In addition to Marshal, he had amongst his supporters/commenters a man who said that people who defend the medical procedure of abortion were "Molech-worshiping ghouls."
These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots. It really should NOT be a viable medical option, according to these men. My questions to their type...
1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?
2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?
3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?
4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?
5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?
6. If so, what sort of monster are you?
7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?
"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech,
for you must not profane the name of your God."
Leviticus 18
Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed.
+++++++++
"Just because a girl can get pregnant, though, doesn't mean she can safely deliver a baby. The pelvis does not fully widen until the late teens, meaning that young girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal.
The results are horrific,
said Wall and Thomas, who have both worked in Africa treating women in the aftermath of such labors.
Girls may labor for days;
many die.
Their babies often don't survive labor either.
The women and girls who do survive often develop fistulas, which are holes between the vaginal wall and the rectum or bladder. When the baby's head pushes down and gets stuck, it can cut portions of the mother's soft tissue between its skull and her pelvic bones. As a result, the tissue dies, and a hole forms. Feces and urine then leak through the hole and out of the vagina. Women with fistulas are often divorced and shunned. And young girls are at higher risk."
https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html
++++++++++
Carrying on, then...
Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers
["The most widely accepted reason for performing abortions, with little difference in support depending on the timing, is when the woman's life is endangered: 83% think this should be legal in the first trimester and 75% in the third." ~Gallup]
They recognize that would be wrong to force that 10 year old to have that baby. Good for them. But why are they willing to make that exception?
Suppose, for instance, that instead of getting pregnant as a result of rape, that somehow magically that 10 year old suddenly had a two-year-old baby holding it in her arms, as a result of rape. Now she has a two-year-old. Would anyone anywhere support the notion of killing that 2 year old?
No. Of course not.
Why is that?
It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus.
Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote.
And that is a significant, significant difference.
8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?
9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?
10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?
11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold? Can you understand why?
12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?
142 comments:
Stan, don’t look to 20 year students in a club at Princeton. Look to scripture.
_____
What do our literal, inerrant scriptures say about the fetus Jesus?
Luke: [fetus John, first: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth…”]
then, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; *therefore *the *child *to *be *born *will *be *holy; he *will *be *called Son of God.”
All future tense about the born Jesus, and John before him.
In Matthew as well:
Matthew:
"She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us."
Not Jesus before he’s born, clearly; and God ain’t with us until the baby is born.
But for the present of the Gospels, it is for Mary that praise should come, and Mary is thankful with praise for what God has asked of her - not the fetus:
Luke:
"Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are *you among women, and blessed is the fruit of *your womb. And why has this happened to me, that *the *mother of my Lord *comes to me?"
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”
But what do the Gospels say about the birth! Well, that’s when the magic happens:
Luke:
[Re John: "Then they began motioning to his father to find out what name he wanted to give him. He asked for a writing tablet and wrote, “His name is John.” And all of them were amazed. Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue freed, and he began to speak, praising God. Fear came over all their neighbors, and all these things were talked about throughout the entire hill country of Judea. All who heard them pondered them and said, “What then will this child become?” For, indeed, the hand of the Lord was with him.”]
And for the birth of the baby, no longer a fetus? A viable child now?
"Then an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a child wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he favors!”
Wow!
Matthew:
“… wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been *born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.
When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah *was *to *be *born.”
Apparently the fetus wasn’t a threat.
"Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.” When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
A Star! Angels sing to shepherds! Wise men appear!! Gold, frankincense and myrrh presented to the, NOW, holy family!!!
And that’s not all!
We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the *firstborn within a large family.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only *begotten *Son. Monotogenes. Only born, only son brought forth.
I beg your indulgence, Dan, if you wouldn't mind. This following is a record of the back and forth Marshall has had with me regarding the human person, while claiming not to read my comments because he's waiting for a gun control plan that he and Craig already have in hand. I appreciate your gift of a place to set them down if you'll allow.
Marshall's versions of what makes a human person:
Version One: Uniquely human DNA
problem: hair follicle, clipped toenail, saliva has uniquely human DNA.
Version Two: Dropping the DNA argument: "A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person.”
problem 1: defines the human person as a product. Eww.
problem 2: defines all products of the sex act (i.e., bonding love, family stability, sacrament of the intimacy of the Son and the Father, sacrament of Christ and the church; and various slippery, slimy stuff) as… human people. Double eww.
problem 3 - implies two people have to both be intending to bring forth a person from their sex act to define a human person; obvious logical inference, no intention, then the thing brought forth is not a human person, just monster.
Problem 4 - the first half of the construction implies that IVF babies are not human: has to be from the coital sex act, not a pipet act.
Version Three: Dropping the Product language and Intention To Bring Forth argument: "what makes that fertilized egg a person is the fact that two people of the opposite sex engaged in the very act designed by God to bring that new person into existence.”
problem 1 - still cannot define IVF babies as human: no coital sex act involved.
problem 2 - no longer defined by other people’s intention, now a human person is defined by what two other people do, how they act; nothing about the biological or ontological status of the fertilized egg, just that two people had sex
problem 3 - while DNA cannot be everything, it cannot be missing; here it is missing; only basis is how other people acted.
Version Four: Renewing the “product” language. Eww again. And now fudging on intention: "Regardless of their reason for having sex...pleasure or procreation...or both...the intended to have sex and that's about as far as intent has any relevance. The point is they engaged in the procreative act, and as such the product of that act can't be anything other than another person should conception take place.
problem 1 - restores the eww language of the human person as a product.
problem 2 - in a bit of a twist, now defines the product of all sex acts which result in conception as a human person; thus the sex acts that result in conception AND result in sticky mess, love bonding, family stability, sacrament of the Trinity, have ALL resulted in a new human person in each “product”: THUS the sticky mess is a product of the act along with conception, therefore - "the product of that act can't be anything other than another person should conception take place” - the sticky mess is a human person; the love bond is a product of the act along with conception, therefore - "the product of that act can't be anything other than another person should conception take place” - the loving bond is a human person; the act carries out the sacrament of the Trinity, which, being a product of the act along with conception, therefore - "the product of that act can't be anything other than another person should conception take place” - the sacrament of that act is also a human person
Version Five: Dropping intention AND dropping the sex act: "despite whether or not a man and woman sets out to procreate, whether or not a man and woman actually participate in intercourse with each other, the bottom line is still the same: a man and a woman each contributed to bringing about a new person. What results from the union of their respective reproductive "materials" is another person.
problem 1 - well… I don’t think I have a problem with this version in terms of his now careful attention to syntax and inference. He is back to DNA where he started in Version One, though he seems hesitant here to say DNA, having learned his lesson the first time. He’s taking care to say that the human person results from, helping him with terminology, male and female haploid cells (carrying 1/2 DNA from male and 1/2 from female.
I think he’s got hold of what defines human life, now. But not the human person. In my world, personhood, in addition to having a body, also means cognitions, emotions, sensations that are reflected upon (so a body is absolutely necessary but a body with a developed enough brain and spinal cord) and social relationships. A baby has all those. A viable fetus born in whatever fashion, becomes a baby, which has all those attributes.
It remains odd to me that evangelicals who so worry about the body and put it so much lower than the should, now, in trying to fend off the accurate tag of being anti-science, now rest their argument on what constitutes the human person on a purely physical basis: a one celled organism is a human person. How wooden. How reductionist of the creatures that are wonderfully and fearfully made by 32 trillion cells. And bone and connective tissue are even made up of cells!
But, for Marshall, and people like him, one cell is a human person, not just human biology. One cell is one human person.
Craig made a stab at answering some of the questions on his blog. There are at least two problems... 1. He didn't answer them all (he may think he did, but he literally did not). and, 2. Even when he did, he spent a lot of time missing the point.
He spent a great deal of time talking about how the example I gave was a rare event (the rape and resulting pregnancy of a ten year old). He said things like...
I do realize that. I also realize that it's virtually impossible to determine how many of these occur in the US, thus would be relevant to this questionnaire.
and...
I recognize that it's theoretically possible, but haven't actually seen proof of this phenomenon.
etc.
So, dealing with that first...
A. The point is NOT that this is a common instance. Do you understand that this is NOT the point I'm making?
B. The point is the principle. Yes, it could be disastrous and dangerous and horrible for a child to be forced to give birth to a child.
Along those lines, Craig also said...
I realize that the process "could" be traumatic. But "could" isn't definitive.
Good God. IF a girl were raped, THAT is traumatic enough. But then, to be forced to go through with a pregnancy, the extreme changes to that tiny body, the morning sickness, the every day reminder of something that was already traumatic... It's not just the dangers to the body that make the proposal monstrous, it's the mental devastation that would come with such an atrocity being forced upon a child.
C. Do you recognize how monstrous it would be to force a child to see a pregnancy through to attempted completion... Not just physically, but to the child's psyche?
To the question of would you be opposed to forcing a child to see a pregnancy through to term, Craig said...
Are you opposed...?" The answer to that question is no. I'd want to explore alternatives, but in general, no.
That is the first step to the actual point being made. No. Of course you wouldn't oppose an abortion for a child in such circumstances. It would likely be harmful to her physically and mentally. Who would force that sort of harm on a child?
D. I'm interested in what alternatives you'd want to explore? Are you saying you'd POSSIBLY encourage a ten year old rape victim to see the pregnancy to completion? Would you do that for a loved one in that situation, possibly?
Really?
Craig went on to say...
I'm not defending the impregnating of 10 year olds (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,... year old unmarried young women either) in any way. I'm just pointing out that your source doesn't really support your point. .
Yes, yes it does. It's just that you are not understanding my point.
Craig...
You are making a claim that there are "differences in rights", without proving that claim.
E. YOU believe that it would be okay to abort the fetus of that ten year old rape victim. You do NOT believe it would be okay to do that for a two month old, right? So, it appears YOU believe that there is a fundamental difference between the embryo/zygote/fetus and the birthed child.
Is that correct?
But then, you say...
If one agrees with the founders that rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", then yes I do.
cont'd...
F. If you think they are the same, then you would HAVE to go with Marshal and the idiot-zealots in Alabama and say that aborting that rape victim's fetus is murder and stand opposed to it.
Do you see the inconsistency in your answer? How do you explain that?
Along those lines, you said...
Until you can actually find an instance of anyone trying to "force" a 10 year old to have a baby, maybe you should re word the question.
Alabama and maybe other states are creating laws that criminalize abortion including in the case of abortion... effectively forcing the rape victim, including this fictional ten year old rape victim, go through with a pregnancy. So, there's an instance. I believe Marshal is another instance. Probably Stan and others of your comrades.
G. Do you understand that some ARE advocating criminalizing abortion even in the case of rape?
You said...
I think that all humans, no matter what stage if life they might be in are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". I'f you can prove otherwise, please do.
H. As I've stated clearly, NO ONE CAN PROVE that a fetus has a right to life or not. So, I can't prove what no one can prove.
Do you recognize the reality that you can't prove your hunch that a zygote has a right to life?
Craig said...
Until you can actually find an instance of anyone trying to "force" a 10 year old to have a baby, maybe you should re word the question.
More news on that front...
"An 11-year-old girl in Ohio was allegedly raped by a 26-year-old multiple times, leaving her pregnant, according to police reports. A state law passed in April, but not yet in effect, says that victims like her won't have a choice to have an abortion — they would have to carry and deliver their rapist's child.
The law prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, about five or six weeks into a pregnancy, before most women even know that they're pregnant.
The law provides no exceptions for rape or incest."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-bill-pregnant-11-year-old-rape-victim-barred-abortion-after-new-ohio-abortion-bill-2019-05-13/
G. Do you understand that some ARE advocating criminalizing abortion even in the case of rape?
Craig is opting to answer these questions over at his blog, rather than here. Whatevs.
He said over there...
My point is that trying to use an uncommon occurrence to make a broader point is bad logic and bad policy.
I'm not using this example to make policy. But there's nothing wrong with considering the complete spectrum of possibilities when making policy, which is why I'm using this example. IF we see that, of course, we shouldn't force a child to have a baby, then it might help us WHY we recognize how wrong it would be to force that decision upon a child and her family.
It might help recognize that there is a significant difference between an actual living 10 year old girl - or an actual 17 year old teen ager, or an actual 40 year old woman - and a human embryo or human fetus. One is here and now a human. One is on the spectrum of being a human but is NOT yet fully birthed human.
It helps to understand that maybe a living, birthed human's rights take precedent over a fetus or an embryo. It might help us understand that THIS is why it should be the woman's/family's choice, NOT a decision made by a bunch of men in positions of power and forced upon women. It helps us to understand that, no, of course having an abortion with a six week old fetus is not the same as murder.
Craig...
Did I say "force"?
YOUR people did. You do when you call abortion "murder" or "killing a baby..." The anti-choice type of folk are making laws criminalizing abortion. So Craig, clarify:
I. DO YOU STAND OPPOSED TO THE CRIMINALIZATION of abortion?
J. DO YOU THINK THAT ABORTING A FETUS AT SIX WEEKS IS MURDER of a "baby" that has a "right to life..."?
IF you support laws like they're creating in Alabama, then you ARE saying you'd force a ten year old to go through with a pregnancy.
K. Do you recognize that?
Look, I'm fine with you saying, "I don't KNOW when a "right to life" for a fetus begins, but because I don't know, I personally would choose on the side of caution and opt NOT to abort for any reason..." but if you do that, then you should also have the respect to allow others to make that same choice for themselves.
L. Is THAT what you're saying... ("I don't know WHEN a right to life begins, so I'll err on the side of caution...")? OR are you saying you DO "know" when a right to life begins?
Craig...
Your point seems to be establishing the "principle" that pregnant 10 year olds should be encouraged to abort
No. Not my point. My point is that if YOU want to keep a pregnancy going in your family, you should offer your family your support in that way... but for OTHER families, THEY should be the ones to make this difficult call. You know, Pro Choice. Pro Women Making their own damn minds up without people like you arrogantly presuming to tell them that THEY "know" best what that woman should do.
Can you repeat back to me my point/position now?
Craig...
I believe that in rare cases such as this, that it's not "okay" to abort, I believe that it's a case where abortion could be the lesser of multiple evils. I also believe that it's not the simple black and white, automatically abort, "principle" that you're trying to establish.
As I've just established, I'm NOT trying to make a black and white principle EXCEPT to say that BECAUSE it's not simple or clear cut and because we do not have One Authenticated Answer on when a right to life begins, it should not be YOUR decision to make for someone else on what to do about pregnancies.
Given that it's not black and white or simple, can you agree with that conclusion? OR like so many other white men in power, do you think that you all SHOULD be the ones to make the decision for others on this complicated "gray" issue?
I like this one for how blindingly twisted it is:
"I'd prefer to err on the side of preserving "inalienable rights", rather than denying them."
Even as he denies the right of living human persons over their own bodies and health choices.
Welcome again to straight white male supremacy control of what is an inalienable right and who is a person.
Yup. One wonders if he even recognizes that point.
Craig...
I suspect that most Pro-Life advocates would agree that a legal exception for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother are all exceptions that we would agree to.
But WHY would you agree to it? Is it the case that you agree with folks like me that it's complicated and maybe that six week old fetus is NOT fully exactly the same as a living, birthed person and maybe they don't have the same right to life that a living human has?
OR, do you think that a six week old fetus DOES have a right to life EXACTLY like a ten year old and yet, you're willing to "kill" it anyway?
This question is the point of my post. That there is a fundamental difference between a human fetus and a human, with the difference being AT LEAST that we don't know that they DO have a "right to life..." precisely because it's complicated and, given that complication and uncertainty, the decision should be left to the family, not a bunch of old white men in offices of power.
To some of your questions/thoughts that you'd like to hear from me...
C1. If rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by the creator", then these rights are merely recognized and protected, not granted. You have failed to explain at what point the "creator" "endows" the created with said "inalienable" rights.
We don't know. You don't know. I don't know. We just simply don't know. We might have OPINIONS, but they are unproven and unprovable and thus, we don't know.
Do you recognize that reality?
C2. If "full humanity" is merely an opinion, (as you've said) and that the humanity of a fetus depends on the opinion of one parent, then aren't you suggesting that parents, not the "creator" are the conferrers of rights?
