Monday, February 20, 2012

Abortion and Contraception: A Humanist Approach



Contra Abortion and Birth Control: Making the case for making the case

I don't expect to convert anyone here on the subject of birth control or abortion, but I do hope to convince you that those who stand in opposition are not just making stuff up and being hateful about it, but that they approach the debate firmly rooted in history, charity and a coherent moral philosophy.

The case against abortion is simple:

It takes a human life. Even the humble one-cell zygote (a human cell, human life! Hello!) has a complete unique human genome.  We didn't know that back in 1973, but the Roe ruling did stipulate that if personhood could be established, the case would be closed. A fetus would be legally considered a human being entitled to constitutional protections:
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX A)
The majority also admitted in it's Roe v. Wade ruling that it did not know when human life begins, so it erred on the side of "who cares?"
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX B)
So the pro-abortion argument rests upon the tenuous hope that a fetus is not human life, and it takes a narrow legalistic view instead of a broader prima facie and ontological one. It ignores legal precedents set in various state supreme court decisions as well as historical English jurisprudence, as cited in William Blackstone's Commentaries.  This is the foundation of our law:
I. THE right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.
1. LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.

An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. (Commentaries - Book 1, Chapter 1)
So the anti-abortion position is not a recent invention; the pro-abortion one is. For those who spread the lie that abortion used to be ok; that Christians just recently started "making it up as they went along," I suggest you go read The Didache, a first century Christian document that specifically prohibits abortion.

Defending contraception is much dicier...

...so I won't even try to make the argument.  I will point out that everything the contraception foes predicted would happen if it became ubiquitous has indeed come to pass:  Family breakup, out-of-wedlock births, venereal disease, dehumanization and sexual objectification of women and all the moral rot and societal decay that goes with it.

The simple fact that unwanted pregnancies have exploded in this era of the miraculous birth control pill should give everyone pause.  It that doesn't do it for you, contemplate Europe's below-replacement fertility rate.  A people that refuses to biologically propagate itself commits slow societal suicide.

I leave it to The Catholic Church to argue that artificial birth control is evil.  I am merely pointing out that the moralists are not full of it.  Their morality is grounded in reason, religious self-discipline, and a profound respect for the intrinsic value of each human being, which as Kant explained should always be treated as ends unto themselves and never merely as a means.

Then there's the more sinister side of abortion and contraception...

Jonathan Freedland explores the left's Eugenics Skeletons in the Closet. The original progressive aim was to abort and contracept the "inferiors" into extinction. Thankfully, the left has given up their sinister plans that included "lethal chambers" and have now progressed to merely enslaving and imprisoning the poor in fetid inner cities to more easily harvest their votes.

So although you may not agree with them, can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?

171 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Even the humble one-cell zygote (a human cell, human life! Hello!) has a complete unique human genome.

And, therein, lies one of the problems with destroying in vitro batches.

Some pro-choice folks say that destroying human embryos and human fetuses is okay when those embryos cannot live outside the womb. Just tossing in that information.

Always On Watch said...

Ever seen the lift under microscope magnification? The sperm appear alive, and the egg is busy defending itself; once fertilization occurs, the egg puts up a barrier to prevent the entrance of more sperm.

I can see why some people are anti-contraception.

Always On Watch said...

Silverfiddle,
I hope that all here take time to read this link in your post. Something important to consider, IMO.

Jim at Conservatives on Fire said...

"... We didn't know that back in 1973, but the Roe ruling did stipulate that if personhood could be established, the case would be closed. A fetus would be legally considered a human being entitled to constitutional protections:"

That is an excellent point. It appears that is time to force another case to the Supreme Court.

I wonder if part of the problem in debating abortion is in one of semantics? Those on both sides of the issue use the term "unborn child". I would argue that the moment the one cell Zygote splits into two cells, live has been demonstrated. The child is born in the mother's womb.

dmarks said...

Half of the country opposes abortion. I've even seen polls that show more women oppose it than men.

Contraception is a lot less popular, with about 8% opposing it. Politically, the issues are thus rather different.

Silverfiddle said...

Dmarks: I agree with you that politically, birth control is a dead issue, and abortion not much better, since the battle lines are already drawn.

I am not making a political argument, but a philosophical one. As most of you know, politics is more of an occasional irrational curiosity to me, and not much else.

Bunkerville said...

We are on the same page today. A great article. Santorum must do a much better job if he/we have any chance in explaining the bigger picture.

Jack Camwell said...

I think there is a big difference between life and "personhood," and I had that discussion with a friend of mine the other day.

If a fetus is considered a person, then why don't we give it a social security number?

This is why I asked, the other day, what it means to be human. If our humanity is determined simpy by our genetic code, then we're leading ourselves down a dangerous line of thought. If its the genome that makes us human, then why is our genome more important than that of, say, a monkey?

"Oh, well it's because that human genome has the possibility of growing into a fully cognizant being." Monkeys are cognizant. They have enough brain function to use tools, to feel fear, pride, ownership. They might even feel love, or some loose sense of it. Yet we don't consider them human. Similarly, there are some humans who are not cognizant of anything. They're morons without aspirations. Some are psychopaths who are incapable of feeling. Yet we still consider them humans, persons.

I'm going to come right out and admit that these are questions that I don't have the answers to. What I do know is that we choose whether or not some persons live or die all the time, directly and indirectly. Bill gates has the power to feed an entire country full of starving people probably for a year, but he chooses not to (I know that he gives tons of money away in charity).

Let's make one clear distinction, though. Pro-choice does not = pro-abortion. I would hope that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is actually pro-abortion. For me, anyway, abortion is never a good thing. It's always regrettable, because it's always a loss of a little life.

But let me ask you this. Who should have the choice of when to pull the plug on a family member who will not recover? The government, or the person closest to that family member? Should you have the power to tell me that I can't pull the plug on someone I love?

As for birth control, the women's lib movement has more to do with the break-ups of the traditional family. Do you all seriously believe that out of wedlock pregnancies are a new epidemic? No. The only difference between now and then is that it's no longer acceptable to force a guy to marry a girl he knocked up.

Anonymous said...

Jack, isn't it about time you got a life?

Mental masturbation is an unworthy occupation for a person of your tender years.

A Friend

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: You are essentially taking a legalistic view, which is fine and good (you're with The Supremes!), but as this post title suggests, I am taking an ontological and humanist view.

A fetus is created human life, distinct from that of a monkey, which is a separate argument that has no bearing on this subject.

I you read the Blackstone quote, you will see the various gradations of taking a life: Murder, homicide, manslaughter. See where Blackstone puts it. That gives you a clue to how a fetus without a social security number fell in the order of things.

A larger question is, if we don't know whether a fetus is "life" or not, why err on the side of killing it? The prudent thing would be to err on the side of life, wouldn't it?

Pulling the plug on a family member is a different issue. It is a private matter, open to philosophical debate, but in a particular instance, it is up to the individual and the family only.

Finally, Out of wedlock pregnancies are not an epidemic? Are you serious? The New York Times calls out of wedlock births "The New Normal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/for-younger-mothers-out-of-wedlock-births-are-the-new-normal/

It is an epidemic.

Anonymous said...

Silver, a very good topic here, interesting views.

As I may have mentioned, as a Catholic I am pro-life. Having said that, my view has always been that the Church is there to give advice and council and that I am obliged (as a declared Catholic) to consider seriously the view of the Church. At the same time, I also believe that freedom to question and freedom to create my own decision is a God given right, albiet I am responsible for that decision. There is nothing in the scriptures that says I cannot question my Church and those that work within it.

I will disagree with Jack's view which as Silver has pointed out is very legalistic and from that standpoint can be considered logic, but having said that, I support a faith and I have to believe in the miracle of life as well as the miracle of science and thus the feutus for me is life - and thus life most sacred.

However, though I do not support abortion, I will say that not at the expense of the life of the mother - the word then for me is "sacrifice", the unborn feutus was "sacrificed" as apposed to "disgarded", due to the life it threatened (and who may be able to bare again). Rape-pregnancies is a sad issue, but a life is a life.

Contraception, that is the hard one. I am not a supporter of contraception but I am a realist.

Governments and Contraception? As the Spanish Government says, and remember it is officially a Catholic Kingdom, that government has no place to make decisions based on matters of faith. People and organisations that wish to do so are not to be hindered. The Spanish government considers contraception to be a pharmacutical/medical subject and thus must support and make lawsy to provide it. End of story.

A last comment, I am a strong believer that though I have my rights to disagree or not provide to things I consider against my moral values, that this is at the personal level. Collectively, I have no rights to force my views on others and that I have responsibilities to acknowledge and participate in my community and thier collective view.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
- Immanuel Kant


D Charles

Ducky's here said...

So the anti-abortion position is not a recent invention; the pro-abortion one is.
----------

No, as the thread stated yesterday ancient cultures permitted abortion and the position was stated by Aristotle who predates Blackstone by several years.

Jack Camwell said...

I never said that it's not an epidemic, I said that it's not a new epidemic. We've had 2 Great Awakenings in American history, and a big reason for them was the perceived degradation of sexual morality in society. People were having pre-marital sex, and women were impregnated before they were married. The difference between 1836 and now is that in 1836 it was socially acceptable to force the man to marry the woman he impregnated. In fact, it was expected that he marry her.

Human nature hasn't changed, and any reading into history would indicate that.

The traditional family falling apart has so little to do with birth control. Don't you realize that even married women are on birth control? Why? Because they don't want to have a million kids that they can't afford, but they still want to enjoy sex with their spouse. In a world with now 7 billion people, how is self-imposed population control a bad thing?

So you've basically proved what I was trying to say with the pulling the plug scenario. It's a private matter. No one can/should tell someone what they have to do in that situation. So now abortion is somehow NOT a private matter?

Yes I get it, it's a life. But is a 2 celled organism a person? No. Because what makes a being a person goes beyond their genetic code. If you were to remove it from the mother, it would never survive on its own. It has no rights, because it hasn't even been born yet.

