Friday, January 20, 2017

Resist


I will find strength
where I have always found strength...

in the Community of those
committed to
Beauty and
Kindness and
Love.

100 comments:

Marshall Art said...

I find it in my faith in God.

Anonymous said...

God is in the Community.

Dan

Anonymous said...

"For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." ~Jesus

~Dan

Craig said...

So, no kingdom of God without community? Is God in the midst of a community of atheists? Satan worshipers?

In all seriousness, clearly community is vital to the Christian life, but God's presence of Kingdom is not limited to or guaranteed by merely assembling a group. In fact Jesus made a practice of going off by Himself, away from community, in order to commune with God.

Not totally disagreeing, just seems a bit dogmatic.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say there is no kingdom of God outside of community.

As to your second two questions, I'd say there is no place where God isn't. What do you think?

The point I'm making is that God is in our acts of love, beauty, Grace and kindness.

And,biblically, it is always (or nearly always) in the context of human community, the church, the apostles, etc.

The point of this post is just a reminder that in times of trials as in good times, we can find comfort in healthy, loving communities. And, for me, that means God, too.

Dan

Craig said...

"I didn't say there is no kingdom of God outside of community."

No, you said. "God is in the Community." Without defining what "the Community" is or expressly allowing for God to not be in "the Community". Your wording was unclear and confusing, I asked questions to try to understand.

"What do you think?"

I'd say that it depends on what you are trying to convey.

If you are trying to convey that God in Omnipresent, then I'd agree.
If you are trying to convey that God is actively moving in and through people individually and communally in order to further His goals and establish His Kingdom, then I'd suggest that it's unlikely that you'll find that sort of divine presence in a group of atheists.

"The point I'm making is that God is in our acts of love, beauty, Grace and kindness."

It sounds as if your are saying that God needs our actions in some way, or that our actions alone are the vessels of God's kingdom. Could you be more clear?

"The point of this post is just a reminder that in times of trials as in good times, we can find comfort in healthy, loving communities."

OK, I was just thrown off by your choice of words. I will suggest that there is ample Biblical precedent for spending time alone with God and seeing His working in those situations as well. Again, I'm suggesting that to dogmatically state that one extreme or the other is exclusively correct seems like a poor conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Without defining what "the Community" is or expressly allowing for God to not be in "the Community".

I think I defined it pretty clearly:

the Community of those
committed to
Beauty and
Kindness and
Love.


For those Christians such as myself (and presumably you), GOD is the ultimate One committed to beauty, kindness and love.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing for God to not be in the community," but clearly, I defined the community pretty directly.

If you are trying to convey that God is actively moving in and through people individually and communally in order to further His goals and establish His Kingdom, then I'd suggest that it's unlikely that you'll find that sort of divine presence in a group of atheists.

Interesting. The Bible tells us of stories where God used a donkey to further his goals and establish his Kingdom, where God used awful people to do the same (if you take those stories literally). If God can use animals and awful people, then surely there's no reason God can't be using atheists. Or at least, I think so.

I'm suggesting that to dogmatically state that one extreme or the other is exclusively correct seems like a poor conclusion.

I don't think I've stated anything dogmatically. Did I say that we'd ONLY find comfort in the presence/community of love, kindness and beauty? No. I said it's where I'd find comfort.

Nothing dogmatic about that. Hope that clears it up.

~Dan

Craig said...

Are you now suggesting that the story of Balaam and the ass be taken literally? Are you suggesting that it actually happened?

Craig said...

Also, I'm not suggesting that God can't or won't use all sorts of people to further his ends, I am suggesting that the likelihood of God being present and active in a group of people who deny his existence is not the norm. Finally, I believe that my confusion about your term "the Comunity" is at least partly caused by your capitalization of the Word community. Treating it as if it is a proper noun, or in someway an extension of God which should be referred to using a capital letter. I'm sorry that your choice was confusing And that I have been trying to understand what you are talking about.

Dan Trabue said...

re: Balaam, I'm suggesting the TRUTH of the story (which I don't think needs to be taken as literally factual or historic) should be taken literally. You understand that a story does not need to be factual in order to pass on real Truths, right?

Why is it you think the likelihood of God being amidst, say, a group of atheists who have committed themselves to work for justice and compassion is not so strong or the norm?

The Bible says whenever any 2 or 3 are gathered in God's name, God is in the midst. The Bible says that God is everywhere. What evidence do you have that, in a house meeting to plan help for homeless people, for instance, where the participants are not theists, that God is not there?

Or is it the case that you have no evidence, it's just your hunch based on not much more than feelings?

As to my capital Community, I'm sorry that it threw you off. I never made that suggestion when I capitalized any of the letters in my poem. It was a poetic way of emphasizing the importance of these ideals.

Is it the case that, in your circles, people only use capital letters to emphasize a God-connection? If so, live and learn, not everyone does that.

Beyond that, I happen to think that God IS in all Good Things, so while it was not my intent to suggest a God connection specifically, for me, God is in all that is good, pure, noble, etc. so, either way, it seems to work for me.

I'm glad that you're trying to understand my post, I appreciate the effort. But perhaps if you just took it at face value, that would be the best way to understand what I'm saying. So, when I say,

"I will find strength
where I have always found strength...

in the Community of those
committed to
Beauty and
Kindness and
Love."

...what I literally and exactly mean is that I will find my strength where I always find my strength, in the community committed to beauty, kindness and love.

There were no intended hidden or secret messages in what I wrote, I meant just what I said.

Does it help you to understand if I point that out?

Craig said...

Great, glad to hear it. I'm sorry that the way you expressed yourself was difficult for me to understand.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you can help me up Craig. I wrote what I wrote, meaning precisely and exactly what I said. What threw you off? Because if I wrote exactly where I wrote and meant exactly what I said, I'm not seeing how I erred.

Dan

Marshall Art said...

""For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." ~Jesus"

I may be mistaken, and I'd need some fact-based evidence to support that possibility, but I'm pretty sure Jesus was referring to Himself being physically present, as in, "Hey! There's Jesus actually and literally physically walking among us in our midst!" It was not a metaphor other than Jesus being the kingdom of God. His point was that He was what they were awaiting.

"the Community of those
committed to
Beauty and
Kindness and
Love."


But by who's definition? Who's understanding? On who's terms? This has never been clarified by you when you refer to these things. If you think, for example, that throwing poop at bad singers is a beautiful thing, is that a reasonable thing in which to take strength? Thus, the problem is ambiguity and vagueness. And this assumes that you are truly sincere in believing that what you post is profound and compelling. You may indeed mean it. But what do you mean when you say these things that are vague and ambiguous?

Of course, one can find strength in the gathering of like-minded people, even when like you (not "you" specifically) those like-minded believe evil things. It's the group mentality that provides that comfort and strength. Note the recent march of madwomen across the country. They found strength in their agreement on issues like the killing of their own children.

That's why I responded as I did. My strength is not in people, or even in people that think like I do, though I am also prone to take comfort among those who do. But it truly comes from God when I accept Him as the true source of strength.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Dan T. would fill us in on the comment Stan suppressed a couple days ago, on the topic of right-to-choose.

Anonymous said...

Stan claimed incorrectly...

Science demonstrates that life is a continual process that begins at fertilization and ends at death. Conception, then, is the first phase of human life. A zygote is not potentially a human being; it is a human being with potential.

I pointed out that it is a fact that a human zygote IS with no doubt, a living human zygote. But is it a scientifically proven fact that a human zygote is a human being with all the rights afforded to human beings?

Science can not prove that. It is a matter of opinion and, so far as I know, it is not provable. Thus, his hunch that a zygote is a human being deserving of rights is not proven or a fact.

I'm fine if he wants to hold to that opinion. I would not try to dissuade him. Just pointing out that what he claims as a fact is not a fact.

He disagreed not with facts, but with a personal attack that was not supported by facts and was, in fact, wrong. I did use logic to point out the fact-status of my position. He claimed that I picked an arbitrary line (I didn't, as I didn't state a place where a human became a human), just pointed out his "alternative fact" as the mistake it was.

Thanks for asking.

Myself, I tend to hold the opinion that it makes sense that a human life begins at conception and probably ought to be afforded at least some basic rights, but I can't prove it, it's an opinion. I recognize that other adults hold other opinions.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

^----^ Noted. Thanks Dan.

Craig said...

I've explained already. I didn't say you erred, I said that I didn't understand exactly what you meant. Your use of the term "Community" as either a proper noun or as an indicator of deity was somewhat confusing. You explained it. I'm not sure why there is anything further.

Craig said...

Anonymous

To be fair, Dan is slightly misrepresenting Stan's position. Stan, correctly, pointed out that based on science human life begins at conception and progresses through a continuum of natural stages concluding with death. Nowhere did Stan claim that the issue of rights is defined by science.

I would agree with Dan that human beings in all stages of life should have some basic rights. One of those should probably be the right to not be killed at the whim of someone else. The problem with Dan's personal opinion is that he actively supports, defends, and votes for people who's goal it is to deprive humans at certain stages of development of those rights he claims to favor. I realize that that position might seem inconsistent and contradictory, but I'm sure that there is a cogent and well reasoned explanation why it's not what it appears.