Nope. My point is that (and follow closely here because you seem to constantly not get it) WE DON'T KNOW, not authoritatively. Given that it's a gray area and above our pay grade and lacking ANY authority to which we can appeal, then I propose the best alternative is to leave it to the individual family.
For an example, it MAY be that some kids would do best in public schools. It MAY be that some kids would do best in a private school or in a home school. We just don't authoritatively know and, indeed, it may depend on the individual child and family. Given the complete lack of an authoritative answer and a complete inability for us to authoritatively decide such a question, I propose leaving that choice to the family, not impose one ruling from a bunch of old white men.
(And for the record, I keep citing "old white men" because too often, that is who the people are making our decisions, or at least that certainly has been the case in the past... we're improving, so, good on us for that.)
C3. Your continued use of extremes, and ignoring of less extreme comparisons, raises questions about what you hope to achieve.
The point is to establish that we don't know authoritatively when a right to life begins and thus, it helps to think through extreme cases to understand our thinking process and principles involved.
IF we're okay with aborting an embryo because we recognize that an embryo just doesn't seem to be the same thing as a birthed human, then the principle would remind us that we don't know when a "right to life" begins and thus, it's complicated and gray and thus, it's a decision best left to families.
If, on the other hand, we are okay with aborting an embryo EVEN WHEN we think it IS the same as a birthed human as far as a right to life, then what sort of monster are we?
cont'd...
C4. Even if you are right, and we "don't know" exactly, why would anyone choose to err on the side of ending innocent life rather than prolonging it.
Because it is, as you said, NOT black and white NOR a simple answer and thus, best left to the family to decide.
And "even if I'm right..." are you or are you not acknowledging that you have no way to establish or prove authoritatively (and not "to Dan," as you said on your blog), but to establish or prove authoritatively PERIOD that a six week old fetus has a right to life?
C5. I posted some stats at Stan's that lay out the fact that you are trying to use the less than 5% of cases to justify the 95% of cases. Explain why that makes sense.
Because it might help you clarify the principle that this fetus is NOT definitively exactly the same as a living birthed human being... But if you're clinging to your hunch that a fetus IS exactly the same... and yet, you're willing to allow a right to abort a fetus with a right to life, then the principle may not help. I think for many people, it would help.
It might help even those who cling to that human opinion (a fetus has a right to life), however, IF it helps them see the hypocrisy or horror of their position. That is, if you are saying "I think a fetus DOES have a right to life... BUT, I'm willing to let it be killed in some cases... So, in the case of rape, I'm okay with murdering that fetus as an option..." MAYBE saying that out loud will force you to face the horror of that position.
You tell me.
"Craig is opting to answer these questions over at his blog, rather than here. Whatevs."
Craig is banned from commenting here. Dan apparently is a 14 year old.
Craig is banned from commenting here.
I refer you to the TITLE of the post. "Another set of Questions for Marshal and any anti-abortion defenders..." I specifically have given you a chance to comment here to address these specific questions. Sorry if it was not clear.
I saw another question from Craig that HAS been answered but because he keeps consistently missing the point... Craig...
Are you saying that you'd force the 10 year old to have an abortion without exploring ALL available options?
No. My point is that BECAUSE it's a complex issue with no authoritative, clear ONE ANSWER, the decision should belong to the person/family involved.
Good Lord.
Another Craig question that has been addressed, but I'll address again...
How do you or anyone have the ability to alienate those rights based on "your opinion". If, as you've claimed repeatedly, we can't know then why would your default position be to alienate those inalienable rights?
That's not my point.
My point is that BECAUSE it's a complex issue with no authoritative, clear ONE ANSWER, the decision should belong to the person/family involved.
Craig...
Dan apparently is a 14 year old.
I'll admit, I did laugh at this. Are 14 year olds still saying "Whatevs..."? Probably, more like, Dan is a 14 year old from the year 2000...
Here's maybe a helpful scenario/analogy for consideration...
Let's suppose that a bad guy forcibly kidnapped a teen-ager and, in a bit of twisted assault, he medically attached another living teen-ager to the first teen-ager, somehow conjoining them so that they had shared kidneys and lungs. How evil that attack was!
Now, BOTH teen-agers have a right to life, no dispute. But the first one says, "I'd like to be separated from this second one..." we literally could not do that, because both teen-agers have a right to life and separating them at the demand of one would kill the other (maybe both!).
We could not choose to "fix" the first person medically because the second person has a right to life, as well, and that right can't just be overridden by the decision of the first person.
Right?
But you are saying in the case of the fetus and the girl/woman, that they BOTH have a right to life, but because the woman/girl was raped and the fetus placed in her not of her choice, that she should have the option of "murdering" that fetus because... why? Why are you okay with that but presumably not okay with murdering the medically conjoined person?
Is it because you recognize that there IS something fundamentally different in the case of the fetus? That the fetus has no authoritatively recognized right to life that the medically conjoined people did in my scenario?
I think that PERHAPS, the reason you are willing to make that exception (in cases of rape and woman's life being in danger) is because you do recognize that it's not clear, and that there is no authoritative answer on the "right to life" of the fetus, but there clearly is a right to life and self-determination with the mother.
But you tell me. I suspect that would be true for most conservatives.
One of the problems of discussing the abortion topic is that there are no clear comparisons. You have a woman clearly has a right to life and the right to self-determination and you have a fetus which is on the human life Spectrum and that fetus depends on the woman but it also impacts the woman. The fetus is literally within and literally a part of the woman. So finding an exact analogy is difficult. My illustration helps point out I think for most people the clear and understandable difference between an embryo or fetus and a human being.
You'll delete me because you're a dickhead, but your analogy is as stupid as any other you try to put. I think that being so routinely true is because the positions you try to defend are so indefensible that no good analogy is possible. More likely it's just because you aren't good with the analogy thing.
One of the biggest problems with your analogy is that the rapist doesn't intend to impregnate. (Don't be a feo and try to say that some might...it wouldn't really matter in the long run) He's just trying to get his rocks off, or, as you progressives insist, its about power over the victim. But pregnancy is not the issue and he'd be far more eager to have her abort, wouldn't he?
But the pregnancy is a consequence of the attack, not a goal, and it's just one of whatever other consequences the victim may suffer as a result, the difference being that this consequence is a human being...a person.
In any case, you are actually arguing AGAINST abortion with your analogy when you say, "We could not choose to "fix" the first person medically because the second person has a right to life, as well, and that right can't just be overridden by the decision of the first person." You're getting it, because you know that's the case with pregnancy.
"But you are saying in the case of the fetus and the girl/woman, that they BOTH have a right to life, but because the woman/girl was raped and the fetus placed in her not of her choice, that she should have the option of "murdering" that fetus because... why? Why are you okay with that but presumably not okay with murdering the medically conjoined person?"
You're confusing the hell out of me because this is totally the pro-life position, but in reverse. I wouldn't murder the teens, and I wouldn't murder the fetus or its mother. You're not helping yourself here.
"Is it because you recognize that there IS something fundamentally different in the case of the fetus? That the fetus has no authoritatively recognized right to life that the medically conjoined people did in my scenario?"
The fundamental difference is that the fetus is not forced upon the mother, but is a collateral consequence, and as such is just as much a victim as its mother. Neither desired its existence, but exist it does and now YOU would have it murdered simply because the mother didn't ask for it. That's unfortunate for her, indeed, but not an excuse to murder the child. But the fetus absolutely has the same right to life as its mother or either of the conjoined teens or any other freakin person on the planet with the possible exception of those who seek its death.
"I think that PERHAPS, the reason you are willing to make that exception (in cases of rape and woman's life being in danger) is because you do recognize that it's not clear, and that there is no authoritative answer on the "right to life" of the fetus, but there clearly is a right to life and self-determination with the mother."
I think at this point it's clear you're responding perhaps to Craig. This certainly doesn't reflect my position at all. There is no authoritative argument for denying the unalienable right of the fetus to its life. That right is as clear as it is for anyone, except maybe those who seek its death, and also feo.
"My illustration helps point out I think for most people the clear and understandable difference between an embryo or fetus and a human being."
No. It doesn't. It does demonstrate the lengths you're willing to go to force this difference as if it's a fact, at the expense of what little credibility as to being a Christian you might have left.
I'll leave this for now, Marshal, but I'm giving you a chance to respectfully comment here... but you need to do it in an orderly manner, answering the reasonable questions put to you.
Or don't. I don't care.
As to your comments here, you factually can't prove/don't "know" that a fetus is fully in human in the sense of having an inherent right to life. You can THINK it if you want, but you need to recognize the reality that you can't objectively prove it, that it makes sense to you doesn't make it an established fact.
Do you recognize that reality?
"I think Alabama has gone too far."
~Pat Robertson
Dayum, Alabama. Y'all've done gone too far for the Lunatic Fringe Commander-in-Chief.
Jesus Christ. The angels weep.
Ah, the pro life, pro family party. It’s about what do we get moneywise from people’s love.
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday will unveil a plan to overhaul parts of the nation’s immigration system that would impose new security measures at the border and significantly increase the educational and skills requirements for people allowed to migrate to the United States.
The proposal, senior administration officials said on Wednesday, would vastly scale back the system of family-based immigration that for decades has allowed immigrants to bring their spouses and children to live with them, the officials said.
Milla Jovivitch had an emergency abortion to deal with pre term labor at 18 weeks that threatened her life. And Craig thinks it was just inconvenience. Craig is a monster.
“I went into pre term labor and told that I had to be awake for the whole procedure. It was one of the most horrific experiences I have ever gone through. I still have nightmares about it. I was alone and helpless. When I think about the fact that women might have to face abortions in even worse conditions than I did because of new laws, my stomach turns. Abortion is a nightmare at its best. No woman wants to go through that. But we have to fight to make sure our rights are preserved to obtain a safe one if we need to,” she said. “I never wanted to speak about this experience. But I cannot remain silent when so much is at stake.”
"Do you recognize that reality?"
It's not at all a reality unless you can prove ANYONE is fully human enough for your subjective reasoning. I say again, the onus is on YOU to defend the notion that the unborn is NOT fully human and equally deserving and to do so with hard, cold facts and science. You can't do it. Science doesn't agree with you, or even hint that it does. Science says it's fully human and then those like yourself play this game about "fully" human or "a person" and use subjective criteria for denying its humanity and its right to life. So go ahead. Prove feo has a right to life. What makes him deserving? Because he was born? I say because he was conceived. Because he's fully developed? I say he clearly isn't. He's no less self-centered than an infant. I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm saying you have no legitimate basis for suggesting one person is fully possessed of the right to life while another isn't, particularly on the basis of such subjective characteristics as race, ethnicity, age, size, location, physical deformity or mental ability. You're simply imposing an authority you don't have. Yes, you're doing that by defending this indefensible position. I'm not assuming any authority except to insist that all people, regardless of those superficial characteristics, be equal under the law.
What Marshall has not developed, by his own choice because formal education isn't necessary as so many brilliant people didn't have it, is his own mind. That sentence already is probably too long for him to follow. So, it comes as nothing news that he will not be able to enter into any discussion of medical ethics where actual human persons are weighed differently in terms of care between each other, much less weighed differently than potential human persons.
Like, triage. Marshall's uncomprehending attempts to think cannot grasp triage. (*the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors NOT ALL VICTIMS TREATED EQUALLY.)
Like palliative care. (*medical and related care provided to a patient with a serious, life-threatening, or terminal illness that is not intended to provide curative treatment but rather to manage symptoms NOT TO TRY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING BUT TO HELP ITS ENDING.)
Like the use of morphine in palliative care. (*speeds death while easing pain NOT STAVING OFF DEATH AT ALL COSTS JUST BECAUSE THE PATIENT IS A HUMAN PERSON.)
Because Marshall is an idiot, he can't put 2 and 2 together.
Because Marshall is a moral monster, he requires Milla Jovivitch to die along with the inviable 18 week fetus as her pre term labor may well kill her. Marshall doesn't care.
Human persons are weighed differently in terms of care between each other, much less weighed differently than potential human persons.
"The ethical dilemmas presented at the end of life are increasingly frequent and complex. At least two factors contribute: First, the dramatic developments of medicine over the past three decades have significantly decreased the incidence of sudden death in developed countries. We now have a national 911 system ready to summon advanced life support ambulances staffed by excellently trained emergency medical teams and portable defibrillators. They transport the critically ill to hospitals where teams are waiting to do emergency angioplasties, offer trauma units, and have ICU’s to preserve the life of the critically ill. As a result many who formerly would have died suddenly are now dying gradually of other diseases; many at an advanced age.1 Sudden death does, after all, avoid many ethical ambiguities. Gradual death raises more ethical challenges.
Second, we have new life sustaining technologies becoming available at an unprecedented rate. IT IS RARE FOR PEOPLE TO COME TO THE END OF LIFE TODAY WITHOUT SOME DECISION TO LIMIT CARE. One study showed that 90% OF ICU DEATHS CAME ONLY AFTER SUCH A DECISION. Each of these decisions is replete with ethical implications and, consciously or not, is founded on a set of ethical presuppositions. With somewhere around 10,000 souls dying each day in the United States alone, the sheer numbers of these ethical dilemmas are legion when compared to other areas of interest to Bioethics."
There is nothing in Milla's tweet that indicates why an abortion was necessary at all, or that her life was actually in jeopardy due to her premature labor. I would suggest that if her life was in jeopardy, "pre-term labor" was not the specific reason. I've found nothing on several medical websites that indicate "pre-term labor" is typically life threatening for the mother. That's not to say that it can't be, but just that it is not typical. As I said initially, her tweet seems more designed to support the "right" to an abortion, not that her case actually was one where it was actually needed to preserve her life. Most pro-abort arguments overstate the potential for death of the mother simply to protect against just prohibitions, not because there is a true potential. What's more, there is no obligation on my part to presume that every or any pro-abort anecdote is true simply because the person providing it insists it is, particularly when facts aren't provided that can be checked or researched. Indeed, the standards Dan demands for simple blog discussions should, I would think, be required for such anecdotes in order for them to have any merit.
Marshall ignores the meaning of the phrase, emergency abortion, and wants to believe that Ms Jovovich, a mother of two, enjoys a privilege she'd rather not give up and casts abortion in a positive light, thereby making her suspicious.
Her joy and light can be read here:
"I myself went through an emergency abortion 2 years ago. I was 4 1/2 months pregnant and shooting on location in Eastern Europe. I went into pre term labor and told that I had to be awake for the whole procedure.” She continued: “It was one of the most horrific experiences I have ever gone through. I still have nightmares about it. I was alone and helpless. When I think about the fact that women might have to face abortions in even worse conditions than I did because of new laws, my stomach turns.”
Marshall is a moral monster.
You ignore that there was no explanation for what made it an "emergency abortion", which is why her testimony is worthless for the purpose of defending abortion. Indeed, we're given no reason to assume there was an emergency at all, as I've as yet found not medical website that describes pre term labor as typically life-threatening...except perhaps to the unborn.
You have no idea of what I "want to believe" and ignore what I've clearly stated I DO believe as well as the righteous justifications for it. So much harder to portray me in the false manner your ego requires.
A man raping a woman with a gun to her head in Alabama has more rights than a woman who wants to abort the fetus from the rape.
Hell, he can run for Senator in that great state.
Dan, have wacko conservatives forgotten that Trump paid for abortions?
Dan,
I could not find anything on line that proved Trump paid for abortions. Allegations, sure. But unless one is an abortion-promoting lefty, allegations do not equate to proof. I did, however, find this from a source with some experience on another matter related to the post, i.e. "on topic":
https://youtu.be/ysl1tRnk-ig
Marshall is looking for a no. Even Trump can’t give it to him.
“I had to ask, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion?
‘Such an interesting question,’ he said. ‘So what’s your next question?’”
Unlike you, I'm looking for the truth, for facts...not something to confirm any bias. You should try that sometime.