Now just because it has no rights doesn't mean that it should be treated poorly, or viewed as being unimportant. Animals don't have real rights, yet we generally think it's good to treat them humanely. Even so, we kill them for food. We take their lives to feed us, knowing that we live in an age where we don't even NEED to consume animal flesh to be healthy.

A mother who has an abortion and doesn't care, views the little life as expendable, is a mother who has degraded her own humanity. A mother who has an abortion because she feels she has no other recourse, and truly feels the pangs of guilt associated with terminating a pregnancy, is a woman who has not degraded her humanity, but is just someone who was stuck with a really crappy choice to make.

But then again, deciding whether or not to pull the plug is a crappy choice as well. When a mother loses consciousness and the father has to choose whether to save her life or the baby's, he's willfully choosing which life to end.

jez said...

"So although you may not agree with them, can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?"

Some of them do, sure.

(Many don't. Anyway, I'm not necessarily impressed by historical foundation [the reason I'm not a Conservative is because of the many historical instances where tradition has let us down]. In my opinion, the cool kids are debating the merits of their differing philosophies, not their histories.)

Can you pay the equivalent respect to the other side?

Silverfiddle said...

Charles: I agree with your comments. I too am a fan of Kant (what little of him I have actually been able to comprehend)

Birth Control is a matter of conscience and the government has no place getting involved in our personal lives, whether dictating its use or nonuse, or forcing someone else to pay for it.

Abortion being the law of the land, it is also a personal moral issue. We Christians have the right to stand in the public square and argue against it, but no one, by law, has the right to tell a pregnant woman what to do. Again, it is a personal moral decision, and neither other people or the state has the right to intervene.

Jarheads Blog said...

Lets hope that Obama's battle over contraception, birth control, and culture wars keeps alive until the election, because he may have sunk himself with this one. Also maybe some of the idiots figured out what he is up to.
Three strikes and he's out

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: The blithe dismissal of an abortion as just removing a piece of tissue, "move along, nothing to see here" is a recent development, as a closer reading of Aristotle reveals.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: Did you consciously split "life" from "personhood" or have you unconsciously adopted this important pro-abortion distinction? Because that split is key to making abortion OK. Study the etymology of human being and person, and they are essentially the same thing, until the Roe v Wade decision, which produced the linguistic split.

Anytime people have to change the meaning of a word, look out, trouble ahead.

On the birth control question. I am not arguing for it, but simply pointing out that the moralists have a coherent argument. It is not irrefutable, but a charitable opponent should be able to see their point. They are not just making stuff up.

The very fact that human nature does not change is why introduction of new technology is always fraught with moral and legal issues.

Jersey McJones said...

You can pin the breaking of the nuclear family on the women's lib movement, or contraception, or abortion, or whatever else you like, but it seems clear to me that the problems we have today with the family have far more to do with politics, economics, and empire.

For over thirty years now, the working class has suffered stagnant wages, while education, housing and healthcare - the big three steps for upward mobility - have become ever more expensive and unattainable. Meanwhile, the police state has devastated the lives of millions of under-class Americans, and Free Trade has leeched our inherent wealth and stifled the growth of manufacturing, the key to upward inter-generational movement.

As anyone who's ever been married or raised in a family knows, money puts the greatest strain on family relationships. When money is tight, people fight. That's why I have a rule in my home - no arguing about money, and as little talk about it as possible.

Make education, healthcare and housing more affordable and attainable for the vast working class, and many of the family problems we see today will vanish. But don't expect perfection. There never was a time in history when all family life was the idyllic picture conservatives pretend it was. That time simply never was.

Add to that the natural tendency of societies to rise and ebb over history. Having reached a zenith of civilization after WWII, America was naturally inclined to socially decline. It's the ol' "fat, spoiled and lazy" factor that has effected every great empire after reaching great new heights. People become selfish and spoiled and want what they want when they want it without concern for the costs, hidden and obvious. The Baby Boomers were particularly notorious for this, and passed this along to Gen-X-and-Y.

Eventually, this causes cultural decline, as we see today. But you can't legislate culture - you can legislate opportunity. As the culture declines, we must enhance opportunity, so that we can pull ourselves up out of the malaise once we realize we've become too base for our own good.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

No I'm not sepparating the idea of life and personhood just to prove my point. Life and personhood mean different things.

Is an ameoba a person? Is a monkey a person? How about a dog? No, they're not persons, but they are lives. Plants are living things, but they're not persons. You have to admit that there's a big difference between someone who is braindead and someone who is not, right? If being human only amounts to your genetic code, then why do we say it's possible to be "dehumanized"? Why does that word even exist? Why do we use it? Can we ever make someone genetically not a human? Nope. So being human, being a person, must be something deeper than just what your genetic makeup is.

I honestly don't have answers to any of these questions. I'm not even entirely sure what it means to be human. I can't tell you when personhood begins, because I'm in no philosophical position to do so. I've not thought about it enough. I haven't read about it enough. I'm man enough to say "I don't know. I'm still trying to figure that out."

One thing I do know, however, is that I am *NOT* pro-abortion. Lumping all pro-choice people into that category is ridiculous.

If I were a woman, I would never, ever get an abortion unless I felt it was absolutely necessary. If it was an "oops, I'm a dumbass and didn't use protection," then I'd give the baby up for adoption. I wouldn't give my life for the baby, but you can be damn sure that I wouldn't just be okay with it.

Jack Camwell said...

Addendum: There is a big difference between saying "it's a moral choice you have to make, and you have to live with it," and saying "you SHOULD do it."

Whatever moral judgments I may have about someone are mine alone, and my moral judgments shouldn't be the determining factor in anyone's actions but my own. Everyone is free to follow their conscience.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Silver taking you up on your position is almost impossible because undergirding your side are institutions which aren't seeking a fair exchange of views but are seeking to impose their views upon everyone they can.

They aren't arguing from your point of view but from one which can be said, as Carl Sagan did in A Demon Haunted World:

"There were strong erotic and misogynistic elements—as might be expected in a sexually repressed, male-dominated society with inquisitors drawn from the class of nominally celibate priests."

That's who is driving this "debate".

I don't believe in souls and it's been shown that many animals; Dogs, Dolphins and Chimps, are very close to having or do have self-awareness and consciousness and thus possess attributes thought to be the sole dominion of man.

So, if even a blastocyst is a person, then why aren't more those people and more Americans defending the rights of animals? Are those 6 minute fried chick-fil-a sandwiches to good to give up to be morally consistent all the time?

Are any abortions allowed? The so-called Rape, Incest, viability of the fetus, or life of the mother "exceptions"? And how does the woman have to prove her life is in danger submit to the transvaginal exam? Plead to President Santorum?

And further if an egg or sperm is a potential human, why is menstruation or male masturbation not illegal or "wrong"? Because these are the shedding of tissue only containing the DNA of the same individual?

And again the Sins of the Father can only be visited upon the left, as you selectively choose to highlight any wrongs you can attribute to the left while ignoring those either very recently done by or condoned by those who align with your views, The church, Charles Murray...

Ducky's here said...

Ducky: The blithe dismissal of an abortion as just removing a piece of tissue, "move along, nothing to see here" is a recent development, as a closer reading of Aristotle reveals.

-----

Blithe removal? In some cases yes and I'm sure in earlier times the attitude was just as frivolous.

This assumption that societies ills came when we abandoned John Locke and his merry band of property cultists (Blackstone being a product of the early classic liberalism) is short sighted and in fact doesn't even knock on the door.

Ducky's here said...

@Jack - I honestly don't have answers to any of these questions. I'm not even entirely sure what it means to be human.

-----
I'd say that being self aware is necessary.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack, you've wandered into a swamp...

Is an ameoba a person? Is a monkey a person? How about a dog?

Has nothing to do with this issue. A fetus is a human life, not a dog or a monkey or an amoeba. And a "brain dead" person is still a person, a human being.

I agree with you though that this is a complex issue.

I am not asking you to accept the pro-life argument as the only right one, but simply to view it charitably and to see that it is logically coherent.

Silverfiddle said...

Gene: You use Carl Sagan to completely dodge the issue?

You conflate human blastocysts (which is a human cell with a human genome) with animals, it's a dodge.

But I understand that you come from a different place on this...

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jez: Can you pay the equivalent respect to the other side?

When someone makes a logical argument, yes. Emoting does nothing to further the debate with me.

I put this out there to see if perhaps someone could refute my arguments or provide some alternatives.

Jack Camwell said...

Trust me Silver, this is something I've pored over for some time now. I used to have the same stance as you: that abortion should be illegal.

It's painful to me, even now, to admit that I'm pro-choice.

You will never see me say "well it's just a piece of tissue, so who cares?" I'll never say anything remotely like that. My ex-wife miscarried once, very early on, and it still made me sad because who knows what that little life would be today. But then again, I probably wouldn't have my daughter, who is the most precious little girl ever (and that's an objective fact, haha).

And in seeing my children and how they're growing up makes the idea of abortion even more awful in my eyes. I couldn't imagine a world in which I chose to not have them. I also can't imagine being in the position where you feel like you have no other choice.

So really, I AM pro-life for the most part. If I was married to a woman, got her knocked up, and she said "no thanks, we're getting rid of this baby," I'd divorce her on the spot.

Life is precious, and I understand that argument. But this world is harsh, and it faces us with awful decisions. I understand that argument as well.

As for the human thing, I think you're not looking deep enough into the question. If being human simply means you have the human genome, then why does the word "dehumanize" exist?

dmarks said...

Jack said: "If a fetus is considered a person, then why don't we give it a social security number?"

Not the best argument to use to strip the humanity from a class of people. We don't issue social security numbers to illegal aliens, either. So by your exact logic, illegal aliens aren't persons.

We need to stop chucking reason out the window and using always inconsistent arguments in our quest to declare a certain set of human beings to be nonhuman/worthless/etc and thus subject to the whims of others to kill them.

Jersey McJones said...

All I can say is that I hope you fringe radical theocrats continue your latest attack on women. Obama thanks you. Every time you radical fringe right loonies go on about abortion, Obama gets another vote in his pocket.

