Dan,
I think it’s safe to say this now. There is no possible way to interpret your behavior on our recent back and forth other than to conclude that you were better off going back to your safe space, than answering questions and dealing with the straw man you created,
Feo,
Just because you are apparently unable or unwilling to engage in civil conversation and have managed to get yourself moderated from multiple blogs due to your behavior, doesn’t mean I need you filling my inbox with comments you can’t make anywhere else.
Thank you both for behaving exactly as I could have predicted.
49 comments:
"1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?"
I do realize that. I also realize that it's virtually impossible to determine how many of these occur in the US, thus would be relevant to this questionnaire.
"2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?"
I recognize that it's theoretically possible, but haven't actually seen proof of this phenomenon. I've been unable to find any hard numbers, and suspect that the actual number is tiny, if any.
"3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?"
I'm not sure that you can make a blanket claim of fact like this without proof. But I will grant that it is possible that a 10 year old could get pregnant without being able to vaginally deliver the child. However, there should be other medical alternatives in addition to abortion available. Again, in the absence of specifics, and a large enough sample size to draw broad conclusions, I don't know that a definitive answer exists.
"4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?"
Yes, I realize that the process "could" be traumatic. But "could" isn't definitive.
"5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?"
If you really meant this as a question, wouldn't it properly have been posed as "Are you opposed...?" The answer to that question is no. I'd want to explore alternatives, but in general, no.
"6. If so, what sort of monster are you?"
Not any sort of monster. But I don't support the ending of the lives of viable human babies if one parent has the opinion that it's not a human being.
"7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?"
You realize that this question simple rephrases question #5, but in a more pejorative manner. Of course, the answer is still no.
I have to note that your "proof" in this instance is ONE that's right ONE 10 year old who apparently successfully delivered the baby via Cesarean birth. (FYI, back in 1991 when we had child #1 we were told that the term Cesarean Section was frowned upon) This happened in 2012, among a native tribe in Columbia. Without knowing specifics, I'd have to wonder if the quality of health care in rural Columbia in 2012 might not be as good as health care in a small American city?
But, be that as it may, your 7+ year old example actually seems to make the point that the 10 year old successfully delivered the baby, in a non vaginal delivery.
Essentially, you're suggesting that an abortion would have been less traumatic than a Cesarean birth. Although the article doesn't make that claim at all. The article doesn't even mention abortion.
I'm not defending the impregnating of 10 year olds (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,... year old unmarried young women either) in any way. I'm just pointing out that your source doesn't really support your point. The descriptions of the physical harm, aren't of specific harm done to the specific girl, but general statements about what could happen in certain circumstances.
"8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?"
I've addressed this in the other thread, you chose not to address this there, nor have you here. You are making a claim that there are "differences in rights", without proving that claim. Yes, I realize that all of those are stages of human development, but that doesn't prove your claim. You've also chosen not to explain the difference between a 39.9 week old fetus, and a baby 2 days after birth.
"9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?"
If one agrees with the founders that rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", then yes I do. Further, if "These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime.". How do you or anyone have the ability to alienate those rights based on "your opinion". If, as you've claimed repeatedly, we can't know then why would your default position be to alienate those inalienable rights? I'd go further in saying that at a very minimum, the right to the continuation of ones life spans the entirety of human development.
"10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?"
No, we're not talking about making public policy over a one in a billion occurrence that can be handled with a Cesarean birth anyway. What might make you seem a little monstrous is the fact that you don't appear willing to consider any possibility except abortion.
"11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold? Can you understand why?"
Until you can actually find an instance of anyone trying to "force" a 10 year old to have a baby, maybe you should re word the question. I'd point out that you probably can't prove what "most people would find", but it would probably be pointless. Since the premise of the question is so fatally flawed.
"12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?"
I think that all humans, no matter what stage if life they might be in are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". I'f you can prove otherwise, please do.
