His other guesses are really stupid. They're not "guesses" of course, but attempts to equate apples with oranges in order to push his perverse ideology.
Says who? Empty claims are meaningless. As always.
That YOU don't recognize the danger of religion laying claim over people or the notion of some religious folks over others doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the real world. Of course, it does. Observably so.
Same for patriarchy.
Your empty dismissing of it is not proof that these should be dismissed.
I'm not even sure what Dan is babbling about. History tells us exactly what the arguments for slavery were, and the news tells us what the arguments for abortion are.
As far as his guesses, in the absence of any actual evidence (demonstrating who "says"), it's all juts more bullshit.
It's almost like he's afraid of the danger involved when we look at living, human beings as property.
Historically these 4 arguments have been used to justify two institutions. Any guesses?
I replied with these possibilities (not guesses)...
A. Slavery B. Industry/businesses (who routinely dismiss the value/rights of people and the environment as irrelevant or "their property," in function, if not literally). C. Religion (in the case of people of color in the past, in the case of LGBTQ folks and women, oftentimes, today) D. Marriage/family (how one treats their wife and children)
You replied...
Of course his other guesses, miss the mark entirely.
Also...
I'm not even sure what Dan is babbling about. History tells us exactly what the arguments for slavery were, and the news tells us what the arguments for abortion are.
1. I'm giving you four or five institutions for whom your list is not far off. Observably so.
2. "The news" does not argue that an unborn fetus is not a person. That's just stupidly false.
3. "The news" DOES cite people who argue that a WOMAN's body is her own and her own medical decisions about her own body ought not be dismissed just because some religious zealots want to tell her what she can and can't do (see my "C. Religion").
4. Thus, you ARE making a stronger case for religion presuming to tell others what they can and can't do, essentially taking away their rights and ultimately denying their full personhood.
Regarding your list of four, as it relates to abortion:
1. "It's not a person."
No one in the whole wide world denies that the fetus is not a human fetus. I don't think most people deny that it is a living human fetus. The QUESTION is: Does a fetus have all the rights (including a right to life) presumed for people who've been born.
THAT is what is not known, not provable one way or another. SOME religions/human traditions say yes. OTHER religions and traditions say, "not until it's born."
What you're proposing (those who want to criminalize the medical procedure of abortion) is NOT LETTING those who disagree with the religious or philosophical opinions about "right to life" get to make that decision for themselves.
"Does your religion disagree with mine? TOO BAD, your religion does not get the right to decide." Is what the anti-abortionists say, denying the liberty and free will of one living person in favor of their own religion.
That's a problem.
2. "It belongs to me."
I don't know that I've heard this in regards to the fetus. But I HAVE heard it used in regards to, "THIS DECISION about what to do with this pregnancy and my own damned body.. that DECISION belongs to me." And they're not wrong. Who in the hell says that the religious right gets to force their opinions on others and deny them their human liberty? This is not wrong, in this case.
3. "I can do with it as I please."
Same as above. THE DECISION about what to do with a pregnancy is the pregnant persons, not your pastor.
4. "The law is on my side."
Well, it used to be, long time ago and in various cultures. And then, it didn't used to be at least in the US and many other nations, then it was again and now it's not. This is rather pointless.
The point being: REASON and JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS land on the side of self-determination of the individual. UNTIL such time as you or I or anyone else can authoritatively PROVE that a fetus at some stage has a "right to life" that overrides the mother's preference, it's only an opinion that can not be proven.
I wonder Craig (Marshal, Glenn and other Pharisees out there): Do you all recognize that you can not prove that a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that a mother may have in her own self-determination?
Noting that the fetus is a human fetus is not proof of rights.
Noting that the fetus is a living human fetus, likewise, is not a proof of rights.
Noting that your particular religious or philosophical traditions disagrees with others, like many Jewish people, who do NOT belief a fetus is fully deserving of all rights... that is not proof of rights.
And also, given the incredible amount of whining and gnashing of teeth about so-called attempts to deny you your "religious freedom," are you all okay with denying others their religious freedom because you think your religion or philosophy ought to get to decide for themselves?
Do you at least recognize how arrogant and, well, pharisaical that is? Who died and made you all God?
What's more, your post speaks of ALL FOUR of the arguments uniquely posed by slavery and abortion supporters. I don't think Dan's lame attempt can account for any of the others using all four as a matter of course.
Yes Dam, you had 4 guesses that might be able to be construed as making the 4 arguments I offered. However, I see nothing in you list other than slavery that makes all 4.
1. "Not far off". My point exactly. Those are not using all 4 of the arguments.
2. No, but the news covers a multitude of people who make the "not a person" argument. If you watch/read news coverage of the issue, you'll hear/read this argument regularly.
3. Yes, it does.
4. I'm not making a case at all. But feel free to make shit up to change the subject.
1. "Not a person". Yes, the fact that an unborn human child is indisputably a living human being poses a problem for the pro abortion folx. Therefore they had to invent the concept of person-hood, which is a term without a definition. Which is, of course, one of the justification for slavery.
2. Ohhhhhhhh. The "I haven't heard this" ploy. Therefore, since you haven't heard this, you'll make some shit up and construct an "argument" based on your made up shit.
3. A distinction with out a difference. But since you "haven't heard this", you really have no idea what others are actually saying.
4. This makes no sense.
No, i don't understand how you think you can define reality.
"Do you all recognize that you can not prove that a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that a mother may have in her own self-determination?"
So? You can't prove any of the 4 claims made above overrides that child's right to life.
"Noting that the fetus is a human fetus is not proof of rights."
Really? Please prove this claim. Are not rights endowed by our creator to living humans? when do living humans actually get these rights? Why would you determine that certain humans are not endowed not endowed with basic human rights?
"Noting that the fetus is a living human fetus, likewise, is not a proof of rights."
Excellent, repeating yourself as if you've made a new point. Why is it not? Prove your claim.
"Noting that your particular religious or philosophical traditions disagrees with others, like many Jewish people, who do NOT belief a fetus is fully deserving of all rights... that is not proof of rights."
What "particular religious claim" have I made in this post? Where have I claimed that an unborn are deserving of "all rights"? If I haven't made these claims, how can you rationally say that I have?
"And also, given the incredible amount of whining and gnashing of teeth about so-called attempts to deny you your "religious freedom," are you all okay with denying others their religious freedom because you think your religion or philosophy ought to get to decide for themselves?"
Again, this is a claim about my actions that you haven't proven. If you can find examples of me making these claims, and provide links and quotes, then we could discuss your unproven claims. Since you haven't, I see no reason to validate your made up, bullshit, unproven claims by dignifying them with a response.
Dan wants to run with this crap about not being able to prove the value of the unborn, that somehow it does NOT have the same right to life he claims for his own sorry ass. But at the same time, this vermin does nothing to prove there's enough distinction between the unborn and its mother to justify the suggestion her life is more worthy of consideration. Again, to Dan, "embracing grace" means rationalizing the murder of the unborn. A more vile POS would be hard to find.
To answer your questions (and show how it's done)...
So? You can't prove any of the 4 claims made above overrides that child's right to life.
So? IF neither "side" can objectively prove their hunches about the status of personhood of the fetus, then we have a unprovable philosophy, all around. And I'm fine with that. I'm not wanting to force ANYONE to believe that a fetus is not deserving of full human rights/right to life. You want to believe that, believe it!
The difference is, then, that YOUR side wants to force by legislation your religion/philosophy on others who don't accept your unproven premise. On what reasonable basis should you all get to force your religious/philosophical opinions on to others?
THAT is an actual denial of the human right to self-determination, an actual, demonstrable human right abuse.
THAT is the answer to "SO?"
"Noting that the fetus is a human fetus is not proof of rights."
Really? Please prove this claim.
Easily: ANY CLAIM, of and by itself, is NOT PROOF of whatever they're stating. You have to have DATA and PROOF and not just a claim. A claim is meaningless, by itself. This is basic reasoning. You're proposing a logical fallacy: A claim without proof has the burden of proof to be accepted as rational. No proof, the claim is not supported.
Are not rights endowed by our creator to living humans?
Not provably, no. Of course. Can you PROVE that? IF that's a claim you're making, you have the burden of proof to support it if you want it to be taken seriously.
Do I THINK this is likely correct? Yes. But I also acknowledge the reality that it's not provable.
when do living humans actually get these rights?
People agree that it is self evident that living, birthed human beings have a right to life. Do you disagree?
Why would you determine that certain humans are not endowed not endowed with basic human rights?
I'm not. I'm just acknowledging the reality that YOU CAN NOT PROVE and HAVE NOT PROVEN that fetus are endowed with an immutable right to life in the same way that birthed humans have.
Do you recognize that reality? I'm answering your questions, answer mine.
What "particular religious claim" have I made in this post? Where have I claimed that an unborn are deserving of "all rights"? If I haven't made these claims, how can you rationally say that I have?
You've made a philosophical claim that many conservative Christians (and others) believe in. I've used religious/philosophical interchangeably. You have a WORLDVIEW that is unproven when it comes to the personhood of a fetus and it having a right to life. It's an unproven philosophy.
And as you know, in our nation, it's largely a religious philosophy. Are you saying you DON'T think God has an opinion on fetal personhood and that's not your reason for holding your unproven hunch?
I did not say that you made a :religious claim." What I stated was:
Noting that your particular religious or philosophical traditions disagrees with others, like many Jewish people, who do NOT belief a fetus is fully deserving of all rights... that is not proof of rights.
Is it not the case that your unproven philosophical tradition believes (but hasn't proven) that a fetus has a right to life?
I'm answering your questions. How about answering mine?
Again, this is a claim about my actions that you have not proven.
Again, what I said:
And also, given the incredible amount of whining and gnashing of teeth about so-called attempts to deny you your "religious freedom," are you all okay with denying others their religious freedom because you think your religion or philosophy ought to get to decide for themselves?
I'm addressing the whining that goes on in the real world from religious conservatives about their "rights" (to deny services to gay folks, for instance) are being trampled.
Now, answer my question. If you don't want to deny Jewish folk the right to their religious views when it comes to abortion, then you can say so.
big answer to the question asked is "So". What an excellent analysis of the situation.
Then he comes back with a definition of "proving" one's claim, instead of actually proving his claim. He's essentially contradicting himself by saying that his claim must have proof, while not providing proof.
Prove what? I can prove that in the US according to our founding documents that rights are "endowed by our Creator".
"Do I THINK this is likely correct?"
Do I care what you think? No. But an interesting tactic, you're trying to agree with the source of rights, but leave the door open to some other alternative. Excellent job of being equivocal.
"People agree that it is self evident that living, birthed human beings have a right to life. Do you disagree?"
So, because some people agree with your unproven premise, we must accept the premise as fact? Why would anyone do this? Does your claim that some people believe something come with proof? Does your claim prove the underlying premise, that only born humans have "all" the rights? Does your claim prove that pre born humans have zero human rights? Why are some humans denied their rights?
"I'm not"
That's quite a response. You literally argued that because some people believe that birth is the magic moment when humans get their human rights, that humans who haven't been born are denied all of their human rights. When do to rights kick in specifically? Is it only after the entire human leaves the birth canal? After the cord is cut? Why is the human that will be born in an hour not given any human rights?
I recognize that you have made an unproven claim regarding your hunch about what "reality" is. I recognize that you haven't proven, let alone offered proof of your claim of the underlying premise. Of course, I regularly answer your questions, you just like to pretend that I don't and never can actually demonstrate that I haven't.
"Is it not the case that your unproven philosophical tradition believes (but hasn't proven) that a fetus has a right to life?"
What an interesting attempt to dodge responsibility for your false claim/inference. Especially given your inability to prove your own philosophical tradition to be True.
Yes, I believe that science tells us that a unique, individual, human being, begins at conception. The fundamental aspects of this human start to form after conception, and continue until death. I do not see anything that would lead me to conclude that humans should be denied human rights due to their stage of development.
Of course, your hunches haven't proven that an unborn human being doesn't have any rights. Nor have you defined person hood, and when a human becomes a person. Nor have you explained why human rights are denied to certain humans.
Since you still can't prove your claim regarding what I think or have said, you simply fall back on the broad brush tactics of trying to pretend that because someone else has said something similar to your claims, that I must also have said something similar to your caricature. It's creative, but ultimately bullshit.
To the extent that "Jewish folk" believe that un unborn human should be denied any human rights, I disagree with them. But since I have not made any religious arguments for my position, and since you deny the validity of religious arguments, I fail to see how this is relevant. I have no desire to deny anyone their right to believe whatever they choose to believe. I am not arrogant enough to thing that my beliefs are the only possible option and that I set the standard of what people should believe.
Excellent job of trying to move the conversation away from the point of the post.
If I'm wrong, I'll always choose to be wrong on the side of defending and protecting innocent human life. Yes, I lean toward believing that ALL human life is valuable and that the innocent and helpless should be protected. I will never believe that denying human rights to a human is a good thing, especially the most basic right of all.
I will never believe that denying human rights to a human is a good thing, especially the most basic right of all.
And yet, you do not believe that some humans have the right to self determination to move from one nation to another without government interfering. Right?
It would be easier to take your (the right, collectively) concern for human rights if you extended them to living, birthed humans.
Craig...
I believe that science tells us that a unique, individual, human being, begins at conception.
and...
If I'm wrong, I'll always choose to be wrong on the side of defending and protecting innocent human life.
Great. YOU are free to believe that. No one on the left is trying to force you to NOT believe that or NOT act upon that belief you have.
But by saying that, you are not saying that "science tells us" that each fetus has full human rights including a right to life, are you?
IF you think that "science tells us" THAT, then all you have to do is present the evidence that science has given.
You don't cite any evidence because science has not told you that and has not offered any definitive answer to this question.
And that's the point: THIS is an unproven, unprovable question. GIVEN the reality of its unproven nature, then I think the best answer - even if imperfect - is to leave it to each individual to decide for themselves how to deal with their pregnancy.
What else can we do? FORCE the view that some have on the half of the nation that disagrees with their unproven view? That would be, ironically, a human rights violation, another one you demonstrate you don't have a problem with.
As to my reasoning: The reality is that human rights are not one lump package. A newborn has a right to life, but it does not have a right to self-determination. A five year old can't decide they want to move to the North Pole and just go there. Their human rights are limited due to the stage of life they're in. We all acknowledge that.
Some people do not believe that the unborn fetus has "personhood..." Others may think they have personhood, but their rights are superceeded by the mother's right to self-determination. Still others think that the fetus "right to life" trumps everything.
We have no provable way to say one way or the other is right. We just don't. So, YOU get to decide for you. Others get to decide for themselves as a matter of human rights.
"To the extent that "Jewish folk" believe that un unborn human should be denied any human rights, I disagree with them. But since I have not made any religious arguments for my position, and since you deny the validity of religious arguments, I fail to see how this is relevant."
Because, regardless of your philosophical reasons for denying them their religious autonomy, the reality is you (the religious right) ARE supporting denying them their religious autonomy.
"And yet, you do not believe that some humans have the right to self determination to move from one nation to another without government interfering. Right?"
I was unaware that there was an absolute right to untrammeled movement across national border with absolutely zero restriction.
"But by saying that, you are not saying that "science tells us" that each fetus has full human rights including a right to life, are you?"
No, you can tell that I'm not saying your made up bullshit by reading what I have actually written. I've NEVER said that an unborn human being has "full human rights". So the next time you have a question about this, just remember this comment.
"then I think the best answer - even if imperfect - is to leave it to each individual to decide for themselves how to deal with their pregnancy."
It great to see you advocating for individual people to deny other humans fundamental human rights just because.
It's also good to see you using one of the four arguments I originally posted about. Humans are not property to be disposed of at the whim of the property owner.
"You don't cite any evidence because"
you are correct. I don't cite any evidence of a claim I did not make. It would be stupid of you to expect me to cite evidence of a claim you made up and attributed to me.
"What else can we do? FORCE the view that some have on the half of the nation that disagrees with their unproven view?"
Well, given the fact that in the US this is what our laws do. They force the views of one group onto everyone, regardless of their personal views. The problem with you you seem to be implying, is that no one is ever "forced" to reproduce. (With the exception of the tiny % of women who are impregnated through sexual assault)
"As to my reasoning: The reality is that human rights are not one lump package."
I've never said they were.
"A newborn has a right to life, but it does not have a right to self-determination."
If a "newborn" has a 'right to life", why doesn't the unborn human that is still in it's mother's womb in the delivery room? Of course this is just one of the questions you've chosen to ignore. BTW, who says that the above is objectively factual?
"A five year old can't decide they want to move to the North Pole and just go there. Their human rights are limited due to the stage of life they're in. We all acknowledge that."
Yes we can. Yet you still advoicate for the most fundamental right of all to be denied to human beings because of the state of life they are in, even though that state is temporary, normal, and universal.
"Some people do not believe that the unborn fetus has "personhood..." Others may think they have personhood, but their rights are superceeded by the mother's right to self-determination. Still others think that the fetus "right to life" trumps everything."
So what. Given the reality that "person hood" is an intentionally vague and undefined term, which only seems to be used to terminate the lives of human beings who are the most vulnerable of all. If I'm going to err, I will err on the side of protecting the lives of the most innocent, vulnerable, and helpless humans every single time.
"We have no provable way to say one way or the other is right. We just don't. So, YOU get to decide for you. Others get to decide for themselves as a matter of human rights."
What a fascinating view of our "inalienable" rights that are "endowed by our Creator". The notion that individuals get to decide what human rights they want to deny others sounds barbaric. IF as you say, "Others get to decide for themselves as a matter of human rights.", by what standard do you declare that a human rights violation exists? This notion that every single human can decide for themselves whether or not to deprive another of their human rights, is fascinating.
How about we limit our discussion of human rights to "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Instead of getting into a bunch of other stuff that's been made up more recently.
Because both slavery and abortion deny actual humans these three human rights.
FYI, the right to pursue happiness doesn't preclude people having to deal with the consequences of their choices of how to pursue happiness.
The problem with your "let people decide on their own" approach to human rights is that it is predicated on the premise that some humans don't have human rights, or that some human's rights trump other human's rights. Why this is a problem for you is that you are simply assuming this premise. You haven't proven it, and if "We just don't know" is your excuse, then shouldn't the default position be that every human in every stage of development has at least the basic, fundamental right to live? What would possibly make anyone conclude that the default position is that some humans, in some stages of human development, have no human rights at all?
"shouldn't the default position be that every human in every stage of development has at least the basic, fundamental right to live?"
No. Why? On what basis? Your personal assurance that it's the best hunch?
"What would possibly make anyone conclude that the default position is that some humans, in some stages of human development, have no human rights at all?"
I haven't argued that. I've pointed out the simple reality that we have no way of proving that a fetus, at any and all stages of development, has a right to life that must never be infringed upon.
Craig...
"The problem with your "let people decide on their own" approach to human rights is that it is predicated on the premise that some humans don't have human rights, or that some human's rights trump other human's rights. Why this is a problem for you is that you are simply assuming this premise."
Do you not see that YOUR personal hunch is that women's rights to self-determine their OWN medical decisions about a fetus in THEIR body should be trumped by the desires of people like you to make that decision for her?
When YOU are only presuming that fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations?
"You haven't proven it, and if "We just don't know" is your excuse, then shouldn't the default position be that every human in every stage of development has at least the basic, fundamental right to live?"
It's not "an excuse. " It's the reality. Something I'm glad to admit clearly but you continue to dodge and give vague non-answers to. What we DO know for a fact is that women are persons unquestionably with the human right of self-determination which you all want to take from them.
When I referred to Dan as a vile POS, I clearly didn't go far enough. He's incredibly worse than that.
As you noted, Dan wants to talk about "full human rights". The only issue on the table here, which Dan can't argue against, is the right to life. If anyone is not worthy of that right, it is murderous POS's like Dan for presuming he can argue against the unborn having it, or for providing cover for others who deny the unborn their God-given right to life.
Dan wants to speak of "self-determination", while denying that self-determination to the unborn. He wants to pretend there's some greater right to move about the earth freely than to have the life which allows one to do anything, including move about. What a vile POS!
Dan wants us to prove that the unborn have any right...that the unborn are equally endowed with the right to life. Nonsense. He must prove the unborn lacks that right...that they are somehow less deserving of self-determination than their murderous mothers. We know scientifically that from the moment of conception a unique person exists. What example of the lowest vermin must one be to suppose any argument must be made to secure the life of the conceived? Dan must prove his position, as science has determined beyond any doubt that a person exists from conception.
Dan must prove that self-determination is denied by Americans who wish to secure their borders for their own safety, and that this wish is somehow subordinate to any foreigner who believes himself within his rights to enter without regard to our laws. What of our own self-determination?
They force the views of one group onto everyone, regardless of their personal views. The problem with you you seem to be implying, is that no one is ever "forced" to reproduce. (With the exception of the tiny % of women who are impregnated through sexual assault)
The difference is: EVERYONE AGREES it's wrong to kill your neighbor or the kid at school or any other living human being who's been born. Their personhood and thus, human rights, are established. It's not a debate.
But only SOME people agree that the fetus has personhood. THAT is not a settled matter.
So, what you all are saying is that you think the woman - whose personhood IS established and we ALL recognize she has human rights - who is pregnant, MUST be forced to complete the pregnancy and have the baby, regardless of her views. You are pushing these laws that DENY the human rights of women who we KNOW have personhood because some segment of the population THINK (but can't prove) the fetus has personhood.
That's a unique set of circumstances.
Tell me this: You rightly note that the raped woman who gets pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Are you one of the conservatives who think that THIS woman should not be forced to have that baby, EVEN THOUGH you think she's killing a fetus with personhood?
How about the in vitro fertilization circumstance? I'm sure you know that some people who go the in vitro route to get pregnant (because they haven't been able to get pregnant in the typical manner, for instance) have multiple embryos - fertilized eggs in first stages of pregnancy. Not all of those embryos are implanted become a fetus. Is that "in storage" embryo ALSO have personhood?
If that's the case and the mother who successfully got pregnant through IVF and still has seven embryos in storage... should she be forced to get pregnant with all those other embryos?
As I'm sure you know, there are some (many? Most?) in the "pro-fetal-life" movement who consider the embryo to have personhood. Are you one of those?
Are you one who thinks that there should be exceptions if the mother's health/life are threatened? (I think you are, even though, those abortions are killing unborn persons with a right to life, right?) Who do you think should make that decision about what is and isn't a legitimate health concern for that mother where an exception should be made? A state legislator? A pastor? You? OR, the mother and her medical advisors?
"EVERYONE AGREES it's wrong to kill your neighbor or the kid at school or any other living human being who's been born. Their personhood and thus, human rights, are established. It's not a debate."
1. This is simply false. There are plenty of people who believe it is perfectly appropriate to kill innocent people.
2. You still haven't defined personhood, nor explained when one attains or loses personhood.
3. This notion that anything is established as fact based solely on majority rule, is your unproven premise that underlies much of your worldview.
"But only SOME people agree that the fetus has personhood. THAT is not a settled matter."
If this unproven claim is True, then it still boggles the mind that anyone would consider it a good thing to end the life of a helpless, innocent, human being.
"So, what you all are saying is that you think the woman - whose personhood IS established and we ALL recognize she has human rights - who is pregnant, MUST be forced to complete the pregnancy and have the baby, regardless of her views. You are pushing these laws that DENY the human rights of women who we KNOW have personhood because some segment of the population THINK (but can't prove) the fetus has personhood."
You haven't defined personhood, nor explained how and when it is established, you've just announced that it is and that your unproven hunch must be accepted. Why would I uncritically accept as established something that you can't define, nor tell me how and when it is conferred.
But excellent use of the "it's not a person" argument. You sound much like an antebellum slave owner.
