Abortion
First, consider the euphemisms used to describe abortion such as “induced termination” or “arresting the development” or “cessation of growth” of a fetus. We might even consider the “failure of a plan” except that one smacks of religion which, obviously, the GMT’s reflexively reject. In every case, the assertion is that something ends with an abortion. The ineluctable conclusion is that the only thing that ends is the life of the fetus. In fact if the fetus were not alive, the procedure would not be termed an abortion. Therefore, the fetus must be alive.
Second, we know that no wart becomes a human being. We also know that no human being was once a wart. That means that there must be some interesting distinction between a human embryo and a wart in determining if, in fact, the embryo is entitled to the rights of a human being. Consequently, failing to distinguish between a wart and a human embryo is illogical.
I hope this demonstration helps the GMT’s so we can move to the question of whether the fetus is a person endowed with unalienable rights.
This letter has not been edited.
Another wart heard from...
Posted by Yawwnnnn on May 15, 2007 03:04 PMOddly enough, the remark,"so are you saying a fetus is not alive" came from a pro-birther directed to a pro-choice poster. A good deal of confusion resulted as the difference between 'life" and being "alive" and being a "live human fetus " took over the discussion.
Most of left early, before the wart wars.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 15, 2007 04:33 PMIf you believe the Bible is the Word of God you must accept the fetus has no more worth than a wart, to wit:
Abortion was sanctioned in the Church until the soul became animated, a line set at 40 days after conception for the male fetus, 80 or 90 days for the female with those holy dudes determining sex before birth. The animation theory was abolished in 1869 by Pope Pius IX making abortion at any point murder and sin. Popes just like Mormon Prophets supersede each other as time marches.
No life for life here as no life was lost in Deut .12:23: If the woman dies as a result of miscarriage, the man at fault must die because he committed a murder; thou shalt give life for life. If a miscarriage occurs and the woman is unharmed, the man merely pays a fine; no life for life here, as no life was lost. Deut 12:23
The blood is life. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: Lev. 17:11. The fertilized egg cells have no blood and it is only when the umbilical cord is cut after childbirth that the fetus lives as more than a part of its mother: Ex. 37:6 Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust,” signaling that it is the breath, not anything else that makes the difference between life and death. “To die one must first breathe,” after childbirth. Psa. 104. Posted by Richard Grimes on April 7, 2007 09:27 AM
Jake: It is the Bible (Gods' Holy Word) talkin'; it is not me; if you declare His Holy Word a liar, you blasphemy; however, only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Ghost/Spook) is not forgiveable without blood redemption. Blood, blood, blood, kill the transmogrified Jew and be saved.
Richard Grimes -
Wow. I've read the Bible front to back twice in my life. I must confess I'm not terribly convince by it. Those are fascinating quotes. I'll look 'em up when I get home; they seem to take the hot air out of the balloon.
Posted by Con Mor on May 15, 2007 06:01 PMMan when I saw that acronym GMT, I immediately thought of all the Pro-Birthers sitting on their couches cheering the Shock and Awe of thousands of bombs killing thousands of real live human beings and all for a mistaken assumption. No WMD. No connections to al-Queda. No end to torture and humiliation. What do the GMT's like Mr. Jones have to say about those humans who weren't warts but became bloody mist. How morally righteous he must feel today to have sat on his couch and cheered. What a manly Christian. I'm sure God will deal with him on his Judgment Day.
Posted by Wes on May 15, 2007 09:36 PMI guess Jim Jones is back from his Guyana jungle vacation.
He's making less sense than when he left.
JJ, the fetus is potential life.
Life is self sustaining (capable of homeostasis.) A fetus is not. For that it requires a host (the woman.) When it can survive without her, it's right to life supercedes her right to privacy and self determination. Before that it doesn't.
What part of that don't you understand?
Posted by What a tool! on May 15, 2007 11:19 PMI guess Jim Jones is back from his Guyana jungle vacation.
He's making less sense than when he left.
JJ, the fetus is potential life.
Life is self sustaining (capable of homeostasis.) A fetus is not. For that it requires a host (the woman.) When it can survive without her, it's right to life supercedes her right to privacy and self determination. Before that it doesn't.
What part of that don't you understand?
Posted by What a tool! on May 15, 2007 11:19 PM"Life is self sustaining (capable of homeostasis.) A fetus is not. For that it requires a host (the woman.) When it can survive without her, it's right to life supercedes her right to privacy and self determination. Before that it doesn't."
So when I own a pet that is incapable of surviving in the environment I introduce it to, I can torture and kill it and be in the right while doing so? Glad that's so cut and dry.
Posted by No use on May 15, 2007 11:59 PMWhat a tool!
What is the basis of your definition that life must be self-sustaining in order to be considered life? The Roe decision legitimizes aborting the pre-viable fetus but did not rule that the pre-viable fetus is not alive.
If the fetus is not alive, then all abortion does is remove dead tissue. But if that's true then the procedure is not abortion.
It might help you understand the issues if you understood the plain definitions of the terms used instead of replacing them with your own.
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 06:22 AMWhat was it Yogi Berra once said?
Ah! Yes! "Deja vu all over again"
And again, and again, and again, and . . . ! From ad infinitum to ad nauseam, and on!
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 07:38 AM"So when I own a pet that is incapable of surviving in the environment I introduce it to, I can torture and kill it and be in the right while doing so?"
If that pet requires the use of your body parts to survive, and you don't want to give them, you don't have to.
And Mr. Jones: " What is the basis of your definition that life must be self-sustaining in order to be considered life?"
