When is a human not a human? When is a fetus a human? Fetus is Latin for “off-spring.” (page 528) That means you are currently the fetus of your parents. Got it?
My daughter sent me some pics of my grandson at 28 weeks gestation. He is very much human. He even has his eyes open in one shot. And he has his father’s nose, for sure. (His mother doesn’t have a wide nose like that.)
Now, tell me, do you have the inhumanity, the criminality, the ego-centric demand, the hate to abort THAT?
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor
Fetus is Latin for “off-spring.” (page 528) That means you are currently the fetus of your parents. Got it?
In the same sense that everyone celebrates the divinity of Augustus Caesar during the month between July and September.
My daughter sent me some pics of my grandson at 28 weeks gestation.
That would be the third trimester. If your argument is nothing but cheap sentimentalism, why don’t you try mustering the honesty to show a fetus at the stage when most abortions take place?
Sorry – I forgot honesty isn’t one of your strong points…
Now, tell me, do you have the inhumanity, the criminality, the ego-centric demand, the hate to abort THAT?
The teeny tiny problem with your silliness is that no-one is claiming they have the right to abort that. It’s in your daughter’s womb – it’s her choice. If she chooses to keep it, good for her.
It’s not your womb. It’s not my womb. We’re not advocating for abortion; we’re advocating for the owner of the womb to have that choice. Her – not you or me. Why don’t you try keeping your nose out of the genitals of your daughter or any other woman?
By the way – I’ve been really sick. As in 23 days in hospital, drugs, several teams of doctors looking at the case, MRIs and biopsies, and the possibility of a spinal operation (thankfully avoided). It cost me nothing – in fact, my bank balance is healthier for not getting out of bed for two weeks. My job is waiting for me in the new year, I’m recovering now at home with nurses coming in every day and clinic visits scheduled, and just watching DVDs – and I have no worries about money while this all happens. The only significant bill faced was for an optional painkiller not subsidised by the government – as regards the supported ones, I’m taking slow release morphine at the nominal charge of about a dollar a day. The antibiotics cost me nothing – as did the PICC line insertion, and the round the clock care in a hospital ward.
Yup, sociali5ed medicine is hll.
Honesty and forthrightness comes foremost for me, ahead of diplomacy. And you would’ve already known that if you actually took the time to read my “raise up a child” article I cross-posted here. But you aren’t a man of integrity, are you, Pooter? Of course not. Just servicing the socialist agenda, you.
The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child. They claim it is a “choice” when it is outright murder. No reasonable person can call those pics “pics of tissue masses” to be discarded. But, of course, you resort to sexually-explicit language (blue-book talk) to try to add enough “shock value” to shut down any debate. And you are low-life scum to resort to that tactic.
First off, I’m glad you’re still around and kicking. You still have an opportunity to see the error of your ways and find Providence’s Grace (no snark there at all, pure truth). But if you’re thinking I’m going to let your Soviet-style healthcare system go untouched, you’ve got another thing coming. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch.” You can thank your neighbors and the people at the far end of the other island and everyone in between for footing the bill for your health expenses in the form of higher taxes. Not that you care, it’s free for you but costs everyone else in your country higher expenses, amplified by governmental bureaucratic waste on multiple levels.
And, by the way, my sister-in-law was a nurse in Czechoslovakia, which became the Czech Republic after the Marxist regime of the USSR satelite lost power. My brother contracted Guillen-Barre Syndrome on a bicycle tour of Europe and found himself in critical condition in that Prague hospital. My mother was less than pleased at the hospital conditions. When my sister-in-law came to the US, she was very much shocked at the hospitals in the US. Her duties were more medical than in Prague, and, as a result, she had to take more classes to get her RN in the US that she had in Czech.
Equipment and practices were much more advanced. Duties were much more hierarchically-delineated. Techniques were much more advanced. Capabilities were much stronger. And welfare patients came into the ER complaining of headaches (and she sent the crying losers across the street to the grocery store so they could buy their own advil instead of forcing the tax-payers to buy it for them).
The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.
Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
Liar.
There’s no such thing as a “free lunch.” You can thank your neighbors and the people at the far end of the other island and everyone in between for footing the bill for your health expenses in the form of higher taxes.
Alas for your diatribe, I also pay taxes, paying for other people’s health expenses. And both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP most of the West pays way less than Americans for better results. If I pay $40 to the government each week, you would pay $30 to the government and $30 to insurance companies. Sucker.
And, by the way, my sister-in-law was a nurse in Czechoslovakia, which became the Czech Republic after the Marxist regime of the USSR satelite lost power.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the American health system costs more and delivers less than that of other Western countries. Idiot.
First off, I’m glad you’re still around and kicking. You still have an opportunity to see the error of your ways and find Providence’s Grace (no snark there at all, pure truth).
Is it a sign of “Providence’s Grace” to continually lie about people who disagree with you?
Name one person who claims a right to abort a child at that stage of development. Oops, there are multiple organizations and an entire power-broker level of a certain politial party who claims that right. And they’re trying to shove that false right and that expense down our throats. There goes your moral high ground, Pooter.
You’re alive and kicking, your lies notwithstanding, so I have to say Providence has been graceful enough to let you live and lie. So, I guess I have to agree it is a sign of Providence’s Grace to let you continuously lie about people who disagree with you, Pooter.
John Hitchcock: You are not paying attention!
Did you respond to this? “Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.”
No, you did not!
Did you respond to this? “The teeny tiny problem with your silliness is that no-one is claiming they have the right to abort that. It’s in your daughter’s womb – it’s her choice. If she chooses to keep it, good for her.
It’s not your womb. It’s not my womb. We’re not advocating for abortion; we’re advocating for the owner of the womb to have that choice. Her – not you or me. Why don’t you try keeping your nose out of the genitals of your daughter or any other woman?”
No you did not!
You wingnuts who tout freedom and liberty, how about the same with regard to a pregnant woman? Respond to that too, John!
Phoenician:“By the way – I’ve been really sick. As in 23 days in hospital, drugs, several teams of doctors looking at the case, MRIs and biopsies, and the possibility of a spinal operation (thankfully avoided). It cost me nothing ….”
Sorry to hear that you have been suffering, glad to hear that you are recovering, and glad to hear that you have not gone bankrupt in the process as you very well might have here.
Best wishes for a continuing recovery and excellent health to follow!
Perry, John doesn’t have a coherent argument, just an appeal to emotion. Please only respond with bluster, excitement, and name-calling. Those are the grounds on which the argument is being made & the ones on which it must take place.
What would be hell is my wasting any of my tax money on keeping you alive.
Take care, Phoenician!
Excellent arguments, by the way. John is all wet in his arguments. I’ll add this:
John: “There’s no such thing as a “free lunch.” … higher taxes.”
WE KNOW. We want to pay those higher taxes for the benefit of that service. We’ll save big money paying those taxes. Let’s just boil the health insurance debate down to this: Either pay the government for the service or pay private companies. Republicans are all for paying private companies, but the rest of us have noticed that the private companies no longer provide the service that we pay for. (The horror stories of ‘death panels’ and ‘long lines’ and ‘rationing’ you throw at us are ALREADY HERE, and much worse than what you’re warning us about.) The market lacks any mechanism for fixing that. We’d just like some competition for the private companies. Somehow, you staunch capitalists are terrified of competition, though.
Oh, by the way, congratulations on the upcoming birth! I didn’t mean to detract from that.
Congratulations John! I remember my daughter’s 28-week ultrasound – we took her in for one of those movie ones. She cried the whole time (you could tell because her face was scrunched up and her arms were flailing about) and tried to hide from the picture. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the way she is now
Also, most babies tend to have wide noses, which allows them to breathe while feeding in the earliest stages of life. You don’t really start seeing a distinctive nose develop until after their first birthday at least.
And welcome back, Phoe. Sounds scary, glad you’re better.
I have nothing topically substantive to say right now.
This is where as far as mere debate goes – you are arguing at a conceptual disadvantage John. Your value system inhibits you – and you believe that this is a good and right thing – from dealing with Timmy or whatever his name is, as he deals with others.
You are an adherent of a value system and world view that imputes objective and specifically transcendental value to Phoenician in a Time of Romans, because he qualifies in your lexicon, as a person.
Whereas for the Phoenician, natural value, or say, natural human rights in the Aristotelian and non-Christian sense, are void concepts because [among other reasons] even “the teleology is all in your head”. (Whatever he imagines that its “being in your head” specifically means and of necessity logically entails).
