Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Autism Complementary and alternative medicine Medicine Quackery Science Skepticism/critical thinking

When the antiabortion movement meets the antivaccine movement…

Many are the lies and epic is the misinformation spread by the antivaccine movement. For instance, they claim that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), cancer, and a wide variety of other conditions and diseases when there is no credible evidence that they do and lots of evidence that they don’t. One particularly pernicious myth, designed to appeal (if you can call it that) to religious fundamentalists, is the claim that vaccines are made using fetal parts. This particular claim reared its ugly head again in the context of a propaganda campaign against Planned Parenthood that hit the news last week.

Before I get to the “sting” operation against Planned Parenthood, bear with me a moment while I discuss a bit about the background here. It definitely has bearing on the attempt by David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress to “prove” that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal parts for profit. First, you need to realize that fear mongering about “fetal parts” in vaccines is, not surprisingly, a distortion of the real situation, which is that the human cell lines used to make some vaccines. Specifically, the WI-38 cell line is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962 in the US. Another cell line, MRC-5, was derived from lung fibroblasts of a 14 week old fetus in 1966 in the United Kingdom. These are currently the only fetal cell lines used to grow viruses for vaccines, with most other vaccines requiring cell lines using animal cell lines (which, of course, leads antivaccinationists to disparage them as “dirty” and using “monkey cells” and the like). In any case, the only commonly used vaccines in which these cell lines are utilized are:

  • Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
  • Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
  • Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
  • Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]

Although antiabortion antivaccine activists try to make it sound as though scientists are aborting babies left and right just to grind them up to make vaccines, in reality there are only two cell lines used this way, and they are so far removed from the original abortions that even the Catholic Church has said that it is morally acceptable to use such vaccines, although the statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life does urge scientists to develop vaccines that don’t use these cell lines. Basically, the Church concluded that the extreme good of protecting children’s lives far outweighed the distant evil (in the Church’s view) that created the cell lines, concluding in a FAQ, “There would seem to be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious disease, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for the health of our children, public health, and the common good” and “It should be obvious that vaccine use in these cases does not contribute directly to the practice of abortion since the reasons for having an abortion are not related to vaccine preparation.”

A variant of this gambit is to claim that there is fetal DNA in vaccines and that this is the cause of every evil under the sun attributed to vaccines. Perhaps the foremost proponent of this brain dead claim is a woman who really should know better. I’m referring, of course, to Theresa Deisher, of whom I first became aware way back in 2009, when I first learned of her attempts to link fetal DNA in vaccines to autism. It was, as I referred to it at the time, thermonuclear stupid, similar to the claim of Helen Ratajczak that fetal DNA from vaccines somehow would get into brain cells and undergo recombination with the baby’s native DNA to result in the production of altered proteins on the cell surface of the brain’s cells, thus provoking an autoimmune reaction and—voilà!—autism.

It’s an idea that’s so implausible that it’s worth explaining why again. To do what Dr. Ratajczak and Deisher claim, the minute amount of human DNA in a vaccine from the human fetal cell line used to grow up the virus would have to:

  • Find its way to the brain in significant quantities.
  • Make it into the neurons in the brain in significant quantities.
  • Make it into the nucleus of the neurons in significant quantities.
  • Undergo homologous recombination at a detectable level, resulting in either the alteration of a cell surface protein or the expression of a foreign cell surface protein that the immune system can recognize.
  • Undergo homologous recombination in many neurons in such a way that results in the neurons having cell surface protein(s) altered sufficiently to be recognized as foreign.

In other words, from a strictly scientific point of view, blaming the DNA from “fetal cells” used to make vaccine is pretty darned implausible. True, it’s not, as I’m wont to say, homeopathy-level implausible, but it wouldn’t take all that much to get there. The amazing thing is that Deisher is actually a scientist, with a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology. (Holy doctorate Batman, that’s the same as mine! She even once worked for an evil pharmaceutical company, Amgen!) Given that, she really should know better, but she doesn’t. She even founded Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, which is dedicated to combat embryonic stem cell research and “share the research that indicts the use of aborted fetal vaccines as a trigger for the autism epidemic.” You get the idea.

I also like to point out that from a strictly physical standpoint this concept that fetal DNA can somehow recombine with infant DNA is pretty ridiculous. Vaccines are injected intramuscularly, and any tiny amount of contaminating DNA that might be present won’t go very far. If it goes anywhere into the body, it’ll be to the muscle cells nearby, which can take up DNA in a functional form. I like to point out as well that I know this from direct experimental experience. Back when I was a graduate student, one of our projects was to inject plasmid DNA into rat muscle and determine whether we could get reporter gene expression appropriately regulated by the promoter controlling the gene. It worked. Then there’s also the not inconsequential matter of the blood-brain barrier, through which DNA doesn’t pass easily. Unfortunately, Deisher just doesn’t give up, publishing more recent (and equally bad) “studies” trying to “prove” that fetal DNA in vaccines is an evil cause of autism. They’ve been no better than her earlier studies; indeed, they’ve been embarrassingly bad.

So it turns out that the antiabortion movement and the antivaccine movement can make not-so-beautiful pseudoscience together, which brings us back to Planned Parenthood. Even though abortion services make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity, with the other 97% of services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services, Planned Parenthood remains a target of the antiabortion movement. So it was that David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress have released two heavily edited videos claiming to represent Planned Parenthood officials discussing the “sale” of fetal body parts from abortions. The first video has been deconstructed by many different media outlets and shown to have been deceptively edited to leave out the Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly telling the people doing the sting operation that its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research. Indeed, as these deconstructions of the distorted presentation of information rolled in, I couldn’t help but think that the techniques used by Daleiden sure resembled the deceptive techniques used by the antivaccine movement, and I briefly thought of Deisher.

Then this story appeared over the weekend in The Daily Beast:

Anti-vaxxers couldn’t be happier about the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue donation programs. Many in the anti-vaccine movement have long maintained that fetal tissue in vaccines is behind increasing rates of autism, even though vaccines do not contain fetal tissue and rates of autism might not be rising after all.

But the anti-vaccine movement isn’t just piggybacking on David Daleiden’s undercover sting investigation into the women’s health provider. One of its icons tutored him.

Hmmm. One wonders who that icon might be, one does. Well, look no further:

But an interview with Daleiden in the National Catholic Register revealed this crucial detail: “Theresa Deisher helped to prepare [him] for his role as a biomedical representative, teaching him the ins and outs of the field.” Deisher, who did not respond to request for comment, is one of the chief proponents of the debunked theory that fetal DNA in vaccines is linked to autism.

For Daleiden, a man who, as The New York Times noted “only reluctantly talk[s] about himself,” the link to Deisher is one more clue about his background and the origins of his investigation. Daleiden has already been linked to a retinue of far-right activists—including the militant pro-life group Operation Rescue, which is partially funding the CMP—but his training under a noted vaccine skeptic has not yet been brought to light.

Until now. This is how Deisher is described in the National Catholic Register:

As her respect for the unborn grew, so did her intolerance for working in a field where experimenting on material from aborted babies is rampant. She is now the president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute and CEO of AVM Biotechnology; both companies have a mission to end the use of aborted babies in biomedical research.

In the same article, she claims that we’re “taking a baby and chopping it up to make vaccines,” which, as I described at the beginning of this article scientists most certainly do not do. Let’s just put it this way. Deisher’s “research” is so sloppy that even those who share her implacable opposition to abortion can’t support it, pointing out, quite correctly:

However, deeply held beliefs do not make for rigorous scientific inquiry. And pro-life parents seeking to do the best by their children and by their culture deserve better than to have a plausible sounding lie masquerading as truth.

Of course, I can’t help but point out that the lie here is only plausible sounding if you don’t have a background in molecular biology. Even a freshman-level introduction to molecular biology provides more than enough knowledge to know why Theresa Deisher’s idea of how fetal DNA in vaccines can cause autism (I won’t even dignify it by calling it a hypothesis) is an enormous pile of wet, stinky BS. Even if you do believe abortion is a great evil, is it not also evil to misuse your scientific knowledge and credentials to spread a lie, such as the lie that fetal DNA in vaccines causes autism. Yet that lie is exactly the one that Deisher has been spreading for at least seven years. So willing is she to spread it that she got into bed with activists willing to represent themselves as being part of a fake company (Biomax Procurement Services) to try to induce Planned Parenthood into illegally selling fetal body parts.

The confluence of fundamentalist religion that believes abortion to be the same as murder with the antivaccine movement might surprise those who don’t pay the intense attention to both of them that I and other skeptics do. It shouldn’t. There has long been a wing of the antivaccine movement that uses the existence and use of the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines as reason to attack vaccination. Theresa Deisher is particularly dangerous because she used to be a real scientist until her embrace of an unholy union of antiabortion and antivaccine pseudoscience led her to produce a seemingly “scientific” rationale for not vaccinating that tapped into the opposition to abortion shared by Catholicism and various fundamentalist religions. Her willingness to coach a con man like David Daleiden shows just how far she will go in the service of her now anti-science agenda. She also serves as a useful reminder that antivaccine pseudoscience is the pseudoscience that knows no political boundaries. For every hippy dippy all “natural”-type antivaccine activist, there’s a right-wing fundamentalist like David Daleiden, who could do real damage to the vaccine program when backed by someone like Theresa Deisher.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

1,306 replies on “When the antiabortion movement meets the antivaccine movement…”

As judged by the number of needles, it meets the pro-acupuncture movement too.

“92% of children who are vaccinated have been potentially injected […]”

Do I dare to ask where this 92% comes from? Just curious to learn if it’s deep proctology or maimed statistics.

Went to the Daliy Beast article. The comment section has an interesting mix of nutties, although the majority seem to want to focus on the Planned Parenthood videos.

I was reading through the 2011 RI article on Joe Mercola’s take on the same topic and come across an interesting comment by JayK:

You have to wonder if they’d be just as freaked out over a blood transfusion and all that scary DNA recombining inside their precious snowflake. You never hear about the burial of the survivors of blood transfusions, now do you?

Just to put the “injected with human DNA” into a broader perspective.

I really am trying to understand the thought processes behind how fetal DNA has all these magical properties, but adult DNA apparently doesn’t.

Otherwise, sex would cause autism I suppose.*

But what really got me is this quote:

“taking a baby and chopping it up to make vaccines”

Deisher has apparently never ever met a cell culture.

There is the other problem with this narrative is that both of the human cell cultures are 50 years old.

*In a way it does, but not in the way that anti-vaxxers think.

Another point in common with both anti-vax and anti-abortion loons is that they both seem to care a hell of a lot more for the unborn baby than they do for the ones out in the world.

The anti-abortion folks generally opt for the earliest possible definition of life at conception and will fight tooth and nail and gun and bomb to protect those undifferentiated cells. Once the baby is birthed (at no cot to them usually), the baby is abandoned until old enough to send to war or birth more babies. These antis, as a rule do not support healthcare or welfare or any other social welfare programs.

The anti-vaxers will fight tooth and nail and lie and lawsuit to keep their offspring exposed and far more susceptible to preventable disease. They probably mostly care for the preborn as an excuse to fight vaccines.

The best way to eliminate the need for elective abortions is through effective sex ed, family planning, and long-term contraceptives. That the religious fundamentalists are also utterly against these proves the lie that drives them: their real goal is not to protect fetuses, but to guarantee them a constant supply of “fallen women” to whom they can look down upon and feel superior, and to serve as warning to their own females of what happens to those that step out of line.

Honestly, human lives are the last thing a fetishistic control-freak death cult that loathes sentience and self-determination could give a crap about. Pissing false witness over everyone else to get their own way is only to be expected, for how can they engage in reasoned argument when reason itself is the enemy?

@MikeMa – I’m not anti-abortion myself. However, I suspect someone who was would argue that they are against murder at any age after conception, and thus their concern for the fetus/person remains constant. Someone could be anti-abortion and believe in any level of social services without necessarily being a hypocrite as you suggest.

@ ChrisP

I really am trying to understand the thought processes behind how fetal DNA has all these magical properties

To play the armchair psychologist, I think “magical properties” is really the right wording on these topics.

Blood and fetus are not involved as biological entities, but as concepts, like a religious icon. And as such, they are ascribed religious/magical properties, and are more or less disconnected from the real properties of their biological counterparts.
I don’t know if we can talk about totemization, or if there is a better word (reification? no, that’s the other way round).

When the debate is about ethics, using the cultural concepts associated with fetuses has its place. That’s why I won’t mock people who are weary of a vaccine because it was produced using a fetus-derived cell line. I think they are misinformed and/or wrong, but I understand their position.

Now, people who truly believe we are grounding babies to make vaccines, or for whose the “aborted fetus matter” is just another way to unduly worry about the purity of their bodily fluids…

The idea that promiscuous DNA is taken up by our bodies to horribly detrimental effect is also a staple of the anti-GMO movement.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/17/can-genes-pass-from-genetically-modified-food-into-our-blood-posing-dangers/

Somehow this dread danger applies only to GMOs, although it is just as likely that we are at risk of biological transformation from alien DNA creeping into our genomes.every time we eat a ham sandwich or a salad.

I have learned to embrace this possibility, proudly displaying my “Food Tastes Better With DNA” t-shirt (should be fun to wear it to the opening of the new Whole Foods store near me).

@Mephistopheles O’Brien
I tried to make my comment more gray than black and white. I seem to have failed. I find that the people with whom I argue the pros and cons of abortion are far more fixated on the unborn rather than the young child. They are not in favor of murder certainly but they do TEND to not support things that would sustain, support or advance the lives of babies after they are born. Healthcare, school lunches, vaccine programs, after school programs, etc.

I find this is in no way a monolithic culture. As with all groups there are a wide range of attitudes but there are enough of the hypocrites to make it noteworthy in my opinion.

“Food Tastes Better With DNA” t-shirt

That’s what makes the bacon so dangerous.

Just the other day ( “Connecting the dots….; Natural News) Old Reliable Mikey mentioned ‘organ harvesting’ and ‘post-birth abortions’- i.e. killing infants for fun and profit, I suppose- both procedures which are near and dear to the hearts of card-carrying ‘leftists’.

I’ve always suspected** that despite their superficial, voiced support for women, Mike and the other idiot would rather we return to the good old days when women kept their place in the kitchen and as child-carers rather than as independent beings, thus abortion- in any form- as well as pharmaceutical birth control are anathema because they have given women real control over their own bodies.

‘Back to Nature’,’Back to the Earth’ and bringing back the ‘Traditional Family’ do not include women taking that kind of control. I believe that this is the hidden message beneath their outward ranting which they dare not say aloud because their support would dwindle grievously. Women buying their products are probably their chief economic support.

AS I’ve written previously, they both must carefully create a message that appeals to conservatives and liberals in order to get both sides’ business but their true bent would have us all back in the 1890s- except for computers because they can be used to sell products and modern factories which manufacture their witches’ brew of supplements.

** and believe me, I’ve heard and read incredible amounts of their bilge and tripe.

@MikeMa – I probably read more into it than was intended. I’ve seen similar comments posted on a picture and passed around various social sites. Being somewhat literal minded with these things, I find fault with most slogans. I also find that they’re often not intended as the basis for a conversation but as an attempt to stigmatize those with whom the poster does not agree. Naturally, this does not apply in the current discussion.

Speaking as a Christian (and married to a man who is way more devout than I am), MikeMa is absolutely correct about fundies. Sex is bad unless it makes babies; so all contraceptions, testing services, vaccines like HPV, etc are of the Devil.

I am projecting here, but I’m pretty sure that when the state of Indiana defunded Planned Parenthood, thereby indirectly contributing to the current HIV epidemic in Scott County, it was seen by this bunch as no more than just desserts.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” isn’t even on their radar.

Apologies — the original comment was from has and not MikeMa (but Mike’s not too far off the mark, either).

MikeMa@12:

I find that the people with whom I argue the pros and cons of abortion are far more fixated on the unborn rather than the young child. They are not in favor of murder certainly but they do TEND to not support things that would sustain, support or advance the lives of babies after they are born. Healthcare, school lunches, vaccine programs, after school programs, etc.

Religion fundamentally thrives on fear, pain, and poverty. The last thing it wants is full, happy, and enriched lives making secularists of us all.

has, are you familiar with Hanlon’s razor? “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” In this case, these ideas held by American fundamentalists are based on beliefs about “self-sufficiency” and “independence” that run directly counter to both evidence and the teachings of Christ.

For comparison purposes, Saudi Arabia is run by fundamentalists, but it is a massive welfare state.

There is some interesting reading on Sound Choices facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SoundChoicePharm

They are promoting the videos claiming Planned Parenthood selling body parts. Plus the announcement of the funeral for Dr. Deisher’s son.

What gets me is that instead of asking for donations to established cancer foundations, they want them to go to Sound Choice. From that Facebook entry: “Memorial contributions may be made to Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute to continue the research on Lymphoma and Vaccines.”

While I am very sympathetic to her loss, I am not happy that she is using as a way to fund raise and go further into anti-science.

The heavily edited tapes reminds me of how ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was destroyed. ACORN increased voter turnout among minorities and lower SES and aided the same with housing. The tapes were made by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles who contacted the late Andrew Breitbart who played it up to the hilt. Our Congress stopped ALL funding to ACORN prior to any hearing/investigation. Later it was proven the tapes were heavily edited. In fact, in my home town, the ACORN representative actually called the police to report suspicious persons. ACORN, a community organizing group, doing a lot of good was put out of business. I hope this is NOT a repeat, that Planned Parenthood will weather this and, perhaps, by showing the dishonesty and ruthlessness of their opponents will actually discredit them and come out stronger.

@MikeMa

The most concise statement I have encountered on the fundamentalist perspective on children:

“Society’s responsibility for a child begins at conception and ends at birth.”

So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines. Kudos.
It’s always good to have at least some honesty.

“Even though abortion services make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity, with the other 97% of services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services, Planned Parenthood remains a target of the antiabortion movement.”

Maybe PP remains a target of the antiabortion movement because PP performs about a third of the million abortions per year in the U.S. and PP is probably the single biggest abortion provider in the world, and because services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services should be available through countless other health care programs paid for through Obamacare or other insurance. And maybe because half of PP funding is from the federal government, and so, half of every abortion is financed with MY tax dollars.

Maybe because the ghastly mentality that makes PP possible cares more about parts and nothing about the whole. The Grim Reaper harvesting body parts with not a care from whence the harvest comes.

Here’s a USA Today opinion from a liberal columnist for The Daily Beast:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-abortion-fetus-parts-kirsten-powers/30426475/

See, King Ahab lied about someone for his personal benefit. Do you remember what happened to him? Do you really think lying for your personal benefit will help you here?

So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines.

No. Try again.

half of every abortion is financed with MY tax dollars.

So half of one third is 50%? Really?

See Noevo:

So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines. Kudos

No, please don’t embarrass yourself that way. If you had done any research, you would have learned that *1* baby, aborted because the mother developed rubella (back in the days when to get an abortion meant a whole medical review by a ethics group). No one was aborting babies for vaccines.

As for PP – again, you are embarrassing. NO federal monies can be used for abortions. So no, your tax dollars are NOT going towards ANY abortion. If your feeling is that the fact PP exists and provides other healthcare along with abortions means that they are getting federal money for abortions, you’re just wrong.

I had very good health insurance as a girl. I still used Planned Parenthood because they were less expensive than a regular doctor. I got my paps from them, birth control, and STD testing. I suppose you are a fan of those “Family Planning” places that are essentially false fronts for forced childbirth.

The USA Today piece barely acknowledges the tapes were heavily edited to skew what the PP representative said. And the writer doesn’t give her own bias. But I bet I could place her, from her rantings, in a minute. (Pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-contraception, who-give-a-**** -about-the-child-after-its-born-the-mom-should-suffer-for-her-sins).

And Liberal? I don’t think that word means what you think it means, nor does she.

@Opus:
“Society’s responsibility for a child begins at conception and ends at birth.”

Yup.

@See Noevo
Reading comprehension is not your thing. So sad.

because services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services should be available through countless other health care programs

Yes, they should be. But in most parts of the country, they aren’t. Sure, Obamacare will pay for that stuff — but it doesn’t really matter if there isn’t a clinic in the area willing to accept that compensation.

Of *course* PP is targeted because it is the largest abortion provider. But strangely no one ever seems to step up and tackle the one strategy that would actually work: outcompete them for all those non-abortion services. *That* is when I realize how hypocritical the anti-abortion movement really is.

@See Noevo
You really should read the article before commenting, although doing so would imply that you’re willing to take in information that would challenge your views.

Reading comprehension is not your thing. So sad.

No, trolling is its thing.

We may be looking at another 1000 comment thread.

To MI Dawn #26:

“No, please don’t embarrass yourself that way. If you had done any research, you would have learned that *1* baby, aborted because the mother developed rubella (back in the days when to get an abortion meant a whole medical review by a ethics group). No one was aborting babies for vaccines.”

So, at least “*1* baby”, after being killed, was used to develop a vaccine.

“As for PP – again, you are embarrassing. NO federal monies can be used for abortions. So no, your tax dollars are NOT going towards ANY abortion.”

I see.
It’s like the unemployed drug addict who spends $1000/month on crack.
In a “good” month he earns $1000/month from under-the-table odd jobs and drug sales.
But he gets $1000/month from his despairing parents and friends, on the grounds that he NOT use ANY of it for drugs.
And he agrees! He promises!

But many months aren’t so “good.”
However, he ALWAYS gets his crack.

I’m looking for a statistic… Seems I heard that only ABs preformed rather late in a term can yield tissue appropriate for research purposed. What percentage of Planned Parenthood ABs are “late”?

As I recall, PP is very much against mandatory ultrasounds for the potential accomplice (a.k.a. the pregnant patron).

But I wonder if PP insists on an ultrasound before harvest?

I’m betting they do.

“So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines. Kudos.”

What an effing idiot — and I see that he is once again setting himself up in opposition to the teachings of the Church to which he says he belongs.

What See Noevo wants is the Catholic church of the Middle Ages: A political organization that controlled kings and rulers, and made no effort to follow the teachings of its founders. In other words, what he wants is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ himself.

As I recall, PP is very much against mandatory ultrasounds

As well they should, since it’s a invasive medical procedure that serves no medical purpose in this case. The proposed legal requirements server only political ends.

Linda @30 responding to See Neovo:

doing so would imply that you’re willing to take in information that would challenge your views.

In See Neovo’s case, we can be pretty much certain that will never happen.

I urge my fellow commenters not to fall prey to SOWOTI syndrome. See Neovo simply isn’t worth your time.

The idea that promiscuous DNA is taken up by our bodies to horribly detrimental effect is also a staple of the anti-GMO movement.

It imperils the Purity of the Bloodline.

To Gray Falcon #36:

Do belong to the same church as Willie Parker?

“Mississippi abortion doctor Willie Parker — who was lauded by Esquire for his “abortion ministry” — ran with the trope that direct quotes from a Planned Parenthood doctor constitute a vicious attack, but went a step further: He compared Nucatola to Jesus. “It’s no secret that my frame of reference for the work that I do and in terms of generating compassion is related to my religious understanding and, in particular, my Christian religious understanding,” Parker told Cosmopolitan magazine. “I’m thinking about a strong parallel between what’s happening to my colleague (Nucatola) and the trial week of Jesus before he was crucified (as) he was marched from place to place, asked to answer allegations.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-abortion-fetus-parts-kirsten-powers/30426475/

Specifically, the WI-38 cell line is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962 in the US.

Waitwaitwait. The WI-38 abortion was elective and Swedish.

The abortion that gave rise to the RA 27/3 vaccine strain was in 1964 and therapeutic, as a result of the U.S. rubella epidemic going on.

“As for PP – again, you are embarrassing. NO federal monies can be used for abortions. So no, your tax dollars are NOT going towards ANY abortion.”

I see.
It’s like the unemployed drug addict who spends $1000/month on crack.

Hey, S.N., how big of a chunk of this $71 billion (PDF) do you suppose goes to the RCC?

hdb @39 —

Purity of the Bloodline

Not to mention their — essence.

So, at least “*1* baby”, after being killed, was used to develop a vaccine.

A baby whose mother was infected by rubella.

This. Right here.

That’s why I really hate so-called pro-life people.
They will swear up-and-down, “oh yes, if the life of the mother is at risk, if there is some real medical reason, abortion is an option, we are not barbarians”.

But whenever the chips get down, suddenly it’s “whatever you do, don’t touch the baby”. And too bad if the mother suffers, becomes barren, or dies, it’s just God’s will.

Next, SN will tell us that ectopic pregnancies shouldn’t be terminated.

To Gray Falcon #45:

I guess, with your Jesus, it would have been no big deal if the unwed pregnant teen-ager, Mary, had later second-thoughts, and decided not to go through with it.

P.S.
“And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” [Luke 1:34]

“and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” [Mat 1:19]

P.P.S.
Elizabeth might have thought it WOULD be a big deal:
“And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Lighten up, Liz. What mother? What Lord? You don’t see no baby, now do you?

See, would you abort the fourth child of someone, born out of wedlock, whose first three children who died before the age of three?

If not, why would you have allowed Adolf Hitler to live?

Next, SN will tell us that ectopic pregnancies shouldn’t be terminated.

It will say whatever it needs to say to keep the fish biting and continue its inane and irrelevant ravings.

Stupid anti-abortionists can’t even spell “foetus”.

Sorry to say this, but my Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition Copyright 1983 lists the definition of “foetus” as “n. same as fetus

In other vaccine news: Nigeria reports one year without a case of polio , leaving just two countries where polio is endemic, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Facebook, people are busily repeating that polio isn’t gone, just being called something else, such as Acute Flaccid Paralysis or Gullain-Barre Syndrome. Can one of you provide link to a concise rebuttal of this?

@See Noevo:

“As I recall, PP is very much against mandatory ultrasounds for the potential accomplice (a.k.a. the pregnant patron).”

Ah, at last! A forced-birther who has begun to admit their real intentions: to charge the pregnant woman with (what? attempted murder? premeditated murder?) for exercising control over her own body. It would be like something out of “The Handmaid’s Tale”. Anti-abortion has never been about the value of life. If that were even marginally true, as many have observed for years, those who so rabidly support it would be working to improve the lot of the living. Instead, they are invariably the staunchest opponents of safety nets and social programs that help women and children. And many are great advocates for the very things which are most inimical to life: war, guns, capital punishment.

To anti-abortionists, life is of importance only while it resides in a non-viable state inside a woman’s womb. Once it emerges as a functioning human being, its quality of life often ceases to be of value to the people who purport to protect it.

Because anti-abortion is really about one thing: a political tool for sustaining male patriarchy by controlling women. Birth control fails. And If women can not make autonomous decisions about when and if they will have a child, they cease to have any real agency: economically, professionally — humanly.

How unfortunate. She saw through the pseudoscience of Theresa Deisher but couldn’t see through the deception of David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress. Oh, well, i suppose that might have been asking too much.

“It’s a wonder Revs Al and Jesse haven’t been screaming non-stop.”

No it isn’t. B lack women choose abortion; just as white women do. Given the economic divide that still separates whites from blacks in this country, the roots of this decision probably rest in hard economic reality. Abortion allows women to focus scarce resources on the children they already have.

It’s a wonder Revs Al and Jesse haven’t been screaming non-stop. I wonder why they aren’t?

Yes, AoA was “wondering” about “that” a year ago, but given your obsession with mind-numbingly narcissistic pratfalls, I’m not surprised at your failure to double-check whether what comes at the end of “submit comment” will be unintentionally hilarious.

You know, I see SN as visualizing women being dragged kicking and screaming into PP for abortions, rather than the true image of them going in OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, having thought seriously about what they are doing and why.

SN is obviously male. He has NO idea what a woman thinks about. And he obviously thinks it’s only the “loose women” who have abortions, when the fact is that a fair number (don’t have the detail at my fingertips) are MARRIED women who are terminating a problematic pregnancy.

SN: I’m sure you, like my then employer, think I should have let my ectopic pregnancy kill me, rather than terminate it, leaving my husband and 2 young children motherless. Fortunately, I had a compassionate doctor who fudged my records and “didn’t see any cardiac movement” on the ultrasound, so I could be treated before the tube ruptured.

the true image of them going in OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL
Women? Free will? THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

Recent studies report that an overwhelming number of women do NOT regret their choice to abort.

So, at least “*1* baby”, after being killed, was used to develop a vaccine.

That isn’t correct, see. No baby was killed: instead, a fetus which had become infected with rubella was aborted.

@JGC,
Odd, right? The result of the loss of that fetus resulted in a lot more healthy babies. No sense of perspective.

#23 See Noevo

Kirsten Powers is hardly a liberal; know your pundits if you are going to make claims about them.

You have to love people in the comfort of their predominantly White, suburban, well-to-do homes looking at predominantly Black, poor women and saying, “You’re killing your child.”
Then the women turn around and say, “Will you help me raise it?”
To which the privileged say, “Hell, no. You’re the one who got pregnant. How is it MY problem?”
As far as I’m concerned, men shouldn’t be allowed to make any policy decisions on women’s health. I think the ladies can sort it out just fine without the piggish rhetoric of privileged, well-to-do, “Christian”-until-they-need-to-cheat-on-their-wives men.

Can’t believe there are still some ”pro-lifers” today in 2015. Hell, even our asshole of a prime minister in Canada tried to outlaw it, and failed.

How do these people even think that outlawing abortions would be the least bit practical?
If you make exceptions for those who might have health complications and or who got raped, well everybody is gonna claim to have been raped to get an abortion.
If you don’t wanna make an exception for those women, well congratulations! You’re an immense asshole.

The problem is, once you remove the anti-abortion platform, what you’re left with is a belief system utterly opposed to the teachings of Christ.

Does that mean I can’t think it’s bad for cops to kill black people unless I also believe in giving everyone a stipend to live on? Just curious.

I’m given to understand that the Pope opposes abortions but is entirely in favor of aid to the poor. Presumably some number of Catholics would also have this stand.

Kirsten Powers is hardly a liberal
Powers

prefers the term “orthodox Christian” over “evangelical” to describe herself, given the “cultural baggage” around the word “evangelical”.

Words mean whatever she wants them to mean. Evidently a kindred spirit.

Here’s a USA Today opinion from a liberal columnist for The Daily Beast:
What say you, Whackyweedia?

Powers […] in 2011 published a piece in The Daily Beast promoting the theory that access to birth control does not prevent abortions, which she later admitted contains “a serious error” that “invalidates” her piece.

I see. Another obsessive, incompetent crank, vying for the hotly-contested position of “Pundit wrong about the most number of things”..

Concerning the question of how many abortions were involved in the development of the controversial cell lines and vaccines:

Hayflick reported using 19 separate electively aborted fetuses in developing the technique for culturing cell lines, and which eventually resulted in WI-38.

Plotkin and colleagues published an article documenting 40 abortions in developing the virus strain RA 27/3.

Drs. J. Hoskins and Plotkin tested RA 27/3 on cell strains and additional cell strains were developed from 21 elective abortions.
NCBC quarterly 2006, A Brief History of Human Diploid Cell Strains Rene Leiva, M.D.

I see that you chose not to post my previous comment which called you out for the lie that this group only released 2 “heavily edited” videos when they released the full length videos at the same time. (yes I know they released 2 more videos since this last comment).

But why the lack of integrity? You should acknowledge that they released the full length videos as well. And you should acknowledge that the videos are not edited any more than the average news cast and less edited than John Stewart.

@Mike: The reason your post didn’t show up is that you were using a different e-mail address than previous posts, basically nonsense characters in front of a Yahoo.com domain. WordPress thus treated you as a new commenter, and new commenters have to have their first comment approved before they can comment freely. I went through this with a commenter named johnny, and I got sick of approving new e-mail identities for him. So I stopped. If he remembers one of the identities that was approved before, maybe I’ll let him post again. Or not. He was highly irritating, and his morphing e-mail address was just one reason why.

It irritates the crap out of me when people keep using morphing throwaway e-mail addresses. Every time that happens I have to try to remember if this is a new commenter, who should be approved, or an old one morphing e-mail addresses. Sometimes I have to search IP addresses to see if the comment comes from the same place and is therefore likely to be the same person. So I don’t worry about it any more. If I see a comment from someone who’s an old commenter, someone who looks familiar, doing the old nonsense characters in front of a Gmail or other free account, I no longer approve the comment. That person can go back and either use a real, valid e-mail address to comment or pick one of his previous nonsense e-mail addresses and stick with it. If such a commenter can’t remember his previous nonsense e-mail addresses, it’s not my problem any more.

I let your comment through just this once to stop your whining about censorship.Hope you remembered what e-mail you used for that, because I won’t approve any more new ones from you.

Well, Orac, consider yourself lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) that due to a mistake in clicking the wrong email address in a FireFox drop-down you are only one of three people on the internet that has my personal email address.

Concerning the remark about chopping up babies:

Dr Norby, who was responsible for procuring fetal specimens for delivery to Hayflick at the Wistar Institute:
“My predecessor, as professor of virology at the Karolinksa Institute in Stockholm, Sven Gard, spent a sabbatical year at the Wistar Institute in 1959 two years after the institution had been taken over by the dynamic Koprowski. One of my duties as a young student in the laboratory in Stockholm was to dissect human fetuses from legal abortions and send organs to the Wistar Institute. Such material was the source of many important studies of cell lines at the Institute, such as Leonard Hayflick’s study of WI-38 cells.

The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Lines, Hayflick and Moorhead:

“Isolation of primary cells.-Two methods of cell cultivation from primary tissue were employed in this study with identical qualitative results. The use of trypsin yielded far more cells initially than cultures prepared from fragmented or minced tissue. Since high cell yields were not required from the starting tissue, most cultures were started from fragmented or minced tissue. Such preparations gave fewer cells initially than could have been obtained from tissue treated with the enzyme prepara- tion. Minced preparations were obtained by cutting the tissue in a Petri dish con- taining GM with paired scalpels or a scissors until the size of each piece approxi- mated l-4 mm3. Fragmented preparations were obtained by tearing apart the tissue with two pairs of forceps in a Petri dish containing GM until the pieces could no longer conveniently be grasped and shredded. The entire contents of the dish were emptied into one or more Pyrex Blake bottles (surface area 100 cmZ), depending on the size of the original starting tissue. The fragmented lungs, for example, from a three-month-old human fetus were usually placed in four Blake bottles. Treat- ment of tissue with trypsin was done, in general, according to the method of Fer- nandes [ll]. “

Fetus
: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Mince
1 a : to cut or chop into very smallpieces

@#83 — Baby. Not fetus. They are not medically or legally defined in the same way.

I’ve heard many doctors refer to the growing baby in the uterus. I’m guessing the term is being used in this way. It’s not uncommon.

@A.H. #86

Yep, doctors sometimes use common vernacular rather than precise technical terms when talking to patients.

Doesn’t mean that the technical definitions of the words do not exist you can make any word mean anything you want.

There should be an or between the exist and the you. Not sure where it wandered off to. Will probably show up at random in a future post.

I don’t think I understand. Are you saying that if a person describes a child in the womb as a baby they are either ignorant or lying or making words mean anything they want? The fact is these words are used like this for a reason and people understand their meaning.

The fact is that “chopping up babies” is not only deliberately inflammatory, it’s inaccurate.

The picture one gets from the phrase “chopping up babies” is someone using a meat cleaver in the nursery (which would have been an interesting scene in Sweeney Todd, though implausible because babies don’t shave). At best it’s colloquial and inexact. At worst, it’s inaccurate because it ignores the distinction between developmental stages.

My father was prescribed rat poison after his heart valve replacement.

I’ve noticed that the fluid that comes out of the tap at home is a major component of liquid industrial waste.

So is mincing up fetuses less problematic? I think many people would think these are essentially the same.

So is mincing up fetuses less problematic? I think many people would think these are essentially the same.

Many people do indeed believe that, say, a blastocyst is a human being with rights equivalent to those of a woman, but that does not make it so.

There are many people who think that dissecting fetal tissue and chopping up babies are the same; which doesn’t make it any less inaccurate.

Hayflick himself describes the mincing of fetuses. Mince means chop. He also describes tearing. Others describe dissecting the fetuses.

I don’t know what happened to my tonsils – I doubt they were given a proper burial (my parents didn’t pay for a headstone). They may well have been dissected, in which case, we could say they were chopping up children since I was a child at the time.

I think many people would think these are essentially the same.

What “many people”?

Same ones who think the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Who knows, my tonsils may have been minced – I was unconscious at the time.

I guess you’ll have to argue your case with Hayflick. I have no problem with the use of these words. It’s obvious to me that a child was dissected, in whole, and that abortion and dissection are not equivalent to having your tonsils out.

So given that the abortions were not done expressly to provide a fetus to be used for scientific purposes, what is your issue with using the resulting non-viable fetus? While the cells were clearly alive, one could not argue that they would ever become viable babies after the abortions.

The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Lines, Hayflick and Moorhead:

“Isolation of primary cells.-Two methods of cell cultivation from primary tissue were employed in this study with identical qualitative results. The use of trypsin yielded far more cells initially than cultures prepared from fragmented or minced tissue. Since high cell yields were not required from the starting tissue, most cultures were started from fragmented or minced tissue. Such preparations gave fewer cells initially than could have been obtained from tissue treated with the enzyme prepara- tion. Minced preparations were obtained by cutting the tissue in a Petri dish con- taining GM with paired scalpels or a scissors until the size of each piece approxi- mated l-4 mm3. Fragmented preparations were obtained by tearing apart the tissue with two pairs of forceps in a Petri dish containing GM until the pieces could no longer conveniently be grasped and shredded. The entire contents of the dish were emptied into one or more Pyrex Blake bottles (surface area 100 cmZ), depending on the size of the original starting tissue. The fragmented lungs, for example, from a three-month-old human fetus were usually placed in four Blake bottles. Treat- ment of tissue with trypsin was done, in general, according to the method of Fer- nandes [ll]. “

That description does sound like particularly fine mincing.

I wonder where A.H.’s indignation of what happened to Henrietta Lacks and her cells. Because the fetuses that are only donated with the woman’s permission, which is not what happened with the Lacks family.

Or if he objects to medical school anatomy labs where donated bodies are dissected.

Many years ago a co-worker described his wife’s treatment by their parish priest when her fetus died inside her body due to rubella in the early 1960s. It had to be removed by a physician. Even though the fetus was not going to miraculously come back to life: the priest excommunicated her.

I wonder if A.H. agrees with that priest, because it is all about the fetus. Not the child nor the pregnant woman, and definitely not the future children that are saved due to the research. Like those who never got Congenital Rubella Syndrome, or those who get the conditions discussed in the RadioLabs podcast I linked to.

By the way, the news article that the podcast is based on:
http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-30/news/60606995_1_cord-blood-liver-tissue-banks

Minced Aborted Fetal Tissue is the worst rock band name ever, btw. Apparently Dying Fetus, Foetus, Aborted Fetus, and Fetus Factory have followings, though.

In reference to dissecting and fetuses:

Dr Norby, who was responsible for procuring fetal specimens for delivery to Hayflick at the Wistar Institute:
“My predecessor, as professor of virology at the Karolinksa Institute in Stockholm, Sven Gard, spent a sabbatical year at the Wistar Institute in 1959 two years after the institution had been taken over by the dynamic Koprowski. One of my duties as a young student in the laboratory in Stockholm was to

dissect human fetuses from legal abortions and send organs to the Wistar Institute. Such material was the source of many important studies of cell lines at the Institute, such as Leonard Hayflick’s study of WI-38 cells. ”

The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Lines, Hayflick and Moorhead:

“Isolation of primary cells.-Two methods of cell cultivation from primary tissue were employed in this study with identical qualitative results. The use of trypsin yielded far more cells initially than cultures prepared from fragmented or minced tissue. Since high cell yields were not required from the starting tissue, most cultures were started from fragmented or minced tissue. Such preparations gave fewer cells initially than could have been obtained from tissue treated with the enzyme prepara- tion. Minced preparations were obtained by cutting the tissue in a Petri dish con- taining GM with paired scalpels or a scissors until the size of each piece approxi- mated l-4 mm3. Fragmented preparations were obtained by tearing apart the tissue with two pairs of forceps in a Petri dish containing GM until the pieces could no longer conveniently be grasped and shredded. The entire contents of the dish were emptied into one or more Pyrex Blake bottles (surface area 100 cmZ), depending on the size of the original starting tissue.

The fragmented lungs, for example, from a three-month-old human fetus were usually placed in four Blake bottles. Treat- ment of tissue with trypsin was done, in general, according to the method of Fer- nandes [ll]. “

If the fetuses used in development of the tissue culture methods had not be so-used, they would have been incinerated, buried in land fill, dumped in the ocean, homogenized and dumped into the sewer, or otherwise disposed of in accordance to local custom and regulations.

The antiabortion crowd seem to want to create the impression there is demand for a continuous supply of fresh human fetuses for use in production of vaccines. There is not.

AH – I’ve always been willing to accept the term “chop” as a replacement for “mince” (though it’s imprecise, as minced is finer than chopped). That’s some riveting stuff there, though no actual rivet tools were used.

In reference to dissecting and fetuses

Is there some reason why you’re now just repeating the same sloppy cut and paste over and over?

Yes, because Shay didn’t see where Hayflick was referring to fetuses and DGR questioned dissecting.

I’m wondering if someone can explain When does a fetus become a baby, in medical terms?

I’m wondering if someone can explain When does a fetus become a baby, in medical terms?

I’m wondering, have you ever heard of JAQing off, in internet terms?

No, Shay did not see where Hayflick was referring to chopping up babies. If you must be a propagandist at least try not to be a stupid one.

@ AH

In reference to dissecting and fetuses:[…]

You describe a nice protocol to get isolated, live cells from a tissue sample.
So what?

If you object to the source of the tissue sample, say so. But the dissection method, by itself, hasn’t much moral quandaries.
Biology is gross. Get over it.

doug’s point at #112 is actually the central part of the ethical debate about using fetuses as source of cell lines. Were the fetuses specifically aborted for this, or would the abortions have been done anyway?

Dr Norby describes the dissection of fetuses for use by Hayflick. A fetus is not a tissue sample.

A fetus is not a tissue sample.

In spite of your statement @102, it’s not a child, either.

I’m wondering if someone can explain When does a fetus become a baby, in medical terms?

At birth. For instance, that is why a fetal heart monitor is not named a “baby heart monitor”.

See time 9:40. Not just tissues, not just cells.
No. “Intact kidneys”, “spinal cord”.

“I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

I guess that, all told, the target brings in about $800. See time 5:05.
But then again, maybe more. See price list at 2:36.
And some financial fine print at 3:14.

If a child is prematurely delivered by surgery is it medically a fetus or a baby? If it is a baby, then the aborted children were babies that were dissected.

@Roger Kulp – I hadn’t heard of Jim Thirlwell before I went looking for bands with “fetus” in their names. I did hear of Thurl Ravenscroft years ago, though, when I saw a film about the making the Disney’s Haunted Mansion ride. I can now recognize the work of Mr. Ravenscroft 3 out of 4 tries.

The two are only connected (so far as I know) by the syllable “thurl”.

If a child is prematurely delivered by surgery is it medically a fetus or a baby?

It depends on whether it is at a stage typically considered to be viable.

Just about the whole world has exploded over that dentist who shot Cecil the lion. Even Jimmy Kimmel got choked up about it last night.

That demon dentist just needs a good PR man.
Maybe he could get someone from Planned Parenthood.
I think he could quiet many of the criers if he just said he killed Cecil to harvest its organs for the betterment of lionhood.

Who knows, maybe the dentist could even use Cecil’s teeth?

Meanwhile, let’s all have leonine lament, or a “Born Free” bawl.

Or a canine cry.

Then we will be good people.

AH – are you talking the definition of the word, or the legal issue?

@See Noevo – Thanks. As one of my minions, though, you should know they got the nose wrong. I gotta get a new head shot.

I’m asking in medical terms. Is it a fetus based on location in the womb, or is it developmental? If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?

IANADNDIPOOT – but from a purely practical position if if a fetus is surgically removed from the womb and is viable, that’s a baby. If it’s not viable once it’s removed from the womb, it’s not. Or it’s a dead baby. Take your pick.

AH: “If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?”

If it can breathe air on its own.

Now I have a question: Why do you hate children more than you love fetuses? You can also answer my question between the difference of obtaining Henrietta Lacks cells and those donated fetuses.

Though better yet, where is the following quote from:
“The way I see it,” Sarah Gray said, “our son got into Harvard, Duke, and Penn. He has a job. He is relevant to the world. I only hope my life can be as relevant.”

What does she mean?

If it can breathe air on its own? So if a newborn needs assistance breathing it is not a baby? P.S. Fetuses are children. It’s true.

The subject of “viability” has been raised several times on this blog, usually to try to bolster the position that if the human life in the womb is “non-viable”, you can kill and harvest it, because then it’s not a human being human life.

Discussions of the proper definition of viability will probably never end. The definition will be what you want it to be. Bottom-line, some abortion-minded someone makes a judgment call and the deal is done.
(And better to make the judgment quickly, because time is money (see $800 above).)

Perhaps instead of wrestling with definitions, an analogy will help:
Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future. We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.
(And this saves parents’ a lot of work and worry over how to pay for those college tuitions. Whew! College-be-gone, worry-be-gone.

And baby-be-gone. Viability schmiability.

Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future.

This should be good mind-numbingly stupid. Would you care to elabloverate?

So I gather AH really hates living children, and parents who have to deal with taking to term a baby who does not have a brain.

Plus he refuses to click on links. Pity that.

Chris @142

So I gather AH really hates living children, and parents who have to deal with taking to term a baby who does not have a brain.

But Chris, that baby could have grown up to be forced birth fanatic like See Noevo or AH

Here’s the definition of “fetus” from Stedman’s Medical Dictionary:

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

Will that do, AH?

Militant Agnostic: “But Chris, that baby could have grown up to be forced birth fanatic like See Noevo or AH”

But what are the chances if the child had Congenital Rubella Syndrome or the conditions mentioned in the last link I gave, like having absolutely no brain development? Seriously, who cares about real live children when there are fetuses to save!?

@SN

Discussions of the proper definition of viability will probably never end. The definition will be what you want it to be.

Er, no.
My own yardstick is very simple. Given current medical technology, is the fetus likely to get to term and survive a few days after the actual birth, on it own or assisted by said medical technology?
I agree there is a lot of grey area in the “a few days” part. Should it be 3 days? One week? One year?

But in the cases of ectopic pregnancies, and other various pregnancy mishaps happening in the womb, including placenta abruption and other lethal teratogenic malformations (lethal for the fetus, I mean), viability is a very clear-cut notion. You can wish otherwise, but there are documented cases where, no matter what, a pregnancy ends up with a dead baby. Or even really a bunch of cells.

I may be entertaining the idea of debating the morale of elective abortion. I wish abortions were legal, clean, but also rare.
But as long as there will be people arguing against medical abortions, such for the cases I’m talking above, I will definitively swing in the pro-choice camp.

@Chris

I hear you.
I think Militant Agnostic had a specific meaning in mind when he was talking about anencephalic people.

I find it highly hypocrite for the antivax crowd, who keep harping how autistic children are damaged goods and find excuses for parents who kill their autistic children, to join forces with the antiabortion people, who argue that all children should be kept, even dead ones apparently.

@AH

Dr Norby describes the dissection of fetuses for use by Hayflick. A fetus is not a tissue sample.

Skirting my point. Let’s try again:
Do you object to abortion, or to the fact that, once a dead fetus, the remains could be used in medical research and/or preparation of medical treatments?

The two are separate events – unless you can show otherwise, by example by proving that the doctors went in the streets and hunted pregnant women to convince them to change their mind about carrying their baby to term and give it to science instead.

So I’m sorry, but I will insist. The protocol you described is for working on tissue samples from a corpse. A corpse which happens to be a freshly aborted human fetus, but a corpse nonetheless.

To Helianthus #146:

“My own yardstick [for viability] is very simple. Given current medical technology, is the fetus likely to get to term and survive a few days after the actual birth, on it own or assisted by said medical technology?”

So, your own yardstick is that viability determines humanity and such viability varies with technology. In short, you might be a human, if technology permits you to be.
……………….

P.S.
Perhaps you also believe technology will become “human” and take over the earth?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2922442/robotics/stephen-hawking-fears-robots-could-take-over-in-100-years.html

@ SN

Perhaps you also believe technology will become “human” and take over the earth?

Mass Effect fan here, so no way I can answer objectively.
Although most people talking about human robots seem to confuse human appearance and human soul, for lack of a better word.

In short, you might be a human, if technology permits you to be.

No.
Viability determines viability.
I will be alive, if technology permits me to be.
My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human, but that it mostly is, is dying or dead. And that’s something which could be objectively measured and predicted.

As it happens, me and my sister are alive because medical technology permitted us to stay alive. If a modern hospital had not been available, my mom would have ended with two dead babies. Human babies, no doubt about it, but dead nonetheless.
Her mom ended with 7 dead children and one alive daughter.

I guess it comes to noone as a surprise that See Noevo’s not only bad a logic but also at analogies. Way to go.

AH,

I’m asking in medical terms. Is it a fetus based on location in the womb, or is it developmental? If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?

The latest of the abortions under discussion was 14 weeks, IIRC, which is not viable and not a baby by any definitions that seem reasonable to me. Here’s a photo of a 13-week fetus, to give some idea about what we are discussing. I don’t think “baby” is honestly an accurate word to describe it, do you?

See Noevo,

We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.

Couldn’t you extend that to terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not have the means to raise the child properly? After all, nature (God if you prefer) terminates more pregnancies than humans do, mostly because they are non-viable or have some problem. I don’t really see the distinction.

Also, assuming your views* extend to capital punishment, I imagine you would prefer to force a woman to take her pregnancy to term, raise a child in horrible conditions, and then execute that child as an adult when s/he has committed an appalling crime. Why does the Christian right believe killing a 12-week fetus is a terrible sin, but killing an adult (or even a minor in some states) is perfectly acceptable?

* Which I find repulsive, just so you know. I think Jesus would be equally disgusted by the vile bigotry people like you are promoting in his name.

In short, you might be a human, if technology permits you to be.

There’s somebody from the Bene Gesserit on line 2.

@ Narad

The high-handed enemy is a heck of a humanity test, no question here.

There were at least 80 abortions involved in the work of developing cell lines, and then developing the controversial vaccines using the cell lines. The gestational age of the fetuses varied.

The following quotes from doctors in the field shed light on the circumstances surrounding the use of fetal tissue for medical research:

“Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital. They were placed in a sterile container and promptly transported to the virus laboratory of the adjacent Hospital for Sick Children. No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain

“Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage.” Dr. Ian Donald speaking about other fetal medical research at the Karolinska Institute

AH, See Noevo, I have a question. Why is it all of your “compassionate” acts require no effort or loss on your part? If you really cared about children you’d work on improving health care, education, and conditions for mothers, but neither of you lift a finger or spend a penny for that. Face it, your “morality” is just a facade to conceal the wickedness in your hearts.

I’m fairly sure you don’t know anything about my work, life, care for others. Project much?

@ AH

Dr. Ian Donald speaking about other fetal medical research at the Karolinska Institute

If any of this is true, modern – and not-so-modern – ethic committees would have one thing or two to say against similar work done on animals (notably the lack of anesthetic part), so I expect they would say as much for human embryos.
Some context would be appropriate.

But we are going away from vaccines. And you are still skirting my points.
What would have happened differently, should these fetuses not have been used for cell line establishment?

AH: Tell me something. The vaccine derived from a single human fetus saved thousands of lives. Would you have had them all die for the sake of a fetus that would never have come to term?

Ever hear of Jim Thirlwell/?

I saw him at the Brixton Academy in 1989.

Gray, you are probably aware that some vaccines are not made in fetal cell lines, yes? Problem solved.

Helianthus: I’m not skirting the issue. And yes these quotes are real, and since I’ve sighted who/where they come from, I hope you will find out more.

There is zero point in discussing views of morality around this issue when
a. we don’t even agree on the facts surrounding the procurement and use of the fetal tissue
b. we don’t agree on objective standards of morality

I can pretty much assure you we won’t agree.
But perhaps we can at least get the facts straight.

AH: You didn’t answer my question. Would you have allowed those children to die?

AH: If they could have developed the vaccine without fetal tissue, they would have. If they were not allowed to do so, the vaccine would not have been developed. Would you have allowed those children to die?

objective standards of morality

Without you explicitly stating what you think those objective standards of morality are, it’s hard to see if others agree with you…

But I’ll take a shot in the dark and assume you think murder is bad.

part I) Do you think it is acceptable to kill another in self-defense?

part II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?

If not, why not?

AH: So is saying that the vaccine could have been developed without fetal tissue. Now, would you have allowed those children to die?

Which children? The ones killed by abortion or the ones we speculate would have been killed by lack of vaccine. Ideally, we proceed in such a way that neither group is sentenced to death. that would be my preference.

Medical Dictionary

fetus
noun fe·tus
plural fe·tus·es or chiefly British foe·tus·es or foe·ti ˈfēt-ˌī
Medical Definition of FETUS
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth—compare embryo

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/fetus

AH: The ones who would have died from rubella. Would you have them die for the sake of one non-viable fetus?

AH: Oh, and ideally, I would be able to fly to work by sheer force of will. I don’t care about “ideally”, I care about the real world.

Right, because making vaccines not using fetal tissue is the same thing as flying by force of will.

At least 80 fetuses were used…. See above#76
All of the fetuses were viable. What made them not viable was being removed from their mother and dissected, while still alive.
That pretty much wrecks viability.

AH: Last I checked, Many of those fetuses were infected with rubella. They most likely would have been stillborn, and caused trauma to their parents when born. Again, would you allow people to die for the sake of the stillborn?

Conjecture. The babies were alive, rubella can cause miscarriage and other medical problems, but does not necessarily do so. How is being still born more traumatic than surgical removal and dissection while alive?

AH: Would you have let those children die of rubella? Answer the question.

AH: so you would have been perfectly fine with my mom carrying a congenital rubella baby to term, knowing it was probably going to die within the first week or so of birth? You would have been fine with the other baby, anencephalic, who would have killed her and died also, being carried to term? It’s so nice that you care more about nonviable fetuses than adult women.

By the way: viability in the US is generally evaluated at birth, for any birth that occurs prior to 24-26 weeks gestation. If there are signs of viability – breathing movements, unsealed eyes – resuscitation efforts will be made. Under 24 weeks, many times the baby (it’s been born, so now it is a baby) will be placed in a warm isolette with oyxgen flowing in No active measures. They either show they will live (breathing movements, steady heartbeat) or they will die (no breathing, declining heartbeat).

Unlike many European countries, we rarely use birthweight to decide. I’ve seen 250-400 gm babies survive, and 1000 gm babies die.

So, AH..Almost NONE of the fetuses you mentioned were viable. They would NOT have survived (especially with the available technology at the time).

Why do you like to watch babies die? Wouldn’t it be kinder to them and the mother, if they have live -threatening issues, to terminate the pregnancy if the mother decides to do so? Why are you forcing women to watch their babies die?

Gray how many children are you assuming would have died of rubella? Rubella is not necessarily fatal, that is why your statements are conjecture. There is no point in answering conjecture.

AH

making vaccines not using fetal tissue

You seem to be under the impression that changing the agent in a vaccine is akin to changing the paint job on your car.

Human cell line as growing medium wasn’t just chosen randomly, or out of some desire to get to mince babies. It was selected because it made it possible to create the vaccine in the first place.

So, not using that medium would have lead directly to not having vaccines for HepA, varicella and shingles, rubella, adenovirus or rabies, which would have lead directly to there being more sickness, suffering and death in the world.

If you disagree, explain why.

Also, while you’re at it, I’d appreciate you answering these two questions as well:

part I) Do you think it is acceptable to kill another in self-defense?

part II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?

If not, why not?

They shouldn’t be hard questions to answer – if your standards of morality were truly objective I’d expect it to be very simple.

I don’t think those questions are hard to answer, incidentally, even if I don’t derive my moral compass from a deity.

I’d also like a citation for the Ian Donald quote…every citation I’ve found is an antiabortion site. Given that he was apparently talking about research around WWII, I suppose it’s possible. However, right now, I don’t believe it’s a true quote.

AH: a lot of miscarriage were from congenital rubella. And the children born were blind, deaf, and usually died before age 5. Again, why do you enjoy forcing mothers to watch their babies die?

And, true, rubella isn’t always fatal. But when it is caught during the early months of pregnancy, it causes Congenital Rubella Syndrome. Why on earth do you think it’s benign? And do you really think it’s a walk in the park to raise a severely handicapped baby from birth? Do you think it’s a piece of cake to stand by helplessly knowing your child will die before you do of a congenital syndrome?

It’s bad enough when it occurs from a random mutation, as it did in my cousin, as she watches 2 of her 3 children slowly regress mentally and become weaker, then wheelchair bound, then bedridden. She’ll get to watch them die. Isn’t that jolly? Though I bet AH will say that makes her a better Christian or something, my cousin would readily say it turned her away from religion because what kind of supreme being would torture a family in this way?

Time to cool down. And put SN and AH in the killfile before my blood pressure goes through the roof.

AH,

There were at least 80 abortions involved in the work of developing cell lines, and then developing the controversial vaccines using the cell lines. The gestational age of the fetuses varied.

Assuming this is correct, though I can find no confirmation of this, most of those vaccines are presumably no longer in use. The polio vaccine currently in use is produced using monkey cells, not human ones.

In any case, I don’t see your point. None of these fetuses were aborted for the purpose of creating vaccines, were they? Is it that you think they deserved a decent burial? Personally, if I had been one of those fetuses (if you se what I mean) I would rather have my remains go to something useful.

The following quotes from doctors in the field shed light on the circumstances surrounding the use of fetal tissue for medical research:

I cannot find a full text version of the paper the first quote is from, though I note it makes no reference to abortions. For all we know these fetuses could have been the result of spontaneous miscarriages or maternal deaths. I am skeptical of the claims about hearts still beating while the fetus was dissected. Mind you, I am not familiar with ethical standards 60 years ago, when this paper was published. Ethics have changed since then, thankfully.

The second quote I cannot find anywhere but rabid anti-abortion websites. I cannot confirm if it is genuine, what date it is from or even if it refers to human embryos. I did find Dr. Herranz, who, surprise surprise, is not a Professor of Histology and General Embryology, he works in the Department of Biomedical Humanities and writes about medical ethics. He appears to be anti-abortion himself.

The third quote, if genuine (I can’t find it anywhere but anti-abortion sites and books), is about experiments carried out in Sweden 40 years ago, in the 70s (or perhaps earlier). I struggle to see the relevance to 21st century America.

AH: “There were at least 80 abortions involved in the work of developing cell lines, and then developing the controversial vaccines using the cell lines. The gestational age of the fetuses varied. ”

As compared to the tens of thousands of stillbirths and even greater number of permanently disabled children due to Congenital Rubella Syndrome during the epidemic in the 1960:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S164.full

Note: one of the known causes of autism is Congenital Rubella Syndrom

AH: “Gray, you are probably aware that some vaccines are not made in fetal cell lines, yes? Problem solved.”

Not really. From the about link (which I know you will never read):

Over the next decade, accumulating evidence led to changes in the United States. First, the duck embryo and dog kidney vaccine strains caused significant joint reactions [24–27]. Second, reinfection on exposure to wild rubella virus was demonstrated frequently with all strains except the RA 27/3 vaccine [28–30]. Third, the good safety record of the RA 27/3 vaccine in Europe, plus the majority opinion of scientists, led the US Food and Drug Administration to license RA 27/3. Important pressure for this decision came from Dorothy Horstmann at Yale, who was convinced by her comparative studies of rubella vaccines [31], and by Maurice Hilleman at Merck, who sought a better rubella strain for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

So, in short, you would rather have children suffer unreasonable side effects with the high possibility of not becoming immune to rubella because you hate children more than you love fetuses.

Note: one of the known causes of autism is Congenital Rubella Syndrom

Apparently at a fairly substantial rate, I recently read this paper on congenital rubella https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2002/177/11/greggs-congenital-rubella-patients-60-years-later

“Others have followed up subjects with the congenital rubella syndrome. In 1991 Dr Louis Cooper described the 20 000 children born in the United States during the 1964–1965 epidemic.20 In their 20s, a third were leading normal lives, a third lived with their parents and had “non-competitive” jobs, and a third required institutional care for profound handicaps.”

Now they may not have gotten that diagnosis back in the 60’s but I suspect with modern diagnostic criteria most of the 1/3 that were in institutional care are on the spectrum and a fair percentage if not most of the 1/3 living with their parents have at least some aspect of being on the spectrum as well.

I know the scare trend graphs are out there but does anyone really think we are going to hit 2 of 3 kids who are vaccinated with the MMR will coming down with autism and all of them will test totally and completely above average in every way right up until the day they get that shot?

Now not every kid gets exposed to rubella in the womb even in the worst epidemics before vaccination, but of course the horrors those parents went through apparently don’t matter like the terrors of the modern parent of the special snowflake.

of the aborted fetuses used, all died from being removed from their mother and dissected. None died from Rubella. As to whether it is preferable to kill children outright as opposed to potentially facing medical problems with Rubella, neither is good but I prefer the second. As to whether making life saving vaccines removes the moral culpability of dissecting living children, No.
Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion. No other disease or natural disaster comes close.

To Helianthus #149:

“My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human, but that it mostly is, is dying or dead.”

So, by your criteria
1) If you think another human is in the process of dying, you may kill him.
2) Our modern technology makes human beings more quickly than in the past, since now even babies born 3-4 months premature can be viable.

@ AH

There is zero point in discussing views of morality around this issue when
a. we don’t even agree on the facts surrounding the procurement and use of the fetal tissue
b. we don’t agree on objective standards of morality

I believe AH just told me (us?) he is willing to debate on morality questions provided I share his worldview.
Since the issue is a question of morality, that doesn’t leave much to discuss about.
Well, if I shared your worldview, there wouldn’t be much to discuss, either.

Right now, AH, I have some difficulties figuring out what’s your beef, exactly.

You don’t seem overly concerned about the abortions themselves, which I would have pegged as the main point of contention; how the fetuses were processed after the abortion seems to hold your attention.

Maybe your main issue is the cannibalistic feeling from using human parts.

From what Krebiozen or others have gathered about the origins of your citations, I have this feeling those quotations of you were randomly assembled and not all related to the issue under discussion, i.e. using human fetuses in vaccine development.
Isn’t this a bit dishonest on your part?

Of the two of us, one is trying to check his moral compass, and it ain’t you.

@AH

Do you have links to the original sources of those quotes in comment #76?

Todd W. I have the info from the NCBC quarterly, I’m not sure if it is available online currently. You could try googling the source info I listed and see what comes up.

@AH

Okay, so you have no way of verifying the validity of those quotes, nor examining their context?

Helianthus, what is the problem with my citations? Do you care to back up your conjecture with actual facts?

Searching for “NCBC quarterly 2006, A Brief History of Human Diploid Cell Strains Rene Leiva, M.D.” only brings up random anti-abortion sites. What we need is a citation to the original paper.

Just provide the PubMed identification number.

A search of just the author’s name brings up that the journal is the “The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.” Not an unbiased medical source.

@ SN

1) If you think another human is in the process of dying, you may kill him.

To save another human life, because the one dying is putting the other at a real risk of dying or of sequelae, too? Yes.
To do nothing is to kill them both.

Also, “think”, as in “having good evidence in the form of medical teachings, previous experience and tell-tale clinical symptoms”.
I’m not talking about using my gut feelings to decide who lives or dies.
And I never said it would be an easy decision. If it was an easy one, it wouldn’t be a moral conundrum.

2) Our modern technology makes human beings more quickly than in the past, since now even babies born 3-4 months premature can be viable.

Yes. A challenge, but yes. So what?

I clearly stated I follow a “lesser of two evils” position.
Historical chronicles are pretty clear on this: abortions and infanticides have been widespread, in all societies, for the 2 last millenia if not more.
“Caesarian” is so named because Julius Caesar was born this way. If surgeons at that time could do this, you can bet they also knew how to kill a fetus.

Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion.

And outlawing abortion wouldn’t change much this sorry state of affairs. Dark-alley abortion offices and, for the upper-class, sympathetic family physicians were the norm before, they would become the norm again.
But I guess a benefit of outlawing abortion would be to make it easy to pretend it isn’t happening. That was the norm, too.
If you really want to lower the number of abortions, you will need to work ahead of the moment a woman becomes pregnant.

To Krebiozen #151, 152:

“Here’s a photo of a 13-week fetus, to give some idea about what we are discussing. I don’t think “baby” is honestly an accurate word to describe it, do you?”

And here I thought it was wrong, especially in these politically-correct days, to judge someone’s worth by the way they look.
But that’s your view*.

*Which I find repulsive, just so you know.
………….
Me: “We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.”

You: “Couldn’t you extend that to terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not have the means to raise the child properly?”

No, I couldn’t. You’re saying something very different.
You’re saying ‘Show me the money, or I kill the kid.’

“I imagine you would prefer to force a woman to take her pregnancy to term, raise a child in horrible conditions, and then execute that child as an adult when s/he has committed an appalling crime.”

Then you have a wild and wrong imagination.

Todd W. Did you look for it or are you just whining? I copied directly from my personal files. I suppose you could contact the NCBC or I suppose you could go back to Hayflick and Moorhead’s work for the first part. Then you could look up Plotkins work if you like. Context exists my friend, go get it.

Helianthus, abortions world wide have skyrocketed since legalization and modern availability of contraception. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Rubella doesn’t sound as dire as some of the talk here lead me to believe.
“Rubella, sometimes called German measles or three-day measles, is a contagious disease caused by a virus. The infection is USUALLY MILD with fever and rash.
Symptoms:
Rubella usually causes the following symptoms in children:

RASH that starts on the face and spreads to the rest of the body
LOW fever (less than 101 degrees)

These symptoms last 2 or 3 days.

Older children and adults may also have swollen glands and symptoms like a cold before the rash appears. Aching joints occur in many cases, especially among young women.

About HALF of the people who get rubella DO NOT HAVE SYMPTOMS.

Complications:

Birth defects if acquired by a pregnant woman: deafness, cataracts, heart defects, mental retardation, and liver and spleen damage (at least a 20% CHANCE of damage to the fetus if a woman is infected early in pregnancy)”

http://www.cdc.gov/rubella/about/index.html

@AH

No, not whining. I’m just asking you to provide proper citations for your claims. You are providing the quotes. It is your responsibility to ensure the accuracy and validity of those quotes.

@SeeNoevo

We’re talking about the effects of rubella on a fetus (and the mother) when the mother is infected early in pregnancy. You are quoting the section that primarily discusses infection of children who have already been born and adults.

watch out, blood transfusions can cause adult on-set autism.

(sarcasm)

@SeeNeovo. 1 in 5 babies is a fairly high chance, and easily prevented. My husband is lucky that he’s only blind; MIL didn’t even realize it wasn’t just a mild cold until they noticed the cataracts.

To gaist #180:

I’ll take a shot at what you asked AH:

“I) Do you think it is acceptable to kill another in self-defense?”

Yes, it can be.

“II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?”

It CAN be, under certain circumstances.
(In many cases the answer would be No. The threat to the mother is just that – a threat, a risk – not a certainty. Whereas, the end of abortion is a certainty. Abortion, as in the INTENDED destruction of the human life in the womb, is ALWAYS wrong.)
In certain cases that would be fatal to the mother (e.g. some ectopic pregnancies), the intended saving of the mother’s life may require UN-intended ending of the baby’s life. This “double effect” can be morally acceptable:

“When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).”
http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/ectopic-for-discussion-a-catholic-approach-to-tubal-pregnancies/

Again, why do you enjoy forcing mothers to watch their babies die?

Because it’s only the trauma to the fetus that’s important, right? Grown women can suck it up.

Helianthus @ #197 – See Noevo is evidently unfamiliar with the concept of triage.

Right, because making vaccines not using fetal tissue is the same thing as flying by force of will.

Vaccines aren’t made using human tissue.

