Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Ames straw poll, but only by 152 votes over fellow Rep. Ron Paul. That is right, Dr. Ron Paul was the original and first seed that actually grew the now Tea Party that has since branched off and also ALIENATED him. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that actually stands for the Republican Party's original core values of a FREE society. Today's candidates are mirroring his viewpoints that he had in the past. They certainly are not attacking him so aggressively as they did in the 2008 debates. It should matter to you, as it does me, that he is a true Constitutionalist. His record, for all these years, shows it plainly. We MUST do something about it. I disagree with some things of Ron Paul, but to shake the system up and clean house, this is our best shot to send such a strong message.
Let that rebel against the "system", inside of you, speak volumes back to these people that feel they know what is 'best for you' and that you should NOT have a voice. That is what upsets me the most. This is NOT what our Founding Fathers, and God, had in mind when they spoke of liberty. We must take back what is now becoming an out of control Empire. So, no matter if you are a Christian or an Atheist, Democrat or Independent. Even if you swear allegiance to Optimus Prime, we must stop these "Megatron" cronies from taking control.
Free online registration for all states, but New Hampshire and Wyoming.
http://bit.ly/voteRonPaul
Wyoming - http://bit.ly/m9Cg2Z
New Hampshire - http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm
It's sad that Jon Stewart has to give Dr. Ron Paul the coverage due! Its equally sad that Dr. Paul is being pushed aside for the candidate "THEY" want you to pick. Isn't that upsetting?
A while ago I was going to blog a post and call it "Keep Your Mohamed, We Have Prophet Paul" I never did, but here is the video I wanted to highlight.
I know this asking a lot, but I do want America to stand up and take our country back and end this Cronyism. Send the message we do not allow the power struggle to be tilted unfairly, if nothing else! Let's put the "U" back in U.S.A and unite to vote Dr. Ron Paul into Presidency. We blew it in 2008, like my boy pointed out, but we still have a chance now. We tried it your way this term, can we try mine now? I don't expect you to take my word for it though. Research it, evaluate the evidence of him, do your homework. Go watch some YouTube videos. Liberty means CHOICES. If they remove that choice, there is no liberty. Its time to choose...Liberty!
Update: To be fair, I guess not everyone on FOX is doing this, the Judge speaks truth at least.
bit.ly/RonPaul13th
Stop stealing from Jon Stewart, even if you acknowledge it.
ReplyDeleteI not allowed see that video clip because I'm in Canada, but I saw the show and I think I know what clip it is.
ReplyDeleteThe "Liberal Media" is giving Ron Paul attention that conservatives won't and its proof that they serve the "two headed one party system." How about if they ignored Ron Paul like Fox it would be proof that they serve the "one party system." This shows that they report the truth as best as they can. Just because you disagree with them politically doesn't mean they aren't trying their best to be honest.
I've been around a while. And I can safely say that, in my lifetime, the Republican party has never advocated freedom for the public. Oh, they pay lip service to it. But they want workers to be de facto slaves of the big corporations. If you speak out against them, you face starvation. You can be blackballed so that you cannot find a job. And if you try to start a business of your own (as someone who is not a multimillionaire) you can be squeezed out and forced into bankruptcy. If people are afraid to speak their minds because they will lose their livelihoods, they are not free.
ReplyDeletePvb,
ReplyDelete>> And I can safely say that, in my lifetime, the Republican party has never advocated freedom for the public.
NEVER? You sir are perfectly deluded and uneducated then. If you ACTUALLY think that Abraham Lincoln "played lip service" to free the slaves then you're completely lost. That is understandable though, because you ARE lost. *pshaw
I just noticed Pvb said "in his lifetime" So belay my last. That actually is probably true. I was thinking way before we were around. I agree the last time we had a true constitutionalist in office was way before our time. There are good people out there. Bush(s) showed us what lying is all about though.
ReplyDeleteSorry Pvb. I was trigger happy. :7)
"I was trigger happy".
ReplyDeleteThat is what worries me about a lot of fundies.
I keep 'Pinky' holstered. No need to worry. :7)
ReplyDeleteI understand your fear of a duel though. Valid reasoning there. :7p
Hey Dan, what do you think of these fellow Christians?
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/MrjX55KF3ZQ
@Rufus, that's terrible, they beat a child to death...Don't they know God's instructions are to stone them to death? What were they thinking?
ReplyDeleteRufus,
ReplyDeleteYea I already twittered @ac360 about that. Some highlight:
@ac360 Look up: cum hoc ergo propter hoc to see the fallacy you are using in your argument against spanking. Your bias is showing.
Now Cooper is using an Appeal to probability. Just because preachers forward to spank your kids does not mean they will abuse them
You're committing the fallacy of a “hasty generalization.” by 'ALL people that spank their children are evil, because some harm'
Silly left wing media.
Max,
ReplyDeleteStop making me laugh! I feel evil for doing so on this subject.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Sorry Pvb. I was trigger happy. :7)"
Not the first time. I doubt it'll be the last. At any rate, I restricted it to my lifetime because it allows me to make a direct verification. Sometimes, historical figures are remembered as "larger than life."
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Lincoln did not seem to set a high priority on freeing slaves. Indeed, he only freed the slaves of those who opposed him. As for him being a Constitutionalist, I can find nowhere in the Constitution where it states that one or more of the several states may not leave the union should they determine that their interests are not served by participation.
Oh, by the way, I don't think Rufus was expressing concern over a duel. He seemed to be worried that a trigger-happy christian might gun him down while he was just walking down the street. I am reminded of an exchange found in a comic strip:
ReplyDeleteBut quick shootin' like that... don't you miss or make mistakes?
MISS?!! NEVER!! 'Course, now and then I might make a little mistake.
Actually, Pvblivs, I was thinking more along the lines of Dominionist types getting what they want and making this a "Christian nation".
ReplyDeleteDan:
"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)
You equate "spanking" with "beating with a rod"?
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteUnless something changed in the world I'm not aware of, spanking children is a form of abuse and it causes harm. People who spank children (or any other person for that matter) are not exactly good people.
@Rufus,
ReplyDeleteWhat a coincidence! I've just read an article about dominionism and looked it up for more information about it...wow! This dominionism thing is pretty over the top and also scary.
Here's the article, if someone is interested:
"A Christian Plot for Domination?": text
PS: sorry for deleting 2 comments in a row; the damn link wasn't working.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>People who spank children (or any other person for that matter) are not exactly good people.
Is that your "opinion" again? Anyway stop trying to restrict me! These yakety woman cannot be silenced any other way. Look at how you act even.
So my faith is pure, and my pimp hand is strong. ;7p
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteWhen you see a kid coming at you with bruises, permanent scars from cigarette burns, wires, rods, belt buckles, etc, would you think that the person who spanked this child is a good person and an excellent parent? If you do, you're a monster. But who am I kidding? I can't expect anything different from a man who threatens his own children with stoning, can I?
It doesn't matter what the child did, spanking is not way to go. Besides, in a modern society if an adult does that to child and someone reports him and it's proved in the investigation that the child (or woman or even a man) is a victim of spanking, do you know what happens? They go to jail and stay there for a considerable amount of time.
In my country we have something called Maria da Penha Law created to protect women against aggression and abuse of any kind. If the woman reports the abuser in the women's precinct, the abuser will be arrested for 45 days (it's called preventive detention) and she can take some measures to prevent being attacked again, such as asking the judge a warrant to take the abuser out of the house and ask a restraining order against him. If the abuser is accused he will go to jail for 3 years and there’s no alternative sentencing or granted probation, not anymore.
We also have the Children and Adolescents’ Statute where the children and teenagers are protected by law against abuse of any kind.
Why should I be silenced? If I see something I disagree with I have all the right in the world to show my disagreement and I won’t be silenced. Thankfully we don’t live in the Bronze Age anymore where the women – according to your bible – should stay quiet, should be submissive to men and treated as property.
Your faith is pure alright, considering some people use the dogmas of your religion as justification for abusing children and women and denying them inalienable rights.
Mhich:
ReplyDeleteSpanking, the way it is ordinarily done to deter unwanted behavior, does not involve bruises, sigarette burns, or any permanent scarring. But, let's face it. Right now, the "child abuse laws" disallow anything that might have the remotest chance of deterring unwanted behavior. I do not like the idea of instilling a "ha ha, you can't do anything to me" attitude. Parents are responsible to control their children but are not allowed to do anything to control their children. What started off as a sensible idea to protect children from actual abuse has become a ridiculous exercise in preventing children from being told "no."
Tell me, according to the Maria de Penha law, does the abuse have to be proven? Or can a woman who simply wants to lash out at a guy invent a charge and have him jailed without trial for over a month?
Problem is, what Dan said in jest, other xians take seriously. Get a load of this and also this.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I use Myers so much? I let him read the stuff that the religious wackjobs do so that I don't have to. I'll read his links enough to confirm his claims but I won't go out looking for this shit.
Yea I already twittered @ac360 about that. Some highlight:
ReplyDelete@ac360 Look up: cum hoc ergo propter hoc to see the fallacy you are using in your argument against spanking. Your bias is showing.
Now Cooper is using an Appeal to probability. Just because preachers forward to spank your kids does not mean they will abuse them
You're committing the fallacy of a “hasty generalization.” by 'ALL people that spank their children are evil, because some harm'
Silly left wing media.
Dan, instead of blaming the "silly left wing media" maybe you ought to go after those xians who do that sort of shit, eh?
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> Spanking, the way it is ordinarily done to deter unwanted behavior, does not involve bruises, cigarette burns, or any permanent scarring. But, let's face it. Right now, the "child abuse laws" disallow anything that might have the remotest chance of deterring unwanted behavior. I do not like the idea of instilling a "ha ha, you can't do anything to me" attitude. Parents are responsible to control their children but are not allowed to do anything to control their children. What started off as a sensible idea to protect children from actual abuse has become a ridiculous exercise in preventing children from being told "no."
Maybe that’s how it works in USA, but here in Brazil parents are not going to be reported to the police and sent to jail because all they did was slap the child in wrist.
At least not yet. There’s law here that haven’t been voted yet that prohibits any kind of physical punishment against children, including the slap in the wrist.