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/neo-colonialism-and-reproductive-health/
“I was 17 when I was raped by a classmate. He was someone I knew, someone I trusted, but in the end, none of that mattered. I would not find out until eight months later that I was pregnant as a result of the assault. My daughter, Zoe, would grow inside of me with a fatal congenital birth defect that took away her ability to think, or emote, or connect to the world in all the fundamental ways that make a life worth living. I was forced to give birth to the child of this rape, always connected in some way to the man who took so much from me. I lived in Alabama, which this week welcomed a draconian new abortion law, but the state’s politicians have never borne any ethical compunctions about controlling women and subverting their agency. To them, we are collateral in a game of politics, and the suffering they inflict matters very little ― if at all ― to them. They have no interest in perspective or stories like my own, but I must speak ― or else the woman behind me might not.
These men are not my rapist ... but each of them takes something from me ― starting with my agency, my dignity, my sense of safety. They plant little seeds of self-doubt that grow ... the silence flows into me. ... Slowly, excruciatingly, I am alienated from myself.
I become pregnant from this rape, but I will not know until it is much too late. I lose weight. It is not uncommon for me to go months without a cycle because I am an athlete, and have an undiagnosed hormonal disorder that I will not know about for 10 more years. I walk and speak and smile, but a part of me is convinced that I died that night in the kitchen, and my world is no longer real. I am paralyzed the moment reality tries to assert itself. I have the constant, repeated compulsion to climb atop a building, to step off and let the ground rise up to meet me. This is my first thought when the pregnancy test comes back positive. The doctor tells me that the baby is eight months along, and I am climbing to the top of a skyscraper. She diagnoses my unborn daughter with hydranencephaly, explaining how her cerebrum failed to divide into two separate hemispheres, and instead filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The only reason she continues to experience some degree of development is because the cerebellum and brainstem are ensuring the most rudimentary of functions to sustain her precarious life. If she is born, she will suffer and die so very, very young ― and I step off the ledge. The doctor tells me that in spite of this, I cannot receive an abortion that will prevent this pain ― both hers and my own. Alabama does not make exceptions for these cases at this stage of pregnancy, and going out of state is beyond my family’s means ― and I fall down and down and down.
Here in Alabama I often am told that when a person becomes pregnant, it is no longer their body. I must disagree. I have lived in this body for 31 years, I know its limitations and its triumphs. I am beginning, just now, to relearn the sound of my voice. I know the cost of every bone-deep scar, and I carry the weight of those scars because I have been given no other choice. No one else can bear my scars for me. This is my body, and I know what it is to have my body invaded.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-abortion-law-rape_n_5cdc3627e4b09d94af53f471
The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting, as if rape and incest is the concern, as opposed to defending abortion for whatever reason a woman feels is justified...which it never is.
The worst part about such exploitation is that, for all the lamentations regarding the victimization of the woman who fell victim to an oppressor, the response is to oppress in a far more brutal manner the other victim...the unborn...who also was given no choice.
Honorable and truly compassionate people see two victims...because that's the reality...while the pro-aborts lack the honor and compassion to even acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, just so as to leave that heinous and brutal option open to them for their own convenience. Shameful.
Marshal: "The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Marshal: What Milla Jovovitch tweeted left more questions than she answered…. If she had an abortion before, that may be why she had the issue. Premature labor isn't a death sentence, and it doesn't even mean that delivery will actually occur. She complained that she'd have to be awake and endure the entire episode. Most women, from what I've been told… Her tweet seems designed to exploit her own situation to rationalize abortion on demand.
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Craig: I think I referenced the wrong actress who posted about her abortion. I’ve removed that from the comment until I can reference the correct tweet.
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Marshal: Jovovitch did indeed tweet about her abortion, though as submitted did little to actually defend the "right". It was not a truly coherent or compelling argument she made. It simply insisted, without any explanation, that she needed to have an abortion.
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Craig: Art, You are correct, she did tweet about it and it wasn't particularly compelling. She tried to make it sound like her "early labor" was a much bigger deal than it probably was. I think she tried to exaggerate the urgency of the situation and that she took a huge risk by having it done in Eastern Europe. I just confused her tweet, with another actress tweet which made the point a bit more clearly.
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Craig: It was on Twitter, I’d just search her name.
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Marshal: I still can't find the exact piece about the 15 yr old rape survivor…
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Craig: I’ll try to find it when I have a chance.
"The constant exploitation of rape/incest stories is astounding as well as insulting..."
Marshal has been claiming that we defend a medical right to abortion because we just gratify the sex drive. I'm really not into the sex lives of other people at all. I do remember Craig mentioned thinking of me in chaps, but that just makes be go, ewwww. And Marshal is hell bent on controlling what's inside other people's pants.
Defending human rights, for the mature, healthy person of faith is simply following the living Christ.
Marshal also says, we "don't care about the unborn, as proven by their refusal to accept the humanity of the unborn..."
Our advocacy for viability as the closing of the window for almost all abortions shows him to be a willful liar.
Marshal also wants to claim that we [exploit] those rare instances where the life of the mother might be at risk. But here he is just trying to cover his own ass and get Craig to move away from being conscious of what the moral examination of such cases proves.
If anyone claims to be able to argue a position of what constitutes a human person (Marshal is good on the human follicle, toenail, etc all with unique human DNA), then they must apply such a position in ALL cases. One cannot come to a moral position on the existence of the human person and then deny such a person rights at unique times.
That Marshall and Craig do this when they admit that in extreme cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, then an abortion is grudgingly allowed. Though Marshal's is the starker denial of his own argument, they both have just allowed the indiscriminate killing of one, in their claim, fully human life in prejudicial favor of the mother's life. Marshal gives no reason why, and in fact, cannot, without providing a basis for evaluating the lives differently, which then destroys his claim that from fertilization a human person exists with as much right as anybody. Craig wants to ascribe to a development of more rights appropriate to... chronological? physical? mental? development of the human life in question. But this just leaves Craig without any advice or reason for when a line is crossed for protection of the person from the decision making of another. The inference being that a 2 year old is still vulnerable to the more highly developed rights of the adult, counted in time? physical being? mental being? Who knows. Craig admits that he does not.
So, the reason extreme cases illumine is that one's understanding of what constitutes the human person is put under stress. Marshal's clearly is toxic with contradictions. Craig's breaks when parents in need of moral guidance and solace are the most critical.
Viability is an argument for one's possession of a biologically independent body, a vital component of the human person. Viability also immediately sets the stage for the development of social and reciprocally loving relationships, cognitive and emotional experiences platforming the development of personality, and the accumulation of memories within one's matrix of family and a world of objects.
This is just baseline description and not all of these features are necessary. But having most of them is necessary to begin discussing when gestation reaches the point where nearly all pregnancies have "brought forth" a human person with rights that compete with the mother's rights over her own body.
Craig: "Despite the fact that Alabama’s law will save more black children than white, it’s still racist."
Despite the fact that slave cabins meant that there were no homeless black folks... slavery is still racist.
Marshall opposed to nazi Klansmen leftists:
"the opinions of those looking for a loophole that allows them a pretense of moral acceptability when taking the life of another person unable to prevent it. In other words, cheap rationalization. It's the very same rationalization of the Klansman and the nazi...leftists all."
Marshall opposed to brutalists:
"The exploitation of those rare instances where the life of the mother might be at risk (somehow, they know that with absolute certainty, but not when one is "fully human"), in order to protect the ability to gratify one's self is only accepted as an honest and legitimate argument by what one troll would describe as "brutalizers".
Marshal practicing what he previously called nazi Klansmen leftist brutalism:
"From my perspective, I can't see that any attempt to justify abortion be considered sound if it is not based on, at the absolute very least, a life for life trade-off. That is, unless the mother's life is truly at stake, taking the life of the child is absolutely unjustified."
Craig writes, "Let's be honest... It’s also interesting that in a world where virtually everything is racialized, that the fact the the vast majority of aborted babies are black doesn’t get more play. Let’s be honest, A relatively few black men are killed by police (virtually all in liberal strongholds) and it’s painted as genocide, but tens of thousands of aborted black babies don’t register on the BLM radar."
I'll be honest. It's brutally self-serving of you to now take an interest in the effects of poverty on black people.
Have you taken an interest in how black folks are diproportionately - vastly so - locked in poverty when compared to others? Nope. Have you taken up the brutality of a system that keeps them that way by blocking access to fair housing, fair banking, equality of healthcare, and by putting polluting sanitation and exhaust utility plants in primarily black neighborhoods? Nope.
Have you taken an interest in how black men disproportionately - vastly so - incarcerated by numbers, by sentence length for the same crimes, by police canvassing and harassing poor black neighborhoods by a - vastly - greater percentage of police time? Nope.
But here you are making claims that feed into the white conservative mindset ("black folks were better off during slavery") by arguing for white male control over poor black women with policies that would push them further... into poverty.
You are one sweet white Christian male, you are. Deserving of wider advertisement.
If only your good deeds could change your life as well. Preachers preached to slaves to believe in the Christian God their masters did. Trump appointed Omarosa, Ben Carson, etc.
Patronization is patronization. Black folks will take advantage of opportunities but they know you, Craig. I doubt that must trust you. But, being the most forgiving people among us, you’re still safe from danger. Your good works may help them. I hope the do. Shipwrecks liberated slaves along the way. Frederick Douglas owner’s wife taught him to read. NFL owners take immature talent under their wing. The UN sent in help for Haiti; the Italian contingent, camped by a river, introduced cholera previously unknown in the country. You and I would not need to do what we do if this nation had addressed its brutal gain from black people for 400 years.
I am not impressed by you. It is what is in the heart of a person by which Christ judges: by their love. Not by 2X4s. Real facts matter. Not blind self-justifications.
Alabama wasn’t much pro-life when they were lynching people. But Craig thinks denying women rights is a gift to black women.
Pride: this, “But I’ve been directly involved in helping black individuals and families move out of poverty. Both by employing exclusively homeless black men, to building affordable housing for hundreds of black families. That’s just part of what I’ve done in the US. ”
as a defense against this, “It’s also interesting that in a world where virtually everything is racialized, that the fact the the vast majority of aborted babies are black doesn’t get more play.”
Racist Vitriol: “A relatively few black men are killed by police (virtually all in liberal strongholds) and it’s painted as genocide, but tens of thousands of aborted black babies don’t register on the BLM radar.“
Hatred: manufacturing facts - lying - About another’s life you know shit about “She tried to make it sound like her "early labor" was a much bigger deal than it probably was. I think she tried to exaggerate the urgency of the situation and that she took a huge risk by having it done in Eastern Europe.“
And then admitting you fucked up because you were trying to defame someone else: “just confused her tweet, with another actress tweet which made the point a bit more clearly.”
You’re not following Christ. You’re following white brutality that made other people build this country and then shit on them.
Dan,
As I’ve previously done when I’ve felt it necessary to point out what I do, i. came back to delete my comments now that they’ve been read. Much to my surprise, you did it for me. Thanks.
I have to note the fact that you feel like the attacks on my character and my faith are worthy of staying up here at your blog. I’m not surprised, just disappointed with your tolerance of this sort of slander. You used to oppose these sort of slanderous attacks, now you protect them.
This from a guy who won’t respond on his blog to the same material but, in a personal character of self justification, defaults to avoidance, denial of facts, diversionary blaming of the poor and the marginalized, dodging the justice issues of inequity feeding racialized systems of poverty, and advocating stripping not only women, but particularly black women, of human rights that he keeps for himself and that he defines in open defiance and rejection of female testimony and excruciating witness.
"Marshal has been claiming that we defend a medical right to abortion because we just gratify the sex drive."
More specifically, to allow for sexual gratification without consequence. Pay attention.
Of course it's the truth. And "men" like feo wish are big supporters of "a woman's right to choose" because it serves them better than risking wage garnishment or arrest for abandoning the women they impregnated while gratifying themselves.
"Defending human rights, for the mature, healthy person of faith is simply following the living Christ."
"Defending their right" to do what? To murder their own children. How is that following Christ exactly? Which of the Beatitudes found such people "blessed"?
"Marshal also wants to claim that we [exploit] those rare instances where the life of the mother might be at risk."
But that's exactly what you're doing, otherwise you would agree to the compromised offered to allow for that mythical exemption in order to spare the lives of all other children whose existence does not put their mother at risk. You won't, so your fraudulent concern for women at risk is the smokescreen honest people can see that it is.
"If anyone claims to be able to argue a position of what constitutes a human person (Marshal is good on the human follicle, toenail, etc all with unique human DNA)..."
An absolute lie about my position...it never stops, because to stop with the lies means feo must admit his position is baseless and fraudulent.
"One cannot come to a moral position on the existence of the human person and then deny such a person rights at unique times."
Good thing we're not doing that. No one has the "right" to murder another. No one has the "right" to pretend one is threatened, when one is not, in order to rationalize murdering an innocent. The right to life supersedes the inconveniences of one who wishes to murder those whose existence is inconvenient.
"That Marshall and Craig do this when they admit that in extreme cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, then an abortion is grudgingly allowed."
This is purposely inaccurate. We offer that compromise only to save the vast majority of those who are murdered for superficial reasons; where there is no threat to the mother at all. It does not admit that such threats actually exist in the real world, so it's really an easy compromise to make. You like to pretend that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman's life and thus it must be allowed. I believe abortion is never necessary so I have no problem with the trade-off at all. And even if I'm wrong...which I'm not...to save thousands by allowing the death of one is regretfully the moral choice. Your position is wholly immoral no matter how you try to dress it up.
"Craig admits that he does not."
You're just playing games. You press Craig on the hypothetical, and then deride him for allowing abortion based on the hypothetical. He's still in opposition, and like most honest and rational people, understand that life is not perfect and sometimes hard choices must be made. Making those choices doesn't make your position any stronger, even if done in a real world situation, never mind the hypothetical.
"So, the reason extreme cases illumine is that one's understanding of what constitutes the human person is put under stress."
Nonsense. Extreme cases are invented to muddy the waters, not provide clarity. As I said, life isn't perfect. The unexpected can be expected to happen unexpectedly, and when it does, one might be faced with that which could not have been foreseen when the "rules" were established. That doesn't justify legalizing the murder of innocents.
"Marshal's clearly is toxic with contradictions."
Lying about my position doesn't constitute "contradictions", which don't exist in my position. Try again. It's good for a laugh when you do.
"Viability is an argument..."
...invented by the immoral to rationalize their heinous disregard for the lives of those they find inconvenient. It's a movable goalpost for the brutalizing protectors of sex without consequence and the ability to destroy life.
"But having most of them is necessary to begin discussing when gestation reaches the point where nearly all pregnancies have "brought forth" a human person with rights that compete with the mother's rights over her own body."
All pregnancies HAVE brought forth a person with rights equal to its mother from the moment of conception. Period.
Another chickenshit without the balls to argue on his own blog? Yep.
"... to allow for sexual gratification without consequence."
Marshal thinks there are zero straight men who support the law of the land on women's right to healthcare who are over 50. Or those don't support the law of the land whose wives have experienced menopause? Or does he think that older liberal couples don't have sex? Or does he think that liberal couples who have two kids have had sex exactly two times?
Sex without consequences - naturally or pharmacy aided - happens a hundred thousand fold? two hundred thousand fold? more often than sex with consequences. I know, I'm a client.
80% of Americans support the provision of abortion among the slew of healthcare for women/couples. 80% of Americans are not having unprotected sex.
Marshal is specious.
_____
Human rights includes one's right over one's body. Marshal would deny Habeas Corpus. Specious Marshal.
_____
Marshal's definition of human life, version one: unique human DNA. Human hair: unique human DNA. Human cuticle dug out of the rug: unique human DNA. Spit: unique human DNA.
_____
In cases where the mother's life may be in jeopardy, Marshal either 1) dissolves his moral commitment to what makes a human person, or 2) finds murder, OK.
Marshal will allow abortion (of what he can only think of as a human person) where the mother's life is in jeopardy. [I say, one cannot come to a moral position on the existence of the human person and then deny such a person rights at unique times.] But for Marshal it IS one life for another. So, he denies the rights of one of his persons, over the other. But he cannot provide rationale for why the mother would be favored. Medical ethics does, and must. Marshal ignores ethical and moral reasoning in order to prop up a revealed religion in a diverse, secular democracy. Like Sharia law.
Corrupt morals beget a corrupt mind, beget corrupt policy. Specious Marshal.
____
Hence we get a twisted mind trying to think
"We offer that compromise only to save the vast majority of those who are murdered..." Just like genocidal thinking.
