Some facts about abortion. These are
objective, rational, demonstrable facts, no partisanship and no need for
disagreement. True fact! Check it out. (AND, if I have any of my facts wrong - especially on the legal side of things, feel free to correct me... with facts, not opinions.)
1. People who support keeping the medical procedure of abortion legal (henceforth called "Abortion supporters") do not hate babies or fetuses (at least in most cases).
2. Abortion supporters do not want to see fetuses "murdered." Nor do we support "murder."
3.
People who would like to outlaw abortion (henceforth called "abortion
opponents") don't want to kill moms and don't hate women (at least in
most cases).
4. A human fetus IS a human fetus. 100%. It's literally a human fetus.
5. Abortion supporters acknowledge that, of course, a human fetus is a human fetus.
...Ready?
The questions, then, are
5a. Is a human fetus deserving of human rights in every possible sense?
5b. Do we objectively, factually know?
5c. Does the law say?
...Ready?
The questions, then, are
5a. Is a human fetus deserving of human rights in every possible sense?
5b. Do we objectively, factually know?
5c. Does the law say?
5d. Does "God" (Allah? Buddha? The Bible? The Koran?) say?
5e. Does reason insist?
5e. Does reason insist?
6. Humans have different rights depending on the stage of their life. True fact!
7. Human five year olds do NOT have a right to drive a car. Human 16 year olds (in most places?) DO have a right to drive a car.
8. A one year old does not have a "right" to take care of himself or live on his own. An 18 year old DOES have those rights.
9.
So, does a fetus have full human rights legally speaking? Nope. Nor
does a one year old, nor does a 13 year old. Different ages/stages,
different rights. That is, by "Full human rights," I mean, does a fetus,
one year old, six year old, 14 year old, etc have all the rights of an
adult human? I'm pretty sure the legal answer to this is a clear No.
According to Encyclopia.com:
According to Encyclopia.com:
"Historically, under both English common law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full
rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the
fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain
instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical
science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor,
diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient."
Again - the legal part of this is where I'm least clear. I am glad to be corrected.
10.
Okay, but what about the basic "right to life..."? Even a one year old
has that, right? But does a fetus? Does a fetus at 2 weeks old have that
right? At 20 weeks old?
This is the big question. It all boils down to the answer to that question. And the answer:
11. We do not know.
No one can objectively prove, one way of the other, in an
authoritative, factual manner, "YES, the 2 week old fetus has an innate
right to life." OR "No, the 2 week year old fetus does NOT have an
innate right to life."
12. Now, legally, this may be dependent on where you live. Different states and different nations may establish laws one way or the other, but here's the thing:
12. Now, legally, this may be dependent on where you live. Different states and different nations may establish laws one way or the other, but here's the thing:
The
lawmakers in these various states can not prove it objectively,
authoritatively one way or the other. This is a fundamentally unprovable
opinion, one way or the other.
Has the law ever authoritatively answered this question? I don't think so.
Has science ever proven an innate right to life beginning at conception? No. It hasn't. It factually hasn't.
Has GOD or Allah or any omnipotent, omniscient being EVER handed us an authoritative answer to this question?
No.
And the passages that abortion opponents often cite are ones like this: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” which literally does not say authoritatively that the 2 week old (or 20 week old) fetus has a right to life. It's literally not there. People who READ INTO that passage that "right" are reading into the text something that is not there.
You see, it's a simple
matter to objectively answer: Is this a human fetus or is it not? That
is demonstrable and objectively provable. But, "Does a 2 week old fetus
have an innate right to life? What about a 20 week old fetus?"... we
just have no way of authoritatively, objectively answering that
question. That's a fact.
Has the law ever authoritatively answered this question? I don't think so.
Has science ever proven an innate right to life beginning at conception? No. It hasn't. It factually hasn't.
Has GOD or Allah or any omnipotent, omniscient being EVER handed us an authoritative answer to this question?
No.
Indeed, biblically speaking, the rights of a fetus are more like property rights of the parent than human rights... In
Exodus 21, it states that "if a man causes a woman to have a
miscarriage, he shall
be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death."
Thereby, treating the two lives - the fetal life and the mother's life -
differently.
And the passages that abortion opponents often cite are ones like this: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” which literally does not say authoritatively that the 2 week old (or 20 week old) fetus has a right to life. It's literally not there. People who READ INTO that passage that "right" are reading into the text something that is not there.
No.
The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to
life. Just factually speaking. God has not told us this. I won't speak to what other sacred texts may or may not say, as I'm not familiar with them.
It's just not something any of us have an objective answer for and no one is authoritatively, objectively speaking for God.
True fact.
13. Here's the thing: EVEN IF
you are part of a religious group that believes or even has a sacred
text that says, "Thus sayeth the Holy Cow: The fetus of Two Weeks doth
truly have an innate right to life..." that is not anything like
objective proof. It is a religious belief of that particular group, but
not a universal rule authoritatively proving the question. Christians
would not accept it as a fact if that came from the Book of the Heavenly
Cow because they do not ascribe to that sacred text. Other people are
not obliged to agree with Christians on what they think God thinks on
the question (and as a reminder: God has NOT said in the Bible that the
fetus has an innate right to life. Just a fact.)
...and
SO, given all these facts, I think it is helpful to remember that
abortion supporters are not even necessarily "abortion supporters"
(although many of us are fine with it as a medical treatment): Abortion
supporters, by and large, are just recognizing that this question is not
a proven or provable question, as to whether a fetus has a right to
life and at what point that right kicks in... AND SINCE it's not proven
or provable, we simply want this philosophical and medical matter to be
left to the woman with the fetus. Not a Supreme Court. Not a Congress of
predominantly men. And not even a Congress of predominantly women, if
we had one.
The woman.
And
NOT because we support "murder." Not because we hate fetuses or
children. Those are all false claims. Stupidly false claims.
No. We simply respect the reality that since we can't prove this question one way or the other, the decision is best left to the mother.
No. We simply respect the reality that since we can't prove this question one way or the other, the decision is best left to the mother.
If
you want to argue against keeping abortion legal, please begin from the
place of acknowledging these facts. Stop with the demonizations. Stop
with the presumption that you have an authoritative answer or that you
are speaking for God (or Allah or the Holy Cow).
Please.
Please.
It's just not something any of us have an objective answer for and no one is authoritatively, objectively speaking for God.
True fact.
92 comments:
I asked a legitimate question. Why did you delete it instead of answering it like a man.
? This is the 1st comment on this post.. Nothing's been deleted.
Your entire premise, Dan, is based on a deceitful invention, that there is any confusion as to the humanity of the unborn. Honest people reject that patently false premise. Those like you falsely establish arbitrary points in human development where you deign to respect the lives of the unborn...if you even respect life at all, which is highly questionable.
“… a deceitful invention, that there is any confusion as to the humanity of the unborn… falsely establish arbitrary points in human development…”
Leviticus 24:17
Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.
Exodus 21:22-24
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
Marshal...
"Your entire premise, Dan, is based on a deceitful invention, that there is any confusion as to the humanity of the unborn."
Was I unclear? If you want to dispute one of my facts you can with DATA. When you say there is not any confusion as to the humanity of unborn, that is an unsupported opinion. And as Feodor has pointed out, the Bible seems to disagree with your hunch. Or, if there's no confusion, then The Bible is being quite clear that God disagrees with your hunches.
Regardless, not everyone accepts The Bible as THE moral Gauge and not everybody accepts everybody else's interpretations. So citing the Bible is not objective fact or proof. It is an opinion.
If you want to disagree with something I've stated as a fact, an observable objective fact, disprove it with data. If you do that, I won't have any choice but to agree with you. It's quite simple.
And to be clear, I'm not saying there's any confusion. I'm saying as a fact, we do not know the personhood status of fetus, not at 2 weeks and not at 20 weeks. That's the fact. There's nothing that I've seen to dispute that. Now, IF you can show proof that unicorns exist on the dark side of the moon or that we know the status of the personhood of the fetus, present it.
That's all you have to do.
I don't know what's unclear about that period look, I used to consider myself "pro life." If you can prove something objectively to me, I'd appreciate it. But don't give me your opinion and tell me it's a fact.
Let me make it easy and we can take it step by step:
You made this statement:
"Your entire premise, Dan, is based on a deceitful invention:
that there is any confusion as to the humanity of the unborn."
1. First of all, clarify what you mean.
I stated quite clearly that a human fetus IS literally a human fetus... in that sense, the humanity of the unborn is entirely clear. There is zero doubt about it that a human fetus IS a human fetus.
But then, your unsupported claim that my premise is based on a deceitful invention wouldn't make any sense, since presumably you, I and the rest of the world ALL agree with that reality.
So, presumably, you don't mean merely that much.
You are suggesting that a human fetus (which IS a human fetus) has an innate right to life that overrides any other concerns.
2. IS that what you're saying?
3. If so, do you recognize that this is an unsupported claim - an unsupported opinion claim and NOT a fact claim in any sense that you've shown to be objectively a fact?
I'm not saying you can't prove it, just that the claim itself is not in ANY POSSIBLE sense proof in and of itself. You recognize that unsupported opinion claims are NOT proof, right?
4. The finally, IF you think you can prove the
personhood of the fetus which objectively and authoritatively has a "right to life,"
prove it.
Cite some authoritative, objective source.
Finally, I'd ask you to deal with the Bible verses that Feodor pointed to.
5. IF the fetus and the mother are both EQUALLY fully deserving of all rights, then why are they treated so very differently in Leviticus? (and keep in mind, EVEN IF you could "prove" the Bible or the Book of the Heavenly Cow or ANY sacred text indisputably assigned a right to life to a fetus, that still isn't proof of a right to life, just a religious opinion. But then, you can't even demonstrate that the Bible insists upon this right to life of the fetus.
Marshal lies about his NIV. As we all know, translations give alternate meanings in footnotes at the bottom of the page. The NIV is at least respectable in doing this:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows...."
"e. Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage"
____
If there is Marshal's dreaded "confusion as to the humanity of the unborn", it is deep within conservative Evangelicalism - with which he doesn't have the maturity to deal with and be honest about. Carl FH Henry was one the most stalwart conservative theologians of the 20th century.
In 1968, Christianity Today, the nation’s leading evangelical magazine, hosted a gathering of evangelical leaders from across the country for a symposium on human procreation. Led by theologian Carl F.H. Henry, participants produced a joint statement representing “the conservative or evangelical position within Protestantism.”
