The capital rotunda is a total acoustic amplifier. One man speaking fairly loud can sound really loud in there. Even ten people yelling in there is enough make a ton of noise. Add a little sympathetic clapping and whoo hooing and it is thundering loud.
If a tea-party activist gave her children vulgar signs to hold, the media and Bill Maher would be all over it. I’m very disgusted that a mother would hand her child a sign like that!
I know the atheists will not buy this, but John Paull II is closer than ever to sainthood and I have it on good authority (lol, I read it in a book!) that our enemy really doesn’t like John Paul II or the little woman, Mother Theresa. We shall take the eucharist with our boots on, ;>)!
200 hundred miles to the north, the ‘atmosphere’ in Ft. Worth, Texas on Wednesday June 26th was ‘oppressive’.
Many members of the body of Christ experienced fear, anxiety and depression.
This is not the first time the dead babies r us mob has exhibited this behavior.
When a friend of mine told of how his mom rejected her doctors advice to abort him to save her own life, they hissed in spontaneous unison like a pit of vipers.
They hate the truth and love the lie. They rush to shed innocent blood. They call evil, good and good evil.
…you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God…
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.
Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
Their mother, the dung goddess, hates them. She will laugh in joyfull derision when they have served their usefullness and she can destroy them as slowly and as excruciatingly painfully as possible.
Aside from the kid holding the sign,the big problem with what her sign says is that the government legalized it in the first place which they had no problem with, so what they are saying is that they will get in bed with the government but only if it suits their purpose.
satan and his minions are gleefully screeching and howling!!
It is spiritual warfare and I thank God for ALL of those that stood for LIFE!!
Thank you Hippie for being there!!
God bless my fellow post abortive sisters of Operation Outcry who gave their abortion testimonies and shared TRUTH about how abortion kills children and hurts women!!
http://operationoutcry.org
Ex 20 4 You shall not make yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.
Rev 22 8 i fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me but he said to me, ‘ you must not do that.! i am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prohets, and woth those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.’
Several commenters on Cahnman’s Musings noted that the chant was not “Hail Satan,” but “not the Church, not the State, women must decide our fate.” The first time through the video I couldn’t make out what was being said at all, but after reading this, I could hear it easily. The one young woman did mouth “Hail Satan” mockingly for the camera.
God is pro-choice: either you can accept Jesus as Lord, or not.
Pray they fight the Lord directly – before Him none can stand.
One can only imagine what the father of those three children and the husband of their mother must be like to allow his children to be used in this manner. Is there any question our society is failing …or has failed? Not to me.
I think the chant was, “God is dead.” Not nice, but not as bad as, “Hail satan.” From the video, it looks like it just one silly young woman who yelled, “Hail satan,” to be antagonistic to those singing, “Amazing Grace.” No doubt satan delights in the abortion industry, but I doubt that that girl really worships satan or is representative of the larger group. I was wondering if other video of the situation were available.
As far as the little girl holding the sign, ugh. I just have no words for a mother who would make a sign like that for her daughter. I was wondering also about other photos of that sign. Could that picture have been photoshopped?
One person yelled “Hail Satan.” The crowd was yelling “Not the church. Not the State. Only women can decide their fate.” I find it funny that you’re demonizing pro-choice protesters for being vulgar when I was treated abominably by pro-lifers. One shoved me down. One told me to kill myself, and one shoved a rubber fetus in my face while screaming at me that I was a baby murderer. Throughout all of this, I never voluntarily touched a pro-life protester nor did I verbally attack them personally. I only attacked ideas. I even gave a child whose mother couldn’t be bothered to rip the tape off her mouth and comfort her child some water and gummy worms. Yeah we’re really terrible people.
Josh Rubin (@CNNExpress) heard the chant “Hail satan”. He said (on Twitter) it was about 5 people. Seems that only one woman on the video in this article was saying it.
Here’s another video where you can clearly hear several chanters at the 5:15-6:00 mark:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/03/hail-satan-pro-abortion-protesters-clearly-chant-as-pro-lifer-addresses-capitol-crowd/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Sadly, it really happened. I don’t think any pro-lifer has said all pro-choicers were participating in the chant.
And even if some of them did, they’re entitled to it. Pro-lifers brought religion into a place of government. Religion has no place there, nor does it have a place dictating what happens in my uterus. When chanting in response happens, you have to put on your big girl panties and accept that your side was just as distasteful (more so in my experience with the pro-lifers) as the other side.
Dixie, were you paid to attend?
“Dixie, were you paid to attend?”
Is there really any point in asking this? I mean, I doubt anyone who was paid would admit to it.
Oh, lookie, I found this The Declaration of Independence. It’s the foundational document of our entire nation. It ushered in the birth, yes birth, of our nation. Otherwise, we’d still be a colony and you could tell the queen that she’s not letting you kill enough babies after they can feel pain.
It looks to me as if they mention God, the Creator, twice within the first two sentences. Let’s read what it says, Dixie:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Which “Nature’s God”? Whose?
“they are endowed by their Creator” – that’d be our parents then.
I said a while back that this anti-choice stuff would go so far and then people would become aware of just how many of their freedoms and rights were being assailed and were under threat and that pushback would begin.
Dixie cup,
Any video or photos of how you were treated?
btw I do not condone ANY prolifer pushing, shoving or screaming BABY MURDERER!!
My dear friends of Operation Outcry were there. They stood in line and waited patiently to tell their testimonies of how abortion hurt them and killed their children.
Most of the proaborts who signed up to speak? They were no shows.
The big girl panties were on my dear.
And yes they PRAYED(freedom of religion and all that jazz)against those that were cheering for child sacrifice.
Religion has no place there…….is your opinion.
And as for your uterus? I could care less what goes on there unless an innocent human being is growing.
“Because nothing says ‘I want my 6-year-old to grow up empowered’ like giving her a sign that says ‘I’d f*** a senator’ to hold at the Capitol.”
“the rental of Cincinnati’s Fountain Square 9 by 12-foot TV screen to display a “graphic abortion video” produced by Created Equal”
Okay then.
Pretty much what Carla said. And you don’t need to be religious to know that abortion is wrong.
This was on Breitbart, too, and it has already been debunked. But, prolifers keep on spreading the lies.
And, antiabortion protesters surely don’t care if they use their kids as props at clinics, even in 100 degree whether.
I said a while back that this anti-choice stuff would go so far and then people would become aware of just how many of their freedoms and rights were being assailed and were under threat and that pushback would begin.
We’ll see. I thought that’s what the 2004 March for Partial-Birth Abortion was supposed to be about.
I don’t think showing a video accurately depicting state-sanctioned violence in a public area is quite the same as handing a kid a vulgar, sexually explicit sign purely for shock value.
“Religion has no place there…….is your opinion.” – actually it’s that whole separation of church and state thing.
I’m not religious Navi, yet I know that abortion isn’t wrong.
Why not show some of those films of drones hitting their targets then. What about some nice execution footage, Texas would have plenty of stock.
You think it worse that kids see a sign with ‘F***’ on it(and it was literally F***) than the stuff anti-choicers parade in the streets – for shock value.
The real question would that mother bring her child to Gosnell? hmmm.
Y’know, when Satanists are against abortionists using Satan’s name in vain, you know you’re on the dark side of history…
http://americanglob.com/2013/07/03/hilarious-real-satanists-want-nothing-to-do-with-abortion-supporters/
Dixiecup: I don’t think you understand something. Nothing in the Constitution whatsoever prevents religious people from seeking to enact laws that uphold values which, for them, find support in their religious beliefs. The proscription of murder, for instance. Or robbery. It’s advocating anti-first amendment tyranny for you to imagine that religious people don’t have a complete franchize as citizens.
Reality: The fun part is, your betters wrote the Declaration (and the Constitution) and no one doubts that they were speaking of God. You, fun to report, were not involved. So the conversation is indeed about what folks who gave us our Constitution intended, and not what you happen to want. I think that’s just so cool.
Hi rasqual! Haven’t seen you around these parts lately. So, how’s it going?
JDC: Things are ripening up for good old-fashioned coliseum shows — with laws and regulations playing the role of lions. It’s going to be interesting.
“It’s advocating anti-first amendment tyranny for you to imagine that religious people don’t have a complete franchize as citizens.” – ha! What an inversion. The ‘tyranny’ is the religious believeing they have a more complete franchize than the rest.
“no one doubts that they were speaking of God.” – they weren’t establishing a theocracy though were they. Heard of the Tripoli Treaty?
“You, fun to report, were not involved.” – as you weren’t either.
So the conversation is indeed about what folks who gave us our Constitution intended, and not what you happen to want. I think that’s just so cool.
What, there will be laws and regulations which will eat the christians? At this ‘coliseum’? Or do you mean http://coliseumsoundsystem.com/
Many people misjudge the concept of the separation of church and state as though the two were separated by the Great Wall of China. The founders obviously did not want to repeat the mistakes of England in establishing the king as the head of the Church of England as Henry VIII had done. The separation of church and state basically means that their is no one state religion. Thus, there is no state mandated religious test to hold public office.
Religious people have the same liberty to exercise all their First Amendment rights (speech, religion, press, and peaceful assembly) as anyone else in their state capitol and public square. There is nothing inappropriate about them singing Amazing Grace in the rotunda.
Ironically, some of the same people who shout separation of church and state are behind the secular tyranny of the government dictating to religious bodies/persons.
Push back? It is more like a last gasp.
“There is nothing inappropriate about them singing Amazing Grace in the rotunda.” – on the face of it no. No more than Nine Inch Nails fans singing “closer’.
There is no secular tyranny of the government dictating to religious bodies/persons. Telling someone they can’t dictate to others isn’t of itself dictating.
“It is more like a last gasp” – you wish.
For the first time in my life I have never been so ashamed of where I come from.how can you as women be ok with what they do to those little babies,why can’t you go all the way to the end and put the child up for adoption hell there are people who would pay for a child,do u honestly believe ur not killing that child ur just as diluted as the nurses and doctors who are lying about the procedure I will pray for ur souls and theirs. But y’all better get right because all of you have committed murder.
Why not show some of those films of drones hitting their targets then. What about some nice execution footage, Texas would have plenty of stock.
Probably not too far off, actually.
http://www.abortionno.org/using-graphic-images-in-public/
You think it worse that kids see a sign with ‘F***’ on it(and it was literally F***) than the stuff anti-choicers parade in the streets – for shock value.
I think people are more concerned about kids carrying the sign than they are about kids seeing it. Obscenities are easily visible on a typical mailbox or a bathroom wall, but it would be worrying to see a six year old writing them up and using them in sentences.
I am a huge fan of supporting what you believe in. On the other hand, supporters of slavery also quoted the bible (Leviticus, Titus, 1 Peter, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians). Believe and live as you believe and let others do the same.
If you seriously consider that a hand written sign with a slogan which includes the letter ‘F’ and three *’s – no actual obscenities written – is more likely to be detrimental to kids than a multitude of huge, colorful gory pics being waved around them or them seeing a gory film on a 9X12 screen then…..