This suppositional imbalance leaves you dealing with Phoenician as a fellow human and as a person who has value in and of himself, instead of seeing him as just a calculating but soul-less bag of ambulatory appetites which might or might not have some marginal utility, and derivatively “rights”, in relation to you: as his own “philosophy”, if consistently interpreted, would make him.
[We can place aside his previous straw-grasping and comic attempt to lean on a Kantian categorical imperative stick while denying the transcendental idealist ground in which it was stuck.]
Again, the moral context in which the arguments are taking place is not reciprocal.
You see Phoenician as a fallen fellow, a soul, a human result of monogenesis, with a more or less fixed nature, capable of redemption according to an intrinsic order.
Phoenician sees you as a kind of pioneer species, that has failed to recognize that its time has passed by, and its self-directing way of dealing with its environment must (or should in order to benefit him) yield to the directives of the Phoenician types; as they – defective as their bodies may be – migrate into the ecology initially created by you and your ancestors, and reorder it to suit their peculiar needs and tastes.
I think that when it comes to his personality, you probably imagine that he is just a dyspeptic ideologue with a genetic defect of the spine, a frustrated, lovelorn and marginalized male in a traditionally school-marmish occupation, who lashes out at men who have, and can use and enjoy the freedom and autonomy he doesn’t have and wouldn’t know what to do with if it was thrown in his lap.
And although after reading his blog I have previously implied much the same, and advised him to get a set of barbells and go jogging on the beach, I don’t think that the advice would necessarily help him return to normality.
Instead, I think it may not be improper to think of Phoenician as a radically other moral kind, John, despite the fact that you appear on the surface to be communicating. If you listen closely to what the left, and collectivists in general are saying about the human condition, than pretend to believe it, and then apply the principles to themselves, there are some interesting results.
The termites of the left have taken to using the term “push back” in reference to dealing with conservatives and libertarians. It is helpful I think, for conservatives and libertarians to begin to closely look back at the collectivist kind through the same deconstructive lenses they apply to everyone else.
You will be amazed at what you see.
Abortion is legal fyi.
but, is it legal at 28 weeks? What is your point? I don’t think you could abort “that” unless the mother was going to die or it had some illness right?
and what if the mother was a raging drug addict? What if she had just done 2 lines of coke? Wouldn’t that picture still be the same? What if that was the baby of a woman that had been raped by her father? How about if that was a woman in prison that got knocked up by a gaurd?
What if that was in a 13 year old?
Spare me this BS, Yes, I could abort that.
Just like you could stand in afghanistan and waste some haji’s to end the war on terror and make us safer.
Actually, a woman can get an abortion far beyond 28 weeks. She just has to find a doctor willing to perform that procedure. *shudders*
Too bad Pho came back. Not because it offers anything substantive but because it doesn’t.
You don’t have a choice of what to do with your own body under every and any circumstance (see selling your organs, cutting off your body parts or committing suicide). And, in this case, you aren’t really deciding what to do with your body, but rather, what to do with the baby’s body.
Spare me this BS, Yes, I could abort that.
Yes, because killing the baby–who had nothing to do with his/her conception–will make the rape/killing/whatever so much easier to deal with for the next 60 years.
Does the sonogram of a baby conceived by rape look different from the one conceived by a loving couple longing for a child?
“My daughter sent me some pics of my grandson at 28 weeks gestation. He is very much human. He even has his eyes open in one shot. And he has his father’s nose, for sure. (His mother doesn’t have a wide nose like that.)”
Congrats on the grandchild. Five more and her job will be done.
DNW’s post is interesting. It makes me think of the Architect from the Matrix movie sitting in a grade school classroom and saying “Pho’s a poopy head” in his logorrheic style. The professorial tone doesn’t disguise the fact that the conclusions have no merit.
John threw a straw man at us, and it was neatly skewered on Phoenician’s phalanx of reason.
“Just like you could stand in afghanistan and waste some haji’s to end the war on terror and make us safer.”
Yeah … or encourage some annoying and self destructive neurotic and substance abuser to drive off a cliff. The life of those remaining in association would then be better, wouldn’t it.
The teeny tiny problem with your silliness is that no-one is claiming they have the right to abort that. It’s in your daughter’s womb – it’s her choice. If she chooses to keep it, good for her. It’s not your womb. It’s not my womb. We’re not advocating for abortion; we’re advocating for the owner of the womb to have that choice. Her – not you or me.
I’m assuming, then, that you have no problem with fathers who do not wish to pay child support? After all, shouldn’t it be THEIR choice to pay? After all, if they have NO say in whether a child should be aborted or not (even though they helped create it), then why should the mother have the right to deny the father his financial freedom?
Let’s see if you can be fair and consistent …
An interesting conundrum, Hube. Perhaps when a woman doesn’t want to have a child, and the father does, we can surgically transfer the fetus to the father’s body. (We’re not too far from that possibility, medically speaking.) Then, both parents can have their wishes, the father raising the child himself, and the mother free of responsibility and any claims.
And, in the case of a priest or politician having a problem with a woman who wants an abortion, the child can be transferred to him.
How long do you suppose the abortion debate will continue after such a possibility is offered?
An interesting dodge there, Nang.
Maybe this time you’d like to address the question of child support rationally? Like, why should a man have to pay if he has no say in something he helped create? Or, are you one of those inconsistent hypocrites that are found all over the place nowadays?
In addition, Nangleator, Hube is presenting an obvious apples and oranges comparison, otherwise stated, a flawed analysis, therefore worthless!
Nangleator:“DNW’s post is interesting. It makes me think of the Architect from the Matrix movie sitting in a grade school classroom and saying “Pho’s a poopy head” in his logorrheic style. The professorial tone doesn’t disguise the fact that the conclusions have no merit.”
Too, too funny!
Perry: Keep using the word “worthless.” It describes your life in one vivid word.
The comparison is quite apt — two people create a life, yet one has sole veto power over its life or death. Yet, the other, who has NO say in that, also has NO say in whether he wishes to support that life if the other chooses to have said child.
Those who avoid this question are just pure pro-choice radical hypocrites who cannot even consider the unfairness of the whole situation, especially the uniqueness of it all since a human life is involved.
The lack of a man’s right, in this case the inability of the man to save a fetus from death, doesn’t really apply to the child that results from a pregnancy that isn’t aborted. They are mutually exclusive situations.
“…if he has no say in something he helped create…” His say, in this case, is to have the child exist or not exist. If he wanted the child to exist and it doesn’t, he has no financial burden. If he wanted the fetus aborted, and the mother gives birth, then he’s got a problem. It’s a problem commensurate with getting a woman pregnant. You’re not saying he should have the right to abort the baby without the mother’s consent, are you?
Who would suggest the father’s responsibility ends merely because of the freedom of the mother to have an abortion? (Or to have accidentally miscarried?) That would let every father off the hook forever. It’s a silly question you came up with!
If he wanted the child to exist and it doesn’t, he has no financial burden.
No kidding.
If he wanted the fetus aborted, and the mother gives birth, then he’s got a problem.
Why? Why should he?
You’re not saying he should have the right to abort the baby without the mother’s consent, are you?
Don’t be silly. I am saying that if teh woman has exclusive decision-making power over the child, then the man should have the power to decide whether he wants to financially support it.
It’s a problem commensurate with getting a woman pregnant.
Or, one could say merely (for the woman) “It’s a problem commensurate with getting pregnant.” IOW, you get pregnant, you have the responsibility to raise the child or, give it up for adoption. Which is fair, since you just stated that a man’s financial burden is “a problem commensurate with getting a woman pregnant,” right?
That would let every father off the hook forever
Precisely. Just as the right to an abortion lets every mother off the hook forever.
If the problem is about choices, the man should have the choice whether he wants to financially support the woman’s decision about her body, no?
Precisely, Sharon.
“DNW’s post is interesting. It makes me think of the Architect from the Matrix movie sitting in a grade school classroom and saying “Pho’s a poopy head” in his logorrheic style. The professorial tone doesn’t disguise the fact that the conclusions have no merit.”
On the other hand, your life as a sci-fi fantasist doesn’t really give you any grounds for saying so.
I’ll make it easy for you to understand by avoiding any philosophical jargon that might reference “the problem of universals” or the like.
John’s ethical and religious training has led him to generously assume that there is an objective basis for taking the Phoenician as a member of the same human moral community; just a fallen away and miserable one.
I think that John might attribute the reason behind Phoenician’s falling away, to be in part caused by Phoenician’s obviously serious, and self-admitted, physical and emotional problems; that is to say, to the resultant bitterness and resentment he experiences as a result of his physical deficiencies and emotional deficits. (See Phoenician’s blog)
I have myself sarcastically suggested that this is at the root of some of Phoenician’s problems, and that vigorous outdoors activities might help balance his psyche.