Anonymous said...

Stan is free to clarify. I'm pretty sure, reading between the lines, he is saying that zygotes are fully human and, therefore, fully deserving of all the rights of a person and, further, that it is a fact and the way that God sees it.

By all means, get him to clarify that this is not what he is saying and believing and I will apologize for misreading him.

I suspect that you are mistaken and I further suspect that you know you are mistaken.

If it helps, here's a bit more of what Stan said...

It is pure, simple, scientific fact that the life of a new human being begins at conception...

Conception, then, is the first phase of human life. A zygote is not potentially a human being; it is a human being with potential. It cannot be anything but a human being. It is equally a logical fact. If we agree that a senior citizen is a human being, we must also agree that a middle-aged person is a human being...

An infant is surely human. So why would anyone logically conclude that this logical sequence begins at the birth canal? Clearly "fetushood" is simply a prior stage of that same human life.


I think Stan is pretty clearly saying that it is a fact and a scientific fact that a zygote is a full human being fully deserving of all rights of a human.

But please, Stan, if I'm mistaken, let me know. If you're acknowledging this is just your opinion and you can't prove it, then you and I agree.

I don't think that's what Stan is saying, Craig.

The problem with Dan's personal opinion is that he actively supports, defends, and votes for people who's goal it is to deprive humans at certain stages of development of those rights he claims to favor.

Well, as I said, I hold that opinion, but I also recognize that I can't prove that an opinion and thus, defer to other people's right to make that call for themselves. So, there is no rational inconsistency or problem with my position.

As the old saw goes, I may disagree with someone's opinion but I will defend their right to hold that opinion.

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

There's nothing between the lines to read, Dan. I doubt Stan would deny that he has formulated a conclusion that is logical based upon scientific fact, not that science is making any claim with regard to "personhood" (a decidedly cheap rationalization for choosing abortion is that science does NOT say a zygote is a person). So he wouldn't have to prove that science says a zygote is deserving of anything, since he isn't making that argument at all. For that matter, science doesn't say that any of us are deserving. It only says that we are human from conception until death.

The real issue is actually opposite of what you expect be proven by pro-lifers. It is the pro-abortion people that must prove there is any evidence that a zygote is NOT a person deserving of the same rights as anyone who has made it passed their moment of birth. All the "hunching" comes from that side of the argument. It is no more than "hunch" that one is not a person when still a zygote or embryo. There is no solid evidence to support it. There is only the subjective argument that a personally convenient subjective line of demarcation in the process of human development gives one license to regard another human being as unworthy of the right to life endowed by God. Science does not in any way insist that a person who has not developed to a certain point is not a person with the same right to life as any other older person.

The issue revolves around life. To suggest that a person is not a person requires something more than "personal opinion" and "hunch". Science supports the pro-life position because it confirms that what exists once sperm and ovum unite is human life. There's no leap of logic to insist that it is a person at that person's earliest stage of human development. The leap is the "hunch" that it is not.

Craig said...

I'm confused are you suggesting that human children in uterine are somehow not fully human? Could you clarify exactly what percentage of human these children are? Could you also clairify which rights you think they should be denied?

Anonymous said...

I do not know and science can not tell us if they are fully human. Is the fetus, ten seconds after conception fully human? Especially as it relates to rights, I do not know the answer to that, not definitively or authoritatively.

Do you?

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Put another way: We know definitively that a ten second old fetus is fully a human fetus. Is it fully human? Well, what does that mean? Does it mean it is what we normally think of as a human being? No.

Look at this video of a 1-5 day old fetus. Does that look human to you? IS that human? "Fully" human?

I do not know the answer to that. If you do, do you claim to know it as a fact? If so, what is your authority for that claim?

I don't really want to spend too much time on this off topic thread, but I'm allowing a little room to discuss it, if you wish.

~Dan
~Dan

Craig said...

So, if two humans conceive your saying that you have no idea whether or not the child is fully human? What else would it be? What else could it be?

I would think that one could look at things like embryology texts and order scientific materials and determine the science pretty easily.

It seems like you can't deal with the rights issue until you settle the question of humanity.

For example, will the DNA makeup of your hypothetical 10 second old child change when it's 10 years old?

How much scientific evidence would it take to convince you that a human baby in utero is 100% human?



Craig said...

I have to point out that no where in Stan's post does he ever make his case based on how "God sees it", it's just not there. He addressed the science side with links (did you read those links? If so have you debunked them or simply dismissed them?), and he addressed the legal contradictions. But he didn't make the "God sees it" argument at all.

Jumping ahead a bit. I'm most states a human child is considered to be human to the extent that if a pregnant woman died, the killer can be charged with two counts of murder.

So, why is the child killed by its mother in a clinic less human than a child of exactly the same age killed by a drunk driver. Or when it's mom OD's?

Dan Trabue said...

if two humans conceive your saying that you have no idea whether or not the child is fully human? What else would it be? What else could it be?

I've already answered this, Craig.

1. I do not know if it is "fully human." I just don't. Science does not tell me that. God has not told me that. I do not know.

2. It may depend on what you mean by fully human. Define it, please.

3. What I DO know is that it is literally a human zygote, a clump of cells that does not appear to be human but is a living human zygote that one day will be fully human.

Do YOU know that it is "fully human..."? and if so, what is your authority to "know" this?

As to Stan, he can speak for himself (and not God). If I'm mistaken and Stan clarifies, I'll gladly apologize for misunderstanding what he has said over the years. I believe he believes that it is a "fact" that a newly conceived human zygote is fully human, and that it is scientifically factual that this is the case and that GOD thinks of the human zygote as fully human and as such, deserving of rights. But maybe I'm mistaken. He can clarify if he wishes.

I do not believe I am mistaken.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, "What else could it be..."? Just what it literally is: a human zygote. I can say authoritatively that this is what it is. Now, is a living human zygote "fully human..."? That is a different question, one that is more vague and so far as I know, not provable.

But by all means, prove it.

Or agree with me that it is an unprovable hunch. Your call.

Dan Trabue said...

How much scientific evidence would it take to convince you that a human baby in utero is 100% human?

I'm not arguing it isn't human. Indeed, I've said clearly that it IS A LIVING HUMAN ZYGOTE. 100%.

Do you understand?

Here's the link to the video I mentioned earlier. Take a look at that and answer, is this clump of living human cells "fully human..."? On what basis?

https://youtu.be/BsaEqwfoCB0

Craig said...

I guess that you didn't bother to check the links in Stan's post. I get it that there's a necessity to play word games,and to deny the settled science, in order to salve your conscience. I get that you're prepared to deny or limit certain basic rights based simply on stage of life. I even get that as long as you don't look at the science you can semi honestly say that you don't know.

I have to note that your continued pretending that anyone has made the "God demands it" argument an that any argument other than from science and law has been made certainly calls into question your ability and willingness to actually take an unbiased look at the evidence and reach a conclusion beyond your biases.

As far as the "God said" argument, I'd simply point out what Jesus said about those who harm children, and his admonishment regarding "the least of these". How can anyone with so little compassion for the innocent and defenseless seriously try to claim compassion for anyone.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, this conversation is off topic but I said I'd allow it. But if you're not going to answer questions and you just want to rant about your personal and unproven hunches and make false claims about what I've said, I'll invite you to take it elsewhere.

If you'd like to engage in a respectful dialog, answering questions that are asked of you, I'll entertain the conversation.

Fair enough?

Dan Trabue said...

As to this:

have to note that your continued pretending that anyone has made the "God demands it" argument an that any argument other than from science and law has been made certainly calls into question your ability and willingness to actually take an unbiased look at the evidence and reach a conclusion beyond your biases.

...I just have to say two things:

1. Irony.

2. Keep in mind, I was pro-life (still am) and thus, clearly I do entertain conclusions beyond my biases. My bias was TOWARDS the pro-life arguments. It's less so now, given the oft times poor quality and arrogant presumptions of the typical "pro-life" argument.

Craig said...

If I have a chance I'll hit some high points, but if your going to dismiss the settled science and law as hunches, I honestly don't know that respectful conversation is possible. Your parsing of words and semantic games, really make it hard to take seriously.

Anonymous said...

There you go, again. "Settled science."

By all means, IF you have data that establishes that a 1 day old human fetus is "fully human," then explain what you mean by that and point to the data.

I suspect what you have is what we agree with: That the fetus is definitely "living" and that it is a "human fetus." "100%." In all of that, there is no disagreement. But beyond that, I am not aware of any science that establishes that a human fetus (let's say one day old) is "fully human" and deserving of all human rights.

That sounds more like political talk and opinion rather than scientific data.

The questions awaiting you, if you wish to engage in dialog and, you know, actually make a case based on data:

1. It may depend on what you mean by fully human. Define it, please.

2. Do YOU "know" that it is "fully human..."?

3. If so, what is your authority to "know" this?

4. Look at this video of a 1-5 day old fetus. Does that look human to you?

5. IS that human?

6. "Fully" human? (hinging on your answer to question #1.)