Dan,
As you'll note, I've answered all of your questions, and addressed other problems you have. It is worth noting that I've asked some of these questions in the thread you disappeared from, in addition to not dealing with the problems in your "fully human=all rights" construct.
I'll further note, that you seem to have modified your original claim ("fully human"="all rights") so that your new claim is that one is not deserving of any rights until one is fully human. I see some problems with this as well.
!. If rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by the creator", then these rights are merely recognized and protected, not granted. You have failed to explain at what point the "creator" "endows" the created with said "inalienable" rights.
2. If "full humanity" is merely an opinion, (as you've said) and that the humanity of a fetus depends on the opinion of one parent, then aren't you suggesting that parents, not the "creator" are the conferrers of rights?
3. Your continued use of extremes, and ignoring of less extreme comparisons, raises questions about what you hope to achieve.
4. Even if you are right, and we "don't know" exactly, why would anyone choose to err on the side of ending innocent life rather than prolonging it.
5. I posted some stats at Stan's that lay out the fact that you are trying to use the less than 5% of cases to justify the 95% of cases. Explain why that makes sense.
I realize that these are more questions added to the ones you've already chosen not to answer. I apologize for the fact that these were necessary.
As soon as you get caught up, or even make a good faith effort to do so, your comments will miraculously appear from out of moderation, and be responded to.
I'll address your comments at my space. Suffice to say you're getting so much wrong even in your attempt to half-assed answer questions. But I'll give you half Applause for trying to half answer.
Suffice to say, you did not answer every question, nor have you understood my position, nor are you understanding my point. Or at least so it appears.
Dan,
Perhaps your confused by what I’m asking you to do. I’m asking that you answer the questions you’ve been asked, deal with the flaws in your construct, or acknowledge that your construct is simply a straw man. In any case, the reality is that I’ve answered every question you’ve asked (or explained why I wasn’t going to), while you’ve answered none.
Please do what you demand of others. Just like “I’m telling you...” isn’t actual proof of anything, you simply asserting answers exist doesn’t acknowledge the reality that you haven’t.
I have to note that your latest screed doesn’t address anything other that what Art and Neil said. Since everything else on your blog pre dates my recent questions and aren’t on the same topic.
I guess you don’t mind just making crap up.
So I answer all of Dan’s recent questions, and I answer them in a place where he can respond, his responses to answer none of my questions and to do so in a place where he won’t allow me to post comments.
"A. The point is NOT that this is a common instance. Do you understand that this is NOT the point I'm making?"
I pointed this out, that it's an incredibly uncommon occurrence. My point is that trying to use an uncommon occurrence to make a broader point is bad logic and bad policy.
"B. The point is the principle. Yes, it could be disastrous and dangerous and horrible for a child to be forced to give birth to a child."
Again, I addressed this. You are trying to establish a "principle" (that any 10 year old who becomes pregnant should be forced to have an abortion) based on what "could" happen. You are trying to establish a "principle" based on one instance. In this case an instance where the 10 year old didn't conform to your "principle".
"C. Do you recognize how monstrous it would be to force a child to see a pregnancy through to attempted completion... Not just physically, but to the child's psyche?"."
Did I say "force"? Do you realize that abortion is traumatic as well? That there are decades of documented instances where abortion traumatized the mother? Are you suggesting that you are qualified to determine which "trauma" is more acceptable? Do you realize that you've moved from "could" to "will".
"It would likely be harmful to her physically and mentally. Who would force that sort of harm on a child?"
You've just moved from "could" to "would likely", and I've not ever suggested forcing anything on anyone.
"D. I'm interested in what alternatives you'd want to explore? Are you saying you'd POSSIBLY encourage a ten year old rape victim to see the pregnancy to completion? Would you do that for a loved one in that situation, possibly?"
