Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Evolutionist: Abortion Can Improve Life and Prevent Harm

Newspeak

So much of our mythology, as George Orwell pointed out, relies on the creative use of language in order to fool ourselves into believing. Evolution is said to “find” biological solutions, as though the evolutionary process is an intelligent agent. The new law that forces consumers to make purchases is called the “affordable” care act. And abortion is said to help people. An article published this week by an abortion “doctor” provides yet more examples of such Orwellian newspeak. She wrote that “Abortion can improve life and prevent harm; pro-choice, to me, does not mean anti-life.” How is it that the killing of innocent babies serves to “improve life and prevent harm”? And if this is not “anti-life,” then what is? Of course it is anti-life, but it is precisely this sort of upside down, euphemistic terminology that allows us to continue in the myth.

117 comments:

  1. The sad part is "they" are OK with 1.2 million deaths by abortion and scream bloody murder about 12,000 deaths by gun violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe, you should stick with questions about wavelength and frequency and let the adults talk.

      Delete
    2. Joe/Virgil, no, they scream bloody murder because the US death rate by gun violence ranks up there with that of third world hell holes. All because the NRA is a bunch of conservative, inbred, mouth breathing, knuckle draggers. And I apologize to all inbred, mouth breathing, knuckle draggers who are not conservative.

      Delete
    3. Tonsa, You shouldn't be talking as you don't know anything.

      When the gun violence = the abortion rate you will have something. Until then all you are is a hypocrite.

      Delete
  2. Cornelius, pulling one of the doctor's comments out of context and using it as the title of your OP misrepresents what she was saying.

    What I got from her piece was that she would rather not do what she does, but that it is an important service. I would say that this sentiment accurately reflects the attitude of most of the pro-choice advocates.

    In an ideal world, women would not be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. But we are all human. Birth control is not perfect. Making it illegal, or more difficult to obtain, is not the solution. That will only drive it underground, where it was before.

    In Canada, our governmen or the court never made abortion legal, the people did. A doctor openly performed abortions even though it was against the law. He was charged twice, and taken to court. He opted for a jury trial in both cases and was acquitted, even though he was obviously breaking the law of the day.

    If you want to reduce abortion, make birth control more available, acceptable and reliable. Also, when an unwanted pregnancy does occur, remove the social stigma and provide the support services needed to allow the pregnancy to come to term and allow the woman to proceed with her life.

    If society is not willing to do this then it is being hypocritical opposing abortion.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia:

      Good points, but I'm not sure what more is needed to put the comments in context. Yes, she thinks she is doing the right thing, protesters make her life difficult, and so forth. But her upside down view of the baby as a "fetus" and of abortion as improving life and preventing harm are what sustains the myth.

      Also, when an unwanted pregnancy does occur, remove the social stigma and provide the support services needed to allow the pregnancy to come to term and allow the woman to proceed with her life. If society is not willing to do this then it is being hypocritical opposing abortion.

      Society does provide for these things.

      Delete
    2. With respect, but society does not provide this. Yes, there are attempts, but they are greatly inadequate. In many school boards, pregnant girls are still forced to leave the school they were attending. Why?

      Delete
    3. Why are school girls so stupid that they get pregnant?

      Delete
    4. School girls don't get pregnant by themselves. Grow up.

      Delete
    5. They sure as hell can prevent themselves from getting pregnant you moron.

      Delete
    6. Something, sadly, your parents were not capable of doing.

      Delete
    7. Did your parents have any children that lived?

      Delete
  3. They want to give apes/chimps rights, but advocate the murder of the most innocent humans among us?!?! Lord have mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am in favour of a time limit on abortion, but only if the state is willing to pick up the tab on everything after that. If not, stop being so righteous.

    But early stage abortion is not murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia:

      But early stage abortion is not murder.

      Why not?

      Delete
    2. Why? Is a fertilized egg human? How about a mass of undifferentiated cells? A blastula?

      If you are going to argue that a fertilized egg has human rights then you are arguing from a religious perspective, not a scientific one.

      As I mentioned, I am in favour of time limits on abortion. And the time limit is open for discussion. But the anti abortion lobby is not interested in this. All they want is an outright ban on all abortion. Strangely, they are often the same people who are opposed to birth control pills, IUD, condoms and sex education.

      I fully respect their religious beliefs. But this does not mean that I respect their desire to impose these religious beliefs on me.

      Delete
    3. Is a fertilized egg human? ... If you are going to argue that a fertilized egg has human rights then you are arguing from a religious perspective, not a scientific one.

      I'm not sure how you got that. Why is it "religious" to say that humans have human rights, regardless of the phase of life. And why is it "scientific" to say that some phases of human life do not have such rights?

      Delete
    4. "...but only if the state is willing to pick up the tab on everything after that..."

      If every citizens relied on the welfare state nobody would be left to pick up the tab!

      People need to learn to be responsible for their actions.

      Delete
    5. "If every citizens relied on the welfare state nobody would be left to pick up the tab!

      People need to learn to be responsible for their actions.
      "

      A person choosing to have an abortion (or not choosing to) is taking responsibility for their actions. But when society chooses to remove one of these options, it should be responsible for the costs associated with this.

      Delete
    6. People need to be responsible for getting pregnant- both the male and female.