While affirming that developing life has some value throughout pregnancy, they were not comfortable assigning full personhood until the very end. “From the moment of birth,” the consensus statement affirmed, “the infant is a human being with all the rights which Scripture accords to all human beings.”
In case the authors had left any confusion as to “when life begins,” one of the symposium participants clarified in an accompanying issue of Christianity Today:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
A 1967 issue of the evangelical magazine Christian Life went even further, castigating Catholics for their non-biblical stance:
“The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult. Thus, the Bible would appear to disagree with the official Catholic view that the tiniest fetus is as important as an adult human being.”
For its part, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a 1971 statement advocating liberalization of abortion laws in a range of circumstances, including if the emotional health of the mother was at risk. Wayne Dehoney, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, later explained the reasoning: “Protestant theology generally takes Genesis 2:7 as a statement that the soul is formed at breath, not with conception.”
So what happened to the NIV?
"The first English translation of the Bible in 1384 - John Wycliffe's translation - preserved this understanding, rendering it as “makes the child dead born,” while the Douay-Rheims translation in 1609 affirms this meaning, translating it as “she miscarry indeed.” The King James (1611), Revised (1885), and American Standard Version (1901) all translate the term as “her fruit depart her,” leaving open the question of whether the fruit departs due to miscarriage or premature birth. Finally, the Revised Standard Version (1952), Living Bible (1971), and New American Bible (1971) returned to “miscarriage” or “miscarry.”
Then in 1978, the year before the Moral Majority was founded by Jerry Falwell, the evangelical publishing house Zondervan produced the New International Version (NIV). For the first time in the history of Christianity the NIV translated the passage as “she gives birth prematurely,” thereby implying the “life for life” punishment applied to harm caused either the woman or fetus. Subsequent translations produced by evangelical publishing houses followed this translation, including the New King James (1982), New Living Translation (1996), and Today’s New International Version (2005)."
___
Why in 1978 did the conservatives need a completely new rethink?
Because in 1978 - a full six years after Roe v Wade - evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.
Hiding the viscious racism of accepting only white students for their burgeoning "Christian"schools motivated conservative christianists to make abortion a public debate.
btw, the verb used in Exodus 21: 22 is the same one used in Numbers 12:12, “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”
Marshal cannot accept from whence comes the will to confuse humanity about the difference between actual life, the breath of life, and the gestation of it. Adam was formed but unalive until god breathed: conservatives gerrymandered the confusion from 1978 onwards.
Marshal used 1500+ words to say that he won't/can't answer the reasonable question put to him.
You can't answer it, Marshal. Think about that. There is a reasonable question that over half our nation has and you and your type are so arrogant that you think you don't have to answer it and so intellectually dishonest to not admit that you CAN'T answer it.
My facts stand. Your case crumbles.
Marshal's comments were deleted because he didn't answer but here are some snippets...
"My position is not that which requires "HARD DATA". YOUR'S is, because it is you and those like you who have, without evidence, asserted there's some question as to whether or not we are persons endowed with the unalienable right to life from the moment of conception."
"You insist the personhood of the unborn is the outlier position. It is not. It is the starting point based on the manner in which we all come into existence. By virtue of that process, it can be nothing other than a person equal to any who've exited the birth canal through natural means (or with surgical help). The truth and fact is that it is incumbent upon YOU to prove it ISN'T true."
Again, I don't know how else to say it:
There is NO DATA, NO RESEARCH, NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE of which I am aware that says that a fetus at one day after conception (or any date after conception) authoritatively has a right to life. Nothing.
I and many people reasonably and in good faith recognize this as the reality.
Now, IF anyone has authoritative, objective evidence that shows WHY a "right to life" begins at conception (or at some point post conception and before birth), they can present it and prove their case. That's all it takes. Prove your point authoritatively and objectively.
Absent that, ALL you have is your empty claim and opinion.
And it is precisely the sort of arrogance and ignorance that you exhibit here that and that conservatives have always relied upon on this issue that pushed me AWAY from the conservative view.
Do you recognize that? I WAS AN ALLY for your type of people on this issue. This sort of bullying arrogance and the ultimate recognition of how intellectually and morally bankrupt - ENTIRELY empty - this side is pushed me away.
Every time you "argue" like this, an angel gets his wings.
If nothing else, you'd think you'd just be quiet if you're just going to make converts for the other side.
I've saved your comments before deleting them, in case I change my mind. But given that you're refusing to answer the question and arrogantly saying you don't even have to answer these reasonable questions, I don't see why I'd do so.
As you made clear: You can't and won't answer the questions.
You lose.
More of Marshal's refusal to acknowledge he can't answer the question:
"I am suggesting that a human fetus (which is a person like you and me) has an innate right to life that overrides any other concerns, because it is a person like you and me."
Says who? I recognize that this is your unsupported claim, but why would anyone accept it?
"You never try to prove that isn't so. You merely assert it isn't so and you insist it's incumbent upon the righteous to prove the obvious."
Because there is NO DATA to make me think otherwise. You're asking me to prove a negative, a logical fallacy.
It's like this: If someone says that unicorns have a thriving economy on the dark side of the moon and tells me: PROVE that it's not true!
I don't have to. There is NO DATA to support the claim, why would I believe it?
The onus is on the one making the positive claim to support it rationally with data.
Dan...
"But don't give me your opinion and tell me it's a fact."
Marshal...
"That's exactly what you're doing. Giving your unsupportable opinion and telling me it's a fact I must bring evidence to rebut. On what do you base that opinion? Don't tell me you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. That's not evidence for your position."
It is a FACT - objective and indisputable and there for all to see - that I DO NOT KNOW that a fetus has a right to life. I have literally seen no authoritative data to demonstrate this is the case. IF someone has evidence that says I DO know and I HAVE seen "proof," then all they have to do is provide that evidence.
You lack any support and the onus is on you to prove your claim, not me to prove the negative.
Marshal continues with his vulgar, abusive, disgusting attack comments without supporting his false and unsupported claims.
If you want to comment here, support your claims and stop with the vulgar attacks. Be respectful, be rational and support your claims.
Amidst his attacks and refusal to answer questions, Marshal made a comment that basically asked a question...
"You don't have authoritative proof YOU have a right to life!! So...prove you possess a right to life! "
I've been abundantly clear that there is no way to authoritatively objectively prove moral matters.
Having said that, most of rational humanity recognizes that it is self evident that we have a right to life.
Marshal, presumably you agree with rational humanity. You agree that it is self evident that we humans have a right to life, right?
So, we do not disagree on that much.. What is not established, then, is does the one day old - or however old - fetus have a right to life?
That is not a settled question. Humans don't agree and we have no way establishing it as a fact.
Now given that you you are not even TRYING to answer the question, can we presume you have no data or evidence to support your hunch and that it just comes down to that you THINK in your opinion that the fetus has a right to life, but you can't prove it beyond what you personally think is self evident?
If so, say that. But don't act like your opinion settles it. That's where the brainless arrogance and presumptuous bullying comes in.
I certainly agree that the fetus has a right to life. I'd say more than that: the fetus has a biological drive to live, just like any organism. This drive to live is part of the divine gift of creation. I'd say even more than that regarding the fetus: the fetus has a right to quality of life. Marshal ignores this right. But prenatal care is about quality of life for the fetus AND the mother. All the vitamins (folic acid) and foods and activities recommended for mom is for the purpose of the quality of life for the fetus. Family planning is a moral approach to ensuring the right to a quality of life for every fetus. OB/Gyn healthcare is intended for the quality of life of the fetus.
But Marshal represses his intellect when he refuses to acknowlege that our society establishes a hierarchy of right to life in a thousand ways. American Medical community has had for a century and more, and ever more developed ethical ladder of decison making regarding resources in critical situations where not enough resources are available for everyone. The elderly lose out to the young if medical care cannot attned to everyone; the fetus typically loses out to the mother if the mother's life is at risk. In law, the man of a couple will be charged more harshly, typically by accepting more responsibility. In Texas, medical malpractice in cases of death are much harder to prove if the deceased is not a wage earner. My mother died as a lifelong Texan by malpractice and law firms said there was little chance to win: she was 83 and not earning.
The fetus has a right to life; more, the fetus has a drive to live; more the fetus has a right to a quality of life.
But the mother is more valuable becasue she has a life: relationships, community, memory, existing capacities to contribute to society (which is why we allow the morphine speeded killing of the already terminal). In other words, the mother exists. The fetus, not yet.
And in cases of female victim rape, the only consideration for the Christian is for the physical and emotional recovery of the woman.
No one else has a higher claim to life than the victim.
No vulgar, unsupported attacks, Marshal. If you want to comment, answer some questions. Like this one:
Now given that you you are not even TRYING to answer the question, can we presume you have no data or evidence to support your hunch and that it just comes down to that you THINK in your opinion that the fetus has a right to life, but you can't prove it beyond what you personally think is self evident?
Or:
Marshal:
"I am suggesting that a human fetus (which is a person like you and me) has an innate right to life that overrides any other concerns, because it is a person like you and me."
Says who? I recognize that this is your unsupported claim, but why would anyone accept it?
No. I'm not answering your lie based questions until you can provide evidence that YOU have a right to life...an incredibly unsupported claim. You are far less worthy than any person in the womb.
Marshal doesn’t want to explain why one cannot claim a fetus as a dependent on one’s taxes.
Hint: not a person.
Marshal is clearly not answering because he is entirely unable to answer. He has nothing.
I, on the other hand, have already answered his question. Humans have a right to life because it is self evident.
Do you disagree, Marshal?
Marshal continues to not answer reasonable questions.. I don't know if he's a coward and an impotent wannabe bully or just intellectually unable to understand that he has no answers that he can prove, only his opinion. Or some of both.
The facts remain that the human rights and truth crowd supports Marshal in making his own decisions for himself and supports women in making their own decisions. We oppose fascist attempts to dictate to others what they must believe.
Craig is shitting on the best thing our country has done: he claims that representive Republics aren't democracies. It is the fact, rather, that representative Republics are the most prevelant kinds of democracies in the world.
What he wont confess, as he commits armchair insurrection to mentally overthrow US democracy, is that for our whole history, wealthy white men have subverted "representation" until the Civil Rigths laws. Now, his outdated, viscious biblicist faith cannot fathom a society where all women and all other ethnicities, sexualities, and identities bear equal citizenship as he does.
So, he prefers gerrymandering and denying our Republic: the conception of which is that power in a society belongs only to the citizens, ALL of the citizens.
