PDA

View Full Version : A day that will live in infamy...



Pages : [1] 2 3

Sam F
01-23-2011, 10:57 AM
January 22, 1973

The holocaust toll is today approximately 50 million.

Sam F
01-23-2011, 10:58 AM
The con job:

What I am writing this for is to call attention to a particularly egregious example of doublespeak that the abortionists– “pro-choicers,” that is– seem to have hit on in the current rhetorical war…as a novelist, I can recognize meretricious use of language, disingenuousness, and a con job when I hear it.

The current con, perpetrated by some jurists, some editorial writers, and some doctors, is that since there is no agreement about the beginning of human life, it is therefore a private religious or philosophical decision and therefore the state and the courts can do nothing about it. This is a con. I will not presume to speculate who is conning whom and for what purpose. But I do submit that religion, philosophy, and private opinion have nothing to do with this issue. I further submit that it is a commonplace of modern biology, known to every high school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that thenceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.

Such vexed subjects as the soul, God, and the nature of man are not at issue. What we are talking about and what nobody I know would deny is the clear continuum that exists in the life of every individual from the moment of fertilization of a single cell.

There is a wonderful irony here. It is this: the onset of individual life is not a dogma of the Church but a fact of science. How much more convenient if we lived in the thirteenth century, when no one knew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life were legitimate. Compared to a modern textbook of embryology, Thomas Aquinas sounds like an American Civil Liberties Union member. Nowadays it is not some misguided ecclesiastics who are trying to suppress an embarassing scientific fact. It is the secular juridical-journalistic establishment. (Walker Percy)
http://catholicphoenix.com/2011/01/22/walker-percy-on-abortion-1981/

Peerie Maa
01-23-2011, 11:12 AM
I just love the way that SamF links a criminal regime's attempt to wipe out a race on the one hand, and rape victims, and mothers whose life is threatened by pregnancy on the other.

Could not see how the C& P added anything new to the debate, it rather stated the obvious. If it discussed the issue of "capable of sustaining independent life" it would be worthy of some merit.

botebum
01-23-2011, 11:48 AM
Can someone photoshop the hat on the troll for me? I think Sammy needs a new avatar.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h92/botebum/Silly%20Stuff/PopeHatGlitter.gif

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h92/botebum/Silly%20Stuff/troll.gif

Doug

Kevin G
01-23-2011, 11:54 AM
Article in today's (Sunday) NY Times that NYC is the "Abortion Capital" of the world. 90,000 a year are performed in the city. Even abortion rights people are showing concern.

Keving

Gerarddm
01-23-2011, 11:56 AM
Troll? O dear. Where's Billy Goat Gruff when you need him?

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:00 PM
Article in today's (Sunday) NY Times that NYC is the "Abortion Capital" of the world. 90,000 a year are performed in the city. Even abortion rights people are showing concern.

Keving

Here's a little item that the Main Stream Media wasn't too keen to mention:

I invite all to come together to make abortion rare, a goal even those who work to expand the abortion license tell us they share.

A quarter century ago, Cardinal John O’Connor publicly stated: “Any woman who is pregnant and in need can come to the Church and we will help you,” a pledge Cardinal Egan, and now I, reaffirm. (Archbishop Dolan in his blog: http://blog.archny.org/)

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:03 PM
Troll? O dear. Where's Billy Goat Gruff when you need him?

Ol' Billy Goat Gruff is most likely hidin' under the bridge with the rest of the... ah... detritus. :D

Tom Montgomery
01-23-2011, 01:10 PM
Well... The homosexual troll went nowhere. Maybe this abortion troll will garner Sammy the reaction he craves.

BETTY-B
01-23-2011, 01:15 PM
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d10/Bridgedeck/misc/popetroll.jpg

Bob Adams
01-23-2011, 01:23 PM
There are a few reasons why I am a Protestant, among them is I wonder what the world would look like if everyone took the Cathloic view on contraception (note, I believe abortion to be a serious matter, not for casual birth control) If everyone reproduced naturally I doubt the world could support the population that would result. Better to die through famine than to never have been born at all, eh?

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 01:28 PM
Well... The homosexual troll went nowhere. Maybe this abortion troll will garner Sammy the reaction he craves.

It's quite moving to see Sam's concern for the unborn, while he shows utter disdain for the living.

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:42 PM
There are a few reasons why I am a Protestant, among them is I wonder what the world would look like if everyone took the Cathloic view on contraception...
I don't think being Protestant has anything to do with it. As it happens, no Protestant sect accepted artificial birth control prior to the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930. Good thing you're "modern", huh?
But then as a Protestant, you're welcome to interpret scripture anyway you want. That includes some Protestants who don't agree with you:

For too long birth control has been looked upon as a "Catholic issue". It is fast becoming a "Protestant issue" however, as Protestant ministers like myself protest the heretical teaching of birth control that is being propagated in Protestant churches. We must understand that the Church had spoken consistently for 1900 years against birth control. Only in the last 80 years have Protestant churches begun to peddle this belief that God thinks it's okay or wise for us to use birth control. .
http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/protestantprotest.htm


...(note, I believe abortion to be a serious matter, not for casual birth control)
But Bob, you just justified abortion based upon (artificial) birth control:

If everyone reproduced naturally I doubt the world could support the population that would result. Better to die through famine than to never have been born at all, eh?

Actually starvation is strictly optional. But last time I checked, nobody asked the aborted babies if it was OK to kill them.
Of course you've repeated the hoary old The Population Bomb myth.
Said author Ehrlich in 1968
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.

Humm... I musta missed it!

For reasons why this didn't and isn't going to happen read Philip Longman's article on global aging:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/think_again_global_aging?page=full

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-23-2011, 01:44 PM
January 22, 1973

The holocaust toll is today approximately 50 million.

Yer doin it rong

These guys (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=5362) can help you hone your craft.



What Christians believe about Abortion:

Does life begin at conception?

The Bible clearly states that Life begins BEFORE conception.

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. -Jeremiah 1:5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jeremiah%201.5), and Psalm 139:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20139.13)

Life begins at the time sperm are created. This why God put Onan to death for using birth control:

Genesis 38:9-10 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Genesis%2038.9-10):

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother.

And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He slew him also.

If we were to believe that life begins at conception, sins like masturbation and birth-control would be acceptable. However, life begins BEFORE conception, so they are not.

Loophole: Note that while human life begins before conception, Jewish life begins one month after birth:

In Leviticus 27:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2027:6;&version=31;) a monetary value was placed on jewish children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Full Chapter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2027;&version=31;)
Likewise, Numbers 3:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%203:15;&version=31;):

"Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more."

What's the difference between True Christian beliefs on Abortion and false-Christian beliefs on abortion?

Catholic dogma and "infallable" Popes support baby-murdering:

Quote:
From Vicars of Christ, by Peter De Rosa (former professor at the prestigious Gregorian University, in Rome):

"For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus startingas a human being.

From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the (most prominent Catholic) theologians answered Yes.

Some went further. They said it was permissible to save a mother's life even after the foetus was humanized, that is, after the soul was infused...

...(The "infallable") Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human. Even after forty days, though it was homicide, it was not as serious as killing a person already born, since it was not done in hatred or revenge....

As late as the eighteenth century, the (Catholic) church's greatest moral theologian, St. Alfonsus Liguori, was still denying that the soul was infused at conception. Like Aquinas before him, he did not say direct abortion was right, but his view allowed a flexibility of approach to abortion, especially when the mother's life was in danger." (p. 375)

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (ca. 415 AD), one of the most influential of all Catholic theologians, persuaded early Church leaders that abortion should not be regarded 'as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed.' He, and Thomas Aquinas after him, taught that the embryo does not acquire a human soul until the end of the first trimester. At the beginning of the 13th century Pope Innocent II proposed that 'quickening' (the time when the woman first feels the fetus move within her) should be the moment at which abortion becomes homicide. Abortions occurring prior to that moment constituted a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV 's declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication guided Church policy until 1869.
More Info here (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=5066).

Born-again babykillers.

I can't believe how many times I have heard a false-Christian say "I believe life begins at conception because I'm a born-again Christian." HELLO? "I believe life begins at CONCEPTION because I'm a BORN-again Christian?" If you really believed life begins at conception, you would call yourself a "concieved-again" Christian, not a born-again Christian.

Here is a list that proves that even protestant false-Christians still believe the Catholic baby-killing dogma:

They celebrate "Birthdays" not conceptiondays as True Christians do

They say "I have two children and one on the way" instead of "I have three children".

True Christian women check their maxi-pads for miscarriages, and hold a funeral when they find one. "Born-again" babykillers don't.

They have no complaints about the census not counting the unborn.

They also have no complaints against "birth certificates" while True Christians are lobbying for them to be replaced with Conception Certificates

The vast majority of birth control methods involve killing a fertilized egg, including the ubiquitous birth control pill. That's right, if your wife is on the pill, she's a baby-killer. False-Christians brag about how they oppose abortion, yet they have no complaints about this far more common type of babykilling.

Though they oppose stem cell research, which mutilates dead babies, they don't oppose the In vitro fertilisation process which murdered the babies in the first place. Stem Cells are corpses being recycled. It's the fetilization process that created the corpses - and false-Christians don't have anything against it.

The biggest hypocracy of these liberal Christians is that they consider AIDS, Malaria, famine and so on as problems that should be solved, yet they do NOTHING about the fact that 74% of children die of natural causes in the womb (usually within days of conception). They're all "let's cure AIDS" and "let's stop famine" but when it comes to millions upon millions of unborn babies dieing...They suddenly don't care.

Of course, True Christians don't care about either AIDS or unborn babies killed by God's will, because we believe in God's Divine Plan and have no desire to mess it up.

Is abortion Murder?

Yes.

Is Murder wrong?

Sometimes. When God orders us to murder, it is "smiting".

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:44 PM
It's quite moving to see Sam's concern for the unborn, while he shows utter disdain for the living.

That's quite untrue. Besides you're being incredibly unscientific. Since when is an unborn baby not alive?
Or did you skip Biology class that day? ;)

Tom Montgomery
01-23-2011, 01:47 PM
January 22, 1973

The holocaust toll is today approximately 50 million.

Let's imagine that you really and truly believed we are in the midst of an ongoing holocaust.

Now let's imagine all the things you would be doing right this moment rather than trolling on the WBF.

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:48 PM
Yer doin it rong...

Ya know, if you want to correct something a spelling error in line #1 is hardly the best way to go about it.
Nevertheless, if you happen to see a problem with my reasoning, feel free to alert me to it with the appropriate quotes that I have stated.
Quoting someone else is quite irrelevant.

paladin
01-23-2011, 01:49 PM
I find it interesting that right up and well in to the birth of this nation the whorehouses were run by the government, more specifically the Church. The Church gave shelter and also took the "income" for the womens services, and also found "Christian homes" for the offspring. It may also be noted that women who intended to become "nuns" were often pressed into the male service situation. Would this be considered slavery. Did the Church rent their own slaves?

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:53 PM
I find it interesting that ...

your post is entirely fact free.
By the way "paladins, sometimes known as the Twelve Peers, were the foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court, according to the literary cycle known as the Matter of France.[1] They first appear in the early chansons de geste such as The Song of Roland, where they represent Christian martial valor against the Saracen hordes."
A real paladin would be ashamed of your performance in this contest.

Bob Adams
01-23-2011, 01:55 PM
Damn Doc, do you think the Lord might have slew Onan not because he spilled his seed upon the ground, but maybe doing his brother's wife had something to do with it?;)

Anyway, I got Sam to quote 3 lines of mine, this has gotta go at least 5 pages!

Sam F
01-23-2011, 01:56 PM
How's this for facts:

Cassidy, once a pro-choice liberal, sees the mother-child relationship as "almost sacred." He returns again and again to certain themes: "the absolutely amazing, powerful, inherent instincts of women to love their children" and "their inability, when they lose their children, to put it completely behind them"—even when those "children" are embryos they chose to terminate. He also has come to the conclusion that "most abortions are the result of some level of coercion," not just by partners or parents, but by a "culture that says, 'Don't bother us with your problem; we don't want to help you in your time of need. Just dispose of the child.'"...This one is about a girl he calls Donna Santa Marie (PDF), who discovered she was pregnant just before her 16th birthday. She and her boyfriend, both children of immigrants, were excited and wanted to get married. His parents gave their blessing; hers demanded that she have an abortion. Donna refused.

"Donna," he says, drawing out each word for emphasis, "was very strong—exceptionally strong for a woman her age." For two weeks, her parents let her go to school but otherwise would not let her out of her room. "And every day they wore on her; she had to have the abortion, she had to have the abortion. She just continued to refuse. They then made her a promise: They said, 'If you get the abortion you can get married; in fact, we'll hold a big church wedding.' She still refused."


Advertise on MotherJones.com

Finally, Donna's parents told her they would prosecute her boyfriend for statutory rape if she didn't comply. So she went with them to the abortion clinic. When a clinic questionnaire asked, "What do you consider an abortion?" she wrote, "Murdering my baby." To the question "Is anyone forcing you to have an abortion?" she wrote: "Yes, my parents." Based on her answers, the doctor refused to do the procedure.

