tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6531222060202327639..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionist: Abortion Can Improve Life and Prevent HarmUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36739862713563814272015-07-01T12:20:24.988-07:002015-07-01T12:20:24.988-07:00Good point. I guess I did the same thing that you ...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7646968736594949532015-07-01T09:24:56.381-07:002015-07-01T09:24:56.381-07:00OK. I have never understood this nonsense about at...<i>OK. I have never understood this nonsense about atheists being religious, but if it makes you sleep better at night, go for it. </i><br /><br />Don't know what you are are referring to. Atheism has nothing to do with evolutionary thought.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56621868595346124452015-07-01T08:47:13.231-07:002015-07-01T08:47:13.231-07:00OK. I have never understood this nonsense about at...OK. I have never understood this nonsense about atheists being religious, but if it makes you sleep better at night, go for it. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83292287067412816052015-06-30T20:34:57.501-07:002015-06-30T20:34:57.501-07:00No, I strongly suspect that she is an evolutionist...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Religious? Of course she's religious--that's the point.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25995613466708492432015-06-30T19:21:10.256-07:002015-06-30T19:21:10.256-07:00No, I strongly suspect that she is an evolutionist...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27197375228922246232015-06-30T11:05:14.121-07:002015-06-30T11:05:14.121-07:00Dr. Hunter, the title of this OP claims that an ev...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. <br /><br />But if I didn't miss it, isn't your title highly misleading?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71709373911472332952015-06-29T12:30:20.910-07:002015-06-29T12:30:20.910-07:00"They don't picket outside clinics terror..."<i>They don't picket outside clinics terrorizing young women and rendering a horrendously painful decision even more harrowing than it already is."</i><br /><br />I missed this in my earlier reading. If you read the pro-life literature and blogs, these people are not picketers, they are <i>street councillors</i>. 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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29827702913295896042015-06-29T12:18:00.529-07:002015-06-29T12:18:00.529-07:00DeepNorth, I couldn't have said it better. Far...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55606713421450903212015-06-29T08:15:48.411-07:002015-06-29T08:15:48.411-07:00Cornelius:
I once was a hard-line advocate for ch...Cornelius:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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*. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Sorry for the super-long entry here. I actually have more to say -- this is the short version - yikes!<br /><br />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. DeepNorthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16130022733013072663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61037329687407817472015-06-28T01:07:03.236-07:002015-06-28T01:07:03.236-07:00DeepNorth
"I surely would not be terrorizing...DeepNorth<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Councel could be as simple as... let me help you bring the baby to term and then give him or her up for adoption... <br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Who will speak for the unborn baby?<br />Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905104887549850614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46512398948653395852015-06-28T00:38:38.129-07:002015-06-28T00:38:38.129-07:00"We tried that and it failed miserably, and r..."We tried that and it failed miserably, and resulted in the death of countless women." <br /><br />How did the women die when it was against the law to exterminate the unborn? Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905104887549850614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3312549192858337692015-06-27T23:12:52.023-07:002015-06-27T23:12:52.023-07:00Thanks DeepNorth, and good points.Thanks DeepNorth, and good points.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26334888830153176132015-06-27T22:53:08.392-07:002015-06-27T22:53:08.392-07:00Cornelius, I echo Acartia Tonsa's commendation...Cornelius, I echo Acartia Tonsa's commendation. I was just about to make such an entry myself. <br /><br />Not silencing opposing views speaks strongly in favor of your sincerity and trustworthiness otherwise. <br /><br />It is your blog, your house, your rules and I appreciate that you are being gracious hosting views with which you do not agree. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Abortion is one of the thorniest issues for which it is difficult to fashion an inclusive policy. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />To find our common ground, we need to make sure that everyone is both heard and understood. DeepNorthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16130022733013072663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10087619033306898802015-06-27T21:55:00.653-07:002015-06-27T21:55:00.653-07:00bFast: Re: "Is such class of abortion OK with...bFast: Re: "Is such class of abortion OK with you?"<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Reasonable people don't terminate entirely viable fetuses in the eighth month of a pregnancy. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Women and doctors do not undertake these decisions lightly. It is best to let them be. <br />DeepNorthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16130022733013072663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51606782305538566352015-06-27T19:59:47.315-07:002015-06-27T19:59:47.315-07:00V:
Actually it was murder, under international la...V:<br /><br /><i>Actually it was murder, under international law for instance the Geneva Convention</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You want to avoid labelling abortion as murder because it is strong language. Yet you blame me for twisting the language.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i>Now will you answer my question?</i><br /><br />What question are you referring to?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24839249242745177582015-06-27T19:35:13.535-07:002015-06-27T19:35:13.535-07:00Pedant:
Why not?Pedant: <br /><br />Why not?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86479118721181316222015-06-27T19:09:03.833-07:002015-06-27T19:09:03.833-07:00Dr Hunter"
I thought a zygote was a person, ...Dr Hunter"<br /><br /><i>I thought a zygote was a person, no?</i><br /><br /><b>NO</b><br /><br />Think again.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56906850805015063142015-06-27T18:49:01.116-07:002015-06-27T18:49:01.116-07:00"Firstly, please understand that governments ..."<i>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."</i><br /><br />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). <br /><br />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. <br />William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47029020257745823052015-06-27T17:57:36.553-07:002015-06-27T17:57:36.553-07:00"Would a law against abortion stop them from ..."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.<br /><br />"And what benefit would there be from jailing every woman who has an abortion? " This is the most difficult part of the abortion debate. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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".)<br /><br />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.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29539692316542696202015-06-27T17:57:05.883-07:002015-06-27T17:57:05.883-07:00Thanks. If we can disagree with understanding and ...Thanks. If we can disagree with understanding and clarity, then we'll have achieved something.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78146714149004681262015-06-27T14:59:09.167-07:002015-06-27T14:59:09.167-07:00Cornelius, I just wanted to commend you on your mo...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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Happy Canada Day. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57147052625735684192015-06-27T14:47:25.883-07:002015-06-27T14:47:25.883-07:00No, there is no human there, as you know.No, there is no human there, as you know.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52151362296006225222015-06-27T14:46:41.607-07:002015-06-27T14:46:41.607-07:00But you avoid the ultimate question. Would a law a...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? <br /><br />Answer those questions and then we can begin the debate. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68877997317882792152015-06-27T13:04:23.392-07:002015-06-27T13:04:23.392-07:00CH:
Oh my, what a dodge.
High praise from a mast...<i>CH:<br />Oh my, what a dodge. </i><br /><br />High praise from a master craftsman. I noticed you didn't answer as well. <br /><br />I understand,it is a bit of " have you stopped beating your wife? " question.<br /><br /><i>Thought we were finally there, but, oops </i><br /><br />Not unless my answer would convince you to use the correct word ,we weren't.<br /><br /><i>. Your position is untenable so you dodged. </i><br /><br />With only the actual definition of murder to support that position. <br /><br />Very tenuous. <br /><br /><i>You're saying the Holocaust was not murder, but you can't admit it.</i><br /><br />Actually it was murder, under international law for instance the Geneva Convention. <br /><br />Now will you answer my question?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47633325836386628412015-06-27T12:57:22.285-07:002015-06-27T12:57:22.285-07:00"A zygote and a child in kindergarten are not..."A zygote and a child in kindergarten are not the same thing."<br /><br />To what/who? Or, ok. So what?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"people taking a hard line here" <br /><br />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?<br /><br />"They are wrong and no amount of conviction will save their arguments."<br /><br />I am reasonably sure there are many who think you are wrong. What makes you right and them wrong? <br /><br />And who do you think it is that they feel the need to accept their arguments? Why, do you think?<br /><br /><br />"As disgusting as your point of view is, you have the right to speak your mind."<br /><br />Hey Cornelius, I am glad to see your right to speak your mind has been reconfirmed by the ultimate judge of right and wrong.<br /><br /><br />"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."<br /><br />I is really exciting watching the straw-man bludgeoning taking place.<br /><br /><br /> "It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling. -- Proverbs 20"<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Seems like that is what you are trying to do here. Are you some sort of Supreme Court Judge or something?<br /><br /><br />"They have a responsibility to temper their actions and some obligation to mind their manners so that they remain within civil society."<br /><br />What manners are you speaking of and could you give an idea of what your concept of a civil society is?<br /><br /><br />"There is a big difference between eliminating a tiny ball of cells and terrorizing a frightened, confused and vulnerable teenage girl."<br /><br /><br />I can see your point. There is no comparison of<br /> "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?<br /><br />"a law forbidding abortion would be so violent against the fabric of civil society that it could not be tolerated."<br /><br />You say violent against the fabric of a "civil" society. But it is totally fatal to the aborted life. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.com