It need not be. But if one human life needs to sustain itself on another's body, it needs that person's CONTINUING permission to do so. No, having sex is not enough - a woman's authority over her own body parts should not require mandatory, lifelong celibacy. You would not accept that for yourself - do not force it on your sisters. Besides, circumstances can change drastically in nine months, and even the most wanted and planned-for pregnancy can go horribly wrong.
Katja,
If life is an inalienable right then you do no need anyone's permission to the right.
The fetus is dependent on the mother's body to sustain it life but, those aren't my rules. That is the way nature is ordered. I just believe in playing by the rules
No one argues that a mother should be forced to die so the fetus may live. Most people recognize that where the question of the life of the mother is involved then the question becomes personal and society has no interest.
However, the vast majority of the 800,000 or so abortions that occur every year are not related to health but birth control.
A healty mother killing a healthy fetus is an entirely different matter and needs to be discussed as such.
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 09:02 AMWhat an apt comparison to Jonestown tool.
Jim Jones wants us all to drink his Kool-Aid without questioning his beliefs. I find it quite telling that he wants us to believe that we are the ones who engage in hypocrisy with our GMT attitudes. Me thinks the man is engaging in projection of the highest order with this acronym.
Look in the mirror Jim Jones when you talk about GMT attitudes then tell us how much you enjoy watching people be turned into bloody mist. How much compassion do you really have on those whose bodies are torn to pieces in a moment of bloody agony? We're talking about living breathing people who died in unbearable pain because of people like you Jim Jones, who never question the wisdom of war.
Your acronym is a joke Jim Jones. You have been drinking too much of your own Kool-Aid.
Posted by Wes on May 16, 2007 09:11 AMAt least the courts ruled you can't crush a baby's skull and suck their brains out anymore.
Why a person would feel a need for that right is barbaric.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 09:23 AMWhy a person would feel a need for that right is barbaric.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 09:23 AM
Why people need to ignore that this medical procedure is only used when the life of the woman is at risk is beyond me. Insisting that a woman who might later have a viable pregnancy die so that her child grows up a motherless child is maybe the meanest cruelest thing that someone who has no involvement with that particular family can advocate. What heartless person to insist that the mother die for his ideology. Another GMT hypocrite from the pro-war pro-death crowd. So how's the war going you Krazy Windnut? Had enough justified killings yet? Can't get enough killing can you whether it is mothers or brown skins?
Posted by Wes on May 16, 2007 10:03 AMJJ, how do you get stats on abortion yearly, most of us can`t find a reliable (non-rightwing agenda-type publication) with verafiable numbers?
Can`t get numbers on pre-teen abortion, teen abortions, married teen abrtions, etc.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 10:18 AMYo Con Mor: While you are looking check Luke 19:27 where the transmogrified Jew mandates the assassination of those who won't accept that a King should reign over them and here we have "King of the Jews" ordering assassination like Joseph Smith of Mormon fame and Pat Robertson. Of course, Con, don't be conned, the Jew never said it because not only is he a fiction but it is his fanclub as with Mohammad that said it. Me, your friendly deicide
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com ffrf.org on May 16, 2007 11:14 AMYo Con Mor: While you are looking check Luke 19:27 where the transmogrified Jew mandates the assassination of those who won't accept that a King should reign over them and here we have "King of the Jews" ordering assassination like Joseph Smith of Mormon fame and Pat Robertson. Of course, Con, don't be conned, the Jew never said it because not only is he a fiction but it is his fanclub as with Mohammad that said it. Me, your friendly deicide
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com ffrf.org on May 16, 2007 11:18 AM"So how's the war going you Krazy Windnut?"
Wes, is that vain throbbing in your forehead again? Now calm down and take an Excedrin before you have another spell.
I really hate to answer your question with a question but here goes. How many of those aborted babies volunteered?
Thought so.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 01:04 PMOf all the babies in the womb of woman placed there by Allah or some other superstitious nonsense, I know of only one as evidenced in 66 books picked by macho-male men, all Jews I think, stapled together and called "Bible," that evidences a baby in the womb that volunteers in suicide. He does not have the courage to take his own life so he seeks assistance. There is no biblical doubt that Jesus Christ is assisted in his suicide. Me, your friendly deicide in answer to KW query chagrined over his double posting afore-executed. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 16, 2007 03:37 PMSharon
Here is the link your looking for up through 2003.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/#Abortion
The lazy Pro-Birthers will never bother to look at the actual statistics. They prefer their myths instead.
Less than 1.5% of all abortions are done after 21 weeks. Over 60% are done in the first 6 weeks and 88% are done in the first twelve weeks.
I Googled for "Center for Disease Control" and then typed in "abortions" in their website Search box. Too bad the Pro-Birthers can't figure it out. Too much technology for their anti-science attitudes.
Posted by Wes on May 16, 2007 05:10 PMThank you, it is easy to see that most abortions are very early term.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 07:26 PMSharon B,
I'm not particularly interested in the exact numbers because it's a moral question.
But here's some data from the Guttmacher Institute. If you look into their credentials you will see that they are not right-wing fanatics.
"On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."
What's interesting about that data is the health concerns did not make the list.
Most people would agree that where the question of the mother's health is at risk then the choice is up to the mother.
If Roe was overturned, then the abortion law in Colorado would become the law and abortion for the health of the mother would be legal.
The more difficult question, and the one I have a hard time getting the pro-Choice crowd to address is, what about abortion that is solely for the purpose of birth control?
That condition appears to be most usual case and yet it is rarely discussed.
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 08:08 PMJonesy,
I really shouldn't; but, then again . . . !
When you manufacture a question to which you want a particular kind of answer, you shouldn't really wonder at having a hard time getting anyone to address it. Everyone already knows your sermon; and your constant repitition of it is really tiring and tiresome.
As to 'abortion that is solely for the purpose of birth control: It's there. It's legal. And, it's none of your damn business in the first place. You're not a woman. You know nothing about a woman's life; and your endless blathering on about something that is a woman's own business merely serves to show your own total lack of both intelligence and common sense.
Now drink your Kool Aid, and give us all a rest.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 09:43 PMHow many of those aborted babies volunteered?
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 01:04 PM
What a bizarre question. Besides being 18 they would need to be combat effective before they could volunteer to be part of our glorious war machine.
You probably aren't talking about volunteering to kill people are you? Since you ask about volunteers for death isn't that why Jesus is exalted? Didn't he volunteer to give up his life to save others. If a fetus was sentient wouldn't think it might make the decision to give up it's life to save the mother? Why wouldn't a fertilized embryo be willing to be used in stem cell research to save others? How do you know they aren't willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of humanity or the good of the mother? My suspicion is that you believe they wouldn't volunteer because you see yourself in their situation and you have a great fear of death which you project it on to the fetus. "Kill the mother but save me because I'm what's most important." Something like that. That's why you so easily thrill to the idea of justified killing in war because you are afraid that if you don't vicariously kill others than they will kill you and you are truly scared of dying.
You need to make peace with this earth dude. Your death is inevitable and trying to stick your gigantic nose into other people's lives to chase away your own fears is pretty stupid when you stop and consider the folly of a die hard conservative screaming for nanny government to solve his problem. Maybe God has a plan for the souls of the miscarried and aborted and he uses them in ways that a fearful mortal like you can't understand. So my answer is "I don't know and neither do you." Now answer my question: Did you sit on the couch with a war woody and shout with exultant joy every time you saw on Fox TV a bomb explode killing other human beings? Be honest now. Did you?
Posted by Wes on May 16, 2007 09:49 PMI'm not particularly interested in the exact numbers because it's a moral question.
What about abortion that is solely for the purpose of birth control?
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 08:08 PM
Interesting that the Pro-Birthers scream about how terrible it is to suck BABY brains out and eat them but when it is pointed out that the situation rarely happens and then in almost all cases to save the life of the women then they go tut-tut we don't deal in statistics. Talk about lying hypocrites. We manufacture this scenario and then sell it as the normal situation and denounce it as a terrible thing because we are GMT.
As far a birth control is concerned this is another instance where Jim Jones wants people to drink his Kool-Aid because now these are the statistics that are to be believed. My answer is so what? It is her decision when she is ready to have a viable decision. So what?
A woman has ten medical abortions and then has two beautiful children who grow up and discover a cure for cancer. Do you see ten murders or do you see two wonderful human beings? Is she a mass murderer or is she a loving mother? I live in the reality based world. You can have your murder conspiracies. I live in the world where people make difficult decisions and take personal responsibility for their actions. I'm the real conservative. You people with your nanny government solutions that force the individual to be a prisoner of the state are the real social engineers. Hypocrites. Free will says your efforts to control other human beings will always fail. Mind your own business and work to stop war as the only perceived solution to human conflict.
Posted by on May 16, 2007 10:06 PMKW
You are still not answering why you love war and the killing associated with war. Google "Dead Iraqi citizens" if you want to see some really grisly pictures of your "Sanctity of Life" policies.
You still haven't answered why you want a nanny government to solve this problem. You still haven't answered why you believe that government can police personal decisions any better than they can do anything else. You liberals are always wanting government to fix problems that you deem unacceptable. How can you accept a certain level of violence in Iraq but refuse to accept that women will find ways to terminate an unwanted pregnancy regardless of government meddling. I find it so funny that you were so outraged that I assumed you were a Pro-Birther. You implied in your posts demanding an apology that you were a LIbertarian who understood the limitations of government. You were obviously lying then and your refusal to acknowledge your love of war is just as disingenuous now. What a joke trying to get us to believe that you are a legtimate GMT.
War lovers don't respect life. They are pro-death.
Posted by Wes on May 17, 2007 10:52 AMWes, I figured you would completely ignore the facts I posted showing how far the baby has developed when killed. Whatsa matter, are these tough facts to face?
And don't forget, your support of abortion kills far more than our soldiers in Iraq. By 100 fold at least.
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 11:30 AMwow!
Posted by Bango Skank on May 17, 2007 11:41 AMBango must've just learned what a baby looks like before they're aborted.
Sorry it was so rough on you Bango. If we could just get those pro-abortion folks to quit lying to you about the realities. But hey, that's what you get.
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 02:56 PMnah, I am very familiar with what they look like before and after.
I am also familiar with war and what it looks like when small kids and others get hit with shrapnel, or airbursts, or pick up cluster bomblets.
I would say that abortion is a whole lot less wrenching than war.
I was simply amazed at just how bizarre your argument was getting.
Wes, and Bango Skank,
The short form of the fundamental philosophy of anti-abortionism:
1. Women are nothing more than the human equivalent of brood cattle.
2. More babies = more cannon fodder.
3. More babies = more cheap labor.
4. Keep them breeding.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 07:06 PM"The short form of the fundamental philosophy of anti-abortionism:
1. Women are nothing more than the human equivalent of brood cattle.
2. More babies = more cannon fodder.
3. More babies = more cheap labor.
4. Keep them breeding."-
You're sick, Old Grouch.
Posted by Mike on May 17, 2007 09:32 PMWe're all sick Mike because we have to endlessly listen to KW and Jim Jones tell us these women are murderers but they themselves won't acknowledge their own blood lust for war. KW why don't you visit the families of a soldier whose body was torn apart in Iraq and tell them that it it is a 100 times more heinous to for a women to have an abortion. Tell them that a six week old fetus is just as important as their son.
I reviewed your picture maybe you have the guts to look at this one.
http://www.johnmitchell.org/dead-iraqi-3.jpg
This is real death KW. This is what you love. Look at it a weep for what a twisted human being you have become.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 09:58 PM"but they themselves won't acknowledge their own blood lust for war."
"This is real death KW. This is what you love."
"Blood lust for war"?????
"This is what you love"???
Where do people get that crap?
Posted by Mike on May 17, 2007 10:19 PMMike,
They mock and ridicule people who disagree with them because if they acknowledged any respect for the person then they would have to respect their argument.
And if they had to respect their argument, then they would have to defend their own positions and that requires intellectual vigour.
We are all free to post whatever we like here and when we post we define ourselves. Their choice is to use this opportunity to sit in the comfort of their homes and cloaked in anonymity insult people they will never know. That is their choice.
It is pointless to ask where they get their allegations. They attribute false and vile positions to others probably because it makes them feel better about themselves.
I recommend we leave them to it.
Posted by James Jones on May 18, 2007 06:40 AMJames, I notice you don't actually offer an argument against what Groucho said, you just wove a narrative around it.
Care to address whether an abortion is far more cruel than killing both mother and child with a bomb or shell?
I am eager to see how you avoid mocking or ridiculing and how you respect the argument.
Over to you.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 18, 2007 08:26 AMMike,
The study of history - expecially that of the Patriarchal society - will bear me out. I used "cannon fodder", and "cheap labor", because these are terms a bit more familiar today than "warriors", and "farm hands".
The Patriarchal society which produced the collection of myths we know today as the "Old Testament" clearly places the blame for the "loss of Paradise" on woman. This psychological diminution, degredation - and an attitude perilously close to demonization - of half of human kind, is further reflected in the whole aspect of fear of the seriously suppressed "magical" elements of femininity.
Example: The ritual restrictions on men in times of menstruation. And further: The clearly expressed attitude that woman is being punished for her sin in causing the loss of paradise by having to give birth in pain. And she is responsible as well for having forced man to gain sustenance by toil and labor. Thus, woman is made to be inferior; and with this inferiority a repository of all the "evil" side of human kind.
Since the early history of humans is one of tribal feuds, and intensive human labor to provide even the barest necessities of life itself; as well as one of short life span and high infant mortality - also reflected in the agrarian and frontier societies of Europe and the Continental United States as well, through the entire period preceding the Industrial Revolution, and even quite some time thereafter - the production of offspring became of paramount concern.
Thus, the Patriarchal society becomes one in which woman has a "place". This place is that of providing the society with MALE offspring, since males are the dominant part of the society. In this place she can do "penance" for her original "crimes"; and also be of use to the society as a whole, as it struggles with those tremenduous ills and evils woman has caused to begin with. Thus, failure to produce offspring is one of the most heinous violations of the Patriarchal society's fundamental requirements for survival; and is due further punishment for the woman's current departure from her proper place.
Every anti-abortion agrument today is based upon this Patriarchal society paradigm.
I may have put it simply and crudely, Mike. But that's not "sick". Read Jung, and/or any one of the rest of the experts in developmental psychology.
The struggle between Patriarchal dominance and equal status for women throughout society is one that has gone on for ages. Today, it is focused on such matters as abortion. Today's anti-abortionists are representative of Patriarchal society's elevation of MALEness to the status of absolute religion, and "source of morals".
And when challenged on this position, they have nothing more to offer than sermons, in which they characterize others as not having "intellectual vigour", for instance. Which makes debate and discussion impossible, since there is nothing at all "intellectual" about the mere assertion of "moral superiority" belonging to the Patriarchal religious fanatics.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 08:42 AM"Every anti-abortion agrument today is based upon this Patriarchal society paradigm."
Nonsense.
I am against abortion.
I don't believe in any god.
I don't think that women are to be valued less than men.
I don't believe that women exist solely to breed.
I don't want to control women. ( I simply believe that their right to do anything they want with their bodies ends when it harms another body; as my right to swing my fist ends at your nose)
"The short form of the fundamental philosophy of anti-abortionism:
1. Women are nothing more than the human equivalent of brood cattle.
2. More babies = more cannon fodder.
3. More babies = more cheap labor.
4. Keep them breeding."
That's not my philosophy, and it certainly isn't my wife's.
She is not particularly religious.
She doesn't hate women (she happens to be one)
She is very independent and accomplished.
We believe that once a human is created (biologically, not by God) nobody has the right to end that life.
That's it- we don't hate women (again she is a woman) and we don't want to control anyone. We just don't believe in the ending of innocent life for convenience. And, obviously, we have a different opinion of when life begins.
Posted by Mike on May 18, 2007 09:09 AMBango Skank,
I wove no argument around Old Grouch. Mike was asking a question for which there is no good answer and I advised him not to waste his time. It rarely occurs to me to respond to Old Grouch in any fashion.
I will breifly address your question.
Generalization:
The fact that innocent people are killed is the inescapable, terrible consequence of war. For that reason alone, the only just aim of war is peace.
Nations guided by the just war principle will go to war only when required to remove a threat and save more lives in the long run. Moral warriors will do everything possible to minimize loss of innocent life in the pursuit of victory.
Example:
In the war on terror the US and allies will defeat not just the methods of the religious but also their ideas. Their concept of governance is pre-feudal. Their view of women and other faiths is reactionary. We will fight to prevent their barbaric acts and we will reject their attempt to persuade us that it is we and not they who are responsible for their violence.
The terrorists, on the other hand, will continue to enslave, torture and murder innocent human beings to the full extent of their capability. The fanatics will continue to perpetrate their cruel and evil acts until they are defeated.
In short, there is no important moral nexus between abortion and war.
Posted by James Jones on May 18, 2007 09:30 AMThe comparison of abortion to war to totally absurd. But that's what we get when the pro abortion fanatics run out arguments to back up their position.
I've never said we need to make abortion illegal as I'm sure so many of you have already assumed. Lets just quit whitewashing it. We have several people here trying to say a 10 week old child is the equivelant of a wart. My post was to illustrate how wrong that propaganda from the pro abortion crowd is. They DO have limbs, fingers, toes, brainwaves AND a heartbeat when you kill them.
If you truly believed in your cause you wouldn't feel the need to pretend it's something that it's not.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 09:59 AMJames, so are you saying that the intent is the salient issue, not the outcome?
KW, sorry bud, it was you whose argument led to warts and people being the same thing.
I just pointed that out to you.
Nice try though.
I am also interested in your statement of a "10 week old child".
Are you really trying to tell us that a 10 week old embryo is a "child" or was that just another example of sloppy thinking and articulation on your part?
Bango Skank,
I think it's likely that justice will result from moral intent. I think it's likely that injustice will result from evil intent.
There will always be unintended consequences but intent qualifies as salient in this construct.
James,
if I understand you right, you view abortion as worse than war because in abortion the intent is to kill, whereas you view the intent in war is to engage in killing with the expectation of a likelihood of ultimately saving lives.
In that case, would you only be against those cases of abortion in which the intent was not to save anybody, but just to kill without any expectation to save lives?
Bago Skank,
I am not opposed to therapeutic abortion.
I am opposed to eugenic abortion.
The comparison of abortion to war to totally absurd.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 09:59 AM
Your right KW. Your support for elective wars is absurd all by itself. Your attempts to evade your excitement over what you consider justified killing in war is an absurd position for anyone who claims to be concerned about the quality of life on this planet.
As far as misstating the positions of those who don't drink Jim Jone's Kool-Aid, nobody claims to be pro-abortion and nobody claims that there isn't loss of life. What I've been saying is that the loss of life from a medical abortion doesn't compare to the loss of life of an eighteen year old who volunteered believing his leaders would use war as a last resort instead of an opportunity for the war profiteers. You just don't want to admit that you enjoy thinking about war as a solution to mankind's problems. How you and Jim Jones can possibly believe that you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is beyond my comprehension. There is no bigger Pharisee than Jim Jones. The self-righteous sanctimonious fraud of Great Moral Thinkers. If Jim Jones wasn't so drunk on his own Kool-Aid, he would know that the alternative to using abortion as birth control is contraception. Got that Jim. If you don't want women to use abortions as birth control then the alternative is educating men and women in contraception methods. CONTRACEPTION, CONTRACEPTION, CONTRACEPTION Don't give me any of that crap that you are against medical abortions AND contraception. Either you want to reduce abortions or you don't.
Just to recap so you have a clear perception of my positions:
Yes the fetus is alive.
Yes the fetus is killed
No the fetus can not survive outside the woman and therefore is not an individual
No it is not murder
Yes the woman has a right to decide when and where she will have a viable pregnancy
No the government is not able to override the Free Will of the individual.
No government program will ever prevent a rich woman from having an abortion if she decides to terminate a pregnancy. This about class warfare as anything else.
Aborted and miscarried souls are not perishable things like insects trapped in quartz who are thrown on the scrap heap of history never to be used again.
Yes aborted souls can spiritually volunteer to save the life of the mother or save someone with a terminal illness through stem-cell research.
It is a tragedy but it is NOT MURDER.
Posted by Wes on May 18, 2007 01:24 PMLets see Bango, at 10 weeks we have arms, legs, fingers, toes, brainwaves and a heartbeat. Naw, that couldn't possibly be a 10 week old child.
And about your warts. Yes, it was my post that led you to compare the 10 week old child to a wart. Thanks for acknowledging that YOU took it to that level.
Tell me again, how many warts have a heartbeat?
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 01:35 PMLeaving aside any personal comments made before, lets deal with just the matter of "Patriarchal society paridigm".
The basic insistence that a woman owes deference both to thezygote/embryo/fetus and to MALE valuation of, and/or definition of, "life" therein, is Patriarchal. History's Matriarchal societies - of which there are even a few still around today - on the other hand view that differently. There, the matter of abortion in MALE argument form - or "allowable/moral/therapeutic/eugenic" terms and aspects thereof - either doesn't exist, or has been introduced to whatever degree through contact and inter-action with Patriarchal influences; and the conflict is much more obviously one of culture clash.
We live in - and the Western world has been for millenia - a Patriarchal society as such. It is both our Conscious and Unconscious psychological mileu; and it is within this Patriarchal paridigm that this whole discussion takes place. The Conscious degree to which anyone recognizes this varies, of course, with the individual.
But, unless you simply choose to reject the whole of psychology as such, the fundamentals of the paridigm - which have been thoroughly researched, and presented in great detail, by Carl Jung, and many others over the years since - are there; and they are discernable in the arguments presented on these postings.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 01:44 PMWes,
What an odd set of admissions. You freely admit, without compunction, that a fetus is alive and abortion kills it. But, because the fetus cannot survive outside the woman, it is not an individual and therefore it cannot be called murder.
Is a newborn baby able to survive on it's own? Did nature not intend the baby to continue to breast feed from it's mother long after it's birth? The baby still needs it's mother; it just feeds from the mother's external rather than her internal parts.
Would you say that the elderly are no longer individuals and therefore fit to be murdered, simply because they rely on the assistance of others for their existence?
I find your reasoning very scary: Nascent human life within the womb is alive, voluntary abortion kills it, it is a tragedy, yet it's not murder and should not be outlawed.
At least your honest.
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 01:50 PMKW, I suggest you hit the books.
Add the following to the list of terms I have already given you
- Zygote
- Embryo
- Fetus
- Neonate
- Infant
- Toddler
Then compare those to the word “child”
You may notice, if you pay very close attention, and don’t try to breathe, chew, or fidget at the same time, that “Child” only applies postnatal.
“Brainwaves” are not usual at 10 weeks, since “the first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week” (Wikipedia).
If I may make a suggestion, try the same technique I used to demonstrate the repercussions of your feeble claim that “everything that grows is alive”.
I put your argument in its best and strongest possible form.
You however, constantly try to cherry-pick the worst and weakest possible forms of the pro-choice argument, and then stuff your argument with ad hominems and red herrings, and then try to act as though you had some kind of triumph.
Try another tack mate.
And do keep the terminology accurate, calling an embryo or fetus a “child” just makes you look like an ignoramus.
Bango - Your thought process and rationalization techniques are absolutely amazing.
I said at 10 weeks we have arms, legs, fingers, toes, brainwaves and a heartbeat.
Your rebuttle to that is brain waves aren't normal at 10 weeks, but usually at 12 weeks.
And in your mind that makes a difference and you use this difference to justify your proabortion stance.
How utterly simplistic of you.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 04:04 PMNo KW, it is pointing out a fault (again) in what you are saying.
I haven't stated that this justifies anything as yet, and it wasn't a rebuttal - just a point of fact and some advice on argument construction.
You really aren't very good at this argumentation stuff are you?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 18, 2007 05:56 PMAt this point there seems to be substantial agreement on two points.
First, the fetus is alive.
Second, the fetus is a human being.
If we can agree on those two points, then productive discourse becomes possible.
Posted by James Jones on May 18, 2007 07:07 PMAnd assuming you do manage to arrive at agreement on the two points, just what do you hope to produce?
Having eliminated disagreement on the two most hotly contended points, what is there to "discourse" about?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 09:46 PMOld Grouch,
This was you earlier on.
KW,
Concerning the "most ridiculous conclusion": The logical progression here is: Original premise, May 4, 01:36 PM:
"Everything that grows is alive."
1. Embryos grow.
2. Warts grow.
Therefore, both embryos and warts are alive; and both embryos and warts are the same, in respect to (or context of) the original premise as stated.
Question: What makes this a "typically liberal debate tactic"?.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 7, 2007 01:52 PM
Now there seems to be general agreement, excluding perhaps you of course, that the product of human conception is a human being (elementary embryology) and we can discuss the issue of personhoood.
To quote me in the original post in this thread:
I hope this demonstration helps the GMT’s so we can move to the question of whether the fetus is a person endowed with unalienable rights.
Posted by James Jones on May 19, 2007 07:45 AMThank you for quoting me IN CONTEXT for a change. The presentation there is not invalidated by doing so, however.
On the other hand, you have done a good job of coming back around to begging the question. Your "general agreement" being somewhat open to the question of its "generality". But, don't let that bother you. Certainly, you never have before.
Let's begin with your basic assertion: "The product of human conception is a human being."
Or, shall we call it the basic premise for your argument's further logical development?
From this premise then, you seek to arrive at the conclusion of whether the FETUS (now substituted for "human being") is a person endowed with unalienable rights. (Do you mean "whether or not"? Or are you merely proposing agreement in a foregone conclusion already.)
Should you actually be interested in discussion - something other than mere sycophantic adulation of your own position -
this calls for a definition of terms, among other things.
Question 1: What is a "person"? (Define the term.)
Question 2: When does the fetus become a "person"?
Question 3: What are "unalienable rights"?.
Question 4: What is the source of "endowment" for these rights?
Now, Mr. Jones, you have stated that those who disagree with you are incapable of presenting their position with "intellectual vigour".
Do you have the "intellectual vigour" necessary to construct the logical syllogism(s) by which to present your proposed argument?
I sincerely doubt it. But then, I do believe in miracles; and am open to the possible experience of one.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 09:20 AMOld Grouch,
Your complaint about being quoted out of context comes from a man who has in the recent past not simply lifted one of my sentences out of a paragraph but has actually truncated half of the sentence itself to distort the meaning is an amusing irony but not a serious complaint.
If you can't recall the incident do let me know and I will be happy to reproduce if for you.
In your post that I was responding to you asked "what is their to discourse about?"
Now of course you pretend that you understood the topic all along and have miraculously become the self-appointed quiz master.
I will be addressing the questions you pose in the near future. But not with you.
Posted by James Jones on May 19, 2007 10:30 AMJames,
The product of a car assembly line is quite indisputably a car.
However, what is on the line at the start is by no stretch of the imagination, a car.
So somewhere between start and finish, we can say that we have a car.
Picking the exact point may be difficult – as we can see from the Greek philosophers, but we may be able to agree of either a milestone that marks a point at which there is a car, or failing that, we may agree on a phase in which it said to have occurred.
In the same sense, if you demand that conception marks the advent of personhood then no further discourse between us is possible.
A fortiori, if conception marks the advent of personhood then where is the outrage and panic over the far higher loss of life through lack of implantation and spontaneous abortion?
Many of the writers here have shown why there is this lack of alarm, and that is the inclusion of intentionality as the salient issue.
If intent is the bugbear, then there must clearly be a deontological moral process at work here.
In other words, the objection is religious, not legal or scientific.
Your choice of conception is thus religiously motivated and your argument theological.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 19, 2007 12:25 PM"If intent is the bugbear, then there must clearly be a deontological moral process at work here.
In other words, the objection is religious, not legal or scientific."
Bango- If I may interject my own opinion here. I don't believe it is, necessarily, a religious objection. I don't believe in God, and yet, I object.
My objection to murder is not religious. My objection to rape is not religious.
If someone working on a roof, falls off and dies; well, that is sad. If someone is PUSHED off a roof and dies, that is criminal. I make a distinction and it has nothing to do with religion.
"Your choice of conception is thus religiously motivated and your argument theological."
Some people believe that life begins at conception for religious reasons. I am not one of them. I believe life begins at some point between conception and delivery. I cannot pinpoint that exact moment; can you? Since I cannot pinpoint that moment, I believe in erring on the side of caution (since we are dealing with an innocent life) and going back to the beginning; conception.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 12:41 PMMike, one can be religious or follow religious norms – even base ones worldview on religion, and yet still not believe in the existence of God, but I do take your point.
I will therefore expand my assertion from specifying it as necessarily religious to moral. That would seem to cover you whatever your convictions.
On your other point, it seems to me that you are picking conception as a matter of convenience rather than science. Do you really think a zygote is a sentient being with full personhood?
Bango-
Whatever religious norms happen to coincide with my world views are coincidental. I believe in nothing spiritual.
"I will therefore expand my assertion from specifying it as necessarily religious to moral. That would seem to cover you whatever your convictions."
I will disagree with that. I would never base any laws, or restrictions of behavior, on my morality. I might personally believe it is immoral to commit adultery but, I wouldn't consider it a crime. I would consider it in divorce court, though.
Where I would restrict behavior, or make something unlawful, is when the action violates the rights of another. I believe abortion does that. I don't believe the mother retains the right to do anything she wants with her body when it violates the unborn's right to life. I lose the right to swing my fist when it connects with someone else's nose.
"On your other point, it seems to me that you are picking conception as a matter of convenience rather than science. Do you really think a zygote is a sentient being with full personhood?"
Not just convenience but, also, caution. There will always be uncertainty when 'life' begins. 'Life' by whose definition? I believe in giving the benefit of any doubt to the unborn.
Sentient? No. Personhood? I would say yes. The process has been started and I don't think I have the right to stop it.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 02:44 PMBango Skank
I would appreciate the opportunity to make my argument before having it branded theological.
I wanted to leave this to another thread because I don't think there's enough time left on this one for you and I to hash this out.
Personally I'm a bit pressed for time just now also.
I will leave you with this:
I agree with Descartes dualism to the extent that there is an observable distinction between the mind and the brain.
Human beings and chipmunks have brains. Human beings and chipmunks reflexively flee from danger but human beings can learn, of their own volition not because they're trained, to run into a burning building to save others.
That evidences a mind controlling a brain.
Also, no chipmunk will compose the "Moonlight Sonata."
That evidence a uniqueness to the human mind.
I need to time to develop this idea, which I acknowledege is metaphysical but insist is not theological, and will do so on the next thread.
Posted by James Jones on May 19, 2007 02:51 PMJonesy,
No surprise. As usual. You quoted me, in context for a change. No complaint there. Why would there be? I was remarking in pleasant surprise at something usually not done. I did wonder why bother; since the quote in context had nothing to do with anything debated in this line - other than, perhaps, some snide reference to "Great Moral Thinkers"; GMT as you reference it. But, even there, there is no cause for complaint. After all, Jonesy, you do give the complement - however left handed it might be - that we indeed THINK.
I had scrolled way down the line at the time I asked my question. I apologize for not going all the way back up to the top, to the last sentence of the original letter - to find the assertion (or premise) which was to be the object of the whole thing in the first place - before asking questions concerning its logical construction and progress to conclusion. I had assumed you were answering my question; and responded accordingly at that time.
I would have had the same questions at the time of the original last sentence, had it been clearly indicated that it was what there must be "general agreement" upon.
But, as usual, you're ducking out, with the excuse that, somehow, I am a "miraculously self-appointed quiz-master". Just what difference does that make?
Hey fella! No matter WHO asks, I still bet you can't answer, or actually construct the syllogism(s).
But again, I am open to experiencing a miracle.
Mike and Bango Skank,
This is the fundamental bone of contention in the whole dispute. And, it is one for which there appear to be only 2 sides. Side one is: "Personhood at the moment of conception". Side two is: "Not there, but . . . ?" (Choose your own timing.)
And this is what makes the whole anti-abortion debate break down, into non-resolvable opposition. The best analogy I can come up with is the one so frequently repeated when dealing with lawyers and cross-examination: It is another form of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
ANY ANSWER to this form of query begins with a presumption. (And I'm not going to even begin to label the presumptions. That's so contentious in and of itself as to be impossible. Besides which, labels are not really the issue - though they rapidly become the issue by diversion at times.)