What's interesting is that you don't seem to understand that this woman is pregnant as a direct result of her actions (with the exception of the minuscule number of cases where rape results in pregnancy).
"Tell me this: You rightly note that the raped woman who gets pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Are you one of the conservatives who think that THIS woman should not be forced to have that baby, EVEN THOUGH you think she's killing a fetus with personhood?"
Good lord, I've been abundantly clear about this for years, if you're too stupid to remember what I've said, that's on you. But as a sop to your stupidity/inability to remember or research, my position is exceedingly clear. While I agree that ending the life of an unborn child is wrong, I would accept an exception to abortion restrictions in the case of the minuscule number of women who get pregnant in the case of rape. While I don't believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right, I do believe that if we could eliminate 98%+ of abortions by allowing this exception that I could live with it. Remember, we're talking about the difference between what's legal and what's right.
"How about the in vitro fertilization circumstance? I'm sure you know that some people who go the in vitro route to get pregnant (because they haven't been able to get pregnant in the typical manner, for instance) have multiple embryos - fertilized eggs in first stages of pregnancy. Not all of those embryos are implanted become a fetus. Is that "in storage" embryo ALSO have personhood?"
If you'll define and tell me when personhood happens in a clear, direct, unequivocal manner, I'll address this question.
"If that's the case and the mother who successfully got pregnant through IVF and still has seven embryos in storage... should she be forced to get pregnant with all those other embryos?"
This is literally the same question twice in the same comment. Same response as above.
"As I'm sure you know, there are some (many? Most?) in the "pro-fetal-life" movement who consider the embryo to have personhood. Are you one of those?"
Same response as above. I'll note that right and wrong aren't determined by an opinion poll.
"Are you one who thinks that there should be exceptions if the mother's health/life are threatened?"
Answered multiple times. Yes, I believe that threats to the life or physical health of the mother should be treated differently.
'(I think you are, even though, those abortions are killing unborn persons with a right to life, right?)"
Again, I've been clear on this for ever. I would be willing to stop 98% of abortions in the short term by allowing certain exceptions. I believe that if we only have the 2% of abortions that aren't for convenience, that it's possible to put resources toward convincing them not to abort more effectively.
"Who do you think should make that decision about what is and isn't a legitimate health concern for that mother where an exception should be made? A state legislator? A pastor? You? OR, the mother and her medical advisors?"
Ultimately these decisions will be decided by state legislatures (unless the feds jump back in), that's where the exceptions will be defined. What other options is there except 100% unrestricted abortion for any and every reason?
Not funny, pathetic. It's one more example of the double standards you live out regularly. I also think it's a sign of narcissism. The notion that your questions all deserve prompt answers regardless of how foolish or repetitive they are, while other's questions can be dismissed or ignored at your pleasure, is absurd.
"No."
This is quite a shock to me. The fact that you don't believe that respect for the life of all human beings is the default position seems barbaric, and counter to Jesus teachings and the rest of scripture.
"Why?"
Because killing innocent humans causes them harm.
"On what basis?"
Harm.
"Your personal assurance that it's the best hunch?"
no.
"I haven't argued that. I've pointed out the simple reality that we have no way of proving that a fetus, at any and all stages of development, has a right to life that must never be infringed upon."
Which is a huge cop out. The reality is that the above worldview leads to the ending of lives that are deemed unworthy. Much like what we're seeing in Canada where the national health service is pushing people to be killed rather that to treat them.
"Do you not see that YOUR personal hunch is that women's rights to self-determine their OWN medical decisions about a fetus in THEIR body should be trumped by the desires of people like you to make that decision for her?"
No. But if the unborn child is the property of the mother, then the mother can do whatever she wants to her property. By this construct, why shouldn't mothers take drugs and drink booze to their hearts content during pregnancy?
"When YOU are only presuming that fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations?"
This isn't actually a question. But, the answer is no, I'm not.
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
I don't. I've never said that I did.
"How about actually answering questions directly."
You mean like I've been doing regularly? How about actually answering questions? How bout not holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to? How about you define personhood and tell us when it starts?
"But only SOME people agree that the fetus has personhood. THAT is not a settled matter."
Bullshit. Only vermin like Dan pretend the matter is unsettled, that it is truly a question which is debatable. But the reality is that in order to continue fornicating with abandon, cretins must pretend the "personhood" of the unborn is up for debate. This is what "embracing grace" actually looks like.
And here's the worst part: This vile POS Dan "Cretinous Vermin" Trabue wants to deflect from his own position, constantly referencing what "some" believe about the humanity of the unborn, instead of being the Christian he pretends to be by defending the humanity of the unborn. No, Dan. I'm not talking about a human fetus being a human fetus. I'm talking about the truth, as confirmed by science, that what has been conceived by the sexual union of a human male with a human female is a person with the absolute and unequivocal right to life which you claim for yourself without truly deserving it.
"Tell me this: You rightly note that the raped woman who gets pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Are you one of the conservatives who think that THIS woman should not be forced to have that baby, EVEN THOUGH you think she's killing a fetus with personhood?"
Tell me this: On what basis must the child be sacrificed while being the least responsible for its own existence? Dear God save us from evil like Dan Trabue!!
"How about the in vitro fertilization circumstance? I'm sure you know that some people who go the in vitro route to get pregnant (because they haven't been able to get pregnant in the typical manner, for instance) have multiple embryos - fertilized eggs in first stages of pregnancy. Not all of those embryos are implanted become a fetus. Is that "in storage" embryo ALSO have personhood?"
Of COURSE they do!!! Which is why people of character, such as actual Christians...as opposed to fake Christians like you...oppose in vitro fertilization. Only scumbags believe any embryos are disposable or to be "stored" rather than allowed to thrive and grow into the people they are.
"As I'm sure you know, there are some (many? Most?) in the "pro-fetal-life" movement who consider the embryo to have personhood. Are you one of those?"
It is one of the fruits by which one can recognize a true Christian or any other person of character. Dan is rotted fruit.
"Are you one who thinks that there should be exceptions if the mother's health/life are threatened?"
Given there are no legitimate threats to a woman's life murdering her child will resolve, there is no reason to provide an exception for what doesn't exist. And given there is no health issue which legitimately subordinates the life of another person, there is no "health exception" which is legitimate, either. Dan's just an infanticidal asshole defending the unjust killing of people who are the most vulnerable and innocent, while he pretends he's concerned with "historically oppressed" people. What a lying sack of sh...!
"How about actually answering questions directly."
You mean like I've been doing regularly?
Dan, then ALSO Craig...
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
I don't. I've never said that I did.
Again, you directly, clearly dodged and didn't answer this question (along with so many others). Let me explain it to you:
You would like for abortion to be outlawed, right?
Therefore, YOU would like to make that decision for women who are pregnant, because by criminalizing abortion, you've eliminated that as an option, right?
Therefore, you did NOT answer my question:
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
Because you DO want to decide for women by criminalizing it. Therefore, your answer would be YES, I do want to remove that option from pregnant women and therefore, I DO want to decide for them. The reason I think I (and others like me, primarily religious zealots) should decide is...
Stop ignoring dodging ALL the questions. Answer the actual questions put to you with a direct clear answer. Stop trying to insult our intellect by dodging the question and pretending you don't want to decide for others by eliminating options they used to have.
f you'll define and tell me when personhood happens in a clear, direct, unequivocal manner, I'll address this question.
I've NEVER been unclear on this point. You have no reason NOT to know my position. We all recognize that personhood and the right to life is extended to all people who have been born. THAT is where I stand and I've been clear about that.
Now, SOME of you all (including me, once upon a time), also think in your heads that personhood begins at conception and others a few weeks later. But it's not a consensus opinion or anything like it.
AND NO, of course consensus doesn't make it right. The thing is: WE HAVE NO WAY OF CONFIRMING WHEN PERSONHOOD BEGINS. YOU do not have a way to prove/confirm that. NO ONE DOES. That being the reality, and the reality being that it's a very mixed set of opinions on the topic (unlike with murder - and don't even be an idiot and go there) and so, with NO consensus, we need to leave it to the actual humans with known human rights.
"Again, you directly, clearly dodged and didn't answer this question (along with so many others). Let me explain it to you:"
No, I did answer your question. I pointed out that it was based on a false premise, which invalidates the question.
"You would like for abortion to be outlawed, right?"
Yes, I personally would like abortion to be heavily restricted or "outlawed".
"Therefore, YOU would like to make that decision for women who are pregnant, because by criminalizing abortion, you've eliminated that as an option, right?"
No, i would not. My personal preferences are not law, and I have no desire to put myself in that position.
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
If by "you all", you mean the legislators of voters of the several states, then yes. If you mean that I intend to impose my will on others, no.
"Because you DO want to decide for women by criminalizing it. Therefore, your answer would be YES, I do want to remove that option from pregnant women and therefore, I DO want to decide for them. The reason I think I (and others like me, primarily religious zealots) should decide is..."
Strangely enough it seems like you are prepared to dictate to me what I mean, that's quite the exhibit of hubris and makes me wonder why you asked the question if you were going to tell me what the answer is.
"Stop ignoring dodging ALL the questions. Answer the actual questions put to you with a direct clear answer. Stop trying to insult our intellect by dodging the question and pretending you don't want to decide for others by eliminating options they used to have."
This would be laugh out loud, roll on the ground hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. You cherry pick one question, based on a false premise, that I didn't answer the way you wanted, and beat that into the ground, while ignoring multiple questions you've been asked.
"I've NEVER been unclear on this point. You have no reason NOT to know my position. We all recognize that personhood and the right to life is extended to all people who have been born. THAT is where I stand and I've been clear about that."
The define the term "personhood", and specify who "We all" are. It shouldn't be that hard.
"Now, SOME of you all (including me, once upon a time), also think in your heads that personhood begins at conception and others a few weeks later. But it's not a consensus opinion or anything like it."
But this vague assertion doesn't define what "personhood" means or when it is bestowed on human beings.
"AND NO, of course consensus doesn't make it right."
Yet consensus is literally the only thing you just offered ("We all""), yet you still haven't defined "personhood" nor expleined when it is bestowed on human beings.
" The thing is: WE HAVE NO WAY OF CONFIRMING WHEN PERSONHOOD BEGINS. YOU do not have a way to prove/confirm that. NO ONE DOES. That being the reality, and the reality being that it's a very mixed set of opinions on the topic (unlike with murder - and don't even be an idiot and go there) and so, with NO consensus, we need to leave it to the actual humans with known human rights."
If no one knows, then how can you confidently assert that " We all recognize that personhood and the right to life is extended to all people who have been born.", either the previous quote is True, which means that "We all" do know, or one claim falsifies the other.
In any case, it's just more of you not answering questions you've been asked.
It's the height of dishonesty to pretend the status of "personhood" is actually in question. It is not. The debate is fraudulent. Science has confirmed a new person is created at conception. It can prove it is unique from its parents, but Dan wants to pretend there's some arbitrary point HE can dictate which forces upon a person his/her lack of humanity, very much like his ancestors did with their slaves and what nazis did with the Jews, all while he pretends he cares about the "historically oppressed". So like other vile dregs of society, he pretends "personhood" is a debatable issue in order to defend the right to fornicate with reckless abandon and without obligation to the product of that act...as if the act itself is not the means by which our species perpetuates, as if the child conceived can ever actually be an accident when its existence came about by virtue of the act designed to do that very thing.
There is no one more contemptible than one like Dan Trabue, who dares whine on about Trump being a liar when his entire existence involves the perpetuation of lies and falsehoods. And innocent people die as a direct result of people buying into the very lies scum like Dan defends.
Scum like Dan defend and promote irresponsible behavior and then demand others pay the price, up to an including giving up their lives as Dan demands the unborn do.
The idea of "personhood" is something only a LEFTIST would come up with. A human being at any stage of life is a person. The embryo is a human being's first stage of life and ergo a person
Dan has previously made a distinction as to whether the individual was able to make decisions, etc. SO I guess my sister, suffering from dementia, isn't a person.
The problem is that Dan will not define what he means by "personhood", nor will he explain when one attains "personhood". By asserting as fact that "personhood" is unquestionably settled, he's simply going back to his practice of asserting things without any actual proof.
Glenn,
Yes, the notion of separating the notion of "personhood" from humanity is something that is currently in vogue on the left. What's interesting is that they limit this to one issue only.
The idea of "personhood" is something only a LEFTIST would come up with.
The notion of personhood is indeed, something that progressive-minded people came up with, at least in regards to slavery, because traditional minded people wanted to say that black people weren't persons deserving of full human rights. As well as in regards to the rights of people with disabilities.
But all I mean by personhood is recognizing human rights that all people are deserving of rights and that we - not Glenn, not Craig, none of us - know as an authoritative fact or can prove that fetuses are deserving of all human rights.
We all recognize (all reasonable people) that the stage of life and circumstances MATTER when it comes to human rights. The newborn and five year old do NOT have a human right to self determination. We ALL (all reasonable people) recognize that the STAGE of human development matters when it comes to the level of human rights.
"PERSONHOOD:" Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life and as it regards to fetuses, those who deserve demonstrably a "right to life." YOU can not prove this. GLENN can not prove this. I can not prove this. It's an unprovable hunch that the fetus has a "right to life" that trumps all other concerns.
That has always been clear from what I've said. I'm sorry you have a problem with understanding basic reason and what I have and haven't said.
That's the reality of it all. The question is whether or not YOU all recognize that you have zero authoritative proof that says otherwise.
Still no definition of "personhood" nor any specifics about when it is endowed. I'll note that it's strange that Dan is arguing that "none of us - know as an authoritative fact" any specifics about any of these things. Yet Dan is also adamant that he knows "The newborn and five year old do NOT have a human right to self determination.", how is it that he can argue that we don't know, and we know simultaneously about the same thing. Isn't there something about non contradiction?
But a simple definition and timeline regarding personhood, would certainly help clear things up instead of these repeated appeals to numbers.
none of us - know as an authoritative fact or can prove that fetuses are deserving of all human rights.
It's a medical and scientific FACT that fetuses are human beings, and therefore deserve the same right to life as every other human being. And that is a FACT regardless of how much Dan and his demented, evil ilk want to deny it.
"Still no definition of "personhood" nor any specifics about when it is endowed."
Dan...
"PERSONHOOD:" Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life
Sorry if that was unclear. THAT is a definition.
As to WHEN personhood begins, I've been abundantly clear: AT BIRTH. We all agree upon that much. Now if YOU personally think it begins at conception, then if you personally get pregnant, then no one is forcing you personally to have an abortion. A freedom you want to remove from everyone else.
Dan's tap dancing in order to defend the murder of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. It's that simple.
"The notion of personhood is indeed, something that progressive-minded people came up with, at least in regards to slavery, because traditional minded people wanted to say that black people weren't persons deserving of full human rights."
Uh...those too were Democrats and leftists of that time. Those you refer to as "progressive-minded" in the days of slavery were actual Christians and those who, like Christians and conservatives of today, see the dignity in all people, even if leftists display a complete lack of dignity in their beliefs and behaviors.
"But all I mean by personhood is recognizing human rights that all people are deserving of rights and that we - not Glenn, not Craig, none of us - know as an authoritative fact or can prove that fetuses are deserving of all human rights."
Once again, Dan lies about the issue. There is but one right on the table as regards the unborn, and that's their unalienable right to life endowed upon them by their Creator. No one's talking about their having a right to drive or drink whiskey, so stop lying and be a man.
What's more, we don't have to prove that any human has that unalienable right, nor that the right is dependent upon some degree of physical development. That's something only Godless lefties like Dan have to prove is untrue. He can't without sounding like a slaver or nazi...which are leftist philosophies.
"We all recognize (all reasonable people) that the stage of life and circumstances MATTER when it comes to human rights."
Honest people recognize all people have a right to life regardless of what stage of human development they happen to be in. Dan has forsaken his own right to life by being a murderer.
"The newborn and five year old do NOT have a human right to self determination."
Of course they do. They simply lack the ability to recognize and understand the concept. It is up to decent, Christian-like adults to protect that right until they can exercise it themselves. Dan isn't a Christian, so he believes he can assume the authority to deny rights of the vulnerable. Dan is as bad an oppressor as any in human history.
"We ALL (all reasonable people) recognize that the STAGE of human development matters when it comes to the level of human rights."
Not the right to life. Actual people who are reasonable don't make that hateful, vile argument. Only leftists do because they're scumbags. Never pretend you're among those honest people regard as reasonable. You abuse the ability of reason to rationalize vile behaviors of all sorts, including the murder of the unborn. As such, you're a contemptible scumbag.
""PERSONHOOD:" Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life and as it regards to fetuses, those who deserve demonstrably a "right to life." YOU can not prove this."
We don't have to. YOU have to prove a person is unworthy of having that right to life respected simply because of their age, size and location...which is really nazi-like, proving what a leftist you are. Honest people of compassion and respect for others err on the side of life at the worst, but know there is no argument about the full humanity of the just conceived.
That is an absurdly self serving definition, and you've offered nothing to indicate that your concept of personhood is actually True.
I realize you haven't answered this question when it's been asked previously, but I'll try again with a few different approaches.
If personhood is "Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life.", then are you saying that a child that has been out of the womb for 1 minute is endowed with "all human rights"?
How can you justify the denial any human rights to the child that is still in the womb, hours before they are born?
If a pre born human child is a living human being, unique and appropriately developed for it's current stage of life, how do you justify denying this human being the right to life that he or she already possesses?
If biologists, and biology textbooks are clear that a unique human life begins at or near conception, why would anyone disagree with the science?
Is it possible for someone to lose personhood at any point beyond birth and enter a condition where they lose their human rights?
Are you positive that personhood is attained "at birth"? Or do you agree with Peter Singer and his ilk who would argue that personhood is endowed much later? Are you prepared to tell Singer that he is wrong and you are right?
If you "don't know", how can you emphatically and categorically assert that personhood is conferred "at birth"?
As to WHEN personhood begins, I've been abundantly clear: AT BIRTH. We all agree upon that much. Now if YOU personally think it begins at conception, then if you personally get pregnant, then no one is forcing you personally to have an abortion. A freedom you want to remove from everyone else.
So, Dan has set himself up as the arbiter of when "personhood" begins--"AT BIRTH." Then he says "we all agree" on it! When he says "we all" he must have frogs in his pockets because everyone I know knows it begins at conception. What is conceived is a person, a human with all the rights of all humans, including the very important right to life.
The Bible many times speaks of the unborn as children/people. But Dan knows better than God.
By the way, no one is forcing people to get pregnant. No one is removing any right from any pregnant woman because the pregnant woman does NOT have the right to kill a separate person inside of her.
After all of this conversation, I'm surprised it took me so long to realize something so simple. If we look at what biologists/embryologists and biology/embryology textbooks tell us, it seem reasonable to conclude that an unborn child in utero is a living human being. Given that, wouldn't it also be reasonable to conclude that if the unborn child is alive, then he or she has a de fecto right to what he or she already possesses. So the question then becomes does something external to this unique, individual, human being in an early stage of it's life cycle, have the ability to deny a child something the child already possesses?
Dan frequently does this. He'll make some pronouncement, then add that that hunch is shared by some unknown, unidentified, large number of people/experts/group agrees with him. Therefore that alleged agreement is evidence that his pronouncement is therefore "reality".
I always thought that this sort of thing was a logical fallacy.
Given that, wouldn't it also be reasonable to conclude that if the unborn child is alive, then he or she has a de fecto right to what he or she already possesses
To clarify:
1. The unborn child IS alive - at least that's what I think. Different people from different religions and philosophies disagree with this notion, or at least with the notion that the fetus has a soul/has personhood.
2. What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus.
3. What YOU CAN'T PROVE is that this living fetus has a right to life that trumps any health decisions that the mother may make. YOU THINK that it would be wrong and that being the case, IF you get pregnant, YOU are free to make any medical decisions about that fetus.
You can't prove your theories, Glenn can't prove this theory. You just want to INSIST BY LAW that YOUR PERSONAL theories are the ones that should determine what a pregnant woman can and can't do with that fetus.
That is just the reality of it all.
IF you could prove it, you all would do so. Instead, you just declare you're right and expect everyone else to abandon their own religions and philosophical autonomy and bow down to the boy-gods like Craig and Glenn and Marshal.
No thanks.
Craig...
...that your concept of personhood is actually True.
So, you don't like my definition of personhood. By all means, give your definition of it, Craig. And THEN prove your concept of personhood is actually True.
OR have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit, "NO. I CAN NOT prove my concept of personhood is actually true."
Do you have that level of integrity?
Glenn...
The Bible many times speaks of the unborn as children/people. But Dan knows better than God.
The thing is, Glenn, that many people don't give a flying fuck what you think your god thinks about the words in the Bible. WE ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOUR LITTLE MAN-MADE RELIGIONS.
If you want to adhere to your religious philosophies and hunches, YOU MAY DO SO.
BUT, you are not free to force your hunches on others, you religious fascist.
"you positive that personhood is attained "at birth"? Or do you agree with Peter Singer and his ilk who would argue that personhood is endowed much later? Are you prepared to tell Singer that he is wrong and you are right?
If you "don't know", how can you emphatically and categorically assert that personhood is conferred "at birth"?"
That's the point. None of us can prove if or when a fetus has a right to life that trumps and overrides any concerns the mother may have.
Do you recognize you can't prove that authoritatively? If so, admit it.
"1. The unborn child IS alive - at least that's what I think. Different people from different religions and philosophies disagree with this notion, or at least with the notion that the fetus has a soul/has personhood."
This is kind of a strange waffling hunch, but it doesn't address the question. If this child is alive, then he or she already possesses life, by what standard do you dent the right to something already possessed? The problem with your construct is that it ignores the scientific perspective (the child is a living human being) and presumes that the existence of different views means that it is impossible to know something for certain. The reality is that one of the views you mention is wrong, regardless of the feelings of those who hold that view.
"2. What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus.'
Then why would a living human being be denied the right to something it already possesses?
"3. What YOU CAN'T PROVE is that this living fetus has a right to life that trumps any health decisions that the mother may make. YOU THINK that it would be wrong and that being the case, IF you get pregnant, YOU are free to make any medical decisions about that fetus."
1. You haven't answered the question vis a vis does the child have a right to what it possesses. 2. You just acknowledged that the mothers "health decisions" do end the life of a unique, individual, living human being. 3. You have not proven that the mother's "health decisions" justify ending the life of another human being. 4. The demonstrated reality is that "health" is a factor in less than 2% of all abortions. therefore the better question is whether of not the mothers inconvenience is justification for ending a human life. 5. You realize that your argument is based on the theory that the unique, individual human being in the mother's womb is actually the property of the mother to be disposed of as the mother wishes. 6. Why does the mother's right to end the life of this unique, individual, helpless, innocent, human being end when the baby is born?
"You can't prove your theories, Glenn can't prove this theory. You just want to INSIST BY LAW that YOUR PERSONAL theories are the ones that should determine what a pregnant woman can and can't do with that fetus."
The above statement is simply a lie. Both Glenn and I have and can cite numerous biology/embryology textbooks that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being. Since you are the one asserting things, shouldn't you prove the things you assert?
Dan declares what the "reality of it all" is. Anyone with a different position is automatically wrong. What a large, steaming, pile of hubristic bullshit.
"IF you could prove it, you all would do so. Instead, you just declare you're right and expect everyone else to abandon their own religions and philosophical autonomy and bow down to the boy-gods like Craig and Glenn and Marshal."
If you were right, you could prove it. But you simply make pronouncements and try to define reality, all the wile ignoring question after question after question.
"So, you don't like my definition of personhood. By all means, give your definition of it, Craig. And THEN prove your concept of personhood is actually True."
What an amazing dodge. You don't defend or prove that your definition is True, instead you go one the offensive and demand that I prove something I've never claimed to have. YOU are the one who introduced the concept of personhood to the conversation. YOU are the one who keeps making pronouncements about it's existence and when it should be denied. Therefore the burden is in YOU to prove YOUR claims. You won't, but you should.
