Mailing Plastic Babies
Peggy Bell didn’t know what to do with the tiny plastic fetus she received in the mail, so she recycled it.
The 51-year-old insurance agent said she wasn’t going to send it back to the anti-abortion group that mailed it to her.
The Racine chapter of Wisconsin Right to Life sent the plastic statues and literature to Bell and other city residents to mark next Tuesday’s anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.
[...]
She found the plastic fetus in her mailbox Tuesday in a manila mailer addressed to “Resident.” The model of a roughly 2-inch fetus came with a card detailing the development of an 11- to 12-week-old “pre-born.”
Way to far in my opinion.
While I agree with the message, mailing something like this is just taking things over the top.
And I as well as LOTS AND LOTS of other people do not take kindly to this type of in your face advertising.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 0815 hrs
I don’t think it’s all that outrageous. But I do think it’s a completely wasted effort. Nobody who doesn’t already share the pro-life worldview is going to be swayed by receiving a plastic fetus in the mail. If they think this kind of thing actually furthers their cause, they’re even more delusional than I thought.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 0906 hrs
I consider myself to be pro-life… but I get SO pissed at the pro-life crew when they do whacko stuff like this. I suppose this isn’t super bad, but I really detest the placards of aborted babies up and down city streets during the warmer months. I don’t want my daughter to see those.
Posted by Fuzz on January 18, 2008 at 0909 hrs
Maybe next time they should send it dripping in blood, that will really get their point across.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 0913 hrs
Yeah. If their point is that they’re a bunch of nut cases.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 0918 hrs
Too far!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1017 hrs
I thought about writing on this when my plastic baby came in the mail on saturday.
Then I thought, the pro baby killers will be rabid, the anti-baby killers will shrug their shoulders.
Why bother.
I made the right choice.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1120 hrs
Too far and a waste of resources. But Fred’s right.
Posted by tee bee on January 18, 2008 at 1123 hrs
But what about the people who like to eat babies for breakfast, Fred? We don’t shrug, we salivate.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1147 hrs
If the idea is to sway minds and change things .. too far. If the idea was to irritate and annoy then it’s spot on.
Posted by Brian on January 18, 2008 at 1151 hrs
Send the literature, but don’t send the plastic fetus. I am pro-life and think it’s a bit too far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1201 hrs
The voice of reason winds up being Mr Pelican Pants?
Hell is freezing over.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1211 hrs
Fred,
Nobody is a “pro baby killer.” The people on that side of the debate ususally disagree about whether it’s a baby. Even if you think they’re wrong on that issue, you’re still mischaracterizing how they feel about “killing babies.”I think this promotion is annoying. People like this shouldn’t send me ANYTHING. I don’t want it. At least with their annoying literature I can put it in the return envelopes for all the damn credit card offers I get.
Posted by Jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1213 hrs
I’d mail a dead pig fetus back.
Posted by Kristopher on January 18, 2008 at 1230 hrs
Oh come on JIJARWM. Fred would never mischaracterize anything. That would not be in the spirit of a fair debate. We all know Fred is 100% committed to “real debate”.
I am just kidding Fred.
I hope you know I was just teasing with that whole insult thing. I did not mean to step over any boundaries. I meant to be somewhat ironic with my out of line remark. I was intentionally throwing out a ridiculous slam, which I never had a history of doing, to draw attention to the abuse that was habitually thrown around. I can see how it was hurtful and I apologize. I don’t think you are a dolt, and you are probably not that old. The other two were just plain rude. Certainly not something that I would think deserve a ban, but hey it is your place and you can control your “debate” anyway that you see fit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1240 hrs
Tell you what 3rd way, start your own thing and make your own rules.
You role into my joint and lay down a nasty insult and then want to make me the bad guy?
Have the courtesy to do it to my face please instead of dragging Owen’s place ino your bad behavior. I’m sure he does not want it.
Owen, my apologies.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1254 hrs
JIJARWM.
I know you will not get this, but to pro-life persons that 11 week old in the womb is not a zygote or an embryo or a non-viable tissue mass, it is a baby. An innocent little child doing nothing but trying to survive and thrive.
To persons not in favor of infanticide people who support the whole abortion on demand society we live in are pro baby killing. That is exactly how that segment views that behavior and those in favor of that behavior.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1300 hrs
Fred, I know you don’t get this, but to us baby-killer-types, a fertilized human egg is not a person, and it does not merit the same moral or legal considerations due to you and me.
I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies—they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1303 hrs
I get that Scott, you think I’m crazy, I think you are evil and we will likely never move beyond that on this subject.
That is the entire reason why when I got that letter and the little plastic baby in the mail I made the choice to not even write about it as in the end we’d be calling each other names and never finding any common groud.
I think I made the right choice.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1312 hrs
Back to the original question, I have never been confronted with a plastic doll in my mailbox, so I am unsure as to how I would react. I can tell you that I agree with Fuzz (comment #3) wholeheartedly. The pictures of aborted fetuses is not something I want my seven year old seeing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1312 hrs
I too apologize Owen.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to address Fred and apologize in public. I would do that at his place, but I was banned. I never did and I never will try and tell you how to run your place Fred. I did not appreciate how you conduct your “debate” and I vowed not to return. Again I am sorry for the rude manner in which I said goodbye, it was in poor judgement.
I don’t wish to discuss that incident any furter, I am sorry that we had to put a damper on Owen’s party with such foolishness. I usually attempt to be a gracious guest.
Back to the point at hand…
A fetus is a fetus. Look it up in a medical dictionary. It cannot survive outside of its mothers womb. It is not a baby.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1312 hrs
If you are going to call people “baby killers” or anything of the like, you then bear the burden of proving that fetus’s are babies. Your belief notwithstanding, throwing the term around without backing it up is fairly idiotic. It skips the debate in favor of a cheap shot.
Sending a fetus in the mail, aside from being in poor taste, isn’t any better. It’s poor marketing, it’s rude, and it does not advance the argument.
I guess it makes the point that, at a certain stage of development not specified, a fetus sort of looks like a baby. However, by that logic, we also should not kill the plastic fetus that came in the mail.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 1321 hrs
My email is not so hard to find 3rd Way, nice try.
If you had an ounce of class you would have tried to reach out and apologize, instead you ran around and got every left wing attack site to come after me because of your bad behavior.
Now you offer mock apologies interlaced with snark on other sites.
So us all a favor, drop it.
If you are serious email me and we can discuss it like adults.
Apologies again Owen.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1321 hrs
I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies—they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.
And you base this on what scott?
Your feelings?
The whole statement about controlling sex, and consequences thing on its very face is contradictory.
See typically those of us on the conservative side also believe that there should be consequences for our actions.
One of the consequences of sex is the possibility of conception.
This is why typically they will not choose abortion. -Notice I said typically-
What I find truly amazing is that Libs on the other hand have NO problem with the Government banning trans-fats and twinkies in school, and yet when it comes to abortion their battle cry suddenly becomes You have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 1327 hrs
Have you ever had to consile a parent who could not carry a child to term Paul?
I can assure you to that parent that fetus (as you would call it) is very much a child, their child. Would you possibly be that cruel to tell them “hey buck up, no sorrow that was not a baby, that was a fetus.” That’s pretty cruel.
The left has built in this marvelous defense mechanism to rationalize baby killing by pretending that mass, or fetus or zygote or whatever they want to call it is. This mailing obviously challenges that assumption.
People don’t like their assumptions challenged, hence the outrage.
I think of abortion as killing an innocent child. You think of abortion as discarding an non viable tissue mass.
Rationalize it as you will, I’ll never be able to understand it.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1329 hrs
For the record Scott, I have never even considered your hypothesis.
I wish people would choose adoption over abortion.
Killing that innocent life is WRONG it pretty much ends there.
It has nothing to do with sex.
Your point is confused I bet because many persons who are opposed to abortion prefer promoting abstinence over condoms. You obviously see that as some massive intrusion into persons sex lives.
One certain thing, abstinence has worked every time it has been tried.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1340 hrs
It’s too bad that we can’t package and send in an envelope what it feels like to have a baby in the womb.
To feel it turn, move and kick so hard it wakes you up at night. To feel the hic-cups that sometimes go on for an hour. To hear the heart beat every four weeks at the doctor appointment. To see the heartbeat on the ultrsound screen at just six weeks. To see the arms, legs and toes furiously moving around at 16 weeks. To watch blood pump through all four chambers of the babies heart. Maybe then…
If that experience could be packages in an envelope and mailed, then I would pay the postage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1343 hrs
Fred, I don’t like using emotion to judge something as serious as life and death. By your example, if I started to think of you (or anyone else) as a non-human and genuinely felt that you were not, had no emotional attachment, etc., that killing you would be OK. I’m not really cool with the implications of that logic.
It’s sad when a couple who intended to have a baby suffers from nature’s abortion, but it does not speak to whether or not the fetus/baby was actually a live human being. It is the perspective of the fetus/baby that must be considered, not the perspective of the parents.
The parents rights are a seperate issue.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 1358 hrs
And you base this on what scott?
Your feelings?
No, I base it on my observations of the behavior and statements of pro-lifers. Consider: if you tell them that sex ed and contraceptives are more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions), they aren’t interested. Even when you hypothetically (as I did on my own blog) ask them if they would press a magic button making it so that no woman ever became pregnant unless she wanted to no matter how sexually active she was, they say no—they would not push it.
Ergo, they aren’t primarily interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They are more interested in a) making everyone subscribe to their view of who should be having sex and for what purpose, and b) making sure that there are dire consequences (such as disease and unwanted pregnancies) for those who do not adhere to it.
If there’s a better explanation, I’d like to hear it.
those of us on the conservative side also believe that there should be consequences for our actions.
You see? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You want there to be risks and negative consequences for having sex for any purpose but married procreation. No solution will please you if it reduces those risks—even if that solution prevents abortions. I rest my case.
If someone wanted to have a thoughtful discussion on when a fertilized egg becomes a person deserving our full moral consideration and legal protection, I’d love to have that discussion. Undoubtedly, we would discuss fetal development and what constitutes personhood—and we would probably admit that this is a process that occurs gradually over the gestation period. Perhaps we would find some agreeable places to draw lines, saying “at this stage, this is what moral and legal considerations are appropriate” and “at this other stage, a different set of rules will apply.” And we would base them on our best understanding of human development.
We would not say things like “baby killer” and walk way. Nor would we mail plastic fetuses to each other. Such a discussion is by no means impossible. We could choose to have it. I just find very few people actually want to.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1446 hrs
Fred,
I only took issue with your characterization of one side as pro baby killing. “Pro” means “in favor of.” It refelcts how that person feels about something, not how you feel about it. Pro-choice people are not in favor of killing babies because they don’t believe that a zygote is a baby. Even if they’re wrong about that, their mental state can not be described as being in favor of killing babies unless they believe the thing being killed is a baby. It really is that simple.So why not use more honest terms? Why not call the two sides pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights? Afterall, the issue is whether such a thing is a right, isn’t it?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1459 hrs
Even when you hypothetically (as I did on my own blog) ask them if they would press a magic button making it so that no woman ever became pregnant unless she wanted to no matter how sexually active she was, they say no—they would not push it.