      Perhaps some prison time to go with the abortion would make people think more about it.

      Delete
    7. Good points Dr. Hunter. If scientists can prove the DNA is human as soon as the egg and sperm combine, wouldn't that be a human at it most basic level? A single celled human? That would be a scientific proof wouldn't it? Not only that, the DNA is the signature of a new human, not the same as the mother.

      Delete
  5. Earth to Acartia Tonsa- Human life is a development from start to finish. Once two human gametes meet and start doing what they do, you have a human all the way up until that human dies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why start with the fertilized egg. Why not at the gamete level itself?

      Delete
    2. Because a gamete isn't human- it will never develop into a human if left alone.

      Why are you so stupid?

      Delete
    3. "Because a gamete isn't human- it will never develop into a human if left alone."

      Neither will a fertilized egg in a petri dish. Is it murder to flush no longer wanted fertilized eggs in an IVF clinic down the drain? You will generally find that the dividing line falls neatly along the religious/secular divide. The same holds true for abortion, although there are a small minority of anti-abortion advocates who are not religious.

      Delete
    4. Abortion is murder, period. Whoever puts a human fertilized egg on a petri dish and does not allow it to develop is a murderer too.

      Only losers are anti-life and abortion is anti-life.

      Delete
    5. "Abortion is murder, period. Whoever puts a human fertilized egg on a petri dish and does not allow it to develop is a murderer too."

      Thank you for the sermon Reverend Joe.

      Delete
    6. It's a fact, not a sermon. Only an imbecile wouldn't understand those facts, and here you are.

      Delete
    7. "It's a fact, not a sermon."

      Actually, it's not a fact. Murder is defined by the law makers and enforced by the courts. In Canada, and many states, abortion is not considered to be murder. We could argue whether or not the law should be changed, but you like to talk about facts.

      Delete
    8. and many states, abortion is not considered to be murder

      Actually all the states.

      Murder is defined by the law makers

      This is the equivalent of evolution's scientism, applied to the law.

      Delete
    9. I stand corrected about the States. My only defence is that I am Canadian.

      Me: "Murder is defined by the law makers"

      Cornelius: "This is the equivalent of evolution's scientism, applied to the law."

      No, this is just using the words as they are defined in law. If you are making the claim that abortion is murder, then you are wrong. If you want to argue that the law should be changed so that all abortions are classified as murders, and all doctors and women receiving abortions charged with murder, be my guest. But, since abortions are very clearly premeditated acts, they would have to be charged with first degree murder. In many states, this would result in the execution of these doctors and women.

      Although Joe would be fine with this, I doubt very much that you would be.

      Delete
    10. W:


      No, this is just using the words as they are defined in law.

      I think you are trying to make it more palatable. As an example to illustrate this, according to your logic you would not say the Nazi Holocaust involved murder.


      If you want to argue that the law should be changed so that all abortions are classified as murders, and all doctors and women receiving abortions charged with murder

      No, that’s the way evolutionists think. For example:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/03/professor-proposes-dystopia-where.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-now-says-denial-of-science.html

      I, OTH, call for forgiveness.

      Delete
    11. "I think you are trying to make it more palatable. As an example to illustrate this, according to your logic you would not say the Nazi Holocaust involved murder."

      By German law at the time, no, it wasn't murder. But it certainly was by international laws.

      Laws change over time. Not too long ago it was legal to physically discipline your wife. Today it is assault.

      Possibly the laws will change and abortion will be reclassified as murder. I certainly hope not. I would love to see a day when there were no abortions. But not through the force of law. Improve sex education, improve birth control, improve support services. Unfortunately, many of the people who oppose abortion in all circumstances also oppose the efforts I mentioned in the previous sentence.

      Delete
    12. Abortion is murder. Just because we have morons for lawmakers doesn't mean abortion isn't murder.

      Delete
    13. Joe, the adults are talking. Behave or you will have to have a time out.

      Delete
    14. " I would love to see a day when there were no abortions."

      Can you please explain this Tonsa?

      Delete
    15. "Can you please explain this Tonsa?"

      I did.

      Delete
    16. William, no, you did not explain what Tonsa wrote.

      Delete
    17. William, no, you did not explain what Tonsa wrote.

      Delete
    18. "William, no, you did not explain what Tonsa wrote."

      Sorry, I am Tonsa. My name is different on different devices. I would change them but I forget my password.

      What was so difficult to understand about what I wrote? Or do you find it difficult to believe that someone who is pro-choice would like to see a day when there are no abortions? But, as I mentioned (or alluded to), that will never happen by force of law.

      You may actually be surprised of the number of pro-choice advocates who believe the same way.

      Delete
    19. WIlliam, I am trying to understand you. You say "I would love to see a day when there were no abortions." Do you mean this in the same way that you would love to see cancer eradicated?
      Or do you know deep inside that a fertilized human egg is indeed a human and your conscience requires a response? Or something else?

      Delete
    20. Something else. An abortion is both emotionally and physically hard on a woman. As such, I would prefer that there were no unwanted pregnancies. But you don't achieve no abortions by making them illegal. We tried that and it failed miserably, and resulted in the death of countless women.

      Delete
    21. "We tried that and it failed miserably, and resulted in the death of countless women."

