https://winteryknight.com/2023/12/19/i-went-on-a-date-with-a-christian-woman-who-couldnt-defend-the-pro-life-view-3/
I'll post this link, because it's got multiple links to expert sources that lay out the scientific basis for the pro-life position.
I know that the current favorite response is to assert the "personhood" argument, which entails absolutely zero objective evidence, zero scientific evidence, and zero specifics about how "personhood" works and when "personhood" is magically conferred.
I know, I know, it's always a "religious" argument.
40 comments:
"Don’t cry to me about how you can’t find a husband when you can’t do anything that a husband needs you to do. There is no path to impressing a conservative man that allows you to be lazy, ignorant and cowardly. I expect performance. If you are smart enough to get a college education and a job in the competitive private sector providing value to paying customers, (not a public school teacher or anything disconnected from reality, like that), then you are smart enough to be able to explain your views on moral issues and public policy."
1. Your WK source is a real peach. Condescending, sexist, arrogant and belligerent people are not generally good sources of information.
What a pompous sexist person he presents himself as. He presents this post in the context of denouncing the conservative woman he was on a date with.
I'm guessing there's a good reason he's still single (or single again). Rational women can see red flags in his words.
2. His main citation is Dr. Maureen Condic, who has been described as an "activist on antiabortion issues," and thus, clearly has an agenda. She presents data in a skewed manner and quickly establishes herself as not a reliable scientist citing consensus opinion on data, but an activist pushing a political and perhaps religious agenda.
3. Regardless, the main gist of what WK cites is:
"“Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”"
Well, that's not in debate, is it. That literally IS a living human fetus in the womb of a pregnant woman. As a point of fact. No one much is disputing that.
Do you understand that?
4. Thus, the question remains: WHAT rights does a fetus have in regards to its own life and the pregnancy of its mother? THAT answer does not have an authoritative objectively proven answer.
Do you disagree?
You all seem to continually miss the point.
5. "by the seventh month, the fetus is emitting its own brain waves, which can be detected through the mother's abdomen."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234146/
By the SEVENTH month, the living human fetus has a roughly working brain system. Well past the point when 99% of abortions happen.
If someone is in an accident and they become "brain dead," that is what is generally recognized as "dead," and thus, no longer having a right to life.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/
Why would whether there is "brain life" not be a reasonable stage of deciding if a living being (fetus or birthed human) has a "right to life," if we're going to look for some stage in fetal development?
And regardless, WHO gets to decide?
I say, given the reality that we can't prove when a fetus has "full human rights" or "a right to life," that the mother/parents/medical advisors are the ones to make that decision, not some sexist-sounding conservative pushing his religious values.
re: Religion and abortion... Yes, I recognize that SOME non-religious people are against abortion, too, but predominantly, being opposed to abortion is the domain of religious conservatives, not regular folks outside of religious backgrounds.
Also, the reality that WK chooses to remain anonymous does not give any serious credence to his ultra-conservative human opinions.
More from your WK source: WK, on women:
"Because I’m still unmarried and have done well in my career and finances, and I sometimes approached by people who think that it is a good time for me to get serious about marriage. Although the previous generation of women was very good at marriage, the current generation of younger women is terrible at marriage."
Blaming women for him not being married? Red flag!
Blaming a generation of women sweepingly? Red flag!
"Democrats support no-fault divorce laws, and that’s dangerous for men, because we get financially ruined by divorce courts."
Blaming women and the court system for being "against" men? Red flag!
"Good men value the needs of children above the needs of selfish adults (it’s our protective nature)."
Sexist language? Red flag!
Assuming that "good men" are the ones who agree with your personal religious preferences/biases? Red flag!
Man! That was just a quick checkl.. and I stopped only because it was so much and not really the point of this post. Still, if this anonymous "non-white" person is a real, actual person (remains to be seen), he just doesn't have logical groundwork necessary to consider "him" a reliable source.
"Democrat women typically value careers over children. They want to put their kids in daycare, and go back to work. But marriage-minded men want someone trustworthy to stay home with very young children for the first 5 years. Research indicates that children benefit from having mom in the home for at least the first 2 years. Marriage-minded men don’t want to get married to women who are going to throw the kids in daycare and go back to work."
It just doesn't stop!
"When husband earns money, they think that government knows how to spend it better. And they think that teachers, judges and bureaucrats (who are paid by husband)..."
"Democrat women want to tax husbands to pay for single moms."
Paid by husband?? Welcome to the oppressive 1940s? No thanks!
"If women don’t understand the needs of husbands and children, then marriage-minded men will not marry them"
The "needs of husbands..."?? As in "I NEED you to listen to WHAT I SAW, woman!"
No, thanks.