Brian: Would you have said that to abolitionists? “If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t have slaves. But don’t interfere with others’ right to have slaves.” Applying your last sentence consistently, no one would advocate for laws that infringe on what anyone else thinks is just fine and dandy. In short, your remark reflects moral naivete of breathtaking scope.
Reality: “The ‘tyranny’ is the religious believeing they have a more complete franchize than the rest.”
How is supporting public policy consistent with one’s religiously informed morals an insistence on a “more complete franchize” than supporting public policy consistent with one’s non-religiously informed morals?
Take theft, for example. Are religious people obliged to recuse themselves from public policy discussions on laws regarding robbery on the grounds that the potential for their moral view on the question being “infected” with some religious basis for their opinion, constitutes a hazard of instancing some “more complete franchise” on their part.
Please.
You’re going beyond mere insinuation — you’re strongly implying that mere parity between religious and non-religious constitutes religious folk being uppity.
Seems pretty bigoted on your part.
Also, you really don’t understand how the brain works, do you? It’s more cruel to expose kids to redacted obscenities than to explicit ones — because then their brain does the work of filling in the blanks. When it’s explicit, their mind receives it. When it’s redacted, their mind produces it.
It’s one reason I never allowed my kids to use the filler word “bleeping” in sentences — something a couple of them thought would pass muster with me. No, because I don’t want their locutions to force the rest of the family to fill in the blanks.
It’s like telling a friend in a cast, ‘don’t think about the itching.” It’s then the first thing they think about.
MoJoanne,
Thank you!!
Some are still baffled by what the separation of church and state really means. :)
(Like I can’t wear my cross necklace in a public school, or bring my Bible or pray!! YES WE CAN!! lol)
Lanessia,
Yes pray for them. Especially for those that have had abortions. Many of the ones screaming FOR abortions have had them.
There is hope and healing for them.
PS
Just saw a photo of a little boy holding a sign that said
STAY OUT OF MY MOMMY’S VAGINA!!
On facebook. OY.
Its to bad these class acts with their language and support for killing innocent babies did not have mothers that believed in abortion. They would have been good candidates but their moms either were to ignorant, had a respect for life, or still to drunk from their cheap sleazy sex the night before to remember they did the big deed.
Ugh, Carla.
If a little girl’s dad made her hold a sign that said, DON’T GRAB MY DADDY’S PENIS!!, he’d probably be talking to the police and/or social services within the hour.
Double standards.
Hey maxovrdriv, could you start loudly speaking out against men who choose to procreate with ignorant and/or drunk women that they have no intention of helping raise a child with?
Thanks, dude.
Ditziechick,
The enemies of religion seek to destroy it. They cannot,…..but they do destroy everything else.”
It is impossible restrict or limit the expression of religion without encroaching upon freedom of speech, assembly and association. The moonbats sitting in a circle on the floor of the Capitol rotunda contemplating their navels [the enduring physiological evidence that testifies they were individuals before they were birthed] were exercising their ‘religion’.
As long as their menustrations totheir goddess, whom they have fashioned in their own image, do not hinder the deliberations of duly elected representatives of the citizens of the great state of TaxUs then their peaceful assembly is protected by the United States constitution.
Are those women in that top pic? If so, why are they protesting? I seriously doubt they need to concern themselves with becoming pregnant.
Somehow, I doubt that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is at all meaningful to this bunch of harridans.
“Are those women in that top pic? “
The one showing people from behind? I think some of them are women and some are men.
Hi All:
There is an article saying that the photos of the children holding the offensive signs were either photoshopped or old. However, when you check the link given in the article – the photos were posted this past week. The member who posted them was listed as a member since Dec. 2007, perhaps this was the confusion. However, once more it is evident that the pro-choice side does not do their research and do not base their decisions on reason and truth (although they desperately like to view themselves as being intellectually superior).
http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-meme-satan-loving-texas-pro-choice-protesters-174330589.html
Maureen
Ninek- No I was not paid to be there. That seems like a really ridiculous question.
Carla- The fact is that your religion has no place dictating what medical procedures I’m allowed to have. That’s not just “my opinion.” That’s separation of church and state. Also, child sacrifice? That’s hyperbole. What isn’t hyperbole is that an abortion could save my life one day. If you’re pro-life you have to be willing to save my life too.
Rasqual- That bill is pushed through on the agenda of ONE religious group in power. It’s even only pushed through by fundamentalists as majority of Texans (including Christians) oppose this bill. It’s arrogant and disrespectful to decide that your sect’s religious views get to decide about the health and safety of everyone else in the state.
Finally, if you’re a pro lifer who genuinely wants to save “unborn babies.” If that is what you truly believe, and you don’t really care about controlling women’s bodies, I suggest the article linked below. She links all of her sources, and provides a compelling argument for people who are genuinely concerned with the loss of fetal life to be pro-choice. Twist ending, we actually save more babies than the pro-life movement does!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
This is merely provocative speech with Satan’s name being taken in vain. Pro-choicers imagine such words will pique and offend religious pro-lifers because, apparently, they don’t realize that such remarks are fluff compared with the acts of human mutilation to which pro-lifers object. They weigh their own words heavily, their deeds lightly.
God’s judgment is quite the reverse.
Was I just denounced in the name of Satan?
Even Satanists denounce pro-aborts:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/04/satanists-distance-themselves-from-pro-abortion-hail-satan-chants/
Dixecup,
murdering little babies is wrong, and mean.
Jasper- I’m not a Satanist. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in all that nonsense. Secondly, I’m not murdering little babies. Anything viable can live. I’m not even promoting abortions. I’m promoting my right to a choice. Calling me wrong and mean doesn’t do anything to prove your point. Did you bother to read what I posted before commenting?
Dixiecup, did you bother explaining how your position is different than “I don’t believe in slavery, but I won’t deny someone else their right to have slaves?”
It’s WHAT you choose that’s in question, Dixiecup, not THAT individuals are entitled to liberty in the United States. The question is “liberty to do what?” To kill? The disagreement is whether the value of unborn human life, like the value of slaves, is determined by someone other than that life.
Pro-choice parents, I’m sure, are insanely rarely philosophically honest with their children. “You don’t have inherent value. You deserved life only because I, the mater familias, thought so. Had I gestured differently on the merest whim, you would have been snuffed out. Don’t forget it, either.”
Very well said, Rasqual. Great to see you again.
Dixiecup: Are you a citizen of Texas?
I know I should not feed the troll Carla but I can’t let this one slide because someone might actually think she knows what she is talking about.
Dixiecup “An abortion could save my life one day”. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL!!
Worked in TRUE women’s healthcare for years, saw women in every type of high risk situation, we had to deliver some babies early without a good chance of survival for the babies, most lived and a few didn’t make it unfortunately. We delivered excellent care to both mother and baby. We NEVER had to intentionally take the life of a baby or a mother (for that matter) although we saw rare tragedies. NEVER was an abortion needed to save a mother’s life, I and the vast majority of healthcare providers went into healthcare to save lives never to give a death sentence to either of our patients. We were not butchers like your idols Gosnell, his so-called “staff” and Tiller the baby-killer.
OK Carla. I won’t feed the trolls today it’s INDEPENDENCE DAY!! Have a great 4th of July pro-lifers. It’s great to be PROLIFE!!!
Hi Dixie cup,
Abortion is never needed to save the life of a mother. We do not kill an innocent human being to try and save.
There is a procedure called a c section that could be used. A child might be delivered early but the intent is to SAVE two lives.
Intent is everything.
Please brush up on what separation of church and state means.
And I am not going to bother with the rest of your comment. :)
Yes I am a citizen of Texas. I didn’t see you pose that question. Quite honestly it’s different because of personhood not life. Slaves are people. Fetuses are not people. They are not aborted past viability in the state of Texas (so this bill affects non-viable fetuses only). I will never contest that it isn’t alive. Sperm is alive. That doesn’t make it a person. Pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, and plants are all alive. We kill and eat those because they are not people. Slaves are people. Women are people. That’s why it’s different.
Carla, I guess reading the facts is something you’re not ready to do either. I have a condition that carrying to term could kill me easily. Don’t tell me whether or not abortion could save my life. The doctors have already told me it could, and I suspect they’re quite a bit more qualified than you.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother’s life.”2 Even Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”3
What “facts” have you given me??
Then do the responsible thing. Do not get pregnant and if you do don’t kill your child.
I do not need to be qualified medical doctor to realize that ending an innocent preborn human beings life is wrong.
Even THEY know she is a human being.
Biology 101
Ergo, we could kill and eat fetuses.
Brilliant.
Prolifer,
No worries. :)
I am still here commenting!!
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!
There is a post of a young woman holding the
Hoes Before Embryos sign.
I saw a meme on facebook that said
You Have to be an Embryo Before
You Can Be a Hoe!!!
LOL
Rasqual, that would be pretty unhealthy given issues with consuming prions.
Carla, I linked a great article that you failed to read. Also, sure almost any can. Not all. They’re also talking about abortion performed by medical professionals. By banning abortion, you don’t actually reduce the number of abortions. You just force women to resort to more dangerous methods. If I get pregnant, I will have an abortion. That’s my choice, and it’s my choice alone. Any children I have will be adopted, and that’s perfectly okay.
“Carla, I guess reading the facts is something you’re not ready to do either. I have a condition that carrying to term could kill me easily. Don’t tell me whether or not abortion could save my life. The doctors have already told me it could, and I suspect they’re quite a bit more qualified than you.”
I think both pro-choicers and pro-lifers get hung up on nit-picking language when talking about the life of the mother. You’re not going to find a single pro-lifer on this site (and if you did, they would have pro-lifers telling them they are wrong) who would say that a woman should have to die instead of ending a pregnancy, even if the baby is unfortunately too young or ill to live outside the womb. No one wants two deaths instead of one.
Most pro-lifers won’t call that abortion however, most won’t even call ending an ectopic pregnancy abortion. That seems to be because pro-choicers try to equate ending a pregnancy for life or death reasons to elective abortion, which are completely different things.
I do know, however, that you won’t find 99.99% of pro-lifers saying that a woman shouldn’t be able to protect herself from dying by ending a pregnancy early (they might disagree on the method, however), as rare as that might be.
Here you go Carla. Read it. Put your money where your mouth is. If you care more about the lives of “unborn children” than you care about controlling other women’s bodies, read this. Follow the links. Check it out. The pro-life movement causes the death of more fetuses than the pro-choice movement does.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
Put my money where my mouth is?? By reading your link because it will somehow make me change from prolife to proabortion??
Sorry babe. I had an abortion 23 years ago. I will regret it for the rest of my life.
I was once proabortion.
I put my money where my mouth is by sidewalk counseling outside PP, being a Rachel’s Vineyard facilitator, the lead moderator on this blog, giving time and money and resources to Pregnancy Centers and being a prolife speaker.
Abortion kills 3000+ human beings a day. How many babies have died at pregnancy centers?
I know what I am fighting for.
I know what I am fighting against.
Gotta go celebrate my husband’s birthday today!! Whooooop!