"OR have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit, "NO. I CAN NOT prove my concept of personhood is actually true. Do you have that level of integrity?"
Since I've never asserted, claimed, implied, or said that I believe in the existence of a concept of personhood the best way for me to show integrity is to NOT try to define something I am not arguing for. I've never argued in favor of personhood being an actual category of existence, therefore I would be insane to argue that it is True.
"That's the point. None of us can prove if or when a fetus has a right to life that trumps and overrides any concerns the mother may have. Do you recognize you can't prove that authoritatively? If so, admit it."
1. Just one more case of Dan not answering a question he's been asked.
2. When have I claimed that the existence of a right to what the unborn child already possesses, trumps anything?
3. You have not proven that the mother possesses a right that allows her to end the life of her unborn child at any time for any reason. Yet you continue to assert that such a right exists.
What's interesting is that you are literally using the exact same arguments that antebellum slave owners used in order to justify a mother ending the life of her own living, unique, individual, human child. Even as that living, unique, individual, human being is helpless and innocent.
Look. This could all be solved if you'd simply state plainly what your previous words say obliquely.
You acknowledge that an unborn child is a living, human being. The reality is that abortion ends that human life. Why not just admit that you are saying that you believe that a mother has the unilateral ability to end the life of her child for any reason and at any time. Why not just acknowledge that if a human possesses life, that they have a right to what they already possess, and that you believe that that right (or life itself) can be removed from certain humans by others.
Just be straightforward and admit that you support mothers being able to choose to end the lives of their children for any reason at any time.
"Both Glenn and I have and can cite numerous biology/embryology textbooks that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being."
You can't cite one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.
Keep up and deal with what I'm actually saying.
That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Glenn: The Bible many times speaks of the unborn as children/people. But Dan knows better than God.
Trabue: The thing is, Glenn, that many people don't give a flying fuck what you think your god thinks about the words in the Bible. WE ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOUR LITTLE MAN-MADE RELIGIONS.
This from a person who claims to be a Christian!
My "religion" is the Christian faith as defined by the Bible and my God is the God of the Bible. So Dan doesn't give a "F...F..." what God says about human live. Dan says a child living inside the mother has no right to life. Dan's "god" is obviouslyu the devil.
Once again, Dan continues to demand that we prove the child has a right to life which can legitimately subordinate its mother's "right" to murder it for any reason (which is the true argument of abortionists and other baby murderers for the practice). But given how people come to be, it is for Dan to argue that the child can be denied its God-endowed right to life. Dan's arguments are no more than variations on the same superficial arguments of his slaver ancestors and other leftists, with skin color, ethnicity and sex replaced with the equally subjective and superficial traits of age, size and location.
He then wants to argue for the "self-determination" of the mothers, as if their determination to live without the children their sexual practices conceive somehow outweigh the determination of the unborn to survive, live and grow. This is the most basic form of "self-determination" and every living thing on earth possesses it. Even plants. The will to survive is "self-determination" and Dan cares nothing for that, while pretending he has compassion for mothers, or illegal aliens invading our borders, ignoring the self-determination of the people of a nation who wish to be secure within them. It is our self-determination which Dan subordinates to the foreign invader, as if our determination to set up laws in our own favor have no value worth respecting.
Dan's arguments are fallacious, evil and without legitimate basis. He is simply championing immorality and evil under the guise of "embracing grace", thereby affirming the well-known reality that his claim he's Christian is a mockery of the Most High.
Why not just admit that you are saying that you believe that a mother has the unilateral ability to end the life of her child for any reason and at any time.
I acknowledge that the pregnant woman has the say on what happens to her body and her fetus more than you, someone who may disagree with her. When YOU are pregnant, YOU may decide how to handle that fetus. When the woman is pregnant, SHE has the priority on how to handle that pregnancy. I VALUE you and YOUR opinion in making your OWN opinions about when YOU are pregnant. I do not authorize you to make decisions for pregnant women.
I don't know what you are failing to understand.
And I am saying NOTHING obliquely. WE - not me, not you, not Glenn, nor Marshal - DO NOT KNOW if a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that the woman who is pregnant has. You just don't have that. Failing YOU having any authority over that woman and her pregnancy, I side with the woman making her own damned decisions, not you.
What's interesting is that you are literally using the exact same arguments that antebellum slave owners used in order to justify a mother ending the life of her own living, unique, individual, human child
What's interesting is that YOU are saying that born, living, breathing slaves are the equivalent of fetuses. Now, you are FREE to think that in your own head, but you are not free to impose that on pregnant women who may not share your religious or philosophical bigotries and biases.
"What's interesting is that YOU are saying that born, living, breathing slaves are the equivalent of fetuses."
Why no, no I'm not. The statement above is 100% made up bullshit, likely because you're too embarrassed to acknowledge that you're using the same argument as slave owners did. It's more correct that you are equating a living, individual, unique, helpless, unborn human being, with a used car, a phone, or a slave. At least you're using the same argument for allowing people to dispose of those things as they wish.
"When you've said you would personally like to criminalize abortion, removing from women the right to decide what to do about their own pregnancies. Am I mistaken?"
So, you've chosen to take one comment I made and apply a completely different interpretation to that comment. Excellent. The answer is no.
"I acknowledge that the pregnant woman has the say on what happens to her body and her fetus more than you, someone who may disagree with her."
Which is just a milquetoast equivocating way to rephrase what I just said. You would applaud a woman for disposing of her unique, individual, helpless, unborn child at any point in the pregnancy, and support her in disposing of it like any other property. You just don't have the guts to actually say what you mean. That you support women who choose to end the life of a living human being.
"When YOU are pregnant, YOU may decide how to handle that fetus. When the woman is pregnant, SHE has the priority on how to handle that pregnancy. I VALUE you and YOUR opinion in making your OWN opinions about when YOU are pregnant. I do not authorize you to make decisions for pregnant women."
This is interesting from two perspectives.
1. It's clear that you would support anyone who chooses to end the life of an individual, unique, living, helpless, innocent human being at any point during a pregnancy, for any reason. It's strange that you won't support Singer and the like who argue that women should be able to extend this ability to end these lives post partum.
2. It's also clear that you appear to be willing to give the father absolutely zero say in this decision. Because why would anyone want the father of the unique, individual, living, unborn human being that bears his genetic makeup to have an equal part in the decision to end this human life.
"I don't know what you are failing to understand."
Nothing, except for the things I don't understand and have asked questions that you haven't answered. How you can square Jesus' teaching about harming children with your barbaric stance that these living human beings are merely property to be disposed of at the whim of their owner.
"And I am saying NOTHING obliquely. WE - not me, not you, not Glenn, nor Marshal - DO NOT KNOW if a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that the woman who is pregnant has. You just don't have that. Failing YOU having any authority over that woman and her pregnancy, I side with the woman making her own damned decisions, not you."
You keep saying this as if it's some great universal Truth, when it's really just an excuse to salve whatever conscience you have left.
"Understand?"
No. I don't understand your callous and cavalier attitude towards ending the lives of millions of unique, individual, living, unborn human beings because you argue that the mother owns them like any other property and can dispose of them for any reason and at any time. No, I don't understand that at all. Especially from one who bases much of their worldview on not harming others.
Do you really thing that sucking the brains out of a living human being, then dismembering them doesn't cause harm?
"You can't cite one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY."
You're right, I can't and I would never attempt to try to prove a claim that I haven't made. The notion that I would be asked to prove a claim that you created out of thin air, is absurd. The problem you seem to have is that you know (at some level) "that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being" one which is helpless and innocent, but you have to add on some language that gives you something to hide behind. The notion that as long as the mother can assert her property rights (just like a slave owner), you have a fig leaf to hide behind while you excuse the brutality and harm to innocent, helpless, living, humans.
"Keep up and deal with what I'm actually saying."
I am. Unfortunately, you won't keep up with what I've been asking.
"That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
Once more Dan thinks that he can define reality without actually proving his claims. What's next, you claiming to be Napoleon?
Of course you're correct, but this is what happens when one bases their worldview primarily on people's assertion of their individual rights over all else.
What about the responsibility inherent in bringing another human being into the world? What about the responsibility to not engage in practices that will bring harm to one's self or to others? If, as Dan's stance seems to lead to, the assertion of one's individual rights to the exclusion of all else is of primary importance, then what are the consequences to that worldview?
How do I balance my right to "self determination" against someone else's right to private property? If I am a starving, oppressed, poor, immigrant and I need food, clothes, shelter, and money in order to live out my right of "self determination", then can I assert that my right of "self determination" takes priority over the private property rights of someone else? Does my right to "self determination" override someone else's right to life in any other circumstances other than a mother ending the life of her child? Where can we find the authoritative list that tells us which rights have priority over which other rights?
It all seems to come down to, "My rights are all that is important, and f#@& my responsibilities.", doesn't it?
You can't cite one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.
Keep up and deal with what I'm actually saying.
That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Craig responded...
Once more Dan thinks that he can define reality without actually proving his claims.
It IS the reality. If it's not, then proving me wrong is simple:
Provide "one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY."
IF you could do that, you would.
You can't. You are entirely impotent and completely incapable of putting up even ONE authority or source of data which proves this claim authoritatively.
If you could do it, you would have. Lots of pro-lifers would, because it would destroy our arguments and force us to agree with you.
But you don't and you never have and you never will because that authority does not exist.
Now, YOU are the one making the claim. I am merely stating firmly that I'm confident that you can't prove that and provide the authority/data to prove it as I've never seen it.
IF YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITATIVE DATA/PERSON TO CITE, CITE THEM.
The onus is on you to prove your rather unlikely claim.
I'm not sure what you're failing to understand about how wrong you are on this hunch you have, as far as it being a certain hunch incapable of being wrong. Where is the humility and intellectual honesty?
I know, I know. Conservatives long ago gave that up, going instead for pharisaical hypocrisy, bullying, fearmongering, conspiracy theories and authoritarianism.
this is what happens when one bases their worldview primarily on people's assertion of their individual rights over all else.
This, of course, does not apply to me because GOD FORBID, I don't believe that. Of course, I'm opposed to it ("individual rights over all else.") and it's no secret. I've always been abundantly clear that the racists' individual "right" to cause harm to black people and the homophobes individual "right" to oppress LGBTQ folks or marginalize them, etc... that those individual rights do NOT mean they have the freedom to cause harm or oppress or unjustly marginalize folks.
This is what happens (making stupidly false claims) when you have reading deficits where you routinely read what I and others have written or said (Jesus, for instance) and fail to understand the actual meaning of those words.
What about the responsibility to not engage in practices that will bring harm to one's self or to others?
You mean YOUR responsibility to NOT engage in forcing women to have babies when they have other opinions? You see the hypocrisy you all engage in? What you claim I'm doing, YOU are the ones doing.
Craig...
How do I balance my right to "self determination" against someone else's right to private property? If I am a starving, oppressed, poor, immigrant and I need food, clothes, shelter, and money in order to live out my right of "self determination", then can I assert that my right of "self determination" takes priority over the private property rights of someone else?
In a Christian community of grace, of course, we would expect the starving immigrant would take what they need to stop themselves or the children from starving. We would encourage them and work with them to find housing.
Embrace grace, fellas. It's a much better heaven than the hellscape of religious oppression you all chase after.
That's absolutely the case, Craig. Those like Dan....more specifically, the moron that is Dan...pretend they care about things like "self-determination", but ignore the right of self-determination of the unborn simply because the unborn have no ability to defend their rights without good adults of compassion, honor and true Christian spirit (Christian or not) to stand on their behalf. Scumbags like Dan are too busy trying to pretend in order to garner favor with the worst of us, while we struggle to defend the least of us against them. Dan's a poser. A liar of the worst kind. He's no Christian and not likely to ever be one. I wonder if he's representative of the entirety of his cherished "Jeff St." or an rank aberration his congregation merely tolerates as they do other vile and evil people.
1. The unborn child IS alive - at least that's what I think. Different people from different religions and philosophies disagree with this notion, or at least with the notion that the fetus has a soul/has personhood."
What Dan is clarifying here is his equivocation. It really doesn't matter what others think. What matters is what Dan thinks and why he thinks it. His reasoning is clearly based on the thoughts of unnamed others, as if that somehow provides him with justification for his evil disregard for the unborn.
The unborn is a person, much more so than is Dan, but very much so like the vast majority of those lucky enough to have been allowed to pass entirely through the birth canal. Dan...like so many assholes...pretends that point of life is where they attain the right to be regarded as the people...the persons...they are.
"2. What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus."
What we know for sure is that such people are people at that particular stage of human development. Dan hasn't developed as a human enough to think rationally, yet insists his opinion on the humanity of others is somehow as rational and intelligent as the opinions of real Christians and those similar to them. The unborn are people, far more deserving of life than is Dan and others who dare regard themselves as having authority to dictate who else is or isn't deserving. Frankly, should Dan meet an untimely end...God forbid...I wouldn't...couldn't shed a tear, except to know there is one less asshole who has no regard for the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. THAT would compel tears of joy.
"3. What YOU CAN'T PROVE is that this living fetus has a right to life that trumps any health decisions that the mother may make."
Identical to Dan's ancestors and their disregard for the humanity of their slaves...and likely for more disregard, in fact...Dan believes good people need to prove that the unborn are somehow less deserving of life than the mothers who seek to murder them for no legit reasons...as no such reasons exist. Like all other pro-abortion scum, Dan couches his bullshit with appeals to "health concerns", as if any exist which justify the the murder of the unborn. Again, there are none, and many who specialize in difficult pregnancies affirm this fact.
There's only one reason to abort....to abdicate one's responsibility to the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind. Any time Dan speaks of "the least of these" or "the historically oppressed", he's lying as if he's trying to best Joe Biden as worst liar of our time. Let's call him Dan Isuzu.
"You can't prove your theories, Glenn can't prove this theory. You just want to INSIST BY LAW that YOUR PERSONAL theories are the ones that should determine what a pregnant woman can and can't do with that fetus."
In typical lying lefty rationalization, Dan wants to pretend what is fact is only theory. Science affirms the existence of a new and unique human being at the moment of conception, and Dan wants to play games with arbitrary points of time when such people are granted full respect. What a f**king nazi Dan is. Even slavers of the antebellum south gave more respect to the lives of their human property than Dan does to the most vulnerable people.
"IF you could prove it, you all would do so."
The proof has been provided and confirmed by science. It's not even a debatable point, except to assholes for whom sexual pleasure is more important than the lives of those produced as a result of it.
And while science has provided for us all the proof we need...as if simple Christian love of one's fellow man isn't enough...Dan doesn't do jack shit to provide anything remotely resembling proof which justifies his vile disregard for the lives of those in utero. He simply picks an arbitrary point in their lives...prior to the finish of their gestational period...as ripe for his evil rejection of their humanity. Again, even the slaves of the pre-Civil War era were granted more regard. That's how vile and evil Dan is.
"...you just declare you're right and expect everyone else to abandon their own religions and philosophical autonomy and bow down to the boy-gods like Craig and Glenn and Marshal."
This is rich. Dan believes he can maintain his evil rejection of the humanity of those in utero because others of different religions and philosophies are as evil as he is. I don't even rely on my own more accurate understanding of Christianity to maintain what to me is beyond blatantly obvious in its truthfulness. It's just so clear that when a male and female engage in the act meant to produce offspring that what is produced is a person. It's basic. It's obvious. It's truth in its most pure form. The truth is anathema to Dan. Dan is anathema to Christianity.
"So, you don't like my definition of personhood. By all means, give your definition of it, Craig. And THEN prove your concept of personhood is actually True."
As Dan so loves dictionary definitions, all one can find say the same thing. A person is a human being. What develops in a woman's womb from the moment of conception is a human being and thus a person. Calling it a "fetus" or a "human fetus" is only describing a stage of human development as if "infant", "toddler", "child", "adolescent", "teenager", "adult". Yet all are people...persons... of varying degrees of physical development. Once again, it is up to the murdering bastards like Dan to PROVE that there is some way to separate persons at one stage of development from being less a person than any other. There is no way to do so and because of that, there is no way to legitimately deny the full "personhood" of the unborn at any stage of development from conception onward.
"Do you have that level of integrity?"
It's funny hearing a scumbag like Dan speaking of integrity as if he has a single shred of it.
"BUT, you are not free to force your hunches on others, you religious fascist."
It's funny hearing a scumbag like Dan speaking of fascism while he forces his murderous intentions on so many innocent and vulnerable people.
"That's the point. None of us can prove if or when a fetus has a right to life that trumps and overrides any concerns the mother may have."
Dan wants to frame this issue as one of competing interests between a parent and the parent's child. Dan wants to pretend there's some actual argument for supporting the notion a parent's life...or "concerns"...is more important than the life of the parent's child, just because the child is still in utero. We say the proof is in the very fact that the child is a person...a human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life assholes like Dan have abdicated by their vile disregard for the lives of those unborn people. Dan simply pretends we can't know. That's bullshit and typical of just how little regard Dan has for any actual people over the political/philosophical bullshit we know as "leftism".
"That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
Yes, I recognize that you are saying that, repeatedly. The problem is that you've chose to ignore the humanity of the child and implicitly assert that the mother's property rights override the child's right to life. A position you haven't even attempted to prove. The fact that you say something doesn't mean that it's true.
"IF you could do that, you would."
The problem isn't that I won't prove you wrong, it's that you can't prove your assertion, you simply announce that something is reality and pretend like you have the standing to dictate what reality is. You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
Of course, making these absurd demands does take time away from you answering the unanswered questions you've been avoiding so I can see why you do it.
"Now, YOU are the one making the claim."
No. This is simply false. I have NEVER made the claim "that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.". Never, not one single time. You have made this bullshit up and created a fantasy world where I've made claims that you invented. Why would any sane human support a claim that someone else made up and attributed to them>
"Where is the humility and intellectual honesty?"
Certainly not with you. How is it intellectually honest to make something up and insist that I made your made up bullshit claim?
"You mean YOUR responsibility to NOT engage in forcing women to have babies when they have other opinions? You see the hypocrisy you all engage in?"
No, I mean your responsibility to protect the innocent and vulnerable from harm. But I applaud the effort you've gone to in avoiding answering questions.
"How do I balance my right to "self determination" against someone else's right to private property? If I am a starving, oppressed, poor, immigrant and I need food, clothes, shelter, and money in order to live out my right of "self determination", then can I assert that my right of "self determination" takes priority over the private property rights of someone else?"
"In a Christian community of grace, of course, we would expect the starving immigrant would take what they need to stop themselves or the children from starving. We would encourage them and work with them to find housing."
I must have missed Jesus' command to steal. But either way, you didn't actually answer the question. Just made a comment full of unsupported blather based on your presumptions.
"Embrace grace, fellas. It's a much better heaven than the hellscape of religious oppression you all chase after."
Ahhhhhhh, Dan the person who shows absolutely zero grace toward those he despises call for others to show grace to him. Just more double standard.
"What Dan is clarifying here is his equivocation."
In a sense you are right, but I think it's more than that. Much like his views on morality, he seems to want to have a foot in the scientific camp that acknowledges that the pre born child is a living, unique, individual, human being, but to deny that the child has a right to keep what he or she already possesses. What's he's saying is either, a) that the living child has life, but doesn't have the right to keep it, b) that the mother's property rights override and cancel the child's right to keep the life he or she already has. As the wise Dr Seuss once said, "A person is a person, no matter how small.".
"The unborn child IS alive", "What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus."
How is it that someone can be emphatic that the unborn child "IS alive", while unsure of whether or not the child is "living". Is there some sort of disconnect between living and being alive?
This is so bizarre, because I (for one) am emphatically NOT making a "religious" argument. I certainly don't want to impose my religious views on anyone. Although Dan does seem to lean that direction.
"This is simply false. I have NEVER made the claim "that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.". Never, not one single time. "
So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?
For people like Dan who think if they call it a fetus that proves it isn't yet human, think about the fact that "fetus" is a Latin word brough into th English language(as so many other words). Fetus simply means "offspring", "bringing forth", "hatching of young." A human fetus is a human offspring, i.e. a live human.
You mean YOUR responsibility to NOT engage in forcing women to have babies when they have other opinions? You see the hypocrisy you all engage in? What you claim I'm doing, YOU are the ones doing.
No one is forcing a woman to have a baby. She is responsible for any baby she starts by having sexual relations. If she's pregnant she already has a baby. Opinions do not trump medical/scientific facts. It is a 100% proven fact that what is conceived is a living human being. What sane people want is to prevent the murder of the baby the woman already has inside of her. No one forced her to have that baby. (Yes, a rapist could be said to forcing her to have a baby, but rape resulting in a child has been proven to be statistically rare, which is still not a reason to murder the innocent child inside of the woman.)
I answered questions from Craig about homeless, needy immigrants saying...
In a Christian community of grace, of course, we would expect the starving immigrant would take what they need to stop themselves or the children from starving. We would encourage them and work with them to find housing.
Embrace grace, fellas. It's a much better heaven than the hellscape of religious oppression you all chase after.
Craig responded. ..
Dan the person who shows absolutely zero grace toward those he despises call for others to show grace to him. Just more double standard.
And...
This is so bizarre, because I (for one) am emphatically NOT making a "religious" argument.
I am speaking to the worldview of religious conservatives. The type who, like you, Craig, have to ask if it's moral for the starving to take that which wasn't theirs to keep from starving. I noted for the progressive minded out here, Christian and otherwise, the answer is clear: Yes! Take what you need to keep from starving, as long as you're not harming others, this is the response from progressive folk. I'm noting how heavenly and beautiful such a landscape would be. As opposed to the pharisaical piling of burdens on the shoulders of the least of these.
So there's that. And of course, you're just mistaken to think I despise you fellas who are very much like me, once upon a time. Very much like my beloved parents and conservative friends. Despise you? I love you fellas. If I despised you, I wouldn't bother talking with you.
I do strongly disagree, even despise some of the positions you take and religious views you hold. But despise you? Hardly, any more than I hate my younger self or friends who are conservative in your kind of way, still.
Truly a religious argument is unnecessary when science so emphatically supports the notion of a unique human being existing from the moment of conception. It takes a leftist to pretend there's some point afterward at which a conceived person can expect his fellow human beings to protect his/her life as having equal value to anyone else, instead of from that moment of conception. But no, scum pretends because it has not yet had the opportunity to pass through the birth canal, said person can be regarded as less than a person and wholly without standing as regards having its right to life protected.
It can't be said enough: It is up to the leftist asshole to defend the notion a person is not a person for whatever arbitrary, self-serving and subjective reason the leftist chooses to use. Such arguments truly indict the leftist as being unworthy of the right to life as is any other convicted of murder in the first degree. The unborn didn't show up by accident. In the vast majority of cases...indeed, in all cases... it was invited...willingly, most often eagerly...by the choice to engage in the very act designed to bring about a new person, by one or both of the parents of the child. To then say it's a bad time, is too bad for the parents. They are obligated to at the very least bring that child to term so that good people can adopt or raise it. They are obligated because there is no one who doesn't know how people come into existence. There are only assholes who try to insist there's some question as to whether or not every person has the right to live which outweighs the inconvenience of the parents.
I'm tired of hearing I shouldn't regard Dan as evil, given the evil he manifests with his comments so routinely. He is indeed and evil person who mocks God by daring to label himself Christian. His disregard for the unborn is testament to that. It is the bad fruit by which we can identify him.
"This is so bizarre, because I (for one) am emphatically NOT making a "religious" argument."
What argument ARE you making? That you, as one NOT trained as a medical or obstetrics expert, think in your head that it makes sense to you that the newly conceived zygote has a right to life that trumps any considerations the pregnant woman may have? That's an okay philosophy for you to hold personally. Hold that philosophy. But don't presume to speak for Science as if you were the omniscient Lord of Science.