He likes opressing others, so... he likes stacking the Supremem Court with Christian fundamentalist lawgivers. How like an extreme Islamacist he is.
Agreed.
I asked...
""Humans have a right to life because it is self evident.
Do you disagree, Marshal?"
And Marshal finally answered a question directly:
"Clearly I do and have said so repeatedly, yet you ask again."
Unfortunately, he then proceeded to make a bunch of unsupported and clearly false claims with a vulgar and childishly bullying manner, so the comment was deleted.
But good for you for answering ONE question directly.
You do NOT think it is self-evident that humans have a right to life. Right?
And you disagree with the founders and other enlightened people who DO think it is self-evident. Right? Thomas Jefferson was just full of it when he wrote the Constitution, or at least that part of it, right?
You can answer those directly, if you can.
But all right, you disagree with rational, enlightenment thinkers who recognize the self-evidence of a right to life.
Then on what objective, factual, demonstrable basis DO you think you have a right to life?
Now, don't just cite to me a Bible verse or a line from Dr Seuss. That isn't support that is objective and provable. Show me something that is PROVABLE and OBJECTIVE or admit you can't.
Marshal responded with multiple vulgar comments (now deleted) but the bulk of his comment is here:
" I made a simple mistake in neglecting to proof read my comment before publishing.
Clearly, and without question, I've never given any hint that I don't find the right to life self-evident.
Thus, to correct my mistake, I NOT disagree.
[Here, I assume Marshal meant to say, "I DO NOT disagree..."]
Again, I've made my reverence for life crystal clear over the years to such a degree only a complete... like you would dare question me on that point.
I'm so sorry to disappoint you as you clearly saw that mistake as your chance to jump down my virtual throat with all sorts of condescending crap far more childish and bullying than anything I've ever typed, you...
But it certainly gave you the opportunity to avoid defending your own position, to avoid explaining why it IS self-evident for the likes of you, but not for those innocents still in the womb.
On what objective, factual, demonstrable basis can you dare deny them when you arrogantly assume it's self-evident YOU have the right? ...actually answer directly if you can."
Marshal, since you and I (and right thinking people everywhere) AGREE that a right to life is self-evident, I don't know what you want me to "prove..." That it's REALLLLLLY self-evident?
On the other hand, you have YET to prove that a right to life is something that is self-evident for the fetus. You stating it as a fact is not sufficient, since it's clearly NOT self-evident in that so many people don't see it as self-evident (that's sort of the point of self-evident, right?)
So, you are making the outlier claim, the unproven claim. The onus is on you to support the claim OR admit that you can't do so.
Empty claims and vulgar attacks won't win the day for you. Facts will. Data will. Actually making your case will.
Here, Dan, is where you and I may disagree. [Craig bizarrely thinks that he and Marshal have all kinds of nice, white politesse, when really they are just hiding their disagreement under an agreement to keep their whiteness as of higher value than their mind. Hence the vicious bruatality of Marshal's will to irrational rage.]
You and I don't do that. Our whiteness is fungible and subervient to human rights AND rationality. So, we can disagree vehemently without losing touch with the other's right to disagree. We know that true, appropriate rationality is worked out in community, not the privitized mind of one sola ego. We reason together better than separately: a crucail truth that opposes the protestant idea.
Therefore, I think all of life has a right to life. A snake, a misquito, a lion. I think human persons have a qualifiably stronger right to life than animals. We must be accountable to that right such that we should not indiscriniately kill other forms of life. We must do that rationally not only to respect life but to acknowlege that we are dependant on nature as the foundaiton of our own lives.
A fetus is alive, and not only that, a fetus is an imminent person. A fetus has a right to life not only as naturally alive but as potential human life. AND a fetus has a right to life as desired: the right to life of a fetus is extended to it by the act of its creation and its wantedness by its parents/DNA donors. This right is quite real; it is natural and it is strong. It is also quite conditional.
Until the fetus has viability as a person.
As the Good Book says, we are wonderfully made... from the dust of the ground as all things are... by the divine nature... but we human beings especially, for we are made in the image and likeness of the divine as human persons... becoming a living being only when we have the capacity for the breath of life. Genesis tells us these things.
These are simple truths complicated by science. But so is all of human value and endeavor... complicated by every proceeding modernity.
I don't think we fundamentally disagree, other than perhaps we can't objectively prove that conditional fetal right to life or where the lines ought to be drawn.
For instance, I think that a person who shoots a pregnant woman and kills the fetus should be held accountable for murder or manslaughter or some similar charge.
That person had no right to end the life of that fetus against his family's will. The fetus was not his to decide to kill.
Likewise, I find that those who would end a fetus' life because the fetus had Down syndrome or because the fetus was a girl and not a boy or "of mixed race"... I find these to be shitty, anti-human rights and oppressive reasons to opt for abortion.
I'm just saying a few things:
1. We can't prove authoritatively and objectively where the fetal right to life lies or that it even objectively, demonstrably HAS a right to life
1a. We can't authoritatively prove what limitations can reasonably be put on a fetal right to life
2. Given those realities, I lean heavily towards the family with the fetus (and their medical experts) to be the ones to decide the fate of a fetus
3. If we could get past the constant attacks on the medical procedure of abortion (and the threats to women's lives and autonomy by people like Marshal), we could be in a better position to talk about some reasonable expectations and attempts at common ground when it comes to abortion.
Given that I simultaneously A. Want the woman to decide and B. Think there ARE what many would consider to be "bad" reasons to have abortions and C. want abortions, when they happen, to be safe... I think we could at least find some common ground about, for instance, having clean and well-administered abortion facilities or having respectful education about what maybe most of us could agree are "bad reasons" for abortion (I wanted a boy! She has Down Syndrome!, etc). And to be clear, I think that often happens now.
I'm just of the mind that the matter of abortion is complicated and with no easy, clear, objectively "right" answers and for that reason, want people to be well-educated and want the women and their supporters to make any final decisions.
re: "bad" reasons. Again, I'm noting that it's complicated. People with Down Syndrome or other disabilities are, of course, wonderful, perfect human beings deserving of all that any of us expect for ourselves.
But what if the fetus shows signs of being "brain-dead" or that any life would be full of actual physical pain and suffering (and not "pain and suffering" like some people might assign to many people with disabilities who have wonderful, full lives)? I just think it's complicated and want the women in question to make those sorts of decisions, not a bunch of white men in Congress.
"I don't know what you want me to "prove..." That it's REALLLLLLY self-evident?"
Sure. Why not? Self-evident to whom? What you fail to understand...in this case, not life in general... is that the "truth" is an opinion. Look at the source material:
"We hold these 'truths' to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis and italics mine)
The wording indicates an opinion regarding not only the self-evident quality of the what followed, but that they're even truths! I believe they're truths. I believe they're "self-evident"...that is, at least they are to me. But there's nothing akin to proofs or evidences there which makes them actual truths, self-evident or not.
So prove it's "self-evident" that YOU have a right to not be murdered, and then tell me why that doesn't include the unborn. The fact is YOU can't do it.
I, being a better man than either of you (an extremely low bar which thus doesn't prove I'm worth a damn at all) do not distinguish between one person and another...that one is endowed with that unalienable right to life and not another...based on race, sex, ethnicity, age, size or location. Clearly you children do. But on what basis other than your personal opinion (which itself is baseless) and unjustified arrogance?
"You stating it as a fact is not sufficient, since it's clearly NOT self-evident in that so many people don't see it as self-evident (that's sort of the point of self-evident, right?)"
Yeah. It's exactly the point that it is opinion, not fact. "Self-evident" is an opinion. Even you agree as you say "in that 'so many people' don't see it as self-evident". If it was a fact, wouldn't everyone, or at least some known majority percentage agree? The fact is that there are clearly millions (at least) who do not agree we are all possessed of this right, that it is inviolable. And like them, you believe you have legit reason and authority to dare suggest tens of millions of unborn don't have that right. Your reason? "Just because."
This truth is not at all "complicated by science" as one fool says. It's complicated by mankind's fallen and sinful nature...by selfishness and immorality. The science is quite clear than a new person exists at the moment of conception. It is the selfish and immoral who dare suggest because of the microscopic size at that point in that person's natural and necessary development that person is not a person with an equal right to life as the likes of you two clowns.
"I don't think we fundamentally disagree, other than perhaps we can't objectively prove that conditional fetal right to life or where the lines ought to be drawn."
You say this while you continue to disregard the fact you can't objectively prove YOU have the right to life. You just assume it.
"For instance, I think that a person who shoots a pregnant woman and kills the fetus should be held accountable for murder or manslaughter or some similar charge."
Why, if the fetus has no right to life in the first place? If it isn't a person with the right to life, it can't be murder OR manslaughter. Those crimes only apply to the killing of a person and you don't regard the fetus as a person. Either it is or it isn't. If it is, it has the right to life outside anyone's authority to say otherwise, just as even vile people like you two have.
"That person had no right to end the life of that fetus against his family's will. The fetus was not his to decide to kill."
No one owns their children, Dan. They're responsible for them and obligated to protect their lives because they chose to bring them into existence by engaging in the act designed to do just that. The family doesn't get to choose to kill a person they don't own. I guess the apple didn't fall far from the ancestral tree in your case, did it?
"Likewise, I find that those who would end a fetus' life because the fetus had Down syndrome or because the fetus was a girl and not a boy or "of mixed race"... I find these to be shitty, anti-human rights and oppressive reasons to opt for abortion"
What difference does it make why anyone would choose to kill their child, Dan? How is it "shitty, anti-human rights and oppressive" when you're fine with them doing so for other reasons, as if those other reasons aren't equally shitty, anti-human rights and oppressive just for killing an innocent, defenseless child? When do we see the "rational" you always demand of others?
"1. We can't prove authoritatively and objectively where the fetal right to life lies or that it even objectively, demonstrably HAS a right to life"
So being a self-serving oppressor, you choose to pretend it has no right to life. There's you famous grace-embracing again!
"1a. We can't authoritatively prove what limitations can reasonably be put on a fetal right to life"
What authoritative proof exists for what limitations are put on your life, Dan? Name one.
"2. Given those realities, I lean heavily towards the family with the fetus (and their medical experts) to be the ones to decide the fate of a fetus"
Those aren't realities of any kind. They're your subjective self-serving rationalizations for daring to believe you can presume there's any question regarding the unborn's right to life. Because embrace grace.