However if you read what Phoenician, and his political kind in general, have to say about the nature of human beings and their condition in the world we inhabit, from the radical materialism premise all the way to a denial of the existence of natural kinds and the resultant denial that there are any logical implications to be derived therefrom, one quickly sees that the lefty idea of what it means to be human, and to exist, and the meaning and importance of it all, is fundamentally, radically, different. One further notes and is struck by the fact that the residual basis of their ethics is a hedonic and relativistic system of values that have not been thoroughly thought out. (And in some cases we even note an explicit rejection of any analysis or study of how and why various impulses toward satisfaction arise, as being out of court.)
So, if you pay attention to the left’s own metaphysical and evolutionary assumptions – a purely material framework wherein species are continually and purposelessly evolving into other taxonomic categories of thing as a result of randomly generated environmental selection pressures – then even humankind ceases to be a meaningful objective or coherent moral category.
Humanity as a moral community then, and following those assumptions, can exist only as a politically based and largely arbitrary development project that may or may not be shared and appreciated by some number of those who are loosely grouped into the same species category because of an apparent ability to physically interbreed and produce viable offspring.
How, given a grant of these premisses, mentally different and morally alien can members of the same supposed species be?
Phoenician, in response to Dana’s claim that the human species has had the same essential human nature for the last 40, if not 100 thousand years, observed, without specifying, that evolution within the human species has in fact been observed as taking place since that time.
And this may well be true, even if one only takes the ability of an adult to digest milk – maybe 8k years old in Europeans according to researchers – or the evolution or red hair and its melanin mutation, to be significant differences.
However, evolutionary biologists might propose that there are even more fundamental differences found in human populations, and that the manner in which human organisms relate to their ecologies can represent fundamentally different strategies that are in part inherent and socially incompatible.
If we then take what your political kind says about the nature of the universe and about the amorphous and fundamentally mutating nature of the human organism, and add to it the insight that human groupings and the members within those groupings may have radically, if subtle or little recognized, differences in dealing with their environments, and that some can only live in an environment previously created by others, then, we face the possibility that there is no single universal human interest, or even kind, and that much of what passes for political conflict might merely be the politely masked effect of one type of (typologically human) organism trying to exploit and dominate and redirect the benefits of an ecology created by those employing another fundamentally different – from a moral and operational perspective – reproductive and production strategy.
You’ve got a twisted kind of Schroedinger’s cat thing going on here. You’re discussing the situation of a man and a woman who have a child.
Starting there, you’re saying that had the woman had the legal right to abort that child, the man now has the choice of not supporting the child. Why couldn’t any man use that argument to say, “Your honor, the mother of the child could have been in an accident and lost the child or been kidnapped by aliens and not had the child or something like that, so I don’t need to pay. Since it didn’t happen. Hell, your honor, she could have drowned the kid this morning. But she didn’t! Pity me for that lack of control over a woman! What an emasculating bitch!”
Or is it just legalized abortion that’s the retroactive problem?
Well, even if we illegalize abortion, women will still get back street abortions. Or travel across the border for abortions. Or get others to beat them up so they miscarry. That means no man will ever have to support any child, right?
*Sigh*
So much for “progressive” consistency and intellectual honesty. I refuse to go back and forth with another Perry clone.
Ooh, a compliment!
Obviously, the fetus is part of the mother-to-be, totally dependent by nature, whereas the born child is totally independent by circumstance, therefore this question of choice relates to two different conditions, thus apples and oranges. Basic logic applies here, a bit over Hube’s head, apparently, or he just ignores it, for his own ideological purposes! In either case, it doesn’t pass elemental muster.
And note well how Hube switched “meaningless” from an argument to a person, as his OCD dictates he do, once again! He just cannot resist!!
This, nonsense, from a guy who thinks the fact that the mortage holder on your property has the right to demand that the value of his lien be insured against loss prior to payoff, is a good analogy for the state demanding that you carry medical insurance.
Oh wait, Perry never did answer if he thinks that the state holds a mortgage on our lives … LOL
oh man what is funnier than guys who want to hitch their child-support wagon to the abortion question?
Indeed, isn’t it, cbmc! You want you cake and eat it too, right?
Spell it w/me: HYPOCRITE.
Name one person who claims a right to abort a child at that stage of development.
This is not what was asked or you are lying again by trying to change the goalposts.
You showed a picture of a wanted fetus, one whose mother chose to keep him.
You then made the comment “The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.”
You LIED and now you are trying to EVADE the fact that you LIED. Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
Or be shown as the LIAR you are.
Hube is a man lest any one wonders
Yes, because killing the baby–who had nothing to do with his/her conception–will make the rape/killing/whatever so much easier to deal with for the next 60 years.
You conservatives love to envision a baby genius talking away and living in a gingerbread house with gumdrops raining from the sky. yes, all aborted fetuses would have that life and it’s a shame that the unwanting mother wouldn’t give it to them.
better off dead for a reason. Yes, it would be better for the infant, baby, toddler whatever to not live at all then grow up unwanted. But that’s ok, once that little fella is about 14 and kills someone, you will want them in jail for life.
Abort away, killing is killing if you are fine with “casualities of war” you should be fine with abortion.
Sharon:
If the problem is about choices, the man should have the choice whether he wants to financially support the woman’s decision about her body, no?
No, the man chose to have sex with her right? So pay the price baby. You should know what you are getting into the moment you take that baby for a ride. It isn’t your body you are knocking up, so live with the consequences of giving a woman your seed. What Hube loves to do is make it sound like the man should have a choice afterword since the woman wants the baby. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. No matter how hard you want it too. Spare the double standard crying too. As if a woman choosing to raise a child and a man wanting her to abort it are the same thing.
DNW:
“Just like you could stand in afghanistan and waste some haji’s to end the war on terror and make us safer.”
Yeah … or encourage some annoying and self destructive neurotic and substance abuser to drive off a cliff. The life of those remaining in association would then be better, wouldn’t it.
Both “lives” would be better. the one that never happened because, let’s be honest, it’s part of the mother and not a life yet and the woman carrying it because she doesn’t have an unwanted baby.
I see an illegal alien I have to demean! sorry have to go
I’m assuming, then, that you have no problem with fathers who do not wish to pay child support? After all, shouldn’t it be THEIR choice to pay? After all, if they have NO say in whether a child should be aborted or not (even though they helped create it), then why should the mother have the right to deny the father his financial freedom?
The two situations are not the same. The central point seperating them is that pregnancy is a medical condition; babies gestate inside an actual woman, who face pain, health problems and the risk of death from the pregnancy. After birth, I have no problems with the mother and father having equal rights – including the equal responsibility to pay for the kid as means allow.
It is not a matter of the mother “having the right to deny the father his financial freedom”. If you have an accident and wreck your car, you have to pay to replace it (one way or another). If your house burns down, you have to pay for it. If you conceive a child – whether male or female – you have to pay for it. Both parents have a responsibility to support the kid, even if only one parent has the right to say what happens to her body.
It’s interesting that people can moan on and on grudgingly about “freedoms” and forget “responsibility”. You have an adult’s right to have sex; deal with the responsibilities that come with that. Wrap yourself in latex or get a vasectomy if you don’t want to ever face child support.
DNW’s post is interesting. It makes me think of the Architect from the Matrix movie sitting in a grade school classroom and saying “Pho’s a poopy head” in his logorrheic style. The professorial tone doesn’t disguise the fact that the conclusions have no merit.
Mmm – I particularly giggled when the squid described a staph infection as “genetic”. He seems to be obsessed with my love life too; do you think it was me saying that I wasn’t interested in dating him that drove him to rant so much?
Hube take a deep breath maybe and get a glass of warm milk or something
A good psychiatrist should be able to help with that. Maybe you can even get the gov’t to pay for it!
Couldn’t resist, could you Eric? Shows your immaturity!
I am sure that you did giggle.
But given that you are known for being a malicious head case and Internet troll, why do you bother to post tales of your misery on-line, and then act surprised when people laugh at you?
After all, Dana has a link to your blog. Presumably you knew it was there, and what a neurotic fool you would be revealed as, to anyone who glanced at it.
As for your not wanting to date, I must have missed that passage, or scanned by it. What I recall best is the laugh I got out of you babbling on impotently about some betrayal, and saying that your miserable life is crap, and about how you wouldn’t be able to honestly say whether life is worth living or not, if asked.
No wonder you write the pathetic shit you do. LOL
Basic logic insists on one of three options. Either:
1. The unborn baby is a human being, and should not be killed.
2. The unborn baby is NOT a human being, and therefore can be killed.
Or,
3. The unborn baby IS a human being, but can be killed anyway for (fill in the blank) reasons we see fit.
So, Perry, which is it?