      How did the women die when it was against the law to exterminate the unborn?

      Delete
  6. Acartia:

    But early stage abortion is not murder.

    DrHunter
    Why not?


    Because it is not the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. V:

      Because it is not the unlawful

      This is the equivalent of evolution's scientism, applied to the law. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. The fact that it is legal doesn't make it any different.

      Delete
    2. "Murder is the taking of an innocent life."

      Why are you limiting it to an innocent life?

      Delete
    3. Because non-innocent life is on its own. It made its own choices and has to live or die with them.

      Delete
    4. Joe, adults talking. I don't want to have to tell you again.

      Delete
  7. Joe:
    Abortion is murder, period. Whoever puts a human fertilized egg on a petri dish and does not allow it to develop is a murderer too.


    Go ahead and develop it, why should a woman be forced to if she chooses not to? Is a woman who refuses to be implanted with a someone else's fertilized egg guilty of killing a human being too?Should women be required to do so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A woman can choose if she wants to have protected or unprotected sex.

      Are you saying that woman are too stupid to make such a choice?

      Delete
    2. Joe g:
      Are you saying that woman are too stupid to make such a choice?


      You don't have to be stupid to make bad decisions or trust the wrong person. Lack of knowledge is sufficient.

      What if a woman cannot choose,for instance ,rape, does that make the abortion not murder in your view? If does not, then choice seems irrelevant to the issue of justification.

      Delete
    3. Joe: "A woman can choose if she wants to have protected or unprotected sex. "

      But, according to your own morality, a woman using birth control pills may be committing murder.

      Delete
  8. Ch:
    This is the equivalent of evolution's scientism, applied to the law


    Not really,it is the definition of murder, all murder is killing but not killing is murder. Funny of a thread that starts " So much of our mythology, as George Orwell pointed out, relies on the creative use of language in order to fool ourselves into believing"


    Murder is the taking of an innocent life.

    No, soldiers are not guilty of murder In performance of their duties, manslaughter is not murder. one can only wonder why you choose to use the incorrect term.

    The fact that it is legal doesn't make it any different.

    It makes it different in that it is not murder, my question is why the Orwellian use of the incorrect term? A more persuasive argument somehow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. V:

      It makes it different in that it is not murder, my question is why the Orwellian use of the incorrect term? A more persuasive argument somehow?

      Ah, no, a more accurate argument. Of course soldiers killing enemy soldiers, or killing in self defense is not murder. Do you believe abortion fits into some sort of category like this? If your answer is, “because the Supreme Court says so,” then this is no better than the evolutionist’s scientism.

      Delete
    2. V:

      all murder is killing but not killing is murder.

      Again, yes, agreed. But we're not talking about soldiers in war, or defending against an attack, or not deliberate.

      Delete
    3. CH:
      Ah, no, a more accurate argument.


      It makes a better argument because the word murder carries the inference of being illegal,but the that fact that it is not illegal is makes it inaccurate argument, unless you believe accuracy can be redefined as well.

      Normally , I would not belabor this point but since your post concerns the use of language , it is too tempting.

      r. Do you believe abortion fits into some sort of category like this?

      Yes neither fit the legal definition of murder

      If your answer is, “because the Supreme Court says so,

      Not exactly, it is legal because the Supreme Court says so and the Congress and the States have not passed a Constitutional Amendment making it illegal.

      Not that makes it morally right but that surely makes it legal, therefore makes the use of the term murder inaccurate.

      then this is no better than the evolutionist’s scientism.

      Still no idea what this means.

      But we're not talking about soldiers in war, or defending against an attack, or not deliberate.

      No, we are talking about one entity requiring use of another's body to survive. an argument might be made that you are demanding rights for that entity that are not shared by born humans.

      Delete
    4. V:

      Yes neither fit the legal definition of murder

      So would you say the Nazi Holocaust did not involve murder?

      Delete
    5. CH:

      So would you say the Nazi Holocaust did not involve murder?


      Why? Is our government equivalent to Nazis?

      Delete
    6. V:

      Why? Is our government equivalent to Nazis?

      Oh my, what a dodge. Thought we were finally there, but, oops ... Your position is untenable so you dodged. You're saying the Holocaust was not murder, but you can't admit it.

      Delete
    7. V:

      Why? Is our government equivalent to Nazis?

      Oh my, what a dodge. Thought we were finally there, but, oops ... Your position is untenable so you dodged. You're saying the Holocaust was not murder, but you can't admit it.

      Delete
    8. Cornelius, I answere this question when you asked it of me. But you ignored it.

      So I will try again.

      According to German law at the time, it was not murder. If they won the war, it would probably not be classified as murder. But they didn't win. And international opinion, and courts, have concluded that it was even worse than murder.

      But let me throw it back to you. Was what the Christian missionaries and colonialists did to the native people's of Canada, the United States, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and countless African countries, murder?

      Think before you answer. It is not a trick question.

      Delete
    9. Acartia:


      Cornelius, I answere this question when you asked it of me. But you ignored it.

      Because I thought you make my point.


      According to German law at the time, it was not murder. If they won the war, it would probably not be classified as murder. But they didn't win. And international opinion, and courts, have concluded that it was even worse than murder.