So you won’t even read the facts? You’re coming from a place of pathos rather than science. No hope for you. I volunteer at Planned Parenthood too. I walk women past people like you, so you can’t harass them. That’s not “counselling.” That’s scare tactics.
Dixiecup: Gotta hand it to you for smarts — you know where the argument would go if you offered more than prion diseases as a rationale for not eating human fetuses.
Just feed ’em to the maw of your Planned Parenthood slaughter mill. No problem there, eh?
Also, Dix, I suspect you’re not getting much attention for your article because it’s been posted here before. The pro-life community has already parsed it out. I’m wondering if you’ve read any of the responses to it? Which ones? Dead serious. Please link me, with your open mind, to the responses to it from the pro-life community, which you have read.
Dixie, that link is a fountain of strawmen and dubious connections:
About the claim that criminalizing abortion doesn’t reduce abortion rates, I actually think that’s probably true in developing countries that don’t have access to a social safety net and also has high levels of inequality, violence, infanticide, etc. Unstable political and economic climate is associated with high levels of all types of undesirable things, abortion being one of them, legal or not. People ignore a lot of things when they make these claims. Ireland is one country where abortion is illegal, but there’s still a very low abortion rate and maternal mortality is I believe the lowest in the world. Also, most European countries have their abortion legality heavily restricted (12 weeks is a common cut-off), and they have lower abortion rates than unstable countries that have abortion criminalized all together. They also have lower rates than countries like Canada that have zero restrictions. The evidence doesn’t support that criminalization of abortion doesn’t have any effect on the prevalence, it does as can be evidenced in Europe vs Canada rates. The prevalence in Latin American countries (illegal abortion) vs the very low rate in Ireland (illegal abortion) could be due to having a more stable economic and political system.
Also, not all pro-lifers are anti-birth control. Actually, I would wager it’s only about 30% of pro-lifers who want it actually illegal, some percentage are *against* it for various reasons but don’t want it criminalized, and you have a strong minority who is actually pro-birth control. I’m fine with free birth control being provided to people who want it. But really, less teen sex and promiscuity would probably lessen the abortion rates even more than contraceptives, and a lot of pro-lifers like to focus on that.
And the fact that women’s bodies sometimes “flush” embryos being used to justify abortion or call pro-lifers hypocrites is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. The fact that children die of leukemia doesn’t mean that we can start killing off two year olds, and it’s not hypocritical to be against child murder if you aren’t focusing your efforts on leukemia death.
It breaks my heart, as a woman, to see other women totally caught up in the lie that in order to be free and liberated you must have the ability to kill your own child.
Dixiecup, what is the meaning of the word “fetus”? Look it up.
Dixiecup, there’s a good refutation of that article here:
http://prolife.org.nz/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement-blindly-embraced-some-logical-fallacies-instead/
Arguing for your position is much more likely to be effective than giving us a reading assignment. If there’s a specific point you want to be addressed, I’d be happy to oblige.
Dixiecup,
Anything viable can live.
Well, that’s big of you. I guess you’re writing off all children under the age of five, those so ill they need assistance, not to mention baby seals just there for the clubbing, then?
Fetuses are not people.
Pig fetuses, you’re quite right. Everyone knows they’re young pigs. Even you, right?
Uh, then what do you suppose HUMAN fetuses are?
It is senseless to argue with the religious. The first thing required to believe in religion is the abandonment of logic. It stands to reason that anyone who can abandon logic easily enough to promote as fact that which there is no evidence to support, can abandon logic whenever it is convenient. Whenever the flaw in logic is challenged with a simple direct question like “Why doesn’t god just stop abortions?” they reply with a contorted denial of man being more powerful than god…… a combination of people can prevent what god cannot, but god is responsible for it???
“How is supporting public policy consistent with one’s religiously informed morals an insistence on a “more complete franchize” than supporting public policy consistent with one’s non-religiously informed morals?” – actually that’s a really good point rasqual. On the one hand they try to effect legislation which would restrict the rights and choices of others without impacting on themselves. Things such as abortion, marriage equality, teaching creationism. But we don’t see too many laws against adultery and stuff do we.
“Also, you really don’t understand how the brain works, do you…..their mind produces it” – I didn’t know you were a child psychologist!
“Like I can’t wear my cross necklace in a public school, or bring my Bible or pray!! YES WE CAN!!” – indeed you can. What you can’t do is nail that cross to the wall in a public school or lead prayer at graduation ceremonies.
“Pro-choice parents, I’m sure, are insanely rarely philosophically honest with their children. “You don’t have inherent value. You deserved life only because I, the mater familias, thought so. Had I gestured differently on the merest whim, you would have been snuffed out. Don’t forget it, either.” – nooo. Pro-choice parents have children who are entirely wanted from the start. They have chosen to have those children. Those children are valuable and receive greater nurture.
Reality: Non sequitur. In being against robbery and murder, I’m limiting the actions of others and am not affecting myself in the least. As for your last paragraph, I can’t believe you didn’t get my point. Your answer isn’t denying what I affirmed. It’s merely oblivious to it.
Whatever: “It is senseless to argue with the religious. The first thing required to believe in religion is the abandonment of logic.” That’s absurd on the face of it. If one of religion’s propositions is that God exists, nothing obliges a religious person to be logically fallacious proceeding from that proposition. In fact, most irreligious people take issue with religious people precisely because religious folk — like most other people — proceed from their beliefs to the implications of those beliefs while relying, like everyone else, on logic. Dude. As for the remainder of what you’re saying, you’re very confused. Or you’re not presenting a lucid case of what you’ve heard from religious, which you deem bogus. Clarity, man!
“Non sequitur. In being against robbery and murder, I’m limiting the actions of others and am not affecting myself in the least.” – non monsieur, so you choose to ignore anything outside of murder and robbery do you?
“As for your last paragraph, I can’t believe you didn’t get my point. Your answer isn’t denying what I affirmed. It’s merely oblivious to it.” – it was your point that was oblivious. Pro-choice parents don’t say “I coulda killed ya”, they say “You are most precious to me”.
“That’s absurd on the face of it.” – I think you just confirmed it.
“If one of religion’s propositions is that God exists, nothing obliges a religious person to be logically fallacious proceeding from that proposition.” – it does by its very nature. Logic dicates there is no god.
“proceed from their beliefs to the implications of those beliefs while relying, like everyone else, on logic.” – that’s a self-evidently failed sequence.
I am just amazed that there are people here in the United States that so ardently defend a “right” to torture a defenseless human being to death under the guise of “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health”. I mean there is a state Senator who was willing to stand and babble for over 11 hours; and a mother who told us that her baby died in a “warm and loving place, inside me” after she had him lethally injected – a practice banned by the US Supreme Court for criminals but not for babies in utero.
Abortion is an act of brutal violence committed against victims; and people who defend it either deny the reality of what abortion does – or are the meanest people on the planet. Don’t cut them off in traffic.
“after she had him lethally injected – a practice banned by the US Supreme Court for criminals but not for babies in utero.”
Uh, isn’t lethal injection actually how most executions are perfromed in the United States? When did the Supreme Court ban them? Was this recent?
Reality: “Pro-choice parents don’t say ‘I coulda killed ya’, they say ‘You are most precious to me’.”
Which is exactly what I asserted — that pro-choice parents are probably never philosophically honest with their children. Of course, that’s because their actual philosophy — that the unborn’s worth is not inherent but is entirely the “mother’s” to ascribe — is prima facie absurd. It’s no surprise they’re not in full disclosure mode with this pro-choice “value”
“Logic dicates(sic) there is no god.”
Good grief. Excellent, then, demonstrate as much. Using only logic, mind you. No actual premises. No propositions you either affirm or deny. JUST LOGIC.
Geez, what’s with the kids around here? ” ‘proceed from their beliefs to the implications of those beliefs while relying, like everyone else, on logic.’ – that’s a self-evidently failed sequence.”
Good grief, Reality. I’m gone for a few months and your brain rots? No, I don’t believe it. You must be imbibing too much this holiday.
Dogs are purple. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is purple.
The statement is 100% logical. It’s an utterly valid argument. However, it’s unsound if the first premise is not true.
So no, what I said is not a “self-evidently failed sequence” (snicker). Even if you disagree with religious premises and propositions, there’s no reason whatsoever that religious cannot be logical in applying these and working out implications in a logically valid way. You might disagree that the premises lead to sound conclusions — but that has frakkin’ nothing to do with LOGIC.
Learn.
Your actual statement was “You don’t have inherent value. You deserved life only because I, the mater familias, thought so. Had I gestured differently on the merest whim, you would have been snuffed out. Don’t forget it, either.” which is not how a pro-choice parent would speak to their child; you know, the one they want. The one they provide better nurture to.
“that the unborn’s worth is not inherent but is entirely the “mother’s” to ascribe — is prima facie absurd” – oh I’d love to hear your alleged prima facie, do tell.
“Good grief. Excellent, then, demonstrate as much. Using only logic, mind you. No actual premises. No propositions you either affirm or deny. JUST LOGIC.” – but you already know, you don’t need me to tell you! It’s the same as that which you apply to Zeus or Khepri or the white mice in Hitchhikers.
“The statement is 100% logical. It’s an utterly valid argument. However, it’s unsound if the first premise is not true.” – no, it’s the final premise which is untrue.
“there’s no reason whatsoever that religious cannot be logical” – wanna try that one again?
“Learn” – not from you old son. Not even with the ‘non sequitur’ and other distractions.
Denying the existence of all gods except one has got to be the epitome of failed logic.
which is not how a pro-choice parent would speak to their child; you know, the one they want. The one they provide better nurture to.
Maybe not. But what do proabort moms say to the child they didn’t abort when that child asks them if they ever had an abortion? I know my children have asked me this question, so I’m sure there are children who have asked proabort moms who have aborted:
“Well, honey, your half-sister didn’t have inherent value. She didn’t deserve life because I didn’t think she deserved it. I really didn’t love her dad anyway and I didn’t want to raise a child with him. I was a size six and didn’t want my body to change and I wanted to finish my last year of college and there is no way I could have done that without ending my pregnancy. You should be proud of how the women before you worked so hard for your reproductive freedom!
What’s that you’re saying, smart alec? I know I kicked your dad out. Yeah, I kicked him out because he continually accused me of drinking too much and I really never loved him all that much anyway. Who is he to decide what is too much to drink? Had I known he wasn’t going to be around, I would have made different choices. What? I know I am no longer a size six. If I wouldn’t have had you, I would be. So what I never finished up my last year of college. The classes got harder and that is what put me under so much stress that last year. Now stop talking about this. Abortion is a personal decision between a woman, her doctor, and her priest. Children have no place in it. No you may not call your dad to come pick you up. Go to your room but first hand me that bottle.”
”I’m gone for a few months and your brain rots?”
His brain was in a better state before you left?
“Which is not how a pro-choice parent would speak to their child; you know, the one they want. The one they provide better nurture to.”
They might not speak like that to their child(ren) directly, but at a certain age, their position is revealed to their living offspring, and the kids are left to fill in the blanks themselves. Sometimes you don’t *have* to say what is obvious in order for someone to realize what is apparent.