He has already informed us that just like the Pope, and for the same reasons, he believes that human life is sacred. Presumably, because the Pope also believes that God created man in his image and likeness, and because man has an eternal destiny. Except Perry doesn’t believe that man is “made” in the image and likeness of the Creator nor that he has a significant eternal destiny; and he does in fact contrarily believe that it is permissible for the mother to kill the undelivered fetus for pretty much any reason she chooses.
So, I guess the mother’s choice is more sacred. After all why should anyone be condemned to labor half or so of the rest of their life in order to support some parasitical piece of flesh, they didn’t volunteer to be responsible for in the first place? How taxing … how socially unfair.
Oh yeah, and “what would Jesus, think?” Not that Perry is a disciple of Jesus or even imagines that Jesus has any supernatural importance or cosmic significance, but you know …. it’s a good line to drop in a debate with believers.
As for your not wanting to date, I must have missed that passage, or scanned by it.
Not wanting to date you, dear. Your attempts to get my attention are amusing in a kindergarten fashion, but I much prefer adults.
Feel free to keep trying with the online billet doux though. You don’t know how funny you are with your obsessions…
DNW: But given that you are known for being a malicious head case and Internet troll
Earlier DNW: What would be hell is my wasting any of my tax money on keeping you alive.
Hey, look everyone! On Planet DNW, pointed argument and disagreement is the same as maliciousness! While wishing someone dead is legitimate argument!
Seriously, I’ve been following the comment threads here for a while and have yet to see Phoe wish harm on fellow commenters. Would that I could say the same for DNW.
DNW, dude, you seem like a smart fellow. Don’t let evil statements and ad hominem attacks like the one I quoted undermine your credibility. Same goes for the rest of you.
DNW opines:“Oh yeah, and “what would Jesus, think?” Not that Perry is a disciple of Jesus or even imagines that Jesus has any supernatural importance or cosmic significance, but you know …. it’s a good line to drop in a debate with believers.”
As I have said before, I have a great admiration of Christ the man, but not for the religion that his biographers and others attributed to him. There is no evidence that convinces me that he was divine, just stories, but he was an extraordinary man, in the same league as Gandhi and King.
I find it noteworthy that you feel attacked and intimidated by my asking the simple question about what Christ would think, which tells me something about you. You know what Christ would think, but would rather avoid it rather than answer the question. I understand that, but feel free to correct me if my assumption about you is not correct!
Eric questions: “So, Perry, which is it?”
None of the three, Eric. Within the uterus of the mother-to-be is a human fetus which should not be terminated, in my view. However, the decision is not my choice to make. Within limits, the fetus can be legally terminated if the mother-to-be so chooses. If asked, I would counsel her to go to term and put her baby up for adoption.
You Conservatives, purveyors of maximizing liberty and freedom, why do you refuse to acknowledge a woman’s right to choose in this matter? Now that is my question for you, Eric!
Hube is a man lest any one wonders
Yep. At least one of us is, dimwitty.
Perry — still making your heinous amoral comparisons? Why not tell everyone how you think it’s “not up to you” to tell a woman what she can do w/her unborn baby (even though you’re supposedly against abortion), yet you have absolutely no problem whatsoever telling people what to do when it comes to capital punishment.
How come THAT is “not up to you,” Perry? Why isn’t THAT up to the jury and judge who decided guilt and sentence in such a case?
Don’t worry, we all know why: Because you’re an amoral, blathering hypocrite.
your argument was priceless and it’s one you have used before. equating a womans right to choose with child support is pathetic, but it’s what you bring to the table.
Slight retranslation for Perry:
If an unborn child is a living human being, I fail to see why his mother should have the right to simply terminate his life; if the unborn child is not a living human being, I fail to see why you would care if the mother terminated his life or would counsel her against it. After all, ‘twould be nothing more than trimming her fingernails.
We, as a society, motivated primarily by our friends on the left, have been pushing ever-increasing restrictions and state interventions on how parents may rear their children. Yet there remains this one striking exception, abortion, where our friends on the left abhor the thought of any restrictions at all.
There are medical reason that a late term abortion is allowed. Not preferred. Sometimes it’s necessary though. One could get all uppity and self righteous about such things, but to bring a child into the world whose life will be hell, may not be the best thing for “the child to be” or not to be/.
Medical Reasons for Late-Term Abortions
Trisomy 21: Down Syndrome
Trisomy 13 & 18: mental retardation, 90 percent of babies born with it die before the age of 1.
Anencephaly: a severe head disorder, occurs when the head end of the neural tube fails to close, absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Children with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain. The remaining brain tissue is often exposed—not covered by bone or skin.
Polycystic Kidney Disease: cysts on the babies kidney. It takes many years for this to cause the kidneys to fail and can be treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation. 600,000 people in the U.S. are living with PKD.
Spina Bifida: the most common permanently disabling birth defect in the U.S. The spine of the baby fails to close, he or she won’t be able to walk. 70,000 people in the U.S. are living with SB.
Hydrocephalus: there is an excessive amount of fluid in the brain. Infants experience vomiting, large head size, sleepiness, irritability, downward deviation of the eyes (“sunsetting”) and seizures. Older children and adults may experience different symptoms such as, headache followed by vomiting, nausea, papilledema (swelling of the optic disk which is part of the optic nerve), blurred or double vision, sunsetting, problems with balance, poor coordination, gait disturbance, urinary incontinence, slowing or loss of developmental progress, lethargy, drowsiness, irritability, or other changes in personality or cognition including memory loss. Hydrocephalus is very treatable.
Potter’s Syndrome: there is a total absence or malformation of infant kidneys. Vast majority of babies die at birth or shortly afterwards.
Lethal Dwarfism: this is very rare. Some symptoms are a large head, wide front fontanel, corneal clouding, closed off ear canals, and very short arms. Nearly half of the babies that have this die before they’re born.
Holoprosencephaly: In most cases, the brain does not divide into lobes, which severely deforms the skull and face. Sometimes the brain is partially or nearly divided, making the symptoms much less severe. In the absolute worst cases, the baby dies in the womb.
Anterior and Posterior Encephalocele: this complication leads to chromosomal anomaly, most common anomaly being Trisomy 18. Patients with an anterior encephalocele have a 100% survival rate, but only 55% in persons with a posterior encephalocele. Encephalocele reduces the chance of live birth to 21%, and only half of those live births survive. Approximately 75% of survivors have a mental deficit. The absence of brain tissue in the herniated sac is the single most favorable prognostic feature for survival.
Non-Immune Hydrops: Excess of extra-cellular fluid in two or more sites without any identifiable circulating antibody to red cell antigens. There are treatments to perform while the baby is still in the womb, however the prognosis is generally very poor with very high peri-natal mortality.
[Released from moderation -- JH]
Pooter shows the inherent problem of Kiwis:
Kiwi babies gestate in the wrong place!
Hube goes off his rocker with his OCD on exhibit again, twice in the same day! Moreover, he goes to another one of his apples and oranges arguments, unable to distinguish significant differences in circumstances. Carry on.
You conservatives love to envision a baby genius talking away and living in a gingerbread house with gumdrops raining from the sky. yes, all aborted fetuses would have that life and it’s a shame that the unwanting mother wouldn’t give it to them.
better off dead for a reason. Yes, it would be better for the infant, baby, toddler whatever to not live at all then grow up unwanted. But that’s ok, once that little fella is about 14 and kills someone, you will want them in jail for life.
Abort away, killing is killing if you are fine with “casualities of war” you should be fine with abortion.
I’m not even talking about geniuses or scientists who can cure cancer. I’m just trying to figure out why the rape can only be satisfied by killing the child. Or why a child conceived out of rape has a different DNA structure than one conceived by 2 loving people or 2 horny people.
No, the man chose to have sex with her right? So pay the price baby. You should know what you are getting into the moment you take that baby for a ride.
How does this argument make more sense than saying a woman made her choice to have sex so she has to pay the price. Liberals hate that argument applied to women and “their” bodies (we’re really talking about the baby’s body), but think this argument makes sense when we talk about a man spending years supporting a child that he, evidently, gave up all right to be involved in the decision once he climaxed.
Kiwi babies gestate in the wrong place!
Ha ha.
Now, about the fact that you have been shown to lie…
You showed a picture of a wanted fetus, one whose mother chose to keep him.
You then made the comment “The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.”
You LIED and now you are trying to ignore me pointing this out. Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
Or be shown as the LIAR you are.