Then he reverses course with a lie (to protect his guilty conscience and religious damnation): "It does not admit that such threats actually exist in the real world."
and then admits that his first sentence about compromise was a lie, "so it's really an easy compromise to make."
Restates his real, real claim, "I believe abortion is never necessary."
Which makes his earlier real claim a lie: ""From my perspective, I can't see that any attempt to justify abortion be considered sound if it is not based on, at the absolute very least, a life for life trade-off. That is, unless the mother's life is truly at stake, taking the life of the child is absolutely unjustified."
Marshal is a twisted liar. He'll say anything to hide his shallow, corrupt mind shaped by a brutality loving faith in whiteness.
And then the chickenshit tries to defend the first coward by speaking for him but on neither of their own blogs. Being too fearful, anxious and shamed, one corrupt brutalist defends another corrupt brutalist away from their own community. They don't really want to be shown up. As just happened.
But here’s the bottom line truth.
I don’t control other’s private choices because all people were created to be free. To be free can also mean wrong. I make my choices and my family makes choices in a the context of American freedom. We are free to be wrong. America is free to be wrong.
Saudi Arabia does not provide much freedom. Neither does Iran. North Korea, none.
If Marshal and Craig cared about life then they would care about universal free and equal education for all children. If they cared about life, they would care about affordable housing and provision for the 2.5 homeless children in our country. Does Craig house 2.5 million? If they cared about life, they would care about healthcare for all.
That they do not support a national politics driving these policies is clear evidence that they do not care about other people. They do not see them as brothers and sisters. Or the children as children.
Craig cares about his own behavior of doing good. His salvation depends upon it. That is his motivation. Obviously some benefit. The other 2.49999999999999 million children can go to hell.
Marshal and Craig are more like Saudi Arabia and Iran than American. They want to control others; they thrill to the effects of poverty on those they cannot count as brothers and sisters. It makes them feel better.
Radical Protestant theology has wrestled with this cultural outcome since Calvin and including Calvin Jean Calvin and his council controlled Geneva. Via much self-justified brutality.
It is a deadly Protestant problem perpetuating and deepening the plight of women as second class citizens. Misogyny. And it streamlined the capitalization and technical efficiency of slavery.
Marshal and Craig think like 16th century Protestants. Especially the subconscious brutality thrill. It makes them feel better: that God is on their side because they are white men keeping their heads above economic poverty. Damn the emotional and intellectual corruption.
Not a lot of time right now, but I just had to respond to feo's latest fantasies:
"Another chickenshit without the balls to argue on his own blog? Yep."
Don't talk about yourself that way. I can't help it you won't allow my comments to stand on your blog. And that's the fact, as you've deleted or blocked everything I've tried to post on that blog of yours about which you can't decide is active or defunct. No worries for me, however, as I haven't looked at it in months and months, despite you sending me notices that you're blogging about me.
In the meantime, I have no problem debating anyone who has the desire to do so on most anything at my blog. YOU, feo, are no exception except that you fail to meet the criteria your own behavior brought down upon you. You copy/pasted the same comment 1000 times...much more if I count when you did it to Craig...all because you hadn't the courage to provide your complete "plan" in one spot, pretending you have some just intention for splitting it up among three blogs and expecting me to jump through your hoops. As much as I hoped to see your "plan", I don't at all care that much if you provide it or not. I take it as a given it's worthless for reducing "gun violence".
Now to some of your foolish points:
"Marshal thinks there are zero straight men who support the law of the land on women's right to healthcare who are over 50."
No I don't, nothing I've said so much as hints at such a thing and it isn't relevant to the issue of the legal status of unjustly killing innocent people. Thus, the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant as well.
"Sex without consequences - naturally or pharmacy aided - happens a hundred thousand fold? two hundred thousand fold? more often than sex with consequences."
Also irrelevant.
" I know, I'm a client."
Sure you are.
"80% of Americans support the provision of abortion among the slew of healthcare for women/couples."
I doubt it, but even if true, it's also irrelevant.
"80% of Americans are not having unprotected sex."
You have absolutely no way of knowing or confirming this, but...oh...irrelevant.
"Marshal is specious."
You wish, but even if true, irrelevant as you are.
"Human rights includes one's right over one's body."
From conception to birth (as well as beyond), a woman's child is not a woman's body not matter how badly you brutal child killers are. Thus, this is irrelevant to the issue.
"Marshal's definition of human life, version one: unique human DNA. Human hair: unique human DNA. Human cuticle dug out of the rug: unique human DNA. Spit: unique human DNA."
You're lying again. I've corrected this willful distortion of my position more than once, but you need to lie to pretend you're "winning". You're not, and this lie is irrelevant to the point.
"In cases where the mother's life may be in jeopardy, Marshal either 1) dissolves his moral commitment to what makes a human person, or 2) finds murder, OK."
Also untrue and also unsupported by anything I've said at any time...unless you once again take something out of context in hopes of making it so...because you lie.
"Marshal will allow abortion (of what he can only think of as a human person) where the mother's life is in jeopardy."
Here you lie by leaving out the caveat, that I can make this allowance due to the fact that there's no situation where an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life. Thus, if making this allowance appeases the murderous so that they agree to deny abortions for any other reason, I've effectively ended legal abortion altogether.
"[I say, one cannot come to a moral position on the existence of the human person and then deny such a person rights at unique times.]"
Yet you cited "philosophical ethics" to make this very argument. The fact is you only "say" this in order to provide for yourself a (false) charge to level against me. I can certainly affirm the humanity of an enemy combatant I'm forced to kill in battle. That's a fairly unique situation, isn't genius? In kind, I can also affirm the humanity of any situation whereby I can save one thousand by allowing the death of one. The one is just as human as the thousand and vice versa. No contradiction on my part. The circumstances aren't relevant to how I regard the people in question, and particularly so when I have to make a choice or risk other lives. In the case of a mother's life being at risk, I can allow the woman to decide whether or not SHE wants to risk death in order to save her child. Fortunately, there's no need for such a decision based on the testimonies of many medical professionals. But to save millions, I'm more than happy for baby killers to think that such a situation might exist. It's a good deal.
"But he cannot provide rationale for why the mother would be favored. Medical ethics does, and must."
No it doesn't. Thus, no rationale is required since no mother truly faces that dilemma. It is said to be one for the convenience of the doctor.
"Marshal ignores ethical and moral reasoning in order to prop up a revealed religion in a diverse, secular democracy."
I ignore nothing, especially the facts. Ethical and moral reasoning all points to not murdering the child, especially since there is never an actual medical need to do so. Medical ethics forbids unjust killing of any person. Thus, I acknowledge and embrace ethical and moral reasoning in order to prop up the fact that all are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life everywhere at all time regardless. You Molech worshipers clearly have a different idea.
"Corrupt morals beget a corrupt mind, beget corrupt policy."
And that's how we ended up with Roe v Wade. You morally corrupt brutalizers must be so proud.
More later.
Marshal, hoooo boy... it is incomprehensible how you can be so utterly uncomprehending. I'm going to make this first part as simple as I can, and then leave Dan to deal with any further repetition of irrational lies.
1. You just wrote, "I can make this allowance [incases were the mother's life is in jeopardy] due to the fact that there's no situation where an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life. Thus, if making this allowance appeases the murderous so that they agree to deny abortions for any other reason, I've effectively ended legal abortion altogether."
2. To Craig AT HIS BLOG, whom you believe to be solidly with you in your irrational arguments (and so cannot be a member of the "murderous" who you think you are duping with #1 argument), you wrote, straight up with absolutely no wink in your morally blinded eye, you wrote: "From my perspective, I can't see that any attempt to justify abortion be considered sound if it is not based on, at the absolute very least, a life for life trade-off. That is, unless the mother's life is truly at stake, taking the life of the child is absolutely unjustified."
3. There are two lies here.
If the first statement is your true position, then you've lied to Craig's face. Maybe you know he's not so stoutly in your camp as you tried to spin a few comments above. Plus, in saying that by agreeing to the mother's life exception, in which you call your part a compromise, but then admitting that your intention is not a compromise but a hoodwink, then your are rhetorically openly representing yourself as a liar. A liar with a plan to lie.
2 lies: 1 to Craig, 1 that you openly identify as NOT an honest compromise but a lie.
Or, if the second stamens is your true position, if you've actually told the truth to Craig, then your 1st statement is a lie to us to appear as if you really are against all abortions, and you've lied to us using a scenario in which you call yourself a liar. A lier with a plan to lie.
2 lies: 1 to us, 1 that you openly identify as NOT a compromise but a lie.
____
Given this clarity on your most recent will to lie to Craig or to us and to name yourself a liar by portraying your duplicitous idea of a falsely constructed compromise, your credibility is, yet again for the 1392 time, corrupt.
If you'll lie twice here in the last 24 or to Craig AND here in a matter of 2,3 days... why should you be allowed to even open your mouth?
And why would you think you cannot comment on my blog if you admit haven't been there?
One of those is a lie, too.
___
Feodor: "Marshal has been claiming that we defend a medical right to abortion because we just gratify the sex drive."
Marshal: "More specifically, to allow for sexual gratification without consequence."
Pay attention, Marshal:
1. I defend a medical right to abortion.
2. In my life, sex has brought me one beautiful, smart, liberal child. For some time, sex has not possibility of creating offspring. It creates all those other things God intends (because God can hold more than one thing in mind when intending good things).
Therefore, I defend other people's right to a modern, ethical, and full provision of healthcare options including abortion, while having lots of sexual gratification where fertilization is not a possibility.
And while I do not propose to know what other people do in their sex lives like you do (apparently you're unaware of the availibitiy of a new invention called a condom), I do surmise that tens of millions of older people have sex where fertilization is not possible, and yet still support the right of others to a modern, ethical, and full provision of healthcare options, including abortion.
So... you're a moronic idiot denying the facts of reality.
You and Craig have to share for each of you to get the whole plan. But you have lied to each other and not shared with each other.
And you lie here by blaming me for what you've each done.
What a long first paragraph whine about how you cannot enter a mutual debate because you do not have matching intelligence. You demand the whole plan. I give you part and tell you to ask Craig for his part. But you don't want the plan. You want to dance around in diversionary avoidance because you are a frightened infantile man wedded to your corrupt brutality.
___
I'd hate to be in your head.
"It is laughable that you would accuse me of lying..."
vs
"I'll lie all day long..."
"My position is real..."
vs
"The position is no more than a big "IF"
(This nonsense contradiction is your lie to Craig. And about Craig. Craig adamants not knowing when the human person starts. And he admits that there are cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Your denial of what he has said outright is a lie.)
"This doesn't mean that I actually believe such situations ever exist"
vs
"but only that if such did, I could accept that..."
Jesus God, what a tortured mind.
____
Compromise, noun, an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
Marshal: "We offer that compromise only to save the vast majority of those who are murdered for superficial reasons where there is no threat to the mother at all."
vs
"It does not admit that such threats actually exist in the real world, so it's really an easy compromise to make"
Marshal, you've not made a compromise. As you now admit, you are making a lie.
Until you stop lying, and until you can use the English language with some semblance of accuracy, you'll stay on Fool's Hill burning manure to cook your bean.
Women today are more likely than their mothers to die in childbirth
A few weekends ago, like many Americans, we thought about the mothers in our lives. We reflected on the milestones and the sacrifices. And with some measure of guilt, we thought about how it can be so easy to take our mothers for granted. Perhaps this is why experts are just beginning to notice that motherhood in the United States has become riskier and costlier today than it was a generation ago.
American women today are 50 percent more likely to die in childbirth than their mothers — risks that are three to four times higher for black women than white women. For every death, hundreds of women experience childbirth complications that bring them to the brink, and tens of thousands more suffer from preventable and under-treated chronic illnesses. Despite advances in modern medicine, the wellbeing of our nations mothers has been steadily getting worse as access to reproductive health care services has eroded.
These data may reflect the fact that reproductive health care is becoming harder than ever to come by. Seven states have passed bills that severely limit access to pregnancy terminations, many in cases when the pregnancy is not viable and a woman’s life is in danger. A sponsor of the Ohio bill recently claimed that ectopic pregnancies, in which the embryo implants outside the uterus, may be re-implanted in the uterus. The medical capability to do this does not exist. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, termination of the pregnancy in these cases is the only way to prevent fatal internal bleeding.
In 2019 pregnant women who have insurance through their employer may still face astronomical expenses in seeking treatment as a result of high deductible plans and out of network services. Those who receive health insurance through Medicaid — which is about half of all pregnant women—may face the prospect of losing coverage just a few weeks after giving birth.
Of course mothers — and all women — also need care before and beyond their pregnancies. According to an analysis performed by Boston University’s Dr. Eugene DeClercq, the latest vital statistics data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that it’s not only maternal mortality, but mortality rates for all reproductive age women that are on the rise. While the rate of death among women under the ages of 15 and older than 45 has been decreasing for decades, the mortality rate among women between ages 15 and 45 has increased by 14 percent between 2010 and 2016 (the most recent years for which data is available).
These data may reflect the fact that reproductive health care is becoming harder than ever to come by. Seven states have passed bills that severely limit access to pregnancy terminations, many in cases when the pregnancy is not viable and a woman’s life is in danger. A sponsor of the Ohio bill recently claimed that ectopic pregnancies, in which the embryo implants outside the uterus, may be re-implanted in the uterus. The medical capability to do this does not exist. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, termination of the pregnancy in these cases is the only way to prevent fatal internal bleeding.
https://www.statnews.com/2018/08/22/maternal-deaths-women-health/
Abortion as a medical procedure is safer than carrying a pregnancy to full term. Why? Because of Republican roll backs of providing women access to full healthcare - which Planned Parenthood does - not just termination services. See the above facts.
A brief medical lesson for the increasingly less rare idiocy - factless DR wannabe - folks like Marshal and Craig.
1 in 50. Craig, your "exceedingly rare" wish - just in this one medical issue - means 130,000 human lives are killed by doctors every year.
"Fertilized Egg". Marshal, this means, to you, a human person. 130,000 of whom are killed every year out of necessity. Mr "there cannot be a situation ever where the choice is appropriate to kill a *'preborn' human person."
An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches itself in a place other than inside the uterus. Almost all ectopic pregnancies occur in the fallopian tube and are thus sometimes called tubal pregnancies. The fallopian tubes are not designed to hold a growing embryo; thus, the fertilized egg in a tubal pregnancy cannot develop properly and must be treated. An ectopic pregnancy happens in 1 out of 50 pregnancies.
What causes an ectopic pregnancy? Ectopic pregnancies are caused by one or more of the following:
An infection or inflammation of the fallopian tube can cause it to become partially or entirely blocked.
Scar tissue from a previous infection or a surgical procedure on the tube may also impede the egg’s movement.
Previous surgery in the pelvic area or on the tubes can cause adhesions.
Abnormal growths or a birth defect can result in an abnormality in the tube’s shape.
How Is An Ectopic Pregnancy Treated? An ectopic pregnancy may be treated in any of the following ways:
Methotrexate may be given, which allows the body to absorb the pregnancy tissue and may save the fallopian tube, depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed.
If the tube has become stretched or has ruptured and started bleeding, part or all of it may have to be removed, along with the embryo. In this case, bleeding needs to be stopped promptly, and emergency surgery is necessary.
Laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia may be performed. This procedure involves a surgeon using a laparoscope to remove the ectopic pregnancy and repair or remove the affected fallopian tube. If the ectopic pregnancy cannot be removed by a laparoscopically, another surgical procedure called a laparotomy may be done.
What about my future?
Your hCG level will need to be rechecked on a regular basis until it reaches zero if you did not have your entire fallopian tube removed. An hCG level that remains high could indicate that the ectopic tissue was not entirely removed, which would require surgery or medical management with methotrexate.
The chances of having a successful pregnancy after an ectopic pregnancy may be reduced, but this will depend on why the pregnancy was ectopic and your medical history. If the fallopian tubes have been left in place, you have approximately a 60% chance of having a successful pregnancy in the future.
So many distractions, deflections and mis-directions, but I'll do my best to respond to all of it. I'll step back to comments previous to those to which I last responded, just to be comprehensive. Some of it may be repetitive, but that can't be helped given feo's propensity for bloviating. There's so much of it to correct. So I begin with his comment from May 19 at 8:38 AM:
"Defending human rights, for the mature, healthy person of faith is simply following the living Christ."