In my opinion, a slap in the wrist doesn’t traumatize the child and – of course – it doesn’t cause physical and psychological harm like being burned with cigarettes, being spanked with rods, wires, belts, chains, pipes, etc. This law is over the top – and in case of being approved – is not going to work. For such law to work it would be necessary constant supervision; we have a very deficient system when is about social work which can’t barely take to assist cases of more severe abuse against children and teenagers; imagine if this law is approved? It’s going to be a mess.
>> Tell me, according to the Maria de Penha law, does the abuse have to be proven? Or can a woman who simply wants to lash out at a guy invent a charge and have him jailed without trial for over a month?
The abuses due to the Maria da Penha law are: domestic violence which causes death, lesion, physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, moral violence or patrimonial damage. This law also applies to gay relationships (in the case of lesbians).
The abused woman will go to the women’s precinct (or any other precinct, if there isn’t a woman’s precinct where she lives) and report the abuse. The police officer will listen the victim, make a police report and will begin to investigate. The police will collect all the evidence for elucidation of the case. In the deadline of 48 hours, protective measures (like restraining orders and an order which demands the abuser to leave the house right away) will be sent to the judge at the victim’s request; then will be asked the forensic medical examination of the victim; the abuser and witnesses will be heard.
If it’s proved that the abuse really happens, then a judge will order the preventive prison of the abuser for 45 days. The prevent prison is a penalty applied as a preventive measure before the trial. That’s why it doesn’t violate the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence if the decision is motivated and the prison is strictly necessary (for example, a really dangerous abuser who threatens to kill the woman because she reported him to the police; if he stays in jail for 45 days, the woman will have plenty of time to leave the house and go somewhere away/unknown to the abuser, file for divorce if the abuser is the husband, etc)
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteIsn't that Maria de Penha law discriminatory against men too? If a butch dyke beats up a man, fine. If that same man defends himself and swats her off (not excessively) he goes to prison for the maximum. Also, I read why it was created, but why the specific addition with "all women, regardless of ... sexual orientation ..., have the fundamental human rights.". Are there butch dykes beating up their lipstick lovers? Odd law. ALL people have rights NOT JUST specific people like that law promotes. That law would be unconstitutional in this country.
Oh and I want to say something about spanking, Pvblivs. You are very right about [c]igarette burns, or any permanent scarring. That should not ever happen, if it does you're doing it wrong. But something tells me you have never been spanked because you associated "bruises" with "permanent scarring" and that was your mistake. Being "switched" will cause welts and/or bruises. That is normal. If you are spanked with a stick it WILL break some blood vessels (bruise). Now, if you spank with a hand you can break bones. THAT is unacceptable. Hand are for hugging, not striking. The stick should always be softer then bones, as a "D.A.N." guideline. Taking a metal pipe to a child may break bones and that would be wrong.
Also have you EVER seen a 3-5 year old boy's legs? They are chalk full of bruises, all the time. Its perfectly normal. To say children at that age can never play, because they might get bruises on their legs, is abuse in itself.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Why do I use Myers so much?
What a hypocrite! It was PZ Myers who stated "I look at them [dead baby pictures] unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me."
And then PZ has a position on abuse? *pshaw
BTW, Love is not tough at all. What is tough is to idly standing by and/or coddle a child for doing wrong.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, instead of blaming the "silly left wing media" maybe you ought to go after those xians who do that sort of shit, eh?
Touché but that is implying that I do not do so. I do not condone what they or AC did.
Also, correction, you MEANT to say "instead of blaming the "silly left wing media" maybe you ought to go after those [people] who do that sort of shit, eh?"
You know, to be more accurate. :7p
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> BTW, Love is not tough at all. What is tough is to idly standing by and/or coddle a child for doing wrong.
Of course we can’t stand by and let the child do wrong things. Parents have to teach them the right and wrong; what they can do and what they can’t. But situations like these can be fixed by grounding the children by prohibiting them of doing something they really like (like taking away their video game, computer or TV for a month) or simply giving them a slap in the wrist if they start a tantrum and grounding them again by putting them in their bedroom until they calm down.
Beating them up with rods, wires, pipes, punching them, burning them with cigarettes, chaining them in the bed or locking them up in a small shack outside the house for days without food is not way to treat them. Besides being a crime; it’s bad/wrong and causes deep traumas in those children.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Isn't that Maria de Penha law discriminatory against men too? If a butch dyke beats up a man, fine. If that same man defends himself and swats her off (not excessively) he goes to prison for the maximum. Also, I read why it was created, but why the specific addition with "all women, regardless of ... sexual orientation ..., have the fundamental human rights.". Are there butch dykes beating up their lipstick lovers? Odd law. ALL people have rights NOT JUST specific people like that law promotes. That law would be unconstitutional in this country.
No, it isn’t. This law was created to protect women against abusers in the domestic environment, regardless if the abuser is a man or a woman. Before this law domestic abuse against women wasn’t well investigated and the abuser rarely was sent to jail. If the abuser was considered guilty he or she received a an alternative sentencing like frequenting classes about domestic abuse or doing voluntary work or just paying basic-needs grocery package for some months. Those penalties weren’t being effective and it wasn’t preventing the woman from being abused again. In most cases, the abuser attacked the woman with more violence because she “dared to report him or her to the police”
For your knowledge, if a man and woman are beating each other up, both of them are sent to the precinct and put in jail.
Men are also victims of abuse made by women but is rare compared to the abuse of women made by men; besides most male victims are ashamed of reporting the woman to the police; he fears he will be mocked by the police, friends, family members, etc, because a woman beat the crap out of him.
The Maria da Penha law was used to protect a 46 year old engineer (his name wasn’t mentioned in the article) against the abuses of his ex-girlfriend. He broke up with her in 2007 and after a fight she burned him in the chest with a cigarette on purpose and threatened him after leaving the house. This woman was also responsible for attack against the engineer’s car and she sent him 40 emails threatening him.
According to the engineer’s lawyer Zoroastro Teixeira, the only solution to stop his ex-girlfriend persecution was to ask a restraining order against her. Since – unfortunately – there are no laws protecting men from female abusers, the only way was to use the Maria da Penha law. The judge responsible for the decision - Mário Roberto Kono de Oliveira – since there are no legal punishments against this kind of violence against men it justifies – by analogy – the use of Maria da Penha law.
In the article 22 in the Maria da Penha law, the judge can apply urgent protective measures against the attacker when is proved the practice of domestic and familiar violence against woman. It’s fine by me; if this guy was being persecuted by a deranged woman, he has all the right protected from her and he has all the right to use Maria da Penha law to guarantee his safety in order to have his right to live preserved.
D.A.N, do you still think this law is unconstitutional since now you know this same law you are against was used to protect a fellow man from a female abuser?
D.A.N, your view on homosexuality is pretty misleading. You think the relationships of lesbians only exists between a butch and a lipstick. You are so misinformed. There are relationships between a lipstick and a butch, yes…but there’s also relationships between two lipsticks lesbians, between two butches. I know by personal experience. I’m a butch bisexual and I had relationships with butches. I have butch friends who only date butches and lipstick friends who only date lipsticks, lipsticks who don’t care if the woman is a butch or a lipstick; butches who don’t care if the woman is a butch or lipstick, etc…
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteif the same comment appears like a bunch of times, just ignore it and I'll delete them if they appear. This damn blogspot sent me - again - a bunch of emails telling my comment wasn't posted.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteBefore we go ANY further. Do YOU have ANY children? No? End of discussion. You have to grounds for an "opinion" yet.
Hebrews 12:5-11 says plenty, especially 8 and 11. Hey, 8/11 my birthday and anniversary. :7)
"If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." ~Hebrews 12:8
"For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." ~Hebrews 12:11
Nevertheless, Michelle. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
Correction: You have [no] grounds for an "opinion" yet.
ReplyDeleteD.A.N,
ReplyDeleteI have no kids of my own, but I raise my sister who has autism; which is the same thing as raising a child considering she has the mental age of 2 year old.
Besides, I don't need to be a mother to know is completely unacceptable and harmful physically, emotionally and psychologically to the child to be abused by those who supposed to take care of her and love her. I don’t need to be a mother and I don’t need to follow the bible to know if children are not disciplined properly (and I don’t mean by beating them up every time they misbehave) they will probably become spoiled brats and therefore spoiled adults with no sense of responsibility and respect to others whatsoever.
Other thing: you are the one who can’t give an opinion on the matter, since you consider completely acceptable to threaten your own children with stoning just because it’s what your bible says.
You said yourself you don't discuss the scriptures with people who don't hold it as an authorities? Guess what, I don't hold you fairy tale book as an authorities, so quoting the bible to me is pointless and - obviously - I won't waste my time reading these outdated passages written by ignorant desert dwellers who had a dubious sense of morality.
The only reason you consider your reasoning to be valid is because your moral guidance comes from (a petty violent) god and (an extremely violent and immoral) book. Therefore, everyone here who debunks you, your god and your scripture you come with lame excuses and justifications in order to avoid the subject.
For you, we can’t be accountable to anything just because we lack belief in your god and we don’t follow the dogmas of your religion. We showed you many times we are accountable to ourselves, to our loved ones and to the society and world we live in, we have a sense of morality; we can tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil; we can feel empathy towards living beings; the thing is you don’t accept people can have all that without turning to god and to some outdated mythological book.
As I said before: you are the one who can’t be accountable to morality considering the book you hold as authorative.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>I have no kids of my own, but I raise my sister who has autism; which is the same thing as raising a child considering she has the mental age of 2 year old.
Maybe that is where the problem is. You MUST have your own kids, to know ANYTHING about this subject. As, I even entered fatherhood proclaiming I would NEVER strike a child.
That being said, children with Autism, like my oldest boy, need discipline to know right from wrong. You know how they act. Granted there are different degrees to Autism. Its a very selfish, and self centered, condition that is often rudderless. My 6 year old has learned to be kind and generous with other kids through my sometimes forceful and authoritative guidance. I am that trusting rudder that he can depend on until he learns things. He is doing great these days. Sad that you do not listen to God, His authority would have helped you in your, and your sister's, life.
>>As I said before: you are the one who can’t be accountable to morality considering the book you hold as authorative.
There you go again trying to think. You're wrong is that ASSUMPTION though.
My authority is Christ ALONE. You know, God's Word. To say Scripture supersedes Christ would be breaking the first commandment and a violation of Christianity. Maybe that is where you are going wrong here, in your own Salvation.
