Let's look at a few actual objective facts about abortion.
Reasons for abortion
Incest-.001%
Mother's life in danger--.065%
Rape-.085%
Mother's physical health threatened-.288%
Mother's psychological health threatened-.294%
Serious fetal abnormality-.666%
Social or economic reasons-6.268%
No reason--92.330
Why do we only hear "Rape, incest, and life/health of the mother "as justification for abortion as if those things are statistically significant?
56 comments:
Democracy facts:
5 of the 6 Conservative justices were appionted by Presidents who did not win the vote.
They were voted in by Senators who represent a minority of Americans, not a majority of Americans.
Over 60% of Americans approve of abortion access with limitations.
Therefore: this is minority legislation from the bench: judicial activism at its most un-demoractic.
Only the most privileged of men would say that nearly all women have abortions for no reason. What a sick mind.
Do you even live in the real world of poverty and hardship?
Would you accept abortions In cases of rape and incest or would you insist she have it? Would you criminalize it so that the woman and the doctor went to jail for having an abortion in that case? Would you charge them with the murder?
We only hear "Rape, incest, and life/health of the mother" because anything will do if they believe it will convince more people they should be allowed to murder their own child.
Ummm... total US murder victims comprise 0.00075% of the population. Speaking strictly of numbers [bracketing out lives]. PreTTTy insignificant, wouldn't you say?
btw, of all the murderd, those killed by guns make up 79%. Now THAT! is statistically significant!
US History facts.
1. The US is a representative republic, not a democracy.
2. POTUS is not, and never has been elected by the popular vote.
3. Since every state has 2 senators (and we don't force people to vote), every person is represented by 2 senators and if people don't vote they probably shouldn't bitch.
4. Yet Dan just announced the "fact" that there shouldn't be "any restrictions".
5. If Roe is struck down, the issue will return to the legislative branch (federal or state) and be legislated.
6. If this is "legislating from the bench", then Roe itself was legislated from the bench and is therefore "judicial activism at it's most un-democratic".
7. If the judiciary created this mess, the judiciary should fix it.
8. How is returning the question to the legislative branch (federal or state) "un-democratic"?
Art,
Because they know that far too many people would be swayed by the real statistics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE
Because this won't get them supporters.
It's possible that anon made a comment that was accidentally deleted. I apologize and will post it if they try again.
Dan,
I'm simply posting the actual hard data as collected and published by the Alan Guttmacher institute. For your general fund of knowledge, Guttmacher is an incredibly pro-abortion organization who is more likely to skew their data to support abortion, rather than to limit abortion. The fact that they were unable to identify more women who had abortions for "economic" reasons only means that they couldn't massage the data.
It's certainly possible that for some of the 92% who specified "no reason/convienince were at least partly driven by economic issues. But, the data shows what it shows.
I wonder of the historic concentration of abortion clinics in poor (per Sanger read black) neighborhoods has anything to do with this?
FYI, it's amusing that it's white liberals encouraging black women to abort, and white, racist, conservatives encouraging black women not to abort. Technically libs aren't specifically encouraging blacks to abort, it's just that blacks do abort more than any other group and by encouraging abortion without "any restrictions" the likelihood is increasing numbers of black abortions.
You probably didn't check it out when I wrote about this a while back, but if you read Obianuju Ekeocha's book maybe you'd agree that European (WL) non profits imposing a white European ethic of abortion and family size on women in Africa is problematic.
I've answered these before, but as it's important, I'll do so again.
"Would you accept abortions In cases of rape and incest or would you insist she have it?"
1. As a Christian who believes that every human is created in the very image of God and possesses a high degree of intrinsic value, I would encourage a woman in those incredibly rare circumstances to strongly consider adoption and seek out ways to support that decision. If I failed, then I would not "force her" to have the baby. I would be prepared to help with the mental health issues that sometimes accompany this tragic (if exceedingly rare) circumstance.
2. As a person who lives in a representative republic and who understands that making laws almost always involves compromise, I could (in good conscience) support a law that allows for "rape, incest, serious fetal abnormality, and immanent threat to the physical health/life of the mother". If anyone on the pro abort would actually make that compromise, I could support it.
"Would you criminalize it so that the woman and the doctor went to jail for having an abortion in that case?"
As a general rule, I'm not sure that criminal punishment really helps the situation. I'm not saying never, but as a general rule I think that there are better options. However, we've recently seen some abhorrent instances of clinics engaging is practices that should be punished. Further, I believe that clinics that do not have the highest possible standards of cleanliness and have an admittance relationship with a hospital should probably face criminal penalties.
"Would you charge them with the murder?"
In general, no. Could I envision some circumstances where it might be appropriate, possibly. But in general, no.
"As a general rule, I'm not sure that criminal punishment really helps the situation."
But according to people like you, it's murder. It's killing babies. You think that someone can kill their baby and not be put in jail? What a hypocrite.
Do you think other murderers should not go to jail?
"But according to people like you, it's murder. It's killing babies. You think that someone can kill their baby and not be put in jail? What a hypocrite."
I'm confused. I thought you asked ME what I thought? Now you're trying to tar me with what other people have said and expect me to be responsible and defend their words? What a total asshole.
1. I believe that all killing is not murder.
2. I believe that the killing of one's child through abortion is a complex tragedy that isn't made better through putting the woman in jail as the automatic punishment.