So much for your “Providence’s Grace”. Matthew 7:15-20.
your argument was priceless and it’s one you have used before. equating a womans right to choose with child support is pathetic, but it’s what you bring to the table.
And, of course, all you are even capable of bringing to the table is the “argument” of “pathetic.” Which, of course, is itself so!
Are you really this stupid, dimwitty?
Perry — once again:
Why not tell everyone how you think it’s “not up to you” to tell a woman what she can do w/her unborn baby (even though you’re supposedly against abortion), yet you have absolutely no problem whatsoever telling people what to do when it comes to capital punishment.
How come THAT is “not up to you,” Perry? Why isn’t THAT up to the jury and judge who decided guilt and sentence in such a case?
Everyone understand this? Perry would rather inject his personal view into saving the life of a heinous murderer rather than that of an innocent child. This says all one needs to know abotu Perry’s “morality.” Much like that of his disgusting support and defense of Hamas, Hizbollah, et. al. against Israel.
No, the man chose to have sex with her right? So pay the price baby. You should know what you are getting into the moment you take that baby for a ride.
How does this argument make more sense than saying a woman made her choice to have sex so she has to pay the price.
PRECISELY, Sharon. Amazing that this even has to be pointed out. As if ONLY the man chooses to have sex. Unbelievable.
Hube, you obviously continue with your irrational desperation.
My position on death is crystal clear and consistent: I am opposed to abortion and I am opposed to the death penalty. Yours is muddled!
I don’t even know why you have brought the Palestine/Israel situation into this, except to exhibit futility. I hold both sides responsible for the extreme tension in the region, and the Arabs, and the US!
I see Pho is back and it took him exactly two entries to call someone a stupid, lying idiot. Nice to see civil discourse has returned.
My position on death is crystal clear and consistent: I am opposed to abortion and I am opposed to the death penalty.
On the contrary. Your position is far from consistent. The FACT is that while you PERSONALLY may be opposed to both, you ONLY feel the need to inject your personal opinion into civic action on the LATTER. Why is that, Perry? And don’t deny it. Your past comments are widely available.
And I bring up your support of terrorists in the mid-east for a simple reason: To show how morally bankrupt you are.
JohnC is selective in taking offense at uncivil discourse, I see – all his friends do is call names & demonize (with the exception of Sharon, who while I disagree with her is capable of having a civilized conversation about an issue that raises passions on either side), but he doesn’t notice; he himself has appalling manners throughout the thread, and then has the gall to call others on theirs – not a good look John C
Not sure I understand what you mean by “satisfied” here. Hard to accept that you’re willing to tell rape survivors “you’re going to have to carry the child to term; it may be devastating for you, but since it would be more devastating to the life within you* you will have to cope with that.” Really, it’s at rape & birth defects where this debate polarizes, but you guys are so into ideological purity that you’re willing to shoot your cause in the foot. If you could rally around making an exception for those, you could probably get more severe restrictions on other abortions. Fortunately for us pro choice people you guys are more into the sound of your own righteousness than preventing any abortions, so you advance your cause zero, but you do manage to get one another all worked up, which must feel great or something I guess.
*using your terms for the sake of easier debate, though that won’t stop the high blood pressure gang from goin GOTCHA YOU SAID “LIFE!” etc until the entire room is bored to tears
I love how leftist apologists are making the claim “nobody wants to kill this particular unborn baby” while still supporting the right to kill thousands of unborn babies in the same stage each and every year. And they have the temerity to call us liars and idiots?
cbmc, I previously posted an article about children born of rape and their mothers. Perhaps you could read that and the discussion.
yes, I remember the post where you watched a piece of Focus on the Family propaganda and treated it like something other than propaganda – not sure how that’s germane
Why does this issue have to be so obfuscated and obliquely argued?
The issue we’re arguing is, should abortion be legal or should it be illegal. The issue isn’t “are babies cute?” or “do you like to kill babies?” or about rape or about child support. It’s about a law.
The left says “It’s a part of the woman’s body and her sole decision whether to carry it to term. It isn’t a human being until it’s born. Get your damn, dirty ape hands off that woman’s rights.”
The right says “Every life is sacred (until it’s born) and women must be punished for being so slutty as to conceive a child. Any fertilized egg is actually an adult human being with every right and privilege (just a more restricted view.) So, therefore, let Obama’s goons control this type of medical care, and let Big Government take control and strip this choice from us. After all, we need more bodies for the endless wars of profit we must fight. Support the troops!”
Okay, maybe the right doesn’t say that, exactly…
My suggestion is, any woman who doesn’t want to give birth to her fetus is plainly the wrong mother for that fetus. The government should immediately step in and liberate that independent citizen from its mother so it can live a productive and fulfilling life. Unless it’s lazy, of course. In which case it can just die and get out of our way. What are we, some sort of communist, fascist, socialist state that has to arrange care for every last welfare case out there?
cmbc said: “he himself has appalling manners throughout the thread, and then has the gall to call others on theirs – not a good look John C”
FYI, that was my first and until now, only comment on this thread. Try at least to be accurate when we can all see and read.
“I find it noteworthy that you feel attacked and intimidated by my asking the simple question about what Christ would think, which tells me something about you. You know what Christ would think, but would rather avoid it rather than answer the question. I understand that, but feel free to correct me if my assumption about you is not correct!”
Ok, I’ll correct you. Your assumptions about me are incorrect. My point is that you’re rhetorically flogging around references to a supernaturally grounded value system based on certain metaphysical assumptions which you reject.
And as far as what the historical Christ as represented in the Gospels would think about abortion, try asking him; or Tacitus, if you are too squeamish.
Quit using the euphemism “Choose”. If you think women should have the right to kill their unborn babies, then just say so!
Great point, Dana! Perry is the sort of person who, 150 years ago, would have said “I am personally opposed to slavery, but think people should have the right to choose to own slaves if they want, since I don’t think my morality should be imposed on them”. It is moral wimpiness, an unwillingness to actually take a strong moral stand, a way to appease both sides and, like Pontius Pilate, wash one’s hands of the matter.
What do pro-abortion and pro-slavery arguments have in common? They both want to deny the humanity of the victim.
Thanks – despite your apparent misunderstanding – for your interest and comments, Jeff.
Perhaps I can clear a little of your confusion up for you.
First, although you might not care for such a distinction, I don’t consider the statement I made in reference to Phoenician quite the same as wishing him dead. And it certainly is the the logical or propositional equivalent of the same.
It would be fair however, to say that I am as indifferent as to Phoenician’s personal survival as he seems to philosophically be.
And I would consider being coercively bound by a tax obligation to keep someone so morally noxious as himself alive by helping to underwrite his medical treatments to be tantamount be being the victim of a tax poaching scam by the equivalient of moral brood parasite, at the least. That evaluation seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, and just.
Second, Jeff, I don’t know exactly how long your following “for a while” represents, but your remark indicates it has not been long enough to witness Phoenician’s attacks on other posters during the exchanges over Mother Cindy Moonbeam Sheehan’s demented political posturing exercises.
As for my present characterization of Phoenician in a Time of Romans as a “troll”, or even an “a–hole” if I were in future to go so far; that is no more than the way he has literally described his own purposes and himself on-line.
It reflects his own proud characterization of himself. Why should I be hesitant to reference it? Do you require quotes?
Lastly, the entire point I have been consistently trying to make for a number of posts now, is that the poster Phoenician in a Time of Romans and those like him, as a class, and by virtue of their own definitions and moral frameworks, are most certainly not “fellows” in any traditional ethical or moral sense of the word, denoting an entitlement to regard, or some reciprocal obligation to consider the other’s welfare.
Hope this helps.
DNW: “…as a class, and by virtue of their own definitions and moral frameworks, are most certainly not “fellows” in any traditional ethical or moral sense of the word…”
There’s an important document that states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Either you disagree with that notion, or you are saying our opinions put us in a category that you feel doesn’t warrant equal treatment. I can’t imagine a more amoral and un-American attitude.
Eric: “…the right to kill their unborn babies…”
An ‘unborn baby’ is not a baby. It’s a fetus. “Kill” is not the appropriate verb for fetuses. This is the majority opinion in America.
Nangleator wrote:
The document from which you quote a mere fragment also refers to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, and goes on to say, not only that men are created equal, but that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” … not “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”
I am not French, and Phoenician is not an American. Nor does he believe in unalienable rights endowed upon man by his Creator.
Denying Phoenician inclusion in the class of natural rights bearing persons, is like denying a dog the use of a fiddle.
I love how leftist apologists are making the claim “nobody wants to kill this particular unborn baby” while still supporting the right to kill thousands of unborn babies in the same stage each and every year. And they have the temerity to call us liars and idiots
I love how you attempt to squirm out of the fact that you have been clearly shown to lie.
