Understand that this was the same state where Jill found these “live birth abortions” being performed. Obama opposed the bill!
Jill was even named as the “Worst Person in the World!” by MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann on June 4, 2009.
Even yesterday, former Sen. Rick Santorum is thankfully still screaming about Obama's position on Abortion, "Santorum notes that for decades, slavery allowed African-Americans to be treated like property. And he says fetuses are denied the right to life because they are considered property."
This day is also on the heels of some absolutely horrific evil that all of you may have heard of. First, the multimillionaire Kermit Gosnell was thankfully caught and arrested for using scissors to snip the many babies spines that he was aborting that had survived.
Now, I will not show such grotesque pictures on this blog, I use it daily. I just cannot cry that much, and it still be considered healthy. Jill found the actual Grand Jury report, including photos, and posted it. I cannot stress this enough though, Warning: extremely graphic photos of evil done to babies. It must be said that this murderer accumulated great wealth and is extremely rich from this practice of murder for hire. I am certain he will retain a great lawyer to defend himself in these cases. I just hope the DA will properly defend, and be a voice for, all those helpless people that he murdered. Jury duty is not all that bad folks. We owe it to the little voices out there, that were silenced by the evil of this world.
This unwanted parasite in her belly, at age 14, was getting her down. But oh joy, great news!
"...When the baby died, I knew that it was my second chance," Oprah said.
Now we must understand this woman's wealth and influence. She is a billionaire many times over and could have done some great things on this planet. Instead she spreads her anti-Christ agenda and promoted Obama into office. Understand that this parasite herself was dubbed a "modern day prophet" I believe I read about her not too long ago in the Bible. She is now voted, by me, “Worst woman in the World!” and those were some already large shoes to fill.
What we really wish that they would do is explain what “choice” actually means? Does it mean to choose to not marry and stay single with no children? Nope. Does it mean, to choose to live a little before 'settling down'? Nope. Is this even some weird reference to the 80's of a Katharine Hamnett t-shirt, that George Michael made famous? (Deuteronomy 30:19) Nope. Why the marketing PR ruse?
What is wrong with calling it "Hurray, Abortion day"? Are you ashamed to call it what it is? Why not... Pro death; Pro murder; or simply Pro Abortion. I especially like the very creative double entendre of this poster. Just call it "Mean Choice Blog Day."
To date, the consequences of Roe vs. Wade is that over 53 million babies have been murdered since that day. The women that get these abortions vary, but the largest number of them are between 15-24, never been married, mostly white and black, professing either to be protestant or catholic, that either had an abortion in the past or never had an abortion before.
A real shocking number, for me at least, is that 25% of these woman that had abortions have had children before. They have kids, then have an abortion!
I have a picture of the ultrasound at 20-22 weeks of my boy, the eyes that you look at when visiting this blog, and he is sucking his thumb. Now, after all those accumulative moments of raising a child, to turn and abort a baby after that, is appalling and incomprehensible.
This outdated law stays on the books because of the agenda of organizations, like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and some high profile and extremely influential members of the media, like Oprah Winfrey.
Many do not know that Norma McCorvey (Roe) is pro-life and NEVER had an Abortion. "Her lawyer, Sarah Weddington, knew the rape story was a lie when she argued the case before the Supreme Court, but she chose to keep that information from the court and the public. The truth did not surface until 1988, when Norma McCorvey herself confessed to the lie. In 1995, McCorvey joined the pro-life movement." ~Pro-Life Action League
Why is it still here? Medical procedures and advancements almost but eliminated the need for such drastic measures as to abort a child. They can even keep premature babies alive as young as 20 weeks. So why?
Most people, like many here, say its to save women from "all those deaths due to complications of child birth."
Who would want dying women, all over the place? No one. Most importantly though, and this is really important, this definition of "maternal mortality" actually includes deaths from induced and spontaneous abortions!!!
These are completely self-fulfilling statistics now. You cannot say that abortions remain legal because of maternal mortality rate increases, when all along counting complications due to abortions into those numbers! No wonder its still in the law books.
That means that no matter how good modern medical science gets, the more deaths from abortions, and there are a lot of them, factored into the "maternal mortality" numbers, i.e. for the reason itself to keep this law alive in the first place, is assuring the continuation of this law. O'rly?
So, any complications from abortions is just good business for the likes of these homicidal maniacs that want to uphold this failed law. You are not guaranteed a safe life. You may die in a building that gets ambushed. You can get hit by a bus. Should we ban buses? You may catch a disease, cancer, a falling tree. Life is risk. Statistics say that we may die. Is this world for self preservation or procreation?
What good is it to gain the whole world, only to lose your soul? Life is risk, but risk worth taking. Risk it for life.
There is a whole list of Biblical Verses that explain that abortions are absolutely wrong. But the one that sticks out the most to me is the last one.
Understand that I made that case already that children go to Heaven, so they are safe and in a better place than here.
Now, if you're a mother that made these death choices in the past, then God gives you an opportunity so that extremely precious little baby of yours can be with you, their Mother, once again for all of eternity. Amen!
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live," ~Deuteronomy 30:19
How can you oppose infanticide, Dan, when the god of the bible, in whom you believe implicitly, not only sanctioned but actively ordered the slaughter of innocent children and pregnant women?
ReplyDeleteJust asking for a little consistency from one who claims, as a presupper, that his worldview is consistent...
Let's not misrepresent this situation, Dan. Gosnell was a brutal charlatan who had no proper medical training and did not comport with the wishes of the women who requested his services.
ReplyDeleteAs PZ Myers pointed out on his blog, this situation is an argument for the provision and monitoring of safe, legal abortions performed with due medical care and diligence.
As I pointed out earlier today in a comment on Ray Comfort's blog, Christian championing of the 'rights' of the unborn and your vehement opposition to abortion in any circumstances only serves to highlight the hipocrisy inherent in a religion that glorifies death, violence and vicarious atonement.
Do you mourn the skin cells you wash off every day in the shower, Dan? If not, why not? They are as human and as conscious as a five-day-old human blastocyst.
A real shocking number, for me at least, is that 25% of these woman that had abortions has had children before. They have kids, then have an abortion!
ReplyDeleteWhy do you find this shocking, Dan?
Do you think that the experience of having children is uniformly fantastic and dreamy for everyone?
Why should not a couple, already raising some number of children, decide that they cannot afford the time, money and attention cost from raising their other children, to have yet another child? Do you imagine this is not a painful decision for these couples? They are weighing the probable welfare of their existing children against the (most likely, at this stage, nonsentient) life of their potential child.