If the Bible, as a historical narrative, describes two girls mating with their father, to then turn around and do it because "The Bible says to" is demonstrably in error on your part. God is the authority here. Especially if Christ says even looking at a different woman then your wife is "adultery of the heart", then to do so, is breaking His commandments.
Sad, I wish I could help you more but as you know, "convincing" is out of my hands.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Maybe that is where the problem is. You MUST have your own kids, to know ANYTHING about this subject. As, I even entered fatherhood proclaiming I would NEVER strike a child.
As I said before I don’t need to have my own kids to know what is right and wrong about raising them. Of course we can’t cuddle children every time they disobey or do something wrong, but beating them up constantly and in the most violent way is not effective and causes huge traumas to kids; besides they are not going to respect their parents. My two aunts and my mother were raised by a ruthless, control freak, intolerant and violent mother who beat the shit out of them for anything and gave them really harsh punishments. My mother and her sisters told me more than once they feared her, but never respected her. My grandfather – on the hand – is a loving father who never raised his hand against them, only explained them the right and wrong without turning to harsh punishments and violent outbursts, and guess what? They respected him, obeyed him and all. He achieved things with my mother and her sisters my grandmother never did, even with all her scare tactics.
>> But as you said DAN, autism has different degrees. My sister is completely dependant; she can’t talk, she needs people to give her a bath, to feed her, to dress her, to change her diapers…she’s like a baby.
The doctors such as her neurologist, psychologist, her physical therapist and the other professionals in the special school she goes to are already an excellent help for her and our family, thankfully. So, no imaginary god needed there.
>> There you go again trying to think. You're wrong is that ASSUMPTION though.
Do I need to say it again the despicable actions your bible incites and condones and the horrible things you god did or ordered to be done?
>> My authority is Christ ALONE. You know, God's Word. To say Scripture supersedes Christ would be breaking the first commandment and a violation of Christianity. Maybe that is where you are going wrong here, in your own Salvation.
But according to believers and followers of the bible, the scriptures are considered to be the word of god, almost the entire NT is about Jesus and all; that’s why they follow this book.
>> If the Bible, as a historical narrative, describes two girls mating with their father, to then turn around and do it because "The Bible says to" is demonstrably in error on your part. God is the authority here. Especially if Christ says even looking at a different woman then your wife is "adultery of the heart", then to do so, is breaking His commandments.
I’ll quote one of the comments you said: “I actually used those verses on my oldest (23) as a warning and he said "I am all ears... I don't like getting stoned anymore" Get it? I thought that was a witty double entendre. The OT still stands and will be the law after Christ's second coming. We better get used to them. Sin will not be tolerated when that happens. From my experience, a threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so...”
The verses you say you use on your oldest son are Dt. 21: 18-21 (I don’t need to tell you what these particular verses say, do I?). Those verses and others which are similar to it (such as Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9) are instructions on how parents should punish their children if they disobey and your Jesus doesn’t seem to be against it (Mt 15:3-7).
Dan:
ReplyDelete"But something tells me you have never been spanked because you associated 'bruises' with 'permanent scarring' and that was your mistake."
Not my association and not my mistake. I simply quoted back from Mhich's list things which should not occur when spanking is used as a measured discipline. Bruising is one of the things where, if it happens, you're doing it wrong. (The palm of the hand will get the message across without the bruises.)
"They are chalk full of bruises, all the time. Its perfectly normal."
And scrapes, and cuts, and the occasional broken bone. You shouldn't be inflicting any of those as punishment either. The purpose is to draw attention to the fact that certain behavior is unacceptable, not to vent your frustrations. It's not an easy line. I'm not going to pretend that it is. The best way that I can explain it is that the child should think he is getting hurt more than he really is. Actual injury should be minimal.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>but beating them up constantly and in the most violent way is not effective and causes huge traumas to kids
You see what you do? Its called a loaded question fallacy. You're going to wild extremes. Its like you saying "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt. You are INSINUATING within the statement. Stop that. It makes you appear dishonest. Rightfully so too.
>>They respected him, obeyed him and all.
Hasty generalization fallacy. Just because ONE man was nice does not mean it is the right thing to do. BTW, didn't that daughter of his grow up to raise a gay Atheist? Something went wrong along the way somewhere. Maybe if he was harsher, things wouldn't be different. The data of many reports points to many gays having a weak or absent father or a dominate mother anyway. I digress. The point is that her upbringing had an effect on her children in some way. There is an overcompensation that goes on. A weak man has a daughter that "overcompensates" the weakness, we often become what we want others to be, and becomes dominate to raise a daughter that emulates or gets confused of gender rolls. Voila! Daughter starts buying flannel shirts. Granted I am just speculating here, but it makes sense logically.
>>My sister is completely dependant; she can’t talk, she needs people to give her a bath, to feed her, to dress her, to change her diapers…she’s like a baby.
My heart goes out to you and your family. We have more in common then you think. I too had to take care of my older brother, by a few years, changing, baths, bathroom tasks... who had cerebral palsy. It was a hard childhood. At least your sister is not evil like my brother was/is. He made my life hell. He would laugh at me as I was dry heaving while wiping him, I was 9-12.
Anyway, I sure wish we can find the cause for that horrible condition, Autism. Was she vaccinated aggressively? Like 8 in a day? I link my boys to that because of his behavior days after that. BTW, those are his eyes on the blog.
>>The verses you say you use on your oldest son are Dt. 21: 18-21
You used the inconsistent comparison fallacy. I was pointing to the JOKE my son said by "I don't like getting stoned anymore" as in he doesn't like getting high. I was sharing a joke with you. You're using an equivocation of sorts. If you actually think I wish to stone my son, or that he even thought that, then I could collect a few rocks to use as a comparison of your reasoning skills. Are you sure you didn't get stoned at a young age? Do you have permanent lumps on your head? lol
Dan
ReplyDeleteTouché but that is implying that I do not do so. I do not condone what they or AC did.
Odd then that we've never seen any posts where you go after those kinds of people...if you have posted something like that, let us know.
Also, correction, you MEANT to say "instead of blaming the "silly left wing media" maybe you ought to go after those [people] who do that sort of shit, eh?"
You know, to be more accurate. :7p
I AM going for accuracy, just as much as you do when you go after the "silly left wing media" as if they were all members of the same group or something; I'm just generalizing like you do; don't you like your own medicine?
Besides, all of those people are members of your faith, and they justify what they do with your own holy book. Same as when you and William Lane Craig justify genocide when it's commanded by your god.
Xians aren't the only ones who do that shit, but as I said, all those people above are christians like you.
D.AN,
ReplyDelete>> You see what you do? Its called a loaded question fallacy. You're going to wild extremes. Its like you saying "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt. You are INSINUATING within the statement. Stop that. It makes you appear dishonest. Rightfully so too.
It’s not a fallacy, damn it! I’ve seen happening with a lot of kids. They needed psychological help to overcome their traumas; some of those kids even chose to run away from home and live on the streets and most of these homeless kids became drug addicts and petty criminals.
>> Hasty generalization fallacy. Just because ONE man was nice does not mean it is the right thing to do.
The right thing to do was beat their daughters up with broom sticks, wood spoons and frying pans, right? (insert sarcasm here)
>> BTW, didn't that daughter of his grow up to raise a gay Atheist.
I’m not his daughter, you idiot! He’s my grandfather! My mother – his daughter - is straight and a recently converted evangelical. My aunt – also my grandfather’s daughter and - is also straight, married with two kids and she’s also an evangelical. I’m the one who is a bisexual and an atheist; thankfully my father is not absent and both of my parents were harsh sometimes at raising me (not to the point of spanking me with broom sticks, wood spoons and frying pans), but in general they are loving and caring parents. So much for your “argument that gay people become gay for having a weak or absent father or mother”, isn’t?
I was born bisexual, I didn’t choose to be. The only decision I took on this matter was to accept who I am instead of fighting against (because I know fighting against who you are it doesn’t end well, I’ve lost a dear friend to suicide because of it)
>> A weak man has a daughter that "overcompensates" the weakness, we often become what we want others to be, and becomes dominate to raise a daughter that emulates or gets confused of gender rolls. Voila! Daughter starts buying flannel shirts.
You really don’t know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, do you? I know gay men who are more men than you.
Not all lesbians are butches and not all gay men are effeminate, you silly!
Maybe you are confusing transgender with homosexuality. Gender identity and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. Just because a woman is lesbian it doesn’t mean she’s going to be “the male” and her girlfriend will be the woman in the relationship. There are relationships between women who are equal, like lipstick lesbian having a lipstick girlfriend or a butch having a butch girlfriend.
PS: I don’t have flannel shirts. I have rock bands’ shirts, you know like heavy metal/punk rock/grunge/hardcore, lol.
>> Anyway, I sure wish we can find the cause for that horrible condition, Autism.
Autism is not horrible, she just lives in her own world and has her own way to communicate with us, when she does. She’s a lovely person and she was hugging people (which it was something she didn’t do few years ago)
>> Was she vaccinated aggressively?
D.A.N, vaccination is not the cause for autism. The doctor who came up with this absurd idea was debunked along with this hypothesis. It’s the old correlation x causation. Just because kids take vaccines at the same age autism appears in some kids, it doesn’t mean vaccines are the cause for autism. There were a lot of studies done about this subject and this hypothesis was proved to be wrong.
I took the same vaccines my sister took – and considering my family’s history – I should’ve had autism too and I didn’t.
>> But you said in the end of your comment “from my experience, threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so…”. What you said in that sentence was threatening to stone your son with crack cocaine? lmao
DAN,
ReplyDeleteBTW, your son have beautiful eyes ;)
Bellecherie:
ReplyDeleteStudies conducted by the people that want to make vaccination compulsory carry about as much weight as studies on tobacco safety conducted by cigarette manufacturers. Sure, you may have actual scientists. But they know what result they have to reach if they want to eat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
ReplyDeleteit's bellecherie
The risks of severe complications related to vaccines are smaller than the complications caused by the diseases those vaccines protect. When I took the vaccine for swine flu my right arm ached really bad for a week, I couldn’t even move my arm. But this side effect is nothing compared to fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, headache, chills, fatigue, diarrhea and vomiting (and probably death) caused by the swine flu.