The parents were extremely angry, Cassidy explains, speeding up slightly; the next day, Donna's father punched her in the abdomen, and a few days later he took her to another clinic. "Now, can you imagine," he says, quiet outrage rising in his voice, "a 16-year-old girl putting up with this..." I'm expecting him to say "abuse," but he continues, "...this great right, supposedly, this great right to choose?" Now he's dripping with disgust. "And she goes into the waiting room and she's waiting for her forms to fill out and they didn't give her any, and they bring her back to a room and she's sitting there waiting to talk to the doctor, and someone came in and anesthetized her." Cassidy pauses.

"And they pulled the baby out." ... By 1997, Donna Santa Marie—a not-so-subtle pseudonym for the 16-year-old who was allegedly coerced by her parents—came along. Cassidy and his allies launched a group called the National Foundation for Life to support the Santa Marie litigation, originally a class action involving three women who sought wrongful death payments, claiming that their abortions were not fully informed or voluntary. (from Mother Jones) http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/harold-cassidy-abortion-laws

Tom Montgomery
01-23-2011, 02:00 PM
Ya know, if you want to correct something a spelling error in line #1 is hardly the best way to go about it.
Nevertheless, if you happen to see a problem with my reasoning, feel free to alert me to it with the appropriate quotes that I have stated.
Quoting someone else is quite irrelevant.

Not nearly good enough.

Try again.

Sam F
01-23-2011, 02:00 PM
Damn Doc, do you think the Lord might have slew Onan not because he spilled his seed upon the ground, but maybe doing his brother's wife had something to do with it?;)

Anyway, I got Sam to quote 3 lines of mine, this has gotta go at least 5 pages!
Not today it won't.
Anyway, you might want to make a bit better defense that that. After all, you "believe abortion to be a serious matter, not for casual birth control". Gee! With 50 million or so abortions in the US - that's an awful lot of "serious matter" and not casual birth control going on.

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 02:08 PM
That's quite untrue. Besides you're being incredibly unscientific. Since when is an unborn baby not alive?
Or did you skip Biology class that day? ;)

I was busy in Sociology class learning that unborn people have No Rights.
BTW, if fetuses are so precious, why is your Almighty God the Greatest Abortionist, allowing a million miscarriages and still-born a year in the US?

pefjr
01-23-2011, 02:14 PM
No, that day and toll only lives in Sam F's thread until it fades away. 2/3 days. The holocaust is recorded in History and will continue to be for many thousands of moons. By the time the holocaust fades, what will your toll be? And considering the multiplication factor? That's just less Mother Nature has to worry over.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-23-2011, 02:58 PM
Ya know, if you want to correct something a spelling error in line #1 is hardly the best way to go about it.


Oops, sorry about that. I was typing with my feet while running the mouse with my hands. Mistakes happen. Check out that link though, it's a treasure trove of information on all things God-related.

Peerie Maa
01-23-2011, 03:07 PM
Oops, sorry about that. I was typing with my feet while running the mouse with my hands. Mistakes happen. Check out that link though, it's a treasure trove of information on all things God-related.

This one is a keeper.

Father Thomas Martin
Pedantic Pubescent Pedophile Papist Proselytizer
Forum Member

Chris Coose
01-23-2011, 03:15 PM
I'm figuring Sam is able to see that many abortion war battles have been won by his army over the past 20 years.
Thanks to them for stemming the tide on casual birth-control procedures.
They won't be winning the war though.

There is and will continue to be a need for the procedure that his army cannot be judge and jurist over due to their silly religious blindness.

Keith Wilson
01-23-2011, 03:35 PM
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/454/dbe/454dbe4b-6a87-4e0d-8c0d-5ff7b6ca9569

Bob Adams
01-23-2011, 05:12 PM
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/454/dbe/454dbe4b-6a87-4e0d-8c0d-5ff7b6ca9569

Best post on this thread yet.

botebum
01-23-2011, 05:19 PM
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d10/Bridgedeck/misc/popetroll.jpgThanks Dan! It's perfect!

Doug

WX
01-23-2011, 05:32 PM
Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That's one child every five seconds.
http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/

Nanoose
01-23-2011, 05:35 PM
But Bob, you just justified abortion based upon (artificial) birth control

Sam - from this it appears you equate abortion with birth control. Am I understanding you correctly?

Sam F
01-23-2011, 06:41 PM
Sam - from this it appears you equate abortion with birth control. Am I understanding you correctly?

Where ever did you get that idea?

Sam F
01-23-2011, 06:43 PM
I see we have yet more ad hominem from Keith. :D

It's a pity. :(

Sam F
01-23-2011, 06:46 PM
Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That's one child every five seconds.
http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/

Then do something.
These people do something and have been for quite a long time - since 1943:
http://crs.org/
95% of your donation goes to fund programs. Only 5% goes to administration, fundraising and awareness campaigns.

Here's an article from National Propaganda Radio on a CRS project using appropriate technology to clean debris from Port-au-Prince:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132844805/haitians-take-rubble-removal-into-own-hands

Nanoose
01-23-2011, 06:46 PM
I am asking a question to clarify if I'm understanding you rightly.
If I am not, you can simply say so.
I will infer that from your response.
Thx.

Sam F
01-23-2011, 06:59 PM
I am asking a question to clarify if I'm understanding you rightly.
If I am not, you can simply say so.
I will infer that from your response.
Thx.

When someone says: "Where ever did you get that idea" it means No.
Let's get more precise. Draw a Vinn diagram to demonstrate the following:
1. All birth control both (natural and artificial) is not abortion.
2. All abortion is birth control - in that it's purpose is to prevent the birth of a living child.
So you get a large circle representing birth control with a smaller circle within it that represents abortion.
Recall that some methods labelled and marketed as birth control are actually abortifacients.

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 07:00 PM
Sam - from this it appears you equate abortion with birth control. Am I understanding you correctly?

Good luck asking Sam a question and expecting an answer.
Likely, he'll ask you a question in response to your question.
Oooops!;)

Sam F
01-23-2011, 07:06 PM
I was busy in Sociology class learning that unborn people have No Rights.


Sorry Glen but your working knowledge of biology is not becoming to an Atheist. Had you actually read the first post you'd not have made that mistake.
So how's about acknowledging it?


BTW, if fetuses are so precious, why is your Almighty God the Greatest Abortionist, allowing a million miscarriages and still-born a year in the US?

By that logic, since born people get sick and die you ought to feel no qualms about murder.
Try that one again.
Hint: Deliberate human action counts for something.
Acts of God, or nature if you prefer, are not my or your fault.

Sam F
01-23-2011, 07:08 PM
Good luck asking Sam a question and expecting an answer.
Likely, he'll ask you a question in response to your question.
Oooops!;)

I admit that it took me an awful long time to answer her question. The moment I logged on and an unneeded clarification 8 whole minutes later. That's simply awful!

Sam F
01-23-2011, 07:10 PM
Oh Glen, that "Good luck asking Sam a question and expecting an answer." shtick is getting a bit stale - since it has proved extremely difficult to find any evidence for! :D

bobbys
01-23-2011, 07:17 PM
SamF, If its Moral to have to give Health care to everybody and its proponents pushed through on this ethical point and income redistribution be brought up on moral grounds should not the morality of Abortion be Q?.

Or is it a pick and choose sort of thing.?.

Perhaps the same people labeling you and this thread a troll already feel this one is in the bag and want to move on to more "moral" topics?

botebum
01-23-2011, 07:19 PM
I believe this is where Sammy proves Glen's point by asking a question of bobbys.

Doug

bobbys
01-23-2011, 07:22 PM
I believe this is where Sammy proves Glen's point by asking a question of bobbys.

Doug.

As long as he dunno ask me to spell Mississippe im up for a challenge

botebum
01-23-2011, 07:25 PM
.

As long as he dunno ask me to spell Mississippe im up for a challengeYou need more s's and I think there's a 'w' at or near the end.

Doug

bobbys
01-23-2011, 07:29 PM
You need more s's and I think there's a 'w' at or near the end.

Doug.

Ok ya got me there maybe he will ask me a sports Q?

botebum
01-23-2011, 07:32 PM
Probably something more personal. Maybe something about jock itch.
If he gives you some good info about jock itch, pass it along. Athlete's foot is pretty much the same lil' dude and I got athlete's foot bad.

Doug

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 07:45 PM
Sorry Glen but your working knowledge of biology is not becoming to an Atheist. Had you actually read the first post you'd not have made that mistake.
So how's about acknowledging it?



By that logic, since born people get sick and die you ought to feel no qualms about murder.
Try that one again.
Hint: Deliberate human action counts for something.
Acts of God, or nature if you prefer, are not my or your fault.

I'll put my knowledge of biology up against yours or Walker Percy's any day.
But let's be honest and candid for a change, rather than combative and snarky(can we do it?;).

"Acts of God, or nature if you prefer, are not my or your fault."
That's quite an admission coming from you.
I've been led to believe that the human condition is Entirely the fault of humans who pissed off their God.
Of course, I never actually believed it.
Now be honest, Sam, isn't abortion a religious and political issue, rather than a biological issue?

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 07:54 PM
I believe this is where Sammy proves Glen's point by asking a question of bobbys.

Doug

You and bobbys are irreverent, cynical, shallow, ignert, uncultured, rude, and on the high road to hell.
But then there's your bad side!;)

botebum
01-23-2011, 07:57 PM
Hey Glen! Ya' know what!?
I like peanut butter on my waffles. Extra syrup and patty sausage on the side.
I guess you know what that means, huh?

Doug

Paul Girouard
01-23-2011, 08:07 PM
Just a astounding number of those non baited , non confrontational , simple easy questions , fun conversational type posts in this thread. Some might even say you guys are ganging up on , or following poor lil ole bobbys around. But then again if your politics are from the left side it's all OK , to target , take out, mow down , nuke , a person isn't it. Ah life ain't fair , and whats considered good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. LOL. Poor lil bobbys / David G will be pi$$ed. LOL

bobbys
01-23-2011, 08:08 PM
You and bobbys are irreverent, cynical, shallow, ignert, uncultured, rude, and on the high road to hell.
But then there's your bad side!;).

I have admitted to being shallow already.

Hey what sort of humanitarian is you anyways?

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 08:35 PM
.

I have admitted to being shallow already.

Hey what sort of humanitarian is you anyways?

The bad kind!
What did you expect?;)

ishmael
01-23-2011, 08:36 PM
I was going to stay out of this, and I still will try after I say my little bit.

It's OK to have a debate and to state your argument. It's even OK to re-state it. But this endless bickering, which covers the same ground, with largely the same players, seemingly every two months or so, is a form of psychic violence. It changes no one's mind, devolves into insult and sophistry, and in fact hardens the hearts of both camps.

Whatever the way through this horrible dilemma, these arguments aren't it. There may be no way through at this time.

My advice, such as it is, would be to retreat, meditate, pray(if you are a praying person) over your opponents' arguments. Come back when you have a fresh perspective. To continue the way these arguments always proceed is, indeed, damaging to all parties.

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 08:37 PM
Hey Glen! Ya' know what!?
I like peanut butter on my waffles. Extra syrup and patty sausage on the side.
I guess you know what that means, huh?

Doug

Hmmm!
What was your mother's name?
We might be brothers!:)

Paul Girouard
01-23-2011, 08:39 PM
I was going to stay out of this, and I still will try after I say my little bit.

It's OK to have a debate and to state your argument. It's even OK to re-state it. But this endless bickering, which covers the same ground, with largely the same players, seemingly every two months or so, is a form of psychic violence. It changes no one's mind, devolves into insult and sophistry, and in fact hardens the hearts of both camps.

Whatever the way through this horrible dilemma, these arguments aren't it. There may be no way through at this time.

My advice, such as it is, would be to retreat, meditate, pray(if you are a praying person) over your opponents' arguments. Come back when you have a fresh perspective. To continue the way these arguments always proceed is, indeed, damaging to all parties.


Ya like that's gonna happen, jeesh Jack , be realistic will ya! (Snicker) Maybe the classic David G <G> (for grin I assume?)

stevebaby
01-23-2011, 08:42 PM
Infamy! Infamy! You've all got it in fer me!

botebum
01-23-2011, 08:42 PM
Hmmm!
What was your mother's name?
We might be brothers!:)Oddly enough, her name was Georgia.
Why is that odd?
Well, because I've never lived there!
Isn't that amazing!?

Doug

botebum
01-23-2011, 08:45 PM
Jack, just noticed you were here.
Do me a favor and don't tell me you've had a lover named Georgia.
I couldn't take it.

Doug

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-23-2011, 10:41 PM
I was going to stay out of this, and I still will try after I say my little bit.

It's OK to have a debate and to state your argument. It's even OK to re-state it. But this endless bickering, which covers the same ground, with largely the same players, seemingly every two months or so, is a form of psychic violence. It changes no one's mind, devolves into insult and sophistry, and in fact hardens the hearts of both camps.

Whatever the way through this horrible dilemma, these arguments aren't it. There may be no way through at this time.

My advice, such as it is, would be to retreat, meditate, pray(if you are a praying person) over your opponents' arguments. Come back when you have a fresh perspective. To continue the way these arguments always proceed is, indeed, damaging to all parties.

This guy's right. It would be interesting to see an objective discussion about the relative moral value judgements people attach to abortion, but it's likely not possible.

Nanoose
01-23-2011, 10:43 PM
Relative to what? Each other?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-23-2011, 10:49 PM
Relative to what? Each other?

Relative to each individual who decides to have an abortion, and relative to each individual who makes a judgement call as to the relative moral worth of that act, as well as the moral justification(s) for imposing one's own moral code on others.