Do we have ANY reason to think that WK is not some bot creation out of Russia? Appealing to white men who want to find a person of color who they think agrees with the MAGA crowd?
This "guy," if he's real, has real "incel" vibes about him.
Run.
Before I parse Dan's comments, I feel like noting that a quick perusal doesn't show me any evidence that he's dealing with the scientific experts, but simply engaging in ad hom attacks.
Is "Wintery Knight" an allusion to the alt-right, incel-like "White Knight..."?
https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/82930
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-42734-4_4
https://incels.wiki/w/White_knight
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-white-knight-and-an-incel
SO many red flags.
I feel like noting that a quick perusal doesn't show me any evidence that he's dealing with the scientific experts
Of course, I LED with dealing with the "scientific experts."
1. The first person he cited is an anti-abortion conservative activist.
2. IF we're merely noting that scientists say that an unborn, living human fetus is, indeed, a living human fetus... NO ONE is disputing that much.
3. The question is: What rights does a human fetus have and where is the proof?
You've cited no scientific proof that a human fetus has a right to life that supersedes any other concerns. As a point of scientific reality. Not you, not your incel "non-white" "knight."
1. I guess that's your hunch, but it ignores the scientific experts he cites.
"What a pompous sexist person he presents himself as. He presents this post in the context of denouncing the conservative woman he was on a date with."
More like he is a person who has decided that he is looking for a wife who meets his personal, subjective, criteria. I fail to see how his choices in women affect you in any way. But I guess that if you can't do anything else, engage in personal attacks.
2. I'll note that you ignore her scientific credentials which would seem to qualify her as an expert on the subject, and the fact that she doesn't actually make any "religious" arguments. Further, since you've offered the work of organizations that have an agenda, I fail to see how you can dismiss the expertise and scientific data based on a third party hunch about her "agenda".
3. Interesting that you acknowledge that scientific reality, yet still advocate for women to be able to end the life of these unique, individual, living, humans, for any reason and at any time.
4. fortunately, you don't get to define the terms of the debate or to ask a question designed force the answers you want.
5. Yet you support the ability for women to end the lives of these unborn children up to the very moment of birth.
"If someone is in an accident and they become "brain dead," that is what is generally recognized as "dead," and thus, no longer having a right to life."
So, what just end their loves because it's inconvenient? Or are you arguing that you do favor some limits on abortion?
"Why would whether there is "brain life" not be a reasonable stage of deciding if a living being (fetus or birthed human) has a "right to life," if we're going to look for some stage in fetal development?"
Well, that's one arbitrary measure that could be used. Are you suggesting that you would agree that abortion should be illegal after this arbitrary point? Why not the presence of a heartbeat?
"And regardless, WHO gets to decide?"
Well, currently the voters and/or legislators of the "several states" are the place where these questions will be decided. In Ohio, they decided that abortion is acceptable up to birth, while others argue for abortion after birth. I guess it's easier to be you and refuse to take a stand.
As usual, I don't care what you say when you spout your unsupported hunches.
I see no reason to deal with your ad hominem attacks, and unsupported hunches. I guess you're selective about how you feel about those who use pseudonyms when they blog. You don't seem to have a problem giving people who blog under a pseudonym an unrestricted, unfettered access to your blog, so I don't think that your capricious bitching really carries any weight.
It's interesting that you seem to have such a massive problem with one individual person who has decided that he is looking for some very specific attributes in a wife. Fortunately for you, these red flags are immaterial as it's highly unlikely that you'd be someone he'd be interested in marrying.
But really excellent job of focusing on all sorts of things unrelated to the scientific case for conception being the beginning of a unique, individual, living, human. Strangely enough, you have yet to make an argument with any scientific backing for your (the DFL) position that abortion should be available at any time and for any reason up until the very moment of birth. Nor have you offered any scientific evidence that would support your hunches about the magic that happens after passing through the birth canal.
I know I shouldn't encourage your focus on off topic bullshit, but a cursory bit of research would lead you to WK providing all sorts of evidence regarding the attitudes of leftist younger women. Including allowing their own words to speak for themselves.
" I fail to see how his choices in women affect you in any way. But I guess that if you can't do anything else, engage in personal attacks."
In our real world history, women have been oppressed by men who sound very much like this, who want "their" women to "focus on the needs of the husband and children," not "work outside the home" and on and on it goes. That's the reality of our history. Until 100 years ago, white women couldn't vote and were expected to stay at home and religious/societal pressure was applied to keep that tradition of oppression alive. Until ~55 years ago, many black women couldn't vote or choose the schools/careers of their choice.
We have a real and recent history of oppression of women, the denying of rights to women.