At least 80 fetuses were used…. See above#76
All of the fetuses were viable. What made them not viable was being removed from their mother and dissected, while still alive.

You’re now conflating your two-thirds unsourced quotes with WI-38 and RA 27/3.

AH- And we found no evidence that the source you used is real.

By the way, you never answered my question: Would you allow pain and suffering caused by another rubella outbreak for the sake of someone who wouldn’t be alive in the first place?

quote from Dr Norrby, Norrby, Erling “Listen to the Music: The Life of Hilary Koprowski (review)”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine – Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2001

Hayflick and Moorhead’s paper is cited above,

A copy of the NCBC paper can be obtained at their website,

The quote from the Canadian Medical Journal is cited above at #155

The NCBC is not a scientific journal, but a religious one:
http://www.ncbcenter.org/

It is based on opinion, one in which concludes contraception is immoral. This is not a publication that we should use to formulate medical policy.

Searching for “Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245” finds three links. Two of which is the “Children of God” site (English and Spanish), whose director is very anti-vaccine:
http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2014/09/you-might-be-anti-vaccine-if-hidden.html

The other leads to this site, where it is listed as a paper from 1952:
http://www.healthheritageresearch.com/PolioVaccine-Pioneers.html

There is no way to check the content of that citation unless you have access to the archives in a medical school library, it is PMID: 14945014

There is a reason that AH is being coy and evasive about where he gets his quotes.

If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?

I’d say the same demosntrable criteria used to determine when what previously had been a human being has ceased to be a human beingis the logical criteria to use to determine when something that previously has not been a human being–a fetus– has become one: -characteristic human neural activity. The cessation of such activity as a consequence of illness or traumatic injury allows the determination that someone has become brain dead and may ethically be removed from life support, so it’s presence would indicate a fetus has developed sufficiently that it must be considered a human being rather than something with the potential to become a human being.

This characteristic neural activity is first observed around 23 to 24 weeks gestation.

NCBC is sited by the author of this post for one thing. Second, no one is talking about establishing policy. Third if you get a copy of the paper and read it you will note it is simply a historical review, with direct quotes from correspondence with some of the researchers and from numerous scientific papers.
The fact that you don’t like the quotes or sources doesn’t make them untrue. Furthermore every fact does not have to be cited in a scientific journal to be valid. You could get these sources, if you were so inclined.

AH: “NCBC is sited by the author of this post for one thing.”

Where? Is it buried in the link, or are you confusing it with National Catholic Register? So what? Orac cites lots of things he does not agree with, especially when he is critical of it.

“Second, no one is talking about establishing policy”

Reading comprehension fail. The whole point of the demonization of Planned Parenthood is to restrict access to certain medical procedures due to religious doctrine, not science. Plus the other side effect is to also demonize the MMR and other vaccines due to religion, not science.

How is the NCBC not trying to dictate policy with articles like Coverage of Immoral Procedures under the Affordable Care Act. Essentially you all want to use your particular religion to affect the medical choices of others.

AH: “Furthermore every fact does not have to be cited in a scientific journal to be valid.”

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your facts. And religious organizations that are actively campaigning to restrict medical choices due to their opinions is not scientific, nor should it be legal.

Click on the link in the post that says “concluding in a FAQ”. Then scroll to the FAQ.

Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion? Surely you are able to read a document and evaluate it?

Click on the link in the post that says “concluding in a FAQ”. Then scroll to the FAQ.

Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion? Surely you are able to read a document and evaluate it?

My comment is awaiting moderation. Perhaps I’m over the limit of posts? Too much time spent already.

AH: You probably put too many links in your post. Now, tell me, would you have let children die for a non-viable fetus to be stillborn?

AH: “Second, no one is talking about establishing policy”

Who did David Daleiden make sure saw his illegally filmed video? Was it presented in a church, or to politicians?

im trying this once more..
NCBC is referenced in the part that says “concluding in a FAQ”.

Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion? Surely you are able to read a document and evaluate it?

@AH

I think a pertinent aspect to Gray Falcon’s question is this: the fetuses were aborted, which is, of course, sad and unfortunate, but the abortions had nothing to do with vaccine development. After they had already been aborted, tissue samples were taken for use in research.

So, if you were in the position to decide what to do back then would you:

a) Take the tissue samples and put them to good use to develop vaccines that have saved thousands of lives and improved overall quality of life; or,

b) Bury the aborted fetuses or otherwise rendered all of their tissue unavailable for any use other than worm food, thus leaving the only options of the time: vaccines with horrible adverse effects or death and suffering from the disease?

@AH

As to the quotes, the reason we (or at least I) ask for the original source is so that we can examine the quote in context. The words may still stand as they are in context, but the surrounding context may show that their is a different nuance or completely different takeaway from what was said or written.

A good example of this is Tim Minchin’s song “Cont” or the climactic scene in Dr. Horrible’s Sing-along Blog, in which Captain Hammer is reading a speech from notecards:

I hate the homeless…

ness problem.

The context of what was written on the following card changes the entire meaning of what he was saying. Had he not gone on to the next card, I think you can see how he would have offended quite a lot of people.

Todd, fetuses were dissected alive, they were not hanging around already dead, gee well, I guess we better use these already dead babies so we don’t waste them…The researchers coordinated with the abortionists and were in fact looking for potential fetal abortion candidates. They were no where as removed as most people imagine

To put as fine a point as possible on things, if your argument is that tissues from aborted fetuses should not be used to further medical research, make a rational case.

If your argument is that because tissues from aborted fetuses are or have been used to further medical research access to abortion should be restricted, it’s a non-starter, as restrictions can address the use of tissues from aborted fetuses without prohibiting abortions.

And if anyone is going to argue on the basis of this argument that Planned Parenthood be defunded they ‘d better explain what they’re propose we replace PP with, such that the affordable medical care they provide more than 3 million individuals each year, unrelated to abortion services, continues to be available. Abortion, after all, constitues at most only 3% of all services provided by PP.

AH, thank you for pointing out the link. It is confusing since the site is actually “cacatholic dot org.”

AH: “Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion?”

No, absolutely not. To no presume to guess my thinking, especially since you do not think the religious campaign against women’s health is not aimed to changing national law.

What I am saying is that religious opinions should not be part of national health policy. That is a decision that should be bolstered by science. And even your vaulted NCBC says that the rubella vaccine is better than the alternative.

It is not “bigoted” to object to religion being used to restrict health choices like contraception. It is also not “bigotry” to point out the lies being perpetuated to make others comply to a religion that they are not a participant.

See Noevo: Rubella doesn’t sound as dire as some of the talk here lead me to believe.

That might be because you’ve no personal experience of anyone who suffered those consequences. At the time I met my wife she was working as a medical social worker and more than half of her caseload at her palce of employmennt ( a large residence for assisted living) were adults with multiple disabilities acquired as the result of rubella infection in utero, so I’ve a different (and I’d argue more informed) understanding of exactly how dire those consequences can be.

Todd, fetuses were dissected alive, they were not hanging around already dead, gee well.

And this would be a problem if it could be established that at the time of ‘live dissection’ those fetuses represented human beings. I know of no evidence is support of such a presumption, however. Care to take a whack at making that case?

So, AH, based on your response @277, you are 100% opposed to organ donation and would refuse it for yourself?

Because it’s basically the same thing.
A fetus was aborted, but we can use the tissues to develop vaccines to save lives.
A person (adult or child) has died, but we can use their organs to let other people live.
No one goes around killing people for their organs, no one aborts a fetus for the tissues.

it is, quite literally, making the best of a bad situation.

AH, is it moral to lie? Do you think surreptitiously taking a video of someone and selectively editing it is honest?

AH: “JGC your comment has no basis in reality.”

Oh, really? You are now denying that there was a rubella epidemic in the early 1960s that caused lots of stillbirths and disabled tens of thousands of children?

AH @234: I’m pretty sure that a fetus aborted in the 1960’s is dead.

Also, did you know that a person can be dead and still have a beating heart?

Further, you did not answer my question: would you refuse an organ transplantation if you needed one because it came from a person who had just died?

Justatech see#177. Taking organs from living persons I would reject, yes, even if I was suffering.

AH@238:
OK, you seem to not know some important facts, so let’s go over some things about organ donation.
You don’t take organs out of a day old corpse. You try to get them out while the heart is still beating or on a heart-lung machine, but after the person is clinically dead. (In lay terms we call this “brain-death”).

So the organs come out of a dead person who’s heart is still beating or being induced to beat by a machine. The person is dead.

So, having clarified that, you would still refuse an organ transplant?

And your “citations” in 155? The only one with an actual citation is from 1952, and isn’t available to read on PubMed. But some historical digging around shows me that in 1952, abortion in Canada was *only* legal to save the life of the mother. So in all of those instances, the choices were one death or two.

Which brings me back to my point about organ donation. The death is inevitable and immediate. the question is if any good can come of it.

And no matter how you feel about rubella being a “mild” disease, that was for a polio vaccine, and only the most out of touch would describe polio as “mild”.

AH: “Chris the full videos are available online. ”

So what? Is it moral to video someone without their knowledge and edit it dishonestly?

JustaTech: “And no matter how you feel about rubella being a “mild” disease, that was for a polio vaccine, and only the most out of touch would describe polio as “mild”.”

Well, truthfully for about 99% of the cases it is mind. But there were so many cases in the 1950s that the 1% who became paralyzed was a huge number. Part of the reason is that most of the people who had polio did not know it, and spread it to others.

Just like the rubella epidemic ten years later, most of the people were not pregnant women, but they spread it around. Also, many of those women did actually get rubella from their older child or being around children. There was a debate in the USA if only girls should be vaccinated, but they decided to do both.

Which is a good thing as noted by Japan’s recent rubella outbreak. It is mostly in young men who were vaccinated at a time when they only vaccinated girls. This has resulted in over forty cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2960712-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

I’ve already addressed the citations many times.

Im fairly certain the fetuses did not donate their organs /consent. It is unethical for a person responsible for killing a person to be the consenting party to donation. If you were a doctor and you intentionally cooperated with actions which led to death so that you could harvest organs that would be a very big problem.

Typo: “Well, truthfully for about 99% of the cases it is mild.”

AH, how moral is it to video someone without their knowledge and then edit it dishonestly?

AH@ 243: You seem to have missed the part where the only possible way to get a legal, hospital abortion in Canada in 1952 was if the mother was going to die. And that the fetuses described in that paper were from a hospital.

So either the fetus died, or the mother *and* the fetus died. Can you not do that math?

Again: Organ or no organ?

First of all you are incorrect that the only way was if the mother was going to die. Many of the fetuses were from healthy mothers, some who were considered mentally unfit. The researchers in many cases wanted a healthy background for the medical history of mom and fetus. Second, not all of the fetuses were obtained in the same place, there were varying laws

From AH’s comments, I have visions of a flying squad rounding up women and dragging them off to an abortion clinic, gleefully rubbing their hands together as they plan for pretty babies to dissect.

AH: First, you have no PROOF that these things actually happened. That’s why we have been asking you for citations so we can read the quotes IN CONTEXT.

Secondly: are you aware that cardiac muscle can beat for quite some time after death? I know everyone has this “stopped heart” thing in mind. But that has almost nothing to do with muscle activity. And you can see a “heartbeat” of muscle for hours (try it with frog legs…they’ll actually jump with a little stimulation. Freaked me out in high school biology class.)

However, as a nurse and a midwife, I have grave doubts that they were dissecting “babies with heartbeats”.

To Helianthus #197:

“My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human…”
“And I never said it would be an easy decision. If it was an easy one, it wouldn’t be a moral conundrum.”

So for you:
1) A viable fetus is a human being,
2) A non-viable fetus MAY be a human being,
3) But if you’re in doubt about 2), and have a bit of a conundrum, you’re OK with killing the life that infallible scientists say is non-viable.

“Historical chronicles are pretty clear on this: abortions and infanticides have been widespread, in all societies, for the 2 last millenia if not more.”

Possibly. But so what? So have murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

“But I guess a benefit of outlawing abortion would be to make it easy to pretend it isn’t happening.”

Well, we’ve outlawed murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. We don’t pretend murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. don’t still happen.
But I think the outlawing probably results in less murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

Lastly, it seems as though you are primarily concerned with protecting abortion rights only in certain circumstances, namely, where a) the pregnancy is considered to be endangering the mother’s life, and b) the fetus is considered “non-viable” (gestation of less than 5 months?).

Do I read you correctly?

If you want to read the papers in context you can do so. The quotes I have provided have been sourced. I understand you don’t like it, but that is the proof. I didn’t write these sources. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it invalid. If you have grave doubts, fine, I really don’t care. You can in fact get the papers, read them, get the books read them. Nothing is stopping you.

AH,

Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion. No other disease or natural disaster comes close.

Over one billion in total over the past several decades perhaps. About 40 million abortions are carried out per year globally. Since about 20% of known pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, and there are 140 million births each year, the natural spontaneous abortion rate must surely exceed the induced variety, and I see no reason why you would classify induced abortions as deaths but not spontaneous abortions. The vast majority of these abortions are in the developing world, all the more reason to improve health and education in those countries to reduce this. Also, in the US abortion rates have steadily decreased since the 80s, and show a trend towards earlier and earlier abortions.

What truly concerns me is that more than 20 million women undergo unsafe abortions every year. I don’t see how anyone can equate the suffering and possible death of an adult woman after an unsafe abortion with terminating a 13 week pregnancy – more than 90% of abortions on the US are carried out earlier than this and more than half before six weeks gestation – I don’t see how it is possible for a 13-week fetus to have any awareness or ability to suffer pain.

Of course as a secular humanist my opinions are based on me regarding suffering as undesirable. Some Christians are seemingly oblivious to human suffering and would rather see a woman die in agony than see a fetus the size of a tadpole aborted on the basis of some metaphysical, pre-scientific notions of souls and sin that I utterly reject.

I have my own biases around this subject. My mother nearly died after a botched abortion during WW2, when abortion was illegal in the UK. It was carried out by my father, who was a medical student at the time. I can only imagine what desperation led them to such measures. Ironically despite my father’s efforts the pregnancy continued until they married, at which point my mother miscarried and the marriage continued, though never very happily (they divorced in the 60s). Also, as I have mentioned here before, a good friend committed suicide due to guilt after having an abortion.

It is unethical for a person responsible for killing a person to be the consenting party to donation.

A fetus is not a person, not in law, not in any sense of the word I am familiar with. Describing an early abortion as killing a person is simply a dishonest attempt to induce an emotional reaction.

Todd, fetuses were dissected alive

Your only basis for this statement is the Herranz and Donald quotes, which have no discernible bearing on WI-38 or MRC-5.

AH wrote:

Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion. No other disease or natural disaster comes close.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you consider spontaneous abortion a “natural disaster.” A human conceptus has only about a one-in-three chance of making it through to birth, so, I suppose, those who believe a fertilized egg is a little human should understand that two-thirds of little humans die before birth in a “natural disaster” that dwarfs elective abortion.

Some Christians are seemingly oblivious to human suffering and would rather see a woman die in agony than see a fetus the size of a tadpole aborted on the basis of some metaphysical, pre-scientific notions of souls and sin that I utterly reject.

Not only do I reject it, it doesn’t make any sense anyway; if the immortal soul is real and there’s a heaven and hell and all that, wouldn’t dead babies (i.e., aborted fetuses) go straight to heaven anyway, now that limbo doesn’t exist anymore? (Yeah, the RCC got rid of it; how one eliminates a supernatural realm, I can’t tell you.) Seems an easier lot than suffering through however many years in this mortal realm before you get to go hang out with Jesus for eternity or whatever.

To JustaTech #232 (et al):

“No one goes around killing people for their organs, no one aborts a fetus for the tissues.”

Really?

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

Time 3:50:
Planned Parenthood: “I know I’ve seen livers, I’ve seen stomachs, I’ve seen plenty of neural tissue. Usually you can see the whole brain usually comes out.”

Time 4:08:
“… we’d have to do a little bit of training, with the providers or something, to make sure they didn’t crush, or…”

7:52:
“Because if you have someone in an anti state that’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

8:49:
Buyer: [Cracking noise.] “What was that crack, the little bits of the skull?”
PP: “Mhmm. I just want to see one leg. Here’s a foot. It’s a baby.”
Buyer: “Is that the heart?”
PP: “I think so. Here’s the heart.”

10:35:
PP: “Here’s some organs for you, they’re all attached. Here’s a stomach, kidney, heart… And another boy!”

OK. Now I know that video is all crap. I hadn’t watched it because PP does legally have the right, with the patient’s permission, to donate speciments for science. And maybe the woman talking was a bit crude but she was being played for that role.

HOWEVER…

PP doesn’t do terminations generally beyond 12 weeks. You won’t see the kind of stuff mentioned. It’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between male and female at that point. There is no calcification of the bones. I’ve SEEN women miscarry at 12, 13, 14 weeks. I’ve poked through the specimens to try to identify if everything was expelled or if a D&C was needed to complete the process. This is bull.

Krebozian (#250)


I don’t see how it is possible for a 13-week fetus to have any awareness or ability to suffer pain.

Why would that be a consideration anyway? Say you don’t want to risk the fetus feeling pain and so force the pregnant person (nevermind their pain) to go through with the birth. Well, however good one’s life, actually being born is a guarantee of experiencing far, far more pain than it could ever be possible to cause during an abortion. If the fetus’ pain is such a serious concern, then we should be looking to abort every last one of them before the world can have its way with them.

@AH #238

“Taking organs from living persons I would reject, yes, even if I was suffering.”

Including ones where the living donor survives? What if you could donate some of your liver or a kidney to save a life, would you refuse because any kind of organ donation is a sin not matter what if the donor is living? What about tissue donations such as a bone marrow transplant where the living donor may experience a fair amount of pain, but doesn’t lose anything other than a bit of tissue?

Is it different if the living donor can continue to live or is your no not at all never completely absolute?

KayMarie, you’re right, I should have been more specific. There is no moral problem with donations that do not compromise the health or result in the death of the donors. Only in cases where organs were taken from living persons and that resulted in death or compromised their health would I reject or where their was a lack of consent or other ethical problem. But there are of course licit conditions.

We can & must debate about
who we think we may kill, & for whom,
when, where, & why,
but let’s all keep in mind the main issue:
that fetuses _may_ be already sentient.
If we keep that main point in mind,
we’ll surely at least reduce all our killing.

For some reason, a scene from the movie “The Hustler” came to my mind tonight while looking at all this “stuff”, to use an MI Dawn term.

Sarah Packard: “Doesn’t all of this come through to you, Eddie? Doesn’t any of this mean anything to you? That man, this place, the people. They wear masks, Eddie. And underneath the masks they’re perverted, twisted, crippled.”

“Fast” Eddie Felson: “Shut up.”

Sarah Packard: “Don’t wear a mask, Eddie. You don’t have to. That’s Turk, Eddie, the man who broke your thumbs. Only he’s not going to break your thumbs. He’ll break your heart, your guts. And for the same reason — ’cause he hates you, ’cause of what you are. ‘Cause of what you have and he hasn’t.”

Later, shortly before her death, Sarah writes those same words on the hotel bathroom mirror:
PERVERTED, TWISTED, CRIPPLED.

Anyway, those words came into my head tonight.

It’s a great movie.

Later, shortly before her death, Sarah writes those same words on the hotel bathroom mirror:
PERVERTED, TWISTED, CRIPPLED.

Mirrors, SN: they’re your friends.

JP,

Not only do I reject it, it doesn’t make any sense anyway; if the immortal soul is real and there’s a heaven and hell and all that, wouldn’t dead babies (i.e., aborted fetuses) go straight to heaven anyway, now that limbo doesn’t exist anymore?

That is what was believed to happen to them before the concept of limbo was invented. Perhaps SN could clarify it for us.

An Irish Catholic friend of mine (not the one who killed herself) was taught that baptized souls are what that matter, not suffering, that God literally counts souls to be sure he is ahead of the Muslims and the Protestants in the great race toward Judgement Day.

Presumably that’s why Mother Teresa was more concerned with the spiritual welfare of the children she cared for than their physical well-being.

I know that SN and AH (who I assume is a Christian) have the best interests of women and children at heart, but I think they are making a terrible mistake, allowing awful suffering for an imaginary, metaphysical, greater good. .

@SN

you’re OK with killing the life that infallible scientists say is non-viable.

“infaillible scientists” have designed the computer you are using right now.
You may want to stop using it before it explodes. One never knows.

One of my points is that you do moral decisions using the tools you have. “Tools” in the large sense, to include people with some expertise in the appropriate fields.
Another good motto I read somewhere is that an amateur should be wary of second-guessing the expert in the line of fire. He may sometimes have a point, but more often than not he will be missing some context.
So I will trust a gynecologist over some stranger on the internet to tell me if a fetus has some chance to live. If you have a better solution, I’m all ears.

Lastly, it seems as though you are primarily concerned with protecting abortion rights only in certain circumstances, namely, where a) the pregnancy is considered to be endangering the mother’s life, and b) the fetus is considered “non-viable” (gestation of less than 5 months?).

Do I read you correctly?

That would be my starting point.

These are dark situations I feel where abortion is the moral thing to do, because the fetus is never going to be a human being (e.g. ectopic pregnancies – the egg is not going to develop properly) or is going to die shortly (internal bleeding and oxygen deprivation following placenta abruption), and there is nothing you (currently) can do to fix it.

There are less dark, less clear-cut situations, like rubella infection, or more generally any infection of the amniotic chamber, where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and the life/correct development of the baby has bad odds. You – the parents, the medical staff and whoever who feels his opinion may count – may hope things will resolve themselves in a positive way, but if you are unlucky, you lose both the mother and the child. You can only make “conjectures”, to use someone else favorite word, but based on past experiences, it looks dire.
I tend heavily into caution: protecting the life that is – the mother – over the life that could be – the baby. If I am wrong this way, I only killed one person. If I go the other way and I am wrong, I killed two persons.
Yeah, because I don’t follow the trite “if I don’t get involved, I don’t have any responsibility in the outcome”. To do nothing is to do something.

These shades of grey go lighter, all the way to purely elective abortions. The lighter we go, the less sure I am of my moral position.

But if we don’t agree on what I see as the clear-cut cases, there is no point grappling about the more murky ones.

Which brings me to another angle of my position: what’s effective at reducing the number of abortions.

Well, we’ve outlawed murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. We don’t pretend murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. don’t still happen.
But I think the outlawing probably results in less murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

True enough (although, some religious leaders became recently famous for denying that child-molestation happened among their ranks. But I digress).

But:
As I said, we did pretend abortions weren’t happening, or only to the other people.
My mom told me about the concierge at the entrance of her building who was providing her services as a “faiseuse d’ange” (angel maker), back in the 60’s. Everybody knew, but everybody pretended not to.

In social terms, abortion is not happening like crimes done out of spite or lack of self-control, on the spur of the moment. Well, I’m not talking about the self-inflicted ones.
Illegal abortion is a service proposed by people to other people. In this regard, its dynamics are more akin to gambling or prohibited substances than wanton murder.
And in all developed countries, illegal gambling or tobacco/alcohol/… consumption have not been curtailed until they have been made legal, and heavily regulated.
I also have this little feeling that the true availability of different contraception methods, for women and for men, is a bigger factor in reducing the demand for abortion than whatever outlawing you can do. In this respect, I think the current attack on Planned Parenthood, if successful, will only results in more abortions, not less.
Just saying.

Mirrors, SN: they’re your friends.
Ha. JP’s next drink is on me/

a scene from the movie “The Hustler” came to my mind tonight
Indeed? Does this happen a lot? Why do you think this is?

Krebiozen, JP, re beliefs: God created mankind for eternal life. Death, disease, suffering entered the world through the plan of Satan to destroy mankind because he hatred God ( hurting Gods children was The way to torture God). This is what satan wants, confusion death, deception. God, being greater than Satan and always being the author of life and love, becomes the very victim Satan is going after and in becoming man offers himself in place of his children. Satan falls for this, because he never sees past his own hatred, and he kills the spotless lamb, thereby the sins of all humanity deceived as they were by the evil one are paid, and so no longer must man be captive to satan or eternal death. Man has free will and by joining himself to Christ may return to the loving Father for the eternal life he was created for.

AHH…now I see why AH and I will never agree. As an agnostic/atheist, I want proof that this divine being actually exists, ever existed, and isn’t the megalomaniac depicted in (select your version of your holy book). So far, I haven’t seen any actual proof.

And if (he/she/it) does exist, they are lousy clairvoyants. So many of the “prophesies” have either not come true or have been proven false.

Oh, and I don’t believe in Satan, either.

And #264 shows exactly why there is absolutely no point in continuing any attempts at reasonable discussion with AH: goddidit…’cept for when satandidit…

Assuming that is an accurate representation of their views rather than satire.

You are free to believe or reject. That’s what free will is.
Proclaiming that there can be no reasonable discussion with people who express religious views is bigotry.

AH- Your religious views are utterly reprehensible. Your refuse to answer a simple question about the ethics of your stance, unaware that does nothing to help you out.

I can’t help but notice some contradictory stuff here:

Death, disease, suffering entered the world through the plan of Satan to destroy mankind because he hatred God

and

God, being greater than Satan and always being the author of life and love

I seem to recall something in the Bible about how Satan was not able to bring evil into Job’s life without God’s okay.

But I’m getting off topic. Back to AH and rubella.

As someone else pointed out, your quote has to do with polio vaccine, and we’re not even certain of the specifics of the situation. You are speculating about what happened. Now, about rubella vaccine. The abortions were already performed for reasons not at all connected with developing the vaccine. You didn’t answer the questions I asked before, so I’ll copy them here:

If you were in the position to decide what to do back then would you:

a) Take the tissue samples and put them to good use to develop vaccines that have saved thousands of lives and improved overall quality of life; or,

b) Bury the aborted fetuses or otherwise rendered all of their tissue unavailable for any use other than worm food, thus leaving the only options of the time: vaccines with horrible adverse effects or death and suffering from the disease?

According to Hebrew understanding of the Bible, Satan only exists as God’s subordinate. The word “Satan” can be translated as “prosecutor”. By this understanding, death, disease, and suffering entered the world by God’s will for God’s purposes. To suggest Satan has power of his own is idolatrous.

Satan has free will. God does not force him to be loving. When it says God allowed it, it refers to the fact that God doesn’t strong arm Satan or anyone else into chosing Gods will. That isn’t contradictory. The fact that you and a whole lot of other people don’t understand something doesn’t make it contradictory or dumb.
I’ve already explained the quotes, if you don’t draw the connection I’m making, fine. I’m not obliged to answer the same objections over and over. It’s clear you are not wanting to consider my point. So be it. I’ve already answered your questions, you just don’t like my answers.

So what you’re saying is that you would approve of another rubella outbreak, and all the death and suffering it entails?

AH: Enough sidestepping. Which is better: To harvest cells from a few non-viable fetuses, or let people die and suffer from rubella? We need an answer.

Satan has free will. God does not force him to be loving. When it says God allowed it, it refers to the fact that God doesn’t strong arm Satan or anyone else into chosing Gods will.

Apologies, again, for the tangent, but what you are saying here, essentially, is that death, disease and suffering only exist in the world because God allows it. So the ultimate responsibility lies with God.

Now, back to the rubella vaccine. Would you care to answer, just very simply, which option you would choose had you been the one calling the shots. Just answer “a” or “b”. Thanks!

Todd I don’t think you are even trying to think. Is love that is forced love? No. Love has to be freely chosen in order for it to be authentically love. God allows free will because this is what is required in order for love to be made manifest. The fact that satan or anyone rejects God and chooses evil is squarely on the individual.

Which is it, AH? Do you think that the suffering caused by another rubella outbreak would be more right and moral than the dissection of a stillborn fetus?

AH,

Krebiozen, JP, re beliefs: God created mankind for eternal life. Death, disease, suffering entered the world […]

That’s what you believe, though why anyone would believe such a bizarre scenario beats me. I don’t share those beliefs, obviously, but I respect your right to hold them.

I noticed that you wrote earlier:

There is no moral problem with donations that do not compromise the health or result in the death of the donors.

It was your absolute language that caught my attention. What I think you meant was, “I have no moral problem…”. There are several billion of us on this planet and we do not all agree about morals. I have a problem with people who make absolute statements about morality and try to impose those beliefs on those who don’t share them. This planet is too small for that kind of attitude, unless we carve the planet up into some kind of mega-cantons.

I would like to see abortions carried out as little as possible, not because I believe they are immoral, or sinful, but because it is unpleasant for the woman undergoing it, and also partly because abortions clearly cause distress to some with religious objections, such as yourself. I would like to accomplish this by providing effective contraception, by educating people and by empowering women to take charge of their own fertility and bodies. You, presumably, would like to accomplish this by scaring people into abstinence or into having unwanted children through threats of eternal torture after death, or by making them look at an ultrasound of their fetus (which has little effect on women’s decisions), which I can’t help finding despicable.

I disagree with your beliefs but I don’t want to see you suffer either, nor would I want to see anyone who was opposed to abortion being forced to undergo, carry out or witness one. I find it sad that you and your ilk are not willing to offer me the same respect, and that you do your best to impose your beliefs on others who do not hold them.

Proclaiming that there can be no reasonable discussion with people who express religious views is bigotry.

How can you discuss something rationally with someone who has reached their views through a route other than reason, especially when they claim that Truth comes from some kind of infallible Holy Writ that cannot be challenged? Isn’t that is the very opposite of reasonable.

The fact that satan or anyone rejects God and chooses evil is squarely on the individual.

What about those who reject God and evil? Can a secular humanist be good?

Todd I don’t think you are even trying to think. Is love that is forced love? No. Love has to be freely chosen in order for it to be authentically love. God allows free will because this is what is required in order for love to be made manifest. The fact that satan or anyone rejects God and chooses evil is squarely on the individual.

I did not say anything about forcing love or removing free will. I was simply pointing out that, according to your own statements, death, disease, and suffering are only in the world because God allows it. So their existence is His responsibility, at least according to what you have stated.

But let’s drop the theological talk and get back on topic. Would you choose A or B?

What is irrational in what I have said? Prove it!

You are under no obligation to believe as I do, however, you fail to see that even your view tries to impose on others.

Todd, Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest.

AH @ 233

Then what evidence indicates that at all stages following conception the developing organism is a human being, rather than a human zygote, embryo or fetus?

let’s start at the beginning: following fertilization but prior to the first round of cell division we’re talking about something that’s unicellular, possess no differentiated tissues, is insensate beyond the most basic chemical/receptor interactions common to all cells, exhibits no sentience or any higher neural functions because–obviously–it possesses no neural structures of any kind.

By what rational argument must this be considered to sahre exact identity with a day-0ld, week-old, year-old, twenty year-old…etc., human male or female?

And please note that any argument from portential (“If it isn’t aborted it will eventually become a human being”) argue against your position, as logically at any time the statement “This has the potential to become a human being” is found true the statement “This is already a human beiing” must be found false.

AH, why are you avoiding our question? Would you have preferred that the vaccine not have been developed, and all the suffering said decision would entail?

It is unethical for a person responsible for killing a person to be the consenting party to donation.

And again: your evidence that at the time the abortions are legally permissible and where tissues may be harvested, the fetus is must be considered to represent a person such that the fetus’ consent would be necessary would be…what, exactly?

Be specific.

Job 38:4-7New International Version (NIV)

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

Once you can answer those questions, AH, I’ll accept your theological points, and no sooner.

Only in cases where organs were taken from living persons and that resulted in death or compromised their health would I reject or where their was a lack of consent or other ethical problem.

In other words, you only object to something that never happens? Thanks for clearing that up.

but let’s all keep in mind the main issue:
that fetuses _may_ be already sentient

What evidence indicates that fetuses may be already sentient at any time prior to 23-24 weeks gestation ( the earliest time at which characteristic human brainwaves patterns may be detected)? Be specific.

Is love that is forced love?

How is “Love me or burn in hell for all eternity!” not a use of force?

Todd, Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest

Demonstrably false, AH: death and disease occurred long before human beings capable of embracing or rejecting a putative god existed on this planet.

Todd reread the comments I’ve made. I already answered. And I’ve already said that I already answered.

JGC, reality and a dictionary. Human being: a person

Gray you are under no obligation to accept my theological points.

And I think I’m done covering things I’ve already covered. Time to enjoy the day. Peace

Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest

Job didn’t reject god, yet he suffered and eventually died. And did Job’s children reject God before they died in a freak wind storm? What about Job’s servants who were chopped up by Chaldeans or burned to death by the fire of God?

Death, disease, and suffering happen to pretty much all living things, assuming they can actually suffer. Accepting or rejecting God has nothing to do with that.

@AH

Actually, you haven’t answered the question. You’ve danced around the answer, plenty, but no straight answer. Instead, you’ve focused on a quote about the polio vaccine (remember, we are asking about the rubella vaccine). You have noted how you would refuse any tissues/organs from a living donor (which does not bear on the question I asked you). Again, with the development of the rubella vaccine, the fetus had already been aborted for reasons other than vaccine development. At that point, there were two options:

a) Take the tissue samples and put them to good use to develop vaccines that have saved thousands of lives and improved overall quality of life; or,

b) Bury the aborted fetuses or otherwise rendered all of their tissue unavailable for any use other than worm food, thus leaving the only options of the time: vaccines with horrible adverse effects or death and suffering from the disease?

Given your snarky response at #227, am I correct in concluding that you would choose option B? A clear yes/no reply is all that is needed.

JGC, reality and a dictionary. Human being: a person

Yes–that was my question. What evidence demonstrates that what evidence indicates that at all stages following conception the developing organism is a human being (i.e., a person), rather than a human zygote, embryo or fetus?

Consider again the period following conception but before the first cycle of cell division–would you argue that at that stage the fertilized cell must be considered to be a person, rather than a zygote? If so, on what evidence?

JGC @ 241
“That might be because you’ve no personal experience of anyone who suffered those consequences. At the time I met my wife she was working as a medical social worker and more than half of her caseload at her palce of employmennt ( a large residence for assisted living) were adults with multiple disabilities acquired as the result of rubella infection in utero, so I’ve a different (and I’d argue more informed) understanding of exactly how dire those consequences can be.”

AH @ 233

JGC your comment has no basis in reality.
Maybe you are the one who has no basis in reality.Here are just two of the more recent studies that back up what JGC says.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/29/maternal-infections-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-in-kids/63836.html

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2014/large-study-links-maternal-infection-to-autism-risk

AH: “Satan has free will. God does not force him to be loving.”

I am sorry, but you cannot base public policy, federal funding, or access to medical care on fictional entities. You need to use real science, math and reasoning. Not belief in invisible sky fairies.

Especially when your belief in these fictional characters makes you feel it is okay to lie. You never did answer my questions on the morality secretly recording someone and editing the video dishonestly.

AH @ 282

Todd, Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest.

As an atheist myself,there are two question I have always asked hardcore believers.I have yet to get a logical answer,that makes any real sense.

How do you square this belief with children who are born with very serious birth defects and genetic disorders? Most religious doctrine,especially Judeo-Christian doctrine was formed centuries before people knew anything about modern medicine,be it genetics,and congenital disorders,or infectious diseases.

What of the pain and suffering endured by sick and injured animals?Has a dog who has contracted parvovirus or a rhinoceros dying of fungal pneumonia rejected God?

Please answer in a logical manner.

AH (or See Noevo)

Your thoughts on this passage?
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. “
– Exodus 21:22-25

@gaist

I imagine they’ll argue that “no harm” means the child was simply born prematurely but survived.

Here, however, is another interesting passage: Hosea 13. Then there is Numbers 5 which talks about priests inducing abortions in women who have been accused of cheating on their husbands.

I’d addressed this back in 2012, in another RI post (https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2012/01/13/a-one-trick-pony-does-his-one-trick/)

From that post:

The earliest neural activity that can be associated with brain function has been measured was at 12 weeks of development. It however displays none of the characterisitics of actual brainwaves seen on a normal EEG. R. M. Bergstrom stimulated the fetal brain stem directly and recorded random bursts of electrical activity, which looked exactly like the bursts produced by fetal leg muscles when they were so stimulated.

At 17 weeks gestation Bergstrom reports finding “primitive wave patterns of irregular frequency or intermittent complexes from the oral portion of the brain stem and from the hippocampus” in the midbrain, measured by EEG. None of the fetuses Bergstrom studied, however, displayed “brain waves” or other kind of signal from the cerebral cortex as late as 150 days post-fertilization ( the oldest fetuses studied). [Bergstrom RM. Development of EEG and unit electrical activity of the brain during ontogeny. In: Jilke LJ, Stanislav T, eds. Ontogenesis of the brain. Praha, Czech: University of Karlova Press, 1968:61-71.]

When we do begin to see actual brainwaves originating from the cortex–sustained, bilaterally synchronous waves, characterisitic sleep spindles, etc., the kind of brainwaves whose absence is prima facie evidence that a victim suffering traumatic injury is brain-dead–is around 26 weeks gestation.

“Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.” [“Pain and Its Efffects in the Human Neonate and Fetus” Anand et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987]

I see.
It’s like the unemployed drug addict who spends $1000/month on crack.
In a “good” month he earns $1000/month from under-the-table odd jobs and drug sales.
But he gets $1000/month from his despairing parents and friends, on the grounds that he NOT use ANY of it for drugs.
And he agrees! He promises!

Except that Planned Parenthood does not receive its federal funding in a lump sum, but rather in the form of reimbursement for covered procedures (which do not include abortion) and is subject to routine audits, yes!

Or, in other words: No. It’s not like that at all. No public dollars received by Planned Parenthood are used to pay for abortion.

To say otherwise is untruthful.

To Helianthus:

“My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human…”

But although you think it MAY be human, you’re OK with aborting it, despite your uncertainty.

“These shades of grey go lighter, all the way to purely elective abortions. The lighter we go, the less sure I am of my moral position. But if we don’t agree on what I see as the clear-cut cases, there is no point grappling about the more murky ones.”

And over the last few decades, while you’ve been trying to get clear on this, 50 million “may be” human beings have been aborted.

You’re probably right on at least one thing: There in no point in me grappling on this with a person like you.

To Krebiozen #279:

“How can you discuss something rationally with someone who has reached their views through a route other than reason, especially when they claim that Truth comes from some kind of infallible Holy Writ that cannot be challenged? Isn’t that is the very opposite of reasonable.”

Maybe you should ask an atheist who’s anti-abortion, like Nat Hentoff.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/06/nat-hentoffs-solitary-pro-life-witness

This article and many of the comments here revolve around vaccines developed from the bodies of aborted babies.
Does anybody out there know how many vaccines were developed from the bodies of people who were born?

To JGC:

What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?

What if Dr. Josef Mengele had developed some wondrously efficacious vaccines from the bodies of the various prisoners before they were gassed at Auschwitz?

Do you think such vaccines would be as popular as the ones described above?

Does anybody out there know how many vaccines were developed from the bodies of people who were born?

You’re awfully fυcking lazy on top of being grotesquely evasive, now aren’t you?

Measles and mumps, obviously. You can do the rest of your “assignment” on your own. Don’t forget to tally the entire schedule.

This article and many of the comments here revolve around vaccines developed from the bodies of aborted babies.

The vaccines in question were not developed from the bodies of aborted babies.

They are grown in human cell strains. The cell cell strains were obtained from fetus tissue 50 years ago.

@ SN

Way to skip all my arguments and fall back to your position.

So, whenever there is a medical problem in a pregnancy, we should do nothing and let everybody suffer, including the baby. Glad we cleared your position.
Would you like to send a thank you note to the Irish doctors who let Savita Halappanavar die?

Way also to slam the door on the face of someone who you may have, maybe, dragged a bit more into your camp. We are exactly back at my post #46.

I notice you completely avoided my attempt to steer the discussion into practical solutions.
It’s easier to to be here, sitting on your high horse and pretending to have the moral high ground, than to get in the trenches and actually help the ones having to do moral decisions.

If people go back to the coat hanger, I guess you would happily sneer at their barbarism and wash your hands of it, à la Ponce Pilate.

It’s easier to to be here, sitting on your high horse

That’s going a bit far; if S.N. were Lady Godiva, he’d have been too busy staring at himself in the mirror to ever make a fuss in the first place.

@SN

What if Dr. Josef Mengele had developed some wondrously efficacious vaccines from the bodies of the various prisoners before they were gassed at Auschwitz?

Aaand the Godwin point.

But it’s funny you should ask.

For the lurkers interested in real-world moral issues:

There was a discussion on, I believe, Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” site about ethics. One retired engineer from the NASA chimed in and explained how the Nazis did realize tests on the acceleration effects on the human body – basically, throwing Jewish prisoners down, alive, into a mine shaft.
So the NASA found itself in this moral quandary:
– do they use the results of the Nazi experiments – which, for all they know, were perfectly useful results, ethics questions aside;
– or do they round up a herd of goat and repeat the experiment, with the caveat that, since goats are not humans, the results will not be as good?
They finally went with the nazis’ results. In addition to the results being more accurate – and thus, less likely to result in the NASA killing the people they will be sending to space, they may have felt that discarding these previous results would have been like killing the prisoners a second time.

Now waiting for SN to tell us he would have started a career in goat sacrifices.
Bonus question: if such research on vaccines has been done by Mengele (setting aside the fact that this guy was too biased to conduct good research), would SN discard these findings and accept that the research was repeated on fetuses?

Bonus question: if such research on vaccines has been done by Mengele (setting aside the fact that this guy was too biased to conduct good research), would SN discard these findings and accept that the research was repeated on fetuses?

A more direct approach might be to try to get him to reconcile remarks such as this* with Pius XII’s first encyclical:

I wish we could at least impeach the white half of him.

ObImage.

* He’s really fond of the mulatto shіt. So much for sexless serenity.

There was a discussion on, I believe, Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” site about ethics. One retired engineer from the NASA chimed in and explained how the Nazis did realize tests on the acceleration effects on the human body – basically, throwing Jewish prisoners down, alive, into a mine shaft.

R.D. Laing had a similar anecdote from his early days at med school, when his class were watching films of joint movement in live human subjects, and he discovered that the films had been made in death camps, and could not have been made anywhere else, since the required intensity of of X-ray exposure for filming was not compatible with long-term survival. He felt guilty about watching the footage.
Mainly, though, he was concerned that no-one else seemed to feel guilty… and since he was going to watch the footage anyway, the whole story was more about advertising how much more moral and sensitive he was. Laing was such an emo kid.

See Noevo,

“How can you discuss something rationally with someone who has reached their views through a route other than reason, especially when they claim that Truth comes from some kind of infallible Holy Writ that cannot be challenged? Isn’t that is the very opposite of reasonable.”
Maybe you should ask an atheist who’s anti-abortion, like Nat Hentoff.

That article states (quoting Mark Judge):

“A famous liberal who was a staple at the Village Voice and who had a column in the Washington Post , in the 1980’s Hentoff actually let himself be swayed by evidence about abortion.”
“It happened when Hentoff was reporting on the case of Baby Jane Doe, a Long Island infant born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which is excess fluid in the cranium. With surgery, spina bifida babies can grow up to be productive adults. Yet Baby Jane’s parents, on their doctor’s advice, had refused both surgery to close her spine and a shunt to drain the fluid from her brain. In resisting the federal government’s attempt to enforce treatment, the parents pleaded privacy.”

So Hentoff’s objection to abortion was triggered by an emotional reaction to some parents of a severely disabled child refusing life-saving treatment for that child, which of course is exactly the same as a six-week abortion. How is that rational?

To Krebiozen #321:

“So Hentoff’s objection to abortion was triggered by an emotional reaction to some parents of a severely disabled child refusing life-saving treatment for that child, which of course is exactly the same as a six-week abortion. How is that rational?”

Gee, I’m surprised you didn’t read a little more from that very short article.
It goes on to say things such as

“As Hentoff told the Washington Times in a 1989 profile , his ‘curiosity was not so much the case itself but the press coverage.’ Everyone on the media was echoing the same talking points about ‘women’s rights’ and ‘privacy.’ “Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there’s something wrong,’ Hentoff told the Times…

“He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’
He talked with handicapped people who could have been killed by abortion.”

“When Hentoff’s pro-choice friends heard about his new pro-life convictions (which, to them, were heresies), they were aghast, but he didn’t back down: “Here were liberals, decent people, fully convinced themselves that they were for individual rights and liberties but willing to send into eternity these infants because they were imperfect, inconvenient, costly. I saw the same attitude on the part of the same kinds of people toward abortion, and I thought it was pretty horrifying.”

“… he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

“Hentoff’s transformation is recounted in The Debate Since Roe: Making the Case Against Abortion 1975-2010 , a powerful collection of essays from the Human Life Review , which has received excellent reviews and which other reporters could learn a great deal from.”

“… he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

He’s a Rand Paul supporter who’s a Cato Institute fellow and frequent contributor to the Washington Times and woldnetdaily.

So it’s not just that he’s hardly a liberal either. He’s not a man of the left in any way, shape, or form. And he hasn’t been for decades. He’s basically a libertarian/neo-con with a few token idiosyncrasies.

I’m actually not sure how he’s not a social conservative, tbh.

here was a discussion on, I believe, Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” site about ethics. One retired engineer from the NASA chimed in and explained how the Nazis did realize tests on the acceleration effects on the human body – basically, throwing Jewish prisoners down, alive, into a mine shaft.
So the NASA found itself in this moral quandary:
– do they use the results of the Nazi experiments – which, for all they know, were perfectly useful results, ethics questions aside;
– or do they round up a herd of goat and repeat the experiment, with the caveat that, since goats are not humans, the results will not be as good?
They finally went with the nazis’ results. In addition to the results being more accurate – and thus, less likely to result in the NASA killing the people they will be sending to space, they may have felt that discarding these previous results would have been like killing the prisoners a second time.

Ahem.

Considering that NASA was not only already using rocket technology developed by the Nazis using slave labor that killed (and, in fact, was designed to exterminate) tens of thousands of people but also employing the Nazis who used it, that “finally” strikes me as a little overstated.

But I mostly bring it up because it raises an interesting question:

What if Dr. Josef Mengele had developed some wondrously efficacious vaccines from the bodies of the various prisoners before they were gassed at Auschwitz?

Do you think such vaccines would be as popular as the ones described above?

It’s not a matter of:

“What if the American aerospace industry used technology that was developed by Wernher Von Braun using the bodies of various prisoners before killing 20,000 of them?”

It did.

But I have a feeling you don’t think that all people of good conscience should revile, condemn and recoil from it for that in the present.

Why is that?

@#326 —

Indeed. It was not actually my intention to condemn either him or rocket science, though I condemn the slave labor, of course.

To JGC:
Are you still out there?
I’ll repeat my question:
What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?

“Dr. Barker said he sees fetal cells as a “steppingstone” to other technology. “Outside the ethical debate around fetal tissue, the logistics is a nightmare,” he said. “For every half brain we transplant, we have to collect dopamine cells from THREE TO FOUR FETUSES.”

The aim would be to use dopamine cells originally derived from embryos, but multiplied indefinitely in a lab, which wouldn’t require ongoing destruction of embryos, he said.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/use-of-fetal-tissue-use-in-research-back-in-the-spotlight-1438382094

Nice “aim”, Dr. Barker.
But for the time being, I guess you’ll have to hope the Planned Parenthood production line keeps running at full speed.

Indeed. It was not actually my intention to condemn either him or rocket science, though I condemn the slave labor, of course.

You’re on solid ground overall.

No pun intended; I’m weary.

Nice “aim”, Dr. Barker.

Yes, the tactical shift back from embryonic to fetal stem cells among the theocratic set has already been noted.

I just now tried to find the latest annual report of Planned Parenthood and went to their website:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/download_file/view/12166/17264

But my search was frustrated, because all I got was
“Our normal site is currently undergoing maintenance.”

I wonder how often that maintenance happens?

But just below that public service announcement you see
“Make your secure online gift here” “Donate Now” [button]

So at least the money part is still operational.

But my search was frustrated, because all I got was
“Our normal site is currently undergoing maintenance.”

I wonder how often that maintenance happens?

Your onanism is duly noted. Again.

The petulance is a nice touch, though.

I don’t recall seeing anything anti-vaccine in anti-abortion publications. It looks like the anti-vaccine people have picked an ineffective tactic.

To #6: Does this mean only a socialist can support crime control?

I like to remind people that The Clergy were prominent in the movement to legalize abortion, just as they were prominent in the Civil Rights Movement and other efforts to demonstrate God’s love in the service of social justice. Certain malefactors have been studiously burying that part of our history, but it’s not going to work so long as people of good will feel called to stand up and testify to the truth.

For Krebiozen, and most of the others here, who can’t stomach references to the “goat herders” book (i.e. the Bible), Catholic teaching/philosophy, or ANY religious stuff, in regards to the abortion issue…

Your desperation is truly pathetic. You have no knowledge whatever of “religious stuff” in general.

As I’ve noted at Jason’s crib, your fundamental problem is that you can’t think: the only thing you really have in your rhetorical bag is the overblown role-playing game manual that is the RCC catechism.

And so now, you come up with this insane shіt:

Here are some more pieces by Nat Hentoff, secular Jew and atheist

Why, precisely, the fυck is anyone supposed to be impressed by Nat Fυcking Hentoff? To the extent that he helped bring about Mingus’s Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, I’m tremendously grateful.

But for your part, it’s identical to your weird-ass, repetitive intoning that Randomly Invoking Aristotle Is Most Certainly Not An Argument From Authority.

Could you find something from Lester Bangs?

For Krebiozen, and most of the others here, who can’t stomach references to the “goat herders” book (i.e. the Bible), Catholic teaching/philosophy, or ANY religious stuff, in regards to the abortion issue…

So it’s not just you being unable to stomach others dismissing your ‘religious stuff’ as the sole authority on the issue?

What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?

Are you seriously that ineducable? We just covered this on the other thread.

Oh, well.

To quote the Jewish Virtual Library:

Olam ha­Ba (afterlife) is rarely discussed in Jewish life, be it among Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Jews. This is in marked contrast to the religious traditions of the people among whom the Jews have lived….Jewish teachings on the subject of afterlife are sparse: The Torah, the most important Jewish text, has no clear reference to afterlife at all.

In a very general way, it’s a Jewish belief that in the afterlife, the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished.

But that’s about all there is to say about it. It has virtually nothing to do with the observance or practice of Judaism. Jews do right for its own sake. And we already know what you think about that:

Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.

I wonder how often that maintenance happens?

Probably whenever something in the news constitutes too much of a security risk for them to keep the whole site up and running.

But if by “annual report” you mean “Form 990,” it’s on Guidestar anyway. And if by “annual report” you mean “annual report,” the cached version is still accessible.

So it would serve no nefarious purpose for them to take it down.

In a very general way, it’s a Jewish belief that in the afterlife, the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished.

But that’s about all there is to say about it. It has virtually nothing to do with the observance or practice of Judaism.

^^That righteousness is not contingent on observance in Judaism is demonstrated by the recognition of the Righteous Among the Nations, for example.

Joseph Hertzlinger: “I don’t recall seeing anything anti-vaccine in anti-abortion publications.”

Please read my comments #20 and #214. Click on the links I provided.

The objection to ‘religious stuff ‘ is based on the conviction shared by people of many different beliefs, that public policy- particularly when it comes to questions of science and medicine – should not be based on religious doctrine.

Re: PP’s dumb 3% statistic

If pedophiles used the same tactics as Planned Parenthood to minimize their crimes:
“So you see, sexual abuse of minors is only 3% of the pedophile’s interaction with children, your honor”

Activities With children in year 2015

Providing meals : 65
Rides in car: 147
Supplying educational reading material: 247
Candies handed out in neighborhood: 580
Offering special counsel: 120
Providing gifts: 70
Providing baths: 55
Gentle hugs: 120
Sexual abuse of children: 43

Cecile Richards should be in jail.

Only in a 3rd world theocracy. Perhaps you should move, AH, since a secular nation like the US doesn’t regulate things to your liking.

“So you see, sexual abuse of minors is only 3% of the pedophile’s interaction with children, your honor”

You should probably leave the analogies to the Roman Catholic Church out of it if you want to keep S.N. as your wing man.

Oh Nadar, you’re bigotry is so cute. It’s a good thing you’ve got it, cause that’s about all you got.

AH,

Re: PP’s dumb 3% statistic

If pedophiles used the same tactics as Planned Parenthood to minimize their crimes:
“So you see, sexual abuse of minors is only 3% of the pedophile’s interaction with children, your honor”

Funny you should bring that up…

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/07/13/pope_francis_interview_on_pedophilia_and_celibacy_in_church.html

I’m sure in this case you wouldn’t argue that we should discard the other 98%?

Oh Nadar, you’re bigotry is so cute. It’s a good thing you’ve got it, cause that’s about all you got.

We can’t all have failed attempts at constructing insults out of people’s names, after all, not to mention spluttering asshurt when stupid analogies blow up in our face.

You opened the door when you brought up pedophilia. Did you think no one was going to walk through it?

Oh, AH, you crack me up. Both your lack of morality and civility show who well you serve your particular deity. Still trying to tell women what to do with their bodies based on invisible sky fairies?

If pedophiles used the same tactics as Planned Parenthood to minimize their crimes

I wasn’t aware that Planned Parenthood had been convicted of any crime.

I’d suggest that an example using “pedophiles” should be a no go in any argument that suggests government should force the religious beliefs of particular group on all members of society and/or which attempts to claim a moral high ground for that religious belief,

http://www.awkwardmomentsbible.com/shocking-pastors-on-the-prowl/

I can understand why those mentioned in the above would be against anything that might reduce the number of children … particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, e.g., poverty, abuse, lack of parental attention, etc.. ,,, in their community.

If you want to read the papers in context you can do so. The quotes I have provided have been sourced. I understand you don’t like it, but that is the proof. I didn’t write these sources. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it invalid. If you have grave doubts, fine, I really don’t care. You can in fact get the papers, read them, get the books read them. Nothing is stopping you.

Actually, something is. Because (unsurprisingly) the quotes from Donald and Harranz aren’t sourced to books or papers, and (equally unsurprisingly) appear to exist exclusively in the form of rumors on the internet.

The third quote you provided — ostensibly proving that polio-vaccine research was carried out on live babies who arrived at the lab after having been ripped from the womb by abortionists at ten-to-20 weeks — is sourced to a paper that was published in 1952.

I can’t find the text of the paper. (Or, ftm, an abstract.) But I second Krebiozen’s skepticism about embryos being dissected while their hearts were still beating.

I mean, there’s a 0% chance of survival outside the womb at ten-to-20 weeks now, in the present, even with the use of every available aid in the neo-natal intensive care unit.

So I don’t see how it could have been any less impossible prior to 1952.

Someone should have warned AH that on this blog, if you cite a reference, some killjoy is going to go look it up.

But I second Krebiozen’s skepticism about embryos being dissected while their hearts were still beating.

The quote (which is accurate; G—le Books has a scan of the bound volume, although only accessible in snapshots) doesn’t actually state this; he has to hitch it to another wagon before trying to get away with the ol’ switcheroo.

Or actually not look it up because they hold religious bigotry and child killing as their sacred beliefs.

PP murders children.

See Noevo,

Gee, I’m surprised you didn’t read a little more from that very short article.

Why? The rest of it has little or no relevance to the ethics of abortion.

It goes on to say things such as
“Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there’s something wrong,’ Hentoff told the Times…

That seems an odd attitude; reminiscent of oppositional defiance syndrome.

“He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’

What does infanticide have to do with abortions? Remember, the majority of US abortions take place earlier than 6 weeks gestation and 90% earlier than 13 weeks, a whole 27 weeks before term. If you can’t argue against a 13-week abortion without referring to infanticide I’d say your argument’s in trouble.

He talked with handicapped people who could have been killed by abortion.”

My son has a very similar condition to the child on the article and required similar life-saving surgery. I’m glad he wasn’t aborted and that we didn’t leave him at the hospital and forget we had a baby as we were advised – we were very young and this was 1980 when attitudes, I hope, were different. However, I would not condemn someone who did abort a pregnancy because of disability. I see no inconsistency in this.

Similarly my existence was an accident – my parents hadn’t planned on having me, their marriage was nearly at an end, and both were pro-choice so my mother’s pregnancy with me could easily have been aborted, but it wasn’t. I would not condemn a woman who did have an abortion in similar circumstances.

Neither of these experiences changes my views on elective early abortion, nor on later abortion for severe disability. Why would they?

“When Hentoff’s pro-choice friends heard about his new pro-life convictions (which, to them, were heresies), they were aghast, but he didn’t back down: “Here were liberals, decent people, fully convinced themselves that they were for individual rights and liberties but willing to send into eternity these infants because they were imperfect, inconvenient, costly.

The only arguments in favor of infanticide I have seen, and which I personally support are those like the Groningen Protocol, which allows the killing of “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering“. It isn’t imperfection, inconvenience or cost that drives this protocol, but unbearable and intractable suffering.

I saw the same attitude on the part of the same kinds of people toward abortion, and I thought it was pretty horrifying.”

This is a description of his emotional reaction to his friends’ attitudes, not a rational argument.

“… he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

I admire his courage in standing up for his convictions but I think they are sadly misplaced. They are clearly based on his emotional reactions, on anthropomorphizing and empathizing with an fetus, not on reason.

“Hentoff’s transformation is recounted in The Debate Since Roe: Making the Case Against Abortion 1975-2010 , a powerful collection of essays from the Human Life Review , which has received excellent reviews and which other reporters could learn a great deal from.”

I dug around and realized that Hentoff’s Paulian conversion took place in 1984, 21 years ago, when attitudes were very different, I hope; I have related my experience, above.

AH: “PP murders children.”

As has been explained to you many times, they don’t.

While, on the other hand, those following the unscientific notions of you invisible sky fairy have often killed women and their fetuses like Savita Halappanavar.

There is blood on yours and their hands for every woman who has died because the followers of your invisible sky fairy thought the fetus was more important than the life and health of the woman. Just as there is blood on your hands for anyone who suffers an illness like rubella, rabies, etc. because you disagree with how the cells were cultured.

@#347 —

Re: Your dumb analogy

Pedophiles provide meals, gifts, car rides and baths to children in order to groom them for sexual abuse. Because their mission is sexual abuse not ending child hunger, etc.

Planned Parenthood does not provide 97% of its services to millions of women in order to groom a much smaller number of entirely different women for the abortions that make up the remaining 3%. Because its mission is not abortion but the provision of women’s health services to women who need them.

See the difference?

Chris I think it’s you who believes in an invisible sky fairy.
Its fascinating how you’ve decided, I have blood on my hands, but the people who are responsible for actually killing children are your heroes.

So AH’s degraded (or is that upgraded) into “I know you are but what am I?”

No Ann I dont. PP murders children. If they sell sunshine on the side, they are still murdering children, and shamming their data to pretend like it’s really no big deal. Eyes wide open?

No Ann I dont. PP murders children.

Obviously most commenters in this thread don’t agree with you and have explained why they don’t agree with you and aren’t going to change their view of the matter..

So exactly what do you hope to achieve with your repetitious yammering?

Except that a) they don’t murder children and b) they don’t fake data. Both are crimes and no one has charged Planned Parenthood with either.

Sorry, blockquote fail on #369

Should have been:

No Ann I dont. PP murders children.

AH, until you come up with real data that the deity that you revere which requires the needs of a fetus to come before children and grown women actually exists, it will be an “invisible sky fairy.” Your service to this fantasy critter is just the same as believing in what Dr. Hall calls “Tooth Fairy Science.”

Your morality has been questioned since you have shown you do not value actual facts, data, children or grown women. You favor the lies proffered by David Daleiden and others. Liars are immoral. Since you believe in liars you are immoral. Deal with it.

And stop trying to enforce you religion on others. If you don’t want to get an abortion, the MMR, or rabies vaccine that is okay. Just don’t restrict them to others who really need them.

#368 AH:

No Ann I dont. PP murders children. If they sell sunshine on the side, they are still murdering children,

Of course, you will provide some reference to birth certificates for some of these children alleged to have been murdered.

and shamming their data to pretend like it’s really no big deal.

And you will provide evidence for the “shamming” of data, right.
I didn’t think you would or even could.

Oh Bill, are you crabby because I’m calling out your “women’s health” heroes?

Oh Bill, are you crabby because I’m calling out your “women’s health” heroes?

Project much, Mr. Pedophilia Gambit?

Abortions carried out legally are not crimes, therefore not murder and not subject to prison terms.

“He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’

By which he means that when he “dug into” his subject, he couldn’t come up with any better evidence that a society that tolerated abortion was on a slippery slope leading to euthanasia for the disabled than a 1973 piece in the New England Journal of Medicine by two (2) doctors at Yale-New Haven reporting that out of the 299 deaths that occurred in the neonatal unit there between 1970 and 1972, 43 were the result of their decision to withhold treatment with parental consent.

That was just as illegal and unpopular in 1973 as it was in 1984 and is now, needless to say. But needless to say, he doesn’t mention that the piece was promptly greeted with national outrage and condemnation at the time. Because the only reason he’s bringing it up at all is in order to associate abortion with something that reliably provokes exactly that response, validity no object.

They are, of course, subject to summary execution, etc

A great many actions that are not subject to severe legal penalties are subject to summary execution. This would include such high crimes as “lookin’ at me funny.”

No Ann I dont. PP murders children. If they sell sunshine on the side, they are still murdering children,

Please explain how 97% of the services they provide can be characterized as something they do “on the side”.

and shamming their data to pretend like it’s really no big deal.

Please also explain how the data is a sham.

Eyes wide open?

Yes. That’s why I can clearly see that it’s not possible for Planned Parenthood to pretend that 97% of the services it provides aren’t abortions unless it’s a pretense that they’re not.

Dear abortion lovers, this will probably break your logic meters, but it just so happens that most people who oppose abortion also oppose other types of heinous crimes including child sex abuse , murder and war. Most people who oppose abortion do so because killing is wrong. Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry. I know you may have read otherwise from the Huff Po and Slate. This is probably a shock to you, but those sources don’t tend accurately represent the majority of prolife people.

“Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry.”

Says the poster who brought up pedophilia.

Ann I know you love PP, and love is blind. It’s already been explained why their numbers are a sham. They kill over 300,000 children a year. Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion. The mammograms and healthcare would be nice and fine, but gee I just have to be insistent in my opposition to murdering children but PP really is committed to killing them.

those sources don’t tend accurately represent the majority of prolife people.

Luckily for everybody, neither do you.

most people who oppose abortion also oppose other types of heinous crimes including child sex abuse , murder and war.

I have encountered some folks here and there who are anti-abortion and also against war, capital punishment, etc. This position is at least consistent and I can respect if to a certain degree; after all, if I believed that fetuses were people, I’d certainly be against abortion myself. I simply see no reason to conclude that a mass of cells with no characteristic human brain activity, etc., can properly be called a “person.” Abortion does kill or end something: a potential life, and there’s something sad about that, but not in a way that trumps a woman’s right to her own uterus and life.

^ But TBH, most anti-abortion folks are perfectly fine with – maybe not murder in the narrow sense, but war, capital punishment, etc. Such a position is repugnant, really.

I’ve met pro-life people, quite a few of them, and they tend to be considerate, compassionate and not trying to pretend anybody who disagrees with them is a murdering paedophile.

but gee I just have to be insistent in my opposition

…to telling the truth?

Oh gaist, how would you know? Are you cranky?

Let’s see… “crabby,” “cranky,”…. I think maybe that line could use some fixing up:

Oh gaist, how would you know? Are you cranky on the rag?

JP, I disagree, that is a stereotype that is frequently used by people opposed to the prolife movement.

Gaist, reading comprehension: try it sometime. Analogies can be your friend. Just to be clear for Gaist and those who do not understand, everyone who disagrees with me is not a murdering pedophile. That would be a wrong thing to say. Thank you.

They also tend not to resort to pissy fits when others don’t immediately agree with them.

Typically they also, unlike you, seem like decent human beings I wouldn’t mind hanging out with, despite possibble differences of opinion.

JP, I disagree, that is a stereotype that is frequently used by people opposed to the prolife movement.

In my own admittedly anecdotal experience, it’s a pretty accurate stereotype, although there are notable and not entirely infrequent exceptions. Hold on a minute and I’ll see if I can find some data on this.

AH: “Dear abortion lovers,”

We, or at least I, do not love abortions. We understand that they are necessary. Many times to save the mother. I do not like that as a primary means of birth control, which is why I find that the Roman Catholic Church opposition to contraception to be abhorrent and unrealistic.

“Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion.”

That is pretty good cherry picking. Despite being told over and over again 97% of their services do not include abortion. You realize that the way you stated that is kind of a lie. You do realize that lying is immoral, right?

^ Messed up the link: the first half links to a different thing than the second half, but I intended to make it clearer with a break in between. Also note that the second half leads to a PDF.

most people who oppose abortion also oppose other types of heinous crimes including child sex abuse , murder and war.

This statement calls out for some actual data, from some non-biased source. Got any? I didn’t think you would.

Most people who oppose abortion do so because killing is wrong.

That could be included in the data you haven’t supplied (or referenced). Got any?

Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry.

This is doubtful, since the states with the strongest anti-woman support seems to coincide with those of highest bigotry. Data, of course, could change those appearances. Got any?

Chris, I don’t think you know much of anything about catholic teaching, based on most of your comments thus far. But you are correct about opposing contraception. Different thread.

I’m not sure you know what a lie is.

I know you may have read otherwise from the Huff Po and Slate.

No.

In fact, I’ve never seen anyone anywhere arguing that most people who oppose abortion are in favor of bigotry, sex abuse, murder, war and heinous crimes generally.

You’re actually the one who makes a habit out of suggesting that people who disagree with you about abortion are therefore guilty of some unrelated crime, moral failing, or assorted other bad act when you have no reason to think that they are.

For example:

Ann I know you love PP, and love is blind.

Ninety-seven percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are for care and treatment that has nothing to do with abortion.

That being the case, saying so is not indicative of bias. It’s indicative of intact reality-testing.

It’s already been explained why their numbers are a sham.

No, it emphatically has not. Are 97% of their services unrelated to abortion?

If not, that figure is not a sham.

They kill over 300,000 children a year. Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion. The mammograms and healthcare would be nice and fine, but gee I just have to be insistent in my opposition to murdering children but PP really is committed to killing them.

Unless you have to be insistent about making unrelated, false and insupportable claims about them in order to do that, the one has nothing to do with the other.

Go back and read the thread. You can’t miss it.

Ann PP annual report is available online. My figures are correct.

I guess it’s time for you to begin citing the relevant portions, now isn’t it? And I do mean “citing.”

Nice try.

Indeed.

@ Chris

We, or at least I, do not love abortions. We understand that they are necessary. Many times to save the mother. I do not like that as a primary means of birth control, which is why I find that the Roman Catholic Church opposition to contraception to be abhorrent and unrealistic.

This.
I do hope my lengthy posts here showed my position to be very similar.
Still waiting for SN and AH to explain their magical solution to make the actual numbers of abortion going down in a meaningful way.

Although that will require they understand some basic economical laws, notably offer and demand. Laws are inefficient at stopping something for which both an offer and a demand exist. They only increase its price and push it into a parallel market.

SN reproached me to do nothing about abortion. Well, I love to tell youngsters around me how Americans have – or had -these ABC education programs. Abstinence, Be faithful, or at least wear a d@mn c0nd0m.
What do our critics do, aside being all sanctimonious on some internet site?

Nadar, I know you’re mad, but I’m sure you’re capable.
DGR, fetuses are children.

AH #384
” Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry”

Being against abortion is bigotry by definition. lol.

Based on the available evidence, including PPs own annual reports, that AH wouldn’t know the truth even if it came up and bit him.

Garoua, then I guess being for it is bigotry by definition also. Lol

Who am I intolerant towards if I think women should have a right to choose?

Re: The number of abortions at Planned Parenthood :They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012.

DGR according to reality, and the dictionary.

Neither legally, nor medically.

Re: The number of abortions at Planned Parenthood :They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012.

And?

Anyway.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contraceptive_serv.html

According to the above “In 2013, publicly funded family planning services helped women to avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in about 1 million unintended births and nearly 700,000 abortions.”

Clearly Planned Parenthood is providing a valuable service.