Not everything is as cut and dried as you imagine, Dan - and you'd do well to consult your holy book with regard to your god's care for children and unborn babies (of whom, if miscarriages are taken into account, you god aborts millions every year), since that's the foundation of your belief system. I think you'll find a lot more callousness in your god's dealings than anything you've described in this post.
I concur the points made by DormantDragon. Why is it Dan you consistant world doesn't appear so consistent whenever we look at it closely?
ReplyDeleteI would also like to bring up fertility clinics. Why don't I ever hear you or other Christians much like you speak out about fertility clinics. I mean, you should since there are so many fertilized eggs that end up getting tossed out. The funny thing is Christian of your caliber seem to only fight to prevent them from being used stem-cell research. I believe I've hear the same passionate fight for the same. For what though Dan? So they can be lightly killed and whisked away to to heaven in a respectable Christian fashion. It shocks me that those who speak out most about abortion and stem-cell research are the same people that current research shows are using fertility clinics the most.
I don't agree with your views on this subject Dan, but you have some sorting out to do. Either you start speaking as strongly against fertility clinic too, and admit your bible is not inerrant, or you cheer on the abortion & fertility clinics and align your views better with your bible.
Good Luck!
~Atomic Chimp
You know, I was going to say something, but after these guys, I've got nothing new to say.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll just make an irrelevent blathering post where I type word after word without really saying anything.
Dan, if abortion is as bad as Christians say it is, if it's murder, if it's genocide, then all Christians should be doing what Paul Hill and Scott Roeder and others have done.
ReplyDelete"Includes deaths from induced and spontaneous abortions".
ReplyDeleteDan
Well at least you got the fact that your god kills some women just because they get pregnant right.
a fetus doesnt even feel pain until after 20 weeks. its not a person at that point, its part of a womans body. this post is pathetic.
ReplyDeleteActionJackson:
ReplyDeleteThe "fetus" will react to appropriate stimuli in a manner consistent with pain after about 7 weeks. It can therefore not be established that the "fetus" cannot feel pain at that time. Doctors could probably identify some neurological structure that was underdeveloped before age 5 and say that 2-year-olds do not feel pain, the screams notwithstanding. The 20 week figure is more a matter of convenience than actual knowledge.
The "fetus" will react to appropriate stimuli in a manner consistent with pain after about 7 weeks. It can therefore not be established that the "fetus" cannot feel pain at that time.
ReplyDeletePvblivs, most living organisms will react to 'appropriate' stimuli - this is part and parcel of being alive. Reaction to potentially destructive stimuli is not equivalent to what we know as a pain response. This seems to require relatively complex neural connections that have not been verified in human foetuses earlier than the second trimester.
Otherwise, are we to interpret the reactions of plants to external stimuli as evidence of their ability to feel pain? Do carrots silently scream when they are pulled from the ground? What hope, then, for the more sensitive souls amongst us? Vegetarianism is one thing, but I don't think we have the ability to live on air and water alone.
If we assume that the first-trimester human foetus reacts to stimuli in the same way as any other living organism - including bacteria - then there seems no basis upon which to differentiate other than our natural preference for our own species - a preference which is, in ethical terms, as arbitrary as race or sex.
Why, then - and I open this to any other posters who wish to comment - should a first-trimester abortion performed for compelling practical and/or emotional reasons, be considered any worse, ethically speaking, than the slaughter of a chicken for human food?
Just by the bye, Dan, it occurs to me that, given your worldview, and your claimed inside track to knowledge provided by your god, you should never have to admit that you might have been mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you have acknowledged such in the past would seem to suggest that your god has revealed some things to you such that you can be uncertain of them. Why do you suppose he would do such a thing?
As a corollary to the above, Dan, given that you claim your god as the source of all your knowledge and reason, how do you account for the fact that your knowledge of the world is demonstrably imperfect and limited, and your reasoning often flawed (as evident from this post, amongst others)?
ReplyDeleteHow do you reconcile independent, observable reality with your god-fantasy?
DormantDragon:
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking, it only means that we don't know what can and cannot feel pain. Can two-year-olds feel pain? No one remembers what it's like to be two. And, true, no one knows what it's like to be a carrot.
The criterion for pain that ActionJackson used appears to have been based on the definers' desire to keep doing what they were already doing. So they found something that wasn't in place until after the time most abortions took place and said it was a requirement for pain. It's a little like the special definition for life that says the "fetus" is not alive -- used exclusively for the abortion issue.
DormantDragon et al,
ReplyDeleteIt all comes down to presuppositions again. If you presuppose that humans are not humans until they breath air (outside the womb) then you will rationalize that babies cannot feel or its OK to get rid of that "parasite".
But are you certain that its not a human inside the womb? Absolutely certain? Our friend Chad here, is doing a great job of exposing the inconsistencies of a pro choice believer's worldview. Like most of you, Pvblivs aside of course, you are making huge reckless and wild assumption as to what is actually a human.
Also, according to your friend PZ Myers over at his blog said,
"You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me."
The pure lack of compassion from him is quite telling. What more needs to be said. This amoral, and pro eugenic, worldview that you all share is appalling and monstrous. This is the same mentality that led Gosnell to do what he did, DormantDragon to not only to side with PZ, but to think that having children is no big deal!
You are all pathetic, sad, and horrible excuses of humans. Now, I know that not all Atheists think this way, there is still hope for some. I am just glad that God knows the heart and has prepared a place for the unrepentant and heartless to ponder their decisions for all of eternity. PZ and Gosnell will be bowing to Christ someday, maybe when PZ's flesh will be cooking like "meat" for all of eternity will he change his mind. Then it will be too late for him, its not for you.
"God will judge the secrets of men" ~Rom. 2:16
>>Do you think that the experience of having children is uniformly fantastic and dreamy for everyone?
It should be. Nothing is more precious then baby or a child. Yes, that is universally true. That is why people, with compassion, look at those large sweet babies eyes makes us all, instinctively even, say awwww. Monsters, like PZ, just see a meal. I want nothing more then for God to save PZ. Love is too foreign for him.
Is there a sphygmomanometer in the house? I need to go hug my kids now.
It's always interesting when people who claim to follow the Bible insert modern day presumptions into it.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting article about how the Bible views abortion.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d050201.htm
TLDR? YHWH's fine with it.
What we really wish that they would do is explain what “choice” actually means? ... What is wrong with calling it "Hurray, Abortion day"? Are you ashamed to call it what it is?