7. I do not know the answer to that. If you do, do you claim to know it as a fact?

8. If so, what is your authority for that claim?

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Here's an analogy: suppose someone gathered the supplies for an apple pie, mixed them together and put them in the oven.

For five minutes.

At that point, do you have

A. An apple pie? (FULLY an apple pie, mind you...)
Or
B. An uncooked Apple pie?

I'd say literally, it is precisely an uncooked Apple pie.

Similarly, with a one day old fetus, you literally and precisely have a human zygote.

Agreed?

Dan

Craig said...

I guess you still haven't bothered to read the links in Stan's post. You keep demanding that I answer questions yet you can't answer the most basic one there is. If it's not 100% human, then what percentage is it. A one day old baby is 100% human and 100% appropriate for its stage of development. Your problem is that your essentially making the Singer argument. Your arguing that age or developmental stage confers humanity at that there is an arbitrary point at which some magic happens and poof it transforms from a little blob of cells to a complete human.

I completely understand why you have to fight this so hard, and how your political convictions override your compassion. But seriously, I know you haven't read the links Stan or Neil have provided over the years to the standard embryology texts and other scientific journals that are clear about when life starts, so I doubt you'll pay attention to anything I'd provide now. The fact that you've chosen to ignore Stan's links, misrepresent arguments Stan made, and construct what you perceive as my arguments, what could possibly penetrate your closed mind and hard heart.

Like I said when I'm not on my phone in a hospital I'll think about taking a crack at some of your assumptions. But I see no reason to think you'll take anything seriously or fail to twist my words.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You're really bad with analogies, as has been proven time and time again. I concede formulating a sound analogy is oft times difficult, but you're far from achieving success. Case in point is your apple pie analogy. If you're trying to suggest that a zygote, embryo or fetus isn't fully "baked" until it pops out of the oven (a common metaphor for the womb, actually), the problem with this is that a newborn isn't anywhere near completed. It continues to "bake" until adulthood at least. You simply suggest it isn't a pie until some arbitrary point in time.

But that's just equivocation. Science does indeed say that so-called "clump of cells" is fully human. Its DNA is the proof. And it is also fully formed for the stage of development it is at. This notion conforms with every embryology text you could hope to find. You're focusing on the name of a particular stage of development and without basis presuming that at such a stage, because the child has only reached that stage, a child is not fully human. It's a totally subjective notion in the same way the old south may have regarded blacks as not fully human, or the way Nazis and muslims regard Jews as not fully human. In the same way, you choose size, age or stage of development to insist the child is not fully human instead of skin color or ethnicity.

You demand sources to support what is widely known and accepted...that DNA is what determines whether one is fully human or not. From the moment of conception, a new person exists because of its unique DNA. There's nothing mysterious or ambiguous about this fact of biology. You just refuse to accept it as enough to confirm the humanity of any person who has yet to reach your arbitrary line of demarcation.

Anonymous said...

1. I come from the pro-life view. I've read their arguments. I doubt that Stan has anything I haven't read or argued myself.

2. I have answered your question. Repeatedly and in many different ways. Perhaps because you're on your phone, you haven't seen them...

More...

Dan

Craig said...

Your "I come from the pro-life view and have seen everything possible", is simply a rationalization for ignoring the scientific evidence. For example, have you reviewed everything on the subject of embryology published since your conversion to support for abortion? Is is even remotely possible that the information you had decades ago might have been supplanted due to increasing scientific tools to study our genetic make up. At one point Darwin thought that cells were very simple, yet we now know that to be false. I find it strange that someone can make up there mind about something then refuse to look at new information that might inform their decisions.

Your comment makes it clear that your demands for information aren't sincere in the sense that you have any interest in actually looking at what is provide and objectively weighing it again your hunches. It's just a rhetorical device that allows you to keep your head firmly in the sand.

Craig said...

Long reply written, questions answered, have to leave for the hospital before I get it broken down into small enough chucks for blogger.

Patience.

Bubba said...

Me personally, I'm not sure it makes sense to argue with someone who's willing to recognize the full humanity and rights of other human beings ONLY when they look like him.

Anonymous said...

The question, Bubba, is, do we know for a fact that the 1 day old fetus is "fully human...?" If so, provide your definition and data to support the claim.

You're begging the question.

Dan

Bubba said...

Hell, Dan, I don't know if YOU'RE fully human, seeing how it's other species that tend to kill their young.

Bubba said...

That was a snarky comment, but I do think it's worth mentioning that I don't think you could prove your own full humanity: you couldn't provide a definition and data so that we can all know "for a fact" that you're fully human.

Let us see what this sort of proof would be for you, and we could all know what it is you're looking for -- and we would be assured that you're not making some vague demands for who-knows-what just to push off the moral implications of the indisputable fact that, even at his most embryonic stage of development, a human being is fully human -- and not any other species -- even if he obviously hasn't reached fully maturity.

But then, if full maturity is required to be considered fully human, I do think it's an open question whether you qualify.

--

My first point still stands, that you seem to be judging the matter on appearances: "Does that look human to you?"

There are plenty of instances of human beings doing grotesque things to other human beings simply because they look different, and making that sort of argument puts you at the end of a long line of villainy.

Dan Trabue said...

You're still begging the question.

Bubba said...

I think it shows the highest commitment to Beauty and Kindness and Love to presume that another's humanity depends on how far along he's developed -- and to say that those who disagree are begging the question instead of bearing the burden of proof in showing us how, for instance, newborns and toddlers and adolescents and adults have varying degrees of humanity.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, you did nothing to undermine my analogy, an uncooked apple pie is NOT an apple pie. It is a literally an uncooked apple pie.

The case can be made (and reasonably so) that an unborn fetus is NOT a human being, it is literally an unborn human fetus.

I'm not making the case that it is or is not "fully human." I'm saying we can't prove it one way or the other. YOU fellas are the ones who appear to think that you are speaking of scientific fact or God's will. Make your case.

Or not. I won't spend too much more time here on this off-topic chase.

Bubba, though you're dodging my question and begging the question, I will attempt to answer your question, as I think it is informative.

The definition of Human Being (from the Oxford Dictionary):

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Now, don't be stupid and think "Aha! But that means that if you're disabled in such a way as to not be able to have an upright stance or don't have the power of speech, then you're NOT A HUMAN! You're calling the disabled INHUMAN!!"

No, I'm not. Of course, you are human even if you have a disability. You're just a human with a disability.

But, if you're from the human species but don't have a brain, or brain waves, what are you then?

You're either a dead human (but not "fully human," and deserving of rights... seeing as how you're dead) or an unborn fetus.

Now, we grant some rights to the dead (not to desecrate their graves, for instance, or to abuse their corpses... ) but the dead are not fully human, with all the rights that accompany that. Seems to me that unborn fetuses are more in that category than "fully human," but then, we are still waiting for you all to define what you mean.

Since I do not know what you mean, that is not something I can do for you. The onus is on you to define what you mean and then argue your case, if you so choose.

Or you can go the logical fallacy routes and continue to beg the question or beat straw men, in which case, you lose the case, rationally and lose my interest and patience.

Craig...

Your "I come from the pro-life view and have seen everything possible", is simply a rationalization for ignoring the scientific evidence.

What do you know about me, Craig? What have I read on abortion? When was the last time I read "pro-life" material? You appear prepared to tell me what I do and don't know and think, go ahead.

Or perhaps it would be wiser of you to admit you don't know what I have and haven't read on the topic.

One thing about this point: My traditional pro-life position was the last of my conservative views to change. It is arguments like yours collectively here that caused me to change my mind. Seeing other conservatives argue badly for a "pro-life" position made me see (and still makes me see, increasingly), the rational and moral dubiousness of the arguments.

Perhaps you'd have more pro-life people if you all quit arguing in favor of it?

Funny, eh?

Bubba said...

Yeah, guys, it's obviously our fault that Dan has decided that, if one cannot prove to his satisfaction that a living member of his own species is a fellow human being, we're free to end his life.

I guess taking some basic responsibility for one's own beliefs isn't part of being fully human.

Bubba said...

"Of course, you are human even if you have a disability. You're just a human with a disability.

"But, if you're from the human species but don't have a brain, or brain waves, what are you then?"

By your reasoning, Dan, you would just be a human without a brain or brain waves: why that is not so, you don't actually say.

On the one hand, an adult human with severe disabilities has far less facility than what is typical for members of the species at the particular stage of development, but you think that's just fine, EVEN IF that person *NEVER* exhibits the upright gait or articulate speech that is mentioned in the definition you quote.

But, on the other hand, a human child in the womb may have PRECISELY the facility that is typical for that particular stage of development and may soon develop the locomotion and speech that is part of that definition, but you think that doesn't matter.

(And in any case, you didn't even attempt to prove that you're fully human.)

You take a seemingly agnostic view on what we know -- "we can't prove it one way or the other" -- to take a firm but morally dubious position, that if we cannot prove the rights or humanity or whatever of another living member of our species, we should err on the side of denying those rights and humanity in declaring ourselves free to kill that life.