You ain't.
Craig ...
"I certainly don't want to impose my religious views on anyone. Although Dan does seem to lean that direction."
Stupidly false. You can't point to a single place where I've ever said, My religion teaches X... therefore, X should be the law because that's what my religion teaches. In fact, I've clearly stood against such religioning.
Really, your reading comprehension needs to be tested.
1. The very notion that you would say that I was making a religious argument, when you cannot find one actual example of me doing so, indicates your inability to allow things like facts get in the way of your preconceived notions, biases, and prejudices.
2. My argument is primarily based in science. What science tells us about the beginning of life. What science tells us about the complete uniqueness of an unborn child. What I see when I view a 4d Ultrasound. Finally, on the law.
3. I reject the notion that the unborn child is the property of the mother to do with as she wishes, and I reject the notion that the unborn are not living human beings.
"That you, as one NOT trained as a medical or obstetrics expert, think in your head that it makes sense to you that the newly conceived zygote has a right to life that trumps any considerations the pregnant woman may have?"
No, I have never once made that specific claim. That specific claim is one that you have invented and continue to pretend that I have made.
"That's an okay philosophy for you to hold personally. Hold that philosophy. But don't presume to speak for Science as if you were the omniscient Lord of Science."
Again, I have never once done this. Strangely enough, you tend to do this frequently.
"Stupidly false. You can't point to a single place where I've ever said, My religion teaches X... therefore, X should be the law because that's what my religion teaches. In fact, I've clearly stood against such religioning. Really, your reading comprehension needs to be tested."
Really. You've never offered the story of Jesus quoting Isiah as a rationale to shape immigration law? You've never promulgated the Mary/Joseph/Jesus illegal immigrant falsehood as a way to inform your stance on immigration?
I guess it's OK to ignore your blatant lies and refusal to answer questions as long as you can paint my opinions about you as false.
"Despise you? I love you fellas. If I despised you, I wouldn't bother talking with you."
You have an incredibly bizarre way of demonstrating love and grace.
The fact that you choose not to separate me as an individual from your prejudices, preconceptions, and biases about your caricature of what conservatives are demonstrates that you clearly don't love me. The fact that you are condescending, vitriolic, vulgar, and hateful, is a clear sign that you aren't acting in love.
So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?
I'm not answering for Craig but I will put it this way: The baby the pregnant woman is carrying is a separate, distinct human being with the right to life--a right EVERY human has. The woman carrying the bably has no moral right to terminate it, therefore the living human inside her has a right to life that trumps any decision she might make about aborting it.
You make an excellent point. The choices that lead to becoming pregnant are many, and obvious. I think that I identified 9-10 specific choices that all need to be made before one gets pregnant. Once one IS pregnant then they are reduced to only two choices.
1. Assume responsibility for the unique, individual, human being, living and growing in their womb.
2. End the life of that unique, individual, human being.
The fact that too many people irresponsibly place themselves in this dilemma, and that folks like Dan encourage their irresponsibility, doesn't bode well.
Given the propensity of people who tend to vote for and support leftist candidates and policies, there is a part of me that wants to let the political left abort it's future, and to encourage more leftists to engage in lifestyles where reproduction isn't possible.
Finally, wasn't there some lefty candidate a while back who touted abortion as a major factor in lower crime rates?
I'm going to note something here. The topic of this post is the similarity of the arguments for slavery in the US, to the arguments for abortion. I can't ignore that fact that Dan has repeatedly used some of these arguments in his defense of abortion in this thread. Oblivious to the fact that he's using the arguments that were advanced to enslave blacks.
I guess he really does buy into "By any means necessary".
Dan. this isn't a lie. It's an opinion based on your actions and words.
The similarity is more than obvious. Indeed, it's not merely "similar". It's the exact same thing, with possibly the abortionist being far worse than the slaver...a possibility easily exposed given with slavers it was merely a matter of whether or not slaves had rights. Here, Dan argues against the humanity of the unborn, presuming there's a legit question of whether or not the unborn at its initial stage is somehow less deserving of having its right to life protected simply due to its size and age, as well as the undefended suggestion that a woman's preferences are more important than the life of her own child invited into existence by her actions. Said another way, Dan simply pays lip service to the humanity of the unborn, while clearly demonstrating he has no respect whatsoever for their lives or the reality that they are people already endowed by their Creator with the right to life. Dan's thus worse than a mere murderer. He regards these unfortunate and most vulnerable people as things...objects...property maybe.
I have no love whatsoever for Dan. Whether he lives or dies is of no concern to me, particularly so long as he remains in such obvious rebellion against the Christ he mocks by his behaviors and disregard for others. I don't believe he gives a flying rat's ass about "the starving" or anyone else, but only about how he appears to fools who fall for his crap. To honest people, he appears as he is...a liar and a vile representative of fallen humanity.
"Before I answer, how about if you answer one specific questions."
Which one?
"Does an unborn, individual, unique. living human child have a right to life?"
My personal, unproven, unprovable opinion is that, yes, that fetus has a right to life... so that, for instance, if someone shoots the mother and she survives but the fetus dies, that shooter has wrongly killed that fetus and should be held accountable.
But, does the fetus have a right to life that trumps the pregnant woman's self determination (the question you keep dodging)...?, that is what we don't know objectively. I tend to think no. The mother has the right to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. Period.
":Does the mother have property rights to the unborn, unique, individual, living, being?"
No. The fetus is not "property."
"In general do property rights trump the right to life?"
No.
"If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being, does have a right to life, when does is that right endowed?"
Above my pay grade (and yours) My unproven and unprovable opinion is that a limited right to life begins at roughly conception.
"If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being has life (ie is living), then how can they not have a right to what they already possess?"
My opinion is that they DO have a limited right to life. Just not one that trumps all other concerns.
"You've never offered the story of Jesus quoting Isiah as a rationale to shape immigration law?"
No. Never.
"You've never promulgated the Mary/Joseph/Jesus illegal immigrant falsehood as a way to inform your stance on immigration?"
No. Never.
My views ARE informed by the teachings of Christ my Lord.
But I NEVER have argued for policy based in my religious views. My views on immigration, for instance, are ALSO informed by basic human rights and decency
I've always been strongly opposed to legislating policies based on a given religion.
I have pointed out to Christians why such policies are, of course, completely consistent with Christian teaching, but that's not saying I'm arguing for policy based on religious opinions.
"I guess he really does buy into "By any means necessary".
Dan. this isn't a lie. It's an opinion based on your actions and words."
It's literally a false claim. I do not believe, of course, in the notion of by any means necessary. Now, you are free to hold that false opinion, just like you can believe that your shit tastes good, but that doesn't mean it will taste good.
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
No.
"My opinion is that they DO have a limited right to life."
What exactly are these limits?
Who imposes these limits?
Can these limits be curtailed, limited, or ended, based on the convenience of others?
"The mother has the right to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. Period."
Where is this right enumerated?
When does this right end?
Does this right include the right to drink heavily or used drugs that affect the unborn child during pregnancy?
Are the any limits to this right of mothers to end the lives of their children?
It's interesting that you claim that you have these personal opinions on this topic, yet your public position contradicts these positions you claim to have. You claim that your faith informs your positions, yet what in your faith or the teachings of Jesus leads you to conclude that mothers have the right to end the lives of their unborn children?
"It's interesting that you claim that you have these personal opinions on this topic, yet your public position contradicts these positions you claim to have."
While waiting for you to answer, here's another question...
Of course, you're just flatly wrong in this comment but I'm curious what you THINK I've claimed that is contradicted by my public position..?
These last two comments are without a doubt the stupidest comments you've even made. I've literally answered every question you've asked (it's possible that I missed one or two), while you've literally ignored multiple questions I've asked. I have no idea what planet you live on, but it's clearly not this one. Now I know why I question your ability to define reality.
You've been quite clear that much, if not all, of your moral framework (based out of your faith) is based on not causing harm to others. Especially those who are innocent, sinless, helpless, oppressed, and the like. You claim that your personal opinion is that unborn children are living, human beings that have some (undefined, vague, amorphous) right to some sort of life. yet you vociferously protect the right of mothers to unilaterally end the life within them at any point, for any reason. To me, ending the life of a human being constitutes harm. It's clear that unborn children feel pain during the abortion procedure as their skull is punctured and their brains are suctioned out, that seems harmful. Further, we have multiple instances of "failed" abortions where a living, breathing child is left to die, which again seems harmful. We, even further, have increasing evidence that abortion is linked to multiple harmful effects of the mothers. Cancer, PTSD, infertility, risk to future pregnancies and children, and the like. Those things all seem harmful, yet you vociferously protect the rights of women to engage in or risk all of those harms, despite your alleged moral code.
Just one more question answered, while the list of unanswered questions stay unanswered.
If you're going to leave and do so with a host of unanswered questions in your wake, it's probably better if you just slink away instead of this idiotic, bullshit, virtue signaling crap that bears no relationship to reality.
But if you want to show me the questions I've missed, I'll answer those too. I'm an imperfect, finite, man with limited time and it's possible that despite my best efforts, I might occasionally miss something.
These last two comments are without a doubt the stupidest comments you've even made. I've literally answered every question you've asked
I had asked...
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
And you replied...
I love how you jump ahead, make shit up, and try to use this sort of bullshit tactic to pretend you've won something.
Before I answer, how about if you answer one specific questions.
In other words, you have not answered and even acknowledged you haven't answered the question:
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
Because that IS the question that needs to be answered, isn't it? You all, in your heads, THINK but can't prove that the fetal "right to life" exists and trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might have, right?
NOTE: I'm asking that as a question based on what I think all of your have made abundantly cleared. After all, that's the point, right? You want to criminalize/remove abortion as an option for women (except maybe in some very rare cases, some of you might allow it) because you think, in your heads, that a fetus has a right to life that begins at conception AND that this right is all important, overriding the mother's rights to make decisions about the pregnancy.
My point is that just because you all, in your heads, THINK that the fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations the pregnant woman has, you can't prove it. No one can. It's an unsupported and unproven and unprovable position.
Don't forget, Craig...what, for Dan, counts as an answered question is subjective and self-serving. Any dumbass question he asks...and there are many...always...requires an answered put forth in a specific manner beyond which he will assert the question wasn't answered. And that's including his REALLY dumbass questions which don't even deserve the dignity of a response.
In the meantime, direct and unequivocal questions by us go unanswered, or answered in a way he would never accept were the roles reversed. Engaging "in good faith" is a freaking punchline to this guy. He doesn't know the meaning of the phrase or consciously disregards it as liars will.
And the biggest lie of this conversation is that which demands we "PROVE" people are people, while he asserts some aren't people for subjective and unscientific reasons which have no proof of their own. This is what "embracing grace" looks like to a fraud. He's worse than his slaver ancestors. FAR worse.
"In other words, you have not answered and even acknowledged you haven't answered the question:"
And now, the rest of the story. I made my answer conditional on your finally answering some specific questions. You did respond to/answer those questions, so I answered yours. In other words, I did exactly what I said I would do, and answered your question. On 12/26/22 at 8:59, to be precise.
In other words, your last three comments have been based on you choosing to ignore my answer to your question
"Because that IS the question that needs to be answered, isn't it?"
No.
"You all, in your heads, THINK but can't prove that the fetal "right to life" exists and trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might have, right?"
I don't speak for anyone except myself. My answer is still no.
"After all, that's the point, right?"
No.
"You want to criminalize/remove abortion as an option for women (except maybe in some very rare cases, some of you might allow it) because you think, in your heads, that a fetus has a right to life that begins at conception AND that this right is all important, overriding the mother's rights to make decisions about the pregnancy."
Again, I don't speak for anyone but myself. Your above statement as far as I am concerned is false, It might be True to some degree for others, but it doesn't represent anything I have ever said. But you've always has a problem with not dealing with individuals and what they've said. You prefer to deal with groups and your caricature of what you think people have said.
"My point is that just because you all, in your heads, THINK that the fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations the pregnant woman has, you can't prove it. No one can. It's an unsupported and unproven and unprovable position."
I don't really care what your unproven, unsupported hunch might be. You won't prove this claim any more than you'll prove any other claim you make.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Since nothing you've said actually represents the reality of anything I've said or believe, I'll have to say that this is one more example of your trying too define reality based on your prejudgements, biases, prejudices, and fantasies.
"More questions to go unanswered."
"Unanswered", I don't think that means what you think it means.
If by "unanswered" you mean individually, specifically, concisely answered, then you are correct.
The fact that you just ignore my answers in order to repeat this baseless charge, makes me wonder about your attention span, sanity, and reading comprehension.
Meanwhile, the list of questions you've actually not answered likely just grew longer.
Of course he does, which is why I almost always answer them in some way or another. For many people, answering their questions, even the stupid, nonsensical ones, would stop them from making this baseless claims. Dan seems to ignore the actual answers and keep making the same ridiculous claim over and over. Like most of his claims, he simply makes them, declares them to be "reality", and doesn't actually prove them.
I suspect that Dan sometimes asks questions as a diversion, instead of because he actually wants an answer. I suspect this because I've regularly answered his questions at length an din great detail (with follow up questions for him) and have gotten zero response to or acknowledgement of my answers. I can't think of a time when he referenced an answer to a question in a response. It seems like it's more about him furthering the narrative that I don't answer questions, than an interest in the answers.
The above is a great example of this. I literally answered his question with a simple direct, concise answer, yet he insists that I didn't answer it at all. He's choosing to ignore the reality of my answer in favor of the narrative that he's clinging to.
"You want to criminalize/remove abortion as an option for women (except maybe in some very rare cases, some of you might allow it)....
Craig: I don't speak for anyone but myself. Your above statement as far as I am concerned is false, It might be True to some degree for others, but it doesn't represent anything I have ever said.
Sigh.
So you DON'T want to see abortion made illegal/not an option for women?
You DO support women if they think that an abortion is the best choice for them?
The answer is, of course, a certain No for Glenn, Marshal and many others and I'm pretty sure it's a No for you. If so, and it's NOT the case that you support women choosing an abortion, then I don't know what in my comment is false, even though you said it's false. Maybe you can explain yourself?
But I doubt that's forthcoming.
Craig...
I suspect that Dan sometimes asks questions as a diversion, instead of because he actually wants an answer.
I ask questions to TRY to get a direct answer. Not this "yes, but no, but yes, but that's not what I said, but yes, it is what I said but it's not what I said..." BS.
The fact that you continue to ask questions, while pretending that you haven't ignored multiple questions would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. In much the same way that you choose not to acknowledge that I did answer all of the questions you said that I wouldn;t answer.
"So you DON'T want to see abortion made illegal/not an option for women?"
1. What I might want is immaterial, I don't have the ability to force my wants on others.
2. My preference would be that the 98% of abortions that are done for convenience would be eliminated.
3. My preference would be to do so through persuasion, and positive alternatives rather than coercion.
4. I realize that I might have to compromise my preferences in the real world, and have been very specific in the past as to what comprises I could live with.
"You DO support women if they think that an abortion is the best choice for them?"
No, in general I do not support any act which causes harm to oneself or others. In general I believe that our children should be protected not have their lives ended prematurely. I believe that selflessness is better than selfishness.
In short, I believe that abortion should be restricted but not eliminated.
"I'm pretty sure it's a No for you."
This is what happens when you make assumptions based on your prejudices, preconceptions, and biases, and act as if those assumptions were True.
I have explained my position on abortion multiple times over the years. If you are too stupid, or lack the ability to remember it, that's your problem. The fact that you are too lazy to treat me as an individual, but choose to project your assumptions on me based on others, is also not my problem.
I'll point out that your lack of response to the instances where I answer you would lead any reasonable person to conclude otherwise.
Yet, the unanswered questions in this thread alone still linger while Dan goes on the offensive instead of answering.
"This is what happens when you make assumptions based on your prejudices, preconceptions, and biases, and act as if those assumptions were True."
And...
"My preference would be to do so through persuasion, and positive alternatives rather than coercion."
You see, the problem is, you keep saying your answer is NO, but then demonstrating through your obfuscation that your answer is, indeed, YES.
You would LIKE to convince women using your reasoning that you know the answer better than they do is to NOT have an abortion... BUT failing that, you want to create legislation to prevent roughly 98% of women from having an abortion, by weight of law, right?
If these 98% of women and their medical team refuse to heed your laws, then do you want to punish them for committing murder? If so, how is that not criminalizing abortion?
Look, I fully get that you, in your gratitude Male Privilege, are allowing a few exceptions. That was never my point. My point is that your side certainly wants to criminalize abortion and prevent by law most women from choosing an abortion, and in your vagueness, you sound like you do too.
"BUT failing that, you want to create legislation to prevent roughly 98% of women from having an abortion, by weight of law, right?"
I wouldn't say I'd like to, but it is an option I would potentially support.
"If these 98% of women and their medical team refuse to heed your laws, then do you want to punish them for committing murder?"
No.
"If so, how is that not criminalizing abortion?"
It's not so.
My point, not that you care, is that you are obsessed with assigning positions to individual people based on your hunches about what you perceive as their "side" wants to do, and are willing to make all sorts of leaps of logic and assumptions in order to avoid dealing with me as an individual, as opposed to me as a part of some "group" that you've assigned me to. Although, you are quite willing to lecture me about what my answers are, by choosing to interpret my answers any way necessary to prop up your prejudiced hunches.
FYI, I've addressed these topics in great specificity elsewhere. I'm curious as to why I must regurgitate what I've already said because you're too lazy or forgetful to do some research. If you don't ignore this like many questions, keep in mind that you have a history of getting worked up when asked nicely to reiterate something you've said earlier.
Still no answers, responses to my answers, or acknowledgement that I've answered virtually all of your questions.
But, more questions from you that must be answered promptly.
Dan needs to defend the evil of his position which is clear in the following:
"You all, in your heads, THINK but can't prove that the fetal "right to life" exists and trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might have, right?"
First, he wants to pretend we only "think" the person in utero has the unalienable right to life endowed upon the person by that person's Creator.
Second, he wants to pretend there's some legitimate way to argue the person in utero is not in fact a person equally entitled to Constitutional protections of that person's life as is the mother of that person seeking that person's destruction.
Third, he wants to assert that there is some decision by a pregnant woman which outweigh the right to life of the person whose existence she invited by her choice to engage in the very act designed and intended to bring about the existence of another person, even if that decision has no bearing on the fact her own life is not in any way threatened by her pregnancy to any extent which can legitimately require the termination of that person in her womb in order to resolve it, since no pregnancy can so require such a thing.
Dan wants to argue we are granting the unborn equal importance and value it does not have in order to argue for its preservation over the "decisions" and "self-determination" of it mother, when those are just leftist weasel words...lies, that is...to rationalize the selfishness of the act of murdering an innocent person who stands in the way of another person's desires.
And what is abortion but the termination of the life of a person Dan pretends is neither a person nor a person equal to any other who exists outside its mother's womb? Given that reality, without just cause...and there truly is none...abortion is another word for murder, and Dan somehow believes this form is not worthy of legal prohibition because it interferes with the self-determination of a woman, in the very same way any other murderer makes the same defense.
Dan wants US to defend the reality of the infant's "personhood" when in truth, he needs to find a way to defend the vile position evil asshats like him promote without legit scientific or religious basis there's any question about it. Like all scum, Dan denies truth, fact and reality in order to defend evil, pretending there's something wrong with those of us who defend truth, fact, reality and the lives of those truly oppressed and threatened by scum.
Dan is convinced that it's somehow evil for anyone to think that not allowing a woman to end the life of the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being, growing inside of her body at any time and for any reason. By his insistence that only the woman can make this decision, he's automatically excluding the father from any role in the decision. Yet somehow, it's some horrible punishment for a woman to do what she is designed (evolved, etc) to do. It's better for a woman not to protect her child, but to end the life of her child. It all comes down to his adamant asserting that we don't know, we can't know, anything for certain. Therefore (he concludes) it is better to allow women the ability to dispose of their unborn (etc) child at their whim, and without apparent regard to the harm. His default position is that it's preferable to end the life of the unborn child, than to temporarily inconvenience the mother.
Your last sentence is the tell. But as I said, that's absolutely no different than the position of any murderer. They murder so as not to be inconvenienced by another person.
It's strange that Dan can't really define personhood, or give us any specifics about how, when, etc, but he simply wants us to accept and defend his hunch about what personhood might be.
He wants us to accept that the selfish demands of the mother outweigh the life of the child resulting from her actions and choices. To mask it in concern for the mother, as if the mother was without the means to protect her womb from unwanted conception, is just another lie he tells.
It's far stranger Dan expects anyone to respect every and any cheap rationalization parents might make as if they're worthy of it. They're not.
BTW, I use "parents" intentionally, because I'm not unaware of the role fathers play in this debate, especially in cases where they've pressured the woman to get the abortion. I saw an article putting forth the notion that most abortions are done under pressure on the women from their sex partner or families or others, which belies the argument for their "self-determination". I don't know how accurate the article was with their data, but no doubt many cases are the result of such pressures which are far worse than cultural pressures to do the right thing and bring the baby to term.
I think that part of the problem involves ignoring the science one again, and pretending as if the unborn child, just magically appeared in the womb of the mother. Pretending that the mother didn't invite, at least, the probability of bearing a child through her actions. Pretending that it's not possible to prevent pregnancy in almost all circumstances and that despite that almost nothing is 100% effective. It's basic biology that if you give in to your sexual desires often enough, that you increase your chances of pregnancy.
The role of fathers in this is mystifying. If the woman decides to keep the child, regardless of the desires of the father, then the father is 100% on the hook for the financial support of the child. If the mother decides to and the child's life, the father has absolutely zero say on the matter at all.
This is more and more about enabling women to engage in sex with as close to zero negative consequences as possible, while ignoring the increasing amount of evidence that this sort of lifestyle comes with it's own negative consequences.
This is just what Dan's feminism looks like. It's no different than the selfishness of women protected as if it's a legitimate "right". Self-determination for low character women. None for the women in utero.
It tends to be pretty selective in practice. I do struggle with the reality that the left is going to abort/trans/and LGBT themselves out of existence at some point. Much of their agenda seems to lower the number of offspring they have.
116 comments:
Slavery and abortion: two of the Democrats' most cherished institutions.
I can think of three or four off the top of my head:
1. Slavery.
2. Corporations/corporate activity. (except when they say the corporation IS a person that can pay to influence policy).
3. Religion.
4. Marriage/family/how one treats their wife and children.
5. You might add "polluting" if you count Polluting as an institution. Or otherwise abusing/misusing the Environment.
Slavery and abortion.
Well, Dan got one of the two. Not bad. Of course his other guesses, miss the mark entirely.
His other guesses are really stupid. They're not "guesses" of course, but attempts to equate apples with oranges in order to push his perverse ideology.
Says who? Empty claims are meaningless. As always.
That YOU don't recognize the danger of religion laying claim over people or the notion of some religious folks over others doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the real world. Of course, it does. Observably so.
Same for patriarchy.
Your empty dismissing of it is not proof that these should be dismissed.
Of course.
I'm not even sure what Dan is babbling about. History tells us exactly what the arguments for slavery were, and the news tells us what the arguments for abortion are.
As far as his guesses, in the absence of any actual evidence (demonstrating who "says"), it's all juts more bullshit.
It's almost like he's afraid of the danger involved when we look at living, human beings as property.
You asked...
Historically these 4 arguments have been used to justify two institutions. Any guesses?
I replied with these possibilities (not guesses)...
A. Slavery
B. Industry/businesses (who routinely dismiss the value/rights of people and the environment as irrelevant or "their property," in function, if not literally).
C. Religion (in the case of people of color in the past, in the case of LGBTQ folks and women, oftentimes, today)
D. Marriage/family (how one treats their wife and children)
You replied...