Which explains why you refuse to defend the most basic human right...the right to life possessed by all people, including the unborn in utero. Mature, healthy (?) people of faith do, as that truly exemplifies what a true follower of Christ does. feo wouldn't know this, because he isn't one of them.
"Our advocacy for viability as the closing of the window for almost all abortions shows him to be a willful liar."
Your "advocacy" for viability is evidence of your willingness to employ arbitrary and self-serving subjective guidelines for providing you with the loopholes you need to pretend you're acting morally when you kill an innocent human being for whatever reasons serve you to do so. That's a far greater lie than any I may have told, willfully or otherwise.
"Marshal also wants to claim that we [exploit] those rare instances where the life of the mother might be at risk."
Because it's the truth. If it were not so, your kind would not be so unwilling to make the compromises that would secure such an option in exchange for saving the other 99% where there is no risk to the mother.
"One cannot come to a moral position on the existence of the human person and then deny such a person rights at unique times."
Sure I can, as do tens of millions of others who understand that sometimes killing another person must be done for a greater good. This is the case in war, law enforcement and the basic defense against a criminal or insane aggressor. None of these disregards the humanity of the killed. They each represent just response to an unjust threat where innocent lives are at risk. Indeed, in none of these cases are there typically any suggestion that the killed were NOT "fully human" or NOT "persons" or "just a clump of cells" or any of the other cheap rationalizations used to unjustly terminate the life of the unborn.
"That Marshall and Craig do this when they admit that in extreme cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, then an abortion is grudgingly allowed. Though Marshal's is the starker denial of his own argument, they both have just allowed the indiscriminate killing of one, in their claim, fully human life in prejudicial favor of the mother's life."
You clearly don't understand the word "indiscriminate" as it doesn't apply in cases where one's life is threatened by another who has no intention of causing harm but does. That's what your alleged "life of the mother" scenarios present to us. There is most definitely discrimination involved. But without indulging in a philosophical trolley dilemma debate, the reality is that I (and I would suppose the same of Craig) is allowing the mother to decide if she wants to risk her life, if indeed there is a legitimate threat to it by which only abortion would resolve. Thus, neither of us are actively allowing it, as, at least in my case, my hope would be that the woman take that chance for the sake of the innocent. It is akin to insisting that someone MUST step in and take the bullet, or dive on that live grenade. I don't believe that decision MUST be imposed upon a mother who's life is legitimately at risk. I just DON'T believe that's ever the case, and medical professionals and former abortionists agree.
"Marshal gives no reason why, and in fact, cannot, without providing a basis for evaluating the lives differently, which then destroys his claim that from fertilization a human person exists with as much right as anybody."
It does no such thing. It doesn't even hint at such a thing. And obviously, as my previous comment demonstrates, I give a reason why such a conundrum can be provided for. Again, if I shoot and kill an enemy combatant on the battle field, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not I regard him as a human being with the right to life. It's an idiotic attempt to pretend there's a flaw in my position without actually proving that there is.
"So, the reason extreme cases illumine is that one's understanding of what constitutes the human person is put under stress."
This is absolutely not true as explained with the battlefield scenario. You're trying to make it so because your position needs to invent the stress. Indeed, there would be no stress if, like you and other brutal murderers, we didn't believe the unborn has the same right to life as me and even you. But as to what constitutes a human person? No stress at all, and certainly none exposed by your lame attempts.
You've exposed absolutely no contradictions in my position. I doubt you could find them if they even existed!
"Viability is an argument for one's possession of a biologically independent body, a vital component of the human person. Viability also immediately sets the stage for the development of social and reciprocally loving relationships, cognitive and emotional experiences platforming the development of personality, and the accumulation of memories within one's matrix of family and a world of objects."
Pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and simply more cheap rationalizing and self-serving subjective line-drawing. Viability is only an argument to assuage your guilt for murdering your own children.
"But having most of them is necessary to begin discussing when gestation reaches the point where nearly all pregnancies have "brought forth" a human person with rights that compete with the mother's rights over her own body."
That happened at conception.
===================================================================================
From May 19, 2019 at 8:42 AM
"Craig: "Despite the fact that Alabama’s law will save more black children than white, it’s still racist."
Despite the fact that slave cabins meant that there were no homeless black folks... slavery is still racist."
Wow. That's just an idiotic response to Craig's point.
====================================================================================
From May 19, 2019 at 9:00 AM
"Marshal practicing what he previously called nazi Klansmen leftist brutalism:
"From my perspective, I can't see that any attempt to justify abortion be considered sound if it is not based on, at the absolute very least, a life for life trade-off. That is, unless the mother's life is truly at stake, taking the life of the child is absolutely unjustified."
Somehow feo sees this as an example of contradicting myself. But in order for that to approach any semblance of truth, it would require that my statement insists one life is not a person, fully human or whatever he needs to believe in order to compare the statement to the nazi/klansman disregard of the humanity of those they disliked. It's not even a good attempt!
====================================================================================
From May 19 @ 12:49 PM
"I'll be honest. It's brutally self-serving of you to now take an interest in the effects of poverty on black people."
Boy...if only you would be honest! You certainly aren't being honest here in pretending Craig was beginning a discussion on the effects of poverty on black people... as if that justifies any of them killing their own unborn children!
"Have you taken an interest in how black folks are diproportionately - vastly so - locked in poverty when compared to others?"
No one is "locked" in poverty. So nice that such a champion of the black race has so little respect for their abilities and potential for self-improvement. You're again proving that YOU are the real racist.
"Have you taken an interest in how black men disproportionately - vastly so - incarcerated by numbers, by sentence length for the same crimes, by police canvassing and harassing poor black neighborhoods by a - vastly - greater percentage of police time?"
All due to a disproportionately high rate of criminal activity by blacks. Straight and honest apples to apples comparisons do NOT bear out this race-baiting narrative.
"But here you are making claims that feed into the white conservative mindset ("black folks were better off during slavery") by arguing for white male control over poor black women with policies that would push them further... into poverty."
But here you are making another straight up lie about Craig's point and intention. Worse and a far more egregious aspect of this satanic lie is that he's arguing for "WHITE MALE CONTROL!!!!!" over anyone. You aren't so compassionate and caring to encourage strongly moral behavior, the lack of which is what leads to their perpetual poverty. No. You're going to lie and insist that defending the lives of the unborn, and the arrest and incarceration of the criminal element among them, is to blame for their woes. With "friends" like you, the black race needs no other enemies.
===================================================================================
When Marshal can find scripture that tells us that an abortion performed because of an ectopic pregnancy is forbidden, or that a women can easily go along and not address an ectopic pregnancy, we'll call it even.
Until then, it stands that Scripture condemns Marshal's immoral hate of refugees and immigrants. And he turns his back on God.
"LGBTQ Christians are whole Christians no different from you."
False, unless there exists some among them who recognize the sinfulness of their desires/lifestyles. But if they're trying to pretend that "God made me that way" or that they are being true to themselves (which isn't necessarily a lie because our true selves is sinful in nature), then they're not at all like real Christians.
"True: You follow a book god who hates such people. -and- “You believe in a book. Not a living Christ who can reveal truth to you."
False. We follow God who made known to us through those who wrote down His Word in Scripture that he hates immoral behavior, including the sexual immorality to which you cling so strongly. You have no means of having anything revealed to you by God/Christ that does not align with Scripture. To pretend you are the recipient of revelations that conflict with Scripture...as your understanding of Scripture clearly proves you're in conflict, if not outright rebellion...is fantasy and likely mental illness on your part.
"True: You follow a book god who puts a leash in women."
False, but more importantly, is among the goofiest things you've ever tried to pass of as honest insight into anything either of us believes. If you regard God as putting a leash on women by denying them the privilege of choosing when or if their own children live or die, then you need professional help...which your years of comments have long indicated. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're on about with this "book god" strawman.
Craig: “What’s interesting is this obsession with using the rare, to justify the common.
Craig: “I don’t understand the obsession with using a minuscule number of tragic situations...”
Craig: “It’s clearly disingenuous to use the 1% as a smoke screen for the 99%.”
Marshal: “I f these rare occasions are used as objections to anti-abortion law, they're clearly not sincere if they won't make the deal.”
You lie about facts for the sole purpose of picking and choosing which lives are sacrosanct and under which conditions.
Neither of have a clue as to how a human person is sacred. Both of you are cardboard Christians, whose cells are foam filled with hate.
Gentlemen, so much to process, so little time.
Fedora, you're not wrong about much of what you say, but I've removed most of what was posted here in the last few days (and may remove more) as it seems to be a digression from the point of this post.
That point is this:
I was raising the questions I raised to help (maybe, I thought) people see WHY most conservatives are okay with SOME abortions (i.e., life of mother and rape/incest). By looking at the reality that most conservatives are okay with making an exception in these cases, I thought it might help you think about WHY you're (collectively) willing to do that... that perhaps the collection of cells that is a zygote or a new embryo or a young fetus is not FULLY human in the same "deserving of human rights" way that a one month old baby is. That "science" does not SAY that these are fully human in the same "deserving of human rights" way that a one month old baby is.
It appears, at least in the case of Marshall and maybe Craig, they DO think that a minutes old zygote IS "fully human in the sense of deserving of the same rights as a one month old baby is" AND YET, they are willing to let them be killed ("murdered," IF they are truly fully human, etc) as a sacrifice to save the other zygotes and embryos.
By all means, correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think that's what you've said amongst your many (sometimes confusing and contradictory) words.
If so, is that not more obscene... more evil than those who DON'T think that these zygotes are fully human (if there are no brainwaves, we pronounce an old person functionally dead... what about the zygote?),,, to say (even grudgingly) that YOU, Marshall, and YOU, Craig, are willing to allow laws that make exceptions in these cases to "murder" these zygotes?
If you want to clarify that you are NOT willing to accept the "murder" of "fully human" zygotes in your case against abortion, you can do so. Otherwise, I think enough has been said here.
I think, Dan, that you’ll find Craig answering your question in a way that Marshall disagrees with. Marshal has so far refused to answer this question Craig put to him:
“I could be wrong, but I think we both agree, that the surgery to end an ectopic pregnancy should be given when needed. Especially given the reality that what you have with an ectopic pregnancy is, by definition, non viable. It seems like equating viable and non viable, would be foolish.”
Ignoring that Craig has confused non-viable fetus with no viable pregnancy, he clearly indicates that a fetus has to be aborted in order to save the mother.
Marshal has repeatedly, though in various mangled fashion, denied this truth. But has yet to respond to Craig.
Dan,
I don't know how much more clear I can be. feo, who you wrongly suggest isn't wrong about much of what he says when I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true, takes great pains to muddy my position, willfully dissecting everything I say in lame and continually failed attempt to find fault that doesn't exist, and inconsistencies that exist only in his vile imaginings. But I'll make the attempt yet again due to the gravity of the situation. First,
"That "science" does not SAY that these are fully human in the same "deserving of human rights" way that a one month old baby is."
Science says all it needs to say on the subject, that at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed and begins its life. To suggest, therefore, that it is NOT deserving of all rights as any other, such as yourself, is based on nothing...nothing but subjective, self-serving criteria. Science takes no position on the subject because it isn't tasked with such a decision. But from what it does say, the obvious conclusion can only be that of course, that brand new human just conceived is fully deserving of having its unalienable right to life respected and protected as you expect yours to be.
"It appears, at least in the case of Marshall and maybe Craig, they DO think that a minutes old zygote IS "fully human in the sense of deserving of the same rights as a one month old baby is" AND YET, they are willing to let them be killed ("murdered," IF they are truly fully human, etc) as a sacrifice to save the other zygotes and embryos."
A gun is put to your head. You are forced to choose between the life of a family or the life of that family and the whole town. You have no choice but to choose or they all die. Are you "willing" in any direction? No. It's an inappropriate suggestion because, if you wish to pretend you care about life, you want them all to live.
It's the same with this "choice"...this concession...that if we can save the town (all those targeted children that are NOT the result of incest, rape or the fictional threat to a woman's life) by allowing the family to die, we've saved most of the lives that are to be murdered. Regret, remorse, guilt...none of that is as important as the fact that most of those threatened no longer are. And the math means that millions live while maybe a hundred don't. That's good math despite the loss of that hundred.
But there's no "willing" on my part. None whatsoever. I prefer that none should perish (there it is AGAIN!! That expression is just SO familiar!). And those like myself regard it as a forced choice based on the insincere concern of the pro-aborts for the women who are victims of rape or incest, and those whose lives are said to be at risk, though they aren't. YOUR side brings up those extremely rare occurrences as if they are of any concern until the compromise is offered. Then they don't matter any more and all that matters is that the whole town must die for the convenience of the pro-abort women and men.
So to presume that we're compromising our principles on the matter of the newly conceived being equal in every way to the fully adult is dishonest crap. We who know they're the same are dealing with those like yourself who dare suggest you have any right or authority to deny them their humanity. What are we supposed to do short of executing everyone who takes your position, as I can see no other way of preserving all that innocent life until you all get your heads right with God. In that scenario, one side or the other will end up killing people. My side will NOT be the side killing innocent human beings. My side will be killing those who would murder innocent human beings.
As far fetched a scenario as that is, it does speak to why I'm not all that broken up when an abortion doctor is killed because he's an abortionist. I don't condone it, but he's the hired gun taking innocent life for money. Were he a moral man he wouldn't be in that business. I have far more sympathy for the extremist who felt it had to be done. He's wrong, but his intentions were far more noble than any the abortionist had. Defending the innocent against brutal oppressors always is.
"(if there are no brainwaves, we pronounce an old person functionally dead... what about the zygote?)"
This is an extraordinarily absurd, but unsurprisingly bad analogy. When an old person loses the function of his brain, barring any outside intervention, his entire body will soon lose all functioning as well. But the early stage unborn has yet to have brain function and barring any outside interference, it WILL have that function along with the function of the rest of its body. The child isn't dead because it has yet to have developed a functioning brain. It is absolutely alive and growing and that function will happen very soon...again, barring any outside interference.
So is it obscene to support laws that make the concession for cases of rape, incest and life of the mother? Yeah, but far less obscene than allowing the murder of millions for any reason whatsoever. Again, saving millions by regretfully allowing a hundred to die? It's intently more obscene not to make and/or take that deal. I'd feel like Oskar Schindler, but I take that deal all day long. No true Christian wouldn't. And once the deal is done, then the work begins on ending the practice altogether, but millions fewer will die until that becomes reality.
So no, I am NOT "willing" to accept the murder of anyone, but the murderous have left little choice. If I could find enough jurists with backbone, I'd be absolved of having to accept it at all.
Finally, for now, I want to simply skip all his other weak-assed attempts to pretend I said something I never did, and address feo's comment that followed yours.
"I think, Dan, that you’ll find Craig answering your question in a way that Marshall disagrees with. Marshal has so far refused to answer this question Craig put to him:"
First, I'm not all that sure this question was being addressed to me. Nonetheless...
The reality is that I addressed the issues of this less than honest and intelligent question in a variety of ways (that is, different ways of saying the same thing as if feo is capable of understanding perhaps one) on a variety of occasions.
"“I could be wrong, but I think we both agree, that the surgery to end an ectopic pregnancy should be given when needed. ..."
I've never suggested that ectopic pregnancies should not be treated. Never. There are a variety of ways to end any pregnancy. Abortion is never necessary to do so.
"Especially given the reality that what you have with an ectopic pregnancy is, by definition, non viable."
Viability means nothing with regard to the crime of abortion. It isn't an excuse or a loophole or an honest criterion that legitimizes abortion.
"It seems like equating viable and non viable, would be foolish.”"
This sentence in particular suggests to me that the question was not addressed to me, as I've made no argument of any kind that suggests trying to equate the two.
"Ignoring that Craig has confused non-viable fetus with no viable pregnancy, he clearly indicates that a fetus has to be aborted in order to save the mother."
Whatever feo thinks he means by Craig being confused, the "question" in no way suggests that Craig indicated that a fetus ever has to be aborted in order to save the mother. Maybe he feels that way, maybe he doesn't. The question doesn't suggest it one way or another simply because he spoke of viability. It's very possible Craig is suffering under the false impression that abortion might be necessary at some point, or perhaps he's simply allowing for that which has yet to happen. It certainly isn't truth just because abortionists say it is. Less so because feo says it is.