"3. If we could get past the constant attacks on the medical procedure of abortion (and the threats to women's lives and autonomy by people like Marshal), we could be in a better position to talk about some reasonable expectations and attempts at common ground when it comes to abortion."
There's no threat to a woman's autonomy or life by insisting they man up to their obligations towards the person they invited into existence. There is nothing reasonable about murdering one's own defenseless child as there's nothing which necessitates doing so for the sake of the mother's life or health. I've demonstrated it in the past, so I've no need to do it again if you again choose to pretend I've not. Why not instead insist upon discussing better choices for people with regard to being responsible about their sexual urges? If there's no pregnancy because people behave like moral adults, there's no need for abortions. But your position... and by all means, prove this isn't true...is that denying one's orgasm is far more oppressive than murdering children, so you won't get all militant about that!
"Given that I...Think there ARE what many would consider to be "bad" reasons to have abortions"
There are no "good" reasons to have an abortion. None. That is, except to save the life of the mother, which is never threatened by a pregnancy anyway.
"I'm just of the mind that the matter of abortion is complicated and with no easy, clear, objectively "right" answers..."
Yeah. All pro-aborts like to pretend this crap is true. I know it's a simple thing and I want all men and women to behave like responsible, moral and mature adults and not let their crotches dictate their behavior. Then children won't be at risk of being murdered by those who by their willful, consciously decided action invited them into existence. OR, if they succumb to their carnal desires, be responsible and morally mature adults and do the right thing for the child they invited into existence and for whom are thus obligated to protect and provide. There are white and black men in women in Congress who agree with this. It's the scumbags in Congress who agree with you.
Now, given you, as usual, have no mature, rational and evidence based response to overcome the logic and truth I've presented, you no doubt will delete my comments because all my comments appear on this blog...liar.
Marshal...
"is that the "truth" is an opinion. Look at the source material:
"We hold these 'truths' to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis and italics mine)
The wording indicates an opinion regarding not only the self-evident quality of the what followed, but that they're even truths! I believe they're truths. I believe they're "self-evident"...that is, at least they are to me. But there's nothing akin to proofs or evidences there which makes them actual truths, self-evident or not. "
Again, I've always been pretty clear that we have no authoritative, objective demonstrable way of "proving" moral questions like this. IF a group of people agree that something as obvious as a right to life is Self-Evident, then that functions as proof for THOSE people, which generally speaking is most of us. That is, most of us (you included) AGREE that it is self evident that you and I and all humans have a right to life.
But beyond that agreement that it is self-evident, we can't prove it in a scientific, objective manner. You can't prove it. I can't prove it. That is the reality of it all.
A. Do you disagree with that reality?
B. If so, then prove it. And while you're at it, prove that a fetus has a right to life that trumps all other concerns.
C. Or just admit you can't.
But this doesn't work for you to insist that it is an objective fact and that you don't have to prove it. You are not God, little human. IF you want to make your case that something is an objective, demonstrable fact, THEN you have to prove it or you won't be taken seriously.
And, as with the other thread, your constant dodging and evading are just boring and boorish. I'm tired of dealing with you, Marshal. Answer or don't. But don't make claims of fact that aren't factually supported.
Marshal...
"So being a self-serving oppressor, you choose to pretend it has no right to life. There's you famous grace-embracing again!"
The irony.
1. I do not "choose to pretend" it has no right to life. I recognize the reality that it has no provable right to life or provable inviolable/limitless right to life. That is reality. If it wasn't, you'd prove it. This constant nonsense of "I COULD prove it if I wanted to... but I'm choosing not to" is just childish.
2. The lack of grace of accusing me of "pretending" something while accusing me of being graceless is just embarrassing for you.
Answer the questions/admit the realities or just go away in defeat.
Everything has a right to life and a right not to be abused. Hence, laws for pet shops and pet sellers and pet farms. Hence, laws for animal cruelty AT SLAUGHTER HOUSES.
Let's stop saying the fetus does not have a right to life. It does. The fetus has a right dependent upon the right of every woman over her own body.
Until the fetus is viable.
These principles are the bedrock of the right to full medical care for pregmant women that preserve their safety, their life, and their personhood.
Until the fetus is a viable person, too. Even then, if the life of the mother is at risk, she takes precedent because moral socieities value human beings above all else.
Dan, it is unfathomalbe to me that you would charge someone who deliverately killed a fetus with homicide but not the mother if she killed the fetus.
Either the fetus is not a person, and so no homicide charge of any kind, or the fetus is a person and wonton kiling of it by anyone is a homicide.
Clear up your thinking.
What I'm saying is that I can't/we can't prove a fetus has the full rights of a born person and that, this being the case, neither does the government and neither does the person who'd kill a fetus. THAT being the case, I say we need to leave it to the mother and family and that is why we charge the person who maliciously (or accidentally) kills a fetus with a killing - that decision was not there's to make.
The fetus, all things going typically, IS a human fetus that will be a human baby and that baby has a right to unimpeded life. This is why the person who'd kill the fetus outside the mother's wishes is committing the equivalent of murder or manslaighter.
I'm fine with noting that a fetus has a right to life... just not a right to life that trumps all other considerations. And I'm fine with noting the reality that we can't - none of us - objectively prove when a right to life begins or what the parameters of that right to life are, for a fetus.
Feodor... "Let's stop saying the fetus does not have a right to life. It does."
Just to be clear: I have not said that the fetus does not have a right to life. I've said that we can't prove that right to life or the extent to how far it goes.
Also, given that not all faith traditions (and humans) agree that a fetus is a living soul/has a "right to life," on what basis would we insist by law that it does have a right to life and what the limits are to that right/those rights? Would that not be a violation of religious liberty?
It is for these reasons, I hold that the decision should be left to the mother/family/their supporters involved. And NOT because I'm saying that a fetus doesn't have a right to life... because I haven't said that.
Marshal, you have questions to answer before you comment here...
But beyond that agreement that it is self-evident, we can't prove it in a scientific, objective manner. You can't prove it. I can't prove it. That is the reality of it all.
A. Do you disagree with that reality?
B. If so, then prove it. And while you're at it, prove that a fetus has a right to life that trumps all other concerns.
C. Or just admit you can't.
I've answered all your questions repeatedly. Why do you continue with this blatant lie. If there's some profound question of yours (*snicker*) I haven't answered, just repeat it and I'll answer it again. Your double-standards and constantly shifting criteria are childish, tiresome and dishonest.
"A. Do you disagree with that reality?"
I'm not questioning the right to life is self-evident. It's an opinion with which I agree, not an actual fact for which there is tangible evidence. My position is that there is far less in the way of facts, evidence, honesty or compelling, intelligent and rational arguments to assert there's some difference between a person from the moment of conception and that exact same person at any later stage of physical development until death which alters, lessens or increases that person's right to life. THAT is what reality looks like.
"B. If so, then prove it. And while you're at it, prove that a fetus has a right to life that trumps all other concerns."
I've proven all my position obligates me to prove, as well as proven your position is the fraud it is. Meanwhile, you haven't come close to proving jack.
But this demand makes no sense. The only concern which matters in this discussion is the God-given right to life you deny those people still in the womb. What "concerns" trumps that one? There are none, just as there are none which trumps yours.
"C. Or just admit you can't."
I can only admit the fact that between us, my position is the position which is an honest, honorable, science-supported, compassionate and mature reflection of Christian teaching and American ideals and that yours is neither.
We cannot prove the right to life of anything, Dan. It's conscience thing: a thing reasoned out over the ages from the response of our own full humanity.
That it can't be proven is proven by the extent to which humans have since the dawn of everything abrogated our own belief in a right to life.
Your standard for the fetus is an impossible standard for moral convcitons of every kind.
What I'm saying to both of you all is that we can't objectively prove our moral standards. However, I do not think that means there is there is no right or wrong or that truth is relative or that we can't take reasoned positions on moral questions.
I, of course, DO think we can and should take reasoned moral positions.
It's just a way of addressing conservatives who like to pretend that they have objective moral truth on their side and morality is objectively what THEY tell us it is.
I think we need to start with that humbling reality just to establish equal moral and rational footing in order to have adult conversations about moral matters.
So Marshal, can you agree that you can't objectively prove that a fetus has a right to life and that that right trumps the mother's decisions in light of any mitigating circumstances?
Or are you speaking for God on this point? And thus you can't be mistaken?
Feodor, you had a comment here after my May 15, 10:05 comment and now it's gone. That's weird. I didn't delete it (not deliberately)... but I didn't think you had the ability to fully delete it. Am I imagining things?
Don't know why it's gone. But I was pointing out that your "we can't objectively prove our moral standards" only is agreeable to intelligent conservatives. Not idiot conservatives like your current audience.
"What I'm saying to both of you all is that we can't objectively prove our moral standards."
So what? I can't take this statement as anything other than an excuse to support that which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture.
"I, of course, DO think we can and should take reasoned moral positions."
Can we expect to see you do that at any specific point in the future?
"It's just a way of addressing conservatives who like to pretend that they have objective moral truth on their side and morality is objectively what THEY tell us it is."
Conservatives have a far more sound basis for promoting the moral standards we do. Those of us who are Christian, or at least seek to be Christian, have all of Scripture as our basis and we can back up our positions with that, as well as logic and experience and objective observance of life in general.
"I think we need to start with that humbling reality just to establish equal moral and rational footing in order to have adult conversations about moral matters."
You think wrongly with a decidedly biased starting point that conservatives "pretend" to have objective moral truth and that there is something wrong with expressing it to those who would rather disparage our conviction rather than to provide evidence we might be wrong. There's nothing at all "humble" about that. It's arrogant and condescending.
"So Marshal, can you agree that you can't objectively prove that a fetus has a right to life and that that right trumps the mother's decisions in light of any mitigating circumstances?"
This is a bullshit question designed to deflect from the greater point regarding the sanctity of life and the moral corruption of the parents who engaged in the act designed to bring about new human lives without regard to the potential new lives will be conceived. That is, their selfish desire for sexual gratification trumps THAT consideration. And you want to talk about morals???
What's more, while you ask that question, you've still not objectively proven YOU have a right to life. How can you speak of any need to prove others have rights when you can't prove you have the same right? (I'm speaking of only one specific right here, so don't dare speak of any others as if they're equal. No other right matters if one hasn't the right to live in the first place.) You can't prove one isn't a person from the moment of conception when all science and reason demands it's so. Self-evidently so, by virtue of how one comes to be. Indeed, there's more evidence for that truth than for any claim we are endowed with the right to life apart from God's Word. Yet you would assert you have this right to life but the child in the womb doesn't, as if you'll never be subject to the same "mitigating circumstances".