I would think that someone who is really concerned about things like the prohibition of murder wouldn't advocate actions unless he knows for certain that they don't qualify.

--

Two hunters, Marshall and Dan, come across a hunting blind across a stream, and Dan proposes that the two of them do some target practice by shooting into what is essentially a glorified tent.

Marshall objects, saying that he knows that some kids use the blind as a fort or hideout.

Dan retorts that Marshall cannot prove that he is 100% confident there are any kids in that blind, and so he feels justified in blasting away.

Yeah, that seems like grace-filled living, assuming the least about those around you so as to justifying doing whatever you want.

Anonymous said...

Ad hom attacks are also a fallacy. Add that to the question begging and you've got at least two strikes.

Any defense of your position? Or are you surrendering?

~Dan

Anonymous said...

By your reasoning, Dan, you would just be a human without a brain or brain waves: why that is not so, you don't actually say.

Common sense, Bubba. If you don't have a brain, you are dead. Did you not know this? Or, one other possibility... you are a fetus who has not yet developed a brain.

THE QUESTIONS REMAIN:

How are you defining "fully human?"
What is your data that demonstrates a human fetus is "fully human?"

These are reasonable questions, Bubba. If you can't answer them, then have the decency and honesty to admit you can't.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

You did get this part right. Sort of...

You take a seemingly agnostic view on what we know -- "we can't prove it one way or the other"

I take the realistic view, acknowledging the reality: We can't prove it one way or the other. That is just a fact.

Do you agree with reality?

If so, then we agree. You just think that, since we don't know for sure, we ought to go with your unproven hunch that a fetus IS fully human, even forcing others to accept your hunch as the Rule, even if they (as rational adults) may not agree with your hunch. Is that what you're saying?

I am saying that, since we don't know and can't prove one way or the other, we should leave it to the individual to make that choice. Self-determination and all that.

~Dan

Craig said...

Dan,
This is the second time in our history that you've announced that you once held a position and have (at some point in the past) studied and read enough on the subject that you aren't interested in any further information. I'm simply reacting to your words and trying to gain some insight as to what you're familiar with that precludes you studying new information.

Of course, now I understand better. You've made this momentous decision based on your perception of how pro life people argue, and not based on data, science, facts or law.

The fact that you're basing decisions about who gets to live or die based off of such superficial criteria as how people look and your perceptions of others arguments makes me reconsider the wisdom of editing my answers to your questions down so I can post them.

Why ask questions if you're going to reject the answers before you get them.

Craig said...

Dan,
Are you suggesting that you can prove objectively that your hypothetical fetus does not have precisely the brain that it is supposed to have at that stage of development? Are you arguing that it does not have 100% of the genetic material (DNA, chromosomes, etc) that make it a unique individual human?

As Bubba pointed out, your position seems to be that if we don't know 100%, then we should err on the side of denying or minimizing rights and allowing or causing harm. The problem is that the folks who do science seem pretty confident that we do know these thighs. So in reality it's not that "We can't know 100%", it's that you've decided that you don't know 100%(possibly because you've chosen to do things like ignore the evidence) and that you can expect others to abide by your subjective and superficial standards.

Craig said...

One last quick one. Are you suggesting that leaving the choice to "self determination" should have no restrictions? Does he fetus have absolutely zero rights? Do we always presume the best of intentions and rational pressure free decision making? How does one rationalize the contradiction between the clear legal position that killing a child in otero is murder except when it's killed by a medical practitioner (who took an oath to "first do no harm"), and the person or people who in any other circumstances would be the primary protectors/providers for the child.

I can see how arguments from science and logic are much less persuasive than, "It doesn't look like a human.".

Have you ever considered that your poor arguments are a sign that your arguing against your conscience and in favor of killing someone who bears the very image of God?

Marshall Art said...

It seems to me that we've given quite a bit of evidence to support our side of the issue. From the moment of conception, the "clump of cells" has unique DNA...human DNA...that the distinguishes it from its "host" (We on this side of the issue refer to the host as "the mother"), who engaged in an act that requires use of what are known as "reproductive organs" (for the simple fact that they are designed to work in harmony to bring forth another human being). The question you fail to answer is, what else could it be if not a human being...not a fully formed human being like most people over the age of 18, but a fully formed human being at the earliest stage of development.

You also refuse to provide any possible alternative for why that ISN'T a human being equal to all others that have successfully passed through (or were allowed to pass through) the birth canal. The Oxford Definition, I would submit, merely distinguishes most of us from all other creatures walking, crawling, flying, swimming or slithering about God's creation. That is to say, it compares and adult human to adult animals, in which case the definition is sound. I would also suggest that without any further explanation, there would be no reason to consider either at their earliest stages of development. Of course, the compilers of that dictionary might also be pro-abortion like you are, and purposely left out that specific nuance of their definition to provide them the same liberty to disregard the lives of the unborn as you allow yourself. Who knows?

Craig said...

If one was to apply Dan's logic to our current immigration debate the position would be, "If we can't know to a 100% certainty that an immigrant is not a terrorist, then they should be denied the ability to immigrate.".

Craig said...

"Like I said when I'm not on my phone in a hospital I'll think about taking a crack at some of your assumptions. But I see no reason to think you'll take anything seriously or fail to twist my words."

I'm sure you just missed this.

"Is the fetus, ten seconds after conception fully human?"I do't know if this is serious or not. But I would respond by asking what else could it be?

"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

I guess Princeton PHD Dianne Irving knows, but you don't. Could it be that you've chosen not to interact with anything that might undermine your opinions?

Craig said...

"Is it fully human?" Again, it' fully human for it's state of development.

" Well, what does that mean?" Great question, perhaps you could answer it. I think most would argue that to arbitrarily limit others humanity based simply on their developmental stage would deny certain percentages of the popultion "full" humanity. I'd suggest that Dr. Irving would disagree.

"To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort."


"Does it mean it is what we normally think of as a human being? No." Really, you don't think that a human child in utero is a human being? At what point do you choose to grant "human being" ness? It's a human being at one precise moment in it's development.



Craig said...

"Look at this video of a 1-5 day old fetus. Does that look human to you? IS that human? "Fully" human?"

Sorry, no video. However, I can say that I've seen plenty of sonograms of babies, and yes they look fully human for their stage of development. Again, at what arbitrary point do you choose to allow "human being" ness?

"I do not know the answer to that. If you do, do you claim to know it as a fact? If so, what is your authority for that claim?"

Yes, science.

"Do YOU know that it is "fully human..."? and if so, what is your authority to "know" this?"

Yes, science.

"...that this is the case and that GOD thinks of the human zygote as fully human and as such,..."

This isn't a question, but it's part of your problem. No where in the post in question does Stan actually say what you claim to believe that he believes. You have simply made something up and chosen to attribute it to Stan. If you can't provide a quote, then you probably should reconsider your beliefs.

Again, from Princeton PHD Irving.

""Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

Craig said...

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)"

"Do you understand?"

I understand that you want to draw an arbitrary line between a human being at one stage of development and subsequent stages of development. Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to argue that a human being at it's earliest stages of development is not human? Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds for you to emphasize that it's a "human" zygote in an attempt to deny it's humanity?

"Take a look at that and answer, is this clump of living human cells "fully human..."? On what basis?"

Asked and answered. Again, your video does not provide any actual proof of your claim. It simply provide a look at one small part of human development. I guess the fact that the little "clump of cells" contains every single bit of genetic information that is present in that particular human being for the rest of it's development doesn't count. Simply drawing an arbitrary line based on such a superficial measure as outward appearance doesn't prove you point. It's also shallow and discriminatory. By your arbitrary measure, an 80 year old non responsive woman on life support isn't fully human because of how she "looks".

"...that a human fetus (let's say one day old) is "fully human" and deserving of all human rights."

I like how you mix categories here in what appears to be either ignorance or an attempt to obfuscate. The issue of rights (which has been addressed elsewhere) is not a question of science,but of law. At this point US law grants your hypothetical fetus rights and treats it as fully human when one is killed. The exception is that mothers can kill their fetuses with impunity.

To your numbered points

1. (not a question, but...) I am using "fully human" in the sense of attributing full humanity to every human at every stage of development. In other words, a human zygote is "fully human" in terms of it's current stage of development. Again, you haven't defined the point at which you arbitrarily grant "full" humanity to someone, so I'll go with scientists.
2.& 3. Yes, because science. I've provide quotes from one source, but since you've already seen and dismissed all sources other that how some people strike you it's pointless to provide more.

4,5,6, I was unaware that how something looks was intrinsic to defining what it is. Proof, please. But, yes.

7,8, Yes, science. Again I've provide one source you won't read, why provide others?

Your analogy fails for precisely our reliance on arbitrary stage of development as your criteria fails. The pie is fully an apple pie, and is completely as it should be for that particular stage of development. It doesn't become more of an apple pie after another 40 minutes in the oven, nor is it less of an apple pie when it's eaten.