JMJ

Z said...

Planned Parenthood was founded in a progressive aim to abort 'inferiors' (otherwise known as African American babies) into extinction.
That most people don't either know that or won't fess up to it is revealing about what closes the discussion on these subjects.

SF, how can we stop the amount of unwanted pregnancies in young people when they're being sold the bill of goods that sex is cheap in so many ways? (morning after pill vending machines, hook up rooms in colleges, movies showing sex as just another past time); How can the product of their sex with the punk next door be suddenly considered holy? Morals go right out the door here.
"religious self discipline"?
And a little bit of shame or fear is a good thing, too. (oooh, I said the F word of our society)

beamish said...

All I can say is that I hope you fringe radical theocrats continue your latest attack on women.

Are pre-natal and peri-natal physicians "fringe radical theocrats" for practicing medicine and surgery on people still in the womb?

Or is it the case that psuedoscientific left-wingers such as yourself lack a capacity for rational thought?

Obama thanks you. Every time you radical fringe right loonies go on about abortion, Obama gets another vote in his pocket.

Because nothing soothes the opposition to higher taxes, higher unemployment, and entitlement defaults more than being legally able to dismember a person in the womb?

beamish said...

And what of the attack on men, Jersey?

Is it fair that we live in a society where if a woman doesn't want to be a mother then she can go get an abortion, but if a man doesn't want to be a father he has to dodge all sorts of law enforcement harassment and wage garnishments and potential imprisonment?

Who's behind all those paternal responsibility and child support laws? "Fringe radical theocrats?"

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey,
Please tell me how I've attacked women.

Jack Camwell said...

dmarks, it's because you keep avoiding answering the main question here: what does it mean to be human?

You actually made a fair point with the immigrant thing, and you're right that my social security card thing was not the best example I could use.

But I find it really hard to believe that our humanity rests entirely in a few strands of DNA. If that's all it means to be human, then what about natural rights? Do our natural rights come from our DNA?

What if there were another sentient being on this planet that was capable of doing everything a human being can do? What if the only difference between a human and that other being was DNA. Would we say that those beings, who have aspirations and are capable of asserting their rights and make claims on this world, don't have natural rights because genetically they're not "human"?

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "All I can say is that I hope you fringe radical theocrats..."

You are commenting in the wrong place. There's no radical fringe anyone here. All of these views are quite mainstream.

"your latest attack on women..."

Again, none from us. Perhaps though, from your side. Slightly more than half of the victims of abortion are female.

Jack Camwell said...

Funny you should mention that dmarks. Here is the Gallup poll I'm going to reference:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

On the first poll you'll see the basic question: how many are pro-life and how many are pro-choice?

You're right in saying that now, more Americans consider themselves pro-life. But what does that even mean?

If you scroll down further, only 22% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal under any circumstances. Sorry, but you're in the minority on that one, and you always have been.

Over half of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. About the same number of people, 22% believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances.

So over 75% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in AT LEAST SOME circumstances. So what does that mean?

That means that the definitions of what it means to be pro-life and pro-choice have been skewed, by both sides, in order to get people to choose sides.

It also articulates what I've been saying all along. I'm pro-life in the sense that I think abortion is a bad thing, and I wouldn't choose it unless I felt like I had no other choice. But it's *MY CHOICE*. It's not your choice, it's not the Catholic church's choice, and it's certainly not the government's choice.

If I were a woman, it would be my choice, and I'd have to live with the moral consequences of it. I would hope that a loving God would take mercy on me and know that I didn't do it out of a disregard for the sanctity of life.

Z said...

beamish, sometimes you nail it: "Are pre-natal and peri-natal physicians "fringe radical theocrats" for practicing medicine and surgery on people still in the womb?"

Somehow, it's a 'people' in the womb when the family wants it and a blob of tissue when a mother doesn't.
animals have gestation periods but suddenly we have people saying that a human being's only human the second it hits outside air. odd

Jack...I can't tell you how many women I know who've had to live with having aborted a baby for years, still waking in the night in tears, 30 years later; wondering what that child might have grown up to be...even very secular friends are so remorseful.
On the other hand, I know women who gave their babies away at birth and that's no romp in the park either...
but at least they know they didn't kill a life.

Jack Camwell said...

Z I can certainly imagine that, and it's my hope that most women feel that way about it.

It's taking a life, and unless a person is a complete psychopath, taking a life is never an easy thing to deal with.

Heck, it's not even easy taking a life in an instance in which everyone would agree it's justified.

Anonymous said...

ust TWO questions for Pro-Abortion crowd:

1. Exactly WHAT HAPPENS -- in scientific terms -- when the SPERM hits the EGG?

2. Could there ever be an occasion when TERMINATING the LIFE of a fellow HUMAN BEING is justifiable?

Not trick questions. Please answer.

Oh and a THIRD question:

WHY do you believe that close adherence to the explicit tenets of one's faith makes one a "religious fanatic" -- a "zealot" -- a "bigot" -- or a "nut?"

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Jack,

a major part of the debate here, in particular with you Jack, comes down to one question. Do you believe life is sacred - in the religious sense of the word - and if you do, at what point?

For those of us that follow the Christian belief that at the point of conception it starts, then the thought process of abortion takes a different view.

I understand that you are pro-life and I do not question that but when you discuss the fetus as just tissue, it appears that you do not as yet consider that fetus to be sacred, or let us even use the word 'human' in the larger context.

Apart from that, I share some of your views in regards to the importance of the reasons behind abortions and also how we should stay clear from simple blanket judgements based on supporting one element as being instantly pro-life or pro-abortion.

D Charles

Anonymous said...

THE GARDEN of LOVE

I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And "Thou shalt not" writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore;

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And Priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briers my joys and desires.


~ William Blake (17270-1857)

Submitted by FreeThinke

beamish said...

It also articulates what I've been saying all along. I'm pro-life in the sense that I think abortion is a bad thing, and I wouldn't choose it unless I felt like I had no other choice. But it's *MY CHOICE*. It's not your choice, it's not the Catholic church's choice, and it's certainly not the government's choice.

It's not your "choice" either. You have absolutely no legal recourse whatsover for preventing a woman from aborting a child you concieve with her. Even if she's your wife.

Ducky's here said...

Planned Parenthood was founded in a progressive aim to abort 'inferiors' (otherwise known as African American babies) into extinction.
That most people don't either know that or won't fess up to it is revealing about what closes the discussion on these subjects.

-----

No, we know it and we want to know what that has to do with the present day.

This right wing idea that you are in possession of an in depth historical perspective becomes a little trying after awhile.

By the way z, I counciled my niece not to abort and promised I'd get her by the rough times. Well, you know what happened next.

beamish said...

beamish, sometimes you nail it: "Are pre-natal and peri-natal physicians "fringe radical theocrats" for practicing medicine and surgery on people still in the womb?"

Somehow, it's a 'people' in the womb when the family wants it and a blob of tissue when a mother doesn't.
animals have gestation periods but suddenly we have people saying that a human being's only human the second it hits outside air. odd


Leftists are very supportive of the rights of people. They just have very exclusive definitions of "people" that do not include the unborn, Jews, etc.

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

I see that Ducky's here, is still here!

He's like a bad rash, the more you scratch the more it itches and the longer lasts.

Jack Camwell said...

beamish, you're right, and I misspoke. I meant that if I were a woman it'd be my choice. I know that it wouldn't be my choice even if it were my wife.

FT, even though I'm not pro-abortion, I'll answer your questions.

1. Life begins at conception.

2. Yes, there are times where terminating a human life is justifiable.

Damien, I thought I made it clear that I didn't personally perceive it to be "just tissue." I thought that was the point of my little story about when my wife at the time miscarried (it was maybe 6 weeks into the pregnancy).

Life is precious. It's sacred. All life, even the nasty ones. Therefor, taking a life is never a good thing. It might be necessary, it might even be justified, but there are a lot of necessities of this awful world that are not good things.

Finntann said...

First, and it's driving me nuts...lol

DEHUMANIZE does not mean to make not human! It means to make less humane. A person who has been dehumanized is still human, they just appear to lack certain characteristics such as compassion, empathy, or lack indiviuality and act mechanically, as in cases of shell shock.

There, now that I've gotten that off my chest...

Like Jack, I am Pro-Life, a personal choice.

Like Jack, I am Pro-Choice, someone elses choice.

Unlike Jersey, to me being pro-choice means not interfering in others moral decisions, NOT making other people pay for my moral decisions.

The sense I get of the opinions here, even among those opposed to the HHS regulation, is that no one is calling for banning abortion they simply don't want to be forced to fund it.

Setting aside arguments about God and Religion, rationally and scientifically we are at a turning point in biomedical ethics.

The single cell humane genome argument falls short considering a single drop of blood (with the exception of mature red blood cells) contains individual cells containing your complete genome.

Are you guily of manslaughter if you cut yourself shaving?

Let me throw this little proposition out there and see what you think:

A proposal to place the beginning of human life, for purposes of state intervention, at that stage of fetal development when neocortical brain activity begins.

Intelligence is the characteristic which makes the human species unique from all other creatures, and it is neocortical activity that endows human beings with higher intellectual functions.

The human neocortex begins producing electroencephalograph (EEG) waves between the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth weeks of pregnancy.

This proposal, therefore, argues that when a fetus reaches that stage of development when recognizable neocortical activity begins ("brain birth"), the state should then be allowed to regulate and proscribe abortions to protect that human life.

GB. Gertler, Southern California Law Review.

Leticia said...

So glad that we have many people speaking out for the most innocent of human beings. We have to be their voice and regardless of what liberals try to say to convince themselves that are not murdering a child.

We know the truth. Life begins at conception. Otherwise, a woman is not pregnant.

Awesome, fantastic, well-written post, Silver. Thank you!

Ducky's here said...

Aw, Debonair Dude (LMFAO) so glad I can give my fans a thrill.

Jack Camwell said...

Wow, Finntan, that was really good. I honestly had not thought of it that way before.