And you want to talk about morals???
There are no "mitigating circumstances" a woman will "need" to abort her child. Yet, still we who don't regard morality on the basis of what's convenient, will still grant that some allowance must exist for that excruciatingly rare occasion when a woman's life is actually threatened by her pregnancy. Short of that, there is no reason for abortion which isn't totally subjective and self-serving on the part of the woman or man pressuring the woman to have one. It's no more than an abdication of the obligation owed to the child by parents who thought only of themselves when they conceived it.
And you want to talk about morals???
Last chance.
Marshal, can you agree that you can't objectively prove that a fetus has a right to life and that that right trumps the mother's decisions in light of any mitigating circumstances?
I'm entirely fine and proceeding the conversation from there, but you have to 1st answer that question clearly and directly and without any bullshit.
Marshal...
"I can't take this statement as anything other than an excuse to support that which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture."
I would ask you to be more respectful and reasonable.
I have pointed out endlessly how the topic of Justice for the poor and marginalized is found throughout The Bible and is fundamental to Jesus' teaching.
I can and have pointed to the literally thousands of verses where these topics come up. Additionally, I can point to how it's just reasonable that the poor and marginalized are oppressed and taken advantage of and harmed more readily than the well off and mainstream.
If we're going to be good people and followers of God as described in The Bible, then we are going to be concerned for the poor and marginalized.
It's always been a large part of what I've talked about on this blog. Now you can disagree with specific instances of what that looks like, but you can't say I'm not taking a biblical position on the topic when it's literally thousands and thousands and thousands of passages that talk about these topics.
And so I say again, I would ask you to be more reasonable and more precise in what you're saying because your claim above is demonstrably and stupidly false.
"Marshal, can you agree that you can't objectively prove that a fetus has a right to life and that that right trumps the mother's decisions in light of any mitigating circumstances?"
I never said I can "objectively prove" a fetus has a right to life anymore than you can prove YOU have that right. Why do you keep asking what's been answered. What's more, this is a two question question. The second part is that as one is fully human endowed with the unalienable right to life by his Creator, there's no decision a mother can make which is of greater importance than her obligation to that child given her having invited it into existence. The only "mitigating circumstance" is no different than for any of the rest of us...when one's life is threatened, one is entitled to choose to sacrifice one's own life or the life of the other who threatens us. But the reality is an actual threat to the life of the mother is exceedingly rare, and no other "mitigating circumstance" which justifies the taking of the child's life at ANY stage of its development, inside or outside the womb. Period.
Ask me again these questions and you'll get the same answer because they better reflect truth and reality than your lame attempts to pretend the unborn are lesser and as such can be offed for any reason one pretends is "mitigating". The bullshit has all been yours.
""I can't take this statement as anything other than an excuse to support that which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture."
I would ask you to be more respectful and reasonable."
Demands the guy who supports killing the unborn. Hardly respectful or reasonable in any way. Also disrespectful and unreasonable is to dare suggest one must "objectively prove our moral standards" and barring the ability to do so they are debatable. That's fine if you're talking to a muslim, hindu, druid or atheist. But Christians have a God-given resource for determining such things, so one needn't have to prove such a thing if in discourse with one who claims to be Christian.
"I have pointed out endlessly how the topic of Justice for the poor and marginalized is found throughout The Bible and is fundamental to Jesus' teaching.
I can and have pointed to the literally thousands of verses where these topics come up."
A bit more than two thousand out of about 31000 total. Don't oversell it. As such, "endlessly" is dishonest.
"If we're going to be good people and followers of God as described in The Bible, then we are going to be concerned for the poor and marginalized."
Says the guy marginalizing and oppressing the unborn.
"It's always been a large part of what I've talked about on this blog. Now you can disagree with specific instances of what that looks like, but you can't say I'm not taking a biblical position on the topic when it's literally thousands and thousands and thousands of passages that talk about these topics."
Literally about 2000 of verses, which means far fewer passages, as there are generally multiple verses in any given passage. Again, overselling it is lying.
But since you brought up numbers, let's pretend there are thousands and thousands and thousands of passages, which means many, many more than that of individual verses. Would it matter to you as to the importance of concern for the "poor and marginalized" if there were only one single verse or passage encouraging that behavior among believers?
"And so I say again, I would ask you to be more reasonable and more precise in what you're saying because your claim above is demonstrably and stupidly false."
Prove it. Better yet, tell me why in a discussion on abortion you're bringing up your old standby of the "poor and marginalized" and think doing so rebuts my factual claim? The reality is that whenever a behavior is in dispute, you bring out crap about morality being non-provable as if that gives you liberty to pretend you "might be mistaken" or some such rationalizing.
Marshal will only protect the heart beat. He assails the human being.
If the fetus is born a boy and grows up to age 4 and says she really is a girl, Marshal will strike down their sense of being. If the fetus is born a girl and at age 13 begins to become aware that she is attracted to girls, Marshal will strike down their selfhood.
This we have long known for the reams of his blather.
Marshal wants to implement Christian sharia law: an anxious, brutalizing attempt to fantasize that he can live in biblical times but with combustion engines that are killing the planet.
Marshal is a irrational, enraged, undeveloped person who should use his life for love. But he's not a christian either.
Once again, feo lies.
What does Marshal write about transgendered people? That they are disgustingly confused and need to be forced to change.
What has Marshal said about lesbian women? That they are disgustingly confused and should be forced to change.
A fascist like Marshal always rages and thinks he’s being sweet. That’s how mass killing gets a smile from him.
The only policy proven to significantly reduces abortion is full sex education, full provision of contraception, and full on/gym healthcare.
Marshal lies when he denies this truth because he prefers to brutally impose Christian sharia law.
He doesn’t give a fuck about fetal life. He convinces himself he does because he thrills to fascist authoritarianism.
So, he objects to the one way to dramatically reduce abortion: talk about it openly, talk about it lovingly, talk about prevention and healthcare.
Exactly what Jesus would do.
There has been full sex education for at least 55 years. How many schools employed it that long ago is another matter, but it's been around for that long. I was in 7th grade when it was introduced in the Catholic elementary school I attended. It was quite controversial, but it informed kids of the human reproductive system in a clear but clinical manner. There was no talk of different sex positions, and certainly no talk of practices outside of intercourse. Being a Catholic school, they naturally stressed it was meant for married couples only, and reminded us of the truth of the sinfulness of intercourse outside of marriage. So that was "full sex education" which told us all we needed to know about how babies are conceived and the best way to prevent that from happening. That best way is still the only 100% effective method for preventing unwanted pregnancies. If this is what you're promoting as "full sex education", then I am already a supporter and you're late to the game.
It is unlikely most who wish to obtain actual contraceptive devices can't get them. Even schools have begun providing them in some manner, if not directly passing them out like candy. But for adults, there's no inability to access them whatsoever. The problem is using them properly if people are choosing to use them at all. If they don't, they're 100% useless no matter how "full" the provision has been.
In this country, it is almost universal that girls and women have access to women's healthcare. But given how easy it is to learn and understand how babies are made, lack of access to women's health care has nothing to do with having sex. No one has the right to demand that society provides health care for that which doesn't require it. Pregnancy never happens without intent.
feo lies again when he seeks to portray me as a liar, and especially when he fails to acknowledge my detailing how each of his three "proven policies" actually work in the real world.
feo, embracing grace in the manner all fake Christians do, falsely and without basis claims I don't give a f**k about fetal life. But if that was true, I'd be a fake Christian just like him. You know it isn't when I'm so adamantly opposed to abortion for most any reason, since there exists no reason it's ever necessary. Yet, because I'm not a liar, or the fascist feo needs to believe I am, I still allow for laws which provide for those cases where a woman's life might truly be endangered by maintaining her pregnancy. These account for such an excruciatingly tiny percentage of all pregnancies where abortions are sought, as to be for all intents and purposes, non-existent. But still, I'm willing to allow for that extremely rare possibility.
So contrary to feo's continued lying and laughable pretense at divining my intentions and "true" positions, to provide true education kids need to know about procreation, talking openly is a given. To talk lovingly requires impressing on kids (and adults) the reality of a person's life being unjustly taken by abortion, so that one is not loving to careless and selfishly indulge their lusts if they are not prepared to meet their obligation to the child their sexual intercourse produces. Prevention is automatic in its learning when truly "full" sex education is provided, which it has been for decades.
What Jesus would do is to remind people of all ages what God's Will for human sexuality is, that all conceived are created in the Father's image and likeness and thus are precious and not to be murdered. He would remind people of all ages the wages of the sin of fornication and adultery in such a way that more people, if they truly cared about their salvation, the other partner's salvation and of course, the Will of God, would get the message. You clearly haven't gotten it, or you would not pretend you care about women while ignoring the lives lost by ignoring reality.
No one gives a fuck what you think is, "most unlikely." Like you know shit about it.
Read it again, Mr Magoo: "full sex ed" AND "full healthcare" AND "full provision of... [wait for it]... contraception" that's not 50 years old, you twat.
Works in Africa; works in Asia; works in Europe; works in South America. In EVERY country that adopts this policy, abortion goes precipitously down.
Who has decapitated full sex ed? The brutalizing Christian sharia mob.
Who has decapitated full healthcare provision? The fascist Christian sharia mob.
Who has decapitated full provion of contraceptives? The fascist Christian sharia mob.
You're a woman AND a child denier, you satanic slob.
Benjamin Franklin produced a farmer's manual for agrarian families distantly separated from social resources. Abortion was included in the manual.
Today, Polish volunteers are getting the message to refugee Urkrainian women who need an abortion where to get one in Poland. Among the Ukrainian women who need one are the hundreds raped by Russian troops as their war policy.
Poland outlaws abortion. Yet, compassionate people still provide.
It will always be the case.
Conservative “Christian’s” respect for life:
“Americans in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump in 2020 were 2.26 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than in counties that voted for Joe Biden, according to a new analysis of data.
The extra toll in Republican counties is significant, especially given that one million people have now died of COVID-19 in the U.S.
National Public Radio examined deaths from COVID-19 per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the country from May 2021, a time when most Americans could obtain vaccines. Those living in counties that voted 60% or higher for Trump in 2020 had 2.26 times the death rate of counties that voted in comparable percentages for Biden, NPR reported.”
"No one gives a fuck what you think is, "most unlikely.""