Of course his other guesses, miss the mark entirely.
Also...
I'm not even sure what Dan is babbling about. History tells us exactly what the arguments for slavery were, and the news tells us what the arguments for abortion are.
1. I'm giving you four or five institutions for whom your list is not far off. Observably so.
2. "The news" does not argue that an unborn fetus is not a person. That's just stupidly false.
3. "The news" DOES cite people who argue that a WOMAN's body is her own and her own medical decisions about her own body ought not be dismissed just because some religious zealots want to tell her what she can and can't do (see my "C. Religion").
4. Thus, you ARE making a stronger case for religion presuming to tell others what they can and can't do, essentially taking away their rights and ultimately denying their full personhood.
Regarding your list of four, as it relates to abortion:
1. "It's not a person."
No one in the whole wide world denies that the fetus is not a human fetus. I don't think most people deny that it is a living human fetus. The QUESTION is: Does a fetus have all the rights (including a right to life) presumed for people who've been born.
THAT is what is not known, not provable one way or another. SOME religions/human traditions say yes. OTHER religions and traditions say, "not until it's born."
What you're proposing (those who want to criminalize the medical procedure of abortion) is NOT LETTING those who disagree with the religious or philosophical opinions about "right to life" get to make that decision for themselves.
"Does your religion disagree with mine? TOO BAD, your religion does not get the right to decide." Is what the anti-abortionists say, denying the liberty and free will of one living person in favor of their own religion.
That's a problem.
2. "It belongs to me."
I don't know that I've heard this in regards to the fetus. But I HAVE heard it used in regards to, "THIS DECISION about what to do with this pregnancy and my own damned body.. that DECISION belongs to me." And they're not wrong. Who in the hell says that the religious right gets to force their opinions on others and deny them their human liberty? This is not wrong, in this case.
3. "I can do with it as I please."
Same as above. THE DECISION about what to do with a pregnancy is the pregnant persons, not your pastor.
4. "The law is on my side."
Well, it used to be, long time ago and in various cultures. And then, it didn't used to be at least in the US and many other nations, then it was again and now it's not. This is rather pointless.
The point being: REASON and JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS land on the side of self-determination of the individual. UNTIL such time as you or I or anyone else can authoritatively PROVE that a fetus at some stage has a "right to life" that overrides the mother's preference, it's only an opinion that can not be proven.
Do you understand that reality?
I wonder Craig (Marshal, Glenn and other Pharisees out there): Do you all recognize that you can not prove that a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that a mother may have in her own self-determination?
Noting that the fetus is a human fetus is not proof of rights.
Noting that the fetus is a living human fetus, likewise, is not a proof of rights.
Noting that your particular religious or philosophical traditions disagrees with others, like many Jewish people, who do NOT belief a fetus is fully deserving of all rights... that is not proof of rights.
And also, given the incredible amount of whining and gnashing of teeth about so-called attempts to deny you your "religious freedom," are you all okay with denying others their religious freedom because you think your religion or philosophy ought to get to decide for themselves?
Do you at least recognize how arrogant and, well, pharisaical that is? Who died and made you all God?
"Embracing grace" apparently allows for murdering the unborn.
What's more, your post speaks of ALL FOUR of the arguments uniquely posed by slavery and abortion supporters. I don't think Dan's lame attempt can account for any of the others using all four as a matter of course.
Yes Dam, you had 4 guesses that might be able to be construed as making the 4 arguments I offered. However, I see nothing in you list other than slavery that makes all 4.
1. "Not far off". My point exactly. Those are not using all 4 of the arguments.
2. No, but the news covers a multitude of people who make the "not a person" argument. If you watch/read news coverage of the issue, you'll hear/read this argument regularly.
3. Yes, it does.
4. I'm not making a case at all. But feel free to make shit up to change the subject.
1. "Not a person". Yes, the fact that an unborn human child is indisputably a living human being poses a problem for the pro abortion folx. Therefore they had to invent the concept of person-hood, which is a term without a definition. Which is, of course, one of the justification for slavery.
2. Ohhhhhhhh. The "I haven't heard this" ploy. Therefore, since you haven't heard this, you'll make some shit up and construct an "argument" based on your made up shit.
3. A distinction with out a difference. But since you "haven't heard this", you really have no idea what others are actually saying.
4. This makes no sense.
No, i don't understand how you think you can define reality.
4.
"Do you all recognize that you can not prove that a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that a mother may have in her own self-determination?"
So? You can't prove any of the 4 claims made above overrides that child's right to life.
"Noting that the fetus is a human fetus is not proof of rights."
Really? Please prove this claim. Are not rights endowed by our creator to living humans? when do living humans actually get these rights? Why would you determine that certain humans are not endowed not endowed with basic human rights?
"Noting that the fetus is a living human fetus, likewise, is not a proof of rights."
Excellent, repeating yourself as if you've made a new point. Why is it not? Prove your claim.
"Noting that your particular religious or philosophical traditions disagrees with others, like many Jewish people, who do NOT belief a fetus is fully deserving of all rights... that is not proof of rights."
What "particular religious claim" have I made in this post? Where have I claimed that an unborn are deserving of "all rights"? If I haven't made these claims, how can you rationally say that I have?
"And also, given the incredible amount of whining and gnashing of teeth about so-called attempts to deny you your "religious freedom," are you all okay with denying others their religious freedom because you think your religion or philosophy ought to get to decide for themselves?"
Again, this is a claim about my actions that you haven't proven. If you can find examples of me making these claims, and provide links and quotes, then we could discuss your unproven claims. Since you haven't, I see no reason to validate your made up, bullshit, unproven claims by dignifying them with a response.
Dan wants to run with this crap about not being able to prove the value of the unborn, that somehow it does NOT have the same right to life he claims for his own sorry ass. But at the same time, this vermin does nothing to prove there's enough distinction between the unborn and its mother to justify the suggestion her life is more worthy of consideration. Again, to Dan, "embracing grace" means rationalizing the murder of the unborn. A more vile POS would be hard to find.
To answer your questions (and show how it's done)...
So? You can't prove any of the 4 claims made above overrides that child's right to life.
So? IF neither "side" can objectively prove their hunches about the status of personhood of the fetus, then we have a unprovable philosophy, all around. And I'm fine with that. I'm not wanting to force ANYONE to believe that a fetus is not deserving of full human rights/right to life. You want to believe that, believe it!
The difference is, then, that YOUR side wants to force by legislation your religion/philosophy on others who don't accept your unproven premise. On what reasonable basis should you all get to force your religious/philosophical opinions on to others?
THAT is an actual denial of the human right to self-determination, an actual, demonstrable human right abuse.
THAT is the answer to "SO?"
"Noting that the fetus is a human fetus is not proof of rights."
Really? Please prove this claim.
Easily: ANY CLAIM, of and by itself, is NOT PROOF of whatever they're stating. You have to have DATA and PROOF and not just a claim. A claim is meaningless, by itself. This is basic reasoning. You're proposing a logical fallacy: A claim without proof has the burden of proof to be accepted as rational. No proof, the claim is not supported.
Craig...
Are not rights endowed by our creator to living humans?
Not provably, no. Of course. Can you PROVE that? IF that's a claim you're making, you have the burden of proof to support it if you want it to be taken seriously.
Do I THINK this is likely correct? Yes. But I also acknowledge the reality that it's not provable.
when do living humans actually get these rights?
People agree that it is self evident that living, birthed human beings have a right to life. Do you disagree?
Why would you determine that certain humans are not endowed not endowed with basic human rights?
I'm not. I'm just acknowledging the reality that YOU CAN NOT PROVE and HAVE NOT PROVEN that fetus are endowed with an immutable right to life in the same way that birthed humans have.
Do you recognize that reality? I'm answering your questions, answer mine.
What "particular religious claim" have I made in this post? Where have I claimed that an unborn are deserving of "all rights"? If I haven't made these claims, how can you rationally say that I have?
You've made a philosophical claim that many conservative Christians (and others) believe in. I've used religious/philosophical interchangeably. You have a WORLDVIEW that is unproven when it comes to the personhood of a fetus and it having a right to life. It's an unproven philosophy.
And as you know, in our nation, it's largely a religious philosophy. Are you saying you DON'T think God has an opinion on fetal personhood and that's not your reason for holding your unproven hunch?
I did not say that you made a :religious claim." What I stated was:
Noting that
your particular religious or philosophical traditions disagrees with others,
like many Jewish people, who do NOT belief a fetus is fully deserving of all rights... that is not proof of rights.
Is it not the case that your unproven philosophical tradition believes (but hasn't proven) that a fetus has a right to life?
I'm answering your questions. How about answering mine?
Again, this is a claim about my actions that you have not proven.
Again, what I said:
And also, given the incredible amount of whining and gnashing of teeth about so-called attempts to deny you your "religious freedom," are
you all
okay with denying others their religious freedom because you think your religion or philosophy ought to get to decide for themselves?
I'm addressing the whining that goes on in the real world from religious conservatives about their "rights" (to deny services to gay folks, for instance) are being trampled.
Now, answer my question. If you don't want to deny Jewish folk the right to their religious views when it comes to abortion, then you can say so.
Dan,
big answer to the question asked is "So". What an excellent analysis of the situation.
Then he comes back with a definition of "proving" one's claim, instead of actually proving his claim. He's essentially contradicting himself by saying that his claim must have proof, while not providing proof.
"Not provably, no.
Then where do they come from?
"Of course. Can you PROVE that?"
Prove what? I can prove that in the US according to our founding documents that rights are "endowed by our Creator".
"Do I THINK this is likely correct?"
Do I care what you think? No. But an interesting tactic, you're trying to agree with the source of rights, but leave the door open to some other alternative. Excellent job of being equivocal.
"People agree that it is self evident that living, birthed human beings have a right to life. Do you disagree?"
So, because some people agree with your unproven premise, we must accept the premise as fact? Why would anyone do this? Does your claim that some people believe something come with proof? Does your claim prove the underlying premise, that only born humans have "all" the rights? Does your claim prove that pre born humans have zero human rights? Why are some humans denied their rights?
"I'm not"
That's quite a response. You literally argued that because some people believe that birth is the magic moment when humans get their human rights, that humans who haven't been born are denied all of their human rights. When do to rights kick in specifically? Is it only after the entire human leaves the birth canal? After the cord is cut? Why is the human that will be born in an hour not given any human rights?
I recognize that you have made an unproven claim regarding your hunch about what "reality" is. I recognize that you haven't proven, let alone offered proof of your claim of the underlying premise. Of course, I regularly answer your questions, you just like to pretend that I don't and never can actually demonstrate that I haven't.
"Is it not the case that your unproven philosophical tradition believes (but hasn't proven) that a fetus has a right to life?"
What an interesting attempt to dodge responsibility for your false claim/inference. Especially given your inability to prove your own philosophical tradition to be True.
Yes, I believe that science tells us that a unique, individual, human being, begins at conception. The fundamental aspects of this human start to form after conception, and continue until death. I do not see anything that would lead me to conclude that humans should be denied human rights due to their stage of development.
Of course, your hunches haven't proven that an unborn human being doesn't have any rights. Nor have you defined person hood, and when a human becomes a person. Nor have you explained why human rights are denied to certain humans.
Since you still can't prove your claim regarding what I think or have said, you simply fall back on the broad brush tactics of trying to pretend that because someone else has said something similar to your claims, that I must also have said something similar to your caricature. It's creative, but ultimately bullshit.
To the extent that "Jewish folk" believe that un unborn human should be denied any human rights, I disagree with them. But since I have not made any religious arguments for my position, and since you deny the validity of religious arguments, I fail to see how this is relevant. I have no desire to deny anyone their right to believe whatever they choose to believe. I am not arrogant enough to thing that my beliefs are the only possible option and that I set the standard of what people should believe.
Dan,
Excellent job of trying to move the conversation away from the point of the post.
If I'm wrong, I'll always choose to be wrong on the side of defending and protecting innocent human life. Yes, I lean toward believing that ALL human life is valuable and that the innocent and helpless should be protected. I will never believe that denying human rights to a human is a good thing, especially the most basic right of all.
As an aside...
I will never believe that denying human rights to a human is a good thing, especially the most basic right of all.
And yet, you do not believe that some humans have the right to self determination to move from one nation to another without government interfering. Right?
It would be easier to take your (the right, collectively) concern for human rights if you extended them to living, birthed humans.
Craig...
I believe that science tells us that a unique, individual, human being, begins at conception.
and...
If I'm wrong, I'll always choose to be wrong on the side of defending and protecting innocent human life.
Great. YOU are free to believe that. No one on the left is trying to force you to NOT believe that or NOT act upon that belief you have.
But by saying that, you are not saying that "science tells us" that each fetus has full human rights including a right to life, are you?
IF you think that "science tells us" THAT, then all you have to do is present the evidence that science has given.
You don't cite any evidence because science has not told you that and has not offered any definitive answer to this question.
And that's the point: THIS is an unproven, unprovable question. GIVEN the reality of its unproven nature, then I think the best answer - even if imperfect - is to leave it to each individual to decide for themselves how to deal with their pregnancy.
What else can we do? FORCE the view that some have on the half of the nation that disagrees with their unproven view? That would be, ironically, a human rights violation, another one you demonstrate you don't have a problem with.
As to my reasoning: The reality is that human rights are not one lump package. A newborn has a right to life, but it does not have a right to self-determination. A five year old can't decide they want to move to the North Pole and just go there. Their human rights are limited due to the stage of life they're in. We all acknowledge that.
Some people do not believe that the unborn fetus has "personhood..." Others may think they have personhood, but their rights are superceeded by the mother's right to self-determination. Still others think that the fetus "right to life" trumps everything.
We have no provable way to say one way or the other is right. We just don't. So, YOU get to decide for you. Others get to decide for themselves as a matter of human rights.
Craig...
"To the extent that "Jewish folk" believe that un unborn human should be denied any human rights, I disagree with them. But since I have not made any religious arguments for my position, and since you deny the validity of religious arguments, I fail to see how this is relevant."
Because, regardless of your philosophical reasons for denying them their religious autonomy, the reality is you (the religious right) ARE supporting denying them their religious autonomy.
"And yet, you do not believe that some humans have the right to self determination to move from one nation to another without government interfering. Right?"
I was unaware that there was an absolute right to untrammeled movement across national border with absolutely zero restriction.
"But by saying that, you are not saying that "science tells us" that each fetus has full human rights including a right to life, are you?"
No, you can tell that I'm not saying your made up bullshit by reading what I have actually written. I've NEVER said that an unborn human being has "full human rights". So the next time you have a question about this, just remember this comment.
"then I think the best answer - even if imperfect - is to leave it to each individual to decide for themselves how to deal with their pregnancy."
It great to see you advocating for individual people to deny other humans fundamental human rights just because.
It's also good to see you using one of the four arguments I originally posted about. Humans are not property to be disposed of at the whim of the property owner.
"You don't cite any evidence because"
you are correct. I don't cite any evidence of a claim I did not make. It would be stupid of you to expect me to cite evidence of a claim you made up and attributed to me.
"What else can we do? FORCE the view that some have on the half of the nation that disagrees with their unproven view?"
Well, given the fact that in the US this is what our laws do. They force the views of one group onto everyone, regardless of their personal views. The problem with you you seem to be implying, is that no one is ever "forced" to reproduce. (With the exception of the tiny % of women who are impregnated through sexual assault)
"As to my reasoning: The reality is that human rights are not one lump package."
I've never said they were.
"A newborn has a right to life, but it does not have a right to self-determination."
If a "newborn" has a 'right to life", why doesn't the unborn human that is still in it's mother's womb in the delivery room? Of course this is just one of the questions you've chosen to ignore. BTW, who says that the above is objectively factual?
"A five year old can't decide they want to move to the North Pole and just go there. Their human rights are limited due to the stage of life they're in. We all acknowledge that."
Yes we can. Yet you still advoicate for the most fundamental right of all to be denied to human beings because of the state of life they are in, even though that state is temporary, normal, and universal.
"Some people do not believe that the unborn fetus has "personhood..." Others may think they have personhood, but their rights are superceeded by the mother's right to self-determination. Still others think that the fetus "right to life" trumps everything."
So what. Given the reality that "person hood" is an intentionally vague and undefined term, which only seems to be used to terminate the lives of human beings who are the most vulnerable of all. If I'm going to err, I will err on the side of protecting the lives of the most innocent, vulnerable, and helpless humans every single time.
"We have no provable way to say one way or the other is right. We just don't. So, YOU get to decide for you. Others get to decide for themselves as a matter of human rights."
What a fascinating view of our "inalienable" rights that are "endowed by our Creator". The notion that individuals get to decide what human rights they want to deny others sounds barbaric. IF as you say, "Others get to decide for themselves as a matter of human rights.", by what standard do you declare that a human rights violation exists? This notion that every single human can decide for themselves whether or not to deprive another of their human rights, is fascinating.
How about we limit our discussion of human rights to "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Instead of getting into a bunch of other stuff that's been made up more recently.
Because both slavery and abortion deny actual humans these three human rights.
FYI, the right to pursue happiness doesn't preclude people having to deal with the consequences of their choices of how to pursue happiness.
Dan,
The problem with your "let people decide on their own" approach to human rights is that it is predicated on the premise that some humans don't have human rights, or that some human's rights trump other human's rights. Why this is a problem for you is that you are simply assuming this premise. You haven't proven it, and if "We just don't know" is your excuse, then shouldn't the default position be that every human in every stage of development has at least the basic, fundamental right to live? What would possibly make anyone conclude that the default position is that some humans, in some stages of human development, have no human rights at all?
Just some more questions for you to ignore.
Ignoring questions. Funny.
Craig...
"shouldn't the default position be that every human in every stage of development has at least the basic, fundamental right to live?"
No. Why? On what basis? Your personal assurance that it's the best hunch?
"What would possibly make anyone conclude that the default position is that some humans, in some stages of human development, have no human rights at all?"
I haven't argued that. I've pointed out the simple reality that we have no way of proving that a fetus, at any and all stages of development, has a right to life that must never be infringed upon.
Craig...
"The problem with your "let people decide on their own" approach to human rights is that it is predicated on the premise that some humans don't have human rights, or that some human's rights trump other human's rights. Why this is a problem for you is that you are simply assuming this premise."
Do you not see that YOUR personal hunch is that women's rights to self-determine their OWN medical decisions about a fetus in THEIR body should be trumped by the desires of people like you to make that decision for her?
When YOU are only presuming that fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations?
WHY do you all get to decide?
How about actually answering questions directly.
Craig...
"You haven't proven it, and if "We just don't know" is your excuse, then shouldn't the default position be that every human in every stage of development has at least the basic, fundamental right to live?"
It's not "an excuse. " It's the reality. Something I'm glad to admit clearly but you continue to dodge and give vague non-answers to. What we DO know for a fact is that women are persons unquestionably with the human right of self-determination which you all want to take from them.
That, we know.
When I referred to Dan as a vile POS, I clearly didn't go far enough. He's incredibly worse than that.
As you noted, Dan wants to talk about "full human rights". The only issue on the table here, which Dan can't argue against, is the right to life. If anyone is not worthy of that right, it is murderous POS's like Dan for presuming he can argue against the unborn having it, or for providing cover for others who deny the unborn their God-given right to life.
Dan wants to speak of "self-determination", while denying that self-determination to the unborn. He wants to pretend there's some greater right to move about the earth freely than to have the life which allows one to do anything, including move about. What a vile POS!
Dan wants us to prove that the unborn have any right...that the unborn are equally endowed with the right to life. Nonsense. He must prove the unborn lacks that right...that they are somehow less deserving of self-determination than their murderous mothers. We know scientifically that from the moment of conception a unique person exists. What example of the lowest vermin must one be to suppose any argument must be made to secure the life of the conceived? Dan must prove his position, as science has determined beyond any doubt that a person exists from conception.
Dan must prove that self-determination is denied by Americans who wish to secure their borders for their own safety, and that this wish is somehow subordinate to any foreigner who believes himself within his rights to enter without regard to our laws. What of our own self-determination?
Craig...
They force the views of one group onto everyone, regardless of their personal views. The problem with you you seem to be implying, is that no one is ever "forced" to reproduce. (With the exception of the tiny % of women who are impregnated through sexual assault)
The difference is: EVERYONE AGREES it's wrong to kill your neighbor or the kid at school or any other living human being who's been born. Their personhood and thus, human rights, are established. It's not a debate.
But only SOME people agree that the fetus has personhood. THAT is not a settled matter.
So, what you all are saying is that you think the woman - whose personhood IS established and we ALL recognize she has human rights - who is pregnant, MUST be forced to complete the pregnancy and have the baby, regardless of her views. You are pushing these laws that DENY the human rights of women who we KNOW have personhood because some segment of the population THINK (but can't prove) the fetus has personhood.
That's a unique set of circumstances.
Tell me this: You rightly note that the raped woman who gets pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Are you one of the conservatives who think that THIS woman should not be forced to have that baby, EVEN THOUGH you think she's killing a fetus with personhood?
How about the in vitro fertilization circumstance? I'm sure you know that some people who go the in vitro route to get pregnant (because they haven't been able to get pregnant in the typical manner, for instance) have multiple embryos - fertilized eggs in first stages of pregnancy. Not all of those embryos are implanted become a fetus. Is that "in storage" embryo ALSO have personhood?
If that's the case and the mother who successfully got pregnant through IVF and still has seven embryos in storage... should she be forced to get pregnant with all those other embryos?
As I'm sure you know, there are some (many? Most?) in the "pro-fetal-life" movement who consider the embryo to have personhood. Are you one of those?
Are you one who thinks that there should be exceptions if the mother's health/life are threatened? (I think you are, even though, those abortions are killing unborn persons with a right to life, right?) Who do you think should make that decision about what is and isn't a legitimate health concern for that mother where an exception should be made? A state legislator? A pastor? You? OR, the mother and her medical advisors?
"EVERYONE AGREES it's wrong to kill your neighbor or the kid at school or any other living human being who's been born. Their personhood and thus, human rights, are established. It's not a debate."
1. This is simply false. There are plenty of people who believe it is perfectly appropriate to kill innocent people.
2. You still haven't defined personhood, nor explained when one attains or loses personhood.
3. This notion that anything is established as fact based solely on majority rule, is your unproven premise that underlies much of your worldview.
"But only SOME people agree that the fetus has personhood. THAT is not a settled matter."
If this unproven claim is True, then it still boggles the mind that anyone would consider it a good thing to end the life of a helpless, innocent, human being.
"So, what you all are saying is that you think the woman - whose personhood IS established and we ALL recognize she has human rights - who is pregnant, MUST be forced to complete the pregnancy and have the baby, regardless of her views. You are pushing these laws that DENY the human rights of women who we KNOW have personhood because some segment of the population THINK (but can't prove) the fetus has personhood."
You haven't defined personhood, nor explained how and when it is established, you've just announced that it is and that your unproven hunch must be accepted. Why would I uncritically accept as established something that you can't define, nor tell me how and when it is conferred.
But excellent use of the "it's not a person" argument. You sound much like an antebellum slave owner.
What's interesting is that you don't seem to understand that this woman is pregnant as a direct result of her actions (with the exception of the minuscule number of cases where rape results in pregnancy).
"Tell me this: You rightly note that the raped woman who gets pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Are you one of the conservatives who think that THIS woman should not be forced to have that baby, EVEN THOUGH you think she's killing a fetus with personhood?"
Good lord, I've been abundantly clear about this for years, if you're too stupid to remember what I've said, that's on you. But as a sop to your stupidity/inability to remember or research, my position is exceedingly clear. While I agree that ending the life of an unborn child is wrong, I would accept an exception to abortion restrictions in the case of the minuscule number of women who get pregnant in the case of rape. While I don't believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right, I do believe that if we could eliminate 98%+ of abortions by allowing this exception that I could live with it. Remember, we're talking about the difference between what's legal and what's right.