Parents who decide to not vaccine their children because they fear complications (such as the development of autism, which is already been proven there’s nothing linking vaccines - such the one against measles - to autism in children) are being irresponsible not only to their kids but also towards everyone else who gets in contact with those children who weren’t vaccinated. Measles is easily treatable and is preventable, but it can cause serious damage in people who have a deficient immunological system or in undernourished kids. In those cases, measles can cause headaches, blindness, severe diarrhea, infection in the ears and pneumonia and get them killed.
In 1988, some british researchers alerted a possible link between DPT vaccine (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus) and severe neurological problems (which it was discredited), many families refused to give the pertussis vaccine and many children got sick and 70 of them died.
This subject is a matter of public health and parents keeping their children from taking vaccines that will protect them and protect other people because of unfounded fear which Dr. Andrew Wakefield was one of the people responsible of spreading it is simply wrong and irresponsible.
Mhich:
ReplyDelete"it's bellecherie"
What, exactly, do you think you are correcting here? I spelled it correctly. And since headers are traditionally capitalized, I have no idea what you are trying to correct.
"The risks of severe complications related to vaccines are smaller than the complications caused by the diseases those vaccines protect."
So sayeth the people who already desire that the public be vaccinated. And cigarette manufacturers will/would be happy to tell you that smoking is quite safe. Again, since governments have a desire that people be vaccinated, they also have a motive to downplay or conceal any risks. Maybe they're being honest. Maybe they're not. But I, for one, am not surprised when people advocating a particular course of action declare that an alleged danger has been "discredited" by their (and you don't need to conduct your own; you can trust them.)
I do not think that vaccinations should be compulsory, either through force of law or through declarations of "irresponsibility." However, I remember your stance on abortion. Shouldn't you be saying that they are exercising their free choice over their own bodies?
Presumably, everyone who gets the vaccination is protected. At least, that's the argument if trying to convince people to get vaccinations is to have any merit. So the decision not to get vaccinated affects only those who have "assumed the risk."
Quite frankly, I am loathe to substitue government judgement for a parent's judgement with regard to his children unless there is a reason to believe that the parent is deliberately putting his own interests above those of the child (i.e. the decision is in bad faith.) I am certainly opposed to having government tell people that they have to do something "for their own good." It is not the government's proper place to act as nanny. It would be the government's place to act as referree if I were harming another. But, again, failure to get vaccinated only "threatens" those who have "assumed the risk" by not getting vaccinated themselves.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> So say the people who already desire that the public be vaccinated.
Of course I want people to be vaccinated; it’s for their own protection and for the protection of everyone else. Of course I can’t force them to be vaccinated, it’s up to them; but – in my opinion – is being irresponsible not only towards your own health and also the health of other people.
For example, a person who is contaminated with the H1N1 virus is a walking danger to everyone who gets in contact with her. Imagine this person coughing like crazy inside an elevator or in a subway?
Imagine someone who has weak immunological system getting infected with measles by a child who wasn’t vaccinated and got the disease? The chance of this person having a permanent damage or even die is big.
>> And cigarette manufacturers will/would be happy to tell you that smoking is quite safe. Again, since governments have a desire that people be vaccinated, they also have a motive to downplay or conceal any risks.
But there’s a huge difference between cigarettes and vaccines. Cigarettes cause only harm (cancer, heart problems, sexual impotence, abortion, strokes, etc) and vaccines – despite some side effects (which doesn’t include autism, since it’s already been more than proved vaccines there’s no link between vaccines and autism) – protect people against diseases. A medication that can and will protect people from getting sick is a good thing.
I don’t know how things work where you live, but in Brazil during the swine flu vaccination campaign, the Ministry of Health informed the population about the side effects of the vaccine (fever, body aches, dizziness, pain where the vaccine was shot and redness until 72 hours after the vaccination). But they also said not everyone will have these reactions; in my entire family I was the only one who had a side effect.
Another example of a vaccine that can give side effects is the one for yellow fever; but most cases that happens in people who didn’t know they are allergic to the albumin used in this vaccine.
>> However, I remember your stance on abortion. Shouldn't you be saying that they are exercising their free choice over their own bodies?
Women have all the right in the world to terminate the pregnancy if they choose. Their decision won’t affect anyone else besides themselves and they are aware of that.
There is one situation I don’t agree with abortion: if the woman had consensual sex, got pregnant and there’s nothing wrong with the fetus or with the pregnancy, but she’s not read to be a mother, she has the alternative of giving the baby for adoption. But if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy it’s her right – and besides – who am I to judge?
But in cases of high risk pregnancy or having something wrong with the fetus (like anencephaly, for example) I agree with terminating the pregnancy. I also agree when the woman got pregnant of the guy who raped her to have an abortion. If one of these 3 cases happen to me one day (I hope not) I won’t think twice, I’ll terminate the pregnancy for sure.
>> So the decision not to get vaccinated affects only those who have "assumed the risk."
If people chose not to be vaccinated is their right, but their decision will affect other people, especially if the disease is contagious.
For example: if a woman decides not to vaccinate against rubella; she gets pregnant and then she gets rubella; this disease will affect the embryo. The virus will invade the placenta and infect the embryo. In these circumstances, rubella can cause a miscarriage, death of the fetus, premature labor and congenital malformations in the baby (such as blindness, glaucoma, deafness, microcephaly with mental retardation, spina bifida, etc)
Michelle,
ReplyDeletePretty please stop puking all over my blog with all these repetitive comments. I was at a conference all day today and could not get to here, until just now. It appears that you are the only one having issues these days. If you keep posting over and over and over and over again, I believe they get thrown into spam. I could be wrong but I sure see the pattern in your case.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>What, exactly, do you think you are correcting here?
This was funny. You are always ready for a fight. You crack me up, dude.
Michelle was using her "Mhich" account but wanted to alert you that it was still her talking to you by saying "it's bellecherie" She was NOT correcting you but alerting you that it was the same person. Silly but hilarious.
Please Michelle, stop doing it. I think THAT ALONE (switching between accounts saying the SAME thing) is what is getting you thrown into spam.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteBTW, didn't that daughter of his grow up to raise a gay Atheist.
>>I’m not his daughter, you idiot!
*sigh You need to read slower to comprehend. I have the same problem.
Think about what I wrote, then reread it. You will find that is what I said. "He" (being your grandfather) raised a daughter (your Mother) who raised a gay Atheist. (Michelle) It fits what I said.
Its also, just you, testing my resolve to be patient with you. I am still reading, as I clarify things.
Does ANYONE see the hypocrisy in all of this?
ReplyDeleteANYONE?
Michelle would rip a baby from her belly and MURDER it. But if the child would happen to survive, she would NEVER, ever, spank the kid to help it learn right from wrong!!
Excuse me I must go get a lobotomy to continue to have this conversation.
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing [her] opinion."~ Proverbs 18:2
I guess reality is crazier then fantasy here. I am going to bed. This conversation is going to haunt me, at least my intelligence.
Proof that evolution is false, she is surviving. Modern Society is killing evolution. That kind would never have survived in the wild.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteAgain; it’s not my fault! I got like 20 messages yesterday from Blogspot saying the comments I posted weren’t sent! I know what’s like because as I fucking told you before I had a blog on Blogspot and pratically everyday I had dozens of messages from people who tried to comment on my blog complaining their comments weren’t being sent and they were receiving dozens of emails from Blogspot saying that!
I asked Blogspot a zillion times to solve the situation and since they didn’t do anything about it I solved the problem by simply deleting my blog from Blogspot and making another in a different address.
You are the one who has to fix this problem since IT’S YOUR DAMN BLOG!
There were times here that I sent the first comment in days in your blog and the comment wasn’t sent; how do you explain the first comment I sent in days to your blog and then goes automatically to spam? It’s weird!
>> My mother had nothing to do with me being born a bisexual and she had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist. If depended on my parents I would be a god believer, but they can’t force me to believe in what they believe or make me follow their religion. Thankfully they understood that when I told them I was an atheist; I know for a fact my father doesn’t agree very much with my atheism and my mother doesn’t understand how someone can lack belief in gods, but they said as long as I’m happy and a good person, it doesn’t matter if I believe in gods or not.
They raised me to be a responsible, honest and good person regardless my sexual orientation and my ideology of choice.
About my bisexuality, is the same thing: they don’t know I’m bisexual, but they know people don’t choose to be gay, bisexual, heterosexual, etc; they also know it’s completely damaging and harmful a person to deny who she really is and fight against her nature just because some religion says is a sin and abomination or because most people don’t agree with homosexuality or because this person’s parents say what she is not normal, is unnatural, is a mental illness, etc.
That friend of mine killed himself because of it; his parents were always telling him he was a pervert, what he “had” was mental disorder; they even put him in a mental institution for an year when he was 16 to try to cure him. After that he was never the same again and he killed himself at age of 18.
>> Here’s how it is:
- until 8 weeks of pregnancy it’s an embryo;
- From the week 8 until the last month of pregnancy is a fetus;
- the fetus is only considered a baby after the birth
Abortion is a safe procedure when it’s done by professionals in the appropriate environment; it’s not a butchery as you think it is. Besides an embryo is not a fully formed person yet. Just for you to know a fetus is only capable to process physical pain after the 6th month of pregnancy and obviously he’s not capable to link physical pain with emotional and psychological pain because this is something we learn after we are born. So, terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as shooting a 3 year old in the head.
But, yes I would have an abortion if my pregnancy happens to be a high risk one; if the fetus has a condition where he will not live long after the birth or be a still born and in the case if I get pregnant of the guy who raped me. In that last case, I would be trying to deal with the trauma of being raped and then finding out I’m pregnant would get things worse and way more difficult to deal with it. For me, the abortion will be the right thing to do.
>> I would never spank my child because there are more effective ways to raise her without turning to violence and really harsh punishments.
>> You already had a lobotomy, it’s called religion.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteAgain; it’s not my fault! I got like 20 messages yesterday from Blogspot saying the comments I posted weren’t sent! I know what’s like because as I fucking told you before I had a blog on Blogspot and pratically everyday I had dozens of messages from people who tried to comment on my blog complaining their comments weren’t being sent and they were receiving dozens of emails from Blogspot saying that!
I asked Blogspot a zillion times to solve the situation and since they didn’t do anything about it I solved the problem by simply deleting my blog from Blogspot and making another in a different address.
You are the one who has to fix this problem since IT’S YOUR DAMN BLOG!
There were times here that I sent the first comment in days in your blog and the comment wasn’t sent; how do you explain the first comment I sent in days to your blog and then goes automatically to spam? It’s weird!