I know that dehumanization doesn't make someone not human, but that it takes away human qualities from someone (or at least that's the goal). And my purpose for asking that was precisely that point: there's more to being human than just your DNA.

Very interesting, the blood argument.

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

Ducky's here said...
Aw, Debonair Dude (LMFAO) so glad I can give my fans a thrill.

Yeah right, I can see that "Thrill" stain on your pant leg from here.

beamish said...

Fintann,

A proposal to place the beginning of human life, for purposes of state intervention, at that stage of fetal development when neocortical brain activity begins.

Intelligence is the characteristic which makes the human species unique from all other creatures, and it is neocortical activity that endows human beings with higher intellectual functions.

The human neocortex begins producing electroencephalograph (EEG) waves between the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth weeks of pregnancy.


This is actually not exactly correct. Fetal brainwave activity could be detected by EEG 40 DAYS after conception (the sixth week of pregnancy) even back in the mid-1960s. Consensus today finds brainwave activity in a developing fetus rather obvious and undeniable at the eighth week of pregnancy. EEG technology has improved greatly since the mid-1960s particularly with MRI scanning, so much that science has in the last decade or so began to study fetal brain activity in response to in utero stimuli within the first month of conception and the increase in activity as the embryonic human's central nervous system develops throughout pregnancy.

Something's making the little tyke thrash their arms and kick their feet in there after all... ;)

Z said...

Duck, trust me, it's no thrill.
And no, most people do NOT know what Margaret Sanger started PP for and I think you know that. most people don't get taught any other side to leftwing progressive nonsense...they just get taught it's RIGHT. And I think you know that, too.

Jack "Heck, it's not even easy taking a life in an instance in which everyone would agree it's justified." good point.

Anonymous said...

Jack, point taken and certainly my mistake - it was finntann's comments that I mistook as yours. I have to say I have not good eyesight and i am actually using a nokia e71x for sending as I left to the UK without my iPad - rush job to a funeral for a close cousin.

I still return to the point though, that it comes down to the level of faith and when one considers a feutus to be "human" and thus in my definition, sacred. Finntann certainly says in the last post - religion aside, and my response is no - it is all about religion as that makes the difference between - immediate conception, 6 week EEG scans and disregarding DNA, which from a moral point of view - IF one is of faith, is moot.

You can see the divergence of opinions though, it reflects the greater debate.

On a side note, did you or anyone else read the item about contraception in the US in PoliFact?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/17/keeping-facts-straight-98-catholic-women

Damien Charles

Finntann said...

Beamish, not my work, it's GB Gertlers and his paper was dated 1986 (just for reference to EEG development).

But I think he is making a distinction between brainstem activity and neocortex activity.

It is the brainstem portion that enables chickens to run around with their heads cut off.

He may even (I'm not sure) be making a distinction for advanced neocortical activity. After all, a rabbit has brainwaves too, and there is something about our brains that makes us distinctly human.

I think his is a valiant attempt is a legal definition of brain birth (which his paper was titled) to correlate with the legal distinction of "brain death".

It's offered as a starting point for a legal and philosophical argument, no more. I firmly believe that somewhere between the two extremes of zygote and unborn 9 month old a human being exists. The trick is to define where.

Interesting factoid I picked up living in Korea:

In many East Asian cultures, such as Korea you are one on the day you are born.

They also increment age, not on one's birthday, but at the lunar new year. So for 2012 a baby born on Jan 22nd is one, and turns two on Jan 23rd.

Oddly enough the Mongolians count the number of full moons since conception as the age for girls, but only the number of full moons since birth for boys.

Cheers!

dmarks said...

Jack said: "abortion should be illegal under any circumstances. Sorry, but you're in the minority on that one, and you always have been."

You haven't even bothered to read comments. That's not even my group.


":I'm pro-life in the sense that I think abortion is a bad thing"

But you don't. You have gone on and on about how it is good for others to have the choice to do this to children. Which means you don't really oppose it at all.

It is like saying "I oppose the death penalty, but I think it is fine for the government to choose to kill any criminal they want".

Nothing but weasel words.

"But it's *MY CHOICE*. It's not your choice, it's not the Catholic church's choice, and it's certainly not the government's choice."

No it's not. Well, make your choice. But just don't force it on a child with your poorly motivated actions. That's really what is at question here after all. The action of abortion.

"If I were a woman, it would be my choice, and I'd have to live with the moral consequences of it."

Sorry, no "special rights" for mothers to kill unborn children.

"I would hope that a loving God would take mercy on me"

So that sums up your attitude. A form of Kill em all and let God sort them out.

Anonymous said...

The single cell humane genome argument falls short considering a single drop of blood (with the exception of mature red blood cells) contains individual cells containing your complete genome.

Are you guilty of manslaughter if you cut yourself shaving?

No that would be suicide ;-)

The difference between a drop of blood and a fertilized egg is that it is no longer either or both parents but a 'unique' expression of the human genome, hence an 'individual'.


As for the 'viability' argument that someone raised, newborns aren't the least bit viable on their own either, but no one doubts either their life or their humanity.

viburnum

Finntann said...

Damien, in a secular society one can not use religion as the basis for a legal argument. Philosophical yes, legal no.

As you may have noted, I, as many do, suffer the dichotomy of faith and secular beliefs. Some see secularism as the alternative to faith, but secularism can also be the bridge between faiths.

Guided by faith, I see conception as human potential not to be snuffed out, guided by science and rationality I can firmy state that a human being is not a single-celled organism.

The debate rages not only in the public forum, but within each of us.

Cheers!

Ducky's here said...

Well z, let's go a little further. Like the present Planned Parenthood, Sanger believed birth control should be a choice.

She never advocated forced sterilization nor any compulsion. She had the unfortunate belief that the "less fortunate" would voluntarily use contraception.

More extreme members of the eugenics movement advocated force but not Sanger. My guess is you had no idea. However, it's moved beyond that purpose and it would be hard to argue that contraceptives aren't used across the spectrum.

Liberalmann said...

And then there's the philosophy of 'mind your own fecking business.' Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Do like contraception? Don't use it! Just keep making more goober babies.

98% of Catholic women use contraception.

jez said...

I wonder if anyone would support making it illegal eg. to smoke while pregnant, or do the rights you champion for the unborn begin and end with abortion.

Z said...

Ducky, that's all true and doesn't negate the fact that she started in black neighborhoods. You can make it a matter of good conscience and that she only meant to kill only the children of the poor all you want (more "soft bigotry of low expectations")...but it's what it is.
I have NEVER said she forced abortion on anyone.
How she thought that the "less fortunate" would even be able to get contraception, especially back then, is a little questionable but I have no problem believing she did. I don't hate the woman, I never said I did; I think PP is dishonest. Even today, we're all finally waking up to the reality of PP and their very apparent lack of mammography equipment, etc.

Finntann said...

Jez, funny how you liberal pro-choice types never seen to want to give anyone any.

Now, while I won't argue that smoking does no harm, I will argue that there is a reasonable extent to government authority beyond which you have tyranny.

I mean why stop there?

Alcohol? Caffeine? Fish (Mercury)?

Why stop at pregnancy?

How many kids do you see chomping down on cheeseburgers at McDonalds? Can that be construed as nutritional abuse?

Why stop at birth? I mean hell, if mummy and daddy go out to the corner of the yard far far away from the kids to smoke, and orphan them when they're 10... is that right? If the kids become wards of the state, are we not all put out? Whose rights prevail in the case of a smoking parent? The childs or the parents?

Seriously though, you raise valid points. Should pregnant women smoke? No. Should parents smoke in a house with children? No. Should Daddy have a double bacon cheeseburger with fries at lunch every day? No (believe it or not I had a boss who did exactly that, same place, same lunch, every day).

Is a glass of red wine three times a week helpful or harmful? What about three times a day?

Do you want to give government the right to dictate the choices?

I certainly don't in either case.

These cases are better handled through education as opposed to legislation. The fomer empowers the individual while the latter empowers the state.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

Liberalmann, Sorry, Have to call the BS flag on this one:

98% of Catholic women use contraception.

Quit regurgitating talking points and provide a citation. Unless you put up or shutup, I am going to assume you are referring to the Guttmacher study which is what the majority who do attribute the figure, attribute it to.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

And I feel it necessary to point out that Guttmacher started "within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood"

http://www.guttmacher.org/about/history.html

Guttmacher also based their "study" on data from the National Survey of Family Growth.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_002.pdf

The Guttmacher Institute, citing “confusion” over the statistic clarified their position with the following statement:

“Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.”

Your 98% figure ignores the fact that in the source data (2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth, which relied on in-person interviews with 7,356 females from the ages of 15 to 44.)

Only 86.8 percent of the respondents had ever had vaginal intercourse (NSFG Survey Table 5).

What the statement should read is:

Of sexually experienced Catholic women only 2% use Natural Family Planning (NFP), the methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

Because the same study indicates that contraceptive use of Catholic woment (sexually active who are not pregnant, postpartum, or trying to get pregnant) breaks down as follows.

Sterilization: 32%
Pill or other Hormonal: 31%
IUD: 5%
Condom: 15%
NFP: 2%
Other: 4%
No Method: 11%

As Mark Twain said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

“Birth-control is widely used even by Catholics: 98 percent of American Catholic women have used contraception in their lifetimes.” Nancy Pelosi Feb 16, 2012

“In fact, 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lifetimes.”
NPR Feb 10, 2012

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146674362/catholics-split-over-obama-contraceptive-order

“Studies have shown that 98 percent of Catholic women have used artificial contraception at some time in their lives.”
New York Times Feb 10, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/bishops-planned-battle-on-birth-control-coverage-rule.html?_r=1

“Birth-control is widely used even by Catholics: 98 percent of American Catholic women have used contraception in their lifetimes.”
Washington Post Feb 12, 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/in-birth-control-debate-whose-conscience-will-rule/2012/02/09/gIQAoetS1Q_story.html

So, is it sloppy journalism or does somebody have an agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

You decide.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

Sorry if I drone on about this, but I am tired of people repeating "98% of Catholic women use contraception" as if it were the Gospel Truth. --pun intended :)

What really gets my goat is simply discarding the 13.2% in the survey who have abstained, as if they didn't matter, and as if they couldn't possibly be religious and doing what their priests, ministers, and family urged or preached.