But women and their allies fought back and that changed where this sort of antiquated sexist language has largely disappeared. That's why it's shocking (and potentially harmful) when one sees modern incels/men talk this way. We're not going back to those days, women will tell you (by and large - minus the "make america sexist again" crowd) and so, it behooves us to keep sexist and racist language a thing of the past.
Feel free to disagree.
None of that is to say that women or men who choose to stay at home should not do so. It's just the presumption of a man to say that's a deal-breaker... well, he's welcome to not want to date modern women, but he's likely to remain single and likely to continue to blame women for his singleness.
By and large, I've vetted regular commenters on my blog and know their real world identifies. I don't cite "anonymous" sources as legitimate sources. That's the difference.
currently the voters and/or legislators of the "several states" are the place where these questions will be decided.
Well, given the reality that some ~60-80% of people want abortion to remain available, the voters are not being listened to and conservatives who are in the minority continue to try to find methods of getting around the will of the large majority, including the women who are most impacted by these draconian conservative male-dominated laws.
Craig...
I'll note that you ignore her scientific credentials which would seem to qualify her as an expert on the subject
I note in my very first comment that she's a scientist, albeit, one with an agenda:
His main citation is Dr. Maureen Condic, who has been described as an "activist on antiabortion issues," and thus, clearly has an agenda.
She presents data in a skewed manner and
quickly establishes herself as
NOT A RELIABLE SCIENTIST
citing consensus opinion on data, but
an activist pushing a political and perhaps religious agenda.
She clearly is a scientist. One scientist. With an admitted agenda, to try to push for an end to abortions.
3. Interesting that you acknowledge that scientific reality, yet still advocate for women to be able to end the life of these unique, individual, living, humans, for any reason and at any time.
4. fortunately, you don't get to define the terms of the debate or to ask a question designed force the answers you want.
3. NO ONE IS SAYING that a living human fetus is not a living human fetus. That's never been a question.
4. BUT, my questions ARE the ones that are pertinent. As in:
Given that we've established that a fetus is a living human fetus,
ARE THERE some circumstances that make an abortion a reasonable option?
What if the fetus was a result of rape?
What if the pregnant woman doesn't believe in the personhood of the fetus (ie, that a fetus has a right to life)?
What if the fetus being carried to term will likely/possibly have a negative impact upon the pregnant woman?
What if the fetus is going to die either in utero or soon after birth?
ARE these reasonable exceptions to a presumption that the pregnant woman will carry the fetus to term?
I and a majority of the people say Yes, these are POTENTIALLY reasonable exceptions.
I recognize the reality that we don't have an objectively proven moral answer for this and, GIVEN THAT, I trust the pregnant woman and her advisors to make that decision.
What about you? Do you trust the pregnant woman to make such decisions?
Or, are you like some who would call such a woman a "murderer" for "killing" her baby?
If so, are you like those who would call for the criminalization of abortion with jail terms for medical staff and patients who underwent abortions?
These are all reasonable questions. That you may not agree with the aptness of the questions does not make them unreasonable or not pertinent. Given that some legislators are already calling for the criminalization of abortion, those are vital questions.
Who decides? Women and their advisors or conservatives against the will of the majority of people including the women themselves involved?
really excellent job of focusing on all sorts of things unrelated to the scientific case for conception being the beginning of a unique, individual, living, human.
There are SOME people we shouldn't cite as reliable sources. Citing such disreputable people undermines the credibility of one's argument.
Terrorists, for instance. Racists. Sexists. Etc. Anyone who is hateful and operating from an extreme tradition of oppressing a group of people, for instance, should not be cited. Treating them as legitimate sources poisons the credibility.
Also, when such people are operating with an "anonymous" status... it just undermines good faith discussions. HOW do we know that this isn't just a Russian bot or some white supremacists itching to start a race war? It's a reasonable question.
Strangely enough, you have yet to make an argument with any scientific backing for your (the DFL) position that abortion should be available at any time and for any reason up until the very moment of birth.
The scientific backing is that, scientifically speaking, we objectively factually do not have a way of defining personhood or stating when a right to life starts. Science has not taken a stand on that. That is a societal question, not a provable scientific question.
GIVEN that reality, and given that there are what many consider to be reasonable instances of situations where ending a pregnancy is a legitimate option, WHAT is the scientific or proven reason to OPPOSE a woman making up her own damned mind?
Can you acknowledge you have nothing beyond, "Well, it IS a living human fetus, and I, Craig - a man who has never been/will never be pregnant - think in MY MALE opinion that we should not because MAYBE (I think) that this fetus in your womb MIGHT have a right to life that preempts any decisions YOU might want to make about YOUR pregnancy, woman..."?
I've never paid much attention to your WK anonymous "friend" who may or may not be a real person and, if he is, may be a toxic male, but once I started reading a bit more deeply, I find reasons to be quite concerned.