>> My mother had nothing to do with me being born a bisexual and she had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist. If depended on my parents I would be a god believer, but they can’t force me to believe in what they believe or make me follow their religion. Thankfully they understood that when I told them I was an atheist; I know for a fact my father doesn’t agree very much with my atheism and my mother doesn’t understand how someone can lack belief in gods, but they said as long as I’m happy and a good person, it doesn’t matter if I believe in gods or not.
They raised me to be a responsible, honest and good person regardless my sexual orientation and my ideology of choice.
About my bisexuality, is the same thing: they don’t know I’m bisexual, but they know people don’t choose to be gay, bisexual, heterosexual, etc; they also know it’s completely damaging and harmful a person to deny who she really is and fight against her nature just because some religion says is a sin and abomination or because most people don’t agree with homosexuality or because this person’s parents say what she is not normal, is unnatural, is a mental illness, etc.
That friend of mine killed himself because of it; his parents were always telling him he was a pervert, what he “had” was mental disorder; they even put him in a mental institution for an year when he was 16 to try to cure him. After that he was never the same again and he killed himself at age of 18.
>> Here’s how it is:
- until 8 weeks of pregnancy it’s an embryo;
- From the week 8 until the last month of pregnancy is a fetus;
- the fetus is only considered a baby after the birth
Abortion is a safe procedure when it’s done by professionals in the appropriate environment; it’s not a butchery as you think it is. Besides an embryo is not a fully formed person yet. Just for you to know a fetus is only capable to process physical pain after the 6th month of pregnancy and obviously he’s not capable to link physical pain with emotional and psychological pain because this is something we learn after we are born. So, terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as shooting a 3 year old in the head.
But, yes I would have an abortion if my pregnancy happens to be a high risk one; if the fetus has a condition where he will not live long after the birth or be a still born and in the case if I get pregnant of the guy who raped me. In that last case, I would be trying to deal with the trauma of being raped and then finding out I’m pregnant would get things worse and way more difficult to deal with it. For me, the abortion will be the right thing to do.
>> I would never spank my child because there are more effective ways to raise her without turning to violence and really harsh punishments.
>> You already had a lobotomy, it’s called religion.
"Proof that evolution is false, she is surviving. Modern Society is killing evolution. That kind would never have survived in the wild."
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure you understand how evolution works. Evolution means species will evolve to survive in their environment. Since she is not in the wild, whether or not she would survive there is irrelevant to evolution. She is surviving in her current environment.
The skills to survive in a modern society are different than in primitive ones, but there are still many who don't have the skills to survive long enough to reproduce so natural selection is still in effect.
Bellecherie:
ReplyDelete"Of course I want people to be vaccinated;"
My point is that the people that "discredited" the possible dangers of vaccinations already have an agenda. They want people to get vaccinated. They are not going to report that they found a confirmed danger. One actual issue is that you can get the actual disease from a vaccination. The officials will lie and say that it is impossible because it's a "dead virus." It's supposed to be dead. But no procedure is perfect. There can be live virus where there wasn't meant to be. I believe the people I've encountered that say they got the disease from the vaccine. It's not a lot of people, mind you. But the officials went overboeard. They didn't just say that it was unlikely. They didn't want anyone to decide not to get the vaccine. So they lied and they said it was impossible. As the expression goes, "they have a dog in the fight."
"For example, a person who is contaminated with the H1N1 virus is a walking danger to everyone who gets in contact with her. Imagine this person coughing like crazy inside an elevator or in a subway?"
Are you saying the vaccine is worthless? The whole point of getting the vaccination is so that such a person is not a danger to you.
"But there’s a huge difference between cigarettes and vaccines."
There may be a difference between cigarettes and vaccines. But there is no difference in the nature of biased studies. The conclusion that it was "proven" that vaccines don't cause autism was written before the study was conducted. You avoided the point quite nicely.
"Women have all the right in the world to [kill the baby] if they choose. Their decision won’t affect anyone else besides themselves and they are aware of that."
Of course it affects someone else. The whole point is to affect (specificly to kill) someone else.
"There is one situation I don’t agree with abortion: if the woman had consensual sex, got pregnant and there’s nothing wrong with the fetus or with the pregnancy, but she’s not read to be a mother, she has the alternative of giving the baby for adoption. But if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy it’s her right – and besides – who am I to judge?"
So, you mean the most common case for abortion is what you don't agree with? But then you say "who am I to judge?" Well, that rings very hollow when you sit in judgement of people who don't get vaccinated. Who are you to judge? But my real point in comparing your arguments for abortion and vaccination is that you start with your conclusions and then tailor your "foundational beliefs" to fit those conclusions. The only thing sincere about your arguments is your desired conclusion.
"If people chose not to be vaccinated is their right, but their decision will affect other people, especially if the disease is contagious."
But those other people are also people who did not get vaccinated, right? Now, I hate to break it to you (actually I don't) but most people who do not get vaccinated do not get and spread the disease. You are, in the strictest sense, using the same scare tactics that you decry when used against your position.
Dan:
I interpreted it to be a correction because it appeared directly after addressing me. I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it if she used the other name as (say) a signature line. I already know they are the same person. So, to me, it looked like a correction. But I couldn't tell what was being corrected.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that Mhich is not the only one having problems. My response to her got deleted.
Mhich:
If killing a 3-year-old child were being supported then you would be telling us "for our knowledge" that they cannot process pain either. It used to be declared that slaves didn't really feel pain and that it was just an illusion. The "fetus" has reactions to expected painful stimuli that looks like a pain response. And that 6-month mark coincides quite nicely with the previously existing Roe v. Wade decision. If that wasn't there, I'm sure that it would be declared that they can't process pain until birth.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> If killing a 3-year-old child were being supported then you would be telling us "for our knowledge" that they cannot process pain either.
Of course not! There’s a huge difference between an embryo/fetus and a 3 year old kid. A 3 year old kid can’t be compared to an embryo and a fetus because this child is sufficiently developed to live outside the mother’s womb.
This whole issue in abortion is about where life begins. There are a lot of different opinions on when exactly life begins. I don’t know what’s the criteria you use on that matter, but mine is: doctors consider a person to be officially dead when there’s zero brain activity. So the moment when life begins is when brain activity is detected. In an embryo the brain activity is detected between the 5th and 6th week of gestation (but is primitive neural activity and not the beginning of conscious since that appears later in the fetus), so it’s when life begins.
For some pro-lifers – especially the religious ones – life begins in the moment of conception. For them a fertilized egg is like a fully developed human being, when it’s not. That fertilized egg will be a human being fully developed after 9 months, but in that moment it isn’t. The same way an embryo is not a fully developed human being neither the fetus until 37-40 weeks of pregnancy.
Considering the line of thought of some pro-lifers we kill a chick every time we break an egg and that my organism kills a human being every month when I have my period (that last statement I heard from hardcore pro-lifer, seriously)
In Brazil, abortion is considered a crime except in cases of high risk pregnancy and when the pregnancy is the result of rape; in those cases the woman will not be punished by our legal system. In the case of rape, the doctor will do the procedure if it’s proved the woman was raped, he must have the consent of the woman or legal representative.
In cases of malformation of the fetus where is clearly impossible the baby to live after the birth can be authorized by the court if a medical report brought by the doctor, plus other 3 reports for confirmation, a psychiatric report about the potential risk of continuing the pregnancy and one for the surgery.
"Of course not! There’s a huge difference between an embryo/fetus and a 3 year old kid."
ReplyDeleteThat huge difference being that you support killing the one but not the other.
"For some pro-lifers – especially the religious ones – life begins in the moment of conception."
Well, the scientific definition is cells growing and dividing. Various definitions have been invented to suit agendas in the abortion debate; but that one pre-dates the discussion.
"The same way an embryo is not a fully developed human being neither the fetus until 37-40 weeks of pregnancy."
The child is not fully developed until adulthood. Some could argue that we continue to develop throughout our lives.
"This whole issue in abortion is about where life begins. There are a lot of different opinions on when exactly life begins. I don’t know what’s the criteria you use on that matter, but mine is: doctors consider a person to be officially dead when there’s zero brain activity. So the moment when life begins is when brain activity is detected."
That definition is not unreasonable. It also has the advantage that it wasn't conceived strictly to support a position on abortion.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> There’s a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy in the embryonic stage and stabbing a 3 year old child to death.
You’re not getting the point; I only gave these explanations about when life starts and when a fetus begins to process physical pain was not to justify abortion (even because an abortion performed in that stage of pregnancy is not very common – at least in Brazil anyway); it was to inform, since some people think that an embryo is capable of feeling physical pain and they use that as argument against abortion. That’s it. It’s not my goal to justify abortion…all I do is to give my opinion on the matter and give some facts. If you agree with me or not, it’s ok. You don’t have to agree with me in everything.
I don’t support abortion depending on the reason/circumstance the abortion is made (the only circumstances I support abortion in cases of rape, high risk pregnancy or some malformation of the fetus that will be impossible for the fetus to live after birth). But I also support the right of the woman to choose if she wants to terminate the pregnancy or not, regardless the reason/circumstance.
>> Well, the scientific definition is cells growing and dividing. Various definitions have been invented to suit agendas in the abortion debate; but that one pre-dates the discussion.
In Brazil, that discussion about when life begins only concerns the church, religious representatives and religious politicians. The rest of the politicians and doctors are more concerned to the circumstances which the abortion is made. They are even discussing for years the complete legalization of abortion where the procedure will be only performed in legalized clinics with specialized professionals, with psychological attendance before and after the procedure, etc.
This discussion is happening for years because in Brazil women who don’t have money to go to other countries where abortion is completely legal or who can’t afford a specialized clinic are using less safe methods to abort, such as Cytotec. According to the statistics showed in Agência Brasil 50% to 80% of women use this medicine to abort. It happens that Cytotec is dangerous.
In case you don’t know what Cytotec is, I’ll tell you: Cytotec is a medicine used in the treatment and prevention of stomach ulcer and its active ingredient is misoprostol which can induce abortion. Since the Ministry of Health found out about it, the commercialization of Cytotec in Brazil was prohibited in 1998. But there’s the black market where anyone can find this medicine.
If a pregnant woman uses Cytotec to terminate the pregnancy she will bleed like crazy and there’s a high risk of a piece of the fetus or the placenta stay inside the uterus which can cause an infection or a stroke which can kill the woman. Some of them died because of massive bleeding or infection because they were afraid of going to the hospital. This Cytotec procedure kill 10.000 brazilian women an year.