      So that’s my point. If you argue that abortion is not murder because the law right now says so, then by that logic, if you were in Nazi Germany you would have said the Holocaust was not murder. You are simply making my point for me.


      But let me throw it back to you. Was what the Christian missionaries and colonialists did to the native people's of Canada, the United States, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and countless African countries, murder? Think before you answer. It is not a trick question.

      I don’t know because your question is too broad.

      Delete
    10. What point was I making for you. I said that murder was defined by the legislators. I said that according to German law at the time, the holocaust was not murder. That is just fact, not a moral opinion.

      "I don't know because your question is too broad.

      No it wasn't. It was very direct. Was the treatment of aboriginal peoples by Christian missionaries and colonialists murder? You can answer with a "yes", "no", or attempt some sort of equivocation.


      Delete
    11. W:

      What point was I making for you.

      That if you argue that abortion is not murder because the law right now says it is not murder, then by that logic, if you were in Nazi Germany you would have said the Holocaust was not murder.

      No it wasn't. It was very direct. Was the treatment of aboriginal peoples by Christian missionaries and colonialists murder? You can answer with a "yes", "no", or attempt some sort of equivocation.

      No, that is not direct. There was no single “treatment of aboriginal peoples” by “Christian missionaries and colonialists.” Your question is ambiguous and your blaming me for equivocating if I don’t say “yes” or “no”.

      Delete
    12. CH:
      Oh my, what a dodge.


      High praise from a master craftsman. I noticed you didn't answer as well.

      I understand,it is a bit of " have you stopped beating your wife? " question.

      Thought we were finally there, but, oops

      Not unless my answer would convince you to use the correct word ,we weren't.

      . Your position is untenable so you dodged.

      With only the actual definition of murder to support that position.

      Very tenuous.

      You're saying the Holocaust was not murder, but you can't admit it.

      Actually it was murder, under international law for instance the Geneva Convention.

      Now will you answer my question?

      Delete
    13. V:

      Actually it was murder, under international law for instance the Geneva Convention

      So let’s recap your position. Abortion is not murder because why? Not because the unborn is not a person. Not because the killing is self defense, or accidental, or something like that. Not because of any enduring reason, but because the Supreme Court says it is legal. Just like the Supreme Court said black people have no right to freedom, or that it is OK for evolutionists to enforce eugenics on poor people. So you are basing your position not on the facts, but on a legal decision which makes no sense.

      And when it is pointed out to you that you would have denied that the Holocaust was murder, because it in fact also was legal at the time, you switch the rules by appealing to a different legal standard, ignoring the inconsistency in your position.

      You want to avoid labelling abortion as murder because it is strong language. Yet you blame me for twisting the language.

      All this after your earlier argument that abortion isn’t murder because, like self-defense, it is merely a killing, not a murder. That argument failed because abortion is certainly not an act of self-defense, or an accidental act, or an act or war. In trying to justify this argument you write:


      it is legal because the Supreme Court says so and the Congress and the States have not passed a Constitutional Amendment making it illegal. Not that makes it morally right but that surely makes it legal, therefore makes the use of the term murder inaccurate.

      So you want to have it both ways. In the case of abortion, you want the basis to be the law of the land. In the case of the Holocaust, you switch to some other law, so you can avoid the obvious failure of your argument.

      Now, we haven’t even gotten to the other major failure of your argument, which is that you say describing abortion as “murder” is inflammatory. But you beg the question when your basis is the ever-changing law. When someone says abortion is “murder,” they are not making a legal mistake. They are not referring to American jurisprudence. That, of course, is plain and obvious. The point is that it is a killing of an innocent human being, not in war or self defense. That’s called murder by anyone who hasn’t spent too much time in law school or isn’t an evolutionist.


      Now will you answer my question?

      What question are you referring to?

      Delete
  9. velikovskys, "It makes it different in that it is not murder" If this position were valid then the war crimes tribunals set up after WW2 were invalid. In Germany, it was legal to commit mass extinctions of Jews. Those who carried out this carnage were not, by your definition, committing murder.

    It could be argued that a soldier (depending on the role his leadership is playing) is defending himself or others against the onslaught of "the enemy". We all recognize self defense and the defense of others to be valid -- not murder. After all the "other" ceases to be innocent, of course, doesn't he.

    Now there is a rare case where the child in womb is seriously threatening the life of the mother. In this rare case you will find virtually nobody on the pro-life side that would say that abortion is not appropriate -- even though the child has no intent to do harm. It is reasonable to defend ones self or another against even the unintentional harm of another.

    However, the killing of the innocent (as caviated above) does not need government nor legislation to make it "murder", nor can ill-directed governments make it "not murder".

    Killin' babies is the worst sort of evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BF:
      Now there is a rare case where the child in womb is seriously threatening the life of the mother. In this rare case you will find virtually nobody on the pro-life side that would say that abortion is not appropriate -- even though the child has no intent to do harm. It is reasonable to defend ones self or another against even the unintentional harm of another.


      That is reasonable, how much harm?

      Delete
  10. "Killin' babies is the worst sort of evil"

    Agreed. So, where do you draw the line between a baby and an undifferentiated mass of cells. According to Cornelius and Joe, a fertilized egg is entitled to all of the human rights afforded to you and I.