To ann #342:

Thanks for trying to educate me about Jewish views on the afterlife.

But I wasn’t asking about Jewish views in general, I was asking for the views of one particular observant Jew, JGC.

JGC, besides being pro-abortion, has said some things that caused me to wonder. Such as

“How is “Love me or burn in hell for all eternity!” not a use of force?”

[And I thought, does he even believe in hell to begin with?]

And “…death and disease occurred long before human beings capable of embracing or rejecting a putative god existed on this planet.”

[And I thought, “putative” “god”? Does he even believe in God?]

I know you’re a big girl, or maybe just a girl with a big head, but JGC’s a big boy. He can answer for himself.

P.S.
The full quote:
“Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.
Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Too bad the entire field of epistemology, of which science is one off-shoot, is just so much mental masturbation when it is without Catholic philosophy.”

Yes, I think that’s about right.

AH: “Re: The number of abortions at Planned Parenthood :They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012.”

Okay, that is the numerator, now what is the denominator? Just saying that is “90%” without telling us, with references, the total number of women getting services, including details of those services, is lying by omission.

As noted above, opposition to contraception, and emphasis on abstinence is unrealistic. This is what leads to unwanted pregnancies and spread of sexually transmitted diseases in the real world. And abortions.

If you want to prevent abortions, then do not oppose contraception. Do do otherwise is hypocritical.

gaist @ 367

AH @ 366 is merely proving the classic disregard most so called “pro lifers” have for the life and health of the mother.Thereby proving the point Chris made @ 364.

Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion.

That’s basically just a rhetorically dishonest way of making it Planned Parenthood’s fault that affordable, accessible prenatal/obstetric care is the only kind that’s already available to virtually all women at almost any clinic or hospital that provides it, when in fact it says nothing about them except that they’re true to their mission statement.

But besides that, unless:

(a) the 1,128,783 pregnancy tests on their last annual report don’t count as pregnancy-related; and

(b) more than two-thirds of them were negative and all the others led to abortion

I don’t see how it could be true.

Citation?

Kudos to my fellows who, while I was enjoying the weekend, were trying to pull AH’s head out of its rectal position and received nothing but insults for their work.

Since AH still hasn’t figured out that we DO check references, and expect to see the ORIGINAL citation, not the cite from the cite from the cherrypicking, I will only say that, like the others, until we are given the original citation (not the links leading to antiabortion sites), I don’t accept or believe anything AH says.

AH: the world isn’t entirely Catholic. The world isn’t entirely Christian, or even necessarily religious. So why are you trying to force your religious views upon everyone?

As far as my views about abortion: As noted above (IIRC Narad?) said, I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE. Preferably no pregnancy would occur unless wanted, and every child would be a wanted child. This means good sex education, cheap/free contraception, and support for pregnancy and afterward is available to all.

Unfortunately, to most of the antiabortionists, the ONLY important thing is the thing inside the uterus. The external carrier (AKA woman) is not at all important except as a thing. As noted above, if the WOMAN was considered at all important, Savita wouldn’t have died. The poor 9 year old in South America wouldn’t have been excommunicated (along with her mother and the doctors) from her church, while her scumbag stepfather who impregnated her got away with a slap on the wrist and is STILL an accepted church member.

In countries where contraception is free or inexpensive, good sex education is given, and there is support AFTER the birth of a child for the mother in the form of child care, money, etc, abortions are FAR more infrequent than in the US. I wonder why….

Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Of course, you’re happy to engage in the latter while being utterly ignorant just for the hell of it. Offhand, in just two days, there’s the screaming boner about marriage licenses and utter dimwittery about U1.27.

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought:

Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

PP appears to be fully transparent in its activities, unlike the Catholic Church, which, to this day, refuses to accept responsibility for the aiding and abetting of pedophilic priests…

And that represents “90%” how exactly?:

I believe AH may just be using the “90%” erroneously referred to by Senator Jon Kyl and discussed here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Apparently AH just accepts whatever drivel is published on whichever anti-abortion site(s) AH frequents without verifying the accuracy of that drivel.

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought:

I’d like to think there was an unsaid “before I leave” following “just one thought”.

But, that would just be wishful thinking.

At any rate, I didn’t see the responses to AH’s abysmally stupid comment as “attacks”.

More in the way of constructive criticism intended to help AH develop their obviously sub par reasoning skills.

JGC, besides being pro-abortion, has said some things that caused me to wonder. Such as

“How is “Love me or burn in hell for all eternity!” not a use of force?”

[And I thought, does he even believe in hell to begin with?]

First of all, since that question was addressed to AH, what JGC, as a self-described observant Jew, believes about the afterlife is irrelevant to it.

And second of all, since Judaism doesn’t include the belief that people who fail to love G-d burn in hell for all eternity, it has no implications for whether any Jew is or is not observant.

And “…death and disease occurred long before human beings capable of embracing or rejecting a putative god existed on this planet.”

[And I thought, “putative” “god”? Does he even believe in God?]

Right. But the question you asked was what he, as a self-described observant Jew, believed about the afterlife.

I know you’re a big girl, or maybe just a girl with a big head, but JGC’s a big boy. He can answer for himself.

I have an ordinary-size head. But otherwise, true enough.

See Noevo:

So are you saying that if Planned Parenthood tried to be secretive about the abortions and used that government money that you’re so upset about (despite it not actually going to support abortions) to pay off the women who had abortions to keep them quiet then you’d be okay with it?

That’s the Catholic Church approach. But I have trouble believing that you’re support it in this situation.

To ann #379:

“[Nat Hentoff] couldn’t come up with any better evidence that a society that tolerated abortion was on a slippery slope leading to euthanasia for the disabled than a 1973 piece… 43 [deaths] were the result of their decision to withhold treatment with parental consent. That was just as illegal and unpopular in 1973 as it was in 1984…”

Maybe not full blown, wide-spread euthanasia.
But not even a slippery slope?

“Physician aid in dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico… The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States#Legislation_and_political_movements

Here’s some new video of a guy lots of people want to euthanize.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33078828

“Last month the European Court ruled that his feeding tubes could be removed without breaching his human rights.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vincent-lambert-case-france-gripped-by-right-to-die-case-of-tetraplegic-former-nurse-and-an-attempt-to-kidnap-him-from-his-hospital-bed-10419934.html

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death.

Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

Yah, the RCC was so not-proud that they deliberately covered it up for as long as they possibly could and then fought tooth and nail against facing the legal consequences.

They’d still be at it if they could be.

Ann PP annual report is available online.

Yes, I know. As I said, that’s where I got the number of pregnancy tests from.

My figures are correct.

Since the annual report says that 97% of their services are unrelated to abortion and doesn’t say that 90% of their pregnancy-related services end in abortion, that’s a non sequitur.

Nice try.

Right back atcha.

To ann #379:

“[Nat Hentoff] couldn’t come up with any better evidence that a society that tolerated abortion was on a slippery slope leading to euthanasia for the disabled than a 1973 piece… 43 [deaths] were the result of their decision to withhold treatment with parental consent. That was just as illegal and unpopular in 1973 as it was in 1984…”

Maybe not full blown, wide-spread euthanasia.
But not even a slippery slope?

“Physician aid in dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico… The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States#Legislation_and_political_movements

Here’s some new video of a guy lots of people want to euthanize.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33078828

Another article in The Independent notes “Last month the European Court ruled that his feeding tubes could be removed without breaching his human rights.”

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death.

To AH, as a christian myself, I would like to know why you are so convinced human life starts at conception. I have often thought about this but the Bible does not speak of it. I think that after the brain is semiformed, then human life has started just as when the brain dies the human life has ended, and so abortion after then is murder, but before then I honestly don’t know.

“As far as my views about abortion: As noted above … I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE.”

Just like appendectomies or cancer treatments.
Babies as disease.

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought

The irony of this* following immediately on the heels of the utterly gratuitous “big girl,” “girl with a big head,” “big boy” demonstration of your basic character is not lost.

* Maybe it’s a lack of caffeine, but I really couldn’t come up with a suitable recasting; it’s a Fowlerian “fused participle” to my eye.

@#435 —

We weren’t on a slippery slope that led to euthanizing the disabled at birth in 1973, or 1984, and we’re not on one now.

During the only time period during which eliminating the unfit from society enjoyed any political popularity in this country at all, abortion was completely taboo and entirely illegal.

I conclude from this that there’s no cause-and-effect relationship between the two in either direction and no evidence of any.

Nat Hentoff’s implications to the contrary are therefore baseless.

To ann #439:

“We weren’t on a slippery slope that led to euthanizing the disabled at birth in 1973, or 1984, and we’re not on one now.
During the only time period during which eliminating the unfit from society enjoyed any political popularity in this country at all, abortion was completely taboo and entirely illegal.”

Do mean the time period of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became Planned Parenthood?

As noted above (IIRC Narad?) said, I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE.

Helianthus and others. Given the level of ideation on display in AH’s and S.N.’s comments, I haven’t felt any need to advance a platform.

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death.

Clearly God has no problem with people starving to death:

http://www.poverty.com/

Who are you to question God’s will?

To ann and to all others here besides AH:

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I’m trying to understand how you could possibly think this is acceptable and rational.

Please explain why you’re for this.

“As far as my views about abortion: As noted above … I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE.”

Just like appendectomies or cancer treatments.
Babies as disease.

Did you forget the part where you were cheerleading for rubella?

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I’m trying to understand how you could possibly think this is acceptable and rational.

Please explain why you’re for this.

What are you babbling about now?

SN, #440:

Do mean the time period of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became Planned Parenthood?

Even assuming your analysis of Ms Sanger to be accurate, of what pertinence is to the topic of discussion?
Oh, yes, that’s right. It’s another case of Original Sin, the doctrine the christianities count on for their cash flow.

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

Your predictable topic swerve is noted, but I’ve already noted that the “commonly-accepted practice”* you’re invoking (again) seems to have no referent.

This is the original version:

Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future. We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.
(And this saves parents’ a lot of work and worry over how to pay for those college tuitions. Whew! College-be-gone, worry-be-gone.

And baby-be-gone. Viability schmiability.

* Yes, reproducing this hyphen in the run of text pained me.

@#440 —

Yes. The time period I mean is the very one in which Margaret Sanger’s views on race and eugenics were briefly both popular and widely accepted as scientifically valid, but did not lead to a slippery slope on which they became ever-increasingly more so.

And it’s also the very one in which Margaret Sanger’s advocacy for birth control was both unpopular and widely opposed and didn’t become significantly less so until considerably after she founded Planned Parenthood in 1946, by which time she was no longer affiliated with racial eugenics, which were never really her thing to begin with. Her primary cause was contraception.

AFAIK, she was never for euthanizing the unfit.

Bill Price @ 448:

There’s an image of Margaret Sanger photoshopped into a KKK meeting that’s all over the wingnuttosphere, along with a quote with a few negative particles edited out. No matter how many times the original picture sans KKK, and the original quote are shown to them, they won’t give it up.

Figures Egnor would buy it.

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death which cemented the right to refuse medical treatment.

FTFY.

To ann and to all others here besides AH:

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

Practically all of my posts have been about either what is or isn’t a part of Judaism or what is or isn’t a factually accurate statement about the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

So I have no idea where you’re getting that from.

I forgot that I also pointed out that Nat Hentoff’s claims were baseless.

But they are. So it’s a good thing that saying so does not deny anybody the right to anything. And I still have no idea where you’re getting that from.

So I have no idea where you’re getting that from.

Well, he’s just trying to change the subject, but I suspect that it’s some sort of freakish Common Core bad trip to go along with his misogyny born of resentment, dripping racism regarding Obanana, and so forth.

Perhaps he’ll finally hork up the basis of the evasion tactic on his own.

Oh yeah!

I also pointed out that if it was morally obligatory to forever condemn and shun all scientific advances that the Nazis made by using the bodies of Jews before exterminating them, no person of good conscience could have anything to do with the aerospace industry.

But I wasn’t advocating for that. I was just pointing it out. So again, no denial of rights.

This is probably a shock to you, but those sources don’t tend accurately represent the majority of prolife people.

Well, AH, you’re fond of comparisons, right? Percentages?

OK? We’re set then. How many chopper-uppers of live children Clayton Waagners have the opponents of forced birth produced?

Remember, you made a quantitative statement:

Most people who oppose abortion do so because killing is wrong.

Get cipherin’, with no false-equivalence excuses.

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the ”future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I’m trying to understand how you could possibly think this is acceptable and rational.

Please explain why you’re for this.”

Because first graders are actual people, unlike foetuses, you know, having a functionning brin and all that.

Not to nitpick. But since there’s actually no such thing as the right to a college education, neither first-graders nor anybody else can be denied it anyway.

And…

There’s really no need for you to reinforce your run-of-the-mill instantiation of cowardly evasiveness.

I mean, if you’re that unreflective, what you really have on offer is the squandering of everybody’s time. In other words, a “Freddy Got Fingered” impersonation of Bengt Ekerot.

I’ve seen people who oppose abortion go on about whatever wars they want to fight and the people they want to bomb. It’s not about a moral aversion to killing, it’s about having a platform that almost looks Biblical that doesn’t require spending tax money on “undesirables”.

^ Eh, I failed to close the <del> once again:

Not to nitpick. But since there’s actually no such thing as the right to a college an education….

George Carlin had a little something to say about that.

As did the Fugs. Then again, Tuli’s version of the Decalogue focused on coveting “thy neighbor’s ass,” which – broadly speaking – represents another sad example of the cravenly nature of S.N.’s very being.

Of course, assessing the workings and fuel source of the thing atop S.N. (putative) neck* is tantamount to directly accessing the Mysterium Tremendum:**

Thanks for this snippet of honesty, Ethan. It seems to be a significant proviso.
Obviously, we do NOT KNOW how stars work. Otherwise, why add that condition?

* Hey, maybe Bill Schmalfeldt will show up.
** As it were; S.N. has the Player’s Guide. Oh, wait, right: h[]tp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2015/07/31/ask-ethan-99-how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe-synopsis/#comment-563613

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought:

Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

I wouldn’t call them attacks, and once again – it’s not our side equating Planned Parenthood with paedophilia. Which I do call an attack.

“Just like appendectomies or cancer treatments.
Babies as disease.”

See Noevo:

The thing is, you’re speaking in defense of a group that sees babies as a punishment. It’s written into the bible. Pregnancy is described as a curse on all women as a result of Eve eating an apple.

PP spends much more of their resources helping women get access to birth control, allowing them to avoid ever becoming pregnant in the first place. You’ve been told this repeatedly, you know this by now. If you really gave a damn about what you characterize as babies you might be moved by the movement to allow women to choose to only carry them if they want them. But you are not. Because to you, babies are really a punishment for having sex. You’ve been told that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies, but instead you’re working to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies. How else am I supposed to judge your actions?

To ann #460:

“Not to nitpick. But since there’s actually no such thing as the right to a college education, neither first-graders nor anybody else can be denied it anyway.”

Then don’t nitpick.

Why is it that you, ann, would be in favor of denying first graders now the OPPORTUNITY to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

Same question to the rest of you.

I’ll answer your question See, if you answer one for me. Would it have been better for babies to have been stillborn from another rubella outbreak, rather than using a fetus to develop a vaccine?

@#470 —

I haven’t made that argument. Nor have I made the argument to which you consider it analogous. I wasn’t involved in that part of the thread. .

Nobody is obligated to defend a position they haven’t taken. Or to renounce it. This is not a Stalinist regime.

And yet, you addressed the question to me by name, as if I were the leading proponent for that argument.

It’s almost like you’re targeting me for the X-ness of my chromosomes rather than the content of my posts.

By the way, I do have a response to your question, See. It’s a false analogy, and therefore irrelevant. I suggest you learn basic logic before coming back here.

Further to #470 —

I mean, come on. First, you unilaterally declare that something is murder. Then you come up with a clumsy analogy to it. And then you begin asking people why they favor murder, as defined by you, when they haven’t done anything besides make factually accurate statements about the annual report of a non-profit that you also believe to be guilty of murder.

In what part of the grand, patriotic American tradition is it A-OK to require people to defend themselves against accusations of crimes-because-you-say-so without any basis or evidence?

It’s a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question. Address what I’ve actually said.

Thanks.

Narad @310

ust by the by, your assignment of mutual culpability to Yishai Schlissel’s most recent stabbing victims was a fantastically minimalist self-portrait.ust by the by, your assignment of mutual culpability to Yishai Schlissel’s most recent stabbing victims was a fantastically minimalist self-portrait.

A sixteen year old girl has now died of her injuries from this act of faith. I am sure SN considers this a double of bonus given his misogyny and homophobia.

“Something something bearing false witness something or other.”

And I see AH still hasn’t provided any evidence to support their claims. Not surprised, really.

Todd, I think most pro choice people believe they are doing what is right and compassionate. I used to be pro choice myself. I know you dislike the evidence I’ve given, but it is real.
I don’t dislike people who are pro choice I just strongly disagree. Peace

AH and SN: can you please tell us why you feel you have the right to interfere with other people’s lives regarding a legal act? We understand your religious beliefs are against it. But why are you trying to force others to live by YOUR beliefs?

MI Dawn #478,
We already force people to live by our religious and moral beliefs. That is why murder, rape, theft, arson etc is wrong and punishable. If you kill someone, you go to jail. That is forcing religious/moral beliefs on someone. If abortion is murder (a point where I am undecided) then it is absolutely right to try to force people to stop doing it.

Nobody has the right to set up arbitrary criteria about whose lives are valuable. I’ve heard from commentors on this site that human life can only be human life if the baby can breathe on its own, or if it is a certain age, or if it can feel pain, or if it is out of the womb. Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not? Why should some people get to decide who lives and who dies? Who is valuable and who doesn’t count? Who is too inconvenient?

AH: ” I know you dislike the evidence I’ve given, but it is real.”

Oh, really? So where is the denominator for the numbers you used in Comment #415 to “prove” your “Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion” statement?

Also where is the evidence that the deity you follow exists? It only makes sense that if you want the laws of this country to conform to your deity’s desire, then you must at least give solid scientific evidence that this entity exists, and provide direct two-way communication between the US Congress that can be recorded now, and not unverified writings that date back almost two thousand years.

Edmundo: “That is forcing religious/moral beliefs on someone.”

Not really. Morality and fair play do not need to be based on religion. It can be argued it is more attributed to common sense rules to have a successful society.

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

But…isn’t that exactly what you’re trying to do? The good thing about being pro-choice is that it allows each woman to decide for herself.

Chris, get PP annual report. Also see the link to former PP clinic director’s article. Why do you get to decide that certain babies can be killed? Aren’t you imposing your morality on them? W

Adam, every human life is a human life. I rule nobody out. Letting women decide for themselves who is a human being and who is not, makes no sense. It isn’t relative.

Adam, every human life is a human life.

According to your beliefs. But as Americans we are not required to ascribe to your beliefs, just as you are not required to ascribe to mine.

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

That’s what you’ve been doing.

You see “human being” from the moment of conception and others don’t.

Attempting to criminalize abortion while also removing access to birth control for women, or at least “low income” women, is patently insane … but of course many in the anti-abortion movement can’t see this or comprehend why it is so.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/correlation-between-abortion-rates-and-illegality/

Chris #483
That is actually what I was referring to when I used the slash. I do not murder, among other reasons, because the bible tells me not to. You do not murder because of your moral belief, which may not come from religion. I thought a slash meant and/or. Sorry for the confusion. What I said still stands, we (christians/athiests) enforce our religious and/or moral beliefs on people all of the time, and in many cases have every right to do so.

DGR, all human beings are human beings. You don’t get to decide to rule some human beings out based on your own criteria and then say it’s fine to kill them. You are imposing your beliefs on an entire class of human beings. And you are trying to make me complicit by having me accept it.

AH: “Chris, get PP annual report. Also see the link to former PP clinic director’s article.”

No, you made the 90% claim, therefore you need to provide the evidence to support it. I did read about the PP numbers this morning, and you “90%” bit was not in it. So you are now required to back up that claim.

AH: “Letting women decide for themselves who is a human being and who is not, makes no sense.”

Obviously, because according to your deity women are not capable of making decisions on their own. So if you want us to subscribe to your deity’s rules prove that he/she exists.

Edmundo: “I do not murder, among other reasons, because the bible tells me not to.”

More often than not it comes down to an economic issue. One reason a ruler of a fiefdom would frown on murders is that it cuts back on his working force. More than once I have seen dramatizations (like fantasy, Westerns, scifi, and even “historical” programs like Vikings) where someone has killed a person, and then finds they needed that person’s skill. Usually as an ironic “oops” moment.

The most potent example of the economic cost of human death was with the native peoples of the Americas. Disease was not completely responsible for the 95% drop in their population over two centuries. The problem was that is was not just children who came down with measles, smallpox, etc, but the adults. When the adults were unable to farm, hunt, make shelter, clothing, etc then entire families died, and then almost entire civilizations.

AH: ” You are imposing your beliefs on an entire class of human beings.”

So who is telling you to get an abortion whether or not you need one?

Except you imposing very specific rules to half of the population, women. Your deity’s rules against contraception and abortion put an undue economic strain on women. By taking away control over their bodies you are forcing them to have babies they do not want and may not be able to afford to care for.

So, really, if you want to place those rules, you need to prove your particular deity actually exists. Until then we will continue to assure women are allowed to think for themselves.

Chris if you read the article link you’ll see what I’m referring to.
Why do you get to impose your arbitrary criteria on me? I don’t have to accept the murder of some human beings. I don’t have to accept your arbitrary morality. and I dont.

Chris, what proof would be good enough for you? You are imposing an arbitrary rule that says it’s ok to kill some human beings.

Adam you are accepting an arbitrary rule that says it’s ok to kill certain human beings.

Edmundo, I just remembered a better example of the economic incentive to not kill (and sorry if this is a Godwin): the Nazi use of slave labor.

It is not really productive to starve and kill your labor force who are manufacturing weapons and medical supplies. This was very well explained in The Fantastic Laboratory of Dr. Weigl: How Two Brave Scientists Battled Typhus and Sabotaged the Nazis by Arthur Allen. Some Polish prisoners did make a good typhus vaccine, except they secretly vaccinated each other and sent defective vaccines to the Nazi military forces.

It is a very good read.

you are accepting an arbitrary rule that says it’s ok to kill certain human beings.

Is masturbation murder, AH? If not, then your rule is just as arbitrary.

We already force people to live by our religious and moral beliefs. That is why murder, rape, theft, arson etc is wrong and punishable. If you kill someone, you go to jail. That is forcing religious/moral beliefs on someone.

Not necessarily. As a society we expect and hope its participants are house trained, but I don’t see consequences as necessarily forcing anybody into doing something. I mean, we allow murderers and other criminals back into society once their prison sentences are done, we send soldiers into battle trained to kill and indeed, often call returning ones heroes. Cops are known to kill in the line of duty, and we don’t think of them as murderers. Some doctors and nurses terminate a pregnancy, but that doesn’t make them murderers, even if we individually or as a society regret any of the above situations.

And it’s not like murder is hardwired into our instincts., so it’s not like most of us have to be threatened with punishment not to kill, divine or secular. Humans are social animals after all.

If abortion is murder (a point where I am undecided) then it is absolutely right to try to force people to stop doing it.
And if it’s not murder, there is absolutely no right to try to force* people to stop doing it, yes?

* I don’t have a problem with people voicing their opinions on the issue, but forcing them is another matter.

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

Are you truly so lacking in insight that you are sincerely asking that question?

AH: “Chris, what proof would be good enough for you?”

Reading comprehension is not your strength. To repeat: “… you must at least give solid scientific evidence that this entity exists, and provide direct two-way communication between the US Congress that can be recorded now, and not unverified writings that date back almost two thousand years.”

Just tell you deity to show itself in Congress, perform some supernatural feats, and explain how we are all to obey it.

AH and others argue that a woman does not have control over her own body during the time that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus depends on it.
When does she get that control back? Once a baby is born, is it legitimate for her to refuse to donate blood for a transfusion that the baby needs? How about donating a kidney, or a piece of liver, or a skin graft?
The only reasonable answer is that she always has personal autonomy- that no one can be forced to give of their own body to support someone else.
Unless, of course, one supports forced donations of blood and redundant organs. That would at least be consistent.

AH ironically asks, “Why should some people get to decide who lives and who dies? Who is valuable and who doesn’t count?”

Who decides this? People who decide that it’s better a pregnant woman should die, or at least come close to death and lose her fertility, rather than allow an abortion. Who? Those people who say that removing a Fallopian tube that happens to contain a fetus, isn’t really an abortion, so it’s OK (the USCCB). Who? Those people have decided who lives and who dies and that the fetus is valuable, and the female acting as incubator doesn’t count. Who? Those who put forth the “Let The Woman Die” bills because women are only allowed three acceptable positions in life:

Virgin Mother
Virgin Martyr
Mother Dying Nobly in Childbirth

I hope you are in the van of a movement to require cameras in every delivery room to capture that magical moment when a female child is born and instantly loses her “right to life.”

Oh Chris is mad now. Ok Chris, God is infinite and creator of all. Nobody tells him what to do, or puts him in a lab to do experiments, “proving” his existence. You believe in a morality which says you can kill some human beings. I don’t.

Adam, ???

It’s not that hard, AH.

According to my religious beliefs and common sense, every single sperm cell is a baby, and any man who ejaculates is a murderer. Why do I have to follow your religion, but you don’t have to follow mine?

AH, I’ll rephrase AdamG’s question in terms that you might grasp…

…is contraception acceptable?
…is non-vaginal coitus acceptable?
…is having sex during ‘safe days’ acceptable?
(…and the list could go on)

Or do you think all of these cheat Odin of his little children?

@AH #512: Is that all there is to it, or should Adam attempt to ban masturbation? Are you satisfied with a hope that Adam doesn’t engage in it, or will you join with him in his war against those who do?

When does a woman regain control over her own body, AH?

@DGR #481,
Nice article, that explains precisely how the pro-life movement has led to the suffering and death of tens of thousands of women, to millions of unwanted pregnancies and to millions of unsafe abortions. Rarely has a movement so well-intentioned led to such appalling suffering. If Heaven and Hell really exist I suspect some people are going to get a terrible surprise.

When do human beings have the right not to be killed, madder?

If you start with a tire and start adding parts, at what point do you have a car, AH?

Well then Adam, I hope you don’t masturbate

I would never even think of such a thing, as I would be ostracized from my community as a mortal sinner.
I can’t believe baby-killers like you are so fixated on abortion when the number of babies killed via masturbation dwarfs that number!

AH:

God is infinite and creator of all. Nobody tells him what to do, or puts him in a lab to do experiments, “proving” his existence.

You could just as easily say that about the Hindu concept of Brahmin, which has more followers and has been around for longer. How do you know that you’re right?

Krebiozen: “Are you truly so lacking in insight that you are sincerely asking that question?”

Reading both Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi and The Violinist’s Thumb: And Other Lost Tales of Love, War, and Genius, as Written by Our Genetic Code by Sam Kean taught me quite a bit about how fetuses develop. Plus how things can go quite wrong.

Chris,
This blog, and you particularly, add more books to my reading list than anywhere else! It’s appreciated.

Madder? So if you wanted to kill someone else’s fetus you could because they aren’t born?

No, but for a different reason– it’s because doing so would violate the bodily autonomy of the woman.

And you are trying to make me complicit by having me accept it.

Personally, I could give a rat’s ass about what you or anyone like you chooses to believe and/or accept.

Which is why I don’t visit religious blogs, whether anti-abortion or not, on some delusional crusade to impose my particular opinions and beliefs on the denizens of those sites.

You chose to come here and voice your opinion, and that’s all it is, and people have explained why your opinion is invalid in their eyes.

And yet you keep whining away.

Madder? So if you wanted to kill someone else’s fetus you could because they aren’t born?

And once again AH completely ignores the mother and her rights…

AH: “God is infinite and creator of all.”

Prove it. Until then it is an invisible sky fairy and has no say in the public policy.

“Nobody tells him what to do,…”

Or more accurately: your particular deity does not exist.

“You believe in a morality which says you can kill some human beings. I don’t.”

Actually when your rules are imposed on women more end up dying. When you restrict contraception and abortion you actually get both more abortions and infanticide. Which is why link provided above by DGR is a good read. Of course you will discard it because, even though it is well referenced, it was written by a woman. You have shown that you don’t believe women can make decisions about their own body.

DGR you do practice a religion of your own making, your criteria, your version of morality. And you impose a death sentence on some human beings because of where you arbitrarily draw the line.

Krebiozen: “This blog, and you particularly, add more books to my reading list than anywhere else! ”

🙂

This blog and others are where I get ideas for my reading list.

Having fallen into one trap surrounding AdamG’s masturbation analogy, AH is loth to answer my question about when women regain autonomy under AH’s personal moral calculus. Perhaps AH senses another trap.

Madder, Adam surely knows that sperm are not human beings. That’s not a trap. That’s nonsense

These aren’t traps either, AH, I’m honestly curious.

…is contraception acceptable?
…is non-vaginal coitus acceptable?
…is having sex during ‘safe days’ acceptable?
(…and the list could go on)

Or do you think all of these cheat Odin of his little children?

Adam surely knows that sperm are not human beings

So spermicidal contraceptives are a-ok?

But AH #534, you dismissed AdamG’s sincerely-held religious beliefs out of hand, and stated quite directly that the appropriate solution for him is simply to not masturbate. Why is not-aborting not good enough for you? Keep in mind that sincerely-held religious beliefs aren’t good enough (“nonsense,” in your terminology), so you can’t just rely on them.

You’re so deep in the trap, you haven’t even realized it yet– kinda like the Millennium Falcon inside the asteroid creature.

AH: “And you impose a death sentence on some human beings because of where you arbitrarily draw the line.”

The line is not arbitrary. You might want to learn a bit about how the chemical signals direct where the proteins go during fetal development. The book by Sam Kean is not overly technical as it is meant for a general audience. Even you could understand it if you are willing to open your mind and pull the shingles from your eyes.

What is arbitrary is basing laws on the beliefs of one religion for a deity that does not seem to exist.

Adam surely knows that sperm are not human beings. That’s not a trap. That’s nonsense

Why do you get to decide that my religion is nonsense?
And sperm is just as much a human being as a fetus. How are they different?

I was really embarrassed for AH. Obviously he doesn’t understand the concept of autonomy. Of COURSE it’s wrong for me to make another person terminate a pregnancy. That’s why we don’t drag women off to abortion clinics. However, if the woman, of her own free will decides she does not want the burden of the pregnancy to continue, for whatever reason, I would happily give her a ride. Because I don’t see killing a lump of cells as murder.

On the other hand, AH appears to be perfectly happy to kill any number of sentient beings, because they have XX chromosomes, as long as the lump of cells survives.

By the way, AH/SN: How come in almost any society it was wrong to kill/steal/injure those who belonged to the group? Even without a super-sky-fairy, people developed moral codes to promote the ability to live in groups safely. Gee…you’d almost think it was inborn in us, rather than denoted in some musty, many-times-translated and cherry-picked-as-to-allowable-chapters book. (One of my favorite books talks about the Councils of Nicea and Trent and how they decided what was “in” the bible and what was “out”.)

DGR you do practice a religion of your own making, your criteria, your version of morality. And you impose a death sentence on some human beings because of where you arbitrarily draw the line.

Once again, just your opinion.

If you have any integrity at all … and nothing you’ve added to this thread thus far would cause me to believe you do … rather than just constantly repeating your personal opinion, please answer the following:

1. Explain where anything in the article I reference in #481 is in your view wrong and why.

We already know your view re: “human being from moment of conception”, so you don’t need to repeat this for the umpteenth time.

2. Explain where anything in the article I reference in #488 is in your view wrong and why.

3. Explain where anything in the article I reference in #419 is in your view wrong and why.

And explain how the some 1.5 million or so “unwanted births” and hundreds of thousands of illegal abortion per year that would result from the imposition on society of your “no abortion, birth control or (non-religious based) family planning” religious views would benefit the U.S. or anyone, other than smug, addled anti-abortionists, living in it.

4. Explain why it makes more sense, in God or human eyes, to spend massive amounts of money on anti-abortion/anti-birth control campaigns than it does to spend those funds to improve outcomes for already living low income children, teens and their parents or to alleviate situations like the 21,000 people,who starve to death every day as discussed in the article linked to in #443.

AH: Repeating a statement does not make it true.

Now tell me something: Would you have rather let people suffer through more rubella epidemics rather than let the improved vaccine be developed from fetal tissue?

AH, if you want to pass a Turing test you really ought to answer a question or two.

AH: “Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings.”

Citation needed. Provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers who are not paid by any church or church related business. Don’t just try to tell us about their unique DNA sequence, some which if you have read the last two books I referenced you would know can cause some serious effects.

And answer DGR’s questions in #544.

Nobody has the right to set up arbitrary criteria about whose lives are valuable.

Ahem. Governments, risk management analysts, and insurance companies do it all the time.

If uniqueness is your criterion, then a molar pregnancy is deserving of protection too.

Presumably AH is referring to the fact that fetuses have unique DNA. But if that’s what makes a person unique, then two identical twins are actually one person, and a chimera is two people. Which is obviously absurd, so genetic uniqueness is clearly not a useful way to define humanity.

And even if it did, it doesn’t really answer the important questions of if they are alive enough to potentially be murdered, nor whether all killings constitute murder.

I would like to point out that longstanding Castle Doctrine laws allow a defense against murder if you kill an intruder in your house. So killing an adult isn’t always murder, and is sometimes defensible. Why is killing an embryo never so? Why is it only black-and-white for the unborn?

Gaist #501
I actually meant to say murder in the place of kill. But I agree with you, if abortion is not murder, then we should allow it to happen. If it is murder, then we should not allow it to happen. The trick is figuring out when killing becomes murder. For me I am convinced that after the brain is semi formed (somewhere from 15 weeks to 30 weeks), killing the baby is murder. Before then, I just don’t know.

It is interesting this often turns into a religious argument when the bible only says, “do not murder.” It does not speak to when a clump of cells becomes a human. I am a protestant, so I do not give a hoot what the catholic church says, only what is in the bible. The catholic church decided abortion was wrong, not because what was in the bible, but because of philosophical arguments. These arguments being proposed by men, are fallible. Whether abortion is murder is thus not a religious question or scientific but a philosophical one.

Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings.

What science? I’m a scientist, so I’d like to discuss the specific science you are referring to here, specifically how a fetus is unique but sperm are not.

Edmundo: “Whether abortion is murder is thus not a religious question or scientific but a philosophical one.”

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religion to restrict abortion.

The philosophy bit is complicated. Sure it is fine to restrict abortion, but it gets into other territory when the “philosophy” decides to also restrict contraception. Then that gets into how women are perceived in a society.

I strongly suggest you read the links in Comments #481 and #488. It is, again, an economic argument to place a burden on all of those with a Y-chromosome.

OOps… I was typing too fast, it should read:
“I strongly suggest you read the links in Comments #481 and #488. It is, again, an economic argument to place a burden on all of those without a Y-chromosome.”

The thrust of the argument in the link you provided is:

Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore the zygote has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete

Ok, so the argument is that a certain combination of components in a zygote is what allows one to decide whether it is a baby or not. Which specific cellular components are necessary to determine if a type of cells are babies or just cells?
The argument that follows in the link you provided turns to semantics, (i.e. defining ‘organism’ and ‘cell’) not science. Which specific cellular processes make a cell a baby?

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

By this reasoning, so are parasitic twins and cases of fetus in fetu.

A fetus is an allograft; you have just conceded the viability argument. Well played.

AH: “A unique human organism is formed at conception”

Not a PubMed indexed journal.

Also the author is associated with this group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute

Despite their lofty words on their “about” page, they actually are a religious group. From the wiki:

The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[8] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography[9] at Princeton University in December 2008.[10]

Now, again, but remember the criteria:

A PubMed indexed scientific journal

not affiliated with any religious group, or even one that is but trying to pretend they are not

And more about a group the author of that “study” is affiliated with, from https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/515-witherspoon-institute/ : “The Witherspoon Institute is a Princeton, New Jersey-based nonprofit organization with ties to the Family Research Council and Roman Catholic traditionalists.”

Don’t try to convince it is not a religious group. Just like the “The Westchester Institute”, which no longer seems to exist. Yet if was also a Catholic group (the link to it on that article no longer works):
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_ethics_institute_sees_monkey_cloning_announcement_as_a_doubleedged_sword/

Whether abortion is murder is thus not a religious question or scientific but a philosophical one.

I think of it as a legal question, which may be influenced by both science and philosophy or by neither.

No. It is a discussion referencing scientific papers. But I gather you did not read it, so you would not know. Also, I’m sure you’re not telling me you can not read the paper and its scientific sources because of your deep prejudices against Catholics? If I did that Id have to disqualify ever scientific paper or discussion written by athiests, agnostics etc. plus I don’t happen to know the religious views of the people who wrote the scientific papers.

I gather you did not read it, so you would not know.

I did! Which specific cellular components are necessary to determine if a type of cells are babies or just cells? Which specific cellular processes make a cell a baby?

…did you read it?

AH: “No. It is a discussion referencing scientific papers.”

… as filtered through a religious person working for a religious group. The criteria that it not be from someone paid by a religious group and that it be a PubMed indexed study is there for a reason. It does not matter if it is Catholic, the criteria would also pertain to Mormon, Baptist, Islam, Bahai, or any other religion.

It is not bigotry, it is about bias. I wanted you to support your claim with a scientific paper, not a religious one.

Again, AH, if you want to change public policy to prohibit the decision about the bodies of half of the population you need actual scientific data, not religious opinion.

To ann #474:

I’ll revise my question so that it’s clear you have not previously defended nor renounced the position.

OK…
How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?

Same question to the rest of you.

To MI Dawn #478:

“AH and SN: can you please tell us why you feel you have the right to interfere with other people’s lives regarding a legal act? We understand your religious beliefs are against it. But why are you trying to force others to live by YOUR beliefs?”

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

Or maybe for the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.

How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I would not defend it.

If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?

On the basis that the criterion is known to be irrelevant to the ability of the child to eventually benefit from a college education.

Now, how does that relate to anything discussed so far?

no Chris, the scientific papers can be from people of any religious background and so can the discussion.

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

Two points:
1. You are not a nation state, and nation states under international law have rights and abilities not allowed to their citizens/subjects.
2. Interfering with Nazi death camp administrators was not a primary goal of the Allied forces.

To madder #505:

“AH and others argue that a woman does not have control over her own body during the time that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus depends on it.”

No. The woman should and does have control over her body during pregnancy.

“Once a baby is born, is it legitimate for her to refuse to donate blood for a transfusion that the baby needs? …The only reasonable answer is that she always has personal autonomy- that no one can be forced to give of their own body to support someone else. Unless, of course, one supports forced donations of blood…That would at least be consistent.”

I’m not sure I’ve heard that argument before, so I’ll give you points for creativity.
But the argument doesn’t work.

The mother is free not to donate her blood to her born baby. Her reasoning could be medical or just selfish, doesn’t matter.
The born baby’s life is not wholly dependent on getting his mother’s blood. He could be saved by the blood donated by others. The mother doesn’t kill her born baby by withholding her blood donation (and her blood type might not match her baby’s anyway).

However, in the womb, the baby is wholly dependent on his body’s connection to hers. Deliberately cutting that connection for the purpose of killing the baby is wrong.

Analogously, you’re fairly free to do want you want with your body’s hands. You’re not required by law to hold another’s hand. But if a drowning person was holding your hand as you dragged him from deep waters, and then you decided to let go, for no other reason than you decided you no longer wanted to save him, and so he drowned…. Well, let’s just say I wouldn’t be applauding you with MY hands.

AH @511 That’s true, my views do not represent yours. I don’t embrace the philosophy of:

Virgin Mother
Virgin Martyr
Mother Dying Nobly in Childbirth

I look at women as people, not sperm receptacles and incubators. I hope I have passed that on to my daughter, granddaughters, and they can teach the great granddaughters that are just a wee bit too young now for that lesson. Fortunately the youngest was born healthy, not having been exposed to VPDs in utero.

To AdamG #510:

“According to my religious beliefs and common sense, every single sperm cell is a baby, and any man who ejaculates is a murderer. Why do I have to follow your religion, but you don’t have to follow mine?”

I’d tell that person he’s free to believe what he wants, and even call it “religious,
but also that he has no common sense and is pathetically ignorant of science.

no Chris, the scientific papers can be from people of any religious background and so can the discussion.

You haven’t participated in any discussion.

You’ve offer your personal opinions … again and again … and the opinions of others who support your own opinion.

However, you haven’t responded to direct questions or shown any indication you’ve read any of the articles others have linked to, much less offered a rebuttal to any.

As this link points out, Condic’s the “white paper” is … rather than the “scientific paper” you claim … actually only her personal opinion jazzed up with some science terms and apparently designed to baffle dumb as a post politicians and/or provide them with the answer some want to hear.

http://www.ipscell.com/2010/12/scientific-proof-for-the-dc-court-of-appeals-that-life-begins-at-conception-not-by-a-long-shot/

I’d suggest she started with the conclusion then worked backwards to create a framework which a non-scientific true believer might mistakenly accept as support for her pre-determined conclusion.

As this article points out, some “prominent proponents of early fetal pain are willing to make intellectually dishonest arguments to advance their case.”

http://inthesetimes.com/duly-noted/entry/15397/the_fetal_pain_argument

Condic is mentioned in this regard.

AH: “Also, I’m sure you’re not telling me you can not read the paper and its scientific sources because of your deep prejudices against Catholics?”

You do not get to complain about any perceived prejudice when you cite a paper from someone, who has noted by DGR above, gets the science wrong and is associated with the Witherspoon Institute.

It is a religious group that is homophobic, that it mucked up the data and analysis in a study:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute#Regnerus_study

Ellie I don’t embrace the philosophy you describe if that’s what you’re implying.

Also for Condic, this article discusses her being “bullied”by other scientists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/326844/when-scientists-bully-anti-escrcloning-scientists-wesley-j-smith

The author of the article, Wesley Smith, refers to her as a “friend”.

This post discusses Smith.

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2013/01/365-wesley-j-smith.html

Condic comes across as the same type of “hired gun” crank scientist that anti-vaxers, AGW denialists and similar types adore.

@See Noevo:

You say that a woman should have control over her body during pregnancy, but then you omitted the “except for termination” part that means so much to you. Why?

Blood transfusions are one thing, but it’s not unheard of for a parent to be the only potential organ donor found in the available time frame. If the parent is the only person who could donate, can they still say no?

Regarding the analogy to saving a drowning person, I am wondering if See Noevo knows just how incredibly difficult and dangerous it is to try to save a drowning person by swimming after them. It might not be quite the analogy he wants to make.

If you dive in after a drowning person, you are putting your life on the line. Most amateurs who attempt this fail; the lucky ones are the ones who do let go. The others die, drowning with the person they thought to save. This is why lifeguards really don’t want you to save drowning people. All you’ll likely do is give them a second victim to have to rescue or recover.

A drowning person will not be rational or polite. They will frantically grasp you and then attempt to climb up you. It’s an instinctive response; don’t hold it against them. Just be ready for it, because otherwise it will kill you, because as they climb up, you’ll go down. Lifeguard training for when the swim-after-them approach is required mostly revolves around capturing them in a way that prevents them trying to do this. It’s tricky and it’s dangerous, and they can kill you.

Now, I did train as a lifeguard. I know how to do it. I do not advise anyone else to do it unless they also have been trained. It’s too dangerous. Instead, memorize this:

REACH – THROW – ROW – GO

If you see someone drowning, first of course notify the lifeguard. If there isn’t one, find something to reach out to them with, such as the hooks kept at every swimming pool. Keep a firm grip and brace with your legs in the pool’s gutter if you can, because they may grab it very hard. Pull them back in and let them recover while holding to the wall. If you must use your arm, lie down flat on the deck so you are as stable as possible.

If there is nothing to reach with, throw a floatation device, preferably one on a rope like a life buoy — that’s what they’re for. Stand on the float at the end of the rope so the buoy doesn’t just fly out there and leave them still stranded. It may take a few tries — be patient and don’t panic and get it right. Then pull them in.

If that’s not possible, or if they’re too far out, look for a boat to go rescue them in. They can grab the side of the boat.

And then, only as a very last resort, may you consider going after them. If at all possible, bring a floatation device or rope or tree branch or something so they can grab that instead of you. At all costs, keep them from grabbing your body.

Here ends your public service announcement for today. 😉

To Mephistopheles O’Brian #570:

Me: “How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?”

You: “I would not defend it.”

Me: “If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?”

You: “On the basis that the criterion is known to be irrelevant to the ability of the child to eventually benefit from a college education. Now, how does that relate to anything discussed so far?”

I want to make sure I understand you.
You’re saying
1) You would renounce the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now.
2) Because the first graders’ inability to handle a college curriculum NOW is irrelevant to the first graders’ ability to handle a college education in the future.
3) In other words, you should not punish a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older.

Is that correct?

Abortion is not punishing a young person for being unable to do things she/he will not be able to do when she/he is older. Please don’t try to say it is.

To Mephistopheles O’Brian #583:

Have I stated your position correctly in #582?
If I haven’t, please show where.

P.S.
I think you have a typo in “Abortion is not punishing a young person for being unable to do things she/he will not be able to do when she/he is older.”

I think you meant to say “Abortion is not punishing a young person for being unable to do things she/he WILL be able to do when she/he is older.”

How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?

I can’t do either, because I don’t understand the question. AFAIK, it’s not possible to deny someone the opportunity to go to college twelve years in advance, for any reason. Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means?

How would it even be possible to do that?

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

Because they’re Supreme Court Justices and the Constitution gives that power to them, not to you or to me or to anybody else.

“AH and SN: can you please tell us why you feel you have the right to interfere with other people’s lives regarding a legal act? We understand your religious beliefs are against it. But why are you trying to force others to live by YOUR beliefs?”

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

They didn’t feel that they had that right. It was not their casus belli.

And it wouldn’t apply to you even if it had been. You don’t have the right to declare war on your fellow citizens for abiding by the law.

It’s illegal, in fact.

Or maybe for the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.

There is no reason you can offer that would give you the right to unilaterally enforce your very own custom-made law on others. This is a democracy.

.

And the analogy will now magically morph from Allies/Nazis to Freedom Riders.

Because the first graders’ inability to handle a college curriculum NOW is irrelevant to the first graders’ ability to handle a college education in the future.

You keep robotically intoning this despite pointed requests for you to state what the fυck presumably dumbass shіt you’re “invoking.”

Quick, what are the three conditions for an action to be moral, S.N.?

Let me remind both See Noevo and AH that they have never shown, at any point in this discussion, any concern for the lives of anything but aborted fetuses. Not even the fetuses of those who would have come down with rubella had the vaccine not been developed.

AH, I note that you have been silent in response to the rebuttal of your assertion that “[a] fetus has its own body, [therefore] it is a unique human being.”

Now, your similarly gross cowardice in the face of rebuttals to your assertion that “[o]ver 90% of [Planned Parenthood’s] ‘pregnancy related services’ end in abortion,” combined with your failure to address the straightforward observation that you were deliberately conflating Thicke et al. with unsourced quotations and then resorted to simply making shіt up about a paper that you’ve never read, is sufficient to constitute a set of indicia of bad faith.

If you have any intention of demonstrating that you are something other than a pure passive-agressive attention whore who is long overdue for killfiling, you’d better start dealing with that backfile.

To ann #585:

Me: “How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now? If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?”

You: “I can’t do either, because I don’t understand the question. AFAIK, it’s not possible to deny someone the opportunity to go to college twelve years in advance, for any reason. Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means? How would it even be possible to do that?”

Please consider my question as a hypothetical.
Hypotheticals can be useful, even though they might not deal with current realities. For example, in 1930 Germany, perhaps someone would have posed the question “How would you defend the German government rounding up millions of people and exterminating them in concentration camps?” It could be a useful exercise, even for the people who might respond “Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means? How would it even be possible to do that?”

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.

So, how would you defend the hypothetical position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

If you can’t figure any way of defending the hypothetical position, on what basis would you renounce it?

They haven’t even shown enough of a serious interest in winning the argument to acquaint themselves with what it is:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

If you want abortion to be recognized as murder, ^^that’s the argument that you have to beat.

Likewise, if you want the state’s compelling interest in protecting prenatal life to start at conception rather than viability, you have to win an argument with the precedential decisions that say otherwise.

And likewise, if you don’t agree that “[i]f the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child,” you have to make an argument that no, the Founders actually intended for the government to make that call.

Otherwise, you’re just pitching fits purely to make life more unpleasant, without any meaningful hope of gain.

^ Oh, right, almost forgot:

Was it morally wrong to remove Manar Maged’s craniopagus parasiticus sister Islaam?

Please consider my question as a hypothetical.
Hypotheticals can be useful, even though they might not deal with current realities. For example, in 1930 Germany, perhaps someone would have posed the question “How would you defend the German government rounding up millions of people and exterminating them in concentration camps?” It could be a useful exercise, even for the people who might respond “Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means? How would it even be possible to do that?”

Why would they respond that way when the question itself clearly states that the German government is doing it, which also answers the part about under what authority? The rounding-up and extermination parts don’t require elaboration. They’re obviously possible.

That stands in stark contrast to this:

So, how would you defend the hypothetical position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I don’t know how to consider that proposition any more than I would if you asked me how I would defend the hypothetical position of denying kittens the opportunity ever to spend the whole day napping in the future just because they’re too frisky to do it now.

There’s nothing there to consider. It can’t be done.

Who is denying them, by what means, using what powers, under what authority?

“Them” being the first-graders, not the kittens.

If you can’t figure any way of defending the hypothetical position, on what basis would you renounce it?

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful

See, nothing you have to say is useful or interesting, though your obviously deranged mind believes otherwise.

Comment #38 summed you up nicely.

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.

It’s not “hypothetical,” you pathetic sack of shіt:

Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future. We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.

(And this saves parents’ a lot of work and worry over how to pay for those college tuitions. Whew! College-be-gone, worry-be-gone.

And baby-be-gone. Viability schmiability.

The proper thing for a 60-year-old male to do about a dribbling problem is to see a urologist, not pretend that the last really embarrassing episode didn’t happen and that the increasingly frequent ones in the meantime are really just a fascinating ploy to get people to find the treasure map in your Depends.

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

One seldom encounters such a bald, poorly-disguised example of Petitio principii.

To ann #595:

Since you trying so hard to justify not responding to my hypothetical, I’ll give you a rest and ask you a simpler question:

Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older?

If not, why not?

In 2009, Planned Parenthood bestowed its Margaret Sanger Award upon now-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Here are some words from her, that is, from Margaret:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

“The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”

“Give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Way to go, Margie!
Hillary will be proud to pad her resume with that award in your honor.

In 2009, Planned Parenthood bestowed its Margaret Sanger Award upon now-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What, precisely, would you say this comment has to do with the topic to hand?

Oh, wait.

See Noevo and AH:
I see that neither of you Fetus P eople have bothered to comment on the article I linked to regarding the promise that fetal stem cells may effectively treat one of the most horrifying diseases known – ALS. Obviously, you don’t give a shzzt about anyone outside the uterus.
Well, that’s your problem. Maybe you could explain to me, since I do not believe in your fairy-tale Sky Overlord, why I should pay any attention to your twisted moral values based on what I regard as delusions?

#600

Nice little dishonest slime job there – just look at the full, from which you ripped the money shot:

“Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members.”

The language is a bit archaic, but the meaning is plain to anyone whose mind is poisoned by fanatical hatred: Sanger is attacking the hideous infant mortality rate experienced by large families of the time. Most late children died, they died young, and they died under the most cruel circumstances. In this sense, impersonal death was performing a mercy.

Only a tragically dishonest thug would try to pass this off as advocacy by Sanger for infanticide. And yet, that is exactly what you pulled: did you really think you could slip that past anyone?

See Noevo – like AH you’re starting to look like a failed Turing test subject as well. So maybe just drop the mock ‘hypothetical’ ‘clever’ trick question you’ve been harboring and just come out with what you want to say.

And convince your running mate to answer some of our questions and we will gladly reciprocate.

No. The woman should and does have control over her body during pregnancy.

Up to and including alcohol, tobacco, strict vegan diet or fasting? How about participating in kick-boxing match? Taking a ‘morning after’ pill? AT what point short of abortion does that freedom and control end?

The mother doesn’t kill her born baby by withholding her blood donation

So you don’t think Jehova’s Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions from their offspring?

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

They didn’t have a ‘right’, according to the international law of the time, as well as respective military codes and civil laws, they had a duty.

This has nothing to do with abortions, however. And your other reason given was a perfect example of circular logic:
“I am trying to force others to live by MY beliefs because of the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.”

I for one remain unconviced.

I’d tell that person he’s free to believe what he wants, and even call it “religious,
but also that he has no common sense and is pathetically ignorant of science.

So your god didn’t slay Onan for masturbation but disobedience? How is that consistent with free will?

Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older?

If you’re inviting me to travel back in time to kill Hitler, I cordially refuse.

AH,

the scientific papers can be from people of any religious background and so can the discussion.

Sure, but not all papers by religious people are scientific. Your example wasn’t, even if it used scientific terminology.

Ellie I don’t embrace the philosophy you describe if that’s what you’re implying.

Well, it’s easy to make the ‘mistake’ when what you write fits with said philosophy, and every attempt to get you to actually define or detail your philosophy results in silence or ‘nuh-uh, not me’.

Maybe answer a question or two instead of repeating ‘human life begins at conception’ because by now it should be obvious even to you that just repeating that won’t convince anybody.

Maybe answer a question or two instead of repeating ‘human life begins at conception’

By example, by telling us your solution to make the actual numbers of abortion go down.

Seems like our two clowns are now the ones getting trolled by most people in this thread.
If I may, I’d like to attack the whole ”debate” from another angle (so hopefully we might get something else besides the same two lines from them). To AH and See noevo, how would you even implement abortion into the current american law?
What would be the exceptions? Would you allow pregnant women that have a life threatening condition to abort? Would you allow an exception for rape? How would the law be enforced? Would there be a time limit (in weeks) to abortion, or would it be never?

I want a detailed report on my desk for tomorrow morning.

@Garou: don’t wait for the report. Neither SH nor SN ever believe abortion is OK.

It’s much better for the woman to die so they both die, rather than terminate the pregnancy. After all, the only worth an adult woman has in their eyes is as a baby carrier. CERTAINLY she’s not a person with autonomy.

As for rape, or a fatal anomaly that will cause death ether in-utero or shortly after birth, or any other reason, the lazy s**t should should just grin and bear it. It’s all HER fault, you know.

As for after birth – they definitely don’t care now about mother OR child. She’s the one who got pregnant, now she can find the money to raise her child. Help? No, only the fetus counts as important. Not a child.

Since SN is so keen on hypotheticals, here’s an interesting one:

Supposed you have a house. Your neighbor has a grove of trees. A seed from one of their trees finds its way into your house, settles between the cracks in the floor and germinates. It sprouts and begins to grow. Do you have the right to rip up the plant? Or should you be forced to allow it to grow inside your house? Explain the reasoning behind your answer.

Since you trying so hard to justify not responding to my hypothetical, I’ll give you a rest and ask you a simpler question:

And since that suggests that you’re unable to answer the questions I already asked you twice, I’ll give you a rest and not repeat them.

Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older?

If not, why not?

I do not, on the grounds that since instituting such a practice would serve no conceivable purpose and further no conceivable end that was in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally, it would simply be adding to the sum total of senselessly punitive acts inflicted on young people for no reason whatsoever to do so.

The reason why we aren’t answering your silly hypothetical question, See, is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

To ann #587:

Me: “Or maybe for the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.”

You: “There is no reason you can offer that would give you the right to unilaterally enforce your very own custom-made law on others.
This is a democracy.”

Democracy, per Merriam-Webster:
• a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
• a country ruled by democracy
• an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

Yes, I know people under a certain age aren’t allowed a vote. But shouldn’t these people at least be treated equally in other ways? Shouldn’t even THEY have the right to life, which can enable liberty, which can then allow the pursuit of happiness?

I’ll fight for the voiceless, the vote-less.
So very sad that I should even have to.

P.S.
#599.

See Noevo: What about the voiceless who would have been stillborn from rubella had the vaccine not been developed? Would you have let them die?

Here are some words from her, that is, from Margaret:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

As Robert L. Bell has already noted, she’s pointing to that as a tragedy, not advocating for it.

“The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”

As she immediately goes on to say:

By this I mean a selection based on the prospects for a successful and happy babyhood, childhood, and eventual citizenship. It would be an eminent gain for society if the number of births could vary in direct ratio to prospects for adequate care of children.

So she’s just making the same point you already misrepresented.

“Give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

In context, that quote, which is from 1932, is:

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

This says nothing about her other than that she subscribed to the scientific consensus of the day and sought to accommodate its implications humanely and without exterminating anyone.

Happily, the consensus didn’t last long. And by the time she founded Planned Parenthood, she had returned to her original (and always primary) cause, which was advocating for contraception.

Despite which, the use of contraception continued to be legally prohibited until 1965. Just incidentally.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

As above noted, her opposition to extermination was not universal. So she’s saying she doesn’t want what she’s doing — ie, promoting birth and population control –to be wrongly mistaken for an extermination campaign, not planning to secretly launch one.

Again, she shared the racial and eugenic views of her day.

“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Please see above.

You could find quotes like that from hundreds of academics, social commentators and politicians all across the land in the 1930s. It was what people thought. Some never learned. I know of no evidence that Margaret Sanger was one of them. She wasn’t an evil racial eugenicist. She was an advocate for birth-control who signed on with a misguided fad.

P.S.
#599.

PS:

#615.

PPS:

Two quotes taken out of context to suggest the opposite of what she really meant plus three — all from the 1930s — in which she uses the language and assumptions of then-current social and scientific consensus to promote the use of contraception do not constitute the knock-out punch you seem to think they do.

They’re more a sign of credulousness and bias than anything else.

Marie Stopes, who was a heroine in family planning in the UK, had a similar flirtation with eugenics, as did many luminaries, such as George Bernard Shaw. Back then, they honestly believed that poor genes were to blame for poverty and deprivation, so it made sense that to reduce suffering you had to eliminate those genes. For some reason eugenics lost popularity shortly after that.

Democracy, per Merriam-Webster:
• a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
• a country ruled by democracy
• an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.

Right. That’s why, as I said, There is no reason you can offer that would give you the right to unilaterally enforce your very own custom-made law on others. This is a democracy.

Incidentally, as a form of government, democracy is usually defined as participatory government by the people via elected representatives, plus a rule of law applied equally to each and all.

Yes, I know people under a certain age aren’t allowed a vote. But shouldn’t these people at least be treated equally in other ways?

All people in a democracy should be treated equally under the law. There’s no mandate for universally equal treatment for all people in every regard. (Unisex rest rooms! A single set hourly wage for all workers! The same allocation of housing space to each citizen! Etc.)

In this democracy, what is or is not constitutionally unequal treatment under the law is decided by the Supreme Court.

And PS#519. So take it up with them. Because this is a democracy.

Shouldn’t even THEY have the right to life, which can enable liberty, which can then allow the pursuit of happiness?

The fifth and fourteenth amendments state that no person shall be deprived of the right to life, liberty and happiness without due process of law.

And what that means is that you can continually invoke them to mean whatever you want them to mean until you’re blue in the face if you want to. But you’ll just be mouthing empty syllables.

If you want to win the argument, you have to successfully argue that the right to liberty clause does not include a fundamental right to reproductive autonomy for women and that the word “person,” as used in the fourteenth amendment, does include the unborn.

Because at the moment, the due process of law says otherwise.

And PS —

Neither of those arguments is a winner, on those terms, at least at the moment. What you need is a new body of law.

That’s why the anti-abortion movement is still mostly focused on expanding regulatory restrictions at the state level.

SN is playing a rather dangerous game by trying to use out-of-context and era-specific language to try to smear others. Would SN be quite so cavalier if we were to pull out quote from religious leaders echoing similar eugenics sentiments?

Ann writes
“As above noted, [Margaret Sanger’s] opposition to extermination was not universal. So she’s saying she doesn’t want what she’s doing — ie, promoting birth and population control –to be wrongly mistaken for an extermination campaign, not planning to secretly launch one. Again, she shared the racial and eugenic views of her day… She wasn’t an evil racial eugenicist. She was an advocate for birth-control who signed on with a misguided fad.”

And wiki says “She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions… While she did accept abortion “as a last resort” she generally distanced herself from the practice as it was then performed.”

I would assume Margaret might feel differently about abortion these days, because it’s performed so much more safely these days. “Safe, legal, and rare”, as Hillary and others say.

It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.
In some cities, more Black babies are aborted than are born. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-more-black-babies-killed-abortion-born

Would Margaret be horrified?

I would assume Margaret might feel differently about abortion these days

You can assume, but that doesn’t make it any truer.

It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.

Do you think blacks are branwashed into self-annihilation by eugenistic cult of planned parenthood, or is there another reason you’re bringing up blacks alongside those Margaret Sanger-quotes?

Lower average level of education, lower income, higher unemployment and higher rate of divorce might conceivably all increase the rate of pregnancies terminated, without any nefarious plot to whiten America.

Planned Parenthood strategy is to put their clinics in medically-underserved communities. Sorry to puncture a perfectly good conspiracy theory.

And wiki says “She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions… While she did accept abortion “as a last resort” she generally distanced herself from the practice as it was then performed.”

I accept your gracious admission that (lacking a better or more honest argument) you were attempting to falsely smear Margaret Sanger as a eugenicist bent on race-based extermination via abortion, when she was, in reality, simply an advocate for birth control, exactly as I said.

Thanks for the retraction and correction.

I dunno, I consider myself pro-choice, but comments like this make me a little uneasy regardless of context:

“Yeah, and so if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this,” Farrell said. “I mean it’s all just a matter of line items.”

I also take notice when people call plant or animal parts or tissues “material”. I place a special value on living things, not for any spiritual reason, but just because life has come at the end of a pretty wonderful and amazing process. I’m in awe of the living world, I suppose you could say.

A dead fetus may be “material”, but I would rather those who work with them show a little more respect.

I would assume Margaret might feel differently about abortion these days, because it’s performed so much more safely these days. “Safe, legal, and rare”, as Hillary and others say.

Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry, I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.

It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.

First of all, strewing randomly capitalized words all over your text just makes it look like a 19th-century circular advertisement for patent medicine or something.

Second of all, black women are also considerably more likely to be both living below the poverty line than white women and to be living further below it. They’re also likelier to lack health insurance and access to healthcare. Unsurprisingly, they also therefore have higher infant, fetal, and perinatal mortality rates.

They therefore are likelier to need clinics that provide access to affordable women’s healthcare.

In short: Planned Parenthood is not part of an evil racial-eugenicist plot. And you’d have to be an idiot or too soulless to care what racist dog-whistle you were blowing in order to suggest otherwise.

BBBlue: “A dead fetus may be “material”, but I would rather those who work with them show a little more respect.”

Please check out, make sure to read the news article that inspired the podcast:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/grays-donation/

It includes the voice of a researcher who very much respects where the very precious tissue came from, and explains why it is so important for future babies.

BBBlue, it’s been my experience when working in decedent operations that, perhaps in self-protection, people tend to adopt an unemotional, business-like vocabulary and manner.

I imagine that handling fetal elicits the same reaction. It’s unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that this is perceived as disrespectful.

Indeed, Chris. I have worked with quite a lot of donated human remains and tissues in my time. My current institution hosts an annual memorial service attended by many of the donors’ families, students, and instructors. It’s an extremely moving event, and I’m sure we’re not the only ones who do this.

BBBlue, I’d humbly point out that yes, we do speak clinically in order to maintain both professionalism and sanity. Please don’t read either callousness or lack of respect into comments taken out of a context the speaker believed to be clinical, by a person with ill intent.

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.

Still waiting, btw.

Feel free to apply the full answer I gave to the rephrase to the first-graders/college-curriculum version, if that helps.

The irony of the whole eugenics-smear thing is, of course, that SN is the one who wants to empower the state to make reproductive decisions for its citizens.

Because naturally, there’s simply no way that such a power could end up being exercised wrongly or unjustly or unequally in a way that disproportionately affected minorities and the poor. Just look at capital punishment.

@ Ann #634

You didn’t really have to bring up the death penalty. It is probably yet another topic on which SN knows Catholic doctrine better than the Pope. And he will be happy to bore all of us with it.

Oh, dear. I see from the pingback above that the Rational Catholic is unhappy with skeptics criticizing Dave Daleiden and how Teresa Deisher helped him out. (#635). It’s a rather amusing rant, actually, because it’s so off base.

Orac: “I see from the pingback above that the Rational Catholic”

I see my comment that I posted on her blog on July 27th is still under moderation,. Yet A.H. has two comments.

Fortunately I can see my comment, and copy and paste here. Can someone please tell why it is offensive? Thank you:

I am not going to argue the veracity of those videos, but I would like to point you to a story I learned about via RadioLab (which I encourage you to listen to). It has to do with the science that is accomplished with some of the donations:
http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-30/news/60606995_1_cord-blood-liver-tissue-banks

Key quote from the article:
“The way I see it,” Sarah Gray said, “our son got into Harvard, Duke, and Penn. He has a job. He is relevant to the world. I only hope my life can be as relevant.”

@ #637

Personally, I consider “rational catholic” to be an oxymoron.

The whiny little rant linked to at #635 does nothing to change that opinion.

I mean, an author who complains about a perceived “conglomeration of logical fallacies” from others and then, without any apparent self-awareness, proceeds to respond to these with arguments composed of their own “conglomeration of logical fallacies” is really quite hilarious.

Chris, I don’t consider “rational Catholic” to be an oxymoron, but the writer of this particular article seems to equate “doesn’t agree with the Church’s teachings on abortion” with “close-minded, gullible chumps.”

The whole point of the Planned Parenthood whoop-de-do is that PP is doing nothing illegal or immoral. It’s a manufactroversy, just as the Acorn debacle was.

First of all, strewing randomly capitalized words all over your text just makes it look like a 19th-century circular advertisement for patent medicine or something.

Capitalizing “Black” and “White” was still AP style, last I checked.

Anyway, I suppose it’s completely impossible that somebody might have looked at NYC’s abortion rate well prior to the occurrence of S.N.’s barfed-up Bozell/Breitbart robo-“point,” isn’t it?

shay:

Chris, I don’t consider “rational Catholic” to be an oxymoron, but the writer of this particular article seems to equate “doesn’t agree with the Church’s teachings on abortion” with “close-minded, gullible chumps.”

Of course, I never said she was, you mixed me up with DGR.

What is interesting is that my link to a RadioLab episode was not worthy of approving. If she had listened to it she would have learned the parents consulted a priest. Due to the danger to the other twin, the baby was born and lived for six days.

As synchronicity would have it, Mike Adams proselytises today about abortion setting the US on the path to ‘Biblical’ destruction be it g-d’s will, karma or new age hooey.
He is frothing.

AS I remarked previously,he must have traditional ideas about family, society and women’s roles..

Capitalizing “Black” and “White” was still AP style, last I checked.

Really?

I don’t recall it’s ever having been. But as of 2003, at least, it wasn’t.

To ann #624:

Sorry. No retraction or correction from me necessary.

Anyway, enough with the ancient history for now.
The facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,
which is that the organization she founded, now called Planned Parenthood, is today probably the largest single abortion mill in the world. PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. (But you can’t get a mammogram there. Only referrals.)

300,000 abortions per year compared to over 443,000 people who die from smoking….but then again, facts aren’t your strong suit, is it?

Sorry. No retraction or correction from me necessary.

Anyway, enough with the ancient history for now.

Your ignoble retreat is duly noted.

The facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,

Well, in the very last post you repeated your dishonorable attempt via deliberate misquotes and cherry picking to divert the discussion intentionally away from what you now regard as the main point was a valid recourse. Now you want to change the subject as “unworthy” venue, but only because it failed.

And that kind of dishonest and fallacious tactics are, at least to me, worthy of discussion as long as somebody tries to use them to win an argument.