3. If you're version of "hypocrite" is that I won't take responsibility for what others think and say, but only for my own words and actions, then I'm proud to be a "hypocrite".
4. I've evolved on this over the years and realize that "murder" isn't a helpful term in this context, and I intentionally don't use it. Again, if all you have to bitch about is my evolving on how I frame my position, then I'll proudly accept "hypocrite" if you think that name calling is helpful discourse.
"Do you think other murderers should not go to jail?"
I think that those convicted of any of the various degrees of murder should be punished according to the appropriate sentencing guidelines, while allowing for the possibility that not all circumstances are the same and that sometimes justice might be served through mercy. Of course, not all killing is murder, and not all homicide is punished equally as severely.
Damn, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find this kind of bullshit. How about you stop wasting my time trying to make me responsible for what others do.
Some people on the left think that if "Abortions aren't safe, then (those who protest abortion) shouldn't be either.". I guess if you don't agree with that sentiment, your just as hypocritical as you claim I am.
"Do you think other murderers should not go to jail?"
So, it's not killing? Or, it IS literally killing a baby... but NOT murder?
What's the distinction?
I will say again that abortion is clearly murder. While the word might have legal connotations only, the fact is what makes something murder...the unjustified killing of another person...is exactly what abortion is. There is no threat to the mother because of any pregnancy which demands killing the child. I've provided expert testimony to this effect (of a type we never get from Dan's "experts") and I stand by it.
To remove the word "murder" from the discussion is an open door for the pro-aborts. They never say they demand "the right to choose to unjustly take my child's life" and thus it has the same effect to withhold use of the word from the discussion. It is absolutely that serious. As serious as murder, so don't stop calling abortion what it is.
I also disagree that harsh penalties for women who abort are beneficial to at least reducing the frequency of abortion, since no one wants to go to jail (or suffer worse). I also believe that harsh penalties for abortion impresses upon at least some of the more honest, but possibly less educated, just how immoral and cruel the practice is. To know this is true, all we need do is look to the time prior to Roe v Wade to know that afterwards, abortions skyrocketed before settling to the now approximately 800K killings per year.
While asshats like Dan like to pretend it's a burden on the poor women, I would submit that one's bank account has no impact on one's ability to decide whether or not to have intercourse. Thus, the poverty argument is crap. Indeed, one would think avoiding that which would bring about ANY unnecessary or unwanted cost would improve their sense of responsibility and maturity as regards sexual self-gratification. But the pro-aborts don't care about the abdication of those qualities when it comes to having impregnated one's self, so they certainly won't care about the morality of remaining chaste.
As to compromise, there can be no compromise as long as pro-aborts pretend the child in utero is beneath consideration as regards its right to life. I'd rather see pro-aborts killed than the children they oppress because I'm told oppression is a bad thing.
"Some people on the left think that if "Abortions aren't safe, then (those who protest abortion) shouldn't be either.". I guess if you don't agree with that sentiment, your just as hypocritical as you claim I am."
? I don't even know what any of that means. Are you suggesting that there are some few crazies who are talking about threatening abortion protestors? So what? I don't agree with crazy people.
I mean, some people on the right have actually attacked, killed, blown up and plotted to kill abortion providers or "supporters..." (unlike your hypothetical about what "some" "on the left" might be "thinking")... what does that have to do with anything.
You're stating that you think in your opinion that abortion is literally killing babies and generally speaking, you think people who kill other innocent people are murderers and generally speaking, you think such people who do so "with no reason" should be treated as criminals and punished. And I get that in the instance, for example, of a woman killing an abusive husband because she fears for her life. In that instance, perhaps you make room for NOT calling her a killer or a murderer. (Or do you?) But in the case where the baby (you might say) is not a threat to her and the mother and doctor deliberately choose to "kill" the "baby" for "no reason..." what is your reasoning to exempt her and her abortion provider from being treated as killers?
Also, given that you appear to be opposed to treating mothers and abortion providers as killers, then if some on the GOP support laws to criminalize it and actually treat them as murderers, will you actively stand and fight against it... or will you simply roll over and say, "whatever..."? Because your actually fairly ambivalent about the option.
And regarding those on the right who are actually in power (because this is the modern "conservative" movement) who WILL attempt to criminalize this: Do you see how many are viewing such modern "conservatives" as more like a dystopic Handmaid-style future?
On another related topic (ie, the criminalizing of people the Left supports), did you know that right now, today, there are LGBTQ folks across the nation are living in fear that they're going to have to leave their home states to find safe havens in rational states because their home states are trying to criminalize various aspects of LGBTQ life? Do you understand the reasonable fear that many women and LGBTQ and racial minorities and immigrants are living under because of the GOP? And not the irrational fears of "They're stealing elections" or other Q-anon nutbaggery, but actual fears because of actual laws that the modern GOP is advocating?
Welcome to 1984.
"So, it's not killing? Or, it IS literally killing a baby... but NOT murder?"
It is intentionally ending the life of a unique, separate, human being. I personally think that, while abortion is undeniably homicide, that it's doesn't quite rise to the level of legal murder. Where it gets complicated, is when a 3rd party kills the pre-natal child. As I said before, all killing is not murder. I'm sorry that was confusing for you.