Choice. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. CHOICE.
Not that you'd ever have to think about it, womb-less.
PZ and Gosnell will be bowing to Christ someday, maybe when PZ's flesh will be cooking like "meat" for all of eternity will he change his mind.
ReplyDeleteAnd now your torture fantasies come out!
Dan, since abortion is murder and genocide why aren't you doing everything, including going to the lengths that Paul Hill and Scott Roeder did, to stop it?
ReplyDeleteAll those dead foetuses go straight to Hell, right? Is that the problem?
ReplyDeleteDan barfed,
ReplyDeleteBut are you certain that its not a human inside the womb? Absolutely certain?
Never said anything of the kind, Dan. A newly fertilised human ovum has a full set of human genes, so it's human. It's not a dog or a cat, nor indeed a carrot. No-one who wishes to present a credible argument in the abortion debate claims that a human zygote/embryo/foetus is not human.
What's at issue is personhood, the capacity to be a sentient, conscious agent. A three-month-old foetus, so far as can be determined, does not have this capacity. You weaken your argument by claiming that this is the moral equivalent of killing a baby, which at the very least has the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, which is a basic criterion for ethical consideration.
This amoral, and pro eugenic, worldview that you all share is appalling and monstrous. This is the same mentality that led Gosnell to do what he did, DormantDragon to not only to side with PZ, but to think that having children is no big deal!
Again, Dan, no-one's said anything about eugenics here except you. Furthermore, how could you have interpreted any of my comments to say that having children is no big deal? If you want to confront someone with that attitude, go and harangue Nadya Suleiman, who apparently pops them out with no thought for how she can possibly care for them properly. Quality of life and emotional security for her children doesn't seem to be high on her agenda.
Raising another person from infancy to independence is a big deal, Dan, and to be done right takes one of the biggest commitments any person can be called upon to make. That's why decisions involving possible abortion are so difficult and complex for many people.
Guess this emotionally excessive ranting is just your god screwing with your reasoning ability, huh?
Dan replied to me,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the experience of having children is uniformly fantastic and dreamy for everyone?
It should be. Nothing is more precious then baby or a child. Yes, that is universally true. That is why people, with compassion, look at those large sweet babies eyes makes us all, instinctively even, say awwww.
Guess it wasn't so "universally true" in the days of the ancient Hebrews though, huh, Dan?
And you know what? I feel exactly the same way about puppies. I find it really hard to understand how everyone doesn't just automatically want to cuddle them on sight. But I also know there are plenty of people who do experience that "awwww!" response to puppies who are in no position to care for a dog for the whole of its life, who may even lose interest in it once it's grown up. That's why there are so many beautiful dogs at the shelter I volunteer with.
Thinking that babies are all cute and cuddly is great, but it doesn't equal compassion and commitment, Dan. I know it's not politically correct to say so, but not everyone's cut out for parenthood, and the abundance of children in foster care and on the streets is ample evidence of this.
It must be a bit of a shock to you, Dan, with your black-and-white worldview, to realise that everyone's different. It might also surprise you to learn that there are plenty of parents out there who, when asked in confidential interviews for social research purposes if they regretted having children, unhesitatingly said yes.
So you go right on thinking that everyone should love children, Dan, and I'll go on thinking that everyone should love puppies, but ultimately we can only do what we're able to do, and play to our strengths. We're not going to change people's minds to conform to our wishes. In the meantime, I'll go on caring for my dog and the dogs at the shelter, and you go on caring for your children - and we'll both be doing something that we love.
Dan barfed,
ReplyDeleteBut are you certain that its not a human inside the womb? Absolutely certain?
I've claimed nothing of the kind, Dan. No-one who wants to put a credible argument in the abortion debate claims that a human zygote/embryo/foetus is not human. It has a full set of human genes from the moment of conception. What else would it be?
What's at issue is personhood - the capacity to be a sentient, conscious agent. A three-month-old human foetus doesn't have that capacity. You muddy the waters and weaken your argument by claiming that a first-trimester abortion is the moral equivalent of infanticide.
This amoral, and pro eugenic, worldview that you all share is appalling and monstrous. This is the same mentality that led Gosnell to do what he did, DormantDragon to not only to side with PZ, but to think that having children is no big deal!
Again, Dan, no-one's saying anything about eugenics here except you.
And what could you possibly have read into any of my posts to come away with the idea that I think having children is no big deal? If you want to confront someone with that attitude, you should go harangue Nadya Suleiman - she apparently pops them out with no thought for how she can properly care for them. Their quality of life and emotional security don't seem to be high on her list of priorities.
Raising another person from infancy to independence is a big deal, Dan, and one of the most serious commitments any person can make. That's why decisions regarding possible abortions are so difficult and complex for many people.
my toenail has a full set of human genes too.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
ReplyDeleteThe criterion for pain that ActionJackson used appears to have been based on the definers' desire to keep doing what they were already doing. So they found something that wasn't in place until after the time most abortions took place and said it was a requirement for pain. It's a little like the special definition for life that says the "fetus" is not alive -- used exclusively for the abortion issue.
Found this article from the Independent from back in 1996 regarding research into the subject of foetal pain, and the researchers' recommendations that anaesthesia be administered for any surgical procedures to be performed on a foetus from as early as six weeks' gestation - including abortion. Makes interesting reading.
J.C. Birthner said...
ReplyDeletemy toenail has a full set of human genes too.
Then it is unquestionably a human toenail, and what's more, could be used to identify you should you have the misfortune to leave it at a crime scene... :P
could be used to identify you should you have the misfortune to leave it at a crime scene... :P
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't someone tell me this earlier?
I have to go... return some video tapes.
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, since abortion is murder and genocide why aren't you doing everything, including going to the lengths that Paul Hill and Scott Roeder did, to stop it?
Because Jesus basically said, I got this. I remain hopeful for righteousness. I cannot enact God's Will because I am not God. I am a lead, follow or get out of the way kind of guy. Jesus certainly fits the role of leader. So I follow.
JC,
ReplyDelete>> All those dead foetuses go straight to Hell, right? Is that the problem?
Nope, babies go to Heaven.
Its just very important to reveal the heart of the Atheists. To deter normal humans from following such a failure of a worldview.
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference."
— Richard Dawkins (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
"You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me." ~PZ Myers
Ah the heart of the Atheists, confirming the Bible one quote at a time.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteso in your worldview, abortions are saving children from the chance of going to Hell.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>A three-month-old foetus, so far as can be determined, does not have this capacity. A three-month-old foetus, so far as can be determined, does not have this capacity.