I'm saying that, as in the article you provided" a cesarean birth could be a possibility. I'm also suggesting that there might be other options available. I'm suggesting that, depending on the culture, the 10 year old might be more traumatized by abortion than birth. I'm suggesting that in a situation that is so rare that it be handled on a case by case basis. While being sympathetic to the cultural mores, the physical and emotional state of the 10 year old, and the wishes of the family. If my "loved one" was in this incredibly rare situation, I would encourage them to explore ALL available options before making a decision. Are you saying that you'd force the 10 year old to have an abortion without exploring ALL available options?
"Yes, yes it does. It's just that you are not understanding my point."
No it doesn't. Your point seems to be establishing the "principle" that pregnant 10 year olds should be encouraged to abort, yet the child in the article chose a cesarean birth instead. Obviously, there was an option that spared the child the potential of physical harm, while protecting the life of the unborn child.
"E. YOU believe that it would be okay to abort the fetus of that ten year old rape victim. You do NOT believe it would be okay to do that for a two month old, right? So, it appears YOU believe that there is a fundamental difference between the embryo/zygote/fetus and the birthed child. Is that correct?"
No, it's not correct. I believe that in rare cases such as this, that it's not "okay" to abort, I believe that it's a case where abortion could be the lesser of multiple evils. I also believe that it's not the simple black and white, automatically abort, "principle" that you're trying to establish.
"F. If you think they are the same, then you would HAVE to go with Marshal and the idiot-zealots in Alabama and say that aborting that rape victim's fetus is murder and stand opposed to it. Do you see the inconsistency in your answer? How do you explain that?"
You've taken my remark out of context, and juxtaposed it with something else to try to force me into a box.
I'll say it this way. I agree with our founders about the source and nature of "inalienable rights". I agree that abortion is the ending of a human life. I would say that in the case of the incredibly rare circumstance you've put forth, that I am willing to accept the possibility that abortion might be an acceptable option. But, since Art, nor the "idiot-zealots" in AL are addressing this one specific, incredibly rare circumstance, your characterization of them might not be accurate.
"Alabama and maybe other states are creating laws that criminalize abortion including in the case of abortion... effectively forcing the rape victim, including this fictional ten year old rape victim, go through with a pregnancy. So, there's an instance. I believe Marshal is another instance. Probably Stan and others of your comrades."
Unless you can provide actual proof that the bills and people in question are 100% against ANY possible exceptions, then you are just spouting BS. For example, the GA bill is being falsely presented as having no exceptions, when it does. Perhaps you're representing the Al bill, Art, and Stan.
"G. Do you understand that some ARE advocating criminalizing abortion even in the case of rape?"
If this unproven allegation is true, then I disagree with those people. But let's remember that abortions for rape are less than 1% of all abortions. So, why not be clear? Are you making the argument that there should be legal exceptions in these current bills, or are you arguing that abortions shouldn't be infringed at all?
"H. As I've stated clearly, NO ONE CAN PROVE that a fetus has a right to life or not. So, I can't prove what no one can prove. Do you recognize the reality that you can't prove your hunch that a zygote has a right to life?"
If by "prove", you mean "prove to the satisfaction of Dan T.", then I can't. Yet, I'd prefer to err on the side of preserving "inalienable rights", rather than denying them. Once again, as per your example, we're talking about exceptions on the margins, not the rule. So, unless you can point to specific language in the Al bill that specifically criminalizes abortion in the case of rape, maybe you should re think your attacks.
I've been clear personally. I suspect that most Pro-Life advocates would agree that a legal exception for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother are all exceptions that we would agree to. The data shows that these instances are around 2% of all abortions and I (we) would be happy if we could eliminate the 98% of abortions for convenience.
Are you really prepared to tell the women who choose to take babies conceived by rape or incest to term that they're wrong to do so? Are you really prepared to tell the mom who puts off chemo until after her baby is born that she's wrong to do so?
"G. Do you understand that some ARE advocating criminalizing abortion even in the case of rape?"