I must apologize. Above, the "less than honest and intelligent" was not so much the question, but the suggestion that the question was one I might dodge regardless of who asked it. Again, I don't think Craig was advocating for anything with the question and and honest and intelligent person wouldn't think so.
Craig, you're welcome to comment on the questions asked, if you'd like to clarify. If you don't want to answer the questions, don't bother commenting.
Marshall...
To suggest, therefore, that it is NOT deserving of all rights as any other, such as yourself, is based on nothing...nothing but subjective, self-serving criteria.
1. Agreed. I can't "prove" a fetus or a zygote is NOT deserving of all rights as any birthed person. I have not even attempted to do so. It is a subjective opinion.
LIKEWISE, it is a subjective opinion that a zygote/fetus IS deserving of all rights as any birthed person.
Do you recognize that reality?
2. "Self-serving..."? How? I have not received an abortion. My direct family has never been in a position to consider an abortion. It's literally not a question that I have dealt with personally, mySELF, so I don't see how it is reasonable to suggest that it's self-serving.
Just as an aside.
Marshall...
You are forced to choose between the life of a family or the life of that family and the whole town. You have no choice but to choose or they all die. Are you "willing" in any direction? No.
I would not choose. I would not say, "Yes, you can kill those people, but not those people. And I certainly wouldn't legislate laws that allow killing some people.
You would, though, right?
You are saying that YOU WOULD allow legislation that "kills" "people" (in your head/imagination/thinking). Is that right?
Answer these two questions in bold, please.
Craig, on his blog, talking about ectopic pregnancies...
" It seems like using these tragic circumstances as justification for abortion for convenience is just compounding the tragedy. "
It's not "using" these tragic cases as "justification" for abortion. It's noting that reasonable people can agree that there are at least SOME cases where abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Craig agrees with it, as do we, as do most reasonable people, not to mention medical experts.
The point is not to "use" these cases to "justify" anything. It's noting that, given this example, we can see that we're talking about specific medical conditions and specific medical advice given to specific real women/families where THOSE people (the medical experts, the women, the families) are the ones in the best place to make these sorts of calls.
AND to point out that those who stupidly reduce the question down to bumper sticker sized "abortion is murder..." are just speaking from a place of ignorance and arrogance.
Yes, reasonable people can agree that IN THAT CASE, there is legitimate reasons to use the medical procedure of abortion. GIVEN that there are, what reasonable people can agree, legitimate reasons for abortion, FROM THERE, then, the question becomes WHO is in the best place to decide what is and isn't a legitimate reason for abortion? The people involved? Medical experts? Or some guy on the internet who has never been pregnant?
The reasonable answer is obvious.
I not only already answered your questions in bold, but answered them boldly. Nonetheless, I do so yet again:
1. I recognize that you are once again assuming the authority to dictate a reality that is suitable to your position. But, you broaching the subject is the attempt to suggest that full rights to a person at any stage post conception is in question.
If you want to assert that a position in either direction is subjective, you still must deal with the reality that my position is based on the science...flows from it...while your questioning of who should be accorded full rights is not. Why wouldn't a zygote not be afforded those rights? The reasons are totally subjective and self-serving. They are arbitrary in the same manner as any group who presumes to dictate who is or isn't deserving of having their rights respected...such as nazis or klansmen.
God says we're all created in His image and likeness and for that reason murder is prohibited. Our founding documents recognize the unalienable right to life. Neither God nor the Constitution offers a caveat based on superficial characteristics, such as race, sex, age, size, location or stage of human development.
Your position is self-serving because it provides you the loophole to take innocent life whether you take advantage of that loophole or not. Plus, it serves you in providing a defense of those you know who have presumed to have the authority to deny the right to life of their child, or of those you feel should have that authority.
"I would not choose. I would not say, "Yes, you can kill those people, but not those people. And I certainly wouldn't legislate laws that allow killing some people."
But not choosing is to choose that all should die. You don't get a pass on the basis of a weak posturing like that. You have indeed chosen that all of them will die. My choice to to save as many as possible. Thus I answer you question:
You are saying that YOU WOULD allow legislation that "kills" "people" (in your head/imagination/thinking). Is that right?
...in this way: Yes, with the caveat that they are not people in my imagination or thinking, but in reality as supported by science. My choosing is moral in the same way, but actually truthful way, as the pro-aborts pretend their choice is. Their lie is that they are saving the mother, and in the rape/incest excuse, the mother's life is not even threatened! But if we play the game and pretend that the mother will die if she isn't allowed to kill her kid, it's only a life-for-a-life exchange. My position is a very-few-(if any)-lives-for-millions-of-lives exchange. You're choosing to allow the former and pretending it's moral, while pretending at the same time you're being moral by not choosing the latter. It's the height of bad logic and corrupt reasoning. The corruption is in the false narrative...the cheap rationalization...that we can't know the post conception person isn't fully deserving of the same protections as an adult. Let's pretend we don't or can't know so that we don't have to bother with all that goes into acknowledging we do. Self-serving once again.
"It's not "using" these tragic cases as "justification" for abortion."
It absolutely is.
"It's noting that reasonable people can agree that there are at least SOME cases where abortion is a legitimate medical procedure."
It's nothing more than pro-aborts dictating what constitutes "reasonable". There are no cases where abortion is necessary to save a mother's life. Honest medical experts testify to the contrary, and insist that only the abortionists benefit by engaging in the practice. I also don't believe that Craig agrees with the lie, but only acknowledges that it's the argument put forth to justify abortion for every other reason.
"AND to point out that those who stupidly reduce the question down to bumper sticker sized "abortion is murder..." are just speaking from a place of ignorance and arrogance."
That's insulting in a way that demonstrates a total rejection of your "embrace grace" mantra and is speaking from a place indoctrinated by pro-abortion propaganda. You assume that what you regard as "legitimate reasons" actually are based on the testimonies of those who benefit and profit from the practice. In other words, you take the hitman's word for it, when others of equal knowledge and experience insist there are no such "legitimate reasons" to perform the "medical" procedure. I've cited those how represent tens of thousands of medical professionals, as well as former abortionists. What's more, I can cite even more information that further blows up the "legitimate reason" falsehood. The question is, are you reasonable enough to accept that you've been duped and thus are backing the wrong horse?
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Just one medical condition alone, experienced by 1 in 50 pregnant women, requires 130,000 abortions per year. For good cause.
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Inalienable is the word, Marshal, not unalienable, which was a copyists error.
And inalienable rights are those inherent to own them and defend them, "incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent." Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952)]
This goes to Dan's point that inalienable rights are only fully acquired at independent adulthood. Inalienable rights are platformed on the independence of choice of individuals. Individuals like, say, women.
It is insidious that the absurd right is trying to coerce constitutional language to recognize one alienable right only [but no others (owning property; voting; house of worship] of a one celled beginning to human life
Illinois Const., Art. I, § 1 says “All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The free exercise of religion is an inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. Each and every citizen has an inalienable right to full and effective participation in the political processes of the legislative bodies of the nations, state, or locality as the case may be.[Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1989)]
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
When Marshal can find scripture that tells us that an abortion performed because of an ectopic pregnancy is forbidden, or that a women can easily go along and not address an ectopic pregnancy, we'll call it even.
Until then, it stands that Scripture condemns Marshal's immoral hate of refugees and immigrants. And he turns his back on God.
‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Leviticus 27:19
____
‘I am a stranger and an alien residing among you; give me property among you for a burying place, so that I may bury my dead out of my sight.’
Genesis 23:4
You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19
The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:34
When they were few in number, of little account, and strangers in the land, wandering from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people, he allowed no one to oppress them; he rebuked kings on their account, saying, ‘Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.’
1 Chronicles 16:19-22
I was eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, and I championed the cause of the stranger. I broke the fangs of the unrighteous, and made them drop their prey from their teeth.
Job 29:15-17
The Lord watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
Psalm146:9
For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors forever and ever.
Jeremiah 7:5-7
You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as citizens of Israel; with you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:22
Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.
Zechariah 7:9-10
You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’. But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.
Matthew 5:43-44
I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
Matthew 25:35
Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brethren you did it to me.
Matthew 25:40
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.
Luke 10:27
Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Acts 10:34
Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
Romans 12:13
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:8
Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:10
In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.
Colossians 3:11
Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.
Hebrews 13:1-3
Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the friends, even though they are strangers to you; they have testified to your love before the church. You do well to send them on in a manner worthy of God; for they began their journey for the sake of Christ, accepting no support from non-believers. Therefore we ought to support such people, so that they may become co-workers with the truth.
3 John 1:5
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them.”
Revelation 21:3
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Marshal: "The child isn't dead because it has yet to have developed a functioning brain. It is absolutely alive and growing and that function will happen very soon...again, barring any outside interference."
I am thankful that Marshal now allows abortion exceptions for the following:
Anencephaly - Early in the development of an embryo, a flaw in the formation of the neural tube (which eventually becomes the brain and spinal cord) can result in a failure of the brain, skull, and scalp to develop, a condition called anencephaly. In a fetus with anencephaly, the forebrain and cerebrum do not develop, and the remaining parts of the brain may not be covered by bone or skin.
Hydrocephalus - A condition which occurs when cerebral spinal fluid cannot flow properly between the ventricles in the brain resulting in a build-up of pressure. Hydrocephalus has a range of causes. Independently, it is not usually life-threatening, but if your baby is found to have excess fluid in the brain on ultrasound, you should have further evaluation to look for the related condition ventriculomegaly and its associated causes.
Especially ventriculomegaly.
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Women today are more likely than their mothers to die in childbirth.
These data may reflect the fact that reproductive health care is becoming harder than ever to come by. Seven states have passed bills that severely limit access to pregnancy terminations, many in cases when the pregnancy is not viable and a woman’s life is in danger. A sponsor of the Ohio bill recently claimed that ectopic pregnancies, in which the embryo implants outside the uterus, may be re-implanted in the uterus. The medical capability to do this does not exist. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, termination of the pregnancy in these cases is the only way to prevent fatal internal bleeding.
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Abortion as a medical procedure is safer than carrying a pregnancy to full term. Why? Because of Republican roll backs of providing women access to full healthcare - which Planned Parenthood does - not just termination services.
(See the above facts: 5/23 5:47 pm.)
"I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Feodor: "it comes as nothing news that he will not be able to enter into any discussion of medical ethics where actual human persons are weighed differently in terms of care between each other, much less weighed differently than potential human persons."
AND he didn't.
"Like, triage. Marshall's uncomprehending attempts to think cannot grasp triage. (*the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors NOT ALL VICTIMS TREATED EQUALLY.)
Like palliative care. (*medical and related care provided to a patient with a serious, life-threatening, or terminal illness that is not intended to provide curative treatment but rather to manage symptoms NOT TO TRY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING BUT TO HELP ITS ENDING.)
Like the use of morphine in palliative care. (*speeds death while easing pain NOT STAVING OFF DEATH AT ALL COSTS JUST BECAUSE THE PATIENT IS A HUMAN PERSON.)
Human persons are weighed differently in terms of care between each other, much less weighed differently than potential human persons. "
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Just one medical condition alone, experienced by 1 in 50 pregnant women, requires 130,000 abortions per year."
The claim that this one condition actually "required" an abortion is totally in question, except to those abortionists who benefit by the practice.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Inalienable is the word, Marshal, not unalienable, which was a copyists error."
Untrue. "Unalienable" was the spelling in common usage at the time of the founding documents were written. They both mean the same thing, with "inalienable" being currently the common spelling. When referring to the rights enumerated in our founding documents, I use the spelling they did for accuracy.
"This goes to Dan's point that inalienable rights are only fully acquired at independent adulthood. Inalienable rights are platformed on the independence of choice of individuals."
The unborn are individuals who cannot give consent as yet. But any video image of an abortion clearly shows the child fighting against it, thereby demonstrating that, were it able, it would not consent to being murdered. But how convenient that those like yourself have established this arbitrary criterion of "independent adulthood", as if children of 5, 10, 15 years old have no right to life. You're a pip.
"It is insidious that the absurd right is trying to coerce constitutional language to recognize one alienable right only [but no others (owning property; voting; house of worship] of a one celled beginning to human life"
It is insidious to suggest I'm trying to coerce only one right simply because this discussion concerns the most basic right. That one in the womb is unable to assert all other unalienable rights is irrelevant to whether or not they are endowed with them. Your citation of Illinois law has no bearing on or relevance to these truths.
more later
Jefferson's "original Rough draught" is on exhibit in the Library of Congress: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."
"(In the final draft edited by Congress, the word “inalienable” was inadvertently changed to “unalienable” by a copyist.)"
Center for Civic Education.
http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know
"Ectopic pregnancy occurs at a rate of 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester."
American Academy of Family Physicians
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0215/p1080.html
"An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches itself in a place other than inside the uterus. Almost all ectopic pregnancies occur in the fallopian tube and are thus sometimes called tubal pregnancies. The fallopian tubes are not designed to hold a growing embryo; thus, the fertilized egg in a tubal pregnancy cannot develop properly and must be treated. An ectopic pregnancy happens in 1 out of 50 pregnancies."
https://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/ectopic-pregnancy/
"What is An Ectopic Pregnancy?
Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies that implant outside of the uterus. They're often called tubal pregnancies because they almost always occur in the fallopian tubes. In rare cases, they may also implant in the abdomen. Studies show that between 6 to 16 percent of pregnant women who go to an emergency department in the first trimester for bleeding, pain or both have an ectopic pregnancy.
How Common Are Ectopic Pregnancies?
According to the March of Dimes, about 1 in every 50 pregnancies in the U.S. is an ectopic pregnancy (tubal pregnancy.) Your personal risk, however, may actually be lower or higher than the average."
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730
"Treatment of ectopic pregnancy"
Currently there are 3 different treatments available for an ectopic pregnancy. Your doctor will discuss the most appropriate one for you, however, your doctor may also find it necessary to proceed from one me thod to another.
Laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove fertilised egg from fallopian tubes. A telescopic device (the laparoscope) is inserted through a small cut below your navel (belly button). To help identify your organs, carbon dioxide gas is blown into your stomach through a needle. A couple of small incisions are also made in your lower abdomen to manipulate and if necessary remove the ectopic pregnancy tissue. The surgery may involve removing your fallopian tube (salpingectomy) or opening your fallopian tube (salpingostomy) to remove the ectopic pregnancy tissue.
Laparotomy to remove the ectopic pregnancy - If the pregnancy is advanced or there has been significant associated haemorrhaging (bleeding) then your doctor may perform a laparotomy, a type of surgery involving a much larger incision.
Intramuscular injection of the drug methotrexate - A medication called methotrexate is used to dissolve the pregnancy tissue. It is given by injection in the leg or bottom and is suitable for women without pain or those with minimal pain."
https://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/A_E/Ectopic-pregnancy
Feodor: "This goes to Dan's point that inalienable rights are only fully acquired at independent adulthood. Inalienable rights are platformed on the independence of choice of individuals."
Marshal: "The unborn are individuals who cannot give consent as yet."
Marshal: ""The child isn't dead because it has yet to have developed a functioning brain."
Marshal gave evidence of the right and true aptness of my point.
Dan, it's your blog, but letting Marshal's brazen lies stand or erasing them along with how I demonstrate his lies are interminable are bad options.
Marshal just regurgitates the absurd right when he tries to import constitutional terms for for taking away a women's independent inalienable right over her body.
"U.S. energy officials are rebranding domestic natural gas as “freedom gas” and “molecules of freedom” while promoting its export around the world.
The bizarre language was used in a press release by the Emergency Department on Tuesday, announcing that it has authorized increasing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from a Gulf Coast terminal near Freeport, Texas."
In his comment from May 30, 2019 at 6:32 AM, feo lists a number of verses as if they're relevant to the discussion. But as he's a complete fake, he offers no explanation for how they might be...which they are not. He simply throws them out there hoping no one notices they aren't.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Marshal: "The child isn't dead because it has yet to have developed a functioning brain. It is absolutely alive and growing and that function will happen very soon...again, barring any outside interference."