And you KNOW this with CERTAINTY how? Notice the clarifier folks "so far as can be determined" So she decided NOT TO 'err on the side of caution'. She wrongly thinks, in that Chad analogy, "Just blow the buildings up, who cares if there are people in there." If you're wrong you are committing/condoning murder. Sleep soundly with that one.
26 And hard by that place I saw another strait place wherein the discharge and the stench of them that were in torment ran down, and there was as it were a lake there. And there sat women up to their necks in that liquor, and over against them many children which were born out of due time sat crying: and from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were they that conceived out of wedlock () and caused abortion. ~ Apocalypse of Peter
Now, I understand that this is apocryphal writing but if true, that is a horrible place I do not wish on anyone. I guess that I should add "that is repentant" If they are unrepentant, like maybe PZ and Gosnell, then its deserved.
>> go and harangue Nadya Suleiman, who apparently pops them out with no thought for how she can possibly care for them properly.
Erm...you do understand she is getting quite wealthy from doing this. She knew what she was doing. She know the American public, quite well.
>>Quality of life and emotional security for her children doesn't seem to be high on her agenda.
Well that I agree with. Bad parents are certainly a factor in this world. They too will have to account for those actions. I know a woman that coddles her gang member son and defends his every action. She will account for those actions, someday soon.
>>Raising another person from infancy to independence is a big deal, Dan, and to be done right takes one of the biggest commitments any person can be called upon to make.
Amen sister. I know that your child loves you for the sacrifices that you have unselfishly made yourself.
>>That's why decisions involving possible abortion are so difficult and complex for many people.
And not so for others. Why is it difficult? If their conscience is screaming at them they should listen to it. If your conscience is screaming at you not to drown your precious child (which I know you have) do you do it? There is no excuse for this behavior at all. They are fine with the "act" to get pregnant but not the responsibility when they make that choice. We all have "choices"...not to have intercourse being number one. Rape victims excluded.
>>Guess this emotionally excessive ranting is just your god screwing with your reasoning ability, huh?
No my reasoning is sound. God will punish the wicked. Think of me as a brother, now wanting you in trouble with our Father.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>It must be a bit of a shock to you, Dan, with your black-and-white worldview, to realise that everyone's different.
Morals are not, thankfully. People may believe that killing babies or even eating babies because they are viewed as "meat" are OK. But it isn't. God, as He did with the other wicked nation, will punish the wicked. Plus, these were nations outside of Israel in the OT times and God STILL held them up to HIS standards of morality and destroyed them.
>>We're not going to change people's minds to conform to our wishes
You do understand that is what laws are for, right? We are invoking or morality on others to follow our laws. We do FORCE people to conform to our wishes. In this case the "wishes" need to change.
JC,
ReplyDelete>>my toenail has a full set of human genes too.
Thanks for the clarification of "genes", your just made a pointless point. Keep up that great work. :p
JC,
ReplyDelete>>so in your worldview, abortions are saving children from the chance of going to Hell.
Touché JC. But not at all, like I said those kids are saved and with Christ as we speak. Granted. But at what expense? Another life. I want no one to end up in hell, even parents of aborted babies even though those babies make it to Heaven. Its still a huge cost. That is my worldview. My Mom might well be in Hell. I have faith that God will make that OK somehow. (Revelation 21:4)
With your mindset, everyone should die. You are really advocating a reverse Jesus. Kill everyone before the age of 13 so everyone killed goes to Heaven. I am sure that does not sound logically or morally right, does it? To me, a bunch of children in Heaven, when all their parents are in Hell, is not Heaven at all. No, I will trust God and still fight the good fight.
To me, a bunch of children in Heaven, when all their parents are in Hell, is not Heaven at all.
ReplyDeleteI've been ribbing you and goofing around but this sentence is a really interesting point.
Thanks.
With your mindset, everyone should die.
ReplyDeleteEveryone does die.
Kill everyone before the age of 13 so everyone killed goes to Heaven. I am sure that does not sound logically or morally right, does it?
That's the point. I'm bring your worldview to its absurd conclusion. If your worldview was true, killing everyone before they had a chance to sin would get everyone into heaven.
If you believe this life is just a mere twinkling of an eye compared to the afterlife, why would this life on earth matter?
Sorry to get all serious but can't you see the anti-life position you've made for yourself?
JC,
ReplyDelete>>That's the point. I'm bring your worldview to its absurd conclusion. If your worldview was true, killing everyone before they had a chance to sin would get everyone into heaven.
You are under wild assumptions here. Please understand that we are all born evil. I know you also understand that God knows our thought life. There is no escaping, getting around, or duping, God.
So now children DO go to Hell? Or are you saying evil people go to heaven?
ReplyDeleteborn evil.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I get it. You mean Christians must kill babies before they are born because they are born evil and once born are evil. Unborn foetuses are not evil and go to heaven.
Some of your worldviews are pretty disturbing. You think children are wretched or evil? I guess that makes it easier to accept YHWH's commands to kill children in the Bible.
Dan claims revelation was used to KNOW weather babies would grow into babies sacrificers. So this 'justified' their murder
ReplyDeletesee "Genocide or Capital punishment" post.
I assume Dan is claiming revelation/s that abortion is a absolute wrong.
So Dan, How do you/anyone/everyone verify if a revelation is real?
Erm...you do understand [Nadya Suleiman] is getting quite wealthy from doing this. She knew what she was doing. She know the American public, quite well.
ReplyDeleteOh, so she used her babies as a publicity stunt. Gotcha.
You are under wild assumptions here. Please understand that we are all born evil.
ReplyDeleteMy irony meter just overloaded...
Just wondering, Dan, if your god is supposed to be revealing things to people such that we can be certain of them, why he didn't choose to reveal the secrets of proper hygiene and disease prevention until within the last few centuries of human history (at least within the realms of Christendom - seems like the Muslim god was a bit more generous with the medical revelations). The result was that a great many children never lived to see their fifth birthday, and childbirth was far and away the number-one cause of death for women.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem like your god much cared about the welfare of mothers and babies, huh?
Dan quoted Richard Dawkins,
ReplyDelete"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference."
— Richard Dawkins (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
But this is the world you believe your god created, Dan. Suffering is part and parcel of the great dance of life and death of which we're all a part.
Take the time to look around you, and realise that you're part of nature, no matter how much you try to imagine you're set on a pedestal and hold yourself aloof from the magnificent indifference of the universe. The beauty and grandeur of the natural world is balanced by ugliness, violence and pain.