"What's the distinction?"
I believe that one distinction is in tone. I believe that for many women the decision to abort is an incredibly difficult one, and that having people tell you that it's murder isn't helpful.
I know this won't make any sense to you, but I'll try. As I said, my views on this have evolved and might continue to evolve. I'm trying to balance the various aspects of this conversation, and have concluded that the pastoral aspect of the conversation has been subordinated from other aspects. I'm attempting to honor the Truth that abortion does end the life of a human being, yet do so in a way that acknowledges the struggle that many women go through with this decision. Given the reality of the mental health damage experienced by many/most women after abortion, I suspect that referring to them as "murderers" makes a difficult situation worse.
Again, I don't care if this makes sense to you, I don't really care if it makes sense to anyone but me. So, I'd prefer if you'd show some grace and acknowledge that I'm in a bit of transition on this and haven't fully fleshed it all out. I suspect you'll see this as a cudgel to use against myself and others, or as a wedge, but all I can do is ask and hope that you'll actually display grace for once.
"But according to people like you,"
Why are you obsessed with trying to lump me in with those you perceive as "people like" me? Maybe your inability to treat people as unique individuals instead of placing people in groups and assigning your perceptions of group values to them is why you find that conception of a totally unique (individual DNA, unique for anyone else, unique fingerprints, traits, etc) human being not to be anything special or worth preserving while he or she is on the wrong side of the magic birth canal.
Dan,
As you may have noticed, Art and I have different views on aspects of the topic of abortion. Yet somehow, both of us have managed to communicate our differences without vitriol, expletives, or ad hom attacks. We are both adult enough to understand that disagreement doesn't require those things. We're also adult enough that we engage on some of our disagreement out of the public eye. But most of all, we understand that it's possible to disagree and allow the other their freedom of conscience.
I wouldn't punish the woman because she is only getting an abortion due to being mislead as to what it really is. As for the abortionist, I give them at least a life sentence.
"Yet somehow, both of us have managed to communicate our differences without vitriol, expletives, or ad hom attacks..."
Me too, fyi.
Marshal? "Abortion defenders hate babies, support murdering babies, are evil, etc..." not so much.
Apparently, you think I'm being rude and spewing expletives and ad hom attacks... but mostly what I've done is ask respectful reasonable questions. Are you seeing something else from me in this thread? In these threads?
And I'm glad that your view is evolving on this point. Mine did too. Just not sure what you're seeing as being rude or hostile?
Another reasonable question, do you see that many conservatives, it seems the mainstream of the GOP, is looking to criminalize abortion?Would you join with us in opposing that in the GOP?
"Me too, fyi."
Really? Then someone else must have hijacked your google account or something, because you're the one who's most likely to resort to vitriolic, expletive laden, ad hom attacks. I'd go find the quotes (or link to the post I wrote about it) but you'll likely (as you've done in the past) claim that quoting your own words verbatim somehow misrepresents what you said.
"Are you seeing something else from me in this thread? In these threads?"
This particular thread, not yet. Over the past week, absolutely. Am I supposed to be all excited that you can temporarily exhibit a modicum of self control and act like an adult? If so then whopeeeeee.
Where specifically in this thread have I used the terms "rude" or "hostile" without quoting someone else's words?
"Another reasonable question, do you see that many conservatives, it seems the mainstream of the GOP, is looking to criminalize abortion?"
Do you realize that this isn't actually a question, despite the "?"? But. I'll answer anyway.
No.
"Would you join with us in opposing that in the GOP?"
No. I can't think of anything that I would "join you (again with the royal we/us, as if you speak for legions of people) to accomplish. I can't imagine lending my name and character to any individual or group that has the beliefs you do. Even if we agreed on one facet of one issue, I'd refuse to have people I know think that I supported your extreme position of removing "any restrictions" from abortion.
It's interesting how your questions (even when they make no grammatical sense) are always "reasonable" and are imperative to be answered, while you can't even finish the questions in the post where I pointed out your failure. Let alone all the "reasonable" questions you've ignored since you left those questions still unanswered.
Not surprising, just amusing.
The fact that you think I value my character so little that I would "join" you is also pretty damn funny.
Do you realize that this isn't actually a question, despite the "?
You keep saying things like that. It WAS a question. How do you not recognize questions? That is a question, too, by the way.
It is a fact that many in the GOP would like to criminalize abortion. I'm not saying all of the GOP, I'm not saying the majority at this point. I'm just saying that many in the GOP would like to criminalize abortion and put women in prison, even. Look at Marshal. Look at Glenn who would put abortion providers in prison for life.
Do you see that many in the GOP would like to criminalize abortion?
How is that not a question?
Craig... "The fact that you think I value my character so little that I would "join" you is also pretty damn funny."
So, you no longer think like you used to and you DON'T agree with imprisoning women or abortion providers or criminalizing abortion... BUT, you won't stand against it, either?
So, you're just being sort of a "I'll sit this one out" kind of conservative? Not condemn the wrong or even acknowledge it's wrong, but you'll quietly say that you sort of kind of disagree with it a bit, but not too much?
And note: Those are questions seeking to understand your position. And yes, I'm framing it in a way that might seem snarky, but which I also think sounds like it's accurate to me... but you tell me. Snarky is not disrespectful... just edgy. I mean, it's not like I'm calling you a child murderer or "evil." Just a bit milquetoast in not taking a position one way or the other. Or so it seems.