That should be enough to stop the "You don't answer questions." crap. Now, perhaps you'll make a positive case for your opinions rather than simply applying an arbitrary standard based on stage of development and appearance.

Craig said...

I think it all survived the edits.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Bubba said...

"We don't know for certain if there are kids in that tent, it should be up to me whether I aim at it and fire away." BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

It's not my fault that that sort of approach comes across as flippant and irresponsible.

Dan, my comments have been less about the defense of the full humanity of a human child in the womb, and more about your criticism of that position BASED ON PHYSICAL APPEARANCE. You seem to think that humanity should only be afforded to members of our species only if they look like you. There's a long and infamous history of people who held to that idea, and it's not my fault that you're uncomfortable with the company you're keeping.

--

"I am saying that, since we don't know and can't prove one way or the other, we should leave it to the individual to make that choice. Self-determination and all that."

I don't think you mean this, or if you do, you mean it ONLY in this case and not in the general case of when the act of ending the life of a fellow member of the species should be legally prohibited as murder.

You cannot provide both of these things:

- A definition of humanity or personhood that includes every life that you would want to protect by law but excludes children in the womb -- a definition that would presumably extend to adults who are so severely handicapped that they can neither walk nor speak; to adults who are in a coma, at least a coma where recovery is medically possible; and to newborns who were delivered 5 weeks premature BUT NOT to infants in utero who are 48 hours past their due date.

- Proof -- or "scientific data" -- that, with 100% certainty and beyond any possible doubt, every member of this protected group has the right to live.

These things you cannot possible provide, in part because no mere description of physical attributes can EVER logically lead to a PRESCRIPTION of moral behavior.

But I think you should try, for at least three reasons.

1. It would give your critics some idea of what you would accept as proof of their position, reassuring your critics that you're not just appealing to a vague standard that you haven't actually thought through.

2. It would demonstrate that you've thought through the subject enough to reach a position that meets your own stated standards.

3. It would prove that your stated standard doesn't lead to literal anarchy where "self determination and all that" opens the door to widespread killing, on the basis that NO ONE'S full humanity -- or right to life, or whatever else you want to invoke -- can be proven scientifically.

But if I'm right and no no legal prohibition of murder could measure up to the standards you insist for the prohibition of abortion, we should discard your standards as a rather obvious attempt to justify evil.

Marshall Art said...

And while I realize and understand the frustration of a thread moving off topic (though I had questions for the original thread asked many times in the past that have not been answered yet), we're here now and there's still much to discuss. As such, I'd like for you (Dan) to confirm your position on this question: Do you, Dan Trabue, personally oppose abortion? It's a yes/no question and doesn't concern what you think about any current law regarding the practice or what others might think. It is solely directed at your position on the practice. Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'm personally opposed to abortion. I can't imagine ID ever have one.

Dan

Anonymous said...

- A definition of humanity or personhood that includes every life that you would want to protect by law but excludes children in the womb

Already done. I've given on possible definition. Here it is again: The Oxford Dictionary defines Human Being...

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

That is my definition. Just the normal English definition. I would add that what is inherent in that definition is that the Human Being has a brain (without which, there could be no "superior mental development," or the potential for such and is living.

This definition would require that we protect the life of all born humans and may include even some human fetuses. It does not include all fetuses, since they don't have brains for a while. Nor does it include corpses, as they are dead.

Here's the thing, you all (and I, once upon a time) want to insist that if you have human DNA, then you are "fully human." It's an arbitrary line that you draw... And that's fine for you to think that. But it's not a proven thing. It's not science. It's not God. It is an unproven and unprovable opinion.

Thanks for the conversation, fellas. I think we've covered it all.

One final analogy, perhaps improving upon my earlier one (which was also fine).

If one pulls together the ingredients for bread (noting that the ingredients do not make it bread) and mix them together, you have dough (noting that the dough does not make it bread... it makes it uncooked bread or, more literally specifically, dough.

Now, you can call it bread all you want, but it's not bread. It's just not. It's not bread until you cook it and it becomes viably bread. At what point does it become bread and not just dough?

I DO NOT KNOW. Nor do you. There is no one correct answer or provable answer for that question.

Similarly, one might have the ingredients for a human (noting that the sperm and egg do not make it fully human) and you may mix them together, and have a zygote/fetus (noting that the fetus does not make it fully human... it makes it literally a human fetus).

Now, you can call it "fully human" all you want, but it's not "fully human," not provably so. It's not fully human until you "cook it," and it becomes viably human.

At what point does it become fully human and not just a fetus?

I DO NOT KNOW. Nor do you. There is no one correct answer or provable answer for that question.

Since I do not know, I tend towards a rather conservative take and would personally treat it as human... but I do not hold all the answers and recognize that. I do not insist that everyone agree with me because of freedom of self-determination.

You all don't like that. You'd rather err on the side of MAYBE it IS fully human, even at one day old, thus you'd err on deciding for other people. I used to think that, too.

I no longer believe that is the best answer.

Peace.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

One other clarification...

if I'm right and no no legal prohibition of murder could measure up to the standards you insist for the prohibition of abortion, we should discard your standards as a rather obvious attempt to justify evil.

While the task of defining "when life starts" or "when is someone fully human" is difficult, that does not mean that it is not obvious to all reasonable people that people who are born - whatever their health and mental status - are indeed humans. Perhaps some morons out there are not able to recognize this, but all reasonable people can.

Not all reasonable people can say when someone is fully human.

As a point of reality.

That you would like to pretend that you hold the answers and what you feel emotionally is in fact, a "fact," or "what God wants," that is only your unproven and unprovable opinion.

As a point of reality.

One other point: Most of what you all are thinking/saying my opinions and hunches and experiences are, are mistaken.

As a point of reality.

~Dan

Craig said...

I have to note that Dan just managed to brush off (perhaps ignore or pretend wasn't there) actual science from an actual scientist which demonstrates that on this issue he chooses to deny science. He hasn't actually provided any proof that his hunches correspond to reality.

Instead he just announces that instead of dealing with the scientific evidence, he'd rather just quit and pretend that his arbitrary line based solely on how things look defined what % of a human someone is. Maybe s fetus is only 3/5 of a human.

Anonymous said...

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

Science does not say that a fetus is "fully human" and "deserving of all rights of a living human being." You did not cite a scientist or science saying this.

You're begging the question.

YES, YES, YES. Conception begins a new human life. It is a human fetus.

THE QUESTION IS THIS: Is this new human fetus "fully human" and thus deserving of all the rights of a human being?

THAT is the thing that is a matter of opinion and that can't be proven.

Do you understand that?

YOU, Craig, are also drawing an arbitrary line saying "I, CRAIG, think that when a fetus is conceived and has four cells, or even two cells, it is 'FULLY HUMAN...' and we know it because I think it is so."

That's a fine opinion. Prove it as a fact or admit it's an opinion.

But you can't prove this arbitrary line as a fact, or you would have proven it.

This is what I'm talking about when I said that conservatives using science and reason badly is what have driven me away from the more traditional position. You conflate your political biases with fact and science and don't seem to recognize that this is what you're doing. I began to recognize the lack of reasoning in arguments like these (not dissimilar to the ones I made) and recognized it was political allegiance and tradition, not science or God, that made me reach this conclusion.

What is arbitrary about saying "Without a brain, you are not fully human."? You appear to be making the case that, "If you have human DNA, then you are fully human." But by that measure, dead people are fully human.

Again, look at the analogy of bread.

You want to make dough be equal to bread and they are distinct and different things.

Now, really, if you can't prove that this fetus is "fully human" and all that entails (and you can't), then admit it. If you don't recognize that reality, well, I can't help you and if you just repeat more false claims and bad data, I'll just ignore you because, well, I can't help delusions.

~Dan

Craig said...

Dan
I've addressed the problems you have before and you still have them.
1. Science doesn't have anything to do with rights, it's a separate issue and I can only conclude that your continued combination of the two is simply obfuscation. Your asking for something that no one is claiming as a way to pretend that we haven't done what you asked.

2. You keep saying that the child is not "fully human", yet you won't explain what it is. This is your way of dodging the fact that it is fully human at that particular stage of its human life.

You continue to pretend as if your arbitrary standard based on appearance and developmental stage as a basis to deny rights is somehow the only rational option, yet won't actually demonstrate what you ask others to.

You wanted to end this, so end it. Simply restating your unsupported opinions as contrasted with what a scientist says is not going to be profitable for you. We can continue to provide additional scientific evidence evidence, but the fact that you have no counter and still ignore it raises the question of why bother.

Why don't you just continue in your warped definition of being "pro life", which you think justifies ending life and denying rights based solely on appearance.

Bubba said...

Dan,

I appreciate that follow-up comment because it is obvious I didn't JUST require a definition, I ALSO QUITE CLEARLY required incontrovertible evidence -- "scientific data" -- so that we can know with 100% confidence that all who meet your definition ought to be afforded legal protection against the deliberate taking of their lives.

That ties directly to your argument, that in the absence of perfect knowledge that we should give the maximum leeway to the person deciding to end that life, to hell with the self-determination of his victim.