Nanoose
01-23-2011, 11:00 PM
Relative to each individual, their decision cannot be wrong.
Relative to those making judgements of the moral worth of those acts, on what basis shall they judge said morality?
What basis of morality shall we use to ascertain the validity of imposing ones moral code on others?

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 11:02 PM
Relative to what? Each other?

Nah! We've seen where that discussion goes.
But I think the discussion might be possible if we can agree at the beginning of the discussion that pregnant women have the final word in any abortion discussion, not celibate old men.

Nanoose
01-23-2011, 11:03 PM
I'd agree that they have both the final word and ultimate responsibility.

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 11:07 PM
I'd agree that they have both the final word and ultimate responsibility.

I agree!
End of discussion!
But Sam won't like this conclusion!:)

Nanoose
01-23-2011, 11:09 PM
Glen!
We are in agreement about something?!!!?!!!
There must be a God. ;)

Glen Longino
01-23-2011, 11:27 PM
"There must be a God."

You're reaching, Girl!;)
Fact is, we likely do agree about most things and disagree on only a couple of things.
Thanks to you, I've become more tolerant of those who believe other than what I believe.
Not to be maudlin, but you've been gentle and kind with me when I deserved less. Gracias!

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-23-2011, 11:28 PM
Relative to each individual, their decision cannot be wrong.
Relative to those making judgements of the moral worth of those acts, on what basis shall they judge said morality?
What basis of morality shall we use to ascertain the validity of imposing ones moral code on others?

Good questions.

Some people answer those with "my personal discretion," and "the one I chose."

I wonder if someone like that will show up and make that argument. We shall see.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-23-2011, 11:31 PM
But I think the discussion might be possible if we can agree at the beginning of the discussion that pregnant women have the final word in any abortion discussion, not celibate old men.

What about celibate middle aged monkeys? Don't they get any say? What about promiscuous middle aged monkeys?

skuthorp
01-24-2011, 12:03 AM
The human animal is the most feral of feral animals, ifd we were truly in control then we would be able to modify our population to suit our environment. We aren't and we cant, but every little helps. Even the true meaning of the hijacked name of this thread didn't slow things down, even a couple of million sub-continent dwellers killed by cyclones and floods didn't. Abortion won't either though it may skew gender balances in some local populations.

Ed Harrow
01-24-2011, 12:11 AM
Sorry I'm late - the popcorn popper broke.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g65/wlgtoo/popcorn.gif

But we're good to go, now.

SamSam
01-24-2011, 12:25 AM
3-21-2001
The Catholic Church in Rome made the extraordinary admission yesterday that it is aware priests from at least 23 countries have been sexually abusing nuns.
Most of the abuse has occurred in Africa, where priests vowed to celibacy, who previously sought out prostitutes, have preyed on nuns to avoid contracting the Aids virus.
The Vatican reports cited countless cases of nuns forced to have sex with priests. Some were obliged to take the pill, others became pregnant and were encouraged to have abortions. In one case in which an African sister was forced to have an abortion, she died during the operation and her aggressor led the funeral mass. Another case involved 29 sisters from the same congregation who all became pregnant to priests in the diocese.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries-688261.html

Keith Wilson
01-24-2011, 08:21 AM
. . . if we were truly in control then we would be able to modify our population to suit our environment. We aren't and we cant . . . At the risk of feeding the original troll, this is simply not true. As a population gets richer, the birth rate falls dramatically. It's well below replacement level in most wealthy countries now, and has been dropping fast in the better-off developing ones. If present trends continue (and so far, there's no sign they won't), world population should stabilize and start to slowly decline later this century.

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_med/population_growth_rate.jpg

TomZ
01-24-2011, 09:22 AM
Relative to each individual, their decision cannot be wrong.
Relative to those making judgements of the moral worth of those acts, on what basis shall they judge said morality?
What basis of morality shall we use to ascertain the validity of imposing ones moral code on others?

Who will speak for the child, whose decision cannot be wrong?

McMike
01-24-2011, 09:48 AM
Science:

According to this article (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/25/does-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says-no.html) fetuses are not "wired" to transmit pain to the brain before 24 weeks and after, there are chemicals present that keep the fetus in a "sedated" state preventing the experience of pain.

My opinion:

Religion should NEVER determine the policy or laws of this nation. Science has determined 24 weeks to be the line so I say, to be safe, that 20 weeks should be the legal limit with exceptions for risk to the mother or rape within reason. That's science, it works for everyone.

TomZ
01-24-2011, 09:57 AM
McMike, a very reasoned approach, thanks for that. A limit of 20 weeks would certainly be a step forward in my mind. However I must disagree with the concept that pain is the criteria. Many people could probably fall in that category.

Canoeyawl
01-24-2011, 11:33 AM
#39 - Glen

Good luck asking Sam a question and expecting an answer.
Likely, he'll ask you a question in response to your question.
#40 - Sam

Had you actually read the first post you'd not have made that mistake.
So how's about acknowledging it?

botebum
01-24-2011, 12:07 PM
That's science, it works for everyone.Unless you are a troll with a hat.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h92/botebum/email%20and%20blog%20smilies/popetroll.jpg

Doug

McMike
01-24-2011, 12:31 PM
Unless you are a troll with a hat.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h92/botebum/email%20and%20blog%20smilies/popetroll.jpg

Doug

I didn't know you and SamF meet . . . Nice pic!

McMike
01-24-2011, 12:38 PM
McMike, a very reasoned approach, thanks for that. A limit of 20 weeks would certainly be a step forward in my mind. However I must disagree with the concept that pain is the criteria. Many people could probably fall in that category.


I agree that paint should not be the criteria, however, the point that the "wires" have not formed yet makes the case that there is, scientifically, no one home. The knowledge that there is no pain, even in a non-sentient life form, makes it a humane process and a viable solution, IMO.

botebum
01-24-2011, 12:38 PM
. . . Nice pic!I had help. I found the troll and the hat. Dan(Betty B) gets the credit for putting them together perfectly.

Doug

pefjr
01-24-2011, 12:41 PM
At the risk of feeding the original troll, this is simply not true. As a population gets richer, the birth rate falls dramatically. It's well below replacement level in most wealthy countries now, and has been dropping fast in the better-off developing ones. If present trends continue (and so far, there's no sign they won't), world population should stabilize and start to slowly decline later this century.

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_med/population_growth_rate.jpgLater this century? and if? what if it doesn't continue?

http://opr.princeton.edu/popclock/

McMike
01-24-2011, 01:08 PM
I had help. I found the troll and the hat. Dan(Betty B) gets the credit for putting them together perfectly.

Doug

Well done to Dan!

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-24-2011, 01:38 PM
Science:

According to this article (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/25/does-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says-no.html) fetuses are not "wired" to transmit pain to the brain before 24 weeks and after, there are chemicals present that keep the fetus in a "sedated" state preventing the experience of pain.

My opinion:

Religion should NEVER determine the policy or laws of this nation. Science has determined 24 weeks to be the line so I say, to be safe, that 20 weeks should be the legal limit with exceptions for risk to the mother or rape within reason. That's science, it works for everyone.

As a serious scientist, I fully support using this type of thinking to determine policy.

http://i.imgur.com/Z93Kes.jpg

Good work.

Uncle Duke
01-24-2011, 01:55 PM
Let's assume that position 'A' (presumably supported by some posting here) is that "life begins at conception - before it can sustain itself".
Now - let's extend those to end of life situations....

Wouldn't believers in 'A' also profess that terminating extraordinary life-support efforts = murder?
In other words: if "self-sustaining" is not a measure of human life, then how can death ever be allowed?

Example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27611868/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

peb
01-24-2011, 02:12 PM
Science:

According to this article (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/25/does-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says-no.html) fetuses are not "wired" to transmit pain to the brain before 24 weeks and after, there are chemicals present that keep the fetus in a "sedated" state preventing the experience of pain.

My opinion:

Religion should NEVER determine the policy or laws of this nation. Science has determined 24 weeks to be the line so I say, to be safe, that 20 weeks should be the legal limit with exceptions for risk to the mother or rape within reason. That's science, it works for everyone.

So let me see if I get this correct, the only determination for protecting someone's life should be if that person can feel pain or not? Amazing what type of solutions this scientific evidence could providethis logic could provide.

peb
01-24-2011, 02:13 PM
As a serious scientist, I fully support using this type of thinking to determine policy.

http://i.imgur.com/Z93Kes.jpg

Good work.

Glad I am not a serious scientist if this is the type of thinking it leads one towards. I've been through the science phase of my life, I guess I will stick to philosophy, history, and religion now.

George Jung
01-24-2011, 02:33 PM
So it would be okay to euthanize anyone... as long as they didn't see it coming?

Reminds me of the Mark Twain story, about the dutch bricklayer falling off the scaffolding and landing on the guy walking his dog....

"The dog would've seen him a'coming!" Great punchline.

pefjr
01-24-2011, 02:34 PM
I've been through the science phase of my life, :d Not as long as long as you are still talking.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-24-2011, 02:38 PM
Glad I am not a serious scientist if this is the type of thinking it leads one towards. I've been through the science phase of my life, I guess I will stick to philosophy, history, and religion now.

I'll elaborate a bit.

It seems that there are some people who claim person-hood begins the moment an egg is fertilized. There are some who claim it begins at birth. The debates seem to center on if either position is right, or if there's a middle ground somewhere, and if so, where it is.

As it relates to abortion and birth control, the fertilization camp runs into problems with birth control pills that work not by preventing fertilization, but by making the womb inhospitable. There are also "morning after pills" that work on the same principle, sometimes using the same compounds as regular birth control pills. Since most people don't object to birth control pills, the idea of person-hood beginning at conception isn't a viable position for policy-making. Neither is equating "morning after pills" with abortion. When looked at scientifically, it's just not. That's just incendiary rhetoric. The same compound will prevent pregnancy by a woman ingesting a low dose daily, or a higher dose all in one shot.

Those who claim person-hood begins at birth run into problems with the fact that fetuses of less than 9 months old are quite capable of survival outside the womb.

It seems to me that if you're going to find a middle ground between these two positions, fetal brain formation and function is a pretty good benchmark for determining when a change has occurred, and a mass of cells has become very person-like.

Of course, none of this is to say that the ability to feel pain would be a useful metric for any other purpose. However for this issue, it may be the best one we have. Of course you could argue that person-hood begins when an embryo has successfully attached it's self to the uterine wall, in which case, have at it...

LeeG
01-24-2011, 02:40 PM
Jan22, 1973. Somewhere around that time I was having fantastic relations with my girlfriend and splitting the $10/mo for birth control pills. As a feminist she felt I should share the cost. As a 17yr old guy how could I say no?

TomZ
01-24-2011, 02:47 PM
Let's assume that position 'A' (presumably supported by some posting here) is that "life begins at conception - before it can sustain itself".
Now - let's extend those to end of life situations....

Wouldn't believers in 'A' also profess that terminating extraordinary life-support efforts = murder?
In other words: if "self-sustaining" is not a measure of human life, then how can death ever be allowed?

/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27611868/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)

"self-sustaining" is not a measure of life, it is one of the stages of life. The end-of-life patient is considered alive - albeit not "self sustaining". The child may also be present and counted before it can actually breath or vote allbyself, at the beginning of his/her event horizon, not at the end. Your question is merely deflection from the issue. IMO

George Jung
01-24-2011, 02:50 PM
Now you're getting into morals and ethics.....


As far as 'the good Drs.' take.....


if I'm reading you correctly, all it takes is time to become 'human' (all other factors being in place, of course)

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-24-2011, 02:56 PM
As far as 'the good Drs.' take.....


if I'm reading you correctly, all it takes is time to become 'human' (all other factors being in place, of course)

Pretty much, of course there are thousands of those other factors, some more critical than others. Things like pharmaceutical intake, or suction hoses are right up there in level of importance with a favorable uterine environment, early pregnancy alcohol consumption, and proper nutrition.

Uncle Duke
01-24-2011, 03:15 PM
"self-sustaining" is not a measure of life, it is one of the stages of life. The end-of-life patient is considered alive - albeit not "self sustaining". The child may also be present and counted before it can actually breath or vote allbyself, at the beginning of his/her event horizon, not at the end. Your question is merely deflection from the issue. IMO
Allow me to agree with you in part...

I'd agree that "self sustaining" not be a good measure of "life", but it should be noted that it is a potential data point - certainly at that point we would all agree (I think) that we have a functioning human. And I think, in terms of the discussion, that we'd all agree that human life is what is under discussion. Nobody is extrapolating that throwing pumpkin seeds down the disposal is the same thing as abortion, even if they've been germinating in a dixie cup on the windowsill.

So, to me, a relevant issue is what separates "human life" from "pumpkin life"...and I think that distinction matters at the other end of the scale also - at death.

The link I supplied discussed the case of a 12 year old boy - not only brain dead but brain deteriorating, heart and lungs kept moving only via technology. Although his doctors determining that he was "beyond a vegetative state", his parents insisted that he be kept on the machinery since their religion did not acknowledge that he was "dead".

If this is a legitimate position, then those who believe that "life" begins at conception (or earlier) and must be protected in all cases would have a legitimate argument that every person whose heart could be kept beating by technology must have their heart kept beating by technology, no? In other words - if the potential for human life is what really matters and terminating that potential should be disallowed, then the same logic should apply when at or near death.

In other words - extraordinary end-of-life measures would be required in all cases, unless you believed that the logic only applied to pre-infants and not to 12 year old boys.