Inveterate liars like you certainly don't. Allowing the truth to come out doesn't serve the sexually immoral who wish to off their kids.
" "full sex ed" AND "full healthcare" AND "full provision of... [wait for it]... contraception""
...have ALL been "fully" available and accessible for some time. But the morally bankrupt left like yourself believes those who do not provide for themselves these things must have them provided by others who are living their lives responsibly. What's more, sad feo, I was referring specifically to sex education as being around for fifty years. Health care and contraception likely longer. I'm old enough to remember my doctor making house calls to treat an illness I had when I was a small child. More people could afford health care back then, even among the lower classes, because fools like you support hadn't forced costs up by their incredibly stupid policies. As to contraception, the earliest known recordings of birth control date back to ancient Mesopotamia, around 1850 BC.
More importantly, the most reliable method costs nothing. Not one thin dime. Not one red cent. And it's 100% effective. And everyone knows it. What's more, it works in Africa; works in Asia; works in Europe; works in South America. In EVERY country that adopts this policy, abortion goes precipitously down.
"Who has decapitated full sex ed? The brutalizing Christian sharia mob.
Who has decapitated full healthcare provision? The fascist Christian sharia mob.
Who has decapitated full provion of contraceptives? The fascist Christian sharia mob."
This is what Dan might call "stupidly false claims" for which you have no support whatsoever...if Dan wasn't a promoter of abortion like you are. Nonetheless, you can't support a word of these fantasies.
"You're a woman AND a child denier, you satanic slob."
This is just funny, in an incredibly pathetic way.
Hey Dan...remember this: "I would ask you to be more respectful and reasonable." Ah, those were the days!
"Benjamin Franklin produced a farmer's manual for agrarian families distantly separated from social resources. Abortion was included in the manual."
Abortion's been around for as long as contraception methods. I've seen another bring up this "fact". But just as then, you give no context. You give no info as to why he provided that info in his manual. Could it be that difficult pregnancies often took the lives of women because the medical means to prevent it hadn't yet been developed? Could it be that biological science didn't inform them as efficiently as it does now with regard the humanity of the unborn? Could it be that sexual self-gratification was as prevalent a motivator as it has always been to compel selfish action?
"Today, Polish volunteers are getting the message to refugee Urkrainian women who need an abortion where to get one in Poland."
That's too bad. Really sad and tragic news. If I gave a flying rat's ass about my ethnicity, I'd be ashamed. Fortunately, despite my heritage, I'm American...which these days, thanks to people like you, that's bad enough.
"Among the Ukrainian women who need one are the hundreds raped by Russian troops as their war policy."
This barbaric practice, assuming it's actually occurring and not Ukrainian propaganda, does not compel a "need" to respond in a far more barbaric manner. That's just something women and child deniers say.
"Poland outlaws abortion. Yet, compassionate people still provide."
Truly compassionate people don't engage in infanticide and then pretend they're compassionate. Murdering infants is the opposite of compassion.
It will always be the case.
Fucking ignorant brutalistL: "Could it be that difficult pregnancies often took the lives of women because the medical means to prevent it hadn't yet been developed?"
The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 births to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births between 2000 and 2014, a 26.6% increase. As of 2018, the US had an estimated 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births.
You, Marshal, are a distortion. NPR works with the best data researchers at the US Universities. Remember when you had a hold on American know how? When did you turn your back on the god-imaging human mind?
For instance, you believe the US is not a democracy - which you would have found an assault on America ten years ago - and use as evidence a definition stated by someone named, M. Dee Dubroff.
Do you know who M. Dee Dubroff is, Marshal?
Marjorie Dorfman is a freelance writer and former teacher from Brooklyn, New York. Branching out from the world of ghost and horror fiction, she specializes in humorous non-fiction and historical writing. She writes feature articles for several local newspapers.
You are ridculously ignorant.
Marshal...
"Citing NPR doesn't inspire. They're a known source for distorted information. Those stats provided in your comment lacking a link lacks detail and context which might explain the statistics...assuming the stats are correct at all. We can know the likelihood of misinformation is present due to the lie that 1 million have died of Covid is right there in the piece. That's totally false...not even close to being true. I don't believe they can even assert 1 million died with Covid in their bodies at the time of death."
Marshal made this ridiculous and stupidly false claim and with no support. So it was deleted because stupidly false claims won't stand.
You want to make dubious claims? Support them.
I had said...
"Marshal, can you agree that you can't objectively prove that a fetus has a right to life and that that right trumps the mother's decisions in light of any mitigating circumstances?"
And Marshal finally gave sort of an answer...
"I never said I can "objectively prove" a fetus has a right to life anymore than you can prove YOU have that right. Why do you keep asking what's been answered?"
I ask because you never directly answer. Even here, you didn't say, "No, I can't objectively prove that." You only said that you never said you can objectively prove.
I'm going to assume that this is your answer:
I. "NO, I, Marshal, can NOT objectively prove my position to be factually correct or what God wants. It is MY opinion that I find completely reasonable, but I can't objectively prove it in any way at all." Correct?
Let me know DIRECTLY if I'm misunderstanding you. And really, clear, unequivocal direct answers are going to be best if you want to be understood and not have me repeating the same questions over and over because they go unanswered.
So, given that reality - YOU believe your unprovable opinion makes most sense, that a fetus of any age has all the rights of a born adult human when it comes to a right to life and nothing can pre-empt or override that right EXCEPT for, if the mother's life is imminently at risk... then you grudgingly allow it's okay to use the medical procedure of abortion.
II. Even then, you probably have pretty strict pre-conditions on what it means for the "mother's life to be at risk," am I right? If the doctor says, "If you have this baby, there's a good chance - 90% - that the mother will die," then you're okay with letting the mother make that decision. Right?
III. BUT, if the doctor says, "Well, Mother's needing chemo to treat cancer and we can't do chemo while she's pregnant and if we wait the three more months till the fetus can be delivered, there's a risk that the mother's cancer will spread. We can't be sure how fast it will spread though, or if it will be too late. Best guess, there's a 30% chance that the mother may end up dying if we wait..." are you then thinking the mother STILL has a right to choose for herself?
IV. What if the doctor can't give any %, all he can tell the mother is that there's a chance that her cancer may spread before the baby is born and cause problems..." THEN does the mother get to choose?
V. Who's going to decide what that threat to life is, Marshal? What system will be in place to let women know when they can choose? Are we going to create abortion panels at every hospital to decide WHEN the mother gets to choose?
Answer the questions clearly and directly, or don't bother responding. That's your only option.
While I'm waiting to see if you'll answer those questions, you asked...
"Would it matter to you as to the importance of concern for the "poor and marginalized" if there were only one single verse or passage encouraging that behavior among believers?"
The reason I'm pointing out the huge number of passages on this topic is because I'm making the point that concern for the poor and marginalized is a central theme in all the stories throughout The Bible, including a central theme of Jesus' gospel.
If there were only one verse that encouraged us to do so, I would still want to side with and look out for the poor and oppressed because it's rational and reasonably moral.
But I'm pointing out the reality that it's a central, core and common theme throughout The Bible and in Jesus teachings. If there were only one passage, then I couldn't support that claim. But there's not just one and it is, if not THE central theme throughout the Bible, it is at least one of the central themes. Objectively speaking.
That is, the preponderance of the topic throughout throughout the many books of The Bible give credence to the notion that this is an important concern. And given that it's God and Jesus repeatedly urging siding with the poor and marginalized, then it's reasonable to conclude that, at least as the Bible portrays God and Jesus, it is a vital concern of theirs.
Dan,
I'll be once again telling you what I told you already after I deal with your pal. In the meantime, I guess when you said "I would ask you to be more respectful and reasonable", by "you", you meant only me. Not those who agree with you. To wit:
"Fucking ignorant brutalistL"
This is only the most recent example.
"The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States"
Assuming your cherished NPR and CDC are truthful (much in doubt), it has no bearing on the question of abortion. There's no connection between abortion and lowering MMR. There simply isn't. So aside from the questionable figures presented by a questionable outfit, the information is unquestionably irrelevant to the topic on the table. I'd say, "nice try", but I'm not a "progressive" "Christian". I'm sincere in striving for honesty.
"For instance, you believe the US is not a democracy..."
But that's only because it's a representative republic, just as the founders intended it to be, and despite the reality it hasn't always acted as such.
"Do you know who M. Dee Dubroff is, Marshal?"
Yes, I do. I actually look up people who say things before I present what they say. The point you avoid in your typical attempt to attack the messenger, is that her message is accurate and factual. Unless you can prove her wrong, she could be a bigger clown than you are and still not be wrong. Again, I'd say "nice try", but....
You are ridiculously desperate to find fault where none is present. It does not serve you to expend so much effort to appear more intelligent only to fail so miserably. I'm sincerely sad for you.
Marshal, I give Feodor more leeway precisely because you have opted not to engage him on your blog. So I give him space here. If you don't like it, let him comment on your blog and I would be deleting more of his than I do. As it is, I've probably deleted him more than you so not sure what you're whining about.
And you WILL answer my questions first because it's my blog and I've asked you to do so.
Now for you, Dan. But first I must reiterate: I made no "dubious" claim regarding either NPR or Covid death numbers. For both issues I've provided evidentiary support in other threads and will not be forced to constantly provide support for subsequent attempts to present the falsehoods I've rebutted. I would expect one who insists on visitors to the blog being "more respectful and reasonable" would be so as well. It is neither respectful nor reasonable...to say nothing of honest...to pretend I haven't supported my positions just because you find that support inconvenient and difficult to overcome.
Moving on...
Regarding this:
""Marshal, can you agree that you can't objectively prove that a fetus has a right to life and that that right trumps the mother's decisions in light of any mitigating circumstances?""
I say again, the question is absurd. If you can't "objectively prove" YOU have a right to life...which you clearly cannot or you would have done so the last time I pointed it out...then how can you insist I should be able to do so for any other person?
I agree with the notion that it is "self-evident" we all have the right to life. I disagree that you or anyone else has anything akin to a fact-based, reasoned-based argument for presuming the unborn are somehow less possessed of that right simply because of their stage of human development. This is a dishonest argument anyway, given it isn't held that a one-year old is less endowed with the right while being clearly less physically developed.
As to "the mother's decisions" being somehow superior to the child's life, that is absurd as well, as no women is allowed the right to make life and death decisions for her born children for any of the same arbitrary and subjective reasons upon which the pro-abortion position relies.