Prey tell, what her being a ‘promiscuous adulterer’ has to do with your main point, …
…which is that the organization she founded, now called Planned Parenthood, is today probably the largest single abortion mill in the world. PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. ” because if it’s irrelevant you surely wouldn’t have brought it up, right?

You don’t get to decide what is worth discussing and what isn’t, and every question you fail to answer, every evasion from discussion is answered by implication.

To ann #632:

Me: “I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.”

You: “Still waiting, btw.”

Waiting for what? You never answered the hypothetical, other than to say it was silly.

But you answered the essence of the hypothetical, which I re-phrased as
“Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older? If not, why not?”

You responded “I do not, on the grounds that since instituting such a practice would serve no conceivable purpose and further no conceivable end that was in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally, it would simply be adding to the sum total of senselessly punitive acts inflicted on young people for no reason whatsoever to do so.”

So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,
– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

[Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person! Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

So inconsistent and illogical.
So horrific.

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, nor are – it seems – hypotheticals. Maybe it springs from years of taking allegories literally.

Abortions serve a purpose – they are not done to inflict senselessly punitive acts on the unborn for no reason whatsoever, but to – an for – the mother who desires it. You might not agree with the mother’s reasoning, but pretending they don’t exist fools only you.

Pretending legal aspects don’t exist fools only you, and makes you and your position look the more foolish, a hissy fit when you’ve been sent away from the adult table.

See, should we send you to prison for the possibility that you might commit a crime in the future? Same logic you’re using.

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.</i.

Are you under the impression that everyone didn't see that coming for the last two days?

SN,

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain? (PDF)

Connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation. Most pain neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception; cortical activation correlates strongly with pain experience and an absence of cortical activity generally indicates an absence of pain experience. The lack of cortical connections before 24 weeks, therefore, implies that pain is not possible until after 24 weeks.

Remember that 99% of PP abortions take place before 21 weeks, so it seems impossible that any of the fetuses they abort are capable of feeling pain. Is it possible to punish a fetus with no cortical connections?

[Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person! Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

OH, I’ll just stick with the science.

So inconsistent and illogical. So horrific.

I agree. Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.

The facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,

See, if your opinions were “beside the main point”, why mention them?

You truly are a babbling idiotic, and an apparently malevolent one at that.

Here’s some reading for you, See.

Rational Catholic Blog

I remember them from the great Tetanus Vaccine == STERILISATION fraud last year.
IIRC, the blogger conceded that there was no evidence of birth-control contamination of the vaccines, and that the whole story was a congeries of cynical fabrication, but she couldn’t quite bring herself to condemn the Kenyan bishops who were driving it (because Catholics)… so it was all an Honest Mistake rather than theocratic mendacity (going on to blame the doctors for not explaining themselves clearly enough in the face of the fraud, and the Kenyan government for not giving the bishops the more central role in governance that they wanted).
She came across as smarter than most of her commenters.

More from the Planned Parenthood Shopping Network…

Today’s hot items are “clumps of cells”! Yes, really!
“Clumps” may sound boring, but they actually come in many exciting and highly-desired styles. Like

“Central nervous system, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow…” (time 8:30),

And don’t forget the “lungs and trachea, intestines” (time 11:30),

And the always eye-catching “orbits (eyeballs)” (time 13:41).

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/250179-fifth-planned-parenthood-video-turns-to-intact-fetuses

More sensational clumps after a word from our sponsors…

“Clumps” may sound boring, but they actually come in many exciting and highly-desired styles.

“Exciting”?

“Highly desired”?

See, I hope you aren’t “touching” yourself while watching the “exciting” videos.

Oh my gosh…

So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,
– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

So, See Noevo has conceptualized the notion of punishing someone for thinking. Thinking is being compared to a crime.

How interesting. Could be just an extremely clumsy analogy, but it might also be a little peek into how he really feels.

@#651

Your ignoble retreat is again duly noted. As is your bad faith and dishonesty.

BTW, you know how — according to you — Catholics who declare that abortion on demand is a legal activity aren’t Catholics?

Well, say goodbye to Scalia:

The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.

If that’s the furthest he’s willing to go, you’re never going to dial it back any further.

I don’t know why I’m shocked by the brazen restatement of my words, which are sitting right there in #651 saying something completely different from the paraphrase that SN then proceeded to make up and reply to as he might just as easily have done without hounding me for a response first, since he was going to ignore it anyway.

But I am.

To gaist #653:

“Abortions serve a purpose – they are not done to inflict senselessly punitive acts on the unborn for no reason whatsoever, but to – an for – the mother who desires it. You might not agree with the mother’s reasoning, but pretending they don’t exist fools only you.”

I think you may be right.
As you say, abortions serve a purpose; they are done to inflict punitive acts on the unborn for a reason: the mother desires it.

To Krebiozen #656:

“How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?

Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

“Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.”

Note to self: Send email to Merriam-Webster on required change to definition of “pregnancy”, to wit,
“Invariably puts adult women through horrible suffering and even death.”

To Krebiozen #656:

“How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?
Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

“Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.”

Note to self: Send email to Merriam-Webster on required change to definition of “pregnancy”, to wit,
“Almost invariably puts adult women through horrible suffering and even death.”

Given that S.N. is plainly just desperate for frottage, it’s time for the magic sound of…

*plonk*

To ann #663:

“Your ignoble retreat is again duly noted.”
How can a retreat be ignoble (or noble), if there is no retreat?

“As is your bad faith and dishonesty.”
Like, for instance, when you wrote of me: “Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…”
A complete falsehood.

“I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.”

So, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that, if Margaret Sanger were alive today, she would be pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood? That’s priceless.

“BTW, you know how — according to you — Catholics who declare that abortion on demand is a legal activity aren’t Catholics?”
I think you just fell back into bad faith/dishonesty mode, ann. Where did I ever say that? I certainly don’t believe it. I think a Catholic, or anyone, who declares that abortion is a legal activity is just being realistic, sane. Abortion’s evil, yes, but it’s also legal.

To ann #664:

“I don’t know why I’m shocked by the brazen restatement of my words, which are sitting right there in #651 saying something completely different from the paraphrase that SN then proceeded to make up and reply to as he might just as easily have done without hounding me for a response first, since he was going to ignore it anyway. But I am.”

Maybe you’ll get over your shock by seeing it again, and seeing there’s nothing to be shocked about. Instant replay:

Me: “Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older? If not, why not?”

You: “I do not, on the grounds that since instituting such a practice would serve no conceivable purpose and further no conceivable end that was in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally, it would simply be adding to the sum total of senselessly punitive acts inflicted on young people for no reason whatsoever to do so.”

Me: “So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,
– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.”

Actually, it IS shocking. It’s shocking to ME, that you think this way.

There is always something morbidly curious when a commenter loses it completely and starts frothing at the mouth with glee and abandon.

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

Since my definition of “not being viable” is not “feeling a bit weird today, but will be OK later”, that’s a bit of a strawman here.

Funny also how moral decisions are easier then one doesn’t take into account half the people involved in it (i.e. the mother).

Still waiting for SN/AH solution to bring down the number of abortions.

As you say, abortions serve a purpose; they are done to inflict punitive acts on the unborn for a reason: the mother desires it.

“So, you believe […]

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus”

I’m okay with you thinking pregnant women have abortions because they want to inflict punishment on the baby. I am, I really don’t mind – some people just seem hellbent on seeing the world as a bad place for whatever their personal reason, but let’s not pretend I said it, even if you do seem to have a habit of putting words into people’s mouths.

How can a retreat be ignoble (or noble), if there is no retreat?

Then return to the ‘ancient history’ you yourself brought up, flogging it repeatedly, only to sudenly decide it was ‘besides the point’ and either defend your position on it or acknowledge that others make valid points – instead of abruptly changing the subject.

Or ignoring everything with ‘nuh-uh didn’t happen’, like you’ve been doing.

Honestly, these are things people should have picked up in kindergarten.

I think you just fell back into bad faith/dishonesty mode, ann. Where did I ever say that?

Mirrors, See Noevo, mirrors everywhere.

[#651][Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person! Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

So inconsistent and illogical.

[#669]
Abortion’s evil, yes, but it’s also legal.

Inconsistent and illogical indeed. Horrfic, wouldn’t go that far personally. Callous and misinformed and dishonest, yes, but that’s often the case for people who invoke god instead of logic in a discussion.

Also, is what you claim ann said now ‘the main point’, worthy of discussion, or did you ignobly retreat flee had enough of PP probably being the largest an abortion mill?

If you made an actual point about your ‘main point’ before flailing away at another windmill, I must have missed it.

See Noevo,

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?
Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

I don’t think those acts do punish those people, as punishment requires some kind of suffering*. As Merriam-Webster puts it, “punish: to make someone suffer for (a crime or bad behavior)”. What you have done is taken away a natural born person’s right to life, which is a crime.

Note to self: Send email to Merriam-Webster on required change to definition of “pregnancy”, to wit,
“Invariably puts adult women through horrible suffering and even death.”

Where did I write “invariably”? Oh, I didn’t, you just made that up. I was referring to your apparent belief that a pregnancy cannot be terminated even if it is threatening a woman’s life. Or did I misunderstand that?

* A murderer isn’t punished by being killed randomly in their sleep, presumably because at least part of the punishment is them knowing they are about to lose their life.

Let’s look at See Noevo’s ‘main point’ from another angle, merely because his weird and illogical hyperbole into people with their heads blown off.

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

“Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously” (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm)
That statistic means there is roughly equal amount of miscarriages and live births+abortions put together. If god exists and is omnipresent, and if human life begins at conception like you insist there are about 4.3 miscarriagesbabies murdered by god each second.

Therefore, your god, if it exists, murders more unborn human babies than anything else.
QED.

“Children are a gift from god”, indeed. They’re the ones lucky ones it let survive.

Now, to your newest attempt at “hypotheticals”…

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?

You wait for him to come round and tell them you’re not giving them any dessert until they apologize? It would be helpful if we knew what the patient supposedly did to deserve punishment.

Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

It’s nice that the adult died painlessly, I think, regardless of past misdeeds, but are you really so vindictive that you feel the need to punish a deceased person? One would think any action done would punish the surviving relations, rather than the person itself…

re: see noevo @ 329: I wasn’t “still out there for a while (due to illness) but i’ll try to respond to your posts later today.

If, that is,I find you’ve asked any substantive questions. I don”t really see the relevance of my personal views regarding an afterlife or lack thereof to any discussion regarding ethic abortion policies.

JGC — something something abortion punishes babies something something.

Saved you some time.

DGR, fetuses are children.

By what rational argument must we consider a fetus at nine weeks gestation to share exact identity with a day-old, week-old, month -old, year-old etc. human child? Be as specific as possible

We already force people to live by our religious and moral beliefs. That is why murder, rape, theft, arson etc is wrong and punishable.

Murder, rape, etc. aren’t considered wrong and punishable because of religious articles of faith condemning them or because religious strictures (such as the commandments found in Exodus) prohibit these acts, however, but are condemned instead because they demonstrably cause harm to other members of shared communities. As a result the normative values of all human societies, despite embacing a wide variety of different religious traditions, have proscribed such behavior.

If we really built our society around Biblical law, then we wouldn’t have banks. At the very least, we’d have done something about the subprime lending industry: Exodus 22:25.

DGR, all human beings are human beings.

And all staplers are staplers, and all cricket bats are cricket bats. Did you have a point?
If you’re trying to grope your way toward some argument that “At all stages of development a fetus is also a human being” you’ll have to offer something more than unsupported assertion this is the case.

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

By what rational argument must a fetus at 9 weeks gestation be considered to also represent a human being?

Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings. Surely you know that.

No, I don’t know this at all: citations needed.

A unique human organism is formed at conception.

The paper notes that a zygote is formed at conception, but offers no evidence nor convincing argument which supports your claim that a zygote represents a human being.

the fact is taht the various religious traditions co-opted the normative values of the societies which authored them, rather than the other way around. Tha’s why despite these traditions arising at different times in different societies they all have embraced a common core of morally proscribed behaviors, the normative values that promote the smooth function and continued existence of those societies: respect authority, don’t steal, don’t do violence without cause, etc. And of course by doing so realize the benefit of conferring a veneer of divine authority on those normative values…

God is infinite and creator of all. Nobody tells him what to do, or puts him in a lab to do experiments, “proving” his existence.

So you’re stating explicitly that because of its very nature you cannot in fact offer any prove for the existence of the god who’s supposed will you’re inisting civil laws must be crafted to reflect?

Have I got that right?

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

Citation needed, see–and if you intend to argue that terminating a pregnancy is an instance of ‘terminating a human life”, you’ll need to first demonstrate that at all stages of gestation following fertilzation a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human life rather than a human oocyte or human tissues.

Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

You almost groped your way toward valid analogy there, See. But only almost–if you’d gone instead with “How can you punish someone who, as the result of a traumatic brain injury from an automobile or motorcycle accident, was already brain-dead” you’d have been on the right path.

JCG: I’ve tried pointing out to SN and AH that many societies did fine without the Judeo-Christian deities. SN has it firmly in mind that all societies other than J-C ones had no morals.

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

The DOD would beg to differ. Particularly the drone program.

What about the embryos created by in vitro fertilization that either don’t successfully come to term, are rejected due to apparent defects, or are never implanted?

more critically, MOB< what about all the "human bengs" (i.e., embryos) who are victims of illegal detention and beong held in inhuman conditions (they're being held at temperatures as low as -130 degrees celsius!)?

Don't we need to liberate all these 'people', and find them all good homes?

Me: “So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,

No. I believe that it’s senselessly punitive to punish a young person for no purpose when to do so would not be in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally.

– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.”

And I never said that at all. Or anything remotely like it.

I do believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state can’t unduly obstruct access to abortion prior to viability. And I’ve said so.

But it has. So it would really only be indicative of bias if I pretended otherwise.

think you just fell back into bad faith/dishonesty mode, ann. Where did I ever say that? I certainly don’t believe it. I think a Catholic, or anyone, who declares that abortion is a legal activity is just being realistic, sane. Abortion’s evil, yes, but it’s also legal.

It’s legal at the state level because Scalia says so. If he said it violated the right to life, it wouldn’t be — or, at the very least, there would be an initial precedent for arguing that it wasn’t. Others would be added to it. And eventually, it mightn’t be. You have to start somewhere.

That’s his job. He’s not just observing an established fact. He’s ensuring its continued legality.

JGC – zomg, I showed my bias by thinking those were the lucky ones!

Like, for instance, when you wrote of me: “Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…”
A complete falsehood.

The rhetoric might be inaccurate. But it’s manifestly, self-evidently true that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

“I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.”

So, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that, if Margaret Sanger were alive today, she would be pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood?

No, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that one’s assumptions about a person one knew nothing about could be based on anything else.

That’s priceless.

Better that than worthless.

And I still don’t see how my answering your hypothetical question was very useful.

All it did was lead to you to make the same logically vacant argument by analogy you’d already pointlessly made several times, except with even less justification.

That’s not even useful to you.

– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.”

I realize that you’re probably more interested in telling me what I do believe on that score than you are in being told it.

But fwiw:

I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.

And I believe even more strongly that it’s completely inimical to freedom for a particular faction of people who settle it the way they do primarily out of religious conviction to try to impose their preferences on others who don’t share their beliefs, unless they can win the argument on the same terms that everybody else agrees to and abides by.

Speaking of which:

[Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person!

I also never said that or anything remotely like it.

Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

And I never said they were infallible. But just FYI:

If you’re at such a disadvantage in a fair fight that the best you can do is sputter out “Blather! Stuff and nonsense!” before blathering on yourself, I’m not surprised that you don’t like living in a democracy.

But you do. And that being the case:

Your personal religious convictions do not give you any special rights. And the personal religious conviction that you deserve them because you’re not just speaking selfishly on your own behalf, but rather fighting for the rights of a voiceless, voteless population doesn’t change that.

I mean, you can go around saying so if you feel like it. Since you’re bound to be dealing with people who are more considerate and courteous than you are most of the time, the odds are good that they mostly won’t call it blather. But you’re not going to win any arguments.

You don’t have the right to impose your personal beliefs on other people. Stamping your feet and bawling about it isn’t going to get you anywhere.

Those are the rules. If you don’t like it, move.

To Kerbiozen #675:

You: “How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

Me: “How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain? Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.”

You: “I don’t think those acts do punish those people, as punishment requires some kind of suffering.”

Then what was your point in asking “How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

Oh, wait. Now I remember.
Your point was you can kill it if it doesn’t now feel pain, because it’s not a human being if it doesn’t now feel pain.

“Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.”
“I was referring to your apparent belief that a pregnancy cannot be terminated even if it is threatening a woman’s life. Or did I misunderstand that?”

You misunderstood that. See #207.

To JGC #677:

Me: “Are you still out there? I’ll repeat my question:
What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?”

You: “I don”t really see the relevance of my personal views regarding an afterlife or lack thereof to any discussion regarding ethic abortion policies.”

It’s relevant because you felt free to ask questions relating to
the topic earlier in this thread, as I noted in #420.

To JGC #685:

Me: “[Planned Parenthood] exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.”

You: “Citation needed, see–
and if you intend to argue that terminating a pregnancy is an instance of ‘terminating a human life”, you’ll need to first demonstrate that at all stages of gestation following fertilzation a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human life rather than a human oocyte or human tissues.”

There are probably many possible citations. Here’s one, from a left-wing government funded outfit:
“Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.”
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/13/135354952/planned-parenthood-makes-abortion-foes-see-red

[Oh, wait. That says “nation”, not “planet”. Go ahead. Have some fun with that.]

And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?

Your citation does not prove that Planned Parenthood exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. What else do you have?

To ann #693:

Me: “So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older.”

You: “No. I believe that it’s senselessly punitive to punish a young person for no purpose when to do so would not be in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally.”

OK.
So you believe it’s NOT OK to punish a “fetus” for no purpose when to do so would not be in the interests of the “fetus”, or anyone else, or society generally.

“I do believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state can’t unduly obstruct access to abortion prior to viability.”

So what? And I believe that the Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was pretty much OK (see Dred Scott).

Ann, why are you pro-abortion (also known, falsely, as “pro-choice”), or at least siding with the pro-aborts?

[What!?! See Noevo, how dare you make such a presumptive statement! I have never said I was pro-abortion, as you call it. The fact that virtually every one of my comments on this thread dissects and criticizes and impugns the pro-life side, or you or AH, and NEVER the pro-abortion side, as you call it, is just a fact and nothing more. You should read no bias or opinion into the slant of my posts.]

To ann #694:

“It’s legal at the state level because Scalia says so.”

No. I think it’s legal at the state level because FIVE OTHER Supremes said so.

“That’s his job. He’s not just observing an established fact. He’s ensuring its continued legality.”

As it would be a Supreme Court justice’s job after Dred Scott to ensure slavery’s continued legality, I guess.

To ann #696:

You: “As is your bad faith and dishonesty.”

Me: “Like, for instance, when you wrote of me: “Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…” A complete falsehood.”

You: “The rhetoric might be inaccurate. But …”

Are you actually Josh Earnest, behind the “ann”?

Me: “So, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that, if Margaret Sanger were alive today, she would be pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood?”

You: “No, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that one’s assumptions about a person one knew nothing about could be based on anything else.”

“Assumptions” like that Margaret Sanger believed, even way back then, that abortion was sometimes justified and accepted it “as a last resort”?
I thought everyone in the know about Margie accepted that as a “fact”?

You misunderstood that. See #207.

OK:

“II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?”

It CAN be, under certain circumstances. (In many cases the answer would be No. The threat to the mother is just that – a threat, a risk – not a certainty. Whereas, the end of abortion is a certainty. Abortion, as in the INTENDED destruction of the human life in the womb, is ALWAYS wrong.)

In other words,you not only can punish women with pre-eclampsia/eclampsia all the way to death, if that’s what it takes, but as long as there’s human life in the womb, you have to.

In certain cases that would be fatal to the mother (e.g. some ectopic pregnancies), the intended saving of the mother’s life may require UN-intended ending of the baby’s life. This “double effect” can be morally acceptable:

In other words, sometimes you can punish the woman by removing the fallopian tube she isn’t able to use now even though she might be able to do so later — which just happens to also remove the fetus — but you can’t punish the fetus by using methotrexate or just doing a salingostomy.

If that’s correct, I don’t think Krebiozen misunderstood you.

“Assumptions” like that Margaret Sanger believed, even way back then, that abortion was sometimes justified and accepted it “as a last resort”?

No, just the ones where you made an ass out of umpt, ion and yourself by prefacing your words with “I assume.”

I’ve decided that in SN’s mind, abortion is wrong because that way women aren’t punished for having sex. And sex without procreation is wrong, so therefore anything that interferes with a woman’s vagina becoming a clown car is wrong.

SN: there are many ways a pregnancy can kill a woman. So if it’s only a small chance she’ll die, you’re OK with a sentient, intelligent person dying. But it’s NOT OK for a non-sentient parasitic embryo to die to keep her alive. Got it.

To ann #698:

“I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.”

Then why do you think it’s the state’s business to not only allow but even protect the death penalty for the indisputable life growing in the woman’s womb, the life whose “human being-ness” can’t be definitively answered (according to pro-aborts) and on which no social or scientific consensus exists (although the consensus is unanimous that “It’s alive.)?

For the target in the womb, the questions and the debates are quite settled, for all practical purposes.
Makes one wonder about that old Hippocratic oath doesn’t it?

“And I believe even more strongly that it’s completely inimical to freedom for a particular faction of people who settle it the way they do primarily out of religious conviction to try to impose their preferences on others who don’t share their beliefs, unless they can win the argument on the same terms that everybody else agrees to and abides by.”

Oh, the pro-life can win, and HAS won, the argument on the same non-religious terms that everybody SHOULD agree to and abide by – terms of logic, common sense, caution.
But the pro-abortion side, as with virtually all Progressives, doesn’t play by those terms, those rules.

“If you don’t like it, move.”
I don’t like it, nor could any person who values life and liberty, logic and common sense and appropriate caution. But we’re not moving. We’re not going anywhere.
And we WILL overcome…someday.

No. I think it’s legal at the state level because FIVE OTHER Supremes said so.

That would again be because you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s always been permissible for abortion to be legal at the state level.

The only way Scalia — or any other justice — could change that would be to say it wasn’t. Because it’s his job to say what is and isn’t permissible at the state level.

Then why do you think it’s the state’s business to not only allow but even protect the death penalty for the indisputable life growing in the woman’s womb, the life whose “human being-ness” can’t be definitively answered (according to pro-aborts) and on which no social or scientific consensus exists (although the consensus is unanimous that “It’s alive.)?

Are you really too dense to grasp that the question at issue — the one about which no social or scientific consensus exists — is “When does human life begin?”

Here. I’ll help you out.

Whether you like it or not, if you’re serious about your cause, this is the argument you have to beat:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.

Just repeating that it’s indisputable doesn’t help you. It’s disputed.

Oh, the pro-life can win, and HAS won, the argument on the same non-religious terms that everybody SHOULD agree to and abide by – terms of logic, common sense, caution.

Then why can’t you?

To ann #706:

“In other words,you not only can punish women with pre-eclampsia/eclampsia…
In other words, sometimes you can punish the woman by removing the fallopian tube…
… using methotrexate or just doing a salingostomy [sic].”

I strongly suspect your post is misguided, however, I’m not a gynecologist, nor a PhD in medical ethics, and I’m not now going to get into the details of these issues with you.

I would note, though, that according to the Preeclampsia Foundation, “Preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders of pregnancy impact 5-8% of all births in the United States” and that WebMD says only about 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic.
So, EVEN IF abortion was both blessed AND legalized in all pregnancies with those conditions, and only those conditions, we’d probably eliminate the vast majority of currently-legal abortions.

That would be progress, don’t you think?

To ann #711:

Me: “No. I think it’s legal at the state level because FIVE OTHER Supremes said so.”

You: “That would again be because you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s always been permissible for abortion to be legal at the state level. The only way Scalia — or any other justice — could change that would be to say it wasn’t. Because it’s his job to say what is and isn’t permissible at the state level.”

Yes, if Roe vs. Wade were ever overturned, the permissibility of abortion would return to being solely a state-by-state issue. However, I THINK that maybe the decision by the five Supremes decision essentially told the states that the states’ permission of abortion had Constitutional protection. Or at least “penumbras, formed by emanations” did, as was opined in a somewhat related SCOTUS case.

It’s fascinating that even pro-abortion, liberal legal scholars such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and SCOTUS’s own Ruth Bader Ginsburg have stated that Roe Vs. Wade was poorly decided from a legal reasoning and Constitutional standpoint. Oh, they love the result, of course. They just admit that how they got the result was bogus. Pretty much consistent with Liberals’ philosophy of “The ends justify the means.”

And we WILL overcome…someday.

Yeah, well. When you don’t even know that abortion would still be legal and permissible in every state that wanted it to be if all nine Supreme Court justices said Roe v. Wade was trash, I’d say it’ll probably be a long time coming.

Some states would, no doubt, outlaw it completely if constitutionally allowed to do so. But many wouldn’t. A lot of people would travel to them. At the end of the day, true believers would only have increased by the small number of women who couldn’t travel or afford a safe local illegal abortion and weren’t desperate enough to risk an unsafe one.

And the numbers would almost certainly be about the same as they are now, unless — for instance — you overturned Roe v. Wade and shut down Planned Parenthood, in which case there would be less access to contraception and the number of abortions would go up.

That’s always going to be more or less the case, as long as the strategy is to cut off supply. If you want to save unborn lives, you have to decrease demand. But that would require you to accommodate the needs and interests of women and others who don’t already agree with you for long enough to come up with an argument that means something to them, which you refuse to do.

And it would also require you to promote access to contraception, which, unlike your approach to abortion-reduction, actually works. But you probably refuse to do that, too.

Because you don’t really want to save unborn lives. You just want to make abortion illegal. So you’ll always be responsible for keeping abortion rates about where they are now. And at most, you’ll someday succeed in punishing a small number of additional women. Maybe not even that. Way to go.

That would be progress, don’t you think?

For the reasons just stated, no. If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortion, you have to do more than outlaw it on grounds that aren’t persuasive to people who don’t already share your beliefs. Which is the vast majority of people.

And it’s doubtful that you can even outlaw it nationally.

Nevertheless, I apologize for saying you didn’t really want to save unborn lives.

I didn’t really mean that as much as I did that what you’re doing isn’t going to achieve that result.

t’s fascinating that even pro-abortion, liberal legal scholars such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and SCOTUS’s own Ruth Bader Ginsburg have stated that Roe Vs. Wade was poorly decided from a legal reasoning and Constitutional standpoint. Oh, they love the result, of course. They just admit that how they got the result was bogus.

That’s not my understanding of what she was saying. But maybe you could help me out. What part of her reasoning did you find the most fascinating?

Pretty much consistent with Liberals’ philosophy of “The ends justify the means.”

That’s not a philosophy that’s limited to liberals. On the Supreme Court (cough Clarence Thomas cough) or elsewhere.

I mean, just the other day, a veritable clown car full of GOP leaders who voted to lift the fetal-tissue research ban — and then voted again not to ban fetal tissue from abortions from being used in it — were out there clutching their pearls and acting shocked (shocked!) that such things occurr in this here great land of ours.

Nobody’s got a monopoly on it.

However, I THINK that maybe the decision by the five Supremes decision essentially told the states that the states’ permission of abortion had Constitutional protection.

Not exactly. I mean, by definition, if the constitution doesn’t prohibits states from permitting something, it protects their right to permit it. In theory, at least.

Properly speaking, what Roe v. Wade did was tell the states that prohibitions on abortion were unconstitutional.

To ann #712:

Me: “Then why do you think it’s the state’s business to not only allow but even protect the death penalty for the indisputable life growing in the woman’s womb, the life whose “human being-ness” can’t be definitively answered (according to pro-aborts) and on which no social or scientific consensus exists (although the consensus is unanimous that “It’s alive.)?”

You: “Are you really too dense to grasp that the question at issue — the one about which no social or scientific consensus exists — is “When does human life begin?””

Are you really too dense to grasp that common sense and modern science have already answered the question by saying human life DOES begin at conception?
Or do you think common sense and modern science are saying “It’s definitely alive, but I dunno, it might be eggplant or elephant life”?

Or do you think “OK, everyone knows it’s human life, but is it a human BEING?”

Well, gee. I guess if you’re not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, you best leave “it” the hell alone, maybe?

It’s almost like as someone else said, “I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.”

It’s like the state saying, “Gee, no one’s sure, or at least no one has indisputable proof that it’s NOT a human being, so if we’re going to err we best err on the side of caution, and protect “it”. Who knows? “It” might even become a “baby”? Stranger things have happened.”

It’s like a Type 1 error in logic: Incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis.
The Type 1 error would be horrific when, say, the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is a human being.” Because then, the Type 1 error can lead to killing an innocent human being.

The Type 2 error here would be mild in comparison (i.e. Incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis, where the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is NOT a human being.”). Because then, the Type 2 error just leads to the pregnancy going to term and out comes the indisputable body of a human being.

Why can’t you use common sense and logic and caution?

To ann #715:

“Because you don’t really want to save unborn lives.”

More bad faith and dishonesty from you. A complete falsehood.

Way to go, Josh.

To ann #716:

Me: “So, EVEN IF abortion was both blessed AND legalized in all pregnancies with those conditions, and only those conditions [preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders and ectopic pregnancy], we’d probably eliminate the vast majority of currently-legal abortions.
That would be progress, don’t you think?”

You: “For the reasons just stated, no. If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortion, you have to do more than outlaw it on grounds that aren’t persuasive to people who don’t already share your beliefs. Which is the vast majority of people.”

Vast majority as in 29% of people?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Are you really too dense to grasp that common sense and modern science have already answered the question by saying human life DOES begin at conception?
Or do you think common sense and modern science are saying “It’s definitely alive, but I dunno, it might be eggplant or elephant life”?

Or do you think “OK, everyone knows it’s human life, but is it a human BEING?”

Can you read? Everyone does not know that it’s a human life, as opposed to a potential human life. That, precisely, is the issue on which there is no scientific or social consensus. Your views on the matter are based on religious convictions that not everybody shares.

Well, gee. I guess if you’re not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, you best leave “it” the hell alone, maybe?

Expanded to apply to everyone, including you, that’s the general idea behind making it a matter of individual conscience. I realize you don’t have any doubts. But that’s faith- not reason-based.

It’s almost like as someone else said, “I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.”

It’s like the state saying, “Gee, no one’s sure, or at least no one has indisputable proof that it’s NOT a human being, so if we’re going to err we best err on the side of caution, and protect “it”. Who knows? “It” might even become a “baby”? Stranger things have happened.”

As you know full well (if you can read), the issue that’s disputed is not whether or not a human embryo that comes to term will become a human baby.

It’s at what point it ceases to be a potential human life and becomes a person whose life the state is compelled to protect. However obvious it is to you that that point is at conception, there’s no social or scientific consensus regarding it. Your views are based on religious conviction. Most people do not share them. They therefore don’t share your certainty.

Vast majority as in 29% of people?

No, that’s the percentage that want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. As I said, the vast majority don’t share your beliefs.

The number that think abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances is more like 50% at it lowest. There’s a 20% swing vote that only kicks in when there’s a loss being threatened. So real support for abortion fluctuates between about 50% and 70%. And real opposition to it fluctuates between about 30% and 40%.

Or that’s how it’s been for as much of the post-Roe era as I can remember. Abortion is not popular. But when push comes to shove, people don’t want to lose the right to it.

It’s like a Type 1 error in logic: Incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis.
The Type 1 error would be horrific when, say, the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is a human being.” Because then, the Type 1 error can lead to killing an innocent human being.

The Type 2 error here would be mild in comparison (i.e. Incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis, where the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is NOT a human being.”). Because then, the Type 2 error just leads to the pregnancy going to term and out comes the indisputable body of a human being.

You’re leaving something out.

Why can’t you use common sense and logic and caution?

I can.

so See noevo is still there, fighting a mob of angry lions with his rusty dirk of a brain 500 comments later, and still hasn’t clarified his position properly, and hasn’t answered my question. I’ll reiterate:

See noevo, how would you even implement anti-abortion into the current american law?
What would be the exceptions? Would you allow pregnant women that have a life threatening condition to abort? Would you allow an exception for rape? How would the law be enforced? Would there be a time limit (in weeks) to abortion, or would it be never?

If you can’t answer that, how can you even hope to outlaw abortion one day? I ask the question because I know precisely that it can’t possibly be done, so you’re losing your times in endless debates that you cannot win, flailing your arms wildly against the wind.

See Noevo: Zef is very young, but he’s being held captive in a sensory-deprivation chamber. Little Zef’s eyes are glued shut; he has a mouth but he can’t scream; his lungs are kept full of fluid. So are his ears. The sensory-deprivation chamber has soft walls, without even corners. It’s also closing in on him: he has less and less room to stretch out each day.

Should Little Zef not be rescued? Like any hostage rescue situation, there’s danger that Little Zef might not survive the rescue, but that’s no excuse. Rescue Little Zef! Rescue Little Zef!

Six months of confinement under such horrid conditions is already too much. Little Zef must be rescued! Rescue Little Zef!

See Noevo: Little Zef is, by your reckoning, a Human Being, who should not be treated as heis being treated. Little Zef is kept in a bag, in his sensory-deprivation chamber. His waste goes into the bag, and no one is allowed to clean it up. Little Zef is not given anything to eat: he is force-fed through his navel!

Again, SN, Little Zef must not be treated with such disrespect. You must Free Little Zef!

To ann #724:

“Can you read? Everyone does not know that it’s a human life, as opposed to a potential human life. That, precisely, is the issue on which there is no scientific or social consensus. Your views on the matter are based on religious convictions that not everybody shares.”

Can you think?
Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE. Now, what type of life is it? You don’t need CSI-Miami’s crew to help you out. What type of life is produced by a human male’s sperm fertilizing a human woman’s egg? Eggplant life?

And what type of life forms the central nervous system, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow, lungs, trachea, intestines, and “orbits” (eyeballs) that Planned Parenthood is so anxious to carve out and sell (see #660 for video)? Broccoli life?

“It’s at what point it ceases to be a potential human life and becomes a person whose life the state is compelled to protect. However obvious it is to you that that point is at conception, there’s no social or scientific consensus regarding it. Your views are based on religious conviction. Most people do not share them. They therefore don’t share your certainty.”

MY certainty? Forget about MY certainty.
How about YOURS?
You, ann, are CERTAIN that the embryo is NOT a human life but only a potential human life?
On what basis?

To ann #725:

Me: “Vast majority as in 29% of people?”

You: “No, that’s the percentage that want to see Roe v. Wade overturned… The number that think abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances is more like 50% at it lowest.”

Really?
In the last five years, how about 37% (May 2011)?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

To ann #726:

Me: “It’s like a Type 1 error in logic: Incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis…”

You: “You’re leaving something out.”

Such as?

Me: “Why can’t you use common sense and logic and caution?”
You: “I can.”

Ooops. My mistake. Allow me to rephrase:

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

Come on,

SN

, you have serious work to do. You don’t have time to spend chatting up Ann, while Little Zef isbei ng punished–for something–something he’s too young to have done.

It’s well known that sensory deprivation is just about the most serious torture a human being can be subject to. Yet here you are, doing nothing about Little Zef’s life of punishment.

Your christian duty is to save Little Zef, to rescue him from his torture. Get with it, SN, stop fooling around.

And when you get the one Little Zef taken care of, there are millions more, and millions of Little Zeflettes, too, in the same torturous situation. You must save them, since you are convinced they are Human Beings.

Planned Parenthood is all about women’s healthcare, we’re told.

It’s interesting, though, that a woman can’t get a mammogram at PP, but only a referral.

And that PP charges women up to $50 for a month’s worth of contraceptives, when you can get the same for $9 at a Walmart or Target.

That’s all small potatoes, anyway.

PP charges a woman up to $1,500 for a first trimester abortion.

And then, of course, the harvesting proceeds. (See below.)

Meanwhile,
back to the Planned Parenthood Shopping Network (see #660)…

Welcome back, folks, and a big thank you to our sponsors.

Now while these clumps (of cells) sure are cute – with names like central nervous system, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow, lungs, trachea, intestines, and “orbits” (eyeballs!) –
and, yes, they’re absolutely TO DIE FOR on their own,
you MIGHT want to get them all tied together, so-to-speak,
in one whole (but still small) package.
Yes?
Well if you do, you’re in luck, because we have a brand new product, Item #666.
It’s the full fetus package! That’s the intact specimen!
Take a look at time 3:12…
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/250179-fifth-planned-parenthood-video-turns-to-intact-fetuses

But we currently have only a limited supply. They’re working on increasing production, but for now, there’s only so many.

So, if you’re interested in getting all the goodies in one fell swoop with the full fetal, the intact specimen, don’t delay.
Call us NOW!

This is so exciting! Ha ha!
But right now we have to take another break for a sponsors…

Or are you, SN, just one of those christianists that, like Mother Teresa, demands that everyone else suffer for the Good of their Immortal Soul (whatever that would be, if it existed).

You will never have to make a decision whether to abort your pregnancy, so it’s easy for you to spout spurious arguments in favor of controlling other people. You don’t care about your neighbor, like most xtians, as long as she’s female and thus “requires” your control. You don’t care about her ZEF, as long as you can use it as a means of control. You don’t care about the baby that might result from the pregnancy (you’ll send it off to a Just Christian™ war in a heartbeat), since you no longer have the leverage over the mother.

You’re just another sorry example of the evil of the christianities. (Not all christians are necessarily evil, but SN certainly is.)

@SN

So, EVEN IF abortion was both blessed AND legalized in all pregnancies with those conditions, and only those conditions, we’d probably eliminate the vast majority of currently-legal abortions.

If the prohibition period, the laws against gambling, and the current war on drugs are any indication, nope.
You may shave a bit off the current numbers*, but I am very doubtful you will eliminate the “vast majority”.

Abortion, like any product/service between two groups of people, follows the rules of offer and demand. If there is one, there will be the other. Illegality just increases the prices.
That you should do is to reduce the demand.

With people thinking in black and white. the outlawing of abortion results in physicians being afraid of touching the fetus, even in conditions such as the ones you just talked about. I mentioned Savita Halappanavar already, but hers is not the only horror story floating around.
So I am very concerned that a law restricting abortion to just a few hard medical conditions wouldn’t result in more harm than good – it may not save that many fetuses, and instead kill more women.
Especially since you seem yourself very hesitant in accepting abortions even in these cases (preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders and ectopic pregnancy).

I’m not a gynecologist

Well, it’s part of the issue. You romanticize the fetus and imagine that there is always hope for a pregnancy which has suffered some catastrophic event to magically right itself and still produce a beautiful healthy baby.
With a number of pregnancy failures, notably ectopic pregancies, that’s not going to happen.

* well, assuming the outlawing of abortion is not also followed by the reduction of the availability of contraceptives. Pro-life platforms are not known for advocating for condoms or IUDs.
If there are more women becoming pregnant, there will be more women looking for abortion.

MY certainty? Forget about MY certainty.

That’s good advice. I’ll take it.

Really?

Yes. Cherry-pick through the years as much as you want. No doubt you can find a number of transient anomalies. The basic reality is .

(Oops.)

…that it’s about 50% at the low end, and higher when push comes to shove.

Pro-life platforms are not known for advocating for condoms or IUDs.

“Pro-life” platforms are not known for advocating for any post-ZEF life. Generally, the advocate against life in entirely too many circumstances.

Planned Parenthood is all about women’s healthcare, we’re told.

It’s interesting, though, that a woman can’t get a mammogram at PP, but only a referral.

Only if it’s interesting that virtually all clinics and doctors’ offices do that, because they don’t have radiology departments.

I mean, have you ever been to the effing doctor? If you don’t get your healthcare in a hospital, that kind of imaging is always done off-site. It’s about as interesting as it would be if you were accusing them of not doing their own blood labs.

In fact, it’s main point of interest is that it reveals that you care so little about women’s healthcare that you haven’t bothered to give what you’re saying a moment’s thought.

And that PP charges women up to $50 for a month’s worth of contraceptives, when you can get the same for $9 at a Walmart or Target.

Yeah, but you can never get an appointment with one of their doctors, for some reason.

And “up to”? The range is $0 to $50.

That’s all small potatoes, anyway.

As well as wholly irrelevant. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. That means they don’t make money for private benefit.

They also generally charge the lowest rather than the highest possible prices, relative to costs.

PP charges a woman up to $1,500 for a first trimester abortion.

Or, as they put it:

Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less

You’re not even trying to be honest.

And then, of course, the harvesting proceeds. (See below.)

Those would be the ones you made up and are now lying about, I guess.

So now See Noevo is claiming that a Gallup poll that found more than 60% of people are in generally in favor of first trimester abortions supports his view? Plus more attempts to elicit an emotional reaction by talking about bits of fetuses, while claiming to be arguing from a position of reason? Pathetic.

All this talk of fetal personhood doesn’t explain why contraception is forbidden. Is there a rational explanation for that too?

* well, assuming the outlawing of abortion is not also followed by the reduction of the availability of contraceptives. Pro-life platforms are not known for advocating for condoms or IUDs.
If there are more women becoming pregnant, there will be more women looking for abortion.

That’s where the ugly truth about SN’s crusade reveals itself.

If the goal was really to reduce abortion numbers, that could be done:

1) Some of the countries of western Europe have the lowest abortion rate in the world, at 12 per 1000 women of childbearing age, according to the European Health for All database (HFA-DB).

2) By contrast, eastern countries (in this case: Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine) have the highest estimated abortion rates in the world. In 2003 there were more abortions than live births: 103 abortions per 100 births.

3) Nevertheless, eastern Europe has seen a dramatic decline in abortion incidence. It was estimated to be 90 per 1000 women of childbearing age in 1995 and 44 by 2004. The decrease coincided with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region.

4) The data in many countries are unreliable. According to HFA-DB, in 2006 the abortion ratio was 95 per 100 live births in the Russian Federation and 68 in Romania. At the lower end, Belgium’s rate was 14 and Switzerland 15 in 2005. Tajikistan reported less than 5 per 100 in 2006, and Poland less than 1. According to the most recent figures, the European Union average is 30 per 1000, and that of the newly independent states 54.

5) In a 2007 review, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia had the highest levels of abortion in the European Region. During their lifetimes, on average each woman has close to three abortions. The use of modern contraceptives is low in these countries.

When there’s easy access to contraception; first-trimester abortions are available, reimbursable; and both are non-demonized, abortion rates drop.

They’ve actually been going down here since 1990. And that doesn’t correlate with restrictions or lack of access at the state level. They’re decreasing for the same reason that the teen pregnancy rate is declining: More access to contraception/information about it, more acceptance of its use,

IOW: Without Planned Parenthood, it would be much higher. They’re not just saying that. It’s the truth.

Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence; women seek desperate measures if they cannot obtain safe abortions. Data from Romania revealed that, when termination of pregnancy was banned by the Ceausescu regime, maternal mortality was more than 20 times higher than today.

^^If SN got his way — ie, total abortion ban, no Planned Parenthood — that would be what he’d accomplished. There’s no gain for life. Abortion rates do not decline. It’s all loss.

SN: answer me this: since it’s known that free/inexpensive contraception – especially IUDs and implants – have a very good rate of preventing pregnancy (and thus decreasing the abortion rate) would you donate to a cause to promote contraceptive use?

If not, why?

But a draft paper from health economists at the University of Chicago, University of Southern California, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argue that these national numbers don’t tell the full story. While gap between infant mortality in the U.S. and in similar countries is “substantial,” they write, it’s also “poorly understood.”

The researchers compared data on infant health and mortality in the U.S.; Austria, whose rate of 3.8 is roughly average among European nations; and Finland, whose rate of 2.3 is one of the lowest in the world. One of the biggest differences, they found, was in the definition of what could be considered a live birth. “Extremely preterm births recorded in some places may be considered a miscarriage or still birth in other countries,” they wrote. Although the chance of survival for babies born before 23 weeks is low (the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that doctors don’t resuscitate babies born before that point), they’re recorded as live births in the U.S.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/why-american-babies-die/381008/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/5/e1400.full

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

You’re the one who’s vowing to fight relentlessly to win something that will only bring about more death without saving lives.

Your position is not based on logic, common sense or caution. Or even reality. It’s based on blind religious conviction.

There are probably many possible citations. Here’s one, from a left-wing government funded outfit:
“Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.”

This source offers no evidence that PP ‘exterminates more human lives than anyone else on the planet’: it instead addresses the provision of medical abortions.

And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?

Because I’m not aware of any scientific evidence, nor any rational argument (from common sense or otherwise), which demonstrates that at all stages of development following conception a human zygote, embryo or fetus also represents a human life (i.e., a human person).
Care to actually try to make this case, rather than express surprise that I don’t accept an assertion you haven’t tried to support?

Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE.

Well, I don’t, See. I know only that it’s living, but to no greater extent than any other human cell or tissue could also be said to be living.

And I suspect you’re actually using the term ‘a life’ as a synonym for ‘a person’ while steadfastly refusing to provide any rational argument demonstratig that equivalence is valid.

So let’s make this as simple as possible, with two direct questions (which I suspect you’ll refuse to answer.

Do you believe that immediately following fertilization a human zygote is also a human being?

If your answer to the above is Yes?”, why? What properties does it possess that requires we consider it to share exact identity with a day-old, year-old, twenty-year-old male or female?

To ann and Krebiozen:

Ann: “The number that think abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances is more like 50% at it lowest.”

Me: “Really? In the last five years, how about 37% (May 2011)?”

Ann: “Yes. Cherry-pick through the years as much as you want. No doubt you can find a number of transient anomalies. The basic reality is …that it’s about 50% at the low end, and higher when push comes to shove.”

Krebiozen: “So now See Noevo is claiming that a Gallup poll that found more than 60% of people are in generally in favor of first trimester abortions supports his view?”

Well, I’m not sure what poll you two are reading but apparently it’s not the one I’ve been posting.
I’ll post it now for the third time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

It does require a little work, though. But if you page down to the fourth chart and are capable of adding two numbers, you’ll find:
Believe abortion should be
Year legal in all or most circumstances
2015 42%
2014 39%
2013 39%
2012 38%
2011 37%
2010 39%
2009 37%
2008 41%
2007 41%
2006 43%

To ann #745, #746:

Yes, the rates of abortion, or at least of surgical and suction abortion, appear to be declining. Of course, this doesn’t include the millions of lives lost from “contraceptives” that can act as abortifacients.

And who knows? Someday the world may even have more babies.
It better, because we appear to be going ever deeper into a demographic winter (i.e. More and more old people and fewer and fewer young people).
IF we ever come out of this winter, the spring time could be generations away.

As I recall, China has already abandoned its one-child policy and is now encouraging its women to have more children. Russia, Japan, Denmark, Singapore and other countries have begun incentivizing much higher fertility rates. They’ve seen the writing on the wall.

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon (time 4:45):

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU

It better, because we appear to be going ever deeper into a demographic winter (i.e. More and more old people and fewer and fewer young people).

Who could have predicted that the aging of the baby boom would lead to that?

IF we ever come out of this winter, the spring time could be generations away.

There’s no need for the drama. National populations wax and wane. We’re not about to go extinct or cease being too large a segment of the marketplace for any commodity you care to name to grow irrelevant. Relax.

To Roger Kulp #749:

“Although the chance of survival for babies born before 23 weeks is low (the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that doctors don’t resuscitate babies born before that point), they’re recorded as live births in the U.S.”

That looks about right. From your second linked article:

“Noninitiation of resuscitation and discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment during or after resuscitation are ethically equivalent, and clinicians should not hesitate to withdraw support when functional survival is highly UNLIKELY. The following guidelines must be interpreted according to current regional outcomes:
• When gestation, birth weight, or congenital anomalies are associated with ALMOST CERTAIN early death and when UNACCEPTABLY high morbidity is LIKELY among the RARE survivors, resuscitation is not indicated. Examples include extreme prematurity (gestational age <23 weeks or birth weight <400 g)…”

Looks like if they THINK your odds are low, then they make them ZERO.

Of course, this doesn’t include the millions of lives lost from “contraceptives” that can act as abortifacients.

Name one.

And as for the bit about resuscitating those born extremely preterm and/or with serious congenital anomalies… you do realize that you’re talking about restarting respiratory and cardiac function, so that the parents can go through the horror yet again?

There’s no need for the drama. National populations wax and wane.

One might note that S.N. has steadfastly refused to state whether he’s married or has ever procreated. Or cite the Council of Trent, whatever.

The point of procreation in the RCC is the production of more Roman Catholics for the church to have sway over while everyone waits for the Second Coming, the certainty of which makes any sort of event that would render the planet inimicable to human life physically impossible.

@Narad: Of course, because at no point in the Bible has someone lost a battle despite superior numbers: Judge 7:22-25.

Yup. I was right. There are no contraceptives acceptable to SN because they are abortificants. (because any contraceptive – i.e. IUD – that prevents implantation is an abortificant. I bet SN is against tubal ligation and vasectomy, too.

And all premies should be resuscitated, even if they don’t have functional lungs. And, though I can’t see you.tube stuff at work, I’m willing to bet his video is of a Quiverful family. Conveniently white, of course.

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon

These people?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/05/3688375/erick-erickson-die-out/

I’m not sure why people are humoring your insanity.

Your inane sophistry aside, this issue doesn’t extend beyond each individual pregnant female and her individual circumstances and her decision based on those circumstances and her conscience.

The only person whose opinion matters in this is the pregnant female and the only circumstances that matter are her own.

Your opinion is irrelevant for any human beyond yourself..

And your feeble attempts to use science to buttress your irrelevant opinion is both hilarious and absurd given your refusal to accept scientific evidence which support truths that you oppose, e.g., evolution, AGW, or undercut your own, in my view, deluded beliefs.

Did you ever read the link I provided at #658 re: the universe could have been created out of nothing, i.e., no higher power required?

Still waiting for your scientific evidence or argument demonstrating that at all stages of development following fertilization a human zygote, embryo, or fetus also represents a human being, rather than a human cell or human tissues, See.

Can I expect a substantive response anytime soon?

SN,

Well, I’m not sure what poll you two are reading but apparently it’s not the one I’ve been posting.
I’ll post it now for the third time.
It does require a little work, though. But if you page down to the fourth chart and are capable of adding two numbers, you’ll find:
Believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances

It requires a little work to avoid missing the 36% of people who think abortion should be legal in “only a few” circumstances. What those few circumstances would be is not specified. I don’t know anyone who would support abortion in all circumstances, I certainly wouldn’t. I might say that I think it should be legal in a few circumstances, such as when it is either before 15 weeks and the woman wants to terminate, or later in the pregnancy and there are medical reasons to abort. With such ambiguous language it is difficult to say what those really people believed.

I was looking at the less ambiguous numbers of people who support first trimester abortion, shown just over a third of the way down the page. which show more than 60% have supported it unconditionally since 1996, with a further few percent saying “it depends”.

Or even “what those people really believed”.

BTW, I’m amazed we haven’t seen any Islamophobia before. I would have though SN would love Muslims as their fundies have a similar fondness for Leviticus.

I’ve reached my threshold for engaging with potential trolls. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and sometimes persist with it beyond most people’s preference. I’ve seen commenters have epiphanies after some particularly headstrong argumentation. But now I’m convinced that like AH, See Noevo is not interested in reasoned evaluation of evidence. So now both get the plonk.

Did you ever read the link I provided at #658 re: the universe could have been created out of nothing, i.e., no higher power required?

Oh, G-d, let him save his cosmological embarrassments for elsewhere.

To ann #750:

Me: “Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?”

You: “You’re the one who’s vowing to fight relentlessly to win something that will only bring about more death without saving lives.”

Let’s take a specific, in-the-news example: Planned Parenthood.

PP performs over 300,000 abortions per year. Let’s say 10% of those abortions are supposedly to save the life of the mother (see #713).

1) Status quo – abortion legal: 30,000 mother lives saved minus 300,000 baby lives lost = 270,000 lives lost, net.

2) New world – abortion illegal in all but certain cases (see #713): 30,000 mother lives saved minus 30,000 baby lives lost plus 270,000 baby lives saved = 270,000 lives saved, net.

You say my way “will only bring about more death without saving lives.”

I THINK my way is just the opposite: It saves more lives and brings about less death. In this example, life comes out 270,000 per year ahead.

See- Are you willing to help the mothers raise the children financially? If not, then you are not saving any lives.

To JGC #752:

Me: “There are probably many possible citations. Here’s one, from a left-wing government funded outfit: “Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.””

You: “This source offers no evidence that PP ‘exterminates more human lives than anyone else on the planet’: it instead addresses the provision of medical abortions.”

True. And it’s also true that numbers aren’t the be all and end all.
However, would you like to provide a citation showing another single organization on the planet today which exterminates more than 300,000 human lives annually?

Me: “And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?”

You: “Because I’m not aware of any scientific evidence, nor any rational argument (from common sense or otherwise), which demonstrates that at all stages of development following conception a human zygote, embryo or fetus also represents a human life (i.e., a human person).
Care to actually try to make this case, rather than express surprise that I don’t accept an assertion you haven’t tried to support?”

Care to tell me what is the universally accepted definition of “human person”?

To JGC #753:

Me: “Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE.”

You: “Well, I don’t, See. I know only that it’s living, but to no greater extent than any other human cell or tissue could also be said to be living.”

Well then, you are one remarkable observant Jew.
You not only don’t believe in an afterlife (or at least you appear not to, based on your refusal to answer my questions to you about it),
but you don’t even recognize life.

Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being?

“So let’s make this as simple as possible, with two direct questions (which I suspect you’ll refuse to answer.
Do you believe that immediately following fertilization a human zygote is also a human being?”

Yes.

“If your answer to the above is Yes?”, why? What properties does it possess that requires we consider it to share exact identity with a day-old, year-old, twenty-year-old male or female?”

The key property is that it is the product of reproduction of a human male and a human female. Human beings reproduce only other human beings, elephants reproduce only other elephants, etc.

The other key property, or observable fact, is that at conception the reproduction is complete; the rest is just gestation/development/growth. At conception you have NOT a POTENTIAL human being, you have an ACTUAL human being with the natural potential for GROWTH.

Now, two direct questions to you:
– What is the definition of “human person”?
– What properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person?

To ann #756:

“Relax.”

Tell that to Angela Merkel, et al.

“In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.

Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 fertility rate; a rate of 1.3, impossible to reverse…

As of 2007 the fertility rate in France was 1.8.
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1

Across the entire European Union of 31 countries, the fertility rate is a mere 1.38.

Historical research tells us these numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist…

Yet the population of Europe is not declining… of all population growth in Europe since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration.

France: 1.8 children per family, [including] Muslims 8.1 [per family]…
By 2027, 1 in 5 Frenchmen will be Muslim…

In the last 30 years, the Muslim population of Great Britain rose from 82,000 to 2.5 million…

In the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim. And in only 15 years, half of the population of the Netherlands will be Muslim…

The German government, the first to talk about this publicly, recently released a statement saying
“The fall in the [German] population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible…It will be a Muslim state by 2050.”

Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya said:
“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Closer to home, the numbers tell a similar story.
Right now, Canada’s fertility rate is 1.6…
In the United States, the current fertility rate of American citizens is 1.6. With the influx of the Latino nations, the rate increases to 2.11, the bare minimum required to sustain a culture…

“We must prepare ourselves for the reality that in 30 yearsthere will be 50 million Muslims living in America.” [Islamic Strategy Conference in Chicago]”

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU

And…the creep in SN again crept out. It’s not that babies aren’t being born, it’s that babies aren’t being born to the right kind of people, according to him.

Why would the thought of being in the minority give him such a case of the heebie-jeebies?

See Noevo @770:

Magic math with magic numbers. Go back and read ann @ 745, MI Dawn thereabouts, and… oh, hell, just actually read the things people write to you.

I THINK my way is just the opposite: It saves more lives and brings about less death. In this example, life comes out 270,000 per year ahead.

That’s because you live in a fantasy world. Outlawing abortion doesn’t prevent it. The numbers stay the same or go up. Because they’re a function of need, not access.

You’d just add deaths.

To shay #775:

“And…the creep in SN again crept out. It’s not that babies aren’t being born, it’s that babies aren’t being born to the right kind of people, according to him.”

False.

“Why would the thought of being in the minority give him such a case of the heebie-jeebies?”

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/03/05/dnt-damon-isis-gay-executions.cnn/video/playlists/isis-power-an-terror/

To ann #777:

Me: “I THINK my way is just the opposite: It saves more lives and brings about less death. In this example, life comes out 270,000 per year ahead.”

You: “That’s because you live in a fantasy world. Outlawing abortion doesn’t prevent it.”

And outlawing murder doesn’t prevent it, but you probably have fewer murders.

Ditto for rape, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

See Noevo said:

The German government, the first to talk about this publicly, recently released a statement saying
“The fall in the [German] population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible…It will be a Muslim state by 2050.”

First of all, the “recently release statement” is from winter 2006. And I can only find the first part of the quote. That is the first sentence. The german population in 2050 will be smaller than it is now.
The part of the quote which says that it is a downwards spiral or that germany will be a muslim state by 2050 must be from a different source.

I bet SN is against tubal ligation and vasectomy, too.

Could be wrong, but I’m guessing those and barrier methods are the only not aborta-licious ones. (If you keep the spermses from meeting the eggses, life doesn’t begin, etc.)

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

I do. You live in a fantasy world if you think getting rid of Planned Parenthood would equal 270,000 fewer abortions

If Roe v. Wade were overturned and your views became the social norm tomorrow, you’d have about the same number of abortions as you do now or slightly more, plus more dead poor women in anti-choice states.

If you also restricted/discouraged the use of most birth control wherever you could, you’d have both many more abortions and many more dead women.

There’s not another realistically possible outcome. Western civilization would have to collapse before you could dial sexual mores back to something repressive enough to make a difference. And it’s doubtful that would work.

You’d just be adding deaths.

PS —

And outlawing murder doesn’t prevent it, but you probably have fewer murders.

Nah. You’d have to criminalize it, too.

Ditto for rape, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

Likewise.

The law is not your area.

Hey, See —

I have a question.

Is a man who (wittingly) has sex with a woman who’s on the pill (or using an IUD, or some other “abortifacient” method) guilty of infanticide, as you see it?

@#773

By that logic, either monozygotic twins are a single actual human being or there’s more to the process than you’re letting on.

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

It had not occurred to me that you were gay — however, if you were better at numbers you’d realize that 50 million Muslims out of a projected 2050 US population of 438 million does not constitute a Muslim country. You’re safe.

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

Given the typically empty-headed umbrage you’ve expressed over letting faggοts get married over at Jason’s, perhaps you’d like to sketch out your personally favored “middle ground” here.

Yet the population of Europe is not declining… of all population growth in Europe since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration.

It’s awfully white of you to concede that the Roman Catholic Church has not just lost its influence but utterly failed in the marketplace of religion. Are you going to flee to Peru, Africa, or the Philippines?

Oh, wait, you’re just going sit around being an angry, sexually frustrated blowhard.

To ann #783:

Me: “And outlawing murder doesn’t prevent it, but you probably have fewer murders.”

You: “Nah. You’d have to criminalize it, too… The law is not your area.”

Well, I’m definitely not a lawyer.
And I’m still learning English. Sometimes I go to the dictionary and still can have difficulty.

Per Merriam-Webster…

Outlaw (verb): to make (something) illegal.

Criminalize (verb): to make (something) illegal.
………………
Outlaw (transitive verb): 1) a: to deprive of the benefit and protection of law: declare to be an outlaw. b : to make illegal . 2) to place under a ban or restriction. 3) to remove from legal jurisdiction or enforcement.

Criminalize (transitive verb): to make illegal; also : to turn into a criminal or treat as criminal.

See: Quick question. If abortion were outlawed, would you accept the required tax increase to provide for the additional children born to poor families?

To ann #784:

“Is a man who (wittingly) has sex with a woman who’s on the pill (or using an IUD, or some other “abortifacient” method) guilty of infanticide, as you see it?”

No, for at least two reasons:
1) Not every act of sex with a woman results in fertilization, so no one knows with certainty whether one such act created any life that could be killed.
2) EVEN IF the man could somehow know that the act DID result in fertilization, and the devices/pills did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide. And certainly not matricide or patricide, etc.

No, for at least two reasons:
1) Not every act of sex with a woman results in fertilization, so no one knows with certainty whether one such act created any life that could be killed.

Indeed. None of them might, for all anyone knows. Sort of like how sometimes a threat to the life of a pregnant woman is just that — a threat — so taking the risk of killing her is not equivalent to, you know, killing her.

So then the use of such contraceptives must be okay. Right?

It’s just a threat.

2) EVEN IF the man could somehow know that the act DID result in fertilization, and the devices/pills did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide. And certainly not matricide or patricide, etc.

(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?

(b) Why is zygote-icide different from infanticide, in your terms? You call it baby-killing when it’s abortion. And you also told JGC that a zygote was an actual human being.

I’m confused.

Let’s assume a long-term monogamous relationship in which a man wittingly has sex with a woman who’s using an “abortifacient” method of birth control that they decided on together. Frequent, regular sex, for years.

Is there loss of life?

And if so, who’s responsible for ending it? Him? Her? Neither? Both?

To Gray Falcon #791:

“See: Quick question. If abortion were outlawed, would you accept the required tax increase to provide for the additional children born to poor families?”

Current IRS regs say if you have another child or dependent you get you another exemption ($3,950 per), and I think that’s fine. But the poor, and actually about half of income earners, don’t pay any Federal Income tax, so the exemption probably isn’t relevant.

I think the $50 trillion “war on poverty”, begun 50 years ago, has largely been a disaster. Here’s a good summary of the wreckage: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556

Even some liberals will admit it hasn’t been great. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-war-on-poverty-is-a-mixed-bag.html?_r=0

I hope we can figure out a way to help the poor without dragging them down into a perpetual passive welfare mentality. If we have to spend even more money (but spend it much more wisely) in TRULY helping the poor, I’d be for it.

But “accept the required tax increase”? No.
No tax increase would be “required.”
What would be required is reducing government spending elsewhere. And there are limitless “elsewhere s”.

And I think that’s all I’m going to say about this off-topic topic.

See Noevo: Just so you know, by refusing to help those in need, you are consigning your soul to damnation.

To ann #793:

Me: “Not every act of sex with a woman results in fertilization, so no one knows with certainty whether one such act created any life that could be killed.”

You: “Sort of like how sometimes a threat to the life of a pregnant woman is just that — a threat — so taking the risk of killing her is not equivalent to, you know, killing her.”

Well, sort of like No.
No one is trying to kill the mother. No one wants the death of the mother.
However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.

Me: “2) EVEN IF the man could somehow know that the act DID result in fertilization, and the devices/pills did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide. And certainly not matricide or patricide, etc.”

You: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

Of course.

“(b) Why is zygote-icide different from infanticide, in your terms? You call it baby-killing when it’s abortion. And you also told JGC that a zygote was an actual human being.”

Senior citizen = human being.
Middle-aged mom = human being.
Millenial unemployed person = human being.
Teenager Twitter addict = human being.
Child prodigy = human being.
Toddler trouble maker = human being.
Infant screamer/baby bawler = human being.
Pre-born puncher = human being.
Embryo easing into uterus = human being.
Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

You: “I’m confused.”

Yes, that certainly appears to be the case.

To ann #794:

“Let’s assume a long-term monogamous relationship in which a man wittingly has sex with a woman who’s using an “abortifacient” method of birth control that they decided on together. Frequent, regular sex, for years. Is there loss of life?”

As we’ve already agreed (#793), probably no one on earth could ever know.
So why did you ask again?

No one is trying to kill the mother.

In cases of infection, the nasty bacteria are trying to.
In some cases of pregnancies going awry, the embryo and the internal bleeding it provoked are trying to.

No one wants the death of the mother.

So if I walk by a body of water and witness two people drowning, and I can yell to call the attention of a nearby lifeguard, throw a floating lifering, or use the nifty hooked pole lying nearby to try to catch them, but I don’t do anything, I’m morally OK?

Me: […] he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide.

You: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

Of course.

Infant screamer/baby bawler = human being.
Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

So – according to you – infant and a zygote are the same thing, but getting rid of a zygote via birth control instead of abortion is not infanticide?

Methinks you’re the confused one.

It’s almost too bad that AH had the sense to run away. At least it was on-topic for a while.

My comment #788 resulted from having taken in a laptop from a friend who assures me that it’s broken and offered one with a killfile as a loaner. Thus, I wound up actually seeing S.N.’s post-plonk activity rather than just the quoted “highlights.”

I had an extended period – back in the good ol’ days – of following numbers stations. There’s no accounting for taste and all, but in retrospect it seems more information-rich than S.N. Hell, it seems more interactive if one includes the relevant skills.

Upon due consideration, I have to rate S.N. below APV, and both below effectively listening to a recorded voice channeling the output of a photomultiplier tube.

I imagine that winding up stuck inside of Disqustink with the nobody blues again would represent a little death distinct from (some sort of retrograde) la petite mort.*

Ah, well, carry on.

* There’s always more physics disasters for to me to look forward to. Get this:

I am not against general research (i.e. research with no specified result or benefit foreseen), per se.

That reminds me of something:

Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.
Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Oh, wait, let’s see how much one can hide behind “per se”:

Too bad the entire field of epistemology, of which science is one off-shoot, is just so much mental masturbation when it is without Catholic philosophy.

Omega, gift-wrapped.

SN,

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

Because all Muslims are just like DAESH, just as all Catholics are fundamentalists who support the Inquisition and all Catholic priests are pedophiles, obviously. Is there no end to your bigotry?

Do you even know any Muslims? Have you visited a Muslim country? Been inside a mosque?

Well, sort of like No.
No one is trying to kill the mother. No one wants the death of the mother.
However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.

You: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

Of course.

So they’re either both guilty of killing a human being that exists only in your imagination.

Do you mean the one that you agree you don’t know exists?

(Also: Zygote, actually.)

As we’ve already agreed (#793), probably no one on earth could ever know.
So why did you ask again?

Because you’ve already asserted (#755) that millions of lives are lost that way.

And I wonder how it is you know that when you don’t know that.

Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

So if he could somehow know that the act did result in fertilization, and the devices did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of homicide.

But he can’t know that, so he’s not.

And nobody on earth can know that.

So nobody on earth who uses those devices is guilty of homicide.

Have I got that right?

The only other possibility I see is that it’s not homicide if sexual intercourse only happens once.

But since that’s because the man can’t know that a single act of sexual intercourse will result in fertilization, which nobody ever can, that just begs the question.

I mean, every act of sexual intercourse only happens once.

So who, if anybody, is responsible for the (theoretical) “millions of lives lost from “contraceptives” that can act as abortifacients,” and under what circumstances?

See, we just established that you are willing to force someone to give birth to a child that they can’t afford to take care of, and will not lift a finger to help them. See Matthew 23 for Jesus’s opinion of such people, even if we established you don’t actually consider Him to be that important to your faith.

Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being?

No. Now a direct question: is your belief that a zygote represents a human being founded in an argument from potential–i.e., that if the pregnancy isn’t terminated it will develop suffiicently that at a later time it will have ‘grown into a humna being’?

I’d appreciate a yes or no answer on this. If it’s no, please idnetify whatyour beleif is based upon.

If it’s yes, note that what arguments from potential argue against the zygote being a human being: lgoically, at any time the statement “This will grow to become a human being’ is found true the statement “This is already a human being” must be found false.

The key property is that it is the product of reproduction of a human male and a human female.

By what logical argument is this a sufficient condtion? Are all the frozen fertilized ova held in cold storage at fertility clinics human beigns fully vested with constitutional rights? Must we mount legal action to release them from what would clearly be unlawful confinement?

At conception you have NOT a POTENTIAL human being, you have an ACTUAL human being with the natural potential for GROWTH.

what physical properties makes it an all-caps ACTUAL human being? Following fertilization we’re talking a single cell, without differentiated tissues or organs, no neural activit y (because-guess what?–no brain), insensate other than the same chemical/receptor interactions all other living cells exhibit.