Once again – you showed a picture of a wanted fetus, one whose mother chose to keep him.
You then made the comment “The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.”
Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
Or be shown as the liar you are.
What do pro-abortion and pro-slavery arguments have in common? They both want to deny the humanity of the victim.
And the fetal equivalent of Frederick Douglas is…?
Denying Phoenician inclusion in the class of natural rights bearing persons, is like denying a dog the use of a fiddle.
Being a liberal, of course, I have no problem seeing DNW as a person worthy of natural rights, or in supporting him within a mutual social compact such as tax-supported health-care. Regardless of my opinion of him, I have no problem if he benefits from policies designed to improve the common weal.
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals – conservatives would see everybody suffer to avoid having someone they don’t like benefit.
I’m late to the party, and I haven’t even skimmed the comments yet, however I assume its been pointed out the images are from Bluebonnet Diagnostics.
And rest assured that regardless of my opinion of him, I have no problem with Phoenician in a Time of Romans enjoying the blessings of liberty and self-direction and living in a manner wherein he can benefit from, and peacefully direct the product of his own labors, as he engages in the “pursuit of happiness”. Unfortunately he has no real use for such a system.
This then, is the difference between libertarians and moral brood parasites.
And unfortunately for Phoenician’s natural rights rhetorical gambit, we have already read what he has had to say about the validity and grounding of natural rights, and anyone’s insistance on standing on the concept.
And so, after all the forensic posturing, what we are finally left with is a lingering image of Perry waving a Jesus flag because he thinks it looks nice, and attracts people to his position, and is really really great just as long as you don’t take it so seriously that you believe it’s real and genuinely entitles you or anyone else to anything.
Ok,
I have been trying to post a correction to “And it certainly is the the logical or propositional equivalent of the same.” since I put it up.
None of the tries would connect.
This is the obvious meaning: And it certainly is not the logical or propositional equivalent of the same.
Our recuperated Kiwi Kommenter wrote:
Well, that’s just it: Frederick Douglas was intelligent, educated and erudite. None of the unborn are like that, because they haven’t had the chance to be educated, and haven’t the ability to speak to us. They are like the millions of slaves for whom Mr Douglas spoke, faceless, nameless, unheard. No one knows them, no one loves them, no one cares about them. And because they are nameless and faceless, they are just as disposable as were slaves.
A human being with a right to life. Abort Frederick Douglas, and you may well have aborted the anti-slavery movement, at least for a few years. Imagine Einstein aborted. Or Beethoven. The pro-death movement has no respect for human life, all they care about is convenience. Even an unwanted baby can be put up for adoption. An aborted one, no matter how much he or she can contribute to humanity, is dead forever.
Well well, I would like to say thanks to all who congratuated my pops on his grandson, who just happens to be my son!
Also if I could go back to another instance in history where we wanted to claim that certain people weren’t people at all, but were in fact, property. If I destroy my couch, no trouble will come to me. If I bash in my Jeep windows, nothing will happen to me. Why? Because they are my property. But, in slave days, if you kill YOUR slave, you risked jail time, or a fine. How does that make any sense? That is your property, right? But even then, it was recognized that they were still human, to an extent, as did the 3/5 compromise.
So… if my “fetus” is not human, why should I have to even give permission to “terminate” him? Why should that even matter? And why does it all suddenly change when I reach 28 weeks pregnant? Are you saying that on Dec 9th, Treyshawn, my son, was not human, but while I was sleeping in my bed at midnight on Dec 10, the baby fairy came in and turned him into a human? And if he’s still not human until he is born, why can’t I abort him at 39 weeks?
No, see, the reasoning is that once he reaches the 28 week mark, he has a 90% chance of survival if he is born, so if the “doctor” pulls him out and kills him at this point, then it is blatent, even to liberals, that a murder was committed.
A comment higher up said something along the lines of “no lib would abort him if the mom didnt want to”. That did not answer the question that was asked, and completely side stepped the point. The point is, giving a woman permission to abort that child is giving her permission to commit murder. And that is what liberals want to do.
Now do not read this and think that I am on the defensive because that is my little boy at the top of this page. When I got pregnant, I did not want to be, even a teeny tiny bit, and his dad didn’t want a baby right now either. But the thought of murdering my precious baby never once entered my mind. Adoption did, but never would I kill my baby. Did you know that at 10 weeks and sometimes earlier, you can see and hear their teenie tiny heart beating? Yep. So tell me that’s not murder, lie to me some more, but I figured out the truth all on my own way back when I was a little child. My dad even has a blog around here somewhere about it.
None of the unborn are like that, because they haven’t had the chance to be educated, and haven’t the ability to speak to us.
And because, Dana, they are not sentient. They do not think, feel, or know they exist.
They are like the millions of slaves for whom Mr Douglas spoke, faceless, nameless, unheard.
No, they are not, Dana, because the slaves were always sentient – they thought, felt, and suffered from captivity. Douglass did not create this fact; he merely rubbed people’s noses in it.
The very reason why no fetus will be a Frederick Douglass is the same reason why there is a catagorical difference between a fetus and a human being. Human beings are defined by their capability to think and feel.
DNW makes a number of cogent points, not least that the pro-death Left sees unborn babies as bits of protoplasm to be disposed of at will should they prove to be “Inconvenient”. Inherent in the pro-death Left is a Darwinian view of humanity, one that denies any Divine connection, along with a Marxist perspective that sees life only in terms of the material at the expense of the spiritual.
No they are not Pho. They are defined by their humanity.
My daughter, of whom I am proud, hammered Pooter:
While Pooter is running around in his little world calling me a liar, my daughter nails one of his feet down. And yet, he ignores it and keeps going in circles. “Mommy, why can I only go in circles?” “Shut up or I’ll nail your other foot to the floor.”
My daughter added more fact the left doesn’t want to face (and showed her inherited tude in the process):
And still Pooter ignored the facts.
So tell me, Pooter, how does it feel to be choked out by a GIRL with the facts on her side?
Laura, you were talking about this, I do believe.
While Pooter is running around in his little world calling me a liar, my daughter nails one of his feet down. And yet, he ignores it and keeps going in circles. “Mommy, why can I only go in circles?” “Shut up or I’ll nail your other foot to the floor.”
No, John, your daughter simply ignored the fact that you have been proven to be a liar.
As regard as your daughter’s comment, she is factually incorrect. Legal abortion is not murder, by definition. I’ll be charitable and assume she is merely confused rather than dishonest, like her father.
If her definition of a “human life” involves “teeny little hearts beating”, I hope she’s a vegetarian, as chickens, cows and sheep also have beating hearts.
How many logic fallacies can you put into a single post, Pooter? No soundness to your argumentation at all. No validity to your argumentation at all.
Two words for your last comment, Pooter:
EPIC and FAIL
Dan wrote on my site:
If you look at his other comment or two and you look at his own site, you’ll see he is not at all a wingnut. I believe he is more an Aphrael/Leviticus/Jeff type liberal, one who can debate in honesty and see the “wingnut” perspective on issues.
Uh-huh.
Once again – you showed a picture of a wanted fetus, one whose mother chose to keep him.
You then made the comment “The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.”
Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
Or be shown as the liar you are.
You’re absolutely right, Phoenician, John H. can’t name one, but he will never admit it! He’ll just ignore it!
Whenever we get back into this abortion issue and the sometimes violent behavior of the Right to force their anti-abortion views, I cannot help but point out to them once again that their so-called pro-life stance is quite selective, as they are more than happy to promote the death penalty and to promote the waging of wars of choice against other sovereign nations, even to the point of supplying nuclear bomb technology to a selected ally.
I am with the Right in opposing abortion, but I am against them for all the other violence that they promote. When are you folks going to get consistent about being pro-life all the way, else you be viewed as the hypocrites that you seem to be?
Not sure I understand what you mean by “satisfied” here.
“Satisfied,” as in “put the woman back in the position she was in before the rape.” I’m using some contract language to describe this idea that a woman should have every right to kill her baby because the father was evil, since killing the baby will give the woman justice. I find this argument illogical, given that no woman thinks she’s “unraped” even after aborting the baby produced from the rape.
Hard to accept that you’re willing to tell rape survivors “you’re going to have to carry the child to term; it may be devastating for you, but since it would be more devastating to the life within you* you will have to cope with that.” Really, it’s at rape & birth defects where this debate polarizes, but you guys are so into ideological purity that you’re willing to shoot your cause in the foot.
Actually, I’m willing to give the squeamish the “rape/incest/in case of the life of the mother” exceptions if the people making those “hard cases” arguments are willing to bar abortions for all the other reasons usually produced in support of abortion on demand.