    Some morons would even argue that an ovum fertilized in a Petri dish and glad frozen is a human. And that getting rid of it is murder. I would argue that this is a religious conclusion, not supported by science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "So, where do you draw the line between a baby and an undifferentiated mass of cells."
    Interesting question. Let me suggest a cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost of error? Consider declaring that an ovum fertilized in a petri dish is not human, so we may "terminate" it. If we are right, then some would-be parents can become parents. (I think that's the primary motivation for such an experiment.) So a would-be couple cannot have their own biological child, but must open their heart to somebody else's child. (Not a bad plan, I know, I adopted two.)

    If the fertilized ovum is perceived by God as murder -- our assumption is evil -- we become murderers.

    I suggest that erring on the side of caution has very little downside relative to erring on the other side.

    "I would argue that this is a religious conclusion, not supported by science." Science is obligated to conclude that a fertilized egg is is complete, living homosapien. I know that it is tinier than the head of a pin, but if you study single celled life of any sort, let alone the advanced single cell that is a homosapien a this stage, is ENORMOUSLY complex and precise. It is deep, rich, engineered to an amazing degree. To call it disposable junk is, well, not supported by science.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Science is obligated to conclude that a fertilized egg is is complete, living homosapien. I know that it is tinier than the head of a pin, but if you study single celled life of any sort, let alone the advanced single cell that is a homosapien a this stage, is ENORMOUSLY complex and precise. It is deep, rich, engineered to an amazing degree. To call it disposable junk is, well, not supported by science."

    The exact same can be said for every cell in our body. Is it murder to remove a gall bladder? Or an appendix? Of course not. I still claim that it is a religious belief, not a scoientific fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The exact same can be said for every cell in our body." I believe that this is not correct. No single cell in our body is a complete homosapien.

      Delete
    2. "Is it murder" This is a moral judgement, not a scientific fact. Scientific fact determines what is a complete, living homosapien. Morality (which may or may not have religious undertones) determines what is right and wrong.

      Oh, if murder is OK in your morality, please let it be just as OK to murder you as it is for you to murder others. I'll locate your moral twin and see which one of you survives.

      Delete
    3. "Is it murder" This is a moral judgement, not a scientific fact. Scientific fact determines what is a complete, living homosapien. Morality (which may or may not have religious undertones) determines what is right and wrong.

      Oh, if murder is OK in your morality, please let it be just as OK to murder you as it is for you to murder others. I'll locate your moral twin and see which one of you survives.

      Delete
    4. BFast: " I believe that this is not correct. No single cell in our body is a complete homosapien."

      A fertilized egg is not a complete human being either. Point to the nervous system, the circulatory system, the skeletal system.

      Delete
    5. Point to the nervous system, the circulatory system, the skeletal system.

      No left arm either.

      Delete
    6. "A fertilized egg is not a complete human being either."
      So when does it become complete? Is a baby a complete human being? How do you know?

      Delete
    7. Or right. Just saying.

      So, then, a person with no left arm is not a "complete human being," and does not enjoy the right to life, right?

      Delete
    8. What right does a fertilized egg have that is any greater than a somatic cell?

      According to Joe, discarding a fertilized egg in a Petri dish is murder. Do you believe this? The birth control pill does not prevent fertilization, it prevents implantation. Is that also murder?

      All I am asking is that you answer these questions so that we know where you stand.

      Delete
    9. Acartia:

      What right does a fertilized egg have that is any greater than a somatic cell? All I am asking is that you answer these questions so that we know where you stand.

      If you understand common sense and biology then you will understand where I stand. If you attack a person and take out one of his somatic cells, did you kill him? If you attack a person in the womb, and take out all of his cells, regardless of how many there are, did you kill him? [Hint: No and Yes] So you either have to say taking an innocent life is OK, or that the unborn is not a human. Neither one works.

      Delete
    10. So, you are saying that women using the birth control pill, or IUDs, are committing murder. That, apparently, is your "common sense".

      Delete
    11. Like I said, you need to know a little biology.

      Delete
    12. Being a biologist, I think that I may know a bit about biology. For example, the birth control pill does not always prevent ovulation and fertilization. When fertilization does occur it also acts to make the uterus less hospitable for implantation of the fertilized egg. And the IUD does not always prevent fertilization either. When it does not prevent fertilization, it will often prevent implantation.

      So, again, I ask if you think that women using these forms of birth control are committing murder?

      Delete
    13. No, there is no human there, as you know.

      Delete
  13. Abortion is an agonizing personal decision that should have nothing to do with the state.

    Even if we agreed that first trimester abortion should be illegal, how could we possibly enforce that in any reasonable way? Are we to have every woman of child-bearing age report in once a month to have their ovaries examined?

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2010/07/beyond-the-christianization-of-abortion/

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2012/01/from-a-christian-woman-who-chose-abortion/

    Pro-choice is the only sane, humane and rational public policy regardless of how you feel about the issue. This should not even be a debate. It is a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

    To the extent this is up for a vote, only the women it affects should get the vote. We already know what they say, so this is a totally pointless debate.

    The only thing vocal insistence that abortion is 'killing babies' accomplishes is to make everyone miserable. The ones it makes the most miserable are vulnerable people when they are at their weakest -- the time when they need non judgmental love and support more than ever.