The naturalistic fallacy, as I've mentioned before, is a fallacy for the reason that nature is amoral. I can't even imagine the twisted mental landscape in your head that assumes your god is morally good and yet created a world in which vast amounts of suffering are present, and perhaps inevitable. Do you imagine that, say, a wildebeest is less sentient than a three-month-old human foetus? Of course it's not. Yet your god turns a blind eye when it gets eaten alive by hyenas. Yet the hyenas, for their part, would starve if they didn't do this. Nice catch-22 orchestrated by your all-powerful and all-good god there, Dan.
We're part of this, but nature's amorality is something we observe, not a philosophy we choose to live by. You, on the other hand, put yourself in a position of supposing that everything that happens in the world, both good and bad, is intended by your god. So not only do you force yourself into the naturalistic fallacy, but you are under a huge burden of cognitive dissonance when you try to convince yourself that despite all appearances to the contrary, your god is morally good.
And you KNOW this with CERTAINTY how? Notice the clarifier folks "so far as can be determined" So she decided NOT TO 'err on the side of caution'. She wrongly thinks, in that Chad analogy, "Just blow the buildings up, who cares if there are people in there." If you're wrong you are committing/condoning murder. Sleep soundly with that one.
ReplyDeleteWell, you tell me, Dan - do you remember what it was like to be in the womb? Do you remember the feel of the powerful muscle contractions that pushed you out into the world? Do you remember taking your first breath?
No? Huh. Neither do I, strangely enough.
Do you know anyone who does have these memories? No, really? I don't either.
The thing is, Dan, if my life had ended before I was born, the entity I now think of as me would be none the wiser.
You might like to consider that when you buy a steak or a chicken from the butcher, you are aiding and abetting the slaughter of a sentient being - one that is quite possibly more aware of itself than a human foetus. Doesn't that sit heavily on your conscience, Dan?
God, as He did with the other wicked nation, will punish the wicked. Plus, these were nations outside of Israel in the OT times and God STILL held them up to HIS standards of morality and destroyed them.
ReplyDeleteIncluding the children...
You're fooling yourself if you think that morality doesn't change, Dan. It changes and develops as our knowledge expands and develops. Morality is not a universal, fixed entity - it is a function of the behaviour of conscious agents in response to their environment.
You do understand that is what laws are for, right? We are invoking or morality on others to follow our laws. We do FORCE people to conform to our wishes. In this case the "wishes" need to change.
And the point of living in a democracy, Dan, is that the majority of people will not be forced to act against their will or their better judgement.
Clearly you're passionate about this issue (even if your basis for being so is inconsistent) but as has been pointed out here already, under current laws, no-one would be forcing you to have an abortion, even if you were a woman. That's what pro-choice means - in favour of individuals having the ability to choose what they feel is right for them in given circumstances.
Here's another example - I believe people who choose not to vaccinate their children are stupid and ignorant, and run the risk of bringing back childhood diseases that have been all but eradicated. But do I think they should be forced to vaccinate their children? No. I do think they should be informed of the facts and issues and probable consequences, but the decision is theirs to make.
Same goes for abortion. Only the woman in question can know best whether she is in a position - psychologically, physically, financially - to go through pregnancy and birth and to raise a child. It's not for the state to tell her what to do in this case. And a three-month-old foetus is not the functional or moral equivalent of a born baby, no matter what your religious dogma says.
Do you really think that making abortion illegal will stop women in desperate circumstances from having them? Or will it just lead them to seek the dubious services of unqualified hacks like Gosnell?
DD,
ReplyDelete>>The thing is, Dan, if my life had ended before I was born, the entity I now think of as me would be none the wiser.
I don't have memories as a one year old, is that within the grace period to kill off? So, by you're flawed logic, just as long as your kids are below the age of two (memories) then you can kill them off, or do whatever you want? People with Alzheimer's are fair game since "memories" means human according to you.
Maybe you need to reread the US Declaration of Independence, the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.
Thanks for showing evidence that Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are NOT considered to be self-evident and universal according the Atheists. Babies have no rights. I say we have urinated all over our constitution in the 70's and its been downhill since then. We will pay for those "choices" that is for sure.
>>You might like to consider that when you buy a steak or a chicken from the butcher, you are aiding and abetting the slaughter of a sentient being - one that is quite possibly more aware of itself than a human foetus. Doesn't that sit heavily on your conscience, Dan?
That reminded me of a great quote. We just saw Temple Grandin the movie, and we have her book, Animals in translation. I loved what she said "Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be. I wouldn't want to have my guts ripped out by a lion. I'd much rather die in a slaughterhouse, if it was done right."
BTW, highly recommended movie for anyone who has not seen it.
Cows are bread for mankind. We OWE it to them to give them a great life before they are used to feed us. Its the right thing to do. We should not treat them like meat, they deserve respect! Same with Chickens.
We have become so jaded and cruel and we are loosing our humanity.
Give it 10 years and we will justify blowing up 1/3 of the world, just as the Bible predicts.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>Do you really think that making abortion illegal will stop women in desperate circumstances from having them?
Yes! The numbers certainly will not be in the 50 + million range, as it is today, and then lawbreakers will be in jail for violating human rights.
To add to Oprah's list of verbal vermin, she also said:
ReplyDeleteLooking back, Winfrey, who’s now a billionaire with her own cable network, said losing the baby who she "had no connection to whatsoever" was a blessing in disguise.
You MUST see the video of how she acts when she makes that statement!
Also, according to Operation Rescue- Gosnell's clinic is not the first to be found in such disarray.
Blessings!
I guess the question that is often asked is - what punishment would you have for getting an abortion?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need to reread the US Declaration of Independence, the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.
ReplyDeleteOh, okay. That would be that important document signed by slaveholders who also had complete legal control over the lives and property of their womenfolk.
Inalienable rights of men, indeed - women and non-whites need not apply...
That reminded me of a great quote. We just saw Temple Grandin the movie, and we have her book, Animals in translation. I loved what she said "Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be. I wouldn't want to have my guts ripped out by a lion. I'd much rather die in a slaughterhouse, if it was done right."
Yes, you're right, Dan - nature is cruel. That's how you believe your all-good god made it. I trust, then, that you are very careful to select only free-range organic meat from certifiably humane slaughterhouses, and also that you campaign just as passionately against factory farming as you do against abortion.
I don't have memories as a one year old, is that within the grace period to kill off? So, by you're flawed logic, just as long as your kids are below the age of two (memories) then you can kill them off, or do whatever you want? People with Alzheimer's are fair game since "memories" means human according to you.