"How about the in vitro fertilization circumstance? I'm sure you know that some people who go the in vitro route to get pregnant (because they haven't been able to get pregnant in the typical manner, for instance) have multiple embryos - fertilized eggs in first stages of pregnancy. Not all of those embryos are implanted become a fetus. Is that "in storage" embryo ALSO have personhood?"
If you'll define and tell me when personhood happens in a clear, direct, unequivocal manner, I'll address this question.
"If that's the case and the mother who successfully got pregnant through IVF and still has seven embryos in storage... should she be forced to get pregnant with all those other embryos?"
This is literally the same question twice in the same comment. Same response as above.
"As I'm sure you know, there are some (many? Most?) in the "pro-fetal-life" movement who consider the embryo to have personhood. Are you one of those?"
Same response as above. I'll note that right and wrong aren't determined by an opinion poll.
"Are you one who thinks that there should be exceptions if the mother's health/life are threatened?"
Answered multiple times. Yes, I believe that threats to the life or physical health of the mother should be treated differently.
'(I think you are, even though, those abortions are killing unborn persons with a right to life, right?)"
Again, I've been clear on this for ever. I would be willing to stop 98% of abortions in the short term by allowing certain exceptions. I believe that if we only have the 2% of abortions that aren't for convenience, that it's possible to put resources toward convincing them not to abort more effectively.
"Who do you think should make that decision about what is and isn't a legitimate health concern for that mother where an exception should be made? A state legislator? A pastor? You? OR, the mother and her medical advisors?"
Ultimately these decisions will be decided by state legislatures (unless the feds jump back in), that's where the exceptions will be defined. What other options is there except 100% unrestricted abortion for any and every reason?
The "we don't know" dodge gets doubled down on.
"Ignoring questions. Funny."
Not funny, pathetic. It's one more example of the double standards you live out regularly. I also think it's a sign of narcissism. The notion that your questions all deserve prompt answers regardless of how foolish or repetitive they are, while other's questions can be dismissed or ignored at your pleasure, is absurd.
"No."
This is quite a shock to me. The fact that you don't believe that respect for the life of all human beings is the default position seems barbaric, and counter to Jesus teachings and the rest of scripture.
"Why?"
Because killing innocent humans causes them harm.
"On what basis?"
Harm.
"Your personal assurance that it's the best hunch?"
no.
"I haven't argued that. I've pointed out the simple reality that we have no way of proving that a fetus, at any and all stages of development, has a right to life that must never be infringed upon."
Which is a huge cop out. The reality is that the above worldview leads to the ending of lives that are deemed unworthy. Much like what we're seeing in Canada where the national health service is pushing people to be killed rather that to treat them.
"Do you not see that YOUR personal hunch is that women's rights to self-determine their OWN medical decisions about a fetus in THEIR body should be trumped by the desires of people like you to make that decision for her?"
No. But if the unborn child is the property of the mother, then the mother can do whatever she wants to her property. By this construct, why shouldn't mothers take drugs and drink booze to their hearts content during pregnancy?
"When YOU are only presuming that fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations?"
This isn't actually a question. But, the answer is no, I'm not.
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
I don't. I've never said that I did.
"How about actually answering questions directly."
You mean like I've been doing regularly? How about actually answering questions? How bout not holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to? How about you define personhood and tell us when it starts?
"But only SOME people agree that the fetus has personhood. THAT is not a settled matter."
Bullshit. Only vermin like Dan pretend the matter is unsettled, that it is truly a question which is debatable. But the reality is that in order to continue fornicating with abandon, cretins must pretend the "personhood" of the unborn is up for debate. This is what "embracing grace" actually looks like.
And here's the worst part: This vile POS Dan "Cretinous Vermin" Trabue wants to deflect from his own position, constantly referencing what "some" believe about the humanity of the unborn, instead of being the Christian he pretends to be by defending the humanity of the unborn. No, Dan. I'm not talking about a human fetus being a human fetus. I'm talking about the truth, as confirmed by science, that what has been conceived by the sexual union of a human male with a human female is a person with the absolute and unequivocal right to life which you claim for yourself without truly deserving it.
"Tell me this: You rightly note that the raped woman who gets pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Are you one of the conservatives who think that THIS woman should not be forced to have that baby, EVEN THOUGH you think she's killing a fetus with personhood?"
Tell me this: On what basis must the child be sacrificed while being the least responsible for its own existence? Dear God save us from evil like Dan Trabue!!
"How about the in vitro fertilization circumstance? I'm sure you know that some people who go the in vitro route to get pregnant (because they haven't been able to get pregnant in the typical manner, for instance) have multiple embryos - fertilized eggs in first stages of pregnancy. Not all of those embryos are implanted become a fetus. Is that "in storage" embryo ALSO have personhood?"
Of COURSE they do!!! Which is why people of character, such as actual Christians...as opposed to fake Christians like you...oppose in vitro fertilization. Only scumbags believe any embryos are disposable or to be "stored" rather than allowed to thrive and grow into the people they are.
"As I'm sure you know, there are some (many? Most?) in the "pro-fetal-life" movement who consider the embryo to have personhood. Are you one of those?"
It is one of the fruits by which one can recognize a true Christian or any other person of character. Dan is rotted fruit.
"Are you one who thinks that there should be exceptions if the mother's health/life are threatened?"
Given there are no legitimate threats to a woman's life murdering her child will resolve, there is no reason to provide an exception for what doesn't exist. And given there is no health issue which legitimately subordinates the life of another person, there is no "health exception" which is legitimate, either. Dan's just an infanticidal asshole defending the unjust killing of people who are the most vulnerable and innocent, while he pretends he's concerned with "historically oppressed" people. What a lying sack of sh...!
Dan, then Craig...
"How about actually answering questions directly."
You mean like I've been doing regularly?
Dan, then ALSO Craig...
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
I don't. I've never said that I did.
Again, you directly, clearly dodged and didn't answer this question (along with so many others). Let me explain it to you:
You would like for abortion to be outlawed, right?
Therefore, YOU would like to make that decision for women who are pregnant, because by criminalizing abortion, you've eliminated that as an option, right?
Therefore, you did NOT answer my question:
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
Because you DO want to decide for women by criminalizing it. Therefore, your answer would be YES, I do want to remove that option from pregnant women and therefore, I DO want to decide for them. The reason I think I (and others like me, primarily religious zealots) should decide is...
Stop ignoring dodging ALL the questions. Answer the actual questions put to you with a direct clear answer. Stop trying to insult our intellect by dodging the question and pretending you don't want to decide for others by eliminating options they used to have.
Craig...
f you'll define and tell me when personhood happens in a clear, direct, unequivocal manner, I'll address this question.
I've NEVER been unclear on this point. You have no reason NOT to know my position. We all recognize that personhood and the right to life is extended to all people who have been born. THAT is where I stand and I've been clear about that.
Now, SOME of you all (including me, once upon a time), also think in your heads that personhood begins at conception and others a few weeks later. But it's not a consensus opinion or anything like it.
AND NO, of course consensus doesn't make it right. The thing is: WE HAVE NO WAY OF CONFIRMING WHEN PERSONHOOD BEGINS. YOU do not have a way to prove/confirm that. NO ONE DOES. That being the reality, and the reality being that it's a very mixed set of opinions on the topic (unlike with murder - and don't even be an idiot and go there) and so, with NO consensus, we need to leave it to the actual humans with known human rights.
"Again, you directly, clearly dodged and didn't answer this question (along with so many others). Let me explain it to you:"
No, I did answer your question. I pointed out that it was based on a false premise, which invalidates the question.
"You would like for abortion to be outlawed, right?"
Yes, I personally would like abortion to be heavily restricted or "outlawed".
"Therefore, YOU would like to make that decision for women who are pregnant, because by criminalizing abortion, you've eliminated that as an option, right?"
No, i would not. My personal preferences are not law, and I have no desire to put myself in that position.
"WHY do you all get to decide?"
If by "you all", you mean the legislators of voters of the several states, then yes. If you mean that I intend to impose my will on others, no.
"Because you DO want to decide for women by criminalizing it. Therefore, your answer would be YES, I do want to remove that option from pregnant women and therefore, I DO want to decide for them. The reason I think I (and others like me, primarily religious zealots) should decide is..."
Strangely enough it seems like you are prepared to dictate to me what I mean, that's quite the exhibit of hubris and makes me wonder why you asked the question if you were going to tell me what the answer is.
"Stop ignoring dodging ALL the questions. Answer the actual questions put to you with a direct clear answer. Stop trying to insult our intellect by dodging the question and pretending you don't want to decide for others by eliminating options they used to have."
This would be laugh out loud, roll on the ground hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. You cherry pick one question, based on a false premise, that I didn't answer the way you wanted, and beat that into the ground, while ignoring multiple questions you've been asked.
"I've NEVER been unclear on this point. You have no reason NOT to know my position. We all recognize that personhood and the right to life is extended to all people who have been born. THAT is where I stand and I've been clear about that."
The define the term "personhood", and specify who "We all" are. It shouldn't be that hard.
"Now, SOME of you all (including me, once upon a time), also think in your heads that personhood begins at conception and others a few weeks later. But it's not a consensus opinion or anything like it."
But this vague assertion doesn't define what "personhood" means or when it is bestowed on human beings.
"AND NO, of course consensus doesn't make it right."
Yet consensus is literally the only thing you just offered ("We all""), yet you still haven't defined "personhood" nor expleined when it is bestowed on human beings.
" The thing is: WE HAVE NO WAY OF CONFIRMING WHEN PERSONHOOD BEGINS. YOU do not have a way to prove/confirm that. NO ONE DOES. That being the reality, and the reality being that it's a very mixed set of opinions on the topic (unlike with murder - and don't even be an idiot and go there) and so, with NO consensus, we need to leave it to the actual humans with known human rights."
If no one knows, then how can you confidently assert that " We all recognize that personhood and the right to life is extended to all people who have been born.", either the previous quote is True, which means that "We all" do know, or one claim falsifies the other.
In any case, it's just more of you not answering questions you've been asked.
It's the height of dishonesty to pretend the status of "personhood" is actually in question. It is not. The debate is fraudulent. Science has confirmed a new person is created at conception. It can prove it is unique from its parents, but Dan wants to pretend there's some arbitrary point HE can dictate which forces upon a person his/her lack of humanity, very much like his ancestors did with their slaves and what nazis did with the Jews, all while he pretends he cares about the "historically oppressed". So like other vile dregs of society, he pretends "personhood" is a debatable issue in order to defend the right to fornicate with reckless abandon and without obligation to the product of that act...as if the act itself is not the means by which our species perpetuates, as if the child conceived can ever actually be an accident when its existence came about by virtue of the act designed to do that very thing.
There is no one more contemptible than one like Dan Trabue, who dares whine on about Trump being a liar when his entire existence involves the perpetuation of lies and falsehoods. And innocent people die as a direct result of people buying into the very lies scum like Dan defends.
Scum like Dan defend and promote irresponsible behavior and then demand others pay the price, up to an including giving up their lives as Dan demands the unborn do.
The idea of "personhood" is something only a LEFTIST would come up with. A human being at any stage of life is a person. The embryo is a human being's first stage of life and ergo a person
Dan has previously made a distinction as to whether the individual was able to make decisions, etc. SO I guess my sister, suffering from dementia, isn't a person.
Art,
The problem is that Dan will not define what he means by "personhood", nor will he explain when one attains "personhood". By asserting as fact that "personhood" is unquestionably settled, he's simply going back to his practice of asserting things without any actual proof.
Glenn,
Yes, the notion of separating the notion of "personhood" from humanity is something that is currently in vogue on the left. What's interesting is that they limit this to one issue only.
Glenn...
The idea of "personhood" is something only a LEFTIST would come up with.
The notion of personhood is indeed, something that progressive-minded people came up with, at least in regards to slavery, because traditional minded people wanted to say that black people weren't persons deserving of full human rights. As well as in regards to the rights of people with disabilities.
But all I mean by personhood is recognizing human rights that all people are deserving of rights and that we - not Glenn, not Craig, none of us - know as an authoritative fact or can prove that fetuses are deserving of all human rights.
We all recognize (all reasonable people) that the stage of life and circumstances MATTER when it comes to human rights. The newborn and five year old do NOT have a human right to self determination. We ALL (all reasonable people) recognize that the STAGE of human development matters when it comes to the level of human rights.
"PERSONHOOD:" Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life and as it regards to fetuses, those who deserve demonstrably a "right to life." YOU can not prove this. GLENN can not prove this. I can not prove this. It's an unprovable hunch that the fetus has a "right to life" that trumps all other concerns.
That has always been clear from what I've said. I'm sorry you have a problem with understanding basic reason and what I have and haven't said.
That's the reality of it all. The question is whether or not YOU all recognize that you have zero authoritative proof that says otherwise.
Still no definition of "personhood" nor any specifics about when it is endowed. I'll note that it's strange that Dan is arguing that "none of us - know as an authoritative fact" any specifics about any of these things. Yet Dan is also adamant that he knows "The newborn and five year old do NOT have a human right to self determination.", how is it that he can argue that we don't know, and we know simultaneously about the same thing. Isn't there something about non contradiction?
But a simple definition and timeline regarding personhood, would certainly help clear things up instead of these repeated appeals to numbers.
none of us - know as an authoritative fact or can prove that fetuses are deserving of all human rights.
It's a medical and scientific FACT that fetuses are human beings, and therefore deserve the same right to life as every other human being. And that is a FACT regardless of how much Dan and his demented, evil ilk want to deny it.
Craig...
"Still no definition of "personhood" nor any specifics about when it is endowed."
Dan...
"PERSONHOOD:" Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life
Sorry if that was unclear. THAT is a definition.
As to WHEN personhood begins, I've been abundantly clear: AT BIRTH. We all agree upon that much. Now if YOU personally think it begins at conception, then if you personally get pregnant, then no one is forcing you personally to have an abortion. A freedom you want to remove from everyone else.
Dan's tap dancing in order to defend the murder of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. It's that simple.
"The notion of personhood is indeed, something that progressive-minded people came up with, at least in regards to slavery, because traditional minded people wanted to say that black people weren't persons deserving of full human rights."
Uh...those too were Democrats and leftists of that time. Those you refer to as "progressive-minded" in the days of slavery were actual Christians and those who, like Christians and conservatives of today, see the dignity in all people, even if leftists display a complete lack of dignity in their beliefs and behaviors.
"But all I mean by personhood is recognizing human rights that all people are deserving of rights and that we - not Glenn, not Craig, none of us - know as an authoritative fact or can prove that fetuses are deserving of all human rights."
Once again, Dan lies about the issue. There is but one right on the table as regards the unborn, and that's their unalienable right to life endowed upon them by their Creator. No one's talking about their having a right to drive or drink whiskey, so stop lying and be a man.
What's more, we don't have to prove that any human has that unalienable right, nor that the right is dependent upon some degree of physical development. That's something only Godless lefties like Dan have to prove is untrue. He can't without sounding like a slaver or nazi...which are leftist philosophies.
"We all recognize (all reasonable people) that the stage of life and circumstances MATTER when it comes to human rights."
Honest people recognize all people have a right to life regardless of what stage of human development they happen to be in. Dan has forsaken his own right to life by being a murderer.
"The newborn and five year old do NOT have a human right to self determination."
Of course they do. They simply lack the ability to recognize and understand the concept. It is up to decent, Christian-like adults to protect that right until they can exercise it themselves. Dan isn't a Christian, so he believes he can assume the authority to deny rights of the vulnerable. Dan is as bad an oppressor as any in human history.
"We ALL (all reasonable people) recognize that the STAGE of human development matters when it comes to the level of human rights."
Not the right to life. Actual people who are reasonable don't make that hateful, vile argument. Only leftists do because they're scumbags. Never pretend you're among those honest people regard as reasonable. You abuse the ability of reason to rationalize vile behaviors of all sorts, including the murder of the unborn. As such, you're a contemptible scumbag.
""PERSONHOOD:" Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life and as it regards to fetuses, those who deserve demonstrably a "right to life." YOU can not prove this."
We don't have to. YOU have to prove a person is unworthy of having that right to life respected simply because of their age, size and location...which is really nazi-like, proving what a leftist you are. Honest people of compassion and respect for others err on the side of life at the worst, but know there is no argument about the full humanity of the just conceived.
Dan,
That is an absurdly self serving definition, and you've offered nothing to indicate that your concept of personhood is actually True.
I realize you haven't answered this question when it's been asked previously, but I'll try again with a few different approaches.
If personhood is "Those who enjoy all human rights including a right to life.", then are you saying that a child that has been out of the womb for 1 minute is endowed with "all human rights"?
How can you justify the denial any human rights to the child that is still in the womb, hours before they are born?
If a pre born human child is a living human being, unique and appropriately developed for it's current stage of life, how do you justify denying this human being the right to life that he or she already possesses?
If biologists, and biology textbooks are clear that a unique human life begins at or near conception, why would anyone disagree with the science?
Is it possible for someone to lose personhood at any point beyond birth and enter a condition where they lose their human rights?
Are you positive that personhood is attained "at birth"? Or do you agree with Peter Singer and his ilk who would argue that personhood is endowed much later? Are you prepared to tell Singer that he is wrong and you are right?
If you "don't know", how can you emphatically and categorically assert that personhood is conferred "at birth"?
As to WHEN personhood begins, I've been abundantly clear: AT BIRTH. We all agree upon that much. Now if YOU personally think it begins at conception, then if you personally get pregnant, then no one is forcing you personally to have an abortion. A freedom you want to remove from everyone else.
So, Dan has set himself up as the arbiter of when "personhood" begins--"AT BIRTH." Then he says "we all agree" on it! When he says "we all" he must have frogs in his pockets because everyone I know knows it begins at conception. What is conceived is a person, a human with all the rights of all humans, including the very important right to life.
The Bible many times speaks of the unborn as children/people. But Dan knows better than God.
By the way, no one is forcing people to get pregnant. No one is removing any right from any pregnant woman because the pregnant woman does NOT have the right to kill a separate person inside of her.
After all of this conversation, I'm surprised it took me so long to realize something so simple. If we look at what biologists/embryologists and biology/embryology textbooks tell us, it seem reasonable to conclude that an unborn child in utero is a living human being. Given that, wouldn't it also be reasonable to conclude that if the unborn child is alive, then he or she has a de fecto right to what he or she already possesses. So the question then becomes does something external to this unique, individual, human being in an early stage of it's life cycle, have the ability to deny a child something the child already possesses?
Glenn,
Dan frequently does this. He'll make some pronouncement, then add that that hunch is shared by some unknown, unidentified, large number of people/experts/group agrees with him. Therefore that alleged agreement is evidence that his pronouncement is therefore "reality".
I always thought that this sort of thing was a logical fallacy.
Craig...
Given that, wouldn't it also be reasonable to conclude that if the unborn child is alive, then he or she has a de fecto right to what he or she already possesses
To clarify:
1. The unborn child IS alive - at least that's what I think. Different people from different religions and philosophies disagree with this notion, or at least with the notion that the fetus has a soul/has personhood.
2. What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus.
3. What YOU CAN'T PROVE is that this living fetus has a right to life that trumps any health decisions that the mother may make. YOU THINK that it would be wrong and that being the case, IF you get pregnant, YOU are free to make any medical decisions about that fetus.
You can't prove your theories, Glenn can't prove this theory. You just want to INSIST BY LAW that YOUR PERSONAL theories are the ones that should determine what a pregnant woman can and can't do with that fetus.
That is just the reality of it all.
IF you could prove it, you all would do so. Instead, you just declare you're right and expect everyone else to abandon their own religions and philosophical autonomy and bow down to the boy-gods like Craig and Glenn and Marshal.
No thanks.
Craig...
...that your concept of personhood is actually True.
So, you don't like my definition of personhood. By all means, give your definition of it, Craig. And THEN prove your concept of personhood is actually True.
OR have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit, "NO. I CAN NOT prove my concept of personhood is actually true."
Do you have that level of integrity?
Glenn...
The Bible many times speaks of the unborn as children/people. But Dan knows better than God.
The thing is, Glenn, that many people don't give a flying fuck what you think your god thinks about the words in the Bible. WE ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOUR LITTLE MAN-MADE RELIGIONS.
If you want to adhere to your religious philosophies and hunches, YOU MAY DO SO.
BUT, you are not free to force your hunches on others, you religious fascist.
Craig...
"you positive that personhood is attained "at birth"? Or do you agree with Peter Singer and his ilk who would argue that personhood is endowed much later? Are you prepared to tell Singer that he is wrong and you are right?
If you "don't know", how can you emphatically and categorically assert that personhood is conferred "at birth"?"
That's the point. None of us can prove if or when a fetus has a right to life that trumps and overrides any concerns the mother may have.
Do you recognize you can't prove that authoritatively? If so, admit it.
"1. The unborn child IS alive - at least that's what I think. Different people from different religions and philosophies disagree with this notion, or at least with the notion that the fetus has a soul/has personhood."
This is kind of a strange waffling hunch, but it doesn't address the question. If this child is alive, then he or she already possesses life, by what standard do you dent the right to something already possessed? The problem with your construct is that it ignores the scientific perspective (the child is a living human being) and presumes that the existence of different views means that it is impossible to know something for certain. The reality is that one of the views you mention is wrong, regardless of the feelings of those who hold that view.
"2. What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus.'
Then why would a living human being be denied the right to something it already possesses?
"3. What YOU CAN'T PROVE is that this living fetus has a right to life that trumps any health decisions that the mother may make. YOU THINK that it would be wrong and that being the case, IF you get pregnant, YOU are free to make any medical decisions about that fetus."
1. You haven't answered the question vis a vis does the child have a right to what it possesses.
2. You just acknowledged that the mothers "health decisions" do end the life of a unique, individual, living human being.
3. You have not proven that the mother's "health decisions" justify ending the life of another human being.
4. The demonstrated reality is that "health" is a factor in less than 2% of all abortions. therefore the better question is whether of not the mothers inconvenience is justification for ending a human life.
5. You realize that your argument is based on the theory that the unique, individual human being in the mother's womb is actually the property of the mother to be disposed of as the mother wishes.
6. Why does the mother's right to end the life of this unique, individual, helpless, innocent, human being end when the baby is born?
"You can't prove your theories, Glenn can't prove this theory. You just want to INSIST BY LAW that YOUR PERSONAL theories are the ones that should determine what a pregnant woman can and can't do with that fetus."
The above statement is simply a lie. Both Glenn and I have and can cite numerous biology/embryology textbooks that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being. Since you are the one asserting things, shouldn't you prove the things you assert?
"That is just the reality of it all."
Dan declares what the "reality of it all" is. Anyone with a different position is automatically wrong. What a large, steaming, pile of hubristic bullshit.
"IF you could prove it, you all would do so. Instead, you just declare you're right and expect everyone else to abandon their own religions and philosophical autonomy and bow down to the boy-gods like Craig and Glenn and Marshal."
If you were right, you could prove it. But you simply make pronouncements and try to define reality, all the wile ignoring question after question after question.
"So, you don't like my definition of personhood. By all means, give your definition of it, Craig. And THEN prove your concept of personhood is actually True."
What an amazing dodge. You don't defend or prove that your definition is True, instead you go one the offensive and demand that I prove something I've never claimed to have. YOU are the one who introduced the concept of personhood to the conversation. YOU are the one who keeps making pronouncements about it's existence and when it should be denied. Therefore the burden is in YOU to prove YOUR claims. You won't, but you should.
"OR have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit, "NO. I CAN NOT prove my concept of personhood is actually true. Do you have that level of integrity?"