Feel free to clarify.
And as someone whose position on abortion also evolved over the years, I get it. At first I was as strongly opposed to abortion as all of you, including at least considering the notion of criminalizing abortion. But the more I listened to and was pushed away by conservative bullying on the topic, the less I agreed with opposing abortion and for a while, I was just sort of in the middle and quiet. But that didn't last forever. Maybe you'll one day stand against that which you don't appear to agree with.
Craig... "I'd refuse to have people I know think that I supported your extreme position of removing "any restrictions" from abortion."
You keep saying this, along with the quotes about "any restrictions." Just noting, that's nothing I've said, I don't believe. I have concerns about abortions, for instance, when someone would state that the reason they're aborting a fetus is because the fetus is a child with Down syndrome. That's a shitty and prejudiced reason to have an abortion. And, of course, abortions should be done by trained medical professionals, not in a back alley with a hanger. So, I'm not sure that I'd say that I don't want "any restrictions" on abortions.
As to the "refusing to have people think I supported your "extreme" position..."
You APPEAR to disagree with criminalizing abortion as is being discussed by Marshal and Glenn. And yet, you don't appear to view that position as "extreme..." But if you're opposed to the GOP criminalizing abortion, why wouldn't you join those who are also opposed to criminalizing abortion? If you find yourself able to ally with people you normally don't because you have common ground, why wouldn't you?
Heck, you keep fearmongering quotes about "post birth abortions" as if that were a thing. But if it were, you and I could find common ground in opposing it, because, why wouldn't we?
Craig... "again with the royal we/us, as if you speak for legions of people"
The majority of the nation wants to keep abortion as a legal option as a medical treatment. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Glenn said,
"I wouldn't punish the woman because she is only getting an abortion due to being mislead as to what it really is."
But that's not true. Very few women misunderstand what they are doing when they get an abortion. And what they're doing is no different than putting out a contract on another person, hiring a hit man and pretending they anguished over putting that ball into play.
"Marshal? "Abortion defenders hate babies, support murdering babies, are evil, etc..." not so much."
Truth isn't vitriol, scumbag. Expressions of total disregard for the lives of innocent people is. It's vile and contemptible, and thus so are you. Worse is your hypocritical blathering about "historically oppressed people". You don't give a shit about anybody except to exploit them to posture as a Christian, as if you're fooling anybody who gives your crap even cursory scrutiny.
"Apparently, you think I'm being rude and spewing expletives and ad hom attacks... but mostly what I've done is ask respectful reasonable questions. Are you seeing something else from me in this thread?"
Are you really suggesting it's OK if your rudeness and expletive spewing and ad hom attacks haven't happened in this particular thread? REALLY?
"And I'm glad that your view is evolving on this point. Mine did too. Just not sure what you're seeing as being rude or hostile?"
What a freakin' hoot!! "Evolve"??? Hardly. Everything about you is the opposite of evolving if you mean progressing (another leftist perversion of words). The funny thing is I found a list of 514 antonyms for "evolve" and what do you think I found among them? "Abort". Perfect. Your view is abortive, Dan. Your disregard for the lives of the innocent is rude and hostile. Indeed, nothing could be more hostile than defending abortion.
"Another reasonable question, do you see that many conservatives, it seems the mainstream of the GOP, is looking to criminalize abortion?Would you join with us in opposing that in the GOP?"
Join with vermin who murder children in the womb? Never!
Sorry, but a representative republic is a democracy. It's by far the most common democracy around the world. You should be more careful in your thinking.
No doubt the democratic intentions of the representative republic structure has been corrupted and evaded and gotten around. If you want to say that the US has always had to battle such thinigs, then we agree.
And I would add that 2000 and 2016 are clear signs that many of us have preferred to get around democracy. Most of them for religious convictions of a minority - which is, again, a subversion of the Founding Fathers' ariculated design.
"You keep saying things like that. It WAS a question. How do you not recognize questions? That is a question, too, by the way."
Questions are more than just adding a question mark to the end of a declarative sentence.
"Do you see that many in the GOP would like to criminalize abortion?"
I do see that some in the GOP would like to "criminalize" abortion to some degree.
"How is that not a question?"
Because you rephrased it to make it a question, instead of something that you chose not to proofread.
"So, you no longer think like you used to and you DON'T agree with imprisoning women or abortion providers or criminalizing abortion... BUT, you won't stand against it, either?"
No, I won't stand with you on this.
"So, you're just being sort of a "I'll sit this one out" kind of conservative? Not condemn the wrong or even acknowledge it's wrong, but you'll quietly say that you sort of kind of disagree with it a bit, but not too much?"
No.
"And note: Those are questions seeking to understand your position. And yes, I'm framing it in a way that might seem snarky, but which I also think sounds like it's accurate to me... but you tell me. Snarky is not disrespectful... just edgy. I mean, it's not like I'm calling you a child murderer or "evil." Just a bit milquetoast in not taking a position one way or the other. Or so it seems."
Because framing questions in a "snarky" way is somehow intended to help make communication better? What an asshole.
"Feel free to clarify."