    This is a profoundly difficult choice for women that they do not ever take lightly. Interfering with them, attempting to cripple their agency and take away their right to decide for themselves is the very height of violent immorality. You are not entitled to insert yourself between a woman and her doctor to force your personal choice on her body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points DeepNorth. Compelling and a nice clean solution. But it doesn't work because we're still talking about killing a person. Your logic equally applies to newborns, 10 month old, 5 year old, the elderly, the sick, the annoying, the ... well you get the idea. It was an agonizing decision, but ...

      Delete
    2. When does a zygote become a person?

      And how do you know?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I thought a zygote was a person, no?

      Delete
    5. The world is not black and white. In fact, it is not even shades of gray. It is complex. A zygote and a child in kindergarten are not the same thing. You cannot sensibly equate a 'morning after pill' used to ensure there is no pregnancy after a violent inter-family rape and the cold blooded murder of a school age child. They are not the same thing. That is why we use different words for them and follow different rules for them.

      I have no doubt that the people taking a hard line here are sincere, but their sincerity does not add moral or intellectual weight to their arguments. They are wrong and no amount of conviction will save their arguments.

      At the end of the day, this is not a moral argument about whether or not a zygote is a 'person' in any meaningful sense. It is a moral argument about whether or not one human being has the right to invade the privacy of and dictate intimate personal decisions to another when the very fact of the pending decision is a private matter that is entirely within the envelope of privacy for that individual.

      You are at liberty to have your opinions as to how my daughter *ought* to 'freshen up' in the washroom. As disgusting as your point of view is, you have the right to speak your mind. However, you have no right at all to invade the washroom, spy on her and force her to do things the way you like.

      Private matters between a woman and her doctor are properly private and should remain so. Regardless of your opinions on one thing or another, you have no right to invade anybody's privacy at that level and it is criminal assault to physically enforce your will.

      In civil society, aggressive 'anti-abortion' advocates are neither civil nor socialized and their opinions, though they have a right to voice them, properly carry no weight.

      It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling. -- Proverbs 20

      People have a right and even arguably a responsibility to give voice to their opinions. They do not have a right to force their opinions on others. They have a responsibility to temper their actions and some obligation to mind their manners so that they remain within civil society.

      Any practical administration of a law forbidding abortion would be so violent against the fabric of civil society that it could not be tolerated.

      There is a big difference between eliminating a tiny ball of cells and terrorizing a frightened, confused and vulnerable teenage girl.

      Re: "I thought a zygote was a person, no?"

      No. Get yourself a dictionary and a moral compass.

      Delete
    6. DeepNorth, there are a number of states that permit abortion up until the child has fully exited the womb. Certainly there are many situations where the doctor has a choice -- remove the healthy child via cesarean section, or kill it.

      Is such class of abortion OK with you?

      Delete
    7. Dr Hunter"

      I thought a zygote was a person, no?

      NO

      Think again.

      Delete
    8. bFast: Re: "Is such class of abortion OK with you?"

      The world does not fall into tidy little boxes as some people on the extreme ends of this debate imagine. You ask for a yes or no answer to a compound question. The question as posed does not admit of an answer.

      As one proceeds from sperm and egg to zygote,through the various stages of embryonic development passing through the first, second and third trimesters of pregnancy you are dealing with a different thing. Similarly, offspring differ. A fetus might be marginally viable or highly viable depending on how sound the pregnancy was, how healthy the mother was, etc. Hospitals, doctors and mothers come from different communities with different norms. A mother that already has children is likely to view the situation differently than a first time mother. The health, community support available, financial status, political, religious, moral and social views of mother, doctor and family members all come into it.

      It is not possible to have a one-size fits all pre-made medical and ethical decision for what is essentially a unique and emergent situation yet to happen.

      I am in favor of a law that leaves the decision up to the mother and her doctor, because it is the only reasonable governing law available to us, regardless of our views on abortion. It is a private matter that should not involve the state. How would anything else be ethically enforceable as a practical matter in real life?

      I personally think it would be appalling if a highly viable third-trimester fetus from a healthy mother was terminated rather than delivered. I am against it.

      As a father myself, I would be personally unlikely to counsel a family member to get an abortion at all in most cases. However, I would not offer the counsel unless asked and I would be sensitive to the mother's feelings before offering an opinion. I surely would not be terrorizing a distraught woman in an attempt to force them to act according to my wishes and against their own.

      Reasonable people do not murder doctors who perform abortions. They don't picket outside clinics terrorizing young women and rendering a horrendously painful decision even more harrowing than it already is.

      Reasonable people don't terminate entirely viable fetuses in the eighth month of a pregnancy.

      Reasonable people have some sense of humility and recognition of their limitations. They don't attempt to invade the privacy of and take away the agency of pregnant women when they are at their most vulnerable.

      It is prideful vanity to presuppose that you know better than the mother, the doctor and God himself what should be done in a situation that has not even happened yet. Humility and basic decency demands that you have faith in God, trust in the professionalism of the doctor and respect for the needs of the mother.

      It is not up to you and I to decide for mother and doctor. It is not up to you and I to interfere with God discharging his duty of care for the unborn child.

      Women and doctors do not undertake these decisions lightly. It is best to let them be.