It’s almost as if you’re claiming that it must be a human being because this single cell contains unique human DNA, but that can’t be the defining charateristic.

Your questions:

Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.

re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: characterisitic human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’) as their absence are, after all, is already accepted as evidence that what was once a human being no longer is a human being (and so may ethically be removed from life support) their first appearance would indicate what previously had not been a human being had become a human being. (These arise at about 24 weeks gestation).

See Noevo, because you have free will, you have the potential to become a criminal in the future. Should we treat you as one now?

So, SN has shown more of his true colors. It’s not REALLY the unborn baby he’s worried about. He’s much more worried about the fact that if those uppity white Christian women don’t start having more babies, the other races and religions will start taking over.

And, again, he’s shown that once the baby is born, he doesn’t care a bit about its wellbeing. Can’t have him doing the Christ-ordered thing of caring for women and children! Only men (and dollars to donuts, SN is white and men means white,True Christian [Christian here means what he wants it to mean to support his side. All those other Christians are Not True Christians])

However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.

Which means they want the death of someone who either doesn’t exist or may never have existed, for all anybody knows.

So.

Intentionally using a device that you’re certain will destroy any innocent life it interacts with when you can’t be certain whether or not that will happen = wanting to kill an innocent person, even if the reason you’re using it is that you want something else.

Ergo, bomber pilots want the deaths of innocent people in wartime.

(Also: Zygote, actually.)

Or blastocyst. It depends on at what stage the wanting occurs.

To Krebiozen #802:

Me: “Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.”

You: “Because all Muslims are just like DAESH, just as all Catholics are fundamentalists who support the Inquisition and all Catholic priests are pedophiles, obviously. Is there no end to your bigotry?”

Theocracies have existed throughout history. Some theocracies exist still, and are determined to spread. I don’t believe a church or religion should run a government or country.
But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

Fortunately, I can remain here in the US, where the government is NOT based on religion, and I have the LEGAL RIGHT to live and believe as I wish.

Because I would not like to live as a worthless second level nothing under either regime. As a woman, Sharia law or Catholic Canon law, I’m still as of just little worth – I’m only fit for kinde, küche, kirche.

I’d rather remain an independent adult, thank you.

To ann #803:

“So they’re either both guilty of killing a human being that exists only in your imagination. Do you mean the one that you agree you don’t know exists? (Also: Zygote, actually.)”

Incomprehensible. You’ll need to rephrase and/or clarify if you want me to answer.

Me: “As we’ve already agreed (#793), probably no one on earth could ever know. So why did you ask again?”

You: “Because you’ve already asserted (#755) that millions of lives are lost that way.”

Do you think there’s a conflict? You shouldn’t.
My statement in #755 is thoroughly reasonable.
You believe, as I do, that millions of verified pregnancies have been, and will be, avoided by use of contraceptives, don’t you?
And you believe, as I do, that, for a given “contracepting” couple, no one knows with certainty whether one sex act created any life to be killed.
But we would agree, I hope, that, over the entire population of “contracepting” couples, millions of eggs were fertilized and flushed. Do we know with 100% certainty? Pretty close, I think.
[Do some math if you want. Something like 43 million x 99% x 12 months per year x … http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html)

“So if he could somehow know that the act did result in fertilization, and the devices did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of homicide. But he can’t know that, so he’s not. And nobody on earth can know that. So nobody on earth who uses those devices is guilty of homicide. Have I got that right?”

Here’s an analogy:
A firing squad of a thousand men takes a thousand rifles, only one of which has a live round, but no one knows WHICH one; all the others have realistic blanks. They all fire with the same recoils and the sentenced man drops dead. Is no one in the firing squad guilty of homicide (i.e. the act of killing another person)?

Yes, homicides are being committed in these cases. But determining exactly who “fired the killing shots” is above the pay-grade of human beings.

One more question for you to ignore, See: Throughout the Bible, it’s made abundantly clear that superior numbers will not prevail against the LORD. Knowing that, why do you feel we need to worry about an increasing number of Muslims? Is your faith in the LORD that weak?

@SN: actually, given the legal definition of homicide, none of the soldiers committed homicide, just like the person pulling the switch for an electric chair, or the person doing the lethal injection are not guilty of homicide.

@Narad – keep me honest, here.

But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

Neither. I agree with Dawn @814.

To JGC #807:

Me: “Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being?”

You: “No. Now a direct question: is your belief that a zygote represents a human being founded in an argument from potential–i.e., that if the pregnancy isn’t terminated it will develop suffiicently that at a later time it will have ‘grown into a humna being’?”

No, it is not.
I think I wasn’t sufficiently clear or precise earlier, specifically, in my second use of *potential* in “At conception you have NOT a POTENTIAL human being, you have an ACTUAL human being with the natural *potential* for GROWTH.”

The zygote does not have a potential for growth. It IS GROWING, it already exercise its natural power of growth.
And such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms.

So, my belief that the zygote is a human being is based on a number of things: observation, common sense, science (i.e. one’s DNA the same at conception through old age), philosophy.

“If it’s yes, note that what arguments from potential argue against the zygote being a human being: lgoically, at any time the statement “This will grow to become a human being’ is found true the statement “This is already a human being” must be found false.”

The zygote is a human being and grows naturally to be recognizable as a toddler, teenager, oldster. Whereas a human nose hair is not a human being; that hair can grow all it wants but it will never be even recognizable as anything but a nose hair.

“Are all the frozen fertilized ova held in cold storage at fertility clinics human beigns fully vested with constitutional rights?”

Depends on who’s interpreting the Constitution.

“It’s almost as if you’re claiming that it must be a human being because this single cell contains unique human DNA, but that can’t be the defining charateristic.”

I’m not claiming the DNA is THE defining characteristic. Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA. Science just lends further support for that view.

See, since you have the theoretical potential to become a mass murderer, should we treat you like one here and now?

To JGC #808:

“Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.”

So, one’s being a human being is not strictly dependent on one’s age or maturity. That’s good.

“re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: characterisitic human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’)…”

Apes have brainwaves, too. Are apes not human because they have ape brainwaves but not human brainwaves?
Would electroencephalography infallibly show the difference in a blind test?
What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?

But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

Neither. I agree with Dawn @814.

By serendipity, my boss just told me today about what happens in the little villages in a very Catholic country next to mine.
If you do the mistake of hanging your laundry on the clothe-lines outside your house on a Sunday, your neighbors call the cops and you get a fine.
Well, that’s not stone-throwing. Yet.

And when I told my mom, she reminisced how, three or four generations ago, in our own very Catholic country, orphans and sick people were not allowed to do their laundry except on Thursday evenings. Or Friday evenings, not sure anymore. Something to do with their state being proof of god wanting to punish them. The old guy seems to be a bit of a Tsundere.

I think I prefer to live in a country where policemen have better things to do than making sure I respect the Sabbath.

To Gray Falcon #809:

“See Noevo, because you have free will, you have the potential to become a criminal in the future. Should we treat you as one now?”

No.
But maybe it depends on whether I was in the womb.
These days those targets can get treated not only as criminal, but a criminal deserving of the death sentence.

So in other words, just because a fetus has the potential to be human means that we don’t have to treat it as human, right See?

So, my belief that the zygote is a human being is based on a number of things: observation, common sense, science (i.e. one’s DNA the same at conception through old age), philosophy.

You’ve observed a zygote?

Here’s an analogy:
A firing squad of a thousand men takes a thousand rifles, only one of which has a live round, but no one knows WHICH one; all the others have realistic blanks. They all fire with the same recoils and the sentenced man drops dead. Is no one in the firing squad guilty of homicide (i.e. the act of killing another person)?

As MI Dawn points out, executing someone who’s been sentenced to execution is not homicide.

But even if they were a thousand men who conspired to murder another by restraining and then firing a thousand rifles with one live round and 999 realistic blanks at him (in which case they would all be guilty), that wouldn’t be analogous to either a single act of sexual intercourse using “abortifacient” contraception or to a thousand of them.

Because in the first instance, there’s ascertainably a victim and causing his death is the sole and exclusive reason for the act, which would not occur if he wasn’t there and they didn’t both want and intend to kill him.

I mean, the contracepting couple is not having sex exclusively because they want and intend to prevent a blastocyst from becoming an embryo. That’s not the reason for the act. It might not be the consequence of it. And they would probably prefer that it wasn’t.

Your analogy isn’t analogous to any of that. At all. It actually seems designed more for guilt-by-association purposes than anything else.

The truer one would be the pilot who drops a bomb on an area that innocent civilians sometimes traverse because doing so will definitely gain some strategically desirable end, even though it might (or might not) also entail the loss of innocent life.

Yes, homicides are being committed in these cases. But determining exactly who “fired the killing shots” is above the pay-grade of human beings.

So is determining every other particular of the act, such as when, why, and in conjunction with what mitigating or aggravating circumstances it occurred, if — in fact — it occurred at all.

And when that’s the case, it’s generally also above the human pay grade to prohibit the act.

I can’t think of any exceptions. Can you?

To ann #811:

Me: “However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.”

You: “Which means they want the death of someone who either doesn’t exist or may never have existed, for all anybody knows.”

You failed to fill out the sentence. I’ll correct:
“Which means they want the death of someone who doesn’t exist or may never have existed *or who does exist*, for all anybody knows.”

Or you could even shorten the whole thing to
“They want death.”

“Intentionally using a device that you’re certain will destroy any innocent life it interacts with when you can’t be certain whether or not that will happen = wanting to kill an innocent person, even if the reason you’re using it is that you want something else. Ergo, bomber pilots want the deaths of innocent people in wartime.”

No ergo.
Unlike the “contraceptive” users, bombers don’t go out of their way, and take special measures, in the specific hope of killing any innocent people, and only innocent people, who may be around. If they were found doing so, they’d probably be court-martialed and then executed.

But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

What’s the difference? As regimes, they would be equally evil, though some irrelevant details might differ.

To ann #827:

“I mean, the contracepting couple is not having sex exclusively because they want and intend to prevent a blastocyst from becoming an embryo. That’s not the reason for the act. It might not be the consequence of it. And they would probably prefer that it wasn’t.”

I mean, I know you must not mean it, because it doesn’t make any sense.
A couple having “un-contraceptive” sex may or may not be open to conception. (The “nots” may end up using the “backup contraception” (i.e. “abortion”.))
But a couple having “contraceptive” sex is definitely not open to conception. (And if the “contraception” fails, they may end up using the “backup contraception” (i.e. “abortion”.)) They are NOT just saying they want to have sex. They are saying they want to have sex AND, if any life should result, they want it dead.

Me: “Yes, homicides are being committed in these cases. But determining exactly who “fired the killing shots” is above the pay-grade of human beings.”

You: “So is determining every other particular of the act, such as when, why, and in conjunction with what mitigating or aggravating circumstances it occurred, if — in fact — it occurred at all.”

And the particulars always boil down to this: The man’s or woman’s or couple’s desires for their lives trump the continuation of the other life.

Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA.

What historical common sense, philosophy and observation told many (if not most) people about life in the womb long before DNA was discovered is not what it tells you now.

Judaism did not consider life in the womb to begin at conception during either the biblical or the talmudic period. Abortion was generally not a transgression prior to viability.

Per the Code of Hammurabi, “”If a man strikes a woman [with child] causing her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekalim for her loss of child. If the woman should die, he who struck the blow shall be put to death.”

This was similar to the laws of Sumer, Assyria, and the Hittites.

(Link.)

Both Greeks and Romans predominantly practiced abortion “without scruple,” at least prior to viability, as then defined (eg, “[W]hen couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun,” — Aristotle) and at most without limit.

They also practiced infanticide.

Early Christianity was generally anti-abortion, but not always on the grounds that it was murder — eg, per Augustine, abortion could not be regarded “as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed.”

This distinction remained in place from then straight through to the 19th century. For example, per the Venerable Bede, “[a] mother who kills her child before the fortieth day [of gestation] shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderer.” Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX both believed abortion to be homicide only if the fetus was “formed.”

Furthermore:

Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, book II, ch. 89, reflected the influence of Aristotle’s views on human development: “The vegetative soul, which comes first, when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive, and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted, it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without [i.e., by God].” This “delayed hominization” view was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated by the Vatican. (Hurst 12; Rachels 68)

Debate began to arise in the late 16th century. (Pope Sixtus V thought life began at conception; Pope Gregory XVI thought where no animated or formed fetus existed, abortion was a civil offense; etc.) But it did not become officially the position of the Catholic Church that life began at conception until 1869.

Protestants prior to round-about then subscribed to the idea that life began at “quickening.”

SHORTER VERSION: it’s something that many (and, in fact, most) did not believe until approximately the Victorian era, unless they were Hindu. Hinduism has always held that life began at conception.

It was really only widely subscribed to for about a hundred years, quite recently.

(Link.

Unlike the “contraceptive” users, bombers don’t go out of their way, and take special measures, in the specific hope of killing any innocent people, and only innocent people, who may be around. If they were found doing so, they’d probably be court-martialed and then executed.

You’re past the point of taking seriously.

Plus, what I said at #833 is (IIRC) the third or fourth time someone has brought it to your attention that history is not on your side on this or the other thread.

Doesn’t make a dent.

As Narad said:

*plonk*

And the particulars always boil down to this

…your irrational belief that you have the moral authority to make a couple’s decisions about reproduction for them.

@ DGR #829

What is said in this pdf document is pretty disgusting, and very telling of the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement. “put them out of business” and “befriend them” in the same paragraph lol.

To ann #833:

Thanks for the info, but my responses** to JGC’s questions stand. No change required.

** “So, my belief that the zygote is a human being is based on a number of things: observation, common sense, science (i.e. one’s DNA the same at conception through old age), philosophy…
I’m not claiming the DNA is THE defining characteristic. Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA. Science just lends further support for that view.”

@JP —

I believe you. That was per the link, as was most of the post. The parts I could vouch for looked good. But I only know survey-course stuff about eastern religions, if that much.

To ann #835:

“Plus, what I said at #833 is (IIRC) the third or fourth time someone has brought it to your attention that history is not on your side on this or the other thread.”

Yes. History apparently is not on my side.
So, history must be on the right side.
The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
– contraception,
– abortion,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– socialistic government programs

One hell of an arc.

Correction to #842:

The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the *incidence and/or* approval of…

To shay #836:

“And the particulars always boil down to this…your irrational belief that you have the moral authority to make a couple’s decisions about reproduction for them.”

False.
Reproduction is over at the moment of conception, and only growth remains.
I believe I have the moral duty to try to protect the innocent and inarguably human life that grows after reproduction.

Unlike the “contraceptive” users, bombers don’t go out of their way, and take special measures, in the specific hope of killing any innocent people, and only innocent people, who may be around. If they were found doing so, they’d probably be court-martialed and then executed.

History of bomber runs is not on your side either.
One consistent use of bombers and artillery is to instill terror in the enemy civilian population, either by considering them as acceptable collateral damage or as primary target.
Just with WWII, we have Guernica, the French exode, London, and to some extent Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki…

Your naiveté is touching.

The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
[…]
– socialistic government programs

Looking at the last item, I’m hesitating between:
– Newsflash, water is wet, and liberals support liberal programs
or
Arson, murder, and jaywalking.

We are not saying that history is vindicating our ethics; we are just pointing out that your wishful thinking isn’t working in real life. Including under a non-liberal government.

I have to laugh. Although it’s a sad laugh.

This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens – all this talk about complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia) or the baby (e.g. rubella, “viability”).
Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line:
Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.

If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.

Speaking of “complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment,” the biggest one of them all would be this unicorn-like woman who allegedly gets a late term abortion on a lark and for no reason beyond sheer perversity.

Face the facts: she doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your fevered imagination.

All of which makes it easy for me to agree with the traditional Christian position that abortion is none of your business and you should go bother someone else with your control freak obsessions.

When should abortion be forbidden? Never. In so far as it is a problem, it is a problem that solves itself without your interference.

Two simple predictions then follow: that horse will never walk again, and somebody is going to be really disappointed when he stands before his Creator in Judgment.

complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment

Previous posts of SN (713, 770) acknowledged these “infrequent” events to be in the 7-10% window. And that’s a minimum, with just ectopic and preeclampsia events.
Glad to see he is very concerned about avoiding the unnecessary loss of human life.

Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.

When facing people like you, yes, that’s my line.
Because your way will just sweep the issue under the rug and we will be all pretending nothing is happening.

Still waiting for you to present a practical way to reduce abortion numbers.

@ See Noevo
#842
“The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
– contraception,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– pornography,
– socialistic government programs

One hell of an arc.”

Wait, are you saying that these items that I’ve repasted are supposed to be bad? In what alternate reality exactly? Care to explain? It’s as though you are under the impression that sex is bad in and of itself or something.

See: You have no clue what real evil is. There are far worse sins than sexual sins. Why don’t you actually read the Bible you worship? The book of Amos essentially states that a nation that refuses to care for the poor and engages in deceitful business practices doesn’t even deserve to exist, yet those seem to be the current “conservative” agenda.

@ Garou

Wait, are you saying that these items that I’ve repasted are supposed to be bad?

Careful, you also want to know how these items – and the others, especially the others – are liberal monopolies/tendencies. I’m notably thinking of “depression and dysphoria”.

In France, state welfare was started by conservative governments in early 20th century. They were not completely stupid and realized that a healthy worker is a producing worker. The first state-backed health insurance was aimed at factory workers. More wealthy people didn’t need it, they had the mean to pay a doctor’s bill.

Cultural trivia, a commonplace deus ex machina in early 20th century French novels and theater pieces was the sudden return of the “Oncle d’Amérique” (American Uncle – no, not this one) and his hard-earned fortune. In the French version of the Monopoly game, it’s one of the beneficial event.
I learned recently, this archetype may come from the way moderate-to-wealthy French families avoided splitting the familial assets between many potential heirs during the 19th century. The firstborn boy was deemed the heir and only him was allowed to marry. His sisters would be married off or expected to become caregivers of the parents. His younger brothers would be expected to go somewhere else, like the American continent, build a fortune, and bring the money back to the elder brother. And, obviously, never to marry, as to avoid succession and inheritance quarrels.
It may actually be an adaptation of the aristocratic model. Firstborn got the title, second-born got into clergy, third-born got to explore the world. Only first-born son’s sons count for inheritance, except if he had none.
My point? At that time, the society was definitively on the conservative side, to the point of the Louis-Napoleon’s Republic being called “the republic of bankers”. And they favored an economical system based on the “extended or perpetual singlehood” of a good chunk of the population.

At the turn of the 20th century, two-third of French people died without a legal heir. That’s two-third of a country’s population which was on a “perpetual singlehood”.

FAIK, similar systems were in use by land owners all around old Europe. And if British Victorian novels are any indication, perpetual singlehood was also a notable feature outside of my country.

In what alternate reality exactly?

I’m afraid SN hasn’t done any reality check in the past 3 decades.

Me: “This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens – all this talk about complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia) or the baby (e.g. rubella, “viability”).
Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line:
Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.

If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.”

So far, I’m 100% right. 2 for 2 (Robert L. Bell, Helianthus).

I hope to hear from some of the ladies’ soon.

P.S.
Ann, no need to issue one of your correctives for anything in #847?

Clarification:

It was really only widely subscribed to for about a hundred years, quite recently.

^^Meaning “at the public level.”

In reality, abortion in the United States was at least as widespread and widely accepted when it was criminal as it is today:

Some late-nineteenth-century doctors believed there were two million abortions a year.[8] In 1904, Dr. C. S. Bacon estimated that “six to ten thousand abortions are induced in Chicago every year.” As one physician remarked in 1911, “Those who apply for abortions are from every walk of life, from the factory girl to the millionaire’s daughter; from the laborer’s wife to that of the banker, no class, no sect seems to be above . . . the destruction of the fetus.”[9] As early-twentieth-century reformers investigated abortion, they produced and preserved knowledge of the business. Their reports, themselves evidence of the growing scrutiny of female sexual and reproductive behavior, show that a significant segment of the female population had abortions. A study of ten thousand working-class clients of Margaret Sanger’s birth control clinics in the late 1920s found that 20 percent of all pregnancies had been intentionally aborted. Surveys of educated, middle-class women in the 1920s showed that 10 to 23 percent had had abortions.[10] Anecdotal information, patient histories collected at maternity and birth control clinics, and mortality data show that women of every racial and religious group had abortions.[11] A more comprehensive survey conducted by Regine K. Stix of almost one thousand women who went to the birth control clinic in the Bronx in 1931 and 1932 found that 35 percent of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish clients alike had had at least one illegal abortion.[12] By the 1930s, Dr. Frederick J. Taussig, a St. Louis obstetrician and nationally recognized authority on abortion, estimated that there were at least 681,000 abortions per year in the United States.[13]

But of course there’s no way of counting or estimating the number of women who survived self-induced abortions at home without requiring emergency medical attention. So the true numbers were almost certainly higher.

The only significant difference was that thousands and thousands of women died early, avoidable, and unnecessary deaths:

At the end of the 1920s, abortion-related deaths accounted for 14 percent of maternal mortality. By the early 1960s, abortion-related deaths accounted for nearly half, or 42.1 percent, of the total maternal mortality in New York City. Furthermore, when skilled practitioners performed this procedure, the mortality rate was lower than that for childbirth.[62] Abortion deaths were almost completely preventable.

If the aim of outlawing abortion is to reduce incidence and prevalence, it’s a completely ineffectual tactic.

If it’s to protect and preserve life, it’s indefensible. It does the reverse. There are no gains.

Or you could even shorten the whole thing to
“They want death.”

(Link.)

OK, SN, since you want one of the ladies to weigh in.

I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion at will up to 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, I believe that terminations should be done rarely, and after full discussion between a woman and her provider; most terminations at that point are of wanted pregnancies where a) the fetus is showing life-threatening issues, b) the mother has developed problems that will kill HER if the pregnancy continues.

Once the fetus has reached viability and there is no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy on either the maternal or fetal side, I believe the pregnancy should continue. (Note: medical reasons can include psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination – they are FULLY valid.)

So, I guess, to be honest, there are no stages where abortion should be “forbidden” when the life of the mother is at risk. (Please note, however, that induction of labor at 24 +weeks once the fetus is viable to attempt to have a live mother and child is NOT considered an abortion.)

However, that is just MY opinion, which happens to lie in the same lines as the laws for abortions. And, to be perfectly honest, I’d rather women had access to reliable contracepion – pill, IUD, implants – with low failure rates over using abortions for birth control. In my work, I saw many women over and over for terminations. A surgical procedure has risks (though the risk of an abortion is less than the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term for the mother), and frequent abortions just bothered ME.

I have had 5 pregnancies. 2 live births – both of which were induced early due to preeclampsia. 2 miscarriages. 1 tubal which had the potential to kill me thanks to the Catholic church.

Don’t give me your handwaving about smokescreens. You are NOT a woman and YOUR life has not been put at risk fo a pregnancy.

@ann:

Part of it is that “Hinduism” is really a giant umbrella rather than a single religion; metaphysics, worship, spiritual practices, etc,. are all extremely diverse, although the various groups and sects do tend to have certain things in common, like a belief in reincarnation.

There have been debates about when life begins – at conception, at three months or so, at birth – within “Hinduism” broadly speaking for a very long time. The position that life begins at conception has become pretty popular with interpreters of the Vedic scriptures specifically since the 19th century or so – I wouldn’t rule out colonial influence.

Nevertheless, abortion as a practice is de facto accepted, except among ISKCON and other more puritan sects.

This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens

No, it’s been extended because some people continue to treat your inane comments as being deserving of more than ridicule.

You’ve been shown research that indicates criminalizing abortion does may reduce abortion rates and will only result in harm to women.

You’ve been shown that the most effective way to reduce abortion is by making birth control and female reproductive health literature free and easily accessible, but you’re against that as well.

You deserve only mockery and contempt.

Here’s some good news.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689330/planned-parenthood-popular/

MI Dawn@854

Please note, however, that induction of labor at 24 +weeks once the fetus is viable to attempt to have a live mother and child is NOT considered an abortion.

Just wanted to throw out that the system I work in considers 20+ weeks viable. Personally, the earliest I’ve ever seen was 22 weeks (she actually did fine).

Also, although I’m not a women I agree with everything you said. That said, I believe it is not men’s place to be deciding these issues; in my opinion, my opinion doesn’t matter one bit.

Are apes not human because they have ape brainwaves but not human brainwaves?

No, apes are not human because they aren’t members of the species homo sapiens (c’mon, See, that should have been clear even to you.)

“Would electroencephalography infallibly show the difference in a blind test?”
A difference between apes and humans? I don’t see the relevance, as the reason that apes cannot be considered to be human beings is that apesthey are not members of the species homo sapiens.

What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?

The latter case, wher someone who was born with a normal and functionng brain suffers an injury such that characteristic neural activity is no longer present, represents all the existing cases where victims of trauma are already recognized as having ceased to represent a human being (i.e., are ‘brain dead’) such that it is ethical to remove the still-living huan body from life support.

In the former case it would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain–I can’t conceive of any rational argument, for example, that would support an anencephalic fetus being considered to be a human being.

There have been debates about when life begins – at conception, at three months or so, at birth – within “Hinduism” broadly speaking for a very long time. The position that life begins at conception has become pretty popular with interpreters of the Vedic scriptures specifically since the 19th century or so – I wouldn’t rule out colonial influence.

Nevertheless, abortion as a practice is de facto accepted, except among ISKCON and other more puritan sects.

That accords so much better with logic, common sense, and observation that the only explanation for my having unquestioningly accepted an assertion to the contrary is that I didn’t bother availing myself of any of them.

And at the absolute best, it’s kind of a passively orientalist mistake.

So thanks for the correction.

The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
[…]
– socialistic government programs

Looking at the last item, I’m hesitating between:
– Newsflash, water is wet, and liberals support liberal programs
or
– Arson, murder, and jaywalking.

I find it more parsimonious to just stop at the first line and go straight to life imitates art.

To MI Dawn #854:

“Once the fetus has reached viability and there is no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy on either the maternal or fetal side, I believe the pregnancy should continue. (Note: medical reasons can include psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination – they are FULLY valid.)
So, I guess, to be honest, there are no stages where abortion should be “forbidden” when the life of the mother is at risk.”

And for “at risk”, I’ll note your parenthetical above.
So, if all lights are green but the mother decides the pregnancy (or even caring for a born child) is making her red in the head, abortion should be allowed.

Thanks, MI Dawn.

I’m still 100%. Now 3 for 3.

Still waiting to hear from ann to make it officially 4 for 4.

But her continued silence will at least make it an unofficial 4 for 4.

To DGR #856:

That IS good news.
The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.

See Noevo@862
That IS good news.
The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.
Huh, See Noevo is such a stereotypical right wing nutjob I almost wonder if he is just playing a character like Stephen Colbert.

MI Dawn: “You are NOT a woman and YOUR life has not been put at risk fo a pregnancy.”

Capnkrunch: “… I believe it is not men’s place to be deciding these issues; in my opinion, my opinion doesn’t matter one bit.”

Do you two also believe that
1) The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?
2) Gay rights issues should be settled ONLY by gays?

To JGC #858:

Me: “Would electroencephalography infallibly show the difference in a blind test?”

You: “A difference between apes and humans? I don’t see the relevance, as the reason that apes cannot be considered to be human beings is that apesthey are not members of the species homo sapiens.”

I didn’t ask you if it was relevant (And you’ve probably asked and answered a number of times here on topics that weren’t relevant to the initial topic of antivaccines vis-à-vis antiabortion.).

What I asked you was if electroencephalography would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test.

Can you answer?

Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?

Me: “What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?”

You: “The latter case, wher someone who was born with a normal and functionng brain suffers an injury such that characteristic neural activity is no longer present, represents all the existing cases where victims of trauma are already recognized as having ceased to represent a human being (i.e., are ‘brain dead’) such that it is ethical to remove the still-living huan body from life support.”

Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”. Here’s one mild but recent and high-profile example: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-took-6-months-to-get-over-concussion-bill-says-of-timeline/

(Some might argue she still IS “brain dead”, but not in a medical sense.)

“In the former case it would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain–I can’t conceive of any rational argument, for example, that would support an anencephalic fetus being considered to be a human being.”

Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.

Exactly what “characteristic neural activity” defines a human being?
Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity.

“Do you two also believe that
1) The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?”

No, because the Constitution specifically gives the government authority over the military. Civics fail (along with your existing history, law, science and medicine fails).

“That accords so much better with logic, common sense, and observation that the only explanation for my having unquestioningly accepted an assertion to the contrary is that I didn’t bother availing myself of any of them.”

I hope everyone else is clear on that.

To shay #866:

Me: “Do you two also believe that
1) The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?”

You: “No, because the Constitution specifically gives the government authority over the military. Civics fail (along with your existing history, law, science and medicine fails).”

So, IF the Constitution was amended to, say, define human personhood as beginning at conception (thus making abortion equivalent to homicide for all practical purposes), then you would believe the Constitution specifically gives the government authority over personhood (and by unavoidable implication, abortion)?

You didn’t answer #2:
Do you believe gay rights issues should be settled ONLY by gays?

If not, why not?

Gay rights issues — like all civil rights issues — are settled in this country by the judicial branch.

Additional civics fail.

Your speculation on a Constitutional amendment to define personhood is another example of your complete blind spot when it comes to history and your idées fixes, Such an amendment will never exist, just as the woman in #861 doesn’t exist, as Robert Bell has already pointed out.

You just can’t accept that couples are intellectually and morally capable of considering a difficult and complex medical issue and with the help of their doctor making the decision that is right for themselves, their families and their circumstances.

@ #862

That IS good news.
The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.

But still, second to Planned Parenthood..

Moving right along, I have some questions about this.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/

If I recall correctly, you rambled on about “real Catholics” in your comments for a previous post.

Would you consider the 76% of U.S. Catholics who believe the church should change its stance on birth control to be “real Catholics?

How about the 54% who support gay marriage and the 53% of white Catholics who support abortion?

If my recollection is wrong, I apologize.

Also,

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

Would you consider the women who obtained an abortion and indicated a Catholic affiliation to be “real Catholics?

Did these women end up having abortions because they didn’t heed the “keep your legs together” advice your kind tends to offer as birth control advice or is it more likely to be a result of lack of access to female reproductive health information and/or effective birth control?

To shay #870:

“You just can’t accept that couples are intellectually and morally capable of considering a difficult and complex medical issue and with the help of their doctor making the decision that is right for themselves, their families and their circumstances.”

No. I do.
I think individuals and couples have the *capability* to make right decisions about all kinds of things.
I also know from experience that they sometimes do NOT make right decisions (e.g. The guilty in prison).

But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.

Do you think the judicial branch should insert itself into their decision? Why or why not?

To DGR #871:

Me: “That IS good news. The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.”
…………….

“If I recall correctly, you rambled on about “real Catholics” in your comments for a previous post.
Would you consider the 76% of U.S. Catholics who believe the church should change its stance on birth control to be “real Catholics?”

No, not if they preach and/or practice in ways contrary to the Church teaching.

“How about the 54% who support gay marriage and the 53% of white Catholics who support abortion?”

Ditto.

“Would you consider the women who obtained an abortion and indicated a Catholic affiliation to be “real Catholics?”

Ditto.

“Did these women end up having abortions because they didn’t heed the “keep your legs together” advice your kind tends to offer as birth control advice or is it more likely to be a result of lack of access to female reproductive health information and/or effective birth control?”

Neither.
…………..
P.S.
There is a difference between what is “good” and what is “good news”.

Do you think the judicial branch should insert itself into their decision? Why or why not??

That has already been decided.

I also know from experience that they sometimes do NOT make right decisions (e.g. The guilty in prison).</i?

That is not the situation under discussion — doctors are constrained by their hospital ethics committees from advising parents to commit a crime. I have to assume that you have never been party to a DNR discussion.

@ #861

I already told you.

Do you think the judicial branch should insert itself into their decision?

It doesn’t actually do that on its own initiative. Someone has to ask the mayor of Gotham City has to turn on the Klieg light with a robe emblem on it and point it at the night sky.

Why or why not?

It’s just how they roll.

To shay #874, #875:

So then you DO think it’s OK for outside parties to have some say in a couple’s difficult and complex medical decision – outside parties which could include the judiciary, the hospital ethics committees.

To ann #876:

Me: “Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line: Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.
If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.”

You: “I already told you.”

Well, IF you did, perhaps you’ll forgive me for not remembering it or being able to find it over the last hundreds of comments here. In my posts here I often repeat/requote earlier relevant passages for the benefit of other readers, including the benefit of the particular person I’m exchanging with.
Perhaps you’ll do me a similar courtesy.

Please list the specifics of when YOU, ann, think abortion should be forbidden.

I’m not ann, admittedly. I’m not even female, so my view on your question, just like your view, has no weight.

I offer as an answer, by way of suggestion to any person who may be involved or interested in the question: the only time when abortion may ethically be forbidden is when one cannot be ethically performed, that is, when the woman is competent (and uncoerced) and does not consent to the procedure. If she is not competent, whoever is acting in her objective interest may substitute for her, as provided by law. If coercion is involved, the woman should be treated as if she were incompetent: a disinterested (e.g., non catholic) guardian should be appointed, as provided by law, to determine, in her best interest, whether to consent to the procedure.

Is there any other moral approach? I see none.

To Bill Price #881:

No one here has been even discussing the ethics of forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will. Because it should go without saying that everyone here would be against that.

We’re talking elective (by the mother) abortion.

And I’ll chalk you up as a “Yes” (Abortion allowed in all cases.).

Looks like I’m still 100%, now 5 for 5.

@SN: you say 5 for 5 like that’s a BAD thing. I think it shows that most of the commenters here have respect for a woman’s autonomy in making decisions that involve her own body.

And obviously, since Catholics who make decisions that don’t agree with you are not True Catholics (I’ll have to let my Catholic aunt, who used birth control for years know that), they are all going to hell. Along with the priest at her mixed marriage wedding (Catholic and Lutheran) who gave communion – in conjunction with the Lutheran minister – to all who approached the alter rail, not asking what their religious beliefs were.

But, meh. I don’t believe in heaven or hell anyway.

And, as pointed out, you have obviously never been on a committee to discuss a DNR or the decision to remove life support. It is NEVER made lightly. Just like a woman does not wake up one morning and decide “I think I’ll have an abortion today!” as she picks out her favorite clothing. It is always a decision made with thought. For you to characterize it as such shows the kind of person you are.

F you did, perhaps you’ll forgive me for not remembering it or being able to find it over the last hundreds of comments here. In my posts here I often repeat/requote earlier relevant passages for the benefit of other readers, including the benefit of the particular person I’m exchanging with.
Perhaps you’ll do me a similar courtesy.

No.

There’s a limit to how many times you can ignore everything people say to you before they stop bothering to repeat themselves. And you’re past it.

I”ll list the specifics of when I think abortion should be forbidden: If the pregnant woman was mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent. She is free to try again once the symptoms clear, or – if mental confusion or incoherency persist, a suitable and unbiased guardian is assigned.

See Noevo, you also seem to mistake repeatedly banging the same gong as conversation. It’s not. Insisting on an opinion won’t make it fact, and adamantly refusing to acknowledge and consider another point of view only makes you blind, and exceedingly boring.

Do you think contraception that prevents conception altogether (e.g. condoms), rather than preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself for example is moral?

How serious a threat to the life of a pregnant woman would you accept as a reason for abortion? 50% chance of death? 99% chance of death?

If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?

I didn’t ask you if it was relevant (And you’ve probably asked and answered a number of times here on topics that weren’t relevant to the initial topic of antivaccines vis-à-vis antiabortion.).

What I asked you was if electroencephalography would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test.

How is that relevant to the question of what properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person, which has been defined as “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens“?

Apes don’t meet the criteria, no matter what their EEGs look like.

Status update re: “This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens – all this talk about complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia) or the baby (e.g. rubella, “viability”). Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line:
Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.
If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.”

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.
Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

Thank you for your cooperation.

To ann #887:

Me to JGC: “I didn’t ask you if it was relevant… What I asked you was if electroencephalography would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test.”

You: “How is that relevant to the question of what properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person, which has been defined as “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens“? Apes don’t meet the criteria, no matter what their EEGs look like.”

It’s relevant, unless you’re satisfied with circular arguments. Apparently you are.

See, I asked JGC in #773 “What properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person?”
JGC responded in #808 “re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: **characterisitic** human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’)”

When I asked him what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.
My further questions to him in #865 have gone unanswered.

And as to “THE” definition of human being – “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens,”
I responded: “So, one’s being a human being is not strictly dependent on one’s age or maturity. That’s good.”

Again, no response.

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.
Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).

I gave you a specific situation when I would not permit an abortion. You obviously don’t agree with it, or think it was too trivial to acknowledge, but I gave you a specific you asked for.

To equate that to ”should be allowed in all cases” is no different from you claiming I personally permit drunk driving because I did not specify people drunk now aren’t allowed to drive cars once sober.

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.

It might be comfortable repeating that but your track record on this thread seems a little wanting.

Could you perhaps take a wee bit of time away from your busy schedule of copy-pasting the same block of text again and again and answer a question or two. I asked you three questions I in #886 think are relevant to the discussion at hand, for example.

When I asked him what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.

See Noevo, what is characteristic of human life? I’m asking because according to the good book animals can be slaughtered and eaten. What unambiguous test differentiates human life from all other animal lives? No ‘circular’ answers please. Urgent.

Here’s an article about a woman who had a pregnancy outside the womb, and left untreated resulted in her not being able to have any other children.

See Noevo, should a woman in her circumstances be allowed to abort an ectopic pregnancy?

gaist made a good point, and I should have said it also. Abortion is wrong when it’s coerced or the woman is not mentally competent to make the decision to have one. In case of mental incompetency, legal guardians who are unbiased should be appointed to make the decision based on sound medical reasoning.

If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?

There’s a precedent for shifts in doctrinal interpretation, generally.

But as far as I know, there’s no precedent for decreeing artificial means of birth control morally acceptable.

Condom use to prevent HIV transmission has been deemed potentially “a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants,” in certain cases.

But the example given was that of an HIV-positive male prostitute, not (for example) an HIV-positive Catholic with an uninfected spouse.

So I don’t think it can be taken to mean that the moral prohibition on intentionally, electively non-procreative sex of any kind isn’t still absolute. I mean, it doesn’t even explicitly concede that condom use to prevent STD transmission is morally justified.

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.

And?

This is all just a little game played in your own little mind that I personally, and I doubt I’m alone with this, could care less about.

Moving along to more important issues, you indicated that the 76% of U.S. Catholics who believe the church should change its position on birth control are not, in your opinion, “real Catholics”.

You obviously enjoy speculating about hypothetical situations, so here’s one for you.

Re: this 76% of U.S. Catholics … who presumably have used or condoned the use of other than Church approved birth control … if you were elected Pope tomorrow, would you:

1: Change the Church’s position, or

2. ignore these people, or

3. excommunicate this 76% of U.S. Catholics?

For this hypothetical situation, and in acknowledgment of your obvious love for false dilemmas, these are the only three options available to you.

So which is it?

See, are you familiar with the phrase “Do not bear false witness”. Perhaps you should start reading your own holy texts, and I’m not talking about “Atlas Shrugged”, either.

It’s relevant, unless you’re satisfied with circular arguments. Apparently you are.

See, I asked JGC in #773 “What properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person?”

Yes. You asked a question about personhood that explicitly stipulated to human life as the condition from which it arose.

It’s blindingly clear in every single exchange leading up to that point that the question is understood by both of you to be “At what point between fertilization and birth is a human zygote/embryo/fetus a human being/person?”

And it’s equally clear that what you mean by “human life” is “unborn human life — eg, you @ #701, “And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?”

So that’s very straightforward. And there’s no ambiguity about it.

JGC responded in #808 “re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: **characterisitic** human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’)”

True. But first he answered your other question, which was “What is the definition of a “human person” by saying:

Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.

Because you asked it first.

When I asked him what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.

No. What happened was that you immediately began acting like the answer he gave in #808 was a response to the question “What properties are required to differentiate Homo Sapiens from (for example) apes?” when you know perfectly well that it wasn’t.

Human life was a given of the question that he was actually answering because you made it one. And it’s obvious that both of you know that you’re talking about human gestational development.

You’re just conflating his answers in order to give yourself a transparently flimsy excuse for completely redefining the terms.

My further questions to him in #865 have gone unanswered.

Poor you.

And as to “THE” definition of human being – “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens,”
I responded: “So, one’s being a human being is not strictly dependent on one’s age or maturity. That’s good.”

Again, no response.

I can’t see that one is called for. You’re not challenging the validity of what he said. You’re just pretending that what he said is that a human fetus becomes a human being (and not an ape) when characteristic neural activity is present.

And he neither said nor suggested anything of the kind. He just took it for granted that you know that to be an individual member of a species does not mean to be an individual whose brain waves are uniquely characteristic of that species.

(Shorter version: He took it for granted that you know what “species” means.)

Let’s play the “no response” game!

Me: So half of one third is 50%? Really?

No response from See Noevo, after over 850 comments.

You:Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

Me: I wouldn’t call them attacks, and once again – it’s not our side equating Planned Parenthood with paedophilia. Which I do call an attack.

No response from See Noevo, after over 500 comments.

You: No. The woman should and does have control over her body during pregnancy.

Me: Up to and including alcohol, tobacco, strict vegan diet or fasting? How about participating in kick-boxing match? Taking a ‘morning after’ pill? AT what point short of abortion does that freedom and control end?

Still no response from See Noevo.

You: The mother doesn’t kill her born baby by withholding her blood donation

Me: So you don’t think Jehova’s Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions from their offspring?

No response. I’m sensing a pattern here.

You: It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.

Me: Do you think blacks are branwashed into self-annihilation by eugenistic cult of planned parenthood, or is there another reason you’re bringing up blacks alongside those Margaret Sanger-quotes?

Lower average level of education, lower income, higher unemployment and higher rate of divorce might conceivably all increase the rate of pregnancies terminated, without any nefarious plot to whiten America.

Again, no response.

You: the facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,

Me: Well, in the very last post you repeated your dishonorable attempt via deliberate misquotes and cherry picking to divert the discussion intentionally away from what you now regard as the main point was a valid recourse. Now you want to change the subject as “unworthy” venue, but only because it failed.

And that kind of dishonest and fallacious tactics are, at least to me, worthy of discussion as long as somebody tries to use them to win an argument.

Prey tell, what her being a ‘promiscuous adulterer’ has to do with your main point, …
“…which is that the organization she founded, now called Planned Parenthood, is today probably the largest single abortion mill in the world. PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. ” because if it’s irrelevant you surely wouldn’t have brought it up, right?

No response yet again.

You:As you say, abortions serve a purpose; they are done to inflict punitive acts on the unborn for a reason: the mother desires it.

Me: I’m okay with you thinking pregnant women have abortions because they want to inflict punishment on the baby. I am, I really don’t mind – some people just seem hellbent on seeing the world as a bad place for whatever their personal reason, but let’s not pretend I said it, even if you do seem to have a habit of putting words into people’s mouths.

Again, no response, not even a denial of wrongdoing.

You: […] he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide.

ann: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

You: Of course.

Infant screamer/baby bawler = human being.
Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

Me: So – according to you – infant and a zygote are the same thing, but getting rid of a zygote via birth control instead of abortion is not infanticide?
Again, no response.

Me: If the pregnant woman was mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent. She is free to try again once the symptoms clear, or – if mental confusion or incoherency persist, a suitable and unbiased guardian is assigned.

You: I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.
Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

No response as of yet. I’d really like to understand how “If condition X, Y or Z is met, no abortion is permitted” turns into “abortion allowed in all cases”.

What now follows is a list of questions I’d prefer See Noevo to answer, but so far, you guessed it, no response! (Do I win something?)

Do you think contraception that prevents conception altogether (e.g. condoms), rather than preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself for example is moral?

How serious a threat to the life of a pregnant woman would you accept as a reason for abortion? 50% chance of death? 99% chance of death?

If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?

But I’m not holding my breath here. Probability is leaning towards: “no response.” And this is just me, there are many more commenters in this thread trying to – and often enough – failing to elicit a meaningful (or not) response.

See Noevo@864

Do you two also believe that
1) The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?
2) Gay rights issues should be settled ONLY by gays?

I was going to comment on your penchant for hypotheticals but DGR already nailed it in #895. Anyways RE: #1, it is terribly irrelevant. The skillsets for being a soldier are different than those needed to make political decisions like authorizing military force.

RE: #2, quite frankly I think the world qould be a better place if this were so. When groups want to play a role in deciding other groups’ rights more often than not it is to restrict them not to guarentee them. In fact, your Catholic church has a long history of being anti-civil rights all the way up to the present with their continuing fight against gay rights.

I think overall this really demonstrates your rigid way of thinking. You see (heh) it is possible to disagree with something on a moral grounds and still accept that you can’t legally force others to follow the same moral code as you. I’m with you in thinking that abortion as birth control is morally wrong. However, it is a woman’s body and it is her choice. She is by no means obligated to adhere to the same morals I do.

The rigid, intolerant, “ours is the only way” attitude you have is they exact same as extremist Muslims. Sure you might not be as violent right now but your way of thinking is what justified similar violence and atrocities committed by Catholics in the past. Honestly, I think that the church still fundamentally has the capacity to be as brutal. I think the reason it isn’t, is not due to institutional changes but rather that most Catholic’s are rational enough not to blindly follow the church. Get enough See Noevo’s in power and I could absolutely see a new inquisition with gays, Muslims, Jews, and atheists being tortured and killed.

See Noevo, your brand of strict fundamentalism isn’t just stupid, it’s dangerous. The moral superiority you display is merely a step removed from turning to violence to impose your will on others.

To gaist #890:

“I gave you a specific situation when I would not permit an abortion. You obviously don’t agree with it, or think it was too trivial to acknowledge, but I gave you a specific you asked for.
To equate that to ”should be allowed in all cases” is no different from you claiming I personally permit drunk driving because I did not specify people drunk now aren’t allowed to drive cars once sober.”

You’re referring to your “I”ll list the specifics of when I think abortion should be forbidden: If the pregnant woman was mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent. She is free to try again once the symptoms clear, or – if mental confusion or incoherency persist, a suitable and unbiased guardian is assigned.”

As so often happens in discussions here, I suppose I’ll have to go into legalese fineprint on what should have been a given.
When I say you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases”, I do NOT mean, for example:

1) “Abortion” against a mother’s will, for this is not abortion. Abortion is the willful (by the mother and the “medical” person) and intended destruction of the life in the womb.

2) “Abortion” with a mother’s mentally-incompetent/crazy OK, for this is not abortion, either. Abortion requires willfulness of the mother but such willfulness must come from a mentally-competent mind – NOT from a mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent mind.

So, with my more precise definition of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

But speaking of the condition that would give you pause, namely, the mother’s “mental confusion”, that sounds like it’s getting close to the very condition which MI Dawn said can justify an abortion: “psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination – they are FULLY valid.” It seems as though the mother’s mental problems are an abortion red light for some, and a green light for others.

“Could you perhaps take a wee bit of time away from your busy schedule of copy-pasting the same block of text again and again and answer a question or two. I asked you three questions I in #886 think are relevant to the discussion at hand, for example…
“Do you think contraception that prevents conception altogether (e.g. condoms), rather than preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself for example is moral?”

We disagree over the nature of morality itself, over what is “moral”, so whether I say it’s moral or immoral is pretty much meaningless in our discussion.

I WILL give you one of my “bad” analogies, though, since you have such fun with them:
Eating is a necessary function for the continuation of the human race. Eating can also be pleasurable. In fact, our bodies are designed to provide pleasure from eating somethings. However, the pleasure is secondary to the essential of nutrition. In fact, a person could survive with impaired senses of taste and smell. Pleasure from food is good, but elevating the desire for the pleasure to the exclusion of the nutrition would not only be disordered, it could even be deadly.
Just a “bad” analogy.

“How serious a threat to the life of a pregnant woman would you accept as a reason for abortion? 50% chance of death? 99% chance of death?”

Smokescreen alert! Sorry. See #207.

“If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?”

I would respond in the same way I would if hypothetically Jesus Christ himself came back to earth and declared murder is acceptable now and should be promoted.
I guess I’d start promoting murder.

Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

Where did I say that?

(Answer:

Nowhere. The reason you can’t find my answer is that you’re looking for the same foregone conclusion you always intended to reach from the get. If not before. And it’s not there.

That’s why I refused to go through the empty charade of repeating myself.)

So, with my more precise definition of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

No. (Why can’t you just quote the actual words people use, rather than “reinterpreting” those words into what you think is the lowest common denominator).

I’ll elaborate once you’ve answered this:
In what situation no woman is allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances?

A sharp viewer may now see what my objection will be, but I hope you’ll answer regardless, or explain why you wont.

Smokescreen alert! Sorry. See #207.

I did, you were replying to me after all.

But while you acknowledge that “In certain cases that would be fatal to the mother (e.g. some ectopic pregnancies), the intended saving of the mother’s life may require UN-intended ending of the baby’s life. This “double effect” can be morally acceptable”, that definition is meaningless without any way for real world application. How would a doctor know which ectopic pregnancies would be fatal and which (only)could be fatal, until the patient was dead, or it would be too late to save her. So in the case of life threatening pregnancies*, like with everything in life, there is some uncertainty.

* = Some not “only” threaten the mother but her ability to get pregnant in the future as well.

I personally believe that choice should be with the mother, as it is her life she is putting on the line. If she thinks the odds were too high she should have the option to have an abortion, for example.

the mother’s “mental confusion”, that sounds like it’s getting close to the very condition which MI Dawn said can justify an abortion: “psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination –

Mental confusion is not the same as those “mental problems” psychological and/or psychiatric reasons MI Dawn was speaking of.

We disagree over the nature of morality itself, over what is “moral”, so whether I say it’s moral or immoral is pretty much meaningless in our discussion.

[…]

I would respond in the same way I would if hypothetically Jesus Christ himself came back to earth and declared murder is acceptable now and should be promoted.
I guess I’d start promoting murder.

Our definition of moral does indeed differ, at least in this.

I’ll elaborate once you’ve answered this:
In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances? (Fixed the question a bit)

To gaist #891:

Me: “When I asked [JGC] what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.”

You: “See Noevo, what is characteristic of human life?”

Everything you “see” from human conception to human death.

“What unambiguous test differentiates human life from all other animal lives? No ‘circular’ answers please. Urgent.”

Urgent! Wow.
I hope you can hold on a wee bit longer, because characteristics and tests can be woefully inadequate in differentiating things, especially, many living things, and most especially in the sense of *defining* things.
You see, I think the full definition of a thing cannot be given by the thing itself. Because the thing did not make itself. Not even a mother and father can “define” their child. Although we might say the mom and dad “made” a baby, the baby and the reproductive systems that brought him about are about as mysterious as mom and dad are to themselves.
While it may seem silly and circular, there is truth in that old saying “It is what it is.”
I WILL say, however, that human beings produce only other human beings and human beings come only from other human beings (evolution science fiction notwithstanding).

I’m a little concerned about the “Urgent”, though.
Are you still there?
Are you still you?

We disagree over the nature of morality itself, over what is “moral”, so whether I say it’s moral or immoral is pretty much meaningless in our discussion.

Speaking of smokescreens.

You’ve been saying whether things are moral or immoral — ie, right/wrong; permissible/impermissible, OK/not OK — for the whole of the thread. If that’s not based on what you understand to be the nature of morality, what is it based on?

I WILL give you one of my “bad” analogies, though, since you have such fun with them:
Eating is a necessary function for the continuation of the human race.

No, it’s (usually) a necessary function for the continuation of human life, which is a predicate of the continuation of the human race.

But people can propagate the human race without eating. Therefore eating is not necessary to its propagation.

Eating can also be pleasurable. In fact, our bodies are designed to provide pleasure from eating somethings.

Mmmm. Somethings.

However, the pleasure is secondary to the essential of nutrition. In fact, a person could survive with impaired senses of taste and smell.

And without eating — eg, Terri Schiavo.

Pleasure from food is good, but elevating the desire for the pleasure to the exclusion of the nutrition would not only be disordered, it could even be deadly.

As in “sin, deadly — gluttony.”

Just a “bad” analogy.

Yep.

It’s not really an analogy at all, except inasmuch as one deadly sin is loosely analogous to another, from a religious perspective. Apart from that, there’s no inherent equivalency.

“See Noevo, what is characteristic of human life?”

Everything you “see” from human conception to human death.
That’s the point I was making. You complain that JGC defined human neuroactivity as human, and dismissed this as circular reasoning.

You, when prompted to avoid circular reasoning, define human life as from human conception to death.

So to follow the quest for non-circular definition to this kind of concepts, what differentiates human conception or human death from any other conception or death? This time, I wonder if you can you do it without referring to the agent being human…

To DGR #895:

“You obviously enjoy speculating about hypothetical situations, so here’s one for you.
Re: this 76% of U.S. Catholics … who presumably have used or condoned the use of other than Church approved birth control … if you were elected Pope tomorrow, would you:

“1: Change the Church’s position”
Of course not. A Pope cannot declare OK what the Church has previously and dogmatically declared inherently evil.
It’s kind of like how our namesake said:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

“2. ignore these people”
Of course not. I’d tell them to come back, we want you to come back (in fact, we want everybody), but you’ll need to repent to be in line with Christ’s Church.

“3. excommunicate this 76% of U.S. Catholics?”
That would be impossible for all practical purposes. But maybe issue a proclamation reiterating the Church’s stand on what a Catholic must believe and seek to practice, with an emphasis that failing to do so puts one outside the Church. Maybe with some more words about honestly being what you say you are.

My further questions to him in #865 have gone unanswered.

BTW, that might be because he’s actually answered them already. You just ignored the answers. Whether that was willful or due to incomprehension, I couldn’t say.

Speaking of which, I repeat:

Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

Where did I say that?

To ann #898:

“You’re just pretending that what [JGC] said is that a human fetus becomes a human being (and not an ape) when
characteristic neural activity is present. And he neither said nor suggested anything of the kind.”

I don’t see how I’m pretending anything.
JGC said: “Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.
re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: characterisitic human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’) as their absence are, after all, is already accepted as evidence that what was once a human being no longer is a human being (and so may ethically be removed from life support) their first appearance would indicate what previously had not been a human being had become a human being.”

You: “[JGC] just took it for granted that you know that to be an individual member of a species does not mean to be an individual whose brain waves are uniquely characteristic of that species.”

I sure WISH that JGC had said that. But he didn’t. And that’s why I’m asking him questions that he still hasn’t answered.

“(Shorter version: He took it for granted that you know what “species” means.)”

And in #865 I took it for granted that JGC could easily answer these questions about “species”:
“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

But JGC never responded.

Poor me.

Poor JGC.

That’s right, you little weasel, now run along and tell all your buddies about the horrible things that Christians believe.

Then stand back and watch me not care.

To ann #902:

Me: “Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.”

You: “Where did I say that?”

Well, I guess, as you would say, “I already told you… You hav”

Anyway, 7 for 7 is not too bad.

Tangential and off-topic, but…

“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?

As someone who doesn’t believe in evolution, what do you think of dogs?
Did god create them just the way they are (now or then*), or are they man-made abominations and corruptions of pure god-made wolves?

* = If you believe god created dogs, at what time?

Feel free to replace dog and wolf with any creatures/plants humans have bred to equivalent extent.

o ann #902:

Me: “Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.”

You: “Where did I say that?”

Well, I guess, as you would say, “I already told you… You hav”

Anyway, 7 for 7 is not too bad.

You don’t take no for an answer?

So far, out of your “7 out of 7”, at least two people have directly challenged your version of their opinion, ann and me.

Not to mention changing the meaning of the words mid-poll (I see no mention of prerequisite of willfulness by would-be mother in your beloved and oft-quoted Merriam-Webster).
You thinking you are free to redefine the terms at whim renders the whole exercise relatively futile anyways.

But despite, I repeat my answer I thought even you would understand. No. I do not think abortion should be allowed in all cases.

If you want me to elaborate, you have to answer this first:
In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances?

To ann #902:

Me: “Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.”

You: “Where did I say that?”

Well, I guess, as you would say, “I already told you… You hav”

Also, just to make this clear.

You decided ann thought abortions should be allowed in all cases, and proudly promoted this, because you assumed she “must have said it somewhere”?

You didn’t check?

To ann #906:

Me: “Eating is a necessary function for the continuation of the human race.”

You: “No, it’s (usually) a necessary function for the continuation of human life, which is a predicate of the continuation of the human race.”

I THINK “human race” = humankind, human beings in general. At least I thought that’s what the dictionaries say and what common understanding is.

“But people can propagate the human race without eating. Therefore eating is not necessary to its propagation.”

And approximately how many generations of non-eating but propagating humans would there be?
How long would the continuation of the human race last, without eating, I mean?

To ann #906 (continued):

Me: “Pleasure from food is good, but elevating the desire for the pleasure to the exclusion of the nutrition would not only be disordered, it could even be deadly.”

You: “As in “sin, deadly — gluttony…[My analogy is] not really an analogy at all, except inasmuch as one deadly sin is loosely analogous to another, from a religious perspective. Apart from that, there’s no inherent equivalency.”

I see gluttony more as a sin of excess, and perhaps as an idolizing of food. A glutton is not necessarily separating the pleasure of food from the nutrition of food. He may be getting both, just too much of both.

My analogy was more about a sin of separation – separating food’s pleasure from its nutrition, and more specifically, about a willingness to deny nutrition completely for the sake of pleasure (e.g. Eating nothing but cotton candy.).

I sure WISH that JGC had said that. But he didn’t.

That it didn’t go without saying is due to your failure to comprehend plain English at the elementary level of basic fluency, not JGC’s failure to plainly say what he meant in easily comprehensible terms.

Therefore, it’s either your responsibility to correct the misunderstanding, not his; or you’re incapable of comprehending plain English at the elementary level of basic fluency, in which case nothing JGC can say will help you.

And that’s why I’m asking him questions that he still hasn’t answered.

Such as?

And in #865 I took it for granted that JGC could easily answer these questions about “species”:
“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

As I said, it’s not his fault if you can’t comprehend plain English well enough to answer those questions for yourself.

Anyway, 7 for 7 is not too bad.

When it comes to patently baseless bullsh*t, you’re batting .1000.

When it comes to accurately assessing and stating the stated positions of other people wrt abortion, you’re doing terribly.

See Noevo@902

So, with my definition of abortion pulled out my @ss, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

FTFY

To gaist #907:

“You complain that JGC defined human neuroactivity as human, and dismissed this as circular reasoning.”

Actually, my initial complaint, or at least my initial question, was why JGC specified “*characteristic* human neuroactivity” instead of just saying “human neuroactivity.”

I was wondering if he would consider some types of neuroactivity, in what *looks* to be a human being, to be “not-up-to-standard” for a *true* human being.
I was wondering what he would think of the *characteristic* humanness of certain EEGs, whose source he was blind to.

For example, an EEG of Jessie (although, again, JGC would not know who or what the EEG was from). http://hemifoundation.homestead.com/jessiesstory.html
…………….

“So to follow the quest for non-circular definition to this kind of concepts, what differentiates human conception or human death from any other conception or death? This time, I wonder if you can you do it without referring to the agent being human…”

Nothing, or at least many mammals conceive and die just like us.

So, maybe you’re a mouse.

To ann #918:

“When it comes to patently baseless bullsh*t, you’re batting .1000.
When it comes to accurately assessing and stating the stated positions of other people wrt abortion, you’re doing terribly.”

Wow. Assigning me only a 10% b.s. rate is quite a compliment, coming from you.

P.S.
It sure might be helpful if JGC spoke for himself, instead of you interpreting his words.

Not long.

I just took “continuation of the human race” to mean what it usually does — ie, the continuation of the species via reproduction.

Obviously, you have to eat in order to survive long enough to reproduce. But strictly speaking, eating is not functionally necessary to the reproductive act.

That’s all I meant.

The answers to the two questions you cited from #865 are, respectively:

(1) Yes; and

(2) homo sapiens, but (as specified earlier) it’s not a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species — ie, a human being/person — until characteristic human neural activity (the absence of which, post-birth, is already accepted as a sign that said individual no longer exists and can be ethically taken off life support) arises at approximately 24 weeks.

IOW: JGC reasons that the same criterion that represents the end of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species post-birth (when absent) also represents the beginning of such an individual pre-birth (when present).

What makes him or her an individual of that species rather than an ape is another question.

The answer to it is: His or her biological membership in the homo sapiens species, which he or she automatically gets by virtue of sharing its gene pool, the perpetuation of which via inheritance is functionally necessary to the continuation of the human race.

At least as I understand what JGC said.

Wow. Assigning me only a 10% b.s. rate is quite a compliment, coming from you.

Typo. I regret the error.

P.S.
It sure might be helpful if JGC spoke for himself, instead of you interpreting his words.

He did. And I’m not interpreting them. I’m just not failing to comprehend them.

I was wondering what he would think of the *characteristic* humanness of certain EEGs, whose source he was blind to.

For example, an EEG of Jessie (although, again, JGC would not know who or what the EEG was from)

Has she been born?

If the answer is “no,” how do you define “born”?

And if the answer is “yes,” is she manifestly, self-evidently not on life support and capable of cerebral functioning?

If the answer is still “yes,” stop wondering! JGC does not think it would be ethical to remove her from the life support she’s not on on the grounds that she doesn’t have brain waves that she has.

Another way of getting the same result would be:

Is she a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species?

If the answer is “obviously, yes,” then why are you once again pretending that the answer JGC gave to your question about when developing human life in the womb becomes a human being/person was actually the answer he gave to your question about how he defines a human being/person?

Is it willful? Or are you really that incapable of grasping a simple distinction that you yourself made?

And in #865 I took it for granted that JGC could easily answer these questions about “species”:
“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

As I said, it’s not his fault if you can’t comprehend plain English well enough to answer those questions for yourself.

Do keep in mind that S.N. is a rank baraminologist, which immediately makes any discussion of taxonomy a waste of time.

Note the scare quotes around species. He’s just chasing his tail at this point.

Actually, my initial complaint, or at least my initial question, was why JGC specified “*characteristic* human neuroactivity” instead of just saying “human neuroactivity.”

Because he meant the neuroactivity that’s characteristic of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species, in the sense that its absence means that’s no longer what (the former) someone on life support is.

As he said.

Which is not to say that the absence of that activity means the absence of biological genetic membership in the species. It just means the absence of the formerly living individual whose body is on life support.

I hope this clears up any minor confusion you might have been having about that.

I hope this clears up any minor confusion you might have been having about that.

ann, internet propriety requires some indication from you to acknowledge that you understand how silly this hope truly is. Confusion, whether true or feigned, is SN‘s shtick: he cannot and/or will not allow it to be cleared up.

To ann #922:

“The answers to the two questions you cited from #865 are, respectively:
(1) Yes; and
(2) homo sapiens, but (as specified earlier) it’s not a living adult or juvenile ….”

Whoa. Wait a second.
We agree it’s a member of homo sapiens.
We SHOULD also agree that it is a LIVING member of homo sapiens because one of the characteristics of living things is that they grow, and it is growing.
Would anyone say that this agreed to member of homo sapiens was dead, when they see it growing? Would you?

“…but (as specified earlier) it’s not a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species — ie, a human being/person — until characteristic human neural activity…”

Whoa! Whose specification, whose definition? JGC’s and possibly some majority of largely atheistic scientists? That’s not MY spec and def. Nor that of millions of citizens. Is it the Constitution’s spec and def? The Supreme Court’s?

This is a GROWING homo sapiens. In fact, it’s even in the process of growing a brain. The growing of the brain and everything else is proceeding according to plan, according to the blueprint in its DNA. [I think the brain begins sprouting around week 5.] But SOME specifiers/definers want to deny its ability to grow its brain. Just as they would deny college to the baby very slowing growing into a college student.

“IOW: JGC reasons that the same criterion that represents the end of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species post-birth (when absent) also represents the beginning of such an individual pre-birth (when present).”

Right. Except a dead body and brain doesn’t represent a growing body that’s growing its brain.

See Noevo@901

I would respond in the same way I would if hypothetically Jesus Christ himself came back to earth and declared murder is acceptable now and should be promoted.
I guess I’d start promoting murder.

Hahaha! Missed this one at first. See Noevo is a radical fundamentalist through and through. If you’re going to blindly follow something might as well go all the way. OK See, better get out there and kill some gays, blasphemers, adulterers, nonbelievers, etc. The bible will it; get to it sheep.

To ann #924:

Me: “I was wondering what he would think of the *characteristic* humanness of certain EEGs, whose source he was blind to. For example, an EEG of Jessie (although,
again, JGC would not know who or what the EEG was from)”

You: “Has she been born?”

JGC doesn’t know, remember?

“And if the answer is “yes,” is she manifestly, self-evidently not on life support and capable of cerebral functioning?”

JGC doesn’t know, remember?

All JGC knows is what the EEG shows. And I’m wondering if he would consider the EEG data to be “characteristic” human neural activity.

[If you read the very short linked article, you’d know that Jessie has only half a brain. The other half was successfully removed by now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.]

To ann #928:

Me: “Actually, my initial complaint, or at least my initial question, was why JGC specified “*characteristic* human neuroactivity” instead of just saying “human neuroactivity.””

You: “Because he meant the neuroactivity that’s characteristic of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species, in the sense that its absence means that’s no longer what (the former) someone on life support is.”

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

So many posts of failing to grow a backbone and acknowledge even a single one of the many mistakes you’ve made on this thread.

Still boasting “7 out of 7” or are you compiling your apology while you insist on yet another mistake being correct?

See Noevo, care to elaborate on the ”fiction of evolution”? Someone earlier in the thread asked what were your thought on dogs then? Dogs are fiction too?

[ann]:“IOW: JGC reasons that the same criterion that represents the end of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species post-birth (when absent) also represents the beginning of such an individual pre-birth (when present).”

[You:]Right. Except a dead body and brain doesn’t represent a growing body that’s growing its brain.

Nobody was talking about a dead body. Like ann patiently explained before, lack of brain-activity can be an acceptable reason to withhold life support, thereby ending that life.

I assume JGC meant that until there is brain activity, it could be argued that the same criteria applied.

And before you start harping on about human brain activities and scans, I want you to visualize a chimpanzee in drag entering a Planned Parenthood clinic, and the receptionist going: “Just wait a little, miss. We’ll be with you shortly to run some tests”.

If they need to verify the species via EEG they’re doing it wrong.

About abortion,

It is legal and moral where the mother decide free of coercion.

In case of rape, the mother was submitted to an unethical coercion for an act she didn’t want to be submitted to. In that case, choice, whether she was competent or not should be to abort or give the child to a foster family and all cost paid of by every organization against abortion, at is, whether she decide to abort or give the child.

In my case, I will always support the autonomy of the mother regardless of circumstance where she was under pregnancy.

If you have an opinion different to mine, in case of rape, then you and everyone harbouring the same opinion pay. Period.

Alain

Oh, and in the case of an abortion clinic getting bombed, I will not only approve the use of electronic medical records protected by a vault from an offsite location to help any clients of e clinic but also, all the cost of taking care of either the abortion or fostering should be borne by the organization which the bomber was member or else, if membership wasn’t proven, all organization should be responsible.

Deal?

Alain

My principle: the society’s choices over any individual and a measure of a society’s goodwill is how they treat and handle the least favoured of their members, that is outside of public health and I’ll uphold that for any victim of act implicating mental health consequences.

Alain

Garou, Québec, Canada, August 10, 2015:

See Noevo, care to elaborate on the ”fiction of evolution”?

Garou, SN announces, through his ‘nym (short for See Noevolution), that he refuses to see reality, even when he’s steeping in it. None so blind…

Just out of curiosity, you little weasel, seeing as how you think abortion is a monstrous horror and tantamount to murder and blah blah blah: how may doctors have you, personally, killed in your efforts to end the slaughter? A lot of doctors have been shot down in cold blood, a lot hospitals and clinics have been bombed and torched: which ones were your handiwork?