Because, to side with you, involves siding with unrestricted, unregulated, abortion on demand, funded by taxpayers, of perfectly healthy viable pre natal human beings, and in increasing push for post natal abortion. How about if I reject your (your side's, the recent DFL bill's) extreme position.
"And as someone whose position on abortion also evolved over the years, I get it. At first I was as strongly opposed to abortion as all of you, including at least considering the notion of criminalizing abortion. But the more I listened to and was pushed away by conservative bullying on the topic, the less I agreed with opposing abortion and for a while, I was just sort of in the middle and quiet. But that didn't last forever. Maybe you'll one day stand against that which you don't appear to agree with."
Given your choice to misrepresent (by selectively ignoring parts of my comments), and to approach this with snark rather than grace, I really don't care what kind of bullshit sounding, self serving, blather you spew.
"The majority of the nation wants to keep abortion as a legal option as a medical treatment. I'm surprised you didn't know that."
1. The amount or existence of a "majjority" depends on which polls you look at.
2. The majority does not (virtually regardless of who does the polling) agree with your absolutely "no restrictions" position, and certainly not with the "any reason, until birth (or post birth)" position. You are quite emphatic about absolutely "no restrictions", and the recent DFL bill, seems to have included abortions up until birth, and other state bills appear to open the door to post natal abortion. Given that, I think your claims to represent the majority might be overblown.
"You keep saying this, along with the quotes about "any restrictions.""
"So, I'm not sure that I'd say that I don't want "any restrictions" on abortions."
Yet you literally have said exactly that multiple times.
"You APPEAR to disagree with criminalizing abortion as is being discussed by Marshal and Glenn. And yet, you don't appear to view that position as "extreme..." But if you're opposed to the GOP criminalizing abortion, why wouldn't you join those who are also opposed to criminalizing abortion?"
Because to "join with" you means that I "join with" every aspect of the proposals advocated by you, the DFL, and "experts" like Peter Singer. My character and values are to important for me to "join with" you and yours, even if I don't 100% agree with everyone you oppose.
"If you find yourself able to ally with people you normally don't because you have common ground, why wouldn't you?"
Good lord, how many times do I have to repeat this. I have very little, if any, actual common ground with you and the actual legislation proposed by the DFL. I don;t by your "no restrictions" on abortion position among others. But the fact that we might have a tiny sliver of overlap, isn't enough for me to throw away my character to "join with" you.
"Heck, you keep fearmongering quotes about "post birth abortions" as if that were a thing. But if it were, you and I could find common ground in opposing it, because, why wouldn't we?"
It is a thing, and I do oppose it. If you oppose it, wouldn't that contradict your "no restrictions" on abortion position?
FYI, the fact that you chose to ignore the evidence of this being a thing, doesn't mean it wasn't presented and isn't a growing movement among the pro abortion crowd. Hell, virtually all the reasons for a pre natal abortion apply after birth.
You've quite emphatically, and repeatedly confirmed that you don't want "any restrictions" or that you want "no restrictions" on abortion. I'm literally quoting your exact words that you've insisted represent your position. I'm sorry that accurately quoting your position is a problem for you.
"Just noting, that's nothing I've said,"
Just noting that you've said that you don't want "any restrictions, or that you want "no restrictions" multiple times. That's why I put the "" around your exact words.
Dan "Just noting, that's nothing I've said,"
Also Dan "I support you having no restrictions beyond medical advice."
I could cite more, but one proves that your "nothing I said" claim is mistaken.
The majority of the nation wants to keep abortion as a legal option as a medical treatment.
Abortion is NOT "medical treatment." It is the destruction of a human being.
This is weird...
Dan "Just noting, that's nothing I've said,"
Also Dan "I support you having no restrictions beyond medical advice."
Craig:
"I could cite more, but one proves that your "nothing I said" claim is mistaken."
??
.
I said that I don't believe I've said there should be NO RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTIONS. You then cite a passage where I said, "I support YOU (ie, YOU, CRAIG) having no restrictions beyond medical advice..."
That is, when I use the word "restrictions" there, it was not in reference to abortion and it had the caveat. So... not sure what you're trying to get at, there... but once again, the text does not mean what you THINK it means or are saying it means.
Speaking of texts and understanding them: I've already posted this to Stan and Marshal, but let me raise it with you on this general topic of abortion. Stan and Marshal are saying that Exodus 21 passage about injuring a woman in a fight and causing the fetus to miscarry (in some translations) or to "fall out of the woman, healthy and alive" as Marshal, Stan and others are suggesting... they're suggesting that the one "right" way to understand that text is to understand that it's NOT talking about killing the fetus.
Do you agree?
Do you agree that it's important to understand the original text and language and how it was understood by the original hearers/readers?
Would you be surprised to learn that ancient Hebrews understood that text to be about "causing the fetus to die" and assigning that harm a different fine than actually killing a person?
Well, I would agree with your second thought: "2. The majority does not (virtually regardless of who does the polling) agree with your absolutely "no restrictions" position, and certainly not with the "any reason, until birth (or post birth)" position."
But your secocnd thought contradicts your first. You admit there is a majority - 2/3, man (statistically significant in the extreme) - who support access to legal abortion... with restrictions.
And to Mr Chatfield, I would point to the established facts that the only way to significantly reduce abortions is provided full medical care and full sex education, which includes free access to birth control. Works everywhere; keeps things calm.