      Delete
    9. DeepNorth

      "I surely would not be terrorizing a distraught woman in an attempt to force them to act according to my wishes and against their own."

      Councel could be as simple as... let me help you bring the baby to term and then give him or her up for adoption...

      "Humility and basic decency demands that you have faith in God, trust in the professionalism of the doctor and respect for the needs of the mother."

      I think when you bring God into this way, you are using His name in vain. Have you ever seen the pictures of the babies when the professional doctors are done with their work? Why should I respect a female who wants to kill her baby? Seems to me she has bad judgment and in need of serious psychiatric attention.

      "I am in favor of a law that leaves the decision up to the mother and her doctor, because it is the only reasonable governing law available to us, regardless of our views on abortion."

      Who will speak for the unborn baby?

      Delete
    10. "They don't picket outside clinics terrorizing young women and rendering a horrendously painful decision even more harrowing than it already is."

      I missed this in my earlier reading. If you read the pro-life literature and blogs, these people are not picketers, they are street councillors. I find this term to be offensive in that they have no "real" training in this very important profession. Please call them what they are, protestors.

      Delete
  14. DeepNorth, I couldn't have said it better. It would be like allowing women to have a say in whether peeing standing up should be made illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "A zygote and a child in kindergarten are not the same thing."

    To what/who? Or, ok. So what?




    "people taking a hard line here"

    Who are the one taking the "hard line"? The one's that support killing an unborn, or the one's that would like to see the child born and life preserved?

    "They are wrong and no amount of conviction will save their arguments."

    I am reasonably sure there are many who think you are wrong. What makes you right and them wrong?

    And who do you think it is that they feel the need to accept their arguments? Why, do you think?


    "As disgusting as your point of view is, you have the right to speak your mind."

    Hey Cornelius, I am glad to see your right to speak your mind has been reconfirmed by the ultimate judge of right and wrong.


    "Private matters between a woman and her doctor are properly private and should remain so. Regardless of your opinions on one thing or another, you have no right to invade anybody's privacy at that level and it is criminal assault to physically enforce your will."

    I is really exciting watching the straw-man bludgeoning taking place.


    "It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling. -- Proverbs 20"

    Biblical "cherry picking" anyone? Seems to me the Bible has something to say about the sacredness of life (including in the womb) as well as discernment.


    "People have a right and even arguably a responsibility to give voice to their opinions. They do not have a right to force their opinions on others."

    Seems like that is what you are trying to do here. Are you some sort of Supreme Court Judge or something?


    "They have a responsibility to temper their actions and some obligation to mind their manners so that they remain within civil society."

    What manners are you speaking of and could you give an idea of what your concept of a civil society is?


    "There is a big difference between eliminating a tiny ball of cells and terrorizing a frightened, confused and vulnerable teenage girl."


    I can see your point. There is no comparison of
    "a tiny ball of cells" in lieu of someones mental anguish, even if temporary. However, what exactly do you mean by "a tiny ball of cells"? A wart on the finger or nose?

    "a law forbidding abortion would be so violent against the fabric of civil society that it could not be tolerated."

    You say violent against the fabric of a "civil" society. But it is totally fatal to the aborted life.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you avoid the ultimate question. Would a law against abortion stop them from happening? And what benefit would there be from jailing every woman who has an abortion?

      Answer those questions and then we can begin the debate.

      Delete
    2. "Would a law against abortion stop them from happening?" Um, nope. But it would certainly slow them down. Law against murder of adults hasn't stopped that either.

      "And what benefit would there be from jailing every woman who has an abortion? " This is the most difficult part of the abortion debate.

      Firstly, please understand that governments and law are to be in the service of the people. We pro-lifers will not win this thing by changing laws, we will win by changing minds.

      Please understand that when I was a kid, homosexuality was a non-topic. Everyone knew that it was evil. Half a lifetime later, society's view changed, then law changed.

      But we have a problem. We must convince society that abortion is the equivalent of killing a born baby. However, there are a mass of women who have had abortions. To convince society that preborn babies are as valuable as born babies, we inherently declare that all of these women committed an unspeakably evil act.

      Please understand, as far as law punishing anybody goes, I think that the medics who are performing the abortions, the people with the professional training that should have them knowing better, are the ones that should be held accountable. (Oh, and I think it totally fair that in the future we hold responsible those who are doing the evil deed now, even though what they are now doing is "legal".)

      But how to change the view of society without leaving a huge mess of women who necessarily see that what they had done was evil -- I don't know.

      Delete
    3. "Firstly, please understand that governments and law are to be in the service of the people. We pro-lifers will not win this thing by changing laws, we will win by changing minds."

      This we completely agree on. But how do you do this when many of the same people who oppose choice also oppose birth control and sex education. You can't solve the problem by burying your head in the sand (and I am not suggesting that you are).

      There Is one fact that will never change. People will have sex. We can preach all we want about abstinence, but the sex drive is just too great. And it is highest in the people least well equipped to deal with it (the young). Our best weapon is education, not condemnation.

      Delete
  16. Cornelius, I just wanted to commend you on your moderation on this blog. Although we wi probably not agree on many things, you have allowed the discussions speak for themselves. And you have done this without resorting to name calling.

    A certain other site and its moderator who shall remain nameless (OK, UD and Barry Arrington) are incapable of hosting a fair and honest discussion. You and I may disagree, but I do respect your views.