NO...THEY MUST BE UGLY OR SOMETHING

Nuff said?

Jack Camwell said...

dmarks, your continued idiocy astounds me.

Ducky's here said...

Well Finntann, you may want to agree on one point. The Republicans have been absolute fools to allow contraception to become an issue.

This will haunt them.

Finntann said...

Depends Ducky, on whether or not independents and libertarians see it not as a religious or moral issue but as a state power/entitlements issue.

It also depends on how many liberal Democratic Catholics will crossover and vote conservative to get government out of their church.

I'd me more inclined to characterize it as a game of political russian roulette.

Silverfiddle said...

Finntann is doing the Lord's work (and the founders) here, so I am loath to nitpic, but here goes:

@ Finn: The single cell humane genome argument falls short considering a single drop of blood (with the exception of mature red blood cells) contains individual cells containing your complete genome.

There is an important distinction. A blood cell will never be more than a blood cell, but a single cell embryo will grow into an adult if properly nourished. That is the difference.

I will grant you that cloning presents a unique situation.

Finntann said...

My point was more against using the "complete human genome" theory as argument against abortion.

Viburnum points out that it is 'unique', a valid argument up until cell division when there are then 2,4,8,16,32 of them and so on, and completely falls apart in the case of identical twins.

Is an identical twin less worthy because there are two of them?

Of course not, and therin lies the rub... identical twins for the most part grow up to be completely different people with some very uncanny similarities.

It is why my argument recommending against (notice I didn't say legislating against) abortion relies more on the unique human potential of every unborn baby than genetics. It is also why I argue against using genetic testing (except in certain limited cases) as an argument for abortion.

Any of you liberals want to take up the advocacy of aborting Stephen Hawking?

There have been many world changing personalities (some good, some bad) whose circumstance of birth would be used by liberals to advocate for abortion. Poor, starving, sick, broken home, single parent, crazy parents, etc.

Of course in some cases, they might be overjoyed at having their bland gruel of equality of outcome dream fullfilled.

So...if you have yourself cloned... is your cloned entitled to half your stuff? Do they inherit ahead of your biological children?

If you kill your clone are you guilty of murder or suicide?

Yeah, unique situations give rise to some interesting philosophical questions.

Ah wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if abortion was legal and none took place.

Cheers!

Country Thinker said...

"So the pro-abortion argument rests upon the tenuous hope that a fetus is not human life."

No, just the logic of Justice Blackmu in Roe v. Wade.

"THE right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation."

Assuming "her" can be equally substituted for "his," uninterrupted enjoyment of her body? Sounds like a Rothbardian defense of legal abortion to me.

Jersey McJones said...

Having tired of this argument of many years, let me just say this...

Can any of you imagine considering having an abortion? Now, if you can do that, if you have any imagination at all, can any of you honestly say that you'd want my opinion on this matter to federally, legally weigh upon you?

If you can, then congratulations. You're insane. If you can't, then congratulations, you're an intelligent person who realizes that such family decisions are just that - family. Not government, not church, not popular opinion. Family.

If the government can make difficult family decisions a little easier, without imposing political, or religious, or popular values, then that's great. But if it imposes changes in normal behavior on society, then it is fascistic, as you conservatives should well be aware.

All you phony "Pro-Lifers" (all of you) are hypocrites and phonies. You are diverting the serious flow of important political debate to stupid, religious nonsense.

Why do you have to be such a steaming pile of impositions?

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Congratulations, Jersey! You've made the best emotion-based liberal argument of this thread.

To hell with life an logic!

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey:
You fancy yourself a thinking man. Have you noticed, other than mentioning the Didache to establish the historicity of ancient anti-abortion thought among Christians, I have not made a religious argument?

Have you also noticed that I have not made the case for outlawing all abortions?

You come here with your preconceived notions and don't even honestly consider what I have written. You are a living, breathing, huffing and puffing insult to reason.

Silverfiddle said...

Finn: The entire argument does not hang on "complete human genome." That is just on important piece of evidence.

Anonymous said...

@ Finntann

" Viburnum points out that it is 'unique', a valid argument up until cell division when there are then 2,4,8,16,32 of them and so on, and completely falls apart in the case of identical twins."

When I said 'unique expression I did not mean only occurring once as they obviously had to be replicated to produce you, but unique to you.

The chance of you having a genetic doppelganger out there somewhere is beyond astronomical.

As for twins, the blueprint, their DNA is the same, but RNA, transcriptase, in utero nutrition, and a host of other pre and post natal factors come into play to produce similar but different individuals. Once out of the nursery of course " time and chance happen to them all"

As for Hawking, given the tens of millions of abortions since Roe,the more germane question would be how many Hawkings, Paulings, Shoenbergs, etc. have we already lost?

It would only be cosmic justice if the scientist who would have discovered the cure for cancer had been named Roe

viburnum

Silverfiddle said...

Country: Yes, but there's still that troubling phrase about how if it can be established that a fetus is life...

Is it an appendage of a woman's body, or is she a human life? That is the question.

Finntann said...

"Can any of you imagine considering having an abortion?"

Jersey, do you have to be such a complete and pompous ass? Is it completely and utterly beyond you that we have given serious thought to this subject, or have experience with it?

My second child tested positive for Down syndrome, twice via amniocentesis. At the time, the Nuchal Translucency scan had not come into widespread usage but there was a mobile lab operated by the University of Albuquerque, our insurance company declined to cover it.

So yes, we considered abortion given that we had roughly an 95% probability of having a down syndrome child. We, after much soul searching, decided not to have an abortion.

Later, having decided against abortion and after having successfully lobbied our insurance company to get the Nuchal scan, were given a negative result, which provided some psychological relief. Afterwards by the grace of god, or the roll of the dice our child was born without Down Syndrome.

"If the government can make difficult family decisions a little easier, without imposing political, or religious, or popular values, then that's great"

How is making abortion available making family decisions easier? In our case, had abortion been illegal, our decision would have been much easier, much easier.

How do you see government involvment as not imposing political, religious, or popular views? How can't it?

What is supposed to keep government from imposing political, religious, or populist views on the citizenry is the Constitution.

I don't know about the rest of the people on here, but I don't see government's purpose as making my life easier by making decisions for me.

I don't want government making decisions for me, likewise I don't want the government making decisions for Catholics or the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter be it Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or whatever.

"Not government, not church, not popular opinion. Family."

How about "We the people", how about enumerated powers?

"You are diverting the serious flow of important political debate to stupid, religious nonsense."

What should we be talking about? How much money to give to Solydra, and whether or not to bail out Greece?

I could say, if you're not steaming it's only because Florida is such a hot and humid place, but I won't.

Oops!

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

Not to gang up on you, but you seem to have closed your mind to the possibility that one can oppose abortion on a purely rational philosophic, scientific, or legal basis. There are other arguments beyond religion you may wish to investigate.

viburnum

Finntann said...

Silver "The entire argument does not hang on "complete human genome." That is just one important piece of evidence."

My point exactly.

Viburnum: It would only be cosmic justice if the scientist who would have discovered the cure for cancer had been named Roe

(Finntann claps)

Might get better play around here with our liberal friends if it was the economist who discovered a cure for capitalism ;)

A more interesting question might be who is baby Jane Roe today? As she was three at the time of the supreme court decision after having been adopted.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

@ Finntann

" A more interesting question might be who is baby Jane Roe today? As she was three at the time of the supreme court decision after having been adopted."

Lets hope for her sake she doesn't know.

viburnum

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"....can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?"

I doubt that very much, the pro-death don't even have the decency to allow those who don't believe in abortion to escape having to pay for it. Their most recent moves have involved forcing religious institutions to offer contraception and abortion services.

They acknowledge nothing and offer nothing. My gut feeling is that some of them even want women to have the option to kill off their just-born baby if they so choose.

"I wonder if anyone would support making it illegal eg. to smoke while pregnant, or do the rights you champion for the unborn begin and end with abortion."

In exchange, would you support protecting the unborn from being killed off while being in the womb? After all, if we want to protect them from nicotine, why not protect them from the abortionists blade as well.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"All I can say is that I hope you fringe radical theocrats continue your latest attack on women. Obama thanks you."

Definitely not attacking any women jersey, we're merely trying to save them from death, you do know that many of the millions already aborted were unborn female babies right?

It's concerning that you and your beloved master/messiah are grateful when girl babies are aborted and never given a chance at life. All that potential just snuffed out and we crazy theocrats are the only ones who want to save them.

Rational Nation USA said...

Indeed. It is by far better we roll back time to the dark ages and the back alleys. And certainly God's plan was to for the human race to over populate the earth and for the bishops to reign supreme over all things. By the grace of a mystical omnipotent being, crafted in the imagination of man we should all be bound. Reason is to be viewed as the mark of the devil and those who question are commiting blasphemy against a perceived deity that mysteriously knows all.

Righto, there is no doubt this works for the early primate known as Santorum.

Silverfiddle said...

RN: Did you read the article? It appears you have not.

jez said...

Finntann: "Jez, funny how you liberal pro-choice types never seen to want to give anyone any."

Any what?

"These cases are better handled through education as opposed to legislation."

Of course I agree with you here, but the pro-life position is that the unborn's right to life is superior to whatever rights a woman has over her own uterus.
The unborn's right to use its mother's uterus needs proper of definition, otherwise exactly this type of tyranny becomes easy.

beamish said...

...but the pro-life position is that the unborn's right to life is superior to whatever rights a woman has over her own uterus.
The unborn's right to use its mother's uterus needs proper of definition, otherwise exactly this type of tyranny becomes easy.


Tyranny? You don't have any problem taxing the owner of that uterus at a higher rate if her income is at a certain level so you can feed, house, and provide health care for people with heads, bodies, limbs, organs, and neurology physically unattached to her uterus.