So no, Dan. I can't "objectively" prove the unborn has the same right to life as you, its mother or anyone else. But then, again, you can't prove "objectively" that YOU have any right to life. The "self-evident" nature of the "truth" we are endowed by our Creator with that right is an assertion. The point is that because one is a person, one has that right. End of story. The unborn are persons not yet born, but persons equal to the rest of us nonetheless.
Moving on....
"So, given that reality..."
This follows your "understanding" of my position. You then assert with these four words that your "understanding" is the reality. Why ask me any further questions? You've made up your mind that your "interpretation" of my position is accurate and a fact. This is the trouble in dealing with you while keeping in mind your pretense at engaging in "good faith" discussions which are "respectful and reasonable". What's more, it's a claim you neither try to support or are capable of supporting. Regardless...
II. Even then, you probably have pretty strict pre-conditions on what it means for the "mother's life to be at risk," am I right? If the doctor says, "If you have this baby, there's a good chance - 90% - that the mother will die," then you're okay with letting the mother make that decision. Right?
Not necessarily. The likelihood whatever trouble the woman is having can be ameliorated by murdering her child is never proven. It's not even argued with reasonable evidence her demise is dependent upon the child being murdered. My position doesn't rely on the possibility even being real...which is would be hard to prove by pro-abort doctors. It simply allows for the possibility regardless of how remote. It's like this:
In an episode of All In The Family, the Meathead was vying for a job in Minnesota. It fell through, and Archie proclaimed that had Meathead gotten the job, Archie would pay for plane fare. Edith asked him later if he meant it. Archie responded it's easy to say since it wasn't going to happen.
It's the same with allowing abortion to save the life of the mother. While there's some infinitesimal possibility the pregnancy itself will lead to the death of the mother if not terminated, it's highly unlikely and thus no problem allowing for it. Plus, there's a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy and terminating a child's life.
III. BUT, if the doctor says, "Well, Mother's needing chemo to treat cancer and we can't do chemo while she's pregnant and if we wait the three more months till the fetus can be delivered, there's a risk that the mother's cancer will spread. We can't be sure how fast it will spread though, or if it will be too late. Best guess, there's a 30% chance that the mother may end up dying if we wait..." are you then thinking the mother STILL has a right to choose for herself?
But there's no proof that chemo will actually harm the child. There's only a concern it will. Yet in your highly unlikely scenario, if the doctor can confirm there's no other way to treat the woman while she's pregnant, that still doesn't justify murdering the child. It can always be removed and if it doesn't survive, the intention wasn't to kill it. Abortion procedures kill the child. They may seem an insignificant distinction to those like you who have already denied the unborn their humanity, but to actual Christians and other people of faith and honor, a huge gap divides the two.
V. Who's going to decide what that threat to life is, Marshal? What system will be in place to let women know when they can choose? Are we going to create abortion panels at every hospital to decide WHEN the mother gets to choose?
You act like this is a big mystery...that science doesn't already know how to deal with these situations. The fact is, the child's presence might make treating the mother more difficult, but laziness is no excuse. You people fight hard to find a reason to pretend abortion is necessary, but actual science disagrees. No segment of society is as harshly dismissed as unworthy as the unborn. No segment is as oppressed for the lamest of reasons. And you whine about the rights of the mother! Incredible!
"Answer the questions clearly and directly, or don't bother responding. That's your only option."
I always do, and that's given how routinely you ask convoluted, leading and dishonest questions. If only you would return the favor.
"If there were only one verse that encouraged us to do so, I would still want to side with and look out for the poor and oppressed because it's rational and reasonably moral."
But the lives of the unborn? Eh, who the f**k cares!
And by the way, "the poor" is not at all a central theme of Scripture. As we found by going over your series of the Bible and Economics, you force that theme into any mention of wealth, poverty and the like and then you call it a "central theme". Pure absurdity given the thematic arc from Genesis to Revelations.
"I would ask you to be more respectful and reasonable."
Marshal thinks getting his biblical theology from helipcopter engineers and his political theories for a ghost story writer is respectable. It's not; it's being stupid.
Marshal thinks it's respectable to ignore the Founding Fathers viscious racism but to shit on their passion for democracy (representative republics are the majority of democracis around the world, thanks to them). It's not; it's being stupid.
Marshal thinks US history as written by old dead white men is beautiful. It's not. It's ignorant. It's disrespectful.
Marshal thinks it's respectable for white men to say what women can do with their bodies. It's not; it's being brutal.
Marshal thinks it's respectable to wilfully ignore a public health crisis that killed a million fellow citizens. It's not; it's being brutal.
Marshal thinks it's respectable to call you a baby killer, Dan. It's not; it's being stupid.
Marshal thinks it's respectable to treat Jesus as being trapped in printed ink lettering between leather covers It's not; it's being stupid.
Marshal thinks it's respectable to make the US a Christian theocracy. It's not; it's being stupid.
Marshal thinks it's respectable to consign both of us to hell because we oppose brutality and racism and bigotry and hold up human rights. It's not; it's being disrespectful and unreasonable, and he's pouring coals on his own head.
Marshal... "You act like this is a big mystery...that science doesn't already know how to deal with these situations."
Right now, women decide for themselves what they'll do with a pregnancy. YOU and yours are proposing limitations on that. You appear to allow that a woman can choose an abortion if her life is in danger or if it's a medical necessity.
I'm asking you to answer the question that must be answered if you succeed in taking the choice away from women: WHO decides in cases where a woman's life (health?) may be threatened by the pregnancy? Based upon what parameters and criteria? Will it be different from hospital to hospital? Doctor to doctor?
Your way raises many questions that will have to be answered.
Answer.
Marshal failed to answer to the question. He did repeat the problem, though, saying...
"The problem is proving a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy to the extent that only destroying another living person is the only remedy..."
Yes. That IS the problem with your rules (one of them). So, I ask again... WHO will decide if a woman's life is endangered? What criteria will be in place?
Or are you saying that you don't think there are ANY instances/circumstances, not even the threat to a woman's life, that you allow abortion?
Had you not again deleted my comment, I could've pointed to what answers thus question intended to do nothing less than allow abortion for any reason. There are so few actual cases of a troubled pregnancy by which killing the child is necessary as to make them almost non-existent. Yet, as I've stated constantly, should it be determined only an abortion can save the woman's life, an abortion would then be allowable. I don't believe it's ever been any other way in this country's history. The question again is, are there any scenarios in which killing the child is necessary to save the mother's life? The answer is, "no". This is the reality. "My rules" are irrelevant to that fact. "Your rules" ignore it and exploit the possibility in order to allow any excuse to off a child. If this wasn't true, YOU would support limiting abortion to only those rare cases when the mother's life would be saved by killing the child, should such a case ever arise in the real world.
But that's not your position at all. Your position is abortion for any reason, and you'll pretend you don't know whether or not a person in the womb is a person to rationalize it.
So you want to know who should decide if an actual case has arisen where the child must be summarily and callously executed to save the mother's life because, golly, there's just no other way. How about first proving such cases actually exist? You only assume it in order to protect the ability do abort while feigning uncertainty about the humanity of the child. If you think you can find a doctor who'd insist such a case can.be presented, I'd wager other doctors would insist the child didn't at all need to be killed intentionally to save the mother.
Two more comments dozens of more words and yet you still won't answer a simple question.
Look, I'm not a doctor. I don't know which abortions are medically necessary or not, nor do I know which ones might be medically necessary or not to save a woman's life. But gynecologists ARE doctors and experts in the field of maternal and fetal care and here's what they say...
The science of medicine is not subjective, and a strongly held personal belief should never outweigh scientific evidence, override standards of medical care, or drive policy that puts a person’s health and life at risk.
“Pregnancy imposes significant physiological changes on a person’s body. These changes can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, and can severely compromise health or even cause death. Determining the appropriate medical intervention depends on a patient’s specific condition. There are situations where pregnancy termination in the form of an abortion is the only medical intervention that can preserve a patient’s health or save their life. "
https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2019/09/abortion-can-be-medically-necessary
Then let them name those situations and see how other experts respond. Let's hear your "experts" defend they aren't acting on their own personal beliefs when they default to killing the child as "the only way" to save the mother. They won't because they can't.
In the meantime, stop lying about me not answering your questions when I clearly and unequivocally did. Before you try to continue with the false assertion, just keep in mind how you respond when you're accused of not answering and then dispense with yet another double standard. Good gish, what a lying hypocrite you are!
Also, stop pretending your support for abortion hinges on the extremely rare cases....pretty much non-existent...women's lives may be at stake, when there's never been a prohibition of which I am aware against aborting in such cases, and as you won't support banning abortions for any other reason. That's another willful, heinous lie.
A ten-year-old is more rights invested than a fetus. Scripture*, ancient law, contemporary law, contemporary theology, and medical ethics all agree.
But Marshal would rather hundreds and thousands of children and fellow citizens be slaughtered by assault weapons than ban them.
But Marshal thrills to ban what women can do with thie bodies before a fetus is viable for lie, for the breath of god that brought Adam to life. Before Adam breathed he was a work of clay, a work made by god and, therefore, valuable. But Adam was not alive unitl he was viable.
Marshal deals with humanity out of disgustinlgy vile disrepect and willful rejection of reason, which entails a rejection of the image of god within us.
*Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.’ And he laid his hands on them and went on his way."
Marshal...
"Let's hear your "experts" defend they aren't acting on their own personal beliefs when they default to killing the child as "the only way" to save the mother. They won't because they can't."
Wow. There's so much that is deeply disturbing and delusional here.
1. They aren't scare quote "experts. " They are literally experts. This organization of Gynecologists are literally THE experts in dealing with maternal and fetal well-being.
What is wrong with you that you would put scare quotes around them as if their expertise was in question?
2. You literally don't know these people. You literally have no data to suggest you have any insight into their mind to their mind or personal beliefs. Can you acknowledge that reality?
3. These are gynecologists. They go to school and do a lot of work to become people who help deliver healthy children. You have no data to suggest that they have a vested interest in performing abortions for the fun of it or for personal beliefs.
But you try to demonize this collection of experts simply because they disagree with your non non expert and ignorant opinion about maternal health? What the hell is wrong with you?
Given this stupidly false and inane attack against people you don't know who are literally experts, you have two options here, Marshal.. You can apologize for making these stupidly false claims or you can go away.
"You literally have no data to suggest you have any insight into their mind to their mind or personal beliefs."
"The science of medicine is not subjective, and a strongly held personal belief should never outweigh scientific evidence, override standards of medical care, or drive policy that puts a person’s health and life at risk."