If you are correct in your characterization of the OH bill, and since you've only offered a source that appears to be biased I'm not willing to blindly accept this characterization without seeing the text of the bill, then I would disagree with the bill and would suggest that an exception would be appropriate. I'd also suggest that I wouldn't agree with anyone who would "force" an 11 year old into one particular course of action in this situation.
But, you're talking about an exceedingly rare circumstance and one that should be the exception, not the rule.
I could go through and actually keep score. Tally up the questions I've answered, and the points I've addressed in these abortion threads, but it would be pointless.
If you've actually answered any of the questions I've asked, it's a tiny percentage of them. By the same token, if I've missed/not answered any of your questions, it's also a tiny percentage.
The fact that you've chosen to respond in a forum where you've banned me, is just one more example of you not wanting to actually engage in a dialogue.
I'm going to allow this comment from Feo (edited to remove the personal attacks and falsehoods) to make a point.
"Christianity, from the horse's mouth:
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments... They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” Judas said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.... As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete..."
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
I'm simply going to point of that Dan has argued vehemently and extensively that "The Bible isn't a rule book.", that the "commandments" of the OT don't apply any more, and that you can't impose your interpretation of those commandments on others.
Unfortunately, you fail (at least in the online interactions I've seen) to live up to this standard.
Somehow casting the first stone doesn't bother you, I guess we know what that means.
"Craig is opting to answer these questions over at his blog, rather than here. Whatevs."
Craig is banned from commenting here. Dan apparently is a 14 year old.
I guess Dan is now actively running from the fact that he banned me from commenting, and that he's been randomly deleting my comments for months.
But he just can't understand why I might not be perfectly fine with that state of affairs.
As always, he's welcome to comment here once he get's caught up and does what he demands of others.
Indeed. I'm under the same childish restrictions, having answered his questions both at his blog and my own and still am denied from commenting at his blog. I haven't been able to sleep a wink for days. I complied successfully and in great detail to one of his demands, and I rejected the second because it was idiotic. At this point, I'm not about to put in effort to try to appease his petulance if he refuses to stop deleting me for the crime of answering his demands and providing for him that which he felt certain didn't exist.
So he's golden now. He doesn't have to man up at his blog and will rationalize deleting our comments simply because they don't go his way. Then, he'll avoid our blogs except to do a drive by. Well...he'll do that here, or at Stan's. He won't "condescend" to visit mine anymore, and mine provides the most freedom of all, even for an asshat like him.
"Did I say "force"?
"YOUR people did. You do when you call abortion "murder" or "killing a baby..." The anti-choice type of folk are making laws criminalizing abortion. So Craig, clarify:"
The answer to my question is NO. No I didn't say force. Yet you choose to try to force your perceptions about what others have said, onto me.
And the ratio of questions I've answered to the questions Dan has answered continues to go up in my favor.
"I. DO YOU STAND OPPOSED TO THE CRIMINALIZATION of abortion?""
I've been quite specific about this question. To be clear, I believe that elective abortion should be banned, but not criminalized.
"J. DO YOU THINK THAT ABORTING A FETUS AT SIX WEEKS IS MURDER of a "baby" that has a "right to life..."?"
If the ending of the life of a fetus through a car accident or an assault is considered murder (I'm including all permutations of murder charges), why wouldn't it be? I do agree with our founders that we are "endowed by our Creator" with the "right to life", among others.
"L. Is THAT what you're saying... ("I don't know WHEN a right to life begins, so I'll err on the side of caution...")? OR are you saying you DO "know" when a right to life begins?"
I'm saying that I have no reason to believe that the "inalienable" right to life is optional at certain stages of life. I've seen no evidence that would suggest otherwise.
"No. Not my point. My point is that if YOU want to keep a pregnancy going in your family, you should offer your family your support in that way... but for OTHER families, THEY should be the ones to make this difficult call. You know, Pro Choice. Pro Women Making their own damn minds up without people like you arrogantly presuming to tell them that THEY "know" best what that woman should do."