You even champion government interference in her own home and family if her children lack certain nutritional, behavioral, and / or social criteria.

jez said...

Beamish can't wait to get off-topic.

(Yes, I favour progressive taxation for a variety of economic (ie non-ideological) reasons. I also advocate that participation in certain programs such as immunisation, where the real benefit comes from herd immunity, be mandatory.)

But my question is intended to probe at the the consistency SilverFiddle claims on behalf of the pro-life advocates. You have missed the point.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jez: but the pro-life position is that the unborn's right to life is superior to whatever rights a woman has over her own uterus.
The unborn's right to use its mother's uterus needs proper of definition,


You've zoomed in on the issue. If a fetus is life, does the mother have a unique right to supersede the baby's right to life?

That's the crux, but not really the purpose of this post, which was more to attempt to defend the arguments of the anti-abortion folks, and at least to get their foes to see that they have a debatable point.

beamish said...

Beamish can't wait to get off-topic.

If your topic is that "tyranny" entails that woman being "forced" to upkeep the welfare of the child in her womb, then what of the tyranny of that woman being forced through taxation and threat of imprisonment to upkeep the welfare of children (even the older ones with gray hair) that aren't even hers?

beamish said...

...much less in her womb or even in her house?

jez said...

SilverFiddle, thanks. I do think it's worth enumerating (limiting) what unborn rights the pro-life crowd want protected, otherwise this concept is open to all kinds of abuse.

Beamish, read Finntann's comment. I was replying to him and the tyranny I referred to was introduced by him.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I am of the belief that human beings may have a higher purpose than merely perpetuating the race.

Life is full of boundless opportunities for those who think, and don't allow themselves to fall into the trap of "doing what everyone else does, because that's what one ought to do."

Some people can live very well without sex, others cannot. We all have different capacities in that regard -- as we do on every other.

In general I am much in favor of self-determination for individuals as well as nations. I want complete freedom of choice as to how we live our lives. I am dead set against making ANYTHING mandatory -- except the universal proscriptions forbidding murder, rape, theft, vandalism, extortion, and systematic harassment, of course.

Nature is predicated on vast amounts of waste. How many acorns grow into oak trees mighty or otherwise? How many pollynoses become maple trees? How many eggs hatch into birds and turtles, etc. and how many of those that do survive to adulthood?

Are we to mourn the death of every unfertilized egg? Are we to sob over all the little spermatazoons who never unite with an ovum?

A zygote does, indeed, contain all the elements necessary to produce a child, but it does not see, hear, smell, taste, think or feel at that stage.

I am one of those dreadful people who honestly believes the rights of a conscious, thinking, feeling, walking talking human being should supersede the rights of a zygote. Not because the zygote is "only a lump of tissue," but because it cannot suffer, but the woman -- or in some cases the pre-teen child -- carrying it most certainly can.

If for any reason a pregnant female honestly believes her life will be ruined if she carries a baby to term, I don't believe society should be able to force her to do so against her will. In any event I there is something arrogant, distasteful and unseemly about men presuming to know what's best for females and thus have jurisdiction over the bodies of women.

That said, the old joke about holding an aspirin between the knees to prevent pregnancy is actually a very good idea. This modern notion that "everyone" can, should, must, and will have sex the moment hormones kick in and stimulate interest is pernicious.

It's much too bad we've allowed our debased popular culture to cheapen and degrade one of the most glorious experiences life can offer, and supplant traditional values and mores with wanton licentiousness.

Whatever choices we make we MUST accept responsibility for them. "There's the rub."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

I see your point, Beamish. These issues over which we obsess daily cannot in truth be separated from each other. They're all strands in the same fabric.

Finntan has given us the most eloquent, fair-minded and comprehensive analysis in the thread. Easy to miss in a virtual hurricane of blathering bloviation.

~ FT

beamish said...

I see your point, Beamish. These issues over which we obsess daily cannot in truth be separated from each other. They're all strands in the same fabric.

One of the huge differences between right-wingers and left-wingers is that right-wingers find it impossible to become cognitively dissonant.

beamish said...

,,,but then again, I don't subscribe to the absolutely absurdist view that leftists are actually capable of rational thought.

jez said...

Cognitive dissonance does require the capacity to hold two ideas at once.

beamish said...

If for any reason a pregnant female honestly believes her life will be ruined if she carries a baby to term, I don't believe society should be able to force her to do so against her will. In any event I there is something arrogant, distasteful and unseemly about men presuming to know what's best for females and thus have jurisdiction over the bodies of women.

This argument only works if the pregnant woman can prove she has four eyes, four lungs, two brains, two hearts; etc., and that the person growing in her womb is "her body" and not its own body. For extra credit, she can prove how the penis of a male child she is carrying is "her body."

That all said, even abortion doesn't alleviate the conditions of pregnancy in a female. Her body will still continue to produce hormones to support the developing child, and even does so after she's given birth without abortion.

"Control of her body?" Please, let's stay out of the drool cup-flooding, knuckle-dragging imbecilic and ignorant ritual left-wing psuedoscientific cult fantasies of the pro-abortion crowd and stick to what science clearly shows.

The ethical argument for those seeking abortion as an option should be "how do we remove a developing human being from a pregnant mother's womb WITHOUT KILLING ANYONE."

beamish said...

Cognitive dissonance does require the capacity to hold two ideas at once.

Not just hold them, but believe both. As in your loopy idea that a pregnant mother's responsibility to carry her child to term is "tyranny," but imposing taxes under penalty of imprisonment upon that pregnant mother to buy your granny a ventilator is not "tyranny."

jez said...

Your failure to comprehend the written word is not my fault. I told you where to look to find correction, but I see that you prefer your misapprehension. Have fun now.

beamish said...

So you're saying you don't find it tyrannical that the woman is held legally responsible (via taxation and wealth redistribution) for the welfare of people that didn't emerge from her womb while it would be tyrannical that she carry a child to birth?

How do you resolve this cognitively dissonant view, Jez?

Help me "apprehend" what makes you believe your logic failure isn't a logic failure.

jez said...

Here let me spell it out for you, you panache-dodging cretin: I never described carrying a baby to term as "tyranny." Hey, why don't you use your scroll-bar and check?

beamish said...

Jez,

"The unborn's right to use its mother's uterus needs proper of definition, otherwise exactly this type of tyranny becomes easy."

I'm talking about precisely the same tyrannical impulse that Fintann was. We already live under a government that concerns itself with the definitions of "best practices" in child care, social development, and nutritional guidelines. Michelle Obama herself is hooting and hollering about "morbid obesity." Obamacare is the precipitous next penstroke away from outlawing certain foods from commercial availability. Mayor Bloomberg in New York City has already banned salt from restaurant tabletops. The Einsatzgruppen of the anti-smoking Passivrauchen Nazis are already moving to ban smoking in one's own vehicle and home.

You fight for control of one's own body? Really? Are you daft?

So, this "type of tyranny" that we already have will be avoided by defining the in utero rights of a developing person how?

How would you define these rights? Deny them completely? The embryonic human has no rights? Pre-natal and peri-natal physicians and surgeons are practicing quackery and arcane witch-doctory?

Prosecutors that charged Scott Peterson with double homicide for killing his wife and unborn child - were they overstepping the law?

Who confers rights to the unborn? Nature? The mother? Legislators who make fetal homicide laws? Judges and juries that uphold fetal homicide convictions?

Admit you're suffering from cognitive dissonance, or answer the questions.

jez said...

"So, this "type of tyranny" that we already have will be avoided by defining the in utero rights of a developing person how?"

OK, one way of philosophically justifying this kind of tyranny is through the doctrine of unborn rights usurping women's rights. There are other ways of achieving such tyranny.

Now carry on, don't let me interrupt play-time with your straw dolls.

beamish said...

OK, one way of philosophically justifying this kind of tyranny is through the doctrine of unborn rights usurping women's rights. There are other ways of achieving such tyranny.

So you're arguing that a woman has the "right" to commit fetal homicide as long as the embryonic human is embedded in their own uterus.

Now carry on, don't let me interrupt play-time with your straw dolls.

Well, don't put your uterus around my head. Wouldn't want you to think that grants you license to commit homocide.

Anonymous said...

I'll say it straight out:

It's better that a human life in the embryonic stage be killed than a girl's life destroyed because someone forced himself on her, or because she made a stupid mistake.

Children need to be born into an environment that WELCOMES them and is properly PREPARED to nurture them.

An unwanted child may be doomed to a tragic existence in foster care and a lifetime of neuroses stemming from the pain of knowing his mother "threw him away" -- or worse.

You can think what you like. I have no intention of arguing about this. It's just a flat statement of what I believe. It is not subject to advice, counsel, censure or emendation.

Fortunately, for me the point is moot. The issue could never touch me directly.

Frankly, I'm grateful I never produced any children of my own. To bring new life into a world as despicable as this should be considered Mortal Sin.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

What we do with our bodies should not be subject to regulation of ANY kind.

I believe in FREEDOM.

~ FT

Anonymous said...

Finntann,

I appreciate your response and to a degree I agree totally about the battle within us. Having said that, I still believe that the debate about abortion and contraception is a religous one and not secular. Our morals and standards and the vast majority that are pro-life are judging so (including myself) on morals and standards set by our religous faiths. In otherwords if we follow the teachings of a faith, then our definition of what is life and what is sacred is set.

If you go down to all the comments and views, it really shows how emotive this issue is.

Regards

Damien Charles

jez said...

Beamish: "so you're arguing that...":
Here's a handy guide: if you can find that argumenr in the words i've posted, then yes, i'm arguing that. If, as in this case, you can't, then no.
Basic stuff, but hopefully it'll sink in.

beamish said...

It's better that a human life in the embryonic stage be killed than a girl's life destroyed because someone forced himself on her, or because she made a stupid mistake.

I disagree. "Convenience" should never be a justification for murder of a human, regardless of their developmental stage.

Frankly, I'm grateful I never produced any children of my own. To bring new life into a world as despicable as this should be considered Mortal Sin.