Since I've never asserted, claimed, implied, or said that I believe in the existence of a concept of personhood the best way for me to show integrity is to NOT try to define something I am not arguing for. I've never argued in favor of personhood being an actual category of existence, therefore I would be insane to argue that it is True.
"That's the point. None of us can prove if or when a fetus has a right to life that trumps and overrides any concerns the mother may have. Do you recognize you can't prove that authoritatively? If so, admit it."
1. Just one more case of Dan not answering a question he's been asked.
2. When have I claimed that the existence of a right to what the unborn child already possesses, trumps anything?
3. You have not proven that the mother possesses a right that allows her to end the life of her unborn child at any time for any reason. Yet you continue to assert that such a right exists.
What's interesting is that you are literally using the exact same arguments that antebellum slave owners used in order to justify a mother ending the life of her own living, unique, individual, human child. Even as that living, unique, individual, human being is helpless and innocent.
Look. This could all be solved if you'd simply state plainly what your previous words say obliquely.
You acknowledge that an unborn child is a living, human being. The reality is that abortion ends that human life. Why not just admit that you are saying that you believe that a mother has the unilateral ability to end the life of her child for any reason and at any time. Why not just acknowledge that if a human possesses life, that they have a right to what they already possess, and that you believe that that right (or life itself) can be removed from certain humans by others.
Just be straightforward and admit that you support mothers being able to choose to end the lives of their children for any reason at any time.
Craig...
"Both Glenn and I have and can cite numerous biology/embryology textbooks that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being."
You can't cite one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.
Keep up and deal with what I'm actually saying.
That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Glenn: The Bible many times speaks of the unborn as children/people. But Dan knows better than God.
Trabue: The thing is, Glenn, that many people don't give a flying fuck what you think your god thinks about the words in the Bible. WE ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOUR LITTLE MAN-MADE RELIGIONS.
This from a person who claims to be a Christian!
My "religion" is the Christian faith as defined by the Bible and my God is the God of the Bible. So Dan doesn't give a "F...F..." what God says about human live. Dan says a child living inside the mother has no right to life. Dan's "god" is obviouslyu the devil.
Once again, Dan continues to demand that we prove the child has a right to life which can legitimately subordinate its mother's "right" to murder it for any reason (which is the true argument of abortionists and other baby murderers for the practice). But given how people come to be, it is for Dan to argue that the child can be denied its God-endowed right to life. Dan's arguments are no more than variations on the same superficial arguments of his slaver ancestors and other leftists, with skin color, ethnicity and sex replaced with the equally subjective and superficial traits of age, size and location.
He then wants to argue for the "self-determination" of the mothers, as if their determination to live without the children their sexual practices conceive somehow outweigh the determination of the unborn to survive, live and grow. This is the most basic form of "self-determination" and every living thing on earth possesses it. Even plants. The will to survive is "self-determination" and Dan cares nothing for that, while pretending he has compassion for mothers, or illegal aliens invading our borders, ignoring the self-determination of the people of a nation who wish to be secure within them. It is our self-determination which Dan subordinates to the foreign invader, as if our determination to set up laws in our own favor have no value worth respecting.
Dan's arguments are fallacious, evil and without legitimate basis. He is simply championing immorality and evil under the guise of "embracing grace", thereby affirming the well-known reality that his claim he's Christian is a mockery of the Most High.
Craig...
Why not just admit that you are saying that you believe that a mother has the unilateral ability to end the life of her child for any reason and at any time.
I acknowledge that the pregnant woman has the say on what happens to her body and her fetus more than you, someone who may disagree with her. When YOU are pregnant, YOU may decide how to handle that fetus. When the woman is pregnant, SHE has the priority on how to handle that pregnancy. I VALUE you and YOUR opinion in making your OWN opinions about when YOU are pregnant. I do not authorize you to make decisions for pregnant women.
I don't know what you are failing to understand.
And I am saying NOTHING obliquely. WE - not me, not you, not Glenn, nor Marshal - DO NOT KNOW if a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that the woman who is pregnant has. You just don't have that. Failing YOU having any authority over that woman and her pregnancy, I side with the woman making her own damned decisions, not you.
Understand?
Craig...
2. When have I claimed that the existence of a right to what the unborn child already possesses, trumps anything?
When you've said you would personally like to criminalize abortion, removing from women the right to decide what to do about their own pregnancies.
Am I mistaken?
Craig...
What's interesting is that you are literally using the exact same arguments that antebellum slave owners used in order to justify a mother ending the life of her own living, unique, individual, human child
What's interesting is that YOU are saying that born, living, breathing slaves are the equivalent of fetuses. Now, you are FREE to think that in your own head, but you are not free to impose that on pregnant women who may not share your religious or philosophical bigotries and biases.
"What's interesting is that YOU are saying that born, living, breathing slaves are the equivalent of fetuses."
Why no, no I'm not. The statement above is 100% made up bullshit, likely because you're too embarrassed to acknowledge that you're using the same argument as slave owners did. It's more correct that you are equating a living, individual, unique, helpless, unborn human being, with a used car, a phone, or a slave. At least you're using the same argument for allowing people to dispose of those things as they wish.
"When you've said you would personally like to criminalize abortion, removing from women the right to decide what to do about their own pregnancies. Am I mistaken?"
So, you've chosen to take one comment I made and apply a completely different interpretation to that comment. Excellent. The answer is no.
"I acknowledge that the pregnant woman has the say on what happens to her body and her fetus more than you, someone who may disagree with her."
Which is just a milquetoast equivocating way to rephrase what I just said. You would applaud a woman for disposing of her unique, individual, helpless, unborn child at any point in the pregnancy, and support her in disposing of it like any other property. You just don't have the guts to actually say what you mean. That you support women who choose to end the life of a living human being.
"When YOU are pregnant, YOU may decide how to handle that fetus. When the woman is pregnant, SHE has the priority on how to handle that pregnancy. I VALUE you and YOUR opinion in making your OWN opinions about when YOU are pregnant. I do not authorize you to make decisions for pregnant women."
This is interesting from two perspectives.
1. It's clear that you would support anyone who chooses to end the life of an individual, unique, living, helpless, innocent human being at any point during a pregnancy, for any reason. It's strange that you won't support Singer and the like who argue that women should be able to extend this ability to end these lives post partum.
2. It's also clear that you appear to be willing to give the father absolutely zero say in this decision. Because why would anyone want the father of the unique, individual, living, unborn human being that bears his genetic makeup to have an equal part in the decision to end this human life.
"I don't know what you are failing to understand."
Nothing, except for the things I don't understand and have asked questions that you haven't answered. How you can square Jesus' teaching about harming children with your barbaric stance that these living human beings are merely property to be disposed of at the whim of their owner.
"And I am saying NOTHING obliquely. WE - not me, not you, not Glenn, nor Marshal - DO NOT KNOW if a fetus has a right to life that overrides any concerns that the woman who is pregnant has. You just don't have that. Failing YOU having any authority over that woman and her pregnancy, I side with the woman making her own damned decisions, not you."
You keep saying this as if it's some great universal Truth, when it's really just an excuse to salve whatever conscience you have left.
"Understand?"
No. I don't understand your callous and cavalier attitude towards ending the lives of millions of unique, individual, living, unborn human beings because you argue that the mother owns them like any other property and can dispose of them for any reason and at any time. No, I don't understand that at all. Especially from one who bases much of their worldview on not harming others.
Do you really thing that sucking the brains out of a living human being, then dismembering them doesn't cause harm?
Isn't cancer harmful?
Isn't PTSD harmful?
"You can't cite one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY."
You're right, I can't and I would never attempt to try to prove a claim that I haven't made. The notion that I would be asked to prove a claim that you created out of thin air, is absurd. The problem you seem to have is that you know (at some level) "that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being" one which is helpless and innocent, but you have to add on some language that gives you something to hide behind. The notion that as long as the mother can assert her property rights (just like a slave owner), you have a fig leaf to hide behind while you excuse the brutality and harm to innocent, helpless, living, humans.
"Keep up and deal with what I'm actually saying."
I am. Unfortunately, you won't keep up with what I've been asking.
"That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
Once more Dan thinks that he can define reality without actually proving his claims. What's next, you claiming to be Napoleon?
Art,
Of course you're correct, but this is what happens when one bases their worldview primarily on people's assertion of their individual rights over all else.
What about the responsibility inherent in bringing another human being into the world? What about the responsibility to not engage in practices that will bring harm to one's self or to others? If, as Dan's stance seems to lead to, the assertion of one's individual rights to the exclusion of all else is of primary importance, then what are the consequences to that worldview?
How do I balance my right to "self determination" against someone else's right to private property? If I am a starving, oppressed, poor, immigrant and I need food, clothes, shelter, and money in order to live out my right of "self determination", then can I assert that my right of "self determination" takes priority over the private property rights of someone else? Does my right to "self determination" override someone else's right to life in any other circumstances other than a mother ending the life of her child? Where can we find the authoritative list that tells us which rights have priority over which other rights?
It all seems to come down to, "My rights are all that is important, and f#@& my responsibilities.", doesn't it?
I said, in context...
You can't cite one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.
Keep up and deal with what I'm actually saying.
That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Craig responded...
Once more Dan thinks that he can define reality without actually proving his claims.
It IS the reality. If it's not, then proving me wrong is simple:
Provide "one single authority that state clearly that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY."
IF you could do that, you would.
You can't. You are entirely impotent and completely incapable of putting up even ONE authority or source of data which proves this claim authoritatively.
If you could do it, you would have. Lots of pro-lifers would, because it would destroy our arguments and force us to agree with you.
But you don't and you never have and you never will because that authority does not exist.
Now, YOU are the one making the claim. I am merely stating firmly that I'm confident that you can't prove that and provide the authority/data to prove it as I've never seen it.
IF YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITATIVE DATA/PERSON TO CITE, CITE THEM.
The onus is on you to prove your rather unlikely claim.
I'm not sure what you're failing to understand about how wrong you are on this hunch you have, as far as it being a certain hunch incapable of being wrong. Where is the humility and intellectual honesty?
I know, I know. Conservatives long ago gave that up, going instead for pharisaical hypocrisy, bullying, fearmongering, conspiracy theories and authoritarianism.
Craig...
this is what happens when one bases their worldview primarily on people's assertion of their individual rights over all else.
This, of course, does not apply to me because GOD FORBID, I don't believe that. Of course, I'm opposed to it ("individual rights over all else.") and it's no secret. I've always been abundantly clear that the racists' individual "right" to cause harm to black people and the homophobes individual "right" to oppress LGBTQ folks or marginalize them, etc... that those individual rights do NOT mean they have the freedom to cause harm or oppress or unjustly marginalize folks.
This is what happens (making stupidly false claims) when you have reading deficits where you routinely read what I and others have written or said (Jesus, for instance) and fail to understand the actual meaning of those words.
Craig...
What about the responsibility to not engage in practices that will bring harm to one's self or to others?
You mean YOUR responsibility to NOT engage in forcing women to have babies when they have other opinions? You see the hypocrisy you all engage in? What you claim I'm doing, YOU are the ones doing.
Craig...
How do I balance my right to "self determination" against someone else's right to private property? If I am a starving, oppressed, poor, immigrant and I need food, clothes, shelter, and money in order to live out my right of "self determination", then can I assert that my right of "self determination" takes priority over the private property rights of someone else?
In a Christian community of grace, of course, we would expect the starving immigrant would take what they need to stop themselves or the children from starving. We would encourage them and work with them to find housing.
Embrace grace, fellas. It's a much better heaven than the hellscape of religious oppression you all chase after.
That's absolutely the case, Craig. Those like Dan....more specifically, the moron that is Dan...pretend they care about things like "self-determination", but ignore the right of self-determination of the unborn simply because the unborn have no ability to defend their rights without good adults of compassion, honor and true Christian spirit (Christian or not) to stand on their behalf. Scumbags like Dan are too busy trying to pretend in order to garner favor with the worst of us, while we struggle to defend the least of us against them. Dan's a poser. A liar of the worst kind. He's no Christian and not likely to ever be one. I wonder if he's representative of the entirety of his cherished "Jeff St." or an rank aberration his congregation merely tolerates as they do other vile and evil people.
"To clarify:
1. The unborn child IS alive - at least that's what I think. Different people from different religions and philosophies disagree with this notion, or at least with the notion that the fetus has a soul/has personhood."
What Dan is clarifying here is his equivocation. It really doesn't matter what others think. What matters is what Dan thinks and why he thinks it. His reasoning is clearly based on the thoughts of unnamed others, as if that somehow provides him with justification for his evil disregard for the unborn.
The unborn is a person, much more so than is Dan, but very much so like the vast majority of those lucky enough to have been allowed to pass entirely through the birth canal. Dan...like so many assholes...pretends that point of life is where they attain the right to be regarded as the people...the persons...they are.
"2. What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus."
What we know for sure is that such people are people at that particular stage of human development. Dan hasn't developed as a human enough to think rationally, yet insists his opinion on the humanity of others is somehow as rational and intelligent as the opinions of real Christians and those similar to them. The unborn are people, far more deserving of life than is Dan and others who dare regard themselves as having authority to dictate who else is or isn't deserving. Frankly, should Dan meet an untimely end...God forbid...I wouldn't...couldn't shed a tear, except to know there is one less asshole who has no regard for the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. THAT would compel tears of joy.
"3. What YOU CAN'T PROVE is that this living fetus has a right to life that trumps any health decisions that the mother may make."
Identical to Dan's ancestors and their disregard for the humanity of their slaves...and likely for more disregard, in fact...Dan believes good people need to prove that the unborn are somehow less deserving of life than the mothers who seek to murder them for no legit reasons...as no such reasons exist. Like all other pro-abortion scum, Dan couches his bullshit with appeals to "health concerns", as if any exist which justify the the murder of the unborn. Again, there are none, and many who specialize in difficult pregnancies affirm this fact.
There's only one reason to abort....to abdicate one's responsibility to the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind. Any time Dan speaks of "the least of these" or "the historically oppressed", he's lying as if he's trying to best Joe Biden as worst liar of our time. Let's call him Dan Isuzu.
"You can't prove your theories, Glenn can't prove this theory. You just want to INSIST BY LAW that YOUR PERSONAL theories are the ones that should determine what a pregnant woman can and can't do with that fetus."
In typical lying lefty rationalization, Dan wants to pretend what is fact is only theory. Science affirms the existence of a new and unique human being at the moment of conception, and Dan wants to play games with arbitrary points of time when such people are granted full respect. What a f**king nazi Dan is. Even slavers of the antebellum south gave more respect to the lives of their human property than Dan does to the most vulnerable people.
"IF you could prove it, you all would do so."
The proof has been provided and confirmed by science. It's not even a debatable point, except to assholes for whom sexual pleasure is more important than the lives of those produced as a result of it.
"IF you could prove it, you all would do so."
And while science has provided for us all the proof we need...as if simple Christian love of one's fellow man isn't enough...Dan doesn't do jack shit to provide anything remotely resembling proof which justifies his vile disregard for the lives of those in utero. He simply picks an arbitrary point in their lives...prior to the finish of their gestational period...as ripe for his evil rejection of their humanity. Again, even the slaves of the pre-Civil War era were granted more regard. That's how vile and evil Dan is.
"...you just declare you're right and expect everyone else to abandon their own religions and philosophical autonomy and bow down to the boy-gods like Craig and Glenn and Marshal."
This is rich. Dan believes he can maintain his evil rejection of the humanity of those in utero because others of different religions and philosophies are as evil as he is. I don't even rely on my own more accurate understanding of Christianity to maintain what to me is beyond blatantly obvious in its truthfulness. It's just so clear that when a male and female engage in the act meant to produce offspring that what is produced is a person. It's basic. It's obvious. It's truth in its most pure form. The truth is anathema to Dan. Dan is anathema to Christianity.
"So, you don't like my definition of personhood. By all means, give your definition of it, Craig. And THEN prove your concept of personhood is actually True."
As Dan so loves dictionary definitions, all one can find say the same thing. A person is a human being. What develops in a woman's womb from the moment of conception is a human being and thus a person. Calling it a "fetus" or a "human fetus" is only describing a stage of human development as if "infant", "toddler", "child", "adolescent", "teenager", "adult". Yet all are people...persons... of varying degrees of physical development. Once again, it is up to the murdering bastards like Dan to PROVE that there is some way to separate persons at one stage of development from being less a person than any other. There is no way to do so and because of that, there is no way to legitimately deny the full "personhood" of the unborn at any stage of development from conception onward.
"Do you have that level of integrity?"
It's funny hearing a scumbag like Dan speaking of integrity as if he has a single shred of it.
"BUT, you are not free to force your hunches on others, you religious fascist."
It's funny hearing a scumbag like Dan speaking of fascism while he forces his murderous intentions on so many innocent and vulnerable people.
"That's the point. None of us can prove if or when a fetus has a right to life that trumps and overrides any concerns the mother may have."
Dan wants to frame this issue as one of competing interests between a parent and the parent's child. Dan wants to pretend there's some actual argument for supporting the notion a parent's life...or "concerns"...is more important than the life of the parent's child, just because the child is still in utero. We say the proof is in the very fact that the child is a person...a human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life assholes like Dan have abdicated by their vile disregard for the lives of those unborn people. Dan simply pretends we can't know. That's bullshit and typical of just how little regard Dan has for any actual people over the political/philosophical bullshit we know as "leftism".
"That's the reality. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
Yes, I recognize that you are saying that, repeatedly. The problem is that you've chose to ignore the humanity of the child and implicitly assert that the mother's property rights override the child's right to life. A position you haven't even attempted to prove. The fact that you say something doesn't mean that it's true.
"IF you could do that, you would."
The problem isn't that I won't prove you wrong, it's that you can't prove your assertion, you simply announce that something is reality and pretend like you have the standing to dictate what reality is. You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
Of course, making these absurd demands does take time away from you answering the unanswered questions you've been avoiding so I can see why you do it.
"Now, YOU are the one making the claim."
No. This is simply false. I have NEVER made the claim "that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.". Never, not one single time. You have made this bullshit up and created a fantasy world where I've made claims that you invented. Why would any sane human support a claim that someone else made up and attributed to them>
"Where is the humility and intellectual honesty?"
Certainly not with you. How is it intellectually honest to make something up and insist that I made your made up bullshit claim?
"You mean YOUR responsibility to NOT engage in forcing women to have babies when they have other opinions? You see the hypocrisy you all engage in?"
No, I mean your responsibility to protect the innocent and vulnerable from harm. But I applaud the effort you've gone to in avoiding answering questions.
"How do I balance my right to "self determination" against someone else's right to private property? If I am a starving, oppressed, poor, immigrant and I need food, clothes, shelter, and money in order to live out my right of "self determination", then can I assert that my right of "self determination" takes priority over the private property rights of someone else?"
"In a Christian community of grace, of course, we would expect the starving immigrant would take what they need to stop themselves or the children from starving. We would encourage them and work with them to find housing."
I must have missed Jesus' command to steal. But either way, you didn't actually answer the question. Just made a comment full of unsupported blather based on your presumptions.
"Embrace grace, fellas. It's a much better heaven than the hellscape of religious oppression you all chase after."
Ahhhhhhh, Dan the person who shows absolutely zero grace toward those he despises call for others to show grace to him. Just more double standard.
"What Dan is clarifying here is his equivocation."
In a sense you are right, but I think it's more than that. Much like his views on morality, he seems to want to have a foot in the scientific camp that acknowledges that the pre born child is a living, unique, individual, human being, but to deny that the child has a right to keep what he or she already possesses. What's he's saying is either, a) that the living child has life, but doesn't have the right to keep it, b) that the mother's property rights override and cancel the child's right to keep the life he or she already has. As the wise Dr Seuss once said, "A person is a person, no matter how small.".
"The unborn child IS alive", "What we know for sure is that it is a living human fetus."
How is it that someone can be emphatic that the unborn child "IS alive", while unsure of whether or not the child is "living". Is there some sort of disconnect between living and being alive?
"hellscape of religious oppression"
This is so bizarre, because I (for one) am emphatically NOT making a "religious" argument. I certainly don't want to impose my religious views on anyone. Although Dan does seem to lean that direction.
Craig...
"This is simply false. I have NEVER made the claim "that a pre birth human is a unique, living, individual, human being WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS/OVERRIDES ANY DECISIONS THE MOTHER MAY WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.". Never, not one single time. "
So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?
Then you and I agree.
For people like Dan who think if they call it a fetus that proves it isn't yet human, think about the fact that "fetus" is a Latin word brough into th English language(as so many other words). Fetus simply means "offspring", "bringing forth", "hatching of young." A human fetus is a human offspring, i.e. a live human.
You mean YOUR responsibility to NOT engage in forcing women to have babies when they have other opinions? You see the hypocrisy you all engage in? What you claim I'm doing, YOU are the ones doing.
No one is forcing a woman to have a baby. She is responsible for any baby she starts by having sexual relations. If she's pregnant she already has a baby. Opinions do not trump medical/scientific facts. It is a 100% proven fact that what is conceived is a living human being. What sane people want is to prevent the murder of the baby the woman already has inside of her. No one forced her to have that baby. (Yes, a rapist could be said to forcing her to have a baby, but rape resulting in a child has been proven to be statistically rare, which is still not a reason to murder the innocent child inside of the woman.)
I answered questions from Craig about homeless, needy immigrants saying...
In a Christian community of grace, of course, we would expect the starving immigrant would take what they need to stop themselves or the children from starving. We would encourage them and work with them to find housing.
Embrace grace, fellas. It's a much better heaven than the hellscape of religious oppression you all chase after.
Craig responded. ..
Dan the person who shows absolutely zero grace toward those he despises call for others to show grace to him. Just more double standard.
And...
This is so bizarre, because I (for one) am emphatically NOT making a "religious" argument.
I am speaking to the worldview of religious conservatives. The type who, like you, Craig, have to ask if it's moral for the starving to take that which wasn't theirs to keep from starving. I noted for the progressive minded out here, Christian and otherwise, the answer is clear: Yes! Take what you need to keep from starving, as long as you're not harming others, this is the response from progressive folk. I'm noting how heavenly and beautiful such a landscape would be. As opposed to the pharisaical piling of burdens on the shoulders of the least of these.
So there's that. And of course, you're just mistaken to think I despise you fellas who are very much like me, once upon a time. Very much like my beloved parents and conservative friends. Despise you? I love you fellas. If I despised you, I wouldn't bother talking with you.
I do strongly disagree, even despise some of the positions you take and religious views you hold. But despise you? Hardly, any more than I hate my younger self or friends who are conservative in your kind of way, still.
You read, but don't understand.
Truly a religious argument is unnecessary when science so emphatically supports the notion of a unique human being existing from the moment of conception. It takes a leftist to pretend there's some point afterward at which a conceived person can expect his fellow human beings to protect his/her life as having equal value to anyone else, instead of from that moment of conception. But no, scum pretends because it has not yet had the opportunity to pass through the birth canal, said person can be regarded as less than a person and wholly without standing as regards having its right to life protected.
It can't be said enough: It is up to the leftist asshole to defend the notion a person is not a person for whatever arbitrary, self-serving and subjective reason the leftist chooses to use. Such arguments truly indict the leftist as being unworthy of the right to life as is any other convicted of murder in the first degree. The unborn didn't show up by accident. In the vast majority of cases...indeed, in all cases... it was invited...willingly, most often eagerly...by the choice to engage in the very act designed to bring about a new person, by one or both of the parents of the child. To then say it's a bad time, is too bad for the parents. They are obligated to at the very least bring that child to term so that good people can adopt or raise it. They are obligated because there is no one who doesn't know how people come into existence. There are only assholes who try to insist there's some question as to whether or not every person has the right to live which outweighs the inconvenience of the parents.