See Noevo, care to elaborate on the ”fiction of evolution”? Someone earlier in the thread asked what were your thought on dogs then? Dogs are fiction too?

Oh, dear L-rd. S.N. has already hijacked the comments (see the last two words of the title).* Don’t invite it to rehash its dogs don’t evolve into cats idiocy.

* Impressively, S.N. is so addlepated that he shot his foot plumb off at Ethan’s while trying to effect the same routine using his hypothalamus (~04:00, if you’re going to be that way) rather than his pineal gland.

All JGC knows is what the EEG shows.

Because you’re still pretending that what he said about when human fetal life becomes a human being/person justifies a blind test on a six-year-old whose cerebral and autonomic functioning is not in question.

Either that or you really are that stupid.

And I’m wondering if he would consider the EEG data to be “characteristic” human neural activity.

Yes.

[If you read the very short linked article, you’d know that Jessie has only half a brain. The other half was successfully removed by now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.]

And if you read JGC’s posts or my explanation of them, you’d know that if she’s got cerebral function and is not on life support, what JGC said about brain waves does not apply to her.

The rest of what you’re saying is the argument from potential that you erroneously believe isn’t one if you say it isn’t.

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

Don’t overtax yourself. You might get a headache. And anyway, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump from there to “JGC believes that abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

So why don’t you save yourself some trouble and make that your starting point?

All JGC knows is what the EEG shows.

Because you’re still pretending that what he said about when human fetal life becomes a human being/person justifies a blind test on a six-year-old whose cerebral and autonomic functioning is not in question.

Either that or you really are that stupid.

And I’m wondering if he would consider the EEG data to be “characteristic” human neural activity.

Yes.

[If you read the very short linked article, you’d know that Jessie has only half a brain. The other half was successfully removed by now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.]

And if you read JGC’s posts or my explanation of them, you’d know that if she’s got cerebral function and is not on life support, what JGC said about brain waves does not apply to her.

The rest of what you’re saying is the argument from potential that you erroneously believe isn’t one if you say it isn’t.

And before you embarrass yourself again by saying, NO, it’s not a human being because it WILL grow, but because it IS GROWING:

If that’s the criterion, people who have stopped growing aren’t human beings.

@ Narad 946
Wait, is that Vessel guy from that post you’ve linked See Noevo? Or just someone as disconnected from reality? Judging by his unhinged rant he’s probably connected directly from the Pinel institute wearing his straitjacket.

@Bill Price
Didn’t catch that his name was ”No evo” lol. Although I am curious of what he makes of the dinosaurs and Noah’s ark.

You know, being a creationist, you’d think the simplest solution to get rid of the dinosaurs would be that they died with the flood, but according to Ken Ham’s creation museum, they went extinct in medieval times?
So according to Ken Ham, Noah also took two of each dinosaurs and put them on his ark (lol).

Earlier I wrote that “characteristics and tests can be woefully inadequate in differentiating things, especially, many living things, and most especially in the sense of *defining* things… I think the *full definition* of a thing cannot be given by the thing itself. Because the thing did not make itself. Not even a mother and father can “define” their child. Although we might say the mom and dad “made” a baby, the baby and the reproductive systems that brought him about are about as mysterious as mom and dad are to themselves.
While it may seem silly and circular, there is truth in that old saying “It is what it is.”
I WILL say, however, that human beings produce only other human beings and human beings come only from other human beings (evolution science fiction notwithstanding).”

I think even Merriam-Webster may recognize this implicitly:

“Living: not dead : having life; currently active or being used; having the form of a person who is alive.”

“Homo sapiens: the species of human beings that exist today.”

“Human being: a person.”

“Person: a human being.”

I would think JGC, or rather his spokeswoman, ann, would be intent on straightening M-W out.

See, if you knew full-grown adults were being killed at a specific place with no legal repercussions, how would you react?

@#952 —

All your arguments for why a zygote is a human being have failed.

Let’s review them:

(1) Because everyone KNOWS it is.

That’s not an argument, and it’s also not true.

(2) Because many/most people have always known that it is.

Unless liberals traveled back in time and altered the historical record, many/most people have always thought that life began at viability. The Catholic Church thought so until 1869.

So that’s not true. It’s also not an argument.

(3) Because it contains a genetic blueprint.

That’s either an argument from potential, or you’re saying that a single cell containing human DNA is a human being, in which case we’re all a nation of them unto ourselves.

(4) Because it IS GROWING.

That’s either an argument from potential, or it’s growing into what will no longer be a human being when it stops.

(5) Because logic, common sense, observation.

Such as the above?

Leaping to unjustified conclusions about short simple pieces of text that you don’t understand by applying magical thinking to them is not logical, sensible, or observant.

(6) Because Merriam-Webster defines words neutrally, and I read my personal religious convictions into them, then conclude that they’re implicit.

That’s not an argument. It’s also the opposite of logic, common sense and observation.
__________________________

You’re not entitled to tell other people how or what to think simply because you have a personal opinion that’s based on faith.

I do not know if an electroencephalogram would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test. I could try to find the answer, but given 1) it isn’t relevant to a discussion of ethical abortion policies I don’t see the need to investigate further.

If you’re able to offer evidence that EEG’s could or could not detect this difference feel free to do so, as I’d be curious as to the answer and the qaulity of the evidence behind it, but again I don’t see how it’s relevant to a discussion of ethical abortion policies..

Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?

yes–for example, adult or juvenile organisms can be categorized by species (e.g. “This is a member of the species homo sapiens , this is a member of the species pan troglodytes” etc.), living tissues can be categorized as being from a species (e.g.., “These tissues are from a member of the species homo sapiens, these tissues are from a member of the species pan troglodytes”), oocyte’s, embryo’s, zygotes, etc., can be ategorized as being from a species (e.g., “This zygote is from the species homo sapiens, this zygote is from the species pan troglodytes”), etc.

If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

It isn’t a species , See—a cell, cells or tissues from a species.

Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”

Given that I haven’t claimed that all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”, I have to ask: did you have a point?

Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.

Given that I haven’t claimed that “all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly”, once again I have to ask: did you have a point?

Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity.

I’m sorry, See, but you’re the one insisting both science and common sense demonstrate a zygote/embryo/fetus represents a human being from the moment of fertilization you. It’s your responsibility to rationally make that case. I’ve indulged your attempts to shift the burden of proof to your opponents as far as I’m willing to.

So let’s see some real evidence, or a coherent rational argument, in support of your position. Again: I suggest we start at the beginning:, the period between fertilization and the first round of cell division. What properties does the fertilized oocyte possess that requires we treat it as a de facto human being, rather than a human cell?

And by all means be ‘very specific’ in your response.

@872

But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.

See, you do realize that the situation you’ve describe is one where parents are attempting to withold necessary medical care from a child and is in anaologous to a parent’s decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

What I I beleive is that the first appearance of characteristc brainwaves between 23 and 24 weeks gestation establishes the earliest point during gestation development where it cannot be said with confidence that a human zygote, embryo or fetus does not yet represnt a human being.” That clear things up for you?

The examples at #954 cover every ostensibly logical, sensible argument you’ve made on the thread, eg: first-graders/college students (argument from potential); people who use IUDs want to destroy innocent life (inability to process information without reading your personal religious convictions into it, plus argument from potential treated as proven); etc.

You’re really just saying that as a matter of strong religious conviction, you believe life begins at conception.

And if you were honest enough to say it that way, you’d probably get more respect. It’s the blustering and bullying that are a problem. You have a right to your beliefs.

Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”

Given that I haven’t claimed that all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”, I have to ask: did you have a point?

Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.

Given that I haven’t claimed that “all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly”, once again I have to ask: did you have a point?

Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity.

I’m sorry, See, but you’re the one insisting both science and common sense demonstrate a zygote/embryo/fetus represents a human being from the moment of fertilization you. It’s your responsibility to rationally make that case. I’ve indulged your attempts to shift the burden of proof to your opponents as far as I’m willing to.

So let’s see some real evidence, or a coherent rational argument, in support of your position. Again: I suggest we start at the beginning:, the period between fertilization and the first round of cell division. What properties does the fertilized oocyte possess that requires we treat it as a de facto human being, rather than a human cell?

And by all means be ‘very specific’ in your response.

@872

But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.

See, you do realize that the situation you’ve describe is one where parents are attempting to withold necessary medical care from a child and is in no way analogous to a parent’s decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

What I beleive is that the first appearance of characteristc brainwaves between 23 and 24 weeks gestation establishes the earliest point during gestation development where it cannot be said with confidence that a human zygote, embryo or fetus does not yet represnt a human being.” That clear things up for you?

Worth a read.

Carl Sagan’s 1990 Defense of Abortion Rights Remains Relevant

“A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg – despite the fact that it’s only potentially a baby – why isn’t it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

“Hundreds of millions of sperm cells (top speed with tails lashing: five inches per hour) are produced in an average human ejaculation. A healthy young man can produce in a week or two enough spermatozoa to double the human population of the earth. So is masturbation mass murder? How about nocturnal emissions or just plain sex?”

“Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas considered early-term abortion to be homicide (the latter on the grounds that the embryo doesn’t look human). This view was embraced by the Church in the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been repudiated. The Catholic Church’s first and long-standing collection of canon law…held that abortion was homicide only after the fetus was already “formed” – roughly, the end of the first trimester.”

It isn’t a species , See—a cell, cells or tissues from a species.

I’m not sure I misstated your opinion there, but if I did, I regret the error.

Same goes for anything else that I’ve overlooked.

My main aim was actually not to speak for you, but to prevent SN from repeatedly recurring to what you said about brain waves as if there were any way that it meant that you believed in killing people for not being brainy enough to suit you.

So according to Ken Ham, Noah also took two of each dinosaurs and put them on his ark (lol).

He had a shrink-ray? Or did he collect eggs, or hatchlings?

To ann #954:

“All your arguments for why a zygote is a human being have failed.
Let’s review them:
(1) Because everyone KNOWS it is.
That’s not an argument, and it’s also not true.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
See my #731: “Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE. Now, what type of life is it?”

“(2) Because many/most people have always known that it is…So that’s not true. It’s also not an argument.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
I’d hold to my argument regardless of how many agreed with me. I just noted that my argument is widely shared – “Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA. Science just lends further support for that view.”

“…many/most people have always thought that life began at viability. The Catholic Church thought so until 1869.”

And your support for this statement about the Catholic Church is what?

“(3) Because it contains a genetic blueprint. That’s either an argument from potential, or you’re saying that a single cell containing human DNA is a human being, in which case we’re all a nation of them unto ourselves.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
My argument included “Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being? … The zygote is a human being and grows naturally to be recognizable as a toddler, teenager, oldster. Whereas a human nose hair is not a human being; that hair can grow all it wants but it will never be even recognizable as anything but a nose hair.”

“(4) Because it IS GROWING. That’s either an argument from potential, or it’s growing into what will no longer be a human being when it stops.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
My argument included “The zygote does NOT have a POTENTIAL for growth. It IS GROWING, it already exercise its natural power of growth. And such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms.”

“(5) Because logic, common sense, observation. Such as the above?”

Yes.

“(6) Because Merriam-Webster defines words neutrally, and I read my personal religious convictions into them, then conclude that they’re implicit.”

If you could, what changes would you recommend to Merriam-Webster for their definitions below?
“Living: not dead : having life; currently active or being used; having the form of a person who is alive.”
“Homo sapiens: the species of human beings that exist today.”
“Human being: a person.”
“Person: a human being.”

What would YOUR definitions be?

__________________________
“You’re not entitled to tell other people how or what to think simply because you have a personal opinion that’s based on faith.”

I think I AM so entitled, and I think YOU’RE entitled to tell other people how or what to think simply because you have a personal opinion that’s NOT based on faith.
And you’ve been exercising your entitlement here.

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.
…………
P.S.
Don’t forget my question above: And your support for this statement about the Catholic Church is what?

You may realize it by now, but you will never get an honest answer from see noevo, nor will you see him answer in any way that is consistent other than with lies and denying he’s said what he’s said.

You seem to have understood my position, Ann. See, I believe, chooses his language carefully to reinforce the conclusion he’s trying to assert such as where he chooses to use the phrase ‘the life in the womb’ rather than “the embryo” or “the fetus” in order to take advantage of our common tendency to use ‘life’ as a synonym for “human being” (e.g., in headlines like “Three alarm fire claims three lives”) so I’m careful to be precise in my language–noting that what we’re actually talking about is a zygote, or an embryo, etc., and not something vaguely idnetified as a ‘life’–in response to this tendency.

Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.

WRT the Church, since you plainly can hardly control your anticipatory glee over the rare prospect of scoring a point about anything:

I left the sentence unfinished because I wasn’t satisfied that it covered every iteration of official Catholic doctine, then forgot to get back to it.

But I was going to say “viability in its own terms — ie, ensoulment or something equivalent to it.”

My real point was that if your present belief — ie, that life begins at conception — is based on plain, simple logic, common sense and observation, the Catholic Church has been illogical, unobservant and lacking in common sense for approximately 1900 of the last 2000 years.
______________

That would make your self-estimated track record, what? 99,999,999 for 99,999, 999?

JGC@964

Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.

The church says so is all the reason See Noevo needs. Recall that in #901 he said he would promote murder if Jesus said to. He’s as radicalized as any memeber of ISIS.

As to the rest of your response:

(1) I’m not interested in humoring your unjustified belief that you’re being semantically elusive rather than semantically evasive. Those are the arguments you’ve offered. All of them have failed.

(2) The definitions Merriam-Webster offers for those words all do the job of a dictionary definition well enough that I have no objections to them.

The world is full of bozos who think that refusing to acknowledge that word meaning is connotative and context-specific as well as denotative and dictionary-based means that they have achieved full and absolute semantic mastery of the language.

For example, there are probably some buffoons who see “having the form of a person who is alive” in the dictionary and think “I spy with my little eye empirical proof that a fetus is person who is alive!” And so on.

But that’s not Merriam-Webster’s fault.

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.

Like everything else you think and know to be true, that’s utterly unsupported by anything other than your belief that it is — ie, it’s faith-based.

To JGC #955:

Me: “Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?”

You: “yes”

Me: “If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

You: “It isn’t a species , See—a cell, cells or tissues from a species.”

Which cells or tissues grow naturally to be commonly-recognizable as species homo sapiens? [You’ve already indicated that some never will (#807).]

………..
Me: “Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead””

You: “Given that I haven’t claimed that all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”, I have to ask: did you have a point?”

Just that when I asked you about people who after birth suffer brain damage (i.e. not necessarily brain-“deadness”), you immediately focused on brain-deadness.
From #865: “The latter case, wher someone who was born with a normal and functionng brain suffers an injury such that characteristic neural activity is no longer present, **represents all the existing cases where victims of trauma are already recognized as having ceased to represent a human being (i.e., are ‘brain dead’) such that it is ethical to remove the still-living huan body from life support.**”

…….
Me: “Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.”

You: “Given that I haven’t claimed that “all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly”, once again I have to ask: did you have a point?”

Just that, well, like directly above. See #865 again.
………..
Me: “Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity [for “characteristic human neural activity”].”

You: “I’m sorry, See, …”

I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.
…………….

“What properties does the fertilized oocyte possess that requires we treat it as a de facto human being, rather than a human cell?”

Does it naturally grow to be what we commonly recognize as a human being?
Or is it like the cell from a human nose hair?

…………
Me: “But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.”

You: “See, you do realize that the situation you’ve describe is one where parents are attempting to withold necessary medical care from a child and is in anaologous to a parent’s decision to terminate a pregnancy?”

No, I don’t realize that.
But analogies are probably never a perfect mirror of what they’re trying to reflect.

………….
Me: “Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.”

You: “What I I beleive is that the first appearance of characteristc brainwaves between 23 and 24 weeks gestation establishes the earliest point during gestation development where it cannot be said with confidence that a human zygote, embryo or fetus does not yet represnt a human being.” That clear things up for you?”

Yes it does, I think.
So, even by YOUR standards, the life in a woman’s womb at 23 or 24 weeks gestation COULD “represent” a human being.

But your wording – “does not yet represnt a human being” – does that have essentially the same meaning for you as “IS not yet a human being”?

If not, why not?

The church says so is all the reason See Noevo needs.

Which is of course why ethics trumps morals: if the definition of good is founded upon articles of subjective personal faith literally any act–even those that are demonstrably unethical–can be held to be moral.

I’m off to play some golf, like Barack Hussein Obama.

Maybe this will hit comment #1000 while I’m gone.

“having the form of a person who is alive”

As in “So-and-so is living proof that…” etc.

I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.

The way JGC defines “human being” is this:

A living adult of juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens

You just prefer to insist otherwise, because you can’t make a case for your position on the logical, sensible observed merits and so have no better option than to willfully misrepresent the positions of those who do.

Also: He said what characteristic neural activity he meant, what it was characteristic of, and why when he first used the phrase.

“I’m off to play some golf, like Barack Hussein Obama.”

Nice bigoted comment. The difference, of course, is that he’s helped the country immensely while you’ve never contributed anything of value.

Which cells or tissues grow naturally to be commonly-recognizable as species homo sapiens?”

Germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens have the potential to give rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens. I’ll note again that at any time the statement “this cell or tissues may grow naturally such that at a later time it will represent a member of the species homo sapiens” is found true the statement “this cell or tissues already represent a member of the species homo sapiens” must be found false.

Just that when I asked you about people who after birth suffer brain damage (i.e. not necessarily brain-“deadness”), you immediately focused on brain-deadness.

No, I immediately answered your question 9which was actually “What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?” by stating It would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain. Anencephaly was offered as an example of severe brain damage.

I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.

At minimum, neural activity would have to be both sustained and bilaterally synchronous, such as described in Anand et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987.

Does it naturally grow to be what we commonly recognize as a human being?

I didn’t ask what an oocyte would grow to become, See: I asked what properties a fertilized oocyte possesses which require we treat it as a de facto human being rather than a human cell. You really need to stop trying to hand-wave your way to an argument from potential, since that’s a non-starter: at any time something possesses the property to ‘grow to become a human being’ it cannot logically be found to have already grown to become a human being.

No, I don’t realize that.

Then clearly you fail to understand the human reproduction sufficiently well to discuss the ethics of abortion in any meaningful manner.

So, even by YOUR standards, the life in a woman’s womb at 23 or 24 weeks gestation COULD “represent” a human being.

That’s correct—it could.

But your wording – “does not yet represnt a human being” – does that have essentially the same meaning for you as “IS not yet a human being”?

Yes: prior to 23 to 25 weeks, before characteristic human brainwaves have first appeared, it would not yet be a human being.

See Noevo, I expect at least a formal recantation of your “7 out of 7”, rather than silence when called a liar.

A couple of questions, little weasel: which is the greater crime, providing a therapeutic abortion to Savita Halappanavar so that she would not die from the baby rotting in her belly or killing Dr David Gunn by shooting him three times in the back? Which is the greater sin, providing women with safe and effective methods of contraception so that abortion become very rare or setting fire to a health clinic?

If you find yourself in need of help when wrestling with these thorny moral questions, perhaps you could gets assistance from the Army of God. Your buddies there are a recognized underground terrorist organization active in the United States

See Noevo@962

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.

Even if that were true, it would only be by coincidence that your arguments line up with logic, common sense, and observation. You have said that what the church says is absolute for you. Clearly faith trumps all else for you.

Part of the problem with See’s position is that while he claims he’s speaking out against murder, his reaction is closer to someone upset about a pool hall being built in town rather than the reaction someone would have to, say, the Hunger Games.

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.

Which statement aptly illustrates See’s problem is less what he doesn’t know but more all the things he thinks he knows for certain that simply aren’t so.

As far as I can tell, his ‘logical’ argument in support of human being from conception took the form

1) Nose hairs don’t become people

2) Argle bargle argle bargle

therefore

3) Zygotes alreadyare people

As far as I can tell, his ‘logical’ argument in support of human being from conception took the form

1) Nose hairs don’t become people

2) Argle bargle argle bargle

therefore

3) Zygotes alreadyare people

You forgot:

4) The only other alternative leads inexorably to denying first-graders the opportunity to go to college by executing them for having had hemispherectomies, then having godless non-nutritive orgies instead of virtuously dropping bombs on the infidels who are on the brink of overrunning the country.

To be fair.

ann, JGC, and anyone else who might care: It appears that SN has led the conversation off into neverneverland by causing you to focus on the biological issue ‘human being’, rather than on the moral and legal issue, ‘person’. You’ve mentioned ‘person’ (or ‘people’) en passant, but not directly.

The point is that ‘person’ is the word used in, for example, the 14th Amendment to identify the entity entitled to equal protection under the law, and in most other contexts of interest here, legal, moral, and ethical.

Throughout (most of, at least) history, a ‘person’ has been an individual of H. sap. that has survived its own birth for a culturally dependent time, from minutes to weeks. In the US culture, the duration trends toward the shorter; in other countries, the time currently runs about one week. Nothing has changed in technology nor culture to change that understanding, except for the religious attack in the 1800’s, to redefine ‘person’ as something other than a postpartum entity.

I would suggest redirecting the focus back to where it belongs, on the person rather than the bare organism.

Bill, as far as I’m concerned–and more critically as I’ve been using the terms in my posts–“human being” and “person” are synonymous.

And it is the ethical issue I’ve been focusing on: how biology can and must inform any rational understanding of ethical abortion policies.

“Living: not dead : having life; currently active or being used; having the form of a person who is alive.”

Other examples of the third-listed definition of the word “living” being used correctly in a sentence:

She’s a living doll.
He’s a living testament to the natural fascistic tendencies of humankind.
JGC is a living saint.

(Connotes “exemplifying or embodying another concept, quality, thing or person that may or may not itself be living”)

The second-listed:

English is a living language.
Catholicism is a living faith.
Yoga is a living practice.

(Connotes: “Dynamic not fixed/static.”)

The first:

JGC’s definition of “human being” is a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.

^^In that case, it just means what the first-listed definition says.

I would think that your entire interest in the dictionary definitions of those words arose from your misguided belief that they offered you a way to run rings around JGC’s statement logically.

But you left out the M-W definition of “species”:

biology : a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus***

Oh, wait…

***Honestly, that’s kind of a crappy dictionary, isn’t it?

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

^^That’s much clearer.

Wait, is that Vessel guy from that post you’ve linked See Noevo? Or just someone as disconnected from reality?

The latter. S.N. ran away a few days ago after trying to change the subject to abortion and making a fool of himself in the process.

JGC,

Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.

If that were the case, wouldn’t we have a moral obligation to prevent women from miscarrying at any expense? Wouldn’t we have to collect every sexually active woman’s menstruum, baptise it and give it a Christian burial and funeral in case it contains a fully-fledged human being complete with human rights?

Some further idle thoughts. It may be of interest that in the UK there is a crime of infanticide, when a woman kills her own child aged under 12 months while the balance of her mind is disturbed after childbirth. I’m not sure if that reflects a recognition that a newborn baby is not a complete human being, or that a woman with post partum depression should not be held responsible for her actions.

During my studies of social (cultural) anthropology I was taught that different cultures have very different concepts of what constitutes a person/human being. In Hindu cultures, for example, a person is thought of in terms of what actions they have carried out, their achievements, in this or in previous lives (which links into the caste system, obviously). Humanity is not thought of as a quality emanating from our biology in general or our genetic code in particular.

My tutor was an expert in Balinese culture, and told me he asked the elders among his informants what they would do if they encountered a talking chicken which said it was a human being that had been turned into a chicken by a sorcerer. To his surprise, after some heated discussion they agreed that the correct course of action would be to take the talking chicken home, kill it and eat it. It could not be classed as a human being because it was unable to carry out any of the duties and responsibilities that defined a human.

Perhaps this explains the casual attitude to infanticide in some cultures (including Bali, though abortion is more common there IIRC) and to geronticide in others.

I’m not suggesting that we adopt these attitudes, but just pointing out that there is no universal agreement about what constitutes a human being. Is an anencephalic baby a human being? They are genetically human, but entirely lack a brain. What about chimeric animals, genetically engineered for medical research? They have some cells that are entirely human, so should they be treated as human? What about other higher primates? Some argue that they should have human rights too, which seems ridiculous to me, as with rights come responsibilities which other great apes are unable to fulfill.

Personally I prefer the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which makes it clear (though it took decades of arguments) that human personhood begins at birth.

IMHO – the dividing line on “abortion” vs “murder” should be when the young’un can explain why e^(iπ)=-1.

To ann #956:

“You’re really just saying that as a matter of strong religious conviction, you believe life begins at conception.”

I can say, in all honesty, that is false.

“You have a right to your beliefs.”

Whew! What a relief. Thank you so much, ann!

See Noevo@990

I can say, in all honesty, that is false.

See Noevo, your faith is blind and your devotion absolute. Your beliefs are the church’s, you made that abundantly clear in #901. You can claim your beliefs are rooted in something other than faith but by your own admission that is untrue. Whether those align with logic or whatever else is merely incidental. Once you make a statement like the one in #901 then any appeal you make to logic loses all credibility.

You have surrendered your will to the church. I can see why. It lets you be a bigoted idiot without having to take responsibility for it. Guess what though? At the end of the day you’re still bigoted and you’re still an idiot, doesn’t matter much how you got there.

In #956, ann says of me:
“And if you were honest enough to say it that way, you’d probably get more respect. It’s the blustering and bullying that are a problem.”

If ann thinks my style is characterized by “blustering and bullying”, that’s too bad, for ann.
I’ll keep on keepin’ on, regardless.

But ann’s apparent umbrage at blustering and bullying got me thinking, so I went back through the comments here and found these pleasantries directed to yours truly:

#342: “Are you seriously that ineducable?”

#663: “Your ignoble retreat is again duly noted. As is your bad faith and dishonesty.”
“Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…”
“I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.”

#707: “No, just the ones where you made an ass out of umpt, ion and yourself by prefacing your words with “I assume.”

#711: “That would again be because you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

#712: “Are you really too dense to grasp that the question at issue …”

#715: “Because you don’t really want to save unborn lives.” [NB: ann later apologized for this statement!]

#724: “Can you read?”

#743: “In fact, it’s main point of interest is that it reveals that you care so little about women’s healthcare that you haven’t bothered to give what you’re saying a moment’s thought.”
“You’re not even trying to be honest.”
“Those would be the ones you made up and are now lying about, I guess.”

#750: “Your position is not based on logic, common sense or caution. Or even reality. It’s based on blind religious conviction.”

#777: “That’s because you live in a fantasy world.”

#834: “You’re past the point of taking seriously.”

#918: “That it didn’t go without saying is due to your failure to comprehend plain English at the elementary level of basic fluency…”
“When it comes to patently baseless bullsh*t, you’re batting .1000.
When it comes to accurately assessing and stating the stated positions of other people wrt abortion, you’re doing terribly.”
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Remarkable retorts for an anti-bluster/bully babe.

Regardless, I’m not looking for an apology. I don’t need an apology.

Besides, even if one came, it wouldn’t be for anything of substance, but rather, would be for something like inappropriate *tone*.

Kind of like how a hero of y’all did:

And from the horse’s mouth… time 1:09-1:21:

To JGC #964:

“Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.”

Really?
I’ve been unable to offer “any” credible reason.
No credible reason in, for example, #820?

P.S.
Don’t you at least think society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus could NOT POSSIBLY be a human being BEFORE society allows them to be killed?

To ann #965:

“I left the sentence unfinished because I wasn’t satisfied that it covered every iteration of official Catholic doctine, then forgot to get back to it.”

So, you weren’t satisfied it was a true statement when you made it, but then you forgot to get back to it.
Until I asked you about it.
Huh.
Maybe you forgot about worrying about the statement’s truth because you plainly could hardly control your anticipatory glee of the prospect of scoring a point about something you thought no one would question.

……..
“But I was going to say “viability in its own terms — ie, ensoulment or something equivalent to it.”

And your support for THIS incomprehensible mishmash about the Catholic Church is what?

Folks why are still feeding this misogynist troll?

AdamG, AdamG, next Tuesday on the 18th. Skeptics in the pizza place basement with someone of interest! Hurry up, sign up!

Also, will someone please stop the redirecting of this website to “Educational Gardens” and someone’s Myspace page. Seriously, I don’t care about them!

To ann #972:

“The way JGC defines “human being” is this:
A living adult of juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens”

I sure hope JGC doesn’t.
I never heard of an adult of juvenile individual.

And is the “living” adult like a “So-and-so is living proof that…” etc.?
………….
It’s like someone said, you can’t make a case for your position on the logical, sensible observed merits and so have no better option than to willfully misrepresent the positions of one who does.

See Noevo,
Still waiting for an apology or a retraction for putting words in my (among others) mouth which I never said.

Also, See Noevo, as a side note…

…When you reply “I can say, in all honesty, that is false.” to something like ann’s “You’re really just saying that as a matter of strong religious conviction, you believe life begins at conception”, you might want to either:
a) change the way you behave, because to me and I assume to most of us that is a rational assumption to make based on your posts, or
b) explain why the description isn’t apt.

I did, when you mischaracterized my stance before, and I said I would do it again for your latest repeat-transgression if you answered a question in turn. But rather, you just quietly and ignobly tried to retreat from that line of what can I only think you deem an assault.

So, out of seven who answered, how many do you think support abortion in all cases?

To JGC #974:

Me: “Which cells or tissues grow naturally to be commonly-recognizable as species homo sapiens?”

You: “Germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens have the potential to give rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens.”

The “potential”? Well, as some say, ‘Anything’s possible.’
But, say, at any time in recorded history, have germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens given rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens?
……………….
“I’ll note again that at any time the statement “this cell or tissues may grow naturally such that at a later time it will represent a member of the species homo sapiens” is found true the statement “this cell or tissues already represent a member of the species homo sapiens” must be found false.”

I think I agree!
I think we just disagree over which of those two statements is true.
………..
Me: “Just that when I asked you about people who after birth suffer brain damage (i.e. not necessarily brain-“deadness”), you immediately focused on brain-deadness.”

You: “No, I immediately answered your question 9which was actually “What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?” by stating It would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain. Anencephaly was offered as an example of severe brain damage.”

No, you “immediately” went into brain deadness.
In the *next* paragraph, you mentioned extent of injury and anencephaly.
Others can check for themselves in #858.
…………
Me: “I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.”

You: “At minimum, neural activity would have to be both sustained and bilaterally synchronous…”

By “bilaterally” synchronous, do you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain?
……………
Me: “Does it naturally grow to be what we commonly recognize as a human being?”

You: “I didn’t ask what an oocyte would grow to become, See: I asked what properties a fertilized oocyte possesses which require we treat it as a de facto human being rather than a human cell.”

The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.

This property is not possessed by any other cells to my knowledge.
……..
“You really need to stop trying to hand-wave your way to an argument from potential, since that’s a non-starter: at any time something possesses the property to ‘grow to become a human being’ it cannot logically be found to have already grown to become a human being.”

Mine is not an argument from potential.
I am NOT saying: “possesses the property to ‘grow to BECOME a human being’”.

I AM saying: possesses the property to grow to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.

I must have said this at least once or twice already but I’ll say it again:
The product of conception does NOT have a POTENTIAL for growth;
It IS NOW GROWING, it is already exercising its natural POWER of growth;
Such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms, “characteristics”, in more common parlance.
………
Me: “So, even by YOUR standards, the life in a woman’s womb at 23 or 24 weeks gestation COULD “represent” a human being.”

You: “That’s correct—it could.”

So, even though you think it could, even though you’re not sure, you’re sure we can ethically kill it?

To JGC:

Some here are protesting my claim that they believe abortion should be allowed in all cases.

They say I misunderstand or mangle or ignore some specifics they say they’ve given for when they think abortion SHOULD be forbidden.

Perhaps their protests are well-founded. But instead of trying to find out by rehashing what has, or may have, been said on the issue to this point, let’s start fresh.

Consider this case:
A perfectly normal pregnancy about 25 weeks along, no physical problems or abnormalities with mother or baby, no mental/psychological/psychiatric problems with the mother, according to the appropriate medical professionals. Everything about the pregnancy is proceeding normally.

But the mother wants an abortion, and does not want to be denied the abortion.

Hypothetically, assuming YOU had the power, would YOU forbid the abortion?

On what basis would you forbid or not forbid?

“I’ll note again that at any time the statement “this cell or tissues may grow naturally such that at a later time it will represent a member of the species homo sapiens” is found true the statement “this cell or tissues already represent a member of the species homo sapiens” must be found false.”

I think I agree!
I think we just disagree over which of those two statements is true.

Except it doesn’t work the other way around. The latter statement doesn’t render the former statement false. It might just mean the “transition” has happened already.

The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.

When most fertilized eggs “self-abort”, the possession of such properly is not necessarily absolute.

And that is a argument from potential.

Some here are protesting my claim that they believe abortion should be allowed in all cases.

They say I misunderstand or mangle or ignore some specifics they say they’ve given for when they think abortion SHOULD be forbidden.

Perhaps their protests are well-founded. But instead of trying find out by rehashing what has, or may have, been said on the issue to this point, let’s start fresh.

Your utter and abject failure to have a backbone or a modicum of honesty is duly noted.

See Noevo, August 10, 2015, #990:

I can say, in all honesty, that is false.

After our discussion, some weeks ago, about Mental Reservation, it seems likely that: yes, you can say something in all honesty, but no-one can trust you to do so, especially when your church can be seen as benefiting from your dissembling.

To those who missed it: Mental Reservation is an RCC instruction (maybe a Doctrine) that approves (or requires) a churchmouse like SN to lie if the lie benefits the church. Consequently, it is unwise to trust a devout catlick in any matter in which the RCC may have an interest. That’s why the oath of office for US military officers calls it out, explicitly, along with “purpose of evasion.”

But instead of trying find out by rehashing what has, or may have, been said on the issue to this point, let’s start fresh.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

SN‘s latest folderol:

A perfectly normal pregnancy about 25 weeks along, no physical problems or abnormalities with mother or baby, no mental/psychological/psychiatric problems with the mother, according to the appropriate medical professionals. Everything about the pregnancy is proceeding normally.

But the mother wants an abortion, and does not want to be denied the abortion.

You have not, in your hypothesis, eliminated coercion as a factor. Thus, I would have to interview the patient (personally or by delegation) to determine whether the consent is actual. If in the process of that determination, I were to find the patient to be a refugee from an abusive male, (possibly father, boyfriend, or husband; probably fundy Paulist, strict catholic, mormon, muslim, or orthodox jewish, etc.) I would approve the procedure and give it extra priority, for the patient’s safety.

Hypothetically, assuming YOU[sic] had the power, would YOU[sic] forbid the abortion?

I might, by hypothesis, have the power, but I would not have the moral authority to override the uncoerced wishes of the only affected person. Being a moral person myself, I could not forbid the procedure unless coercion causes actual consent to be absent.

On what basis would you forbid or not forbid?

Again, lack of moral authority to override the expressed, uncoerced wishes of the only person affected. IOW, it would be immoral to forbid the hypothesized procedure.
————————————————————-
By your hypothesis, terminating the pregnancy would convert the fetus into a borderline viable preemy. Being borderline viable means the baby has a significantly low probability of survival to personhood. The survival time required before the preemy could be considered a person, in this case, is fuzzier than that for a full-term birth.

And your support for THIS incomprehensible mishmash about the Catholic Church is what?

See #833.

And is the “living” adult like a “So-and-so is living proof that…” etc.?

No.

As I explained @#985, #967, and #954:

Your all-too-evident belief that the dictionary is telling you that the words “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens” can be construed to mean “an adult or juvenile individual having the form of a person of the species of human beings that exist today” is based on a very profound misapprehension about how words are defined and used, apparently arising from your religious convictions.

Sorry:

“an adult or juvenile individual having the form of a person who is alive of the species of human beings that exist today”

^^The dictionary does not justify that reading any more than it would taking the words “You scared the living daylights out of me” to mean “You scared the daylights having the form of a person who is alive out of me.”

It’s a somewhat awkwardly phrased definition. They really mean “being the live embodiment of” as in “You’re the living image of your great-grandmother.”

By “bilaterally” synchronous, do you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain?

Who didn’t see that non-gotcha coming?

You cut off “such as described in Anand et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987.”

But that doesn’t mean it’s not there, or that the description isn’t of bilaterally synchronous and sustained prenatal brain waves, and not the brain waves of a six-year-old who has had a hemispherectomy.

The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.

The dictionary is not saying that having the form of a person who is alive = being a living person. It’s just giving the definition for a common rhetorical usage of the word “living.”

I must have said this at least once or twice already but I’ll say it again:
The product of conception does NOT have a POTENTIAL for growth;
It IS NOW GROWING, it is already exercising its natural POWER of growth;
Such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms, “characteristics”, in more common parlance.

And it’s been pointed out to you once or twice already that unless the property that defines human beings is that they are growing, that’s either an argument from potential or it’s not so much a logical argument as it is just you saying “argle bargle argle bargle, therefore zygotes already are human beings.”

Put another way:

If the proposition you’re trying to prove logically true is that a growing cell with the natural power to grow into a recognizable human being already is one, you can’t do it by arguing that a growing cell with the natural power to grow into a recognizable human being already is one.

No credible reason in, for example, #820?

I see no credible reason offered @820, See. What credible reason do you believe you offered in that post?

Don’t you at least think society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus could NOT POSSIBLY be a human being BEFORE society allows them to be killed?

First: I don’t believe that societies have any moral obligations: they have ethical ones, certainly, but not moral ones.

And as I’m aware of no reason why we must a priori presume the rights of an oocyte, zygote, embryo or fetus take precedence over the rights of the woman carrying it, I believe that even if we do know that a fetus has developed sufficiently to represent a human being that woman still possesses the right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy to term or to terminate it.

But, say, at any time in recorded history, have germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens given rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens?

Sigh. You don’t know what a germ cell is, do you See? One more example of why you lack the ability to take part in this discussion in any substantive manner.

By “bilaterally” synchronous, do you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain?

Read the Anand et al cite I provided, See. (I will note that I left out a third minimal criteria—that the neural activity observed originate in the cortex.)

The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person… I am NOT saying: “possesses the property to ‘grow to BECOME a human being’”. I AM saying: possesses the property to grow to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person.

So you’re argument has become that the ability to grow is not the property that demonstrates an oocyte is a human being but instead is simply the property that will at a later date make it possible for us to all-caps RECOGNIZE it as a human being?

That runs us right back to the original question: since growth isn’t the property that requires we consider it to be a human being, what property is it instead that requires we consider an oocyte to be a human being rather than a human cell?

So, even though you think it could, even though you’re not sure, you’re sure we can ethically kill it?

Yes. In some circumstances that’s pretty much self-evident, such as when electing not to terminate a pregnancy would lead to the death of the fetus upon or shortly after delivery, the death of the fetus and/or the woman carrying it, or to serious injury (physical or mental) to the woman carrying it.

And more generally, with respect to your example

A perfectly normal pregnancy about 25 weeks along, no physical problems or abnormalities with mother or baby, no mental/psychological/psychiatric problems with the mother, according to the appropriate medical professionals. Everything about the pregnancy is proceeding normally. But the mother wants an abortion, and does not want to be denied the abortion.

given that I’m not aware of any argument which requires we conclude a fetus’s presumptive rights must take precedence over a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health and decide if and when to bring a pregnancy to term, I believe that the woman described in your example may still ethically elect to terminate the pregnancy.

Suppose you woke up one morning and found that someone had started a blood transfusion (using amazingly portable equipment). That person cannot be taken off the transfusion for even a moment, or s/he will die. S/he will be using your blood for about 7 months, assuming s/he lives the entire period. Once s/he no longer needs your blood, s/he will need full time care for several years and financial support for 18 years. After that, s/he will never write and leave you in the dark to suffer.

Why should the law demand you support this freeloader?

Why should the law demand you support this freeloader?

But obviously when a lady gets pregnant it is a totally different situation, because she did sex with her lady parts, and eeew, originally sinful lady parts, naughty naughty. Everyone knows a woman gives up the right to her own uterus and her self-determination the moment she opens her legs. Duh.

To Bill Price #982:

“It appears that SN has led the conversation off into neverneverland by causing you to focus on the biological issue ‘human being’, rather than on the moral and legal issue, ‘person’… The point is that ‘person’ is the word used in, for example, the 14th Amendment to identify the entity entitled to equal protection under the law, and in most other contexts of interest here, legal, moral, and ethical… I would suggest redirecting the focus back to where it belongs, on the person rather than the bare organism.”

It seems to me the 14th Amendment is focusing on defining “citizen”, not defining “person.”

For example, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The fourteenth amendment defines neither ‘person’ nor ‘citizen’, See: it states that all persons (undefined) born or naturalized in the United States are also citizens (again undefined) of the Untied States.

To ann #981:

JGC: “As far as I can tell, [See Noevo’s] ‘logical’ argument in support of human being from conception took the form…”

You: “You forgot: 4) The only other alternative leads inexorably to denying first-graders the opportunity to go to college by executing them for having had hemispherectomies, then having godless non-nutritive orgies instead of virtuously dropping bombs on the infidels who are on the brink of overrunning the country.”

That’s pretty slick, ann.
It’s virtually completely false, of course, but it’s a real zinger.
I say “virtually” because it hints at an element of truth:
Over time, small changes in a certain direction can lead to massive change. You would agree to this, especially as a person who believes in, say, evolution.

It seems to me the 14th Amendment is focusing on defining “citizen”, not defining “person.”

The fourteenth amendment defines neither ‘person’ nor ‘citizen’,

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is about citizenship and rights. I would say that it does define citizen (any person born or naturalized in the United States), and that it extends rights to non-citizens — ie, the last two clauses are (“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) are not contingent on citizenship, but on personhood.

While the words “person” and “persons” are never defined, there or elsewhere in the Constitution, they’re always used in a context that makes it clear the intended meaning is “a person (or persons) born” — eg, “No person” shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress (etc.) who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress (etc.) shall have engaged in in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

And neither word is ever used in a context that even suggests or implies that the intended meaning is “a person or persons unborn.” There’s really no originalist argument at all to be made for there being constitutional rights for the unborn, which is presumably why Scalia says it’s up to the states.

To Bill Price #1006:

“I might, by hypothesis, have the power, but I would not have the moral authority to override the uncoerced wishes of the only affected person.”

That doesn’t sound too bad. It’s like half-good.
Because, as even JGC #974 would agree, the mother MIGHT not be the only affected person.

“Being a moral person myself, I could not forbid the procedure unless coercion causes actual consent to be absent… lack of moral authority to override the expressed, uncoerced wishes of the only person affected. IOW, it would be immoral to forbid the hypothesized procedure.”

But you DO believe you have the moral authority to override the uncoerced wishes of some people.
For instance, you think you have the moral authority to override someone who freely wishes to “coerce” another.

M-W defines “coerce” as “to make (someone) do something by using force or threats.”

What if the mother is threatened by the father (who she’s very close to) that if she DOES HAVE the abortion they’re relationship will be over, AND,
the mother is also threatened by her family (who she’s very close to) that if she does NOT HAVE the abortion she’ll be cut off from the family?

I guess the mother would then freely decide which of the relationships is more important to her,
or maybe freely decide that neither of those relationships is as important as her relationship with her baby.

Submitting to coercion is partly understandable. It’s also partly cowardice.

————————————————————-
“By your hypothesis, terminating the pregnancy would convert the fetus into a borderline viable preemy.”

False, of course.

To ann #1007:

You: “All your arguments for why a zygote is a human being have failed. Let’s review them…
(2) Because many/most people have always known that it is.
Unless liberals traveled back in time and altered the historical record, many/most people have always thought that life began at viability. The Catholic Church thought so until 1869.”
Then…
“I left the sentence unfinished because I wasn’t satisfied that it covered every iteration of official Catholic doctine, then forgot to get back to it. But I was going to say “viability in its own terms — ie, ensoulment or something equivalent to it.”

Me: “And your support for THIS incomprehensible mishmash about the Catholic Church is what?”

You: “See #833.”

Oh, like #833’s “eg, per Augustine, abortion could not be regarded “as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed.”” ?

I think Augustine also surmised that creation didn’t happen in six days, but instead in one day or instantaneously.
Did many/most Catholics accept that?

In way of response to the rest of your #883 Catholic mishmash/trash…

“Wendell Watters, a Canadian psychiatrist, makes the unsupported claim that prior to 1869 and except for three years during the reign of Sixtus V (1588-1591), “The Church had officially accepted the theory of delayed animation for 500 years.”40 This, of course, is completely untrue. The Church had never at any time “officially” accepted the theory of delayed animation. It did, however, mitigate punishment if the abortion was of an unanimated fetus. But it never taught that there was such a thing as an unanimated fetus; it gave the benefit of the doubt to the penitent that this might be the case in an early abortion. The only official Church teaching on the subject of animation is that of Pope Innocent XI which condemned the position that ensoulment took place at birth.41”
Much more at http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3362

(But maybe the hyperlink above won’t count, because any defense of the Catholic Church by an orthodox Catholic source must, by definition, be disregarded. Right?)

To ann #1011:

“Put another way:
If the proposition you’re trying to prove logically true is that a growing cell with the natural power to grow into a recognizable human being already is one, you can’t do it by arguing that a growing cell with the natural power to grow into a recognizable human being already is one.”

In a fantasy world, where not all things work the way they do in our world…
a little child had a handsome, healthy father.
But the father later got into a car crash that took two of his limbs and mashed his face *beyond recognition*.
Later in the hospital, the child saw the doctors take the bandages from the face of the now two-limbed man to reveal a still grotesque face.
An *unrecognizable*, icky face.
The child screamed in horror: “That’s not my daddy!”
and she ran into the hallway screaming further
“Where’s my daddy? Who took my daddy? Where is he?”

Much later in the hospital, the child visited another room, and saw the face she immediately *recognized*.
And the child screamed with delight and with tears:
“Daddy! Daddy! Where have you been?”

And Daddy, through his tears, said:
“Honey, I’ve been here all along.”

Hey, little weasel, you’re a big time anti abortion kind of critter: which doctor are your buddies planning to murder next, and at what time have they scheduled the hit? If you could give us fair warning, that would be a big help.

@ JustaTech:

That’s really a difficult question because if one is currently VERY active it may bias us towards that him- HOWEVER if we looked to performance OVER TIME, we might choose another.

So, for the Former, See No, and the latter, MJD.

To JGC #1012:

“First: I don’t believe that societies have any moral obligations: they have ethical ones, certainly, but not moral ones.”

First, an aside from Merriam-Webster…
“Ethical: involving questions of *right and wrong* behavior…: following accepted rules of behavior : *morally* right and good.”
“Moral: concerning or relating to what is *right and wrong* in human behavior
: based on what you think is *right and good*: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior.”
………..
M-W aside, I’ll rephrase:

Don’t you at least think society has an *ethical* obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus could NOT POSSIBLY be a human being BEFORE society allows them to be killed?

………….
“… I believe that even if we do know that a fetus has developed sufficiently to represent a human being that woman still possesses the right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy to term or to terminate it.”

So, it is ethical to value the rights of one human being over the rights of another (and innocent and helpless) human being, to the point of killing the latter.

That’s some “ethics”.
………….
Me: “But, say, at any time in recorded history, have germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens given rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens?”

You: “Sigh. You don’t know what a germ cell is, do you See? One more example of why you lack the ability to take part in this discussion in any substantive manner.”

Perhaps you mean a fertilized oocyte is A germ cell, I don’t know.
But EVEN IF a fertilized oocyte is only one type of germ cell, have any OTHER types of germ cells been observed to grow naturally into what even a child would recognize as a human being?
…………
Me: “By “bilaterally” synchronous, do you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain?”

You: “Read the Anand et al cite I provided, See.”

Oh, I see.
So, an acceptable response to you could be: “Want the right answer on an ethical question? Read, say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Case Closed.”

Why won’t YOU explain a term YOU used?
By “*bilaterally* synchronous”, do you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain?
………………..
“(I will note that I left out a third minimal criteria—that the neural activity observed originate in the cortex.)”

You left out a *minimal* criteria? Imagine that.
And the minimal criteria you’ve added is ‘observed to originate in the cortex.’

M-W says “cortex” is “medical : the outer layer of an organ in the body and especially of the brain”.

Others say
“Human brain development is a protracted process that begins in the THIRD gestational week (GW) with the differentiation of the neural progenitor cells and extends at least through late adolescence, arguably throughout the lifespan… The largest and most important brain information processing networks involve the neocortex and the subcortical nuclei that relay information to and from the neocortex… The subcortical nuclei are clusters of neurons that serve as both signal relay centers communicating between the neocortex and the rest of the body, and as relays among different areas of the CORTEX… during childhood and adolescence CHANGES in brain structure are at least as DRAMATIC as those at the end of life.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/

“The laminar structure of the cerebral CORTEX is encoded EARLY in development. By [gestational age] WEEK 8, neuroblasts begin to differentiate into either specific neuronal cell types or macrogila, depending on their location within a complex topographic matrix of molecular gradients in the ventricular zone layer.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055433/

I’m sure we could go on and on.
But your important minimal addition essentially seems to be
‘neural activity observed originate in the outer layer of the brain.’

Well, stop the presses, and let’s get that headline out there.
…………..
“So you’re argument has become that the ability to grow is not the property that demonstrates an oocyte is a human being but instead is simply the property that will at a later date make it possible for us to all-caps RECOGNIZE it as a human being?”

Sigh. See story in #1022.
………………………
“That runs us right back to the original question: since growth isn’t the property that requires we consider it to be a human being, what property is it instead that requires we consider an oocyte to be a human being rather than a human cell?”

Growth is A property, ONE property, of living things.
Living things naturally grow/develop into greater levels of MATURITY (e.g. See #797 Senior citizen back through Zygote).
A fertilized oocyte is *substantively different* from all other human cells in that its growing maturity is “recognizable” as, say, Daddy or Mommy, and not something that just, say, needs a trim (e.g. nose hair).
……………………….

Me: “So, even though you think it could [be a human being], even though you’re not sure, you’re sure we can ethically kill it?”

You: “Yes.”

Well, there you have it.
……………………..

“And more generally, with respect to your example … given that I’m not aware of any argument which requires we conclude a fetus’s presumptive rights must take precedence over a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health and decide if and when to bring a pregnancy to term, I believe that the woman described in your example may still ethically elect to terminate the pregnancy.”

I’ll add you to the list.
Now I’m 8 for 8.

And Daddy, through his tears, said:
“Honey, I’ve been here all along.”

If I’m right in thinking that the argument now turns on the assertion that an unchangeable human essence is present from the moment of fertilization, ergo the zygote is a human being, how do you account for this scenario:

“Steve” at conception splitting into “Steve” and “Scott” six days later?

I would say that alters the essential Steve-ness of the unicellular organism in a pretty substantial way. Or Scott-ness, as the case may be. But either way, the essence of at least one of them arises after conception.

So. The essence of a human being is either (a) not naturally, fully, completely present from zygote-hood onward; or (b) you need to explain how, why and from where the natural, full, complete essence of two human beings gets into a single cell that later becomes monozygotic twins.

@#1020

As I already said, I wasn’t happy with that statement. That’s why I didn’t finish it. I offered it only by way of explaining why the line read that way. So quit cherry-picking it. It makes you look desperate. Because as I also already effing said:

My real point was that if your present belief — ie, that life begins at conception — is based on plain, simple logic, common sense and observation, the Catholic Church has been illogical, unobservant and lacking in common sense for approximately 1900 of the last 2000 years.

Apart from that, see #833.

To ann #1018:

So, you say the 14th amendment defines “citizen” but never defines “person/personhood”,
but that it does extend rights to *non-citizens* – rights including life, liberty, or property and equal protection of the laws.

So, while an un-born person may not now be able to be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or even a citizen,
you would say the un-born person COULD still have the rights to life, liberty, etc.

“There’s really no originalist argument at all to be made for there being constitutional rights for the unborn, which is presumably why Scalia says it’s up to the states.”

Or maybe you could say, by definition, if the constitution doesn’t prohibit states from permitting something, it protects their right to permit it. In theory, at least.

In any case, the issue is being fought at the federal and state levels:
http://data.rhrealitycheck.org/law-topic/personhood/

Growth is A property, ONE property, of living things.
Living things naturally grow/develop into greater levels of MATURITY (e.g. See #797 Senior citizen back through Zygote).
A fertilized oocyte is *substantively different* from all other human cells in that its growing maturity is “recognizable” as, say, Daddy or Mommy, and not something that just, say, needs a trim (e.g. nose hair).

If you’re saying that the property makes it different is that it’s growing maturity will later be recognizable as a human being, that’s either an argument from potential or you’re just saying a zygote is a human being because that’s what I believe a zygote is — a human being.

And that’s not a logic-based argument. What recognizable, identifiable property makes it a human being, apart from its power — which it’s already exercising — to grow into a recognizable human being? (Or two?)

Sorry, the post at #1022 exceeds the FDA’s daily recommended allowance of treacle.

To ann #1027, #1028:

“If I’m right in thinking that the argument now turns on the assertion that an unchangeable human essence is present from the moment of fertilization, ergo the zygote is a human being, how do you account for this scenario:
“Steve” at conception splitting into “Steve” and “Scott” six days later?
I would say that alters the essential Steve-ness of the unicellular organism in a pretty substantial way. Or Scott-ness, as the case may be. But either way, the essence of at least one of them arises after conception.”

It’s appropriate that you put “Steve” in quotes, as I did.
I would say the assertion stands – that, to borrow some words, an unchangeable human essence is present from the moment of fertilization.
………………………
“… the Catholic Church has been illogical, unobservant and lacking in common sense for approximately 1900 of the last 2000 years.
Apart from that, see #833.”

Apart from that, see #1020.

Some words for the day:

“And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
……………………….
“In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father
that one of these little ones be lost.”

So, you say the 14th amendment defines “citizen” but never defines “person/personhood”,
but that it does extend rights to *non-citizens* – rights including life, liberty, or property and equal protection of the laws.

It extends them to any person within the jurisdiction of any state, without specifying citizenship.

So, while an un-born person may not now be able to be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or even a citizen, you would say the un-born person COULD still have the rights to life, liberty, etc.

If the word “person” in the due-process and equal-protection clauses — ie, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” — was held to include the unborn, then yes, obviously.

But as I said:

There’s really no originalist argument at all to be made for there being constitutional rights for the unborn, which is presumably why Scalia says it’s up to the states.

Speaking of which:

Or maybe you could say, by definition, if the constitution doesn’t prohibit states from permitting something, it protects their right to permit it. In theory, at least.

^^You seem to be under the impression that you’re saying something different from the statement you’re responding to there. But I have no idea what it is. You could put it either way. You’d be saying the same thing.

But wrt abortion, it would be a moot point, because Roe v. Wade does prohibit the states from outlawing it.

Also, just incidentally, I wasn’t actually speaking from a partisan perspective. Because I’m not actually pro-originalism. Anti-, if anything. I was just stating a fact.

In any event, that there’s no originalist argument to be made for constitutional rights for the unborn doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s no argument to be made for it at all. It just means there’s no basis for arguing that the framers intended it. Which there isn’t.

But you should blame them if that ticks you off. I had nothing to do with it.

At least he’s given up arguing that his position is based on science and common sense.

I would say the assertion stands – that, to borrow some words, an unchangeable human essence is present from the moment of fertilization.

It’s a matter of belief.

To ann #1030:

“If you’re saying that the property makes it different is that it’s growing maturity will later be recognizable as a human being, that’s either an argument from potential or you’re just saying a zygote is a human being because that’s what I believe a zygote is — a human being.
“And that’s not a logic-based argument. What recognizable, identifiable property makes it a human being, apart from its power — which it’s already exercising — to grow into a recognizable human being? (Or two?)”

In another fantasy world, where not all things work the way they do in our world…
In early spring time, a father took his little girl down to a local pond.
She had been there once before, and had seen and learned about tadpoles and frogs.
This time she saw some newly hatched fish, something like this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hatched+fish+pics&biw=1002&bih=414&tbm=isch&imgil=55DIAnJyahs2-M%253A%253Bpt-q0H5pnffukM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.sciencemuseum.org.uk%25252Fantenna%25252Ffishing%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=55DIAnJyahs2-M%253A%252Cpt-q0H5pnffukM%252C_&usg=__mY0_DXCHO2M0ToxiwqbCbrkXnR4%3D&ved=0CDMQyjdqFQoTCKnOl67BoscCFUN5PgodfHUJSw&ei=KbHKVemVGMPy-QH86qXYBA#imgrc=55DIAnJyahs2-M%3A&usg=__mY0_DXCHO2M0ToxiwqbCbrkXnR4%3D

And she screamed: “Look Daddy. Tadpoles!”
And Daddy said: “Actually, honey, they’re not tadpoles. They’re little fish.”
And she said: “But they don’t look like little fish, Daddy.”
And Daddy said: “I know, but they are.”
And she giggled and laughed: “No they’re not. They’re tadpoles. You’re silly, Daddy!”
Then she giggled and laughed some more as Daddy played the Creature from the Black Lagoon and chased her around the pond.

In early Fall, the two returned to the pond.
She saw some minnows and she screamed: “Look, Daddy. Fish!”
And Daddy said: “Yes! Actually, honey, they’re those things you thought were tadpoles last time. They’ve just grown up a bit.”
And she paused, and her eyes grew big, and she asked “Really, Daddy?”
And Daddy said: “Really, honey.”
And she giggled and screamed “I love you, Daddy! And I like fish, even the *little ones*, whatever they look like.”
And Daddy smiled and said “And I you. And me too!”
And she looked puzzled for a second, but then beamed “You’re funny, Daddy!”
Then she giggled and laughed some more as Daddy again played the Creature from the Black Lagoon and chased her around the pond.

To ann #1034:

You: “There’s really no originalist argument at all to be made for there being constitutional rights for the unborn, which is presumably why Scalia says it’s up to the states.”

Me: “Or maybe you could say, by definition, if the constitution doesn’t prohibit states from permitting something, it protects their right to permit it. In theory, at least.”

You: “You seem to be under the impression that you’re saying something different from the statement you’re responding to there. But I have no idea what it is. You could put it either way. You’d be saying the same thing.”

Oh, maybe I was just trying to having some fun.
Maybe kind of like in #719:
Me: “However, I THINK that maybe the decision by the five Supremes decision essentially told the states that the states’ permission of abortion had Constitutional protection.”

You: “Not exactly. I mean, by definition, if the constitution doesn’t prohibits states from permitting something, it protects their right to permit it. In theory, at least.”
……………….

“But wrt abortion, it would be a moot point, because Roe v. Wade does prohibit the states from outlawing it.”

Few if any things are “moot” in the long term. See Dred Scott.

@See Noevo #1033

Isn’t that nice that you share some bible quotes with us so we can appreciate it’s wisdom?
I’ve got one for you too See:
“She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emissions was like that of horses”
Ezekiel 23:20

Sure. That order of change would be the very long term, though. Not to say that the unforeseeable doesn’t sometimes happen. But I don’t think there’s a route to that destination yet in view.

In the near term, overturning Roe and letting the states do as they will is likelier. That could happen. It might not. But it could.

re See Noevo, August 11, 2015, #1019:
SN,you have taught us, over the weeks, that you have no compunction about dissembling and misrepresenting people’s statements.

To Bill Price #1006:

“I might, by hypothesis, have the power, but I would not have the moral authority to override the uncoerced wishes of the only affected person.”

That doesn’t sound too bad. It’s like half-good.
Because, as even JGC #974 would agree, the mother MIGHT not be the only affected person.

Let’s let JGC express any agreement [s]he might have, rather than putting forth your argument as if the were JGC’s. The hypothetical we’re discussing concerns the termination of a pregnancy. The patient is affected by such a procedure, and nobody else. what other person is going to climb onto the procedure table with her?

“Being a moral person myself, I could not forbid the procedure unless coercion causes actual consent to be absent… lack of moral authority to override the expressed, uncoerced wishes of the only person affected. IOW, it would be immoral to forbid the hypothesized procedure.”

But you DO believe you have the moral authority to override the uncoerced wishes of some people.
For instance, you think you have the moral authority to override someone who freely wishes to “coerce” another.

It’s not clear what scare-quoted “coerce” means to you, so I use the regular English construction. In any case, your hypothetical does not include any other people, only the patient, and possibly the patient’s end of any coercion that may be present, without regard to those outside the hypothetical who may be applying the coercion.
Coercion is immoral, so it is moral to resist it, and to help another resist it. I do not have the moral authority to override the immorality of third parties, except on behalf of an unwilling victim of the immorality. This has to do with boundaries between and among people: but boundaries is a moral concept. A catlick knows little, if anything, of morality, using submission to the authority of the church as a substitute: the church, in its greed for power, does not recognize any boundaries to its authority.

What if the mother is threatened by the father (who she’s very close to) that if she DOES HAVE the abortion they’re relationship will be over, AND,
the mother is also threatened by her family (who she’s very close to) that if she does NOT HAVE the abortion she’ll be cut off from the family?

I guess the mother would then freely decide which of the relationships is more important to her,
or maybe freely decide that neither of those relationships is as important as her relationship with her baby.

The patient is not yet a mother, since the neither the original hypothetical nor this new hypothesis don’t mention any children. That’s just another example of your catlick dissembling.
Much as it distresses the misogynistic paulists you represent, the patient gets to “freely decide which of the relationships is more important to her”, even though she is female. She also, much to your dismay, gets to freely decide on the procedure in question. The moral response to her decision is to respect her personhood, her humanity, her interest in her own life: the catlick/fundy response is coercion, dissembling, and misrepresentation.

It is moral to help a victim of coercion to escape from it, to regain the freedom and dignity that the coercer would deny her, if that be her choice.

Submitting to coercion is partly understandable. It’s also partly cowardice.

As a devout catlick, you have submitted to the coercion of the church’s threats of eternal damnation (or whatever) for failure to submit to the church’s authority. You would, thus, know about cowardice, wouldn’t you.
————————————————————-

“By your hypothesis, terminating the pregnancy would convert the fetus into a borderline viable preemy.”

False, of course.

How is my statement false?

n another fantasy world, where not all things work the way they do in our world…
[…]
“You’re funny, Daddy!”
Then she giggled and laughed some more as Daddy again played the Creature from the Black Lagoon and chased her around the pond.

But tragically, either of them saw the zombie unicorns galloping towards them.

Was there a point?

Folks,

No correctives for Bill Price’s #1041?
There’s plenty there to be fixed.

ann? Anyone?

Maybe your correctives only go in one direction here (i.e. against me)?

I’ve done enough correcting for one day.

Ann? Anyone? Anyone?

See Noevo, #1044, August 12, 2015

Folks,
No correctives for Bill Price’s #1041?
There’s plenty there to be fixed.

Perhaps there’s nothing to correct, as opposed to fix (as in “the fix is in.”).

Maybe your correctives only go in one direction here (i.e. against me)?

Maybe that’s where they’re needed.
—————————————————-
Seriously, self-blinded one, check yourself for projection. I’m not the one afflicted by the arrogance of faith, so I can and do appreciate being corrected.

No correctives for Bill Price’s #1041?
There’s plenty there to be fixed.

Didn’t realize we were your little elves, mastah. We’ll get right to it.

Maybe your correctives only go in one direction here (i.e. against me)?

It wouldn’t be you, per se. “Against you” just coincides with logic and ethics.

First, *I’m* giggling at SN’s idea that tadpoles (which become frogs) and minnows (which are baby fist) are the same thing. He has already proven he has no knowledge of biology; that story just confirms it.

Second: it’s very distressing that SN is going against catholic teachings by ranting against vaccines just because a few of them came from long ago aborted fetuses. Anyone who has done any research (or even googled it) on the subject is aware that the National Catholic Bioethics Center has fully addressed this question. The Church supports vaccination. If an alternative is available, it may be used, but if no alternative is available then as per the website: The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine.

(sighs, wonders when SN will go to the Kenyan Bishop thread and start supporting THEM)…

If you mean this:

A catlick knows little, if anything, of morality, using submission to the authority of the church as a substitute: the church, in its greed for power, does not recognize any boundaries to its authority.

The first part is a matter of opinion, but I strongly disagree with it. In my experience and observation, Catholics run the same moral gamut as the rest of humanity. To pick a public figure as an example, I would say that Stephen Colbert’s professional conduct is an exemplar of civic, moral and ethical virtue. And he’s definitely a devout Catholic.

I very much doubt that Bill Price would disagree with that, or that he literally meant that all Catholics in the whole wide world are morally ignorant automatons. I think it’s pretty clear that he was just making an anti-religion statement in the form of trash-talk aimed at you.

And since you’ve repeatedly (and apparently intentionally) insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized the beliefs and values of other people on this thread, I don’t think you’re in a position to complain about that.

But it was not too long ago that people said stuff like that and meant it, out of real hatred for Catholics. And there’s probably some vestigial anti-Catholicism driving anti-immigrant sentiment in some quarters even in the present day. So in another context, I’d probably object.

I’m not sure I understand the second part. The Church recognizes boundaries in its authority. But it does not recognize a moral authority greater than itself on earth. So if the intended meaning in context was “moral authority,” it’s true enough.

To MI Dawn #1048:

“First, *I’m* giggling at SN’s idea that tadpoles (which become frogs) and minnows (which are baby fist) are the same thing. He has already proven he has no knowledge of biology; that story just confirms it.”

Now THAT WOULD be worth a giggle.
But, you better read the story again.
Then you can giggle at yourself.

“Second: it’s very distressing that SN is going against catholic teachings by ranting against vaccines just because a few of them came from long ago aborted fetuses… The Church supports vaccination.”

I asked questions about vaccines derived from aborted babies, but where did I rant against vaccines, per se?

To ann #1050:

“If you mean this:
“A catlick knows little, if anything, of morality…” The first part is a matter of opinion, but I…”

No, I did not mean that.
But I see you have expounded once again on something which should go without saying.

And I think Stephen Colbert is probably as definitely devout a Catholic as, say, Nancy Pelosi.
A true Catholic doesn’t support, say, abortion or gay marriage.

“And since you’ve repeatedly (and apparently intentionally)
insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized the beliefs and values of other people on this thread…”

Just out of curiosity, do you think that maybe YOU have repeatedly insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized my beliefs and values?
(You can refer to #992 to aid in your reflection.)

And again, no, I wasn’t referring to Price’s #1041 “catlick” statements when I asked for your correctives of his post.

@SN: so you replied to the first part of my comment, but TOTALLY IGNORED the second part, which addresses your “vaccines from aborted babies”. So I’ll make it easier for you and bold it.

Second: it’s very distressing that SN is going against catholic teachings by ranting against vaccines just because a few of them came from long ago aborted fetuses. Anyone who has done any research (or even googled it) on the subject is aware that the National Catholic Bioethics Center has fully addressed this question. The Church supports vaccination. If an alternative is available, it may be used, but if no alternative is available then as per the website: The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine.

SN: “I asked questions about vaccines derived from aborted babies, but where did I rant against vaccines, per se?”

By the factually wrong premise you started with.

SN,

A true Catholic doesn’t support, say, abortion or gay marriage.

If I’m not mistaken a True Catholic also believes that the bread and wine literally transforms into the body and blood of Jesus, that he was born of a miraculous conception*, healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water and was resurrected after he died? Believe what you like, by all means, but this isn’t rational discourse territory and it is utterly nuts to pretend it is.

* I was going to mention that when you asked when a zygote ever grew into a human being but figured you wouldn’t get the joke.

“And since you’ve repeatedly (and apparently intentionally) insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized the beliefs and values of other people on this thread…”

Just out of curiosity, do you think that maybe YOU have repeatedly insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized my beliefs and values?

Are you really arguing two wrongs make a right?

SN on August 10 in comment #970

I’m off to play some golf, like Barack Hussein Obama.

Maybe this will hit comment #1000 while I’m gone.

SN has worked pretty hard to get this thread to #1056, but no sign (s)he was ever playing golf, or it was a very short round.

To MI Dawn #1053:

“@SN: so you replied to the first part of my comment, but TOTALLY IGNORED the second part, which addresses your “vaccines from aborted babies”. So I’ll make it easier for you and bold it.”