TomZ
01-24-2011, 03:20 PM
Allow me to agree with you in part...

I'd agree that "self sustaining" not be a good measure of "life", but it should be noted that it is a potential data point - certainly at that point we would all agree (I think) that we have a functioning human. And I think, in terms of the discussion, that we'd all agree that human life is what is under discussion. Nobody is extrapolating that throwing pumpkin seeds down the disposal is the same thing as abortion, even if they've been germinating in a dixie cup on the windowsill.

So, to me, a relevant issue is what separates "human life" from "pumpkin life"...and I think that distinction matters at the other end of the scale also - at death.

The link I supplied discussed the case of a 12 year old boy - not only brain dead but brain deteriorating, heart and lungs kept moving only via technology. Although his doctors determining that he was "beyond a vegetative state", his parents insisted that he be kept on the machinery since their religion did not acknowledge that he was "dead".

If this is a legitimate position, then those who believe that "life" begins at conception (or earlier) would have a legitimate argument that every person whose heart could be kept beating by technology must have their heart kept beating by technology, no? In other words - if the potential for human life is what really matters and terminating that potential should be disallowed, then the same logic should apply when at or near death.

In other words - extraordinary end-of-life measures would be required in all cases, unless you believed that the logic only applied to pre-infants and not to 12 year old boys.

In one case, extraordinary measures (mans efforts) are used to prolong life - in the other, they are used to destroy life - I think there's a difference.

Uncle Duke
01-24-2011, 03:24 PM
In one case, extraordinary measures (mans efforts) are used to prolong life - in the other, they are taken to destroy life - I think there's a difference.
So... withholding something which "prolongs life" is OK? Sometimes OK, sometimes not?

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 03:32 PM
if I'm reading you correctly, all it takes is time to become 'human' (all other factors being in place, of course)

Correct. AFAIK no sane person calls zygotes, embryos, and fetuses "human beings." Pro-lifers love referring to these generally as "human-life." But that, of course, begs the question.

I wonder: Why no outraged threads about excess embryos stored and ultimately destroyed by fertility clinics?

Euthanasia of human beings is a different issue entirely. Discussing it here is gross thread-drift.

BETTY-B
01-24-2011, 03:32 PM
I had help. I found the troll and the hat. Dan(Betty B) gets the credit for putting them together perfectly.

Doug


Well done to Dan!

Hey, thanks, gang. I find these threads about as pleasing as installing overhead insulation in a tight space. But, none the less, I thought it was a very worthy way to donate 87 seconds to the cause.

pefjr
01-24-2011, 03:38 PM
Pro Abs can not argue morality, they must argue practicality. Practicality is now winning this argument the world over. Morality being aborted.

TomZ
01-24-2011, 03:45 PM
that's a different thread. nothing is being withheld from the child that is growing in the womb, actions are being introduced to stop this natural process.

Canoeyawl
01-24-2011, 03:51 PM
I think the entire argument is moot.
No one gets out of here alive.

TomZ
01-24-2011, 03:55 PM
I think the entire argument is moot.
No one gets out of here alive.
True, but you have to be there to say that.:)

George Jung
01-24-2011, 04:00 PM
Not a problem 'leaving'.

It's the 'early', without benefit of the Big Tour, that is problematic.

Uncle Duke
01-24-2011, 04:08 PM
that's a different thread. nothing is being withheld from the child that is growing in the womb, actions are being introduced to stop this natural process.
If I'm understanding you (and I think that I am), the position, then, is that there is a moral difference (or a difference in moral responsibilities?) between declining to keep something alive ("OK") and removing a clump of something which is alive ("Not OK").
I have no argument with someone having that position - it's just an interesting distinction, that turning your back when you could help is OK (at least in some cases).
Never mind the when of humanness (although I think it's vital - what you may reasonably define as a "child in the womb" someone else may reasonably define as a "clump of undifferentiated cells"), what it says is that there are shades of protecting life..

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 04:32 PM
You should credit the lyrics: The Sex Pistols.

TomZ
01-24-2011, 05:09 PM
If I'm understanding you (and I think that I am),
Your a funny one - and I'm sure you don't, so please don't put words in my mouth. You keep wanting to change the subject of the thread. re-read previous threads if you need clarity.

peb
01-24-2011, 05:20 PM
It seems to me that if you're going to find a middle ground between these two positions, fetal brain formation and function is a pretty good benchmark for determining when a change has occurred, and a mass of cells has become very person-like.

Of course, none of this is to say that the ability to feel pain would be a useful metric for any other purpose. However for this issue, it may be the best one we have.


The ability to feel pain doesn't seem to have that much to do with brain development, scientifically speaking that is. It could just have to do with nerve system development. So you are choosing an extremely arbitray benchmark, most scientist distain this type of behaviour.

We could have a lot more, if we moderns were not so arrogant to think that the only things worth knowing are what we can observe. Luckily for all of our science worshippers, ancients such as Plato, Aristotale, Augustine, Aquinas were smarter than we, or we would not even have our science.

Bob Adams
01-24-2011, 05:34 PM
January 22, 1973




Nice try, it was actually January 20th 1942, the onset of the actual Holocaust which
began with the conclusion of the Wannsee Conferance. You know, the death camps, piles of emaciated bodies, the events the Pope of the time turned a blind eye to?

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 05:36 PM
The ability to feel pain doesn't seem to have that much to do with brain development, scientifically speaking that is. It could just have to do with nerve system development. So you are choosing an extremely arbitray benchmark, most scientist distain this type of behaviour.

We could have a lot more, if we moderns were not so arrogant to think that the only things worth knowing are what we can observe. Luckily for all of our science worshippers, ancients such as Plato, Aristotale, Augustine, Aquinas were than we, or we would not even have our science.

I've been waiting for one of our WBF religionists to bring up Saint Augustine.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, wrote in On Exodus (ca. 415) that early abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed."

For what it is worth, I agree with Saint Augustine. Clearly SammyF, peb, and others here do not.
.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-24-2011, 05:39 PM
The ability to feel pain doesn't seem to have that much to do with brain development, scientifically speaking that is. It could just have to do with nerve system development. So you are choosing an extremely arbitray benchmark, most scientist distain this type of behaviour.

We could have a lot more, if we moderns were not so arrogant to think that the only things worth knowing are what we can observe. Luckily for all of our science worshippers, ancients such as Plato, Aristotale, Augustine, Aquinas were smarter than we, or we would not even have our science.

You're right, I misspoke/typed. The study MMike posted was referring to the brains ability to detect pain, that of course involves the nervous system as a whole.

Obviously, you don't think that is a meaningful benchmark for the beginning of person-hood. What other benchmark would you suggest to be a better marker of an embryo becoming a person?

Peerie Maa
01-24-2011, 05:42 PM
Nice try, it was actually January 20th 1942, the onset of the actual Holocaust which
began with the conclusion of the Wannsee Conferance. You know, the death camps, piles of emaciated bodies, the events the Pope of the time turned a blind eye to?

Are you being ironic, or have you missed that SamF is equating this (http://womenshistory.about.com/b/2007/01/21/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-decision-january-22-1973.htm) with the Holocaust to which you refer.

Bob Adams
01-24-2011, 05:45 PM
I know Roe vs Wade, so yes, I was being ironic. I figured some thread drift to the real deal might be in order.

Peerie Maa
01-24-2011, 05:47 PM
Very few had noticed Sam's lack of taste, methinks.

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 06:02 PM
For what it is worth, Saint Augustine's take on early abortion corresponds closely to rabbinic and Talmudic thought contemporary to him.

Nanoose
01-24-2011, 06:11 PM
...and Augustine's view is, perhaps, one reason why theology is "always reforming." Theology is done in a context, and as we learn more and context(s) change, so does good theology....imho

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 06:22 PM
And IMHO Saint Augustine's viewpoint was correct, period. Why? Because it continues to correspond with modern science/medicine.

As for the "constant reformation of theology," that has certainly been Western History since before the Reformation.

Can you name ONE instance of science being reformed due to theology?

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 06:50 PM
This is one of the most digesting threads.

Yes.

Keep in mind that this thread was never intended to be enlightening. It was originated by a notorious troll who simply delights in provoking extremely emotional responses.

SammyF sucks.

McMike
01-24-2011, 07:25 PM
So let me see if I get this correct, the only determination for protecting someone's life should be if that person can feel pain or not? Amazing what type of solutions this scientific evidence could providethis logic could provide.


If you decided to think a little about what I was saying in relationship to the article I linked you would see that pain wasn't the decider, it was an indication that the nervous system wasn't developed enough for any brain activity past the autonomic nervous system which is the most primitive portion of the brain that regulates things like heart beat.

Listen, I can't and won't argue with you about your "belief", I simply know that it cannot be how we make laws in this country. If science comes out with new knowledge that fetuses develop faster than we previously thought I will change my position to match that new knowledge but then, that's why I gave a 4 week safety net in my initial opinion.

pefjr
01-24-2011, 07:30 PM
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, wrote in On Exodus (ca. 415) that early abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed."

For what it is worth, I agree with Saint Augustine. Clearly SammyF, peb, and others here do not.
.Living soul? takes a fully formed body that has sensation to have a living soul? Who is this soul expert, Augustine? A bishop? Any biology background? If he does , could he separate his religion from it? The quote does not sound like biology, it sounds like religion. Am I wrong? Tell me I am wrong, and I will go study Augustine.

McMike
01-24-2011, 07:42 PM
it just so happens that legal abortions make life extremely convenient for men who don't have to be concerned about the results of their actions and screw freely.

all this diversionary "concern" about a women's rights/mental health when the true "winners" are/were the "Free Love" crowd.

you can intellectuallize this forever, and it still doesn't change the facts, abortions free men up from the results of their self indulgent actions.

Johnny Rotten had it just right, this is fucking disgrace!


It's really too bad you're wrong. While irresponsible men are a part of the problem, it takes two to tango. Let's also not forget all the socio economic factors that play into this debate. It would be nice if it were as simple as you claim but it's not.

Tom Montgomery
01-24-2011, 07:43 PM
Living soul? takes a fully formed body that has sensation to have a living soul? Who is this soul expert, Augustine? A bishop? Any biology background? If he does , could he separate his religion from it? The quote does not sound like biology, it sounds like religion. Am I wrong? Tell me I am wrong, and I will go study Augustine.

Calm down. I would substitute "human being" for "living soul."

The point is that neither Saint Augustine nor the rabbinic and Talmudic scholars of his era considered an unfeeling zygote, embryo, or fetus, to be a "person."

Nor do most people in the 21st century.

McMike
01-24-2011, 07:44 PM
Yes.

Keep in mind that this thread was never intended to be enlightening. It was originated by a notorious troll who simply delights in provoking extremely emotional responses.

SammyF sucks.

It's still an valid debate. I have SamF on ignore, I'm only reacting upon everybody elses remarks.

Keith Wilson
01-24-2011, 08:14 PM
Oy. OK, one more post.

"Living" is not sufficient. Everything we eat was once alive.
"Human" in the biological sense is not sufficient. My cells die by the thousands every day, and they're all alive and 100% human. One can keep human cells alive almost indefinitely. No one would claim they require legal protections.
Feeling pain doesn't IMHO have much to do with it. Other animals feel pain, and anesthesia is easy enough.
"Soul" (whatever that is) is not something we can say anything about based on empirical information.

The essential quality that distinguishes human beings from almost all other animals is consciousness. This appears to be something that the brain does; it's AFAIK never found except with a functioning human brain attached. It does not exist in the early stages of human development because the necessary parts haven't developed yet. The neural apparatus for consciousness isn't all there until somewhere around fetal viability; 20-odd weeks. A plausible way to distinguish between a person in the moral sense; someone, rather than merely a living organism, is the existence of consciousness. Before that capability develops there's only potential, and after it's irretrievably lost, the person no longer exists. In either case, we're not dealing with a person, whatever the body is doing. Unless one accepts the insane idea that a single fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a full-term baby, that seems the only rational distinction we can make.

All right, carry on. At least this thread should generate enough heat to keep you all warm while you're stumbling around in the dark.

ishmael
01-24-2011, 08:57 PM
'Unless one accepts the insane idea that a single fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a full-term baby, that seems the only rational distinction we can make.'

Keith,

It's been a long, difficult, day on this end, and I have neither the desire nor the energy to argue this issue.

I will point out that there are other faculties in humans, perhaps less tangible than formal argument, but no less important. Among them, to name a few: love, intuition, faith, compassion. How these and others bear on the grand questions, such as when life begins(or its nature,) is impossible to say with any certainty, yet I'm quite sure they do.

Thanks to everyone for keeping a reign on the wild horse of an argument this issue can become. It is a very emotional one for many of us.

I've been feeling punky all day, trying to not catch a bug of some kind, so goodnight.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-24-2011, 09:16 PM
Feeling pain doesn't IMHO have much to do with it. Other animals feel pain, and anesthesia is easy enough.

[...]

The essential quality that distinguishes human beings from almost all other animals is consciousness. This appears to be something that the brain does; it's AFAIK never found except with a functioning human brain attached. It does not exist in the early stages of human development because the necessary parts haven't developed yet. The neural apparatus for consciousness isn't all there until somewhere around fetal viability; 20-odd weeks. A plausible way to distinguish between a person in the moral sense; someone, rather than merely a living organism, is the existence of consciousness.