I am thankful that Marshal now allows abortion exceptions for the following:"
feo is thankful for fantasy, for I have not expressed an exception for brain defect. Indeed, I would not have favored the abortion of feo for his.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Women today are more likely than their mothers to die in childbirth."
Try as I might, I could find nothing that draws a direct line between lack of access to abortion as a prime reason for higher maternal mortality rates. Indeed, what feo presents as evidence for the purpose of justifying the indefensible absolutely does not.
"A sponsor of the Ohio bill recently claimed that ectopic pregnancies, in which the embryo implants outside the uterus, may be re-implanted in the uterus. The medical capability to do this does not exist. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, termination of the pregnancy in these cases is the only way to prevent fatal internal bleeding."
Yet it's been done successfully. Nor is abortion necessary to prevent fatal internal bleeding which is more often hos ectopic pregnancies are discovered.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Abortion as a medical procedure is safer than carrying a pregnancy to full term"
Untrue. Why? Because pro-aborts need people to believe this in order to preserve the convenience of abortion...not the medical need for it.
more later
Marshal, you always do this whenever you cannot fathom the meaning and consequences of your own words. Which is always. Is stupidity your defense against straight up self contradicting everything you claim about your faith?
"In his comment from May 30, 2019 at 6:32 AM, feo lists a number of verses as if they're relevant to the discussion."
Do you think, Marshal, that a biblical position of respecting life can allow the detention of refugees and the caging and abuse of their children? Or is the pro-life position just pro-American? Or is it just pro-white? And particularly pro-white-male?
You stand cursed by scripture precisely because you do not honor sacred life in the immigrant, the refugee, the foreigner. Please notice that scripture says nothing about waiting in line, waiting in some other country, or being caged and abused first.
__
"The child isn't dead because it has yet to have developed a functioning brain."
You argue here, Marshal, that a fetus that will develop a functioning brain is to be given inalienable rights. Therefore, a fetus that will not or cannot develop a functioning brain is not given inalienable rights. Such would be the argument for allowing abortion exceptions by your own poisition. You'd see that if you could understand that your words have meaning and rational conclusive consequences.
"Try as I might, I could find nothing" Not a surprise given your incapacities. "Yet it's been done successfully." Great citation. What year was this? Did witch hazel do the trick?
THE CENTURY-OLD ‘SCIENCE FICTION’ BEHIND OHIO REP’S BILL COVERING NONEXISTENT ECTOPIC PREGNANCY TREATMENT
Ohio Rep. John Becker (R) drew widespread criticism last week for an anti-abortion bill that would allow insurance coverage for the “reimplantation” of an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus—a treatment that does not exist. Physicians and pro-choice advocates have called the line in the bill “science fiction,” but Becker told Rewire.News he does have sources to back up his claim: two articles—one more than 100 years old—with anecdotal stories from physicians who claim that “reimplanting” ectopic pregnancies into the uterus is possible.
HE SAID A LOBBYIST FOR THE STATE’S RIGHT TO LIFE GROUP GAVE HIM THE DOCUMENTS.
Dr. Daniel Grossman, an OB-GYN and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) at the University of California, San Francisco, described ectopic pregnancies in a viral Twitter thread criticizing the bill. Ectopic pregnancies occur when a pregnancy grows outside of the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube, though Grossman wrote that they can rarely develop in the cervix or the abdomen as well. According to the Mayo Clinic, “an ectopic pregnancy can’t proceed normally. The fertilized egg can’t survive, and the growing tissue may cause life-threatening bleeding, if left untreated.” Ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester. There are two treatments for ectopic pregnancies: surgery or the use of a medication called methotrexate. “Reimplanting” an ectopic pregnancy is not a possible treatment, according to Grossman. “We just don’t have the technology,” he tweeted Becker. “So I would suggest removing this from your bill, since it’s pure science fiction.”
The second article that Becker sent to Grossman was a letter “To the Editors” by Dr. Landrum B. Shettles in a 1990 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology describing a case in 1980 in which Shettles says he witnessed a surgeon reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into a woman’s uterus. Shettles is well known for helping to develop in-vitro fertilization, though he received criticism from his peers for his book How to Choose the Sex of Your Baby, *IN WHICH HE CLAIMED THAT HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES COULD “CHOOSE” THEIR BABY’S SEX BY HAVING INTERCOURSE DURING A CERTAIN TIME IN A WOMAN’S CYCLE AND IN SPECIFIC SEXUAL POSITIONS, according to the New York Times. He also was involved in a highly publicized lawsuit surrounding an IVF case; the lawsuit led to his resignation from Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, according to the Times.
Grossman told Rewire.News in a phone interview that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) does not include “reimplantation” as a treatment in its practice bulletin on the management of ectopic pregnancy, and that the articles Becker relies on are incredibly old and unreliable. “[The articles] are essentially just case reports, which is the lowest level of medical evidence in terms of the quality,” Grossman said.
Dr. Jenn Conti said neither of the physicians proved that the healthy pregnancies were the result of their procedure. “We know that after a termination, for example, someone can ovulate as soon as ten days after, so, theoretically in both of these situations, you could end the pregnancy via the removal of the ectopic, the person could ovulate in 10 days, and then give birth to a preterm baby from a different [pregnancy]".... We never make medical decisions based on one person’s opinion or based on one case report, or certainly not based on medicine from 1917,” she said.
https://rewire.news/article/2019/05/17/science-fiction-behind-ohio-reps-ban-insurance-ectopic-pregnancy/
Feodor: Abortion as a medical procedure is safer than carrying a pregnancy to full term
Marshal: Untrue.
This is what science looks like, Marshal. No lie. I only bring you facts. You just deny them.
Obstetrics & Gynecology is the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College). Popularly known as "The Green Journal," Obstetrics & Gynecology has been published since 1953. Then as is now, the goal of the journal is to promote excellence in the clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology and closely related fields.
The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.
Raymond EG1, Grimes DA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.
METHODS: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.
RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.
Dan, this comment is off topic. Even off your blog. But, as you know, Craig is lamenting Maine’s wisdom in stopping therapies that claim to straighten gay folks.
We’ve been done this road, indeed, psychology continues to change as we grow and learn about human expression free from cultural fundamentalist control. Perhaps Craig would also like to see these diagnoses revived:
Hysteria: A Female Mental Illness
Hysteria was a once common medical diagnosis for women. In fact, some researchers describe hysteria as the “first mental disorder attributable to women.” It was thought to be characterized by extreme emotion, nervousness, faintness, insomnia, and sexual desire, among other symptoms.
The Vapors: A Condition of the More Delicate Sex
The vapors, whose origin is closely related to the term hysteria, was another condition that affected women in the Victorian era. Characterized by fainting, moodiness, anxious , and agitation, the vapors was a reflection of the overall societal view of women at the time.
And perhaps his favorite:
Drapetomania: A Desire to Be Free
In 1851 Dr. Samuel Cartwright, a Louisiana surgeon and psychologist, wrote an article about two conditions affecting African-Americans, reports PBS. Drapetomania — described as a disease that caused African-American slaves to flee slavery — was one of those conditions.
“There are some really ugly parts of history concerning psychiatric illnesses,” Kasimatis says. “It was a way of justifying slaves who were unhappy, slaves who were ‘lazy,’ and slaves who wanted to escape their situation.”
In his article, Cartwright explained how to deal with slaves exhibiting drapetomania symptoms. “When sulky and dissatisfied without cause, the experience of those on the line and elsewhere, was decidedly in favor of whipping them out of it, as a preventive measure against absconding, or other bad conduct. It was called whipping the devil out of them,” Cartwright wrote.
I guess pointing out that the entire first paragraph is a lie would be pointless.
Craig: “This means that Dan is advocating for the government to deny people the choice to engage in a therapeutic treatment.”
Craig would have been against removing treatment offering black folks a cure from wanting to be free.
So, as I said, and as us true from the meaning and inferential consequences of your words: Craig is lamenting Maine’s wisdom in stopping therapies that claim to straighten gay folks.
Your "inferences" are, as usual, willful lies and in no way honestly related to anything Craig says (or I say). Clearly, and I guess one can't be a highly educated, well read seminarian in order to understand it, Craig laments the fact that those who are uncomfortable with their homosexual proclivities are unable to find therapies of any kind to help them cope or overcome those tendencies thanks to Maine's shortsighted, pro-homosexual fascism. Or words to that effect.
"Craig would have been against removing treatment offering black folks a cure from wanting to be free."
The above is just rank stupidity from a racist toward Craig, who isn't.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Marshal: "The child isn't dead because it has yet to have developed a functioning brain. It is absolutely alive and growing and that function will happen very soon...again, barring any outside interference."
I am thankful that Marshal now allows abortion exceptions for the following:"
The buffoon then goes on to list a few brain issues possible in the fetus. But, these issues don't threaten the mother's life, so there's no need to murder the child. Unless you're a brutalizer like feo, for whom any excuse will do.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Women today are more likely than their mothers to die in childbirth."
This is based on spurious information that has nothing to do with whether or not abortion would make a difference. The pro-aborts don't report these things the same way they do problem pregnancies. If some lingering issue after an abortion leads to a woman's death, the blame the lingering issue without making any connection to the abortion. But anything that happens to a woman during childbirth is blamed on the childbirth, not that the woman, for example, didn't have an issue properly treated. The point here is the comparison is purposely slanted to make it appear that abortions are safe. They are not. feo doesn't care.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Abortion as a medical procedure is safer than carrying a pregnancy to full term. Why? Because of Republican roll backs of providing women access to full healthcare - which Planned Parenthood does - not just termination services."
This is also false. There is nothing that prevents a woman in danger from receiving proper care. What's more, Planned Parenthood doesn't concern themselves with "women's health"...most certainly NOT "full healthcare", as they are a baby killing business. Conversely, there are at least three times as many crisis pregnancy centers, most of which provide far more pregnancy related services that actually secure or improve the health of both mother and child, WITHOUT murdering the child needlessly...or at all.
Despite the rational scientific fact that Anencephaly most often leads to death in days or weeks...
And despite the rational scientific fact that women today are more likely than their mothers to die in childbirth...
Marshal would demand to string suffering and dying out as long as possible and raise the risks that two die instead of losing one pregnancy and trying again. Marshal would demand as much emotional and financial cost as possible and foreclose on the pursuit of truly happy births.
Because Marshal is a moral monster, a believer in brutality for anyone other than straight white men.
""I defy you to present anything he says that is right or true"
Feodor: "it comes as nothing news that he will not be able to enter into any discussion of medical ethics where actual human persons are weighed differently in terms of care between each other, much less weighed differently than potential human persons.""
feo goes on to list practices that do not make his case at all.
"Like, triage." Triage is NOT set up to allow people to die or to hasten their deaths. Triage seeks to attend to those most in need of immediate care, leaving others to wait because they are deemed more likely to survive despite the wait. The focus is on the severity of the issues of the various patients being so classified. The purpose is to save ALL the lives starting with those most in immediate need. That some of those waiting may die is not because they were deemed less human. They simply didn't survive the wait as was hoped. But the intention is to save them all.
So feo lies about the purpose, intention and thought processes involved in the concept of triage. More to the point, in feo's warped mind, there is choice made between mother and child as if the choice needs to be made as abortionists make it. That is false, as there is no need to abort to save a mother's life.
"Like palliative care." or the use of morphine...
Palliative care is NOT only used where death is without question. https://getpalliativecare.org/whatis/ But while the methods of palliative care are employed to ease the suffering of the dying, it too is not intended to speed death, but only to make the dying as comfortable as possible. The key here is that death is assured, that there is nothing more than can to be done to prolong life. It's pretty damned insidious to pretend this practice provides something by which a liar can further promote the unnecessary practice of abortion.
"Human persons are weighed differently in terms of care between each other, much less weighed differently than potential human persons. "
Another lie. There is no such thing as a "potential" human person. From conception onward to death, all are people endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. Even feo...who proves his own humanity is in question.
"Feodor: "This goes to Dan's point that inalienable rights are only fully acquired at independent adulthood. Inalienable rights are platformed on the independence of choice of individuals.""
False. "Endowed by their Creator" suggests no caveat with regard to at what point in human development one's rights are "fully acquired"...a stupid and self-serving, as well as fascistic notion only a lefty would conjure.
More later.
"Or words to that effect."
Marshal's seat-of-the-pants moral veerings fail simple facts. His prejudiced manipulation of clear science and his weak grip on words and reason means he intentionally lies and then, bizarrely, erases even the memory of the intention to lie.
___
Triage categorizes the wounded into three groups:
Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;
Those who are unlikely to live, regardless of what care they receive;
Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome.
The middle group are left to die based on medical judgment and the refusal of drastic treatment means they will die faster.
Simple as that.
___
The founding fathers didn't have automatic guns and silencers in mind for your closet, Marshal. Nor could their doctors operate on any women to save a troubled fetus. Live birth at the end of gestation was the only chance. And even then, half of all children didn't survive 5 years.
No child has a right to pursue happiness. The parent decides what the child will do.
no child has a right to liberty. The parent decides where the child will live, what the child will eat, what the child will wear. The state decides that the child will be educated and vaccinated.
Inalienable rights cannot be given away. Observe, Marshal: parenting and the state have refused to give children full inalienable right yet.
Inalienable rights depend upon independence to pursue those rights. Observe, Marshall: parents and the state refuse to give children such independence.
Children have attenuated inalienable rights until adulthood - a full 14 to 16 years later. ZERO independence until then.
If children do not get full rights - FOR GOOD REASON - then it is easy to understand that until viability, no fetus has inalienable rights, because there is no independence... of body or mind.
This is called Enlightenment reason, Marshal. Those forefathers, the writers and signers of the Constitution - even the copyist who misspelled inalienable - were followers of the Enlightenment.
Educate yourself, for God's sake, Marshal. Stop playing the corrupt fool.
Marshal accepts triage. Craig may or may not or may not even think about triage.
But triage speeds death for those who - in judgments by DOCTORS and NURSES - are LIKELY TO DIE.
Same with the termination of pregnancies due to a whole range of conditions, some of which I have listed. Which account for 15% of all pregnancies. ALL PREGNANCIES. Not just terminations.
That's 975,000 terminations for medical reasons, per year.
Craig thinks we can discount 975,000 women. Not even think about them. The women don't count.
The following link gathers all known information on the subject of ectopic pregnancies, including those that indict the very people feo supports as the cavalier deniers of the humanity of the unborn for the sake of their own convenience:
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html
Marshal must be from Salem: trying to indict with lies.
And still feo cannot prove I've lied about anything. It doesn't seem he can even show I've been mistaken about anything.
You reject reason and science and human rights for religious hokum from the 19th century. You’re a crazy fundamentalist wanting to impose your brutalizing shackles on the rights of others. You’re a viral carrying a Puritan.
You are a lie all unto yourself. An empty conscience. A reject, rejecting your own creation.
Marshal, your "author" (who cannot find a publisher to accept his work: all his pamphlets are self-published) is an Alabama charlatan. It took only the 4th and 5th footnotes to see that he is lying to you or he doesn't know how to read science journals and is making things up. To wit:
"The actual danger that an ectopic pregnancy poses to the mother is that of a tubal rupture or some other kind of hemorrhage which could cause the mother to lose a vital amount of blood. However, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation reported that, from 1983 to 1996, they treated 62 patients who had experienced a tubal rupture.[5] Over a fourteen year period, this single hospital treated 4.4 ruptured ectopic pregnancies per year, but the CDC only reported 26.3 ectopic related deaths per year. If tubal ruptures were definitely fatal, then that would mean that this one hospital has witnessed 1/6 of all the ectopic related deaths in America."
His suspicions on the math result from his insidious motivations or he's ignorant. He assumes that tubal rupture is synonymous with death. It isn't. Emergency surgery can save the mother's life. The Clevleland Clinic saved some who had tubal rupture. So, he lies when he writes "If tubal ruptures were definitely fatal". And theN turns from this lie to his bad faith conclusion that lies are being told by the CDC: “highly unlikely” “the hospital witnessed 1/6 of all the ectopic related deaths in America." It didn’t. Because it’s simply a fact that tubal rupture is NOT synonymous with death.
This is easily pointed out simply by reading the abstract of the article he points to which clearly says not all tubal ruptures result in death, though tubal rupture is highly fatal: "There was an increased morbidity associated with tubal rupture. Tubal rupture cannot be predicted on the basis of any known risk factor, ultrasonogram findings, or serum hCG levels. Early diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy are the only modality available to prevent tubal rupture and its associated morbidity."
To make this simple for you, Marshal, "increased morbidity" means high rate of mortality - not 100%.
Your boy is an idiot, using smoke and mirrors. Or plain stupid trying to comprehend things beyond his grasp. And you're an idiot for going to this self-aggrandizing blogger for your lies.
Craig has inferred that black women would be better off without the inalienable right over their own body. (His argument is equivalent to saying that under slavery, no black folks were homeless.) But he’s not thinking about the nature of what he says, he’s just following the made up propaganda of extremist manipulators that cooked up fake claims of genocidal violence in the last few years in order to exert brutality undercover. Nihilistic, inhuman, lying perpetrators of evil.
If Craig had a heart for people that wasn’t so plantation paternalistic, he would be screaming out for universal healthcare for the poor and relatively poor. Because he would know these numbers, which pile up black bodies a lot faster than white bodies:
Considerable racial disparities in pregnancy-related mortality exist. During 2011-2014, the pregnancy-related mortality ratios were:
12.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women.
40.0 deaths per 100,000 live births for black women.
17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for women of other races.
Dan,
I appreciate the fact that you provide a forum and refuge for those who choose to engage in the lies and slander you've always claimed to abhor. At this point, It appear that every time my name is mentioned here, it's for the purpose of lies and/or slander. Your comfort level with falsehood is disturbing, given your previous stance on lies and slander. Your willingness to allow claims not supported by the "data" you claim to prize is just one more sign of your inconsistency.
I don't expect this comment to survive your periodic purges, I do hope you read it before you delete it and that you search your soul looking for what's right.
"Craig: “This means that Dan is advocating for the government to deny people the choice to engage in a therapeutic treatment.”"
"Craig would have been against removing treatment offering black folks a cure from wanting to be free."
"Craig thinks we can discount 975,000 women. Not even think about them. The women don't count."
"Craig has inferred that black women would be better off without the inalienable right over their own body. (His argument is equivalent to saying that under slavery, no black folks were homeless.) But he’s not thinking about the nature of what he says, he’s just following the made up propaganda of extremist manipulators that cooked up fake claims of genocidal violence in the last few years in order to exert brutality undercover. Nihilistic, inhuman, lying perpetrators of evil."
Craig: "lies and slander"!
Evidence!:
1. Feodor: "Craig: “This means that Dan is advocating for the government to deny people the choice to engage in a therapeutic treatment.”"
[Craig on May 30, 2019 at 5:59 PM in a comment on his own blog: "This means that Dan is advocating for the government to deny people the choice to engage in a therapeutic treatment."]
2. Feodor: "Craig would have been against removing treatment offering black folks a cure from wanting to be free."
[Abolitionists were "advocating for the government to deny people the choice to engage in a therapeutic treatment." Like this one, "Cartwright explained how to deal with slaves exhibiting drapetomania symptoms. “When sulky and dissatisfied without cause, the experience of those on the line and elsewhere, was decidedly in favor of whipping them out of it, as a preventive measure against absconding, or other bad conduct. It was called whipping the devil out of them"]
3. Feodor: "Craig thinks we can discount 975,000 women. Not even think about them. The women don't count."
[Craig: "Rare (sic) cases don't count."]
Apparently neither Craig nor Marshal can or intend to condition the implications of their words in ways that stop such reasonable inferences of their logic. They just deny that they are thinking exactly like brutalizing oppressors in our history... while they in fact do so.
"To make this simple for you, Marshal, "increased morbidity" means high rate of mortality - not 100%."
To make this simple for YOU, feo, the author is saying the opposite of what you stupidly want to believe he said. That is, that tubal pregnancies are NOT 100% fatal. What this means is that, while your "to prevent the death of the mother" canard represents less than 1% of all abortions (assuming of course that abortion is ever necessary to prevent death, which so many medical professionals say isn't so), your reference to ectopic pregnancies further reduces that number, especially since it isn't the death sentence you need it to be in order to rationalize murdering the child.
Also, it occurs to me that another falsehood you repeat, that being that there is no procedure for re-implanting an embryo/fetus from a fallopian tube to a uterus is no more than a convenience for the abortionist. What occurred to me was the fact that embryos are implanted all the time, in artificial insemination and/or in vitro procedures. It seems unlikely that to remove the embryo, while delicate, and then re-implant in the uterus can't possibly be beyond the ability of a moral, life-loving medical professional, if not by a baby killing abortionist.
In any case, the data the author presents shows just how false and exploitative the ectopic excuse truly is. Perfect for someone like you.
Your Alabama kitchen table blogger boy lied about the math, Marshal. And you didn’t bail him out. His credibility is shot right at the start of his argument. He’s a deceiver.
Like you.
No physician in the last 100 years has been able to reimplant an ectopic fetus. Your hundred year old fable is a deception 1/2 based on a serial lawsuit target.
No physician has been able, or few have tried? You take your cues from the very people that choose death because of convenience. I take mine from those who reject murder as the first or only option.
You have no room to disparage the credibility of others...particularly those who do not reject the humanity of fellow human beings, as do Molech worshipers like yourself and other abortionists. Your credibility has yet to be confirmed after all the time that has passed since you first soiled the blogosphere with your first arrogant comment. Here, you ignore the author's purpose even after I stated it for you. It was to gather all available data regarding ectopic pregnancies to demonstrate abortion isn't necessary to save a women's life, nor that it is needed because there are no other means of treatment for ectopic pregnancies. One would think that one who claims to be a Christian would be at least relieved to hear it, if not overjoyed. But then, a real Christian accepts the humanity of the unborn and seeks to save those lives as well.
BTW, how many black people actually sought out therapies that required them to submit to the whip? Doesn't seem logical. But assuming such people exist or ever did, would it not be their own choice? Would you deny them their self-determination? Isn't it their own bodies and thus none of your business? Can you be more false?
The crazy right has learned that when Pat Robertson says God sent the hurricane because of gay people, he loses points for sanity. So, what do you guys do? You assemble the semblance of an argument but you only use innuendo, selecting some data, disparaging other data, making bad faith conclusions -- as your kitchen table blogger did -- all in an effort to build a fake wall behind which, like Branch Davidians, you make up myths to tell yourselves your are precious in God's eyes while you point assault weapons out the upper windows.
You, Marshal, have made your bed with those who burned Giordano Bruno, forced Galileo to recant, ruled Geneva with thumb screws in the name of Christ, rated slaves as deserving and benefiting from their peculiar institution, think women are better off silent and in the home, and deny rights to queer people.
You thrill to the lust that crucified Christ in the name of faith. You light your way with bright lies.
I have made my bed with the progress of science and reason and spiritual life and a Christ the rules the cosmos bringing forth new light all the time.
Such is the bedrock difference between us.
For some hysterically bizarre reason, Craig thinks babies with Down’s syndrome, blindness, or autism, and queer babies are only born in red states.
Clearly he hasn’t been to New York. We have whole schools of such beautiful people.
He’ll lie about anything.
So....you're incapable of addressing the actual points, or ed ferring as always to disparaging who makes them. Credibility indeed.
Marshal,
you stand accused by scripture for your hate toward refugees.
you stand accused of racism by me because it is the color of refugees that stirs your hate.
you stand accused in this way because you do not have a clue about what constitutes the human person.
you don't know what constitutes the human person because you refuse to think in faith.
you default to a literalist, religious war constructed dogma of radical protestantism of the 17th century.
These have been the themes of my part of our exchange for years. And you've proven incapable of addressing any of it or any of the facts by which I've drawn these themes. Ever.
Your part of our exchange, as I have also pointed out for years, is cant, denial of facts, denial of science, denial of life-giving theology, denial of a living Christ in favor of a book, dodge, massive and endlessly repetitive diversion, avoidance, prevarication, myth-making, and a deeply disturbing willingness to openly lie like Trump, because, like Trump and so many others who are getting attention these days and getting it because of our fascination with this scandal: you simply have zero respect or humility before the truth. And so you are a reality show of valuelessness and unmoored souls.
We know truth doesn't matter to you because you search high and low and always choose the low places like rat holes and ant tunnels where your "experts" live: the helicopter engineers who do night-time, arm chair bible study with a dictionary, a highlighter, and a 3-way build in the lamp; and now a kitchen table blogger who cannot follow the simple math of summary statistics from science journals, none of which he understands or cares to, and constructs his paper mâché science denying zombie baby out of Zondervan-red-letter-editon pages.
When you can present scripture where an ectopic pregnancy is addressed by the central concerns of the gospel (and not next to a passage of damning the weaving of a shirt from two kinds of cloth) OR an argument that has real peer-reviewed, published research behind it, like reasonable people making arguments based on reason, then you may have begun your High School Senior thesis.
Until then, get behind us, Satan.
Yer funny!
First paragraph,
Your accusations are worthless without supporting evidence...except as lies. For example, Scripture can't "accuse me" of hating refugees if I don't actually hate them...which I don't...and which you've never come close to proving is even possible.
Being accused of racism by you is meaningless, as well as hypocritical, given your irrational fixation on race. But more importantly, this is but one more accusation for which you've never come close to proving, even after countless dares by me that you try.
I've clearly explained what makes one a human person. I haven't been quite as able to explain how that applies to you. Further, you're laughable and self-serving understanding of Christianity doesn't promote a belief that you actually think, even if you have the capability of doing so.
I default to the clearly revealed Word of God found in Scripture. Sorta like what Jesus did.
"These have been the themes of my part of our exchange for years. And you've proven incapable of addressing any of it or any of the facts by which I've drawn these themes."
As noted above, your "themes" are fallacious, ridiculous, laughable and based on nothing more but your hateful desire that they be true...not because they are in any way. And when all you do is make assertions without any attendance proofs or evidences, I address it in the only way possible: "Prove it". You don't. Because you can't. And it doesn't matter because, darn it! you NEED it to be true. You WANT it to be true. You just can't prove that any of it is. Sad and pathetic.
Third paragraph,
More humor. You don't bring facts as much as opinions that align with yours in hopes that they're enough to stifle rational and more insightful counter arguments. But you don't have the standing to compel such awe in those who can so easily see through your egocentric and self-promoting bloviating. You don't impress. You bore. Here are a couple of my favorite jokes of yours:
---"denial of a living Christ in favor of a book"
I deny that you have any special ability to receive anything from the actual living Christ in the first place...so contrary to Christian teaching are your beliefs...and as such, your perspective is easily dismissed on the basis of that which is in direct conflict with the Book you do not respect, revere or even understand. I'll take "the book" over YOUR nonsensical and fictional "living Christ" all day long. There's truth in "the book". There is none in you.
---"you simply have zero respect or humility before the truth"
This is hilarious coming from you! You've NEVER demonstrated respect for anyone from the first day your stench fouled the air of the blogosphere. And humility? My sides are destroyed from the laughter! You are the perfect antithesis of humility. Likely the only way "perfect" can be applied to you.
4th paragraph.
This one highlights your default counter argument to that which confounds you: You attack the source rather than the information. Never have you lifted a virtual finger to present a counter to the analysis of the "helicopter engineer"... pretending that someone can't be accomplished in multiple fields. I get that, given that you're accomplished in nothing but falsehood. But at least Dan left it at "I don't buy it", rather than indict himself to the degree you do when you resort to this cowardly response. Now you do it with someone who uses all the available information he can find to defend the truth that abortion is never necessary, instead of actually dealing with that info. Indeed, you don't even get the point of his message.
6th paragraph,
"When you can present scripture where an ectopic pregnancy is addressed by the central concerns of the gospel..."
I did. "Thou shalt not murder."
"OR an argument that has real peer-reviewed, published research behind it,"
Ah! "Peer review"! The common stand-by for those with no real argument. Peer review does not confirm the conclusions of research, but is meant to address the methods used to reach the conclusion. At the same time, the quality of the review is not particularly reliable, as I've demonstrated by citing scientific sites that have proven this to be true, and the choice of what gets reviewed has even less bearing on the merits of research not considered by scientific journals and sites. What YOU want is simply that I accept the words of those who promote and defend the practice of abortion, as if there is no subjective, self-serving motivations behind it. But that would just make me sheep like you. And if I'm going to be a sheep, I will be one of those The Shepherd loves, one who follows life over murder.
I know why you want Satan to get behind you. He's just not evil enough for you.
"Scripture can't "accuse me" of hating refugees if I don't actually hate them...which I don't...and which you've never come close to proving is even possible."
Marshal, you support the caging of children and the separation of families at the border. And a senseless, worthless border wall.
‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Leviticus 27:19
-
Marshal, you support an immigration ban on Muslims.
'You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.'
Deuteronomy 10:19
-
Marshal, you support the deportation of aliens.
'The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.'
-
Scripture curses you for your hate. Go read the Bible and stop killing your soul with you wanton lies.
So now you're switching topics again? I guess a white flag would have been appropriate before doing so.
BTW, none of what you just posted proves I hate refugees, especially when you you're lying about most of it.
The topic is what constitutes the human person such that an individual has the inalienable right to life.
For some time now you’ve been faced with clear scriptural condemnation for how you treat some human lives relative to others. Unable to follow scripture or exonerate yourself, it goes to reason - reason - that your credibility is corrupt both to how you ignore scripture re yourself and how you disregard facts relative to human rights.
I do not stand cursed by scripture nor defeated by reasoning from scientific facts.
You have created a Papier-mâché zombie fetus (needn’t have a brain) from Zondervan red-letter edition pages and called it sacred. In order to exert your pro-white-male-control needs all over this post and throughout everything you communicate.
It’s sickening. And it stinks in heaven.
I remember the day I became a father. The day my incredible daughter was born. Until then, we were expecting. What a difference for all of us!
You were expecting the birth of your child. Your wife was "with child" from the moment the child was conceived by your wife and the mailman.
Of course all this assumes you actually have a wife and daughter in the first place. Hard to believe there exists a woman so desperate for a husband to choose the likes of you.
Yes, We we’re expecting a child. When it all goes well that’s what we get in 9 months. A little info for you.
Since modern anatomy methods - like beginning in the 17th century - no one says “with child” for hundreds of years.. Because we don’t recognize it as a child yet.
Your Sharia desires makes you deaf as well as blind.
You don't recognize it as a child because you choose not to to recognize it as a child. This allows you the liberty to murder the child if convenient for you to do so.
Your Molech worshiping brutality can't be rationalized away with such obvious deceit as that.
I agree with modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology.
You can’t stand any of that. You hate western civilization because you are a fundamentalist: an irrational, Sharia wannabe.
"I agree with modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology."
You agree with anything that confirms your biases, because nothing is more important to you. The reality is that you pervert concepts of ethics and morality and celebrate the horrors and murders that flow from it, pretending you are balancing needs, when in fact, you are ignoring that which led to the conundrum that you feel is best resolved by the unnecessary and therefore unjust killing of a human being. Truly brutal.
And no, I can't stand any of that. Perverting Christian teaching to rationalize murder will not serve you come Judgement, though no doubt you'll be sure to tell God what an irrational rube He is.
You're not worth my time, because you have no truth in you whatsoever. Repent while you still can.
"You agree with anything that confirms your biases, because nothing is more important to you. The reality is that you pervert concepts of ethics and morality and celebrate the horrors and murders that flow from “
Modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology declared the slave trade to be crimes against humanity. Modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology convicted Nazis at Nuremberg and taught the world the evils of the Holocaust. Modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology made America apologize for the Japanese internment camps. Modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology convicted members of the American military for Vietnam atrocities and the killings at Kent State. The Modern medicine, bio-ethics,moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology have defined homophobia as a disease and anti-homophobic violence as a civil rights crime. Modern medicine, bio-ethics, moral theology, and the law based on medicine and bio-ethics and moral theology privilege the mother’s life over a nonviable human organism because full human beings with consciousness, relationship dependencies, a treasury of memories, and autonomy have the protection of full human rights over their bodies.
As you yourself confess, you “can't stand any of that.”
Post a Comment