Considering what most women who decides to terminate the pregnancy are using Cytotec and taking the risk of dying in the process, some politicians and doctors are trying in anyway they can to legalize abortion in Brazil
Just to give you more information about it. The profile of the women who aborts in Brazil (the sample is 2002 women interviewed in 2010 by the Abortion National Research)
- 50 to 80% use Cytotec
- Their age is between 20 and 29 years old (60%)
- They are mostly catholics, followed by protestants and evangelicals
- They study for about 8 years.
- They are in stable union (70%)
- They have one child in average.
Bellecherie:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, lose the dishonest, antiseptic terminology. Anytime you say "terminate her pregnancy" you may as well be saying "Abortion! Abortion! Rah, rah, rah!" She is having her child killed. If you cannot or will not say the word "kill" in this context, I cannot take you as being honest about it. Lysol is able to say that its product kills germs. And Raid is able to say that its product kills bugs. Abortion is an act of killing.
I am not interested in what risks a woman takes if she uses Cytotec to kill her child. She assumed the risk. Her child did not.
"I don’t support abortion depending on the reason/circumstance the abortion is made (the only circumstances I support abortion in cases of rape, high risk pregnancy or some malformation of the fetus that will be impossible for the fetus to live after birth). But I also support the right of the woman to choose if she wants to terminate the pregnancy or not, regardless the reason/circumstance."
You are blowing smoke. If you really opposed abortion in certain circumstances, you would also oppose it being a choice in those same circumstances. It's very simple. An action you oppose is one you do not think is a legitimate choice. If I were to claim that I didn't support rape but that I thought it should be a man's "right to choose" (whatever antiseptic language was invented to make the foul action sound less obnoxious) you would determine that to be dishonest. And you would be right.
You see, I don't believe you are just "giving information." You are applying inconsistent premises to support your positions on different topics. I have the sense that, if you could, you would compel vaccinations. But such a governmental intrusion would only be warranted in the middle of an epidemic. Under normal circumstances, even those who do not get vaccinated are not likely to catch and spread the disease. And, even if they do, they affect only those who took the same risk. At best, it is a case of the government trying to protect people from their own (bad, in the government's eyes) decisions. My opposition to abortion is not about protecting the woman. If I really believed that her action affected only herself, then I would leave her to it. But I think that the child deserves protection. There can be extenuating circumstances (such as when the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother.) But "just a choice" is not good enough.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteDid you see this? http://vimeo.com/25865933
Hopefully reason will win with you also. This is enough. You have killed over 53,000,000. This is way more then the holocaust. You are WORSE then Hitler.
How do you KNOW for CERTAIN that is NOT a baby in the womb of the woman? Could it be?
Most abortions take place before the nervous system develops, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteHow is it that you can have no problem with genocide, the killing of babies outside of the womb, and their pregnant mothers yet pretend to care about fetuses? That seems to be a common case of double-minded morality among christians.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePublivs;
ReplyDelete>> First off, lose the dishonest, antiseptic terminology. Anytime you say "terminate her pregnancy" you may as well be saying "Abortion! Abortion! Rah, rah, rah!" She is having her child killed. If you cannot or will not say the word "kill" in this context, I cannot take you as being honest about it
I’m not being dishonest at showing my opinions. The only reason you think I’m being dishonest is because I have contrary opinions of yours. You don’t see me calling you dishonest just because I don’t agree with your opinions, do you?
Calling me dishonest just because you don’t agree with my opinions or with the terms I use on abortion is…hum…very stupid of you.
The terms used on abortion are a matter of opinion and that change from one person to another. I use the terms “terminate the pregnancy” and “interrupting the pregnancy” while you use “killing a child”; saying I’m not being honest about it just because I don’t use the term you think is the correct one and practically demanding me to use it is not going to change my mind on the matter – and obviously – is not going to keep me from saying “terminating the pregnancy and “interrupting the pregnancy”
>> I am not interested in what risks a woman takes if she uses Cytotec to kill her child. She assumed the risk. Her child did not.]
Some politicians and doctors – regardless their religious beliefs – are trying to legalize abortion in Brazil because the situation here is alarming. Thousands of women are dying because they don’t have money to go to other countries or to a specialized clinic to interrupt the pregnancy; instead they are using Cytotec or paying 100 bucks to a person who is not a doctor to do the procedure in a place where there’s no adequate conditions of hygiene to perform the abortion.
They know that – instead of fighting against it – is better to legalize it. They are not going to force the woman to make an abortion if she doesn’t want to; but if the woman decides to terminate her pregnancy she might as well do it in a place with adequate conditions, with professionals specialized in abortion and with psychological attendance.
>> If you really opposed abortion in certain circumstances, you would also oppose it being a choice in those same circumstances.
It’s not a legitimate choice for you. I’m pro-choice; there is a situation I don’t agree with interrupting the pregnancy since there’s the alternative of putting the baby for adoption. But I also support the right the woman to chose to abort, no matter what her reasons are…it’s not up to me to point the finger at her and condemn her reasons and herself just because I disagree.
>> You see, I don't believe you are just "giving information." You are applying inconsistent premises to support your positions on different topics.
That’s your opinion…I don’t have to prove myself to you since I don’t owe you anything. You understand what I wrote the way you want to.
D.A.N;
ReplyDelete>> Did you see this? http://vimeo.com/25865933. Hopefully reason will win with you also.
Yes, I saw this video. I don’t know the arguments were used to change those people’s minds (the video was fast forward in those parts) but since is Ray Comfort I can only imagine his “arguments” (reason and Ray Comfort are incompatible). Seeing people changing their minds about abortion (which is their right) or simply listening Comfort’s voice it’s not going to change my mind.
I really don’t care what Ray “The Banana Guy” Comfort or you have to say about abortion because your opinions are based on a religious faith I don’t follow/don’t believe in. Seriously, you and The Banana Dude can scream god, jesus, passages from the bible until you get blue and breathless in order to try to change my mind on abortion, but it won’t work.
In a nutshell: I don’t care about what a book written thousands of years ago by desert dwellers (who had a very dubious sense of morality) which I don’t hold as an authorative and what a god I don’t believe in have to say about abortion or even what they have to say about my life (especially my love/sex life).
>> How do you KNOW for CERTAIN that is NOT a baby in the womb of the woman? Could it be?
Your view on abortion is based on your religious views, nothing else.
Probably I’m wasting my time here since logic and reason don’t work with you, but: from the moment of the fertilization of the egg by the spermatozoid until the 8th week of pregnancy is an embryo; from the 8th week until the end of the pregnancy is called the fetus; the fetus is only considered a baby after the birth.
"Did you see this? http://vimeo.com/25865933"
ReplyDeleteThat is so funny, for a number of reasons. First being that they didn't want the general public to see it until a certain date, so the full video was password protected. As it turns out, making the password the same as the title of the website, is not very secure, but that's the sort of thing you expect from people of low intelligence.
I only watched the first 10 minutes. I realize that some people in the world don't even know who Hitler is, but he spent far too much time dwelling on it, and it seemed like he was never going to make any sort of point. You can summarize the rest of the video if you want.
Bellecherie:
ReplyDelete"First off, lose the dishonest, antiseptic terminology. Anytime you say 'terminate her pregnancy' you may as well be saying 'Abortion! Abortion! Rah, rah, rah!' She is having her child killed. If you cannot or will not say the word 'kill' in this context, I cannot take you as being honest about it. Lysol is able to say that its product kills germs. And Raid is able to say that its product kills bugs. Abortion is an act of killing."
I have bolded the part of my quote that you removed. It is not the fact that you disagree with me that causes me to find you dishonest. It is the fact that you use antiseptic terminology to conceal facts. It is one thing to argue for the position that the "fetus" does not deserve protection from wanton killing. It is quite another to avoid the word "kill." We do not mind the word "kill" when it is applied to entities which wh think deserve no protection. The fact that you avoid the word is what leads me to think you are being dishonest. If I were being similarly dishonest I would be plugging the desired conclusion into the terms as well, (e.g. saying "murdering" or "butchering.") But, I stated my reasons. You deleted the reason (a quote mine pretending no reason was given) and then stated that it was only because you disagreed with me. No. I disagree with many people on many things. And I do not generally find them to be dishonest. However, when people try to twist terminology specificly to suit their position (the word "terminate" is not otherwise used that often) that tends to cause me to think of dishonesty.
"Thousands of women are dying because they don’t have money to go to other countries or to a specialized clinic to [kill the child];"
No, thousands of women are "interruping their continued existence (eh, big deal; no cause for alarm)" as a side effect of something they shouldn't be doing -- killing their children. If rape had a similar side effect on the perpetrators, would you be seeking to legalize it and make it safer (for the perpetrator)? I wouldn't. Any side effects you incur while doing something you shouldn't are your own fault.
"it’s not up to me to point the finger at her and condemn her reasons and herself just because I disagree."
You point the finger and condemn reasons just because you disagree on vaccinations. The fact is that when someone harms another on a whim, it is up to us to condemn the "reasons." And abortion is a harmful act. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. The "fetus" goes in alive and comes out dead. And you don't get much more harmful than that.
"[T]he fetus is only considered a baby after the birth."
That is not strictly true. The pro-abortion community does not consider the "fetus" to be a baby until after birth. But many people do.
"I don’t have to prove myself to you since I don’t owe you anything. You understand what I wrote the way you want to."
No, you have to prove yourself to Dan. He's the one you said you were "providing information" to. However, I believe the inconsistency of your premises (you have to make your arguments in favor of abortion and vaccination seperately -- even to the point of avoiding the comparisons I make) has been amply demonstrated.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> I removed the part you bolded because I wasn’t talking about Lysol or Raid; I was taking about abortion and the part you mentioned “Lysol and the killing of germs and Raid and the killing of bugs” have nothing to do with the issue of abortion, so it wasn’t important for me to bring it up.
>> I’m not avoiding the word “kill” ; you think I am because the terms I use about the procedure of abortion (terminating the pregnancy and interrupting pregnancy) are not the ones you agree with because you treat a embryo like it was a fully developed baby when in fact it isn’t.