Would that it were not so. But this is an ongoing, and never ending, dispute that has occupied the forefront of many political gatherings ever since Roe v. Wade. And, as yet,NO ONE has resolved the issue.
I will wish you all the best of luck. But, this line will wind up being pushed off into the Archives long before there be any real agreement, much less resolution.
And, unfortunately, that's exactly what reduces the whole matter to nothing more than a form of "sermonizing", both pro and con. A kind of "Gordian Knot" which only becomes more complicated, and bound tighter, every time it is addressed.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 03:21 PM”I agree with Descartes dualism to the extent that there is an observable distinction between the mind and the brain.”
Yup, there’s the nub of our differences.
I entirely reject Cartesian Dualism, and to me mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain.
Descartes was engaged in a rescue mission, and proposing a mystical soul linked to the body through the pineal gland was the best he could come up with.
Our contemporary understanding of the nervous system is capable of explaining qualia and sentience in a way that Descartes could not – we no longer need “mind” as a catchall for the unknown.
Well, seeing as how the author of the original letter seems to have abandoned the field, may we consider that the Grest Moral Thinkers (GMT) have won at least a partial victory over those who might be known as the Superior Thinkers Under Piously Inspired Direction?
Or, perhaps, one might recall Jubilation T Cornepone's famous Strategic Advance to the Rear.
Coming Soon: "Human fetuses are persons; and Chipmunks are not"; with the argument featuring composition of the "Moonlight Sonata".
Ooops! My bad! That's at the other show on the topic.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 20, 2007 10:44 AMBango Skank,
There is a good deal that the neurologist cannot explain about the working of the human brain and the nexus to the mind.
Research is ongoing. It is likely that three centuries from now people will look back at our contemporary formulations and smile just as you do today at Descartes notions in re the pineal gland.
The brain of the six-month old child is nearly as primitive as that of the six-month old fetus. The six-year old child cannot rise or utter any intelligible communication. At eighteen months the child can rise, walk (awkwardly) and utter a few words. But even at eighteen months there is not much evidence of a mind.
The point is that the brain continues to grow and develop for nearly two decades following birth while the mind continues to develop throughout our lifetime.
It is true that there is no anatomical evidence of a brain in the zygote but the presence of the brain is genetically encrypted.
I see no viable, scientific or moral rationale for the position that we are authorized to arrest that predetermined human development until such time as the anotomical evidence is visible.
The judgement that personhood dawns with an anatomical presence is as dogmatic as the theologic view that the soul is implanted at conception. This position just replaces religion with science or simply - the observation of the natural world.
My postion that eugenic abortion should be sanctioned by society is founded in the first principle of justice: do no harm to the innocent.
Nature is ordered such that human beings engage and intercourse and, sometimes, a human life enuses. Subordinating the natural order to social enginering schemes has always, and in my opinion will always, result in unnecessary human suffering. Nature asserts itself and it is wise to acknowledge the reality.
James,
Oh come now!
I expected something a bit more sophisticated than this
Posted by Bango Skank on May 20, 2007 12:10 PMBango Skank,
You mean you can't refute any of it?
I thought you had more imagination - I don't know why.
Enjoy your ice cream
Posted by James Jones on May 20, 2007 01:51 PMOld Grouch,
You should not get too comfortable by assuming I'm not around.
You should always assume that I'll be there to spank you when you need it.
Posted by James Jones on May 20, 2007 01:54 PMOld Grouch,
You should not get too comfortable by assuming I'm not around.
You should always assume that I'll be there to spank you when you need it.
Posted by James Jones on May 20, 2007 01:54 PMOld Grouch,
You should not get too comfortable by assuming I'm not around.
You should always post as though I'll be there to spank you when you need it.
Posted by James Jones on May 20, 2007 01:55 PMThe way Keith does, with several repititions of words saying nothing?
By the way, it is painfully obvious you know nothing at all about child development or elementary cognitive psychology. That essay above wouldn't rate a D- in my class.
There are some good libraries around. Perhaps you might go to one and look up the work of Eric Ericson. He was acknowledged as one of the leaders in the field, back nearly 50 years ago when I got my first accreditation in Counseling. If you want to present yourself as an "expert" on something, you should at least acquire an outline of the basics, and read it before you display your ignorance in the way you have displayed it.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 20, 2007 07:01 PMThe way Keith does, with several repititions of words saying nothing?
By the way, it is painfully obvious you know nothing at all about child development or any part of even elementary cognitive psychology. That essay above wouldn't rate a D- in my class.
There are some good libraries around. Perhaps you might go to one and look up the work of Eric Ericson. Don't strain yourself though. He does use multisyallable words; and we wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to decipher the meaning of what he is presenting.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 20, 2007 07:07 PMShades of eats, shoots and leaves.
Is it great, moral thinkers? Maybe we are good, but not great.
Great moral, thinkers? or just slightly moral, thinkers.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 20, 2007 07:45 PMHi Sharon,
Well, at least it is an acknowledgement that we THINK. Which is - however left-handedly - a compliment. And one which I don't believe was really intended; but . . . !
In any event, I am sure this is by no means the last we have heard - or will hear - on the subject. But, if what comes next is no better than the little essay written for Bango Skank . . . ? (And it won't be, of course.)
Too bad that jonesy seems to have just "gone off the deep end" - in frustration (?), or despair (?) - and started to imitate Keith's way of repeating himself. Ah! Well!
IF he just actually knew something about the subject he insists on repeating . . . !
Anyway, have a good evening. Time here to put the machine into word processor mode, and get some correspondence ready to go out in the moring.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 20, 2007 08:14 PM