Reality: “which is not how a pro-choice parent would speak to their child; you know, the one they want”
Why are you deigning to inform me of my original point? “Pro-choice parents, I’m sure, are insanely rarely philosophically honest with their children.”
:-/
“that the unborn’s worth is not inherent but is entirely the ‘mother’s’ to ascribe — is prima facie absurd” – oh I’d love to hear your alleged prima facie, do tell.
Again, read. I’m saying that mothers would not speak honestly about the philosophical basis of abortion (that value is ascribed by the “mother,” and is not inherent in unborn life) because they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.
I think a lot of you people, Reality, are really confused about abortion, philosophically. What you actually want is for people to do whatever they want. But when comments about inherent versus ascribed value are floated, you imagine that you have to take sides on that. You don’t. Why should you? Abortion is not about — or, better said, would not shrewdly be about — trying to defend an indefensible view (that the value of human life, as with slavery, is not inherent but depends on another human’s judgement). It’s about doing whatever you damn well please. But pro-aborts make this odd leap, apparently believing that because “they’re right” about doing whatever one wants, ergo pro-lifers must be wrong in their objections in this respect, and that therefore the contrary of their view about value is defensible. So you and your ilk make the odd step from a mere “do whatever you want” view (which needs no defense because it doesn’t care about right & wrong) to a view that cannot possibly be defended, and you do so not because you must but merely because you believe yourself obliged to be contrary to pro-lifers on all points.
This is the whole “if pro-lifers claimed 2+2=4, you’d feel obliged to disagree, no matter how silly you’d look” thing. It’s what comes from arguing — or imagining you’re doing so — from a position of contempt for the contrary of your own view, rather than out of genuine thoughtful respect for your own. And in the case of pro-choice “values,” that’s understandable — your views can’t really be respected (not even by you). They can only be foisted as a selfish assertion of the will to power, damn the fetus. You can do what you want only because you don’t care about the life you destroy. That’s easy, Reality. That requires no sound philosophical underpinning whatsoever. “Do whatever you want” is not a triumph of good thinking. It’s a petulant child insisting on their way.
“The statement is 100% logical. It’s an utterly valid argument. However, it’s unsound if the first premise is not true.” – no, it’s the final premise which is untrue.
Good grief. You really don’t understand logic at all, do you? What part of what I said does your “no” address, just there? And what does whether the conclusion is false have to do with whether the valid formal logic makes it so because the major premise is false?
The conclusion must be false if the major premise is false and the form of the argument is valid. Of COURSE the conclusion is false — because the logic is valid and the major premise is false.
“there’s no reason whatsoever that religious cannot be logical” – wanna try that one again?
Um, no. why? I see no grammatical or lexical problem. Wanna try reading it again?
Reality: “Denying the existence of all gods except one has got to be the epitome of failed logic.”
Wow. A non sequitur rolled up in irony with breathtaking ignorance drizzled all over it.
If it’s as you say, please explain.
You do realize, don’t you, that logic is about formal rules for how we process content — it is not the content itself. Right? No? So when you talk about whether there’s zero, one, or more deities, that’s content – not logic.
But please do proceed, providing an argument in place of your mere assertion. If you expressed subtle disagreement, I’d concede that an argument in support of your view might take more time than I’d be warranted in expecting you to take. But you’re claiming it’s so far off base — such an OBVIOUS logical blunder — that I’m sure the argument in support of your assertion is a really simple one, simply explained even to us pro-life dolts. So please do so.
The whole “keep your religion out of my uterus” argument is somewhat of a fallacy. One does not need to be religious to oppose abortion on the grounds that abortion ends the life of an new, individual, human being (this is scientific fact), hurts women physically& emotionally (ask Carla & Ninek for their abortion stories), enables sexual abuse to continue responses, & enables irresponsible men to avoid taking responsibility for pregnancies& children they helped to create. Think these are unreasonable or unlikely scenarios? Think again, I can back up everyone of them with statistics & anecdotes. In addition, the whole abortion rights argument was built on a lie. First of all, Norma McCorvey, was an low-income woman who did not want an abortion but was lied to & used by the pro-choice lawyer to garnish sympathy for abortion rights. Second of all the coat hanger abortion is a misrepresentation of abortion before legalization, only around 6% of abortions were self-induced (& those which were, were likely to be an acts of desperation & self-injurious behavior rather than empowerment), & the majority were done by reputable physicians in good standing at their offices & inhospitals. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for abortion had started dropping in the years prior to legalization. Third, elective abortion (for any reason through all nine months) was made legal on the representation of abortion being necessary for rape, incest, & fetal abnormalities, although these only account for less than 3% of all abortion reported in a given year. In other words, it’s always been white, upper-class feminist elitists using disadvantaged individuals in their cause to garnish & protect elective abortion rights for themselves & not caring who they trample on in the process.
The member who posted them was listed as a member since Dec. 2007, perhaps this was the confusion.
That appears to be what happened. The reporter, who is at the Atlantic Wire, apologized for the error, corrected it, and criticized the adult with the children. However, Yahoo did not run the correction in its repost of the story.
Incidentally, it comes midway through the compelling testimony of a post-abortive mother….
Testimony that included the fabricated claim that five women died at a Planned Parenthood clinic in February. Who knows what else she made up?
Rasqual,
Thank you for your dialogue with Reality. I find his writing style so unreadable (quotes and rebuttals as run-on sentences) that I generally skip through them like a flat stone on water.
So, I take it by his belief that only the last part of your logic example was false, that he thinks all dogs are purple??
Dixie, let me save you some time and effort:
We believe that all human beings are people. We don’t separate the title of ‘person’ from ‘humans’ so that we can justify killing a category of humans that we deem are not people. That, Dixie, is a pro-abortion rationale. So, save it for when you speak among yourselves about how silly it is that those pro-lifers think everybody who is human is a person. We’ve already been on that “not all humans are people” merry go round with Reality, a regular abortion fan on this blog who is always trying to convince us that not all people are people. So, save yourself the typing. ‘kay? Thanks. Bye.
The creative writing classes appear to be going well for you Praxedes. Don’t stop them just yet though.
“their position is revealed to their living offspring, and the kids are left to fill in the blanks themselves.” – not quite. They will explain the facts and the situation to their child in an accurate manner, not in a floral weave painting some fantasy.
“Why are you deigning to inform me of my original point? “Pro-choice parents, I’m sure, are insanely rarely philosophically honest with their children.” – you’re wrong. Pro-choice parents will be philosophically honest with their children. That would negate the type of language expressed by Praxedes and xalisae. Their philosophy is different to yours yet is honest.
[“that the unborn’s worth is not inherent but is entirely the ‘mother’s’ to ascribe — is prima facie absurd” – oh I’d love to hear your alleged prima facie, do tell.
Again, read. I’m saying that mothers would not speak honestly about the philosophical basis of abortion (that value is ascribed by the “mother,” and is not inherent in unborn life) because they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.]
And here you’re just making the same claim twice, without providing any case for your claim that it is ‘prima facie absurd’ or “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.”
“a view that cannot possibly be defended” - a false presumption. It can indeed. And it has nothing to do with comparisons to slavery.
“But when comments about inherent versus ascribed value are floated” – ‘inherent’ is objective, ‘ascribed’ is subjective. The argument lies in which we consider more valid.
“This is the whole “if pro-lifers claimed 2+2=4, you’d feel obliged to disagree…..is not a triumph of good thinking. It’s a petulant child insisting on their way.” – dear me. What a lot of subjective, inaccurate, wishful thinking! You can’t dismiss the pro-choice position on such shallow and confected claims.
“Of COURSE the conclusion is false — because the logic is valid and the major premise is false.” – you stated “proceed from their beliefs to the implications of those beliefs while relying, like everyone else, on logic” – having those beliefs means that logic is missing to begin with.
I note that your time away from us has not endowed you with a new favored term. Nor added and validity to your application of the one you use.
“If it’s as you say, please explain.” – as I have already explained, you possess the logic which demonstrates this.
“So when you talk about whether there’s zero, one, or more deities, that’s content – not logic.” – mmm, so process whatever content you need to which gives rise to your disbelief in gods other than the one you adhere to. Then you will have identified the logic which dismisses yours.
“providing an argument in place of your mere assertion” – you dismiss all the gods but one, correct? Why? What examination of contents, logic or whatever you choose, causes you to do so? If the case against other gods that you come up with is logical then it also applies to the one that you don’t dismiss. Otherwise you are dismissing other gods on a basis other than logic.
:::sigh:::
Leave the dead to bury their dead.
:-/
Hans: “So, I take it by his belief that only the last part of your logic example was false, that he thinks all dogs are purple??”
Actually, he said the last premise was false. Weird to use the word “last” when most people would say “minor” or “second,” but apparently he merely doesn’t think Fido is purple. Unless he was speaking of the conclusion when he said “last premise.” Which would illustrate the futility of engaging him reasonably at all.
What I weary of in conversation with such people goes beyond being patient with their refusal to lay out arguments they claim are self-evident or what-not, to the need to hand-hold them through their incapacity to understand the simplest points of reason, the simplest conversational exchanges. Then when folks like Reality claim that religious folk are inherently illogical, the irony of their reason-illiterate brains projecting that deficit onto their reasonable betters is just amazing.
There’ve been a LOT of reasonable pro-choice folk in these parts, who can parse enthymemes without descending into meta-snark, who can infer from what their interlocutors don’t say as well as from what they do, and so forth. Reality, alas, is not one of them.
“Then when folks like Reality claim that religious folk are inherently illogical, the irony of their reason-illiterate brains projecting that deficit onto their reasonable betters is just amazing.” – amusing. Despite quite obviously being in possession of the logic you keep requesting it. I wonder why that is.
‘meta-snark’ – what was that term you used earlier, oh yes, ‘snicker’.
I’ll express this as plainly as I can for you.
You claimed that pro-choice parents cannot explain an earlier termination to their child with any philosophical honesty. That could be so if they had the same philosophy on the topic of abortion that you do. They don’t. As Praxedes demonstrated for us, attempting to squash anti-choice rhetoric into a pro-choice explanation doesn’t work. The facts, the language, the explanation would be far different to what you, Praxedes and xalisae wish to imply. The fact that you disagree with the pro-choice position doesn’t render their explanation false or dishonest. Your claim that they ‘do not themselves believe it’ and that they ‘know it’s wrong’ is simply fatuous.
You were uncomfortable with my statement that logic dictates that there is no god. The believers of various gods all press the same case. You, like the rest, dismiss all but one. Logic dictates that the grounds on which you dismiss those others also dismisses your own.
Oh yes, reality, I’m so uncomfortable with your remark that logic dictates that there’s no God.
Then when I ask you what that “logic” is, you trot out the classic sophomoric “you already know what I’m claiming, so I don’t have to prove it.”
I don’t recall, last time I was in these parts, that you had not yet profited by your long experience in web conversations, and gained some experience apropos of someone who wishes to be taken seriously.