Incels are poor, pathetic men, but they're also the worst, or among the worst.
Test.
"3. NO ONE IS SAYING that a living human fetus is not a living human fetus. That's never been a question."
Other than the fact that there are plenty of people saying exactly what you claim is not being said, the fact that you admit that abortion ends the life of a living human sounds barbaric.
"4. BUT, my questions ARE the ones that are pertinent. As in:"
I guess humility isn't your deal.
"ARE THERE some circumstances that make an abortion a reasonable option?"
There are potentially a very few circumstances that make abortion a regrettable option.
"What if the fetus was a result of rape?"
Well, let's start by acknowledging that 1% of abortions are the result of pregnancy because of rape. If you really think that using the exception to make the rule is appropriate just say so. Personally, I would accept abortion restrictions that allowed abortion in the 1% of cases where the pregnancy was a result of rape. However, let's be clear. You are advocating that it is reasonable to violently end the life of a "living human" that is completely innocent (and in your eyes sinless), due to the actions of others. In what other crime is it "reasonable" to end the life of one of the victims?
"What if the pregnant woman doesn't believe in the personhood of the fetus (ie, that a fetus has a right to life)?"
1. Until you can define personhood, and tell me when it starts, I see no reason to take you seriously.
2. What if the pregnant woman doesn't believe that taking meth will harm her unborn child? What if the pregnant woman believes that post birth abortion is appropriate?
3. What if the pregnant woman decides to sell her unborn baby so it's organs can be used?
4. This argument is based on a premise that the pregnant woman's beliefs allow her to do anything and everything with her unborn baby with no limits.
5. As a society, we realize and pass laws to prevent people from acting on what they "believe" to be acceptable.
"What if the fetus being carried to term will likely/possibly have a negative impact upon the pregnant woman?"
If you believe that there should be no "negative effect"s ever on women and that ending the life of one's child is an acceptable way to prevent "negative effect"s, then I guess that's fine. Of course, science tells us that abortion itself carries "negative effect"s, so the question would more reasonably be about which "negative effect"s the woman chooses. Cancer, mental health issues, potential to lose the ability to bear future children, all seem "negative" to me.
"What if the fetus is going to die either in utero or soon after birth?"
What an interesting worldview. If a living human is going to die at some point, preemptively kill it before it dies.
"ARE these reasonable exceptions to a presumption that the pregnant woman will carry the fetus to term?"
Yes.
Again, when you play the "I say" or the "majority of people" cards, I simply refuse to deal with whatever bullshit you spew.
"What about you? Do you trust the pregnant woman to make such decisions?"
What about me? I personally believe that one of the primary goals of parents is to protect their children, not end their lives. Trust is irrelevant. Our entire legal system is based on the reality that it's impossible to trust everyone to do the right thing all the time.
"Or, are you like some who would call such a woman a "murderer" for "killing" her baby?"
I personally wouldn't use the term "murderer" because I think it is counterproductive. However, I do believe that dealing honestly with the reality that ending the life of a living human for the convenience of another, isn't something to be encouraged.
"If so, are you like those who would call for the criminalization of abortion with jail terms for medical staff and patients who underwent abortions?"
Possibly.
No, they're "reasonable" questions to you in your pursuit of advocating for increased access to abortion. You're trying to push an agenda, and your questions are designed to push your agenda. The problem is that you acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a "living human", and the you believe that violently ending the life or certain humans is an appropriate solution to the consequences of a choice made by a woman.
"Who decides? Women and their advisors or conservatives against the will of the majority of people including the women themselves involved?"
This "logic" can be applied to anything. Drug use, "Who decides?". Extortion, "Who decides?". The problem with your "majority of the people" bullshit, is that the "majority of the people" favor some restrictions on abortion, while you argue for zero restrictions on abortion.
I love how Dan assumes that anyone who doesn't believe as he does is automatically skewing facts, and is unreliable. The double standard is strong with this one. But it is a convenient way to dismiss facts and science using an ad hominem attack, without actually dealing with the facts and science in an objective way. It's convenient, but lazy.
I actually appreciate the multiple off topic, ad hominem, irrelevant, stupid, comments. It means that I don't have to waste time parsing them because they're bullshit attempts at trashing a person for irrelevant reasons instead of dealing with the arguments being made.
This whole line of attack would be much more effective if Dan's blog wasn't a haven for commenters who use a pseudonym to make all sorts of absurd and irrational claims that go unchallenged by Dan. Of course, his citation of advocacy groups who are 100% committed to pushing an agenda on other topics as if those are unbiased scientific experts should probably just be ignored.
The double standard is still strong with this one.
The more that Dan comments on this topic, the more glad I am that he never knew my mother. The fact that his focus is on only one possible option for the 98% of women who've made the choice to get pregnant, makes me question his humanity.