This is what YOU posted. It implies, if not outright accuses, experts who insist there's no medical reason to abort a child are acting on "a strongly held personal belief" rather than scientific evidence. Once again, YOU posted it from your "experts". Here's what you said:
"But gynecologists ARE doctors and experts in the field of maternal and fetal care and here's what they say..."
So yeah...if your "experts" are going to suggest those who disagree with them on the need to abort only do so out of "strongly held personal belief", then you need to provide proof they act without any "strongly held personal belief" of their own influencing their decision to abort.
Thus, it is you who needs to apologize to me for daring to suggest I've said anything your own words haven't said as well. Where's your apology for presuming medical professionals who know there's no need to abort hold that belief strongly for reasons other than facts and evidence.
You once again suppose only those gynecologists who are pro-aborts are somehow more knowledgeable than those who are pro-life. That's a "stupidly false and inane attack against people you don't know who are literally experts", you hypocritical oppressor of the most innocent and defenseless. I don't "demonize" child abusers. Their abuse of children does it for them.
1. They're scare quote "experts" because you only cite them because they provide for you license to support an abhorrent and near totally unnecessary and barbaric practice, while by doing so belittling experts in the same field, with the same creds and training who insist the practice is unnecessary.
What's wrong with you suggesting all experts in the field are pro-aborts and those who aren't are therefore not expert?
2. You literally don't know these pro-life gynecologists. You literally have no data to suggest you have any insight into their mind or personal beliefs. Can you acknowledge that reality?
3. These are gynecologists. They go to school and do a lot of work to become people who help deliver healthy children, and to save women in difficult pregnancies without brutally killing their unborn. You have no data to suggest that they have a vested interest in risking any woman's life for personal beliefs as opposed to knowing destroying the child is unnecessary.
But you try to demonize this collection of experts simply because they disagree with your non non expert and ignorant opinion about abortion being necessary to save a pregnant woman'slife? What the hell is wrong with you? Answer: You're a sick, vile, immoral oppressor of the innocent and defenseless.
Marshal, I'm going to leave your comments for a minute but will eventually delete them. And the reason is quite clear. I asked you to support your claims and instead you just repeat endlessly stupidly false and unsupported claims.
You said...
"you want to know who should decide if an actual case has arisen where the [fetus needs to be aborted] to save the mother's life because, golly, there's just no other way. How about first proving such cases actually exist?"
I then provided support not just from one doctor but from the American College of Gynecology who, as a professional group of Gynecological experts, affirmed the reality that sometimes women's health and lives are threatened by a pregnancy and their expert medical advice is to have an abortion.
You responded by, instead of acknowledging that yes, sometimes experts DO advise abortions for the life of the mother, You instead slander these people as if these gynecologists who have the job of birthing children and caring for mothers..., you suggest they have an agenda to increase abortions. It's a stupidly and ugly and damnably false claim and shame on you. To hell with that sort of damned lie from an empty headed moron.
Instead of responding with, "Well... here are other experts who disagree..." and providing support, you just assumed and made up false charges with no proof against this esteemed group of medical experts.
Empty claims are meaningless. Unsupported claims are meaningless. You, as a non expert person ignorant of medical concerns about gynecology are irrelevant. Do you not understand this? What is wrong with you?
You can't just make empty charges. Not here. Not with rational adults.They are bullshit. They are diarrhea spilling from your empty headed mouth.
More experts saying that abortionsare sometimes necessary to protect mother's lives...
http://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abortion-false/fact-check-termination-of-pregnancy-can-be-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life-experts-say-idUSL1N2TC0VD
In your response, you say that there are gynecologist or or maternal healthcare experts who say that abortion is never necessary to protect a woman's life. But you don't cite anyone. No one. Zero expert support for your claim. I can cite expert after expert and group after group that says it is. Why would we take your word with no support that it's never necessary?
Also, am I misremembering or didn't you allow that sometimes abortions might be allowed in the case of a threat to life of a mother?
Given the reality that there are clearly numerous experts specifically in the field of maternal care that DO say abortion is necessary sometimes, this brings us back to my question, who is going to decide? Whose medical expertise will qualify? When can the mother choose to listen to a medical expert? These are all reasonable questions that arise from your crazy and non expert opinion .
And I hope you can understand the significant degree of difference between your comments and mine. You questioned whether or not abortion was ever medical necessity. I honestly said that I'm not a medical expert but pointed to not just one expert but a whole group of experts... THE primary group of gynecologist experts, I believe... who told you that it was.
On the other hand, You merely asserted that it wasn't ever medically necessary. No support for the claim. You further suggested that this group of experts were somehow partisan and you offered no support for that.
Are you unable to see the difference between providing support for one's position and merely making a claim? Do you understand that disinformation is a deeply problematic thing in our world today and it is especially prevalent in many right wing circles?
I was just listening to the woman who worked for a Federal group that was trying to prevent this information. This information. Do you know what happened? She and this agency were attacked with disinformation and threatened and intimidated. The disinformation and the threats to her life were vulgar and sickening and a threat to a free Republic.
That is why you can no longer make empty and unsupported claims here. Especially of the sort that seem vulgar and stupidly dishonest.
"So if an abortionist wants to declare aborting a child was the only way to save the mother, he can argue the decision before a jury."
Good God.
But ignore your fascism for a second. Just answer the damned question.
Last time... WHO is going to decide? WHO is going to be on your fascist jury, you monster?? Are you placing pastors and conservative politicians on these juries? Idiots who don't know anything about medical needs or gynecology like yourself?
WHO is going to decide? In what setting?
If the doctor says you need to have an abortion today to save the mother's life, who is going to decide? Are they gonna have to run to the courthouse? Who is going to decide? Is this going to be a requirement in every hospital? Who's going to pay for these fascist juries?
Answer the damned questions or go away.
I don't know what's happened to the bottom of this page, with the all-italics. It appears to be happening to everyone and it extends down to the "Choose an Identity" section down below.
Poop.
Marshal, you have ONE set of options:
1. Apologize for suggesting that the American College of Gynecology are intent on promoting abortions OR prove that they are trying to do so. You can't, so just apologize.
We all can recognize stupidly false claims when we see them.
2. Post someone - some CREDIBLE GROUP of experts who say that the life of the mother is never at risk from pregnancy - OR apologize for suggesting that's a possible opinion from any credible experts. And you CAN'T support the claim with actual experts, so go ahead and apologize.
3. Explain WHO is going to decide if a mother's life is potentially at risk in the case of any given expectant woman. You crazily suggest some sort of unspecified jury without saying WHO is going to be on that jury and what their credentials will be for making such a decision.
Of the two of us, only ONE of us have provided expert opinion and I'm done with your nonsense.
I removed your comments and that cleared up the italics problem, so I don't know how but it appears to be related to your comments. Don't bother reposting them. I've cited your pertinent quotes.
Here's one more:
" I reposted what you said, which suggested pro-lifers...OB/GYN or otherwise...who insist abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life do so out of "strongly held personal belief". Where's your support for THAT claim? "
What they said is:
"The science of medicine is not subjective, and a strongly held personal belief should never outweigh scientific evidence, override standards of medical care, or drive policy that puts a person’s health and life at risk."
That is, they are noting that AS EXPERTS, they can attest based on THEIR EXPERTISE in cases THEY ACTUALLY have worked on that the mothers' life was, indeed, at risk. No amount of outsiders denying that due to a partisan opinions means a God damned thing. They are experts and know what they know.
Now, IF you have some credible group that says, "No, the mothers life is never further at risk by continuing a pregnancy," you could try to cite that group of peer-reviewed experts.
But - and here's the vital thing - YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH SUPPORT FOR THAT CLAIM.
If you did, you'd provide it. IF it DID exist, I could probably find it out there on the WWW. It seems, on the face of it, a stupidly false claim, just another stupidly false claim in the litany of stupidly false claims that the modern conservative movement has sold its soul to defending. Of COURSE, a pregnant woman can have her health threatened by continuing a pregnancy, it seems obvious to even non-experts and yet, I wouldn't rely upon what seems obvious to me. And so I look to the experts and they confirm what seems obvious.
Now that your non-argument, stupidly false claims have been thoroughly exposed, you can choose to just slink away OR you could be a better man and admit the many false claims and insinuations you have made.
That's up to you.
I repeat:
Marshal, you have ONE set of options:
1. Apologize for suggesting that the American College of Gynecology are intent on promoting abortions OR prove that they are trying to do so. You can't, so just apologize.
We all can recognize stupidly false claims when we see them.
2. Post someone - some CREDIBLE GROUP of experts who say that the life of the mother is never at risk from pregnancy - OR apologize for suggesting that's a possible opinion from any credible experts. And you CAN'T support the claim with actual experts, so go ahead and apologize.
3. Explain WHO is going to decide if a mother's life is potentially at risk in the case of any given expectant woman. You crazily suggest some sort of unspecified jury without saying WHO is going to be on that jury and what their credentials will be for making such a decision.
As to your set of anti-abortion links on your page: What you've done (finally) is provide a list of actual doctors (it appears) who say that abortions are never (rarely?) necessary. At the best, then, you have conflicting expert opinion. This is not proof that the ACOG are wrong, just that there are differences of expert opinion.
Do you understand that much?
From there, if we have two groups of professionals - say, the AMA and the "Pro-Life AMA" - what we have in that scenario is the regular group of professionals and experts and then you have another group of professionals/experts who are dedicated to a particular agenda. The "pro-life AMA" then, would be a group with a partisan agenda to promote anti-abortion propaganda and opinions and just the general group of experts.
In such scenarios, one should generally be wary of the group who has identified themselves as having an agenda. It's not to say that such a group is to be dismissed out of hand, just noting that they are not the general group, but a group with an agenda.
You certainly have, it appears, eventually found a group of dedicated "pro-life" doctors who, unsurprisingly, take an anti-abortion position. But do they represent the mainstream of medical opinion? It appears not.
To flip the tables: Do you give as much credence to the Veterans for Peace organizations as you do to just regular veteran groups? Do you think such veterans represent the mainstream of military thought or veteran/enlisted opinions?
You probably don't. Because of their agenda of being opposed to war (or a specific war).
If that's the case, then you might understand why we'd be wary of a partisan anti-abortion collection of doctors being, unsurprisingly, anti-abortion.
If you want to comment here, you have questions to answer/clarifications to make, Marshal. Noting that you answered question 2 by citing some self-identified anti-abortion activists.
Post a Comment