Fortunately for us pro choice people you guys are more into the sound of your own righteousness than preventing any abortions, so you advance your cause zero, but you do manage to get one another all worked up, which must feel great or something I guess.
Yeah, pro-lifers haven’t gained any ground in the fight against abortion on demand. That’s why the number of abortion clinics is so high.
And before Pho says I’m “a liar,” the above was sarcasm.
Once again – you showed a picture of a wanted fetus, one whose mother chose to keep him.
You then made the comment “The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.”
Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
That’s not true. If the same woman decided tomorrow she wanted to abort the child, you would support that, regardless of the gestation of the child. Therefore, it’s not a lie to say liberals claim the right to abort that child. Or any child, for that matter.
The right says “Every life is sacred (until it’s born) and women must be punished for being so slutty as to conceive a child. Any fertilized egg is actually an adult human being with every right and privilege (just a more restricted view.) So, therefore, let Obama’s goons control this type of medical care, and let Big Government take control and strip this choice from us. After all, we need more bodies for the endless wars of profit we must fight. Support the troops!”
Not true. First, pro-lifers think innocent life is sacred, which is why they support not only mothers before birth but after, as well.
As for the “pro-lifers think women are slutty!” argument, I never see pro-lifers use it. It’s an argument strictly used by pro-abortion types setting up a strawman. Just like with the child support argument made above (“he chose to have sex with her”), the argument that a woman decides to have sex knowing she can get pregnant doesn’t make her “slutty.” It simply makes her responsible for what happens afterwards.
And actually, children don’t have the same rights as adults (they can’t vote, for instance), so stating that “a fertilized egg has the same rights as an adult” isn’t quite true, either. What we do argue is that a baby en utero has the same rights to be born as anyone else.
Also, no one is arguing that Obama’s “goon squads” should control abortion, but only that Obamacare should uphold the Hyde amendment and the idea that taxpayer money to fund abortion is prohibited. Under current law, you can use your own money to buy an abortion should you choose, but you don’t have a right to mine.
Finally, the strawman about needing more bodies to fight our wars as an alibi to be pro-life is simply nonsense. There are plenty of pro-lifers who oppose war of all kinds.
Fellowship of Friends churches and colleges, for instance.
I am not stupid, nor a liar. And no I do not define human life by just any old teenie tiny heart beating, you idiot. But the teenie tiny heart of a fetus that was created by two HUMAN BEINGS is human life. Wow, pooter, any 5 year old can tell you that.
Hey, abort on demand crowd, wanna try defending this?
cbmc noted: “… (with the exception of Sharon, who while I disagree with her is capable of having a civilized conversation about an issue that raises passions on either side), ….”
I think it is worth while to single out Sharon on here, to whom we can all look to as a model of civility. I’ve had many a heated discussion and disagreement with her, but my respect for her continues.
Sharon:“First, pro-lifers think innocent life is sacred, which is why they support not only mothers before birth but after, as well.”
Then my question for you, Sharon, is why are you reluctant to take the next step and say that all human life is “sacred”? (I take the meaning of “sacred” to be general, like unassailable or inviolable, that is, not focused on any particular religious ideology.)
If folks on here (and elsewhere) were able to do this, we would see a huge change in the quality of all lives on earth, as I am sure that both Jesus and Mohammed would wholeheartedly approve.
Although I do not excuse the mother for what she appears to have done, I hope you noted this in your citation, John H.: “… state [VA, a conservative state] law does not consider the baby to be a separate life.
It is this distinction that people like you and Hube, and millions of other so-called pro-lifers, refuse to take into account.
PS: I use the term “so-called pro-lifers”, because many of you support the death penalty, and support going to war to have our people be killed and to have them kill others. This, folks, is not pro-life, rather, it is cherry-picked pro-life, which is not good enough to be convincing about your pro-life protestations, which are hypocritical at best, obnoxious and immoral at worst.
Perry, there were many state laws that said certain people were less valuable as humans than other people. There are currently many nations who have laws that say certain people are less valuable as humans than other people. What’s your point?
It certainly is. Prior to abortion, it is alive and growing. Afterwards, it is dead. Killed. Case closed.
“Opinion” doesn’t override scientific fact. Abortion kills. Deal with it.
John, my point is that you and I can oppose abortion with great passion, but in the final analysis, it comes down to the mother, since the fetus is part of her being until the birth is complete, at which time it becomes an independent life, commonly known as a baby.
So our job is to try to convince the mother to carry to term. Personally, I don’t think your approach, to condemn the sin, to show pictures of fetuses in utero, or mangled and bloody, is a civilized way to approach these women. The loving/caring approach is much more likely to be effective, in more ways than one!
Update: Eric’s approach and attitude is exactly the wrong way to go about making the desired change of mind/heart in the mother-to-be.
Ah, yes, that whole “don’t show the woman her baby” thing. Fact is, if women were required to see ultrasounds prior to aborting their babies, far fewer abortions would take place. Fact is, a Planned Parenthood person saw ultrasounds and got out of the business, switching sides altogether.
Same statement but for a different time. And your statement of our approach being to condemn the sin falls short. It is “condemn the sin but love the sinner.”
Perry, you’re smart enough not to believe this BS. Obviously the terms “Pro-life” and “Life is sacred” apply to innocent human beings. That’s why the proper translation of the 6th Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder” as opposed to “Kill”. Even the Bible recognizes that killing the guilty, or in wartime or self defense, is allowable. I doubt even Christ would object to making war on Al Qaida or the Taliban, being as these groups were directly and indirectly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocents. Thus, your “Argument” holds no water.
That was not the majority view at the time. Slaves were basically regarded as beasts of burden, like a draft horse or donkey. The notion that they could reason on a human level was generally considered laughable. Even a man as great as Jefferson considered blacks to have diminished mental capacities vis a vis whites (interestingly, he regarded Indians as being on the same level as whites, and therefore intellectually superior to blacks).
This is perhaps the shallowest, most ill informed opinion to appear on this page, since it would apply equally to newborns and infants, whose intellectual capacity and ability to reason is on line with maybe a rabbit. They know only that they’re hungry, hot, cold, etc., and not a whole lot else. Indeed, your “argument” could easily be used to justify infanticide, which far more makes our point than yours.
Patterico had a question, a couple of years ago, that went something like this: if the technology existed to transfer an unborn child, at any gestational age, from the mother’s womb to some sort of artificial uterus, where he could live and develop, would you support a ban on abortion? It was quickly determined that this had nothing to do with the rights of the mother to not have her womb occupied, and everything to do with just getting rid of the kid.
The Neanderthal in a time of Cro-Magnons wrote:
And you think that line of sentience is crossed when they pass through the birth canal?
A one day post-partum baby doesn’t think at any greater level than one day pre-birth, nor feel with any greater knowledge, nor have any more understanding of self. Why wouldn’t a mother have just as much right to simply smother her newborn, if she decides she doesn’t want him?
Oh, wait, maybe she does.
Perry wrote:
Medically wrong, Perry. The unborn child is a separate being, with separate DNA and a separate life. The child can die in utero, without the mother dying (though, at that point, he has to be removed) amd the mother can die without her child dying (though at that point, he must be delivered or he will quickly die.)
The mother provides the necessary environment for the child to live and grow and develop, until he reaches a point in which he can survive in another environment.
Look at it this way, Perry: there are many organisms which live inside our bodies that are not part of our bodies. You would never call the organisms which are alive, right now, in your large intestines “part of your being.”
WARNING: The movie actors are watching a video of a real abortion.
This is a re-enactment of a Juno scene:
If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll know that it is decidedly NOT Christian. If you’ve seen a certain deleted scene from the movie, you’ll know it could’ve gone decidedly anti-Christian. I highly recommend the movie.
WARNING: If you don’t like coarse language or if you have youngsters in tow, you might not want to watch the movie.
And no I do not define human life by just any old teenie tiny heart beating, you idiot
Then you shouldn’t cite it as evidence of “humanity”, should you? I can’t decide whether you just haven’t thought these things through or whether you’re actively dishonest, like your father.
Does that mean you go with the “humanity is defined by DNA” argument?
Who gives a shit what you think? You’re just an Internet pest who likes to annoy people. The day you contribute an ounce of actual substance to a discussion will indeed be a first!
Pooter never learned about context. It’s obvious by the way he constantly lifts segments of statements fully out of context, oftentimes out of the context of the sentence itself in an effort to dishonestly troll.
Yeah, that’s right, Pooter. I called you a known liar. And I used histo-factual information to support my statement.