"The fact that his focus is on only one possible option for the 98% of women who've made the choice to get pregnant, makes me question his humanity."
Sigh. Where have I ever said anything about focusing on one choice? Fact is, I have not. I've always been clear that I want women to have every option on the table and that they have the freedom to make whatever choice they deem most appropriate.
That you all are open to criminalizing women and medical supporters for considering all their options for pregnancies makes me question your collective reasoning and support for human rights.
Dan
Ok, this is off-topic of the post but on-topic with Dan's understanding of Wintery Knight.
I have to agree with Dan as regards WK. I used to follow his blog because he had some good stuff but then when I challenged him on his idea of qualifications for a wife he banished me. So four years ago I wrote an article examining his ideas for a mate and prove them to totally absurd: https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2019/08/qualifications-for-marriage.html. I would never use him as a reference source except to go links he suggests, but, then again, I quit following him four years ago.
Dan still can't get past the fundament fact that what is carried in the womb is an actual, living person and not part of the woman's body, a fact proven by biology. There is NO excuse to allow for the killing of that child.
"Sigh. Where have I ever said anything about focusing on one choice?"
Well, when I read your comment, I only hear you talk about one choice. I only hear you complain about any restrictions on one choice. I don't recall ever hearing you advocate for any other choice but abortion.
" Fact is, I have not. I've always been clear that I want women to have every option on the table and that they have the freedom to make whatever choice they deem most appropriate."
Not really, but if it helps you feel better to think that, go right ahead.
"That you all are open to criminalizing women and medical supporters for considering all their options for pregnancies makes me question your collective reasoning and support for human rights."
Wow, you just flat out made up that whopper of a lie and act like it's something I've actually said. Only you, and people like you, could turn support for allowing children to live and have the opportunity to pursue happiness into a negative thing. Only you, and people like you, could paint protecting the most innocent and vulnerable in our society is oppressive.
I'm not the one arguing that the "living human" in the womb of a woman is property to be disposed of however she wants to. If you can sleep, knowing that you support ending the lives of millions of innocent children for the convenience of their mothers, and the unrestricted abortion at any time for any reason, then that's fine with me. It tells me that the human right to life isn't high on your priority list.
Glenn,
I was clear in my post, that my reason for linking to the WK post was because it contained links to scientific experts who are making the case for the value of the living unborn child.
As Stan wrote about recently, it's possible to make common cause with someone without endorsing every single thing they say or believe.
I personally believe that he, as are all of us, is not wrong for establishing criteria to guide him in his search for a wife. I can only imagine that most of us do or have done the same. Now I might not agree with every item of his criteria, or how he applies his criteria, but I respect his freedom to live his life as he wishes. If you read Dan's comments, you'll see that Dan is trying to do two things. He's primarily trying to engage in an ad hominem attack on WK personally as a diversion from the data in the links he provided. Secondarily, he's trying to make the case that WK having his own standards is actually oppressing women on a larger scale.
In this case, I do agree that some of his criteria seem a bit extreme and probably shouldn't be used as an example for others. Yet I also see some value in his intentionality, and the general reasoning behind his choices.
Again, this is not intended to be a referendum on WK's dating habits, but a jumping off point for introducing expert derived data arguing in favor of not ending the lives of "living humans" before birth.
As you note, I am doing exactly what you would do in posting his entire post, because of the multiple links to good data.
FYI, I rarely read your links when you post them like this. It comes off as a bit self serving and I suspect that you didn't actually objectively "prove" anything.
But again, this is off topic and attacking the source is one of Dan's go to tactics to avoid dealing with things he finds inconvenient. He's been clear that he'll ignore accurate reporting from certain sources because he finds the sources problematic. He's recently used this tactic as an excuse to ignore videos or Muslims speaking for themselves because I posted links to X posts with the videos included.
I proved a successful marriage does not need 99% of his required qualifications. It is not self-serving to post the link, it is to prove a point about what is wrong with WK's qualifications for marriage.
I have to be careful here, because I don't wish to put Craig into a bind because my contempt for an advocate of murder compels my use of harsh terms and words. But here goes in no particular order:
Unlike Craig, I find "murderer" to be absolutely and factually accurate a term for one who offs their child in utero. There is no reason whatsoever which justifies terminating a pregnancy and thus, the unjust termination of the life of another person is rightly labeled a murder. We have penalties for murderers and those who conspire to murder and then carry out that conspiracy, both the beneficiary of the murder and the hired gun who carries it out. How one could regard the aborting mother and the scumbag to does the deed on her behalf as something less vile and murderers requires pretending the child in utero is not a person.