As for the “philosophically honest” thing, you’re still not getting it. Yes, pro-life and pro-choice philosophies of human worth, for the unborn, are different. Frakkin’ DUH. And it’s precisely the pro-choice belief about human value — that it’s ascribed by a “mother” — that pro-choice parents almost certainly do not communicate to their children.
Or are you claiming, by way of implication, that the pro-choice view of unborn life’s value is NOT one of ascription?
It’s so bizarre trying to wring a reasonable conversation out of you, Reality.
“I’m so uncomfortable with your remark” – is that why you haven’t responded?
“Then when I ask you what that “logic” is…” – and have you caught up yet?
“And it’s precisely the pro-choice belief about human value — that it’s ascribed by a “mother” — that pro-choice parents almost certainly do not communicate to their children.” – as I said, ‘inherent’ is objective, ‘ascribed’ is subjective. The argument lies in which we consider more valid. – meaning that ascribed needn’t be what is communicated from a pro-choice viewpoint but nor is there any reason why it can’t be.
I think the anti-choice view of unborn life’s value is more one of ascription.
“It’s so bizarre trying to wring a reasonable conversation out of you, Reality.” – you’re the one who keeps erecting maypoles, I simply deign to dance around them with you ;-)
And I gave you a very straighforward explanation at 8:34pm.
not quite. They will explain the facts and the situation to their child in an accurate manner, not in a floral weave painting some fantasy.
No flowers or fantasy here, sir.
Do tell, though, what sort of “accurate manner” would a pro-choice parent use to comfort their child upon finding their mother had an “earlier termination” (=a dead older sibling), in light of the biological facts of the matter?
“Do tell, though, what sort of “accurate manner” would a pro-choice parent use” – factual.
“to comfort their child upon finding their mother had an “earlier termination” – you assume they need comforting? Maybe in an activist anti-choice household.
“in light of the biological facts of the matter” – the biological facts support what a pro-choice parent would say.
Reality: At 8:34? You mean this? “You claimed that pro-choice parents cannot explain an earlier termination to their child with any philosophical honesty. That could be so if they had the same philosophy on the topic of abortion that you do. They don’t. ”
The entire point is that they have a different philosophy. That’s not something you need to instruct me on, it’s the basis of what I said. And the first thing you witlessly did was agree with it, all the time imagining that you were telling me something I didn’t know.
Seriously, Reality, you’re not the same person I last saw in these parts. What’s happened to you?
You appear to have misconstrued.
It could be that they are unable to explain an earlier termination with any philosophical honesty if their philosophy was the same as yours. But it isn’t. Therefore they are able to explain with philosophical honesty.
Is that clearer?
And those facts would be…?
And they would be presented how, exactly?
Whether or not the biological facts would support a pro-choice parents’ presentation on the matter remains to be seen, since you’ve not provided what I asked, namely an example of what a pro-choice parent would say.
Reality: So cut to the chase. What would that philosophical honestly look like?
Do pro-choicers ascribe value to the unborn child, Reality, or do they acknowledge that it possesses inherent value?
Why do you keep obliquely approaching, brushing, then dashing away from any kind of real point you might make?
I, too, am interested in what proabort parents say when asked by their children about prior abortion(s).
I know my ex-husband says the woman who claims he coerced her to abort their child is crazy. I know that my ex has told our oldest that I planned to abort him but that he, father-of-the-year, talked me out of it. Why does he feel the need to lie and rewrite history? Why doesn’t he just tell our children the truth?
The creative writing classes appear to be going well for you Praxedes.
Well thank ya. You should check and see if there is an opening in Logic 101.
I don’t know what pro-choicers tell their children about prior abortions, but Pro-Life Action League got an email from one of those children (now an adult). They may not all need comfort, but certainly some do. From their FB page:
We just received a heartbreaking email from a woman who found out last week that her mother had an abortion before she was born. In an attempt to come to grips with this devastating news, she wrote a letter to her half sibling, and she asked us to publish it:
“She was 15 when your life started, 16 when your life ended. She said no one told her you were more than a lump of tissue. I’m sorry for ignorance.
Your father would be 57 now. She said he doesn’t know. I wish she told him. I wish he fought for you. I wish somebody fought. I’m sorry for secrets.
You would have been my half sibling. 14 years older than me. She took you from me before I even existed…before I could do anything. I’m sorry for unfairness.
You would have been 34 years old. You would have more than likely been married and have your own children. I would have nieces and nephews, you would have a family. But you weren’t even given a name. I’m sorry for abandonment.
Maybe when my other siblings were telling me lies and devaluing me, you would have spoken truth. Maybe you would have stood up for me when no one did. I’m sorry for life being devalued.
Is it possible to miss someone you’ve never even met?…because my heart longs for you. It longs for you to have life. I’m sorry for death.
I wish you could have come to my graduation, I wish I could have gone to yours. I wish we were friends. I wish I could call you right now. I wish we could share all of our joys and griefs. I wish we were at least given a chance. I’m sorry for selfishness.
It’s just so unfair for you…for us. How could she have killed you? How could our grandmother drive our mother to the clinic so that they could murder you? I’m sorry for silence.
I miss you. I love you.
I’m so sorry no one loved you.”
LisaC,
I’m not sure where the testifying woman got her information, but I did some research this morning & found that 911 recordings reveal a Planned Parenthood in Orange, California called for an emergency transport three times in a single day for serious & potentially life threatening abortion complications in February of this year:
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/911-recordings-reveal-3-planned-parenthood-patients-suffering-serious-abortion-complications/
That aside, are you aware that women on your side lie often too, with unsubstantiated & baseless accusations to make their political statements, are you going to carefully evaluate the validity of their claims too or is it you just don’t “trust (pro-life) women”?
“It’s so bizarre trying to wring a reasonable conversation out of you, Reality.”
You can’t ring a reasonable conversation out of someone who isn’t reasonable.
Also, don’t feed the troll and all that.
I know, I know, sometimes I just can’t help myself (if it means I can educate & reach a lurker/reader;) BTW, if anyone wants to follow me on Twitter, you can find me at: http://www.twitter.com/bttrfly_angel/
*wring
“I know, I know, sometimes I just can’t help myself (if it means I can educate & reach a lurker/reader;) “
Well educating people is always good, and I do appreciate your comments. Still, I feel I must follow in the tradition of Paladin and instruct others to not feed trolls.
Hmm, seems Dixiecup isn’t coming back. Too bad, there’s been some information posted since her last comment that might be useful to her.
The struggle you appear to be having rasqual, is that you simply can’t comprehend that what is in a pro-choice parents mind isn’t what you think. You claimed that they can’t be philosophically honest because “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.” That’s your thinking, your belief, your position. It’s not the truth for a pro-choice parent, no matter how much you may wish it were so. To claim that that is a pro-choice parent’s thinking is presumptive, assumptive and wrong. They are philosophically honest because they don’t subscribe to your paradigm.
“Do pro-choicers ascribe value to the unborn child, Reality, or do they acknowledge that it possesses inherent value?” – your question is flawed.
As an aside, I don’t feel the need to fire off the odd small calibre ‘cover shot’ regarding what may or may not have happened to your intellectual prowess during your absence as some sort of pre-emptive act. :-)
“You should check and see if there is an opening in Logic 101.” – I think it would be more beneficial if I left the available spaces free for those whose fervor for creative writing overcomes what is rational and plausible.
It’s not up to me to script what a pro-choice parent would say to their child. It certainly wouldn’t be based upon anti-choice thinking and rhetoric though, that’s your problem.
your question is flawed.
Yes. I’m sure that just must be the reason you don’t want to answer it. It’s the question, not you. Of course. 9_9
Just for grits and grins, Reality, what would you say to YOUR child, in this instance? I hate to make you presume, so just give us a hypothetical statement you’d make to your own child.
I’d be happy to answer the question if it included a valid option.
“I hate to make you presume” – you seem quite happy to do so.
Since ‘y’all’ keep trying to squish anti-choice rhetoric into a pro-choice parents words, if not their thinking, why don’t you try suggesting what a pro-choice parent might actually say.
I’ll give you grits and a great big smile.
Reality: The struggle you appear to be having rasqual, is that you simply can’t comprehend that what is in a pro-choice parents mind isn’t what you think.
I’m asking you, point blank whether the pro-choice position (a) ascribes value to the fetus, (b) recognizes its inherent value, or (c) something else.
You are talking as if you are really certain about what pro-choice parents believe, and about what I believe. You’re categorically denying that they are similar ideas. That implies really high confidence on your part that you know what’s true both about pro-choice parents’ beliefs, and about mine.
You’re really uniquely qualified, then, with this kind of confidence in what you know, to provide some public education value in this thread. So please do.
An atheist denies, and a theist affirms, that there is a God. Same proposition, two different positions regarding it. No, they don’t have the same beliefs. But one reason we know that, is that they are each capable of, respectively, denying and affirming the same proposition.
Your conversations are intellectually naive, Reality. You don’t understand the basics of philosophical scrutiny. In saying that, I don’t need to be some kind of genius or wizened sage. Your deficits of even modest rigor are obvious.
Reality: You claimed that they can’t be philosophically honest because “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.” That’s your thinking, your belief, your position.
Of course it is. And what you just said is your thinking, your belief, your position. You have signified precisely nothing, just there, by stating the obvious, and yet you seem to imagine it’s fraught with substance. Geez…
Reality: It’s not the truth for a pro-choice parent, no matter how much you may wish it were so.
WHAT is not “the truth” for a pro-choice parent, Reality? As I said, you keep making these bizarre close approaches to meaningful conversation, without actually having any.
why don’t you try suggesting what a pro-choice parent might actually say.
Because…I’m not a legal abortion supporter? And I know very well that when I *do*, as others have done further up the thread, you’ll just say, “Nuh-uh! That’s not how a really real pro-choice parent would do it! You’re just couching it in your anti-choice terms and it’s flavoring the dialogue and blah blah blah blah blah…”
So please, instead of suggesting that I write a pro-choice rebuttal for you, why don’t YOU do it, instead?
(d) some or all of the above. And that’s a fact.
Oh I see. So now, as a pro-choicer, I am unjustified in saying that pro-choice parents wouldn’t be thinking what you, an anti-choicer, thinks and wishes that they think.
“You’re categorically denying that they are similar ideas.” – you’ve missed the whole ‘choice’ debate then have you?
“That implies really high confidence on your part that you know what’s true both about pro-choice parents’ beliefs, and about mine.” – well since I am a pro-choice parent and you’ve stated yours….
“You’re really uniquely qualified, then, with this kind of confidence in what you know, to provide some public education value in this thread. So please do.” – yet here we are with you claiming “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.” – please, educate us on why a pro-choice parent would have these thoughts in their head. Apart from your presumptions and assumptions.
“An atheist denies, and a theist affirms, that there is a God.” – allow me to put that more accurately for you – ‘an atheist knows there is no god, and a theist believes that there is a god.’
“Same proposition, two different positions regarding it” – yes, one based on a factual and historical examination, the other on pure, baseless belief.
“Your conversations are intellectually naive, Reality.” – mmm, what calibre is that one?