Perry, you’re smart enough not to believe this BS. Obviously the terms “Pro-life” and “Life is sacred” apply to innocent human beings. That’s why the proper translation of the 6th Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder” as opposed to “Kill”. Even the Bible recognizes that killing the guilty, or in wartime or self defense, is allowable. I doubt even Christ would object to making war on Al Qaida or the Taliban, being as these groups were directly and indirectly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocents. Thus, your “Argument” holds no water.
John 8:1-11
8:3 teachers of the law. See notes on Mt 2:4; Lk 5:17, a woman caught in adultery. This sin cannot be committed alone, so the question arises as to why only one offender was brought. The incident was staged to trap Jesus (v. 6), and provision had been made for the man to escape. The woman’s accusers must have been especially eager to humiliate her, since they could have kept her in private custody while they spoke to Jesus.
8:4 caught in the act. Compromising circumstances were not sufficient evidence, as Jewish law required witnesses who had seen the act.
8:5 to stone such women. They altered the law a little. The manner of execution was not prescribed unless the woman was a betrothed virgin (Dt 22:23-24). And the law required the execution of both parties (Lev. 20:10: Dt 22:22), not just the woman.
8:6 using this question as a trap. The Romans did not allow the Jews to carry out death sentences (18:31), so if Jesus had said to stone her, he could have been in conflict with the Romans. If he had said not to stone her, he could have been accused of being unsupportive of the law. started to write. We can only guess what Jesus wrote on the ground.
8:7 let him be the first. Jesus’ answer disarmed them. Since he spoke of throwing a stone, he could not be accused of failure to uphold the law. But the qualification for throwing it prevented anyone from acting. without sin. The phrase is quite general and means “without any sin,” not “without this sin.”
(from the NIV Study Bible)
And, Pooter, you who hold no value whatsoever in Christianity, what’s your point of reference, other than your obvious lack of integrity or context?
In John, Chapter 8, there is no claim that the woman caught in adultery was not guilty of the sin. Rather, the passage is about forgiveness. Note that Jesus told her to go and sin no more.
We do this all the time in foreign policy. We hung many of the surviving German and Japanese leaders, but to the German and Japanese people we extended our hand and our help. If the Islamists would simply stop trying to kill us, we’d be urinated off at their leadership, and might punish those on whom we got our hands, but we’d be perfectly happy to leave the common people alone.
John, as in, toilet. That’s what you ought to flush yourself down, Phooey. You hate Christianity. You hate people. Next time you get sick, do us all a favor and just die! Maybe God will forgive you. The rest of us won’t.
To try and rhetorically leverage your own beliefs against you, just as he, or those like him, saw done in those social conscience themed television drama screenplays written by 1930′s era communists who became black-list victims.
It’s a technique that emotionally resonates with a certain type.
[His deployment of the tactic however, relies on your knowing even less than he does about scripture. So, it merely blows up in his face here.]
But you know the scenario: The “Old West”, as staged in a Southern California studio back lot at perpetual noontime.
A scene, wherein a sensitive “I do my fighting with words” type from the “East” confronts and backs down a local gaggle of dirty sweating shouting redneck bigots. (As portrayed of course by the usual and overly familiar, often overweight, flabby Hollywood extras poured into ill-fitting checked shirts, heavy pants, and boots. “ Say, Get me that pockmarked faced actor from New Jersey, and put a Rebel uniform on him. Make him leader of the Christian bigots.”)
It’s plainly the same thing the non-Christain, non-disciple of Christ, Perry, repeatedly tries with his silly “what would Jesus think” questions; or what Nangleator was caught out attempting, with his selective and elided quote from the Declaration of Independence.
Look at Perry trying it again:
Someone ask him, “What exactly makes you so sure? Citations please!” And Mohammed???? Geez …….
Then my question for you, Sharon, is why are you reluctant to take the next step and say that all human life is “sacred”?
Because “all” human life is not, in fact, sacred, as history, law and religion discuss ad nauseam.
For the record, I understand Eric’s extreme frustration. But I don’t support his statement beyond a rhetorical sense.
Which is basically how I meant it, in the same sense that if you tell someone to “Drop dead” or even “F*** off and die”, you don’t literally mean it, you’re basically using strong language to tell someone to shut up, go away, and stop making a pest out of themselves.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
For the record, I understand Eric’s extreme frustration. But I don’t support his statement beyond a rhetorical sense.
Eric’s comment illustrates his character quite nicely – beauty may be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
I take it as a tribute to the fact that I am so comprehensively kicking his ass on arguments such as that on climate change. He has to restort to such rhetoric becuase he always always loses in factual debate.
Pooter, you couldn’t kick a butt if it were on the level of an ant. You are too far beneath that level. And on the subject of AGW alarmists (which is a deliberate thread-hijack), you are losing there, too. Your dishonesty is very well known. Your trollery is very well known.
John, I’ve proven you’re a liar, and I’ve shown that you’re unable to deal with that proof. On this very thread in fact.
Do you ever get tired of being spanked?
You’ve proven no such thing, other than you substitute nastiness for actually making a point. What sort of sicko responds to an abortion argument by talking about a father sticking his nose in his daughter’s genitals? Do you really think that will carry any weight with anyone here, other than convince people you are running for the title of King Jerk of the online world?
You’ve proven no such thing,
Uh-huh.
As ignorant as ever, Eric.
Pooter, your rant and your sexual innuendo and your attempted redirection has not proven anything about anyone other than yourself. DNW, Eric, Laura, Sharon have all pointed out your mendoucheousness. And they’re not the only ones. Sharon directly denied your false claims that I lied. They, among others, have stood up and said I did not, in fact, lie about anything.
But stay mendoucheous because that’s all you have to offer.
Eric loses it:“John, as in, toilet. That’s what you ought to flush yourself down, Phooey. You hate Christianity. You hate people. Next time you get sick, do us all a favor and just die! Maybe God will forgive you. The rest of us won’t.”
Eric, you need to take stock, as this outburst is not impressive at all, and, I don’t think that your allegations are correct. You too John! Do you two think that Christ would talk like this?
John:, it is quite obvious that you did lie, or maybe it was a misstatement. Whatever, admit it and move on, or deny it and continue to make a fool of yourself.
John guesses:“And, Pooter, you who hold no value whatsoever in Christianity, ….”
You don’t know that, John! If Phoenician has similar thoughts to mine, it is not so much Christianity, as in Christ the man, the philosopher, but it is the extremism/absolutism of too many Christians that put me off. Many of you people corrupt your own religion with your arrogance and gluttony of the mind. You ought to think about that!
Well, He was known to get angry at times, most famously the scene in the Temple where He chased the moneylenders out with a whip. I doubt He would approve of Phooey’s behavior, since virtually every post of his consists of calling people idiots, liars, and so forth. OTOH, HE did heal the mentally ill, so perhaps I have been uncharitable and should instead pray for phooey to get better instead of simply getting annoyed with him.
Perry wrote:
He talked about bad people being cast into hell or (the trash heap), Perry.
And Perry, you also failed to follow up on explaining your implied admiration for – along with Christ – Mohammad (the philosopher?). Why don’t you expand a bit on just what it is that so attracts you to the doctrines, and life, and “philosophy” of Mohammad.
After all you cited him with apparent admiration, classing him with Jesus:
So, what is it that makes you appreciate Mohammad?
They, among others, have stood up and said I did not, in fact, lie about anything.
Once again – you showed a picture of a wanted fetus, one whose mother chose to keep him.
You then made the comment “The teeny tiny problem is liberals claim the right to abort that child.”
Name one liberal who claims a right to abort that child, given the mother wants to keep it. Just one.
Or be shown as the liar you are.
So, what is it that makes you appreciate Mohammad?
Probably b/c it is what those whom Perry admires use to rationalize their hatred of Jews.
Name one conservative who claims you have a right to start a business, given you prefer working for someone else.
It’s not a lie. Everyone else here understood exactly what John meant, and the context in which he said it. At best, you’re just arguing semantics. And being a pest again, as usual.
DNW asked:“So, what is it that makes you appreciate Mohammad?”
The golden rule is a core belief of mine, therefore both Christ and Muhammad had something to say about it:
Christ: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
Muhammad: “No man is a true believer unless he desireth for his neighbor that which he desireth for himself.”
It’s as simple as that.
That said, let me preemptively note that I do not judge these two great men wrt the atrocities that some of their followers perpetrated in their name. Let me also admit that I know more about Christ than I do about Muhammad, which is very little really.
“
Then you might try actually reading up on the Koran and the life of Mohammad.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438#ixzz0ZOyEadLM
The author describing herself:
“
Pew Forum .org