Just to add one thing here; the issue of consciousness isn't separate from the issue of pain. That study which identified a pain reaction marked the first time the brain was aware of its surroundings. So pain in and of its self may not be relevant, because as you said, anesthetics exist, so pain can be negated. However awareness of the existence of pain marks a distinct point in development.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-24-2011, 09:50 PM
January 22, 1973

The holocaust toll is today approximately 50 million.


There hasn't been a holocaust here in Canada. We have legal abortion across the country, and we don't try to impose on a woman's right to choose.

peb
01-24-2011, 11:38 PM
You're right, I misspoke/typed. The study MMike posted was referring to the brains ability to detect pain, that of course involves the nervous system as a whole.

Obviously, you don't think that is a meaningful benchmark for the beginning of person-hood. What other benchmark would you suggest to be a better marker of an embryo becoming a person?

It could just as well be: "does the baby have ears?" or "is the blood in the baby's veins?" how about "how many toes does the baby have?" or "has the bone reached a certain density?" All arbitary, just like "if the baby can feel pain." It is a fools game you are suggesting. At least one of our prominent WBF members was honest enough to admit this and said "Cogito ergo sum" defined it for him, of course he never could answer what should happen if he was in a really deep, dreamless, sleep, if he should loose all protection of the law. Now we have others, who think they are experts on Augustine, I thought Pelosi made enough of a fool of herself a couple of years ago on that one such that it wouldn't be tried again.

Nanoose
01-24-2011, 11:46 PM
Peb - Leviticus says that life is in the blood, and science tells us the blood starts flowing on day 18 (17?).
Does that work?

George Jung
01-25-2011, 12:31 AM
We've had this 'debate' numerous times here. The arbitrary lines we draw in the sand are just that - and if we're being honest, it's all done for the simple reason that, to terminate a life, and so cavalierly, we have to rationalize that action, to exonerate ourselves of what we're doing. Numerous yardsticks have been proposed, and used. These metrics change all the time, especially as science finds ways to support ever more prematurely born infants.

It's all just moral/ethical gymnastics. I'm not sure why any even bother offering a pretense.

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 08:28 AM
There hasn't been a holocaust here in Canada. We have legal abortion across the country, and we don't try to impose on a woman's right to choose.

Danged civilized elitists!;)

Uncle Duke
01-25-2011, 08:33 AM
Your a funny one - and I'm sure you don't, so please don't put words in my mouth. You keep wanting to change the subject of the thread. re-read previous threads if you need clarity.
Subject of the thread is abortion, particularly when, if ever, it is acceptable human behaviour.
If you are going to discuss this seriously, then there are at least two things which need to be brought up - first: when is life "human". There is lots of discussion about that.
But assuming that one position is "abortion (terminating life) is always wrong", then it is also important is to discuss the situations where end of life is acceptable. This isn't a question of euthanasia, although that should play into it - it is a discussion about when protecting life is mandated and when it is not.
I would think that, for example, anyone who is opposed to abortion (regardless of circumstance) should also be just as religiously opposed to the death penalty. I would think that that same person would also believe that allowing someone to die when you could prevent that would also be incorrect behaviour.
Obviously that is not the case, which leads me to believe that protection of life is constrained by age (child? mandatory! non-child? meh.) as well as by species (human? important! non-human? meh).
I haven't seen any discussion here about that first constraint: why is it more important in the case of a pre-infant than in the case of a 12 year old boy? I think it's a serious question - is the issue that the potential to be human must be protected?
I'm sorry that you think that question is thread drift - I would disagree.

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 09:38 AM
Sam, you've out-done yourself!
Posting this anecdotal gruesome account is a new low for you in your attempt to bash those who disagree with you:D:D

Sam F
01-25-2011, 09:47 AM
Peb - Leviticus says that life is in the blood, and science tells us the blood starts flowing on day 18 (17?).
Does that work?

Not really. Augustine, Aquinas, etc. used the best science of their day in their reasoning. Using that same strategy the conclusion is inescapable: Life begins at conception.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 09:56 AM
Sam, you've out-done yourself!
Posting this anecdotal gruesome account is a new low for you in your attempt to bash those who disagree with you:D:D

You've got two problems with that post Glen:
1. Putting ":D:D" is hardly fitting when one is objecting to a "gruesome" post. It completely undermines your objection.
2. Whatsamatter? Can't stand the sight of pork chops?
Either it's a blob of tissue, in which case it can't be very "gruesome" (unless you faint at the sight of hamburger), or it's a human being and it is very gruesome indeed.

Oh, and I suppose all eyewitness accounts are "anecdotal" - and what difference that can make is highly problematic.
However, this account hardly helps your cause. It was after all said by an abortionist and therefore someone on your side.
Tough I know... but that's the breaks.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 09:59 AM
Not really. Augustine, Aquinas, etc. used the best science of their day in their reasoning. Using that same strategy the conclusion is inescapable: Life begins at conception.

Did they, now?

You mean to say that Augustine, Aquinas. et. al did not consider an embryo to be living tissue?

Please explain how the best science of today contradicts Augustine's reasoning behind his contention that abortion is not homicide ("there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed.").

Sam F
01-25-2011, 10:04 AM
Oh I see that someone whined and got the post deleted. Be brave boys! If you can't handle the truth, don't read it. You were warned after all. Censorship is neither correct Liberalism, nor evidence of a backbone. I know that you can handle it if you just man up a bit.
Well... at the risk of being banned again for telling the truth you may view the orginal here:
http://americanpapist.com/2009/10/mature-audience-woman-describes.html
Let's not be so gutless this time, eh?

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 10:07 AM
I've seen my share of dismembered humans of various ages strewn about the landscape.
Unlike you, I've never tried to use them to bash people.:D:D

Sam F
01-25-2011, 10:08 AM
You've been bitch slapped Sammy.

Not in the least. I've been wimped out on.
But I no longer expect "Liberals" to have any stomach for the truth.
Man up boys. If you can't even handle an abortionist's own account of what she does... you have no business pretending to support the procedure.
Gutless.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 10:12 AM
I've seen my share of dismembered humans of various ages strewn about the landscape.
Unlike you, I've never tried to use them to bash people.:D:D

Gee, where did I post any images of such things? Ya'll can't even handle a clinical account by an abortionist?
Beside the whining and wimping being simply pathetic - it is Proof Positive that pro-aborts don't have the guts face the consequences of their own beliefs.

Uncle Duke
01-25-2011, 10:17 AM
If you can't even handle an abortionist's own account of what she does... you have no business pretending to support the procedure.
Gutless.
I'm always amazed, Sam, by your strategy to use un-needed words to slant your disdain for others. "Pretending to support", for example, tells us that you believe that people who support abortion in some circumstances actually do not support it at all - they are just playing a game.
Your point would be better made, made more directly and concisely, by saying "no business supporting the procedure", since we all know that there are large numbers of people who do support the procedure. Including your un-named "abortionist" (whom some people might describe as "doctor") - she still preforms them, no?

Sam F
01-25-2011, 10:19 AM
Ill call it BITCHED SLAPPED

Oh Joe, you're so funny!
When someone wimped out because he couldn't face the truth that's hardly an affront to me.
Censorship, especially of a clinical account, is a comprehensive Fail.
Sorry but you can fuss all you want and it's still a failure.

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 10:19 AM
Oh I see that someone whined and got the post deleted. Be brave boys! If you can't handle the truth, don't read it. You were warned after all. Censorship is neither correct Liberalism, nor evidence of a backbone. I know that you can handle it if you just man up a bit.
Well... at the risk of being banned again for telling the truth you may view the orginal here:
http://americanpapist.com/2009/10/mature-audience-woman-describes.html
Let's not be so gutless this time, eh?

You be brave Sam!
You man up and learn to handle the truth that a Woman can decide what to do with her body, not you, not the Pope.
It's the law of the land!

Uncle Duke
01-25-2011, 10:20 AM
... it is Proof Positive that pro-aborts don't have the guts face the consequences of their own beliefs.
Actually, no.
It's proof that the moderators of this forum don't appreciate the use of fetal parts as an argumentative technique.

McMike
01-25-2011, 10:20 AM
Pro Abs can not argue morality, they must argue practicality. Practicality is now winning this argument the world over. Morality being aborted.


WTF is immoral about aborting what amounts to a sack of tissue. There is no cognizance; there is no pain, perceived or otherwise. If you cannot stand the thought of ending a fetal life then don't F'ing move because there are equal life forms all around you that you terminate by simply shifting your weight. Kill and ant and its more immoral, they feel pain. Fetuses are potentially life but they are not yet life.

I say to all the pro-lifers here; don't you dare buy a product where you don't know EXACTLY where it comes from knowing that its origin is pure, because you will cause more suffering in buying a pair of jeans than in aborting a fetus. Don't eat meat. Don't eat, because the plants are about as feeling as a pre 24 week fetus. Also, don't pay your taxes because we kill thousands of people in the name of oil. You egotistical hypocrites, when you achieve the ability to live without causing pain directly or indirectly then let me know, until then, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

Sam F
01-25-2011, 10:21 AM
I'm always amazed, Sam, by your strategy to use un-needed words to slant your disdain for others. "Pretending to support"...

People who really support something can face it. Imagine someone who supported for universal health care who censored the facts of healthcare. That's just... well pathetic.



Including your un-named "abortionist" (whom some people might describe as "doctor") - she still preforms them, no?

Of course. So why the hysterical whining censoring reaction?
That's kinda obvious, no?

Sam F
01-25-2011, 10:23 AM
Actually, no.
It's proof that the moderators of this forum don't appreciate the use of fetal parts as an argumentative technique.

Who did that?
Not I.
No pictures were presented - only an abortionists self-account of what she does.
Surely you aren't so afraid that you can't even handle what an abortionist says about her own work?

Uncle Duke
01-25-2011, 10:27 AM
Who did that?
Not I.
No pictures were presented - only an abortionists self-account of what she does.
Surely you aren't so afraid that you can't even handle what an abortionist says about her own work?
I had no problem with it at all, actually. I'm sure the same is true of the vast majority on this forum.
Obviously not true of at least one, of course, but you can't honestly extend that single instance into a sweeping generality. That would be intellectually dishonest, which you profess to abhor.

pefjr
01-25-2011, 10:32 AM
if we're being honest
it's all done for the simple reason
that, to terminate a life,
and so cavalierly,
we have to rationalize that action,
to exonerate ourselves
of what we're doing.

It's all just moral/ethical gymnastics.


No matter the moral yardstick. Print it up George, it's a masterpiece

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 10:39 AM
Who did that?
Not I.
No pictures were presented - only an abortionists self-account of what she does.
Surely you aren't so afraid that you can't even handle what an abortionist says about her own work?

We all eat chicken, Sam, but we don't need a detailed account of chicken butchery posted here just because you say so. Get it?

LeeG
01-25-2011, 10:48 AM
one of the lazier mental gymnastics is making sh*t up. Speaking in the first person plural as though a universally shared truth is being expressed.

http://www.superherostuff.com/bush_sucks_tshirts/images/buddy_jesus.jpg

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 10:55 AM
I find the repeated assertion from the anti-choice right that women decide about abortion casually truly repulsive and factually wrong. In my work I've had the opportunity to deal with a few hundred women who had abortions in the past or were looking at one and hundreds who've had children and were looking at pregnancy choices. I've also spent a great deal of time with people who do direct pregnancy counseling, which I did not do. There is a very portion of women who take having a baby pretty casually. There is a smaller number who take having an abortion casually. For all the women I've personally met or know of directly, the choice was far from casual. The claim that pregnancy decisions even could be casual for any great number of women is morally repugnant and factually untrue.

And here's the bit that people like SamF perhaps have closed their eyes to: Pregnant women (in general) are not under any illusion about the "beginning of life". They are pregnant. They know better than guys. That's part of why pregnancy choices are not trivial decisions. Anti-choice people are perfectly free to hold to their position but they are not free to invent falsehoods about the consciences of pregnant women.

pefjr
01-25-2011, 10:57 AM
WTF is immoral about aborting what amounts to a sack of tissue. There is no cognizance; there is no pain, perceived or otherwise. If you cannot stand the thought of ending a fetal life then don't F'ing move because there are equal life forms all around you that you terminate by simply shifting your weight. Kill and ant and its more immoral, they feel pain. Fetuses are potentially life but they are not yet life.

I say to all the pro-lifers here; don't you dare buy a product where you don't know EXACTLY where it comes from knowing that its origin is pure, because you will cause more suffering in buying a pair of jeans than in aborting a fetus. Don't eat meat. Don't eat, because the plants are about as feeling as a pre 24 week fetus. Also, don't pay your taxes because we kill thousands of people in the name of oil. You egotistical hypocrites, when you achieve the ability to live without causing pain directly or indirectly then let me know, until then, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Interesting the stands pro abortionists will take, and never mentioning practicality, which happens to be the only viable justification. Quit hiding behind these moral yardsticks that don't jive. Your ancestor happens to be single cell prokaryotes, and we are here because it reproduced. You have mis-interpreted and are over reacting to my simple analysis.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:01 AM
Perhaps you should ask Scot about it... and post his explanation, presuming he gives you one.

Very amusing!
I tried that already. Scot will not communicate directly with me. He "communicates" by expulsion.
Of course, such poor customer service has its consequences.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:06 AM
Funny that I can't even report the news without it getting deleted.
Well, nobody ever said that the Forum was fair. :D Extremely biased but certainly not fair.