“You don’t understand the basics of philosophical scrutiny.” – aw, diddums, am I grabbing the wrong colored maypole ribbons? Not the ones you want me to be clutching?
“In saying that, I don’t need to be some kind of genius or wizened sage.” – that’s handy, I don’t think you’ll find too many around here, on either side ;-)
“Your deficits of even modest rigor are obvious.” – ooo, ‘obvious’, not ‘obvious’. When clear, straightforward provision of information is all that is required why should I throw in some dance steps and pirouettes just to appease your yearning for intellectual overstimulation.
“And what you just said is your thinking, your belief, your position.” – uhu, and as before – so now, as a pro-choicer, I am unjustified in saying that pro-choice parents wouldn’t be thinking what you, an anti-choicer, thinks and wishes that they think?
“You have signified precisely nothing, just there, by stating the obvious, and yet you seem to imagine it’s fraught with substance. Geez…” – and yet you would implant your anti-choice mindset into the thought processes of pro-choicers. Geez…….
“WHAT is not “the truth” for a pro-choice parent…..you keep making these bizarre close approaches to meaningful conversation” – what, have you not been reading what you’ve been writing or something?
Right? Reality apparently knows pro-choice parents exhaustively enough to know that what they would say would not be anything we might imagine they would, so he clearly knows what they would say.
Cool!
But mysteriously, this person so literate in the pro-choice mind is incapable of actually producing any example that touches base on the question of human value, why the living child has value and the non-child did not, and so forth.
Mysterious, how someone so certain about the pro-choice mind can’t really explain it, but just dances around the matter….
I know what one proabort parent already actually said when asked about abortions, “That woman is crazy.” And “Your crazy mother wanted to abort you but I talked her out of it.”
“Because…I’m not a legal abortion supporter?” – ah, so you are an illegal abortion supporter?
“And I know very well that when I *do*” – because you know very well…You’re just couching it in your anti-choice terms and it’s flavoring the dialogue with blah blah blah blah blah…
“So please, instead of suggesting that I write a pro-choice rebuttal for you,” – I don’t need you to write it for me, you’re the one seeking it.
“why don’t YOU do it, instead?” – unlike some who try to put words in the mouths of others…..there are too many options and grounds on which a pro-choice explanation to a child could be based. A veritable cornucopia, all ‘philosophically honest’.
“Reality apparently knows pro-choice parents exhaustively enough to know that what they would say would not be anything we might imagine they would, so he clearly knows what they would say.” – hm, yet you are able to read their very thoughts! “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.”
Now I know you would like pro-choice parents to have those thoughts but if they did then they really wouldn’t be pro-choice now would they.
Why do you have this need to bring unnecessary complexity to what is a relatively straightforward concept?
A pro-choice parent believes in choice. They obviously know that there is nothing which justifies denying women that choice. This would be reflected in what they would say. There would be no ‘philosophical dishonesty’.
Why do I need to elaborate on ‘human value’? It’s not relevant to your original claim.
“but just dances around the matter….” – your questions on this have been little more than some sort of verbal two-step.
You have tried the ‘you can’t claim to know what pro-choicers think but I can’ thing about six different ways. It’s like a Nigerian telling a Chinese person that he knows what Chinese people eat better than the Chinese person does!
Did you have a role in that little soap opera Praxedes?
You’re still not answering the question, Reality. Is the value of the living children of pro-choice parents an ascribed value, or an inherent value?
Do such children have value because their mothers (and their mothers alone — not their fathers) decided not to abort them?
Does the mother’s choice alone give such children value?
And no, Reality, I don’t need to read pro-choice parents’ minds to know what their possible beliefs are about human value. There are two possibilities with respect to the value of human life — either it is inherent, or it is not. And for pro-choicers, the value of a child is determined entirely by the choice — ergo, ascribed.
Yes, I know that. You, on the other hand, don’t have the foggiest idea how to converse honestly on this topic. Still, you’re dancing around the issue. Gee, I wonder why…
Both.
No.
Rasqual: “Is the value of the living children of pro-choice parents an ascribed value, or an inherent value?”
Reality: “Both.”
So you’re saying people who have parents who ascribed no value to them are worth less than those who had parents who did?
Reality: In all seriousness, you’ve apparently lost it in the months I’ve been gone. For example:
“An atheist denies, and a theist affirms, that there is a God.” – allow me to put that more accurately for you – ‘an atheist knows there is no god, and a theist believes that there is a god.’“Same proposition, two different positions regarding it” – yes, one based on a factual and historical examination, the other on pure, baseless belief.
You utterly squirreled yourself. My point was entirely neutral, and you treated it as if there were some kind of stakes for an argument over theism.
No. Please don’t get squirreled. The issue is that you claimed I was ascribing my mindset to pro-choice parents. No, I’m not — any more than a theist is ascribing theism to an atheist by claiming that the atheist denies the proposition “there is a God.” Apparently you, however, believe that using that proposition at all is somehow not understanding atheists. Because you believe that offering two propositions and seeing where pro-choice/pro-life folk stand on them, is somehow illicit. It’s not. You certainly haven’t explained why — nor can you. It’s impossible, because it’s true.
Unborn human life has inherent value. Pro-lifers affirm that, pro-choicers deny it.
Unborn human life has only such value as is ascribed to it by the mother. Pro-lifers deny that, pro-choicers affirm it.
Now I’ll happily admit that not all pro-choicers believe that, for reasons I stated above — many (probably most) don’t actually think about things — they just want to do as they damn well please. They’re not concerned with whether it’s right or wrong. They just do it. I’ll also happily admit that there are people who believe the unborn have intrinsic value who do, nevertheless, have abortions. They’re willing to do something they believe is, nevertheless, wrong.
But we’re talking about people who are critically self-aware believers in the worthlessness of unborn human life when a mother happens to have made a choice — however arbitrary — to dispose of it. Such life has no value, which is to say that its worthlessness is ascribed — just as if that same woman had chosen to keep the child, it’s worth would have been ascribed.
You don’t LIKE that, I’m sure, because it makes such women no different than slaveholders — ascribing value like a buyer of African meat at a Charleston auction block. The only real difference is that your ilk pays the butchers to slaughter your own offspring.
Ah, you’ve added more!
“either it is inherent, or it is not” – ah, but what is that inherent value?
“And for pro-choicers, the value of a child is determined entirely by the choice — ergo, ascribed.” – ah, and again you are dealing with it within your own paradigm.
“Yes, I know that.” – ah, ahem.
“You, on the other hand, don’t have the foggiest idea how to converse honestly on this topic.” – ah, but I do. It is you who insists on pro-choice thinking really, truly, really falling within the anti-choice paradigm. It doesn’t.
“Still, you’re dancing around the issue. Gee, I wonder why…” – ah, perhaps if I tarry long enough you’ll catch up and catch on to the reality that you cannot implant your thinking into the heads of others. Particularly when their viewpoint is the opposite of yours.
Jack, Reality’s just trolling entirely unseriously at this point. “Both” is impossible, since ascribed value is a non-inherent value. True, there may be different elements of a human life that have value. For example, I may find many things valuable about many people I know that have nothing to do with their God-given value as persons (or, for Reality’s ilk, I suppose, state-given value).
But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about what makes a person valuable enough that their life is worth protecting in law. And for Reality’s ilk, that value is clearly not intrinsic, or he (difficult to use a masculine pronoun for someone who’d let an abortionist eat his child because it’s his wife’s choice) would value that life enough to wish it protected.
If Reality’s wife wanted an abortion, that’d be fine. It’s her body, and the damn little parasite has no more value than a sea lamprey unless she waves her hand and bids it live.
“So you’re saying people who have parents who ascribed no value to them are worth less than those who had parents who did?” – no Jack, otherwise it wouldn’t be ‘both’.
“We’re talking about what makes a person valuable enough that their life is worth protecting in law.” – ah, now we’re getting somewhere.
“And for Reality’s ilk, that value is clearly not intrinsic,” – ‘value’, like ‘quality’, can be ‘intrinsic’. But what is the measure? What is that intrinsic value?
““So you’re saying people who have parents who ascribed no value to them are worth less than those who had parents who did?” – no Jack, otherwise it wouldn’t be ‘both’.”
That doesn’t make sense. If the value is intrinsic only (like most pro-lifers believe), then both someone who had parents who didn’t value them at all and someone who had parents who valued them would have the same worth and value, because the value of a human doesn’t change depending on who loves them. If it’s simply ascribed, then the parental devalued person has no worth. If it’s both ascribed and intrinsic, then the person devalued by their parents has some worth, but not as much as someone who is valued and loved by their parents. You can’ have it both ways.
You used to actually argue half-reasonably, Reality. Why have you just given up? Your “Both” is indefensible unless you resort to the hat trick of equivocation. Why don’t you prove me a bozo and reasonably demonstrate that “both” is defensible?
Because you can’t, that’s why. No one can. Without equivocation, at any rate — which wouldn’t be defending your claim anyway.
“You used to actually argue half-reasonably, Reality.”
I don’t remember that.
Jack, the problem is that Reality is violating the law of non-contradiction. Ascribed value is an instance of non-inherent value — though this seems lost on Reality, who witlessly ends up claiming that both an inherent value and a non-inherent value, er, inhere in the unborn. Or that we ascribe that contradiction. Who knows what Reality “thinks,” if that’s the word.
JDC: “I don’t remember that. ”
Maybe it’s nostalgia kicking in on my part, remembering the good stuff and forgetting the worst.
On the other hand, what “good stuff” can possibly be foisted by a pro-choice brain, at least on this topic?
Reality, so what’s the “paradigm” of human value here, from the pro-choice perspective? You keep saying that what I’m saying ain’t it — a claim on your part that wouldn’t be warranted if you didn’t actually KNOW.
So do tell.
The hilarious part — you say their thinking is “opposite” of mine.
Yes. Of frakkin’ COURSE.
I believe unborn human life has inherent value. You believe it’s ascribed — the value only exists if the “mother” lends the unborn child value by choosing, god-like, to bear it to term and give it birth. If she doesn’t, the child’s value is the cost of an abortion, at most.
So if pro-choicers believe the opposite of me, Reality, how is my entire point here wrong? The OPPOSITE of my view is precisely what I’m saying the pro-choice view is.
Dude. Have you utterly lost your mind?
“I don’t remember that.”
I do. In fact, I questioned a while ago whether this “Reality” was a different Reality, but Carla confirmed that it is the same commenter. It’s odd.
rasqual, Lrning, I suppose that you two both have more experience on this site than I do, so I’ll trust your memories over mine. Still, Reality seems to be doing the same old routine as before from what I remember. (of course, my frame of reference is shorter than either of yours)
“You utterly squirreled yourself.” – actually I prefer to ferret around.
“My point was entirely neutral” – no, it wasn’t. An atheist doesn’t ‘deny’ god, no more than you ‘deny’ the tooth fairy. And theists don’t ‘affirm’ god, they believe there is a god.
“you claimed I was ascribing my mindset to pro-choice parents. No, I’m no” – yet it was you who said “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.”
“Unborn human life has inherent value. Pro-lifers affirm that, pro-choicers deny it.” – no, it’s a matter of what that inherent value is.