And its rational civilization: which God - in whose mind image and likeness we are made - desires rational, rights-protecting civilization. Or do we think God has hands and feet and a penis that dresses left?
Glenn...
"Abortion is NOT "medical treatment."
Science and basic human reality and decency:
Abortion is the medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
Abortion is the medical treatment for a septic uterus.
Abortion is the medical treatment for a miscarriage that needs to be evacuated.
For starters. Of course, abortion is a medical treatment.
I'm curious for all of you all: You probably know (no wait... you probably don't) that not all the worlds religions and not even all of the Christian denominations agree or accept that life begins at conception. The Jewish tradition has long been, I'm told, that life begins with the first breath, NOT conception.
Since you all are so strong on religious liberty, how is it consistent to support imposing your religious opinions on other religions that don't accept your theories and traditions?
But then, we know the answer to that, already, don't we?
"Abortion is NOT "medical treatment.""
Like sex-change surgery, it "treats" something which is working perfectly.
"That is, when I use the word "restrictions" there, it was not in reference to abortion and it had the caveat. So... not sure what you're trying to get at, there... but once again, the text does not mean what you THINK it means or are saying it means."
Of course, your comment was in the context of your position of not wanting "any restrictions" on abortion, or wanting "no restrictions" on abortions. Of course if you're arguing for "no restrictions" on any "medical procedure" and abortion is a "medical procedure", then you're arguing for "no restrictions" on abortions.
But, I'll find more examples.
And to Mr Chatfield, I would point to the established facts that the only way to significantly reduce abortions is provided full medical care and full sex education, which includes free access to birth control. Works everywhere; keeps things calm.
Red herring here. I didn't speak against any of this. I simply pointed out that abortion is not a medical treatment. It's the murder of the unborn child.
Science and basic human reality and decency:
Abortion is the medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
Abortion is the medical treatment for a septic uterus.
Abortion is the medical treatment for a miscarriage that needs to be evacuated.
Stupidity is Dan conflating abortion, i.e. the voluntary killing of a human being during a normal pregnacy with extremely rare medical procedures which have to chose between one life and another. How about we stick to the context of the conversation, which is women aborting children for convenience.
Ah. We see now. Glenn ACKNOWLEDGES the reality that abortion is INDEED a medical procedure. It's just some uses of abortion as medical procedure, Dr Glenn does not think are appropriate and other uses, he condones. But wait, Glenn's not a doctor or someone in a position to advise others on when abortion is or is not appropriate.
Let me ask: You all do know, I suppose, that not every religion agrees that a fetus has a soul/is a human full of all rights until they are born (or some other stage). Wouldn't requiring abortion when they don't agree with it be a violation of their religious liberty? Why do a certain segment of Christians get to be the ones who decide when a fetus has a right to life over and against others with different religious views on the topic?
Um, no: when truly, actually medically necessary it isn't referred to as abortion. But you just keep trying to justify your support for the murder of children.
It really doesn't matter what any religion says about the fetus when science/biology say it is a living human being regardless of when someone thinks it is imbued with a soul.
I never use religious beliefs to decry abortion; I go with the science.
"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue." --M. Dee Dubroff
"Stan and Marshal are saying that Exodus 21 passage about injuring a woman in a fight and causing the fetus to miscarry (in some translations) or to "fall out of the woman, healthy and alive" as Marshal, Stan and others are suggesting... they're suggesting that the one "right" way to understand that text is to understand that it's NOT talking about killing the fetus."
I'd have to go back and re-read Stan's words, but this isn't exactly the truth, either about my position, but the proper interpretation of the text. The point of it isn't with regard to the death of a previously unborn child, but how to respond to the premature delivery of child as a result of being so harmed by stepping between two fighting men such a consequence occurs. Nothing in the text suggests the child IS dead, but what should be the response if the child dies as a result of the fighting which caused the birth prematurely, or if the child doesn't die.
"Do you agree that it's important to understand the original text and language and how it was understood by the original hearers/readers?"
The original text does not imply what you need it to imply in order to continue the vile position that we can't know from conception one is a person with the right to life. There's no Scripture which contradicts that and Exodus 21 doesn't provide the evidence you need. There's NOTHING in Scripture which compels such a belief and there's no reason to believe that was ever a widely held belief in ancient times. Of course, you reject quite a bit of Scripture and no doubt your "scholars" will as well. What they won't do is explain how Greg Koukl, and the scholars he cites, are wrong.
"Would you be surprised to learn that ancient Hebrews understood that text to be about "causing the fetus to die" and assigning that harm a different fine than actually killing a person?"
I'd be surprised if you could prove it beyond any shadow of doubt and more so that you could prove anyone who did was the best source to cite.
"And to Mr Chatfield, I would point to the established facts that the only way to significantly reduce abortions is provided full medical care and full sex education, which includes free access to birth control. Works everywhere; keeps things calm."
Please explain the bit about "full medical care" reducing abortions. As to sex education, there's quite enough between clinical examples of it in schools, as well as parental knowledge, which provide enough to know how pregnancy comes about, and how not engaging in intercourse means never having to worry about aborting a child for whatever reason a couple would pretend justifies doing so. This means birth control was always free, and abstinence has always worked everywhere it's been practiced. But if it's too much to expect of one's self to employ the character and self-control required to keep one's pants zipped and one's legs crossed, birth control isn't expensive, unless it's some form of surgery which, while not being reversible in many cases, will certainly guarantee no kids to abort.