Maybe if I'm very very quiet about it, nobody will whine about this little quote from the latest abortion horror:

[Abortionist] Gosnell is suspected of killing hundreds of living babies over the course of his 30-year practice. However, he is not charged because the records do not exist.
DA Williams said Gosnell made approximately $1.8 million in one year alone performing the procedures.
That's from http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

1.8 mil / year? Yeah, I don't doubt some could manage to look at a little gruesome stuff for that amount.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Don't like it leave :p

You know you've got a great air-tight case when the only response is expulsion. :D

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:18 AM
While I deplore your use of obscenity, I will not whine (and never have whined) about it to the authorities:

WTF is immoral about aborting what amounts to a sack of tissue.

Exactly. What on earth could be objectionable about a practitioner's verbal account of her job aborting that "sack of tissue"?
Once again, the censorship reflex disproves it's very rationale.


There is no cognizance; there is no pain, perceived or otherwise...

Feeling no pain is not a very sensible yardstick. A Saturday night's drinking might cause mortal fear.

And yet the pain standard has no limit:


...Kill and ant and its more immoral, they feel pain. Fetuses are potentially life but they are not yet life.
Well once again that is totally unscientific. What is it about pro-aborts that they are so ignorant of biology?


I say to all the pro-lifers here; don't you dare buy a product where you don't know EXACTLY where it comes

Lots of pro-lifers are already there. Many refuse vaccinations because they're produced using aborted fetal tissue. But you surely already knew that some vaccines were produced that way, didn't you?


You egotistical hypocrites, when you achieve the ability to live without causing pain directly or indirectly then let me know,...

You're all over the map on this one. Is causing pain wrong or not?
If it is wrong I suggest anesthesia - 24X7.


...until then, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

I'm sure glad Christians didn't think that way during the civil rights controversy in the 1960's.
Maybe you ought to re-think that one.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:21 AM
What are the consequences? He might compell you to not participate?

aka censorship. Sure! Censorship is the progressive way isn't it?


Sounds like it is exactly the consequences he was intending.

Well that may be the case. Simple greasing the squeaking wheel combined with ah... inattention to customer service principles, is probably a simpler explanation.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:23 AM
One wonders about the Democrats now defunct "help the little guy" ethic:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ZZ31BC93B9.jpg

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:26 AM
For those of you not too lily-livered to handle the truth - read the Grand Jury Report on the Philadelphia abortionist's crimes:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/69618219/Grand-Jury-Report----Philly-Abortionist-Kermit-B-Gosnell-Multiple-Counts-of-Murder-(January-2011)

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:28 AM
Hundreds of thousands assemble against abortion in DC
"The greatest difference between other civil rights movements and this one,” Fr. Ivany reflected solemnly, “is that most of the people affected by Roe v. Wade can't march on Washington. They can't give great speeches.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/hundreds-of-thousands-assemble-against-abortion-in-dc/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+catholicnewsagency/dailynews+(CNA+Daily+News)

Every year the crowd gets bigger.
You can't censor it boys.

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 11:31 AM
Fr. Ivany's quote leaves out the mothers and fathers affected by Roe v Wade, just as his anti-choise ideology ignores them. And therein lies the falsehood of the anti-choise position. Thank you SamF for putting it so nakedly on display.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:38 AM
From the Grand Jury report on the Philadelphia house of horrors, Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society” :
"This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy — and then murdered these newborns by severing their http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWu6CsU_5RUR0b3zG3jglIFGIi19uwR JHDxB92tMmd1Cpd_PlkKQ with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWu6CsU_5RUR0b3zG3jglIFGIi19uwR JHDxB92tMmd1Cpd_PlkKQ — and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it."

Hopefully the gutless pro-aborts here can handle that "sanitized" version of the truth.

It's not like no one reported these atrocities. They were attempts at whistle blowing aimed at various civil authorities but abortion is sacred and untouchable. Mustn't get the pro-aborts upset you know....

Sam F
01-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Fr. Ivany's quote leaves out the mothers and fathers affected by Roe v Wade, just as his anti-choise ideology ignores them. And therein lies the falsehood of the anti-choise position. Thank you SamF for putting it so nakedly on display.

Nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
For help go to:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/resources/

LeeG
01-25-2011, 11:41 AM
One wonders about the Democrats now defunct "help the little guy" ethic:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ZZ31BC93B9.jpg

is that Newt Gingrich?

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 11:43 AM
It's a black day for the Inquisitor!
Time was when Sam could have gutted and burned a few of us and the rest of us would have fallen in line.
He could imprison women for having abortions.
Ah, the glorious good ole days.
And yet he has the nerve to whine about censorship?:)

pefjr
01-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Sam, you're too emotional on this issue? Back away for awhile.

LeeG
01-25-2011, 11:47 AM
Sam, you too emotional on this issue? Back away for awhile.

wouldn't you be emotional if genocide was going on in your country? If murder was being sanctioned by the gov't? Come on man, where are your moral standards?

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 11:56 AM
What is being accomplished with this thread?

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 12:01 PM
What is being accomplished with this thread?

Is this a trick question, Tom?;)

LeeG
01-25-2011, 12:01 PM
narrative reinforcement. I'm inclined towards ridicule.

S.V. Airlie
01-25-2011, 12:03 PM
What is being accomplished with this thread?

You got me...(post 1)

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 12:13 PM
In #171 SamF quotes an allegedly solemn quip (“can’t march”) by Fr Ivany that clearly refers to aborted fetuses who, being dead, can never march. It does not by any stretch refer to people whose sorrow in the wake of an abortion the Roman Catholic Church is hoping to cultivate into remorse and then move that remorse into public (silent no more) renunciation. [#177]

I actually have a good idea of what I’m writing about. And what SamF is writing about. SamF, of course, also knows what he’s writing about but he chooses misdirection in the mistaken belief that anyone is fooled.

There will be shrill hysterics and false arguments against pregnancy choices probably forever and there will also be people who not only make the choice to carry a child to term for themselves but who also believe it is the only right choice for everyone else. Whether a projection of personal conflict resolved, adherence to dogma, or even carefully thought through moral reflection, the anti-choice position is one that brooks no argument and those who make it do not change except sometimes under the press of direct experience.

For those reasons, those who are pro-choice should do all that it takes, including making sure that our “welfare” system takes care of women and children and especially making sure that children grow up learning the many diverse ways one can be sexually responsible. The issue won’t ever end and the option of repression will always be present.

pefjr
01-25-2011, 12:15 PM
wouldn't you be emotional if genocide was going on in your country? If murder was being sanctioned by the gov't? Come on man, where are your moral standards?They were aborted for practical purposes.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 12:22 PM
is that Newt Gingrich?

No doubt he once looked pretty much like that. You did too.

LeeG
01-25-2011, 12:27 PM
They were aborted for practical purposes.

you do live in Las Vegas

George Jung
01-25-2011, 12:30 PM
I haven't seen anything posted about 'taking away choice', have you? Choice is alive and well; my personal belief is it should remain so (free will). But for those who feel abortion is wrong (or even, very wrong - ymmv), it's also inclement those reservations be heard. While this thread is is a retread, I see nothing wrong with broaching the subject from time to time, allowing some to consider the implications of this choice, and maybe just vent a bit. Look at some of the responses here - a bit of vitriol, overly enthusiastic pronunciations.... obviously, this is a topic with some raw edges to it, and regardless how cut and dried some seem to feel this is, when there's this degree of emotional response on display, it's obviously not the case.

Nicely done.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 12:35 PM
In #171 SamF quotes an allegedly solemn quip (“can’t march”) by Fr Ivany that clearly refers to aborted fetuses who, being dead, can never march. It does not by any stretch refer to people whose sorrow in the wake of an abortion the Roman Catholic Church is hoping to cultivate into remorse and then move that remorse into public (silent no more) renunciation.

You don't know what you're talking about.
"Silent No More Awareness is a Campaign whereby Christians make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women and men. The campaign seeks to expose and heal the secrecy and silence surrounding the emotional and physical pain of abortion.


The Campaign is a project of Priests for Life and Anglicans for Life."

Yeah Anglicans. Scary isn't it?
"Many women and men are realizing the abortions they were involved in years ago are the source of the physical and emotional problems they have today. The Campaign gives them a forum to help others by sharing the painful consequences of abortion.

Women talk about feeling guilt, anger, shame and worthlessness; and how they struggled with suicidal thoughts, drug/alcohol addiction to numb the pain, eating disorders or depression. Men share how the abortion of their children caused them to feel pain, guilt, and anger. They also share their experience in finding peace and healing.

These voices of experience need to be heard so others can learn about the help that is available. They also want people who think abortion is a good solution for someone facing an unplanned pregnancy to understand the real long-term consequences their friend or loved one is likely to face in the future."

Fact is that abortion has consequences for the adults involved. Consequences that can be life-long.
The pro-aborts pretend that there are no serious consequences.
There are lots of videos here that contradict you:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/index.aspx
You can even select them for your own region:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.aspx
I dare you to watch them.

Those who need help can find it here:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/resources/



I actually have a good idea of what I'm writing about. And what SamF is writing about.
This proves you don't:

SamF, of course, also knows what he’s writing about but he chooses misdirection in the mistaken belief that anyone is fooled.

When you get censored for telling the truth it is obviously not what you call "misdirection". It's a bulls eye.

McMike
01-25-2011, 12:37 PM
Interesting the stands pro abortionists will take, and never mentioning practicality, which happens to be the only viable justification. Quit hiding behind these moral yardsticks that don't jive. Your ancestor happens to be single cell prokaryotes, and we are here because it reproduced. You have mis-interpreted and are over reacting to my simple analysis.


It is about practicality but that's not the only reason. Morality, does come into play on both sides of this argument, is it moral to subject a woman to the whims of a much stronger man who rapes her? Should her whole life have to revolve around his actions because of a fantasy notion that life begins at conception, I don't think that's a moral thing to do to an already victimized woman. As for your everyday run of the mill abortions; it get's really ambiguous in regard to morality, if a fetus, scientifically speaking, is not developed enough to experience the abortion, not even to the level of the ant's experience of being squashed, there is no question of morality unless you "believe" in a soul. It's that simple.


FWIW the pope is far from anyone I would trust to guide me on any question of morality, I'll stick to scientific fact thank you very much.

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 12:42 PM
Again, thanks to SamF for demonstrating my points that Fr Ivany was not talking about "silent no more" and further thanks to SamF for reaffirming the public and political agenda of the silent no more bit. I am so happy when we can find some rare grounds of factual agreement to join the factual agreement we already have that a fertilized egg is life - not independent mind you but that's not really a central point in my mind. We do agree that the choice to abort is a choice to kill.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 12:43 PM
When you get censored for telling the truth it is obviously not what you call "misdirection". It's a bulls eye.

Thatta Boy! Keep taking shots at our host!

"Censored for telling the truth." yer sure full of yourself.

George Jung
01-25-2011, 12:44 PM
I found your post intriguing, McMike; the scenario of the 'rape victim/victimized woman' is, quite honestly, an outlier in terms of who gets abortions. I have, perhaps, as much experience counseling women as Ian, and I can tell you, your characterization would be an atypical presentation. Perhaps this reflects someone you've known who's gone through this, and that could certainly color your perceptions.

I'd point out that, science isn't going to guide you much in terms of questions of morality.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 12:44 PM
The problem for SamF here is multifold.

First, he's all tactics, but no strategy. Being morally opposed to abortion of any kind is a noble position, but he continually shoots himself in the foot. Trying to paint all doctors who perform abortions as crazed killers ...

Crazed? Of course not. A profit of $1.8 mil ain't crazed.


...who use dangerous drugs, spread veneral disease, use dirty instruments, etc. (post #175) simply weakens his case... because nobody believes that all doctors who provide abortions are like this.

I don't believe it either.


Similarly, the rhetoric of describing, as 'pro-abortion', people who support choice, is another self-defeating thing. I've never met a pro-choice person who was foaming at the mouth, with glazed eyes, drooling, and actually promoting abortion.

Never met Joe, huh? ;)


Most people who support choice that I know are responsible, sober, have thought through their positions, and simply think that the decision is best left up to women.

Everyone I know who supports pro-life that I know are responsible, sober, have thought through their positions, and simply think that the decision is a science based one.

Alternately, if you believe that taking a human life is of no serious consequence then by all means abort. But the censorship of what goes on during an abortion utterly destroys that position.


Trying to argue from a religious point of view is similarly hopeless, except when arguing to the choir. People who don't adhere to Roman Catholicism aren't going to be swayed by the Catholic dogma.

I think not a few pro-life Baptists are having apoplexy just now at your assertion. This is not a Catholic position.
"... because life is all there is and all that matters, and
abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being." from Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Homepage
Or if you prefer this from Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html


... but I couldn't name a single individual whose mind was changed by SamF. Maybe there are one or more... but they haven't made themselves evident.

Really, bragging about being closed-minded is not a good idea.
In my case I have indeed been convinced to change positions by this forum. Not that you'd like those changes. :D


SamF would serve his cause much better if he stuck to a simple, non-sectarian, non-religious argument about ethics and morality, which could have universal appeal (but he can't, because he continues to exist that there is no morality outside of religious doctrine).

'Cuse me. It's not a religious argument.

pefjr
01-25-2011, 12:48 PM
Here is where we differ: It is about practicality. It's that simple.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 12:50 PM
Again, thanks to SamF for demonstrating my points ...

Ian, one minute is not time enough to even glance at my links.
Thanks for proving that you have a closed mind that is impervious to evidence.
That evidence shows that the guilt suffering and trauma many feel, often years after the event, is not a construct of the Catholic Church.
People of all religious persuasions and of no religion at all exhibit these after abortion events.


We do agree that the choice to abort is a choice to kill.

Ok. Naturally you think taking a human life is OK. I don't.

Ed Harrow
01-25-2011, 12:51 PM
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g65/wlgtoo/Troll-O-Meter.gif

and time for some more:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g65/wlgtoo/popcorn.gif

McMike
01-25-2011, 12:54 PM
I found your post intriguing, McMike; the scenario of the 'rape victim/victimized woman' is, quite honestly, an outlier in terms of who gets abortions. I have, perhaps, as much experience counseling women as Ian, and I can tell you, your characterization would be an atypical presentation. Perhaps this reflects someone you've known who's gone through this, and that could certainly color your perceptions.

I'd point out that, science isn't going to guide you much in terms of questions of morality.

Science is a point of reference, morality is a big part of who you are, a scientific fact can shift your morality but your morality will never change a scientific fact. Pefjr is right about this being a question of practicality but my morality is a large part of why I feel the way I do because there is no greater pain than being an unwanted/unconsidered child, this I know to the core of my being, I would not wish it upon anyone.

McMike
01-25-2011, 12:57 PM
Here is where we differ: It is about practicality. It's that simple.

Please don't arrange my words out of context, I ask you to properly reflect what I said in your quoting of my post or delete it.

George Jung
01-25-2011, 12:58 PM
Science is a point of reference, morality is a big part of who you are, a scientific fact can shift your morality but your morality will never change a scientific fact. Pefjr is right about this being a question of practicality but my morality is a large part of why I feel the way I do because there is no greater pain than being an unwanted/unconsidered child, this I know to the core of my being, I would not wish it upon anyone.

That bold part caught my eye; I don't think it's true, so perhaps I'm missing something? Elucidate, please.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 01:01 PM
While this thread is is a retread, I see nothing wrong with broaching the subject from time to time, allowing some to consider the implications of this choice, and maybe just vent a bit. Look at some of the responses here - a bit of vitriol, overly enthusiastic pronunciations.... obviously, this is a topic with some raw edges to it, and regardless how cut and dried some seem to feel this is, when there's this degree of emotional response on display, it's obviously not the case.

So the occasional WBF abortion thread allows people like SammyF a therapeutic opportunity to vent?

Interesting.

McMike
01-25-2011, 01:04 PM
Before knowing science I would be inclined to believe that snakes came from under rocks, from the depths of hell perhaps, so all snakes are bad and I will consider it my moral duty to kill every one I see. After science I will know snakes are a part of the ecology and help keep the balance of nature in check, given this fact I won't kill any snakes and find it morally wrong to do so unless there was an immediate threat or it was in my bed:D. A simple illustration for a complex subject but hopefully a clear one.

Bob Cleek
01-25-2011, 01:06 PM
We've had this 'debate' numerous times here. The arbitrary lines we draw in the sand are just that - and if we're being honest, it's all done for the simple reason that, to terminate a life, and so cavalierly, we have to rationalize that action, to exonerate ourselves of what we're doing. Numerous yardsticks have been proposed, and used. These metrics change all the time, especially as science finds ways to support ever more prematurely born infants.

It's all just moral/ethical gymnastics. I'm not sure why any even bother offering a pretense.

Yes. Exactly.

Bob Cleek
01-25-2011, 01:19 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html

Maybe some deserve an exclusive franchise to the term "Holocaust," but speaking generically, can you say "genocide?"

Yep, Joe, it's STILL LEGAL!

George Jung
01-25-2011, 01:22 PM
So the occasional WBF abortion thread allows people like SammyF a therapeutic opportunity to vent?

Interesting.

Actually, I had you in mind....:p but there's no reason we all can't take a shot at it.


Before knowing science I would be inclined to believe that snakes came from under rocks, from the depths of hell perhaps, so all snakes are bad and I will consider it my moral duty to kill every one I see. After science I will know snakes are a part of the ecology and help keep the balance of nature in check, given this fact I won't kill any snakes and find it morally wrong to do so unless there was an immediate threat or it was in my bed:D. A simple illustration for a complex subject but hopefully a clear one.


That doesn't really do it for me, McMike! But I appreciate the effort.

pefjr
01-25-2011, 01:39 PM
Please don't arrange my words out of context, I ask you to properly reflect what I said in your quoting of my post or delete it. Those are my words.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 02:46 PM
So the occasional WBF abortion thread allows people like SammyF a therapeutic opportunity to vent?

Interesting.

Actually, I had you in mind....:p but there's no reason we all can't take a shot at it.

Hey George... guess who once posted the following?


I should warn you: I am a "Liberal" who has no problem with either gun ownership, overturning Roe Vs. Wade, or the Clergy being involved in politics.

Bob Cleek
01-25-2011, 02:57 PM
I have to say, George's analysis is spot on. There's no getting around it. Abortion is killing and it is sanctioned by the government, so it's not "murder" in the legal sense. As an American, you're free to exercise that option. If you support a person's right to chose to kill their own unborn child, for reasons of practicality or even as a matter of convenience, you ought to have the cojones to admit that up front. Pseudo-scientific arguments that it "isn't human" or "they don't feel pain" and other rationalizations only betray the fact that those who make such arguments have unsettled consciences. It's "open season" on the unborn. If you think that's fine, be man and say so.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 03:23 PM
Pseudo-scientific arguments that it "isn't human" or "they don't feel pain" and other rationalizations only betray the fact that those who make such arguments have unsettled consciences.

So you think Saint Augustine had an unsettled conscience? I doubt it. He argued that abortion is not homicide because an unfeeling, incompletely formed fetus posesses no soul. Sounds to me like he had in mind what we now know about a fetus less than 24 weeks along.

Peerie Maa
01-25-2011, 03:32 PM
I have to say, George's analysis is spot on. There's no getting around it. Abortion is killing and it is sanctioned by the government, so it's not "murder" in the legal sense. As an American, you're free to exercise that option. If you support a person's right to chose to kill their own unborn child, for reasons of practicality or even as a matter of convenience, you ought to have the cojones to admit that up front. Pseudo-scientific arguments that it "isn't human" or "they don't feel pain" and other rationalizations only betray the fact that those who make such arguments have unsettled consciences. It's "open season" on the unborn. If you think that's fine, be man and say so.

No, I cant agree with that. The Roman view was that infants were not protected by their morality, and could be discarded on the town dump at birth. We do better than that, as some of these post have debated. If we consider that inducing a miscarriage is appropriate for sound medical reasons, or for sound psychological reasons (rape, incest etc.) then we must decide on a point when it is or is not too late. Debating that "when" is not evidence of "unsettled consciences". It is responsible and necessary behaviour.

TomZ
01-25-2011, 03:34 PM
So you think Saint Augustine had an unsettled conscience? I doubt it. He argued that abortion is not homicide because an unfeeling, incompletely formed fetus posesses no soul. Sounds to me like he had in mind what we know about a fetus less than 24 weeks along.

The Church has never proclaimed infallible truth about every utterance by even such an esteemed Doctor of the Church. To claim to know the exact moment when a 'soul' is sewn in seems dubious, unless it was always there from the start. By this logic, the trip down the birth canal becomes a magical process whereby person-hood is conferred. Not just the change in address it would seem.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 03:46 PM
The Church has never proclaimed infallible truth about every utterance by even such an esteemed Doctor of the Church.

Of course not! Nor am I claiming Saint Augustine was infallible. What I am pointing out is that RCC opinion has evolved over the centuries. I have also pointed out that contemporary rabbinic and Talmudic thought agreed with Augustine.

Frankly, the modern RCC idea that "ensoulment," or "personhood," begins at conception is no more grounded in science than Augustine's notion that such status only occurs once the fetus is sufficiently formed to be capable of feeling.

Augustine did not claim that a less than fully formed, as yet unfeeling, human fetus was not living human tissue. What he said was he did not believe it yet possessed a soul. Therefore abortion was not murder. I agree albeit substituting "was yet a human being" for "yet possessed a soul."

Y'all assume that were Augustine alive today modern science would cause him to change his opinion. I do not believe it would.

TomZ
01-25-2011, 03:49 PM
Frankly, the modern RCC idea that "ensoulment," or "personhood," begins at conception is no more grounded in science than Augustine's notion that such status only occurs once the fetus is capable of feeling.

I'm not sure how the even existence of a soul could be supported by science, let alone when it was applied. It would seem to me that if a body has a soul, it would be present at the earliest moments of creation. IMO

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure how the even existence of a soul could be supported by science, let alone when it was applied.
Nor do I.


It would seem to me that if a body has a soul, it would be present at the earliest moments of creation. IMO
That is fine. And you are entitled to your opinion. But that was clearly not the opinion of Saint Augustine. And the notion that his opinion was the result of a lack of modern scientific knowledge -- as SammyF claimed -- is silly.

McMike
01-25-2011, 04:04 PM
Those are my words.

in post #201 you quoted me . . . wrongly . . . fix it.

McMike
01-25-2011, 04:06 PM
Actually, I had you in mind....:p but there's no reason we all can't take a shot at it.



That doesn't really do it for me, McMike! But I appreciate the effort.

I'm not sure how to explain it . . . . do you not understand what I'm saying or do you completely understand and disagree?

Dave Wright
01-25-2011, 04:14 PM
.... If you support a person's right to chose to kill their own unborn child, for reasons of practicality or even as a matter of convenience, you ought to have the cojones to admit that up front. .....If you think that's fine, be man and say so.

That's fine by me, and I'm very glad that the voluntary relationship between a woman and her perfectly ethical doctor is none of your goddam business.

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 04:20 PM
Looking back at the posts between Bud and McMike (196, 201, and 213) it appears to me that Bud takes the perspective that the arguments for choice are only a matter of practicality.

While in 201 Bud remarkably misquotes McMike - something I did not know was even possible if you lift like that but I guess additions can be placed - he seems unaware of that and is not denying, actually affirming, that McMike does not stand only on practicality.

Unfortunately, mere repetition of his point coupled with the extraordinary misrepresentation of what McMike wrote tends to both conceal and denigrate the moral position of most pro-choice people.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 04:33 PM
Yeah this is a Catholic issue and the silent no more folk are just making stuff up:
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Eric+Cantor+38th+Annual+March+Life+Winds+Through+-xxHA9FitIMl.jpg

Oh and as it happens, Eric Cantor is Jewish.
And elected by the people of Virginia
And house majority leader...

Yeah it's just a Catholic dogma....

George Jung
01-25-2011, 04:36 PM
I'm a bit disoriented, after finding I'm in essentially total agreement with Norman. I can't decide if one of us is getting smarter, or slipping!:p

Is St. Augustine considered infallible? I'm not sure how his stance on this is the 'gold standard', but maybe I'm mistaken. Regardless, I find it amusing some find it necessary to go back so many centuries to find a like-minded opinion. I'm just hoping my wife agrees with me.

McMike, I didn't find your analogy convincing. Not a big issue; I just can't imagine science informing morality. I'm thinking about that; maybe others have a view on this.

And finally this:

That's fine by me, and I'm very glad that the voluntary relationship between a woman and her perfectly ethical doctor is none of your goddam business.

I'm not sure what has Mr. Wright so wound up on this. Just a simple discussion, and by bilge standards, pretty mellow and courteous. And fwiw, I don't see anyone posting on this thread who has said anything that would disagree with that.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:37 PM
I have known a few women who have had abortions. None of them made the decision "cavalierly." The circumstances varied. As was their marital status at the time. And as has their subsequent feelings about their decision.

The funny thing is, all of them were raised and educated in the RCC.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 04:41 PM
... If you support a person's right to chose to kill their own unborn child, for reasons of practicality or even as a matter of convenience, you ought to have the cojones to admit that up front. Pseudo-scientific arguments that it "isn't human" or "they don't feel pain" and other rationalizations only betray the fact that those who make such arguments have unsettled consciences. It's "open season" on the unborn. If you think that's fine, be man and say so.

Cojones? Heck these wimps can't even handle an honest account by an abortionist without running to mommy. But then, it's no big secret that a notable lack of manly responsibility is a characteristic of those who won't support the children they help conceive. Killin' 'em preserves the unending adolescence we see so much of in "men".
Kinda fits... those who support this failure of responsibility would act like those to actually do fail in that responsibility.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:41 PM
Is St. Augustine considered infallible? I'm not sure how his stance on this is the 'gold standard', but maybe I'm mistaken.
You are mistaken. Go back and reread post #220.


Regardless, I find it amusing some find it necessary to go back so many centuries to find a like-minded opinion.
Surely you are joking?

George Jung
01-25-2011, 04:42 PM
I have known a few women who have had abortions. None of them made the decision "cavalierly." The circumstances varied. As was their marital status at the time. And as has their subsequent feelings about their decision.

The funny thing is, all of them were raised and educated in the RCC.

Oooh, that sounds foreboding!

But interesting, in that it seemingly supports SammyF's position. Talk about 'unintended consequences, eh?

My own experience - quite a few had problems post-Ab, generally those who had refused counseling pre-procedure. What percentage? I don't know; for every ab I was aware of, I suspect 20 others were performed I never knew about.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:44 PM
Cojones? Heck these wimps can't even handle an honest account by an abortionist without running to mommy.

Atta boy! Keep crying about how you were done wrong by our host!

Sam F
01-25-2011, 04:46 PM
Not that there's not some overlap in that particular set of Venn diagrams

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:46 PM
Oooh, that sounds foreboding!

But interesting, in that it seemingly supports SammyF's position. Talk about 'unintended consequences, eh?

Really? Please explain in greater detail.

pefjr
01-25-2011, 04:49 PM
Looking back at the posts between Bud and McMike (196, 201, and 213) it appears to me that Bud takes the perspective that the arguments for choice are only a matter of practicality.

While in 201 Bud remarkably misquotes McMike - something I did not know was even possible if you lift like that but I guess additions can be placed - he seems unaware of that and is not denying, actually affirming, that McMike does not stand only on practicality.

Unfortunately, mere repetition of his point coupled with the extraordinary misrepresentation of what McMike wrote tends to both conceal and denigrate the moral position of most pro-choice people.

No denigration intended on either side of this argument from me Ian. I don't know what MMike is upset about so I deleted his quote instead of arguing about it. I left mine. Call me a jack leg Anthopologist. I am interested in this thread from that point of view only. IMO George Jung is one of the few able to see this leaning on the crutch of moral standards is BS. As I tried to point out, we all descend from one cell life, so to say that life is not present at conception is out of desperation to justify destroying life. IMO. It a dilemma for those that find themselves in that position. Cleek put it more bluntly. Own up or shut up about your flex morals. Yes, I feel that practicality is the only true justification and it's a satisfactory reason for me. Souls, bishops, and religions are not parts of what I have to wrestle with. Aborting morality because of the irrelevancy, and looking square into the eye of the delimma may open up that view of a practical justification for the commitment.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 04:52 PM
I haven't seen anything posted about 'taking away choice', have you? Choice is alive and well...

Those babies murdered in Philadelphia didn't have much choice. A much more accurate way to say that is Abortion is alive and well... if you can say such a thing about killing human beings.

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:56 PM
My own experience - quite a few had problems post-Ab, generally those who had refused counseling pre-procedure. What percentage? I don't know; for every ab I was aware of, I suspect 20 others were performed I never knew about.

I am curious. As their personal physician do you offer your female patients counsel beyond referring them to others? Or do you stay strictly out of the decision making process? If so, why?

If not, do you encourage them to continue their pregnancy to term? In all circumstances?

Tom Montgomery
01-25-2011, 04:59 PM
Those babies murdered in Philadelphia didn't have much choice. A much more accurate way to say that is Abortion is alive and well... if you can say such a thing about killing human beings.

Dr. Mengele was also a monster. So what?

You are teasing Godwin's Law.

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 05:01 PM
definitions

abortion: A woman decides to end her unwanted pregnancy and consults her doctor

miscarriage: God Almighty decides to end a woman's pregnancy without consultation

Which is worse?
Where is Sam's outrage toward his God?

Peerie Maa
01-25-2011, 05:07 PM
definitions

abortion: A woman decides to end her unwanted pregnancy and consults her doctor

miscarriage: God Almighty decides to end a woman's pregnancy without consultation

Which is worse?
Where is Sam's outrage toward his God?

Dunno if the terminology is the same in the States, but here the formal medical language uses aborted pregnancy for both. So Sam's God and the physician are no different except for one thing, one of them discusses it with the mother.

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 05:07 PM
In the Philadelphia horror, beyond abortions which the anti-abortion anti-choice crowd call murder, there were what everyone would call murder - the killing of live birth babies and the killing of their mothers. Arguing that this disgraceful example - every level of public health regulators failed to respond to the obvious killing of poor and immigrant women - is uniquely about abortion is rather like arguing that iatrogenic illness proves we should cease modern medicine.

Sam F
01-25-2011, 05:13 PM
SamF, denigrating someone's manhood may be very effective in starting a bar fight.... but here in the bilge, it simply screams 'no credibility'. You can do better than that.

I'm not the one who whined to get a post removed 'cause I was too gutless to face reality. So Norman, we're way past needing evidence of a lack of manhood. Way way past that.
Don't blame me for noticing.

Peerie Maa
01-25-2011, 05:16 PM
Is someone cranking an old air raid siren on here?

Sam F
01-25-2011, 05:17 PM
As a matter of fact there's no shortage of personal accounts by women about how they were pressured into an abortion by their boy "friends" or husbands. Search on "boyfriend pressured me to have an abortion " and you get "About 412,000 results", not that Google is counting or anything.

Ian McColgin
01-25-2011, 05:21 PM
SamF has a point that people are rarely pregnant in a total vacuum and are often pressured to abort or to have the child. One important aspect of pregnancy counseling in to enable the woman to make her choice, not mine and not yours.

Bob Cleek
01-25-2011, 05:25 PM
I agree, and am willing to say so. I agree that the arguments about when life begins are bad ones. I will admit that the reasons for aborting may not, in some cases, or even in many cases, be related to any notion of 'non-life'.

And I still believe that it should be the woman's decision.

I commend you on your healthy testosterone level!

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 05:27 PM
I'm not the one who whined to get a post removed 'cause I was too gutless to face reality. So Norman, we're way past needing evidence of a lack of manhood. Way way past that.
Don't blame me for noticing.

So, who is the "gutless" whiner who can't face the "reality" that abortion is legal and a woman can decide to have an abortion and you can't stop her?
Man up, Sam!
We're way past that.

Peerie Maa
01-25-2011, 05:28 PM
As a matter of fact there's no shortage of personal accounts by women about how they were pressured into an abortion by their boy "friends" or husbands. Search on "boyfriend pressured me to have an abortion " and you get "About 412,000 results", not that Google is counting or anything.

Same thing used to happen forcing full term mothers to place their babies for adoption. That too will have put the mother through the emotional wringer. Wrong in both cases, and irrelevant to this debate, society should support the woman's right to decide her bodies own future in both cases.

S.V. Airlie
01-25-2011, 05:31 PM
So..a question..if the Supreme Court did not legalize abortions..Who among us are willing and able to adopt a child of say a 16 yr old today? Hands up.Yes, I;'m sure there are some..some that can not afford another child..but..Those that are not aborted well do they just join the pool of the unwanted or become the children of elderly parents as an example.

keep in mind, if the unwed mother is 16, the child might have a whole list of potential medical issues and may not be easily adopted

If I am being crass, I'm sorry. Not intended at all..call it a reality check. But based on the first thread, 50 million abortions probably amounts to quite a few adoptions that don't happen

nw_noob
01-25-2011, 06:58 PM
Sam - from this it appears you equate abortion with birth control. Am I understanding you correctly?


Where ever did you get that idea?

From this exchange, it seems you have no problem with birth control pills. Can the same be said of emergency contraception? It's the same drug as some birth control pills, but in a larger dose, which is taken a day or two after sex, rather than in small doses throughout the month.

If that's not a problem for you, your "life begins at conception position" is kind of blown out of the water. That is unless you don't count zygotes as conceived, just embryos that have "made it to base," in playground-tag terms.

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 07:25 PM
I would think that, for example, anyone who is opposed to abortion (regardless of circumstance) should also be just as religiously opposed to the death penalty. I would think that that same person would also believe that allowing someone to die when you could prevent that would also be incorrect behaviour.

Uncle Duke - I'm curious as to why you assume one who is opposed to abortion should also oppose the death penalty. I do not see the two as congruous at all, as one pertains to the innocent while the other to the guilty. Can you say a bit more about your thinking here? Thanks.

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 07:32 PM
There is a dichotomy between your notion that theology is 'always reforming', and the idea that there are 'eternal truths'.

I don't think so. Truth never changes, but the application of it does. Truth never changes, but the accommodation of it to our ability to understand it does. Theology includes the application aspect of truth, hence, it does change as we grow in our knowledge and understanding. God wrote two books - his book of creation, and his book of revelation. As our knowledge of the first grows, it impacts our understanding/interpretation of the second. Clearly passages of scripture came to be interpreted differently pre and post Galileo (e.g.).

Keith Wilson
01-25-2011, 07:49 PM
At least one of our prominent WBF members was honest enough to admit this and said "Cogito ergo sum" defined it for him, of course he never could answer what should happen if he was in a really deep, dreamless, sleep, if he should lose all protection of the law. Actually, peb, that's a fairly trivial question. We all sometimes lose consciousness temporarily - every night, most of us. Then we wake up. Nobody would ever say you could legitimately kill a sleeping man because he's unconscious. Once consciousness is lost permanently and irretrievably - brain death is the obvious case - we're dealing with a human body, not a person. Before the body parts necessary for consciousness develop, we have a developing human fetus, but not yet a person, only something with the potential to be one.

If one really belives that a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a baby, a women who uses an IUD is exactly equivalent to someone who takes an automatic weapon into a kindergarten classroom and starts blasting away.

The reason abortion is legal is not "convenience", it's respect for a woman's freedom and autonomy.


Truth never changes, but the application of it does. Let me put it another way. Sure, truth may never change. But we are human beings, and our understanding of truth is always partial, limited, and incomplete. As we learn more, our ideas about what's true change. Sometimes, just due to random changes in fashion or culture, our ideas about truth change, particularly the kinds of truth that can't be checked against objective reality.

"Facts are God's native language."

OK, carry on.

Bob Adams
01-25-2011, 07:52 PM
The reason abortion is legal is not "convenience", it's respect for a woman's freedom and autonomy.

Legalization also helped the desperate women seeking back alley abortions preformed with a coat hanger.

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 08:06 PM
Here is where we differ: It is about practicality. It's that simple.

If practicality is to be the basis of social decisions/action, what do you do when someone's definition of 'practicality' affects you personally? This is utilitarianism - morality, and the basis of a society - decided on the basis of the most benefit to the greatest number.

On this basis, we are not far away from euthanizing any that do not fit "our" definition of practical, that do not support the utilitarian ends we have adopted as our social standard.

As long as you realize, and can accept, that a standard of 'practicality' may implicate you personally, once you have, say, spent the limit of your medical insurance policy, or, that you will no longer receive social security as the fund is bankrupt, and given the level of national indebtedness, the practical thing is to stop that program, along with medicare....as long as we're good with 'practicality' on all levels, it's ok.

But my guess is we're only good with 'practicality' as long as it only impinges on the other guy. And, again, the difficulty will be in coming to agreement on the definition of 'practical.' Whose 'practical'? Yours? Mine?.....

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 08:13 PM
The reason abortion is legal is not "convenience", it's respect for a woman's freedom and autonomy.

Legalization also helped the desperate women seeking back alley abortions preformed with a coat hanger.

Good point!
Women have been hiding from pious religious old men for centuries.
They still are today in much of the world.
I'm proud of American women for demanding their right to make their own decisions, regardless how many self-righteous religious bigots they piss off in the process.

Keith Wilson
01-25-2011, 08:18 PM
. . . morality, and the basis of a society - decided on the basis of the most benefit to the greatest number.

Nanoose, if you heve ten or fifteen minutes to read a very good short story on the subject, follow the link. I recommend it highly.

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (http://www.harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt) by Ursula K. Le Guin

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 08:29 PM
Thanks, Keith.

Utilitarianism - practicality - doesn't make something right.

Keith Wilson
01-25-2011, 08:40 PM
No, but it's a good start. If something increases human happiness or decreases human suffering, you need a damn good reason to say it's wrong.

LeeG
01-25-2011, 08:42 PM
I worry this will not make it to ten pages

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 08:45 PM
No, but it's a good start. If something increases human happiness or decreases human suffering, you need a damn good reason to say it's wrong.

If it is at the expense of the marginalization of any in the community, I think we need to keep on looking.

Glen Longino
01-25-2011, 09:10 PM
If it is at the expense of the marginalization of any in the community, I think we need to keep on looking.

Has somebody in the community been marginalized?
"keep on looking" where? In the ethers?
You're not still looking, are you?
Haven't you settled upon your own interpretation of metaphysics for your answers to reality?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-25-2011, 09:10 PM
I worry this will not make it to ten pages

Perhaps I can be of assistance.

Scientists agree that overpopulation, and poor allocation of resources are the two greatest threats to the survival of the human species. We need to tackle these issues right away.

We need to require mandatory abortions for all fetuses born to families who's income is below the poverty line.

In addition to this perfectly reasonable measure, all people over the age of 80 who can't remember the names of all their grandchildren should be put up for euthanasia review by a government death-panel. The panel should evaluate these people once a year to see if they are still technically conscious. Those who can't remember at least two grandkid's names, or where they put their car keys should skip the death-panel and be taken directly to the doctor for euthanasia, as they are obviously not conscious.

Think that's enough gas on the fire for four more pages of discussion, Lee?

LeeG
01-25-2011, 09:16 PM
don't shoot all your ammo at once Dr.

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 09:16 PM
We need to require mandatory abortions for all fetuses born to families who's income is below the poverty line.

On this basis, by granddaughter, born last Sept, would not be here today, as would, perhaps, numbers of your grandchildren.


To further add to the good dr's post....
To help address the current poor allocation of resources, the standard of living in N. America will immediately drop in order to raise the resource allocations of the world's poor. Your car(s), boat(s), home(s) are all about to the confiscated by the government.

Nanoose
01-25-2011, 09:17 PM
Has somebody in the community been marginalized?


I was referring, in my conversation with Keith, to the short story he posted for me to read, so, yes, someone was marginalized.