"I am saying that, since we don't know and can't prove one way or the other, we should leave it to the individual to make that choice. Self-determination and all that."

You're continuing to stand on this ground.

"Science does not say that a fetus is 'fully human' and 'deserving of all rights of a living human being.' You did not cite a scientist or science saying this."

Science ALSO does not say that ANYONE deserves ANY amount of rights, including the right to live, for one very simple reason.

THE ISSUE OF RIGHTS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE.

To suggest that the question of rights can be answered by science is as much a non sequitor as to insist for a mathematical proof for the capital of Kentucky.

But this wouldn't be so bad, if not one for very, very crucial thing.

YOU NEVER TRY TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARDS YOU SEEK TO IMPOSE ON OTHERS.

If you dared to try to provide the "scientific data" that the people whose lives you value have the right to live, you would see just how difficult the task is, and perhaps you would even see how patently stupid it is.

Instead, you make quite clear that you see no need to live up to your own standards and that you won't even try.

"While the task of defining 'when life starts' or 'when is someone fully human' is difficult, that does not mean that it is not obvious to all reasonable people that people who are born - whatever their health and mental status - are indeed humans. Perhaps some morons out there are not able to recognize this, but all reasonable people can."

You don't think you need to prove your position, you dismiss the requirement by hand-waving that your position is "obvious" -- and even though, throughout history, PLENTY of people have denied the right to life and other rights to groups of people, you say that "all reasonable people" would agree with you.

(It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Never mind the prominent, well-spoken, highly educated proponent of infanticide such as Peter Singer, that person isn't reasonable BECAUSE YOU SAY HE ISN'T.)

It's not astounding, because almost nothing you say would astound me except maybe a genuine display of humility and intellectual honesty, but the hypocrisy is profound and despicable.

When one of us makes a claim that you don't like, you demand proof, and you even demand scientific proof for claims that are not even the purview of science:

"YOU fellas are the ones who appear to think that you are speaking of scientific fact or God's will. Make your case."

But when we ask you to show how your position meets your own standard of proof, you simply refuse: rather than prove anything, you just state outright, without proof or even argument, that your position is obvious to "all reasonable people."

The claims we make which we don't prove to your satisfaction, you denigrate as hunches while accusing us of presumptuously speaking for God or science.

But the claims you make, YOU DON'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO PROVE, and at the same time while you denounce us for our supposed arrogance, you pretend to speak for reality itself.

What you claim, even in the absence of proof, you presume to declare as fact, "as a point of reality."

There is no consistency except in your always tilting the field in your favor.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I found your response to me somewhat frivolous. Unless you're a woman who self-identifies as a man, I never would have suggested that you might be considering an abortion at anytime in your life.

So I'll rephrase the question: Do you, Dan Trabue, personally believe that abortion is wrong? Again, it's a yes/no question and doesn't require speaking about what others might think about the practice. I'm only concerned with if YOU believe it's wrong.

As to the "reasonable people" gambit, it isn't a question of whether one is or isn't reasonable, or "able to reason". It's a question of reasoning honestly and morally. Of the science that we DO know, it is unreasonable to insist that a human zygote is not fully human simply because it doesn't look like what most people think of when the concept of "human" is brought up. The problem is the conflating of "fully human" with "fully developed". The first doesn't require the latter in order to be true. And again, the Oxford definition I would wager is not crafted to deal with this issue in particular, but only to differentiate between human beings and all other creatures on earth. Honest reasoning would demand that said definition is a one-to-one comparison. That is comparing a fully developed human with a fully developed animal of one's choice.

YOU, however, have willfully chosen to presume that it implies differentiation between fully developed and not fully developed human beings. This allows you to feign compassion for those women who allegedly struggle with the decision to kill their own child by using the same cheap rationalizations you are so willing to adopt as evidence of being "reasonable". So the "reasonable people" to which you refer...as if your definition of reasonable is sound in the first place...are no more than those who use their reasoning abilities to craft what is no more than cheap rationalizations for that which they all know deep down is the taking of innocent human life.

Where's the grace in that?

Anonymous said...

In my original comment in this thread, I focused on Dan invoking physical appearance to determine the rights that should be afforded to another human being, but having been dragged into other parts of this conversation, I see I've made assumptions I shouldn't have to argue QUITE NEEDLESSLY on unfavorable ground.

It doesn't appear that either Marshall or Craig brought up the assertion that the fetus is "fully human," Stan did elsewhere -- OR, AT LEAST, DAN SAYS HE DID.

But did he?

It looks like Dan quoted Stan only briefly, without a URL so we could more easily see the quote in context.

STAN: "Science demonstrates that life is a continual process that begins at fertilization and ends at death. Conception, then, is the first phase of human life. A zygote is not potentially a human being; it is a human being with potential."

Here, Dan says that Stan's claims or incorrect, but he doesn't actually correct what Stan explicitly wrote. He asked, "is it a scientifically proven fact that a human zygote is a human being with all the rights afforded to human beings?" He answers his question, writing (correctly) that science cannot prove that, but Craig immediately pointed that Dan misrepresented Stan: "Nowhere did Stan claim that the issue of rights is defined by science."

He quotes Stan a second time:

STAN: "It is pure, simple, scientific fact that the life of a new human being begins at conception...

"Conception, then, is the first phase of human life. A zygote is not potentially a human being; it is a human being with potential. It cannot be anything but a human being. It is equally a logical fact. If we agree that a senior citizen is a human being, we must also agree that a middle-aged person is a human being...

"An infant is surely human. So why would anyone logically conclude that this logical sequence begins at the birth canal? Clearly 'fetushood' is simply a prior stage of that same human life."

Did Stan claim that the fetus was "fully" human in either of those quotes? Is the adverb even present in what Dan quoted? No, and no.

Dan inferred that adverb -- and for once he did so quite explicitly.

"Stan is free to clarify. [He hasn't commented here at all. -B] I'm pretty sure, reading between the lines, he is saying that zygotes are fully human and, therefore, fully deserving of all the rights of a person and, further, that it is a fact and the way that God sees it." [emphasis mine]

And again:

"I think Stan is pretty clearly saying that it is a fact and a scientific fact that a zygote is a full human being fully deserving of all rights of a human." [emphasis mine]

Dan may well think that, but by his own admission, he's "reading between the lines," an extremely serious Danny No-No if anybody else does the same to him.

He's calling on everyone to defend HIS implausible summary of Stan's position.

We shouldn't play that silly little game.

Bubba said...

The above comment was mine.

--Bubba

Bubba said...

At least as likely as Dan's interpretation is that Stan isn't conceptualizing the issues as being on any continuous spectrum, where organisms are more or less "fully" human and their rights are more are less dependent on their "full" humanity.

No, from what little Dan quoted, Stan is speaking of discrete and absolute categories. DEVELOPMENT is a continual process, but like a human organism at every point along that process, the zygote simply is a human being, NOT a "fully" human being as if there are partially human beings.

Stan wrote, "A zygote... is a human being with potential. It cannot be anything but a human being."

He also wrote, "An infant is surely human."

He did not say that one is more fully human than the other, and these sort of categorical claims place both in the same "box" and DO NOT place both on different points along a line.

--

Myself, I think a lot of this subject clearly deals with discrete categories and not continuous spectra.

LIFE VS DEATH: Two discrete categories.

1. Alive: a breathing toddler, a breathing adolescent, a breathing adult.

2. Dead: the corpse of a toddler, the corpse of an adolescent, the corpse of an adult.

Clearly, the fetus and even the single-celled zygote belongs in category 1.

--

INDIVIDUAL UNITS: Three discrete categories.

1. Components: brain, heart, liver, blood, nerves, the digestive system (or, in another domain, nuts, bolts, wheel, rudder)

2. Individuals: man, woman, child (automobile, yacht, frigate)

3. Collectives: family, village, the Community of Beauty and Kindness and Love (fleet, armada)

Clearly, the fetus and even the one-celled zygote belongs in category 2 as a unique organism and not just an organ belonging to another organism.

--

SPECIES: A large but theoretically finite number of categories.

Human (homo sapiens), gorilla, chimpanzee, dolphin, housecat, mosquito, redwood, etc.

Clearly, a human fetus and even the one-celled human zygote belongs to the human species, same as (presumably) all of us in this discussion: a canine or ursine fetus would belong to its own species.

--

So, even for the one-celled human zygote at the moment of fertilization and conception and at the very earliest stage of development, we know with complete certainty three things about his categorization -- and since this zygote has sex-specific chromosomes from the very beginning, before they're expressed physiologically, this zygote is a "he" or a "she," NOT an it.

He is alive.

He is a distinct, individual organism.

He is human.

Even the zygote is a living, human organism.

Saying anything more than this to suggest he's not "fully" human is to move quite quickly to that morally dubious -- and, I think, morally repellent and monstrous -- categorization of "Lebensunwertes Leben."

--

Our moral duty to the human fetus and even the zygote is answered, not by scientific study into human physiology but rather by divine revelation of the moral law.