"Can you repeat back to me my point/position now?"
No. Not my point. My point is that if YOU want to keep a pregnancy going in your family, you should offer your family your support in that way... but for OTHER families, THEY should be the ones to make this difficult call. You know, Pro Choice. Pro Women Making their own damn minds up without people like you arrogantly presuming to tell them that THEY "know" best what that woman should do.
Of course, your position doesn't address the life of the pre-born child. You freely admit that you "don;t know" if it's "fully human" and that's it's humanity is dependent on the "opinion" of one parent, yet you don't allow for the possibility that your encouraging the "choice" of ending human life. Clearly your little construct is also designed to force the father completely out of the decision.
"Given that it's not black and white or simple, can you agree with that conclusion? OR like so many other white men in power, do you think that you all SHOULD be the ones to make the decision for others on this complicated "gray" issue?"
I can agree that you've moved the goal posts. You've started by talking about literally ONE instance that is an extremely unlikely occurrence and now moved to justifying abortions for convenience. Unfortunately, in a society such as ours we "make decisions for others" on a daily basis, unless you're prepared to argue complete autonomy, you need to come up with a consistent reason why this is different.
More than 98% of abortions are not done to preserve the health of any women. Look at the data.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
I recognize the reality that you've expressed an opinion and equated it with "reality". If you're going to do things like that, you'll have to provide proof.
"I propose the best alternative is to leave it to the individual family."
Yet virtually everyone on your side wants to deny the father a say in the decision. Also, look at the effort and laws in place to remove the families of minors from the decision. Hell, how many states actively prevent families from being involved in a decision about their children.
"(And for the record, I keep citing "old white men" because too often, that is who the people are making our decisions, or at least that certainly has been the case in the past... we're improving, so, good on us for that.)"
The apparently you aren't paying attention to the modern pro-life movement, and you're certainly ignoring the role of "old white men" in trying to force abortion on Africans.
I have to note you didn't actually answer my question about your use of extremes and my repeated attempts to get you to discuss less extreme examples.
"If, on the other hand, we are okay with aborting an embryo EVEN WHEN we think it IS the same as a birthed human as far as a right to life, then what sort of monster are we?"
That's a great question. Why don't you answer it? You've falsely equated my saying that there might be some exceptional circumstances where abortion is the lest bad option, with saying it's "okay" in a blanket sense.
"C4. Even if you are right, and we "don't know" exactly, why would anyone choose to err on the side of ending innocent life rather than prolonging it.
Because it is, as you said, NOT black and white NOR a simple answer and thus, best left to the family to decide.
And "even if I'm right..." are you or are you not acknowledging that you have no way to establish or prove authoritatively (and not "to Dan," as you said on your blog), but to establish or prove authoritatively PERIOD that a six week old fetus has a right to life?"
This is an incoherent juxtaposition of several things, but I'll try to sort it out.
1. Noting that you believe it's not "black and white: doesn't answer the question as asked.
2. I'll repeat. Even if we "don't know" (which presumes the possibility of the 6 week old being "endowed" with a "right to life"), I'm not talking about proving it to you (or authoritatively), I'm talking about why any parent with even a shred of compassion would choose to risk the possibility that they are ending the life of their human child because it's more convenient for them as parents.
Regarding what you've labeled as "C5"
Your rant that is completely unrelated to the question as asked can't be considered an answer in any rational sense.
Even if I am charitable, the ratio of questions asked to questions answered on the threads about this topic is and continues to be slanted in favor of my answering Dan's questions significantly.
Oh, I'm responding here because Dan has banned me from commenting at his blog and he randomly deletes my comments and falsely characterizes them.
This isn't a complaint, it's acknowledging the reality of Dan's arbitrary practices and the reality that he's (once he catches up) free to comment here.
"I'll admit, I did laugh at this. Are 14 year olds still saying "Whatevs..."? Probably, more like, Dan is a 14 year old from the year 2000..."