>> You find people dishonest when they show arguments and opinions you don’t agree with. You have the right to disagree with my opinions and not to accept my arguments (the same way I have the right to disagree with you and not accept your arguments, as I also have the right not to bring it up things you said I don’t consider to be relevant to the subject in discussion), but you don’t see me calling you dishonest because of it. That’s why I say that kind of attitude of yours is pretty stupid.
It was just like in the definition of atheism. You brought some arguments about the common usage of the definitions of atheism which Reynold refuted and even when you were faced with his arguments proving your reasoning was flawed you kept ignoring it and insisting in it.
Again this argument of yours about “words that are not used that often are not valid”? I don’t care if the word “terminate” is used often or not; it’s the one I use, period. If you don’t agree with it it’s your problem, not mine and I won’t stop using just because you came with this argument again.
>> Any side effects you incur while doing something you shouldn't are your own fault.
The same thing goes for people who chose not to be vaccinated for contagious diseases. The government can’t force them to take the vaccine if they don’t want to; however if this person gets sick and infect other people in the process because she chose not to prevent herself of this illness (remember the example I gave you about a woman who chooses not to get the vaccine for rubella, gets pregnant and gets rubella which can infect the fetus, causing complications) is their own fault.
If that woman who didn’t take the vaccine for rubella, got this disease which infected the fetus have a miscarriage because of it or rubella makes the fetus to develop microcenphaly with mental retardation for example, then it’s her own fault because of her choice of not taking a simple vaccine.
In the end of the day, it’s all about choices. People are free to choose not to take vaccines and the fact I don’t agree with it is not going to change the fact some people choose not to be vaccinated.
Women are free to choose to have an abortion if they think it’s best thing for them. The fact you don’t agree with is not going to change the fact women have abortions.
>> The same way you point the finger at women who have abortions. But there’s a difference here between having an abortion and choosing not to be vaccinated.
A woman who decides to have an abortion is not harming anyone (I know you’re going to say she is killing a child, you don’t need to repeat that); she’s just interrupting her pregnancy in a stage where the embryo or the fetus haven’t a fully developed nervous system yet.
A person who chooses not to vaccinate for a contagious disease is not only putting at risk her own health but also the health of other people, got it?
>> Again, I didn’t address the comparisons you made because they had nothing to do with the subject of abortion.
Max,
ReplyDelete>>but that's the sort of thing you expect from people of low intelligence.
OK you made me laugh. That was hilarious. Also, Patty wanted to see it, as she had not, so thanks for that convenience.
Bellecherie:
ReplyDeleteI used Lysol and Raid are clear examples of why the word "kill" is not, of itself, a prejudicial term. No matter how you spin it, there is no justification for deleting the part that I later bolded. The issue here is the word "kill" and your avoidance of it.
"I’m not avoiding the word 'kill' ; you think I am because the terms I use about the procedure of abortion (terminating the pregnancy and interrupting pregnancy) are not the ones you agree with because you treat a embryo like it was a fully developed baby when in fact it isn’t"
I call baloney. The terms you like to use were coined by the abortion movement specificly to avoid the word "kill." But, more to the point, when you think the entity being killed is not worthy of protection, you have no problem using the word "kill." That is the point I made with the Lysol and Raid examples, which, of course, you deleted because you don't like that point. If you believe the "embryo" and "fetus" are not deserving of protection, then you will have no problem using the word "kill." This is the same way that I do not think that bacteria and insects deserve protection; so I have no problem talking about killing them.
"You find people dishonest when they show arguments and opinions you don’t agree with."
Not true.
"Again this argument of yours about 'words that are not used that often are not valid'?"
No, the argument is when someone uses word patterns in association that do not match his normal vocabulary, it is a strong indication that they are used to advance an agenda. You consistently use the word "kill" except when talking about abortion. Then you avoid the word and say "terminate the pregnancy." If you consistently used the word "terminate" instead of kill for all instances of killing, I would consider your use of the word honest. But you don't. It's not your customary verbiage. It suggests an ulterior motive. And since I do know that the abortion movement coined the term "terminate the pregnancy" to avoid the word "kill" (no secret) and you use it in that manner, my conclusion is reasonable.
"Women are free to choose to have an abortion if they think it’s best thing for them. The fact you don’t agree with is not going to change the fact women have abortions."
That statement is true. The fact that I don't like rape isn't going to change the fact that some men do that either. But it's not a good argument for legalization.
" The same way you point the finger at women who have abortions. But there’s a difference here between having an abortion and choosing not to be vaccinated."
There is indeed. Someone who does not get vaccinated is not harming anyone else. Someone who "gets an abortion" is.
"(I know you’re going to say she is killing a child, you don’t need to repeat that)"
Of course I do. Every time you make the claim that abortion doesn't hurt anyone, I have to identify the entity whom it does.
"Again, I didn’t address the comparisons you made because they had nothing to do with the subject of abortion."
First, I don't see where you made that statement before; so "again" is out of place. Second, I introduced your stance on abortion specificly to compare your arguments favoring it and how they are inconsistent with your arguments favoring vaccinations. So it is more the topic at hand than abortion is. Strictly speaking, of course, we are both off of Dan's topic at hand.
Oh, by the way, you claim that you do not call me dishonest. However, you continue to repeat the claim that I call people dishonest simply for disagreeing with me after I have stated that I do not. Since I may reasonably be expected to know my own mind, you are, indeed, calling me dishonest.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether you consider my attitude "stupid," when you delete my supporting evidence, I'm going to consider it dishonest. If, when I call you on it, you call it irrelevant, it will confirm the assessment. You see, when you deleted my Lysol and Raid examples, we were talking about the use of the word "kill" and the way you avoid it for one topic only. In that, they are quite relevant. But... you avoided the fact that we were talking about the use of the word "kill" and that those references were my supporting evidence. If you acknowledge those references, there is clearly no merit to the claim that I call anyone dishonest only for disagreeing with me. If I were to delete things that you presented as evidence in support of your position, quoted your position, and claimed that you made no attempt to defend it save by mere repetition, you would consider that dishonest -- and rightly so. But that is what you did to me.
Pvblivs:
ReplyDelete>> You think I’m avoiding the word “kill”, but I told I’m not. It’s my opinion that the word “kill” doesn’t fit the procedure of abortion because is not like killing 3 year old child; most abortions are done in the first trimester where the embryo or the fetus (depending on stage of pregnancy the abortion is made) are not fully formed and don’t have the nervous system fully developed yet.
The justification why I deleted the part you bolded: your last comment was addressed to me; therefore I’m the one to decide which part to answer. The part you bolded I decided not to answer because it was irrelevant to the discussion. It’s not my problem if you didn’t like it.
>> I don’t know the country you live in, but here in Brazil we don’t have prominent groups for or against abortion; so my opinions are not based on any of those movements.
According to brazilian constitution the embryo/fetus are protected by law and if a woman aborts she can be punished. But there are exceptions where the abortion is permitted and the woman is not punished: high risk pregnancy and pregnancy resultant of rape. But some politicians and some doctors on the field are worried about the high rates of women dying of complications in abortions badly done. That’s why those politicians are trying for years to legalize abortion which it will allow those women to terminate their pregnancy in a safe environment and which will also allow a better supervision in those cases and the conditions the abortions are done and the punishment of those who do abortions illegally.
>> The argument for legalization here in Brazil is different than the one in USA. The reason why we want the legalization of abortion is because thousands of women die every year because of abortions badly done. It’s more productive and useful to legalize it, making abortion being paid by the government if the woman doesn’t have money to pay for the procedure and interrupt her pregnancy in a safe environment with professionals and the adequate conditions of hygiene (which it’s way better than interrupting the pregnancy in a place which is dirtier than a pigpen)
>> Depending on the disease the vaccines protect, yes… it can harm someone else. For example: I chose not to take the vaccine for the swine flu. One day – my bad luck – I get the flu but I don’t know is the swine one. I go to work, I go shopping, I go to the grocery store, I take the bus, I use an elevator full of people, etc, coughing like crazy, breathing near people, touching stair rails with the hands I just coughed on when covering my mouth, spreading the virus around. Of course there will be people who didn’t take the vaccine (for their own choice or because some of those people were too young to take the vaccine, etc) and if they had a direct contact with me or touched the same places right after I put my hands on (such the stair rails for example) they were infected for sure. All that because I didn’t take a simple vaccine.
The case of the pregnant woman getting rubella (she chose not to vaccinate against this disease) and as a result infecting the fetus, causing complication such as a miscarriage or congenital malformations in the fetus is another example that – indeed – choosing not to take the vaccine in some cases can harm someone else, not only the person.
>> Regardless of whether you consider my attitude "stupid," when you delete my supporting evidence.
Evidence? The only thing you gave me was your opinions about abortion. Opinions are not considered evidence for anything unless you give facts that support your opinion, which you didn’t, honey.
Pvblivs:
ReplyDelete>> I use the words I want, the same way you use the words you want. There’s no agenda behind the words I use (I’m pro choice but I don’t participate in any pro–choice movement; as I said before pro-life movements and pro-choice movements are not very prominent in Brazil) you are the one who’s assuming that; but you sure have an agenda behind the use of the word “kill” .
But since you care so much about vocabulary, here we go:
Abortion according to Oxford Dictionary: text
- 1 the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (emphasis mine)
- the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.
- Biologythe arrest of the development of an organ, typically a seed or fruit.
- 2 an object or undertaking regarded by the speaker as unpleasant or badly made or carried out.
According to Cambridge Dictionary text
- the intentional ending of a pregnancy, usually by a medical operation
According to Merrian-Webster Dictionary text
1 - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion (emphasis mine)
2 - monstrosity
3 - arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also: a result of such arrest
According to Free Dictionary text
1. (emphasis mine)
a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
b. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy. Also called induced abortion.
2. See miscarriage.
3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4. The premature ending or abandonment of an undertaking.
5. Something that is regarded as poorly made or done.
abortion
1. (Medicine / Gynaecology & Obstetrics) an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable
2. (Medicine / Gynaecology & Obstetrics) the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus
3. (Medicine) the products of abortion; an aborted fetus
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the arrest of development of an organ
5. a failure to develop to completion or maturity the project proved an abortion
6. a person or thing that is deformed
abortional adj
abortion
1. Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination.
3. Spontaneous abortion; miscarriage.
4. Cessation of a normal or abnormal process before completion.
Abortion
See also birth; pregnancy
aborticide
1. destruction of a fetus. Also called feticide.