“Unborn human life has only such value as is ascribed to it by the mother. Pro-lifers deny that, pro-choicers affirm it.” – if only it were as simple as you wish.
“Now I’ll happily admit that not all pro-choicers believe that, for reasons I stated above — many (probably most) don’t actually think about things — they just want to do as they damn well please. They’re not concerned with whether it’s right or wrong. They just do it. I’ll also happily admit that there are people who believe the unborn have intrinsic value who do, nevertheless, have abortions. They’re willing to do something they believe is, nevertheless, wrong.” – here we go again! ‘Well, if they don’t really have anti-choice thinking then they have no thinking at all’. And again you claim they believe it’s wrong even though they do it! You’re unbelievable! Can you really not see what you are doing?
“it makes such women no different than slaveholder” – hm, so no recognition of the science then.
“The only real difference is that your ilk pays the butchers to slaughter your own offspring.” – an excellent example of your paradigm. The pro-choice reality – a pro-choicer pays medical personnel to terminate an unwanted gestating fetus.
Lrning, interesting.
In tens of thousands of conversations dating to the early days of Usenet, I’ve learned that people have rational fingerprints — they think in certain ways, gravitate toward particular methods of argument, can be relied upon to behave in certain ways with bulletproof consistency, and so forth. It’s rare indeed that people have a life-transforming experience that modifies these behaviorally predictable and identifiable fingerprints. This is why, I think, most experienced forum folks gravitate toward the “did your dad leave his browser logged in? go to bed!” theory to explain weird variations.
I still have my doubts that it is the same person. Reality recently accidentally posted as “Rebecca”, yet supposedly is a man. Who knows who’s really posting as “Reality”.
The Reality of a year or two ago and this Reality had the same typing style, it’s pretty distinctive. I think he just got tired of the same arguments and now just tries to troll.
I hope you’re right Jack. My mind originally went to possible dementia or stroke or something similar.
Reality, whoever you are, I hope you are well.
Yes, Reality, it was. Are you a child?
Atheism and Theism adopt contrary propositions with regard to an identical proposition: “There is a god.” Atheists deny it, theists affirm it.
You’re welcome to be stupid, and deny that atheists deny the existence of God, or deny that theists affirm the existence of God. Stupid, because the contrary of denying is affirming, and of affirming is denying, so the only alternative is that atheists affirm that there is a God and that theists deny there is a God. That’s where idiocy will get you, if you insist on going there.
Geesh.
“yet it was you who said “they themselves do not believe it.”
Ah, I see where you’re confused, and I’ll partly accept the blame. Let’s put it this way: pro-choice acts (abortion) and parental acts (parenting) are at variance — internal contradictions are inevitable. A parent will not explain to a child their refusal to ascribe value to an earlier aborted fetus, because doing so would acquaint the child with the notion that the parent they’re staring at does not ascribe inherent value to them. In other words, a “mother” who has no problem trashing an unseen blob because she doesn’t ascribe it any value, has real problems explaining to her living child that this child has value for the same reason — because the god-like mother chose to let her live. Which is to say that what’s embraced in the breech is a convenient viewpoint — I want to abort this child, and I’m not exactly staring at a cherubic little facing having to explain myself just now so hell yeah — scrape away! But with my living child, how do I explain her value in terms consistent with my earlier mortal choice? What view do I really believe? That my daughter staring at me just now doesn’t have any inherent value, but her value is entirely due to my choice not to abort her? Or do I believe the little boy smiling at me is indeed a thing of inestimable intrinsic worth against which a choice to destroy it would be a choice to destroy something that’s actually important whether I deem it so or not?
Ironically, pro-choicers need to make a choice about what they believe. Or not! Because no defense need be made. Doing whatever the hell you want doesn’t need a philosophical defense. Right?
“The pro-choice reality – a pro-choicer pays medical personnel to terminate an unwanted gestating fetus.”
Right. This unborn life has no inherent worth that deserves protection. The value is ascribed, because it’s an entirely different worth than you pro-choice folk ascribe to a child you bear and birth. Don’t you see how your chosen language is precisely ascribing, and absolutely avoiding any semantics that might imply inherent value? Are you actually blind to what’s going on in this conversation?
“And again you claim they believe it’s wrong even though they do it! You’re unbelievable! Can you really not see what you are doing?”
:::sigh:::
Not all pro-choicers, dude. Did you read the paragraph you quoted? Different cohorts.
“The hilarious part — you say their thinking is “opposite” of mine……Yes. Of frakkin’ COURSE.” – yet there you were putting your thoughts in their minds.
“I believe unborn human life has inherent value. You believe it’s ascribed” – I said ‘both’ remember.
You are stuck on the concept that ‘inherent value’ is fixed. It isn’t. The anti-choice stance is that a fetus has an inherent value exceeding all other considerations. Pro-choicers not so much. Both sides also ‘ascribe’ a value to a fetus. Again, there is differentiation.
“The OPPOSITE of my view is precisely what I’m saying the pro-choice view is.” – dude, that is not what you said. You intimated that the pro-choicer parent in actuality believed the anti-choice position, thus they couldn’t be philosophically honest.
“yet there you were putting your thoughts in their minds.”
What thought was that, reality? You claim to know this. So state the thought. What thought was I putting in their minds.
Do you just say mindless stuff gratuitously to troll for fun?
Yes, you SAID both. And I can claim to breath fire. But since you haven’t explained how you can believe both (violating the law of non-contradiction in the process, since unless you equivocate you’d be claiming both A and non-A simultaneously, which is a logical contradiction), I’ll simply deny that you’re making any sense. You’re not. You’re being violently silly just now.
“There’s differentiation.” So differentiate. Have fun with that — because whatever inherent value it has doesn’t make it valuable enough to survive abortion. Which means that when facing a living child, an honest pro-choice “mother” would have to say that her whim to let the child live was the only thing that made the child more valuable than the cost of an abortion.
Do you think before you post stuff, Reality?
”dude, that is not what you said. You intimated that the pro-choicer parent in actuality believed the anti-choice position”
The alternative to believing their pro-choice excuse for aborting a fetus is not believing the pro-life view of unborn life. I believe I said very clearly that what they really believe is that they’ll just do whatever the hell they want — ergo, no need for a philosophical position at all. That crap’s just trotted out as rationalization when they’re conversing with pro-lifers. Heh.
Let’s face it. The only thing a pro-choice parent can say as to why they felt they could abort this child and not that one is, “‘Cause.”
It’s how they feel at the time. It has nothing to do with logic or science. It’s indefensible, in a word.
“people have rational fingerprints — they think in certain ways, gravitate toward particular methods of argument, can be relied upon to behave in certain ways” – ‘rational fingerprints’? Anyway, you don’t seem as endearingly pompous as previously :-)
“Reality recently accidentally posted as “Rebecca”, yet supposedly is a man.” – if you had read and comprehended what I said when that happened, you would recall that I stated that some clever clog got at my computer and changed the name.
“I hope you are well” – ‘well’, now there’s a broad term. Head yes, body noooo.
“Are you a child?” – no, are you simple?
One cannot ‘deny’ what isn’t there. Nor can one ‘affirm’ what isn’t there.
“because the contrary of denying is affirming, and of affirming is denying” – yes, they are indeed.
“so the only alternative is that atheists affirm that there is a God and that theists deny there is a God.” – no.
“That’s where idiocy will get you, if you insist on going there.” – what, the attempt to claim affirmation?
An atheist will deny a belief in any god. A theist will affirm a belief in a god. That much is true.
Thank you for your lengthy – but not windy – paragraph of clarification of your position. To some pro-choicers at least, the difference between a fetus and a born child is of itself indicative of different inherent and ascribed value. A fetus has much less inherent value than a born child so the dilemma you portray does not exist.
“Ironically, pro-choicers need to make a choice about what they believe. Or not!” – as do anti-choicers.
“Because no defense need be made.” – depends on how you really feel about it doesn’t it.
“Doing whatever the hell you want doesn’t need a philosophical defense. Right?” – we could apply that to so many situations couldn’t we. Yet often, people will in fact come up with a philosphical defense. Whether that defense is necessary or valid is where the argument lies, non?
“What thought was that, reality? You claim to know this. So state the thought. What thought was I putting in their minds.” – “they themselves do not believe it. Yes, they know it’s wrong on the face of it.”
So no, I don’t “just say mindless stuff gratuitously to troll for fun”
“Do you think before you post stuff, Reality?” – how about you rasqual, do you even read what you yourself have said, let alone what I have said, before you post stuff? ;-)
Reality: “One cannot ‘deny’ what isn’t there. Nor can one ‘affirm’ what isn’t there.”
The proposition isn’t there, Reality? Dude. Again. Are you a child?
The atheist isn’t denying something that isn’t there, Reality. The atheist denies the proposition that there is a God. In denying the proposition, they’re denying the existence of God. Yet you seem to believe that they’re not entitled to do so, and your reason for thinking that is your own denial of God’s existence.
That’s really weird.
“To some pro-choicers at least, the difference between a fetus and a born child is of itself indicative of different inherent and ascribed value. A fetus has much less inherent value than a born child so the dilemma you portray does not exist.”
Good grief, that’s the old Reality again. Some sense, at last.
Yes, I understand what you’re saying. But the question was how a parent answers a child. How do you tell a child that the reason they exist, and the reason an aborted sibling does not, is the mere choice of the mother? To say that a born child has worth at that time does not really answer the child’s inevitable question: is it really only my mother’s whim before birth that differentiates me from my non-sibling? Am I really that hair’s breadth away from the biological waste bag?
But perhaps Mommy’s one of those parents who, having chosen to carry a future sibling to term, tells sister that “Mommy has your brother in her womb! Yay! Come feel him move!” — building anticipation of the blessed event. And yet . . . baby doesn’t really have that value. He’s still just a parasite. She’s ascribing that value, but why should big sister do so? Merely because Mommy does? If a husband ascribes value to his unborn progeny and “mom” doesn’t, there’s no obvious reason why anyone should share the mother’s ascribed value to the unborn child. After all, the only inherent value is the mother’s body — a value the unborn is obliged to acknowledge and die, at “mom’s” whim, to validate. So is there some reason why big sister should not hold in abeyance any assignation of value on her part to little brother, until that egg is hatched? Isn’t a pro-choice parent lying, in some sense, by ascribing value to a fetus that it doesn’t really possess? It’s something in mother’s mind — not in her womb — that is representing value. Or are we waxing superstitious — where the voodoo of a woman’s assignation magically confers upon the fetus some metaphysical stature? But wait! She changes her mind. Abortion time! New magic — bye-bye stature, and big sister better get used to the arbitrary character of “value” in the eye of the mater beholdress.
Argh. Go say your prayers to Moloch, Reality. I’ve gotta hit the hay.
You stated that “An atheist denies, and a theist affirms, that there is a God” – atheists do not believe that there is a god, so how can they ‘deny’, any more than you ‘deny’ the tooth fairy. Theists cannot ‘affirm’ that there is a god, they can only believe that there is a god. They can affirm their belief.