Jesus was quite clear, you should love your neighbor as yourself.

And in answering the question, who is our neighbor? Jesus didn't provide a restrictive categorization of who is and isn't "fully" human or "fully" our neighbor.

Craig said...

Multiple comments from multiple people all making variations of the same points. I'll be surprised if any of the issues raised will be exhaustively addressed or even adequately addressed. Or it'll just be time to be done.

Bubba said...

Something something something hunches.

Something something as a point of reality.

Peace, fellas.

Craig said...

That's impressive you've boiled down most of Dan's entire repertoire into 2 lines.

Although you forgot to include where he claims that Stan said something that Stan didn't actually say.

Anonymous said...

Okay, to repeat my actual points on the off-topic abortion topic (and reiterate that you all continue to mostly not be restating my points correctly)...

1. Science has not told us when a fetus is "fully human." It just hasn't.
2. Clearly and literally and specifically, a pre-born fetus is a human fetus.
3. Science has not told us if a 100% human fetus is the same thing as "fully human..." ie, deserving of all rights/should be treated as "fully human..."
4. God hasn't either.
5. The case can be made that a fetus should be treated with full human rights at conception,
BUT the case can also be made that a fetus should be treated with full human rights when it has a brain/brain wave activity,
AND the case can be made that a fetus should be treated with full human rights when it is viable outside the womb
AND the case can be made that a fetus should be treated with full human rights when it has been born and is a baby, outside the womb.
6. I do not know which is "right." No one knows. People have opinions. I have opinions, but none of us can verifiably prove that we hold the "right" opinion. Science has not told us. God has not told us. We have our reason to figure it out the best we can.
7. Thus, it is my contention that this is what we should do. I should figure it out the best I can AND Craig should figure it out the best he can. Every woman should be free to figure it out the best she can.
8. That is my position on abortion.

Anything else beyond the above, things which you all say is my position, believe me, it's not.

I will speak for myself, you can speak for yourselves.

The difference between me and you all appears to me that I'm quite clear when I'm speaking of my personal opinions and don't confuse them with facts. If I'm stating my opinion and I'm telling you, "I don't - none of us - have the objective facts to reach a conclusion," then I obviously can't provide data where said data does not exist.

~Dan

Craig said...

I'm appalled. And deeply saddened.

Anonymous said...

You're appalled that I disagree with you? I'm okay with that.

You're appalled that I recognize and use specific words and terminology accurately? I don't see why, but I'm okay with that, too.

You're appalled that I give people the grace and freedom to decide for themselves the best solution for unprovable moral questions? You shouldn't be, and if that's appalling you, I find that appalling.

Dan

Marshall Art said...

In response to your list, Dan:

1. Science tells us that from the moment of conception a new human being exists. "Fully human" is an arbitrary, subjective and self-serving line of demarcation put forth to give one license to determine the value of another human being's life. There's no science, fact or legitimate argument to support such a categorical fallacy.

2. Not the least bit at issue on this side of the divide and thus a moot point.

3. Science has not told us that a 45 year old man is "fully human". It only determines if a creature is or is not human. It takes a liberal "progressive" to suppose that any human being isn't "fully human" for subjective reasons alone.

4. God hasn't endowed us with the authority to suppose we have any right to suppose that any human is not "fully human" simply because of race, sex, place of origin, age or size. Arrogant liberal "progressives" assume that authority illegitimately.

5. There is no fact base, evidence based or science base case for suggesting a pre-born human at any stage of development is not deserving of rights recognized as having been endowed by God to any person lucky enough to have been allowed to be born.

6. We all know which is correct. Some of us are honest enough to admit it, and willing to endure any consequences associate with it for the sake of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. Liberal "progressives" are not.

7. And this is where you avoid the first question related to this issue: Do YOU, Dan Trabue, consider abortion to be wrong, immoral, the unjust taking of a human life where the life of the mother is not in jeopardy?

8. Until you answer the unanswered question from #7, you have not provided us your position on abortion.

I would fully agree with you that no data exists to support any pro-abortion position where the life of the mother is not in jeopardy by proceeding with the pregnancy or deliverance of the child. But all data available indicates a human being exists in the womb of a pregnant woman. Until any data or evidence is found to prove the existence of a line that distinguishes between being "fully human" versus "not fully human", logic, reason and, most importantly, compassion and grace, demand that from the moment of conception onward, all are worthy of the right to life.

Anonymous said...

Begging the question. Over and over.

Logical fallacy fail.

Dan

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Please explain what you mean by this exactly:

"Begging the question. Over and over."

...and:

"Logical fallacy fail."

Regarding the latter, are you suggesting there is some failure on my part? If so, where? My conclusion is based on available evidence. You've provided no evidence at all to support yours.

In the meantime, you've stated you oppose abortion, that you wouldn't have one, but no reason given for either. I followed up with a more clarifying question: Do YOU, Dan Trabue, consider abortion to be wrong, immoral, the unjust taking of a human life where the life of the mother is not in jeopardy?

I've made clear I find the practice to be immoral, usually murder and have provided scientific fact to support my reasons for holding the position of opposition. You've done pretty much nothing but make demands upon us that you won't abide yourself.

At the same time, if you want to avoid the question by insisting this is all off topic, you've not answered questions directly related to that either.

Anonymous said...

To your latter question, I will say this:

Before this conversation, probably as recently as last week, I would have answered that Yes, I consider having an abortion to generally be immoral. But, thanks to you all and your arguments (and making me think through mine a little more, and how poor the argument is for the traditional position), I will say that I have changed my mind.

No. I do not think having an abortion is immoral, wrong or unjust.

As I have stated, I/you/we do not know if abortion is the same as killing a person out of the womb. It is a matter of opinion. Now, because I think it is clear that there is no right and provable answer to the matter, because we do not know if the human fetus should have the same rights as a human person, I still maintain that I would most likely opt against having an abortion, personally. But given what we know and don't know, I would also not feel comfortable calling it a moral wrong. I just don't think we know.

So, thank you fellows for that, at least. You've helped solidify my position on the matter.

Now, as to the former: WHERE are you begging the question...

All this hinges on the question: Is the 100% human fetus, the living human fetus in the womb of an expectant mother, is it a human deserving all the rights of a born living human being? You all keep answering questions and stating premises with the presumption of "Yes, it is." We do not know the answer to that question. Thus, when you presume "Yes, it is," you are begging the question.

First you have to settle that question.

You are not able to settle that question, not factually. We just have opinions on the matter. Our best guesses. Given that, I fall on the side of humans having the right to self-determination, and that you and Craig and Jerry Falwell, and the monster sexual predator, Donald Trump, do not get to decide for others. I simply do not trust you all to make that decision for others.

So, again, thanks for helping me settle where I stand on the position.

And, as noted, since the more you argue, the more you drive (at least some) people away from the conservative position on abortion, perhaps the best thing you can do is to stop trying to convince others to accept your hunches on the matter. It's working against you.

~Dan

Craig said...

I'm appalled and deeply saddened by the fact that you show so little concern for your "neighbor" and for those who are truly the "least of these". I'm appalled and deeply saddened that you're choosing to ignore science in favor of self. I'm appalled and deeply saddened that your idea of grace involves ending the lives of innocent children. I'm appalled and deeply saddened that you've abandoned logic and reason.

You can spin this any way you want in order to salve your conscience, but your lack of conviction allows human lives to be ended.

Craig said...

Re rights of the unborn fully human baby.

US law recognizes the right of said baby to be legally equal to any other human with one exception. So legally the rights question is settled. The fact that you have to resort to equivocation to twist things to allow you to take your pro abortion position is telling. The fact that you haven't countered any of either the scientific or legal arguments is telling. The fact that you are trying so very hard to avoid answering Bubba's and Art's questions is telling. The fact that you've chosen the position most counter to the scientific data you so adore elsewhere is most telling of all.

Anonymous said...

Begging the question. Still.

That I disagree with your opinions is not the same as ignoring science. Don't conflate your hunches with science. They're not one in the same.

And again, Craig, perhaps the best thing you all could do to increase opposition to abortion is to quit arguing about it. Here you had someone who agreed with you at one point and still agreed on some parts of the argument as of last week.

YOU all and your approach to arguing the topic has driven me further from your view.

Have you heard this joke?

A guy walks into a bar and takes a drink. Poof! One of his arms disappears!

"What happened?!" he asks in a panic.

"I don't know," his friend says. "Maybe taking that drink made your arm disappear. Maybe if you take another drink, it will return!"

So he took another drink. But then, Poof! One of his legs disappears! Not knowing what else to do, he took another drink, then another, then another... but instead of his body parts returning, other body parts kept disappearing.

Finally, he's just a head, sitting on the stool in the bar. Nothing left but his head!

"What should I do now?" He asks. "I don't know... maybe another drink will fix it... but maybe not." his friend says, puzzled.

"Well, give me a hand," the Head Man says, and so, his friend helps him take another drink.

Poof! His head disappeared. The man was gone.

His friend just frowned. "I guess he should have stopped while he was a head."