This notion of "we just don't factually, scientifically know" the child in utero is a person endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life is a abject lie, which is typical and routine for Dan and those like him, especially on this subject. So I'll take a moment here to respond to stupidity:
"Given that we've established that a fetus is a living human fetus,"
Dan, being a liar, pretends the question is whether or not the fetus is human. It is not. No one is confused that the issue here regards a human as opposed to an animal, so to falsely frame the debate as one questioning the humanity of the fetus is typical Dan bullshit deflection and contortions. The question is only...and it's only a question to assholes...is if there is any legitimate excuse to murder this person in utero.
"ARE THERE some circumstances that make an abortion a reasonable option?"
No. This has been made clear by pro-life obstetricians specializing in difficult pregnancies, as well as by all other pro-life obstetricians, who also don't see a child conceived in rape to be any less worthy of their unalienable right to life being defended.
"What if the fetus was a result of rape?"
Again, this is a shameful excuse for murdering a child in utero, as if the child should be forced against its will to pay the price for the violence of its biological father, or to pay the price for the failure of the mother to protect herself against the possibility of rape. No honorable person wishes to see a woman be so abused, but her abuse doesn't justify or legitimize her subsequent greater abuse of an innocent person. Only modern progressives are so vile as to pretend otherwise.
"What if the pregnant woman doesn't believe in the personhood of the fetus (ie, that a fetus has a right to life)?"
What if the same woman doesn't believe in YOUR "personhood"? What a stupid question! Clearly and obviously murderers don't believe in the "personhood" of their victims, and we still put them in jail for a long time where execution is prohibited.
"What if the fetus being carried to term will likely/possibly have a negative impact upon the pregnant woman?"
It's amazing to me that Dan actually regards any of this crap as "reasonable" questions! What if the 5 yr old child of a woman suffers from a catastrophic illness or injury? Will this not have a negative impact on the child's mother? My Down Syndrome granddaughter has definitely had a negative impact on my daughter, but my daughter would murder Dan long before she'd murder my granddaughter. There are so many ways a family member can have a negative impact on other members of the family. Dan believes either they can be put to death.
"What if the fetus is going to die either in utero or soon after birth?"
More evidence of Dan's vile nature. And Dan continues to use the word "fetus" as if it matters the person Dan would see put to death happens to be at that stage of human development! The only answer this question deserves is, "so what?" The child will die in utero or shortly after birth so let's just rip it to shreds before that happens. What a wonderful asshole Dan is!
"ARE these reasonable exceptions to a presumption that the pregnant woman will carry the fetus to term?"
No. Not a one are, because they all depend on buying into the lie that "we don't know" whether or not the victim is a person endowed by its Creator with the same unalienable right to life of which Dan proves constantly he is undeserving. There is no exception Dan could conjure which would make the unborn less deserving of living than Dan. Indeed, each person in utero is far more deserving of having their lives defended than Dan is.
As to WK, first, he has ever right to remain anonymous and more than enough examples exist of conservatives who have lost jobs and liberties because they expressed their opinions publicly under their actual names. Given how easily, quickly and always unjustly Dan deletes comments on his blog he doesn't like, its ironic he would think it odd anyone would be concerned about more important manifestations of this cowardly modern progressive (redundancy alert!) tactic.
Dan speaks of "red flags" when listing WK's comments. But "red flags" for whom? They're "red flags" to low character modern progressives (redundancy alert!). Conservative women aren't put off by the bulk of WK's criteria because they believe as he does. Conversely, conservative men have character traits which appeal to even non-conservative women, though conservative women are open about desiring such traits in men. They see the benefit to them finding such men to marry. Somehow, however, Dan believes men aren't to have expectations of women they choose for marriage. Having high expectations is somehow oppressive, except when the expectations are on men. I've no doubt Dan had expectations before marrying, though clearly his wife's were very low.
Dan then tries to demean WK by referring to him as an "incel". A quick search resulted in several links which define that term as referring to "involuntary celibacy". So Dan doesn't know the meaning of the slang he uses or he thinks WK is incapable of getting laid if he so choose. The reality is WK is celibate by choice due to his religious beliefs. Honorable people refer to this as "integrity"...a term and character trait unknown the modern progressive, as manifested in Dan's support for infanticide. What's more, WK has stated he has no problem dying celibate if he's found no woman who meets his criteria.
It seems I alone have great admiration for the dude. While I don't read all his posts, and have only listened to part of one his podcasts, he stands as a rare breed of Christian more should emulate even if certain points might seem unnecessary. Said another way, he truly seems to have died and been renewed.
Most of his posts speak to issues of character, both of Christian men and Christian women. He's posted testimonies of many progressive women who regret their choices in life, and for the purpose of his post cited here for the abortion info, how they select their men. So many whine there are no good men out there. Yet, he has shown how such women actually cite traits he strives to adopt for himself.