"And its rational civilization: which God - in whose mind image and likeness we are made - desires rational, rights-protecting civilization. Or do we think God has hands and feet and a penis that dresses left?"
Definitely feo. On what basis could anyone suspect God would regard "abortion rights" as "rational" when the right to life of the unborn is so callously disregarded? WE think...no...KNOW God made us all in His image and likeness and does so through the procreative act. There's no Scripture which separates the lives the born from the unborn as to being equally valued.
"Abortion is the medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy."
It's not. Except where doctors are pro-abortion...because it's easy...the proper procedure is to remove the child...regardless of the stage of development, and while death of the early stage fetus likely occurs, it is not the point and abortion is intended to kill the child, not remove it and wish it wouldn't die. Pro-abort assholes who use the abnormal pregnancy to promote the heinous practice would show true character and compassion to use monies spent to support places like Planned Parenthood on improving the means by which the fetus, if not already dead as most are when the problem is discovered, can be re-implanted to proceed with the gestation process.
"Abortion is the medical treatment for a septic uterus."
While I've seen references to abortion with regard to the condition ("septate uterus is the proper term), I've yet to find any articles which speak to a pregnancy which continues when this condition appears. Miscarriage is the typical result, and the treatment is to resolve the issue with the uterus once a miscarriage reveals the condition exists.
"Abortion is the medical treatment for a miscarriage that needs to be evacuated."
This is not an abortion, though the procedure used to address the aftermath of an "incomplete" miscarriage is used by ghouls to abort living children.
So these are cases where the term "abortion" is perverted (typical leftie shit) just to justify keeping abortion legal.
While death from pregnancy is almost as rare as finding an intelligent "progressive"...especially in Louisville KY...few people would deny a woman the final say as to whether she wants to risk her life, if her pregnancy truly does.
"The Jewish tradition has long been, I'm told, that life begins with the first breath, NOT conception."
Are you ever going to actually provide proof of this, or are you just going to assert it? There's no support for this in the first five books of the Bible, which are the books by which all Jewish religious tradition is based.
This isn't a religious liberty issue, unless you're trying to force Christian medical professionals to participate in the unjust murder of a child in utero. The issue is denying people the choice to murder their child, regardless of whether the child is in or outside the womb. There's no religious allowance for doing so, so making it illegal doesn't contradict any religious doctrine.
But we already knew this was the answer, didn't we?
Science has not told you what rights a fetus has. Period. Full stop.
Try again.
And don't foolishly cite Science as if you give a damn what scientific data tells us. All we have to do is look at your hunches about covid or climate Science to see you don't care about Science except as a partisan tool when you think you can misuse Science to justify your religious hunches.
So just to be abundantly clear,
1. God has factually never told you in any way whatsoever the fetus has a right to life.
2. And science has never told you that a fetus has a right to life.
These are Objectively true claims. You cannot objectively point to any place where science or God has told you this. These might be your hunches, but science and God have objectively never told you this. If they had, you could provide proof. But you can't.
Trying to suggest that Science informs us about rights, is a category error. Science isn't intended to tell as about rights. Therefore, just one more pointless comment.
What science does tell us is that a new, genetically unique, individual, human being begins it's journey of life at conception. What science does tell us is that conception is merely the first stage of lifelong development. What science does tell us is when a pre natal child is viable outside the womb. What science does tell us is that pre natal children experience and respond to external stimuli and feel pain. What science has done is to provide us with an incredibly detailed window into the uterus where we can actually see the reality of this "blob of cells" or "parasite" y'all talk about. What science does tell us is how incredibly brutal and painful ripping a pre natal child limb from limb and sucking them out of their mother's womb is. What science does tell us is that there are a surprisingly large number of women who suffer physical and mental harm post abortion. What science does tell us is that the children who survive an "unsuccessful" abortion are left to die of starvation and thrown into the trash.
By all means, let's talk about what science DOES tell us.
1. God hasn't told you that a pre natal child (regardless of it's stage of development) does not have a right to life.
2. Science doesn't have any bearing on rights, hence your statement (while technically True) is practically meaningless.
3. God has not told you that ending the life of a pre natal child is morally positive or morally neutral.
4. God has told us that all human life is created in His image, and has intrinsic value.
5. God has not given you (or the secular government) the authority to decide when the intrinsic value of a human being created in God's image is high enough that y'all will give it one simple basic right.
I guess my default is to err on the side of protecting the vulnerable, innocent, lives of pre natal children, not on the side of supporting the mother's choice to painfully and brutally dismembering them in utero.
You certainly can't be arguing that abortion is a 100% harm free procedure, can you?
"Science has not told you what rights a fetus has. Period. Full stop."
What Glenn said was, "It really doesn't matter what any religion says about the fetus when science/biology say it is a living human being regardless of when someone thinks it is imbued with a soul."
I concur with that obvious and proven fact. There are two separate issues:
1. Does the unborn have the same right as born people to live without being murdered?
2. When does science say a new person comes into existence?
"All we have to do is look at your hunches about covid or climate Science to see you don't care about Science except as a partisan tool when you think you can misuse Science to justify your religious hunches."