ReplyDeleteAs I've already explained, "human" means having human DNA, biologically speaking. Personhood is a different philosophical and functional category altogether. As it happens, I was reading about just this concept late last night. Logically, yes, a 1-year-old baby in and of itself may not fit the definition of personhood, which entails being a conscious, self-aware being.
Life, however, is rarely as straightforward and unproblematic as formal logic.
Let's imagine a woman who is pregnant and has always wanted a child. Assuming she gets through most of her pregnancy without your god intervening to kill the foetus, we would expect her - and her partner and other family members, probably - to have a considerable emotional investment in this child-to-be. For the sake of their rights, the life of the foetus should be preserved, even though it has no rights in and of itself.
In the case of a woman who has no emotional attachment to her foetus - who may, depending on circumstances, even feel antipathy towards it - no such case for preserving the life of the foetus can be made. It must be asked, what kind of life will this child have anyway, with a mother who doesn't want it? It might actually be kinder to all involved to terminate it before it's aware of its existence.
You've opened up a completely new can of worms with the Alzheimer's patient. Again we must assume that others have an emotional attachment to this person, and furthermore, that the person themselves retains an attachment to their own continued existence, even if they can't remember it from one day to the next. People suffering from dementia do have lucid moments.
What about if this person had signed a living will indicating that they wished to be euthanased in the event of a debilitating terminal illness? Would you, Dan, insist on preserving their life - in pain and indignity - against their express wishes?
DD,
ReplyDelete>>Inalienable rights of men, indeed - women and non-whites need not apply...
Touché but you do understand we went to war over that subject. We were fighting about it even during the signing of the Constitution. Granted they should have NEVER compromised on it for the south, but that was the ONLY way they would sign otherwise. Lincoln, Republican, even went against his own beliefs (more fed power) to force the end of Slavery. He knew it was 'absolutely' wrong. It was, obviously.
>>Yes, you're right, Dan - nature is cruel. That's how you believe your all-good god made it.
Creation fell when Adam fell, therefore sin, so to speak, killed creation. As a result, we live in an imperfect world, with the effects of sin running through it. We see that the universe is running down. That is, everything is moving toward chaos, becoming less organized. Furthermore, because sin is in the world, mankind is unable to live in harmony. Nations rise against nations, and peoples against peoples. War and conflict occur with the loss of life, and with injuries to those who survive. Devastation is left in its wake.
>>Would you, Dan, insist on preserving their life - in pain and indignity - against their express wishes?
Nope. So fine, I concede that we should honor the wishes of a person. So abortions are illegal unless the fetus gives you written permission to terminate him. Agreed! Settled.
lol @ Dan!
ReplyDeleteBecause Dan is an absolutist (black and white), he can’t admit to the existence of the 'grey area'
ReplyDeleteDan should Heroin addicts have babies? or abortions?
Antzilla wrote the following: Because Dan is an absolutist (black and white), he can’t admit to the existence of the 'grey area
ReplyDeleteDan ignores several thousand years of philosophy and science (AND religion) because it's inconvenient to his world view.
Is there anyone here who's still not convinced that Dan's basically a dishonest person?
"Is there anyone here who's still not convinced that Dan's basically a dishonest person?"
ReplyDeleteNope.
Dan must walk around all day and night ignoring just about everything to maintain his worldview.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't even call What Dan has as a 'worldview' it more a 'worldblind'
Of course Dan is dishonest he's a Christian!
Dan let me guess [Romans blah,blah,]
Oh how do you/anyone/everyone varify a/any revelation to be real?
I've had a thought.
ReplyDeleteOprah has a revelation that is was better to terminate her pregnacy rather give birth to a child she couldn't support.
Dan has a revelation that this is wrong.
Now bare in mind Dan worldblind
>>"So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.<<
Fruit from Oprahs revelation: she went onto become what she is... charity work etc,etc--- Good Fruit.
Fruit from Dan revelation: Heroin addicts giving birth to babies that shortly die a very painful death--- Bad Fruit.
Then
>>A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 7:17-19<<
So once again even Dan claimed worldview is eveidence on Dan is a Bad Tree baring ONLY Bad fruit.
AGAIN...
How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?
Oh and how do you verify there not tricks?
Creation fell when Adam fell, therefore sin, so to speak, killed creation. As a result, we live in an imperfect world, with the effects of sin running through it. We see that the universe is running down. That is, everything is moving toward chaos, becoming less organized. Furthermore, because sin is in the world, mankind is unable to live in harmony. Nations rise against nations, and peoples against peoples. War and conflict occur with the loss of life, and with injuries to those who survive. Devastation is left in its wake.
ReplyDeleteAnd since, Dan, you believe your god is omniscient, you must believe he knew all this would happen before he created humans. That means you must believe this is all your god's fault.
Plenty of Christians try, but there's really no way you can worm out of this one.
DD,
ReplyDelete>> That means you must believe this is all your god's fault.
Yes, ultimately the buck stops at God. I will say though that we choose not to drink or drive, its not your parents fault if you do.
>>Plenty of Christians try, but there's really no way you can worm out of this one.
No need to. I have faith (trust) that His plan is the best for us. He Created this creation knowing we would fail and fall so He can pick us up and show us how to live a righteous life as He planned it for us. All with keeping free will in tact. What a great God. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Jesus? Oh yea, I will follow Him.
Isn't it interesting how he lets people believe he's dishonest?
ReplyDeleteIf I thought myself an honest person and someone accused me of being dishonest, I'd spend time trying to show them they're wrong.
Dan doesn't do this.
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>If I thought myself an honest person and someone accused me of being dishonest, I'd spend time trying to show them they're wrong.
That is where you're wrong yet again. Absurd, or false, accusations do not require a defense, much less a response. Burden of proof is on you, not me. Have you ever read the Constitution? In a court room, it doesn't matter what the defendant is accused of, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. The defendant, like me, just has to sit back and enjoy the show. We are not required to give an account for the accusation. Its all on you, dude.
Besides, you do not comment here, you stay away and just chime in digs and soundbites about me occasionally. Why would anyone take the time to take you seriously anymore anyway?
Dan +†+ said... (to DD)
ReplyDeleteYes, ultimately the buck stops at God. I will say though that we choose not to drink or drive, its not your parents fault if you do.
Your parents didn't 'create' you knowing in advance that you would drink and drive. If they had then, yes, it would be their fault when you got loaded and jumped behind the wheel...
All with keeping free will in tact.