2. that which produces an abortion; an abortifacient
abortifacient
Cf. aborticide, 2.
feticide, foeticide
the killing of a fetus; especially illegal abortion. Also called aborticide. — feticidal, foeticidal, adj.
Bellecherie:
ReplyDeleteThe "fetus" is at least as alive as a bacterium. The word "kill" is appropriate. That is a fact, not an opinion. I think the word "murder" is also appropriate; but that is arguably a matter of opinion. And, yes, evidence. You didn't delete irrelevant secondary comments. You deleted evidence that the word "kill" extends to far more than recognized human life and thus is appropriate even if you somehow think that the "fetus" is not human. I suppose that you might have tried arguing that Lysol is incorrect to use the word "kill" to refer to germs. But I expect that you agree with that usage.
"You think I’m avoiding the word “kill”, but I told I’m not."
You did, indeed, say that you are not avoiding the word "kill" as applied to the "fetus." However, you refuse to use it to apply to the "fetus" while using it in the same sense applying to everything else under the sun. Perhaps you are confused as to what the word "avoid" means. If I don't want to go into a particular house, it may rightly be said that I am avoiding that house. Well, you are, in fact, avoiding using the word "kill" as applies to a "fetus."
"The only thing you gave me was your opinions about abortion."
The fact that the word "kill" is generally applied to bacteria is an emperical fact about the world in which we live. It is so generally used that Lysol uses it in its advertising. That is evidence that the word "kill" is appropriate, whether or not you think abortion should be allowed. That is what you deleted. It is what you claimed was "irrelevant" when I called you on it. It is what you are now pretending I didn't even say. You were trying to argue that the word "kill" only applies to that which is fully recognized as human. I gave evidence that that is not the case.
"as I said before pro-life movements and pro-choice movements are not very prominent in Brazil"
Interestingly, you named them before I did. And you seem to be quite familiar with them. They must be prominent enough if you identify with one of them. (You did identify yourself as "pro-choice." If those groups are as obscure to you as you seem to be claiming now, the term would be useless vague. Do you mean that people should be able to make whatever choices they want without government intervention? That would make you an anarchist.)
Incidentally, calling inconvenient evidence "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.
" but you sure have an agenda behind the use of the word 'kill.'"
Well, that's your opinion. But "kill" is a rather common word. When you shun the word in favor of one that is more obscure, it suggests an agenda.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> The word “kill - when is about abortion – is appropriate for you, but not for me. I use the terms “interrupt the pregnancy and “terminate the pregnancy” because abortion is a surgical procedure, not a murder as you think it is (that’s the reason why I told you I’m not avoiding the word “kill” ; it just happens this word doesn’t fit the criteria for abortion)
Those comments I deleted was relevant to you, but not to me. As I said before, since your answer is addressed to me I’m the one who decides what to answer or not; I’m the one who decides what topic is relevant or irrevelant to the discussion. I considered the Lysol and Raid examples to be irrevelant; you didn’t like it the fact I said to you they weren’t relevant to the discussion, so? Suck it up and move on because this is the last time I will address it since I don’t care if you consider those examples to be relevant and I really don’t give a damn for you getting all butthurt because I ignored them due their irrelevance.
>> Just because I live in another country it doesn’t mean I live inside a bubble. I am aware of the things happening in other countries, especially USA. I read news on the Internet, on newspapers and in magazines about almost anything (except gossips about celebrities, because I simply don’t care about what they do or not); I watch CNN and BBC on cable TV. I know all about the republicans x democrats; teabaggers, all the confusion of the debt ceiling and I also know about the battle between pro-life and pro-choice movements is USA. That’s why I’m familiar with those terms.
>> Do you mean that people should be able to make whatever choices they want without government intervention?
Some choices, yes. In my country the government doesn’t intervene in the choice the woman have to terminate her pregnancy in cases of rape or high risk pregnancies. The same way my country doesn’t intervene in the choices of someone deciding not to take the vaccines.
>> Well, that's your opinion. But "kill" is a rather common word. When you shun the word in favor of one that is more obscure, it suggests an agenda.
Really? The word “kill” is not commonly used when is about abortion. I gave you the definition of abortion on 4 different dictionaries (since you care so much about vocabulary) and the term I use “terminate the pregnancy” are the most mentioned in those dictionaries. In the 4 dictionaries, 3 put the term “terminate the pregnancy” in first place (indicating more common usage according to your own arguments) and the last dictionary mentioned this very term 6 times.
The word you use (“kill”) to define abortion is the less used one since appeared only in one dictionary as a definition for the word “aborticide” instead of “abortion”.
According to your own arguments in the discussion between you and freddies_dead about the definition of atheism (and I’ll quote them) the most common usage of the word is the one that prevails and the less used could be considered “phoney”; so the word you use for abortion (“kill ”) is the phoney one according to your own arguments since the dictionaries don’t even mention this word to define abortion. I wonder if those dictionaries have a hidden agenda too (insert sarcasm here)
Here’s your arguments:
“Dictionaries reflect the frequency of usage.”
“But dictionaries list definitions that are used infrequently. They just put them at the end of the list.”
"What I did say was that dictionary compilers wrote their definitions based on observed usage.”
“I further clarified this (because some people like to conflate different definitions) to state that do not decree what "proper" usage shall be but rather only reflect what usage the compilers have found. They serve as witness, not as lawgiver.”
No, bellecherie, you are not arbiter of what is relevant and what is not. Or would you consider it appropriate if, given that your response was to me, I considered your entire response to be irrelevant as you are being deceptive? This is point blank. You don't believe your own claim.
ReplyDeleteIdentifying it as a surgical procedure does not negate the fact that the word "kill" is still appropriate. After all, someone who has cancer undergoes procedures to kill the tumor. Neither does your belief that abortion is not murder negate the fact that the word "kill" is appropriate. (despite the fact that you say that they are "not relevant to [you]") that are not murder but where the word "kill" is appropriate. But then, the dishonest will decide that any evidence that supports a viewpoint different (in any way) from their own is "irrelevant." Look at Ray. Or, better yet, look at Norman (who likes to call himself "Stormbringer," among other things.) The fact of the matter is that I believe that there are people who consider abortion to be benign or even beneficial. I don't agree with them; but I concede that they exist and are even honest about their position. But when you avoid your customary verbiage because it sounds negative (to you) in this context, you are being dishonest with your argument. The fact is that people do not shy away from using the word "kill" when applied to things that they don't believe deserve protection. If the word "kill" sounds negative to you, and all your excuses won't change the fact that that is the only meaningful motivation, it is because you think the entity being killed deserves protection.
"Really? The word 'kill' is not commonly used when is about abortion."
Yes, really. And a correction: the word is not commonly used by abortion supporters when referring to abortion. They also don't like the word "abortionist" preferring instead the expression "abortion provider" and they do not say "pro-abortion;" they say "pro-choice." All of these are dishonest tactics to prevent listeners to the debate see the actual facts. Biologically, prior to the abortion, the "fetus" is alive. After the abortion, the "fetus" is dead. You see, no matter how many times and how many people avoid the word "kill," the event fits the meaning of the word. And these same people who will not use the word "kill" when it comes to the fetus, will happily use the word when it applies to any other biological life form, including bacteria and cancer cells. You see, I didn't say that the word "terminate" was not technically accurate. But I do say that it is an obscure word used here to mask the fact that we are talking about killing. I suppose we could talk about a soldier terminating all the inconvenient little children. This is the verbiage that would be used by politicians who wanted to "sanitize" such an operation. And such operations do still happen. And supporters do still use such verbiage. And the reason why they use the verbiage is the reason why you use the verbiage.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> When your answer is towards me, yes I’m the one who considers what is relevant and what’s not. I decide what to answer and what not to answer, it doesn’t matter if you don’t like it (and I really don’t give a damn if you didn’t like it, I still won’t address the Lysol and Raid example just because you think it’s relevant to the discussion.)
If – for the sake of argument – you considered a part of my response or my entire response to you to be irrelevant and not worth answering I wouldn’t have any problem with it. It’s your right to think that way and in no way I would get all butthurt about it and start acting like a cry baby demanding you to answer me (just like you’re doing to me). Now, it’s the last time I address this issue ‘cause this is getting old.
>> It’s appropriate for you since you consider abortion to be murder while I consider abortion to be a surgical procedure (which abortion it is indeed).
I use the terms “interrupt or terminate the pregnancy” not because “I consider the word “kill” to be negative” like you’re implying and yes because abortion is a surgical procedure, not a murder as you consider to be. In your mind there’s no difference between interrupting a pregnancy and killing a 3 year old kid, ok…it’s your opinion, I just don’t agree with it and I won’t change my mind about it and start using the word “kill” when referring to abortion just to please you, damn it!
>> I know the fetus is alive – as I told you before – life starts when brain activity is detected in the embryo in the 5th – 6th week of pregnancy, however the fetus doesn’t have a fully developed nervous system in the first trimester when most abortions are done; the fetus only have his nervous system fully developed in the last trimester of pregnancy. That – my friend – is a fact. In some circumstances, I base my opinions on facts, not on hearsay.
The first time I heard about the battle between pro-life movements x pro-choice movements, I researched about it; I read about the viewpoints on both sides. Then I looked for the facts. The facts led me to be pro-choice, since what matters the most here is the woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body – regardless if I disagree or agree on her reasons why she chooses to terminate her pregnancy.
You seem to be very contradictive here. You have no problem when it’s about a person choosing not to take a vaccine when – considering some diseases which the vaccines protect the organism against are contagious – therefore putting at risk the lives of people who gets in contact with her (remember the example I gave with the pregnant woman – who chose not to vaccinate against rubella - getting this disease and infecting the fetus) and yet you seem to be against the right the woman has to choose terminating her pregnancy (regardless her motives) when she’s not harming anyone (since the fetus can’t feel physical pain until the last trimester of pregnancy).
>> According to your own argument (that dictionaries are witnesses to words commonly used; that the definition that appears first in the dictionary is the most used) the term you use to define abortion is the obscure one, since it doesn’t appear frequently in the dictionaries (in the ones I mentioned in one of my posts to you, the word “kill” was used only once, in the last place and it was used to define the word “aborticide” instead of abortion) and the term I use it’s the one most used, therefore – according to the arguments you use to consider a term to be phoney/obscure or not – the word “kill” is the obscure one and the term I use – “terminate the pregnancy” – is not.