I have no idea if 14 year olds are saying "Whatevs", I'm just pointing out the stupidity of using it. Especially in service of the lie that you don't know why I'm responding here.
You banned me, and I fully accept and support your right to do so. On the rare occasions when I've commented at your blog since I've been banned, I do in with the assumption that the comments will be deleted.
You chose this, not me. I'm just playing by your rules.
Dan,
Here are three simple, yes and no questions, let’s see if you can answer these then maybe we can build from there?
Can you agree that there as a specific point at which life should be preserved, not ended?
Do you agree that it is possible to determine, roughly, when this point is?
Do you agree, that healthcare is a right?
So, in your quest for clarity you’ve move from I highly improbable situation to a fictional, made up, outlandish scenario. Not a good plan.
Unless clarity isn’t your goal.
Dan,
In your twisted quest to conjure up some scenario whet I say what you want me to say, it doesn’t help when you ignore what I’ve said and put words in my mouth.
Your obsession with trying to trip me up on the exceptions 2%, while ignoring and dodging the 98%, doesn’t lead me to conclude that your serious.
My willingness to accept that there should be exceptions is not an indication that there are exceptions to virtually anything.
The fact that I draw a distinction between, “I don’t want people to know I’m having sex.”, and “I’ve been raped.”, is acknowledging that there are times when hard choices might need to be made and that allowing for those difficult, exceptional, rare circumstances is appropriate.
The difference between us is they I’m willing to accept that in certain limited circumstances that abortion might be the lesser of two evils, but you’re not willing to accept any limitations on abortion.
The fact that there are volumes of unanswered questions for you, and all you have is a science fiction story constructed to eliminate the choice you claim to hold dear, says plenty.
While the pre born child is clearly physically located inside the woman, even connected to the woman, it’s not “part of” the woman. It has a unique genetic makeup, it’s own brain, and organs. The pre born respond to stimulation, they have limited interaction independently of the mother, clearly it is it’s own unique human life.
If you’re going to make the argument from dependency, then that extends years after birth. It also doesn’t justify abortion. At best it justifies a post birth separation, but to suggest that this unique human be dismembered and pulled from its proper place, to satisfy the convince of one parent seems a bit harsh.
Dan,
One more simple direct question. Can you name the “old white man” who might sign the AL bill into law?
Another simple question.
According to the NYT, the AL Bill will we only have criminal penalties for the Drs. Why would you lie about women being charged with crimes!
I’ll have to look this up after I’m done with class and an appointment, but I just saw that there is data that 75% or more of women who get pregnant from tape choose to keep their babies. Maybe we should listen to them.
I don’t want go too far away, but I’ve seen quite a bit of data that suggests that abortion causes trauma, as well as contributes to certain health issues.
I’m wondering how engaging in a procedure that causes trauma to prevent trauma, or that potentially causes health problems, will improve women’s mental and physical health.
I think that PERHAPS, the reason you are willing to make that exception (in cases of rape and woman's life being in danger) is because you do recognize that it's not clear, and that there is no authoritative answer on the "right to life" of the fetus, but there clearly is a right to life and self-determination with the mother."“
You’re completely wrong in your assumption. My openness to a political/legal compromise that would eliminate more than 98% of abortions is two fold.
1. I’d take 98% over 0% any time.
2. If we eliminate the 98%, it allows a different way to focus on the 2%.
3. Because it points out the fact that these “rape, incest, life, physical health” arguments are just a way to deflect from the 98% of abortions that aren’t for those reasons. It makes it clear that you folx are pushing for elective abortions.
Dan,
If one looks at the broader pro abortion movement, which you clearly share a lot of commonality with, it is quite clear that the primary push for abortion is not for medical/health reasons. Hell the data makes it unarguable that it’s not about health/medical reasons. But I guess you love for data only goes so far.
The only point being missed is that you’re dodging/ignoring/scared of answering questions and dealing with the flaws in your arguments,
The only folk, actively advocating killing 2 year olds are on your side. But, please, continue to falsely characterize what I’ve said in an attempt to gain cheap rhetorical points.
The fact that you won’t answer indicates that you’ve most likely lost anyway.
But, your comments are waiting until you get in gear and get caught up.
I've answered all your questions. You may not understand the answers (you don't, given your responses), but I have answered them. You can't point to one that I haven't answered.
Unless I missed one, but I don't think so.
And that's a fucking lie that any progressives are advocating killing 2 year olds, so to hell with stupidly false claims.
it is quite clear that the primary push for abortion is not for medical/health reasons.
Indeed. It is quite clear it's about fighting those who'd deny human rights to women whom we KNOW have the right to self-determination in favor of an alleged "right to life" to a fetus, which we do not know has any human rights.
But you'd know that if you'd read AND UNDERSTOOD my actual points.
Today at 9:22, 10:43, and 10;46, I asked a series of questions you haven’t answered.
I could go back further, but they enough to prove that you’ve decided that lies are your best option.
“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
Peter Singer
“In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion”, rather than “infanticide”, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which “abortions” in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Journal of Medical Ethics
“If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?
I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral. After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties).”
Jerry Coyne
Yup, these are all folx on your side of things.
I’d maybe hold of on the expletive laden denials until you make sure you’re right.
“Infant” is their term, not mine.
“The term "infant" is typically applied to young children under one year of age; however, definitions may vary and may include children up to two years of age”
So, we’ve got liberals advocating “post birth abortion” for “infants” which is between 1-2 years old.
Do you understand that reality?
What Milla Jovovitch tweeted left more questions than she answered. She called it a "pre-term labor". She didn't say if her life was in danger or how. If she had an abortion before, that may be why she had the issue. Premature labor isn't a death sentence, and it doesn't even mean that delivery will actually occur. She complained that she'd have to be awake and endure the entire episode. Most women, from what I've been told, are awake to deliver their babies and even with some pain killers are in extreme pain nonetheless throughout the process.
Her tweet seems designed to exploit her own situation to rationalize abortion on demand.
Dan,
I know your relationship with data is fluid, but for you to argue for “choice” while trying to separate the act of “choice” from the “choice” made is simply a desperate semantic gambit.
If your going to argue that the reasons are so vitally important when you think they help your case, you can’t ignore the reasons (backed up with hard data), when they’re inconvenient.
If you’re advocating for unfettered “choice” or “self determination” for the sake of “women’s health”, or for women who’ve Ben taped, then your also arguing for women’s right to abort for convenience, or sex selection, or because they think the baby’s genetic mix might predispose them to being gay, or because they don’t want people to find out they’re having sex. You either argue for “choice” and accept that your arguing for choices you agree with, or you don’t.
That’s what you’re defending.
I think I referenced the wrong actress who posted about her abortion. I’ve removed that from the comment until I can reference the correct tweet.
Jovovitch did indeed tweet about her abortion, though as submitted did little to actually defend the "right". It was not a truly coherent or compelling argument she made. It simply insisted, without any explanation, that she needed to have an abortion. There was no description of how her life was truly threatened beyond any other means of treatment but abortion. No explanation for how abortion was the only option. No explanation for just how her situation was actually and truthfully life-threatening...not even "health" threatening.
From my perspective, I can't see that any attempt to justify abortion be considered sound if it is not based on, at the absolute very least, a life for life trade-off. That is, unless the mother's life is truly at stake, taking the life of the child is absolutely unjustified. This would preclude any subjective opinion offered just to rationalize the decision. It must be solid, objective and fact-based that the mother's life is TRULY at risk, not simply POSSIBLY at risk...for that is true for most any medical procedure at any given time.
Art,
You are correct, she did tweet about it and it wasn't particularly compelling. She tried to make it sound like her "early labor" was a much bigger deal than it probably was. I think she tried to exaggerate the urgency of the situation and that she took a huge risk by having it done in Eastern Europe.
I just confused her tweet, with another actress tweet which made the point a bit more clearly.
"Defective infants lack these characteristics,’ he wrote. ‘Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings."
"Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal."
"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
That damn evidence, it's such a problem.
Art,
After looking at Jovovitch's statement again, I think she is implying that her "pre term labor" was an emergency which justified her having an immediate abortion under less than ideal circumstances.
What's interesting is that the "trauma" she underwent was because they made her stay awake during the procedure. It seems possible that the actual procedure, the dismembering and forcibly removing ones own child, just might be traumatic if one isn't sedated or put under. It just seems like maybe being fully awake, conscious, and aware during this procedure might possibly carry some trauma along with it.
Obviously this is speculator because she didn't give us enough information to know for sure. But in this climate where too many are quick to impute motives and make character judgements on little or no actual information, it doesn't seem out of bounds to speculate on something that has been voluntarily placed in the public square.
Just saw a post from a young women who identifies a 15 year old rape survivor applauding a tweet from Obianuju Ekeochoa on how to respond to women who’ve been raped. I trust here more than Dan and Feo combined.
Got a link to that post?
Regarding Jovovitch, I saw one rendering where she referred to having an "emergency abortion", without saying what made it an emergency. Certainly the pre term labor couldn't have been it, as I've not been able to find a medical website that regards such a thing as typically life-threatening. It sounds like it is akin to a miscarriage, though I don't know that the fetus is necessarily defective in a way that provokes that biological response, but just that the body begins to go into labor far in advance of when it needs to do so. I did see where a previous abortion makes a pre term labor situation more likely, so maybe she had one already.
There's just not even close to enough info to make sense of citing her tweet to either defend OR oppose abortion. Indeed, it is totally worthless for that purpose, though the pro-aborts will use it anyway, because that's what they do.
It was on Twitter, I’d just search her name.
It was an emergency, don’t question it.
There’s a post going around that says all unwanted pregnancies are 100% men’s fault.
I’m just going to say that bodily autonomy, women controlling their own bodies can’t be selected when the situation “benefits” the woman.
I still can't find the exact piece about the 15 yr old rape survivor, but I did find much about Obianuju Ekeochoa, a name I thought was familiar (though that's always hard to say about names like hers). While doing so, I came upon a piece she wrote that included stats about pro-life sentiments in several African countries. The overwhelming sentiment...at least 80% or better...is pro-life; that all life is precious, even in the womb. Abortion is something they simply won't do. Does that make them more advanced than us, or more backward?
I’ll try to find it when I have a chance.
I’d highly recommend Obianuju’s book about abortion in Africa, it’s pretty shocking.
It looks like Bernie is all about abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. As is Petey B.
That’s what y’all are supporting.
While Dan’s comments stay in moderation until he gets caught up, increasingly unlikely as that is. His last comment caught my eye. His point is that it’s about women having the right of “self determination” and nothing else.
I’d point out that this “self determination” argument is an argument in favor of abortion for any reason. Sex selection, gay gene, left handed, inconvenient, 9 weeks, 9 minutes, 9 months, it doesn’t matter. It’s all about “self”. This also means that the father has absolutely zero say in the matter, unless she chooses to have the baby, then he’s forced to pay child support. (That’s as it should be, it’s just interesting that the father has zero say in killing the baby.)
I guess in a world where self in the driving force, where we pattern everything, including our gods, after our self. It’s not surprising that we’ve chosen to sacrifice the lives of our children to our “self determination”.
Maybe a little “self determination” and “bodily autonomy” prior to the pregnancy would have been a prudent “choice”,
It’s too bad Blogger doesn’t have a search function, I’d be willing to bet that Dan had positive things to say about Avenetti at some point.
Post a Comment