The problem with this example of stark stupidity is that both Christianity and science back our positions, we've proven repeatedly that they do and you've done nothing to rebut our arguments in a manner which is in any degree compelling to say nothing of true. Indeed, with regard to Covid and climate, it is absolutely partisanship which we've been opposing in favor of objective scientific data. But we're not talking about those two issues lefties pervert, we're now still discussing the question of abortion and the value of human life. We're fortunate that both Christianity AND science provide the evidence we need to hold the positions we do. You don't have jack shit outside of your devotion to immorality.
"1. God has factually never told you in any way whatsoever the fetus has a right to life. "
God has factually never so much as hinted at there being any difference between mankind in the womb versus mankind outside of it. All are created in His image and likeness and because of that all who murder are worthy of death. That's what Scripture says and does so without discriminating between one person and another due to self-serving crap like age, skin color, sex, size or location. That's all leftist level fantasy.
"2. And science has never told you that a fetus has a right to life."
You can stop saying that, since none of us have.
"You cannot objectively point to any place where science or God has told you this. These might be your hunches, but science and God have objectively never told you this. If they had, you could provide proof. But you can't."
Regarding what God told us:
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God as God made man. ---Gen 9:6
Was God talking about Adam or all men? Was He talking about only men, or did He mean women, too? Was he talking about only men, or did He men boys, too? Where has God ever hinted at some difference between people of different ages, sizes, locations, ethnicity or sex? Cite chapter and verse. If you can't produce such evidence, then to ask where He said a human fetus has a right to life was Gen 9:6. Now, I know one single verse quoting God isn't enough for the "progressive" "Christian" like you who demands EXACT WORDING in order to concede to the obvious, but for real Christians, and those who seek to be right with God, one verse is all we need. And given you have NO verse or passage which contradicts this crystal clear fact (and Exodus 21:22 is not such a passage as you've been shown), you thus have far less to continue pretending your position isn't more than you farting.
As to science, science tells us new life begins as conception. It's selfish, contemptible nazi-like/Klansman-like worshipers of the immorality who pretend there's any other point afterward when a person becomes a person with the right to life. Very easy to say for vermin who speak.
1-3 Nope. God has not told any of us the answers to these questions, nor has science.
Likewise, re: 4 and 5, neither God nor science has established if these living human fetuses need government intervention or protection.
ONE thing we know objectively is that pregnant women ARE deserving of respect and basic human rights, including a right of self determination.
If I'm mistaken on where to land on the issue, then I've sided with women (who again, we know are humans deserving of human rights) who then went on to make an awful decision.
If you're wrong, then you've oppressed women.
Period.
I don't know how to perfectly solve this puzzle and it sounds like you don't either.
I'm still wondering what you all do with the fact that not all religions accept this view many conservative christians have. If you're mistaken, then you're denying religious liberty to some. Right? And you're okay with that?
If so, then perhaps conservative christians could recognize that when we oppose oppressive policies they support, we're not penalizing you all for your religious views. We're simply standing up for Justice.
"1-3 Nope. God has not told any of us the answers to these questions, nor has science."
Interesting response. It seems strange that we have all sorts of embryology textbooks that seem to have a pretty clear answer about when life begins. I guess citing the texts used to educate embryologists and other scientists, isn't "expert" enough.
It's interesting that this "right to self determination" isn't enumerated anywhere, and that Dan gives us no information about it. It seems like one person's "right to self determination" wouldn't extend to actually causing harm to another person. But who knows.
Interesting view of "oppression". Since when is someone reaping what they sowed, them being oppressed? Is pregnancy not a consequence of sexual activity? Is pregnancy not a consequence of sexual activity that is reasonably expected? Doesn't quantity of sexual activity increase the chances of pregnancy? Are there not multiple reasonably effective methods of birth control readily available, and less expansive than an $800 abortion?
I don't think anyone expects perfection at this point, but I guess being unable to achieve perfection is your excuse to allow mothers to end the lives of their pre natal children with "no restrictions".
The only "religious" argument I've made is that humans are created in the image of God. Given that I've evaluated other religions and found them to have issues, I really don't see why I would take my cues from religions that I don't ascribe to. At this point the laws being proposed by the DFL would definitely deny religious liberty to Christian medical practitioners, I don't see why you're concerned about denying religious freedom to other religions, but not Christianity. Since you haven't explained what religious liberty is allegedly being denied, I see no reason to indulge your fantasies.
Oh, it's worse than that. Dan hangs his pointy hat on this nonsense about neither God nor science determining the humanity of the unborn, while he can't prove his own worthless life has value and should be respected by anyone who finds his existence in any way a burden. I can think of any number of reasons why Dan should be torn limb from limb and then have his head crushed, or perhaps to submerge him in harsh chemicals which will scald him to death which are as lame and self-serving as those used to defend abortion. But unlike Dan, I don't find my discomfort at his existence a legit excuse for doing any of that, as I regard even a scumbag like him to be created in God's image and thus, beyond my authority to murder him. That's just me. I tend to take God seriously without trying to invent loopholes involving what He didn't specifically say about every detail of life, as if I'm some little kid eating candy before dinner because Mom said don't eat cookies, and she didn't mention candy.
Post a Comment