There's no wrongdoing in seeking a woman as convicted in the faith as he is. Part of that conviction manifests in the belief that each half of the marital union have their roles to play, and the woman's involves nurturing the children they propagate, particularly in the first five years of their life. He's spent his professional life working toward being able to sustain the family financially while his wife does that most worthy and wonderful thing. And like most people of intelligence, WK supports political parties and candidates which seek to implement conservative economic policies which makes that God-ordained existence possible.
Dan's unworthy of feasting on WK's shorts, much less criticizing his character.
Getting back to Dan's support of infanticide, he wonders who has the right to dictate to pregnant women. Again, this question requires pretending there's some question as to the full humanity of the person in utero and if residing in a woman's womb denies one one's earthly sovereignty over one's own right to life. But this isn't a question that has plagued mankind until there came those with no regard for human life. As I stated at my own blog, the original Hippocratic Oath opposed destroying people in utero. That Oath wasn't invented recently. It goes back to sometime between 400 BC to shortly after 370 BC when Hippocrates was said to have died. This shows event he ancients believed one conceived was fully human, fully a person and fully endowed with the right to not be murdered by its mother. Thus, the question Dan asks is an invention of fiction intended to legitimize the murder of the unborn, to provide the opening needed to insert all manner of cheap rationalizations while still pretending to be a Christian...which in Dan's case means just one more reason to reject his claim that he is as bullshit and posturing.
The citations of WK confirm the humanity of the unborn. By that, I don't simply mean "human fetus" as if that is somehow distinct from "human being". The "human fetus" is merely a stage of development of a person, with "human baby" being another and "human adult" being yet one more. Always fully human, always fully a person distinct from any other and not deserving of the death inflicted on millions of unborn.
And as always, Dan's support for abortion is particularly hypocritical in a most vile way, given is constant posturing as a champion of the "oppressed" and "marginalized". Who is more oppressed and marginalized than those people who are considered by other people as being less than people or undeserving of the rights of people? But this has been the modern progressive way for all of American history...if not longer! It's only been the left who have looked upon others as less than for traits beyond the control of those the left marginalizes. Race, nationality, and with the unborn, size, age and location. None of these people can help or alter their state at the time the left targets them for destruction or oppression. And while Dan pretends it is the right-wing who engages in oppression or marginalization, the stark and unequivocal difference is that conservatives deal in prejudice and bigotry against controllable bad behaviors. Dan and his kind in immutable characteristics. If the world were full of only white people, hair or eye color would be a determining factor for favoring one group over another. It's always the way with modern progressives.
Glenn,
I guess I'd disagree that referencing yourself as the one who "proves" something seems a bit off to me. What's fortunate is that there are no hard and fast rules for a successful marriage, and if WK chooses to follow and advocate for a different standard for his potential wife, he is perfectly free to do so. I personally agree with some of his thoughts on the matter, but not all. But, since my intent in posting the link was to provide the links to scientific experts that he provided, I fail to see what value bashing his choices brings to the conversation.
"This notion of "we just don't factually, scientifically know" the child in utero is a person endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life is a abject lie,"
I don't necessarily think this is an "abject lie". I'll start with the reality that science is not the medium to "prove" intangibles. I think that Dan's hiding behind the "don't know" claim is much more of a way to hide from the possibility that he might be wrong. In his mind it seems that ignorance is preferable to being wrong. Where it becomes a problem is when he asserts other things he claims are "fact" or "reality" on the topic, without offering proof or acknowledging that if we really "don't know" something that it can't be a "fact". While Dan might be wrong, the "don't know" tactic is much more about cowardice than anything else.
I don't care if you use the term "murder", I choose not to. If for no other reason than noting that from a legal perspective, abortion is literally not legally "murder". The reality is that Dan has admitted that the unborn child is a living human, and has previously argued that very young children are "innocent" and "without sin". Therefore he is in favor of ending the life of a living, innocent, sinless, unique, individual, human, at the whim of the child's mother.
Art,
I also have high regard for WK, and agree that he has legitimate concerns about his job security of he posted under his real name. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything he says, or that everything he says is right. I usually re post his stuff because he does an excellent job of providing links to scientific experts or other experts. Given Dan's obsession with experts, it seems natural that he would be receptive to experts who don't agree with him. It also seems natural that he would focus on the findings of these experts, not dismiss their findings based on his biases and prejudices. The fact that he willingly harbors someone who uses a pseudonym at his blog, kind of undercuts his rationale for the ad hom attack on WK. Much like I think that Dan offering the work of advocacy groups as experts undercuts his criticism in this case. It boils down to Dan and his double standard.