Thanks, but you didn’t need to make it easier for me.
I never once here said I was against, or would forbid, the use of the particular vaccines in question. I never did because I’m not.
As I said earlier, I asked questions here about those vaccines, and I never ‘ranted’ against vaccines, per se.

I’m not going against Catholic teaching,
but I don’t understand why it would distress you if I did.

Your quote from the National Catholic Bioethics Center seems reasonable and ethical to me, as I think it so seems to you.

What’s the problem?

ann, #1050:

I very much doubt that Bill Price would disagree [] that [Catholics run the same moral gamut as the rest of humanity],

You would be correct, ann. There exist people in all fundy religions, whether Catholic, Protestant, Moslem, Jewish, … that question the moral pronouncements of their church leaders, and substitute their own morality for the official ones. Sometimes, the substitute is ill-advised, sometimes—when it reflects the innate human morality—it is markedly superior.

or that he literally meant that all Catholics in the whole wide world are morally ignorant automatons. I think it’s pretty clear that he was just making an anti-religion statement in the form of trash-talk aimed at you.

The statement was not so much anti-religion (although there is some of that) as anti-fundy in general and antiSN‘s fundamentalism, specifically. SN‘s perversions of morality make him such an inviting target. Yes, it was also aimed at those other religiosi who, like SN, “are morally ignorant automatons”.

I’m not sure I understand the second part. The Church recognizes boundaries in its authority. But it does not recognize a moral authority greater than itself on earth. So if the intended meaning in context was “moral authority,” it’s true enough.

The RCC’s boundaries include, to them, imposing their moral theories on everyone, whether their victims have subjected themselves to church authority (like SN and ann) or not. I’m outside their boundaries, but that doesn’t stop them. None of my female grand-younguns are Catholic, but the RCC would deny them the full range of health care. My gay grandson is not Catholic, but the RCC would deny him any rights they could withhold from him.

Again, the RCC (as well as fundy protestants and moslems) are eager to reach outside their boundaries to impose their power on me and everyone. SN seems to think that that evil is just great, when the RCC does it.

To gaist #1056:

Ann: “And since you’ve repeatedly (and apparently intentionally) insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized the beliefs and values of other people on this thread…”

Me: “Just out of curiosity, do you think that maybe YOU have repeatedly insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized my beliefs and values?”

You: “Are you really arguing two wrongs make a right?”

No, I’m not. But apparently ann is**.

**In anticipation of a possible corrective from the ped-ann-tic, I should add that she may not have technically argued for or justified her frequent type of response (see #922). She just makes that frequent type of response.

To Renate #1057:

“SN on August 10 in comment #970
“I’m off to play some golf, like Barack Hussein Obama.
Maybe this will hit comment #1000 while I’m gone.”
SN has worked pretty hard to get this thread to #1056, but no sign (s)he was ever playing golf, or it was a very short round.”

Well, I can 100% guarantee you that if, for some reason, you ever seriously tried to prove your snarky insinuation was true, you would lose.

Actually, it turned out to be quite a remarkable day:
1) I shot a 7-over par 78.
2) The 18-hole round took about 3.4 hours. From the time I left my house until the time I returned, over 5.5 hours.
3) That night, although I didn’t plan or intend it, one of my comments became #1000. As God is my witness.

I was thankful for such a good day.
Thanks for bringing it up.

No, I’m not. But apparently ann is**.

Saying that doesn’t make it so.

ann was call you out for pretending outrage at being called mean names, while you haven’t shied away from doing the same. That is no an example of two wrongs making right, that’s her castigating your hypocrisy.

What you did, dismissing her complain with “but YOU’re mean too!” is a clear example of the said folly. Or how else would you interpret it?

My rhetorical question was merely a thinly veiled pointing-out-the-obvious.

Re: Bill Price #1059.

Ok, folks, if correcting Bill’s #1041 was too tough for you, maybe you’ll find this one easier:

“The RCC’s boundaries include, to them, imposing their moral theories on everyone, whether their victims have subjected themselves to church authority (like SN and ann) or not. I’m outside their boundaries, but that doesn’t stop them. None of my female grand-younguns are Catholic, but the RCC would deny them the full range of health care. My gay grandson is not Catholic, but the RCC would deny him any rights they could withhold from him.
Again, the RCC (as well as fundy protestants and moslems) are eager to reach outside their boundaries to impose their power on me and everyone. SN seems to think that that evil is just great, when the RCC does it.”

Ann?
Anyone?

See: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Romans 12:20

Does that answer your question?

Are we playing bible quotes now? How about:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

Ok, folks, if correcting Bill’s #1041 was too tough for you, maybe you’ll find this one easier:

Ann?
Anyone?

SN, I gather this means that you haven’t gotten instructions from your masters on addressing my statements and questions, and are reduced to appealing to other commentators for distraction.

After your goofing golfing yesterday, are your legs too tired to resume the tapdancing you’ve done for so long? {meta: we’ll see if the &s> tags work as well as the &strike> or &del> tags in this comment engine. If not, apply your choice to the third word of this paragraph.}

Duh. It looks like <s> works here; it also looks like I misspelled &lt; as &amp; thrice. Sorry ’bout that.

SN, the above is what honest people do when they make a mistake. Why not try it, if the church’s morality-substitute allows?

Just out of curiosity, do you think that maybe YOU have repeatedly insulted, belittled, disrespected and mischaracterized my beliefs and values?

I haven’t been very nice.

And again, no, I wasn’t referring to Price’s #1041 “catlick” statements when I asked for your correctives of his post.

Well. I tried. If you want my comments on something in particular, feel free to bring it to my attention. The “Ann? Anybody?” approach does not come across as a sincere inquiry.

SN has worked pretty hard to get this thread to #1056, but no sign (s)he was ever playing golf, or it was a very short round.

Ah, for the days when comments were time-stamped.

Still, it’s clear that yet another handicap isn’t outside the realm of plausibility.

You could also correct anything you felt needed correction yourself, of course. It’s the usual way.

I have a question, little weasel. Some guy plowed his pickup truck into the entrance of the local health clinic. The bumper was plastered with these weirdo stickers so I have to ask: was he one of yours, or does he belong to some other murderous women hating extremist group?

Ok, folks, if correcting Bill’s #1041 was too tough for you, maybe you’ll find this one easier:

Ann?
Anyone?

You seem to be laboring under the impression that posts adressed to and answering point or questions raised by you are somehow the responsibility of others to address. Why is that?

To ann:

OK, so you’ve read Bill Price’s #1041 and #1059, as well as my #1063 which included a requote of his last paragraphs of #1059,
yet the ONLY thing you took issue with, or at least commented on, was his crazy ‘catlicks are evil’ stuff.

I asked what correctives were needed and your only response was on that.
And even then, your expounding was unnecessary. That his statement was seriously stupid should have gone without saying.

So, you must be OK with everything else Bill Price said in #1041, #1059.

I’ll have to remember to keep that it mind.
It should be easy, since you’re both in the 7 for 7 group, or 8 for 8.

It should be easy, since you’re both in the 7 for 7 group, or 8 for 8.

Does your dishonesty really know no bounds.

What part of repeat “No” as an asnswer to your question do you not understand?

Or is that your first tentative step to, as you put it, trying find out by rehashing what has, or may have, been said on the issue to this point?

Sorry for the serial commenting, I’m distracted.

whether their victims have subjected themselves to church authority (like SN and ann)

I’m not Catholic.

To Robert Bell #1072:

“I have a question, little weasel.”

First off, is that a grudging compliment?
In other words, is a “little” weasel better in your eyes than a “big” weasel?

[Ann, do you think Robert Bell is blustering or bullying?
If not, why not?
If you do, why haven’t you said anything about it? You’ve accused me of blustering and bullying, after all.]

“Some guy plowed his pickup truck into the entrance of the local health clinic. The bumper was plastered with these weirdo stickers so I have to ask: was he one of yours, or does he belong to some other murderous women hating extremist group?”

That sounds bad. Was anyone killed?
Would you please post the link to the article about the assault-by-truck?
I wonder if this attack is becoming a trend, and if so, how big the trend is. I know well over 50 million lives have been aborted over the last 42 years. Do you know how many abortionists have been physically attacked or killed by pro-lifers over the same time period, or even over the last few years?

To ann #1076:

Bill Price: “The RCC’s boundaries include, to them, imposing their moral theories on everyone, whether their victims have subjected themselves to church authority (like SN and ann) or not.”

Your “corrective”: “I’m not Catholic.”

Quite a comprehensive answer, ann.
So then you concur that the RCC’s boundaries include, to them, imposing their moral theories ON EVERYONE, whether their victims have subjected themselves to church authority or not.

Tell me, ann, how has the RCC imposed on you recently, or even over the course of your whole life?

[You]So, with my more precise definition* of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

[Me, inn #903]No.

How hard is it to understand this?

* And not only did you redefine the term, clearly pointing out how it was different from the way I had used the term, and without rechecking or re-confirming my stance you proclaimed my “opinion” as fact. That would have been deceitful and dishonest, even if I had not already challenged your original interpretation of my opinion. Now it was even more so.

And yet you still continue flailing your “7 for 7”. The only conclusion to draw is you’re either unbelievably dishonest, or incredibly thick. And I’m not being a meanie. I’m just sating how I see it, I hope you will convince me otherwise.

See Noevo, every post without recanting and apologizing for your conduct reveals further your glaring dishonesty.

[Ann, do you think Robert Bell is blustering or bullying?

No.

If not, why not?

I’ve never seen him blustering or bullying.

If you do, why haven’t you said anything about it? You’ve accused me of blustering and bullying, after all.]

They bullying was actually with reference to your wish to impose your religious beliefs on others, not your personal conduct. I don’t think anybody here feels bullied by you.

See Noevo is clearly favors a literal interpretation of the bible. While I imagine that slavery, misogyny, discrimination against gays, etc are in line with his personal beliefs I’d like to see him own it. Either he’s cherry-picking to support his beliefs and not a true Catholic or he’s a bigoted scumbag.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

ann, #1076, August 12, 2015, quoting me and responding:

whether their victims have subjected themselves to church authority (like SN and ann)

I’m not Catholic.

Oops, I goofed. I apologize for that.

To gaist #1080:

Me: “So, with my more precise definition* of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

You: “No. How hard is it to understand this?”

Very hard.

However, I’ll recant and apologize in the future when you detail in the future precisely where you, if you had the power, would forbid abortion.

#1085, See Noevo, August 12, 2015:

To gaist #1080:

Me: “So, with my more precise definition* of abortion …

See, I seem to have missed your “more precise definition of abortion.” Can you point it out, and point out the less precise definition that you’re comparing it to? If your proposed definition conflicts with the standard “termination of pregnancy, with or without prejudice to the ZEF” definition, please point out where anybody agreed to be bound by it? Thank you.

In any case, the issue is being fought at the federal and state levels:
http://data.rhrealitycheck.org/law-topic/personhood/

Did you read the stuff at the other end of your link? They’ve gotten two states to pass laws that are allowed to stand because they’re 100% toothless. Other than that, they’ve lost every battle. That’s not a fight. It’s a rout.

But the good news is:

The National Right to Life Committee and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have refused to back state-level measures out of fear that state-level amendments will make their way to the Supreme Court and result in a decision that would reaffirm Roe v. Wade and undermine the progress that has been made in chipping away at the constitutional right to abortion at the state level.

^^They’re right. It’s a bad strategy.

To ann #1082:

Me: “You’ve accused me of blustering and bullying, after all.”

You: “They bullying was actually with reference to your wish to impose your religious beliefs on others, not your personal conduct. I don’t think anybody here feels bullied by you.”

Several points/questions:
1) If I wish to “impose” my religious beliefs about abortion on others, it’s about in the same way I wish to “impose” my religious beliefs about robbery or murder on others.

2) If you think nobody here feels bullied by me, why would you think anyone outside here would feel bullied by me?

3) In defining “bully”, the dictionaries talk of being “cruel/intimidating” to people who are “smaller/weaker”. How could this possibly be the case with me or the RCC? Do we threaten to kill or physically harm anyone? No. Do we threaten to imprison anyone? No. Why, we can’t even make anyone feel guilty or ashamed who doesn’t believe what we say is true. So, how can you accuse us of bullying?
4) No one could be accused of bullying for what wishes might be in his head. One could be accused of bullying ONLY if he speaks out or otherwise acts on those wishes. And if he so behaves, how would this not be part of his personal conduct?

To Bill Price #1086:

“See, I seem to have missed your “more precise definition of abortion.” Can you point it out, and point out the less precise definition that you’re comparing it to?”

I gave what I thought was a “more precise definition of abortion” in #901, however, it was not precise enough, or actually, was perhaps not simple enough.

A simpler, and even more precise definition of abortion is: The willful, desired, intentional destruction of the life in the womb as an end or as a means to an end.

To ann #1087:

“Did you read the stuff at the other end of your link? They’ve gotten two states to pass laws that are allowed to stand because they’re 100% toothless. Other than that, they’ve lost every battle. That’s not a fight. It’s a rout.”

Some might say this very thread is a rout – about a dozen or so against one.

Most would have said the Chiefs were routing the Colts in January 2014 when they went up by 28 points early in the second half.

Some still say Christ on the cross was a rout.

Regardless of the current score, the RCC and me will keep fighting for life.

Here’s some other things I think:
It’s a long, long road…
But stay on that straight and narrow…
Follow the double yellow lines…
You might even get into a good rhythm…
There’s “Gold” at the end…
And I love women.

@JustaTech 1021

The first four named seem, for the most part, to limit themselves to one thread at a time, where they go on and on at length about their singular pet topics, while the last is more all-around and all-pervading. Given that I haven’t noticed not-johnny of late, gonna have to go with the z-man, but not-johnny/phildo/whatever it calls itself takes the cake overall.

I’m not Catholic.

Oops, I goofed. I apologize for that.

Frankly, I’m not convinced that S.N. is on particularly solid ground with respect to 1983 Coᴅᴇ bk. VI in the first place.

SN proposes two non-standard definitions for the word ‘abortion:

#901:

Abortion is the willful (by the mother and the “medical” person) and intended destruction of the life in the womb.

This sentence is well hidden in a long, rambling screed on other topics, such as contraception and the effects of an abortion procedure on the patient’s life.
#1089:

The willful, desired, intentional destruction of the life in the womb as an end or as a means to an end.

He maintains that these are ‘simpler’ (at 17 and 21 words and by adding several new, irrelevant concepts) and somehow ‘more precise’ (by changing the subject, I guess) than the standard definition, the definition everyone else uses: termination of pregnancy.

He further fails to demonstrate that anyone else has agreed to use either definition for any purpose, yet he insists that his definitions govern the conversation.

He misrepresents the nature of abortion, insists that his misrepresentation has been acquiesced to by his interlocutors, yet he is the one representing some moral high ground. He is an excellent example of the moral bankruptcy of the RCC, as if they needed another.

To gaist #1080:

Me: “So, with my more precise definition* of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

You: “No. How hard is it to understand this?”

Very hard.

Then you’re not trying very hard. At all, in fact.

However, I’ll recant and apologize in the future when you detail in the future precisely where you, if you had the power, would forbid abortion.

Until you do you are a deceitful liar and a cheat.

Do you feel your behavior is honorable? Are you proud of it?

What you’re doing is no different from me going “SEE NOEVO SUPPORTS UNFETTERED ABORTIONS!, as quoted in #207 ““[me], do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?”

[You] It CAN be, under certain circumstances.

I’ll recant and apologize in the future when you detail in the future precisely where you, if you had the power, would forbid abortion.

Like I told you in #903-904 and repeated in #914 already, I’ll elaborate once you’ve answered this:
In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances?

Quid Pro Quo.

Or is that too much to ask from a maligning liar like yourself? Why not pretend even for a post to be more like your decent and upstanding brother, Speak Noevo, rather than the constant disappointment you are?

1) If I wish to “impose” my religious beliefs about abortion on others, it’s about in the same way I wish to “impose” my religious beliefs about robbery or murder on others.

Not compatible, because a secular society abhors robbery and murder too, it doesn’t need your religion to oppose those.

See, again, are you familiar with the commandment “Do not bear false witness”? Lying about other people will not help your case.

Bill Price, See’s beliefs are not that of the current Catholic Church, they are that of the Republican Party. He just wants the church of the Middle Ages.

To gaist #1096:

You to me: “In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances?”

I think that in ALL situations no woman should be allowed a direct abortion, that is, where the abortion is willed as an end or a means to an end.
I think in some situations a woman might be allowed an INdirect abortion, for example, the removal of a malignantly cancerous uterus which happens to have implanted in it a fertilized egg.

For more information that’s in line with what I think on this subject in general, you can read the article I linked earlier: http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/ectopic-for-discussion-a-catholic-approach-to-tubal-pregnancies/

Quid Pro Quo.

Gotta love the moral meandering that takes three possible approaches to tubal pregnancy, all of which will result in the survival of the mother and the death of the fetus, and picks the one that causes the most harm to the mother on the basis that then you’re not *explicitly* killing the baby.

That’s part of why I’m a Protestant, not a Catholic. I refuse to believe that appearances are more important than outcome.

To Calli Arcale #1100:

“That’s part of why I’m a Protestant, not a Catholic. I refuse to believe that appearances are more important than outcome.”

Calli, you don’t feel bullied by me or the Catholic Church, do you (ref: #1088)?

@Calli: this is why my employer nearly killed me, except for the act of a very compassionate doctor. As an employee of a Catholic Hospital, my insurance wouldn’t cover the treatment of an ectopic unless there was no vislble heartbeat at 6 weeks or the tube ruptured. The U/S tech swore (and documented) that there was a heartbeat – and there was. I saw it. The MD came in, looked and stated the tech was wrong, that was only tissue movement, not a heartbeat, so I got the MTX instead of having to wait for the tube to rupture, possibly killing me and leaving my 2 LIVING children motherless at very young ages.

Even as an atheist, I heap thanks on that very caring, compassionate OB/Gyn (whom I refuse to ever name as I don’t want him to lose his job)

SN,

For more information that’s in line with what I think on this subject in general, you can read the article I linked earlier:

I suppose this obsession with “intent” is the natural consequence of believing an invisible sky fairy is constantly judging your every thought and action. The result is the fetishization of the fetus as being equivalent to an adult woman, which I think is monstrous.

Calli, you don’t feel bullied by me or the Catholic Church, do you (ref: #1088)?

She probably should do, since Catholics are actively working to reduce womens’ access to contraception in the US. As just one example, here’s a letter from the Archbishop of Boston calling for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.

@SN: actually, yes, I DO feel bullied by you and other forced-birth promoters. You keep trying to interfere with MY living rights on the basis that a potential life has the same rights. As an atheist, I don’t agree.

The mantra I live by is that a woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Abort, birth, adopt – what she does is her decision and no one else has the right to take that away. Not you, not the Catholic Church, not the other forced-birthers who don’t give a hoot what happens AFTER the child is born.

See Noevo@1088

1) If I wish to “impose” my religious beliefs about abortion on others, it’s about in the same way I wish to “impose” my religious beliefs about robbery or murder on others.

gaist already got this in #1097 but here’s a few other thoughts. Here’s the definition of impose from Merriam-Webster:

: to cause (something, such as a tax, fine, rule, or punishment) to affect someone or something by using your authority

: to establish or create (something unwanted) in a forceful or harmful way

: to force someone to accept (something or yourself)

One notes that you use scare quotes so it’s tough to know exactly what you mean by impose but going by the actual definition there is no imposing being done in regards to robbery or murder. As gaist said it is generally accepted in a secular society that robbery and murder are bad. Impose implies some kind of force and you can’t really force someone to accept a belief they already hold, can you?

On the other hand their is a significant population that is pro-choice. In this case you and your church are trying to force them to accept a different belief; i.e. imposing your beliefs on them. If anything it is more similar to what the church does regarding gay rights.

I don’t imagine that criminals feel bullied by the church trying to take away their “right” to murder and steal. As you can see here, there are women who feel bullied by the church and I know plenty of gays who feel bullied by the churh as well. What you said in #1088 is a false equivalency, the gay rights issue is much closer to the truth. In both that and abortion the church is attempt to force a different set of beliefs on people and in doing so limit their rights.

Also, as I noted before a strict interpretation of the bible doesn’t actually oppose murder, so long it’s of people who disagree with you. In fact going by See Noevo’s own beliefs, I’d argue that it’s the terrorists bombing abortion clinics who are the “true Catholics”, not him.

No, I do not feel bullied by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church quite simply has no influence on me whatsoever. The main forces against abortion in this country are Protestant Fundamentalists. I am lucky enough to avoided being bullied by them directly, but I know many other women are not so fortunate.

My mother-in-law would likely feel differently, given how she was treated when she contracted hepatitis while pregnant with my husband. She was sent to the Mayo Clinic. The secular doctors wanted her to get an abortion, given the risk to the fetus. She didn’t want to do that, so they referred her to the catholic hospital. The catholic hospital treated her, but refused anything with even the slightest risk to the baby, and treated her harshly because abortion had even been considered, even though it wasn’t her that had considered it. They would not allow her to make any decisions without her husband present, which was difficult as he was a) in the military and b) deployed. It infuriated her. She made it through the pregnancy, and my husband was born about a month late and rather small, but he did fine. There was no birth vaccine for Hep B back then, but luckily he didn’t contract it from her. (He recently got a blood test to confirm he is clear of the virus; he has O- blood and wants to be able to donate.)

Her second pregnancy was not as good. The baby died in utero, and the strict anti-abortion rules in South Dakota meant she couldn’t find a doctor willing to end the pregnancy for her. They insisted she go through labor instead. Two months later, with the corpse of the fetus calcifying inside, she developed an infection and then they would finally remove it.

That’s the kind of madness that that sort of thinking leads to — where maintaining one’s pious image is more important than actual human lives.

Emma @1091: Totally agree on the weather. I didn’t move here for it to be warm!

I was mostly thinking about our current trolls, but yes, not-johnny and his fellow traveler … whose name currently escapes me (ALLCAPS) were especially irritating.

And then there is the hall of fame: she-who-must-not-be-named, also known as Thingy, and from way, way, way back in the day, coolr, who was my very first 9/11 troofer. Ah, memories.

Hi there, little weasel, I was just reading an article and it got me thinking about you. Evidently, hospitals and health clinics have to have big heavy doors – which they hound people mercilessly to keep closed and locked – because of a perfectly reasonable concern that some lunatic might barge in and start shooting people or throwing bombs and setting fires. I think it’s just horrible that we have murderous gangs like the Army of God, and their mealy mouthed supporters, who force doctors and nurses to deal with this nonsense for their own protection when they could be out saving lives and healing the sick.

JustaTech@1109
You’re thinking of THEO I believe. My vote goes to APV followed by zebra in close second. The others are so absurd as to be comical. APV and z-dog are dishonest and slippery and not particularly entertaining. I like when Keith Bell shows up. He does a mean Gish and it is an interesting exercise to deconstruct them (not to his credit, it’s just the nature of his MO).

@JustaTech
I included the frequent name changer because he seems to keep popping back when we hope he’s gone. I found his pretending-to-be-others and adolescent masturbation fixation (seriously, even my 15 year old son doesn’t seem think about it that much, plus, once you’re out of junior high, it’s really not an insult…) to put him over the top when combined with the willful obtuseness displayed by most everyone on your list. This thread’s pest at least seems to have matured past the age of 13, ya know?

I’ve been away most of the day (errands, golf, etc.) and have returned to scan the comments.

I’m wondering why anti-bully babe ann hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my #1088.

I’m wondering why brainiac JGC hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my lengthy #1026.

I’m wondering why going-out-of-his gourd gaist hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my #1099.

Time for a late dinner.

I’m wondering why See Noevo ihasnt given any response to any of my comments over the past couple days, let alone a substantive one. Could it be that he doesn’t want to own that he’s a bigoted misogynist or is he just playing don’t feed the troll better than the minions?

Oops, I forgot to include a clever moniker for See Noevo in my last comment. How about sad sack See Noevo?

See, do you think it might be because ann, JGC, gaist, and the rest of us, just don’t find you to be interesting?

Nah, you would never make such an observation: your ego won’t allow it.

To Bill Price #1117:

“See, do you think [the non-responses noted in #1114] might be because ann, JGC, gaist, and the rest of us, just don’t find you to be interesting? Nah, you would never make such an observation: your ego won’t allow it.”

Here’s my observation, Bill Price:
If ann, JGC, gaist, and the rest of you just don’t find me or my posts interesting, or OF interest, than why are there over 1,117 posts here?
While I have about 165 of those, it seems to me the majority of the other 953 posts are comments ABOUT my posts.

And if YOU find my comments so uninteresting (or perhaps so un-challenging or un-convicting?), then,
why are you, Bill Price, still posting comments about me, today, over two weeks after this thread started?

Addendum to #1118:

I decided to do a little test, just of the last 30 comments (#1088 – #1117).
Six were by me, 24 were by others.
Of those 24 comments by others…
17 Comments (at least) were about me or my comments (71%)
7 Comments (at most) were NOT about me or my comments (29%).

I wouldn’t be surprised if similar percentages held for the full 953 comments by others here.

I point this out not as a matter of ego, but as a matter of truth (i.e. Is Bill Price #1117 telling the truth?).

Is Bill Price #1117 telling the truth?

See, your #1119 shows that my conjecture about your ego, in #1117 or so, is right on.

I’m wondering why going-out-of-his gourd gaist hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my #1099.

You ignore evidence contrary to your argument, dismiss other people’s opinions, belittle them change the goalposts when you feel your own words have forced you into a corner and then make your little victory dances when you think you’ve gotten away with it. You repeatedly misquote and mangle my words, change the question after I had answered it but insisted the answer stand as you had mangled it, and pretty much ignored or skirted the issue until your “Perhaps their protests are well-founded. But instead of trying to find out by rehashing what has, or may have, been said on the issue to this point, let’s start fresh.”, implying my complaint had merit, only to continue flaunting your dishonest “score” the very next day.

I don’t have my panties in a bunch, it’s just that polite posts where I explained rationally why what you did was dishonest went ignored.

But you lost me with this. After had to explain, re-explain, plead and rave for the last over two hundred posts to get you to even promise you might apologize for your dishonesty and spreading lies when I, in addition to all the rest which should have been sufficient (even my first post explanatory post in #890 should have been sufficient) I had to offer to bribe you.

And what prompted you to question me? To gloat I hadn’t replied, because that what it was. I was away for less than a day. With you in the very same post writing “’I’ve been away most of the day”. Maybe I went golfing?

I had a nice long reply explaining my stance on abortion prepared, which even with your inane definition of abortion, showed I don’t support all abortions, but you won’t get it this time. Maybe later, if you start behaving like an adult, instead of a dishonest brat with an inflated sense of entitlement.

Instead, you’ll get this answer.
If I have the power to deny anybody the abortion they seek, I have the power to define the term as I like. So, with abortion defined as “induced termination of pregnancy” like in my original answer, I would forbid it from any woman who was under the influence of intoxicants, wasn’t coherent or seemed to be coerced into it against her will or better judgement.

There, I answered your question. Now apologize.

No, now, gaist, you should know that SN can’t apologize.His ego problems won’t allow it.

I’m not competent to diagnose emotional problems, particularly internetly, but I do have the experience to recognize typical narcissistic behaviors. Boy, does SN exhibit them, in spades.

(One of my sources of experience was a longterm marriage to a now ex-wife, eventually diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I learned a lot just by living with and observing her. I see mucho significant similarities.)

A narcissist must win—be better than, in his own mind—in any encounter, and anything goes, to achieve this end. Misrepresentation, goalpost shifting, outright lying, hidden redefinition of terms, playing “let’s you and him fight”—they’re all on the table, along with more that we’ve seen but I’m too tired to mention. What’s not on the table is apologizing, or anything else that hints at weakness or error on his part.

At the end of the encounter, the narcissist must convince at least himself, and any others in sight, that he has won, that he has shown himself better than The Enemy™. Failure to win can be fatal, or nearly so. The two times (I know of) that my ex-wife unequivocably lost, she experienced long-term depression that was nearly fatal: shrinks tell me that this is expected. SN is fighting for his life, against us and against reality.

“I’ve been away most of the day (errands, golf, etc.) and have returned to scan the comments.

I’m wondering why anti-bully babe ann hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my #1088.

I’m wondering why brainiac JGC hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my lengthy #1026.

I’m wondering why going-out-of-his gourd gaist hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my #1099.

Time for a late dinner.”

I’m wondering why you haven’t replied to me for the last 500 comments. Maybe cause the questions are too hard to answer? You reply very selectively to people whenever you think you can somehow get the traction in the “debate” by twisting someone’s words or shifting definitions. No wonder they stopped replying to you.

You remind me of the internet personnality G-man.

Poor little weasel, people are laughing because you so obviously have some kind of personality disorder. Be that as it may, even a classic borderline can shoot a doctor in the back as well as any antiabortion fanatic who ever picked up the brave man’s pistol or the coward’s sniper rifle. I bet you have some stories to tell.

</killfile>

I point this out not as a matter of ego, but as a matter of truth

No, S.N. “point[s] this out” because it was a shiny new response to asshurt at Jason’s. (Et seq.; this eventually devolved into the “See Noevo Clicker Counter,” a triumph of petulance.)

Whatever, he might as well rummage around in the junk box.

I’ve mentioned the Gom Jabbar already, but I can’t remember whether that was in reference to S.N. or the departed AH. The thing, though, is S.N.’s total reflexive indifference to notions of personhood or the “being” part of “human being.”

“Who wouldn’t like to atone for the sins of themselves, and the world, if it could be done in a hammock with ropes, instead of on a Cross, with nails? On a green hilltop, instead of Golgotha, the Place of the Skulls? Isn’t that a comparatively comfortable, almost voluptuous Crucifixion to suffer for the sins of the world, Mr. Shannon?”*

Given S.N.’s sorely fυcked up “observant Jew” routine, I can scarcely imagine what his conception of the afterlife must be. However, given that it’s plain that he venerates the syntax of the rule book most of all, I have a sense that it includes still “being S.N.,” which would pretty much lead to the same sort of, ah, interpersonal problems with the other occupants of the “many rooms” or something.

But seriously, S.N. imagines that Jesus was crucified with the omniscience to personally endorse this shіt?

No, it’s a product of the rather slow realization of existential horror. I mean, really, how did La valse à mille temps really turn into Carousel, and why? What is the point of going out of one’s way to be the worst possible ambassador for the RCC imaginable?**

S.N. has conceded everything.*** He has taken refuge and comfort in the “reptilian complex,” as is most evident in his forays into physics.

He clearly has a need that isn’t being adequately met, at least by Disqustink. Leaving aside Canon law, “He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”

* Where the f*ck is my one-act Iguana script?
** Once again, if only Lilady were here.
*** h[]tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lszhnmoulU; argumentum ad Y–tubi-I-don’t-give-a-rat’s-ass-about-whomping-up-a-declension-or-case.

<killfile>

No, now, gaist, you should know that SN can’t apologize.His ego problems won’t allow it.

You’re probably correct. But I don’t really care.

Based on his “I think that in ALL situations no woman should be allowed a direct abortion, that is, where the abortion is willed as an end or a means to an end.”, I’m imagining what his response would be to a woman who has once already attempted and continues to contemplate suicide because she can feel the child of her rapist kicking inside her and keeps reliving her torment because of it. “Tough it out. God likes you better that way.”

^ That was such a bad unclosed <a> tags that it might not even matter. The two links are “at Jason’s” and “See Noevo Clicker Counter.”

But I don’t really care.

Pssst, gaist! Hey, over here. Just between the two of us: you’re not the only one that doesn’t care. All of us, including SN, know that SN is evil, and nobody’s going to be willing and able to do anything about it. Too bad for him.

First, an aside from Merriam-Webster

See, I believe I’ve made it clear in previous posts that the distinction I make between ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ codes of conduct is that moral codes arise to reflect presumed divinely-ordained obligations and proscriptions, while ethical codes arise to reflect observed consequence. ANY act can be justified as “moral” as long as the person engaging in those acts sincerely believes that they’re in accord with ‘god’s will’. That makes it an inherently inferior standard for societal normative values.

So, it is ethical to value the rights of one human being over the rights of another (and innocent and helpless) human being, to the point of killing the latter.

Yes, albeit the extent to which one can act is no independent of circumstance. But at any time when terminating a pregnancy might result in the death of a developed human being (i.e., a late term abortion post 23 weeks gestation) we’re speaking of circumstances where the termination is done to preserve the life or health of the mother. I’m aware of no ethical argument supporting a conclusion her right to life/health must be seen as inferior to any presumed rights of the child she would be carrying.
And at all stages of development where the developing zygote etc. doesn’t represent a human being terminating a pregnancy is an ethically neutral act, as far as I can see, impacting only one human being—the pregnant female.

Perhaps you mean a fertilized oocyte is A germ cell, I don’t know

See, just google ‘germ cell’.

So, an acceptable response to you could be: “Want the right answer on an ethical question? Read, say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Case Closed.

Well, given that there’s absolutely no reason to presume any answers to ethical questions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are valid, no. You’ve asked a specific and narrow technical question: I’ve referred you to a peer-reviewed article that will answer your question more precisely and in greater detail than I could attempt in this forum. You’re just being lazy at this point (or more likely, trying not to have to deal with an answer that’s precise and in great detail).

You left out a *minimal* criteria? Imagine that. And the minimal criteria you’ve added is ‘observed to originate in the cortex.’

That’s correct.

M-W says “cortex” is “medical : the outer layer of an organ in the body and especially of the brain”

The cerebral cortex is the outer layer of neural tissue in human brain which divided into two along the brain’s sagittal plane the medial longitudinal fissure.

But your important minimal addition essentially seems to be
‘neural activity observed originate in the outer layer of the brain.’

And which is sustained and bilaterally symmetrical.

See story…

I’ve seen it, but fail to your point as I’m not asking the equivalent of “What property let the child recognize the man as his/her father?” but “What property made that man that child’s father?”

Growth is A property, ONE property, of living things

Yes, of ALL living things, including non-human ones. Clearly something more is necessary, or all living things are human beings and using antibiotics or fungicides is mass murder on an unimaginable scale.

A fertilized oocyte is *substantively different* from all other human cells in that its growing maturity is “recognizable” as, say, Daddy or Mommy, and not something that just, say, needs a trim (e.g. nose hair).

“Substantively different” isn’t synonymous with “a human being”.

I’ll add you to the list. Now I’m 8 for 8.

Except I don’t support abortion in all cases, See, and nowhere have I claimed to. For example, I would not support a late term abortion in any situation other than where it would not be necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother or where the delivery would result in a child that would be stillborn on delivery or which would not survive long after birth (anencephaly again). But the fact I would not support abortion in these cases doesn’t mean I don’t believe a woman has the right to seek an abortion even a late term one, in the absence of such medical indications, or that the presumed child’s rights must be given precedence over the right of the pregnant woman to control her own reproductive capacity.
A rational and ethical abortion policy lies somewhere between the extremes of “Never, ever, under any circumstance” and “Anytime, on demand”, but the issue is so polarized the discussion always appears to address only those two extremes.

I’m wondering why brainiac JGC hasn’t given any response, let alone a substantive response, to my lengthy #1026.

That would be because I have a life, See.

To gaist #1121:

“You ignore evidence contrary to your argument…”
Name just one instance.

“… dismiss other people’s opinions…”
IF I dismiss other people’s opinions I usually do so only after first showing why I think those opinions are wrong. I might well ignore or “dimiss” further postings of these wrong opinions after I’ve already stated my contrary opinion.

“… belittle them…”
Quite likely, when their big ideas are “small” and far smaller than they think they are. (Ref: M-W def #7 of small.)
And that’s…..OK.

“… change the goalposts…”
If “change the goalposts” means introducing greater precision and clarity to the argument, then, yes.

“I don’t have my panties in a bunch…”
You fooled me. How about “underwear”?

“After had to explain, re-explain, plead and rave for the last over two hundred posts to get you to …”
OK, then. You DO have your underwear in a bunch.

………………
“I had to offer to bribe you.”

You offered a “bribe” and I took it. [Per #1096:
Me: “I’ll recant and apologize in the future when you detail in the future precisely where you, if you had the power, would forbid abortion.”
You: “Like I told you in #903-904 and repeated in #914 already, I’ll elaborate once you’ve answered this:
In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances? Quid Pro Quo.”]

In #1099, I gave you my quite comprehensive Quid [“I think that in ALL situations NO woman should be allowed a direct abortion…”]

Where’s your future and reciprocal Quo?

Oh, wait. Here it is:
“I would forbid [abortion] from any woman who was under the influence of intoxicants, wasn’t coherent or seemed to be coerced into it against her will or better judgement.”

So, it’s like how common sense, and I think common law, nullifies any contract where one of the parties is deemed not of right mind (e.g. intoxicated; incoherent; coerced).

It’s like you nobly nullifying granny’s contract with a shyster to cut her lawn for a $1,000,000, where granny signed when she was drunk or incoherent.
But you’d OK her signing the contract for the $1,000,000 mow where she wasn’t drunk or incoherent.

It’s like you nobly OK’ing an abortion in the 9th month of a healthy, normal pregnancy, where the sober, “sane” mother freely wishes it.

“There, I answered your question. Now apologize.”

I’m glad we cleared that up.
You’re still in the 8 for 8.

It’s like you nobly nullifying granny’s contract with a shyster to cut her lawn for a $1,000,000, where granny signed when she was drunk or incoherent.
But you’d OK her signing the contract for the $1,000,000 mow where she wasn’t drunk or incoherent.

It’s like you nobly OK’ing an abortion in the 9th month of a healthy, normal pregnancy, where the sober, “sane” mother freely wishes it.

You still can’t help inventing what other people have said.

You’ll get your quo-fix when you’ve grown up a bit, li’l See.

You’re still in the 8 for 8

And you’re still a lying pitiful creep pretending to matter. You are still not tall enough to enter adult conversation.

See Noevo, I’d like you to take a look at 1 Kings 21. That’s where King Ahab lied about someone for his own advantage. That’s what you’re doing now. Note his fate in the story. Think carefully about that.

I might well ignore or “dimiss” further postings of these wrong opinions after I’ve already stated my contrary opinion.

Obviously, any opinion, data, fact, opinion or other assertion that’s contrary to yours is necessarily wrong, reality to the contrary notwithstanding.

If “change the goalposts” means introducing greater precision and clarity to the argument, then, yes.

“Change the goalposts” means, in your case (one of them, anyway) to attempt to redefine a crucial term, central to the discussion, so that it means something quite different. We recognize this by your smoke-blowing about “precision”, “clarity” and “simplicity”.

It’s like you nobly OK’ing an abortion in the 9th month of a healthy, normal pregnancy, where the sober, “sane” mother freely wishes it.

Using the generally accepted, normal definition of ‘abortion’ rather than your attempt to hijack the word for an entirely different meaning, what’s wrong with that?

How does this 9th-month termination of a healthy pregnancy differ from a Caesarian Section or induced vaginal delivery (again, we’re using the real definition of ‘abortion’, not your abortion of a redefinition)?

To Garou #1123:

“I’m wondering why you haven’t replied to me for the last 500 comments.”

You probably mean your #608.

MI Dawn gave a reasonably accurate reply: “… don’t wait for the report. Neither SH nor SN ever believe abortion is OK.”

And as I implied in #1130, if I dismiss other people’s opinions or not answer their questions, I usually do so only after first showing why I think those opinions are wrong or after answering the questions; I might well ignore or dismiss further postings of these wrong opinions or answered questions after I’ve already addressed them earlier or elsewhere.

But I’ll make an exception, just for you.
I would answer #608 questions as follows:

“To AH and See noevo, how would you even implement abortion into the current american law?”
See below. All answers assume I had the power to so implement.

“What would be the exceptions?”
For direct abortion, none.

“Would you allow pregnant women that have a life threatening condition to abort?”
For direct abortion, no. For INdirect abortion, see #1099, #207.

“Would you allow an exception for rape?”
No. Why should the innocent child resulting from rape be murdered?

“How would the law be enforced?”
By prosecuting transgressions, and with sentences that are generally given for murder. (I might start with the transgressors mentioned in #1102.)

“Would there be a time limit (in weeks) to abortion, or would it be never?”
Never.

You’re welcome.

[Cont’d from #1037]

And she looked puzzled for a second, but then beamed “You’re funny, Daddy!”
Then she giggled and laughed some more as Daddy again played the Creature from the Black Lagoon and chased her around the pond.

Then he threw her on the ground and raped her for the first time, but not for the last. When she was thirteen, her stomach began to swell and ache. So her mother took her to the hospital fearing she had a tumor.

After doctors revealed the girl was pregnant, her mother asked them to perform an abortion, but this is forbidden in the SN-USA unless the pregnancy has the right kind of life-threatening complications.

So the girl was taken to a shelter and her mother was imprisoned and accused of failing in her duty of care. A judge is considering a further charge of being an accomplice in the rape. And Daddy skipped town.

Isn’t nature grand?

(Details lightly adapted from Pregnant 10-year-old Rape Victim Denied Abortion by Paraguayan Authorities.

To JGC #1129:

Me, mirroring back your statements:
“So, it is ethical to value the rights of one human being over the rights of another (and innocent and helpless) human being, to the point of killing the latter.”

You: “Yes, albeit …” Albeit blah, blah, blah.

Your answer is “Yes.” Your answer is “Yes, one person may IMPOSE her BELIEFS on another person TO THE POINT OF KILLING the other (and innocent and helpless) person.
………………
Me: “Perhaps you mean a fertilized oocyte is A germ cell, I don’t know.”

You: “See, just google ‘germ cell’.”

Why have you not answered the immediately following question of mine? It was “But EVEN IF a fertilized oocyte is only one type of germ cell, have any OTHER types of germ cells been observed to grow naturally into what even a child would recognize as a human being?”

Why didn’t you answer this very simple question?
……………….
“You’ve asked a specific and narrow technical question: I’ve referred you to a peer-reviewed article that will answer your question more precisely and in greater detail than I could attempt in this forum. You’re just being lazy at this point (or more likely, trying not to have to deal with an answer that’s precise and in great detail).”

The answer is “Yes.” Yes, by “bilaterally” synchronous, you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain.
[“First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in BOTH CEREBRAL HEMISPHERES are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and BILATERALLY SYNCHRONOUS at 26 to 27 weeks.” http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/%5D

So, JGC, if bilateral synchronicity is YOUR MINIMUM standard for brainwaves to be “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you, then, why would Jessie be considered human by you? Jessie doesn’t have two hemispheres.
http://hemifoundation.homestead.com/jessiesstory.html
……………………..
Me: “You left out a *minimal* criteria? Imagine that. And the minimal criteria you’ve added is ‘observed to originate in the cortex.’ “

You: “That’s correct… The cerebral cortex is the outer layer of neural tissue in human brain which divided into two along the brain’s sagittal plane the medial longitudinal fissure.”

And if a human being doesn’t have an outer layer of neural tissue in human brain which divided into two along the brain’s sagittal plane the medial longitudinal fissure, she’s not a human being.

Got it. The rest of you better check your heads. [JGC has apparently “checked out.”]
………………..

Me: “See story [in #1022].”

You: “I’ve seen it, but fail to your point as I’m not asking the equivalent of “What property let the child recognize the man as his/her father?” but “What property made that man that child’s father?””

Then you’re going to be held back a year and remain in Pre-K.
Recall my multiple statements like “The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.”

I’ll let the Kindergartners answer.
Kids, what’s the meaning of this story? Anyone? Anyone? Can a certain something be that certain something EVEN IF you don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something? Anyone? Anyone?
YES. Suzy, what do you think?
“I think, like, yes, a certain something could be that certain something EVEN IF I don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something.
Like, one time my Daddy showed me little fish at the pond but I said they weren’t little fish because they didn’t LOOK like little fish but then later he showed me those same things grown up a little bit and then I knew that they were fish all along even though I didn’t recognize them as fish before!” [Ref. #1037.]

Very good, Suzy! You’re exactly right.
And remember to help your little brother JGC with his homework.
……………….
Me: “Growth is A property, ONE property, of living things.”

You: “Yes, of ALL living things, including non-human ones. Clearly something more is necessary, or all living things are human beings and using antibiotics or fungicides is mass murder on an unimaginable scale.”

Maybe you can straighten out biology professor PZ Meyers. See his statements and my comment at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/11/christians-can-get-awfully-reductionist-when-it-suits-them/
……………….
Me: “I’ll add you to the list. Now I’m 8 for 8.”

You: “Except I don’t support abortion in all cases… For example, I would not support a late term abortion in any situation other than where… But the fact I would not support abortion in these cases doesn’t mean I don’t believe a woman has the right to seek an abortion even a late term one, in the absence of such medical indications, or that the presumed child’s rights must be given precedence over the right of the pregnant woman to control her own reproductive capacity…”

And although you never responded to my question to you in #1000 [“Hypothetically, assuming YOU had the power, would YOU forbid the abortion? On what basis would you forbid or not forbid?”],
I’ll take the above as a No – You would never forbid an abortion the mother wanted.

And I’ll keep you in the 8 for 8.
[It’s the only ethical thing to do.]

To JGC #1129 (take 2):

Me, mirroring back your statements:
“So, it is ethical to value the rights of one human being over the rights of another (and innocent and helpless) human being, to the point of killing the latter.”

You: “Yes, albeit …” Albeit blah, blah, blah.

Your answer is “Yes.” Your answer is “Yes, one person may IMPOSE her BELIEFS on another person TO THE POINT OF KILLING the other (and innocent and helpless) person.
………………
Me: “Perhaps you mean a fertilized oocyte is A germ cell, I don’t know.”

You: “See, just google ‘germ cell’.”

Why have you not answered the immediately following question of mine? It was “But EVEN IF a fertilized oocyte is only one type of germ cell, have any OTHER types of germ cells been observed to grow naturally into what even a child would recognize as a human being?”

Why didn’t you answer this very simple question?
……………….
“You’ve asked a specific and narrow technical question: I’ve referred you to a peer-reviewed article that will answer your question more precisely and in greater detail than I could attempt in this forum. You’re just being lazy at this point (or more likely, trying not to have to deal with an answer that’s precise and in great detail).”

The answer is “Yes.” Yes, by “bilaterally” synchronous, you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain.
[“First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in BOTH CEREBRAL HEMISPHERES are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and BILATERALLY SYNCHRONOUS at 26 to 27 weeks.” http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/%5D

So, JGC, if bilateral synchronicity is YOUR MINIMUM standard for brainwaves to be “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you, then, why would Jessie be considered human by you? Jessie doesn’t have two hemispheres (see link at #902.).
……………………..
Me: “You left out a *minimal* criteria? Imagine that. And the minimal criteria you’ve added is ‘observed to originate in the cortex.’ “

You: “That’s correct… The cerebral cortex is the outer layer of neural tissue in human brain which divided into two along the brain’s sagittal plane the medial longitudinal fissure.”

And if a human being doesn’t have an outer layer of neural tissue in human brain which divided into two along the brain’s sagittal plane the medial longitudinal fissure, she’s not a human being.

Got it. The rest of you better check your heads. [JGC has apparently “checked out.”]
………………..

Me: “See story [in #1022].”

You: “I’ve seen it, but fail to your point as I’m not asking the equivalent of “What property let the child recognize the man as his/her father?” but “What property made that man that child’s father?””

Then you’re going to be held back a year and remain in Pre-K.
Recall my multiple statements like “The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.”

I’ll let the Kindergartners answer.
Kids, what’s the meaning of this story? Anyone? Anyone? Can a certain something be that certain something EVEN IF you don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something? Anyone? Anyone?
YES. Suzy, what do you think?
“I think, like, yes, a certain something could be that certain something EVEN IF I don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something.
Like, one time my Daddy showed me little fish at the pond but I said they weren’t little fish because they didn’t LOOK like little fish but then later he showed me those same things grown up a little bit and then I knew that they were fish all along even though I didn’t recognize them as fish before!” [Ref. #1037.]

Very good, Suzy! You’re exactly right.
And remember to help your little brother JGC with his homework.
……………….
Me: “Growth is A property, ONE property, of living things.”

You: “Yes, of ALL living things, including non-human ones. Clearly something more is necessary, or all living things are human beings and using antibiotics or fungicides is mass murder on an unimaginable scale.”

Maybe you can straighten out biology professor PZ Meyers. See his statements and my comment at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/11/christians-can-get-awfully-reductionist-when-it-suits-them/
……………….
Me: “I’ll add you to the list. Now I’m 8 for 8.”

You: “Except I don’t support abortion in all cases… For example, I would not support a late term abortion in any situation other than where… But the fact I would not support abortion in these cases doesn’t mean I don’t believe a woman has the right to seek an abortion even a late term one, in the absence of such medical indications, or that the presumed child’s rights must be given precedence over the right of the pregnant woman to control her own reproductive capacity…”

And although you never responded to my question to you in #1000 [“Hypothetically, assuming YOU had the power, would YOU forbid the abortion? On what basis would you forbid or not forbid?”],
I’ll take the above as a No – You would never forbid an abortion the mother wanted.

And I’ll keep you in the 8 for 8.
[It’s the only ethical thing to do.]

The story of Tamesha Means and her miscarriage three years ago, if it happened the way her lawyers claim it did, is truly awful: Means was 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke and she was rushed to a hospital in Muskegon, Mich. The fetus wasn’t viable, and the pregnancy — Means’ third — was doomed.

But doctors at the hospital, part of the Catholic healthcare network known as Mercy Health Partners, didn’t tell her that, Means’ lawyers say. Instead of the normal course of treatment — inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy to stave off potentially risky complications — Means was allegedly kept in the dark about her condition, given painkillers, and sent home.

Bleeding and wracked with pain, she returned to Mercy twice over the next day or so and received more or less the same response, her lawyers claim. Just as she was about to be sent home a third time, by now feverish from a severe infection, she began to deliver. The baby died.

The case has received an enormous amount of attention because of who Means’ attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union chose to sue last November: not her doctors or the hospital but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Means’ lawyers claim that she was subjected to dangerously substandard treatment, that her own health was placed in peril, and that she was deprived of information about her condition because of rules issued by the bishops conference that govern all Catholic health care in the U.S. The rules — which Mercy and its staff are required to follow — prohibit abortion, and as a result, according to Means’ lawyers, doctors would not give up on the pregnancy.

More here.

The case is currently on appeal.

[Cont’d from #1038]

“I think, like, yes, a certain something could be that certain something EVEN IF I don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something.”

OK. But does that mean that EVERYTHING you don’t RECOGNIZE as a certain something IS a certain something? For example, can the unrecognizability of something be used as proof that it IS that something?

Suzy: “No, of course not. In order to prove that an unrecognizable certain something IS that certain something, you have to identify the properties that make it the certain something you have in mind.”

Very good, Suzy! You’re exactly right.
And remember to help your little brother SN with his homework.

Worldwide, some 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless.4,5 The main causes of death from unsafe abortion are hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, genital trauma, and necrotic bowel.1 Data on nonfatal long-term health complications are poor, but those documented include poor wound healing, infertility, consequences of internal organ injury (urinary and stool incontinence from vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistulas), and bowel resections. Other unmeasurable consequences of unsafe abortion include loss of productivity and psychologic damage.

[snip]

Abortion laws have a spectrum of restrictiveness. Nations may allow abortions based on saving the mother’s life, preserving physical and mental health, and socioeconomic grounds, or may be completely unrestrictive (Figure 2). Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws. The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions.4 Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths).1

The same correlation appears when a given country tightens or relaxes its abortion law. In Romania, for example, where abortion was available upon request until 1966, the abortion mortality ratio was 20 per 100,000 live births in 1960. New legal restrictions were imposed in 1966, and by 1989 the ratio reached 148 deaths per 100,000 live births. The restrictions were reversed in 1989, and within a year the ratio dropped to 68 of 100,000 live births; by 2002 it was as low as 9 deaths per 100,000 births (Figure 3). Similarly, in South Africa, after abortion became legal and available on request in 1997, abortion-related infection decreased by 52%, and the abortion mortality ratio from 1998 to 2001 dropped by 91% from its 1994 level.6

Less restrictive abortion laws do not appear to entail more abortions overall. The world’s lowest abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available but contraceptive use is high; in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the rate is below 10 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. In contrast, in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contraceptive use is lower, the rates range from the mid-20s to 39 per 1000 women.3

More at link.

The Catholic Church in Rome made the extraordinary admission yesterday that it is aware priests from at least 23 countries have been sexually abusing nuns.

Most of the abuse has occurred in Africa, where priests vowed to celibacy, who previously sought out prostitutes, have preyed on nuns to avoid contracting the Aids virus.

Confidential Vatican reports obtained by the National Catholic Reporter, a weekly magazine in the US, have revealed that members of the Catholic clergy have been exploiting their financial and spiritual authority to gain sexual favours from nuns, particularly those from the Third World who are more likely to be culturally conditioned to be subservient to men.

“Submitting to coercion is partly understandable, partly cowardince.” — SN

The reports, some of which are recent and some of which have been in circulation for at least seven years, said that such priests had demanded sex in exchange for favours, such as certification to work in a given diocese.

In extreme instances, the priests had made nuns pregnant and then encouraged them to have abortions.

Link.

– See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/02/vatican-confirms-widespread-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries/#sthash.Lb7YpK9w.dpuf

@see Noveo

How much?

How much do THEY pay you to roam and troll the way you do?

See Noevo@1136

…wrong opinions…

I was under the impression that opinions couldn’t be wrong. Anyway, here’s your bible quote for the day.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Sorry ladies, See Noevo wins by default.

No matter one’s stance on contraception and abortion, most people feel sympathetic for a 9-year-old rape victim who is impregnated with twins by her step father, and is forced to undergo an abortion to save her life.

Something something why should innocent child die just because rapist something something.

The Catholic Church, however, excommunicated those who helped rescue her.

In 2009, a 9 year old in Brazil had to have an emergency abortion after her mother brought her to the hospital for complaining about severe stomach pains and discovered the girl was four months pregnant. But after the procedure, instead of embracing the victim and offering to help the family, the Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed the abortion and the girl’s mother.

The Church did not excommunicate the rapist:

From Church excommunicates doctor and mother of 9-year-old rape victim, but not the man who raped her

But wait. There’s more:

An Ontario woman who was repeatedly raped by a Roman Catholic priest while she was a girl has received what is believed to be the largest individual settlement in a sexual abuse case in Canada — $2 million.

The victim, Lou Ann Soontiens, was in grade school when the abuse began at the hands of Rev. Charles Sylvestre. It continued for seven years.

Soontiens testified during Sylvestre’s trial that at the age of 14 she was impregnated by the priest and that he arranged a botched abortion. She had to be rushed to hospital for emergency medical care.

Hence the old saying “A 14-year-old girl being coerced is as cowardly as a pregnant nun.”

Soontiens was one of nearly 70 young female victims of Sylvestre who came forward.

Settlements have been reached with more than 50 victims.

^^Those two stories offer a preview of what kind of stories there would be more of when SN succeeded in making his views about abortion mandatory for everyone under all circumstances. And not just in the Church. My point is more that it will never stop happening anywhere, for as long as unwanted pregnancies continue to occur. Access to contraception is the answer.

SN just wants death.

But on a happier note:

The Pope orders Catholic priests to bestow a full pardon on women who have had an abortion and the doctors who performed them

Pope Francis has ordered Roman Catholic priests to bestow a full pardon on women who have committed a mortal sin by having an abortion.

Next year, both women who have had abortions, and doctors that have performed them, will be able to seek absolution, as part of a special Holy Year of Mercy decreed by the pope.

In the Catholic Church, abortion is considered one of the gravest sins and results in automatic excommunication. It can only be forgiven in certain special circumstances, by high-ranking clergy or by making a pilgrimage to Rome during a Holy Year.

But in a gesture of reconciliation the pope is for the first time to send ordinary priests as ‘missionaries of mercy’ all over the world with special powers to forgive even the most serious sins.

One of the organisers of the Jubilee Year Monsignor Rino Fisichella told a press conference that this included also abortion.

He said the pope meant the gesture ‘as a concrete sign that a priest must be a man of mercy and close to all.’

Link.

Details lightly adapted from Pregnant 10-year-old Rape Victim Denied Abortion by Paraguayan Authorities.

Fortunately for S.N., such things could never have happened to his wife or daughter, given that he’s effectively conceded that no such people exist.

It makes for quite the Gedankenexperiment, though.

An Ontario woman who was repeatedly raped by a Roman Catholic priest while she was a girl has received what is believed to be the largest individual settlement in a sexual abuse case in Canada — $2 million.

Hey, at least the Church promptly took full responsibility for the matter.

Oh, wait, they effectively harassed Soontiens until days before the civil trial.

[Cont’d from #1137]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/america-has-an-incest-problem/272459/

More importantly, if the following story is at all accurate, then, maybe in the future, ann would be OK (i.e. would not forbid if she had the power to forbid) “terminating” a significant portion of, say, Kentucky’s population.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/drew-hack/2013/09/kentucky-is-exactly-what-youd-expect-married-cousins-and-inbred-children/

Congratulations, little weasel! Your pilgarlic arguments have convinced me that I, too, should join you in your murderous little anti abortion crusade. I am in a quandary, of course, over how best to proceed: do I just go to one of your network churches and ask for a gun and a bomb, or do I need a referral from the Army of God and its allied terror organizations?

To ann #1141:

My Suzy: “I think, like, yes, a certain something could be that certain something EVEN IF I don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something.”

You: “OK. But does that mean that EVERYTHING you don’t RECOGNIZE as a certain something IS a certain something?”

Sure, if you believe a Volkswagen IS (or could be) a people, and not just a people’s wagon. What a silly question.

“For example, can the unrecognizability of something be used as proof that it IS that something?”

I’m not sure which question is sillier.

ann’s Suzy: “No, of course not. In order to prove that an unrecognizable certain something IS that certain something, you have to identify the properties that make it the certain something you have in mind.”

And then the teacher said, “Suzy, I’m going to have to send you back to Pre-K until you can demonstrate that you can think clearly.”
…………………
Epilogue:
Later, Suzy’s lack of clarity was found to be due to a brain anomaly, which in turn was found to be due to Suzy being the product of incest. A government agency’s head, named “ann”, had Suzy terminated. Because ann had the power to do so,
in a fantasy world, where not all things work the way they do in our world…
yet.

Congratulations, little weasel! Your pilgarlic arguments have convinced me that I, too, should join you in your murderous little anti abortion crusade. I am in a quandary, of course, over how best to proceed: do I just go to one of your network churches and ask for a gun and a bomb, or do I need a referral from the Army of God and its allied terror organizations?

/* in case it matters, I absentmindedly clicked another user’s email address in this community browser for comment #1153. Naturally, I would prefer that the previous comment be deleted and replaced with this properly signed comment */

More importantly, if the following story is at all accurate, then, maybe in the future, ann would be OK (i.e. would not forbid if she had the power to forbid) “terminating” a significant portion of, say, Kentucky’s population.

Kids, what’s the meaning of this story? Anyone? Anyone?

Suzy: “It’s a satire, obviously.”

Very good, Suzy! That’s exactly right. You’re a smart girl. But what if someone didn’t RECOGNIZE that it was a satire? Would it then be a real news story? Can a certain something be that certain something BECAUSE you don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain something? Anyone? Anyone?

Suzy: “No, it would still obviously be a satire.”

Very good.

This next one’s a little bit of a curve ball. But just bear with me. What would you say to someone who seriously argued that you can’t have an incest exception for abortions because incest is such an endemic problem that you just have to ignore it?

Suzy: “Are you effing kidding me?”

Sadly, no.

Suzy: “No, no, you misunderstood me. That’s what I’d say.”

Oh. In that case: Excellent, Suzy. Well done.

More importantly, if the following story is at all accurate, then, maybe in the future, ann would be OK (i.e. would not forbid if she had the power to forbid) “terminating” a significant portion of, say, Kentucky’s population.
More importantly still, See Noevo is ok with forcing 9 year old rape victims to carry life threatening pregnancies to term. And I don’t even need to twist his words to come to that conclusion (as he has done with ann’s here).

See Noevo, do you maybe see how your church comes off looking like the bad guy in the this case? Maybe ann wasn’t clear enough. The doctor and mother who saved the little girl’s life, were excommunicated. The pedophile who, and I can’t stress this enough, raped a 9 year girl was not excommunicated. #justice

Blockquote fail. In case it wasn’t obvious the first paragraph of #1156 is See Noevo quoted from #1151.

ann@1155
For extra credit: why might someone fail to recognize that article as satire?

Suzy: Because sarcastic tone is difficult to convey in writting. In the era of the internet it is so easy to convey any opinion, regardless of how absurd that it is nigh impossible to differentiate between a geniunely held, if ridiculous, belief and satire.

Me: Very well thought out answer Suzy. Unfortunately, you give See Noevo too much credit. The correct answer is simply a failure in basic reading comprehension. See the article tags at the bottom.

(it was a trick question all along; that’s why it was only for extra credit)

@#1150 —

Thanks. I forgot the link for that one.

It’s evidently the tip of the iceberg, too:

Females are more likely to be attractive to clergy because the majority of priests are heterosexual — but some are psychologically and sexually immature, says former priest-turned-lawyer Patrick Wall.

“If they’re going to explore sexually, they’re going to explore with a little girl,” said Wall, a California-based expert on Catholic clergy abuse who now works with victims.

Wall’s perspective on the degree of female abuse is unique. He was a Benedictine monk for 12 years, working as a “fixer” dispatched to tidy up messy sexual problems of priests and laymen at troubled parishes and schools. He said when a girl required surgery after rape, the code was that she needed a “hernia” operation.

In a bizarre twinning, he counselled accused priests and heard confessions from traumatized victims. He also worked on cases where priests impregnated girls then procured abortions for them.

“That is so prevalent, it happens all the time,” he said of the abortion runs, which in part accounts for his belief that teenaged girls are the silent majority of priest-related sexual abuse.

But of course, as SN so rightly points out @#1153, there are also his own bizarre dystopian fantasies to consider. So, you know. Two sides to every story.

@ann #1137

Nice twist on SN’s fan fiction, I lolled.

@SN #1136

Well, congratulations! You’ve officially announced that you’re a fucking asshole! And not a small one, mind you, you make Stephen Harper look like a moderated leftist when compared to you.

So yeah, ann, MI dawn, you were right, SN just really likes women to suffer for some reason. Probably gets off to it. Wouldn’t be surprised if he masturbated to news stories about 11 years old girls being impregnated by the clergy to subsequently be forced to bring the pregnancy to term.

Sorry I forgot about this:

Capitalizing “Black” and “White” was still AP style, last I checked.

Really?

I don’t recall it’s ever having been. But as of 2003, at least, it wasn’t.

Yah, I just dusted off by 2009 Stylebook* and my recollection is nowhere to be found. I do think the caps are defensible, though – or at least superior to scare quotes – in the context of marking a purely societal convention. S.N.’s actually having been making such a distinction strikes me as very unlikely.

* Most poorly organized manual I’ve ever seen, and that’s saying something.

I have long heard that Planned Parenthood facilities are disproportionately represented in low income minority areas.
[While the article linked below gives more data on this, I decided to look at any area I was particularly familiar wit – the Philadelphia area.
In the Philly area, PP has 8 facilities, 5 of which are in areas with a minority population % significantly higher than national averages.
Of the 8 PP facilities, only 3 perform abortions. All 3 are in those areas with a minority population % significantly higher than national averages.]

The article notes something especially remarkable:
“Critics of these findings suggest that abortion providers are simply going where the need is — low-income, which are typically minority-dominant, areas. But abortion advocates also claim that promoting birth control in these areas helps to reduce abortions and unplanned pregnancies. And that has not happened. In 2011, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute published the findings of a study comparing rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in 1994 and 2006. Among women with incomes below the federal poverty line, the unintended pregnancy rate rose by 50 percent. They also experienced an increase in abortions. Women with incomes at or above 200 percent of the poverty line saw decreases in both of these categories. Conclusion: The results were exactly the opposite of what abortion providers claimed was the goal.”

Maybe this shouldn’t be all that surprising. Because the article also provides these quotes:

“The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the “fit” [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization. . . . The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

“Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists [sic] have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations – unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.”

“The mass of significant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously with the result that the increase among Negroes . . . is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.”
“Finally perish! That is the exact alternative that confronts the white race. . . . If white civilization goes down, the white race is irretrievably ruined. It will be swamped by the triumphant colored races, who will eliminate the white man by elimination or absorption. . . . We now know that men are not and never will be equal.”

“Just as we isolate bacterial invasions, and starve out the bacteria, by limiting the area and amount of their food supply, so we can compel an inferior race to remain in its native habitat.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422557/planned-parenthood-ben-carson

P.S.
Hey, what’s the latest with the “BlackLivesMatter” campaign?

Your answer is “Yes.” Your answer is “Yes, one person may IMPOSE her BELIEFS on another person TO THE POINT OF KILLING the other (and innocent and helpless) person.
Wait a minute–we’re not discussing when a person may impose their beleifs on another person, See. Stop addressing strawmen.

Why didn’t you answer this very simple question?

Because learning whatthe term “germ cell” means will have already made this clear.

So, JGC, if bilateral synchronicity is YOUR MINIMUM standard for brainwaves to be “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you, then, why would Jessie be considered human by you? Jessie doesn’t have two hemispheres (see link at #902.).

See, i’ve identified criteria which would indicates the point in development when a fetus cannot with confidence be said to not yet represent a person. As jessie isn’t a developing fetus I don’t understnad why you’d think anyone would argue the criteria apply to her.

And if a human being doesn’t have an outer layer of neural tissue in human brain which divided into two along the brain’s sagittal plane the medial longitudinal fissure, she’s not a human being.
Is that now your position, See?

Recall my multiple statements like “The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.”

Yes, i recall your argument from potential, and my explanation of how arguments from portential are insufficient to demonstrate the oocyte represents a human being rather than something which is not a human being but that may with additional development become one at a later point in time.

I think, like, yes, a certain something could be that certain something EVEN IF I don’t right now RECOGNIZE it as that certain soming.

How does one determine when something unrecognized is in fact a “certain” something? That’s what you’ve been asked to explain, but you seem now to be arguing that we cannot tell whether or not an oocyte etc. is a human being or nothing becuase even if it was we wouldn’t be able to recognize it.
I fail to understand the relevance of the PZ Meyers digression.
As to would I forbid a woman fro terminating a pregnancy, even if I had the power I don’t believe I would have the right to do so. I wouldn’t support her choice to do so, but I couldn’t in good conscience act to prevent her from doing so.

And speaking of sports, word on the street is that gay Michael Sam wants an abortion… of pro football.

The abortion is necessary to save the health of the… guy. And yes, the michael’s health includes his mental health.

Y’know, you forget to turn back on the killfile after ensuring that recent additions were correct, and you run into something below this level of ideation.*

Show it to your priest, S.N., and get him to post an endorsement here. It’s not like you’re closeted and golf for the caddies or anything.

* Memorialized here. This one’s going to follow you, Peaches.

“Hey now, all you sinners
Put your lights on, put your lights on
Hey now, all you lovers
Put your lights on, put your lights on

Hey now, all you killers
Put your lights on, put your lights on
Hey now, all you children
Leave your lights on, you better leave your lights on

‘Cause there’s a monster living under my bed
Whispering in my ear
There’s an angel, with a hand on my head
She say I’ve got nothing to fear

There’s a darkness livin’ deep in my soul
I still got a purpose to serve
So let your light shine, deep into my hole
God, don’t let me lose my nerve, don’t let me lose my nerve

Hey now, hey now, hey now, hey now
Wo oh hey now, hey now, hey now, hey now

Hey now, all you sinners
Put your lights on, put your lights on

‘Cause there’s a monster living under my bed
Whispering in my ear
There’s an angel, with a hand on my head
She say I’ve got nothing to fear
She say La ill aha ill allah
We all shine like stars
Then we fade away.”