My girlfriend and I plan to bring a child into this despicable world perhaps some time next year (if we can figure out how, as I tell my anxious-to-be-Grandma mother, heh) and we've waited this long so that we are both prepared financially and emotionally to nurture this child to be a force to be reckoned with from playground to planet ;)

beamish said...

Jez,

Here's a handy guide for you:

Admitting that as a leftist you can't argue intelligently is much more to the point than demonstrating the same over several posts.

beamish said...

Jez,

if you can find that argumenr in the words i've posted, then yes, i'm arguing that.

Are you trapped in cognitive dissonance that your statement "one way of philosophically justifying this kind of tyranny is through the doctrine of unborn rights usurping women's rights" argues precisely that the in utero rights of the unborn derive solely from whether or not its mother desires to kill her unborn child?

What other women's rights are you yammering about? Equal protection under the law? Show me the man who won't be charged with murder for killing his own child, be they in the womb or not.

Rational Nation USA said...

Actually Silver I skimmed it quickly. That and I had very, and mean very little sleep from Friday 1:00 PM until I posted the comment. This could have something to do with it.

Also seeing so much clatter trap rhetoric from the Sanatorium Santorum, and his type I suppose I am a bit oversensitive and may have allowed that to affect my comment.

Oh well, I stand behind my opposition to those types I was referring to. They are as great a threat to individual and personal liberties as the socialist threat ever was or could be. Radical Socons are very scary people.

beamish said...

"Radical Socons"

I like that. I call them "anti-conservatives" myself.

jez said...

Beamish:
your statement "one way of philosophically justifying this kind of tyranny is through the doctrine of unborn rights usurping women's rights" argues precisely that the in utero rights of the unborn derive solely from whether or not its mother desires to kill her unborn child?

Just, no! You are obviously determined to cement your reputation as a gibbering half-wit, aren't you? Here's some more entry-level background knowledge for you:
When two parties' rights conflict, law frequently must decide that one party's rights are superior to the other party's, thus the conflict is resolved. This does not entail that the law denies the existence of the loosing party's rights, just that the winning party's rights are superior. Hope this helps.

If it hasn't helped, probably best that you leave this one alone, or maybe find an entry-level primer on law and ethics, and educate yourself at least on the absolute basics. Come back when you've developed the first fucking clue of what you're talking about. Good luck!

Right Wing Theocrat said...

jez:

"I wonder if anyone would support making it illegal eg. to smoke while pregnant, or do the rights you champion for the unborn begin and end with abortion."

Is this something you're in favor of - making it illegal eg. to smoke while pregnant?

jez said...

No Thundercat, it's a hypothetical. I brought it up because such a law would be justified the via the same mechanism that pro-lifers support, ie unborn rights usurping women's rights. That's why I asked SilverFiddle to enumerate which unborn rights he wants to protect.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jez: When two parties' rights conflict, law frequently must decide that one party's rights are superior to the other party's, thus the conflict is resolved.

Yes! But in this country we haven't even gotten to that point yet. The pro-abortion crowd is still using childish euphemisms and rhetorical dodges. More about that Friday in my, hopefully, last post on this before I end up running everyone off.

In Europe, if I understand it correctly, you pretty much fess up that it's life, but an undeveloped one whose rights are superseded by the mother? Do I have it right?

Right Wing Theocrat said...

I had a feeling, thanks for confirming boyo.

Simple Observer said...

Freakanomics stated that abortion keeps the crime rate down because the biggest target of abortion is the poor minorities.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

If the right-wingers are all so racist, as claimed by the white-guilt liberals, then it would stand to reason that the right-wingers would love Planned parenthood and abortion on demand, since it would eliminate the filthy minority class of hoodlums and gangsters.

Yet, oddly enough, the majority of right-wingers are intelligent and compassionate enough to side with LIFE.

Liberalism promotes abortion under the emotional umbrella of rape/incest/women's health, yet are successful in killing off generation after generation of Americans who just so happen to be in the minority.

Interesting.

Who has the noose, now?

jez said...

"In Europe, if I understand it correctly, you pretty much fess up that it's life, but an undeveloped one whose rights are superseded by the mother? Do I have it right?"

I can't speak for the whole of Europe, but that sounds about right.
By the way, I cherish that this issue is not so hot a political button in my country as it is in yours. There's plenty of abortion-related rhetoric in America, yet I notice that very little is achieved one way or another. I suspect your politicians are using it to distract you.

beamish said...

Jez,

When two parties' rights conflict, law frequently must decide that one party's rights are superior to the other party's, thus the conflict is resolved. This does not entail that the law denies the existence of the loosing party's rights, just that the winning party's rights are superior. Hope this helps.

It sure does. Just as history is completely void of leftists capable of rational thought, you continue that tradition plainly enough for all to see.

You either believe all humans do not have inalienable rights, or you believe humans in the womb are in fact not humans.

The mental illness and cognitive dissonance you suffer from displays its symptoms when you suggest the unborn actually have rights that compete with those of women's rights. What exactly are the rights of the unborn?

Your model seems to suggest the right to food, shelter, and health care that you and your fellow leftists imply exist for all humanity at the expense of distributing the wealth of the more fortunate through taxation doesn't apply.

A human doesn't have a right to sustenance and shelter until after he or she is born.

You believe humans don't have a natural right to live free of violence and agression and murder unless our mothers say we do.

You were blithering something about teaching me law and ethics, dumbass?

Simple Observer said...

Beamish:

"What exactly are the rights of the unborn?"

To be born.

Abortion on demand kinda stops that right. Abortion for convenience removes that right.

*Yay Planned Parenthood! Long Live Margaret Sanger! Kill them babies, especially those black ones, since they are filthy mongrels anyways. The KKK is not your enemy, white America! Hitler had some good ideas! Planned Parenthood, sieg heil!*

Never before have I seen such a subculture so enamored with genocide and death. The pro-Death movement epitomizes all that is wrong with America.

beamish said...

Simple Observer,

Re: Hitler, he got the entirety of his racial heirarchy dogma from American progressive leftists in the eugenics movements of the time, notably Margaret Sanger and Madison Grant. Hitler called Grant's Passing of the Great Race his "bible" and it was the first non-German book the Nazis reprinted en masse.

Simple Observer said...

Beamish,

I was not aware of that! Hmm. The plot doth thicken, but yet the ending is the same. Thanks for the info.

So this means that Margaret Sanger is even more evil than Hitler? Who'd have thunk that would even be possible?

beamish said...

Simple Observer,

More evil, I don't know. I just find it rather telling that the entirety of Nazi race theory dogma was produced by the progressive left.

Rather puts a nice historical refutation to the absurd "Nazis were right-wing" meme in place, doesn't it?

beamish said...

I think it's fair to say American left-wing psuedoscience created the foundations of Nazi ideology.

beamish said...

The Holocaust was simply left-wing theory made into left-wing practice.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"If the right-wingers are all so racist, as claimed by the white-guilt liberals, then it would stand to reason that the right-wingers would love Planned parenthood and abortion on demand, since it would eliminate the filthy minority class of hoodlums and gangsters."

Exactly Simple, seeing as how so many black babies are being killed off, we should be quietly celebrating. Not to mention our hatred of women, seeing as how many of those aborted would be girl babies, we should be dancing in the streets over abortion.

But no, being the racist, sexist bastards we are, we're fighting against it, while the party of tolerance, diversity and everything that is wonderful in the world keeps pushing for more and more abortions. Go figure.

"I cherish that this issue is not so hot a political button in my country as it is in yours. There's plenty of abortion-related rhetoric in America"

i guess Americans treasure human life more than europeans, more than us down under too. You should hear the hysteria when the Japanese people go whale hunting in our part of the world, but it's largely just crickets chirping while unborn girl babies are sliced up and tossed out with the rest of the medical waste.

Ducky's here said...

Beamish, neither you nor z know your ass from your elbow in regards to Sanger.

Now it is true that she was influenced by eugenics and the social darwinism of the times. But to say that eugenics was the primary reason for the establishment of Planned Parenthood is absolutely asinine.

Research the Buck v. Bell SCOTUS decision of 1927. Read Ellen Chesler's definitive biography of Sanger.

Just don't become one of these fringe righties who read Locke, Hayek and Rand and figure they have it sussed.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Are you sure about that ducky?

Ducky's here said...

I am quite sure.

Teresa said...

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who promoted birth control in order to eliminate blacks. The birth control pill paved the way for a pro-abortion mentality which resulted in Roe v. Wade being passed. Even Roe has seen how she was used by progressives - that's what progressives do consistently, use people - and is now pro-life.

Anonymous said...

Abortion and Contraception are two different subjects. I don't think it's helpful to see them linked.

Women are meant to be more than brood mares or elderly virgins.

People should not have children unless they can afford to raise them. PERIOD!

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

Now it is true that she was influenced by eugenics and the social darwinism of the times. But to say that eugenics was the primary reason for the establishment of Planned Parenthood is absolutely asinine.

I was primarily focused on the progressive left's "intellectual" contributions to Nazi ideology, particularly Madison Grant's psuedoscienc. But Margaret Sanger's own writings disagree with you. Are you familiar with them?

Abortion didn't enter Planned Parenthood's political wheelhouse until the 1960s. Abortion wasn't legalized nationally until 1973. Before that, Planned Parenthood pretty much concerned itself with "birth control" primarily aimed at segregating and sterilizing people deemed "unfit" to breed.

And at no time ever in its history has Planned Parenthood been a breast cancer testing and diagnostic organization.

In Sanger's defense, she was actually pro-life, believe it or not. She OPPOSED abortion on both medical and moral grounds, believing abortion dangerous to the mother (it was in her lifetime, and still to this day carries risks of sterilization and / or cancer) and also unethical to end a life after conception. That's right! Sanger believed life begins at conception and therefore abortion would be unethical!

Sanger wanted to prevent conception from happening in women deemed "unfit" to breed by her racist, negative eugenicist views. Her fellow leftists like the infamous German labor activist Adolf Hitler merely extrapolated that it's faster to bring the "unfit" to extinction by actively exterminating them, rather than wait out the inevitability of their population dying out without breeding.

Sanger's negative eugenics and racist views are what earn the ire of people who dislike Planned Parenthood, an organization that seems to be continuing that negative eugenics and racism by locating their abortion services mostly near minority communities.

Again, it's just a case of leftists leap-frogging from a bad idea to an abhorrent idea, from an evil theory to an evil practice.

Just don't become one of these fringe righties who read Locke, Hayek and Rand and figure they have it sussed.

Heh. Rand is too left-wing for my tastes.

jez said...

Beamish:
"...something about teaching me law and ethics..."

You're right, that would be a waste of time; we'd need to start you off on remedial reading and comprehension first.

For one thing, I have nowhere suggested "that the unborn actually have rights" in my opinion. That's your own invention. But I don't expect you to start reading or understanding me now, I doubt you could even manage it. Christ you're tedious. Go talk to someone else now -- yourself, maybe? You shouldn't notice any difference, it's what you're already doing.

twoguys2012 said...

Free Thinker:

"People should not have children unless they can afford to raise them. PERIOD!"

Yes, because children are nothing more than financial burdens and parasites.

If you support abortion because of that mentality, you are woefully ignorant.

twoguys2012 said...

Leftist mindset:

If contraceptives were free and available for all our whore followers, we wouldn't need abortion.

Abortion is a fantastic contraceptive, really. Baby conceived, then eliminated. No more worries.

Rob said...

I have strong beliefs regarding abortion, but my take on the whole matter is this:

If you don't have a womb, you don't get to create legislation for those who do. Crusty ol' white guy Congressmen - whose closest encounter with the topic of childbirth (or parenting for that matter) is the sloppy backroom shenanigans with dumb but eager interns - have no right saying what any woman can legally do with her body.

We have bigger issues that can actually be solved. Getting mired down in morality discussions only sidesteps the more important stuff. Politicians know this. They play the abortion card anytime they want to derail a debate and wallow in endless, unresolvable argument.

Leave my morality to me and get back to running the damn country - starting with securing our national borders with military might, not feeble fences that needlessly cost fortunes.

Rob said...

And if half of the energy piffled away by rabid anti-abortion nutjobs were instead directed at pro-adoption effort, think how much better off we'd be.

Instead of focusing on the negative, why not do what you can to help turn unwanted pregnancies into family-building opportunities for couples who cannot have children?

Instead of pointlessly picketing abortion clinics, why don't people put their time and money into something constructive?

Anonymous said...

Learn to LISTEN, TwoGuys.

I very deliberately said it was a bad idea to discuss abortion and contraception in the same article.

People who conflate or equate the two are, indeed, -- to use your words -- "woefully ignorant."

I've made my position abundantly clear numerous times. Here it is once again:

Abortion is a bad thing.

Contraception is a good thing.

Abortion routinely or carelessly used as means of contraception is a HORRIBLE thing.

You cannot KILL what you have not conceived.

And I REPEAT with EMPHASIS.

If you can't afford to raise a child properly in a stable home environment, you should NOT have children PERIOD.

The world does not need MORE people, it needs to treat its people BETTER and give them more love, more understanding, better education and better economic prospects.

Mindless breeding reduces human beings to an animal existence. Women should not b regarded as mere brood mares.

The idea that sex exists strictly for the purpose of procreation and not also for recreation is ANTIDELUVIAN.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

YAY, Rob!

Good for you.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

A right winger who chooses to remain ignorant:

Teresa - Exhibit A

Anonymous said...

"Crusty ol' white guy Congressmen - whose closest encounter with the topic of childbirth (or parenting for that matter) is the sloppy backroom shenanigans with dumb but eager interns - have no right saying what any woman can legally do with her body."

Not sure sure exactly how accurate that statement might be, but I agree with the sentiments that inspired it.

I'll go out on a limb and add:

Hypocritical homosexuals and pederasts hiding cravenly in priestly raiment ought not to have jurisdiction over private sexual behavior -- and the results of the folly therefrom, if folly it be -- than the politicians.

In fact this penchant we seem to have for minding OTHER peoples' business is frankly DISGUSTING.

DROP it, and STOP it.

There is no room in any woman's womb for congress, the judiciary or the priesthood much less all three.

Attempts to patrol a woman's vagina are the moral equivalent of rape.

Just take good care of the little babies when they come, that's all I would ask of "society."

~ FreeThinke

Teresa said...

Rob,

Because some people actually believe in the sanctity of human life. Some people deem unborn life worthy to fight for their rights since selfish people just think of these little children as commodities that they can throw away. This is one example of how the entitlement mentality has harmed our culture. If at least half of the 54 million babies who have been aborted were still alive and paying into social security and the rest of the programs they probably would not be in such dire straights right now.

beamish said...

Jez,

There's not a damned thing wrong with my reading comprehension. I was consistently tested to possess college graduate level reading comprehension and retention skills way back in fourth grade.

You're articulating quite clearly that your resolve your mentally ill cognitive dissonance over fetal rights vs. women's rights with your pseudoscientific religiousity that you magically became a human being with rights upon exiting your mother's womb.

beamish said...

If you don't have a womb, you don't get to create legislation for those who do.

If you've never been broke, you don't get to create legislation for people who rob liquor stores.

If you don't have a sense of logic, you don't get to be taken seriously in productive discussions.

beamish said...

There is no room in any woman's womb for congress, the judiciary or the priesthood much less all three.

Why not? We could legally kill them in there. ;)

jez said...

The problem for you Beamish is that I have articulated precisely no opinions of my own whatsoever. So you're making shit up, or you have mistaken my quesitions about SilverFiddle's or Finntann's opinion to be statements of about my own. The former is annoying and the latter is stupid. Most likely, you are both. I can only speculate that you maybe developed these characteristics in the years since those 4th grade test results you are still so proud of.

beamish said...

The problem for you Beamish is that I have articulated precisely no opinions of my own whatsoever.

I know. You're still stuck in the mental illness of your cognitive dissonance.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

@Rob "If you don't have a womb, you don't get to create legislation for those who do."

You're not serious are you? What about female members of congress, are they allowed to create such legislation?

Also, does this extend to vaginas, are you saying the current laws of the country do not apply to women, since they were probably passed by 'Crusty ol' white guy Congressmen'?

What about legislation passed by women, they don't apply to those with penises?

If this sort of thing were allowed, i really do feel sorry for those with both, then they really can feel persecuted.

What about blacks, do they get to tell the cops to - f*** off cracker, your laws don't apply to me until my homies pass them too.

jez said...

So you're aware that you're making Shit up then? Good, you can stop now.

Anonymous said...

Protracted grudge matches between warring egos have a deleterious effect on the readability of blogs.

I'm all in favor of abortion -- of chromic insults, redundancy and extraneous remarks.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

So you're aware that you're making Shit up then? Good, you can stop now.

Perhaps English is your second language. There are far more courteous ways for you to beg for mercy and concede an argument.

Oh, that right, you weren't making an argument.

::chuckles::

jez said...

I'm native UK English, but you're certainly more fluent in bullshit.

beamish said...

Let us know when you want to present a defensible argument, Jez.

Silverfiddle said...

Let me wave the flies away from this dead horse and say that Jez's point was never to "present a defensible argument."

He was probing the logic of the anti-abortion position (which is what I asked others to do), and doing it without insulting others.

beamish said...

Doesn't one require a grasp of logic to set about questioning the logic of others?

Right Wing Theocrat said...

I would've thought so too beamish, but i guess not.

It's far easier to 'probe' the logic of others, belittle them and all that, than to present your own arguments and have them tested or probed, so to speak.

jez said...

Yes Beamish, you do need a grasp of logic, just like you need to stop lying in order to become a real boy.

And Panthro's right too, it *is* harder to submit your ideas for probing, which is (yet another reason) why SilverFiddle deserves our admiration, for this is what he invited. I'd also argue that doing so is not only harder, but a great deal more worthwhile than just announcing your opinions and ignoring counter-argument.

I don't think it's helpful to muddle up an examination of SilverFiddle's opinion with an expression of my own; I prefer to do one thing at a time. Actually, I don't think it's necessary to even hold a rival opinion in order to probe someone else's. Holding or not holding an opinion of your own has no impact on the quality of your critiques.

As for belittling, I must plead guilty, but only once it had become clear that Beamish was typing his contributions in with his diminuitive republican penis instead of using his fingers and, crucially, his brain. I apologise for prolonging everyone's agony.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Wow an apology from mickey, wasn't expecting that. Good on ya mickey.

Anonymous said...

A lady who wished to be wild
Once kept herself quite undefiled
By thinking of Jesus
And social diseases
And the fear of bearing a child.


~ Anonymous

Submitted by Freethinke

Anonymous said...

Y'all need to LIGHTEN UP.

This thread was downright lugubrious.

~ FT

twoguys2012 said...

lu·gu·bri·ous
   [loo-goo-bree-uhs, -gyoo-] Show IPA
adjective
mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially in an affected, exaggerated, or unrelieved manner: lugubrious songs of lost love.
-------------

Just in case anyone wasn't sure what FT just said.

beamish said...

It's always rather difficult to have an honest, respectful discussion with a leftist that won't admit that they are a blithering idiot.

It's refreshing to see that you're willing to do so, Jez. In your own emphatic way, of course.

jez said...

Beamish, it seems like your primary interest on-line is in dissing people your perceived opponents. Why aren't you better at it? That aside, kudos again for typing with a penis that thin, I understand it must take a lot of effort.

beamish said...

Jez,

You'd have to venture an argument for me to oppose, half-wit.

Be that as it may, the penis in your mouth isn't mine.

Anonymous said...

LMAO

jez said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jez said...

Sorry, drunken rambling best deleted. Long story short: you're a cock, with a really tiny cock.

But at least you're no longer making up arguments for me and insisting I'd written them myself when I obviously hadn't. That is an improvement. Just the rest of your personality to go...