~Dan

Craig said...

There are two victims in every abortion;
a dead baby, and a dead conscience.

Mother Theresa

R.I.P. Dan's conscience.

FYI, I'm not conflating my opinion with science, my conviction on this issue is based on the science.

In no way can I reconcile your many previous comments on this issue with anything close to a pro life position.

If you ever wanted to actually deal with your problematic stance based on "looks like", that'd be great. I'm not holding my breath.

Marshall Art said...

As Craig says, no one on this side is conflating science with our opinions on the immorality of abortion. It is, again, based on what we do know.

1. The fetus is the product of the human reproductive act of sexual intercourse between a human male and a human female. The fetus is therefore human.

2. The fetus is not a part of the mother, but a unique and distinct "other" human apart from the mother, despite inhabiting the womb of the mother. This is confirmed by it's unique DNA which is also distinct from the mother.

3. Because of points 1 & 2, the human fetus is fully and 100% a human being, despite not yet being fully developed.

4. An infant, toddler, a grade school child are all humans that have not fully developed. Boys can continue to develop until as late as 21 years old in some cases, while girls typically continue to develop until around 14-16 yrs old. All are fully human...100% human.

All four of the above points are facts that form the basis for the position that humans as yet unborn are just as human as 100% fully developed adults and thus equally entitled to have their right to life protected. As such, to abort without just cause (the only cause that approaches that lofty bar of "just cause" is to protect the life of the mother should the pregnancy have a legitimate possibility of causing her death) is gravely immoral.

Added to the above, as if the above wasn't enough to support the notion of the grievous immorality of abortion (which in the vast majority of cases are no more than cases of outright murder) are the following dangers that result:

1. Women who have aborted have significantly higher rates of breast cancer later in life. Breast cancer has risen by 50% in America since abortion became legal in 1973.

2. After an abortion, you are 8 to 20 times more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. If not discovered soon enough, an ectopic pregnancy ruptures, and you can bleed to death if you do not have emergency surgery. Statistics show a 30% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after one abortion and a 160% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after two or more abortions. There has been a threefold increase in ectopic pregnancies in the U.S. since abortion was legalized. In 1970, the incidence was 4.8 per 1,000 live births. By 1980 it was 14.5 per 1,000 births.

Marshall Art said...

Future pregnancies are at risk:

(1) You will be more likely to bleed in the first three months of future pregnancies.

(2) You will be less likely to have a normal delivery in future pregnancies.

(3) You will need more manual removal of placenta more often and there will be more complications with expelling the baby and its placenta.

(4) Your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.

(5) Your next baby will be three to four times as likely to die in the last months of his first year of life.

(6) Your next baby may have a low birth weight.

(7) Your next baby is more likely to be born prematurely with all the dangerous and costly problems that entails.

The above nine points were taken from http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/abortion-complications. There's much more harm I've not mentioned, including higher incidence of miscarriages in future pregnancies, placenta previa, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy and sterility. And then, of course, there are complications psychologically and/or emotionally that impact the lives of women who abort.

But Dan now wants to submit that WE have changed his mind about the morality of abortion. And he does this without offering a shred of evidence that supports his hunch that a fetus couldn't possibly be equally entitled to live out its life and to have that right protected because it is so unfortunate as to have not yet reached an arbitrary stage of its development. That subjective call is cheap rationalization from someone who satisfies himself with posturing as a Christian and giving lip service to curious concepts such as "embracing grace". Where's the grace in the pro-abortion position exactly?

Craig said...

Remember back when Dan had the quaint notion that anything that caused harm was a bad thing? It looks like this is one more harmful practice he endorses and rationalizes.

Anonymous said...

Begging the question. Still. Pushing people like me further from your views.

Seriously fellows, the worst thing you can do for the pro-life view is to keep arguing.

Dan

Craig said...

The best thing you can do is to continue to pretend that simply repeating "begging the question", is an actual rebuttal to the actual scientific data that's been presented.

"There are two victims in every abortion, you have a dead baby and a dead conscience,"

Mother Theresa

Go ahead and ignore and deny the scientific data, it's been clear that you'd love for data is limited to that which you perceive supports your hunches for some time. Also please admit that your arbitrary standard of "harm" is driven by your hunches as well.

Again, this callousness in regard to something as basic as the right to not end the lives of human infants is disturbing.

1. I guess one solution to the immigration problem might be to apply your standards to potential immigrants.
2. The other solution might be to encourage abortion.

You and Peter Singer are two peas in a pod.

Anonymous said...

You're begging the question.

You're undermining your credibility and pushing potential allies further from your hunches and personal opinions.

Dan

Marshall Art said...

I'm also concerned that Dan's using the term "begging the question" improperly, which is why I've asked him to explain what he means by it.

Now, I also need to understanding just how we're undermining our credibility in how we've argued our case. Seems to me that it is truth and facts that are pushing him away due to the natural inability to refute truth and facts. Said another way, we're not pushing, he's running.

This question of whether or not a given person is worthy of protection against the taking of said person's life is not one that science can answer. Science can only provide data that one can use to argue a position. It is more a philosophical argument, but still and regardless, there is nothing that Dan has offered that serves his purpose at all. He uses a dictionary definition as presumes it is comprehensive enough to mitigate all the scientific data regarding what a human fetus is. Let's look at this dictionary, the apparent basis for his position of "we can't know":

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

How does an infant satisfy these criteria? It does not have superior mental development, as its mental capacities are clearly not fully developed. Certainly its power of articulate speech is absent and no infant I've ever seen can stand...upright or otherwise.

The reality, then, is thus: Dan's position is untenable, greatly so, so in typical leftist fashion he has chosen to shut down the conversation. It's the routinely petulant covering of one's ears and yelling to avoid hearing the truth. It's shameful, unChristian and wholly lacking grace in any measure.

Craig said...

Two things.

1. If providing scientific data undermines credibility, then the problem is defining credibility. In such a was as to dismiss anything that disagrees with you as not credible.

2. At this point the conversation really isn't about Dan's lack of concern for his "neighbor" or for the literal "least of these. It's much more about the double standards between what he demands if others as opposed to those he holds himself to. Also the equivocation and rhetorical gymnastics necessary to convince himself that humans at early stages of development are less than human and can be denied basic rights based entirely on their appearance.

To paraphrase King, Dan judges on the development of their skin, not on the content of their DNA.

Other other circumstances Dan would be apoplectic and full of vitriol if someone judged life and death by physical appearance, in this case he champions it.

Craig said...

By all means ask, it's clear he can't answer, he can only repeat his last ditch defense of evil.

Anonymous said...

Look guys, I've explained and re-explained your logical fallacy errors in your thinking. Clearly, you are not getting it from me. I'd suggest taking this words to a trusted liberal and get them to explain it to you.

You undermine yourselves precisely because you cite some science (which I don't disagree with), take that science and extrapolate a conclusion that the science does not justify, point to THAT conclusion (your hunch, not the science) and say, "See? Science!" and conflate your hunches with actual data. Your reasoning, then, is flawed and based on a basic inability to differentiate between your hunches and actual data.

Your conclusions (and mine in the past, I see now) were based on this conflation and that is why you are undermining yourselves, making it abundantly clear that your argument is flawed and helping me see the flaws in my own previous arguments.

Therefore, by continuing to argue, you only helped me see the flaws in your argument and made it easier for me to reject your arguments as irrational and emotion-based, along with a good deal of demonizing/ad hom attacks (another rational fallacy) and pompous moralizing, expecting people to bow to your bullying to let you make the decisions for everyone else.

No thank you.

Now seriously, this was not the topic of the post. You have helped me clarify that my old position was wrong and driven me further from the view you hold/I used to hold (thanks for that), but if you read and re-read my clarifications and still don't get it, I can't help you further.

Ask another adult for help in understanding.

Peace.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

I'm closing comments on this, as it isn't the topic of the post and I've given you enough rope and you only helped me disagree with you more. Seriously, you should quit while you're ahead.

~Dan

Dan Trabue said...

I will add one thing, since Craig falsely tried to associate Dr King with his side, post mortem.

In 1960, King served on a committee for a Planned Parenthood study on contraception, explaining, “I have always been deeply interested in and sympathetic with the total work of the Planned Parenthood Federation.” He repeatedly wrote about why family planning programs are important, and why they need to be funded by the government. In 1966, King received a Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood “in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.”

King saw an explicit link between the struggle for racial equality and the struggle for reproductive justice. In the acceptance speech he wrote for his award from Planned Parenthood — which his wife, Coretta Scott King, accepted in his place — he explained that reproductive rights activists like Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger help further broader movements for equality. “Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her,” King wrote, going on to say that the African American community has “a special and urgent concern” with issues of family planning.


This sort of dishonest approach to data and facts are part of why your side has only successfully managed to push me away from it, rather than pull in someone who fundamentally agreed with you as an ally.

Again, your best argument is to give up. If your side had done that, I'd likely still be an abortion opponent, generally speaking.

And with that, this post is closed. You've done enough damage to the conservative side for one week.

Peace,

Dan