The fact that Dan and others draw an arbitrary line at some unknown phase of human development and allow the killing of humans on one side of the arbitrary line, but not on the other seems capricious at best. The fact that Dan refuses to identify where this arbitrary line is drawn certainly doesn't help his "case", nor does the fact that he is political aligned with those who advocate unrestricted/unlimited abortion at taxpayer expense and post birth abortion just makes his position worse. He is willing to sanction ending the lives of millions of innocent, sinless, unique, individual, living, humans simply because he decided that they are on the wrong side of an arbitrary line during their natural development as a human.
In short, Dan's totally full of crap. This is well known.
"Murder" is appropriate because that's what abortion is given it's the unjust taking of innocent life. That's the definition of the word regardless of what a corrupt legal regard for the practice would say.
I would also say that refusing to use this most accurate term in debates on the issue works to the benefit of those who support the practice. Who wants to be called a "murderer"? Using the term has the same effect as protesting the practice with large pictures of aborted children at traffic intersections. That too, is what abortion is.
Further, not using the term also aids in diminishing the value of the child murdered by its mother. When someone is murdered, those who loved the person are, to say the least, bewildered at the lack of regard for the loved one by those who murdered the person. Using the term brings more attention to that lack of regard for human life, all of which is the same regardless of age, size or location.
I have more trouble constantly referring to "people in utero" or "the unborn". Those terms are far more problematic. The only proper description is "people" or "person" and they are being murdered when aborted.
Art,
Perhaps you missed the part where I said that I had no problem with you using the term murder. Unless you are going to demand that murder is the only acceptable term to us, I fail to see why this is an issue for you. The reality is that, in a legal sense, abortion is not legally murder. Whether you like or agree with that, it is the case.
The only reason I use therms to describe the children (per born, unborn, etc) is to delineate where they are in the natural progression of life. All too often fetus is used as a term to dehumanize the unborn child. It tends to be used to convey the same thing as "clump of cells" did. Fetus is used to obscure the reality that the person being aborted is a living, individual, unique, human child. Therefore I try not to use it even though it is the scientifically correct term to describe a part of the in utero natural development of a human.
Of course none of that really matters, as we both essentially agree on the practice.
I agree with the usage of "child" as opposed to "fetus" or "unborn". I wish to emphasize the fact that there is no difference between the just conceived through natural death 90 or more years later. As you say, the purposeful use of the term "fetus" is to deflect from that fact and to allow for the false, made-up possibility that the unborn is somehow not equal to the born as regards its unalienable right to life.
As "murder", I demand nothing, but merely encourage people to use that term regardless of what the law says, as what the law says is not from On High. Society may have stricken the word as equal to and the definition of abortion, but it remains the fact based on what "murder" means. So what do you prefer...the law or the truth? They are not the same here. This is law separating abortion from what it truly is is no more than another case of the left redefining terms to serve their evil agenda.
What's more, we don't have to consider at all what the law says as regards any issue we discuss which isn't based on the laws of the land. This is one such issue which doesn't demand any adherence whatsoever to what the law says, as it is more about what abortion is and its moral status.
I tend to use unborn child, simply to accurately demonstrate what phase of life the child is in.
In this case, I believe that it is possible to speak the Truth without using the term murder. The reality is that, regardless of your opinions, abortion is not legally murder. I've found that using the term murder often inhibits actual conversation, makes persuasion harder, and gives the pro abortion folks something to use as a distraction from the more important issues.
My question is- How many conversations with those who support abortion have been improved by using the word murder?
This is Art using my cellphone:
Starting with your concluding question, I've seen no polling data to respond. But it seems to me that it's imperative that it be understood that abortion is indeed murder definitionally...nevermind the unjust law which pretends it isn't. Only then is one truly dealing in truth. And if pro-aborts are put off by the term, they must then explain why it's a problem for them. It's almost a rhetorical question given the answer is so incredibly obvious: they simply don't want the word used because it allows them to pretend what the child in utero is and whether or not it's value is equal to that of any person outside the womb.
Art,
I'll rephrase. how many conversations have you had with a pro abortion person where you successfully convinced them that abortion was murder by using that term.
My point is (and this point applies to Dan as well), as a general rule people aren't persuaded by the use of language that immediately puts them on the defensive. It's like Dan calling conservatives all the names he calls us, and acting as if doing so will be an effective way of making his point.
As far as the law goes, it is what it is, whether or not you like or agree with it is irrelevant. If you want to change the law, then work to do so. I guess I don't see how charging a 17 year old girl who got pregnant "accidentally" with murder is helpful. I just saw a story about a mother who killed the guy who was sexually molesting her young daughter and got sent to prison for that. I fail to see of that outcome helped anyone.
It's possible to make all of the same points without using the term murder, it's possible to restrict abortion without sending millions of women to prison for murder.
Post a Comment