Lol, all you have is the illusion of free will. Actual free will would require that you could do something that a) God didn't know you were going to do and/or b) was expressly against God's will which, according to your ideology isn't possible.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIn a court of law the defendant is not required to do anything beyond pleading "not guilty." However, if the prosecution produces a case and the defense simply ignores it, the likely outcome will be a verdict of "guilty."
-----------------
That being said, Dan might think he has no chance at a fair hearing and that it would be futile to speak in his own defense. Alternately, he may realize that he is caught in dishonesty and that he cannot talk his way out of it.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>Your parents didn't 'create' you knowing in advance that you would drink and drive.
Maybe not, but they do 'create' you knowing in advance that you will make evil choices like, covet, lie, lust...etc. Should all parents err to caution and not have children? Either, yes or no, will corner you. Try it.
>> Actual free will would require that you could do something that a) God didn't know you were going to do and/or b) was expressly against God's will which, according to your ideology isn't possible.
Neither a/b makes any sense. I can know you will do something, without interfering with your free will to do so. People also defy God daily, so how is going against God's will not compliant with my ideology? We are freely able to break laws, are we not? I can choose to follow the speed limits, but that still does not interfere with my free will to not follow them. "Incarceration" will indeed interfere with free will though. So, I believe you're confusing 'free will' with 'free rein'
Howard Huge difference. I agree with that point though, all you have is the illusion of free reign. lol. I like that one. Go NFLX!
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteThere will be no plea bargain accepted! This would go to trial. I am completely confident for the outcome of my case in front of a jury of my piers.
I am even confident in this lynch mob full of atheists. Atheists don't scare me. (Matthew 10:28)
Did anyone else notice, out of ALL the posts and points of 26th January. What does dan respond to??
ReplyDelete>>>> That means you must believe this is all your god's fault.<<
Then we have bare assertions about mythology.
In one post he asserts that the universe and everything in it is going to shit.
Then in another post
"No need to. I have faith (trust) that His plan is the best for us....."
Dan how about some honesty on your part.
1)Are you avoiding the following questions.
2)How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?
3)How do you verify there not tricks?
4) should heroin addicts terminate their pregnancy?
Yes, ultimately the buck stops at God. I will say though that we choose not to drink or drive, its not your parents fault if you do.
ReplyDeleteWell, duh. That's because parents don't generally claim to be omnipotent and omniscient, Dan. When one has the knowledge and ability to prevent harm or suffering, it imparts a moral obligation to do so. Infinite power and infinite knowledge mean your god, if he exits, is infinitely to blame for all suffering and misery in the universe.
Back on topic, it occurs to me that the ethic of treating persons as ends in themselves, not merely the means to others' ends, has important implications for the abortion debate. If it is a woman's wish to have a child and she (and her partner, one hopes) can accept the responsibility of raising it, all well and good. But no-one has the right to force or compel her to be an incubator for a child she does not want.
I am completely confident for the outcome of my case in front of a jury of my piers.
ReplyDeleteDan in front of a jury of piers...
What an amusing mental image. One hopes he would be standing on the land side - he might have trouble treading water for the duration of the trial.
"If I thought myself an honest person and someone accused me of being dishonest, I'd spend time trying to show them they're wrong.
ReplyDeleteDan doesn't do this"
His reputation should speak for itself. Shouldn't it?
Dan, if I may make a suggestion, lose the speech recognition software and learn to type.
ReplyDeleteDormant Dragon:
ReplyDelete"But no-one has the right to force or compel her to be an incubator for a child she does not want."
I share an opposition to rape. But, barring rape, she can fairly easily avoid being "an incubator for a child she does not want."
DD,
ReplyDeleteErm..peers that is. Is my spelling really that bad? I passed right by that one.
I was eating a pear on the pier with my peers :7)
Quick Dan!
ReplyDeleteDan how about some honesty on your part.
1)Are you avoiding the following questions.
2)How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?
3)How do you verify there not tricks?
4) should heroin addicts terminate their pregnancy?
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI share an opposition to rape. But, barring rape, she can fairly easily avoid being "an incubator for a child she does not want."
That's certainly true, provided appropriate sex education has been provided - sadly not the case in some parts of the world.
To be honest, I think the pregnancy-resulting-from-rape scenario is sometimes used excessively by the pro-choice camp, as an argument from extreme circumstances - much as partial-birth abortion is used by the pro-life camp. Both these situations are horrific, of course, but in terms of the broader issues involved in the abortion debate, are - fortunately - comparatively rare.
I'm continually amazed by how many people claiming to want to reduce the numbers of abortions, or eliminate them altogether, are also vehemently against any form of contraception other than abstinence - which, in itself, is quite unnatural for a species of ape such as ourselves, in which the sexual function is so constituted as to act as a means of social cohesion as much as reproduction.
Weird.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>Your parents didn't 'create' you knowing in advance that you would drink and drive.
Maybe not, but they do 'create' you knowing in advance that you will make evil choices like, covet, lie, lust...etc.
Firstly, thanks for acknowledging God's culpability, and secondly, no they don't. Our lack of omniscience sees to that. We have no idea what choices our children will make but we hope our children will enjoy their life and refrain from causing harm as much as they are able.
Should all parents err to caution and not have children? Either, yes or no, will corner you. Try it.
Well, according to your worldview, where parents are seemingly responsible for their children's sins, then Christians should definitely avoid having children - to avoid condemning them to Hell and also to avoid compounding their own offences toward God.
>> Actual free will would require that you could do something that a) God didn't know you were going to do and/or b) was expressly against God's will which, according to your ideology isn't possible.
Neither a/b makes any sense. I can know you will do something, without interfering with your free will to do so.
If God knows something will happen is there any way it can't happen? If not where is your free will to do something other than what God knows will happen?
People also defy God daily, so how is going against God's will not compliant with my ideology?
In your ideology nothing happens but for the will of God Dan. So nobody is 'defying' God. According to your worldview everyone is doing exactly as God knew they would when He created them, they cannot do otherwise.
We are freely able to break laws, are we not? I can choose to follow the speed limits, but that still does not interfere with my free will to not follow them.
I'm not making any law/commandment analogy. It's far more basic than that. In your worldview God is omniscient, no? That means that he knew everything that would happen before he even got round to creating. It cannot happen any other way or your God is not omniscient. You might break every law and every commandment (or not), but that's irrelevant as you're only doing exactly as God knows you will do. You cannot do anything that he doesn't already know you will do. The consequence of your worldview is that you only have the illusion of free will. All those choices you think you're making are pre-determined and fixed in the mind of God.