    Happy Canada Day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. If we can disagree with understanding and clarity, then we'll have achieved something.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius, I echo Acartia Tonsa's commendation. I was just about to make such an entry myself.

      Not silencing opposing views speaks strongly in favor of your sincerity and trustworthiness otherwise.

      It is your blog, your house, your rules and I appreciate that you are being gracious hosting views with which you do not agree.

      The world is not what it could be and it is best that most of us seek 'common cause' first to at least fix that with which we agree.

      Abortion is one of the thorniest issues for which it is difficult to fashion an inclusive policy.

      One of the routes to creating a policy upon which we can agree is to shift focus away from the 'number of angels on the head of a pin' discussion as to whether or not a single fertilized cell has the same rights as a newborn baby. Instead, we should focus upon what we think is sensible actionable public policy.

      To find our common ground, we need to make sure that everyone is both heard and understood.

      Delete
    3. Thanks DeepNorth, and good points.

      Delete
    4. Cornelius:

      I once was a hard-line advocate for choice. I looked at the extreme 'pro-lifers' who killed doctors, tormented women and children, and argued incoherently. Their point of view was that whatever their beliefs were, they should be held by everyone -- by force if necessary. I painted the entirety of the 'pro-life' camp with the brush provided by the extremists. They were the loudest and most disruptive and so their activities got more press. It is what we saw.

      I have no doubt that 'pro-choice' extremists have given the impression that 'pro-choice' people are all in favor of using abortion as a form of birth control and have no problem with second and third trimester abortions. Neither is true. Many 'pro-choice' people are *anti-abortion*. They just believe that deeply personal and private matters should remain that way.

      We have a right and an obligation to voice our moral convictions and to lobby ethically for our point of view. Some level of civil disobedience in the service of deeply held convictions is both healthy and I think necessary in a free society. However, we cannot have a society that allows a small minority of citizens to force their will upon the majority against their own deeply held beliefs.

      What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you are successful in forcing the law to allow the state to make reproductive decisions for people against their will, you may well find that the same principals you have forced into place are later used to force unwanted abortions on your own community in order to administer public policy for eugenics of one kind or another.

      If you make it a rule that the state may intervene in the medical destiny of an individual without their consent, that rule *will* eventually be used against *you*.

      Over the years, my views have softened about the pro-life camp. The majority of that camp, like the majority of the pro-choice camp are ordinary people with reasonably sane beliefs. I believe that it is possible to construct legislation that is at least tolerable to both non-extreme sides while we deal with our 'common cause' issues upon which we do not disagree.

      This is, by its nature, a difficult problem. Like many things, it needs a case-by-case analysis, solution and decision. Who decides? To whom do we give the choice? When do we take that choice away? The way most things currently work in my jurisdiction (Ontario Canada) is that a woman and her doctor manage the pregnancy. The state makes sure the doctor is qualified and in our case makes the medical treatment available for free.

      Even if we simply cannot find common ground on a deeply difficult issue like abortion, we should at least spend more of our time in a state of 'agreeing to disagree' while we put our shoulders to the wheel to fix what we know is wrong and that we know we can fix.

      Were we to deal effectively with economic conditions, abortion would be less likely to be chosen as an option. It at least would not be driven by economic necessity. If we both work on that, the aim of both sides are at least partially met. If we cooperate, we help one another. Fighting only defeats us both.

      Sorry for the super-long entry here. I actually have more to say -- this is the short version - yikes!

      For those on the pro-life side, I would like to hear how we they think we can agree so that we can work together. There is much in the world that needs fixing and we definitely agree on some of those things.

      Delete
  17. DeepNorth, I couldn't have said it better. Far too often, the emotions detract from any discussion that could actually result in reducing abortion rates, which really is the goal of both sides of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr. Hunter, the title of this OP claims that an evolutionist stated that an abortion can improve life and prevent harm. I have read through the linked article and I didn't see anywhere that she said she was an evolutionist. Maybe I missed it, which is possible given my attention span.

    But if I didn't miss it, isn't your title highly misleading?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I think it is spot on. Evolution motivated eugenics and abortion, and abortion providers are evolutionists. Think she is a creationist?

      Delete
    2. No, I strongly suspect that she is an evolutionist, but her article did not state this at all. There are many doctors who consider themselves to be religious who also perform abortions.

      Delete
    3. No, I strongly suspect that she is an evolutionist, but her article did not state this at all. There are many doctors who consider themselves to be religious who also perform abortions.

      Religious? Of course she's religious--that's the point.

      Delete
    4. OK. I have never understood this nonsense about atheists being religious, but if it makes you sleep better at night, go for it.

      But I will clarify. There are many doctors who consider themselves Christian (and some of them may also not believe in evolution either) who routinely perform abortions.

      I find this doctor's views very strange, but claiming that she is an evolutionist without any proof is ranks right up there with the tactics used by News at UD.

      Delete
  19. OK. I have never understood this nonsense about atheists being religious, but if it makes you sleep better at night, go for it.

    Don't know what you are are referring to. Atheism has nothing to do with evolutionary thought.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good point. I guess I did the same thing that you did when composing the title of the OP; I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.

    ReplyDelete