Ergo, they aren’t primarily interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Hey Scott, questionable cause arguments don’t work on thinking people.
If there’s a better explanation, I’d like to hear it.
No you wouldn’t. You’re quite happy with your little conclusion and then grouping everyone into your little picture of reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1611 hrs
I’m sure asking a question on Scott’s blog is a fair scientific sample.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1613 hrs
So can either of you jokers answer his question?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1615 hrs
You see? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You want there to be risks and negative consequences for having sex for any purpose but married procreation. No solution will please you if it reduces those risks—even if that solution prevents abortions. I rest my case.
Perhaps someone would like to inform scott that marriage, does not automatically cure venereal disease? anymore than marriage prevents abortions. Besides marriage is when sex stops remember?
If someone wanted to have a thoughtful discussion on when a fertilized egg becomes a person deserving our full moral consideration and legal protection, I’d love to have that discussion.
BULLSHIT!! -Sorry Owen and Wendy- Every time someone says they believe an egg becomes human at conception, you accuse us of being religious right wing zealots.
So NO that is not a conversation you are willing to have. Why not just come out and admit that?
Nor would we mail plastic fetuses to each other. Such a discussion is by no means impossible. We could choose to have it. I just find very few people actually want to.
Perhaps you would like to go back to the beginning and reread the comments? Everyone of us said it goes entirely too far. So what point are you trying to make by making it sound as though
we are all condoning this behavior?Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 1617 hrs
As a pro-baby-killing Democrat, I read about the latest news that abortions (baby kiiling) is at its lowest point in decades.
I truly believe that this is an accurate news item. Have any of you dealt with any of the stupid clerks in stores lately?
Too bad the abortion rate is down. For the sake of my sanity, WE NEED MORE ABORTIONS!
More abortions-fewer stupid young store clerks
(With thanks to J. Lott)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1629 hrs
Normally, I don’t get into these debates because neither side EVER changes their minds… EVER… but my question to the pro-choice crowd is this: do you honestly believe that a human does not become a human until they pop out of the womb? That somehow, mysteriously, a fetus does not have a conscious until they are exposed to air and light? There is obviously some remnant of brain function as soon as the fetus’s heart starts beating. So, if there is a brain telling the heart to beat - how could you assume that the fetus is not having any other humanly thoughts? Because it hasn’t had any outer-womb experiences yet? If that’s the case, then a fetus is not a human just as Barrack Obama is not a politician. ZING.
Seriously, though, if a fetus’s heart stops beating in the womb, it is considered, “dead.” At that point, they pull the lifeless fetus from the mother’s womb - a D&C;. If a fetus isn’t “alive,” in the first place, then why bother calling it dead? Why bother removing it?
Posted by Fuzz on January 18, 2008 at 1633 hrs
As warned for many years since abortion was legalized, euthansia is now coming to Wisconsin Senate for debate.
Could you warn people about this threat?
PS: How fitting that the access word for submission is hell.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1644 hrs
A fetus is a fetus. Look it up in a medical dictionary. It cannot survive outside of its mothers womb. It is not a baby.
Take that in the other direction now… A person is in an accident, and can’t survive off of life support. There’s every indication that they will get better and be able to leave the “womb”, but since they’re wholly dependent at this specific point in time, they’re not a person? I understand your sentiment, 3rdWay, but just find the explanation of it a little simplistic and flawed.
For the record, this is me playing Devil’s Advocate. I can see two sides to the debate, although mine does come down on the side of the baby.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1651 hrs
I usually avoid this debate at all costs. I don’t think it is worth having because it is bound to degrade into people being pissed off. (see Fred, again we agree on something).
It all revolves around the question Fuzz asked. Since he asked it here goes… One side has their stance about a microscopic collection of cells having the same rights as a human and the other side is a little fuzzier on when humanness really begins. I usually take a cop-out and say I don’t have an opinion because this is a woman’s issue, and I as a male don’t have a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I do believe foremost in civil rights (of humans) and that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not she wants to stop a biological process taking place in her body.
On the otherhand as a parent it is hard not to feel that aborting a wiggling little preperson with little fingers and toes is not wrong. So the question is where is the line where preperson collection of cells ends and little person with rights begins. My logic tells me it is the moment when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. I am no expert but I would assume that happens somewhere around half way through the process. At any other point I don’t see how it can be qualifed as a life, it is a potential life.
I will now commence my path straight to hell.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1654 hrs
I do not know when human life begins, nor do any of you. However, I do know when human life has not yet begun with 100% certitude. Before an ebryo has developed a brain, that embryo is not human. You are nothing without your brain. When your brain stops functioning, you are dead.
I think not, therefore I am not.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 1654 hrs
Michael, I stand by every word of what I said in comment 29 above, even if you seem to think I don’t really mean it. I can assure you I do. I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions, too.
but my question to the pro-choice crowd is this: do
you honestly believe that a human does not become a human until they pop
out of the womb?An interesting and fair question. I’ll hedge and say this: personhood doesn’t go from zero to 100% at the moment of birth, no. That is to say, it’s gradual and takes place over time during gestation. It may agree, however, that full personhood does not occur until the moment of birth, though. But that doesn’t mean that the fetus is a zero and totally unworthy of any consideration at 8.9 months gestation.
If you think that’s a bullshit answer, let’s see if you can do better. Is a just-fertilized human egg a person? I mean, can you really look a person in the eye and say that a microscopic single-celled entity is their moral and legal equal?
Not fair? I think it’s quite as fair as your question to me was.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1659 hrs
Paul: an interesting comment worthy of discussion…
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1700 hrs
Fuzz,
I don’t. I’d say my answer to your question is close to Paul’s. I waiver back and forth between “when it has a brain” and “when it can survice outside the womb.” I would definately say that it’s some point before it is actually born, but well after “conception.” But as Paul noted, none of us actually knows the answer.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1706 hrs
Now if we can just get a conservative to agree that a microscopic bundle of cells does not have the same rights as the rest of us we can call the nobel people and let them know that we are all worthy of the peace prize.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1710 hrs
Actually, Michael, nobody in this entire thread mentioned religion at all or religious right wing zealot until you did.
And Scott’s not trying to make it sound as if anyone here is condoning the sending out of these little plastic fetuses. Stop trying to confuse the issue.
If someone wanted to have a thoughtful discussion on when a fertilized egg becomes a person deserving our full moral consideration and legal protection, I’d love to have that discussion.
This is the point where you inserted an epithet and changed the subject. Now, want to try again?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1712 hrs
I don’t think we have to know with absolute certainty. We know a lot about physical development. We know a lot about the interests of pregnant women. I’d say we have enough information to draw some lines in that proverbial sand. If we revisit them later with newer information, so be it.
Some may want to take the uncertainty and lean all our decisions in favor of fetal personhood, others may take that same set of unknowns and want to lean it the other way. But that’s still a debate we can have. It’s a way forward.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1712 hrs
22 weeks is the earliest a premie has survived.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1716 hrs
Ok, this will likely tick many of you off, I am assuming the majority of you are men and therefore I refer to my comment #27.
Reading the previous discussion of viability and brain development, etc. I just wonder if you were able to experience what I described if you would think about this in a totally different way.
Just wondering…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1718 hrs
A fair point, but I would argue that survival does not really speak to the issue of personhood.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1718 hrs
Well, KT, we’re not women, nor are we going to become them for the purposes of this discussion. Like it or not, men and women have to grapple with these decisions together. If there’s something we men are not getting, or that you want better represented in the discussion, lay it on us.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1720 hrs
All right the pro-baby killers had their say…
Anti-baby killers: does a microscopic collection of cells have the same rights as I do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1720 hrs
Scott,
Your discussion of your magic button post reminded me of our little side conversation there. I think we left off with a few unanswered questions from me to you:http://www.scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=1747
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1721 hrs
Scott, I figured you would be unable to look at this from another perspective…
I tried.
I have often asked pro-choice women if they change their view after having a child, of the ones that said no, all of them said, “well no, but I would never have an abortion.” To which I would reply, why not? At this point, they would be speechless.
I knew, and they knew what was about to come out of their mouth.
Enough said.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1736 hrs
Stop trying to confuse the issue.
Please forgive me pjr, for I have done something that only Libs are allowed to do. What ever can I do to ever get back into your good graces? I will never be able to sleep at night knowing that pjr may be a little upset with me. :sarcasm off:
Ok anyway on to scotts magic button issue. (What the hell made scott so important that he gets a magic button anyway?)
I say no, because if you want to be consistent you also need to believe that you have the power to kill somebody on the other end of the life cycle. -as in when is it OK to take someone off life support-
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 1746 hrs
Mike,
How about when they don’t have a brain? e.g. Terry Schaivo. But that’s not really relevant to the button thing. More to the abortion issue in general.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1756 hrs
I say no, because if you want to be consistent you also need to believe that you have the power to kill somebody on the other end of the life cycle.
Someone on life support has more rights because they have achieved life. A fetus has not yet achieved life. (see comments above)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1758 hrs
How about when they don’t have a brain? e.g. Terry Schaivo.
Somebody sucked out her brain? When did this happen?
Seriously though the answer is still no.
Would somebody also answer MY question? Why does scott get a magic button?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 1802 hrs
Would somebody also answer MY question? Why does scott get a magic button?
Don’t we all have magic buttons? I thought those were standard issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 1806 hrs
Nobody sucked out her brain, but if you saw her CAT Scan, you’d know that her brain was basically mush.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1812 hrs
And as Paul noted:
“I think not, therefore I am not.”
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1813 hrs
“I think not, therefore I am not.”
So if we conclude that a lunatic has lost the ability to think, can we go ahead and kill him?
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned DNA. Wouldn’t having unique human DNA classify as being a unique human?
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2008 at 1850 hrs
Someone on life support has more rights because they have achieved life. A fetus has not yet achieved life. (see comments above)
Define “achieved life.” That one sperm achieved at fertilizing the egg. Upon that achievement, that little cluster of cells achieved the ability to develop into an organism capable of thinking, pumping blood, hiccuping, etc. Hell, that’s about the extent of the achieving some lowly “people” do in their lives.
If we don’t technically know if the little cluster of cells is alive or not… then why shouldn’t he or she be given the benefit of the doubt instead of being executed first? We don’t execute people who have committed crimes against humanity without first knowing if they’re guilty or not - so how can you kill a little person based solely on what stage of development he or she is at? “I don’t know if it’s alive or not… let’s just kill it and find out.” No offense, but that’s kind of a redneck viewpoint, in my opinion. Honestly, it surprises me to hear the pro-choice argument out of people whose stances are normally so socially motivated. It’s almost the antithesis of their whole being. “Stop the war, stop the violence, don’t kill anybody… except for those harmless little pukes.”
Posted by Fuzz on January 18, 2008 at 1918 hrs
Wouldn’t having unique human DNA classify as being a unique human?
My fingernal clippings have my unique DNA in them. They are not human, are they? And it actually takes some time before the sperm-egg hybrid moves from two-DNA strands to one individual within the zygote. Hence putting a few more angels on the pin: If the fertilized egg to be “aborted” with, say, Plan B, still has its parent nuclei instead of its own, is it taking a life?
On another note: KT brought up the fact that most of you all discussing this are men (as am I). In that, it seems most of you have forgotten that, regardless of your view on when life begins, there is a real, live, walking, talking, autonomous person involved in an abortion. Should not her status and ability to live her life (and control her body) be a part of this conversation?
That’s why it’s called pro-choice: KT is surprised that someone pro-choice would say “I would never have an abortion.” That’s not the point. The point is that it’s not my place to make that very persona decision for you.
Posted by folkbum on January 18, 2008 at 1937 hrs
Owen,
Lunatics still think, just not rationally. They still have feelings. Right Fred?Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1957 hrs
Folkbum said, “there is a real, live, walking, talking, autonomous person involved in an abortion. Should not her status and ability to live her life (and control her body) be a part of this conversation? “
Lucky that her mother gave her that “status and ability to live her life” when she decided not end her life and abort her.
Also, I am not surprised that a pro-choice person would say, “I would never have an abortion” I am surprised at why they can’t give a reason of “why not” when asked.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 2008 hrs
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the magic button. The button has nothing to do with abortion or euthanasia. It is about contraception. I’ll say it again:
If there was a magic button that would make it so that no woman ever became pregnant unless she explicitly wished to, would you push it?
It’s basically asking if you had the means to provide 100% perfect contraception, to eliminate entirely the problem of unwanted pregnancy would you push it? The catch is, it would work no matter how much sex a woman had. She’d never become pregnant as a result of it unless she explicitly desired to have a child.
Would you push it?
You could pretty much eliminate the desire for abortion (leaving aside for the moment that some abortions are done for reasons other than that the pregnancy was unwanted). If you pushed it, abortions would drop to nearly zero.
But if you pushed it, the risk of unwanted pregnancy would disappear from sexual activity, leaving people to have sex without that worry over their heads.
My previous discussions about the magic button have found that pro-lifers say they would not push it. And this to me indicates that they are primarily concerned about preserving the risks of sexual activity, and not—as they would lead you to believe—concerned about preventing abortions.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 2038 hrs
It’s basically asking if you had the means to provide 100% perfect contraception, to eliminate entirely the problem of unwanted pregnancy would you push it? The catch is, it would work no matter how much sex a woman had. She’d never become pregnant as a result of it unless she explicitly desired to have a child.
OK I’ll play along again.
My answer is still No.
leaving people to have sex without that worry over their heads.
Not to sure about anyone else, but when I’m having sex, the last thing I’m thinking about is getting her pregnant. But thats just me.
if you had the means to provide 100% perfect contraception,
I sure wouldn’t be announcing it here…and I’d be stinking filthy rich!
Again on a serious note I still would not be pushing that button.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 2054 hrs
After you answer Scott’s magic button question please answer the one I have not heard an answer to. Does a microscopic collection of cells (zygote) have the same rights as I do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 2103 hrs
Yes, please explain why you would not push the button. Don’t be shy or glib. Write like the wind. Consider me fascinated. I really would like to hear a lengthy exposition on why a pro-lifer would not push the magic button.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 2108 hrs
And this to me indicates that they are primarily concerned about preserving the risks of sexual activity, and not—as they would lead you to believe—concerned about preventing abortions.
The discussion you had on your blog had 1 out of 23 posts that support your conclusion. You have other people who have simply said no… and most of those felt that if there had been a magic button, they would not be alive today. Your entire “magic button” fantasy is a fallacy. You cannot draw the conclusion you have, but having people tell you “YES” or “NO”.
You’ve chosen the outcome, and have framed a question around getting the results you want. Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 2111 hrs
Yes, please explain why you would not push the button. Don’t be shy or glib. Write like the wind. Consider me fascinated. I really would like to hear a lengthy exposition on why a pro-lifer would not push the magic button.
There seems to be a little too much eagerness on scotts part here. Which tells me there will be a research paper done on this very topic, which leads me to this question,Am I being compensated?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 2119 hrs
I always get suspicious when scott goes from confrontational to “nice” on a topic like this!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 18, 2008 at 2122 hrs
Does a microscopic collection of cells (zygote) have the same rights as I do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 2124 hrs
Does a microscopic collection of cells (zygote) have the same rights as I do?
Yes, including the right to drive. Want some case law citations to prove it? LOL
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2008 at 2132 hrs
Owen, the mantally ill do think. I’m not even asking for the line I’m drawing to deal with the quality of thinking. I’m talking brain activity. If you do not know whether or not you are alive, you are not alive. Simple as that. How could you?
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 2344 hrs
What if I’m delusional and think I’m dead? Can you kill me?
I’m just ribbing. Here’s my position on abortion, if you’re interested.
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/right_to_life/
Posted by Owen on January 19, 2008 at 0004 hrs
I mean, can you really look a person in the eye and say that a microscopic single-celled entity is their moral and legal equal?
Not only that, Scott, but in your case, I can unhesitatingly deem that “microscopic single-celled entity the moral superior.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 19, 2008 at 0010 hrs
Unlike some people, I am certain when life begins and ends. It is when the master creator, God,decides to begin to create his work of art, his masterpiece of a human.Sex doesn’t do it alone, but God puts it all together and begins to form the shape, and at times he may change his mind, or alter the form, or prolong the life for whatever reason, but in the end it’s up to Him, and we don’t have much power to do anything once he makes up His mind. We can try to stop His plan, or try to work with His plan, but we can be pretty selfish, but He knows this already…remember He made us.
It’s a battle of wills, and control, and one that people will probably never be united in agreement.How about we agree to disagree and try to be civil with one another? This does not mean one has to give up his/her beliefs…just not be attacked for having them. We are unique, individual creations, masterminded by a creative genius, so we all have some good traits, mixed in with some bad, and none of us are a finished,perfect product but still in the process of coming into our total masterpiece.We are molded and shaped by how we choose to act and live each day.I choose to believe that life is in God’s hands, and He has our best interests at heart. We could die in a minute or in 40 years, but what we do with the time we have been given should be our focus.Peace out.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 0931 hrs
Wow Alicia, you’re really arrogant.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1008 hrs
Calvin, I’m being serious. I notice a lot of responses that are high on snark and personal attacks, but very low on relevance. You hate me, okay I get that. But do you care to respond to my comments?
Alicia, if your understanding of the world leads you to believe that abortion is wrong and that a single-celled entity is the equal of you and me, fine. But what you must understand is this. Your belief is based purely on matters of faith, not fact. That being the case, you have no right to expect anyone else to adhere to it. That’s called religious freedom. You can live according to your articles of faith, but nobody else is compelled to. Not in America, anyway.
So far only Jason has tried to really answer the question of the magic button. Nobody else on the pro-life side wants to explain to everyone why they would not push it? As far as Jason’s comments go, I’m unsatisfied with them. He points out that in the discussion on my blog most respondents said no to the button. Well, so what? This isn’t a popularity contest. It’s not a vote. It’s why, and what it says about your motivations. As far as people saying they would not be here if contraception were 100% accurate, I dealt with that illogic on my own blog:
I think it’s silly to play that game with yourself. My own two children were surprises. I love them both dearly. But that wouldn’t stop me from pressing the button. Do I think that if someone had pressed it in 1989 that they “wouldn’t be here”? Might as well ask if they would be better off if their mother and I had had them later in life when we planned for it. Works both ways. Me, I think it’s best not to think about the past like this too hard. The question is about the future, after all. And romanticizing surprise children because you love your own does a grave disservice to the future and to rationality itself.
So my question remains: if you say no to the button, please explain why. It would virtually eliminate abortion, yet you would not push it. Why not?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1149 hrs
JIJARWM calling someone arrogant.
That’s rich.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1246 hrs
And completely accurate.
But still, no answer on the button issue…
I’m about to declare victory and abandon the discussion. I’m about to declare it “proved” that you pro-life non-button-pushers are indeed more interested in controlling sexuality than you are in preventing abortion.
Anyone care to challenge that conclusion?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1250 hrs
Sure Scotty, I’ll be happy to.
You’ll declare victory anyway, you always do.
It is a matter of faith. We believe life begins at conception. You’‘ll call that irrational, JIJARWM will call it supid (that is what he always says in matters of faith).
It is kind of like your faith in global warming even though global temperature has remained constant over the last 7 years.
Your side has built in a defense mechanism by refusing to believe that is life so you can rationalize killing innocents wrapped up in a nifty word, “choice”.
It is my choice to abort (kill) that innocent (unfeeling) zygote (baby).
It is all a matter of faith.
Not sex.
Faith.
Right and wrong.
You can declare your victory all you want but nothing will change other than you will feel all justified and superior over the silly Christians.
And we’ll still be praying for you to somehow develop a conscience and find the saving grace of Christ in your life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1257 hrs
I appreciate Alicia’s sentiment that we should agree to disagree and try to be civil with one another
Things will not remain civil if people refer to others as “baby killers” that need to “develop a conscience”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1354 hrs
The easy button is not always the right button.Tell that to our future generation. Besides, we have several easy buttons in the form of birth control methods—-been around for years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1408 hrs
Grow up 3rd way.
I’m trying to give you insight, yes pro life people look at abortion as baby killing.
You may not like it, but that is the thought process.
If you would like to pick a fight that’s up to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1413 hrs
Faith is lazy, especially if there is evidence available.
At conception, there is no brain. That is a fact. It’s implications are that human life does not begin at conception, because living humans have brains, and without brains, not only do you not know what is going on, but there is no way that you can know what is going on.
Your faith should not dictate policy, because there is nothing aside from the volume of your voice that adds any weight to your faith over mine.
I won’t call you stupid for it, but I do think you can do better. Why do you think that life begins at conception? Do you agree with Owen’s reasoning? If so, my assertion is a challenge to that theory. Why should a brainless, non-aware bit of organic material have as much right as a fully functioning human being?
Because you think so? That’s not much of an argument, especially if there are lives in the balance.
To put it succinctly, if I am right, you are doing a disservice by not agreeing with me, but if you are right, you are doing a disservice to your own position by throwing up your hands and declaring it to be unknowable.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 19, 2008 at 1422 hrs
Can that life self sustain at that level of development, no.
Faith provides that it is our charge to protect and nurture that life until such a time that it can self-sustain. (To many that would be into their 30’s)
That truly is the larger question at hand Paul.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1428 hrs
Is Dubya a baby killer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1430 hrs
Fred, if I often declare victory when you’re around it’s probably because you so often lose to me in contests of ideas. Sorry if that’s blunt, but you do seem to be challenging me on it.
Now, trying to parse some snippets of meaning from your simplistic tirade…
1. It’s a matter of faith. So what if it is? We have freedom of conscience here in the USA, and I’m not compelled to act in accordance to the dictates of your beliefs. Where there are laws circumscribing our behavior, those laws have secular purposes, are based on facts, and are certainly not pure matters of faith.
2. Right and wrong. Yeah, I like that argument. But it works both ways. I’ll now assert that I, too, am challenging you with an issue of right versus wrong: I’m right, and you’re wrong! So there!
3. Scott thinks Christians are silly. Actually, I do. But that really has nothing to do with this argument, Fred. You do realize that most people who are pro-choice are in fact Christians? Tell me you understand that fact.
If Christ has grace to offer me, Fred, you’re a poor example of what he has in store. I can’t for the life of me fathom why I should have to work so hard to extract answerable items from your comments. Can’t you just make yourself plainer? And while you’re at it, why will you not address my freaking question!
WHY WILL YOU NOT PUSH THE BUTTON?? IT’S NOT AN ABORTION BUTTON, IT’S A CONTRACEPTION BUTTON! WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT PUSH IT?
Not a damned one of you—certainly not you, Fred—has given a logical answer to the question of why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1430 hrs
Nice talking to you Scott, I can see you have not changed a bit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1433 hrs
Fred (And Alicia)
It’s arrogant to say that you know things that you don’t know.
Also, faith is stupid. This is just a matter of looking up words in the dictionary. “Faith” is believing in something without evidence. “Reason” is forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. So “faith” is the opposite of “reason.” Or put another way, “faith” is “unreasonable.” “Unreasonable” is defined as “senseless, foolish, silly, preposterous, absurd, STUPID, nonsensical. So in reality, I don’t claim that faith is stupid. The dictionary does. I just connected the dots for you. So you don’t really think that faith isn’t stupid, you just think it’s okay to be stupid.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1433 hrs
Scott: I said I would explain the my answer if the following question was answered: Please refer to post #71
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 19, 2008 at 1434 hrs
I don’t care about whether or not life can sustain at that level, that has nothing to do with my argument.
The argument that you just stated could be made about sperm. It is no argument at all. There is a line somewhere between human and non-human. As I stated before, I don’t know where it is, but I know where it is not, and it is not and can not be at conception.
You merely dodged the question.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 19, 2008 at 1438 hrs
Did I ever say I was not in favor of contraception?
I’m all for it.
All I have tried to do is offer honest representations of how my side views this and how my side views the other side.
I also said I decided not to cover this topic for reasons that have proven to be correct.
People have a deep belief and faith on this issue and those that do not come after that faith with claws out.
And right on cue here comes Mr JIJARWM calling faith stupid.
Some things never change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1439 hrs
For Christ’s sake, Michael, no. I’m not doing a research paper. I’m asking people a question on a blog.
Fred, you’re the same blind, anti-intellectual brick wall that you always were.
Fact is, I have you pro-lifers absolutely nailed on this one. The only reasonable explanation as to why you won’t push the button is, as I’ve said, you’re more concerned with promoting your view of appropriate human sexuality than you are about preventing abortion. Period.
You’re a bunch of puritanical busybodies who are more concerned with your neighbor’s sin (and its punishment) than you are about those poor “babies.” Yet you say the exact opposite about yourselves. Making you not only a bunch of finger-wagging moralists, but also hypocrites.
If I have it wrong, please do correct me. Go ahead and give us an alternate explanation.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1440 hrs
Picking up on a different thread…
I think it’s helpful to get away from the use of the term “human life.” I don’t contest that a one-second old zygote is “human”: if it has human DNA, it’s human. I don’t contest that it’s “alive”: I’m sure biologists have criteria to determine quite easily that it is. Therefore, it is of course “human life.”
I think it’s more helpful to ask whether it’s a person deserving full moral consideration and full legal protection—what I have been referring to as “personhood.”
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1444 hrs
Did I ever say I was not in favor of contraception?
I’m all for it.
So you’d push the button? The one that makes it impossible for a woman to become pregnant unless she explicitly wished to, no matter how much sexual intercourse she had? The button that guarantees automatic, 100% effective contraception? You’d push it, Fred?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1446 hrs
I will take a shot at Scott’s question with my “pretend I’m a righty” hat.
Typically, opposition to contraception is based on two things. One is an archaic passage in the old testament involving god smiting a poor fellow for, uhm, wasting his seed. The other is the belief that the pill and other pill-like methods can sometimes result in what can be considered an abortion. This is based on the belief that life begins at conception, let’s not deal with that for the sake of this hypothetical.
From this frame of reference, with those assumptions taken as a given, taking a stand against contraception is a logical position.
Scott’s hypothetical removes some of the moral problems with contraception, but it’s hard to shake the belief that something will always be wrong with contraception, even if you stipulate that it is not so in your hypothetical. It is actually a bit of skepticism that is keeping them from answering you, Scott.
There are some busy-bodies, no doubt, but most of the people opposed to you (Scott) are opposed to you out of concern, not out of some malice towards you (with a few obvious exceptions). Trying to get them to answer some “gotcha” question, or to not answer in this case, doesn’t tell you much about their motivations. It’s designed to be a hard question, but the qualities that make it a hard question are the same qualities that limit the inofmration that you will get from an answer.
Incidentally, I’d push the button.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 19, 2008 at 1455 hrs
I’d answer your question Scott, but apparently I am a blind anti-intellectual brick wall, so I can’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1500 hrs
It is actually a bit of skepticism that is keeping them from answering you, Scott. </ii>
I’m not buying it. What’s preventing them from simply saying “sure, I would push it in principle, but in actual practice I’m concerned that no contraception is safe/effective, etc.”? Nothing is preventing them from agreeing to push it in principle. Yet they aren’t saying that.
<i>I’d answer your question Scott, but apparently I am a blind anti-intellectual brick wall, so I can’t.
Probably the most accurate and insightful thing you’ve said so far, Fred.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1503 hrs
Scott,
I’d add to what Paul said, that the reason your not getting answers may be similar to the reason you didn’t answer my questions in your magic button threat. And I don’t believe it’s because your more concerned with a talking point (“choice”) then actually preventing unwanted pregnancies, even though that would be one logical way to construe the limited response you did give.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1504 hrs
Yes Fred. You are right for once.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1506 hrs
Not a damned one of you—certainly not you, Fred—has given a logical answer to the question of why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception.
It could be that they are pushing your buttons to get you worked up.
Dude. Relax.
Posted by Brian on January 19, 2008 at 1525 hrs
I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies—they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.
100% agree.
If it were about the sanctity of “life”, they’d be pacifists and anti-death penalty. They’re only for the sanctity of life when that life comes as a consequence of behavior they cannot tolerate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1549 hrs
That’s the dumbest thing so far.
Comparing abortion (innocent life) to the death penalty (the dregs of society) is just ridiculous.
You libs are beyond reasoning with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1606 hrs
Scoot wrote: Not a damned one of you—certainly not you, Fred—has given a logical answer to the question of why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception. [emphasis mine]
You’re asking for a “logical answer” to a question based in fantasy and “magic”. How about we turn your dumb-fuck loaded question back on you this way:
If you could press a “magic button” and go back to the day before you knocked up your ex-wife, and then press the magic non-pregnancy button you’re talking about now, would you press it?
C’mon Scott. If you’re going to be so consistent and “logical” with your fantasy absolute “no unwanted pregnancies” Utopian wish for human life, you’d have to say yes. If you say no, then you’re just a stodgy old prude who can’t bear the thought of people getting it on solely for pleasure (and a stark raving hypocrite).
I was pro-life even back when I was an atheist. But my arguments on the issue now are the same as they were back then, and they have nothing - zip, zero, zilch - to do with sex.
It’s a personal moral choice that has to do with moral consistency and not being wishy-washy and stuck in this world of relativism about gestation periods and viability.
Yeah, I know my view is in the minority, but I’m not out sending plastic fetuses to people’s mailboxes. Nor do I vote for politicians based on their view of abortion. I’m comfortable with my position and don’t feel the need to make any excuses for it.
People can screw each other all they want. If that leads to more abortions, I think that’s sad. But, unlike you, I still wouldn’t go pressing a button (magic or otherwise) that would level such control over people’s lives. I guess your left-wing views really do extend into the bedroom after all if you’re so willing to do something like that if given the chance.
Posted by David on January 19, 2008 at 1642 hrs
Q…why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception…
A…I see this as a separate issue. a persons view on whether or not to prevent pregnancy (if that is what the “easy button” is) is not necessarily the same as their view on abortion. To not get pregnant is not the same as ending a pregnancy. I would much rather see a women push the “easy button” (PREVENT, not CANCEL a pregnancy), than see her end a pregnancy…(which is what abortion does) Again, I would rather see one use the “easy button” if this “easy button” is a way of preventing, and not ending a pregnancy…Posted by Sancho on January 19, 2008 at 1658 hrs
You’re asking for a “logical answer” to a question based in fantasy and “magic”.
David, don’t bullshit me. I asked a hypothetical, but entirely fair, question. They answered it. The answer seems to be completely at odds with their stated beliefs and priorities. I asked for an explanation. They cannot provide one. The fact that it concerns a hypothetical question is irrelevant, and you know it.
And the question is only hypothetical in degree, not in kind. After all, we do have contraception, even if it’s not perfect and people don’t always use it. And it’s a fact that abortion opponents are usually no friend to the cause of contraception. Being against contraception contradicts opposition to abortion. My question merely puts an artificially fine point on it.
If you could press a “magic button” and go back to the day before you knocked up your ex-wife, and then press the magic non-pregnancy button you’re talking about now, would you press it?
No, David. I wouldn’t. Because I’d lose my children. Therefore, it’s not at all the same thing. No one is concerned with “losing” future people. One cannot lose something that one never had. You’re too smart to be seriously thinking that this is a logical response to my question.
Anyone who says unexpected pregnancy is a good thing and that we should fight to preserve it has some rethinking to do. And anyone who points at people alive today and says “they wouldn’t be here if we lost unexpected pregnancies!” is not thinking very clearly.
unlike you, I still wouldn’t go pressing a button (magic or otherwise) that would level such control over people’s lives.
Uh, the magic button gives people the ultimate amount of control over their own lives, at least so far as reproduction is concerned. Again, you’re way to smart for this kind of bullshit argument.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1835 hrs
Scott said, “No one is concerned with “losing” future people.”
So it is a person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 1911 hrs
Sweet Jesus, is anyone prepared to actually discuss this?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1941 hrs
The one that makes it impossible for a woman to become pregnant unless she explicitly wished to, no matter how much sexual intercourse she had? The button that guarantees automatic, 100% effective contraception? You’d push it, Fred?
I wouldn’t push the button. Why? Because I like to live “dangerously”. Actually, that’s not true any more. My wife had her tubes tied after our 4th child was born. Personally, prior to our decision to have her tubes tied, we never used contraceptives. We let the chips fall where they may, and decided that if something happened, it happened, and if it didn’t it didn’t. Nothing about god, or anyone forcing their morals on us. We don’t go to church, we’re both athiests.
So Scott, from your morally superior position of “You didn’t answer my staged question the way I think you should, therefore you’re a bible thumper trying to force your morals on the rest of the world”, now what? Are you going to change your mind?
I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies—they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.
I totally disagree with your conclusion, and based on my answer to your silly question, your conclusion is now disproved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 2104 hrs
Aha, whereas I say that my button would give people ultimate control over their reproduction, but you say it would paradoxically take away their ability to be surprised by it if they wish to!
There’s no way that kind of dubious and silly sounding “benefit” can’t possibly be weighed against all the potential good that would result: incomes would rise among the poorest Americans. Educational achievement would rise. All the social ills that are in some way tied to the fact that too many young people become parents before they are emotionally or financially able to care for it? All would improve. And there would be virtually no abortion.
Oh, but we can’t have all those benefits because someone thinks the ability to be surprised about their own reproduction! Yeah, right.
You didn’t answer my staged question the way I think you should
I don’t care which way you answer it. Yes or no. And you said no. Fine. Whatever your particular reason for saying it, it doesn’t “disprove” my accusation that the pro-life movenent generally has the forwarding of their particular sexual mores as a higher priority than actually preventing abortions.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 2147 hrs
Aha, whereas I say that my button would give people ultimate control over their reproduction, but you say it would paradoxically take away their ability to be surprised by it if they wish to!
I didn’t say that. I said that’s why I wouldn’t have pushed the button until my family was done.
There’s no way that kind of dubious and silly sounding “benefit” can’t possibly be weighed against all the potential good that would result: incomes would rise among the poorest Americans.
Why do you say that? Scott, are you that bigoted?
Educational achievement would rise. All the social ills that are in some way tied to the fact that too many young people become parents before they are emotionally or financially able to care for it? All would improve. And there would be virtually no abortion.
In your fantasy world perhaps, but I don’t think so. Personally, I think that if there were a magic button, then we would need another magic button for the people that became to lazy to push the button before they had sex. Yeah, that’s what I see with people today. You give them a benefit, they get used to it, get lazy with it, then need another benefit.
Whatever your particular reason for saying it, it doesn’t “disprove” my accusation that the pro-life movenent generally has the forwarding of their particular sexual mores as a higher priority than actually preventing abortions.
Aha, but your change in tone does. It changed from"It’s undeniable that everyone who answered my question and every pro-lifer is doing so only to force their mores on the rest of the world to”... generally and as a higher priority. See the change? I do… and it stinks, but I’ll take it as a moral victory and as something that opened your eyes just a little bit wider to the world around you.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2008 at 2252 hrs
BTW, the “easy” button may prevent some pregnancies, but it doesn’t answer the question of which path the woman and man will take in their relationship/commitment to each other, if any. I believe this would depend on if they shared common goals, and values, and feelings.Everyone believes in something, in some values, so to not believe in anything would be pretty hopeless.BTW, I also have faith the Packers will win tomorrow, even if I don’t have all the facts and stats, I enjoy the opportunity to cheer for them.At first, I didn’t want too many babies, but now that I have them, I love them and wouldn’t trade a one of them.Before I had them, I had no idea how valuable and precious they were going to become to me.We can’t always have things our way, and in this case, I gradually learned to appreciate what my future held for me.Now I can’t imagine how empty my life would be without them.I guess once you’ve experienced this great love, you are never quite the same and you give up some of the control and your own will for the sake of your children because you’d sacrifice anything for them.If God wills, I look forward to becoming a grandma one day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2008 at 0159 hrs
I guess once you’ve experienced this great love, you are never quite the same and you give up some of the control and your own will for the sake of your children because you’d sacrifice anything for them.
It would be wonderful if it always worked out that way, but it doesn’t. Sometimes even amongst god fearing folk. Child neglect is a serious problem, to deny that is willful ignorance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2008 at 1010 hrs
the “easy” button may prevent some pregnancies, but it doesn’t answer the question of which path the woman and man will take in their relationship
So freaking what? Isn’t that their own business? It has nothing to do with contraception or the button. This comment sounds like the same old same old: you’re more interested in meddling in people’s personal lives than you are in preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
[scott’s tone]changed from"It’s undeniable that everyone who answered my question and every pro-lifer is doing so only to force their mores on the rest of the world to”… generally and as a higher priority. See the change?
I have never said “all pro-lifers,” nor does my argument hinge on such absolutes in any way. What I am asserting is that most pro-lifers say they wont’ push the button, and most pro-lifers also say they want desperately to prevent abortion. Therefore, most pro-lifers have contradictory statements about the matter. I suggest that the real answer as to why the have these seemingly contradictory positions is that one of them is false: they aren’t really that interested in abortion. They are interested in, as you say, pushing their morals on everyone. That would explain their positions quite well. It also explains things like why you find them objecting to giving girls a vaccine that prevents STDs (and cervical cancer). They’re more interested in other people’s morals than they are in taking the danger out of being sexually active.
The fact that you (say) you aren’t moralizing, and you still won’t push the button doesn’t negate my point in any way. If you are representing your positions honestly, the best we can say is that it doesn’t apply to you. But I can still assert—as I have from the beginning—that it does apply to a lot of pro-lifers.
Posted by scott on January 20, 2008 at 1226 hrs
The question was, did Wisconsin Right to Life go too far in sending a plastic doll?
As usual Scott has hijacked the thread and turned it into some obscure question that had nothing to do with the original posting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2008 at 1303 hrs
You thought it was a pretty worthy topic when you were commenting on it yourself, Fred. I think you went sour on it right around the time I totally owned you in the conversation.
I don’t think any of this would be such a big argument if the pro-lifers would just admit the obvious truth: they’re way into moralizing, they’re quite pleased that behavior has “consequences,” and they’re none to keen on any attempts to alleviate those negative consequences. Occasionally one will admit it. But when I point out the illogic of their position, they start getting really pissy about it.
For many of you, your stance on contraception is at odds with your stance on abortion. The only thing that ties these disparate positions together is my hypothesis that you’re more interested in punishing people for behavior you don’t approve of than you are in preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Posted by scott on January 20, 2008 at 1654 hrs
Based on his last statement who is pushing their beliefs on whom?
Scott or Fred?
Here is a hint. Its not Fred.
Give it a rest already scott.
WE DON’T CARE!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 20, 2008 at 1729 hrs
Not really Mike. Fred is definately the more arrogant, more pushy person here. Scott is basically right, although I do think he overstates hit point. I think the pro-life crowd generally genuinely cares about what they see as “babies” being killed. But many, probably most, of them do have an inconsistent position regarding contraception. Just like Scott’s position on the hypothetical I hijacked his magic box thread with is inconsistent with his position on hiw own magic box hypothetical.
Posted by Jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 20, 2008 at 1742 hrs
I will admit on a subject like this that emotion does rule.
scott is entitled to his opinions. I accept that. However when he tries telling Fred or Owen or Myself for that matter, what we think, thats where I draw the line. (And yes it goes for both sides)
As far as using contraception:
1. either you use condoms or you don’t
2. Either you pull out. Or you Don’t.
YTF should scott or anyone else care? Unless its to pick a fight?
What I find to be most offensive on a personal level is that typically Libs have no problem with government banning things like twinkies at school, and trans-fats, and fast food, but have scream bloody murder when the thought of restricting abortions comes about.
It just boggles my mind.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 20, 2008 at 1804 hrs
JIJARWM Calls me arrogant…
That’s rich.
Scott, you have not owned anything.
I challenge anyone to read back through this thread.
I have calmly stated opinion and tried to honestly share. Each time I have done so I have been attacked by the same people for the crime of honestly responding.
As to your Christians are opposed to contraception tirade, I have no idea where that came from but I clearly stated that I was all for effective contraception. The Catholic church is not, that is a seperate issue.
You made a fantasy world question and then came out against people who had no interest in entering in it.
I’ll never forget a post you made in reference to giving away charity money if you were forced to do so.
Your two charities of choice: planned parenthood and the freedom from religion foundation.
Ban God, kill kids.
We know where you stand.
You can own me in your mind all you want, I have my dignity, you come off like a frothing at the mouth crazy man.
As usual.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2008 at 1817 hrs
Jesus, thanks for backing me up by saying that I am “basically right.” Many pro-lifers have an inconsistent positions on contraception and abortion. My hypothetical question simply throws it into a very sharp relief. Whether you buy my explanation as to why they often have these two contradictory positions is up to you. Me, I think it’s pretty clear what they care about. It also explains why they’re so upset when someone makes a vaccine to prevent HPV—we’re sending the wrong “message” to people! They’re more concerned about who is fucking who than about preventing pregnancy, disease and abortion.
Posted by scott on January 20, 2008 at 2023 hrs
I’ve quite enjoyed the comments on this entry. While everyone debates whether or not abortion is murder, we forget one very important thing - regardless of whether you believe it is or isn’t, regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, women will continue to have them.
One-third of all American women will have an abortion by the time they’re 45 [Guttmacher]. And all research indicates that when abortion is illegal and/or inaccessible, abortion rates increase as do health complications for those women having them. The latest Guttmacher report tells us that in the U.S., the abortion rate is lowest in states that have the highest number of abortion providers. So, the question isn’t whether abortion is murder, it’s whether we a] want to support the means for the lowest number of abortions, which is legal and accessible abortion plus comprehensive sex ed and easy access to contraceptives and b] want women to have access to highly trained doctors to perform one of the most common medical procedures in the country in the safest manner?
If you really oppose abortion, it seems to me that it’s both unethical and immoral to oppose its legality and accessibility. To oppose the legality of reproductive choice really means that you want more abortions and you want women to put their health at risk.
Posted by mac on January 20, 2008 at 2120 hrs
I’m gonna throw this out there for all the Libs then.
Scott this means you.
Mr. 7 felony gas station owner from Appleton who ran back to his native country, after having a 750K bond posted for him.
Good or Bad?
And remember he did not do what he did to protect anyones health.
Just his pocketbook.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 20, 2008 at 2320 hrs
Non-sequitir of the year? I mean, I know it’s early, but MJC stuck that landing pretty hard.
Posted by folkbum on January 20, 2008 at 2344 hrs
Mac,
The data that indicates that places where abortion is legal have fewer abortions doesn’t really suggest that there is a causal relationship between those two things per se. It’s just that countries where people have abortion rights usually also have easy access to contraceptives and education about sex.Fred,
You are arrogant. Even your last post in which you denied being arrogant comes off as arrogant.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 20, 2008 at 2348 hrs
My point was that you calling me arrogant is a joke…
Your picture is next to the word in the dictionary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2008 at 2350 hrs
It follows perfectly Jay.
Because the lefts contention for the most part is that abortion should NOT be banned “in case” the mothers health is in danger.
In this case clearly the mothers health was not.
So what is your answer?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 20, 2008 at 2351 hrs
Michael, how does what “follow perfectly”? I don’t even know who or what the heck you are describing in comment 126 (a link would be helpful).
It sounds to me like you’re asking whether jumping bail and fleeing the country to avoid prosecution is okay. It obviously is not, and I don’t know why you’d think I or any other lefty hanging around this thread this long would think it was.
If you’re asking something else, then be clearer about it.
Also, protecting the health of a woman is not the only or even the most important reason why some of us feel abprtion should remain legal.
Posted by folkbum on January 21, 2008 at 0722 hrs
A real, thoughtful discussion about abortion policy which reflects that obvious fact that personhood develops over time during the gestation period would be nice to have. As I said about a hundred comments ago, not many people actually want to have that discussion. I rest my case on that point, I guess.
Still waiting for anyone at all to weigh in on why it is that so many pro-lifers a) aren’t too keen on promoting contraception and b) say they are so absolutely committed to preventing abortion. I’ve given my own explanation: preventing abortion through contraception doesn’t get at what they’re really after: promoting their own moral code through keeping sex as risky as possible. Are there alternate explanations or not? Let’s have ‘em. Pro-lifers, I’m looking at you. 130 comments and still nobody has really answered this point.
Posted by scott on January 21, 2008 at 0828 hrs
No scott we just haven’t given you the answer your looking for and its pissing you off.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 21, 2008 at 1044 hrs
Fred sed:
That’s the dumbest thing so far.
Comparing abortion (innocent life) to the death penalty (the dregs of society) is just ridiculous.
LOL. Still more proof that if the supposed son of your sky wizard actually did come back to earth, most right-wing Christians in the country would mock him as a communist.
What did your savior say about the dregs of society Fred? Wasn’t it something about doing to him what you do to them?
The connection since you missed it is the fact that innocent people are killed under the death penalty every year. Were innocent life actually a priority of yours, you’d be opposed to laws that routinely lead to the death of innocents.
You libs are beyond reasoning with.
I’m neither ilb nor con. As far as the death penalty goes I’d expand it to cover nearly every crime from murder to driving too slow in the left lane, so long as the perp is caught red handed. Those guys they catch on Dateline who show up thinking they’re meeting a 14 year-old boy? I’d have a mobile gas chamber in the back yard fired up and ready to go.
This is a complex and emotional issue that makes all anecdotal stories about this woman or that person feeling a certain way irrelevant. My wife has had one kid and another on the way and the experience has made her more pro-Choice.
The only thing that matters is the pragmatism of banning or allowing it. Banning it has worse consequences and by all accounts would work about as well as banning booze or alcohol anyway. It’s one of those necessary evils like war and paying taxes, and the sooner everyone accepts that the sooner we stop bickering over it like 4 year olds over a toy.
Incidentally, anytime a conservative complains about the left wanting to “control everyone”, I chuckle. For regardless of the merits of their arguments about banning plastic bottles or SUVs, you are the people who want government to tell people who they can and cannot marry for society’s own good.
LOL.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 1111 hrs
So true Michael.
Posted by Fred on January 21, 2008 at 1115 hrs
Michael, Fred: you haven’t given me an answer that makes sense—and you wont’ admit it! If anything is ruffling my feathers, it’s that.
Point of clarification: at one point in this discussion someone actually insinuated that my hypothetical magic button was a prime example of liberal “control” over people. Nothing could be further from the truth: it gives people the ultimate control over their reproduction.
Posted by scott on January 21, 2008 at 1158 hrs
Scott,
I said at least 3 times I am all in favor of contraception.
What more you want from me I have no idea.
Perhaps if you were not so busy claiming victory and calling people names you might have caught that.
Posted by Fred on January 21, 2008 at 1248 hrs
I’m glad they sent out the babies. It’s really an eye opener when you see this little plastic likeness of a fetus. It’s actually awfully sweet. Kind of makes all of you that say it isn’t a baby look really stupid. I carry one around quite often. Reminds me what I’m fighting for is just and right. If sending out the babies changed even one mind or stopped even one abortion, it was worth it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 1617 hrs
Fred:
Are you in favor of sex education that teaches kids how to use it? The sex education in western Europe, for instance, is far more robust and advanced than is ours. Their cultures are just as sex-soaked (if not more) than ours, yet teen pregnancy, out of wedlock birts, and abortion rates are far lower than ours.
IOW, when you say you’re “in favor of contraception”, are you in favor of it being legal or are you in favor of teaching people how to use it and making it readily available?
I notice you did not address my last post, either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 1623 hrs
A separate Life begins at conception (if you doubt that, take a break from posting and go take a biology course). Is it a moral person-maybe yes, maybe no but what it definitely is is a potential person. The person that has the abortion and the person that performs the abortion (over a million a year in the U.S.) should be at least honest that they are ending a separate human life (also called killing) that has all the moral potential that they do. As the life develops, the decision gets trickier. We may find out that it is not viable or that it will suffer horribly. Those are not the majority of abortions. the majority are performed for lifestyle reasons. Therefore most people end a separate life so as not to delay their life. I can understand why people would find that wrong.
Scott,
Abortion and not using contraception are completely consistent positions. It is not about wanting to stop abortions or stopping people from having sex. It is about saying that people do not have the authority (even if they do have the ability) to decide what life should reach potential and which should be snuffed out, either prior to or after conception.Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 0644 hrs
Yeah, whatever Tad. You’re missing the point completely. Of course something that is “alive” and “seperate” (i.e. not the same as either parent) happens at conception. Nobody denies that so none of us need a biology classs. The issue is, at which of the many arbitrary points between conception and birth does that “seperate life” become entitled to the same rights as a person.
But your answer to Scott’s question, I think, sums up his point quite well. You’re not concerned about reducing abortions. You’re concerned about what we have the “authority” to do according to your magic sky-wizard. And I think that’s Scott’s point.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 22, 2008 at 0958 hrs
Bingo.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2008 at 1031 hrs
“separate Life”... I don’t know, maybe if it really IS a “separate Life”, like you say, it automatically deserves our protection/rights… Or is the question now “when is a person a person”, and can this same question be applied to the later stages in a persons life? How far down this road do we as a nation really want to go?
ME, I think a picture of an 12 week old “fetus/baby/unborn/whatever your preference” should have been sent instead of a plastic doll, I think the pictures get the message across better. (that “message” being that even a 12 week “fetus” is a “separate life”... like you say”...Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 1127 hrs
When does a separate life deserve protection?Suppose your significant other was pregnant, and had the misfortune of getting hurt and then “not being pregnant anymore”... did she lose a baby or not? If she was killed, did the criminal take 1 life or 2 lives? If a woman has a miscarriage, does she lose a baby or not?
According to the Good Book, God knew the prophet Jeremiah, before he was formed in the belly…
See Jeremiah 1:4,5 : 4 Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
See Jeremiah 1:4,5Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 1727 hrs
JIJARWM,
I did not claim a religious or spiritual belief for stating that we do not have the authority to choose to end a separate human life. If you are unable to present a counter-argument, I accept that but it is frustrating to have to my own points and your made up points.
We as human can and have made moral claims. We have claimed that we do not have the authority to own other people even if we have the ability. No “sky wizard” need be sought to make that claim. The same with abortion. We can claim that we do not have the authority to end a separate human life just for the expedience of another. I also acknowledged that viability and suffering can enter into the discussion. As far as the plastic baby-it is informational. “This is what a 12 week old human looks like. It should no more offend than the feed the children TV spots we have been seeing for decades.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 1924 hrs
Alicia said,
When does a separate life deserve protection?Suppose your significant other was pregnant, and had the misfortune of getting hurt and then “not being pregnant anymore”… did she lose a baby or not?
It depends on when she lost the baby and it depends on what the people who suffered the loss feel about it.
I know the moral certainty you require cannot handle that, but it’s true.
If she was killed, did the criminal take 1 life or 2 lives? If a woman has a miscarriage, does she lose a baby or not?
Same thing.
According to the Good Book,
Which is irrelevant.
God knew the prophet Jeremiah, before he was formed in the belly…
I always found this ironic when I heard this in church - the message was that God knew so and so would be born, grow, go thru several trials and tribulations, and come out stronger.
But somehow this psychic, omnipotent God didn’t know the next soul would be aborted. Does that make sense?
Oh and if this God knew what was going to happen, if he had a plan, that means he played a role in what was going to happen to that person thru his life. Visit a NICU sometime. If what you see in there is his plan, can you come to any conclusion other than that he’s sadistic?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 2030 hrs
ATV,
You said,
“Alicia said,
When does a separate life deserve protection?Suppose your significant other was pregnant, and had the misfortune of getting hurt and then “not being pregnant anymore”… did she lose a baby or not?
It depends on when she lost the baby and it depends on what the people who suffered the loss feel about it.
I know the moral certainty you require cannot handle that, but it’s true.
If she was killed, did the criminal take 1 life or 2 lives? If a woman has a miscarriage, does she lose a baby or not?
Same thing. “
So when would that be? What is your cut off line? 24 days gestation? 12 weeks? 40 weeks?
As far as this:“But somehow this psychic, omnipotent God didn’t know the next soul would be aborted. Does that make sense?
Oh and if this God knew what was going to happen, if he had a plan, that means he played a role in what was going to happen to that person thru his life. Visit a NICU sometime. If what you see in there is his plan, can you come to any conclusion other than that he’s sadistic?”
It is called free will and the result of sin. That is what we have since the fall of man along with pain in child birth, life full of hard work and physical death. God is not sadistic, He gave man a choice, man chose sin. Our present world is a result.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 2121 hrs
Tad,
You made reference to authority. You implied that authority is something we, as humans in general, may or may not have the authority to do something. Since in the real world, we (humans) are the head honchos, authority is basically the same thing as ability. You’re drawing a distinction implies a higher power. Sky-wizard was just my way of discussing whatever that higher power might be in your mind. I guess I really don’t know if you believe in Thor or Zeus or Jesus or Xenu or whoever. They’re all the same.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 0115 hrs
KT sed:
So when would that be? What is your cut off line? 24 days gestation? 12 weeks? 40 weeks?
Around 12 weeks for me, though I’m not the final arbiter on this.
It is called free will and the result of sin. That is what we have since the fall of man along with pain in child birth, life full of hard work and physical death. God is not sadistic, He gave man a choice, man chose sin. Our present world is a result.So all subsequent generations are paying for the mistakes of two people.
Nice.
That also does not compute with the idea that God knew someone before they were born and knew what they were going to become. If man has free will, then nothing about the future could be known.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 0808 hrs
Okay KT, I think I get it. A chick made from a rib took an apple from a talking snake and now, through the magic of your sky wizard, everyone else’s lives were made harder. Makes perfect sense…. Pass the bong.
*sigh*....
That kind of inanity makes me want to pay for someone’s abortion.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 0942 hrs
ATV,
12 weeks hey, it doesn’t matter to you that at six weeks you can see the heart beating?Why 12 weeks, what significant development occurs at 12 weeks that makes it a life for you?
JIAWM,
What I am about to say will piss you off, as it does most atheists… There will come a day when It will be known that what I believe is the truth and there will come a day when you will also face the truth. It’s just the reality of it.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1010 hrs
it doesn’t matter to you that at six weeks you can see the heart beating?
Nope. Doesn’t matter a bit to me. A beating heart does not make a person. There may be a lot of gray area in this discussion, but that’s not very gray.
KT, what I’m about to say will piss you off, as it does most theists. God is just pretend. You don’t have to wait for some future day to hear the truth. You just heard it. That’s the reality of it.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1015 hrs
Scott, you misread, I don’t need to wait to find out if what I believe is the truth, I know it now, what I said was, “There will come a day when It will be known that what I believe is the truth and there will come a day when you will also face the truth. It’s just the reality of it.”
Allow me to clarify - It will be known to all who may not know it now.
Also, you said, Nope. Doesn’t matter a bit to me. A beating heart does not make a person. There may be a lot of gray area in this discussion, but that’s not very gray.
I agree, no gray here, black and white for me. It is a life. In fact when a person dies it is defined when there is no heartbeat.
If the two sides can’t agree on a point such as this makes it impossible to ever come to a concensus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1023 hrs
I don’t disagree that it is “a life,” or “alive.” What I don’t agree about is whether this “life” merits the same legal protection afforded to other people. At six weeks gestation I’d have to say definitely not.
It’s pretty pointless, I guess, to try to have a nitty-gritty, fact-based discussion such as this with someone who proudly announces his willingness to believe in things which make no logical sense and for which there is absolutely no credible evidence. I should know better.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1041 hrs
KT,
If the “truth” is that a cosmic Jewish zombie will remove the evil forces placed on us by a magical sky wizard when a woman created from a rib took an apple from a talking snake, and that we can remove these evil force if we telepathically communicate with the zombie and ceremoniously eat a cracker that we pretend is his flesh in a quasi-cannabalistic ritual, I’ll buy you a coke.
And your statement didn’t piss me off, it made me laugh. Religion is so f-ing retarded it blows my mind.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 1041 hrs
Scott, We agree again! It is pointless to have this discussion. This blog is about the efforts of a Pro-life organization to get people to think about the taking of a life.
Mission Accomplished.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1051 hrs
Do you know what I have seen on this thread?
A bunch of people trying to honestly share their thoughts and opinions on the issue and responding in polite reasoned ways.
Then there are a few athiests that have been unfeeling cruel jerks in return who would rather insult that opinion than respect it.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1054 hrs
You are right Fred, and I think it speaks volumes!
Hopefully those who have read along see it as it is. It is unfortunate that their side of the arguement is fueled by such anger and hate for people who believe differently than they do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1100 hrs
That’s bullshit, Fred. I myself have contributed a dozen or more very sincere, thoughtful comments. I defy you to find a nasty comment from me that isn’t in direct response to something insulting from another commenter.
KT, do you not feel even the slightest tinge of irony when you accuse we atheists of being purveyors of hate? Even a teeny tiny bit?
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1109 hrs
JIJARWM - You should tone down your rhetoric. In my view you won this arguement a couple of times on a couple of different points. The only defense the other side has is “I am right because I believe I am right. You can use reason and logic to prove your point about when life begins, but you are wrong because my interpreter of this really old book says so”.
Pointing out the inanity of that to them will likely be taken as an insult, but we don’t need to add to that insult.
Your disrespect for their beliefs gives them a moral victory. Prove them wrong, as you did, but don’t say their beliefs are “so f-ing retarded”.
This thread started off really well. Respect was shown from both sides. It became derailed when one person stepped in misrepresenting the other sides stances and disrespecting them as lacking a conscience. The thread is there for all of us to view.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1124 hrs
In fairness to both sides, and very broadly speaking, it seems that the anti-choice faction is only able to see this issue through the prism of religion, and the pro-abortion side is only able to see it through the prism of science and rationality, two facets that would seem to be fundamentally at odds with one another. Each side poses questions that the other is uncomfortable answering. Each side accuses the other of unfeeling anger and hatred. This seems obvious to me. I have a question of my own.
Would you have the issue put to a vote? Are you comfortable enough in the rightness of your position to have it on the ballot and then shut up after the election, win or lose?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1127 hrs
You may be right APC.
Actually I believe the pro choice side knows when life begins but they have rationalized it away in order to justify the activity.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1136 hrs
Would you have the issue put to a vote? Are you comfortable enough in the rightness of your position to have it on the ballot and then shut up after the election, win or lose?
Sure, but only if I agreed to the wording of what we were voting on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1139 hrs
You called me a blind anti-itellectual brick wall Scott.
So be it.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1140 hrs
anti-choice faction is only able to see this issue through the prism of religion, and the pro-abortion side is only able to see it through the prism of science and rationality
I’m pretty satisfied with that summary.
Each side poses questions that the other is uncomfortable answering.
I’m not sure I know which questions the pro-choice side is uncomfortable answering.
Would you have the issue put to a vote? Are you comfortable enough in the rightness of your position to have it on the ballot and then shut up after the election, win or lose?
I don’t know if that’s the fair question you might at first think it is. After all, are you “comfortable enough” to put the issue of slavery up for a vote? Are you “comfortable enough” to put women’s right to vote up for a vote (of men)? There are plenty of issues that aren’t decided by a popular vote. We have a constitution which serves, among other things, as a protector of essential interests that may or may not be popular.
And I’m not sure what shutting up about it afterward would be about. If something is decided by popular vote, there’s no need to shut up. Perhaps popular opinion will change in the future. There’s no reason to think it won’t.
All that said, I feel pretty sure that if you put “abortion: legal or illegal?” on a ballot in America today it would in fact remain legal. A majority of Americans do not want abortion criminalized or outlawed. They may be in favor of restrictions on it, but it wouldn’t be outlawed.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1142 hrs
Fred, it’s a description you’ve earned in spades. including just a few moments ago in comment 162. It definitely shows that you have really no idea what we pro-choicers have been writing about for the past few days.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1144 hrs
I don’t think there are any questions the pro-choice people are uncomfortable answering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1144 hrs
Wrong, Fred.
The most unfeeling, cruel comment came from a Christian: “There will come a day when it will be known that what I believe is the truth….” This “I know the truth” crap said in reference to issues in which NOBODY knows the truth is offensive to a lot of people.
3rd way,
It’s not rhetoric. Every thing I’ve said is comletely accurate. My description of Christian beliefs, although unconventional, is totally acfurate (except that it wasn’t an apple in the actual Christian myth). They can claim a moral victory all they want. Moral is relative. And they say very little about the issue. I’ll claim an intelectual victory, since they’re quite obviously very dishonest.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 1148 hrs
Clue in Scotty.
This entire post I’ve been trying to honestly share how pro life people view pro choicers. You would not know anything about that. And you have failed to recognize that.
You have proven to be an expert on how pro choice persons view people on the other side of the spectrum, and I have learned much from your comments.
Had you pulled your head out of your butt for 2 seconds you might have learned something, but you fell right into default attack mode instead of listening to someone try and explain the way they think.
This is why people don’t communicate we might have learned something from each other but you and your God hater pals here were far more interested in telling us why we are stupid for listening to our sky fairy than in actually having any type of productive dialouge.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1152 hrs
Wow Fred. You’re so compassionate with your “clue in” and “pull your head out of your butt” garbage. You’ve been in “default attack mode” this whole thread. Your FIRST comment is about how the “pro-baby-killers” will be “rabid.”
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 1159 hrs
I always know I’ve beaten you when you start calling me Scotty. Heh.
I don’t think any objective person could read the above thread and come to the conclusion that you, Fred, have contributed more of value to it than I have. And I’m not in the slightest confused about your position. Your repeated assertions that a fetus is a baby really isn’t as illuminating as you seem to think it is.
If you really want to impress me and make me think, tell me that you really want a world where no couple ever conceives without the intention to have a child together—no matter how sexually active they are. You did say you were in favor of contraception. So would you push that button and create that world… or not?
Regardless of how you answer personally, you’re still wrong about one thing. You stated that plenty of pro-lifers just love contraception. It seems to me that the biggest foes to contraception availability and education on how to use it is always pro-lifers. Why is that? Don’t you see a contradiction in that?
it may be that pro-lifers and pro-choicers will never agree on the rights and protections we should afford a fetus, but we should be able to agree that we want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I want to know if we can find common ground on that point.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1204 hrs
The question I was referring to was “Why wouldn’t you have an abortion?”
Scott, as far as the “put it for a vote question,” you raise several valid points. First of all, I kind of threw it out there in the spirit of your magic button question. I should have done a better job of framing it that way, although one of the major bones of contention against Roe v. Wade has always been that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and started legislating when it introduced the consept of trimesters into the ddiscussion. But that’s a whole ‘nother discussion there. And strictly speaking, the women’s right to vote did come up, although not to a popular vote; the 19th Amendment does exist, after all. As to the shut up part, well, that was just me being kind of grumpy. Sorry. I should have said, live with the decision, or fight another day, or something. This is America, after all. We don’t have to shut up if we don’t want to.
I think it would remain legal, too. The vast majority of Americans would see to it. Nobody wants a return to the days of back alley butchers, but most people are willing to see some kind of reasonable restrictions. This is one of those issues where a middle ground actually exists, and that middle ground is where most people are. The very loud extremists on either end are keeping anything from getting done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1210 hrs
This is one of those issues where a middle ground actually exists, and that middle ground is where most people are. The very loud extremists on either end are keeping anything from getting done.
I think you’re right. I suspect that that majority opinion would be in favor of stricter regulations than I would myself, but I think I can safely count myself amongst the non-extremists. After all, I have been trying to introduce issues of development into the discussion, saying that personhood develops over the gestation period—and so should legal protections. That is by definition not an extremist position.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1221 hrs
JIAWM,
“The most unfeeling, cruel comment came from a Christian: “There will come a day when it will be known that what I believe is the truth….”
Unfeeling, Cruel, Really????
As to your statement about “a chick being formed from a rib ,etc.”
Your reaction to that is my reaction to a cosmic bang and tadpoles crawling out of the water and turning into people.
It’s all relative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1233 hrs
God creating people out of nothing and tadpoles learning to walk? Yeah they’re absolutely the same—excepting the fact that in one case there’s not a shred of evidence that it is even possible let alone true, and in the other case it’s the very foundation of modern biology with a mountain of empirical data to support it. But other than that, yeah, totally the same!
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1237 hrs
Yes KT. Unfeeling and cruel. You pretty much said that I’d be burning in the fires of Hell. Isn’t that what you people believe? Isn’t that how your god rolls? Isn’t it unfeeling to basically say, “go to hell.”
Ya know, that’s one thing I just don’t get. Even if your god were real, wouldn’t he have to be a total bastard? I mean, Hitler killed 5 million Jews, but your god sent them all to hell. At least that’s what you guys believe. Right?
Also, Scott’s response it right on. The rib thing is a fairy tale. The tadpole thing is your symbolic simplification of what probably happened based on overwhelming empirical data.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 1242 hrs
I believe evolution to be an unproven theory. I will take a guess and assume that you were taught evolution in a school setting where it was the only thing taught and it was taught as fact.
Are the scientists that have “proven evolution” the same ones who have proven “global warming”?
Just wondering.
JIAWM,
Don’t put words in my mouth, I NEVER said that you would be burning in hell, or go to hell. Never said it, not once. I am not the judge, not my place.Your thoughts about hell… you came up with that all on your own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1251 hrs
Well, most aspects of evolution are facts. Others are threories; reasonable conjecture based on the overwhelming observable evidence. A theory is not something less than a fact. But your scientific ignorance is neither here nor there.
My thoughts about hell came from this crappy book called the bible.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 1256 hrs
I was taught that evolution is a theory which is supported by decades worth of empirical observations and that it forms the foundation of all modern biology. What were you taught?
So let’s assume JIJAWM gets hit by a bus this afternoon. (Sorry!) Are you saying, KT, that you don’t know what his fate will be in this afterlife of yours? You don’t know? Just no idea at all? Not sure? Anyone’s guess? I think you know precisely what your religious doctrine says about this. Don’t be coy. Let JIJAWM and I know what’s in store for us.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1257 hrs
APC was on to somthing with that whole thing about posing questions that the otherside is uncomfortable answering. We all know what Christian doctrine states and what is supposed to happen if we don’t follow the doctrine. Why don’t adherents just plainly say it.
I can understand why they won’t come out and state it due the ridicule of “rabid” “baby-killers” (sorry guys), but is a belief worth having if you aren’t willing to stand up and defend it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1312 hrs
It seems to me that the biggest foes to contraception availability and education on how to use it is always pro-lifers. Why is that? Don’t you see a contradiction in that?
Not in the least Scott what those people do not want is for people to force information on their children without their permission. Do 5th graders need to learn about condoms? Do people want their 7th graders to go through masterbation lessons?
The question is when and how much influence people like you are forcing on their children.
Of course you view that as being against contraception.
What the pro-contraception people fail to understand is that abstinance has worked every time it has been tried.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1346 hrs
Masturbation lessons? You’ve got to be kidding me, Fred. Do people actually fall for those types of scare tactics? Do people really believe that responsible educators would do that? Having read some of the stuff here about the schools, I know some of y’all think that union teachers are the very embodiment of evil, but please.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1404 hrs
Of course you view that as being against contraception.
Well, yeah. I do. When someone says hey let’s take information about contraception to the people who seem not to be using it, it is the pro-lifers who complain about it. So, yeah. I feel pretty comfortable saying that they are rejecting contraception as a solution to unwanted pregnancies. The only solution you folks seem to be happy with is…
abstinance has worked every time it has been tried.
Teaching abstinence has failed every time it’s been tried. And that’s the issue, Fred. Besides, we’re not just talking about 15 year olds here. We’re talking about adults. Sometimes married adults. Abstinence isn’t a reasonable alternative to suggest to them.
Merely having an attitude that you are okay with contraception existing doesn’t count as being “all in favor of it,” Fred. To be in favor of it as a solution to unwanted pregnancies you have to be in favor of promoting its use among the people who are having these unintended pregnancies. See what I’m saying? And apparently you’re not in favor of that.
Me, I’m disgusted that America is so backward and puritanical that we can have people getting shot in the head on television but we can’t have a perfectly chaste commercial about condoms. There’s something wrong with us, and our problems with unintended pregnancies are the result.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1429 hrs
Scott, contraception is plentiful in this society and free if you can not afford to pay for it.
People don’t use it because they are lazy or do not consider the consiquences of their actions, or perhaps it is not handy when needed.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1434 hrs
Let’s say you’re right, Fred. Let’s say people are lazy and stupid. What should our response be?
a) Step up our efforts to educate and promote contraception
b) Shrug and watch the unintended pregnancies roll in, comforted by the knowledge that it’s their own fault.
c) Outlaw abortion, on the premise that the prospect of having to carry to term will frighten them into better contraceptive use.
Obviously I choose option “a.” What do you choose?
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1446 hrs
I think we should
a. Honestly discuss the issue.
b. Stop going into default attack mode.
c. Differentiate between minors and adults in this issue and stop pretending there are no parents involved in the process.
d. Promote adoption in every way possible.
e. hire an effective marketing firm.
Posted by Fred on January 23, 2008 at 1452 hrs
How about f) answer my question?
Posted by scott on January 23, 2008 at 1454 hrs
“why don’t adherents just plainly say it…”
-Hebrews 9:27-28 - And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.
...seems plain enough to me…
-sexuality - we (humans) are born in sin (sorry bout that all you touchyfeely people), we can either turn from sin (oops, another bad word) and repent, or we can go the way of the animal…we do have free will, so “contraception” is a real thing. Again, free will (I’m not the judge)
- once life begins it/he/she is counted as a human being, abortion ends that life (does it not?)
- when did we as Christians become all mamby pamby about what we do/do not believe? If you believe it say it, if you don’t go on and hedge/dodge/redirect. And you wonder why the Republican parties lost it wheels…
- jeez, how many different directions can a “thread” go?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1540 hrs
Well, that seems to have stopped the discussion dead in its tracks: calling sexuality itself a sin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2008 at 1706 hrs
Oops, my bad, I meant to say…
-sexuality - we (humans) are born in sin (sorry bout that all you touchyfeely people), we can either turn from the sin (oops, another bad word) of premarital sex and repent, or we can go the way of the animal…we do have free will, so “contraception” is a real thing. Again, free will (I’m not the judge) ...Posted by Sancho on January 23, 2008 at 1755 hrs
I wasn’t born in sin. Sin, as well as God, is a figmant of your imagination. Your religion’s treatment of the concept doesn’t even make sense in the slightest.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 1824 hrs
Yup, you where born in bondage/sin, Galatians 4:23-24, and it’s not my “religion”, it’s scripture. I understand that there are those who hate the concept of absolutes, but whether or not you believe in God, He’s there. Just like whether or not you believe in wind, it’s there…
And to the original question “too far”, nope not too far…Posted by Sancho on January 23, 2008 at 1900 hrs
There’s evidence for wind.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 23, 2008 at 2132 hrs
...and as long as I’m breathin, there’s evidence for God…
Posted by Sancho on January 23, 2008 at 2154 hrs
I don’t think you know what “evidence” is. Your life is as compelling evidence for Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monter as it is for the Christian God.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 24, 2008 at 0051 hrs
Well, we almost made it to 200 comments without invoking the FSM. Almost.
Posted by folkbum on January 24, 2008 at 0651 hrs
J - ...but my life is compelling evidence for something right? Or are we all just accidental moon ash?
Posted by Sancho on January 24, 2008 at 0656 hrs
We might be just “moon ash.” But it’s certainly not likely and we’re certainly not “accidental” since the universe is huge and old. Whatever the case, even if the fact that we are alaive was evidence for “something” it is most definately NOT evidence that that something is a sadistic God that demands to be worshipped, cares whether or not we eat oisters and thinks Pi is equal to 3.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 24, 2008 at 0945 hrs
If there is no such thing as sin or right/wrong, then why do we need laws? Because as Christians also believe, the laws were given to us as guidelines to help/protect us.I think this is why we have judges and law enforcement to maintain some kind of order. I have to say that I’m impressed that people have cared enough to share their passionate, differing views…I think this means we all share a passion for figuring out the mystery of the meaning/purpose of life with discussion which is a preferable thing, as opposed to bombing each other. It’s difficult to give a view and not be offended by an opposing view, but we must remain civil to each other, that’s the bottom line if you really want to achieve anything besides promoting division and not encouraging reconciliation/unity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2008 at 2112 hrs
If there is no such thing as sin or right/wrong, then why do we need laws?
Alicia, this is among the most frustrating and insulting comments of the whole thread. Just at the most basic level, you have to at least admit that the vast majority of lawbreakers—from jaywalkers to murderers—in this country are professed Christians.
More than that—the insulting part—it suggests that there is no ethical or moral system except that which can be derived from religion. It’s another variation on the disingenuous theme of Christians wondering why atheists bother being nice and don’t just spend all their time having sex and torturing kittens and shooting speed. (A common theme, as it turns out.) I don’t believe in sin and I have no desire to become a hedonist or a criminal—and it has nothing to do with just being scared of the law.
Posted by folkbum on January 24, 2008 at 2243 hrs
- “professed Christians” - anyone who claims to be a Christian AND a “nonsinner” is nuts. As long as we are still on this earth, we are “in the flesh”, we will sin. Ever heard of “Grace”? Any “Atheist” who discounts Christianity because of sin has the same lack of understanding.
- law and “religion” - Romans 2:13,15. All law is derived from some sort of “religion”/morality/inner conscience. Everyone has a right and wrong switch in their head/heart. Some may “not believe in sin”, but these same people do understand right and wrong, they have a “law unto themselves”, they have a type of “religion”.
-an “ethical or moral system” is the root of religion. It’s too bad that people on BOTH sides have turned it around, and used it as a weapon against each other.Posted by Sancho on January 25, 2008 at 0836 hrs
Christians wondering why atheists bother being nice and don’t just spend all their time having sex and torturing kittens and shooting speed.
You know what really freaks me out about this? it’s what’s implied: they themselves would be horrible immoral people but for their belief in God.
In any case, yes, it’s often very insulting to discuss these matters with devout Christians. And many of them seem to have absolutely no awareness that they’re insulting you while they’re doing it!
I’m impressed that people have cared enough to share their passionate, differing views.
Now that’s a sentiment I can get behind.
Posted by scott on January 25, 2008 at 0906 hrs
Sancho,
“but these same people do understand right and wrong.”I think you’re having a little problem understanding what came first. The vast majority of humans do understand the difference between right and wrong. That’s why when they invent religions, they almost always include those concepts in the dogma.
Scott,
I agree big time. Whenever someone tells me that the only reason they think it’s wrong to kill or steal is that they read it in a book (ironically, a book full of killing and stealing), I’m sure to keep my distance from that person.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 25, 2008 at 1001 hrs
Sancho, I think you’re confusing an evolutionary bent toward in-group altruism and social norms with “religion.” One of the reasons why religions all work well—not to mention working in the same way, with remarkably similar precepts and tenets—is that a religious framework provides a convient scaffold for understanding a set of natural human instincts.
In other words, it is often easier to believe—and easier to explain!—that murder is a sin than it is to understand the evolutionary benefit to a large and varied gene pool.
Posted by folkbum on January 25, 2008 at 1341 hrs
S-they themselves would be horrible immoral people but for their belief in God.
- I do think that a person with no moral compass has a good chance of becoming horribly immoral… My Christ is my moral compass.
J - again, -an “ethical or moral system” is the root of religion. It’s too bad that people on BOTH sides have turned it around, and used it as a weapon against each other. “Root” meaning beginning, source.
F - a religious framework provides a convenient scaffold for understanding a set of natural human instincts. Yes, and for me, not only an understanding of who/what I am, it also gives me hope of what I can/will become.
- The “varied gene pool” make scientific sense. The “murder is a sin” part makes moral sense. When the two views don’t line up, my beliefs help give me direction on the path to take.Posted by Sancho on January 25, 2008 at 1451 hrs
I think the real truth of the matter is that religious people who are also moral would be good people whether they believed or not. They only say that they are good because of their religion. Good people will be good people regardless of their belief or lack thereof.
Me, I don’t find the Bible or Jesus to be very good examples of moral behavior.
Posted by scott on January 25, 2008 at 1505 hrs
Tell me Scott, what did Jesus do that did not represent moral behavior?
Posted by Fred on January 25, 2008 at 1510 hrs
“Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:6)
Jesus attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).
“[Jesus] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42)
“I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:35-36)
“Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4)
“And that servant [slave], which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47)
Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
Most of this I cribbed from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (a fact which Fred will use to dismiss it all wholesale).
Don’t even get me started on the entire Bible. It’s so jam packed with horrors that to hold it up in its entirety as a cookbook for a moral life is absurd.
Posted by scott on January 25, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Scott - would be good people whether they believed or not. True, but for “believers” “good” doesn’t cut it. We don’t/can’t plan on reaching “perfection”, we know that when we fall (everybody does), we’re “forgiven”. So… I plan on being forgiven, and I try to be good.
- Good points (scriptures), I think sometimes the “moral” thing to do will sometimes be considered mean/bad/horrific, depending on ones perspective.Posted by Sancho on January 25, 2008 at 1755 hrs
Another note…we all have a conscience, this thing that helps us decide what is right/wrong. We still make our own decisions, but it helps guide us along.It’s kinda like being on a Weight Watchers diet…you know the rules, but it’s up to you to decide how disciplined you will be in order to achieve your desired results.Accountability to self and others helps us stay focused on the goal. Of course, icecream and chocolate cake can’t be handled in large quantities without some consequences.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 0645 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 118
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 10:23 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).