"Incarceration" will indeed interfere with free will though. So, I believe you're confusing 'free will' with 'free rein'
No confusion on my part Dan, go back and try reading again. My point has nothing to do with laws/commandments and all to do with the logical consequence of your claim to God's omniscience.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>> All those choices you think you're making are pre-determined and fixed in the mind of God.
That has nothing to do with free will though. Just because something is known in advance does not mean that you have no choice to things. I know full well my kid will hug me in the morning but that does not mean he doesn't have a choice not to. Just because God know ahead of time that one day the child will not hug me does not mean that child did not have the choice.
I would not gamble with God If I were you that is for sure. You lose with Him every time. You know, with all that inside information.
Even Moses changed God's mind (Exodus 32:11-15) But God knew Moses would do so.
>>If not where is your free will to do something other than what God knows will happen?
Again just because God know what you will do and even your thought life does not mean you do not have a choice. You appear to be equating that by God knowing means you do not have any choices. That's just illogical
p1 You have Free will
p2 God know what the outcome will be
p3 If God knows outcome, then you can still make choices
p4 You make choices, changing mind still possible
p5 God still knows outcome
C Free will still in tact.
So, once again I believe you're confusing 'free will' with 'free rein'
Dan
ReplyDeleteI was eating a pear on the pier with my peers
So it appears.
Again just because God know what you will do and even your thought life does not mean you do not have a choice. You appear to be equating that by God knowing means you do not have any choices. That's just illogical
ReplyDeleteThink about what you're saying here, Dan. In order for something to be known - in the sense that you generally mean known - it must somehow exist as a fact.
When you say you know that your son will hug you, you don't know it as a fact - you infer it with a reasonable degree of confidence on the basis of previous experience, just like any evidentialist does.
I don't think this is the kind of knowing you claim for your god - if it is, then there still exists the chance that your god might be wrong.
So your god already knows as fact everything that will happen. There is no possibility that your god could be wrong. In such a context, the choices we make could not be other than what your god already knows they will be. For you to speak of free will in these circumstances is nonsense. Even if the outcome of our choices is unknown to us, even if it feels like we are acting freely, it is impossible for us to deviate from what your god already knows we will do. Thus, any concept of free will is rendered absurd by the concept of an omniscient god.
DormantDragon:
ReplyDelete"I'm continually amazed by how many people claiming to want to reduce the numbers of abortions, or eliminate them altogether, are also vehemently against any form of contraception other than abstinence..."
I'm surprised at that myself. I think the stance is contradictory. I support contraception. I am pretty much in favor of any method of preventing pregnancies. After all, the world population could stand reducing.
"To be honest, I think the pregnancy-resulting-from-rape scenario is sometimes used excessively by the pro-choice camp, as an argument from extreme circumstances - much as partial-birth abortion is used by the pro-life camp. Both these situations are horrific, of course, but in terms of the broader issues involved in the abortion debate, are - fortunately - comparatively rare."
I think these cases are brought up because of the knowledge that the more extreme elements will resist the exceptions. A rape is justification for an (early-term) abortion. There is the caution that some people may suddenly "cry rape" when they want an abortion. But if a woman reported a rape before she knew she was pregnant there should be no dispute over the justification. As for partial-birth abortions, the then-proposed law would supposedly have minimal impact because it seldom comes up. Still there were people saying there should be no interference with the "right to choose." I would like to see people back away from the extremes and look for a rational position.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI would like to see people back away from the extremes and look for a rational position.
Definitely. Issues of social justice are seldom (if ever) as black and white as the extremists would have them. Even the abortion debate itself is but one part of a much larger issue incorporating ideas of the 'proper' ordering of society (which social conservatives think can only be done their way), the status and rights of women in relation to the status and rights of men, and the extent to which the state has the right to interfere with the uses people make of their own bodies; and on an even larger scale, as you mentioned, the issue of overpopulation and the inevitable strain on the environment caused by an ever-growing human population. The question of allowing or denying access to abortion has relevance that stretches far beyond determining the status and rights of unborn babies.
Dan, I think DD covered it perfectly - when your God 'knows' there's nothing we can do to change it so there's no such thing as free will in your worldview.
ReplyDelete@ Dan:
ReplyDelete"It all comes down to presuppositions again. If you presuppose that humans are not humans until they breath air (outside the womb) then you will rationalize that babies cannot feel or its OK to get rid of that "parasite"."
This would be a more sensible point if you then argued on the basis of the increased survival rates of neo-natal babies.
I'm pro-choice but I have issues with second trimester abortions over 18 weeks. As medical science continues to develope, particularly with regards to preventing gestations that miscarry, the current time limit will need revision downwards, but that won't be on the basis on the sort of emotional responses that often appear in these sorts of debates.
Can I point everyone to this blog
ReplyDeleteIt's for people who like the £10 argument with people who are several leagues above Dan.
It seems to me that if you really cared about this so-called infanticide (late-term abortions) and wanted to stop them, the best solution would be to make early-term abortions all the more available and unstigmatized. Early abortions just include embryos and young fetuses. They aren't aware or capable of feeling pain.
ReplyDeleteChristopher,
ReplyDelete>>Early abortions just include embryos and young fetuses.
Are you certain that abortions just include embryos and young fetuses, if so, how are you certain of this?
>>They aren't aware or capable of feeling pain.
Are you certain that aren't aware or capable of feeling pain, if so, how are you certain of this? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteYou have to believe whatever Dan says. Because god told him. That's it, no more questions he is certain, now so should you.
Dan +†+ said (to Christopher)...
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
Right back atcha Dan. Oh and if you were thinking about blurting out "REVELATION!" then are you certain about that revelation Dan? and if so, how?
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>Right back atcha Dan. Oh and if you were thinking about blurting out "REVELATION!" then are you certain about that revelation Dan? and if so, how?
It is simply a fact which God has revealed to us such that we can know it for certain. Unless you are willing to deny reality at this point in the conversation. Are you?
"It is simply a fact which god has revealed to us such that we can know it for certain."
ReplyDeleteOther than god exsistance what else has been revealed to you?
What has god releved to me?
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
It is simply a fact which God has revealed to us such that we can know it for certain.
So you're claiming omniscience then? If not are you certain it was revealed to you Dan? are you certain it was revealed by the Christian God and, if so, how are you certain?
Unless you are willing to deny reality at this point in the conversation. Are you?
I've never denied reality Dan, simply your absurd interpretation of it.