I'm tired of hearing I shouldn't regard Dan as evil, given the evil he manifests with his comments so routinely. He is indeed and evil person who mocks God by daring to label himself Christian. His disregard for the unborn is testament to that. It is the bad fruit by which we can identify him.
Craig...
"This is so bizarre, because I (for one) am emphatically NOT making a "religious" argument."
What argument ARE you making? That you, as one NOT trained as a medical or obstetrics expert, think in your head that it makes sense to you that the newly conceived zygote has a right to life that trumps any considerations the pregnant woman may have? That's an okay philosophy for you to hold personally. Hold that philosophy. But don't presume to speak for Science as if you were the omniscient Lord of Science.
You ain't.
Craig ...
"I certainly don't want to impose my religious views on anyone. Although Dan does seem to lean that direction."
Stupidly false. You can't point to a single place where I've ever said, My religion teaches X... therefore, X should be the law because that's what my religion teaches. In fact, I've clearly stood against such religioning.
Really, your reading comprehension needs to be tested.
"What argument ARE you making?"
1. The very notion that you would say that I was making a religious argument, when you cannot find one actual example of me doing so, indicates your inability to allow things like facts get in the way of your preconceived notions, biases, and prejudices.
2. My argument is primarily based in science. What science tells us about the beginning of life. What science tells us about the complete uniqueness of an unborn child. What I see when
I view a 4d Ultrasound. Finally, on the law.
3. I reject the notion that the unborn child is the property of the mother to do with as she wishes, and I reject the notion that the unborn are not living human beings.
"That you, as one NOT trained as a medical or obstetrics expert, think in your head that it makes sense to you that the newly conceived zygote has a right to life that trumps any considerations the pregnant woman may have?"
No, I have never once made that specific claim. That specific claim is one that you have invented and continue to pretend that I have made.
"That's an okay philosophy for you to hold personally. Hold that philosophy. But don't presume to speak for Science as if you were the omniscient Lord of Science."
Again, I have never once done this. Strangely enough, you tend to do this frequently.
"Stupidly false. You can't point to a single place where I've ever said, My religion teaches X... therefore, X should be the law because that's what my religion teaches. In fact, I've clearly stood against such religioning. Really, your reading comprehension needs to be tested."
Really. You've never offered the story of Jesus quoting Isiah as a rationale to shape immigration law? You've never promulgated the Mary/Joseph/Jesus illegal immigrant falsehood as a way to inform your stance on immigration?
I guess it's OK to ignore your blatant lies and refusal to answer questions as long as you can paint my opinions about you as false.
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
I love how you jump ahead, make shit up, and try to use this sort of bullshit tactic to pretend you've won something.
Before I answer, how about if you answer one specific questions.
Does an unborn, individual, unique. living human child have a right to life?
Does the mother have property rights to the unborn, unique, individual, living, being?
In general do property rights trump the right to life?
If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being, does have a right to life, when does is that right endowed?
If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being, does not have a right to life, when does that right get endowed?
If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being has life (ie is living), then how can they not have a right to what they already possess?
If you'll answer those questions (versions of which you've been dodging for quite some time), I'll gladly answer yours.
"Despise you? I love you fellas. If I despised you, I wouldn't bother talking with you."
You have an incredibly bizarre way of demonstrating love and grace.
The fact that you choose not to separate me as an individual from your prejudices, preconceptions, and biases about your caricature of what conservatives are demonstrates that you clearly don't love me. The fact that you are condescending, vitriolic, vulgar, and hateful, is a clear sign that you aren't acting in love.
So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?
I'm not answering for Craig but I will put it this way:
The baby the pregnant woman is carrying is a separate, distinct human being with the right to life--a right EVERY human has. The woman carrying the bably has no moral right to terminate it, therefore the living human inside her has a right to life that trumps any decision she might make about aborting it.
Glenn,
You make an excellent point. The choices that lead to becoming pregnant are many, and obvious. I think that I identified 9-10 specific choices that all need to be made before one gets pregnant. Once one IS pregnant then they are reduced to only two choices.
1. Assume responsibility for the unique, individual, human being, living and growing in their womb.
2. End the life of that unique, individual, human being.
The fact that too many people irresponsibly place themselves in this dilemma, and that folks like Dan encourage their irresponsibility, doesn't bode well.
Given the propensity of people who tend to vote for and support leftist candidates and policies, there is a part of me that wants to let the political left abort it's future, and to encourage more leftists to engage in lifestyles where reproduction isn't possible.
Finally, wasn't there some lefty candidate a while back who touted abortion as a major factor in lower crime rates?
I'm going to note something here. The topic of this post is the similarity of the arguments for slavery in the US, to the arguments for abortion. I can't ignore that fact that Dan has repeatedly used some of these arguments in his defense of abortion in this thread. Oblivious to the fact that he's using the arguments that were advanced to enslave blacks.
I guess he really does buy into "By any means necessary".
Dan. this isn't a lie. It's an opinion based on your actions and words.
The similarity is more than obvious. Indeed, it's not merely "similar". It's the exact same thing, with possibly the abortionist being far worse than the slaver...a possibility easily exposed given with slavers it was merely a matter of whether or not slaves had rights. Here, Dan argues against the humanity of the unborn, presuming there's a legit question of whether or not the unborn at its initial stage is somehow less deserving of having its right to life protected simply due to its size and age, as well as the undefended suggestion that a woman's preferences are more important than the life of her own child invited into existence by her actions. Said another way, Dan simply pays lip service to the humanity of the unborn, while clearly demonstrating he has no respect whatsoever for their lives or the reality that they are people already endowed by their Creator with the right to life. Dan's thus worse than a mere murderer. He regards these unfortunate and most vulnerable people as things...objects...property maybe.
I have no love whatsoever for Dan. Whether he lives or dies is of no concern to me, particularly so long as he remains in such obvious rebellion against the Christ he mocks by his behaviors and disregard for others. I don't believe he gives a flying rat's ass about "the starving" or anyone else, but only about how he appears to fools who fall for his crap. To honest people, he appears as he is...a liar and a vile representative of fallen humanity.
Craig...
"Before I answer, how about if you answer one specific questions."
Which one?
"Does an unborn, individual, unique. living human child have a right to life?"
My personal, unproven, unprovable opinion is that, yes, that fetus has a right to life... so that, for instance, if someone shoots the mother and she survives but the fetus dies, that shooter has wrongly killed that fetus and should be held accountable.
But, does the fetus have a right to life that trumps the pregnant woman's self determination (the question you keep dodging)...?, that is what we don't know objectively. I tend to think no. The mother has the right to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. Period.
":Does the mother have property rights to the unborn, unique, individual, living, being?"
No. The fetus is not "property."
"In general do property rights trump the right to life?"
No.
"If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being, does have a right to life, when does is that right endowed?"
Above my pay grade (and yours) My unproven and unprovable opinion is that a limited right to life begins at roughly conception.
"If the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being has life (ie is living), then how can they not have a right to what they already possess?"
My opinion is that they DO have a limited right to life. Just not one that trumps all other concerns.
Craig...
"You've never offered the story of Jesus quoting Isiah as a rationale to shape immigration law?"
No. Never.
"You've never promulgated the Mary/Joseph/Jesus illegal immigrant falsehood as a way to inform your stance on immigration?"
No. Never.
My views ARE informed by the teachings of Christ my Lord.
But I NEVER have argued for policy based in my religious views. My views on immigration, for instance, are ALSO informed by basic human rights and decency
I've always been strongly opposed to legislating policies based on a given religion.
I have pointed out to Christians why such policies are, of course, completely consistent with Christian teaching, but that's not saying I'm arguing for policy based on religious opinions.
Craig...
"I guess he really does buy into "By any means necessary".
Dan. this isn't a lie. It's an opinion based on your actions and words."
It's literally a false claim. I do not believe, of course, in the notion of by any means necessary. Now, you are free to hold that false opinion, just like you can believe that your shit tastes good, but that doesn't mean it will taste good.
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
No.
"My opinion is that they DO have a limited right to life."
What exactly are these limits?
Who imposes these limits?
Can these limits be curtailed, limited, or ended, based on the convenience of others?
"The mother has the right to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. Period."
Where is this right enumerated?
When does this right end?
Does this right include the right to drink heavily or used drugs that affect the unborn child during pregnancy?
Are the any limits to this right of mothers to end the lives of their children?
It's interesting that you claim that you have these personal opinions on this topic, yet your public position contradicts these positions you claim to have. You claim that your faith informs your positions, yet what in your faith or the teachings of Jesus leads you to conclude that mothers have the right to end the lives of their unborn children?
I'm done answering questions while you continue to NOT answer mine. Your turn.
Craig...
"It's interesting that you claim that you have these personal opinions on this topic, yet your public position contradicts these positions you claim to have."
While waiting for you to answer, here's another question...
Of course, you're just flatly wrong in this comment but I'm curious what you THINK I've claimed that is contradicted by my public position..?
These last two comments are without a doubt the stupidest comments you've even made. I've literally answered every question you've asked (it's possible that I missed one or two), while you've literally ignored multiple questions I've asked. I have no idea what planet you live on, but it's clearly not this one. Now I know why I question your ability to define reality.
You've been quite clear that much, if not all, of your moral framework (based out of your faith) is based on not causing harm to others. Especially those who are innocent, sinless, helpless, oppressed, and the like. You claim that your personal opinion is that unborn children are living, human beings that have some (undefined, vague, amorphous) right to some sort of life. yet you vociferously protect the right of mothers to unilaterally end the life within them at any point, for any reason. To me, ending the life of a human being constitutes harm. It's clear that unborn children feel pain during the abortion procedure as their skull is punctured and their brains are suctioned out, that seems harmful. Further, we have multiple instances of "failed" abortions where a living, breathing child is left to die, which again seems harmful. We, even further, have increasing evidence that abortion is linked to multiple harmful effects of the mothers. Cancer, PTSD, infertility, risk to future pregnancies and children, and the like. Those things all seem harmful, yet you vociferously protect the rights of women to engage in or risk all of those harms, despite your alleged moral code.
Just one more question answered, while the list of unanswered questions stay unanswered.
If you're going to leave and do so with a host of unanswered questions in your wake, it's probably better if you just slink away instead of this idiotic, bullshit, virtue signaling crap that bears no relationship to reality.
But if you want to show me the questions I've missed, I'll answer those too. I'm an imperfect, finite, man with limited time and it's possible that despite my best efforts, I might occasionally miss something.
Craig...
These last two comments are without a doubt the stupidest comments you've even made. I've literally answered every question you've asked
I had asked...
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
And you replied...
I love how you jump ahead, make shit up, and try to use this sort of bullshit tactic to pretend you've won something.
Before I answer, how about if you answer one specific questions.
In other words, you have not answered and even acknowledged you haven't answered the question:
"So, you do not think that a fetus has a right to life that trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might make about abortion?"
Because that IS the question that needs to be answered, isn't it? You all, in your heads, THINK but can't prove that the fetal "right to life" exists and trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might have, right?
NOTE: I'm asking that as a question based on what I think all of your have made abundantly cleared. After all, that's the point, right? You want to criminalize/remove abortion as an option for women (except maybe in some very rare cases, some of you might allow it) because you think, in your heads, that a fetus has a right to life that begins at conception AND that this right is all important, overriding the mother's rights to make decisions about the pregnancy.
My point is that just because you all, in your heads, THINK that the fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations the pregnant woman has, you can't prove it. No one can. It's an unsupported and unproven and unprovable position.
Do you recognize that reality?
More questions to go unanswered.
Don't forget, Craig...what, for Dan, counts as an answered question is subjective and self-serving. Any dumbass question he asks...and there are many...always...requires an answered put forth in a specific manner beyond which he will assert the question wasn't answered. And that's including his REALLY dumbass questions which don't even deserve the dignity of a response.
In the meantime, direct and unequivocal questions by us go unanswered, or answered in a way he would never accept were the roles reversed. Engaging "in good faith" is a freaking punchline to this guy. He doesn't know the meaning of the phrase or consciously disregards it as liars will.
And the biggest lie of this conversation is that which demands we "PROVE" people are people, while he asserts some aren't people for subjective and unscientific reasons which have no proof of their own. This is what "embracing grace" looks like to a fraud. He's worse than his slaver ancestors. FAR worse.
"In other words, you have not answered and even acknowledged you haven't answered the question:"
And now, the rest of the story. I made my answer conditional on your finally answering some specific questions. You did respond to/answer those questions, so I answered yours. In other words, I did exactly what I said I would do, and answered your question. On 12/26/22 at 8:59, to be precise.
In other words, your last three comments have been based on you choosing to ignore my answer to your question
"Because that IS the question that needs to be answered, isn't it?"
No.
"You all, in your heads, THINK but can't prove that the fetal "right to life" exists and trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might have, right?"
I don't speak for anyone except myself. My answer is still no.
"After all, that's the point, right?"
No.
"You want to criminalize/remove abortion as an option for women (except maybe in some very rare cases, some of you might allow it) because you think, in your heads, that a fetus has a right to life that begins at conception AND that this right is all important, overriding the mother's rights to make decisions about the pregnancy."
Again, I don't speak for anyone but myself. Your above statement as far as I am concerned is false, It might be True to some degree for others, but it doesn't represent anything I have ever said. But you've always has a problem with not dealing with individuals and what they've said. You prefer to deal with groups and your caricature of what you think people have said.
"My point is that just because you all, in your heads, THINK that the fetus has a right to life that trumps all other considerations the pregnant woman has, you can't prove it. No one can. It's an unsupported and unproven and unprovable position."
I don't really care what your unproven, unsupported hunch might be. You won't prove this claim any more than you'll prove any other claim you make.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Since nothing you've said actually represents the reality of anything I've said or believe, I'll have to say that this is one more example of your trying too define reality based on your prejudgements, biases, prejudices, and fantasies.
"More questions to go unanswered."
"Unanswered", I don't think that means what you think it means.
If by "unanswered" you mean individually, specifically, concisely answered, then you are correct.
The fact that you just ignore my answers in order to repeat this baseless charge, makes me wonder about your attention span, sanity, and reading comprehension.
Meanwhile, the list of questions you've actually not answered likely just grew longer.
Art,
Of course he does, which is why I almost always answer them in some way or another. For many people, answering their questions, even the stupid, nonsensical ones, would stop them from making this baseless claims. Dan seems to ignore the actual answers and keep making the same ridiculous claim over and over. Like most of his claims, he simply makes them, declares them to be "reality", and doesn't actually prove them.
Art,
I suspect that Dan sometimes asks questions as a diversion, instead of because he actually wants an answer. I suspect this because I've regularly answered his questions at length an din great detail (with follow up questions for him) and have gotten zero response to or acknowledgement of my answers. I can't think of a time when he referenced an answer to a question in a response. It seems like it's more about him furthering the narrative that I don't answer questions, than an interest in the answers.
The above is a great example of this. I literally answered his question with a simple direct, concise answer, yet he insists that I didn't answer it at all. He's choosing to ignore the reality of my answer in favor of the narrative that he's clinging to.
Like many things, it's kind of sad and pathetic.
Craig...
"You want to criminalize/remove abortion as an option for women (except maybe in some very rare cases, some of you might allow it)....
Craig: I don't speak for anyone but myself. Your above statement as far as I am concerned is false, It might be True to some degree for others, but it doesn't represent anything I have ever said.
Sigh.
So you DON'T want to see abortion made illegal/not an option for women?
You DO support women if they think that an abortion is the best choice for them?
The answer is, of course, a certain No for Glenn, Marshal and many others and I'm pretty sure it's a No for you. If so, and it's NOT the case that you support women choosing an abortion, then I don't know what in my comment is false, even though you said it's false. Maybe you can explain yourself?
But I doubt that's forthcoming.
Craig...
I suspect that Dan sometimes asks questions as a diversion, instead of because he actually wants an answer.
I ask questions to TRY to get a direct answer. Not this "yes, but no, but yes, but that's not what I said, but yes, it is what I said but it's not what I said..." BS.
The fact that you continue to ask questions, while pretending that you haven't ignored multiple questions would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. In much the same way that you choose not to acknowledge that I did answer all of the questions you said that I wouldn;t answer.
"So you DON'T want to see abortion made illegal/not an option for women?"
1. What I might want is immaterial, I don't have the ability to force my wants on others.
2. My preference would be that the 98% of abortions that are done for convenience would be eliminated.
3. My preference would be to do so through persuasion, and positive alternatives rather than coercion.
4. I realize that I might have to compromise my preferences in the real world, and have been very specific in the past as to what comprises I could live with.
"You DO support women if they think that an abortion is the best choice for them?"
No, in general I do not support any act which causes harm to oneself or others. In general I believe that our children should be protected not have their lives ended prematurely. I believe that selflessness is better than selfishness.
In short, I believe that abortion should be restricted but not eliminated.
"I'm pretty sure it's a No for you."
This is what happens when you make assumptions based on your prejudices, preconceptions, and biases, and act as if those assumptions were True.
I have explained my position on abortion multiple times over the years. If you are too stupid, or lack the ability to remember it, that's your problem. The fact that you are too lazy to treat me as an individual, but choose to project your assumptions on me based on others, is also not my problem.
I'll point out that your lack of response to the instances where I answer you would lead any reasonable person to conclude otherwise.
Yet, the unanswered questions in this thread alone still linger while Dan goes on the offensive instead of answering.
Craig...
"This is what happens when you make assumptions based on your prejudices, preconceptions, and biases, and act as if those assumptions were True."
And...
"My preference would be to do so through persuasion, and positive alternatives rather than coercion."
You see, the problem is, you keep saying your answer is NO, but then demonstrating through your obfuscation that your answer is, indeed, YES.
You would LIKE to convince women using your reasoning that you know the answer better than they do is to NOT have an abortion... BUT failing that, you want to create legislation to prevent roughly 98% of women from having an abortion, by weight of law, right?
If these 98% of women and their medical team refuse to heed your laws, then do you want to punish them for committing murder? If so, how is that not criminalizing abortion?
Look, I fully get that you, in your gratitude Male Privilege, are allowing a few exceptions. That was never my point. My point is that your side certainly wants to criminalize abortion and prevent by law most women from choosing an abortion, and in your vagueness, you sound like you do too.
"BUT failing that, you want to create legislation to prevent roughly 98% of women from having an abortion, by weight of law, right?"
I wouldn't say I'd like to, but it is an option I would potentially support.
"If these 98% of women and their medical team refuse to heed your laws, then do you want to punish them for committing murder?"
No.
"If so, how is that not criminalizing abortion?"
It's not so.
My point, not that you care, is that you are obsessed with assigning positions to individual people based on your hunches about what you perceive as their "side" wants to do, and are willing to make all sorts of leaps of logic and assumptions in order to avoid dealing with me as an individual, as opposed to me as a part of some "group" that you've assigned me to. Although, you are quite willing to lecture me about what my answers are, by choosing to interpret my answers any way necessary to prop up your prejudiced hunches.
FYI, I've addressed these topics in great specificity elsewhere. I'm curious as to why I must regurgitate what I've already said because you're too lazy or forgetful to do some research. If you don't ignore this like many questions, keep in mind that you have a history of getting worked up when asked nicely to reiterate something you've said earlier.
Still no answers, responses to my answers, or acknowledgement that I've answered virtually all of your questions.
But, more questions from you that must be answered promptly.
Dan needs to defend the evil of his position which is clear in the following:
"You all, in your heads, THINK but can't prove that the fetal "right to life" exists and trumps any decisions a pregnant woman might have, right?"
First, he wants to pretend we only "think" the person in utero has the unalienable right to life endowed upon the person by that person's Creator.
Second, he wants to pretend there's some legitimate way to argue the person in utero is not in fact a person equally entitled to Constitutional protections of that person's life as is the mother of that person seeking that person's destruction.
Third, he wants to assert that there is some decision by a pregnant woman which outweigh the right to life of the person whose existence she invited by her choice to engage in the very act designed and intended to bring about the existence of another person, even if that decision has no bearing on the fact her own life is not in any way threatened by her pregnancy to any extent which can legitimately require the termination of that person in her womb in order to resolve it, since no pregnancy can so require such a thing.
Dan wants to argue we are granting the unborn equal importance and value it does not have in order to argue for its preservation over the "decisions" and "self-determination" of it mother, when those are just leftist weasel words...lies, that is...to rationalize the selfishness of the act of murdering an innocent person who stands in the way of another person's desires.
And what is abortion but the termination of the life of a person Dan pretends is neither a person nor a person equal to any other who exists outside its mother's womb? Given that reality, without just cause...and there truly is none...abortion is another word for murder, and Dan somehow believes this form is not worthy of legal prohibition because it interferes with the self-determination of a woman, in the very same way any other murderer makes the same defense.
Dan wants US to defend the reality of the infant's "personhood" when in truth, he needs to find a way to defend the vile position evil asshats like him promote without legit scientific or religious basis there's any question about it. Like all scum, Dan denies truth, fact and reality in order to defend evil, pretending there's something wrong with those of us who defend truth, fact, reality and the lives of those truly oppressed and threatened by scum.
Art,
Dan is convinced that it's somehow evil for anyone to think that not allowing a woman to end the life of the unborn, unique, individual, living, human being, growing inside of her body at any time and for any reason. By his insistence that only the woman can make this decision, he's automatically excluding the father from any role in the decision. Yet somehow, it's some horrible punishment for a woman to do what she is designed (evolved, etc) to do. It's better for a woman not to protect her child, but to end the life of her child. It all comes down to his adamant asserting that we don't know, we can't know, anything for certain. Therefore (he concludes) it is better to allow women the ability to dispose of their unborn (etc) child at their whim, and without apparent regard to the harm. His default position is that it's preferable to end the life of the unborn child, than to temporarily inconvenience the mother.
Your last sentence is the tell. But as I said, that's absolutely no different than the position of any murderer. They murder so as not to be inconvenienced by another person.
Art,
It's strange that Dan can't really define personhood, or give us any specifics about how, when, etc, but he simply wants us to accept and defend his hunch about what personhood might be.
He wants us to accept that the selfish demands of the mother outweigh the life of the child resulting from her actions and choices. To mask it in concern for the mother, as if the mother was without the means to protect her womb from unwanted conception, is just another lie he tells.
It's far stranger Dan expects anyone to respect every and any cheap rationalization parents might make as if they're worthy of it. They're not.
BTW, I use "parents" intentionally, because I'm not unaware of the role fathers play in this debate, especially in cases where they've pressured the woman to get the abortion. I saw an article putting forth the notion that most abortions are done under pressure on the women from their sex partner or families or others, which belies the argument for their "self-determination". I don't know how accurate the article was with their data, but no doubt many cases are the result of such pressures which are far worse than cultural pressures to do the right thing and bring the baby to term.
Art,
I think that part of the problem involves ignoring the science one again, and pretending as if the unborn child, just magically appeared in the womb of the mother. Pretending that the mother didn't invite, at least, the probability of bearing a child through her actions. Pretending that it's not possible to prevent pregnancy in almost all circumstances and that despite that almost nothing is 100% effective. It's basic biology that if you give in to your sexual desires often enough, that you increase your chances of pregnancy.
The role of fathers in this is mystifying. If the woman decides to keep the child, regardless of the desires of the father, then the father is 100% on the hook for the financial support of the child. If the mother decides to and the child's life, the father has absolutely zero say on the matter at all.
This is more and more about enabling women to engage in sex with as close to zero negative consequences as possible, while ignoring the increasing amount of evidence that this sort of lifestyle comes with it's own negative consequences.
This is just what Dan's feminism looks like. It's no different than the selfishness of women protected as if it's a legitimate "right". Self-determination for low character women. None for the women in utero.
It tends to be pretty selective in practice. I do struggle with the reality that the left is going to abort/trans/and LGBT themselves out of existence at some point. Much of their agenda seems to lower the number of offspring they have.
Post a Comment