“The proposition isn’t there, Reality?” – Dude, there is no god.
“Again. Are you a child?’ – are you a simpleton?
“Good grief, that’s the old Reality again. Some sense, at last.” – that’s because you enunciated your position, thank you.
“is it really only my mother’s whim before birth that differentiates me from my non-sibling? Am I really that hair’s breadth away from the biological waste bag?” – no, there are a number of factors which endow a born child with greater inherent value than a developing fetus. I know you don’t like that or agree but to pro-choice folk it’s valid.
“And yet . . . fetus doesn’t really have that value. He’s still just a parasite. She’s ascribing that value,” – column A is inherent, column B is ascribed. Mix and match, top up and balance out. Both sides do it.
“but why should big sister do so? Merely because Mommy does?” – ah, the nature of children, isn’t it cute.
“After all, the only inherent value is the mother’s body — a value the unborn is obliged to acknowledge and die, at “mom’s” whim, to validate.” – not exactly. The mother’s inherent value is greater than that of the fetus. The unborn cannot ‘acknowledge’ anything. ‘Whim’? subjective much.
“So is there some reason why big sister should not hold in abeyance any assignation of value on her part to little brother, until that egg is hatched?” – the usual less than complete understanding of the whole scenario when it comes to young kiddies when a sibling may be on the way?
“Isn’t a pro-choice parent lying, in some sense, by ascribing value to a fetus that it doesn’t really possess? It’s something in mother’s mind — not in her womb — that is representing value.” – column A and column B.
“Or are we waxing superstitious — where the voodoo of a woman’s assignation magically confers upon the fetus some metaphysical stature?” – what, like naming the product of conception the morning after hopeful sex? Attributing characteristics to a fetus which it is physically unable to possess?
“But wait! She changes her mind. Abortion time! New magic — bye-bye stature, and big sister better get used to the arbitrary character of “value” in the eye of the mater beholdress.” – how about reasons, causes?
“Argh. Go say your prayers to Moloch, Reality.” – I pray to nothing rasqual.
“I’ve gotta hit the hay.” – stamp your hoof twice if you’re warm enough :-)
I’m sorry about your health issues Reality, you’re in my thoughts.
Did you have a role in that little soap opera Praxedes?
You bet I did. I refused to choose to pay someone to kill the child my ex and I chose to conceived together.
Had I done what my ex pressured me to do, our child would have been too dead to question us about whether he had any siblings that died via abortion.
As it is, my ex and I celebrated our beautiful son’s 23rd birthday yesterday. Twenty-three — the same age I was when I chose not to sentence my son to death because he existed.
Reality: Dude, there is no god.
Sure there is. The regnant Self. Everyone’s born a natural devotee. Pro-choicers celebrate the sacrifice of its perverse Mass with alarming alacrity.
Awhile back, Jack and I cornered Reality and he seemed to go a little haywire. He just hasn’t been the same since, rasqual.
OK xalisae. Now I get it.
Thanks prolifers for all of your attempts at reality for Reality. You guys are great and patient. Carry on.
Thanks Jack. No single issue is significant but a collection of them does add up :-)
So you made your choice Praxedes, good for you.
So rasqual, the fact that every individual who lives according to the knowledge of eons of human development and discovery with all that that entails (including the recognition that there are no deities) equates to ‘self’ achieving the status of a god. Doesn’t set a very high benchmark for your god does it. Makes the question as to why you dismiss all gods except one particular one even more interesting.
“Pro-choicers celebrate the sacrifice of its perverse Mass with alarming alacrity.” – this could be entertaining. Please feel free to expand on this.
I have noted the propensity for overactive imagination amongst some anti-choicers xalisae ;-)
“You guys are great and patient.” – or is that stubborn and persistent?
So you made your choice Praxedes, good for you.
Paying to have your child killed will always be a choice; it just shouldn’t be a legal one.
Great, patient, stubborn and persistent are all great attributes for those trying to save human lives.
Well Reality, if you really want to go down several turtles, we can find out whether you’re even entitled to believe other minds exist. But I don’t think you’re interested in establishing an epistemology or anything else — you just want to do whatever you want, including impugning theists regardless of whether or not you’re entitled to even know that they exist.
But that’s all modernist rot; we’re all postmodern now, right? And in this order you’re not really entitled to impose your absolutist metanarrative. You’re supposed to leave that to theists.
That’s the weird part about atheists — they end up with fundamentalist epistemologies, theists turned inside out. You could pour humanness into the shell of their unbelief, and a perfect theist would emerge from the mold.
As for your unserious consideration of the self as god, you might want to consider the functional understanding of deity that secular anthropologists repair to in their neutral descriptions of various cultures. When the self is central, it’s not theology any more — it’s anthropology, natch.
“we can find out whether you’re even entitled to believe other minds exist.” – and what if I don’t?
“you just want to do whatever you want” – that simply isn’t true.
“including impugning theists regardless of whether or not you’re entitled to even know that they exist.” – aw, really. But I do know theists exist, even if I’m not entitled to.
“we’re all postmodern now, right?” – obviously not :-)
“And in this order you’re not really entitled to impose your absolutist metanarrative. You’re supposed to leave that to theists.” – which one?
“theists turned inside out.” – pity that doesn’t occur more.
“You could pour humanness into the shell of their unbelief, and a perfect theist would emerge from the mold.” – is that your dream? Your really, truly, deeply held dream? Cos it sure smacks of fantasy.
“As for your unserious consideration of the self as god…..When the self is central, it’s not theology any more — it’s anthropology, natch.” – shucks, and here I was thinking we were seeing a return of the old wordsmithy rasqual. Shame.
That’s the weird part about atheists — they end up with fundamentalist epistemologies, theists turned inside out. You could pour humanness into the shell of their unbelief, and a perfect theist would emerge from the mold.
I’d be insulted, but I think hard-line atheism is foolish, since speaking in absolutes about that which cannot be seen or measured conclusively is speaking from ignorance, and that should at all times be discouraged.
xalisae, I find the claim that if you apply ‘humanness’ to an atheist you end up with a theist to be both audacious and puerile. To posit that atheists lack ‘humanness’ is trite and ignorant. I can understand why certain people here may make such a claim of myself, but not of folks such as yourself and Jack.
“xalisae, I find the claim that if you apply ‘humanness’ to an atheist you end up with a theist to be both audacious and puerile. To posit that atheists lack ‘humanness’ is trite and ignorant. I can understand why certain people here may make such a claim of myself, but not of folks such as yourself and Jack.”
Lol I saw that but I wasn’t going to say anything, but yes, it’s rather offensive. I don’t think it’s fair or remotely logical to deny that atheists are just as human as theists.
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t deny your humanity. Unlike some people *cough* I don’t deny personhood to certain humans based on their actions/beliefs/external characteristics.
That’s very humane of you Jack, thank you.
I don’t deny personhood to certain humans based on their actions/beliefs/external characteristics either.
Unless those external (and internal) characteristics are still being expressed en utero, eh Reality?
I wholeheartedly agree with the three of you. To be an atheist is to be all too human. ;)
“Unless those external (and internal) characteristics are still being expressed en utero, eh Reality?”
Lol yes, that is what I was trying to gently imply.
Well….it depends where you stand doesn’t it.
Extreme anti-choicer – look, a sperm bumped an egg, person!
Middle of the road anti-choicer – conception, implantation – ah, a person.
Rational pro-choicer (that’d be me :-) ) – a birth, how sweet, look, a new person.
Peter Singer – if it can recognise itself its probably a person.
Or, as an anti-choicer recently stated – has it reached sexual maturity?
Are you really saying Hans, that atheists possess greater humanity than theists? Don’t let anyone hear you.
Reality,
I’m saying not all human characteristics are admirable. For instance, a lack of imagination that there is more to this universe than what is in front of our noses.
And that would include the way that we all start our journeys in life, before being presented to your demanding eyes at birth.
“For instance, a lack of imagination that there is more to this universe than what is in front of our noses” – you mean those whose imagination isn’t excited by the accelerating expansion of our universe, its contents and the possible dimensional aspects. The ones who say ‘goddidit and here it is’ you mean?
“And that would include the way that we all start our journeys in life, before being presented to your demanding eyes at birth.” – all our journeys in life start at birth, none of them are subject to my ‘demanding eyes’. How about the ‘demanding eyes’ people such as you subject others to as they journey through their lives?
Oh, why do I bother?
The fact that the Universe is expanding is the current result of it having been started by… Someone. Laugh all you want. Poirot and Holmes didn’t start out thinking “no one did it”.
It’s even easier to prove that life doesn’t begin at birth. It moves from one place to another. I would only demand of you that you wouldn’t impede that journey through life because of your ageist belief system.
“Oh, why do I bother?” – because one day you might just get there, you never know :-)
“The fact that the Universe is expanding is the current result of it having been started by… Someone.” – ah, ‘someone’. I am aware of your belief system. The one that started because of the limited imaginations of some who were subsequently happy to cede control to the more imaginative amongst them.
Amusing aside. My former partner and I actually developed a business plan and an associated operational plan on how to establish a new religion/cult/ethos and make $$$ from it. It’s not that hard. But we are too honest so we didn’t.
“Laugh all you want. Poirot and Holmes didn’t start out thinking “no one did it”. – is that an attempt at an analogy? You could at least try something vaguely comparative. You haven’t actually read the books either have you.
“It’s even easier to prove that life doesn’t begin at birth. It moves from one place to another.” – what are you on?
“I would only demand of you that you wouldn’t impede that journey through life because of your ageist belief system” – that’s a bit shallow Hans. It has nothing to do with ‘age’, nor is it a ‘belief system’.
Nonsense. We all have belief systems. One of your beliefs is that I have to be on drugs to know that being carried (born) from one place to another does not magically create someone or something.
Now that is one psychedelic belief you have that a life only begins at birth.
“Now that is one psychedelic belief you have that a life only begins at birth.” – if you’d been paying attention you would know that that is not my belief – but that’s ok, I hear the same error here over and over and over again.
all our journeys in life start at birth, none of them are subject to my ‘demanding eyes’.
Your partial sentence answer, which is totally wrong.
And previously,
“Rational pro-choicer (that’d be me :-) ) – a birth, how sweet, look, a new person.”
Again, only if your eyes would deign he or she that personhood. Not before you can see them.
“Your partial sentence answer, which is totally wrong.” – you might want to expand on this if you want it to carry any weight.
“Again, only if your eyes would deign he or she that personhood. Not before you can see them” – again, it has nothing to do with my eyes, nor what I deign.
Reality: “I find the claim that if you apply ‘humanness’ to an atheist you end up with a theist to be both audacious and puerile. To posit that atheists lack ‘humanness’ is trite and ignorant.”
Not from a Christian standpoint. An image-bearer of God denying that station, is embracing a vast emptiness. From the theistic point of view — of course.
Many atheists are merely agnostic. I can respect that, because I’m pretty agnostic myself (in the epistemic–not the popular–sense). Your own certainty on the matter is precisely theistic fundamentalism turned inside out. I’m pretty certain of that. ;-)