See Noreality #1138:

Maybe you can straighten out biology professor PZ Meyers. See his statements and my comment at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/11/christians-can-get-awfully-reductionist-when-it-suits-them/

Good old Prof PZ Meyers. I wonder how he and PZ Myers are getting along.

The old, almost forgotten Scienceblogs version of Pharyngula still has bannation capability, IIRC. So maybe either Prof Meyers can get straightened out with respect to our common narcissist* by having Prof Myers flip the Ban switch.
—————————————————-
* Make no mistake, narcissists are pretty common, in multiple senses: they’re not hard to find, and they’re not the elite their egos demand them seem.

She say La ill aha ill allah

I’m going with “S.N. can’t hold his liquor.”

And speaking of sports, word on the street is that gay Michael Sam wants an abortion… of pro football.

The abortion is necessary to save the health of the… guy. And yes, the michael’s health includes his mental health.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25270305/michael-sam-walks-away-from-football-cites-mental-health

You have some serious issues, little lying creep.

I can sort of understand why you would misquote or invent words in a discussion if you were that desperate to score “points”, rather than win arguments, but imagining people in the news are talking to you about abortion sounds like a dangerous situation I would recommend seeing a mental care worker for.

But that’s just my two cents, you’re of course free to revel in your delusions and mental confusion. The bonus is, I wouldn’t let you have an abortion.

Speaking of lights and Santana… and other things,
here’s another one about light…
but with no speaking.

“El Farol” (The streetlight/lamp).

Buenas noches.

ann’s Suzy: “No, of course not. In order to prove that an unrecognizable certain something IS that certain something, you have to identify the properties that make it the certain something you have in mind.”

And then the teacher said, “Suzy, I’m going to have to send you back to Pre-K until you can demonstrate that you can think clearly.”

See Noevo the little lying creep sure does remind me of this (fictional) teacher: http://message.snopes.com/humor/graphics/hilliker.gif

“You ignore evidence contrary to your argument…”
Name just one instance

Your insistance that banning abortions and contraceptives would reduce mortality, with just ann alone providing sufficient evidence to the contrary on this thread.

Buenas noches.

And buenos nachos for you, o self-blinded one.
———————————–
Never forget, SN, that you are doing a top-notch job of fulfilling your life’s purpose, if that purpose is to be a bad example.

Your daily dose of bible misogyny. Those priests were only following scripture.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Speaking of logic, common sense, and observation:

@#1163 —

Would that be the same Ben Carson who doesn’t deny using tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research?

I think that from a common-sense perspective, you’d have to say he’s prone to misrepresenting facts for political reasons.

@#1164 —

Wait.

Is your point that Priests Commit No More Abuse than Other Males?

Nobody has been arguing otherwise. So that would be so completely illogical, senseless, and unobservant that it’s kind of hard to believe. But since I can’t imagine what other point you think you’re making:

Granted. The principle characteristic of all men who sexually abuse children is that they have unsupervised access to children — ie, caretakers, clergy, teachers, etc.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, though. That’s just basic logic.

And as you may have observed, I already said:

The point of all those stories was that strict proscriptions on abortion don’t do anything to prevent people from seeking and/or having them.

If abortion was illegal in all circumstances, there would be more stories about women like Tamesha Means, except that many of them would die. There would also be more stories about children like the ten-year-old in Paraguay and the nine-year-old in Brazil, except that many of them would die.

There would not be fewer abortions.

Think it can’t happen here? Ask Dawn Hill:

Childhood should be a happy and carefree time for all our children, but my mother found her new husband, my stepfather, much more important. He forever took the joy away from my life when I was just 11 years old: He began molesting me and continued until he began raping me when I was 13.

Mr. Mourdock last night said: “I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.”

I became pregnant, contrary to the “scientific theories” of many modern Republicans. Not only was the experience loathsome and painful, it was also impossible for me to deal with or talk about because of the times: in the fifties, abortion was illegal. Illegal in the same way the Republican Party platform states it wants to make abortion now by constitutional amendment and just as Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has suggested casually he would “be delighted” to return to.

Please, take a moment to travel back to the fifties with me.

My mother took me to Mexico, where anyone could get an abortion for a price. I have blocked out many memories associated with this entire experience, but I remember the pain. Illegal abortions are not the simple safe vacuum procedure used today by legal abortion providers. Oh, no: They were a “dilatation and curettage.”

This means that my cervix was mechanically opened by insertion of larger and larger metal “dilators” until it was opened enough to get a sort of sharpened spoon inside my 13-year-old uterus, while strangers looked at my exposed parts that were theretofore called “private.”

It was cold and dirty in the room, and then the true torture started. They shoved this curette into me and scraped away the entire lining of my uterus with the sharp side. I screamed the entire time even though no one had seen so much as a tear out of me before this moment because I had developed a stony stoicism to protect my mind from the molestation.

This pain was, however, like nothing I’ve ever felt before or since. Can you imagine what happened to those women and girls who couldn’t even get this barbaric abortion? They stuck wire hangers into themselves and bled to death or suffered other horrible complications. Then, too, I also got a terrible infection from the filthy conditions.

Proscriptions on abortion, whether religious or legal, don’t reduce its prevalence or incidence. And limiting access to birth control increases them. That’s why Catholic women are as likely to have abortions as women in the general population, and 29% more likely than Protestant women.

You just want death.

@#1165 —

The only way that story is even tangentially related to the topic is that a very sexually insecure person might feel fear, anger and hatred in association with both.

@#1172 —

As-salamu-alaykum.

“You ignore evidence contrary to your argument…”
Name just one instance

I gave one instance already, lying little creep, and contemplated adding more for a combo bonus, but couldn’t be bothered at the time.

Now, with few minutes to waste, and seeing you’re still covering in fear, no doubt, of logic and intelligence, possibly banging your head against a bible, I’ll just tease more of your dishonesty a bit at a time…

Hope that’s okay with you, li’l deceitful See.

[Me]: “I would forbid [abortion] from any woman who was under the influence of intoxicants, wasn’t coherent or seemed to be coerced into it against her will or better judgement.”

[You]: You’re still in the 8 for 8 [who think abortions should be allowed in ALL cases)

QED. Again.

See the dishonest woman hater, as you’re still flaunting your “8 for 8” like a horny monkey…

..Could you, as a show of honesty and good faith, produce the quotes for each of the eight where they profess to support all abortions in every instance?

If not, why not?

@gaist #1181

Actually, you bring to mind the words of the Rude Pundit:

Mi>The Solution For South Dakota: More Fucking:

Here’s what we do: the age of consent in South Dakota is 16 years old, so this’ll be easy. We gotta get a bunch of the smoothest black motherfuckers around, sweet-talkin’, hot lookin’ African American males, we’re talkin’ some Terence Howard or Andre 3000 or Taye Diggs-lookin’ and actin’ dudes, and get ’em on board for a mission to South Dakota, where the past-the-age-of-consent (which is, by the way, 16) white pussies are tight and virginal and ready for fuckin’.

[much rudery]

Over the next few weeks, months even, as periods are missed and crocodile tears are shed (for, indeed, there will be few real regrets), you can pretty much bet that abortion on demand will become the law of the land in South Dakota so fast that it’ll seem that yesterday never happened.

Our little weasel is fond of little “Well, yeah, what if Martians came and probed our anuses, huh?” gotcha’ games but remarkably light on workable strategies for realistic scenarios. Ripped from the safe world of enjoyable fantasy and plonked into such a nightmare world, SN would quickly become the world’s foremost proponent of mandatory forced abortions.

I’ve been reading this thread on-and-off since the start and really must applaud the persistence of minions like ann, gaist, Chris, Narad, Bill, capnkrunch and all the others who counter whatever See puts forth- often providing DATA- as well as pointing out his issues, psychological and otherwise.
Woo hoo for you!

You’ll never change his mind which but you are addressing commenters, readers and the silent ones- lurkers, in whom I take a special interest, being their patron saint or protectress and all.

We live in the 21st century and women determine their own destinies. Apparently some people can’t accept that.

To gaist #1175:

You: “You ignore evidence contrary to your argument…”

Me: “Name just one instance.”

You: “Your insistance that banning abortions and contraceptives would reduce mortality, with just ann alone providing sufficient evidence to the contrary on this thread.”

Reduce mortality for whom? For the millions of human lives terminated every year by surgical and chemical abortions?

Speaking of Dr. Ben Carson, here are some thoughts on the presidential races:

The Dems have running an avowed socialist, Bernie, and a congenital liar** and should-be felon, you know who.

I think the GOP has a smorgasbord of decent-to-great presidential candidates.

Right now, if I had to choose a dream team, I think I’d say Ben Carson (President) and Carly Fiorina (VP).

[Maybe Ted Cruz could be Secretary of State, and run for prez in 2024.]

** http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

[gaist]: “Your insistance that banning abortions and contraceptives would reduce mortality, with just ann alone providing sufficient evidence to the contrary on this thread.”

[See Noevo]: Reduce mortality for whom? For the millions of human lives terminated every year by surgical and chemical abortions?

You didn’t really have to give a fresh example of dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit you, but thank you. I’m sure the rest of the class appreciates a real life application as well.

“How would the law be enforced?”
By prosecuting transgressions, and with sentences that are generally given for murder.

Case 1
A woman is brought before magistrate S. Noevo. Witnesses (exhibit A, self-identified as relatives) heard her confess she was pregnant, in a manner which to the witnesses betrayed her ambivalence for the situation. Month or so later she told them she had had a miscarriage, with obvious relief.

The militarized Pope-patrol was promptly summoned, and upon examination found suspicious scrapes in her private parts (see photographs, exhibit B to W).

What would be her sentence?

Case 2
The ever-vigilant Pope-patrol captured a pregnant woman when she was rushed to the ER after attempting suicide by overdose of sleeping pills. She explains the attempt was due to her reliving the memory of her rape when she could feel the offspring kicking, and was manifesting signs of severe depression.

How would magistrate S. Noevo, the petty creep, punish her for her attempted homicide, as well as make sure the woman did not attempt one again?

I expect prompt replies or I might be forced to invent your answers rather than just “re-interpret” them, as it seems to be customary here, when See Noevo is in charge. But, hey, when in Rome…

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts … Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

In the glorious Deceitful States of See Noevo (all hail the Pope-Patrol! Pope-Patrol is our friend!), would I be exempt from punishment if I could prove that the infant I killed was an Amalekite?

And to finish with another delightful and picturesque bible quote:

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137:9)

Any thoughts, little dishonest one?

To ann #1179:

“If abortion was illegal in all circumstances… There would not be fewer abortions… Proscriptions on abortion, whether religious or legal, don’t reduce its prevalence or incidence.”

Those statements are an abortion of both common sense and of the data.

Common sense tells you that if you make an action illegal (i.e. criminalize it), less of it will be committed.

The data from the very pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute says “Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.” https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

And given Guttmacher’s agenda, one might not be surprised if it did everything it could to stretch those pre-Roe vs. Wade estimates as high as possible.

Compare that to Guttmacher’s post-Roe vs. Wade numbers on U.S. abortions 1973-2011 – average of 1.3 million, with over a dozen years at 1.5 to 1.6 million.

See Noevo, the Amazing Dishonest Catholic:

From the Guttmacher Institute “Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011, down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, a decline of 13%”

So almost 50 years later, abortions have risen from estimated 829 thousand to 1,006 thousand? A “rise” of 21% (about), whereas population has risen from little under 200 million to 311 million (in 2011) (a rise of 55%).

And you argue the rate of abortion would plummet by making it illegal?

Now the audience waits with abated breath if See Noevo the Ridiculous Catholic Clown demonstrates yet again his inability to cope with contrary evidence….

(…suspenseful drum roll…)

Those statements are an abortion of both common sense and of the data.

Common sense tells you that if you make an action illegal (i.e. criminalize it), less of it will be committed.

You mean like during prohibition?

You’re 0 for 1.

It’s actually not common sense to ignore decades and decades of data from all sources and many countries that always — without exception — shows that making abortion illegal or restricting access to it does not reduce incidence and prevalence.

For example, the completely Guttmacher-Institute-free figures I already cited once @#853, when I said:

In reality, abortion in the United States was at least as widespread and widely accepted when it was criminal as it is today:

Some late-nineteenth-century doctors believed there were two million abortions a year.[8] In 1904, Dr. C. S. Bacon estimated that “six to ten thousand abortions are induced in Chicago every year.” As one physician remarked in 1911, “Those who apply for abortions are from every walk of life, from the factory girl to the millionaire’s daughter; from the laborer’s wife to that of the banker, no class, no sect seems to be above . . . the destruction of the fetus.”[9] As early-twentieth-century reformers investigated abortion, they produced and preserved knowledge of the business. Their reports, themselves evidence of the growing scrutiny of female sexual and reproductive behavior, show that a significant segment of the female population had abortions. A study of ten thousand working-class clients of Margaret Sanger’s birth control clinics in the late 1920s found that 20 percent of all pregnancies had been intentionally aborted. Surveys of educated, middle-class women in the 1920s showed that 10 to 23 percent had had abortions.[10] Anecdotal information, patient histories collected at maternity and birth control clinics, and mortality data show that women of every racial and religious group had abortions.[11] A more comprehensive survey conducted by Regine K. Stix of almost one thousand women who went to the birth control clinic in the Bronx in 1931 and 1932 found that 35 percent of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish clients alike had had at least one illegal abortion.[12] By the 1930s, Dr. Frederick J. Taussig, a St. Louis obstetrician and nationally recognized authority on abortion, estimated that there were at least 681,000 abortions per year in the United States.[13]

But of course there’s no way of counting or estimating the number of women who survived self-induced abortions at home without requiring emergency medical attention. So the true numbers were almost certainly higher.

The World Health Organization has found the same trends.

And given Guttmacher’s agenda, one might not be surprised if it did everything it could to stretch those pre-Roe vs. Wade estimates as high as possible.

It might interest you to know that people posting to this thread who have enough common sense not to ignore contradictory evidence out of bias have known since #853 that in the late 19th century, some doctors estimated that it was more like two million.

So. 0 for 2.

Compare that to Guttmacher’s post-Roe vs. Wade numbers on U.S. abortions 1973-2011 – average of 1.3 million, with over a dozen years at 1.5 to 1.6 million.

Yes. That’s in line with the range of historic estimates I just cited.

0 for 3.

FYI — The population isn’t always the same size. And there aren’t always the same number of women in their reproductive years. And the period immediately following Roe coincided with what happened to be the peak years of boomer fecundity.

So the more indicative figures are actually the proportional ones, not the raw count.

And since that’s plain common sense, you’re 0 for 4.

Let’s turn to the CDC’s abortion surveillace data:

In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate was 13.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 219 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Compared with 2010, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%. Additionally, from 2002 to 2011 the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 13%, 14%, and 12%, respectively. The large decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions from 2010 to 2011, in combination with decreases that occurred during 2008–2010, resulted in historic lows for all three measures of abortion.

As you know, those rates have been going down for a while. The decline is not correlated with new restrictions on abortion, either time-wise or geographically. They’re correlated with more access to both birth control and information about it.

And since that point has already been made, you’re 0 for 5.

@gaist —

Sorry to repeat your points. You must have posted while I was writing..

I guess minds with more common sense than G-d gave geese think alike.

ann,
I’m in awe of your willingness to actually educate and inform, with relevant quality research. At least by now, I’m merely poking See’s proclamations with a pointy stick to see if a little light might shine through. In vain, probably, but being an optimist never let anybody down. Oh, wait…

And since that’s plain common sense, you’re 0 for 4.

This of course is the “Golden Sombrero.” The terminology for five strikeouts appears to remain unsettled.

Right now, if I had to choose a dream team, I think I’d say Ben Carson (President) and Carly Fiorina (VP).</i?

It would be a dream team for the DNC, as well.

To ann #1195:

Me: “Those statements are an abortion of both common sense and of the data. Common sense tells you that if you make an action illegal (i.e. criminalize it), less of it will be committed.”

You: “You mean like during prohibition? You’re 0 for 1.”

Yes, I mean like the prohibition of alcohol during Prohibition.

“… the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts….
The [18th] amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages; it did not prohibit use, nor production for one’s own consumption. Moreover, the provisions did not take effect until a year after passage -plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies.
Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition….
Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent…
… following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased…
… Prohibition did not end alcohol use. What is remarkable, however, is that a relatively narrow political movement, relying on a relatively weak set of statutes, succeeded in reducing, by one-third, the consumption of a drug that had wide historical and popular sanction.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

You’re 0 for 1.
………………..
“In reality, abortion in the United States was at least as widespread and widely accepted when it was criminal as it is today…”

You’re unreal, and so is that data.
Tell you what, ann. Since you’re for abortion, you should be in favor of outlawing it, because according to you, when abortion is criminalized abortion will be AT LEAST as widespread and widely accepted as it is today.

So, you’re 0 for 2.
……………..
Me: “Compare that to Guttmacher’s post-Roe vs. Wade numbers on U.S. abortions 1973-2011 – average of 1.3 million, with over a dozen years at 1.5 to 1.6 million.”

You: “Yes. That’s in line with the range of historic estimates I just cited.”

And if you and Guttmacher believe “termination of pregnancy” (i.e. the definition of abortion preferred by others here) has decreased since the legalization of surgical abortions AND ABORTIFACIENTS, then you’re even crazier than I would have thought.

You’re 0 for 3.
……………
“FYI — The population isn’t always the same size. And there aren’t always the same number of women in their reproductive years. And the period immediately following Roe coincided with what happened to be the peak years of boomer fecundity. So the more indicative figures are actually the proportional ones, not the raw count. And since that’s plain common sense, you’re 0 for 4.”

And if you and Guttmacher believe the RATE of “termination of pregnancy” (i.e. the definition of abortion preferred by others here) has decreased for women in their reproductive years since the legalization of surgical abortions and abortifacients,
then you’re even crazier than I would have thought earlier.

You’re 0 for 4.
…………………..
“Let’s turn to the CDC’s abortion surveillace data: In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas… Compared with 2010, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%… historic lows for all three measures of abortion.”

Two points:

First,
If you and the CDC believe the RATE of “termination of pregnancy” (i.e. the definition of abortion preferred by others here) has decreased to historic lows for women in their reproductive years since the legalization of surgical abortions and abortifacients,
then you’re still crazier than I would have thought earlier.

Second and less important,
a footnote of sorts: Whatever those 49 reporting areas were, apparently they excluded places like California, New Hampshire and at least one other state. The CDC disclosed that their figures from 1998 forward are missing various reporting areas.
I calculate that prior to 1998, CDC’s totals ran about 90% of Guttmacher’s; from 1998 forward, CDC’s totals ran about 68% of Guttmacher’s.
And who knows, maybe the abortion rates in California and those other “missing” areas would offset the drop in the other 49?

You’re 0 for 5.

[gaist] “You ignore evidence contrary to your argument…”

[See Noevo]: “Name just one instance.”

You’re just a gift that keeps on giving, you little deceitful misogynist you.

Ref: #1197.

Here’s the song of the annie-awestruck,
gone-out-of-his gourd, gaist:

Do you want to know the real reason the rate of abortions has gone down, lying misogynistic creep? Easy access to contraceptives, and widespread nonexistence of social stigma associated with their use.

I know it may come as surprise to you, it’s not like this has been pointed out to you before.

Ref: #1197.

Here’s the song of the annie-awestruck,
gone-out-of-his gourd, gaist:

Well, that’s the depth of rational argumentation and presentation of evidence I’ve come to expect of you, little deceitful one.

Is this what Jesus would have done?

And one also notes your utter failure to address any of the posts involving your “arguments”, instead feebly trying to score points in your little girls-are-icky-kinderkarten solitaire.

To gaist:

I’ve responded to you many more times than you deserved.
I’ll have to take a long overdue action:
I’m putting you on my, shall we say, “No Fly” list, or telemarketers “Do not call” list.

It’s almost like this, fredo:

I wasn’t expecting any real insight from you anyway, pitiable liar, nor have I been commenting for your benefit anyways, even if I still nurture some unfounded hope that some day something someone here has written would germinate and you might grow a modicum of insight or conscience.

But none of this changes the fact that as of now you’re still outlandishly deceitful misogynist generally uninformative in your output, who can only uphold his crumbling facade of “rightness” up with dishonesty and lies. That is why nobody here is taking you seriously. You know this. I know this. Everybody else on this forum knows it.

So I’ll just continue making fun of your petty arguments and tantrums and you can continue ignoring contrary evidence and pretending all is good in your little see noevo-land. Same as it ever was.

Is this what Jesus would have done?

As I’ve noted before, S.N. has a cognitive issue regarding abstract semantic thought. What he genuinely venerates is rules.

This of course dovetails with his personality problems (e.g., frustrated, misogynist control freak), but at his core, the teachings of Jesus are wholly irrelevant – indeed, I sorely doubt that he is in possession of anything more than a primitive token (in the AI sense) that fires a “quote mine!” rule.

He worships the Church, or at least the parts that are simplistic enough for him to kind of grasp – hence the rambling about the Catechism. Ultimately, it’s a prop.

@SN #1136

I mean, you can’t possibly be serious. So you would let a woman have an indirect abortion by taking a treatment for an unrelated condition, but you wouldn’t let her abort if the life threatening condition is directly related to the pregnancy? That makes no fucking sense.

If the woman dies, the fetus dies too, so you’d rather have both of them die rather than have the mother live. You just basically admitted that you want more people dying.

Also, enforcing the law with murder charges on women who abort? Have fun enforcing and sorting ou this legal nightmare. I mean this is so unreasonnable that even judges and police officers wouldn’t want to enforce it. You’re basically just the biggest self-admitted asshole I’ve ever talked to.

@ann #1179

Ouch.

Being as 1) the commenters here are so very interested in women, particularly pregnant women, and even more particularly in protecting and elevating the rights or status of pregnant women, and
2) today is the Catholic Feast Day of The Assumption,

I offer this reading from today’s Mass:

“Mary set out
and traveled to the hill country in haste
to a town of Judah,
where she entered the house of Zechariah
and greeted Elizabeth.
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting,
the infant leaped in her womb,
and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit,
cried out in a loud voice and said,
“BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
And how does this happen to me,
that the MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?
For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears,
the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
Blessed are you who believed
that what was spoken to you by the Lord
would be fulfilled.”
And Mary said:
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my Savior
for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant.
FROM THIS DAY ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED;
the Almighty has done great things for me
and holy is his Name.
He has mercy on those who fear him
in every generation.
He has shown the strength of his arm,
and has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has come to the help of his servant Israel
for he has remembered his promise of mercy,
the promise he made to our fathers,
to Abraham and his children forever.”
Mary remained with her about three months
and then returned to her home.”

Mary, the greatest human being who ever lived:
the mother of God; Christ’s first disciple, and his first preacher and evangelizer;
now Queen of Heaven.

You can’t get a more elevated status than that.

As I’ve noted before, S.N. has a cognitive issue regarding abstract semantic thought.

True that. There’s really no point in talking to him at all, except for the sake of making true and accurate information available to onlookers. He’s Dunning-Kruger defined, pretty much. But there’s not much danger anyone will take him seriously at this point. He’s fully self-discrediting. So personally, I’m happy to let him have the last word.

In case that wasn’t short and declarative enough:

Do a victory dance, See. Go ahead. Please. I want you to.

He’s Dunning-Kruger defined, pretty much.

That might be overly generous, given the big yellow passive-aggressive streak painted on his front and back.

So I’ll just continue making fun of your petty arguments and tantrums and you can continue ignoring contrary evidence and pretending all is good in your little see noevo-land. Same as it ever was.

Far be it from me to interfere in anyone’s enjoyment of a good time.

But better you than me.

Do a victory dance, See. Go ahead. Please. I want you to.

This calls to mind a pen-and-ink illustration from a book or chapter on Ed Gein, but I’m not finding it offhand.

“…given the big yellow passive-aggressive streak painted on his front and back”.

IDK. From this neck of the woods, he looks like a pink nightmare the Energizer Bunny.

Eh, just trying the tag. Don’t mind me.

To ann #1212:

“Do a victory dance, See. Go ahead. Please. I want you to.”

Thanks, but I’m not much of a dancer.
More of a “Just the facts, Ma’am” man.
But I’ll take 5 for 5 any day. And I did (#1200).

Every minute our little weasel is in here flogging his dead horses is a minute he is not out there aiding and abetting, which is a blessing. My prayer circle has been working his behalf, asking that he be touched with understanding. With good fortune his eyes will be opened soon, perhaps along the lines of Saul on the road to Damascus: he, too, used to persecute God’s children.

See Noevo@1210
Huh, so Mary is revered for being blessed by (male) God with his son. When we say respect women we mean based on their own merits as their own people not on how well they bear children. You have elevated Mary to the status of a prized bitch. Not a bad place to be, my dog’s mother was a valuable purebred, but clearly lower than the males (try counting the capitalized He‘s in your passage). I don’t think your passage shows quite the respect for women you think it does; regardless here’s a counterpoint:

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.

Catholicism: empowering women for millenia.

“Do a victory dance, See. Go ahead. Please. I want you to.”

Thanks, but I’m not much of a dancer.
More of a “Just the facts, Ma’am” man.
But I’ll take 5 for 5 any day. And I did (#1200)

Well, I can see how you would think that.

After all, it’s not like you’d have to redefine more than “facts”, “man” and “did”. That’s easy for you, little dishonest creep. You’ll no doubt be able to redefine five random words before breakfast.

Before we ruin your little declaration of victory, let’s get back to the old “x for x” list again. Show me eight relevant quotes and I apologize, instead of you.

To really drive the point I was making in #1223 home, note that more than half of the passage See Noevo quoted in #1210 is Mary proclaiming how great (male) God is. As if we didn’t already have enough evidence that See Noevo has a warped view of what respecting women entails. Still, I’d rather egg him on than encourage him to put down the shovel. Heck, he’s dug deep enough that at this point it’s probably faster just to go all the way through than try to climb back out.

See Noevo@1206

I’m putting you on my, shall we say, “No Fly” list, or telemarketers “Do not call” list.

The technical term for this action is *plonk*.

By the way, I feel like I’ve been blacklisted too. Was it when I compared you to a radicalized ISIS member? Did that hit too close to home?

Tangentially related, I’ve found that fundamentalist Christians (of any ilk not just Catholics) tend to be very Islamophobic. I wonder if it has to do with seeing a reflection of their own radical beliefs in extremist Muslims.

@capnkrunch #1226

Now you have opened an interesting can of worms. I be so old, I remember when the fundies and the Catholics used to spit at each other with rage, joining forces only to dry gulch any Mormon unwary enough to wander by. I suspect it had something to do with competing for the same limited pool of potential converts.

Then a miracle occurred: they realized they all hated the same people, so they hijacked the Boy Scouts – a palace coup about 1977, moved the headquarters from New Jersey to Texas – and all joined hands to hate on the Muslims and the Gays and the Atheists in an orderly fashion.

As a closing aside, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the dumbest fraud to come down the religious pike since the selling of indulgences sparked the purifying movements we lump together as the Reformation. With any luck, Pope Francis will purge the Church of Rome of the stain of Mariolotry once and for all.

Yes, I mean like the prohibition of alcohol during Prohibition.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/

While that article doesn’t mention it, women started drinking openly and it became socially acceptable during the Prohibition-era. One of the reasons for reduced chirrosis-deaths despite (after the first 3 or so years) increased consumption of alcohol was that while some of the former alcoholics dried up, new people (women and youth) started drinking and any health issues their drinking would cause weren’t seen for several decades.

People spent more of their income on alcohol (price of beer rose by 700%, whisky by 270%), and higher potential profit meant it was marketed more aggressively – and indeed – the average age of drinker went down as bootleggers spread to youths as a previously untapped customer base. Overall, people spent less on other utilities and consumables.

While prohibition didn’t create organized crime, it helped make it more ubiquitous and profitable, as well made many of them well-liked. It reduced people’s respect for the law and people.

There’s also this, if you don’t mind the libertatian slant.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf

You’re 0 for 1, indeed.

You’re unreal, and so is that data.

That’s a masterfully succint declaration, little deceitful one. If only you had actually refuted any of the points raised it could have also been relevant.

Tell you what, ann. Since you’re for abortion, you should be in favor of outlawing it, because according to you, when abortion is criminalized abortion will be AT LEAST as widespread and widely accepted as it is today.

I support people’s free speech. Yes, even for little deceitful pond scum like you, See Noevo. I’m sure you do too. Maybe we should make it illegal?

So, you’re 0 for 2.

Me: “Compare that to Guttmacher’s post-Roe vs. Wade numbers on U.S. abortions 1973-2011 – average of 1.3 million, with over a dozen years at 1.5 to 1.6 million.”

And if you and Guttmacher believe “termination of pregnancy” (i.e. the definition of abortion preferred by others here everybody, but it’s cute how upset you are about it) has decreased since the legalization of surgical abortions AND ABORTIFACIENTS, then you’re even crazier than I would have thought.

And if you and Guttmacher believe the RATE of “termination of pregnancy” (i.e. the definition of abortion preferred by others here) has decreased for women in their reproductive years since the legalization of surgical abortions and abortifacients,
then you’re even crazier than I would have thought earlier.

“Let’s turn to the CDC’s abortion surveillace data: In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas… Compared with 2010, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%… historic lows for all three measures of abortion.”

First,
If you and the CDC believe the RATE of “termination of pregnancy” (i.e. the definition of abortion preferred by others here) has decreased to historic lows for women in their reproductive years since the legalization of surgical abortions and abortifacients,
then you’re still crazier than I would have thought earlier.

Well, the numbers you quoted reveal the same thing. Larger pecentage of population had abortions before Roe vs. Wade than after.

And, protip: Responding “you’re crazy” isn’t a valid argument to discount sources and evidence.

You’re 0 for 3.
You’re 0 for 4.

Second and less important,
a footnote of sorts: Whatever those 49 reporting areas were, apparently they excluded places like California, New Hampshire and at least one other state. Maryland (see See, it’s really not that hard to find information) The CDC disclosed that their figures from 1998 forward are missing various reporting areas.
I calculate that prior to 1998, CDC’s totals ran about 90% of Guttmacher’s; from 1998 forward, CDC’s totals ran about 68% of Guttmacher’s.
And who knows, maybe the abortion rates in California and those other “missing” areas would offset the drop in the other 49?

Who knows? It’s a mystery.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/california/
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/new_hampshire/
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/maryland/

Bringing the total to 949,512. Less than the number I used when I demonstrated the proportional rate of abortions has gone down from 1967. QED.

And maybe what is “missing” from pre-legalization abortion numbers were all the abortions done at home, in secrecy, or abroad, legally or not, as well as all the unintended terminations of pregnancy you yourself are so fond of.

You’re still, completely and utterly 0 for 5 (plus all the other points in which you’ve failed miserably we haven’t tallied because, honestly, who’s keeping score).

But do not despair, misogynistic creep, you can take comfort in familiar surroundings. It’s not like this deflated sense of utter failure is unknown to you.

Comment in moderation due to excess linkage, but “Bringing the total to 949,512.” assumes the CDC total didn’t include estimates from the three missing states. In that case, the total would be lower, naturally.

@ gaist

Show me eight relevant quotes

Full quotes, mind you.
I made it clear See is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Dang, I can’t help one more shot at #1210.

Why See Noevo says Mary is “the greatest human being who ever lived:”
She was
1) “the mother of God”
She bore a son who did great things.

2) “Christ’s first disciple”
She obediently followed her son.

3) “his first preacher and evangelizer”
She parroted her son’s words.

Perfectly in line with the belief that women should submit to men.

Robert L Bell@1229
Ah, bigotry. Nothing brings people together quite like it. You’ve given me some hope for the future though. If the fundies and Catholics did it, maybe one day they can join with the Muslims as well over their hatred of gays and Atheists and their penchant for misogyny. Best case is a District 9 scenario where we can all peacefully subjugate an entirely different intelligent lifeform.

Look at that, the clock rolled over. Time for another bit of biblical awfulness.

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

To SN things are just black, or white. If you are not against abortion in al circumstances, even directly after conception, you are in favor of abortion in all circumstances. It doesn’t matter if you tell something else, SN doesn’t want to hear it. SN rather see both a woman and her baby die, than save the mother, so her other children, don’t have to grow up without a mother.

Mary, the greatest human being who ever lived:
the mother of God; Christ’s first disciple, and his first preacher and evangelizer;
now Queen of Heaven.

You can’t get a more elevated status than that.

Why not. Let us all celebrate a middle-eastern teenager who gave birth to a child not of her husband.

So god impregnates a teenager, she marries another, gives birth, and continues to bear sons and daughters while allegedly remaining a virgin. But god lets his only son die, because reasons, snatched Mary into heaven and proceeds to marry her. Presumably after Joseph has died, otherwise it would have been wrong. Did I miss something?

SN is apparently oblivious that plants that act as abortificants have been known for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Ergot was a favorite, as well as the cohosh plants. And I know of a few women who have induced abortions with mega-doses of vitamin C. The problem with the above are that most require very large doses, effectiveness is not certain, and they can be toxic.

But SN is OK with women dying. All women are is a uterus to bear sons.

Just thought I’d leave this here:

The Abortion Rate Is Falling Because Fewer Women Are Getting Pregnant:

Elizabeth Ananat, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who studies the economics of fertility, said the data also contradicts the notion that more women are rejecting abortion and choosing to stay pregnant. “If women’s attitudes were really shifting, we should see the birth rate go up,” she says. “Instead, birth rates are falling, too.” (The birth rate reached a record low in 2013, according to the CDC. It fell by 2 percent between 2010 and 2013, and by 9 percent between 2007 and 2013.) According to Ananat and other experts, the decline in abortions is a symptom of another trend: Fewer women are getting pregnant in the first place.

^^Common sense.

SN is apparently oblivious that plants that act as abortificants have been known for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

Well, considering that SN can’t distinguish satire from reality, thinks his self-created neo-religious parables are logic, and is so incapable of comprehending his own errors that he thinks a story about Ashley Judd’s childhood sexual abuse redeems his having credulously accepted another asserting that half the people in Kentucky are the products of incest, that’s not surprising.

We’re talking about someone who literally can’t look a word up in the dictionary without comical mishap. Who thinks that two presidential candidates who have a sum total of zero experience running for national office, neither of whom has ever been elected so much as dog-catcher, and one of whom has never run for anything at all would be the ideal 2016 ticket for the Republican Party.

The examples go on and on.

His only real value is that he’s so unpleasant in his irrationality that he drives people who are mildly inclined to be equivocal about abortion towards a more adamantly pro-choice position, as he did with (IIRC) Helianthus earlier in the thread.

That’s not an insignificant virtue. And inasmuch as Clarence Thomas is said to have had the same effect on Sandra Day O’Connor, there’s a very real reason to think that it helps keep abortion legal. So it’s not all bad.

^^The best part is that he won’t be able to understand any of that.

BTW, I’ve been meaning to mention that the irony of SN’s using those out-of-context Sanger quotes to make her look like a racial eugenicist is that it’s practically the defining feature of real American racial eugenicists of that era that they made the same argument SN does at #755. And by “real American racial eugenicists,” I mean “the ones the Nazis were inspired by.”

Seriously. It was exactly the same. I’ll see if I can find some examples.

A fuller explanation of what abortion stats do and don’t mean is here, for those who care enough about the issue to make sure that what they say means anything at all.

Also:

And who knows? Someday the world may even have more babies.
It better, because we appear to be going ever deeper into a demographic winter (i.e. More and more old people and fewer and fewer young people).
IF we ever come out of this winter, the spring time could be generations away.

As I recall, China has already abandoned its one-child policy and is now encouraging its women to have more children. Russia, Japan, Denmark, Singapore and other countries have begun incentivizing much higher fertility rates. They’ve seen the writing on the wall.

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon (time 4:45):

^^SN @#755.

So broad and straight now is the channel by which this immigration is being conducted to our shores, that there is no reason why every stagnant pool of European population, representing the utterest failures of civilization, the worst defeats in the struggle for existence, the lowest degradation of human nature, should not be completely drained off into the United States. So long as any difference of economic conditions remains in our favor, so long as the least reason appears for the miserable, the broken, the corrupt, the abject to think that they might be better off here than there, if not in the workshop, then in the workhouse, these Huns, and Poles, and Bohemians, and Russian Jews, and South Italians will continue to come, and to come by millions. — Francis Walker

We are threatened with an overproduction of Japanese children. First come the men, then the picture brides, then the families. If California is to be preserved for the next generation as a “white man’s country” there must be some movement started that will restrict the Japanese birth-rate in California. — Literary Digest

^^Stuff eugenicists who wanted their race to be supreme said that Margaret Sanger opposed.

The further irony is that they were virulently anti-Catholic.

Some people never learn.

MI Dawn,

SN is apparently oblivious that plants that act as abortificants have been known for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Ergot was a favorite, as well as the cohosh plants. And I know of a few women who have induced abortions with mega-doses of vitamin C.

The “vitamin C induces abortion” one is a myth, sadly not the others.

To ann #1239:

“Well, considering that SN can’t distinguish satire from reality, thinks his self-created neo-religious parables are logic, and is so incapable of comprehending his own errors that he thinks a story about Ashley Judd’s childhood sexual abuse redeems his having credulously accepted another asserting that half the people in Kentucky are the products of incest, that’s not surprising.”

Now you’re 0-for-8 or 9, I’m losing count.
I’ll explain:

You were the first to bring up the subject of incest and abortion for pregnancies of incest (#1137).

The ENTIRE point of my subsequent words on incest was this:
You, ann, believe such products of incest (i.e. conceptions from incest) should be aborted.
Closely tied to this main point, is that in an ann’s mind, a now walking-talking product of incest should be dead – should have been aborted.
And yes, there MUST be SOME such human beings, given our awareness of the real and far-to-common incidence of incest – *as evidenced by sorry tales from the silver screen although the way to “serious” satire”.
…………………
“We’re talking about someone who literally can’t look a word up in the dictionary without comical mishap.”

Let’s call it 0-for-10.

“Who thinks that two presidential candidates who have a sum total of zero experience running for national office, neither of whom has ever been elected so much as dog-catcher, and one of whom has never run for anything at all would be the ideal 2016 ticket for the Republican Party.”

Pity poor George Washington, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower.

0-11.

Speaking of scores, lying creep, hows that list of 8 quotes for 8 coming along?

“Who thinks that two presidential candidates who have a sum total of zero experience running for national office, neither of whom has ever been elected so much as dog-catcher, and one of whom has never run for anything at all would be the ideal 2016 ticket for the Republican Party.”

Pity poor George Washington, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower.

Remind us again, which military forces did your dynamic duo successfully lead?

“We’re talking about someone who literally can’t look a word up in the dictionary without comical mishap.”

Let’s call it 0-for-10.

I agree. There’s nothing remotely enjoyable about you fumbling even something that simple.

Let me explain. Point me to a dictionary with your definition of abortion.

To ann #1241:

Me: “And who knows? Someday the world may even have more babies.
It better, because we appear to be going ever deeper into a demographic winter (i.e. More and more old people and fewer and fewer young people).
IF we ever come out of this winter, the spring time could be generations away.
As I recall, China has already abandoned its one-child policy and is now encouraging its women to have more children. Russia, Japan, Denmark, Singapore and other countries have begun incentivizing much higher fertility rates. They’ve seen the writing on the wall.

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon (time 4:45)…”

That last paragraph is a simple fact, but one which is secondary, and a distant second, to the MAIN POINT:

ANY culture, ANY society, is destined for dissolution without adequate reproduction.
Rerun:

“In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.
Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 fertility rate; a rate of 1.3, impossible to reverse…
As of 2007 the fertility rate in France was 1.8.
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1

Across the entire European Union of 31 countries, the fertility rate is a mere 1.38.

Historical research tells us these numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist…”

Again, the MAIN POINT is about the danger of having too few babies. It is not about immigration nor about xenophobia.
……………

If there be any modern day eugenicists, where might they be more likely to be found?

1) Among the group trying to stop all abortions and abortifacients? Or

2) Among the group overseeing and/or approving the disproportionate killing of blacks** and of other problem babies***?

** The percentage of black pregnancies aborted is several times higher than for whites.
*** For pregnancies with a Down’s Syndrome diagnosis, for example, the abortion rate is 67% in the U.S., 92% in Europe.

Correction to my #1243:

And yes, there MUST be SOME such human beings, given our awareness of the real and far-to-common incidence of incest – *as evidenced by sorry tales from the silver screen all the way through to “serious” satire.*

ANY culture, ANY society, is destined for dissolution without adequate reproduction.
Rerun:

“In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.

Because Singapore collapsed by 2000?

So your theory didn’t survive the first nation I picked. Way to go, dishonest one.

At least you’re consistent.

Historical research tells us these numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist…”

Which historical research, and what were the morality rates in those times? Because we need those rates too, in addition to birth rates to see actual effects on population and society.

Which historical research, and what were the morality rates in those times?

He’s simply repeating stuff from a half-assed Y—be video. See here.

</killfile>

Again, the MAIN POINT is about the danger of having too few babies. It is not about immigration nor about xenophobia.

I guess that’s why S.N. conspicuously omitted identifying his source, “Muslim Demographics.”

(Somehow I doubt that he’s familiar with the work of one Reed R. Critchfield.)

<killfile>

The main point of American racial eugenicists was — oddly enough — that there were too few babies.

That’s exactly why Margaret Sanger was not one of them.

Those who do not learn from history, etc. And it’s not like it’s even obscure. I mean, were the Nazis were pro-birth control? No. They wanted more babies:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he introduced a Law for the Encouragement of Marriage, which entitled newly married couples to a loan of 1000 marks (around 9 months’ average wages at that time). On their first child, they could keep 250 marks. On their second, they could keep another 250. They reclaimed all of the loan by their fourth child.

In a September 1934 speech to the National Socialist Women’s Organization, Adolf Hitler argued that for the German woman her “world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home”,[9] a policy which was reinforced by the stress on “Kinder” and “Küche” in propaganda, and the bestowal of the Cross of Honor of the German Mother on women bearing four or more babies.

That we’re-being-outbred! stuff is always a barely veiled unreconstructed proto-fascist rallying cry for suckers and subscribers to Mankind Quarterly.

People never learn.

Ah, Reed R. Critchfield. He appears to have impeccable credentials in the field of demography:

A graduate of the University of Utah with a Masters Degree in Business Administration, Reed spent 27 years in the Army culminating in his assignment as the Commander of the 1/211th Attack Helicopter Battalion based in West Jordan, Utah. After his retirement from the Army, Reed has worked as a management consultant and is currently the Director of Human Resources for a company in the energy industry. His experiences in the military and consulting coupled with his membership in the LDS (Mormon) Church gave him pause to contemplate the cause and effect relationships between people, governments, nature and God. As the potentially apocalyptic date of December 21, 2012 approaches, what can we do to prepare? Who can help? How can we help ourselves and those we love? If you are searching to find yourself, help is here for the taking. Please…help yourself. And when you do that, you help us all.

I think he might be the father or uncle of this guy. The names both appear in obituaries, etc. But it’s hard to tell with Mormons. (There’s another Troy Reed Critchfield, but he seems to be the wrong age. And so on.)

In any event, I suppose it wouldn’t be his fault even if he were. It just piqued my interest.

Pity poor George Washington, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower.

If not the worst President in US history, Grant was easily in the top three (along with Jackson and Taft).

From the Eugenics Archive:

The alarmist term “race suicide” was coined by the popular and distinguished U.S. sociologist Edward A. Ross at the turn of the 20th century. The concept was in-principle a general one. When the birth rate within a so-called race dropped below the death rate, “race suicide” was thought to be occurring, with the ultimate consequence that the “race” would die out.

^^Demographic winter. Too few babies. Muslims/Immigrants. Same difference. A racial eugenicist is a racial eugenicist.

@#1257 —

None of them is an apt comparison to Fiorina or Carson. The electoral process has changed since Washington’s day. And Eisenhower was drafted to run by the party, ffs. If that was the case with either of SN’s dream team, it wouldn’t matter that they have no idea what they’re doing. But it’s not.

To ann #1255:

“The main point of American racial eugenicists was — oddly enough — that there were too few babies. That’s exactly why Margaret Sanger was not one of them.”

Really?
Or was the main point more like too few of the RIGHT KIND of babies?
And that’s why Margaret Sanger WAS one of them.
………………
“I mean, were the Nazis were pro-birth control? No. They wanted more babies…”

So, your lesson is: If you’re anti-birth control and want more babies, you’re a racial eugenicist. Got it.

And you’re 0-for-13.

So, your lesson is: If you’re anti-birth control and want more babies, you’re a racial eugenicist. Got it.

And you’re 0-for-13.
Says the “man” (and I use the term lightly) wailing about muslims outbreeding decent Europeans. Lesson still unlearned, I see.

As gaist says.

In any event,as of 2013, the fertility rate for non-Hispanic blacks was 65 per 1000 women vs. 60 per 1000 for non-Hispanic whites, accounting for 15 percent of all births, slightly above the replacement rate. And those numbers are relatively stable.

So nobody appears to be driving anyone to extinction.

To ann #1262:

“As gaist says. In any event,as of 2013, the fertility rate for non-Hispanic blacks was 65 per 1000 women vs. 60 per 1000 for non-Hispanic whites, accounting for 15 percent of all births, slightly above the replacement rate. And those numbers are relatively stable.
So nobody appears to be driving anyone to extinction.”

Now THAT is some real “Now” thinking!
You know, like ‘Live [and think] only for today, for tomorrow we die.’

Your thinking reminds me of the “Now” thinking of the global warmers:
‘In any event,as of 2013, the planetary heating rate for … blah blah blah… is [only] slightly above the replacement rate [or historical rate]. And those numbers are relatively stable. So global warming doesn’t appear to be driving anyone to extinction.”

And I thought: Yes! That’s exactly how GWers think and how THEY say it…
only completely differently.

P.S.
Who said anything about “extinction”?
I was talking about dangerously low fertility numbers which will lead to the BREAKDOWN of economies, cultures and societies. But even with such breakdown, we’ll still have some people around. But it would be a nightmare.
Hey, I hear there’s a new “Mad Max” movie coming out. Have you seen it?

See Noevo@1243

Closely tied to this main point, is that in an ann’s mind, a now walking-talking product of incest should be dead – should have been aborted.

How do you get from victims of incest* should have the option to terminate resultant pregnancies to anyone born of incest should be dead? Only by misrepresenting others’ words at an APV or above level.

I’m curious, See Noevo. Do you think that aborting a life-threatening pregnancy is a worse crime than raping a 9 year girl.

*I say victims because I’m 99% sure everyone but you is talking about incest that is a subset of rape, not the consensual Jamie x Cersei kind.

@1247

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon (time 4:45)…

Missed this first time around but thanks for confirming my suspicions that you are an Islamophobe.

Says the “man” (and I use the term lightly) wailing about muslims outbreeding decent Europeans. Lesson still unlearned, I see.

S.N. has left irony far behind. This is someone so stupid that he can write this, quoting an anonymous, six-year-old, error-filled anti-Muslim video, and not notice the problem:

Across the entire European Union of 31 countries, the fertility rate is a mere 1.38.

“Historical research tells us these numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist…”

Again, the MAIN POINT is about the danger of having too few babies. It is not about immigration nor [sic] about xenophobia.

And then, amazingly, the icing on the shіtcake:

Or was the main point more like too few of the RIGHT KIND of babies?

He also seems to have forgotten about squaring up his “perpetual passive welfare mentality” remark with this pratfall.

And never, ever, has S.N. responded to the directly relevant question how many children he has sired, much less what “they” are contributing to society. But he’s bitching all the same. It turns out that most of his co-religionists and countrymen who, you know, have actually succeeded in getting to the starting line in the first place, seem to be indifferent* to that whole condoms-only-for-male-prostitutes** routine.

BTW, did S.N. ever come clean as to whether he was pro-CRS thanks to the abominations of WI-38 and RA 27/3?

* It’s under “Marital Status and Family Size of Religious Groups”; the actual table is an image.
** I think this was Benedict “easing” the Church’s pro-HIV stance in Africa, but the details aren’t worth the effort.

Who said anything about “extinction”?

Yes, your instence that it is physically impossible for mankind to suffer an extinction event because Jesus has already been noted.

I was talking about dangerously low fertility numbers which will lead to the BREAKDOWN of economies, cultures and societies. But even with such breakdown, we’ll still have some people around. But it would be a nightmare.

G-d, it’s fantastic to watch you squirm. You fail to acknowledge that your truly pathetic source collapses upon cursory examination, refuse to accept what its actual conclusion – which you stupidly quoted – was, and now stick with it using the time-honored technique of pseudoeconomic hand-waving.

You knew exactly what it was and tried to hide it here:

With the precipitous drop in birth rates around the world, we are entering into uncharted territory. I’m not aware of any civilization or society in human history that “flourished” economically and culturally which had a declining population.

Just slightly off this topic, but very much relevant to concerning developments in the Middle East and elsewhere…

I’ll title this “How Islam will dominate the world: Babies”: [link to “Muslim Demographics”]

h[]tp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/03/29/the-vacuity-of-natural-law/#comment-62136

Anyway…

ZOMG, increased labor costs. Walk everybody through it in detail without copying and pasting from yet another of the group shіt-ins that you frequent. Try reviewing the actual literature first.

Oh, wait, hey, who am I?*

Of the two junk science cousins, evolution and AGW, the latter is obviously far more worrisome. We’ll have no problems with the climate, of course, but rather we have a lot to worry about regarding the devastating tsunami of government regulation and taxation with which we’ll be “saved.”

Don’t fail to include that in the timeline to “we’ll still have some people around.” Remember, you also have to make contact with the endpoint of your augury/wager that the RCC would be left standing regardless at the end of days, which I’m too tired to waste more time trying to dredge your Wide, Wide River for.

* Another keeper:

From the articles below, I have have at least two takeaways:
1) Stop illegal immigration at the southern border, and
2) Grow up.

“Seven-in-ten Hispanics say the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity, compared with 44% among non-Hispanic whites.”

Nope, the whole show was immigration neutral.

h[]tp://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/07/08/conspiracies-all-the-way-down-is-your-local-climate-contrarian-a-kook-or-a-crook/#comment-622955

BREAKDOWN of economies, cultures and societies.

Breaking News! Japan and Singapore collapsed at the turn of the millennium!” Way to go See Noevo the lying little creep.

@ Narad

I think this was Benedict “easing” the Church’s pro-HIV stance in Africa, but the details aren’t worth the effort.

From memory, it was the previous pope, the one who resigned.
I remember thinking at the time how the RCC leaders had a limited grasp of human sexuality and STDs. Like, it would be better if male customers would be using a condom, regardless of the prostitute’s gender. Or regardless if it is a moneyed relation, or not.

During Jean-Paul 2’s service time, a French Archbishop (Cardinal?), a bit more in touch with reality than the others, dared to say “Don’t add the sin of murder to the sin of flesh”, in the context of HIV transmission.

In any event,as of 2013, the fertility rate for non-Hispanic blacks was 65 per 1000 women vs. 60 per 1000 for non-Hispanic whites, accounting for 15 percent of all births, slightly above the replacement rate. And those numbers are relatively stable.
So nobody appears to be driving anyone to extinction.”

Now THAT is some real “Now” thinking!
You know, like ‘Live [and think] only for today, for tomorrow we die.’

Oh noes! The browning of America! But no, obviously See Noevo is not a lying misogynistic eugenicist. No. No doubt it’s just “common sense” because them dirty muslims are breedin’ faster he could ‘it ’em with a stick.

@ ann, gaist

BTW, thanks for your posts, I’m learning stuff.

And I admire your resilience to all the goalpost shifting.
I wonder if See is realizing that, by going for the “make more babies of the right color” angle, he just abandoned the (moral) high ground and simultaneously shelled both his former and his new position.
Again.

Not that his high ground was that high to start with.

I should note that See Noevo’s performance in his last thread here is quite telling.
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolution/#comments

I asked See a few questions about his authority:

See Noevo, what gives you the authority to decide who’s a proper Christian and who isn’t? Were you crucified? Were you resurrected? Was I baptised in your name? Why should I take you as an authority?

Here is his response:

Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?

That’s right, his response to my question was to undermine Jesus Christ’s authority!

To clarify, See’s big issue there isn’t blasphemy, it’s egotism. He can’t see himself as wrong, even if the very God he worships contradicts him. He’s willing to make ludicrous and racist arguments because he can’t perceive the possibility that we’d find them wrong or objectionable.

My point was actually that even if all those Sanger quotes about extirpating the unfit were not ahistorical, misrepresentative, and out-of-context — which they are — the insinuation that Planned Parenthood was engaged in racial genocide would still be categorically, demonstrably, and obviously false.

But I agree that the quotes about Muslims are clearly intended to suggest that the extinction of “our” kind is imminent.

Honestly, that they come from a book about the new age of man that will dawn after the December 2012 apocalypse foretold by Mayans only makes them even more neo-Weimar than they already were.

It’s just amazing (and depressing) that people continue to fall for that stuff.

The “now” thinking of the global warmers — aka “the moral and social teaching of the Church”*** — is that climate change does appear to be driving people to extinction:

Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences.

What dire consequences might those be?

Well. Merriam-Webster does not define “unsustainable.” But its meaning can be inferred via logic and common sense from its definition of “sustainable”:

: able to be used without being completely used up or destroyed

: involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources

: able to last or continue for a long time

IOW: Eventual extinction.

***Requires religious submission of intellect and will from True Catholics.

What he genuinely venerates is rules.

Only when they coincide with his hatred- and fear-based personal needs.

To ann #1275:

I think Pope Francis’ encyclical was largely, but not entirely, a disgrace of ignorance and lefty-politics.

In Laudato Si’, the Pope is way out of his league, both personally and positionally – at least regarding global warming and capitalism.
And if I happen to bump into him next month in Philly, maybe I’ll get to tell him so.

Pope Francis would have done better to skip the 37,000 some word encyclical and just quote a few verses from Scripture, like

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them HAVE DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” … And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and SUBDUE IT; and HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” [Genesis 1:26,28]

But also…
“The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and KEEP IT.” [Genesis 2:15]

Enough said.
I got it, Lord.

P.S.
The Pope and archbishop ann could take some lessons from Philly’s Archbishop Charles Chaput.

Strangely, one of the parts of Laudato Si’ where Pope Francis WAS on solid ground never got much if any coverage in the media or on website like this.

The largely ignored words were in paragraph 120:

“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

I’m failing to understand why there’s this presumed need to protect human embryos, See–it’s not as if they were known to be human beings, after all.

ann@1276

Only when they coincide with his hatred- and fear-based personal needs.

See Noevo@1277 (literally one post later)

I think Pope Francis’ encyclical was largely, but not entirely, a disgrace of ignorance and lefty-politics.

In Laudato Si’, the Pope is way out of his league, both personally and positionally – at least regarding global warming and capitalism.

Bwahahaha! Point ann.

“The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and KEEP IT.” [Genesis 2:15]

Enough said.
I got it, Lord.

Do you though? I’m pretty sure that in this case keep doesn’t mean:

: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

but rather:

2 :preserve, maintain: as
a :to watch over and defend
b (1) :to take care of :tend (2) :support (3) :to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition —usually used with up

My reasoning being that this definition makes more sense in the context of “to till it amd keep it.” Till of course meaning:

:to work by plowing, sowing, and raising crops :cultivate

It’s talking about taking care of the earth, not owning it.

Seems like disregarding AGW (as well as the unrestrained industry that caused it) is actually the opposite of what that passage says. Heck, even if keep means what you think it does in that passage, it’s hard to argue that what we’re doing to the earth is cultivating (tilling).

Even if God gave us dominion over the earth, is that any reason to wreck it? Are you the kind of person who treats all your belongings as disposable? I try to maintain my things in a good condition. Shouldn’t a gift from God be treated with the utmost respect?

You know what? I take back what I said before. You’re not radicalized, you’re not devout. You’re just another bigoted right-wing nutjob following in the time honored tradition of cherry-picking the bible to preach your discriminatory and irresponsible beliefs. My apologies to the true believers who hold their awful beliefs because the church said so. See Noevo is just a scumbag entirely on his own volition.

Oh, look, SN, the bad example, has returned. We may now all point and laugh.

And I thought to Roman Catholics the pope were infailable, but according to SN this is only true if the pope doesn’t say things SN doesn’t agree with.

See, are you sure you want God to fix the issues caused by global warming? The elimination of a few countries to save the world is certainly within His means, and He tends to dislike the wealthy and powerful ones, like the United States.

@#1282 —

His teachings are only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (or in ecclesial union with the Bishops regarding doctrine, etc.).

The required response to what he says about morals and faith in an encyclical is “religious submission of intellect and will.”

But as I said, SN is only strict with himself about being Catholic when it tickles his hatred- and fear-based fancy.

(Example: The Pope says irony and disdain are no longer an acceptable response to the dire threat of global warming? SN responds with irony and disdain.

Granted, he has little in the way of intellect and will to begin with. All impulse, no control.)

In Laudato Si’, the Pope is way out of his league, both personally and positionally – at least regarding global warming and capitalism.
And if I happen to bump into him next month in Philly, maybe I’ll get to tell him so.

I’m sure he’s used to being the better person.

See, let me ask you a simple hypothetical. Say you own an apartment complex, with several renters. And let’s say one day you come to visit and discover that one of the tenants has deliberately set the building on fire, rendering many of the apartments uninhabitable and leaving several renters homeless.

How would feel if the one who started the fire said “You can just rebuild it, right? I paid my rent, I should be able to do what I want!” Wouldn’t you make him pay for all the repairs, permanently evict him, and have him arrested for arson? So what makes you think God will be merciful to you for your abuse of shared resources?

In Laudato Si’, the Pope is way out of his league, both personally and positionally – at least regarding global warming and capitalism.

Whereas you are undoubtedly the unquestioned grandmaster and sage of both. You must be, given your pompous posturing. It’s a pity and a mystery how your unparalleled qualifications don’t Come through in any of your comments, though. Weird that.

It’s talking about taking care of the earth, not owning it.

Yes:

The Hebrew root used in the verb “will guard you” is shamar (SHAMAR), which first appears in the Bible in Gen 2:15 where Adam was instructed to dress and “keep” the garden. It is also used in Gen 17:9 where God instructs Abraham to “keep” His covenant. In fact, shamar is used over 400 times in the Tanakh, and the basic idea of the root is to “exercise great care over,” to “watch closely,” to “guard”, to “take heed,” and to “tend” (as a flock).

He’s also wrong to think that this…

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness; and let them HAVE DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, and over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every
creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” … And God blessed them, and God said to them,
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and SUBDUE IT; and HAVE
DOMINION over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every
living thing that moves upon the earth.” [Genesis 1:26,28]

…that the earth is his to own and to pwn.

It’s more like a command to tame the wilderness and reign over it — ie, to be agrarian and not get eaten by tigers; to maintain national parks and build reservoirs, etc. — than it is divine authorizatiob to treat the joint like it’s yours.

@Krebiozen: I know vitamin C isn’t a very effective abortificant, but, megadoses can cause severe diarrhea, which can sometimes cause uterine contractions, leading to miscarriage. I have seen it work. The women who tried it didn’t want surgical TOPs if they could avoid it and this was before some of the other, much more effective meds we have now. It worked for 2 of them, not the others.

Ahhh…SN shows his true bigoted colors. He’s not worried about abortion, per se. He’s worried that those OTHER PEOPLE will have more babies and TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY (Like that Obummer guy whom I’m certain SN hates and calls all sorts of names, like “Muslim” and “Kenyan”). Color me not surprised he’s a bigot. The only thing that keeps him for being Quiverful is that he’s not fundie Protestant. If he had his way, his wife would be constantly pregnant, too.

Here’s one of the people advising the Vatican on climate change in these post-Laudato Si’ days.
She was one of the speakers in a Vatican post-encyclical press conference and will be helping to lead one or more Vatican “climate change summits” this year.

That’s pretty impressive for a secular Jewish atheist!

But she also has some “unorthodox” views about the effects of climate change, like
“It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422661/climate-racism-worse-naomi-klein

Maybe ann knows Naomi. They seem to have some things in common.

Actually, I’m a bit surprised ann isn’t involved in these Vatican summits. She could school the Pope and others there on Catholicism, as well as on other stuff like climate change, capitalism, and maybe racism, abortion, etc.

Can’t get away from presidential politics being shockingly desperate for attention.

FTFY.

The only thing that keeps him for being Quiverful is that he’s not fundie Protestant. If he had his way, his wife would be constantly pregnant, too.

His what? Let’s turn back time:

To ann #1231:

“The thing that really distinguished Christianity’s thinking about sex and marriage from Judaism’s was the idea that lust was bad, and celibacy therefore good.”

It’s almost as if you’re saying lust and celibacy are opposites. But they’re not. Lust and CHASTITY are closer to true opposites.
Christ and His Church[*] call ALL to chastity, but only some to celibacy.

S.N. has never advanced the slightest challenge to the straightforward inference that his misogyny is a direct result of frustration over rejection by the fairer sex, “access” to which he seems to assume is biblically mandated to be akin to ordering from the Sears catalog.

I’d describe S.N. as a troglodyte, but that would do a disservice to both Jimmy Castor and “Li’l John” Rinaldi.**

One thing that I have mentioned before and has effectively been conceded is that under no circumstances is S.N. going to sack it up and request a pastoral assessment of his behavior and guidance going forward.

If it weren’t for the examplars of Denice’s professional reserve and JP’s sense of propriety, I’d be freely horking up lit-crit at this point.

* Hi, sloppy Gnosticism!
** In this context, I seem to recall S.N.’s thinking that mentioning his smoking of a cigar was some sort of display of sophistication or something. G-d only knows what other sort of MRA fashion affectations he thinks are still “hip.”

But she also has some “unorthodox” views about the effects of climate change, like
“It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”

What, pray tell, is unorthodox or controversial about that?

It’s been common knowledge – and indeed, common sense that scarcity or resources (due to droughts, flooding, heavier storms) as well as increased uncertainty of crop harvests etc. will lead to unrest, as will forced migration of coastal areas or arable land becomes uninhabitable.

Even the US military has been preparing for this since 2003, at least. http://climateandsecurity.org/resources/u-s-government/defense/

Or maybe they were dirty lefties all along too, like the Pope?

The little lying creep has once again demonstrates his utter lack of insight or even common sense.

BTW, See Noevo the petty misogynistic eugenicist…

…do you still want me to continue pointing out instances of you running away from or stubbornly ignoring evidence? You asked me to give you examples, but so far you’ve ignored all of them?

Maybe it’s time to man up and acquiesce in face of overwhelming proof, little creep?

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and SUBDUE IT; and HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” [Genesis 1:26,28]

And how’s that working out in practice for you, S.N.? Be specific, as there’s more than one moving part here.

For example, do you catch your own fish? Do you inquire as to the supply chain à la kashrut? Or do you also have DOMINION over, say, the likely heathen individuals who deliver the “chicken fish of the sea” to the Divine* Entitlement of your grocery store?

What if, say, the cοοlies and zіpperheads decided to keep their catch for themselves? Is there some recipe in the Dungeonmaster’s Guide Catechism that covers this?

I mean, fυck, you were the slapdіck who thought he could get away with pretending that “Muslim Demographics” was some sort of authoritative resource. Twice. What about all the very same sand nіggers who provide you with your Holy Gasoline?

Walk everybody through this one. There’s always time for you to get back to** sorting out in detail which parts of the Bull Cum pro Nostro Pastorali Munere are ex cathedra.

After all, you like to “work from first principles,” don’t you? Hell, you’ve overtly fantasized about how you’re going to give Pope Francis a piece of your cheesesteak “mind” if you “happen to bump into him” while you’re wandering around Fishtown or some similarly psychically accommodating hole.

* Already elucidated, I’m pretty sure.
** Heh. Are there “mulieres in ecclesiis taceant” T-shirts? Bumper stickers? Maybe you could get a tramp stamp.

Or maybe they were dirty lefties all along too, like the Pope?

The Mulatto* infesting the White House has brought things to a head, of course.

* Yes, he’s actually dragged out the “not a Black president” routine, although I’m not going to play Ed Norton in the sewer of his Disqustink comments at the moment.

She could school the Pope and others there on Catholicism, as well as on other stuff like climate change, capitalism,

Please, He obviously knows more about Catholicism than any member of the laity or secular by-stander could hope to. And he spent a year and a half preparing that encyclical.

What kind of person would be arrogant enough to presume to school him about any of them?

In Laudato Si’, the Pope is way out of his league, both personally and positionally – at least regarding global warming and capitalism.
And if I happen to bump into him next month in Philly, maybe I’ll get to tell him so.

Project much?

and maybe racism, abortion, etc.

Again, I wouldn’t presume. Per wiki, while he’s “unwaveringly orthodox” in all the usual ways and more conservative than otherwise, he’s also “critical of those who reduce the faith to its precepts on sexual morality” — ie, abortion, contraception, homosexuality.

But I really don’t know that much about him.

But she also has some “unorthodox” views about the effects of climate change, like
“It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”

What, pray tell, is unorthodox or controversial about that?

For real. It doesn’t take more than logic, common sense and observation to see that.

Naomi: “It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”

ann: “For real. It doesn’t take more than logic, common sense and observation to see that.”

Rumor is that Naomi and ann are coming out with some new T-shirt slogans:

“Hands up, don’t shoot! Don’t deny climate change!”

“Black lives matter! Don’t defund Planned Parenthood!”

“Racism ain’t cool. Stop heating the planet!”

You’re never too old to learn, nor too young.
Take our Al Sharpton (Please!), who was ordained a Pentecostal minister at the age of 10.
Rumor is that ancient Al’s going back to school for an advanced degree in meteorology,
and that the N.A.A.C.P. and The New Black Panthers will cover his tuition costs.

gaist@1294

It’s been common knowledge – and indeed, common sense that scarcity or resources (due to droughts, flooding, heavier storms) as well as increased uncertainty of crop harvests etc. will lead to unrest, as will forced migration of coastal areas or arable land becomes uninhabitable.

Which is especially true for a country that is mostly coastal areas, i.e. Australia. Which is specifically what she was talking about. To be fair, See Noevo is just parroting the ignorance of the National Review, who are heavy into AGW denial.

See Noevo@1300

“Black lives matter! Don’t defund Planned Parenthood!”

Amusingly, this one actually makes sense. By increasing access to and education about contraceptives in low income areas (where African Americans are unforunately overrepresented) Planned Parenthood actually does have a positive impact on black lives. That’s not quite the what is meant by the “Black lives matter!” slogan but it still works I think. There’s also the interesting correlation between Row v. Wade and decreased crime rates. Personally I don’t think there’s causation but hey there’s better data for that than literally any of See Noevo’s positions.

See Neovo “Black lives matter!”

Stop pretending, See. Since 774, you made it clear it’s only the Caucasian catholic babies you care about. As you explained to us, the other babies are a threat to your culture. From your point of view, they may as well die.

Or maybe they were dirty lefties all along too, like the Pope?

The DOD quietly released a study on nation-building a few years later stating out that access to affordable healthcare was a key component of long-term stability. Obviously the work of leftists.

There’s a certain grim humor to the way the right fawns on the military until the military disagrees with them.

shay@1304

There’s a certain grim humor to the way the right fawns on the military until the military disagrees with them.

Same thing they do with the church. I was reading some articles on the pope’s encyclical and conservatives seem to be universally in agreement with See Noevo (actually it’s probably the other way around). The “because church” argument loses a lot of weight when it’s only when they agree with your beliefs.

Rumor is that Naomi and ann are coming out with some new T-shirt slogans:

“Hands up, don’t shoot! Don’t deny climate change!”

“Black lives matter! Don’t defund Planned Parenthood!”

“Racism ain’t cool. Stop heating the planet!”

Just pausing to note that SN is apparently under the impression that hating on the Pope and the teachings of the Church is A-OK, as long as you’re nominally using proxies.

The encyclical doesn’t limit it to race, because he’s talking about the whole world, not just Australia. But he agrees with Naomi Klein:

Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. For example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children. There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world.

To say nothing of contempt and scorn. But I guess it’s SN’s prudential judgment that mocking the afflicted is a truer expression of faith.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading