<

Pushback on Abortion

More on the abortion questionIn my recent pro-choice post, I argued that personhood during gestation is a spectrum—a newborn is a person, but the single cell at the other end of the spectrum is not. (Feel free to substitute a different word for “person.”)

This seems to be an obvious argument, but there are many who insist (1) that there is no meaningful difference and that the spectrum doesn’t exist and (2) their interpretation should be imposed on the rest of the country by law.

I got a prompt rebuttal by fellow Patheos blogger Tara Edelschick at the Homeschool Chronicles blog, and I’d like to go through Tara’s points. She begins with, “I’m an evangelical, homeschooling, anti-choice woman” and then adds, “I’m also a feminist who is against the death penalty, voted for Ralph Nader every time that was an option, and supported Obama in each of the last two elections.”

Looks like Tara doesn’t fit into the typical evangelical box—in fact, her post was titled “The Constraining Abortion Box.” Let a thousand flowers bloom!

I didn’t have much to object to in her first point, so we’re off to a good start.

When Does Life Begin?

In point two, she responds to my saying that, as a father who has helped raise two children from babies to adults, I’m an expert on “babies” and reject that idea that a single invisible cell is one. She said:

Is he really claiming to be an expert on when life begins because he is a father?

Perhaps we’re talking past each other. First, I said that I’m an expert just on what a “baby” is, and something you need a microscope to see isn’t a baby. In other words, if you want to see both ends of the spectrum as a baby, that’s fine, but don’t impose that conclusion on the rest of us.

Second, when life begins was never the subject, but I doubt that we have much disagreement here. The new life with its unique DNA obviously begins at conception, though you could argue that, since fertilization isn’t abiogenesis, it isn’t a beginning but a continuation of life.

Freedom to Choose

She said, “I want to hear the voice of God. I understand that many fellow citizens have no such desire. I respect that….” And I respect that she wants to hear the voice of God. The United States Constitution establishes many important freedoms, and she has the right to that. Back to the topic, she can choose whether an abortion is right or wrong for her, and she can encourage her opinion on others. Where I object is when she wants to impose her conclusion that abortion is wrong on all of us. (It seems that she wants Roe overturned because in her subsequent post she says, “In general, women should not be able to choose to end their pregnancies.”)

Back to the subject of what “baby” means, she says, “Even a clear scientific definition of what constitutes a baby will not bring us to consensus.” It may well be that nothing will bring us to consensus, but as for what “baby” means, the relevant Merriam-Webster definition is pretty straightforward: “an extremely young child; especially: infant.”

Given this definition, you can see why I object to the spectrum-collapsing approach of calling the single cell a baby.

Back to the Spectrum Argument

On to point three. In my post, I listed a number of familiar before-and-after situations and culminated with “[and] a single fertilized human egg cell is very different from a one-trillion-cell newborn baby.” Her response:

Yup. That’s true. And I don’t know a single person who disagrees.

She should read the comments at my blog! Accepting the significant differences between the two ends of the spectrum is impossible to most of my Christian commenters.

Acknowledging that there is a spectrum of meaning between zygote and college graduate does not mean, as Bob suggests, that one would need to be pro-choice.

Let me back up and note that the goal of my spectrum argument is modest. I simply want to attack the argument: (1) human life begins at conception; (2) it is wrong to kill a human life; therefore (3) abortion is wrong. We need to think of a word (“person,” for example) that can be applied to the newborn but can’t be applied to the single cell.

It sounds like Tara and I are on the same page, which is a point of agreement worth celebrating, and yet she still thinks that killing that single cell is wrong. Fair enough—that she consider my argument is all I can ask. What I have a problem with is her wanting to impose her conclusions on the rest of us.

So We Agree on the Spectrum—What’s Next?

She moves on to the question of where pro-choicers would draw the line.

Is [the line] at birth? Why? Why not a day before birth? Or three months before birth? What about after birth but before the umbilical cord is cut? Why not a couple weeks after birth? What’s the difference? And who are you to decide?

I sense that Tara sees these questions as some sort of show stopper, but how does society decide any tough moral issue? For example: what should the prison term be for robbery? For attempted robbery where nothing was stolen? For robbery with a gun? For robbery with an injury? For robbery with a death? Is the death penalty a possibility? Are extenuating circumstances relevant and, if so, how are they factored in? And on and on.

We have law-making bodies at various levels through the country, and one hopes that the relevant laws are decided with expert input and measured deliberation. Law making does its imperfect best to answer questions like these and thousands more.

Indeed, Tara’s questions have already been answered many times. In each state, a combination of state law and federal law defines when an abortion is legal and the various exceptions that might apply.

Who’s to Decide?

The most insightful comment I’ve gotten on my many posts in support of abortion was this one:

Have no illusions, if abortion really were murder, it would come as an instinctive reaction from women. It would come with such force that men would be confused by the average woman’s revulsion towards abortion.

In the same way that society trusts parents to raise their children properly, stepping in only when it’s clear that something has gone wrong, I want to trust the instincts of the pregnant woman. These instincts come from the front lines of the issue, from the person who understands both the importance of the potential person inside her as well as any reasons why a new life many not be a good idea.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion
will legislate its creed into law
if it acquires the political power to do so.
— Robert A. Heinlein

Photo credit: Wikimedia

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Charlotte

    For the last time, you cannot be anti-choice and be a feminist. As a feminist, you do not have to have an abortion or like abortion, but you cannot restrict woman’s bodily autonomy by campaigning to strip them of their right to an abortion. It’s like saying you’re a GLBTQ rights activist who doesn’t think GBLTQ people should be able to marry their partners. Or a civil rights activist who thinks black people shouldn’t be able to vote or use the same bathroom as white people. Ugh.

    • Goldstein Squad Member

      Abortion eliminates more girls than boys.

      The Ultimate Anti Feminism.

      • Nate Frein

        A specious argument. Gender-selective abortion is the result of cultures that put more value on a male child than a female child. Abortion itself is not the culprit here.

        • just sayin

          Actually, he has a point. Its not just cultural, because more fetuses are female than male.

          Hence, abortion per se kills more girls than boys.

          Eliminating all those future women is hardly “pro feminist”.

        • Nate Frein

          [citation needed]

        • Kodie

          I don’t follow your argument at all. You seem to think it is a winner, trying to appeal to feminism by the fact that fetuses may be female. In some cultures, they are prone to eliminate women because boys and men are favored in the culture and they may be restricted to a number of children. Seems to me, they might abort more females, but it also seems to me what do they do if they broke the law and get pregnant a second time? I don’t know if that makes up for all the females, since they still have a cultural problem of hating a whole sex of people.

          But that has nothing to do with the US, and it has nothing to do with anti-abortion hating women for having sex and punishing them by making them let nature do its thing to her. In most other cases, we have compassion and empathy for other people and their situations. Christians fundamentally lack it for women. If anyone talked to you like that and told you what to do, you know you’d tell ‘em to stuff it.

    • Kristen inDallas

      You have no right to tell any woman she can’t be a feminist if she doesn’t agree with you about what it takes to empower women. That’s the most demeaning misogonistic crap I’ve read in a while. If they came out with a new law or court decision that they weere going to stop putting women in jail for any reason… all those murder theft and assault laws don’t apply to us, because you know we’ve got it so hard and we just can’t be expected to live by the same standards as men, we need a “free pass” because we’re just too weak to handle life’s hardships and all that. I would fight a law like that with every fiber of my being. I would fight it AS a feminist, because AS a feminist I know we can handle a lot more than we are given credit for. You have NO IDEA what motivates pro-lifers. But blanket statements like that demonstrate that you care very little about the rights and voices of other women, at least women who don’t happen to agree with you.

      • Nate Frein

        So how do you balance feminist arguments with anti-choice arguments?

      • Kodie

        To control the behaviors and purposes of women is what is behind pro-”life”rs. Everything else you think is meaningful in any intellectual way is superstition. You’re superstitious and you think we all should be superstitious.

  • Wladyslaw

    Many, many Germans did not recoil or show revulsion toward the killing of the Jews.
    After all, they were non-persons, sub-human. I certainly would not use that argument for abortion.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wladyslaw:

      Are you saying that there is no meaningful difference between and adult Jew (or anyone) and a single fertilized human egg cell?

      Yeah, a single cell isn’t a person. Trying to equate this with Nazism makes no sense.

    • Phil

      Here’s the thing, though. A zygote is actually not a person. Unlike a Jew.

      • Wladyslaw

        No, the point is that Bob thought that one of the STRONGEST statement for his point of view is that if abortion was murder, women would naturally recoil, and be repulsed. I am saying that -history has shown that revulsion has not been an indication of murder. “Non-person” Jews were killed, and the lack of revulsion for that killing in no way indicated that it was”t murder.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wladyslaw:

          And are you repulsed by the idea of Jews being killed simply for being Jews? I’m not sure what your point is.

          Ask the Nazi the difference between the Aryan and the Jew. Whatever he would list would be trivial compared to the list of differences between the Jew and a single cell.

        • Wladyslaw

          No Bob,
          You said repulsion of woman to abortion would be a good indicator if abortion was murder.
          I said repulsion (or non repulsion) of Germans to killing Jews would not be a good indicator if it was murder (or just getting rid of sub-humans). I say repulsion is not a good indicator for either case. In both cases, the Germans and some women bought the big lie, that sub human life was not worth protecting, and ceased being repulsed by murder.

        • Kodie

          I think the problem is we’re as a society tending toward thinking of having a baby as a happy occasion and the people for whom it’s not such a happy occasion are ostracized for no reason, or for very ugly reasons, I think.

          No I’m not repulsed by abortion. I don’t think of fetuses as a class of “people” if you want to call it that, that I personally abhor. But it’s not a person yet. That’s an emotional measurement, not a realistic one. When people are happy to be pregnant, their head goes all mushy about it because they are planning for something wonderful to occur in the future. And they try to propagandize the rest of the world to have feelings for a clump of cells that they don’t even have for a cow. And so I realize this is a cultural thing. In some countries, they eat dogs. In the US, we don’t eat dogs and we look down on people who do. But we eat steaks and Hindus look down on us, and we eat ham and Jews and Muslims look down on us.

          Don’t try to say we should be repulsed by something just because you are. Trying to say it’s like the holocaust is as ridiculous as when PETA said it, everyone said how dare they. But pro-forced-birth gets no kind of attitude against that? We shouldn’t have to be embarrassed about abortion or justify it to anyone or hide it because we know someone is going to judge us for it. Over-stating and exaggerating is where you lose me. Abortion certainly isn’t for everyone, but get the hell out of people’s business when they make the right decisions for themselves.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wladyslaw:

          In both cases, the Germans and some women bought the big lie, that sub human life was not worth protecting, and ceased being repulsed by murder.

          I don’t think your take on history is correct. A very small number of Germans bought into the lie that Jews were subhuman and deserved to be exterminated. Most women in America think that abortion should be available.

        • just sayin

          But a fertilized cell, not a single cell, has the same genetic code now as it will if it reaches 21 years of age.

          What if the Nazis had not killed the Jews, but just aborted all Jewish pregnancies so the Jews would die out?

          Would that be better? After all, according to you all this would involve killing a person.

        • Nate Frein

          1. Nazis had, in fact, forced pregnant Jewish women to have abortions.
          2. It’s a question of bloody agency. We are not telling women they have to have abortions. We are telling you that you should not be able to force the women to be slaves to their fetuses.

        • Kodie

          Why do you people keep bringing up genetic codes? What is so magical about it, even if unique, that needs to be preserved until we can see what it turns out to look like?

          This is where you pretend you are scientific but it’s really about souls. A fertilized egg has DNA, are you your DNA? You know, blue eyes, hairy butt, stubby fingers, predisposed to heart disease or breast cancer, those kinds of things, that’s what you’re hanging onto?

          What are Genes? and watch the second one, What are SNPs.
          https://www.23andme.com/gen101/genes/

  • Phil

    Here are some more examples of the law trying to deal with a “spectrum.” (And ends up being, essentially, completely arbitrary):

    1) Age of majority. Here, the age at which you can enter into a legally binding contract (binding on the youth, that is). If you are 17 years old and 364 days when you sign the contract, you can walk away. But 24 hours later, you are stuck. See

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2005/09/bob_dylan_on_ag.html

    2) Age of consent. This can be as low as 12 and as high as 21, depending on the jurisdiction. Apparently, in the UK, if you have sexual relations with someone who is 15 years and 364 days old, then it is rape. 24 hours later, no rape.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

    Obviously, when a fetus is entitled to legal protection falls in another spectrum, and, in the same vein, is completely arbitrary. But just because it is arbitrary doesn’t mean it cannot (or should not) be done (as the pro-life side advocates).

    • Wladyslaw

      Except that if the humanity of a person is involved, arbitrariness allows a lot of people to die.

      • Phil

        I think you missed the whole point of the spectrum argument. A 6-week old fetus is not a person.

        • just sayin

          How about at 24 week?
          No?
          How about 28 weeks?
          32 weeks?

        • Kodie

          Just in case at 24 weeks that seems more like a person to you than it did at 6 weeks, decide as early as you need to and don’t let emotional whinging cloud your own judgment. It shouldn’t take more than a week to think about how it will affect your life if you let it go on. Maybe you are in denial about your circumstances and think everything will be ok by then, but you wake up at 24 weeks and suddenly sure you made the wrong decision and you aren’t able to put yourself through an abortion by that time. You have heard of Frost’s The Road Less Traveled or whatever, people have to make a decision that once and for all changes their ability to make the other decision. You can decide to get married and then decide not to show up at the altar. You can decide to take a job that seems to solve all your problems for the near future and a few months in, you are in hell. It is hard to leave a secure job that’s an abusive or burdening position to you for no job. It’s also harder to see why you may not ought to have taken it in the first place when all determine that you need money and “it’s not that bad.” Being a parent is work, it’s not play. It involves some times of play, awe and wonder, if you love your child, but can you imagine the child when you are 6 weeks pregnant, fighting you not to take a bath every day when he’s 3, and is that something you want to deal with, are things in your life where you can take all the time he needs to, well in 3 years, that’s so far away. It’s causing no trouble now, so it’s hard to see trouble in the future. Once you’re in position, they claim that it’s worth it. But I’m pretty glad I don’t have to deal with that. I can look at my sister’s kid and say I love that little guy but I hear her complain about those little extra hassles I don’t get to worry myself about. It’s not that I didn’t want to be a mother, and I think I would do that if it happened, I’m not just focused on the sunny side. I can’t imagine how difficult just to worry about something bad happening out of one’s control. That would be the biggest difficulty for me because I have other stress and I know how poorly I deal with them. Motherhood doesn’t magically make anyone better.

        • Phil

          Let’s just stick with the law. Works for me.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        And I think you missed the Phil’s point: you can’t avoid arbitrariness. (This isn’t throw-a-dart-at-a-list arbitrariness, but simply an admission that we humans do our fallible best to make workable laws. They ain’t perfect, but they’re pretty good.)

        • just sayin

          If you are out hunting, and see something you think is a deer…but aren’t sure…you should not go ahead and shoot.

          If you are sure its a person, though…go ahead and kill it.

          You may have blood on your hands.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          If you think that your neighbor is too harsh a parent but aren’t sure, should you call the authorities?

          The law give the parent the benefit of the doubt, with society stepping in only when we’re pretty certain that harm is being done.

          I suggest the same model for pregnancy—let the woman decide with society only stepping in when we’re pretty certain.

  • avalon

    Let me get this straight, Tara says, “I want to hear the voice of God… The fundamental difference is that I want my heart to be shaped by God’s heart…”
    and the voice of God tells her ““In general, women should not be able to choose to end their pregnancies.”
    but she “voted for Ralph Nader every time that was an option, and supported Obama in each of the last two elections.”

    I can only assume what’s going on with Tara. Here’s some possibilities:
    1) Tara has serious doubts that she really perceives God’s voice in some way because her actions in the ballot box defy what she claims she ‘heard’.
    2) God told Tara to vote for pro-abortionists because abortion isn’t that big a priority for God.
    3) God told Tara abortion is wrong as a personal choice for her, not as public policy.
    4) Or, like most of us, Tara’s identity consists of many parts. Her spectrum of identity is far more liberal
    Democrat than evangelical. That is, if forced to choose one or the other, she’d drop the evangelical part.

    Tara: “”Is [the line] at birth? Why? Why not a day before birth? Or three months before birth? What about after birth but before the umbilical cord is cut? Why not a couple weeks after birth? What’s the difference?”

    As with most laws that deal with morality, we decide with our emotions. A cute little baby outside the mother’s womb pushes our emotional buttons far more than an unseen, half-developed fetus. Pro-lifers seem to know this since all the posters and handouts picture a fetus that’s well-developed and very baby-like.

    These moral laws can’t be analyzed rationally because they’re based on emotion. I just finished “Stranger in a Strange Land”, by Robert Heinlein so I’ll give an example from it. Why do we have laws about desecration of a corpse? Rationally, everyone agrees the body isn’t a person. Atheists think the person is gone, theists think the ‘real’ person is the soul and it’s elsewhere. Isn’t it pure emotion that created these laws? If not, what is the rational reason for them?
    Whatever line you draw in the abortion debate, it’s likely to be based on emotion. Just like any other moral judgement.

    avalon

    • Bob Seidensticker

      As with most laws that deal with morality, we decide with our emotions. A cute little baby outside the mother’s womb pushes our emotional buttons far more than an unseen, half-developed fetus.

      Agreed. “What is a person?” is informed partly by emotional reactions like this.

      There’s not quite the same emotional thrill at seeing a drawing of a single cell as seeing a laughing baby.

    • Kodie

      What I was just thinking is they already kind of fudge the numbers on when a fetus has features or feeling or organs, while they project a lot of hopes and feelings onto the fetus that can’t speak for itself because it doesn’t know anything. I don’t know when self-awareness starts, but if I can go with that for a second – propose for a moment that a fetus has self-awareness. They’re all alone in there (unless they’re multiples) and don’t know what’s coming at all. I think being born is probably the worst day ever, and I’ll admit that’s my version of a projection. Anyway, the reason why it’s in there and not out here is because it isn’t done, it isn’t ready for life. Up to a certain point, there’s no hope. After a later certain point, it might as well be the day. Between those points, it’s extreme measures that even keep it alive. Simulating what happens in the womb seems kind of difficult to me, but if that’s what people want to do, I think that’s ok. That fetus needs to still build the rest of itself and somehow the medical community can manage that. I’m not a doctor so I don’t know how, and that’s amazing to me. Normally parents of premature babies were hoping it would have stayed the rest of the time inside and not outside. They wanted a child and consider it their child.

      Why, because it can be done, must it be done, or must it be thought of as “viable” and therefore a person? It’s not done yet. People with a 22-week birth, I’m saying they try to keep a lot of hope because they want their child. I have to imagine there must be people who order a DNR on their premature births.

      But if we say at maybe 8 weeks, there’s a heart. I don’t know that, I don’t know if that’s one of the things they say, whether it’s true or not. Why bring it up? Frogs have hearts too. So can we go ahead and abort before then? They say no. It’s going to have a heart in a few weeks, wait for it!

      • Niemand

        I have to imagine there must be people who order a DNR on their premature births.

        Quite frequently. Sometimes the baby is just too premature or malformed to live and continuing aggressive measures would be torturing it for no good reason. That’s the reason that many babies who are born after failed abortions are made DNR: because if the abortion is happening that late they are likely profoundly damaged and their parents don’t want to torture them needlessly. Unlike the “pro-life” movement, which demands that aggressive measures be taken in ALL attempted abortions ending in live birth, no matter how obviously futile the attempt is.

  • http://allweathercyclist.blogspot.ca/ JethroElfman

    In this post BadCatholic carefully avoids referring to the immortal soul as the defining characteristic of human life, and the reason why the line is at conception. The commenters there aren’t so delicate, ranting on about how you can’t kill the blessed soul. It’s plain that they all see it as a religious question. There goes any hope of rational discourse. The line is drawn at what the Bible says. End of story.

    I think the most insightful comment of all was by Tara with, “Who are you to decide?” Bob is no one to decide. He doesn’t want to decide. The decision can only rest with the woman whose life is being drained by the attached parasite.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      And wouldn’t it be nice if believers made their conclusion and let others make theirs rather than demanding that their conclusion should be forced on everyone else?

      • just sayin

        No, because they don’t feel they can just stand by while the innoncent are murdered.

        And from their point of view, they can’t. Otherwise they are complicit in murder.

        • Nate Frein

          Then why aren’t they firebombing abortion clinics? Why aren’t they marching on the houses of known abortion doctors? Why are they sticking with harassment and meekly accepting the boundaries around the land where they protest?

          If it’s really such a holocaust, then why aren’t they really doing something about it?

          Oh, yeah. Cuz it’s not really about the fetuses.

        • David

          Why aren’t they firebombing abortion clinics? I think that this has happened. Abortion doctors have also been killed. It didn’t seem to help the prolife cause very much. It just made most people angry.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          If it’s really such a holocaust, then why aren’t they really doing something about it?

          You mean like implementing thorough sex education in school and making contraceptives easily available and acknowledging that wishing away teens’ sexuality is ridiculous? C’mon–it’s not that much of a Holocaust.

  • http://www.seditiosus.blogspot.com Schaden Freud

    You know, I’m not overly impressed with Tara’s post. She says her opposition to abortion is derived from her religious beliefs, and she acknowledges that others don’t share her beliefs. She claims to respect that. But then she admits she wants to impose her choice on others whose different beliefs lead them to make a different choice. That’s not respectful.

    She says “Who are you to decide?” (meaning Bob) but who is she to decide?

    • Kodie

      I think they decide that these fetuses need them to be their voice or something, that’s why. Emotional reasons.

      • Wladyslaw

        Bob, you said that only a small number of Jews bought the lie that Jews were subhuman. I don’t think that a small number of Germans could kill six million Jews, and three million other nationalities across several countries–roundups, deportations, concentration camps, extermination facilities, and without the silent cooperation of most of its citizens. Most of the Germans adored Hitler.

        • Niemand

          Actually, Hitler never got more than 30% of the popular vote. Because there were multiple other parties, this allowed the Nazis to be the coalition leaders and then they used a variety of manipulated “emergencies” to gain total control. At which point, I’m sure any opinion polls they did showed that they were adored, but saying that that is evidence that they were popular is like saying that Saddam Hussein’s 98% wins meant he was popular.

          Incidentally, the Nazis were profoundly anti-choice. They demanded that some women have abortions, they prohibited other women from having abortions, but they NEVER left women the option of deciding for themselves what they preferred. Very much like the US Republican party.

        • Wladyslaw

          Just a “very small number” of Germans rounded up nine million people in several countries, transported them, housed them in twenty thousand concentration camps (google), killed and exterminated them?

        • Wladyslaw

          30% of Germany’s wartime population of69,000,000 (google) which comes out to 20,000,000 voted for him, and I am sure these people had no illusions about what Hitler thought of the sub-human Jews and the Jewish question. “A very small number?”

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wladyslaw:

          Just a “very small number” of Germans rounded up nine million people in several countries, transported them, housed them in twenty thousand concentration camps (google), killed and exterminated them?

          I forgot why we’re on this tangent. I suspect that it’s getting pointless.

          Yes, a very small number of Germans would’ve been needed to run an extermination camp.

          I am sure these people had no illusions about what Hitler thought of the sub-human Jews and the Jewish question.

          And now you’re mixing up the questions. Did most Germans hate Jews? Could be. After all, Martin Luther was from Germany and wrote the famously anti-Semitic On the Jews and their Lies. Germans didn’t need Hitler to teach them to hate Jews.

          But how many Germans would’ve thought that the Final Solution was a good idea?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wladyslaw :

          Most of the Germans adored Hitler.

          Most of the Germans would’ve been horrified at what went on at the concentration camps.

          Y’know how I know? Because I’ve seen the videos of when Allied commanders forced local citizens to visit the concentration camp in their back yard. In the beginning, they look like they’re heading out for a picnic, and in the end, they’re clearly shocked.

        • Wladyslaw

          .They heard over and over that the Jews were sub-humans, and never saws the result of that rhetoric until after the war. We hear over and over that the babies in the womb are not human, and most of us do not see the result of that rhetoric. When people actually see the result of that rhetoric (pictures and bodies of aborted babies, they are clearly shocked.
          And that is seeing perhaps only 20 or 30 bodies.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          When people actually see the result of that rhetoric (pictures and bodies of aborted babies, they are clearly shocked.

          Then let me suggest a solution: find ways to do needed abortions ASAP. Right now, the religious right is doing their best to put obstacles in women’s paths. The result is that abortions are happening later. If later abortions horrify you, I can understand that. Then work to make them earlier: early detection of pregnancy and prompt, hassle-free abortions.

          Further: work to make sure unwanted pregnancies don’t happen in the first place. This is the low-hanging fruit, right? If abortion really is a modern-day Holocaust, and if handing out contraceptives like Tic Tacs would reduce that, let’s do it! It’s bizarre when pro-lifers dismiss this obvious path to cutting abortions to a small fraction of what they are today. I wonder then: is abortion really a problem or not??

          This gives support to the idea that politicians are simply pulling Christians’ strings, that their Chicken Little strategy is just a selfish way to get them into office.

        • Niemand

          When people actually see the result of that rhetoric (pictures and bodies of aborted babies, they are clearly shocked.

          The majority of abortions occur in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. The aborted “babies” look like a bit of clotted blood. There’s literally nothing shocking to see. Consider, for example, this image. Would you consider it a “person” or “human”? Would its removal be murder?

          Bob’s picture at the top is a good example of what kind of fetuses are aborted later in pregnancy, Did you notice that it doesn’t have a brain? I will agree that this picture is shocking: people just look WRONG without heads. But there is quite literally no chance that this fetus would have lived and quite a good chance that it could do harm to the woman who is pregnant. Are your delicate sensibilities in considering this “shocking” more important than a woman’s life?

        • Nate Frein

          Honestly, this is a good representation of what the overwhelming majority of Wlady’s “55 million holocaust” looks like. It looks rather like what my wife flushes down the toilet every month.

          The fact that anti-choice proponents use images of late term fetuses and not images like this demonstrates concretely that they are aware that they cannot defend the position that the two are in any way equal.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          The fact that anti-choice proponents use images of late term fetuses and not images like this demonstrates concretely that they are aware that they cannot defend the position that the two are in any way equal.

          And is an admission that they understand the spectrum. If “baby” really applied to both ends of the spectrum and they were identical for all practical purposes, a photo of Plan B would be equally shocking.

        • just sayin

          Of course they looked shocked. They knew they were on camera.

          Cameras back then were not little hidden things.

      • http://www.seditiosus.blogspot.com Schaden Freud

        I think you’re right.

  • Wladyslaw

    By the way Bob, I really appreciate you posting my comments and responding to them. I have posted similar comments on other sites, especially liberal and atheistic sites, and they simply refused to post them. Thank you.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      You’re welcome! I’ve seen sites where every comment is moderated, and I dislike that as well. Not much of a way to encourage free discussion of ideas, eh?

      • Wladyslaw

        I would appreciate your view on my last comment.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I think I’ve responded to all your comments. No?

        • Kodie

          Wlad doesn’t respond to any of my comments. Picking and choosing?

  • Wladyslaw

    No Bob, not to the my comment following the one where you mentioned the videos and the Germans being clearly shocked. I would appreciate your observation on that one. Thanks.

    • Phil

      When people actually see the result of that rhetoric (pictures and bodies of aborted babies, they are clearly shocked. And that is seeing perhaps only 20 or 30 bodies.

      As I said before, you are welcome to work to stop late-term abortions. But the point made earlier–that it is disingenuous to use pictures from late term abortions to argue against drugs that will induce an abortion at a very early stage–still stands. And Bob’s point that you should work to make access to abortion at a very early stage easy, seems right to me.

    • Wladyslaw

      Bob, you didn’t respond to the substance of the comment, but started talking about solutions. I would still like to here your take on what I said. Were you agreeing to the substance? By the way, abortions are a backup to contraception. I would think that most abortions follow failed contraceptives, and are not the first choice. Whenever contraceptives are introduced and pushed, the numbers of abortions rise dramatically. It is not a solution to fewer abortions. It increases them.

      • Wladyslaw

        You indicated that contraceptives would lead to fewer abortions. Our history has proven the opposite. More contraception, more abortion.

      • Phil

        Whenever contraceptives are introduced and pushed, the numbers of abortions rise dramatically. It is not a solution to fewer abortions. It increases them.

        Citation needed.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Ditto.

          What is clear is that the US policy toward prevention of unwanted pregnancies isn’t working. In the Netherlands, the rate of abortions is 1/10 that in the US. There’s clearly a huge amount of room for improvement.

          Any pro-lifer who truly thinks that abortion is a modern-day Holocaust should focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Wlad:

        I’m pretty sure I did. Go here or search for “find ways to do needed abortions ASAP”.

        I’m not sure what’s missing. I agreed that people are shocked. And why? Because there’s a spectrum! That’s why pickets put pictures of aborted fetuses on their signs, not photos of boxes of Plan B. Things get more objectionable over time. Y’know, like a spectrum. Your argument is evidence for the spectrum.

        Are we on the same page yet?

  • Wladyslaw

    Why contraception leads to abortion | The Manila Bulletin …
    mb.com.ph/node/323390/why-contraception-lead,
    Contraception divorced sex from procreation. Or tried to. Tens of millions of abortions prove that you really can’t separate sex from procreation. Contraception introduced the idea that sex for pleasure can be separated from sex for pleasure and procreation. So that the idea that sex is something apart from babies, parenting, and commitment and is possible, and good for its own sake. Despite whatever people do with their bodies to try and thwart nature, babies get conceived–sex does lead to procreation. But these babies are unwanted, not planned for, with no one to take responsibility for them.. Plan B–kill them. 55,000,000 since Roe vs Wade

    • Phil

      I couldn’t get anything useful out of that. (Was there a link that didn’t show up?)

      On the other hand, see this:

      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/04/free-birth-control-access-can-reduce-abortion-rate-by-more-than-half/

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      He’s simply talking about a correlation. And perhaps it is the case that countries (like the US) that have widespread contraceptive use have a large number of abortions.

      With “More contraception, more abortion,” you argued a causal link. That is: the more contraceptives a country consumes, the more abortions it will have. Not only does that violate common sense, you’ve provided no evidence for it.

      • Wladyslaw

        Actually Bob, those statistics are not the reason I believe contraception leads to abortion. My last comment is that the divorce of sex from procreation is the cause of abortion.

        • Nate Frein

          I don’t understand the argument that we shouldn’t divorce sex from procreation.

          Separating sex from procreation is inevitable. Sex feels good. It is enjoyable. Therefore people are going to have sex.

          To argue that we should do otherwise is to argue that we should not associate food with celebration, because that is divorcing eating from replenishing nutrients.

        • Wladyslaw

          No, no, no. Of course sex is pleasurable and people are going to have it. The problem is when you divorce it from procreation, its natural consequence. Of course eating is pleasurable. When people try to divorce eating from its natural consequence, as in bulimia, we consider it a sickness.

        • Nate Frein

          No, bulimia is not a guaranteed result of enjoying food.

          Even obesity is not a guaranteed result of enjoying food.

          What you’re arguing here is completely irrelevant. People will have sex. People will have sex because it feels good, not because they want babies. Our bodies are designed to gain health benefits from sex completely unrelated to creating children (in fact, actually bringing a child to term has numerous health issues).

          We don’t combat obesity by saying that food is evil and that obesity is the natural consequence of eating. We combat obesity by educating people on nutrition and exercise and fitness.

          Likewise, you cannot reduce the number of abortions by arguing that divorcing sex from procreation results risks unwanted pregnancies. The answer to that is “of course”. That doesn’t change the fact that people WILL continue to have sex without wanting babies.

          The only way to mitigate unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions) is by educating people on how to engage in sex without risking pregnancy.

          The fact that we have divorced sex from procreation is a dead issue. It happened thousands of years ago. For pretty much all known history we have documented evidence of attempts at creating abortifacients and contraceptives. This is an attitude you cannot change, and bringing it into this discussion is intellectual masturbation.

        • Kodie

          Humans deal with natural consequences by avoiding them. Going outside when it’s freezing out has natural consequences, so we put on a coat. We’re all about avoiding natural consequences. Nothing sacred about sex in that regard that requires we observe your archaic practices.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          (I see that Nate beat me to making this point. This’ll be a repeat.)

          My last comment is that the divorce of sex from procreation is the cause of abortion.

          Sounds right to me. And divorcing sex from procreation is what humans naturally do. You make it sound like a bad thing.

          Consider the number of sex acts per baby for humans vs. for other mammals.

          If you want to say that, for you, sex is only about procreation, that’s fine, but that’s not how humans are built.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad: And your point that more contraception would lead to more abortions is still flawed. If you still want to hold it, you’ll need to provide evidence.

        • Phil

          Wlad,

          Do you still believe increasing access to contraceptives increases abortions? If so, can you explain why?

    • Kodie

      Contraceptives were invented to address a problem people had not divorcing sex from procreation. Why would contraceptives be invented if there were no call for them? That’s like saying the telephone was invented and caused people to divorce communication from proximity. Naturally I’m sure there were people who thought talking to someone over a distance was devil’s play, just like there are people who draw the line particularly at carrying the internet with you or paying at the pump with a debit card.

    • Kodie

      You’re basically claiming also that contraceptives don’t work. They mostly do work. They don’t work if you don’t use them, if, for instance, some rather large busybody mafia is intent on keeping people from having access to them, then probably there will be more abortions.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate said that some people have tried to separate sex from procreation for thousands of years. But we didn’t have millions of abortions over those thousands of years. They were not very successful. In 1930, the Anglican church decided that contraception could be allowed, and in 1962 the pill was invented, and it seemed that people could finally separate sex from procreation. People began to act as if that was true. And when, surprise, babies came, they turned to abortion. 55,000,000 abortions proved them wrong

    • Nate Frein

      The baby boom was the result of lots of servicemen coming home after WWII and having sex.

      We, as a nation, are paying for that sex. We are going to keep paying for that sex until the baby boomers die out. Our only option is to FULLY divorce sex from procreation (because unwanted babies, not unwanted pregnancies, are the result of our incomplete attempts to do so previously). We did not “begin” to act as if procreation and sex were not entirely linked in 1962. We had been acting that way for a very long time. The difference is that around the middle of the 20th century America finally started to hit the point where large families were not a benefit to society.

      Humanity has been struggling with the fact that sex can mean babies for a very long time. “A Modest Proposal” was a response to the overpopulation of poor Catholic Irish due to the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception (Monty Python also did a scathing satire of the situation).

      Contraception did not “begin” in 1930, nor with the pill. Condoms have been used for over 400 years, and have been the most popular choice for two centuries now. Divorcing sex from procreation has been the goal of society for millennia, and has become more and more necessary as humanity has filled up the planet.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      People began to act as if that was true. And when, surprise, babies came, they turned to abortion. 55,000,000 abortions proved them wrong

      Whaaaa … ? So people were in some happy state, with no unwanted pregnancies and no abortions? And then we got contraceptives and now we have a flood of abortions? Check your facts–back in the good ol’ days (which sucked, for many reasons), people had unwanted pregnancies and either had unwanted babies (not good) or had illegal, unsafe abortions (not good).

      With safe abortions, that sounds like a big improvement to me. I’ll grant you–things still do suck. You’ve got these nuts who want to both minimize abortions (not a bad idea) and avoid doing what is needed to minimize unwanted pregnancies (completely insane).

    • tsara

      “”But we didn’t have millions of abortions over those thousands of years. They were not very successful.””

      That’s not exactly true. People have been contracepting and aborting for thousands of years, and while older methods didn’t (and don’t — people still use them, when they have to) have nearly the rate of success that current methods have (and many of them were just as likely to kill the mother as not) some of them were actually pretty effective. The problem with ‘pro-life’ research that shows that there weren’t many abortions is that (in most cultures) a woman wasn’t considered to be pregnant until there was a heartbeat, and so any method of abortion that she chose wasn’t referred to as such, and was just called a treatment to prompt menstruation (a fertility treatment) or end a sickness. Surgical abortions were actually performed, and the mothers generally ended up dead.

      (So, even accounting for lower populations, over ‘thousands of years’, yes, there have been millions of abortions.)

      And, when unwanted babies were born, they were often left in the streets, dumped in rivers, left on doorsteps, etc. And infanticide is much more horrifying — and morally inexcusable, despite the fact that those are obviously the actions of the desperate — than abortion.

  • Niemand

    Wlad, I notice that you’re carefully avoiding acknowledging that the Republican position on abortion is essentially identical to the Nazi position.

    • Wladyslaw

      I am not responsible for the Nazi position on Jews, eugenics, world conquest, or abortion. And I do not fully support the Republicans who allow rape for incest, rape, and the life of the mother.

      • Niemand

        I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but it sounds to me like you’re saying that you’re cool with allowing women whose lives are in danger to die rather than to have an abortion. Very “pro-life” of you.

      • Wladyslaw

        I meant allow abortion for incest, rape, and the life of the mother.

        • Nate Frein

          You…would force a woman to bring to term the offspring of her rapist?

        • Niemand

          It’s not an unusual position for a “pro-lifer”. Basically, the “pro-life” movement depends on seeing the embryo or fetus as a person and the mother as a non-person. It’s not the pro-choice movement that has clear parallels with the Nazis.

        • Wladyslaw

          Savvy pro-abortion try to trick the prolifers by saying “If you REALLY believed that the fetus was a baby and human, you could never kill it, even if in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.” And they are right. I really believe.

        • Nate Frein

          I find this view to be abhorrent. This has nothing to do about being savvy. This is about supporting a healthy population.

          Read this. All of it. You are quite literally condemning children to lives of abject misery, to no purpose but to satisfy some ivory-tower concept of “morality”.

          You are sick and misogynistic if you really support forcing abused, raped, and underage mothers to bear children they never asked for. You have no true value of human life if you are willing to sacrifice a living person for something that may in time become a person.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Niemand:

          Basically, the “pro-life” movement depends on seeing the embryo or fetus as a person and the mother as a non-person.

          Have you heard the latest? A NM politician wants to say that you can’t have an abortion after a rape because that would be destroying evidence.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          You are quite literally condemning children to lives of abject misery, to no purpose but to satisfy some ivory-tower concept of “morality”.

          Ah, but you’re forgetting the fact that for every hour on the picket lines, pro-lifers spend 100 hours supporting the new mothers and the children they forced them to have!

          Wait … hold on … I’m getting new information. That is actually not the case at all. That was actually what a rational pro-life movement would do, not what the existing pro-life movement does.

          Sorry about that. My bad! Carry on.

        • Kodie

          About as bad as it can get – Redefining rape to mean something else so they want you to believe that they care about women who are raped, and allow for abortions, but in doing so deny all women who are raped an abortion. The whole “body shuts down” and stuff. If the body didn’t shut down like it should, then she must have led him on and lied! Damn, they hate women so much and in every possible way. Just for one instance, the only reason a woman would have for lying about being raped is because they spend a lot of their efforts shaming women who have sex. This lying thing is so powerful as to muffle the screams of the victims.

          Can’t they just bring a pee stick to court? It’s my understanding you don’t need physical evidence other than a record of it. They don’t leave dead bodies laying around waiting for homicide trials to observe the evidence. If she’s pregnant, though, it might be some other guy’s baby and not the rapists and they need to sample the DNA. In proposed laws where women are only allowed to get abortions in cases of rape or incest, I would think that would generally increase the ways women try to get around that law, which would have to be by lying, which we already suspected they do and now we can know for sure, while delaying the option of abortion in a case where rape has not been certified by a jury………………. yet. Not still. Maybe we can get to an agreement tomorrow.

  • Wladyslaw

    There are some idiots on our side. I suspect there might be some on yours, but I can’t really say.

    Oliver Wendell Homes once famously said that hard cases make bad law. I”m referencing Nate”s comment “read this.” The woman Roe in Roe vs Wade never had an abortion. She was pregnant.
    Her attorneys wanted the court to make abortion legal and presented a hard case–she said Roe was raped by several men and needed an abortion. She lied (google). Roe was never raped by even one man. The court then made its historic ruling. Roe never had an abortion. For a while she worked for pro-abortion group, but she did not present well and they eventually let her go. She then slowly started to realize the consequence of her participation in Roe vs Wade and started in the prolife movement. She eventually became a Catholic.
    Hard cases make bad law. Roe vs Wade was based on a lie.

    • Kodie

      I’m going to suppose your conspiracy is correct just for the sake of argument. Rights here are based on a circumstance that did not happen but may be applied to someone else who didn’t bring the case. Do you not understand that? Just because someone changes their mind does not mean it’s a bad law either. That has nothing to do with whether it’s a good law or a bad law, especially since she was sincere at the time and did not write the decision.

      Why do hard cases make bad law? That sounds like a platitude. Hard cases do not themselves make bad laws, of course; people who find it difficult to separate their emotions from their extremely rational job have to have an outcome. Being on the edge of that outcome can have a good law or they may lean toward a law that they think sounds better (like outlawing abortion seems favorable on the surface), and choose to decide to make the much worse law. It’s not that you necessarily get a bad law from a hard case. I don’t know what else you could mean, but you are very emotional about this and not rational at all. Your arguments have little to do with anything. Roe changed her mind, so? She’s not the only woman. By the time something reaches the SCOTUS, the aggrieved party is now a representative of others. The law does not only affect her but everyone. If not her, it would have been someone else soon after. I cannot imagine living in a world where if Roe hadn’t existed we’d still have outlawed abortions.

      There, so I broke the other pet theory which is if Roe herself had been aborted, the law would never have changed. She was in position to do it when she was, and if she had not, it would have had to occur to someone else. I say that because when abortion became legal again, people went and had them.

    • Nate Frein

      Kodie made a very good point.

      I also want to point out that I have very little respect for Holmes. His “fire in a crowded theater” was a good conclusion, but applied to exactly the wrong kind of case. Platitudes from him mean very little to me.

    • Phil

      Wlad,

      The decision in Roe has nothing to do with her claim that she was raped. Indeed, this fact was not presented to the court, and the decision makes no mention of it. Given this, her claim of rape had no bearing on the decision.

      Also, it is quite common for courts to hear cases about things like abortion/pregnancy, where the claimant is no longer pregnant/etc. The court system takes too long, and courts recognize that it would be fundamentally unfair to require the party to still be in that condition. The party would never get his or her day in court.

      Roe v. Wade was not based on a lie—and you are just giving us (maybe you heard them somewhere) the hard-core pro life talking points.

      These things are clearly, demonstrably, false.

      • Phil

        Wlad,

        In any case, even if everything you said about the Roe decision was true (it isn’t), it still wouldn’t matter as the court has upheld the right to an abortion under different cases with different parties.

    • Niemand

      Actually, Weddington never said anything about how Roe’s baby was conceived in her case. She thought that “Roe” was a bit flaky and wanted to minimize her role in the case*. The primary evidence for the case was provided by doctors who testified as to the effects of illegal abortions that they had seen and to the biology of embryonic and fetal development.

      *Yes, Weddington mistreated “Roe” in some ways. But she was at that time a 26 year old arguing her first contested case. Unsurprisingly, she didn’t do it perfectly.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    If I was able to save the life of one Jew, or ten Jews, or thousands, as some brave people did during the Holocaust, I don’t ‘ think any one in the world would say “Wlad, you saved them. Now you are a bad person if you can’t take care of them. You brought it on yourself.”

    • Nate Frein

      You are the person drawing the specious comparison between a clump of cells and a living, breathing human.

      Those Jews knew pain. They were fully cognizant of being tortured, starved, and ultimately murdered. Comparing that to the biological equivalent of stopping a data transfer shows willful disregard for human life.

      And yes, in the aftermath of WWII we offered humanitarian aid to fix what the Germans did, instead of leaving Germany to rot under crippling sanctions and war reparation demands. So yes, we “saved some Jews”, and no, that wasn’t the end of the job. You seem to think it was.

      You have yet to forward an honest argument for your cause. You use dishonest history to support your obsession with the “separation of sex from procreation”. You make false equivalences between stopping the development of a clump of cells and murdering thinking, feeling humans. You demonstrate either a very poor grasp of biology or a very dishonest one.

      Your quip about saving Jews shows that you have little concern with the children after they have been born. This leads me to believe that you aren’t particularly concerned with “life” in general but in making sure that time someone has sex they pay for it with a child.

      • Wladyslaw

        Bob said that prolife people saving lives of babies on the picket line should undertake 100 hours of support for their lives after they saved them.
        I said that if I PERSONALLY saved the life of one Jew, or ten, or thousands,as many people did, I PERSONALLY would not be held responsible for their care afterword. Was Schindler? Obviously the Jews in the concentration camps could not take care of themselves for a long time afterwards. The soldiers liberating the camps were not personally held responsible for taking care of them for months or years afterwards. Our whole society took responsibility for that care.

        • Nate Frein

          “Our whole society” is NOT taking responsibility for taking care of the children YOU want our government to force women to keep alive. Are you working to improve social safety nets? Increase funding for WIC? Are you working to give low income families the resources they need to cope with the children you want to tell them they MUST have?

        • Wladyslaw

          You are absolutely right. Our whole society is not now taking care of the all the children.
          The answer is not to therefore kill them.
          Fathers need to step up and take care of the offspring they have willingly created (no one forced them to have sex), and be held accountable. BEFORE unmarried women and men have sex, they need to decide if their partner is the one they want to spend their life with if a child results from their sex, and if their partner is mature and able to take care of it. The answer is NOT to kill their child if they don’t want that partner for life or if either partner is not ready to take care of it. Parents need to teach this to their kids. Our whole society needs to acknowledge loudly that casual “safe” sex without natural consequences is not to be approved. The solutions our whole society can undertake can tackle the problem. The answer is not to kill the children.

          By the way, Bob wants prolifers to spend 100 hours of service for new mothers for every hour they spend saving babies at abortion clinics. When he says new mothers I
          assume he meant women with live babies. Prolifers at the clinic didn’t save clumps of cells. They saved babies.

          f

        • Kodie

          I’m not going to say for Wladyslaw, but that’s exactly the thing. People who oppose abortions don’t want to carry the fee for poor people to go ahead and have as many babies as they want. They won’t even pay for them to have a sex life. You’re only allowed to be a Duggar if you can afford it and they afford it by being on tv, and you’re not allowed to be a slut because your workplace is a craft store.

        • Kodie

          Oh dear.

        • Nate Frein

          It’s all about the sex for you, isn’t it? You love your ivory-tower morality so much that you’re happy to force unwanted pregnancies to become unwanted children. That is the message you are unwilling to grasp. That in many of these situations it is better for us as a society, for us as a species, and for the children in the womb to be flushed before they develop to a point where they can feel. Because you can’t stand the fact that somewhere, some “sluts” might be getting away with sex.

          Your willfully obtuse views on sexuality, reproduction, and biology are as dangerous to our continuing development as religiously motivated global warming denialism.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          Our whole society needs to acknowledge loudly that casual “safe” sex without natural consequences is not to be approved. The solutions our whole society can undertake can tackle the problem.

          You mean like improved sex education and easy access to contraceptive? Yes! Thank you. I’ve been waiting for a Christian to embrace this low-hanging fruit. Why so many ignore that unwanted pregnancies are a problem that everyone wants to minimize and that we as a society can get behind … I just don’t understand.

          Prolifers at the clinic didn’t save clumps of cells. They saved babies.

          You need to look up “baby” in the dictionary. When the clump of cells is barely visible, it’s a clump of cells.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          You love your ivory-tower morality so much that you’re happy to force unwanted pregnancies to become unwanted children.

          Nicely put. I’ll also note that the opposite of available abortions is mandatory pregnancy.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        “Wlad, you saved them. Now you are a bad person if you can’t take care of them. You brought it on yourself.”

        You don’t see the difference?

        Freeing someone from false imprisonment doesn’t impose a burden, it lifts it. Giving a 15-year-old girl a baby to take care of doesn’t lift a burden, it imposes it.

        Right?!

  • Wladyslaw

    Unwanted pregnancies become unwanted children automatically, without any force. You don’t have to do anything. But it does take force to kill them,

    • Kodie

      No, sorry, you’re emotionally bound to an opinion doesn’t mean that it’s correct, or moving. It takes force of some sort to take your temperature at the doctor, it takes some force to put on shoes. It takes some force to get out of bed in the morning. What is your point about “force”. You’re actually saying a person is killed. Force is used to kill them. Still not a person. The problem with your religious beliefs is that you can actually have two conflicting opinions and rather than realize it, you just embrace hypocrisy.

      What people SHOULD do is be able to have abortions without emotional entanglement supplied by propagandists. You can’t at end A of the spectrum call it a person, deny people the option of doing what they should do, and then at the other end B of the spectrum forget what’s supposed to be important and tell people what they should have done instead, as if that’s a solution.

      Not everyone shares your sexual hang-ups, er, irrational beliefs.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    You are the one that said I wanted to FORCE unwanted pregnancies to become unwanted children. I just pointed out that nobody can force this to happen. Nature takes care of this automatically. You don’t have to do a thing. However, you do need to apply force to stop it-kill the unwanted child.

    • Kodie

      If humans are prisoners of nature, does that mean we’re not natural when we behave like ourselves? Humans interrupt nature all the time and we’re not horrified.

    • Nate Frein

      Naturalistic fallacy. Natural is not always better. People “naturally” have appendices. Appendicitis “naturally” leads to death. Are appendectomies therefore wrong?

      And from the standpoint that we are all “naturally” very complex masses of chemical reactions, then introducing other chemicals will have “natural” reactions.

    • Nate Frein

      Further, you are the one who wants to apply force — legislative force — to prevent women from having autonomy over their own body. You are the one who wants to make it impossible for women to legally stop an unwanted pregnancy.

      You also conveniently forget (or you dismiss due to selection bias) that before Roe women were still having abortions, in annual numbers comparable to after Roe, but before Roe lots more women were dying from it.

      Or is that what you want? Do you want the dirty little sluts to die for having the gall to want sex without procreation? Because right now that really wouldn’t surprise me; you say you wouldn’t allow abortion even to save the life of the mother, even though some pregnancies “naturally” go wrong and can cause the mother to die “naturally”, taking the child with it. You would rather kill a human and a fetus to satisfy your fetish rather than save the mother’s life.

      All your sophistry about “people need to stop separating procreation and sex” is nothing more than ivory-tower intellectual masturbation. Unwanted pregnancies, teenage pregnancies, and abortions are highest red states with abstinence only education. Teaching the “aspirin” method of birth control simply leads to uninformed teenagers having unsafe sex.

      Human beings “naturally” see sex as separate from procreation. Human beings “naturally” engage in sex without any desire for children. Any healthy, intelligent policy and legislation must take this into account, or else all it will do is increase the amount of quantifiable human misery in this nation.

      • Wladyslaw

        “Before Roe women were still having abortions, in annual numbers comparable to after
        Roe.
        Dr. Bernard Natahanson, founder of NARAL, National Association of Repeal of Anti-Abortion Laws, admitted to personally doing 75,ooo abortions in his lifetime. He eventually realized the enormity of what he was doing and spent the rest of his life fighting for pro-life.
        He was in the forefront of trying to get the public and and the Supreme Court to consider legalizing abortion. He said that although the numbers of illegal abortions before Roe were
        nearing 100,000. NARAL consistently reported the lie that it was 1,ooo,ooo. When they (the illegal abortion providers) knew that about 200-250 people died from illegal abortions each year, they consistently put out the number 10,000. They claimed that they had (falsely) done polls that showing that 60% of the people supported legalization before Roe supported legalizing abortion. He said that saying the big lie often enough and loud enough to slowly turn public opinion in their favor of legalization that all legalization would do is make the ongoing abortions legal (It rose 1500% since then.
        What changed Nathanson from doing 75,000 abortions to a prolifer. He said that he had taken a special course of foetoology and realized that scientifically life began at conception. He also noted that at $300 per abortion, $300,000,000 looked attractive to a lot of people.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          [In the US] in the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimate 800,000 abortions a year.

          Source

  • Nate Frein

    Wladyslaw

    You are concrete evidence of how religious thinking and critical thinking are incompatible. You have staked your moral claim first (“abortion is bad, mkay”) and then specifically tortured incomplete science and dishonest history into specious arguments for your position. You have yet to make an argument grounded in honest biology or honest history.

    If your position is so morally correct, why do you have to resort to such dishonesty to defend it?

    • Wladyslaw

      I just read an article this week about Salon’s pro-abortion writer Mary Elizabeth Williams. She said, “I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life.” However, she argues that “some life is worth sacrificing.”
      “When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person,” she continued. “Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?”
      However, she is still pro abortion and believes that the human life of the unborn child is trumped by the human life of the woman carrying it.
      OK. According to her, the arguments are really about whose human life is more important.
      So let’s see where that kind of thinking (some life is worth sacrificing) leads:
      In Germany during WWll, , the Jewish life was considered less important than German life, and “worth sacrificing.” According to the Germans homosexual life was less important than heterosexual life, and worth sacrificing. The mentally ill were less important than mentally healthy folks and worth sacrificing. Once human life is not considered intrinsically valuable, it’s just a matter of who decides who is less important, whose rights trumps whose life.

      • Nate Frein

        Because “Mary Elizabeth Williams” is a Salon writer and happens to be pro-choice doesn’t mean everyone agrees that a fetus is a human life. No one here who is actually critically thinking cares what she thinks or what some doctor thought after he got a little knowledge in his head thirty years ago. They’re human, and we all know humans can get caught up in their cognitive biases.

        You can knock off the bloody appeals to authority. Stop with all your stupid fallacies. Start giving actual, honest, scientific evidence that fetuses feel pain and are cognizant of abortion on a level that a born person feels pain and is cognizant of being tortured.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          Really? Your scientific proof of the humanity of the child is whether it feels pain or is cognizant of being tortured? That’s it?. That what defines what human life is?
          And please answer this without any appeal to authority, as apparently according to you, I can’t.

        • Nate Frein

          What better metric do you have that isn’t forced to rely on authority?

          It does not look human
          It does not think like a human
          It does not feel pain like a human
          It does not eat like a human
          It does not act like a human
          It does not have the independence that a human has.

          It may be some form of human life (but in that sense, so is cancer, or the skin I cut away to get a splinter out) but it is not A human.

        • Kodie

          Your definition disregards physicality at all. If it’s a fertilized egg it has a soul. Sperm has no soul, egg has no soul, suddenly god magically imbues it with something. Calling it DNA or appealing to nature at that point has yet to move anyone from their positions. You don’t answer any of my posts, and you act really shocked that some people have different opinions than you do. I don’t think boogers have feelings about being picked either. You’re brainwashed of an illusion.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Wlad:

        So let’s see where that kind of thinking (some life is worth sacrificing) leads: In Germany during WWll, , the Jewish life was considered less important than German life, and “worth sacrificing.”

        We’ve already been over this.

        You ask the Aryan the difference between his noble self and the Jew, and then compare that to the difference between a newborn and a single cell. The Aryan and the Jew are twins by comparison to the vast difference between the newborn and the cell.

        Your comparison is flawed. Don’t use it again.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    There is nothing fundamentally different from a newborn and on that is in the 36 week of pregnancy.
    There is nothing fundamentally different from a 35 week of pregnancy, and a 36.
    There is nothing fundamentally different from a 34 week of pregnancy, and a 35.
    There is nothing fundamentally different from a 33 week of pregnancy, and a 34.
    Go through each week throughout a pregnancy, and see if there is any fundamental change week to week.
    The only fundamental change is when the sperm enters the ovum, and there is no longer sperm and ovum, but and conception takes place.

    • Nate Frein

      You’re conveniently forgetting the points where:

      The fetus implants on the uterus (fundamental change)
      The fetus develops a gender (fundamental change)
      The fetus develops organs (fundamental changes)
      The fetus starts to become physically active (fundamental change)
      The fetus becomes viable outside of the womb (with drastic and expensive care)
      The fetus becomes viable outside of the womb (without drastic and expensive care)

      All these fundamental milestones you have (quite deliberately, I’m sure) left out.
      You are not arguing honestly. You are arguing religiously. Until you decide to advance your case from a solid scientific standpoint, you have no argument that does not involve forcing your religious views on other people.

    • Nate Frein

      Look at a person 25 years old and compare him to the same person 24 years old. No “fundamental changes”, right?
      Look at a person 24 years old and compare him to the same person 23 years old. No “fundamental changes”, right?
      Look at a person 23 years old and compare him to the same person 22 years old. No “fundamental changes”, right?
      Look at a person 22 years old and compare him to the same person 21 years old. No “fundamental changes”, right?

      You can carry this all the way back to the birth of the child. The fundamental “change” is the birth. After that, you have a human. So by that logic, a 25 year old is no different from an infant, right?

      • Wladyslaw

        A 25 year old is certainly different from an infant. But they both happen to be human beings.

        • Nate Frein

          And yet we give the infant far fewer rights than we do the 25 year old.

        • Wladyslaw

          But we don’t kill either, because both are human, and have intrinsic value.

        • Nate Frein

          We also don’t force the wellbeing of one person onto one other person.

          And we do kill. Lots. We execute murderers. We send soldiers off to kill. We assassinate.

          Most importantly, we kill to protect our homes from invaders.

        • Nate Frein

          You still haven’t answered my question. Do you spend time campaigning for increased social safety nets? Do you believe in a social floor below which we should not allow anyone to fall? Do you believe in giving everyone access to healthcare?

  • Wladyslaw

    to Nate. Yes, we do kill murderers. We do kill the enemy. We do assassinate. But we never kill innocent humans. The child in the womb is NOT the aggressor! It was invited into the womb by the mother when she decided to have sex. NO one forced her to do so. She very well knew what could happen if shed did. The infant has far fewer rights than a 24 year old, and the 24 has far greater rights than an infant-vote, drive, marry, etc. But ALL the rights of the advanced 24 NEVER trump the right of the infant to life.
    .

    • Nate Frein

      The fetus is hardly “innocent”. It steals nutrients, steals living space, and inflicts numerous physical problem on the mother. Calling a fetus “innocent” is like calling cancer “innocent”. We invite cancer simply by living, but I doubt you’re picketing chemotherapy labs.

    • Nate Frein

      If a woman consents to sex, she is consenting sex only.

      Just because sex carries a risk of pregnancy, doesn’t mean sex is an explicit invitation for pregnancy. We do a lot of things that invite consequences other than what we want, without holding ourselves morally accountable for those consequences. I may accidentally leave my house unlocked, but I’m not held morally responsible for being burglarized. I may wait for a bus at ten at night, but I’m not held morally responsible for being mugged. I may purchase a car, but I’m not held morally responsible if I’m cheated by the car dealer.

      Somehow, the only exception to this rule applies to women. If she’s raped, we tell her she shouldn’t have worn that or shouldn’t have been there. If she’s pregnant, we tel her she shouldn’t have had sex.

    • Nate Frein

      Heh. We really never kill innocent people?

      Define collateral damage, then.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      But we never kill innocent humans.

      Of course we do. We kill 1-week-old fetuses. They’re human and they’re innocent, and yet we kill them. Not a problem.

      Your argument would make more sense if you said that we never kill innocent persons. That humans and persons are different highlights the problem with your example.

      It was invited into the womb by the mother when she decided to have sex. NO one forced her to do so.

      And no one forced that guy to clean his gun. But he did, and it went off, and now he’s shot his foot.

      You might say, “Take responsibility, pal!” and send him home with a tourniquet and an aspirin. But society doesn’t work that way. Sure, it might’ve been stupid, but we patch him up anyway. We don’t say, “You need to suffer through this to learn your lesson.”

      I suggest the same approach for the pregnant teenager.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate, PLEASE!
    The woman INVITED the child into her life! Unless she was raped, she WILLINGLY had sex, and I will never believe that she had no idea that a baby might be an outcome. The baby INVADED her womb? The baby is the aggressor? The baby had NO choice in the matter!

    • Nate Frein

      The woman INVITED the child into her life!

      No. She had sex. Not the same thing.

      Unless she was raped, she WILLINGLY had sex, and I will never believe that she had no idea that a baby might be an outcome.

      But you would force a woman who was raped to have a child as well.

      The baby INVADED her womb? The baby is the aggressor? The baby had NO choice in the matter!

      Cancer has no choice in the matter, either. Do you picket chemotherapy labs?

    • Nate Frein

      Unless she was raped, she WILLINGLY had sex, and I will never believe that she had no idea that a baby might be an outcome.

      Every time I park my car outside, I “have an idea” that an idiot might crash into it. But I’m not held responsible for it if it happens.

      • Wladyslaw

        You would never park your car, if it had your child in it, in a way that you have SEEN others crashed into it, and that it could happen again.

        • Nate Frein

          Sure. And I wouldn’t sleep with a man I knew to have AIDS. That doesn’t mean I’m held responsible if a man lies to me and I get AIDS from him.

          Most sex doesn’t result in a baby. When couples want a baby, they need to sit down and start actively trying, even if they already had an active sex life.

        • Wladyslaw

          The baby didn’t lie.

        • Nate Frein

          Neither did the cancer.

    • Wladyslaw

      “Sex is not an explicit invitation to pregnancy. But she absolutely KNOWS she may have baby no matter what she does or wishes (proved by 55,00,000). If through her adult, conscious decision she proceeds to have sex, you say the woman has the right to label this child, that had NO choice in the matter, an invader, an aggressor, a thief, and worth of death.

      • Nate Frein

        You know, I pretty certain that 55 million over 40 years is, well, just a bare fraction of the amount of sex that’s going on. In fact, I’d say that it’s just a bare fraction of ALL the births and abortions combined!

        Because sex and procreation are not the same thing. No matter how much your bronze age sex hating religion wants it to be.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Wlad:

        But she absolutely KNOWS she may have baby no matter what she does or wishes

        And you absolutely KNOW that you may get into an accident with your car no matter your wishes. Since they treat you in the ER if you get into an accident you didn’t intend, perhaps the same applies to the woman who gets a pregnancy she didn’t intend.

    • Nate Frein

      You still haven’t defined collateral damage.

    • Kodie

      Yes. Intruder. Like having a cold virus and you know how you get the cold? Being sneezed on touching stuff and spreading through the mouth and nose when you rub your eye and face and all over. You know how you get a cold then why don’t you do what you need to prevent from getting one – stay inside and don’t touch anything.

      You seem to think sex is a violation of something. She – SHE – shouldn’t mustn’t oughtn’t do what you say if she wants to avoid something but hey, you catch a cold and you try to get rid of it. Never going outside, talking to people, going to the store, hanging out with friends, having a job, handling doorknobs and ATMs and a lot of time and water spent washing your hands? That’s what not having sex is like for a lot of people, including women.

      I know you’ll say she needs to find a husband quickly then. Why, she can get a job. She doesn’t strictly need a husband to provide her home after she leaves her father’s household. It’s a big crisis all this modern stuff to you Christians.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      The baby had NO choice in the matter!

      No more, please. At that end of the spectrum, it’s not a baby.

    • Niemand

      McFall vs Shimp.

  • Wladyslaw

    The death of six million Jews, over a period of about five years, is miniscule compared to the billions of humans throughout history.
    Who’s talking about collateral damage.

    • Nate Frein

      Completely non-sequitor.

      You stated “we” never kill “innocent people”

      Define collateral damage.

    • Nate Frein

      The death of six million Jews, over a period of about five years, is miniscule compared to the billions of humans throughout history.

      Despite being non-sequitor, it shows a fascinating insight into your psyche.
      Right now, with a population of 7 billion, we have about 500,000 murders worldwide per year. Using the 1950 population of 2.5 billion, we can roughly estimate about 180,000 murders/year during WWII.

      6 million, over 5 year, comes out to about 300,000/year. This means that the Nazis systematically murdered almost twice the world average for murders each year. I’d hardly call that miniscule. The fact that you would tells me not that you care highly for fetuses, but that you care poorly for actual humans.

  • Wladyslaw

    Forgive me, my 55,000,000 figure was meant to be the number of abortions since Roe vs Wade, that no matter how hard people try to separate sex from procreation, the awesome power of nature for self preservation keeps asserting itself. I was not referring to sex acts. I’m sorry.
    You stated “we” never kill “innocent people”
    Yes. we never INTENTIONALLY kill “innocent” people. The wholesale bombing of city population was a crime against humanity. I don’t think Obama intentionally kills innocent people when he orders a drone strike. If a pregnant woman has an accident and accidentally and unintentionally
    kills her child, we certainly would not say that she killed an innocent child.
    Collateral damage in war means that in the case of war, in going after the aggressor, the invader, the enemy, some civilians may be killed unintentionally.

    • Nate Frein

      Forgive me, my 55,000,000 figure was meant to be the number of abortions since Roe vs Wade, that no matter how hard people try to separate sex from procreation, the awesome power of nature for self preservation keeps asserting itself. I was not referring to sex acts. I’m sorry.

      You specifically state that sex and procreation must be linked. But the fact is most sex doesn’t even result in procreation. They are not “naturally” linked just because sometimes a baby results. It’s a false premise.

      Yes. we never INTENTIONALLY kill “innocent” people. The wholesale bombing of city population was a crime against humanity.

      So you would have been against the atomic bomb? Despite the fact that less people died overall as a result?

      I don’t think Obama intentionally kills innocent people when he orders a drone strike.

      But Obama certainly knows that children will probably die when he orders one instead of sending in actual humans that might be able to accomplish the same task with less collateral damage. According to your theory of sex, he’s morally responsible for their deaths.

      Collateral damage in war means that in the case of war, in going after the aggressor, the invader, the enemy, some civilians may be killed unintentionally.

      So you admit we regularly kill innocent people for good reason then?

    • Nate Frein

      Oh, and seriously. Learn to blockquote.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        I summarized that in my HTML 101 post.

        Unfortunately, you need to get it right the first time because you can’t edit comments (maybe in the future). But practice makes perfect.

    • Kodie

      People don’t always intentionally make someone either. Have a little sympathy for their problems, you are judging them even more than judging people who have an accident that might have been avoided. You seem to think it’s murder to have a heavy period sucked out through the vagina.

  • Wladyslaw

    Forgive me, I don’t know how to blockquote.
    You specifically state that sex and procreation must be linked.
    Absolutely..But nature has seen to it that not EVERY sex act would result in procreation. Otherwise, if a man had sex EVERY day for a year, it would result in 365 pregnancies. Or at least once a year for the entire fertile life of a woman. History has shown this not to be the case, even before the advent of contraception.

    So you would have been against the atomic bomb? Despite the fact that less people died overall as a result?
    Absolutely. I was born seven miles from Wurzberg, Germany in 1945 . The allies bombed and totally destroyed Wurzberg. I was very fortunate to be alive. Dresden was wrong, Tokyo was wrong, Hiroshima was wrong.

    No, we never INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people. Remember Lieutenant Kelley in Vietnam? He and his men intentionally killed over 200 women and children, and he was prosecuted for it.
    How does this relate to abortion?

    • David

      Wladyslaw:

      paste other people’s words here

      • David

        Wladyslaw:

        oops, that didn’t work. blockquoting works this way:

        paste other people’s words here.

        But don’t include any spaces like I just did.
        I have no idea if what I just said makes sense. But give it a try.

        • David

          Oh damn, this is not working. Sorry.
          I’ll try one more time.
          First type “”. Don’t include any spaces.
          Then cut and paste whatever you want to quote from another person’s comment.
          Then type .

          Hope this helps.

        • Wladyslaw

          I tried what you told me. I typed the quotation marks twice followed by a period in the bottom comment box. I the went up to the line I wanted to quote, went over it with a blue shield with a left click, right clicked on paste, then moved back to the grey box, landed on the space next to “”. right clicked, clicked on paste, and then hit . after the paste. No white area appeared. What am I doing wrong?
          Thank you for helping me.

        • Kodie

          Holy shit. You don’t even know how to use quotation marks.

        • Nate Frein

          David is running afoul of this blog’s programming, which hides any text inside angle brackets, supposedly in order to clean up bad HTML.

        • Bob Seidensticker
      • Wladyslaw

        Nate, How do I get the gray rectangle into the Leave a Comment box?

        • Nate Frein

          I posted a link twice. Feel free to use it.

    • Nate Frein

      Forgive me, I don’t know how to blockquote.

      http://bit.ly/WdDxxY

      Absolutely..But nature has seen to it that not EVERY sex act would result in procreation.

      Why, I do believe that you just stated that sex is not naturally linked to procreation! Ergo having sex is not a natural invitation to pregnancy!

      Absolutely. I was born seven miles from Wurzberg, Germany in 1945 . The allies bombed and totally destroyed Wurzberg. I was very fortunate to be alive.

      Wurzberg was an administrative and production center for a country which was actively an enemy to many other countries.
      Dresden was an industrial center creating war materiel.
      Tokyo was both an industrial and administrative center.
      Hiroshima was also and industrial center.

      Civilians were not the target of these attacks. Civilians are not the targets of drone strikes. Yet in the case of sex (pregnancy) and total war (civilian casualties) you say that the unintended consequences should be anticipated. In the case of drone strikes you seem to feel that Obama is exonerated because he isn’t deliberately targeting children even though he knows full well they may very well die.

      No, we never INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people.

      You made that claim. Not me.

      Remember Lieutenant Kelley in Vietnam? He and his men intentionally killed over 200 women and children, and he was prosecuted for it.

      Non-sequitor. That wasn’t a situation where attacking a strategic target resulted in civilian casualties. The civilians were deliberately targeted.

      How does this relate to abortion?

      Given your dishonest rhetoric so far I’m going to assume that this is not an honest question.

      • David

        Why, I do believe that you just stated that sex is not naturally linked to procreation! Ergo having sex is not a natural invitation to pregnancy!

        Presumably, he’s talking about the natural fertility cycle of a female. There are natural periods of infertility.

      • Wladyslaw

        Absolutely every sexual act is intrinsically related to procreation. I just said that nature provided that not every sexual act results in a pregnancy.

        We can respectfully disagree on Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima. I wasn’t trying to convince you of my point of view. You asked my opinion, and I gave it.

        Regarding Lieutenant Kelley, he got prosecuted for intentionally killing innocent civilians.
        We are never allowed to directly kill innocent civilians. I was not meaning for this particular case to be one of collateral damage. No direct killing of innocent civilians.

        I believe that drone attacks could possibly be moral (a major enemy leader alone in the desert), but I suspect that the vast majority of strikes kill an inordinate amount of civilians, and I am against their use as Obama is now doing.
        I really really don”t know how this relates to abortion. Are you saying the baby in an abortion is collateral damage. Then who is the enemy?
        It seems that you are trying to get me to admit that in some cases I would be OK with killing innocent people. Direct Intentional killings of people are never permitted.

        Can you help me?

        I have tried as hard as possible to be absolutely honest in all my conversations with you and been really enjoying the conversation. Please point out any dishonesty.

        • Nate Frein

          Absolutely every sexual act is intrinsically related to procreation. I just said that nature provided that not every sexual act results in a pregnancy.

          Driving is intrinsically related to car accidents.
          Cancer is intrinsically related to living.
          Driving is not an open invitation to car accidents.
          Living is not an open invitation to cancer.

          We can respectfully disagree on Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima. I wasn’t trying to convince you of my point of view. You asked my opinion, and I gave it.

          No, we can’t, because I cannot respect your opinion that these actions are morally equal to the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or the Third Reich.

          I really really don’t know how this relates to abortion.

          This relates to abortion because it establishes that that allowing innocent life to die is part of growing and defending a society.

          Are you saying the baby in an abortion is collateral damage. Then who is the enemy?

          The fetus’ death is incidental. Abortion is not murder. It is eviction.

          If a woman has three children but the resources to feed two, then three children starve. If one of those children could have been aborted as a fetus, then the two children have enough food and the third will never know the pain of starvation (or pain at all).

          I have tried as hard as possible to be absolutely honest in all my conversations with you and been really enjoying the conversation. Please point out any dishonesty.

          You have used deplorable false equivalences (abortion vs. Holocaust)
          You have demonstrated a dishonest grasp of history (your timeline on the separation of sex and procreation).
          You have resorted to bald logical fallacies (most notably the appeal to authority)
          You continue to ignore the woman in the conversation and respond only to the men (misogyny — though that may not be conscious on your part). Even when you do respond, you rarely address the entire post and instead choose to focus on low hanging fruit.

          How have you not been arguing dishonestly?

        • Wladyslaw

          I would really appreciate a response about my last comment.

        • Kodie

          The one where you can’t tell who said what?

        • Kodie

          You never answer any of my posts Wlad and people are starting to point it out to you.

  • Wladyslaw

    But if you look at the bottom of the page, the grey area does not have smaller grey surrounded by a white border. Where does that come from?

    • Nate Frein

      The link I posted in response to you works just fine, cupcake.

      • Wladyslaw

        I checked the link, but I am not a nerd and had no idea how to understand the site. Thanks anyway.

        • Nate Frein

          Basic HTML is not a bloody “nerd” thing. It’s just the polite thing to do if you’re going to participate in discourse on blogs.

        • Kodie

          Can you read?

        • Nate Frein

          I think Wladyslaw has demonstrated multiple times to having a deficiency in that department.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    With all my heart I believe that those bombings were immoral. You believe with all your heart that they were moral. We both stated our positions and our reasons for holding them. I will still respect you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I was not trying to convince you.

    Since I really believe that the unborn baby is human, I absolutely would HAVE to believe that the killing of 55,000,000 babies is far worst then the holocaust.Is this dishonest? But I do not disrespect you for holding an opposite viewpont. But I am very interested in how you came to that your conclusion.
    OK. Let me see if I understand you. You were trying to show me that the killing of innocent humans is sometimes tolerated, and so the killing of innocent unborn babies could also be tolerated in some circumstances, OK, but as far as I know, humans can be innocent. Babies can be innocent. I don’t think a clump of cells can be innocent. So why did we spend so much time on the question of killing the innocent?
    Where have I appealed to authority? Please cite.
    Could you please show me where I ignored the woman and focused on the man?
    Yes, there were parts of your comments that I did not address, saving them for a separate thread, because of its complexity. For instance, I chose not to address the sex/procreation issue from your last comment at this time.

    • Nate Frein

      With all my heart I believe that those bombings were immoral. You believe with all your heart that they were moral. We both stated our positions and our reasons for holding them. I will still respect you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I was not trying to convince you.

      Respect me all you want. I do not respect this argument and it gives me no reason to respect you as a moral person. The fact that you think taking action to stop the Third Reich and The East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere was immoral tells me that your version of morality is nothing more than a bunch of ivory-tower intellectual masturbation.

      Since I really believe that the unborn baby is human, I absolutely would HAVE to believe that the killing of 55,000,000 babies is far worst then the holocaust.Is this dishonest?

      First, something can be “human” and not be a human. Cancer cells are human.
      Secondly, do you not feel this strongly enough to do more than just picket abortion clinics? Why aren’t you bombing them and killing the doctors who are “murdering” these “babies”?

      OK. Let me see if I understand you. You were trying to show me that the killing of innocent humans is sometimes tolerated

      Is it not?

      and so the killing of innocent unborn babies could also be tolerated in some circumstances

      How many women in Hiroshima do you think were pregnant?

      OK, but as far as I know, humans can be innocent. Babies can be innocent. I don’t think a clump of cells can be innocent.

      Sure. And therefore flushing a clump of cells from the body isn’t killing.

      So why did we spend so much time on the question of killing the innocent?

      Why do I suspect you’re being deliberately obtuse here?

      Where have I appealed to authority? Please cite.

      When you quoted the Salon Writer
      When you quoted Holmes
      When you quoted the abortion doctor

      Could you please show me where I ignored the woman and focused on the man?

      I’ll let Kodie answer that one.

    • Kodie

      Hey Wlad. You’re aborting me. Murderer!

  • Wladyslaw

    I am going to take a break for supper. Be back in about half an hour. Looking forward to continue.
    By the way, do you really think that your ad hominem attacks help your argument?

    • Nate Frein

      Hah. Ad hominem indeed. You’re lucky you’re not trying to have this argument on Pharyngula.

      Cupcake, criticizing your argument isn’t ad hominem, no matter how snarkily it’s done.

    • Nate Frein

      Hell, I’d dare you to try this argument on WWJTD.

      • Kodie

        Best idea all day.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Ad hominem comments are comments that do not argue the point of the discussion, but question the character, the intellect, the appearance, etc. of the person they are having a discussion with, usually in a mocking tone. Debaters resort to this mocking when they run out of arguments for their case.

    I did appeal to authority. You were right.

    I enjoyed the discussion until it turned to mockery. I still hope to continue.

    I checked WWJTD. I might try to comment on a topic I am interested in, but from what I have seen, I think it’s doubtful that WWJTD is interested in a reasoned discussion. I’ll check out Pharyngula.

    Please, why did you spend so much time on whether the killing of the innocent is ever justified? If I had agreed with you that it sometimes it is, what would you have to say to me afterward. OK, let’s move on? You wanted to make a point and relate that to abortion argument.

    If you weren’t referring to the possibility of me conceding that sometimes the killing of innocent is justifiable, and therefore the conceding that the killing of innocent life in the womb is sometimes necessary, please show why you talked so much about it.

    I’ll be leaving for a few hours.

    • Nate Frein

      Ad hominem comments are comments that do not argue the point of the discussion, but question the character, the intellect, the appearance, etc. of the person they are having a discussion with, usually in a mocking tone. Debaters resort to this mocking when they run out of arguments for their case.

      And where did I do this?

      I checked WWJTD. I might try to comment on a topic I am interested in, but from what I have seen, I think it’s doubtful that WWJTD is interested in a reasoned discussion. I’ll check out Pharyngula.

      You mistake “reason” for outward politeness. In fact, you yourself have been less than respectful. You called anyone who can use google and cares to have a basic grasp of HTML a “nerd”. You have outright ignored Kodie. Just because you have done so with a veneer of polite language doesn’t make your behavior respectful.

      In other words, if you want respect, you have to give it. You have not.

      Please, why did you spend so much time on whether the killing of the innocent is ever justified? If I had agreed with you that it sometimes it is, what would you have to say to me afterward. OK, let’s move on? You wanted to make a point and relate that to abortion argument.

      Oh, I don’t doubt that the argument would not have convinced you in any way. I wanted a deeper look into your psyche, and I got it.

      If you weren’t referring to the possibility of me conceding that sometimes the killing of innocent is justifiable, and therefore the conceding that the killing of innocent life in the womb is sometimes necessary, please show why you talked so much about it.

      Oh, cupcake. This isn’t about you. I told you already why debating you is a lost cause. You are the dictionary example of how faith based thinking is dangerous. You have decided that abortion is murder and you will tortuously force whatever snippets of history and science you can to support your claim. You are not, in any way, objectively or honestly looking at the science and history of human sexuality. I suspect you were taught to think this way a long time ago. I doubt a few rounds on the internet will change that.

      You see, not all opinions are equal. And right now, you’re doing a good job of showing to any reader just how unequal your opinions are. This isn’t about you. It’s about anyone who is reading who isn’t so attached to the black and white ivory-tower morality you keep flogging.

    • Nate Frein

      Oh, and here is the perfect post to get you started at Pharyngula!

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Nate: that link didn’t come through …

        • Nate Frein

          Do’h
          And I was doing well :<

          Maybe this time?

        • Nate Frein

          Yup. Got it this time.

    • Kodie

      Ad hominem comments are comments that do not argue the point of the discussion, but question the character, the intellect, the appearance, etc. of the person they are having a discussion with, usually in a mocking tone. Debaters resort to this mocking when they run out of arguments for their case.

      I must be such a nerd.

      Nope, you don’t call ad hominem correctly. You do not like the arguments so you take offense at the tone. If you had said something smart and I covered it up by calling you a dumb-ass because I was bitter that you bested me intellectually, that would be ad hominem. Point out where someone hated your smart argument and called you an unjustified name with no opposing argument on the same topic. Doesn’t count if they already had words with you and just run f*ck out of patience as you non sequitur after non sequitur after non sequitur; false equivalence, appeal to nature, appeal to authority, blatant disregard for women, blatant disregard for facts of science, history, and statistics, cognitive dissonance, and you’ve yet to bring evidence for a soul.

      And you wonder why someone might have called you a name and you protest. I have made SEVERAL posts directly in response to something you’ve said and you have not responded. Yet, several times someone did not respond to you and you call out for them to please respond. So add hypocrite to the list.

      Are we done?

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    I checked all the comments. You posted 21 times, and I did not respond to one! I responded to no one besides Nate. I have no excuse. It does look like I aborted you. All I can say is–Forgive me, I am sorry, and I’ll try to never do that again to other commenters in the future.
    Nate,
    I may be wrong, but I believe that if this conversation was held before a live audience, you may have handled our conversation a little differently. Do you really believe that your tone and some of your language would convince people who were following us that you really wanted me to not necessarily accept your position, but at least understand your position and your reasoning?
    I never really felt like I would convert you to my position, but I was hoping to let you know why I believe what I do. I don’t think I was a wild-eyed, fundamentalist, extreme right winger teeming with hatred for pro-abortion people. I purposely kept religion out of the discussion, and tried to use other good reasons why I believed what I did.
    I don’t think I ever mocked you, but if any remark was less than charitable, forgive me.

    I will not stop having conversations with people with opposing viewpoints, hoping to do a better job than I have done here.

    And Kodie, and Nate, I guess were done. I am not sorry for having this conversation. I have learned a lot, and for that I thank you.

    • Nate Frein

      I’m going to let Kodie speak for herself, but I will say right here that

      I responded to no one besides Nate

      Is a downright lie. You’ve responded to both David and Bob multiple times in this thread.

      I may be wrong, but I believe that if this conversation was held before a live audience, you may have handled our conversation a little differently. Do you really believe that your tone and some of your language would convince people who were following us that you really wanted me to not necessarily accept your position, but at least understand your position and your reasoning?

      You are wrong, because I know for a fact that people can be convinced by my rhetorical style, because I have seen it happen.

      I don’t think I was a wild-eyed, fundamentalist, extreme right winger teeming with hatred for pro-abortion people.

      No, you’re an ivory-tower moralist with no real concept of the value of human lives.

      I purposely kept religion out of the discussion, and tried to use other good reasons why I believed what I did.

      If you call revisionist history and science, and numerous logical fallacies “good”.

      I don’t think I ever mocked you, but if any remark was less than charitable, forgive me.

      You argued dishonestly (that’s disrespectful).
      You insulted anyone who has a basic grasp of HTML (also disrespectful).
      You blatantly lied.
      You cherry picked what you responded to while demanding other people respond to specific points you made.

      You may have used “nice words” and you may not have openly “mocked” anyone, but you showed a profound disrespect for everyone else in this comment thread.

  • Wladyslaw

    I tried to respond, but was deleted.
    Thanks for the conversation

    • Nate Frein

      I suspect you got the “You’re posting too fast/Slow down” message that I’ve gotten out of the blue on a few occasions. All you had to do was hit your “back” key and resubmit.

      You must be hell on tech support.

      “What was the error you just recieved?”
      “I don’t know, I closed it before I could read it. What do you think I am, some kind of nerd?”

    • Nate Frein

      Word to the wise, if you really want to be taken seriously:

      First, learn some basic HTML. It’s really not hard.

      Second, write your posts in notepad and copy paste them when you’re done. Saves a lot of heartache if something borks when you try to submit.

  • Bob Seidensticker

    Wlad:

    I applaud your doggedness and your polite approach to this contentious topic. My suggestion (this is coming from my perspective, obviously) is that, on your own, you list every single argument for your pro-life position and then follow each with the rebuttals you’ve seen here.

    Then, prune your arguments. I assume that you don’t want to use arguments that you know are bad ones.

    Now: what do you have left? Have your arguments been strengthened by pruning away deadwood, or have they been weakened? Do you still have a strong pro-life argument?

    If you do this critique, I’d be interested to hear what you conclude.

  • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

    Have no illusions, if abortion really were murder, it would come as an instinctive reaction from women. It would come with such force that men would be confused by the average woman’s revulsion towards abortion.

    This isn’t much of an argument. There have been more than enough cases of if [[killing of member of a group]] really were murder, then people would [[do something other than allow it]]. I can think of quite a few genocides which match this pattern.

    • Kodie

      I also think that is a bad example. However, I also don’t think these are the same category and not every similar-appearing argument for personhood goes in the same direction. There are people who equate a beetle with a person, or rather elevate the status of sacred life to animals. I don’t actually know if PETA has a categorical stance on abortion, although I would think proponents of animal rights have the same kinds of issues looking at it as meat-eaters, i.e. some would say “but that’s different” and some would draw no distinction at all.

      What I’m trying to get at, while I think you see it the opposite, is that we are too used to thinking of a future baby as a baby, and rationally that’s not true. It’s the most popular way to think of it, since people go to the effort of planning children and having them. But we are no longer in the olden days where we know there’s really only one way to deal with an accident. We are not confined to the prison of marriage as property ownership as the only purpose for women and the only way she can get protection in life. People still hold up that structure as if it were natural, but in essence, that is birth control too. That is controlling the habits of women until they are affirmed and established in a way that can provide for their offspring. We have other options now, and we don’t have to live under the burden of caring for young that we don’t welcome into our lives. We used to have ZERO choice in the matter, and that’s what’s the issue here is choice.

      All of a sudden we get these radical opinions that the structure is the way it has to be and life is life no matter how undeveloped. We know that’s not true. We can rationally assess the situation anew and say – that’s not a baby, it doesn’t have to be a person. The opposite situation in, say, the Holocaust, is that there is no rational way to exterminate a race or class of humans. Treating women like chattel is wrong also. Treating abortion like the Holocaust is exaggeration. I.e., we (some people) used to think of Jews as sub-human, or black people as sub-human but they and we got over it! What about the bébésssss? It’s horrifying that some people treat babies as a class of idiots, when they are absorbing their environments like a sponge. When they’re annoyingly asking you at 2 or 3 years old, “what’s that?” and “why?” all the live-long day, consider they have a backlog of questions they’ve been storing pre-verbally, and now they can ask as well as understand you when you answer them what that is and why it is. It’s severely more horrifying that some people dispose of their newborns and leave them to die, but mostly because that is an inhumane way to die, not because they are babies. It might not surprise you that while I realize infants need special care, I don’t think of them as more special kinds of people than other people, meaning adults. I don’t think that’s a humane way to die, period, and I care when adults are neglected or tortured or murdered just the same, not less, than babies and children.

      But it’s time to look at it rationally and see if some people aren’t over-reacting. The quality of personhood can be adjusted in both directions. We were totally wrong about slavery, we were totally also wrong about massacring Indians. We are totally wrong if our healthcare system does not provide 100% for everyone to be well, and we are totally at fault if we allow anyone to go hungry. What a shabby system we have if all we care about life is those accidental wads and the careless women who don’t know their place.

      • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

        We are totally wrong if our healthcare system does not provide 100% for everyone to be well

        I don’t think you really mean that. Certain people simply cannot be well (the elderly come to mind). Others are prohibitively expensive (even under government run insurance). Under the “everyone should be provided for 100%” standard it would be reasonable to spend $10,000,000 for a medical procedure, even if it only nominally increases the probability of recovery over a $5 treatment.

        You also have problems with the definition of the word, “well”. Can someone get free elective surgery? I don’t think that “my nose is too big” is something which causes real suffering, but others do. On the other hand, surgery to fix a torn ACL is often considered elective but it does cause the injured physical pain for the rest of his or her life.

        It is easy to make sweeping statements, but they really don’t hold up. Your standard really should be “a government should provide a reasonable standard of care”, but then you need to define what is “reasonable” and what “care” is.

        • Kodie

          I like how you jet over the whole post just to find something you can nitpick about.

        • Kodie

          Sorry I didn’t flesh that little subtopic out to the minute word choices and such, I was just using it as an example.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      IT:

      The idea is to look at women in general. Some women have terrible maternal instincts, I’m sure, but in general they can be trusted.

      The genocides that come to mind are carried out by a small group of leaders. I suppose there are localized areas where most members of group X hate group Y (“All Hutus hate Tutsis” perhaps). But I don’t see the parallel.

      I’m asking that we do with maternal instincts what we do with parenting instincts. Yes, a small minority of parents suck so bad at parenting that the environment they make for their kids is very harmful. Society must step in in these cases.

      Similarly: yes, a small minority of women have so little regard for human life that they will want to abort their fetus for unimportant reasons after time X. Society steps in and makes that illegal.

  • Wladyslaw

    I didn’t get any error messages, but I had spent a lot of time crafting a long response, and did not want to try again. In the middle of my posting, everything disappeared.
    Thank you Bob for your kind words.
    A lot of my arguments were responses to points made by Nate, and often my response was the only one I had.
    I really don’t know which of my arguments were strong or weak. My strongest arguments I felt were misinterpreted (I suspect deliberately, but I can’t be sure. Nate brought up the idea of collateral damage, and we spent a lot of time discussing whether the taking of innocent life was ever intentionally justifiable. I asked him why he brought this topic up, and why he had spent so much time trying to prove that sometimes it was. He said it a had nothing to do with abortion.

    • Nate Frein

      He said it a had nothing to do with abortion.

      No, actually. I said it demonstrated your relative value of life, which has everything to do with abortion.

      My strongest arguments I felt were misinterpreted

      In what way were they misinterpreted? Keep in mind that extrapolating a position to its logical conclusion is not “misinterpreting”.

    • Kodie

      They were all weak.

  • Rover Serton
  • Wladyslaw

    No Nate, you did not say “it demonstrated my relative view of life.”
    You said ” I wanted a deeper look into your psyche.”

    I did not even try to make an argument to explore “your psyche.” I just responded to yor arguments.

    And if anything, all my arguments underscored my absolute value of lie. Your opinion holds a relative view of life–not all life is equally important.

    • Nate Frein

      So much good stuff here to unpack!

      No Nate, you did not say “it demonstrated my relative view of life.”
      You said ” I wanted a deeper look into your psyche.”

      Neither one is that it had nothing at all to do with abortion.

      Your opinion holds a relative view of life–not all life is equally important.

      Well, no. I hold the opinion that not all life is equally important. That opinion doesn’t hold anything. It has no agency.

      And I suspect you hold this opinion too. A fly is life. I’m sure you have no problem killing flies? Bacteria is life. I assume you take antibiotics when you get a sinus infection?

      Of course, I think you mean “human life”. Well, there’s a problem with that, too.

      Cancer is human life — in fact, it’s the baldest example of “survival of the fittest” you can find. Cancer is nasty because it can adapt so quickly to treatment and find ways of continuing itself at its host’s expense. I’m sure you have no issue with chemotherapy labs?

      Or did you mean “human lives”? As in, unique individual humans? The problem here is that you have failed to establish that a fetus is a human life in the sense that an infant or an adult is a human life.

      Further,

      And if anything, all my arguments underscored my absolute value of lie. Your opinion holds a relative view of life–not all life is equally important.

      Oh, yes. You established that quite nicely. You established quite clearly what you thought of life when you referred specifically to Allied attacks during WWII and never to, say Pearl Harbor. Or the Rape of Nanking. Or the Bataan Death March.

      I pointed this out to you. You did not, in any way, refute it.

      You do seem to have a very absolute value for human life. And I hope I’ve demonstrated to any rational readers just how dangerous having that kind ivory-tower morality is. Because, quite frankly, it has no grounding in the real world.

      The fact that you seem unable to see the difference between the actions of the East Asia Co-prosperity sphere and the reactions of the Allied Forces tells me that you are not in a position to argue the (absolute or relative) worth of a fetus versus a living, breathing human.

      And make no mistake, cupcake. This is an argument that needs to be had, here, in the real world. Because here, in the real world, people have sex without wanting babies and without having the resources to care for a baby. And people will continue having sex in this way no matter how you stomp your feet and demand otherwise. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years.

      We can choose to deal with this in a way that actually makes sense and has been shown to work, or we can continue to flog ivory-tower moralities. I have no hope that you will ever stop your intellectual masturbation. My goal is to show any rational reader just how misguided you are.

  • Niemand

    So, reading through the thread, the major support for the “pro-life” side seems to be coming from Wlad, who has overtly said that he’s ok with allowing women to die tortuous deaths (few pregnancy related complications have pleasant natural histories) rather than allow them to be saved by abortion. In short, he is willing to save the “babies” he sees as “human” by killing women, who he seems as not human. The parallels to Naziism couldn’t be more overt. I’ve found that this is very typical of “pro-life” advocates: they start out talking about “the baby”, but pretty soon the underlying misogyny shows up.

    • Nate Frein

      The underlying misogyny is further reinforced by his complete failure to address a single of Kodie’s posts despite admitting himself that he had ignored them.

    • Nate Frein

      Crap. I did not mean to assume gender on Wladyslaw’s part. Nothing Wladyslaw has said so far has demonstrated gender, and assuming such was careless on my part.

      • Kodie

        He’s posting under a man’s name, just like you are. I am posting under an ambisexual name with a picture of my face.

        • Nate Frein

          Oh. My fault. I assumed Wladyslaw was a surname and gender neutral (akin to me posting under simply “Frein”.

          I take back my apology.

        • Kodie

          It could be a surname, but that’s also a male tendency. It’s not 100% accurate, but women don’t call each other or themselves their last names….. for some reason.

        • Nate Frein

          You know…I hadn’t noticed that before, but I think you’re right.

          As for the name, I have to admit that I’m not terribly familiar with slavic and slavic derived names. A quick googling tells me it’s usually a given name. I should have googled it before making an assumption either way.

      • Kodie

        And even though he made the grand gesture of apologizing profusely for ignoring my posts, he still hasn’t gone to the effort of responding to them. It’s like it never even happened! Abortion!

    • Wladyslaw

      Niemand,
      If saving the life of the mother is your justification for abortion, between 1962 and 1990, out of tens of millions of abortions, only 251 were done for the life of the mother.Would you object to all the others?

      • Niemand

        No, I’m just pointing out that you’re willing to murder women for the dubious benefit of fetuses. Also, citation needed for your claim on the number of abortions performed to save the life of the mother. Given that there were at least two at the hospital where I work in the last year (those just being the ones I know about), I highly doubt your claim.

      • Kodie

        You would save 10s of millions of wads and let 251 actual human women die? What is wrong with you? I also would like to see your citations, but I don’t need them so badly. I’m willing to work with the numbers given as if they were true, because it’s still horrifying that you can compare this by the numbers and justify killing women.

        When I went to look this up on the internet myself, I got a lot of propaganda sites to wade through so the stats don’t look very good Wlad.

  • Mr. X

    “Back to the topic, she can choose whether an abortion is right or wrong for her, and she can encourage her opinion on others. Where I object is when she wants to impose her conclusion that abortion is wrong on all of us.”

    Bob can choose whether murdering black people is right or wrong for him, and he can encourage his opinion on others. Where I object is when he wants to impose his conclusion that killing black people is wrong on all of us.

    • Kodie

      Straw man!

      • Mr. X

        No, reduction ad absurdum.

        • Kodie

          I’m pretty sure I was right the first time, champ.

        • Mr. X

          No, I’m just pointing out the flaw in Bob’s views by showing how, if applied consistently and not just against positions he happens to disagree with, it would lead to absurd results. I’m not saying that Bob himself actually thinks this. Hence, reductio ad absurdum.

        • Nate Frein

          No, you’re creating a scenario that in no way resembles abortion and attacking that. Ergo strawman.

        • Kodie

          “If applied consistently” begs the question too while you’re at it.

        • Mr. X

          No it doesn’t. Bob was arguing that it’s wrong for Tara to try and oppose her views of personhood on others. I was pointing out the absurd conclusions that such an argument leads to.

        • Nate Frein

          No, because you can only extrapolate that far by ignoring the number of substantive differences between the arguments, thereby creating a, you guessed it, strawman.

        • Kodie

          Begging the question.

        • Kodie

          A person is a person if it’s a person but not if it’s not a person. Just because we decide that chickens aren’t people doesn’t mean they will one day be seen equal to us and have equal rights to us. Animal rights, maybe, but not human rights.

          So when we say something is not a human being it doesn’t always follow to its natural conclusion that it will someday be regarded as a person. That has happened a few times, but it doesn’t have to be the case every time. If we define a person then some things are and we apologize for treating them like not a person and they have equal rights, but some things are definitely not one, and then we don’t grant it equal rights.

    • Nate Frein

      The analogy works better if instead of “black men” you say “home invaders”.

      Unless the two mean the same thing to you. At which point I’d call you a racist.

      • Mr. X

        Obvious troll is obvious.

        • Nate Frein

          Says the guy strawmanning Bob.

    • Nate Frein

      Bob can choose whether [using lethal force to repel] [home invaders] is right or wrong for him, and he can encourage his opinion on others. Where I object is when he wants to impose his conclusion that [using lethal force to repel] [home invaders] is wrong on all of us.

      There. A much better analogy for abortion! Still not very close though. Abortion is really more of an eviction.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      X:

      Bob can choose whether murdering black people is right or wrong for him, and he can encourage his opinion on others. Where I object is when he wants to impose his conclusion that killing black people is wrong on all of us.

      My position on the abortion issue is: don’t impose. That’s what the pro-choice position says. It assumes that the pregnant woman is capable enough to make the decision herself, so we (society) shoudn’t impose.

      Your example is therefore flawed.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    My name is Wladyslaw and I am a male.
    Obviously I cannot respond to all the points of your 21 postings, but they seem to fall fall under tworpoints and I’ll give (not a full rebuttal) but comment on each category.
    1.A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body.
    Is the penis of a male child her penis, or the male child”s?
    2. I don’t know when human life starts. An early pregnancy is just like an alive parasite, or like cancer.
    Does this mean that if a woman on her due date wanted an abortion, you could not under any reason deny her? Unrestricted rights to abortion at any stage? If restricted, why?

    • Kodie

      It’s not her penis. I know you are going to say whose penis is it anyway. It’s in her body where she doesn’t want it, so…. rape?

      I mean, if you want to call abortion murder, then a male penis in a woman’s body that she doesn’t agree to have there can be rape too. If it doesn’t have a penis then rape is not exclusive to men against women. You blame her for getting herself in that position yet again. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy – you know how I know? Men can have all the sex without consenting to pregnancy ever.

      I think she should have extreme circumstances in her life at that point, complete danger to her body and health. Why would she wait that long. Why would she be encouraged to wait that long and still want it to be eliminated? We are talking about something else at the grown-up table.

      No, you didn’t address any of my points and just started coming up with something entirely else just to say you played. I give it a D+ for trying and a C- for weak questions.

      • Nate Frein

        He may be referencing circumcision. Sometimes it’s not very clear with him what particular angle he’s gunning for.

        • Kodie

          Oy. I’m not in favor of circumcision, although my picture of that problem is sort of medical since it’s usually performed by doctors, that medical decisions are for the parents to make, it’s also culturally redesigning a physical organ according to tradition and serves no medical purpose. So, medical procedures yes. I am not saying circumcision IS a medical procedure, but that medical decisions categorically need to be made by the parents. Body-altering traditions … no. I don’t know. Body mods are a cultural thing, and I don’t know what the damage is except we’re talking about a penis and not a tattoo. It would be wrong to give an infant a tattoo, but he may want one. We now in greater numbers pierce infant girls’ ears. I’m against that also. I guess people want others to identify that baldie bean as a girl certainly, and give other reasons like she will want to get them pierced anyway. People who don’t think babies feel just because they don’t remember make me sick, but I didn’t think ear-piercing hurt that bad – as much as kids hate getting a shot, why stick them with a needle when they don’t know what’s going on? Yes, she will probably pierce her ears someday. I got mine for my 7th birthday and got the plus of feeling more grown-up. Why deprive your child of that experience, it’s great! But parents do haircuts for their kids, some more often – hair grows back, but that’s agony for some children they don’t need to be put through for vanity’s sake either.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        I have NEVER before heard a woman say that once she DECIDES to abort her child, which often takes weeks or months to decide, her baby rapes her! And if she decides not to abort, her baby didn’t rape her. As I understand rape, a conscious HUMAN being intentionally assaults another human being. I have never heard of a person being raped by a parasite or cancer, or a clump of cells.
        I will ask around and see if any other pro=abortion people agree with her.
        Men and woman both can have sex they want. The minute pregnancy takes place, the man becomes a father, and the woman becomes the mother. Many men sadly run away from their responsibilities, and often the women turn to the law for them to acknowledge their responsibility. However thy try to deny it, they ARE FATHERS.

        • Kodie

          What do you want from my life, you asked a stupid question. You want to call me ridiculous for saying a penis inside a woman that she doesn’t want there – we usually call that rape. So sorry if that seems like a misapplied term, and that you missed my point, which was SO IS MURDER.

          You are also making argumentum ad populum.

        • Nate Frein

          As Kodie pointed out, you’re committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

          I also suspect you’re falling prey to confirmation bias.

          And I really doubt most women who have already fully committed to an abortion have any interest in discussing it with any of the creeps on the picket line.

      • Kodie

        Fatherhood is not pregnancy. Get your terms straight.

        • Wladyslaw

          You said that fathers can have all the sex they wanted without consenting to pregnancy ever.
          FATHERS, not ordinary men, are responsible as soon as a pregnancy begins. If he is in not the FATHER, he is not responsible. But the FATHER is responsible If any emergency arises, if she gets incapacitated, if she is seriously sick, the man is responsible. It didn’t happen without him. He can try escape the responsibility, but he is the Father never the less.
          No man, as no woman, enters sex without knowing that they may become parents, no matter how hard they try. Men and women can have all the sex they want. They both know that a pregnancy might result. I do no think you want to say that he has no responsibility after sex.

        • Nate Frein

          And you go back to stomping your feet over the “sex must equal pregnancy” nonsense.

          It’s a bad argument, cupcake. Get over it and find something new.

        • Kodie

          And responsibility is not the same as pregnancy.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          I do no think you want to say that he has no responsibility after sex.

          Sure, both parties are responsible. But we don’t conclude from that that a baby must be carried to term.

          Guy comes into the emergency room with an accidental gunshot wound. We don’t say, “Be responsible for your actions!” but instead, we patch him up. I’m asking for the same opportunity for the woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant.

        • Kodie

          @Bob – we can, though, conclude that men can have all the sex without consenting to pregnancy ever. Men can be held responsible by law but they’re not at risk of pregnancy themselves. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Is the fetus in the womb a second away from being born in a c section not a human being? If not, what power of the scalpel confers humanity on the child?

    • Nate Frein

      A child delivered via c-section becomes a person by the power of its independence. It proves its humanity by being able to survive the birth process and continuing to live after the fact.

    • Nate Frein

      That is, it proves that it is an individual human life by proving that it can survive independent of another human life

      • Wladyslaw

        You really believe that that baby a second from from is not a human being?
        If that same baby was prematurely expelled by the mother a month earlier, unable to survive on its own, the expulsion of the fetus turned it into a human?

        • Nate Frein

          If the fetus does not survive the eviction from the mother’s body and cannot survive independent of the mother, then, no. I don’t call that an individual human being.

          Until the point at which it can survive outside of and independently from the mother, it is nothing more than a parasite on the host. That the mother can choose to be the host does not change this fact.

        • Kodie

          One of the ways people can tell you have a bad argument, aside from all the logical fallacies, is the very poor reading comprehension skills you demonstrate. You can’t carry on a sequential conversation, you ignore everyone’s points and keep repeating what you already said that was already addressed. You don’t have supporting arguments, you have anecdotes. What about your niece? What about her? Why do you not go forward with the conversation with the rest of us and acknowledge comprehension of things we said in response? Although it has been a wicked great time getting impatient with you so far today, I think you will never convince anyone because you haven’t shown a level where you actually understand anything. If you don’t understand me, Nate, Bob, Niemand, and Richard, and sorry if I left anyone out, then you don’t understand yourself or have any grasp of your own material except superficially and you think that’s wowzers. I’m sorry but that cuts it for me.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Is the fetus in the womb a second away from being born in a c section not a human being?

      Wouldn’t a spectrum make more sense of this? That a fetus becomes more a person and more deserving of society’s protection as it develops?

  • Wladyslaw

    I’ll be gone for a few hours.

  • Wladyslaw

    No, I said the premature baby DID survive the expulsion. It happened to my niece. It was unable totally to survive outside the womb. So the question remains. What turned that “fetus” into a human baby at the time of expulsion?

    • Kodie

      Yeah, it’s not done yet. Incubators and doctors. Are you saying that was an abortion or a birth that was wanted but premature? A month or more too early to come out who is expected on time and wanted very much that can be kept alive by machines and doctors and feeding tubes is up to the parents. All medical decisions are left to the parents and I consider them parents if that is how they self-identify – when people are expecting a child, they refer to themselves often as such, even if it’s a projection to the future. If it were still in the womb, obviously, it would ideally get a few more weeks in ideal conditions. That’s what “not done yet” means.

    • Nate Frein

      No, I said the premature baby DID survive the expulsion

      No, you said

      You really believe that that baby a second from from is not a human being?
      If that same baby was prematurely expelled by the mother a month earlier, unable to survive on its own, the expulsion of the fetus turned it into a human?

      How you expected me to parse that the baby survived from that statement I’m not really sure…

      Very premature babies make me feel sick. How you can call being painfully strapped into massive amounts of very expensive equipment just to give underdeveloped organs some chance at survival is one of those things that I really think falls under the “just because we can do something doesn’t mean we must” rule. Even were the child to survive, it would probably face a rather frail and sickly life. Honestly, I’d rather give it some morphine, or have aborted it before it came to that point. The parents can always try again, or adopt.

      But that aside, you’ve focused on one part of my statement: That the fetus survive the eviction. The second part is that it must be able to survive on it’s own, independent of the mother. If it cannot do so, it is not a human. That our technology (not universally available) fuzzes the boundaries slightly doesn’t change this point.

      • Nate Frein

        Apologies.

        Very premature babies make me feel sick. How you can call being painfully strapped into massive amounts of very expensive equipment just to give underdeveloped organs some chance at survival is one of those things that I really think falls under the “just because we can do something doesn’t mean we must” rule. Even were the child to survive, it would probably face a rather frail and sickly life. Honestly, I’d rather give it some morphine, or have aborted it before it came to that point. The parents can always try again, or adopt.

        Should read

        Very premature babies make me feel sick. How you can call being painfully strapped into massive amounts of very expensive equipment just to give underdeveloped organs some chance at survival a “good thing”, I’ll never know. It is one of those things that I really think falls under the “just because we can do something doesn’t mean we must” rule. Even were the child to survive, it would probably face a rather frail and sickly life. Honestly, I’d rather give it some morphine, or have aborted it before it came to that point. The parents can always try again, or adopt.

        changes bolded

        • Niemand

          It depends. A lot of premature infants go on to healthy lives. Others…don’t. It’s left up to the parents with the advice of their doctors to decide whether to pursue aggressive care, which care to pursue, and when to give up. I favor neither demanding that all babies get as aggressive care as possible nor that all babies below week X be given morphine only. It’s very situation dependent. Sort of like every pregnancy is different and the decision of whether the pregnancy is continued or not should be left to the person who is pregnant with advice from her doctor and anyone else she chooses to accept advice from.

        • Nate Frein

          Oh, yes. I absolutely agree with you. It should be the parents’ (especially the mother’s) choice.

    • Nate Frein

      If my oven quits working in the middle of making a cake, do I call the undercooked mess a cake? Does the fact that I can stick it in the microwave (and give it an unappetizing texture) change the fact that when it came out of the oven it was not yet a cake?

      • Wladyslaw

        I did not ask you if live premature babies got you sick. I asked you if they were human beings, and if they were expelled a month early, what made the human beings. Is a living, premature baby a human being. If so, why? Simple questions. Just two questions. You have not answered that yet.

        • Nate Frein

          Actually yes, yes I did. Your failure to read for comprehension is not in any way my fault. I have bent over backwards to communicate clearly with you while you have posted asinine diatribes, non-sequitors, garbled messages and more.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      No, I said the premature baby DID survive the expulsion. It happened to my niece.

      The elephant in the room is whether the baby-to-be is wanted. That difference explains (and justifies) the very different attitude toward a blastocyst by a woman eager to be a mother and a woman who dreads the prospect.

  • Wladyslaw

    I guess I looked over your earlier comment, and you did say that the live premature baby, because it could not survive outside the womb on its own without the mother is NOT human. So according to you killing this live premature baby is not murder.
    Nate, check the laws of the United States, and the laws of every state in the union. If a live premature baby is ever born alive in an faulty abortion, the doctor is bound by law to call another doctor to do everything to save it, because the abortionist might be tempted to save it.
    So, according to you, when do you think my premature niece became human. She is now sixteen.
    By the way, I have NEVER heard a pro-abortion advocate ever say that a live premature baby is not human. Maybe the ethicist Peter Singer, who says it doesn’t happen until you are two years old.

    • Nate Frein

      I guess I looked over your earlier comment, and you did say that the live premature baby, because it could not survive outside the womb on its own without the mother is NOT human. So according to you killing this live premature baby is not murder.

      If the fetus is surviving outside the womb, then it is no longer a fetus and is a baby. I’m pretty sure I was clear on this. That’s kind of the definition of “live”.

      So, according to you, when do you think my premature niece became human. She is now sixteen.

      When she began surviving independently of her host (the mother). I’m pretty sure I was clear on this. I assume the umbilical cord has been detached by now?

      By the way, I have NEVER heard a pro-abortion advocate ever say that a live premature baby is not human.

      Operative word here is “live”, cupcake.

      Maybe the ethicist Peter Singer, who says it doesn’t happen until you are two years old.

      I haven’t quoted Peter Singer. This is not a discussion about Peter Singer’s views.

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        I will quote you. Please check your comment to see if I misquoted you
        “The second part is, it must be able to survives on its own, independent of the mother. If it cannot do so, IT IS NOT HUMAN.”

        My niece was born alive prematurely and was NOT able to survive on its own, independent of the mother. It was HUMAN. Doctors gave it proper medical care, and the human child, my niece, is now 16 years old. If anyone, the doctor, you, me, went into the hospital and killed her after she was born alive prematurely, we would be charged with MURDER.
        And obviously MURDER is the killing of a human.

        • Nate Frein

          No. I said

          If it cannot do so, it is not a human.

          Obviously your niece survived. Obviously she is a living, breathing human. Right now I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. For all you talk about “respecting” you play some real disrespectful rhetorical games.

          Stop insulting my intelligence, and I won’t show you just how inventively insulting I can be without resorting to a single ableist, sexist, ageist, or racist slur.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          OK, let’s requote you correctly.
          It must be able to survive on its own, independent of the mother. If it cannot do so, it is not a human.
          My niece was NOT able to survive on its own, independent of the mother.
          She was, and is, a human. If you killed her at the moment she came out you would be charged with murder of a human.

        • Nate Frein

          She was, and is, a human. If you killed her at the moment she came out you would be charged with murder of a human.

          Murder requires agency.
          Denying care is not murder.

          Parents can and do have DNR orders on their infants. Not every parent wishes to put a fetus in an incubator on the off-chance that the fetus will be able to survive. Not every parent has the resources to pay for tens of thousands of dollars of medical care. Not every parent has the resources to support a child who is disabled due to congenital defects or premature birth. No parent should ever be forced to.

          The fact that the mother of your niece chose to take that risk has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

          You are appealing to emotion. I dare you to advance one single argument that is not a logical fallacy. You can find a list of them here.

        • Kodie

          Do you believe abortion providers smash live fetuses if they are still breathing, or smother them or just stuff them in a sack? Propaganda. That’s a big word. Do you know what it means?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          My niece was born alive prematurely and was NOT able to survive on its own, independent of the mother. It was HUMAN.

          You have a situation where your niece was very much wanted. And they took extreme measures to keep her alive. OK–no puzzle here.

          What’s puzzling is imagining the same motivations for every pregnancy. There are a million a year where the mother really, really doesn’t want the baby. Why imagine the same response to very different situations?

    • Kodie

      Like all medical decisions, it should be the parent’s call what measures to take. You make it sound like, and I have heard anti-abortioners say things they believe like, they just smash the fetus against the counter – such as the panic to call immediately to do everything to save it. If something is viable enough to survive at least abortion, then it probably has feelings. Cruelty among abortion doctors sounds like something you believe is true but have no proof.

      If someone decides they’d like to continue pregnancy and goes into labor early, then up to a certain amount of weeks, that is a miscarriage. It may have died inside the womb but it may even be what you’d call living. Without its habitat, like taking a fish out of the tank and putting it on the desk, it wouldn’t last very long. I don’t know if they check miscarriages for signs of life. The later this happens, the more viability of the fetus. If it needs incubation, machines, and feeding tubes to nurture it along the rest of the way, it’s a fetus. It’s in a different incubator. It’s a baby when the doctors assure that it has developed and can live without the machines.

      But that’s up to the parents. There is no reason to start extreme measures to save a fetus born too early. A woman coming in for an abortion and somehow ending up with the decision over a live fetus outside her womb may then decide what to do. 3 options that I think of: keep parental control and DNR; keep parental control and assent extreme measures, or abandonment and sign it over as a ward of the state. If it doesn’t need machines, she only has the 2nd and 3rd option left; since no extreme measures are necessary. That’s when we can call it a baby.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        Yes, doctors do check miscarriage for signs of life. My wife had three of them.
        My sister-in-law was around seven months pregnant when her niece came prematurely out It absolutely cold not survive the womb of her mother, She couldn’t even breathe.
        The doctors gave her proper medical care and she survived.
        According to you, a fetus is not human. If anyone tried to kill my niece, he would be charged with murder. Murder is the killing of a human.

        • Kodie

          Your niece is 16 years old.

        • Wladyslaw

          If anyone tried to kill her the moment she came out of the womb, he would be tried with murder.

        • Kodie

          Christ sakes you idiot. It’s the parents decision what to do! 4 times I said this. You are too emotional to have this conversation. Nobody killed your niece what the hell are you talking about and why do you think it’s relevant?

        • Kodie

          Let me say this a different way – your niece was wanted. She was born without the ability to sustain her own life without machines to finish developing her organs and stuff, and the choice was made to try extreme measures to sustain her life and finish her development into a person. That turned out to be successful. Nobody tried to kill her. Another option, however, is to reduce suffering but do nothing to save it.

          If you are saying she was supposed to be aborted, it could turn out either way also. For the third time already, parents make the medical decisions concerning their own children. I listed those choices. Being outside the womb too early is not ideal if a fully developed baby is what you want. If that is not what you want, then you should consider abortion, which is easiest on everything and everyone involved if you aren’t wrought up in emotional blackmail about it, and just go ahead down to the clinic and get your heavy period sucked out through your vagina and get on with your life. Why get to the stage where everything is traumatic and awful if you can avoid it?

        • Wladyslaw

          The issue is not does the mother want the baby. The question is whether the baby is a human.
          If my niece was the result of a faulty abortion-obviously the mother would not have wanted it-it would still be murder for me to kill it after it came out. Then it was human when it came out. What made it human?

        • Kodie

          Machines. And doctors. For the last time. Medical care. Parental Decision.

          Choice. That’s what made your niece a human being. CHOICE.

          If a woman intent on aborting a fetus who comes out live, she can make a different decision. I ALREADY LISTED THOSE DECISIONS. It is still her decision to make. Your niece is 16 by the choice made by her parent or parents to allow extreme medical care until developed fully as would happen inside a womb. You believe doctors kill live fetuses because you are gullible and believe what you want to be is true, not actually what is true. Cruelty is not the same as letting something die and keeping it comfortable, as the PARENT determines what should be done. It can be AS CRUEL OR CRUELER to force a fetus to stay alive with no hope of quality of life or to emotionally suggest to parents that miracles may happen. There is no law that says a fetus must be kept alive via extreme measures if the parents DO NOT CHOOSE THAT.

          Do you read me Wladyslaw? Can you read?

          Stop talking about your niece already, it’s irrelevant.

  • Nate Frein

    Wladyslaw, are you familiar with Mcfall v. Shimp, cited above by Niemand?

  • Wladyslaw

    The court did not order Shrimp to give his bone marrow.
    In your last comment you stated your standard for what is a human in the question of premature birth and according to YOUR standard, my niece was NOT a human when she came out. Please
    answer me why I would be charged with homicide, and not abortion, if i killed her the same day she came out.

    • Nate Frein

      The court did not order Shrimp to give his bone marrow.

      Shimp. It’s Shimp for crying out loud.
      And, to be specific, the court decision mandated bodily autonomy.

      In your last comment you stated your standard for what is a human in the question of premature birth and according to YOUR standard, my niece was NOT a human when she came out.

      Yup.

      Please
      answer me why I would be charged with homicide, and not abortion, if i killed her the same day she came out.

      First, killing a dog is a crime. That doesn’t make a dog a human.
      Second, denying care is not the same thing as killing. Denying the fetus access to the womb is not killing. This argument is an irrelevant appeal to authority. You have obstinately refused to accept my response in this matter. To continue the conversation on this line is mental masturbation.

    • Kodie

      You implied earlier that they have to urgently get a doctor to spare the fetus immediately to keep the abortion doctor from killing it. Now you are implying that he would be charged with homicide. Homicide detective as I am, I say you are looking like a liar. Those stories don’t match.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    After the baby come out of the womb, and is viable with medical care, and the doctors prepare to take care of it, even as a mother, if you stabbed it, you would be charged with murder. I’m bringing up these improbable examples to see if you think that premature baby is human. You are trying SO hard to not ever call it a human being. It seems it would be much more honest to say OK, it is a human being, but because of my right as a mother, I can decide to kill it, because of all the reasons you have stated in your earlier comments about a mother’s right to her body.

    • Kodie

      That would be CRUEL. You don’t stab the fetus for the same reason you don’t stab a dog.

      If you want it to die, and it can’t live without machines and doctors and medical interference to simulate what should be happening in a UTERUS you can let it die with measures to remove the cruelty. How many times do you have to be told.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        It wouldn’t be cruel.
        It would be murder.
        In almost all cases, depending on the viability, a person could decide to forego extreme medical intervention for their infant. In almost all situations, a designated care giver can decide to forego extreme medical procedures for the person under their care. In neither case can the mother do anything to hasten the death of the infant or the care giver hasten the
        death of the adult. In either case, both are human, and both will charged with murder. Both are human.

        • Nate Frein

          Cite law that says that respecting a DNR order will result in a murder charge.

        • Wladyslaw

          I said in the above comment that it is ok to forego extreme medical procedures. It is murder to actively cause death before the human dies.

        • Nate Frein

          I said in the above comment that it is ok to forego extreme medical procedures. It is murder to actively cause death before the human dies.

          You sick sadistic sack of lying smegmarmalade, you are deliberately omitting where you typed in the same bloody post

          both are human, and both will charged with murder. Both are human.

          Under what law will they be charged?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          You sick sadistic sack of lying smegmarmalade …

          Civility, please …

        • Kodie

          I think then this is one of those late-term things where we’re just being cautious. Of course a wanted fetus is projected as a child, as people who find out they are pregnant and want a child project their embryo as a child. Forcing a pair of scissors through the skull of the fetus when the parents were hoping it could go into the incubator instead, I think they’d mind that and prosecute. In reality, they are put in conditions that lead to natural death even though we have the ability to save them if we expend enough effort. We’re allowed to hasten the “death” of an embryo because that’s not a human. There is a law that says we may do that now. And you are talking about laws, so abortion isn’t murder.

    • Nate Frein

      Respecting a DNR order is not the same as stabbing the fetus.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      You are trying SO hard to not ever call it a human being.

      What label can you apply to the newborn that you can’t apply to the single fertilized egg cell at the other end of the spectrum? I propose “person,” but you may have another word that’s just as good.

  • Nate Frein

    After the baby come out of the womb, and is viable with medical care, and the doctors prepare to take care of it, even as a mother, if you stabbed it, you would be charged with murder.

    We are not talking about stabbing anything. This “example” is completely non-sequitor.

    I’m bringing up these improbable examples to see if you think that premature baby is human.

    The fetus is “human” in the same sense that cancer is human.

    It seems it would be much more honest to say OK, it is a human being, but because of my right as a mother, I can decide to kill it, because of all the reasons you have stated in your earlier comments about a mother’s right to her body.

    You are once again falsely equivocating. If my brother needed my bone marrow to live, and I chose not to provide that marrow, I would not be killing him. If a mother decides to stop providing her own organs to support the tissue in her womb and removes it, she is not killing it, because that implies agency to cause death. The fact that the tissue requires the use of the mother’s organs to survive is irrelevant in this matter.

  • Wladyslaw

    According to you, my niece after she came out of the womb was not a human. But she is now 16 years old. When did she become a human? Simple question.

  • Wladyslaw

    No Nate, you did not. In an earlier post you told me she was NOT a human when she came out. Then in the post you linked me too you acknowledged that she was a living breathing human. Something had to happen to turn her from not a human to a human. What was it?
    In the answer to that question lies the whole crux of the abortion debate. Of all the pro-abortion debaters I have ever talked with, the MOST radical ones say that humanity begins at birth. You are the first that claimed to extend no humanity to the child after birth.
    After the early birth of my not a human niece, when did she become human and why?
    Most pro-abortionist will never answer why as to the humanity of the child in the womb, and you haven’t wanted to answer for the case for humanity of the child outside the womb.
    When and why.

    • Nate Frein

      When you’re done lying, we can continue this discussion.

    • Kodie

      Your reading comprehension sucks. He told you the answer and I told you the answer, it was not the answer you want, too bad.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/01/pushback-on-abortion/#comment-18735

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate and Kodie,
        Kadie did answer. She said humanity comes from doctors and machines. See my post about that.

        Nate did NOT answer when she became a human, and why she became a human.

        Nate, simply link me to where you told me WHEN my niece became human, and WHY it was so.
        A simple link that addresses that question will do.

        • Nate Frein

          Nate, simply link me to where you told me WHEN my niece became human, and WHY it was so.

          I did so already. Lying’s a sin, innit?

        • Kodie

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/01/pushback-on-abortion/#comment-18653

          See, your reading comprehension sucks. 7 hours ago, and you simply did not like the answer he gave you, but he gave it to you. You have wasted 7 hours of everyone’s time yammering on about your niece and the stabby abortionists, you ahole.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    I am absolutely astounded when I asked you what made my niece human after she came out.
    (obviously to you non-human before she came out).

    You said “doctors and machines.”

    NO doctor on earth can make a non-human into a human.
    NO machine on earth can make a non-human into a human.

    • Kodie

      Then why didn’t you say so 10 rounds ago. It’s so disrespectful to waste other people’s time.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        i am not sure what you mean by why didn’t I say so 10 rounds ago. I said that no doctor or no machine on earth could possibly make a non-human into a human, and you agree?

        It’s very difficult to answer to two people and keep track of all the cimments.

        • Kodie

          No I do not agree. You have been repeating an anecdote for many posts with no glimmer of recognition that anyone has spoken to you. In disbelief, you keep asking the same question hoping for a different answer. Don’t say you didn’t read them, because you did respond to many of them saying the same thing. Don’t say people didn’t answer your question. If you don’t like the answer, USE THAT to form your next post and then we don’t like your answer but we say something relevant to it.

        • Kodie

          It at least has some resemblance to a conversation moving forward. But I don’t think so. I think you don’t know anything, just like I said, you don’t know how to know anything. It shows in the way you read and ignore things that are said, besides all the gullible propaganda emotional anecdotal fallacial time-wasting diarrhea nonsense you’ve asserted.

        • Kodie

          Anyway, abortion isn’t murder since no one is charged with murder, so the embryo is not a human. Who gives a ff about your niece.

        • Wladyslaw

          The law now says it is not murder.

          Was it murder when the law did say it was wrong?

          wa

        • Kodie

          No, that’s why they changed it.

        • Kodie

          You trapped yourself Wlad. You said how is it not a human if they get charged with homicide for stabbing your niece.

        • Kodie

          In reality, fetuses born alive or in utero are treated under the protection as humans if they are murdered. What you don’t seem to understand that conferring protection is just a courtesy. It also varies by state. Fetal homicide laws (whether in utero or born alive) do not apply to legal abortions.

          Figure it out for yourself.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    I went to the link you cited. Here is what I have found.

    No. I said

    If it cannot do so, it is not a human.

    Obviously your niece survived. Obviously she is a living, breathing human. Right now I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. For all you talk about “respecting” you play some real disrespectful rhetorical games.

    Stop insulting my intelligence, and I won’t show you just how inventively insulting I can be without resorting to a single ableist, sexist, ageist, or racist slur.

  • Wladyslaw

    It does not seem to answer the question of when and why. Unless you have another link.

    • Nate Frein

      Just because you didn’t like the answer doesn’t mean you get to lie and ignore it.

    • Kodie

      Reading comprehension, sir! Parse it out.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate , It isn’t a question of whether I like it or not. I cannot believe that you really think you told me when my niece became human and why.

    “It cannot do so, so it is not human. .” This sentence does NOT say when my niece became human or why.

    “Obviously your niece survived. She is a living human being.” Does NOT say when my niece became a human or why.

    The rest of the citation was how obtuse I was.

    So again. Simple cite. When and why.

    • Nate Frein

      You cannot believe. That’s the problem. This isn’t about “belief”. It’s about fact.

      And the fact is I gave you your answer.

  • Wladyslaw

    I parsed it out.

    • Nate Frein

      Yeah, no.

      You’re either deliberately arguing dishonestly or you’re literally so obtuse that you cannot argue honestly.

      Either way indulging your petulant and disrespectful demands to answer questions that have already been answered does nothing to advance the discussion. What is the point of repeating myself when you have shown that doing so will only prompt further demands that I answer the same question?

      You will stop being called obtuse when you stop acting obtuse. When you choose to stop acting obtuse is entirely up to you.

      • Wladyslaw

        YOU gave me THE above citation as the answer to my questions when and why.. I parsed it phrase by phrase and obviously it did NOT answer it.
        The reason I kept asking over and over is because you NEVER answered it. FINALLY you said, “I answered you right HERE, and gave me this citation. I went over each phrase with you and there was no answer to when or why.
        Calling me obtuse does not change the fact that either sentence did not address when and why.

        • Nate Frein

          Keep lying. It’s worked so well for you so far.

          Gotta wonder though. How good can your argument be if you have to lie to support it?

        • Wladyslaw

          You can’t just call me a liar without showing me the lies. Show me which sentence in the above comment is a lie and why. Any sentence.

        • Nate Frein

          You can’t just call me a liar without showing me the lies. Show me which sentence in the above comment is a lie and why. Any sentence.

          YOU gave me THE above citation as the answer to my questions when and why.. I parsed it phrase by phrase and obviously it did NOT answer it.

          Lie. The answer is right there in the citation.

          FINALLY you said, “I answered you right HERE, and gave me this citation. I went over each phrase with you and there was no answer to when or why.

          http://bit.ly/X2ROKk

        • Kodie
    • Kodie

      I will help you Wlad. Nate said, in other words you are too dense to read, WHEN IT CAN AND NOT BEFORE.

      • Wladyslaw

        OK,
        My niece was born at seven months and now she is 16 years old. Nate said (not you Kodie), that she was not yet a human. She is now according to Nate a human. You Kodie said this happened “When it can and not before.” So, in answer to my question when, your answer is, when it can become a human being, and not before it can become a human being. Saying my niece became a human when she could and not before could doesn’t answer the question. You have to answer –could what. Become human? How would I know when this happened. Obviously it is important to be able to tell a non-human from a human because they are so very different, and treated very differently. And this must be pretty clear-there’s no fuzzy maybe humans.

        • David

          Wladyslaw,

          I want to jump in for a sec. (Been reading these threads.) I think that Nate’s position has been that it ceases to be a fetus and becomes a baby when it can function, on its own, outside of the uterus. If I’m reading this correctly, this means that your niece would’ve become a human at the point of requiring no assistance to live. Have I got that right?

        • Wladyslaw

          David,
          Exactly right for his position. There are many babies born prematurely at seven, eight, nine months, after a faulty abortion, or AFTER a normal birth– that absolutely cannot function, on their own, outside the uterus, without massive intervention for quite some time, often for months. According to Nate, all thee babies are not humans until the can function on their own, outside of the uterus. Let’s say it took nine months before the “fetus” could function on its own this happens a lot. A baby was recently born with its heart outside the body,
          David, do you believe that when the final IV is removed from the hospitalized baby, the “fetus” becomes human? The removal of the IV confers humanity on the “fetus.”? Until then it could not function on its own, outside the uterus.

        • Kodie

          Wlad do you think celery is a baby? Why not? What does a baby have that celery doesn’t have?

          That’s what your questions sound like to smart people.

        • Kodie

          Wow Wlad, the way you talk to David is different than the way you talk to me or Nate. You pretty much admitted you knew but you weren’t saying what Nate said all along. You “get it” when David, your ally says it to you, unlike when Nate or I say the same thing twenty five times and you are sharp as a sofa cushion.

          I don’t like you Wlad.

        • Nate Frein

          Exactly right for his position.

          You do realise I can see your responses to other people? You do realise you have just admitted right here that you understood my answer to your question?

          There are many babies born prematurely at seven, eight, nine months, after a faulty abortion, or AFTER a normal birth– that absolutely cannot function, on their own, outside the uterus, without massive intervention for quite some time, often for months.

          I would think that the very definition of a “normal” birth is that the child doesn’t require special care after the fact.

          According to Nate, all thee babies are not humans until the can function on their own, outside of the uterus.

          And, once again, you demonstrate that you were outright lying.

          Let’s say it took nine months before the “fetus” could function on its own this happens a lot. A baby was recently born with its heart outside the body,

          My sister developed without kidneys. Because she didn’t have kidneys, she didn’t produce amniotic fluid. Because she didn’t produce amniotic fluid, the walls of the womb pressed in on her, causing her lungs to not develop properly. Because her lungs did not develop properly, she lived for less than a minute, struggling for breath the entire time.

          Yes. I can use emotional arguments too. I think my sister should have been aborted the moment the doctor realised that the child didn’t have kidneys. I think that this would have been far less painful for both my mother and my father.

          So no, I don’t think that the fetus is a full human being until it can exist without it’s mother or another incubator. I think the choice of whether or not to invest the time, money, effort, and emotion into trying to bring that fetus to full humanity is the choice of the parents with the help of their doctors. Not some ivory-tower intellectual masturbater like you.

        • David

          Wladyslaw,

          As Kody said, I am your ally on this subject. I believe in the sanctity of life from conception. Its getting late for me. I might check back in the morning.

        • Kodie

          I had pneumonia a couple years ago and I thought a perfectly good place to get that taken care of was inside my mother’s uterus.

        • Kodie

          could goddamned live without MACHINES and DOCTORS.

        • Wladyslaw

          Exactly right. after the last IV.

  • Kodie

    I went back over the thread and found NINE, at least NINE places where Wladyslaw started a little subtopic and got some replies and didn’t answer the follow-up questions asked by me, Nate, Bob, and Niemand, at the very least what I could scan and find. Calling bullshit on this guy seems to make him change to another topic he thinks we should think about instead. We’ve been going about his one stupid question about stabbing his niece, with no progress at all from Wlad the troll. After many appeals to get Wlad to answer any of my posts, he asked me questions pretending to be rebuttals but completely out of nowhere designed to stump me, (a) about fetus penis, and (b) about 39-week abortions. And I answered his questions.

    Here is one at random.

    Wlad these are topics begun by you but not followed up when you didn’t feel like answering a question. Immediately following the end of each thread, you start a fresh post either repeating in theme of your last post or starting a different topic entirely. But you owe everyone here the courtesy of addressing these issues before we answer another single one of your questions.

    Define collateral damage.
    How do you figure availability of a technology precedes demand or precisely how does birth control increase the frequency of abortion, like really, how?
    Where in your butt are you pulling those 10s of millions abortions between 1962 and 1990 and only 251 to save the life of the mother?
    You have failed to establish that a fetus is a human life in the sense that an infant or an adult is a human life.
    Why do you consider that nature must take its course in only one single aspect?
    You appear to hate women.
    Do you spend time campaigning for social safety nets?
    Why do hard cases make bad laws?
    Can you read?

    In lieu of learning how to blockquote, you may hit ‘enter’ twice to separate your answers from each other. Fair enough.

    • Nate Frein

      Why do hard cases make bad laws?

      I don’t know why this didn’t hit me before, but it seems to me that focusing on late term abortions is the very definition of using hard cases to inform laws.

      The overwhelming majority of abortions look like this. If hard cases make bad law, then shouldn’t this be the metric we use, not late term abortions?

    • Wladyslaw

      Kodie, I cannot possibly answer all those questions now. For example, can you imagine how long it would take me to try to answer the comment “You appear to hate woman.” Saying I do not certainly would not be satisfactory.
      55,000,000 abortions since Roe vs Wade. Just .004 % of abortions have been performed to save the life of the mother. In Britain, it’s .006%. Google “How many abortions to save the life of the mother.”
      I don’t think saying that I did not answer all your points then relieves you or Nate from answering a basic question. Nate sent me a link saying “Here is my answer.” I went to the link and went over the answer line by line, and the lines did not answer it. I’ll go on to David for now.

      • Nate Frein

        And yet, as you quite clearly indicated to David, you understood me perfectly.

        So…why don’t you start by not lying anymore?

      • Kodie

        No, you don’t control the show. You disrespect everyone by setting a basic pattern where you bring something up and dropping it as soon as it gets uncomfortable for you. You do not have answers to those questions. I know or else you would have gone to the effort of keeping up on those threads just like you did with several others that tickled your fancy, such as this whole garbage about your stabbed niece. If I went back over the thread, you might have dropped and moved on over a dozen times. We don’t answer your questions anymore.

        You know you are a troll, we know you are a troll. That’s it.

      • Kodie

        Why do you think anyone cares how long it would take you to answer those questions? You don’t answer any of these hard questions! You have spent this thread eager to get answers you were hoping to find when you checked back, and so was I! And you failed to have the courtesy to follow up on responses to your questions. Why should anyone follow your lead at this point, and why do you expect anyone to care what pains you might have to go through to answer some questions? Selfish b-tard.

      • Kodie

        You’re telling me to google something? Perhaps you don’t understand what “citation please” means. YOU PROVIDE IT, not I go hunt for it. I hunted for it, in fact I said right under Niemand’s post and all I see are propaganda sites. You’re full of baloney ok.

  • Wladyslaw

    OOPS David is gone. I didn’t realize he was pro-life. It’ll be nice t get a different pro-life perspective.

    • Wladyslaw

      Nate,
      When I said ” Exactly right for his position” I certainly did not mean that I understood your answers. David, relatively new to our discussion, was stating your take on things, and said “I think Nate’s position has been…”and he wrote what he thought was your position. All I said was’ “Exactly right for his (your) position. He expressed your position exactly right, and so I and am eager to here what he has to say. I never said that I always knew your answer to the question of when and why. All I said was that he got your position exactly right.

      • Nate Frein

        I think you could probably come up with a more coherent response by simply applying your face to your keyboard and rolling it back and forth.

  • Wladyslaw

    I’m going to bed. Good night.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie, when the sites support my position they are propaganda sites. When the sites support your position they’re neutral fact sites.

    • Nate Frein

      No, when they cite peer reviewed studies they are neutral fact sites.

      Reality tends to lean left.

    • Kodie

      As I said earlier that you didn’t reply, propaganda is a word that means lies.

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        When I googled “how many abortions to save the live of the mother, I went through fifteen pages of answers. Where are all the peer-reviewed studies that state how many abortions are for the life of the mother are actually performed, that might refute the figures I gave. Where are the figures of Planned Parenthood, or NARAL, NOW, whose figures I think you would accept for how many abortions for saving the life of the mother? Nowhere to be found. If you have those figures by peer reviewed studies that you trust, could you point them to me. I could not find them.

        • Niemand

          The CDC doesn’t keep track of reasons for abortion. What it does keep track of is mortality from abortion and pregnancy. In 2009, there were 784,507 abortions in the regions in the US that report their abortion rate to the CDC. Mortality from legal abortion is about 0.6 per 100,000. Mortality from completion of pregnancy is about 15.1 per 100,000, but the abortion rate is higher in women who are at higher risk during pregnancy, i.e. under 15 or over 40. Still, to be conservative, one can estimate 14.5/100,000 lives saved by abortion. That means about 114 lives saved in 2009 alone, not counting those saved in the non-reporting states, assuming that abortions are performed in average risk women for the most part (which is a dubious assumption.) So it is clear that we get up to Wlad’s number of lives saved within 2 years easily.

  • Wladyslaw

    I’m really tired. I’m really going to bed.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie, one topic at a time.
    “Hard cases makes for bad law.”
    Roe vs Wade was a hard case –lawyer said she was raped by several men.
    If the lawyer said Roe wanted an abortion because she had three children and could only afford two, or that she did not want the child-the most common reason accepted by most moderate abortion advocates–not wanted–abortion would never been justified.
    If it wasn’t rape, eventually incest or the life of the mother would have been offered–more hard cases.
    The vast majority of abortions are not done for theses reasons/
    There would never be 55,000,00 abortions if these were the reason.
    Hard cases make for bad laws.
    Hard cases

    • Kodie

      That’s just what you want to believe, but you obviously never read or comprehended or admitted yet to perfectly comprehending what I or anyone else wrote after you there. Dropping little turds and not cleaning them up?

    • Niemand

      Also, if hard cases make bad law then essentially everything the anti-abortion side says about late abortion should be ignored. The average abortion occurs in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy and leaves no disturbing corpse, just a vacuum bottle or toilet full of blood and uterine tissue. The imaginary woman who has an abortion at 9 months for no good reason? A hard case which would make bad law.

      • Wladyslaw

        No Niemand,
        Most pro-bortion supporters are squeamish about late term abortions and are careful in arguing with prolifers about this. Hence their concern for early abortions and pre-viability, and tell us how often pro-life laws push them into later, more dangerous abortions. I have met a few that simply state that a woman should have a right to control their bodies at ANY state of gestation, for any personal reason, without restriction. That does not seem to be the position of most pro-abortion people. But yes, the imaginary woman does exist, and actually her viewpoint seems to be rising.

        • Nate Frein

          How ’bout you cite evidence for that?

        • Nate Frein

          Further, the late term abortion issue is an example of “hard cases”.

          I thought hard cases made bad law?

          This has been pointed out to you by Kodie, Niemand, and me. Why don’t you actually answer it?

        • Kodie

          Why do anti-abortioners have such a problem with early abortions? What rational justification could anyone have to limit that option to avoid entering a later stage of pregnancy?

    • Kodie

      Maybe this is yet another case where you don’t like the answer so you repeat the claim again instead of responding to the responses and follow-up questions as they were given.

    • Phil

      Roe vs Wade was a hard case –lawyer said she was raped by several men.

      Why do you keep repeating that which is demonstrably false? The alleged claim of RAPE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION.

      Go look at it. The court did not rely on the rape claim AT ALL! IT WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE DECISION AS IT WAS IRRELEVANT!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

      (Sorry for the shouting, but you are wrong–and repeating things that have already been pointed out to you as wrong.)

  • Niemand

    Roe vs Wade was a hard case –lawyer said she was raped by several men.

    Actually, the lawyers said no such thing. As noted here rape was not mentioned in the judicial opinion and McCorvey had already acknowledged that she had lied about being raped in an attempt to obtain an abortion because she could not obtain one simply because she was unwilling to continue a pregnancy. In short, she was arguing for her right to resist enslavement and not anything to do with rape.

    • Wladyslaw

      Nate, OK, I get it. It doesn’t matter to you if most abortions are not performed in cases of rape, incest, or life of the matter. if most abortions are performed because the baby was not wanted.
      Yet most pro-abortionists give those reasons–what about rape, incest, and life o the mother?–when arguing with prolifers.
      I have found few apro-abortion people arguing that they want abortion available because they do not want a child

      • Niemand

        I have found few apro-abortion people arguing that they want abortion available because they do not want a child

        Astonishing. That’s the very argument Nate, Kodie, Bob, and I, among others, have been making. Abortion should be available because sometimes a pregnancy happens when a birth isn’t desired. How an undesired pregnancy is resolved is the business of no one but the pregnant woman and anyone whose advice she chooses to take. I have repeatedly argued that I am not, as you apparently are, ok with the “pro-life” position of allowing a few hundred women a year to die unnecessarily because you don’t like abortion, but that’s not the main purpose of abortion. The main purpose is to prevent the birth of an unwanted child who will be at risk of being abused or neglected and prevent damage to the life of the woman who is pregnant. Much like birth control.

        • Wladyslaw

          Kodie,
          I imagine you would say, then that your position– this right of the woman to her body extends all the way to birth, for any reason. Correct me if I am wrong.
          If you believe that it does extend, Niemand above just stated that women like you were imaginary.

        • Nate Frein

          I imagine that any woman who would put up with that thing growing in her womb for nine months either wants it or is forced to have it.

          I have news for you, cupcake. It is not mutually incompatible to hold the view that the woman should have the autonomy for the entire duration of the pregnancy, and to have the view that if the abortion has to take place in the late term then something, somewhere, screwed up.

          Mississippi is trying to be the first state to completely eradicate abortion. It is also has the highest infant mortality rate, the highest premature birth rate, and the highest infant mortality rate.

          By offering better sex education and better access to contraception, and by offering better access to early term abortions you *gasp* reduce the amount of both late term abortions and the suffering of actual, living human beings. You know. The people who can actually suffer.

        • Niemand

          Wlad, I think you misunderstood my comment a bit. Of course there are women and men who argue that abortion should be legal at any point during the pregnancy. Indeed, McFall vs Shimp makes that pretty unarguable-people have the right to bodily integrity and this right takes precedence over their duty to save other people. You are not required to risk your life by donating marrow (an EXTREMELY small risk, BTW, about 1 per million) nor should you be forced to risk your life by donating uterine support.

          Nonetheless, I’ve never even anecdotally heard of someone walking into an OB’s office at 39 weeks gestation, without a single complication of pregnancy, and demanding an abortion. Third trimester abortions are almost inevitably performed on women that had wanted pregnancies that have gone drastically wrong. So the straw woman of the “pro-life” movement is pretty much imaginary.

          And, yes, I am in favor of changes that will make elective abortions happen earlier during pregnancy. Why not? Early abortion is safer, cheaper, and requires the woman to be in the abnormal physiological state of pregnancy for less time. Why should I want her to have to wait?

        • Kodie

          I don’t understand how you are reading comprehension fail. Nate said something to you several times and linked to it and you still didn’t figure it out when I explained it but your vivid imagination picks up that Niemand has said I don’t exist.

          You are wasting everyone’s time.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          Mississippi is trying to be the first state to completely eradicate abortion. It is also has the highest infant mortality rate, the highest premature birth rate, and the highest infant mortality rate.

          Sounds like a Christian paradise.

        • Wladyslaw

          Natre,
          OK,
          You say that a woman has the right to her body–the right to have any abortion–up to birth for any reason she has. She doesn’t have to have to prove a tough reason.
          Niemand above says you are an imaginary person.
          OK Nate, you last comment seems to clarify that you agree with abortion as a pure body autonomy issue and social engineering issue. I’m surprised, but accept that as your honest pro-abortion position.
          The humanity of the child is not the major question for you.
          I guess the humanity of the child is THE major issue for me. Whether it kill a human child or not is not the issue for you.
          I am not interested in social engineering.
          I wonder why you just wouldn’t say it wasn’t a issue for you from the beginning.
          With all of our discussion of the humanity of the child and your claim to have settled the issue, it did seem if it mattered.

          The humanity of the child

        • Kodie

          You can’t even seem to pick up on the humanity of 3 other people having a conversation with you. I do not trust your judgment.

        • Nate Frein

          Niemand above says you are an imaginary person.

          No, Niemand says quite clearly

          Nonetheless, I’ve never even anecdotally heard of someone walking into an OB’s office at 39 weeks gestation, without a single complication of pregnancy, and demanding an abortion. Third trimester abortions are almost inevitably performed on women that had wanted pregnancies that have gone drastically wrong. So the straw woman of the “pro-life” movement is pretty much imaginary.

          I guarantee you that any woman having a late term abortion is facing issues far greater than “she just decided she didn’t want it”.

          The humanity of the child

          A fetus is not a child. It will be a child when it is no longer a parasitic drain on the mother’s body. It will be a child when it is an independent being. It will be a child when its brain is actually receiving the amount of oxygen necessary to function.

          I’ve noticed that you don’t about the social issues of abortion. That’s exactly why I’ve called out an ivory-tower moralist without any real concept of the actual value of human life. The fact that, when you list atrocities of war, you mention only the actions taken against countries who actively committed genocide tells me you don’t care “how” we live so much that babies get produced every time a couple has sex.

          The “humanity” of those fetuses you masturbate to won’t mean squat when we really start to face starvation as we crowd out every other bloody thing on the planet.

      • Nate Frein

        I have found few apro-abortion people arguing that they want abortion available because they do not want a child

        Then you aren’t looking very hard. What you are likely reading is reactions to republican legislative nonsense

        If you go to Pharyngula you will find many women and men who see it as a pure bodily autonomy issue. If you do some actual research and looking you’ll see plenty of people looking at it as a social engineering issue. I got my arguments from somewhere cupcake. Just because I can argue them on their merits and not by appealing to authority doesn’t mean I didn’t have help reaching them.

        • Niemand

          If you go to Pharyngula

          Ok, now you’re just being mean! He wouldn’t last 5 minutes at Pharyngula.

        • Nate Frein

          Yeah, but I’d love to see the fireball he’d make.

  • Wladyslaw

    Niemand,
    You mentioned that you don’t know of any woman who has asked for a super late pregnancy for a frivolous reason. Yet if you agree with the principle of no restrictions at any time then you would have to allow women to do that. In other words, it’s never wrong to have a pregnancy at any time.

    • Wladyslaw

      In my earlier comment to Niemand,
      I meant — It’s never wrong to have an abortion.

    • Kodie

      I don’t think it’s ever wrong to have an abortion. Of course the later the term of the pregnancy, the less an abortion it would inevitably be and we are talking in theory. Who waits that long to have an abortion? People who wanted a child but there are medical complications, and people who were obstructed from making the choice earlier – have to save up for it, make travel plans, civil lawsuit brought by the father or her family or the father’s family; elective abortions at such a late stage seems to me to be the product of having been made to wait and guess what, feeble-minded woman didn’t change her mind like you suspected she would, she never got attached, she never turned into the mother you think she would just naturally turn into, and it still spoils her plans, story, purpose and/or well-being. Non-elective emergency abortions at such a late stage are the other kind – IT WOULD BE A NATIONAL TRAGEDY if this option were made illegal even if only for emergencies and health of the mother. That means it’s ok for everyone, even though those women are rare. Because this is so hotly debated, you might think most women are black/white about making such a decision, but most would be uncomfortable past a certain week, and then resign to bearing the child the rest of the way.

      Early early, easy access, no guilt trips, no emotional pandering that she doesn’t know what she’s doing! She does know. We’re not stupid and think if we wait too long it stays the same size and development. In case you’re not aware, women know a lot more about their bodies than you think, and they know whether they want something in it or not. You don’t get to tell them.

      • Nate Frein

        Exactly.

        Wladyslaw, we have no evidence of your 36th week abortion. You have given us no evidence that any woman would remain pregnant for nine months without any complications and then abort at the very last second. The closest example you can come to something like this happening is inducing labor, at which point you have a child.

        Which means that for a woman to carry a fetus to term without any complications, she either wants the child or is being forced to have the child. Trying to legislate to stop an action for which you have no evidence, even anecdotal, is ridiculous because it puts barriers in the way for real women with real complications to get the real treatment they need.

        Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term puts the resulting child in the middle of a lot of nasty options. Either it stays with the mother (who didn’t want it) or goes on to adoption (which is a thoroughly borked system right now).

    • Niemand

      Wlad, that depends on what you mean by “wrong”. I might think that Shimp was a selfish jerk, for example, for not donating marrow to McFall. That doesn’t mean I think that he should be legally forced to donate marrow. Similarly, I might think that a woman that presented for elective abortion at 39 weeks gestation simply because she didn’t get around to it sooner was a flake. But that doesn’t mean I think she should be forced to continue the pregnancy (though, realistically, if there are no medical issues, it’s probably safest and most effective to just induce labor.)

    • Kodie

      You seem to think that if something is allowed, then that will be the most popular option. It’s allowed, and people do take that option, very few people. Most of them because the fetus puts them in danger, and anyone else who waits that long – I don’t need to know her reasons just like you don’t get to decide if she’s worthy or not, if she’s lying or not, or if she should have thought about it earlier or not. I get from what you’re saying that you’re cool with early abortions then. If that’s not what you’re saying, then where do you think so many of these late-term abortions are coming from? They come from sittin’ around not being able to get an abortion any sooner for whatever reason.

      So Wlad, can anyone get an abortion at 10 weeks?

  • Wladyslaw

    I would also like to hear from Kodie if she agrees that it is never wrong to have an abortion at any time.

    • Kodie

      I don’t really care what you want to hear from anyone. You take the answers when they are given.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    OK, perhaps the humanity of the child is important
    “A fetus is not a child. It will be a child when it is no longer a parasitic drain on the mother’s body. It will be a child when it is an independent being. It will be a child when its brain is actually receiving the amount of oxygen necessary to function.
    MY niece, prematurely born, was no longer a parasitic drain on her mother’s body. She was an independent being, like any sick patient on a ventilator, and she was receiving the amount of oxygen necessary to function, just like any sick person on a ventilator. I believe she was a child at the moment of coming out of her mother’s womb.

    There are faulty abortions–the child survives. There have been at least one case where the parents sued the doctor for a failed abortion–their child lived! So the child in the womb right before the failed abortion was NOT a human, according to your criterea. Trying to kill it and botching it turned the child into a human! Failing at KILLING caused a fetus to turn into a child!

    • Kodie

      You know we talked about this and you just didn’t like the answers. Reiterating your anecdote is not a valid argument.

    • Nate Frein

      OK, perhaps the humanity of the child is important

      The child. Not the fetus.

      MY niece, prematurely born, was no longer a parasitic drain on her mother’s body. She was an independent being, like any sick patient on a ventilator, and she was receiving the amount of oxygen necessary to function, just like any sick person on a ventilator. I believe she was a child at the moment of coming out of her mother’s womb.

      YOUR NIECE’S MOTHER made that choice. It was her choice and her choice alone. This isn’t about what you “believe”. This is about what you can defend with facts and science. The rest is psuedoreligious masturbation.

      There are faulty abortions–the child survives. There have been at least one case where the parents sued the doctor for a failed abortion–their child lived! So the child in the womb right before the failed abortion was NOT a human, according to your criterea. Trying to kill it and botching it turned the child into a human! Failing at KILLING caused a fetus to turn into a child!

      Citation, please. How often this happened and why it happened.

      Finally, how do these cases differ from the “hard cases” you say shouldn’t inform law?

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Boston Woman Sues Planned Parenthood for Failed Abortion …
    archive.redstate.com/…issues/boston_woman_sues_planned_parentho…
    BOSTON –A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising …

    Let’s for the sake of the discussion say it only happened once.
    The failed killing of the fetus turned the fetus into a human child. I believe in miracles, but I do not believe that trying to kill this child and failing miraculously turned this fetus into a child.
    What did?

    • Kodie

      The failure to kill something usually means it’s still alive. If she didn’t want to or was not able to raise that child, and she went in for a service they did not provide, the fact she’s stuck with a live thing that is illegal now to kill made it a human being under the law. The cost of raising a child let’s say eleventy quillion. The cost of not raising a child is 0. Sue for damages like anything else.

      Do you think every failure is a miracle because something else happens? Failure means failure.

      • Wladyslaw

        ACCORDING TO YOU, the live fetus in the womb is not a live human. A abortionist tries and fails to kill it.
        Before he tried to kill it, it was a live fetus. After he tried tried to kill it and failed, it was a live child, a human. How did it suddenly turn into a human?

        • Kodie

          Born-alives are protected under the law as if human for the purposes of homicide.

          Confirmation bias doesn’t turn it into a human. How did it suddenly turn into a human?

        • Wladyslaw

          No, confirmation bias doesn’t turn it into a human.
          Before the abortion it was a live fetus. After the abortion it was a live baby. How did it in the space of an hour did it become a live human? Something incredible important happened. How?

          By the way, Wikipedia defines homicide as the killing of a human. Not an “as if human.”

        • Kodie

          What hour are you talking about?

          I already told you about the born-alive laws on homicide does not apply to legal abortions.

        • Kodie

          Wladyslaw – your reading comprehension that you demonstrate here does indicate that you have this problem everywhere you go and everything you try to read. It puts a lot of your “I read it somewhere” assertions under high scrutiny. If you provide citations, we can read them without your confirmation bias getting in the way of actual facts.

    • Nate Frein

      Dude, learn to copy and paste links. You did not provide the entire link. Until you provide the entire link that I can verify, you have no evidence that you are not lying. I have no reason to trust you right now because you have lied so consistently throughout this comment thread.

    • Kodie

      Propaganda – it comes from redstate, that’s where he’s finding these examples and why he failed to paste a link correctly. Did a websearch and just copied and pasted the truncated link and the truncated article. Fails to cite an example that doesn’t come from a propagandist.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie, I re-cehecked my citation, and it actually was different from what I am presenting here.

    However, botched abortions do happen, with a live human child resulting, so my question in my last comment still stands.

    How did the result of a botched live fetus turn suddenly into a live human child?

    • Kodie

      Why are we still talking about this? You don’t like the answers so keep repeating yourself?

      • Niemand

        That’s a classic anti-abortion move. When cornered reboot back to “dead babies!” It’s an emotional winner, no matter how little logic there is behind it.

        • Nate Frein

          Of course, when the pro-choice plays the “dead baby” (and “dead mommy”) argument, anti-choicers ignore it. Witness how he hasn’t in any way responded to the story of my sister.

        • Kodie

          I also think he doesn’t know how to go back up the page and/or assumes all responses are in order near the bottom. Inconsistent reply button usage, and failure to respond to any comment once he’s thought of a new comment or question or ask the same one again in a fresh 1st-level post. He demonstrates really poor information gathering and reading comprehension skills first off, so I think his other flaws just fall together as a result.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,

    As you can see from my above comment, I went back to the article, and actually the woman had an abortion. It failed. She went on, not knowing she was pregnant, and had a healthy delivery.

    However, my question still stands. I don’ t think you deny that botched abortions happen and the fetus survives. So if before the abortion failure it was a live fetus, and after the failed abortion it was a live human, what made it human?

    • Kodie

      Holy crap Wlad, she was still carrying it around inside her until it was born at a later week.

      That’s so obvious as to be astounding that you failed to read it but you are bad at reading, which is why everything you say is questionable as to how well you even understand what you’ve read to relay the information without filtering it through your biases.

    • Kodie

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/01/pushback-on-abortion/#comment-18911

      You are missing the point too, and fixated on late-term abortions.

    • Nate Frein

      I don’ t think you deny that botched abortions happen and the fetus survives.

      Ummm…I certainly dismiss them as evidence supporting your case until you cite an example.

      So if before the abortion failure it was a live fetus, and after the failed abortion it was a live human, what made it human?

      First, you have yet to actually post a working link to your citation. So until you do so I am not going to comment on the facts of the case.
      Second, just because an abortion attempt failed, doesn’t mean the fetus is magically a human. The fetus becomes a human when, and only when, it can survive outside of and independent of the mother. The abortion attempt and the point of viability are not in any way correlated.

      Finally, once again you use outlying cases — HARD CASES — to try to prove your point, after dismissing a counter-example for being a “hard case”.

      These cases are “hard cases”, Wladyslaw. Why should they be used to inform abortion law and not THIS?

      • Wladyslaw

        If you check the timeline of the comments, I went back to the site I posted, checked it out, and acknowledged my error before your holy crap comment.
        Nate,
        “These cases are “hard cases”, Wladyslaw. Why should they be used to inform abortion law and not THIS?”
        NO. My position is that abortion law should NOT be used to inform abortion law.

        • Nate Frein

          I didn’t make a “holy crap” comment. Kodie did. That you cannot even properly identify who is responding to you, plus your inability to read time stamps, and your constant non-sequitor replies tells me that trying to argue with you is like trying to go ten rounds in a cage match with a toddler.

        • Kodie

          I think he’s gone back to ignoring my posts now since none of the replies since I left this afternoon are for me. I have never in my life seen anyone so bad at responding directly to people and forgetting their name already. Sure, I have seen people misidentified if they had to scroll up to remember who said what, but never right after the post, like we are all the same person.

  • Wladyslaw

    I meant to say, hard cases, not abortion law, NOT be used…

    • Nate Frein

      So then why are you citing “hard cases”?

    • David

      It seems like the question right now has to do with “why,” am I correct? Its been proposed that a fetus becomes a child at the moment it no longer needs a uterus, doctors, or machines to assist it with breathing, feeding, and so on. If that’s the case, then being a person requires a degree of autonomy. This would call into question a lot of people who live with special needs, wouldn’t it? If these people with special needs lack a degree of autonomy, are they persons?

      • Nate Frein

        There is a fundamental difference between needing some assistance to cope with living in a modern world, and literally requiring the use of another person’s body to survive.

      • Phil

        1) You know what, we have medical ethicists who think about these things. How about we get together some sort of panel, and have them reach a conclusion, maybe even a report?

        2) I think the current state of law is “viable outside the womb.” At least the law defines that as the point where the state has an interest in the fetus that outweighs the mother’s interest in her body. Works for me.

      • Kodie

        Would being inside a uterus, if possible, resolve the issue? If no, then that is a person.

  • Wladyslaw

    I need to leave for a few hours.

    • Nate Frein

      Take your time, cupcake.

  • Nate Frein

    I asked before, and it’s a serious question that I want an honest answer for from any of the anti-choice crowd:

    Do you believe in social safety nets? A standard of living below which we allow no-one to fall?
    Do you believe in universal access to health care?
    Do you believe in universal access to contraception?
    Do you believe that gays should be allowed to adopt?

    • David

      Nate:

      Do you believe in social safety nets? A standard of living below which we allow no-one to fall?

      Short answer: yes. I certainly believe we could do more to work toward people getting the help that they need.

      Do you believe in universal access to health care?

      Short answer: yes. I believe that access to medical care is more of a right than a privilege.

      Do you believe in universal access to contraception?

      Here’s where we part company. I, and many other prolifers with me, have a much different sense of what society needs to do to end abortion. It doesn’t involve contraception. It involves a renewal of “traditional” cultural values.
      1) Sex is neither a pleasurable pass-time nor a means of “letting off steam.” We should find other ways of having fun and releasing tension. “Love” is not even sufficient reason for sex. We an express love in many ways other than sex.
      2)Sex is the prerogative of a man and woman who intend to raise biological offspring together. The implications of this: life-long commitment to each other and monogamy are highly recommended.
      3)If the parents can’t afford more children than they already have, or if there are physical or psychological reasons for why the woman should not be pregnant, then…no sex. Or they could try Natural Family Planning. But I’m not going to recommend that. No sex seems less risky.

      Do you believe that gays should be allowed to adopt?

      No. I don’t think that the gay lifestyle should be encouraged. As implied in my answer above, sex is not for everyone. It is for a man and a woman who intend to be biological parents, who make a life-long, monogamous commitment. Love between people of the same sex should find platonic outlets.

      • Niemand

        I don’t think that the gay lifestyle should be encouraged.

        What’s a “gay lifestyle”? Why shouldn’t it be “encouraged”? What do you mean by “encouraged” anyway?

        • David

          It shouldn’t be regarded by society as a healthy expression of mature human sexuality.

        • Niemand

          Why? Because you don’t like it?

        • David

          The healthy expression of mature sexuality entails raising biological offspring and remaining committed to family life till death. Nothing else comes close.

        • Nate Frein

          What evidence do you have for that statement, David?

        • Niemand

          The healthy expression of mature sexuality entails raising biological offspring and remaining committed to family life till death

          Again, why? What does it matter to you whether your neighbor has children or not? And why should death be the only acceptable escape from a relationship that is no longer working?

        • Kodie

          You realize Christian purity hetero marriage is a form of birth control, yeah?

          People are going to screw, so make them feel dirty about it and shack up before they know who they are.

          Patriarchal misogynistic lifestyles should not be encouraged.

      • Niemand

        Oh, sorry, forgot something: What would you consider right in the following situations:
        1. A straight couple marries with the intent of having loads of children. They discover that they are infertile. Are they required to divorce and/or stop having sex? What if they are infertile with each other but there is a good chance that they would be fertile with other partners. Should they be required to divorce?
        2. A straight couple marries and has loads of children and happily raise them together. Then the wife hits menopause. Should they stop having sex? Should they get divorced so that the still fertile husband can find a fertile wife?
        3. Why is sex the special privilege of those who want to have children anyway? It’s not like the world is running out of people.
        4. Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife, if you’re married and straight, when she becomes menopausal?

        • David

          1. A straight couple marries with the intent of having loads of children. They discover that they are infertile. Are they required to divorce and/or stop having sex? What if they are infertile with each other but there is a good chance that they would be fertile with other partners. Should they be required to divorce?

          I would consider them to be good candidates for adopting babies. They would provide the children with a mother and a father.

          2. A straight couple marries and has loads of children and happily raise them together. Then the wife hits menopause. Should they stop having sex? Should they get divorced so that the still fertile husband can find a fertile wife?

          The committed, monogamous marriage is more important than the number of pregnancies. Remaining married cements family unity even after the couple can no longer have children. When menopause happens, they should remain in their life-long commitment.

          3. Why is sex the special privilege of those who want to have children anyway? It’s not like the world is running out of people.

          People still want to have children. Sex is still (typically) the way that they do it.

          4. Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife, if you’re married and straight, when she becomes menopausal?

          Perhaps my answer to #2 will suffice.

        • Kodie

          Just so happens that it’s Christians who run the pro-adoption racket known as Crisis Pregnancy Centers. I always think their anti-abortion stance/hovering by the Planned Parenthood to seize on vulnerable young women has something to do with supplying demand for white babies.

        • Niemand

          I would consider them to be good candidates for adopting babies. They would provide the children with a mother and a father.

          So as far as you’re concerned, all it takes to be a good candidate for adoption is a straight pairing? Never mind their mental and physical readiness for children, just make sure they have the right genitalia and everything’s great. Yeah, right. This is the sort of thinking that leads to adopted children being abused and murdered. Usually by “good Christian” couples who follow the Pearls’ advice.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          The committed, monogamous marriage is more important than the number of pregnancies.

          I agree. Then why push the procreation thing?

          (BTW, I’m coming into this discussion late in the game. Apologies if I’m repeating what someone else has already said.)

        • Wladyslaw

          Niemand,
          I am a Catholic. Catholics do not believe in divorce. If separated by a legal divorce, they cannot marry anther person.
          When a couple marry, they make a covenant with each other for LIFE, for better, for poorer, in sickness and in health, and agree to have children. Sex is for bonding and pleasure, AND intrinsically for procreation. If they found themselves to be infertile, they can still certainly have sex for pleasure-one of the two necessary reasons for sex. They intended to have children, but cannot. Their bond to each other is permanent.
          No3 The many people who do not want children are responsible for all the abortions in the world.

        • Nate Frein

          Oh…my…word.

          Don’t quote your Catholicism at us. I was raised Catholic.

          First, Catholics split along political lines in the same proportions as the rest of America. That means there’s a fifty-fifty chance that any given Catholic out there disagrees with Catholic church dogma.

          Second, quoting the views of a top down organization that assisted the Nazis, built a real-estate empire with Mussolini’s money, and has worked hard to protect child molesters doesn’t give much support to your “moral” views.

          Oh, and by the way? A Catholic hospital is arguing that fetuses aren’t human

        • Niemand

          Catholics do not believe in divorce. If separated by a legal divorce, they cannot marry anther person.

          Oh, excuse me. Should they be required to get an annulment? Catholics do believe in annulment and seem to use it quite often.

          When a couple marry, they make a covenant with each other for LIFE, for better, for poorer, in sickness and in health, and agree to have children. Sex is for bonding and pleasure, AND intrinsically for procreation. If they found themselves to be infertile, they can still certainly have sex for pleasure-one of the two necessary reasons for sex.

          It’s nice that you acknowledge that sex is for pleasure and bonding. But if sex should be allowed only when procreation is a possibility, I don’t understand how you can allow two people who know that they are infertile together to continue to have sex. They’ve got as much chance of producing a child that way as a gay or lesbian couple! I see no orderly rule here, only special exceptions designed to make sure that you and those you perceive as like you can continue to have sex.

          No3 The many people who do not want children are responsible for all the abortions in the world.

          Actually, not at all true. Virtually all third trimester abortions are performed on women who wanted to have a child but found that their very much wanted fetus couldn’t survive or that they couldn’t survive the pregnancy.

          But that aside, if your only objection to people having sex who don’t want children is the possibility of abortion, shouldn’t you be advocating that more people have gay sex? Gay sex produces no oopsie babies. As you know, since you named that as a problem with gay sex. Again, inconsistent morals.

      • Niemand

        It involves a renewal of “traditional” cultural values.

        Sorry about the multiple posts, but I just couldn’t let this one go. What “traditional culture” demands that only people who can and want to have children be allowed to have sex? I can’t think of any right off…

        • Wladyslaw

          I wasn’t asking you or anyone to convert to catholicism.
          People who disagree on any fundamental teaching of the Catholic faith are no longer Catholics.
          Niemand asked me my positions on four questions, and I told him what they were.
          The bishops in the area are now meeting to discuss how to correct the hospital. The bishops are responsible for doctrine. In the past they have required a hospital to lose its Catholic identity for allowing an abortion.
          All my comments in this whole thread reflected my Catholic belief.

        • Nate Frein

          I wasn’t asking you or anyone to convert to catholicism.

          No, but by demanding legislation to enforce your moral views, which are based in Catholicism, you are effectively attempting to force people to follow your religious tenets. You may not be trying to convert us to Catholics, but you do want us to behave like Catholics.

          People who disagree on any fundamental teaching of the Catholic faith are no longer Catholics.

          Yeah. Tell that to about half the practicing Catholics. The Catholic church sure doesn’t seem to mind keeping them on the rolls or accepting their tithes.

          All my comments in this whole thread reflected my Catholic belief.

          Oh, indeed. And that’s the problem.

        • Nate Frein

          BTW, this seems just apropos

        • Kodie

          A. So what, you’re Catholic. That has no bearing on facts unless and until you prove anything you believe in is real. That includes souls. I have asked anyone in this thread and the other several times to bring evidence that a fertilized egg has a soul, and have been ignored every time.

          B. It is really difficult to get yourself un-Catholic. If you are no longer a practicing Catholic, if you have denounced god and Jesus and the pope, and you eat meat on Fridays, and you have pre-marital gay sex, and have an abortion, and never go to confession, you can’t get yourself off the list. So don’t tell us they’re not Catholic, help these people out and demand the Vatican remove them, as requested, off the list. They used to but now they are not honoring requests to be removed.

        • Nate Frein

          My father believes in birth control, early term abortions (well, he sees it as the mother’s choice), and that gays should be allowed to marry.

          He’s also a devout Catholic and an upstanding member of his parish (which hosts a yearly LGBT mass). He even insists on abstaining from meat on Fridays outside of Lent.

          I’m pretty sure he’d have some choice words if Wladyslaw tried to tell him he was not a true Catholic. I’d be rather amused to witness that conversation, in fact.

      • Nate Frein

        I’m going to respond to you, but from what I can parse from Wladyslaw his answer is effectively the same.

        Short answer: yes. I certainly believe we could do more to work toward people getting the help that they need.

        Short answer: yes. I believe that access to medical care is more of a right than a privilege.

        Next question: Do you spend as much time advocating for these as you do advocating anti-choice issues?

        1) Sex is neither a pleasurable pass-time nor a means of “letting off steam.” We should find other ways of having fun and releasing tension. “Love” is not even sufficient reason for sex. We an express love in many ways other than sex.

        This entire premise is falsified by thousands of years of human existence. You’re advocating a fantasy. People are going to have sex. Stomping your feet and demanding they stop will not change that fact. “Love” isn’t even the reason a good chunk of the time; sometimes, people just want to have fun.

        And sex is fun. Make no bones about it, sex has been a pastime for a very long time.

        2)Sex is the prerogative of a man and woman who intend to raise biological offspring together. The implications of this: life-long commitment to each other and monogamy are highly recommended.

        Incompatible sex drives is a common reason for divorce. The only way to know if sex drives are compatible before a long term commitment is to have sex prior to that commitment. Once again, biology and history invalidate this position. Ergo it cannot be used as a basis for reasonable, effective legislation.

        3)If the parents can’t afford more children than they already have, or if there are physical or psychological reasons for why the woman should not be pregnant, then…no sex. Or they could try Natural Family Planning. But I’m not going to recommend that. No sex seems less risky.

        The problem with this statement is that abstinence, treated as a contraceptive, has the lowest success rate, because just about no one practices it. Teaching abstinence has been proven to do nothing to reduce the amount of sex people are having and teaching abstinence only means that the people having sex have no knowledge of safe ways to do so.

        So all three of your responses are invalidated by history and biology (and are heavily predicated on moral teachings based in one particular bronze age religion). How do you justify extrapolating these to secular legislation? How do you justify forcing these views on people who do not share your religiously based moral outlook?

        No. I don’t think that the gay lifestyle should be encouraged. As implied in my answer above, sex is not for everyone. It is for a man and a woman who intend to be biological parents, who make a life-long, monogamous commitment. Love between people of the same sex should find platonic outlets.

        There’s a lot wrong with this statement. First, homosexuality is not exactly a choice, nor is it unique to humanity. Many species engage in homosexual acts.

        Second, why would you seek to reduce adoption opportunities while at the same time forcing women to bring unwanted pregnancies to term?

        • David

          Next question: Do you spend as much time advocating for these as you do advocating anti-choice issues?

          If anything, I’ve spent more time advocating for these issues.

          This entire premise is falsified by thousands of years of human existence. You’re advocating a fantasy. People are going to have sex. Stomping your feet and demanding they stop will not change that fact. “Love” isn’t even the reason a good chunk of the time; sometimes, people just want to have fun.

          Its going to involve some social evolution, no doubt, to arrive at the point where people find other means of having fun. I believe that, sooner or later, we will do so if only out of “enlightened self-interest.” We already know of plenty of ways to have fun which do not involve stripping naked in front of someone. Personally, stripping naked in front of someone is the thing that I would do when things have gone from “fun” to something more serious.

          Incompatible sex drives is a common reason for divorce. The only way to know if sex drives are compatible before a long term commitment is to have sex prior to that commitment.

          If I’m going to spend the rest of my life with someone (I’m still holding to the terms that I expressed above), I’m going to be looking for many qualities. Sex will not enter the picture until I think that I can love that person. If I love that person, then I’ll take the full package, regardless of whether the sex is ideal or not.

          The problem with this statement is that abstinence, treated as a contraceptive, has the lowest success rate, because just about no one practices it. Teaching abstinence has been proven to do nothing to reduce the amount of sex people are having and teaching abstinence only means that the people having sex have no knowledge of safe ways to do so.

          “Everyone’s doing it,” or not doing it, is a strong argument…but only up to a point. Of course, I’m proposing something which, at this point, really is counter-cultural. Teaching abstinence probably wouldn’t be enough right now. We’d have to live in a cultural milieu that actually practices it. We’re practically swimming in social cues which point us in the opposite direction (movies, TV shows, literature, etc.) Abstinence is hardly considered cool.

        • Nate Frein

          Its going to involve some social evolution, no doubt, to arrive at the point where people find other means of having fun. I believe that, sooner or later, we will do so if only out of “enlightened self-interest.” We already know of plenty of ways to have fun which do not involve stripping naked in front of someone. Personally, stripping naked in front of someone is the thing that I would do when things have gone from “fun” to something more serious.

          It’s been almost 2000 years since Paul started hating sex, and yet in that time Christianity has yet to effectively change human sexual behavior. If two thousand years isn’t enough time, then how long do you think we need to spend?

          If I’m going to spend the rest of my life with someone (I’m still holding to the terms that I expressed above), I’m going to be looking for many qualities. Sex will not enter the picture until I think that I can love that person. If I love that person, then I’ll take the full package, regardless of whether the sex is ideal or not.

          Those are your priorities. Why do you feel the need to force those priorities on other people?

          “Everyone’s doing it,” or not doing it, is a strong argument…but only up to a point. Of course, I’m proposing something which, at this point, really is counter-cultural. Teaching abstinence probably wouldn’t be enough right now. We’d have to live in a cultural milieu that actually practices it. We’re practically swimming in social cues which point us in the opposite direction (movies, TV shows, literature, etc.) Abstinence is hardly considered cool.

          Every attempt to create such a milieu has failed. What makes you think you’ll be able to succeed? What makes you think Christianity, which can’t even keep it’s own priests from having sex with children, will effect this change? Or change before the earth is devastatingly overpopulated?

        • David

          Nate:

          It’s been almost 2000 years since Paul started hating sex, and yet in that time Christianity has yet to effectively change human sexual behavior. If two thousand years isn’t enough time, then how long do you think we need to spend?

          Christians don’t necessarily believe that things will change. From our perspective, people would be better off if things did change, but we don’t know that it will happen.

          Those are your priorities. Why do you feel the need to force those priorities on other people?

          Well, I agree that I’d like to see the abortion laws changed. Other than that, there are may priorities of mine and other Catholics that we can only suggest to other people. We can’t force them.

          Every attempt to create such a milieu has failed. What makes you think you’ll be able to succeed? What makes you think Christianity, which can’t even keep it’s own priests from having sex with children, will effect this change? Or change before the earth is devastatingly overpopulated?

          As Catholics, we ultimately do not hold ourselves in high esteem. What we cannot accomplish, God can, if we entrust ourselves to His care. Its an open invitation to the world. We do not hold up any particular individual or group that has all the answers. We certainly don’t hold up our clergy as being the guarantors of some New World Order. We just trust in God–particularly Jesus Christ.

        • Nate Frein

          So you don’t believe in forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if it goes against her wishes?

        • David

          If the issue were put to a vote: should abortion be legal/illegal, I would vote my conscience. Since I believe that abortion is wrong, I would vote to make it illegal. I don’t know if that fully answers your question.

        • Nate Frein

          If the issue were put to a vote: should abortion be legal/illegal, I would vote my conscience. Since I believe that abortion is wrong, I would vote to make it illegal. I don’t know if that fully answers your question.

          Yes, it does. “Voting my conscience” is another way of saying “I want to use my franchise to try to force my moral views on others”. It’s bigotry, pure and simple. If you cannot justify legislating against something without resorting to religious reasons, then voting to legislate against it is voting to force your religion on other people.

        • Kodie

          Its going to involve some social evolution, no doubt, to arrive at the point where people find other means of having fun. I believe that, sooner or later, we will do so if only out of “enlightened self-interest.”

          You’re out of your freakin’ mind. Sure people find lots of ways to have fun. Nobody said sex was the only way to have fun. People get hungry, they eat. It works like that. Imagine if you say you can’t eat until you’re married, find something else to do instead. People can do more than one thing in their life to entertain themselves or satisfy a need.

        • Kodie

          If I’m going to spend the rest of my life with someone (I’m still holding to the terms that I expressed above), I’m going to be looking for many qualities. Sex will not enter the picture until I think that I can love that person. If I love that person, then I’ll take the full package, regardless of whether the sex is ideal or not.

          Good for you! Why do people like you think everyone has to follow strict rules about that and what harm does it do to you if they don’t?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          What we cannot accomplish, God can, if we entrust ourselves to His care.

          And how does this answer the priests-sexing-children question? I understand that priests, in an unnatural, celibate lifestyle, will have sex. And God apparently is quite fine with it. Or can’t change it. Or doesn’t care.

          Trusting God to make things better obviously hasn’t worked.

        • David

          Nate:

          There’s a lot wrong with this statement. First, homosexuality is not exactly a choice, nor is it unique to humanity. Many species engage in homosexual acts.

          Second, why would you seek to reduce adoption opportunities while at the same time forcing women to bring unwanted pregnancies to term?

          I don’t insist that it is a choice. I certainly don’t wish to blame anyone for having this attraction or that attraction. But, for the reasons expressed above, the attraction is not sufficient reason to have sex. It should be clear by now that, from my point of view, sexual attraction is not a valid criteria by itself. I view sex as a conjugal act, linked to procreation.

        • Nate Frein

          I don’t insist that it is a choice. I certainly don’t wish to blame anyone for having this attraction or that attraction.

          Okay, well…that’s a start, i guess.

          But, for the reasons expressed above, the attraction is not sufficient reason to have sex. It should be clear by now that, from my point of view, sexual attraction is not a valid criteria by itself.

          Once again: What empirical reasons do you have to force this view on other people?

          I view sex as a conjugal act, linked to procreation.

          Not all sex results in fertilization. Not all fertilized embryos implant (in fact, at least half of all fertilized embryos fail at this stage). So I’d say that, from an empirical standpoint, sex is not directly linked to procreation.

          Especially when you look at the fact that sex in and of itself carries many health benefits, while pregnancy is a huge burden on the mother and can easily cause lasting harm to the mother, how do you support forcing your views on another person, who doesn’t necessarily share your moral views on sex?

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          Abortion has been the greatest reason why there’s a tremendous lack of children for adoption. People desperate to adopt are going to Russia and the east European nations sto try to get children. Straight couples are unable to adopt.

        • Nate Frein

          What lack of children to adopt? What the hell are you smoking?

          No, there are fundamental problems with our abortion and foster care systems right now, but lack of children is absolutely not one of them.

          Those “desperate couples” are only desperate to adopt a white infant.

        • Kodie

          I don’t insist that it is a choice. I certainly don’t wish to blame anyone for having this attraction or that attraction. But, for the reasons expressed above, the attraction is not sufficient reason to have sex. It should be clear by now that, from my point of view, sexual attraction is not a valid criteria by itself. I view sex as a conjugal act, linked to procreation.

          I’d say that it’s none of your business, and it doesn’t harm you in any way. What I think of assertions like that is I don’t care what you believe. Your beliefs and intrusions harm other people. I’m not going to ask you to bring evidence for god before I believe what you say is important and true – what I always say to bigots like you is why can’t you leave it between them and god. If god has a problem with it, he doesn’t need you to tell us.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          Please do not try to foist your atheistic views and atheistic ethics on us Christians, force your atheistic morality on us. Roe vs Wade was atheistic and forced on us.

        • Wladyslaw

          I”m sorry I’m doing this wrong. I googled abortion and adoption and got this. You might trust this source.

          Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number Of Unwanted …
          http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html
          by M Bitler – 2002 – Cited by 36 – Related articles
          CONTEXT: The legalization of abortion in the United States led to well-known … The above statistics on total adoption petitions granted include placements with …

        • Nate Frein

          Please do not try to foist your atheistic views and atheistic ethics on us Christians, force your atheistic morality on us. Roe vs Wade was atheistic and forced on us.

          How was Roe v. Wade forced on you?

          No one has said you must have an abortion.
          No one has said you cannot personally refrain from having sex unless you want a baby.

          No one. Anywhere. At any time. Get the hell over yourself.

          We do not find that Roe v. Wade had a significant effect on adoptions, although our results suggest there may have been a negative effect on adoptions of children born to white women.

          From your own bloody link. Your link not only confirms the positive effects of abortion access but also confirms my suspicion that anyone who has to resort to looking for a baby in Europe is more concerned with adopting the proper white-skinned infant than in giving an American child a home.

          Furthermore, you have yet to explain how less children available for adoption is a bad thing. If a couple is infertile they can always find a surrogate mother. The American foster care system is fundamentally broken. The children who grow up in the system are often abused and face problems with systematic lack of access to education and healthcare, especially mental health care.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          You conveniently forgot this:
          CONCLUSIONS: The estimated effect of abortion legalization on adoption rates is sizable and can account for much of the decline in adoptions,

        • Nate Frein

          The relationship between adoption and abortion has public policy implications both because of the large, unmet demand for children available for adoption and because of concerns about the living circumstances of unwanted children. In 1995, for example, 9.9 million ever-married women aged 18-44 had ever considered adopting a child, 1.6 million had taken steps to adopt a child and 487,000 had actually adopted a child. Almost a half million women were planning or seeking to adopt a child in 1995.34 Consistent with findings from prior studies, our results suggest that abortion legalization led to a decline in the adoption rate and a reduction in the number of “unwanted” children relinquished and available for adoption. This reduction may have improved average infant health and childhood living conditions.

          Emphasis mine.

        • Nate Frein

          No, I did not forget that particular line in the abbreviated abstract. I posted a further passage in the cited article that qualified it. You really should read more than just the abstract. It’s really rather informative.

          Further, you still haven’t answered why more children in the abortion system is a good thing.

        • Nate Frein

          *”Abortion system” should read “adoption system”

      • Kodie

        I, and many other prolifers with me, have a much different sense of what society needs to do to end abortion. It doesn’t involve contraception. It involves a renewal of “traditional” cultural values.

        You realize this is a fantasy and the rest of us are living in reality? If that’s the kind of lifestyle you want, keep it for yourself. If your god has a problem with me, let him come and tell me himself. He shouldn’t need a dolt like you to spread the word but apparently he does.

        I have also responded to you on this subject before but you dropped it and chased another one of your tails.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        David:

        I don’t think that the gay lifestyle should be encouraged.

        This is a tangent, but I discuss this in detail in a series of posts starting here.

        In short, I see your statement as saying “I don’t think the black lifestyle should be encouraged.”

        They’re gay. Gay people may want gay sex. More importantly: who cares? Gay people sexing doesn’t hurt me a bit. It’s natural, and it’s good for another segment of the society I live in. Win-win, right?

        The healthy expression of mature sexuality entails raising biological offspring and remaining committed to family life till death. Nothing else comes close.

        Wow–this is wrong is so many ways. I slap this argument around here.

        I’m married, and my wife and I are beyond child-bearing years. Does that mean we shouldn’t be married anymore? That our family is a sham somehow? And what if we’d been infertile or didn’t want kids? Should our marriage have been declared void if, after a trial period, we had no kids to prove our support for marriage?

        Marriage is a lot more than procreation, dude.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Yes to question one.
    Yes to question two, except for the part that allows for insurance payments for contraceptives and abortion.
    No to 3. As I had said earlier in the thread, contraception, the separation of sex from procreation, especially the pill, made the sexual revolution possible. And the sexual revolution made abortion necessary as a backup to failed contraceptives. Unfortunately, I was a very
    active participant and slept around a lot. Then a girl on contraception came to me and said she thought she was pregnant. With utter horror I realized I did not want this woman for my wife, was absolutely unready to be a father, absolutely unable to provide for child. I also realized I could not kill it. I stopped having sex until I got married. So no the 3.
    No to four

  • Wladyslaw

    I think you meant the adoption system.
    There would be a lot fewer abortions.

    • Nate Frein

      By what logic?

      • Wladyslaw

        Most babies that get adopted usually get adopted so for much of the same reasons that babies get aborted–I can’t afford it, I wasn’t planning of having a child, I want to go to college, I can’t handle a child now.
        When “CONCLUSIONS: The estimated effect of abortion legalization on adoption rates is sizable and can account for much of the decline in adoptions, happened, a lot of people chose to abort.
        A half hour abortion for $350 was a whole lot easier than carrying a baby to turn and trying to find an adopter.

        • Nate Frein

          So why is having more children adoptable a good thing?

        • Wladyslaw

          January 28, 2013 at 5:19 pm

          So why is having more children adoptable a good thing?

          Seems you already asked me that:
          Further, you still haven’t answered why more children in the abortion system is a good thing.

        • Nate Frein

          So you’re saying more children being adopted is good because it reduces abortions?

          The logic doesn’t follow. Children being in the adoption system was a consequence of, not a cause for abortion rates. The study itself concluded that by reducing the number of children in the adoption system the average health and living conditions was likely improved.

          Cupcake, the adoption system sucks. If you don’t get adopted as an infant you probably won’t be adopted at all. If you’re brown, you almost certainly won’t to be adopted, even as an infant, because most of the couples adopting only want pure white children. If you don’t get adopted, you get put in foster care. Those tend to suck. For some reason, religious-run foster homes can be particularly abusive.

          So no, more children in the adoption system is not a good thing. You again demonstrate your sickening perspective on human life by saying you think it is.

        • Wladyslaw

          Look:
          Before the legalization of abortions, if her contraception failed, the ONLY choice for a woman with an unwanted child was to through the whole months nine months of pregnancy, pay for the delivery, keep and feed the child until an adopter was found, and hope that the child would be wanted by someone.
          After the legalization of abortion, and her contraception failed, the woman now had a new choice of a 1/2 hour abortion, costing $350. If you were a woman, which choice would you make, once it was available?
          Most women chose to abort rather than go through birth and hassle of adoption.
          Guttmaher: the estimated effect of abortion legalization…can account for much of the decline of adoptions.
          I’m not sure how clearer it can be.
          Of course there were some positive benefits, but that is not the issue.
          “The logic doesn’t follow?”

        • Nate Frein

          Once again:

          The adoption system is not a good thing.
          Less children in the adoption system is better for all children involved.

          Ergo, more children in the adoption system is not a good thing if you care about children. You don’t care about children, you care about fetuses. You care more about potential lives than about the quality of life of children who have actually achieved that potential.

          Granted, since you’re a Catholic, this really shouldn’t come as a surprise.

        • Wladyslaw

          So, according to your logic, decreasing the number of adoptions and aborting them instead “MAY have improved average infant health and living conditions.”–notice how certain they are–so, if I really cared about children I should encourage wholesale increase in the number of abortions. Because then there are much more resources for those that didn’t get aborted– even if were not exactly sure about this–”may lead to improved infant health and living conditions.

        • Nate Frein

          the estimated effect of abortion legalization…can account for much of the decline of adoptions.

          Notice how certain they are…

        • Nate Frein

          And yes, I’m saying that if you care about real children, the ones who have been born, then you should support the abortion of unwanted pregnancies. Because the life of an unwanted child will suck, unless he or she is really really lucky. An aborted fetus, especially one like this won’t ever have to know any of that.

          And in the end, they’ll all be poor children, because rich folks will still get their abortions, because rich folks get what they want whether it’s legal or not.

        • Wladyslaw

          OK,
          You said “less children in the adoption system is a good thing.”
          And so cutting down the number of adoptable children more would be even a better thing. I suppose according to this logic, no adoptable children would be best.
          And the best ways to do so is to encourage all woman who are thinking of giving up their children for adoption to abort them instead. “less children in the adoption system is a good thing.”

        • Nate Frein

          I’m saying that less unwanted children is good for the entire society.

        • Wladyslaw

          Actually, you said that less children for adoption is better for ALL children, even a better reason to limit adoption.

        • Nate Frein

          I’m done. Either you’re a troll or you’re not mentally right. Arguing with you is pointless either way.

          If you want to continue an honest discussion, let me know. Until then, I’m done responding to you.

          Suffice it to say that if you really are on the level, you have a sick view of human live.

        • Wladyslaw

          OK,
          I’m saying that less unwanted children is good for the entire society.
          OK,
          Step one: Eliminate all adoptions. They encourage unwanted children to live.
          Step two: ACTIVELY search for women who don’t want their children, and encourage them to abort. Abortions aren’t just something that should be safe, legal, and rare, but positively encouraged by all to be much more numerous because to do so “good for the entire society.”

        • Wladyslaw

          “Actually, you said that less children for adoption is better for ALL children, even a better reason to limit adoption.”
          This comment WAS NOT meant as a response to the point you made immediately before. Coming when it did made me look like an idiot, and insulting and was NOT intended to be placed there.
          I do want continue an honest discussion.

          ” to be much more numerous” should have read “to eliminate more unwanted children’
          in my last comment.

        • Nate Frein

          I’m saying that less unwanted children is good for the entire society.

          Thank you captain obvious.

          Step one: Eliminate all adoptions

          Non-sequitor. The adoption system is a symptom, not a malady. Saying that eliminating adoptions will reduce the number of unwanted children is like saying that you treat asthma by eliminating asthma attacks. It doesn’t work that way. You reduce asthma attacks by treating the underlying asthma. You reduce the number of adoptions by addressing the underlying social causes of adoption.

          Step two: ACTIVELY search for women who don’t want their children, and encourage them to abort. Abortions aren’t just something that should be safe, legal, and rare, but positively encouraged by all to be much more numerous because to do so “good for the entire society.”

          Nuance. Learn to appreciate it.

          If this is the position you are attacking, you are strawmanning it.

          If you want to reduce the amount of unwanted children, you first move to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies forced to be carried to term. You do this by giving women the ability to be informed about their options and to not put barriers in the way of abortion so that it can be done as early as possible. This reduces the number of “fuzzy area” later term abortions and makes the overwhelming majority of abortions look like this.

          Your second move should be to invest in real, comprehensive sex education, and provide reliable and easy access to contraception. This reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

          These are proven answers to how to reduce both unwanted children and abortions in general. Empirical data supports this. Empirical data shows that the states that have the least sex education have the highest numbers of unwanted pregnancies. The hardest states to get abortions in are also the worst states for both infant and maternal mortality rates and premature births.

          The only way you can support those states is if you consider potential lives worth more than actual living, breathing humans.

          Granted, you’ve made it quite clear you have a screwed up values system.

          You follow the teachings of pederasts and pederast-protectors.

          You cite allied attacks as immoral but don’t mention a single Nazi or Japanese attack so you apparently, at best, can’t tell the difference between them.

          You’ve shown no problem using false or misleading evidence to support your claims.

          The fact is, I would not trust you to accurately judge the difference between this and this.

          This is all I have to say to you. I’m done with you.

        • Nate Frein

          My final comment to you is in moderation due to the number of links I used. When Bob gets around to letting it through you will see it.

          It is the last response you will get from me. I’m no longer willing to deal with your dishonest posts, your disingenuous arguments, your deliberate obtuseness and your ridiculous persecution complex.

        • Kodie

          So wait, we’re supposed to feel something for people who want to adopt but can’t find a baby the right color? I am horrified that’s even a thing.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          “Abortion reduces children available for adoption” may be true, but it’s irrelevant to the abortion question. “You should carry your fetus to term so you can contribute to the adoption pool” is not much of an argument to a pregnant woman and is certainly no support for imposing laws for obligatory pregnancy.

    • Wladyslaw

      Nate, How do you get to a reply on the post if there’s no reply box under a comment.

      • Nate Frein

        By hitting the most recent available reply button…

        • Wladyslaw

          Below or above?

        • Nate Frein

          Above if you want to keep replying in the same comment thread…

  • Kodie

    Wladyslaw – I was gone for some hours today but I wondered why you didn’t twice answer my question about early abortions. You seem to be ok with them and only focusing on late-term abortion. When a woman wants an abortion very late, it seems like it could be avoided by offering easier access to an abortion without all the guilt and grief usually put on the woman. You don’t say yes that is better than stabbing your niece, but you haven’t actually addressed my question.

    As for adoptions, you are again dwelling on something that could be avoided. Adoption is a very difficult choice for many women. It seems that only by getting to a very late term with no going back, or having been pressured into waiting, adoption is the only option available to them. Since I am pro-choice, I think it is a valid choice to make, but I worry about how women are treated before having to make this decision and obstructed from having the abortions they want that they are coerced into adoption. In fact, this is what Crisis Pregnancy Centers do for women whom they keep from having abortions. You glorify this choice because it is your party line, but I wonder if you’ve ever thought about how it would feel to be in this dilemma when it could be avoided by having an abortion. Right now you are focusing on some imaginary shortage of adoptable children. If you’re picky about who you get and what they look like, then yes, and what the hell is wrong with our culture if we value “children” if only they are white and brand-new. You don’t seem to have the regard for life that you do for a 22-week fetus when those children are older than an infant or non-white, among other qualities you don’t regard as a child.

    • Niemand

      Kodie, I’m in favor of giving women the choice of adoption, but only with informed consent. Women need to be told the risks that they are taking by giving a baby up for adoption, including the very high risk of psychological damage and possibly worsened physical health. Along with, of course, the risks of pregnancy, which are not inconsiderable. If she wants to go through with it, she should be given psychological support to attempt to minimize the damage. And it should always be clear that she can change her mind up to the moment she signs the papers.

      • Kodie

        That sounds reasonable. I think if someone gets pregnant and they believe it is a life and adoption is their choice, and they choose it, then they have time to think about that and feel used to it. Differently would be waiting too long to have an abortion, if abortion were your first choice, and ending up without that option. As I said before, in so many cases, I consider adoption Abortion Plan Z. It’s not done out of concern for the embryo becoming a child, it’s not done out of love. I am ok if it’s not done for those reasons, just that it is someone’s choice and that they have if they want it. I want them to have all the choices and not be backed into a corner with fewer choices.

        Information about adoption is just as important as information about parenthood. People romanticize both, and both of those are difficult to do that should be realistic. I think the other side recognizes that abortion really is the most attractive choice in so many cases, how do we fix this game and worsen the lives of more people with our poisonous beliefs that we control everyone?

  • Niemand

    Wow. There’s some serious evil in the “pro-life” movement. We’ve got people here proudly admitting that they’re pro-murder (allowing women to die rather than have an abortion), pro-slavery (that being the whole point of the “pro-life” movement: to enslave pregnant women to the fetus and to “society”), in favor of considering children as commodities (it’s a greater tragedy that straight people can’t adopt–regardless of their fitness–than for children to not have parents), and uninterested in parenting qualifications besides gender (David’s unqualified insistence that a straight couple who is infertile is a good candidate for adoption.) Then there’s the homophobia. Gays shouldn’t have sex with those they love because…um…sex is only for reproduction. Except for infertile couples. Or post-menopausal couples. Those are different because…um…they’re different.

    I realize that a lot of the “pro-life” movement is made up of nice people who are sincerely concerned about the fate of “babies” and who believe the propaganda that says that that women have abortions at 39 weeks for no good reason and that all aborted fetuses look like the older fetuses in the pictures that they show. I wish those “pro-lifers” would read this thread and realize how evil their allies are.

    • Nate Frein

      Not to mention that they’re perfectly happy to force these views on other people by voting for restrictive legislation.

  • Nate Frein

    Hehehehe. Saw this just now and thought it was particularly relevant:

    Abortion rates are higher where abortion is outlawed

    Two relevant cites:

    Researchers found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.

    And

    Experts couldn’t say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

    All of this is based off of a study by that very same Guttmacher Institute that Wladyslaw cited earlier.

    Ah, schadenfruede….sweet schadenfruede…

    • Wladyslaw

      Kodie,
      No, I am NOT in favor of early term abortions. I chose to concentrate on late term abortions because the issue of humanity becomes clearer and many more, or most pro-abortion people start citing the issue of viability (the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb) as their cutoff point. It seems you are ok with abortion at any stage of gestation, except to cite it being more difficult for the woman. and Nate goes even beyond that.
      So, since I view all human life as sacred, from conception until natural death, I certainly would not be ok with early abortions. Allowing the killing of a human a little earlier in life is no act of compassion.
      I have to go for a few hours.

      • Kodie

        You concentrate on late-term abortions because you don’t have a leg to stand on in the first trimester most common abortions. The only reason you say it’s wrong is because the woman spread her legs and invited necessary birth. It’s a heavy period sucked out through the vagina and that’s that. Why can you ask all the questions you think are hard to answer and never address the other end, when most abortions occur? It doesn’t have viability, it can’t sustain even assisted life outside the womb. Weep over that all you want, but there’s nothing there but lies and propaganda from your side.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Wlad:

        No, I am NOT in favor of early term abortions. I chose to concentrate on late term abortions because the issue of humanity becomes clearer

        ?? You really don’t like late term abortions? OK, as you point out, you’re close to finding common ground with pro-choice advocates. So then why not prefer early abortions??

        If you hate late-term abortions, encourage early pregnancy testing with unbiased and unambiguous information given to any woman who’s not pleased to be pregnant. If you’re going to have one, get it ASAP, right??

  • Wladyslaw

    Niemand,
    The evidence I cited that abortion to save the life of the mother is only about .006 percent of all abortions..Is that your justfiication for abortion?

    • Niemand

      Your cites were all to right wing propaganda sites which are completely unreliable. The average number of lives saved by abortion can be calculated by the CDC numbers, as I did above, and is far higher. But be that as it may, the bottom line is that you said you’re perfectly happy to have some women dying in order to stop abortions. This claim that it’s a very small number is just a rationalization to make yourself feel better. If you kill one person, that is only 1/7 billionth of the population that you’ve killed, but does that make it ok? Why are you ok with murdering women, as long as it’s only a few?

      • Nate Frein

        Wladyslaw has shown that he is not a critical consumer of information. Wladyslaw seems to think that googling a phrase and looking at the first paragraph of the first link gives him all the information he needs.

        • Wladyslaw

          I haven”t received any cites from you from peer reviewed papers stating how low that number is. But Kodie is absolutely right. Even killing one person is murder. (and obviously for me, 55,00,00o,000 is incredibly more serious). In case where the mother is in danger of dying, the doctors is charged with saving save the life of both, and advances in medicine have made it possible to do both, without INTENTIONALLY killing the child. Further investigation into the recent case in Ireland where abortionists claimed that Catholic laws caused her death, and that her death was caused by the life of the child were walked back. In case of tubal pregnancies, the infected tube is allowed to be removed.The intention is to remove the infected tube, not kill the baby.
          Direct INTENTION of killing of the baby is never justified.
          And Niemand, it’s the pro-aborts who try to justify abortion by pointing up the life of the mother to pro-life groups when debating them, and say aha, you believe in abortion here, one life, so you really aren’t honest in opposing abortions. Ever here of a prolifer bringing up that justification?

        • Nate Frein

          Wait…when did 55 million become 5.5 billion?

          And if a person killing 10 people is worse than a person killing 1 person, then killing one person to prevent the death of 10 people is justified, right?

          So killing a doctor who performs abortion is acceptable, because it prevents the “deaths” of unborn “people”, right?

          So why aren’t you killing abortion doctors?

        • Kodie

          A few too many zeroes there, careful. Or is that Mr. Careful. 55 million imaginary people vs. 251 actual people. Hmmm. Your morals are warped, your judgment is clouded by superstition, and you can’t read, and you can’t even write. You haven’t given one good reason to take you seriously.

        • Wladyslaw

          Sorry about the mistake in numbers.
          A very few pro-lifers hold that position. Some have tried to block abortionists from driving from their home on their way to the clinic. I personally was part of a group that blocked an abortion clinic to prevent women from entering one.
          But know, I and most prolife people certainly do not advocate killing abortionists. It set back the pro-life movement in credibly. Imagine if a hundred of abortionists were killed. The outrage would certainly stop the pro-life movement, energize pro-abortion position slowly which has been slowly losing since Roe vs Wade (recent TIME article).
          Legal attempts to limit abortions would be incredibly harder.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          Yes, murdering doctors would be a PR nightmare. But who cares? Aren’t we focused on right and wrong here? Is God going to understand if you say that it was just inconvenient to do the right thing?

          No, you understand that shooting and adult is a bad thing, just like all of us. And if I understand you correctly, you acknowledge the vast difference between single cell and newborn. Where we’re not on the same page is how your view that the single cell as is (not it’s potential, what it is right now) is too important to kill can be imposed on the rest of society.

          Why not focus instead on educating people or encouraging dialogue instead of imposing your (possibly incorrect) views by law?

  • Kristen inDallas

    “This seems to be an obvious argument, but there are many who insist (1) that there is no meaningful difference and that the spectrum doesn’t exist”

    liar liar pants on fire. You have to be trying to mislead people intentionally here, because I believe you’re a smart enough guy and your reading comprehension can not be that off. Unless you’ve got some kind of mental obstruction on this particular topic… I’ve never seen anyone say there was no difference between one side of the spectrum and the other, or deny that there is a spectrum of development (all the way from conception to death) What pro-lifers HAVE been saying is that there is no clear cut moment of difference anywhere allong that spectrum and that defining ALL human life as a person makes more sense than trying to draw an arbitrary line on what you have no problem admitting is a spectrum.

    • Nate Frein

      So saving potential lives is worth increasing the overall human misery experienced by actual lives?

      • Wladyslaw

        You haven’t told me clearly when the potential lives become actual lives. According to you, not even at birth. Because you said that even after birth, if the baby needs medical intervention, it becomes human when it is finally detached from the machines, from the last necessary IV. The doctor removes the last IV, and it is no longer potential life, but actual life. The second before it was potential life, and after the IV slide out, it becomes actual life?

        • Nate Frein

          Just as assuredly as removing that last hue of blue from a blue-green mixture makes it green.

          Yes. That is the point at which the transformation is complete.

          But you knew that. Because you quite accurately reproduced my argument. Your feigning obtuseness is just further evidence of your dishonesty.

        • Wladyslaw

          Your viewpoint is way more radical than most. If a nurse was observed by CCTV undoing a vital machine from a baby in the nursery for five months she would be charged with murder. I wasn’t sure if you felt that she doesn’t need to be charged with murder.

        • Nate Frein

          If the child is hooked up to machines after birth, it’s because the parents requested. The child is a wanted child. Choosing to ignore the wishes of the parent is wrong.

          But then, we’ve made that particular nuance clear to you. You ignore it, further demonstrating your dishonesty.

        • Kodie

          Definitely before 10 weeks. Probably somewhat later. You should have no problem discerning an embryo at 10 weeks from your stabbed niece. That is a huge fat line between them, you can definitely see the difference.

    • Nate Frein

      And if you read the comments you will have seen quite a few posts by Wladyslaw stating that there is no meaningful difference from a just-conceived embryo and a newborn infant.

      • Wladyslaw

        Thanks Nate, I absolutely believe that human life begins at conception, and not at some magic moment when the last new cell is added to the fetus. Before that last new cell was added, it was just a fetus, and the addition of that last cell made it human? Really? According to a lot of pro-abortionist there is a spectrum, and at some point the fetus becomes human, at some second. I do not believe at some second it is human, and at some second SOMETHING happens and it becomes human

        • Wladyslaw

          Actually Nate what I was saying is that at every moment of pregnancy there was no meaningful difference from second to second, not no difference from just conceived to newborn.
          There is no magic moment of meaningful difference.

        • Kodie

          You don’t have to watch it like you don’t watch your grass grow and one day you realize it’s time to cut again. You can compare a very early week from a viable late week and see a noticeable difference. You can say 20 for sure, but to be in the absolutely ethical clear, I will decide before 12 weeks. What happens in those two months? A lot, but you don’t need to focus on all of it or witness it elapse second by second. You know an acorn becomes a tree, right? The whole life of the tree is inside that acorn. But you can see how they are different things – one you can toss, and one you have to go to the labor of raking and trimming, and if it needs to be taken out, sawing off limb by limb, and then chopping down the trunk, and then digging out the roots, and feeding it all into a chipper that you rent. You definitely know what’s involved in discarding an acorn vs. a tree. You know how that is different. Why are you focused on a tree 1-foot tall then 1.5 feet tall, is it a tree yet? If it is small, you can pull it out of the ground with your hand. If it is as tall as you are, you might need a shovel and a wheelbarrow. Do not be dense. If it’s still an acorn, you can pick it up and throw it in the trash with your other trash.

          It’s a heavy period sucked out through the vagina. It’s not a minuscule person with features, thoughts, and dreams for the future. You are worried what will god think of you. What will he think if I agree there’s no such thing as a soul, or if I make an error and say the soul comes at birth. Science has given you too much information to misuse and miscomprehend. It’s sadly working against you here. You wonder where the actual line is, and you have some feelings that arguing about late-term abortions is how you’re going to trap people into agreeing with you. Why not hit the other, most common end of the spectrum and say, yes I can see the difference between two things, I can observe and compare, I am not a total idiot. You have to use different arguments at the other end because you are completely aware there is a huge difference, a wide line between the two.

    • Phil

      Kristen in Dallas,

      Your “line” (“life must be protected starting at conception”) is just as arbitrary as most other lines.

      • Kodie

        Better yet, why not control women and tell them to get married before they spread their legs. No ambiguity.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Kristen:

      liar liar pants on fire.

      A bold charge. Show me. I’m too stupid to see it.

      I’ve never seen anyone say there was no difference between one side of the spectrum and the other, or deny that there is a spectrum of development

      Interesting. Then get Rick Townsend to agree with you. In the many comments he’s made, I’ve seen no evidence that he agrees with you and plenty that he doesn’t.

      If you’re saying that everyone admits the spectrum to themselves but that a few imagine that admitting this is some sort of crack in their argument, then you could be right. But if that’s what you meant, you should’ve been clearer.

      ALL human life as a person makes more sense than trying to draw an arbitrary line on what you have no problem admitting is a spectrum.

      And I’ve been saying that, given doubts inherent in our legal system, that we should open the jails and let everyone out. Can’t be too protective of human rights, y’know.

  • Wladyslaw

    My actual words were, no meaningful difference from week to week in a pregnancy.

    • Nate Frein

      Your actual word was “fundamental”, not “meaningful.”

      Which is besides the point. You’re playing a semantic game. Your phrasing is substantively the same as mine.

      Just more evidence of your dishonesty.

  • Wladyslaw

    OK Let’s first see where we agree. Let’s go to science. And go from there.
    SCIENTIFICALLY, something astounding, meaningful happens at conception. The sperm and ovum at some second in time unite and an embryo emerges. This alone makes all future life possible. If this conception had NOT happened, no future life ever would occur. But it did happen and is significantly different from the sperm and ovum, verifiable from science. I think you would agree so far and that it is alive (not dead) and on its way to potential human life. I think we would agree so far. Correct me if I am wrong.
    At the other end, when this “potential human” became a full human and finally dies, something scientifically verifiable happens.The cells that were alive are no longer alive and and cannot continue to grow. Dead. Scientifically verifiable event.
    After the embryo emerges, the cells begin to divide and multiply. There’s no significant scientifically difference between those cells multiplying, and say, what happens when cancer cells multiplying. There’s no significant scientific difference between six cells and seven cells, between twenty and twenty one cells, between one million and one million and one, and no significant difference between one billion and one billion and one. AT NO point, at NO second up to death(we do live in a succession of seconds), is this alive thing significantly different from the SECOND before, or the SECOND after, except added cells. After conception cells multiply until death.
    Pro-abortion advocates say that at some point, and it must happen in time (at the point of viability, or at birth, or after birth, when off all machines) a significant event happens. These live multiplying cells become a live human being. At what scientifically verifiable point does this happen? Point not scientifically verifiable, then many, many of the 55,000, 000 were murdered when they became a human being.
    Conception, scientifically verifiable. Death scientifically verifiable.

    • Wladyslaw

      Sorry for the long post.
      I guess I could have simply said, I believe that a human being begins his human life at conception (at the moment when the sperm and ovum unite)–a verifiable moment, and ends with a verifiable moment-death. He certainly is radically different from the moment after conception to the moment of death. But there is no break in that continuity, just cellular differences from moment to moment.

      • Nate Frein

        Okay, if a blastocyst is somehow the same as an actual person, what gives that individual the right to the use of another person’s organs?

      • Niemand

        I believe that a human being begins his human life at conception (at the moment when the sperm and ovum unite)–a verifiable moment

        Ok, let’s go for this one too. What part of conception do you think is the “verifiable moment” when life begins? The fusion of the cell membranes? The penetration of the zona pellicula? The fusion of the pronuclei? The ejection of the second mitotic body? Conception is not a unitary event.

        There are other elephants in the room with this definition. The obvious ones:
        1. Identical twins. One fertilized egg, two infants. Or are they?
        2. Chimeras. Two fertilized eggs, one infant. Or is the infant really two people, since it has two sets of DNA?
        3. Molar pregnancies. Something bad happens with mitosis and you get a triploid tumor, not an infant. When did it change from baby to tumor? Or did it? Is chemotherapy murder?

    • Niemand

      So much wrong here. But let’s start with something simple. When is a person dead? There is an accepted medical definition of “dead”. Do you know what it is?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      SCIENTIFICALLY, something astounding, meaningful happens at conception.

      For any sexually reproducing plant or animal, not just for humans.

      And yet we kill flies all the time. Flies that have far more cells than the single human cell you demand must be protected.

      These live multiplying cells become a live human being. At what scientifically verifiable point does this happen?

      I would say “person,” not “human being.” And it’s not “scientifically verifiable,” it’s as decided by society. Laws aren’t science, they’re the actions of society.

    • Kodie

      But it did happen and is significantly different from the sperm and ovum, verifiable from science. I think you would agree so far and that it is alive (not dead) and on its way to potential human life. I think we would agree so far. Correct me if I am wrong.

      You know Niemand, Nate, and I think Bob did correct you very well. Verifiable by science is that what you described is different than a baby.

      I think we agree so far?

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate and Kodie,
    All the DNA information that made you, Nate, who you are, and you Kodie, who you are, happened at the moment of conception. EVERYTHING about you was present at conception. Not any information for any baby. And this information could only produce you. If your embryo was killed, you, a live human, would not be alive today. You, an alive human, not a potential you, would not be alive today. You, Nate, would have been killed.

    • Nate Frein

      All the DNA information that made you, Nate, who you are, and you Kodie, who you are, happened at the moment of conception. EVERYTHING about you was present at conception. Not any information for any baby. And this information could only produce you.

      That’s a bald falsity. Chemicals my mother ingested while I was gestating changed my developments. Genetic accidents changed how I developed. There is absolutely no guarantee that the potential contained in my genetic information would have even produced the same baby that happened to become me.

      Further, environment and lived experiences did a lot to shape who I was growing up and who I am now. Pinning it on that particular sperm, and that particular ovum defining me is patently ridiculous.

      If your embryo was killed, you, a live human, would not be alive today. You, an alive human, not a potential you, would not be alive today.

      And if Hitler were aborted…what then? What ifs are intellectual masturbation.

      Further, why do you insist it’s a good think I lived? My mother was borderline abusive. I’ve been beaten, raped, and robbed. I have chemical imbalances in my head that cause depression. I have chronic asthma. My life is not happy. I have not done anything in my life that could not have been done better by someone else. The human race would not have been fundamentally changed by my absence. Perhaps if my parents had waited to have me until after my mother had worked through her own fundamental problems, that might be a different story for whomever might be their first son.

      Further, to be perfectly honest? I think most great human achievements were inevitable. I think we need to celebrate the men and women who had the courage to stand up for what’s right. But I doubt any abortion is going to prevent what has needed to happen from happening.

      You, Nate, would have been killed.

      No, because I would not have existed in the first place.

    • Nate Frein

      And once again I have to say this shows how little you’ve paid attention to the arguments here. That you would try to invoke the “you’d be gone if you were aborted” argument with me shows me that you never actually read this link which I have posted multiple times now.

      The fact is, Wladyslaw, is that many children do not have happy lives. The fact is, Wladyslaw, that by forcing unwanted pregnancies to become unwanted children, you set the stage for perpetuating miserable cycles of abuse and poverty. How many unwanted children become part of Catholic run foster homes? How many of them do you suppose end up getting raped by the priests there?

      You’re happy to show the bloody examples of wanted children. Why don’t you look at the bloody examples of unwanted children?

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Nate:

        Why don’t you look at the bloody examples of unwanted children?

        This may be the oddest aspect of the pro-life position to me. That they have blinders on, they keep chanting “if it’s alive, it must be kept alive!” and they don’t look around to see the consequences of their actions.

        Do Christians want to do good things? Great! They should look at society and see what’s best. Maybe we could reduce unwanted pregnancies. That’s a win-win. Or maybe help disadvantaged children in orphanages or poor households. Or help minimize premature deaths both in the US and internationally. Maybe the pushback they’re getting with their anti-choice goals should be a clue … especially when there are so many areas where they could help and find allies in the pro-choice movement.

        But they’ve got this bizarre mania for one small aspect of life. Can they imagine that their god will be pleased?

    • Kodie

      I don’t know why you think that DNA is precious. You try to use science to help you but it doesn’t work.

  • Niemand

    All the DNA information that made you, Nate, who you are, and you Kodie, who you are, happened at the moment of conception.

    Um…no. White blood cells. Somatic mutation. Quite a lot happens between conception and birth and birth and later in life. Not even counting epigenetic events, post-translational modifications, and out and out errors.

    If your embryo was killed, you, a live human, would not be alive today. You, an alive human, not a potential you, would not be alive today.

    If my parents hadn’t met I wouldn’t be alive today. If they hadn’t had sex at just the right moment, I wouldn’t be alive today. If the blastulocyst I developed from hadn’t implanted I wouldn’t be alive today. If a different sperm had made it to the egg at just the right moment I wouldn’t be alive today. And so on. Abortion is the least of my existential worries.

  • Wladyslaw

    Niemand,
    If my parents hadn’t met I wouldn’t be alive today. If they hadn’t had sex at just the right moment, I wouldn’t be alive today. If the blastulocyst I developed from hadn’t implanted I wouldn’t be alive today. If a different sperm had made it to the egg at just the right moment I wouldn’t be alive today. And so on. Abortion is the least of my existential worries.

    We’re not talking about which world events throughout all of history might have or not made you possible. We are talking the fact that after the sperm of the father, and the ovum of your mother, united, the second after, only you, and no one else, became alive. Possibly a sick you. Perhaps fat you. Perhaps a mentally sick you. But you.
    But never the less than you. I obviously believe that environment affects you IN and OUT of the womb. Sickness happens at all stages of life. Unfortunate accidents happen at all stages of life.
    What I am saying is, your mother did not kill a potential you. She did not kill you. You were alive after conception, and remained alive. She did not end your life. You could have been killed at any time through pregnancy, and after pregnancy. At any point, she chose not to kill you. At any point, you, and no one else, would have died if she did.

    • Wladyslaw

      Let’s put it a little differently,
      After conception you became alive. Not Henry, Frank, or Bill. You. Not some anonymous person. You. And guess what. YOU SURVIVED. Nobody killed you. YOU survived all the possible things that could have ended you, and are still alive. You survived, not Henry or Bill. The person you are now survived. Your life was never ended. Nobody killed you.

      • Niemand

        Again, in what way can a single cell that I share some genetic similarity with (but not genetic identity as mentioned earlier) meaningfully be called me?

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Wlad:

        “That cell has the same DNA as you!!” is a pretty clinical statement. Don’t expect a lot of enthusiasm.

      • Kodie

        I think what’s going on here is the EPIC STORY OF LIFE as perceived by Christians. Christianity itself is marked by a special self-centeredness. And yet they want everyone to be the same. They want them to be the same color and from the same country and believe in the same god and get married the same before they have sex and only heterosexually and the whole helpmeet thing. There is nothing outstanding or unique about a lot of Christians. In fact, the more conforming they are to an uptight standard, the better they like it and the more they judge other people who differ in any way.

        Strict Christian marriage is itself a form of birth control. Shaming women to be pure, glorification of the sex act, and then trying to possess this as the singular way all the rest of us have to be. Keep it to yourselves if you want, but you’re an ignorant cult.

        • Nate Frein

          Strict Christian marriage is itself a form of birth control. Shaming women to be pure, glorification of the sex act, and then trying to possess this as the singular way all the rest of us have to be. Keep it to yourselves if you want, but you’re an ignorant cult.

          I’d never thought about marriage in that light. I honestly always carried around this assumption that marriage as a ritual was made up by the proto-priests to control their tribe and help justify their existence, Marriage as a way of regulating birth as humanity started to really move out of the tribal stage and build cities in Mesopotamia makes a lot more sense to me.

          Ultimately, I can respect the concept as a tool of social engineering, just as I can respect the musket as a key development in small-arms technology. But we don’t fight our wars with muskets. We didn’t get to the moon with abacuses (abaci?). We no longer farm with horse drawn ploughs. And we’re not going to create an environment in which our children — our actual living, breathing children — can thrive unless we move forward from bronze age misogynistic views on sex.

      • Kodie

        So what am I? I don’t get what’s so special about me that I am required by the universe to exist. You mean souls, then prove souls. Stop pretending you can level up to science here and just talk about what you know and of course how you know it.

    • Kodie

      You’re hardly a miracle even now Wlad. Sorry to burst your bubble. I’m sure some people would not miss you if you never existed.

  • Niemand

    We are talking the fact that after the sperm of the father, and the ovum of your mother, united, the second after, only you, and no one else, became alive.

    I have a hard time seeing how a single cell could be described in any meaningful way as “me.” Certainly, quite a lot of events had to go a certain way for anyone like the person I am to appear. If, for example, my mother had been folic acid deficient and had a baby that is genetically identical to me but had anencephaly I’d have a hard time calling it “me”. It would never have the ability to, for example, argue with you. Or live this long. If I’d been, say, switched at birth for another baby and raised by fundamentalists, there’s an extremely good chance that the person I would have been would be unrecognizable to and unsympathetic with the me that actually developed.

    I notice that you’re unwilling to commit yourself as to what part of conception you think forms the person and what the definition of death is. That’s probably wise, since the answers don’t support you’re view.

    • Wladyslaw

      bACK IN A HALF HOUR OR SO.

  • Nate Frein

    Wladyslaw, it is now my turn to “demand” (whatever that means on a blog) that you address my responses.

  • Wladyslaw

    OK, Nate, You have asked several times why don’t I care about unwanted children, and what would I do about them.
    My answer is simple. Don’t have unwanted children. Don’t do things that produce unwanted children. I told this story before. At some point in my promiscuous life a woman came to me and told me she thought she was pregnant. With horror I realized I did not ever want this child, and could not kill it. I the thought, “what the hell, how could I possibly continue with my sex life if I was absolutely not ready to be a father. And I stopped until got married.
    If you do not want unwanted children, don’t produce them, and then kill them.

    she was

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Don’t have unwanted children. Don’t do things that produce unwanted children.

      That’s what I say! When someone comes into the emergency room with a gunshot wound, I say, “Tough luck, dude. Don’t do stuff that gives you a hole in your foot.” And then I send him on his way.

      Tough love, right? I think it’s all for the best.

      • Wladyslaw

        Give the child to someone who wants it. There’s a desperate shortage of adoptable children.

        • Nate Frein

          There’s hardly a shortage of adoptable children.

          The shortage is of adoptable white babies.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          Uh … you gonna just ignore my point?

          There’s a desperate shortage of adoptable children.

          “You must take your pregnancy to term because other people want your baby” is no argument. In particular, it gives zero support for your view that your opinion should be imposed on the rest of the country.

    • Nate Frein

      So, like that, you feel the whole of humanity should stop doing what the whole of humanity has been doing since before recorded history?

      • Wladyslaw

        No, just don’t do it until you ready and willing to have a child.
        I’m married. If I want to space children I use NFP. And we space our children. We decided before hand that if a child came along, we would surely welcome it, not kill it. Every child a wanted child. Not every child a wanted child, and kill the unwanted.The 55,000,000 abortions happened in the last half century, when people decided to separate sex from procreation (contraception). That was the essence of the sexual revolution. Finally sex without its natural consequence was possible–basically, as much sex as one could want. There was always the ability to abort if an “accident” happened. The 55 million abortions in our country alone followed only AFTER people thought it was possible have ”safe sex.”. I seriously, seriously doubt if there were 55 million abortions in all of recorded history. Most people did NOT always have as much sex as they wanted, without consequences. Most were married–he scarlet letter was so powerful because it was so uncommen.

        • Nate Frein

          You have a very strange view of history.

          We are not having more sex then at any other point in history. The difference is that medical care has advanced enough that many more pregnancies can come to term, and that (at least in the U.S.) childhood death is nearly (though tragically not entirely) unheard of.

          You also never responded to this link. Areas where abortion is illegal have as many, if not more, abortions than areas where abortion is legal. Further, there is no evidence to back up the idea that women were getting significantly less abortions in the United States.

          You also haven’t responded to my point that Mississippi is the hardest state to get an abortion in, and it experiences the highest number of teen pregnancies, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. Why is that? Why is it that the more religious the state, the higher the rate of teen pregnancies and STDs?

          All the empirical evidence supports the idea that people have sex. People have been having sex. People will keep on having sex. This will not change no matter how you stamp your feet and demand otherwise.

          Also, I want to bring up the fact that you say you use NFP…you do realize the failure rate of NFP is ridiculous, right? That you might as well try pulling out?

          Second, I’m confused. You talk about this as if this is how you are family planning now. If you were living near Wurzburg when it was bombed, you have to be at least 67. How old are you? Is your wife the same age as you? Does she particularly enjoy the idea of NFP? How much choice do you actually allow her in your relationship? See, you haven’t been a very honest commenter here, so some really fishy things are starting to add up…

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          We decided before hand that if a child came along, we would surely welcome it, not kill it. Every child a wanted child.

          I’m glad it’s worked out for you. But you know that your happy situation doesn’t describe everyone, right?

          I can’t imagine the self-confidence you must have to demand to impose your view on everyone else.

          The 55 million abortions in our country alone followed only AFTER people thought it was possible have ”safe sex.”.

          Why bring this up? Do you care about the 55M abortions? It doesn’t look much like it if reducing unwanted pregnancies isn’t your top priority.

        • Kodie

          Wlad, you do realize humans are animals? We get to a certain age and we want to have sex. Controlling that by marriage involves a lot of cultural control over women. That’s what this is about. You don’t like women having options and you want to tie them down in your archaic system. That system is unrealistic for animals. That’s why you got to neuter your pets. Nobody ever says that will make a shortage of kittens. There will always be kittens.

          If you don’t agree we are animals, why do we have to screw like an animal to make offspring the way animals do? But animals don’t think to get married! Yes, we invented that to control births, which as I just said, involves controlling women, owning them like property and shaming them for being animals like men are. Where do you get the idea that this is something special we got that means we have to save every last scrap of us? Go ahead and ignore what I just said and say the numbers again or something like you did this whole thread.

    • Kodie

      If you do not want unwanted children, don’t produce them, and then kill them.

      Let’s see you tell me why you don’t believe in contraceptives.

      If you don’t want to get burned, don’t cook anything. If you don’t want to get hit by a car, don’t cross the street. If you don’t want to fall, don’t use a ladder. If you don’t want to cut your thumb, don’t peel potatoes.

      Sounds like you don’t understand risk. At the very heart of all your nonsense, you believe that sex should be a distinctly high risk activity that people wouldn’t engage in if the cost were necessarily too high to pay, like a child. Unlike most things in life that carry risk, you want to single out sex to remain most risky instead of doing like humans do and reduce the risk of activities with high costs. Sex is an unavoidable human animal activity with a natural high risk. In order to reduce the risk, yadda yadda yadda, marriage was established. Women have the unbalanced evidence of having taken such a risk, while men never do. A man could come in and leave as quickly with no care, and marriage was invented to hold him to a promise. That is a form of birth control.

      Christianity has a significant superstition about a few things: birth and death being among most key. When you die, you go somewhere, and spooked out by phantom pregnancies as they are, believe god is in total control over their individual lives from the very beginning. In order to appease god, nothing may interfere with this risk. Except telling people (women) who have sex that they’re sluts and upholding the sanctity of the virginal hymen until marriage. No man will marry you! So what, even. That’s not true, but so what? Well where will you live? I can live by myself, no problem. Nothing but marriage can interfere with the process of life. Control women until they are bound and held and owned from creating life, but after that, that’s all she is for. Basically, the Christian admits that mating needs to be under severe and judgmental control, as if sacrificing a goat. And this is the only way. We’re allowed to control births, but only by using women as property. We’re allowed to talk to her like she doesn’t understand the reality of it. We’re allowed to put a fence around her and tell everyone else to back off. We of course ask her if that’s ok, and her dad if you’re traditional. I think in purity culture, the father is in charge of guarding his daughter’s virginity and all her social situations to make sure she doesn’t ruin herself for marriage to a guy who cares more about her hymen than just about anything else except maybe can she cook and does she have wide birthing hips and does she love Jesus.

      So this is what they came up with and forever after sacred. Messing with this system of controlling birth, you get easier ways to control birth. You get easier ways to avoid nature’s precious little burdens. Women get more freedom, they can have jobs and educations and not wait for a man to do it for her. No longer helpless, she can have her time to choose. She can avoid saddling herself with the first moron who turns her on. Christians can’t stand that their superstitious rain dance about procreation is being mocked by technological advances.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Kodie:

        Women have the unbalanced evidence of having taken such a risk, while men never do. A man could come in and leave as quickly with no care, and marriage was invented to hold him to a promise. That is a form of birth control.

        I just stumbled across this video by Garfunkel and Oates (caution: rated R for lyrics) about the challenges women have in maintaining their Virginity With Magic Powers®.

        • Kodie

          I will always wish I was that smart and funny.

  • Wladyslaw

    She was not pregnant.

  • Wladyslaw

    Not doing what causes unwanted children is the ONLY thing that will stop abortion.
    No legal law will stop it, perhaps limit it a bit.
    It will require a gigantic cultural shift in our society. It is slowly happening. Is it impossible? TIME recently had an issue saying the pro-abortion people have been steadily losing in the legal field since Roe vs Wade.
    But more laws alone won’t do the trick. The culture must change.
    Look at the number of young people at the recent 400,000 March for Life, and the average age of all the marchers. Look at the size of any recent pro-abortion march, and check out the average age of its marchers. Look at the average age of pro-abortion leaders. Planned Parenthood wants to change their title pro-choice because it no longer resonates with young people. They tossed out ‘pro-freedom’ as a possibility, but thought it sounded too conservative.
    It will take time. It took time for the culture shift to develop. It will take time to change again.
    I do not despair. I see the change beginning to happen.

    • Nate Frein

      Once again, faulty view of what’s really happening.

      Actual public opinion is moving steadily in favor OF abortion. What is happening is that right wing elements (tea party) got elected on a fiscal platform and then rammed through anti-choice legislation.

      They also rammed through redistricting laws that allowed a majority of republican victories in the House in 2012 despite the democrats winning the majority vote. Overall public opinion is really starting to hurt republican standing in a lot of places, so they’re desperately trying to force through as much lame duck legislation as possible.

      But go on. Keep reading every other word because that’s the only way you can get the message you want. Keep ignoring all the information that contradicts your view. You are on the wrong side of science, you are on the wrong side of history. You are bigoted remnant of bronze age misogynistic morality that views women as chattel and only worth the children they pop out.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Not doing what causes unwanted children is the ONLY thing that will stop abortion.

      And shaking your fist in the air and shouting, “You kids! You gotta stop sexing!” will do nothing. We’re made to want sex.

      Makes sense, right? Lots of pro-lifers having not a lot of difference on the abortion rate is what we see in society.

      Why not actually make a difference by working on reducing the unwanted pregnancy rate? My prediction: the rate is halved in 10 years with excellent sex education and convenient access to birth control.

      Or maybe you don’t care much about the abortion rate? I can think of no other explanation for why you don’t want to take the easy route.

      TIME recently had an issue saying the pro-abortion people have been steadily losing in the legal field since Roe vs Wade.

      Oh? Another recent poll came to quite the opposite conclusion:

      A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that seven in ten Americans believe the ruling should stand.

      That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman’s right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989.

      And:

      This separate Gallup poll concludes “significantly more Americans want the landmark abortion decision kept in place rather than overturned, 53% to 29%. Another 18% have no opinion, the highest level of uncertainty Gallup has recorded on this question in trends dating to 1989.”

  • Wladyslaw

    I and those who believe what I do, have our work cut out for us. We will not stop.
    I need to go foe the night. Perhaps I’ll see you tomorrow.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      I encourage you again to take stock of your arguments. For example, when you use a statistic and find that it’s wrong, you must never use that flawed statistic again. Ever.

      I’d be curious to see what you think are still valid arguments after you’ve taken into account the pushback that you’ve heard here. Responses that are flawed are fine to ignore, but the ones that make you uncomfortable are the ones that will help you prune away the nonsense in your argument.

      • Kodie

        I would not hold out hope that Wlad understood a single word of your post.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          :( You’re probably right.

      • Wladyslaw

        Thanks Bob,
        I will try to be much more diligent in my research.
        But for instance, it is you, your side that tries to justify all abortion by bringing up the life of the mother (you are mother murderers!). You do that because if you get us to admit that if we allow it in that circumstance (I don”t), you say ,”you allow the killing of a baby. So to be honest, how can you be against abortion.”
        So, because you brought it up, I found two different statistics, one said that in America, .oo4% of abortions are done for the sake of the mother, and pointed to the source, and that .006% of abortions in England were done for that reason.
        Your side response was that my sources were biased, and that the figure was much higher.
        If you produced a figure (you did not), and if I responded by saying your source was biased and the figure was much lower, would you say that was an adequate refutation?
        Please advise.

        • Nate Frein

          The fact that you choose to focus on one argument used against you does not invalidate all the other arguments advanced which you have chosen to ignore. To focus entirely on that one argument is dishonest. It was not the only rebuttal given to you.

        • Kodie

          A couple people (at least I remember Niemand did) referenced statistics posted by the CDC, Center for Disease Control. If you don’t know what that is or how to look for it on google (Nate offered to help you in that department but you called him a nerd), then you are ignoring that citations were made as to the accurate statistics, and saying they were never made at all. In lieu of making an adjustment in your argument, you started a few times trying to impress everyone with the massacre of 55 million imaginary people, and ignored a few other points raised that refute your obsession with the very second that life occurs.

        • Wladyslaw

          Niemand actually said:
          The CDC doesn’t keep track of reasons for abortion.
          I googled Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, not exactly non-biased peer reviewed sources, and could not find the figures. I went through twenty pages of ” abortions to save the life of the mother” and could not find a figure. I pointed you to a source for my figure. You found it. All I am asking is for the same courtesy.
          Why is this important. You brought it up, so I assumed you wanted my thinking and figures.

        • Kodie

          The problem you’re having with this is you are focused on “good” reasons – reasons you would except, and “bad” reasons – reasons you would not allow. You are so concerned that these figures are exaggerated and if you, intellectual beast that you are, would oppose or be suspicious of bad reasons being passed off as good.

          Actually, in order to save those women from people like you, it’s just legal for everyone.

          If it’s ok, then it’s ok for anyone, and if it’s not ok, then you would let women die because it would never be ok.

          I thought your god said not to judge people. Judging people for having a “bad” reason to have an abortion is judging them. This is why Nate accuses you of your ivory tower morality. You make up reasons you personally would be sympathetic to, and demand proof; meanwhile someone is dying from being pregnant as you deliberate whether her reasons are good enough for you. You want to be absolutely sure. This is the sign of a control freak judgy judgerson. If abortion were limited at certain weeks and later for women in distress, you think people are not doing their jobs correctly and the women are getting something over on them. Is that really how you live your life, butting into everyone else’s business? You pretend to be concerned, but you and people like you ruin things pretending to be god. Next time a religious person tells me atheists want to be god, I will ask them to look in the mirror.

          If there’s a god, only god can be god. Christians fall way short of trying to manage all his shit down here. I guess you don’t think he is very good at his job either when you pick up all that slack.

        • Kodie

          Furthermore, out of 55 million abortions you keep reporting, how many were done in the 3rd trimester? I think you are imagining a woman’s life can only be saved by an abortion shortly before it would be born anyway and why can’t she just wait it out. A lot of women also have medical conditions and need to avoid pregnancy, so an early abortion would save their life. You don’t care about them, and even though you could tell me all the differences there are between a 10-week embryo and a 22-week fetus, you are determined to nail people down to the exact second “life” occurs. The questions you’re pitching at us aren’t hard questions, they’ve been answered, and you just didn’t like the answers.

          You avoid talking about 1st-trimester abortions because you do know there’s a difference. Blowing smoke about DNA and unique personhood is all you got for that, and it’s not impressive either. That’s why you keep trying to shock people with the number 55 million and keep going back to the relative rarity of women whose lives have been saved by abortion. You’re trying to judge 54,999,749 for having an abortion because they spread their legs like a whore. Meanwhile, your approach to birth control is to shame women and make them get married before having sex. As if being married saves lives of women in peril or assures the circumstances in which pregnancy is always welcome.

        • Nate Frein

          This is why Nate accuses you of your ivory tower morality

          In fact, it’s that and more. He has a preconceived (if you’ll pardon the expression) concept of morality. Probably one that has been hammered into his head by his Catholic upbringing. He has no real evidence that his morality is “good” other than “well, my church says so”. No matter how much evidence that trying to enforce his morality is counterproductive and goes against all Western concepts of freedom, no matter how much evidence of the concrete misery his views cause, he continues to stamp his feet and ignore reality.

          Any time he has been faced with a real question he has devolved back to his “but life-threatening situations only happen in .00x% of cases”.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          But for instance …

          And I’m looking at the big picture. Make a complete list of your arguments and pare away the stuff that you now realize doesn’t work. Surely you’ve found some arguments that don’t work.

          Remove those from your list and never use them again.

          justify all abortion

          Many pro-choicers are happy to have some limits on abortion (third-trimester abortions, perhaps). Don’t straw-man your opposition.

          by bringing up the life of the mother

          We can agree that the mother is a person. A single cell … not so much.

          And BTW, what do you think of the spectrum argument? Do you reject it completely? Do you accept it and agree that the single cell isn’t much of a person but want it protected anyway?

          “you allow the killing of a baby. So to be honest, how can you be against abortion.”

          The pro-choice side is a lot more powerful than this. I hope you don’t see this as a complete and fair representation.

          I found two different statistics, one said that in America, .oo4% of abortions are done for the sake of the mother, and pointed to the source, and that .006% of abortions in England were done for that reason.

          I saw that, and I saw a demand for the source. Did you provide it?

          And (here’s the problem!), someone pointed out that the mere fact that abortion is far safer for the mother than a full-term delivery means over 100 women’s lives saved per year, which triples your fractions. When you don’t acknowledge new information like this, it makes people think that you’re closed minded and are only here to preach an unchangeable dogma.

          If you produced a figure (you did not), and if I responded by saying your source was biased and the figure was much lower, would you say that was an adequate refutation?

          I’d say that you’re approaching your argument incorrectly. You should say that the number of fetuses killed outnumbers the number of mothers killed, so you win.

          And, of course, the pro-choicers will respond that a clump of cells is insignificant compared to an adult. And to that, you respond … how?

  • Wladyslaw

    No Kodie, I am not FOCUSSED on good reasons. I’m against abortion for any reason.
    Pro-abortionists play the life of the mother card , Don’t tell me I brought it up. YOU did. I presented my evidence. I ask you for yours. Please, are you absolutely unable to cite ONE reference?
    Please, we don’t bring up hard cases to justify pro-abortion people do. So we respond. You want us not to?

    By the way, I googled Orlando’s Women Center, a pro-abortion cite, and under statistics I found this:
    “Each year, about 13,000 women have abortions because they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”
    That’s not 1%, but .o13% of all abortions for BOTH reasons each year. I cited .oo4% for the life of the mother.But pro-abortionists insist on bringing up the hard cases–incest, rape, and life of the mother as the justification for abortion–one of the first question they ask a pro-lifer.

    • Wladyslaw

      When pro-abortion people confront a pro-lifer–they never start with ” I’m pro-abortion because a birth at this time would be inconvenient. They start with the hard cases. And then they want to then brand the pro-lifer as a Neanderthal and bronze age, and extremist if they NOT agree with these reasons.. If they DO agree with those reasons, then the pro-abortion people say “Aha, you can’t be against abortion. because you approve of killing a baby for these hard cases. That’s why the bring up those arguments, not us..

      • Kodie

        Isn’t that why you’re trying to wow us with propaganda huge numbers and bs about the priority of a brand-new sequence of DNA to a living person. You want to control women and don’t care if they die.

      • Nate Frein

        Pro-abortion advocates play a lot of cards. Your refusal to respond to any but one of those cards is evidence of your dishonesty and shaky support.

    • Kodie

      So you are uninterested in the least about the life of the mother.

      I told you also up above that I was not as interested in your citation as (I think) Niemand was. That you are calculating a percentage at all is a cost too high. Those are actual women, any number that you pull from your propaganda site. 55 million is an imaginary number. Most abortions are done in the 1st trimester and you avoid avoid avoid addressing that huge wide line between what an embryo is and what a viable fetus looks like it is. I think the truth is that some women’s lives are saved, absolutely. It doesn’t matter to me what anyone’s reasons are. Legal abortion prevents delays being ordered that cost those women their lives.

      But you are saying it’s ok with you if they die because you can compare a large number with a small number. You are not interested in comparing an imaginary person with a real one. You are not even caring about people whose lives are merely devastated by the prospect of being pregnant. They have DNA too, but you hold them accountable and deserving of punishment. I understand you perfectly well, I know what you are, and that is someone who hates women and thinks wishing they would just do what you told them to do would work – that’s why you are intent to change laws. When the government tells them, they’ll do what you said! An attempt to keep women from having healthy sex lives and to not accept pregnancy as a consequence to sex just like men have, you just think after they do the sex that’s all they’re good for. You hate women. You have reserved no sanctity for the lives of half the population.

      • Wladyslaw

        Orlando’s Women Center extremely low figures were not “propaganda huge numbers’” Even I was surprised. They’re from your side.
        I am not avoiding talking about early abortions to save the life of the mother. I was very clear about being against all abortions for any reason.. You stated that you’re OK for any reason for abortion at any time. Why do you keep on bringing up hard cases–early abortion to save the life of the mother?

        I suppose we could discuss easy cases to justify abortion–It’s inconvenient, want to go to college, but you usually go with the hard cases.

        I never said there’s no difference between a 12 week old baby and a 24 week baby, or 36 week old baby. I said that from the moment of conception until death there’s no meaningful difference from moment to moment.

        • Kodie

          And I asked you why you focus on the moment to moment, or why you need us to? I also did not bring up the life of the mother. I don’t know who did, but you’re the one harping on it the loudest, in the sense that you are saying “but not that many”. Disgusting.

        • Wladyslaw

          I was saying that from conception to death there is no meaningful difference from moment to moment. There is an absolute continuity of life from conception to death. The only way to stop this march of life is to kill it at any stage. You do nothing, your child lives. You do something, it dies. You don’t think this argument is valid. I got it from an atheist who became a pro-lifer after thinking this through.
          NO NO NO, I am against the killing even of one baby to save the life of one mother. You keep bringing up the life of the mother to justify abortion-all abortion. Why would I want to discuss this point with you You keep bringing it up because it’s your strongest argument for abortion.
          Kodie, You didn’t bring the topic up? Just in one your last posts you said:
          “A lot of women also have medical conditions and need to avoid pregnancy, so an early abortion would save their life.”
          Most pro-abortion think that’s a much, much larger figure, and therefore easier to justify. By the way, I brought out the extremely low numbers of mothers who die from abortion and the extreme low numbers for incest and rape to set the record straight. I just wanted it to be a little less easy for pro-abortion people to use those reasons to justify abortion. As you clearly know, I do not accept any of those reasons.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          I am against the killing even of one baby to save the life of one mother.

          Cool. If you get pregnant and refuse an abortion even if will save your life, that’s your call.

          Just don’t impose your views on the rest of the country.

          You keep bringing it up because it’s your strongest argument for abortion.

          We got a lot more than just this, pal.

        • Kodie

          Apparently your numbers, fake or whatever, seem to focus on people in distress while pregnant – that is, women who are in a unique situation they had no way of knowing until they were pregnant. You overlook the millions of women who must have abortion available at any time because they do know ahead that pregnancy is not a healthy state for them to be in. I have known women on two methods of birth control. I am not saying these women that I know got pregnant, but some women should not get pregnant, and if their birth control fails, it’s not up to you to say, well they should have thought about that, and it’s in god’s hands now. You’re a sicko. You do not think of actual situations even as they are presented to you. It is possible the number you present, if accurate at all (which it isn’t, but I let that slide; it’s not important to me) is as low as it is because birth control does not, when used correctly, have a high failure rate. You are overlooking real women in a real crisis and say that’s a “card” we play. It’s a number of real women, any number. A low number, a high number, but it’s a real number. Of women. Who will die if they don’t have an abortion.

          Your only “card” is that god makes life and we’re superstitious about it enough to make shit up that sounds like an argument but doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, doesn’t reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Judgmental patriarchal superstition is your only card. Everything else you say is in desperate support of that card.

        • Wladyslaw

          I never mentioned God, and that ” god makes life.”
          I did mention I was a Catholic. There is absolutely no reason for my pro-life position that says: God says: this is so. If I did you would never have this long discussion. All you would say is that you don’t believe and we would have no further discussion. You would simply write me off as a right-wing extremist, fundamentalist bigot.
          We ended discussing the relative strengths of each other’s position.
          Kodie–” Who will die if they don’t have an abortion.” bringing it up again.

        • Kodie

          There are people who say they aren’t religious, but you did not just say you were Catholic, you said your Catholicism informs your position. Entirely. You can’t get out of your superstition box. There is no “person” to save before many weeks. I drew a fat 12-week line for you. Not a moment-to-moment line. Your proposition is that fertilized eggs are UNIQUE and stuff, and that people should not engage in sexual intercourse until they are prepared. Do you realize we’re animals? And that marriage is a form of birth control, a very strict and unnecessary one. Religion is also created, not by god, it’s a superstitious aversion to interfering, I get that. But we interfere about everything else. We find new ways to solve age-old problems, that’s our species’ “thing”, being intelligent and progressing, and pregnancy, being we are animals and offspring tend to need overseeing and demand more resources than they’re able to put back for a while, is one of the age-oldest problems. Worship of “old ways” and forcing everyone back into the helpless days of yore is not how we solve problems.

          Being rational is to look at the fertilized egg and realize it’s a snot. It is a projection. It is whatever the individual wants it to be, and how it will fit into their life. If it will have a huge negative effect on their life, you are imprisoning them to your system and say, well they should know there are “consequences”. You simply do not live in the real world. Your rules are fantasy rules and only work if you terrorize and subvert the woman as a human being with equal rights. To make her slave to the man and the children. To make her a cow instead of a person. That is your religion coming through loud and clear. Without religion, people seem to find it very hard to justify those opinions.

          It’s just my opinion that pro-”life”rs are among the most disgusting human beings on the earth, and it’s a shame that all the unwanted babies they’ll make will turn out to fear and justify modernity just like them, while the rational ones will be aborted. Because it’s legal, because an embryo is not a person.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          I never said there’s no difference between a 12 week old baby and a 24 week baby, or 36 week old baby. I said that from the moment of conception until death there’s no meaningful difference from moment to moment.

          So what? What do we conclude from this?

          There’s no meaningful difference from moment to moment, but you’ve agreed that there’s a substantial difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks! That’s the issue.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      No Kodie, I am not FOCUSSED on good reasons. I’m against abortion for any reason.

      You like the reasons, but they don’t convince anyone else. That’s not too big a problem, because our arguments don’t convince you.

      Hey–I have an idea. Since none of us are conceited enough to imagine that we’re God, why don’t we take the facts that there are differences of opinion and let each person decide for themselves? I’m prepared to admit that I’m not God and that others have their own strongly held opinions; how about you?

      And BTW, not that this is super relevant, but this is an oddity that I’m curious about. You were born in 1945? And you and your wife must still be careful about conceiving? Are you and she like Sarah and Abraham, having children at a late age, or is your wife a lot younger than you? Or were you not born in 1945? That’s a problem with the internet–it’s hard to know much about who you’re talking to.

      Pro-abortionists play the life of the mother card

      This isn’t the only argument. Most pregnancies don’t jeopardize the life of the mother; you say that and so do we. Is there something of substance still to discuss here?

      • Nate Frein

        You were born in 1945?

        *Squees cuz he’s not the only one who caught that*

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I saw the previous question, and I saw that it was ignored. Not sure what to make of that.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    My last comment was snarky. Forgive me.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Forgive me for not responding to you. I go so involved with Kodie that I just discusses with her. It’s not easy for me to keep us a running discussion with two.

  • Nate Frein

    Wladyslaw,

    You still have not responded to This article.

    Further, you still have not responded substantively to any of my points raised here. Why, exactly, are you a trusted source of morality?

    • Wladyslaw

      Nate,
      In reference to adoption, in your post you said:
      “Saying that eliminating adoptions will reduce the number of unwanted children is like saying that you treat asthma by eliminating asthma.”
      Well, no. What I meant was that any woman can turn any unwanted child to become truly wanted by offering the child to people who desperately want a child. Abortion gave them the option to abort instead, and most took that option. Adoption options plummeted. Help the unwanted become wanted instead of killing them. In the 2010 annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, they aborted 329,445 babies, and referred 841 to adoption.
      I’ll tackle one point at at a time.

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        I believe I that there is no reason for abortion from conception to birth.
        You believe that any reason for abortion will do, from conception to birth and even after.
        Kodie believes that the life of the mother always trumps the life of the fetus, for any reason, at any time.
        Complete opposites of arguments about the issue.
        I’m not sure we agree on anything in between.
        I believe that abortion is murder of a human being, with all my heart.
        With all your heart, you believe it’s not murder, and perhaps if it is the killing of a human, the woman’s life trumps the child’s life.
        I have seen pro-abortion people change their minds.
        All I can do is continue onwards.

        • Nate Frein

          You have failed to show that you are in any way a competent arbiter of human morality.

          I have demonstrated how my views are:

          Cognizant of empirical evidence on ways to reduce overall human suffering
          Cognizant of the needs of a rapidly growing human population
          Respectful of the individual woman to make decisions surrounding her health and well being, and
          Consistent with:
          – Human biolog y
          – Human behavior
          – Established western concepts of individual liberties

          You have shown:
          That you see no problem in using dishonesty to try to support your case
          That you see no problem with half of the population being enslaved to lives that haven’t even moved beyond the “potential” stage.
          That you see no difference between the Japanese and the Americans in WWII
          That you would rather see three children starved than allow a woman to abort her third child so that she can continue to afford feeding two children
          That you think that all rich white couples are entitled to the adoption of a white infant
          That you see no problem with a church that
          – aids the Nazis
          – builds a real estate empire with millions from a fascist government
          – has protected and continues to protect pederasts
          – has supported people attempting to make homosexuality punishable by death
          That you have views that are inconsistent with:
          – Human biolog y
          – Human behavior
          – Established western concepts of individual liberties

          So what makes you qualified to tell me what is moral or not?

          And make no mistake. I am not upset. Your church is hemorrhaging followers because of its bronze-age misogyny. You are a dying breed. The more you stamp your feet and shout your ivory-tower masturbations, the more you show the rest of the world how irrelevant you are.

        • Wladyslaw

          Actually no Nate,
          Conservative churches are growing, and all mainline churches that bought into the culture–contraception, abortion, gay marriage, ad women priests have drastically lost their membership.
          See
          Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: David … – AlbertMohler.com
          http://www.albertmohler.com/…/why-conservative-churches-are-growing-d...
          Apr 25, 2011 – Why were the conservative churches growing? In retrospect, one aspect of the liberal Protestant crisis was reflected in that very question.
          I can’t seem to be able to do citations roght

        • Nate Frein

          Which is funny. Because overall church attendance is dropping.

          “Conservative” churches are “growing” because conservative worshipers are consolidating. Eventually,

        • Nate Frein

          You also haven’t addressed the fact that you see no problem with a church that
          – aids the Nazis
          – builds a real estate empire with millions from a fascist government
          – has protected and continues to protect pederasts
          – has supported people attempting to make homosexuality

        • Kodie

          Like Bob told you, it’s not the only argument. Most of my argument is not letting people tell you what to do. I would prefer people to make up their mind earlier with no guilt or pressure. I hold that to be true whether the choice is abortion or not abortion or adoption. Freedom and rationality. I prefer that people have their facts, not a romanticized comprehension that we uphold of motherhood in this country. It’s really hard and really draining and if someone really does want to take it on, that’s fine. If someone finds out when the time comes that it’s harder than they thought, that’s fine too. If someone wants an abortion they should not feel they have to wait until a later time, nor decide too soon. It is like taking birth control – if you know you don’t want to be pregnant, it should be a snap to realize that just as easy after the fact as before. It should not be all of a sudden a new wrenching of emotion and shame. I prefer there is no shame involved for people who make the responsible decision they choose. And I prefer that “life” should not be preferred as “the right thing”. Both decisions are the right thing. Or they both could be the wrong thing. I dislike someone waiting to decide and then still wanting an abortion and waiting to save up or to “really be positively sure” about it.

          I prefer also that legally any woman can get an abortion at any time, so as never to interfere in cases where the health of the mother is at stake. There should never be a situation where we have to test the woman to see if she’s lying or faking or whatever. Nobody should hesitate to act in an emergency to save the life of the mother unless the mother says so herself. It should not be legal to allow that to happen, but it happens – because many hospitals in the US are Catholic and full of their superstition get confused by what should be the automatic right thing. What a morality your god has for you guys, eh?

          I would love to live in a world where nobody is superstitious about the fertilized egg, but that is a long way off. Many will choose only upon that idea that they must be punished. They are sadly brainwashed, and you think that’s romantic. I’d also like for you to read this:

          The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

          Tell me what you think Wlad. Hypocrites, ah? When you ever get pregnant and you didn’t want to be, I will respect your own choice as yours.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Kodie:

          I didn’t read this article yet but that reminds me of another one (maybe this one?) that I read before. Tell me if they’re the same.

          It’s about abortion clinic picketers and other pro-lifers who come into the back door of the clinic when they need an abortion themselves. And then, a week later, they’re back out there with the other pro-lifers. How do they handle the hypocrisy? They say that their excuses are valid and others’ are weak. They’re not sluts like those other people.

          Bizarre. (Is this the same article?)

        • Kodie

          It is mostly reports by doctors and clinic workers who have seen women come in and go back out to the picket line, their reasons and exceptions, their lack of understanding that’s why other women need abortions too. A few former anti-choicers report changing their minds due to having an abortion and really comprehending it, while many go back out on the line, either because they still believe they had special reasons or because they have been made to feel so guilty that they have to prevent other women, or because they are too ashamed to tell their friends they changed their mind, so obligated to protest even though they would rather not anymore.

          If you only had a couple minutes, the article doesn’t take that long to skim across some of the anecdotes.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Kodie:

          That reminds me of Dick Cheney accepting same-sex marriage about 10 years ago because his daughter was gay.

          OK, good for him. Lots of parents in that situation don’t understand that they were wrong. But still, it’s a bit surprising that one would need to see an issue in one’s own family (people you care about) before changing your mind. Can’t you just imagine what it would be like having a gay daughter? You actually have to have one for real before you can get the epiphany?

          And here, these women need to have an unwanted pregnancy to get it? And even then they often don’t?

          Doesn’t give one much confidence in humanity’s ability to reason, I’m afraid.

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        I believe that you are upset that I didn’t address the issue of compassion for women in difficult circumstances, and the question of women dying from illegal abortions, and how to really lower the abortion rate. I am willing to try. I’m, going to do a little more research, but I’ll be available.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          Here’s a try.
          I believe we have to change sexual practices. Impossible? Check how Uganda changed their sexual practices in Uganda.
          http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/ED007047-0E93-4964-9FBA-AA887D42817E.asp

        • Nate Frein

          Considering that a lot of that was educating away “having sex with virgins heals AIDS” type myths, you’re not helping your cause here.

          Nor are you helping your cause by using a country that has resorted to demonizing it’s homosexual population to the point that gays in that country have every reason to fear for their lives.

          But then, it’s less sex at the costs of the lives of a few icky gays. Totes worth it, amirite?

        • Wladyslaw

          Cite a reference for your first statement.
          Uganda had the most successful ant-HIV program in history. If anything close to it would have happened in America in the space of time it took Ugandans to do it, Americans would think it an absolute miracle. Researchers found that condom use was the last on the list of promotions, and had little or no affect on the decline. The whole population. community organizations, churches, government cooperated in promoting sexual change practices–changes that would also address sexual practice s that result in abortion.abortion. FEAR of the government was NOT the cause of the success of the program. No scientific study of this phenomenon has ever said fear was a factor.
          Anti-HIV programs throughout the world that propose condom use as the answer have failed miserably, and cling to the politically correct option despite its failure.
          NO, I absolutely reject Uganda’s violent position on homosexuality.
          Change in sexual practices is possible.

        • Nate Frein

          Cite a reference for your first statement.

          What, about the virgin cleansing myth?
          You don’t get out much, do you?

          I don’t deny that Uganda made great strides to reduce HIV. I deny your interpretation of why.

        • Nate Frein

          I also find it funny that you state that I don’t think sexual behavior can change. I do think sexual behavior can change. There’s just no evidence people are going to stop having sex because a church or government says so. It hasn’t worked in the past, it isn’t going to work in the future, and it sure as hell isn’t working now.

          Further, it’s amusing that despite the fact that we know education works, and we’ve never seen religion work, you assume that when religion and education are used in conjunction, you say that it’s all cuz of religion.

        • Wladyslaw

          I showed you my source. Here is one more from the National Health Institute” :
          Uganda’s HIV Prevention Success: The Role of Sexual Behavior …
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › Journal List › Springer Open Choice
          by EC Green – 2006 – Cited by 166 – Related articles
          Uganda’s HIV Prevention Success: The Role of Sexual Behavior Change and the … decline in HIV prevalence, one of the world’s earliest and most compelling AIDS … It appears that behavior
          change programs, particularly involving extensive …
          Don’t just deny-that’s easy. SHOW me why you think it happened.
          Of course I knew about the virgin cleansing myth. Nothing in my research showed that it had any role in the decline. Don’t just declare it did, SHOW me.
          I was merely reporting, not giving my take.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nobody told Ugandans what they had to do, or forced them.
          The program was ABSTINENCE, Faithfulness, and condoms, in that order, in the order of effectiveness.
          And guess what? People STOPPED having sex, waiting for marriage! That’s what abstinence means. Read the reports I cited.

        • Nate Frein

          No, they educated Ugandans.

          Amazing how that works. Or are brown people uneducatable? Is that what you’re saying? They use education and religion and it has to be religion because they’re brown people?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad’s article is here.

          Abstract:

          There has been considerable interest in understanding what may have led to Uganda’s dramatic decline in HIV prevalence, one of the world’s earliest and most compelling AIDS prevention successes. Survey and other data suggest that a decline in multi-partner sexual behavior is the behavioral change most likely associated with HIV decline. It appears that behavior change programs, particularly involving extensive promotion of “zero grazing” (faithfulness and partner reduction), largely developed by the Ugandan government and local NGOs including faith-based, women’s, people-living-with-AIDS and other community-based groups, contributed to the early declines in casual/multiple sexual partnerships and HIV incidence and, along with other factors including condom use, to the subsequent sharp decline in HIV prevalence. Yet the debate over “what happened in Uganda” continues, often involving divisive abstinence-versus-condoms rhetoric, which appears more related to the culture wars in the USA than to African social reality.

          I think the last phrase is telling!

  • Phil

    Wlad,

    Using your rationale, I think a man should be able to marry (and have sex) with a girl as soon as she can menstruate. That is, there is no difference, moment from moment, from a 28 year old woman to a 27 year old, to a 26 year old, etc. to 12 years old (or whenever first menses happens). Indeed, the “magic moment” (when a “girl” becomes a “woman”–biologically speaking) is first menses. Given that any line we drew between 28 years old and 12 years old would be arbitrary, we have to let men marry 12 year olds.

    • Wladyslaw

      Phil,
      That’s exactly the position of Islam. The western world doesn’t buy it. Most western societies declared that before 16 yrs of age, boys and girls are incapable of taking on the responsibilities of parenthood.
      Actually, you have an good counter-argument to my argument. I got this argument from an atheist pro-abortion supporter who became pro-life after coming across this argument. I threw it out to see what response I would get. I’ll have to think about my argument a little more.

      • Phil

        Most western societies declared that before 16 yrs of age, boys and girls are incapable of taking on the responsibilities of parenthood.

        Do you have a citation for this? [It has the feeling of a "made up" fact.]

  • Nate Frein

    Wladyslaw, you still have not addressed this link.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate, also SHOW me that the reason churches are growing because they are consolidating. Of course the overall numbers are falling because of the drastic fall in liberal churches, and the greatest decline in the Episcopal church, the most liberal. I give you my sources. Don’t just declare what you thaink.

    • Nate Frein

      Respond to the rest of my comments and we’ll discuss what you have a right to demand from me.

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate, you were complaining that I wasn’t responding to your comments, so I asked forgiveness (see above) and decided to answer your question about how to reduce the abortion rate. I was going on to your comments, one at a time.

        If you gave me your reason for something, and then cited sources to back them up (even two). and I simply declared No, Nate, not so. Because I simply said so. YOU would never except that and DEMAND that I backed up what I said.
        That’s why I went to great effort to find backup for what I said. Why should go on to other questions you may have, go to a lot of trouble not just giving you my opinion, but finding sources to back me up, and all you will do is declare something as fact and refuse to back it up.
        I don’t want simply your declarations “this is so.” because I said so.
        If you simply want to accept my word for any fact I bring up as fact, and I accept any fact you bring up as fact, without having sources, I, and you can spout out any nonsense, and have a hilarious conversation. I was just asking you what you expected of me.

        • Nate Frein

          You have not, in any way, responded to the substance of this post..

          When you respond to the substance of that post, we can talk about your proof for a minor rebuttal to a minor aside in the post.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    I clicked on your link.
    Your first line said:
    “You have failed to show that you are in any way a competent arbiter of human morality.”
    I did not fail. Because I said do. Besides you are asking for only a minor rebuttal.
    Nate, thanks for a great discussion.

    • Nate Frein

      Feel free to keep telling yourself that. Feel free to keep masturbating to your ivory-tower morality while the rest of the world passes you by.

      And thanks for showing any reader just how hypocritical “devout” Catholics like you are. I hope it’s not one of your relatives that’s the next one to get “touched” by an overly friendly priest.

    • Nate Frein

      And I fail to see how I asked for a minor rebuttal. I asked for how, when you compare those two world views side by side with the points listed, how you can justify saying that your world view is the more “moral” one on the balance.

      Because I really want to know how you balance all the negatives I listed that you yourself demonstrated with an actual objectively moral life.

  • Wladyslaw

    No Nate,
    Check the flow of the above comments.
    I asked you to backup your comments.
    When I asked you to show me that changing sexual behavior was not the reason for Uganda’s success story–the absolute, central CRUX of my whole argument for everything I had argued for,-you decided to go on to another post, and decided that I was asking for a minor rebuttal to a minor point, nothing important, not needing a response. You decided to ignore my most serious argument, and went on.
    So, I wondered how you would feel if I simply decided that I did not have to offer you a a response to your comment, because I just decided (just like you just decided) that it was just a “minor rebuttal to a a minor point” and just declared my answer was so because I so.
    You didn’t like it at all.
    So I will wait for you show me you the prove that abstinence was not the first and central reason for Uganda’s success story, important for me.
    By the way, you mocked me and said my church was hemoraging because of it conservative viewpoints. I showed you it was not happening, just the opposite. Then you said they were just consolidating. I didn’t say the number of CHURCHES were changing. I said the numbers of PEOPLE in their churches were changing. Consolidating obviously would not address the issue of numbers of people. This was a minor issue, but no, Nate, the liberal churches are the ones drastically losing their members, especially mainline Protestants. I’m tired of hearing liberals calling conservative churches a dying breed, just the opposite.

  • Wladyslaw

    For all who are wondering about the Mussolini millions, here is the story:
    Vatican explains use of Mussolini’s money: See his execution video …
    http://www.examiner.com/…/vatican-explains-use-of-mussolini-s-money-se...

    Sources within the Holy See however said that was misleading and historically incorrect.
    The Vatican received money from Mussolini’s government as recompense for the extensive properties it lost when the papal states were invaded and occupied by the Kingdom of Italy in the 1860s.

    Jews received money from the Nazis as reparation for their crimes. Should those Jews have refused the money becomes it came from the evil NAZIS?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      That link is here.

  • Wladyslaw

    And for those who noticed comments about Catholic church and sexual abuse–it was an absolute crime, and the church has paid billions in recompense, and taken many steps to change it.
    However, here is what CBS said about sex abuses:
    Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School? – CBS News
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1933687.html
    Sep 22, 2009 – “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 … Church, while the greater problem in the schools was ignored altogether. … of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.

    Consider the statistics: In accordance with a requirement of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system.

    Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.

    “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

    So, in order to better protect children, did media outlets start hounding the worse menace of the school systems, with headlines about a “Nationwide Teacher Molestation Cover-up” and by asking “Are Ed Schools Producing Pedophiles?” And:
    Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

      Oh, please. Even if this were the case (I need confirmation), the Catholic church, being much more than simply an institution invented by men, should show clear signs of the hand of God. (And if not, why pretend that it’s a religion to a real god?)

      The bigger issue may be the coverup. The Catholic can’t figure out right from wrong? They think that hiding crimes (regardless of whether they follow the law or not) is the right thing to do?

      The Catholic church has a lot to account for, and, like any powerful institution made by men, its instinct for preservation (rather than doing the right thing) is quite strong.

      • David

        Bob:
        Gonna jump in here.
        Oh, please. Even if this were the case (I need confirmation), the Catholic church, being much more than simply an institution invented by men, should show clear signs of the hand of God. (And if not, why pretend that it’s a religion to a real god?)
        Fair enough that the Church is an institution which is a “work of God.” But the Church is a place for “sinners and saints.” No one stops sinning just because they become a member of the Church. The only thing promised is a way out of sin for those who remain steadfast and open to the graces offered. Not even the pope, who can be infallible in certain situations, is free of sin.

        The bigger issue may be the coverup. The Catholic can’t figure out right from wrong? They think that hiding crimes (regardless of whether they follow the law or not) is the right thing to do?

        The Church has effectively dealt with this and leaves no room for coverups in the future. When reports of the scandal made it clear to the Vatican that this was an international problem, they really took a good look at Church policy to see what needed to be changed.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          But the Church is a place for “sinners and saints.” No one stops sinning just because they become a member of the Church.

          I’m looking for a clue–anything–that the church is something more than any other human institution–a country club, a business, a commodities exchange, and so on. ‘Cause, from a moral standpoint, it looks just the same.

          But perhaps that’s your point. Perhaps we’re on the same page.

          The Church has effectively dealt with this and leaves no room for coverups in the future.

          The noble institution you portray isn’t the one that we hear about in the press.

          What I’d insist on from any institution claiming to be moral, let alone inspired by and supported by God, is that the first whiff of scandal decades ago would’ve led to a thorough housecleaning, with lots of embarrassing details coming out in a flood, and then nothing more from an institution that has transparency and safeguards that make further crimes impossible.

          And I haven’t seen that.

        • David

          Bob:

          I’m looking for a clue–anything–that the church is something more than any other human institution–a country club, a business, a commodities exchange, and so on. ‘Cause, from a moral standpoint, it looks just the same.

          But perhaps that’s your point. Perhaps we’re on the same page.

          Wlad, if you read this, I’d like you to take a shot at this. I’d like to hear your take on this.

          Bob, I don’t have the researching skills to give you hard evidence. But since you said “anything” will do, I’ll give you a rundown as to how I see it. Despite the members of the Church who are, by and large, sinful, part of the Church’s definition of itself is as a teacher of morals. The Church goes out of its way to show Catholics that they are sinning. It offers them forgiveness. It praises goodness. And it holds up saints who have cooperated with the graces which are found in the Church, who imitated Christ in their own way, and who exemplify what a moral person is. It extends to sinners a process of conversion by which they might become saints. Most of this goes unnoticed and unreported because it involves people living their daily lives without any attention drawn to them.

          What I’d insist on from any institution claiming to be moral, let alone inspired by and supported by God, is that the first whiff of scandal decades ago would’ve led to a thorough housecleaning, with lots of embarrassing details coming out in a flood, and then nothing more from an institution that has transparency and safeguards that make further crimes impossible.

          I’d like to take a stab at this when I get back from an appointment.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          Despite the members of the Church who are, by and large, sinful, part of the Church’s definition of itself is as a teacher of morals. The Church goes out of its way to show Catholics that they are sinning.

          See, this is the problem. You want to have it both ways. If I point out that Christians have done plenty of bad things, despite God looking out for them, you tell me that Christians are sinners just like the rest of us. So when I ask for a clue that the Church is anything more than just another manmade institution, with no divine improvement to argue otherwise, you do what you’re doing now.

          Imagine an alien anthropologist comes to earth and looks at the institutions we’ve set up, including the church. Why would he scratch his head and think that natural forces couldn’t explain what he sees within the church (and not the others)?

          And if there would be no clue to such a supernatural intervention, why should I see the church as anything more than just one more human institution, like Kiwanis?

        • David

          Bob:

          Imagine an alien anthropologist comes to earth and looks at the institutions we’ve set up, including the church. Why would he scratch his head and think that natural forces couldn’t explain what he sees within the church (and not the others)?

          I would flesh out something that Wlad mentions below. Its true that, on questions of faith and morals, the Church has not changed for nearly 2000 years. All human institutions die or at least make fundamental changes. The Church doesn’t do this. That should impress aliens.

          The entire faith lives or dies on Jesus. It still does. It took a few centuries for the Church to actually spell all of this out and develop the Nicene Creed. Since then, the creed has never changed. The same Trinity, the same Jesus, etc. The only difference is that it is not recited in Latin anymore.

          Morals are a little more tricky because human realities change. When the realities change, morals don’t change but they do have to be reframed to fit the changing circumstances. Despite the changing social realities, the Church upholds the same moral underpinnings

          I’ll give one example. Slavery was acceptable for a time. Let’s face it: in ancient times, it was an unenlightened form of labour. But the Church never taught that a slave was any less human or worthy of God’s favor than a master. When the cultures of the world had evolved to replace slavery with the current employment setup, the Church said: “we don’t need this anymore, it is no longer acceptable.” But as I point out, the underpinning morality was always upheld by the Church: the equal dignity of all humans before God.

        • David

          Bob:
          To get back to something earlier.

          What I’d insist on from any institution claiming to be moral, let alone inspired by and supported by God, is that the first whiff of scandal decades ago would’ve led to a thorough housecleaning, with lots of embarrassing details coming out in a flood, and then nothing more from an institution that has transparency and safeguards that make further crimes impossible.

          When we talk about an international institution with a membership above a billion, not to mention a fairly decentralized system (the buck stops with the pope, but most matters never even reach the pope, bishops normally handle most local problems), we have to allow for a some lag time. We’re also talking about victims, many of whom, to our shame, could not even speak about what happened to them for decades. Of course, the perpetrators did not come forward–they kept it under the rug. To say that there were many bishops who tried to cover things up is, I think, an overstatement. There were many good bishops who acted as best they could given Church policy–which needed to be updated since, I don’t know, the Renaissance. All we know about are the handful of bad ones. This was a hush-hush thing that couldn’t have reached the Vatican until it exploded. But when it did, what happened was much as you have said: a thorough housecleaning, transparency and safeguards. Considering the size of the institution, things have gone pretty well.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          the Church has not changed for nearly 2000 years

          Not even for Roman Catholicism is that true, as I pointed out. Papal infallibility, the assumption of Mary, the loss of the Latin mass, limbo …

          It took a few centuries for the Church to actually spell all of this out and develop the Nicene Creed. Since then, the creed has never changed.

          Weird. I wonder what the couple dozen ecumenical councils that followed the first one in Nicaea were for.

          But the Church never taught that a slave was any less human or worthy of God’s favor than a master.

          Did the Church campaign tirelessly to demand that the institution be abolished? As an objectively correct institution, you’d think that they would.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          When we talk about an international institution with a membership above a billion

          We’re talking about the leadership, not the lay members. No, there aren’t a billion priests.

          … not to mention a fairly decentralized system

          Are we talking about the Catholic Church??

          We saw the kind of coverup that any institution afraid for its own existence would do. We don’t see transparency on anything–certainly not finances or employment issues.

          No, the church didn’t resolve the problem successfully.

          But when it did, what happened was much as you have said: a thorough housecleaning, transparency and safeguards.

          What?? Point me to the database where all the internal discussions and information about every alleged abuse is.

          Considering the size of the institution, things have gone pretty well.

          Uh, no. Your church has let you down. It’s concerned about its own longevity, not morality.

        • David

          Not even for Roman Catholicism is that true, as I pointed out. Papal infallibility, the assumption of Mary, the loss of the Latin mass, limbo …

          Since we’re talking about changes to the faith, I should clarify a point. Changing the faith means “going back” and making changes to doctrine which have already been established. The first two that you mention: these are not changes to the faith but developments in the faith, based on doctrines which already existed. The Church is going to keep on having developments, indefinitely, into the future. But it won’t change established doctrine. Which brings me to the next two things that you mention: these were never doctrines. It was never a matter of faith that the Mass needed to be said in Latin. Limbo was a theological opinion but never pronounced as a doctrine. Some things can change. Not everything is established doctrine.

          Weird. I wonder what the couple dozen ecumenical councils that followed the first one in Nicaea were for.

          (Side point: the first council was in Jerusalem.) Aside from the “development” which brings about new doctrines (instead of changing established ones), Councils also served other functions. They would make “pastoral” decisions, condemn heresies, etc.

          Did the Church campaign tirelessly to demand that the institution be abolished? As an objectively correct institution, you’d think that they would.

          The Church is not primarily a political action group. It provides a place of worship for all who understand the faith and wish to join.

        • David

          Bob:

          We’re talking about the leadership, not the lay members. No, there aren’t a billion priests.

          I’m providing a layout of just how many potential concerns the priests and bishops would have to deal with all of the time. A billion members can make the Church a busy place.

          No, the church didn’t resolve the problem successfully.

          Fair enough. We disagree.

        • David

          Bob:

          One more thing about the Nicene Creed. I’m guessing that you know that Catholics recite the Nicene Creed in Mass every Sunday. Now, if the Councils which followed to the First Council of Nicaea had changed the faith in any way, it wouldn’t make much sense for us to be reciting things which originated back in 325 AD. But, except with the addition of a few lines at the Council of Constantinople in 381, its the same thing. That’s just less than 1700 years.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          if the Councils which followed to the First Council of Nicaea had changed the faith in any way, it wouldn’t make much sense for us to be reciting things which originated back in 325 AD.

          That’s all that there is to Catholicism? All the beliefs are summed up in that one short creed?

        • David

          That’s all that there is to Catholicism? All the beliefs are summed up in that one short creed?

          The Nicene Creed is more of a summation of the core beliefs, particularly about the Trinity, Christ, the Church, and the Second Coming. There are some beliefs, such as the Assumption of Mary, which were dogmatically defined centuries later and are not included in it. But the original Creed still stands as an essential expression of Christian faith.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          But when it did, what happened was much as you have said: a thorough housecleaning, transparency and safeguards.

          Here’s a story about an LA cardinal stripped of his duties because of the coverups he did. The archdiocese has published “personnel files of 122 priests accused of molesting children.”

          Did it do this voluntarily, simply because it was the right thing to do? Of course not. They did it because they were forced to by the courts. It’s weird when the church has to be informed by society what’s right and what’s wrong.

          To your point: no, the Catholic church has no interest in transparency, and whatever safeguards it’s put in have been done (as far as I can tell) with them kicking and screaming.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          David:

          The Nicene Creed is more of a summation of the core beliefs, particularly about the Trinity, Christ, the Church, and the Second Coming.

          You said that the creed hasn’t changed. OK, that’s nice but uninteresting. The other councils that followed hammered out important issues of doctrine, I assume?

          This idea that the church hasn’t changed a jot since day 1 is incorrect.

  • David

    Darn blockquote didn’t work for the first quote. I hope its clear where I’m quote you, Bob.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    Slate magazine, not a very conservative magazine, said JUST 3.7% of public students are sexually abused by their teacher.

    Is sexual abuse in schools very common? – Slate Magazine
    http://www.slate.com/…/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html
    Feb 8, 2012 – Is sexual abuse in schools really as common as these reports make it seem … more than 3 million have experienced sexual touching or assault.
    OK.
    6,000,000 kids in California in public schools. 3.7% of 6,000,000 is 222,000, in California alone! Let’s say it’s ten times that in the whole 50 states ( a low estimate)–that’s two million two hundred twenty two thousand in the United States!

    Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …
    There have been allegations of 11,000 Catholic abuse cases in the whole United States:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States
    Eight Catholic diocese have declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse cases ….. in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, …

    2,220,000 cases of sexual abuse by a teacher in the public schools in a
    America–11,000 by Catholic priests. If the public was really concerned about sexual abuse , where is the absolute lack of outrage, thousands of angry articles, investigations for the 2,220,000? Calls for reform. “We must do something! Investigate all teachers! Deafening silence over 2,000,000. Deafening outrage over eleven thousand. 2000 articles about Catholic abuse, 4 articles about public school abuse, incredibly larger, written in California.
    Thousands of priests were charged. Were hundreds of thousand of teachers charged?

    You knew about the Catholic abuse. Did you know about the public school abuse? Why not? And why no outrage?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      “Oh look! A pretty butterfly!”

      This is just misdirection. You’ve completely ignored my point.

      Is Catholic priest pedophilia the worst problem in the whole world? No. We’re agreed on this; no one said that it was.

      Now that we’re on the same page here, you’re welcome to go back to my last response to you and deal with the point that I brought up.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, OK, You want clergy, religious leaders, held to a higher standard.
    The Huffingtonpost, non a conservative site, talked about clergy abuse, and said the abuse rate between Catholic and Protestant was roughly the same. If the concern was for religious clergy abuse , and that the clergy should be held to a higher standards, where are the 2000 articles in California about the equally large Protestant abuse (didn’t here about them?) Where are all the sneers and mocking? OK Ted Haggert and a few others. They do not need being held to a higher standard. Why not?
    The clergy absolutely has to be held to a higher standard, and all abusers should have been prosecuted.
    Valerie Tarico: The Protestant Clergy Sex Abuse Pattern
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.ht...
    Sep 28, 2010 – One of the most striking aspects of the Protestant clergy sex abuse … rape statistics, sexual fantasies, D.C. dramas, and clergy sex abuse
    Liberals and gay people will go livid and seethe with outrage and simply deny that starting with the sixties and seventies, but especially the eighties, Catholic seminaries became a hotbed of homosexuals. St. Mary’s in Baltimore was known as the Pink Palace, Notre Dame in New Orleans was known as Notre Flame, and Morehouse Cellege was known as the Faggot Factory. St. John’s Seminary in Detroit was closed. Conservative seminarians were appalled, and many left. After the clergy abuse scandal broke, most bishops decided to stop admitting homosexuals–they were permitted before. And I am not sure what the numbers are who were already in and not public.
    I was in the Catholic seminary for four years in 1967 where the number of homosexuals was still small. Thee was a group of men that we all pretty much agreed were gay. At that time few were openly gay, so we couldn’t know for sure. I googled three of them. All were thrown out of the
    priesthood for abusing boys.
    Gay activists would like to have us believe that these large number of gay seminarians who went out to become priests had nothing to do with molestation of males–the usual charge against priests– and that it came from the rest of the heterosexual priests.
    This doesn’t absolve the priests. Many bishops who themselves were gay tried to cover up the scandal–check the news for scandals of Catholic bishops being gay. Many ordinary bishops did the same.
    This does not excuse those guilty. It just presents facts that gay people are desperate to deny, even though they think there’s nothing wrong with gay men being priests.
    homosexuals from entering the seminary, the present policy

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      The Huffingtonpost, non a conservative site, talked about clergy abuse, and said the abuse rate between Catholic and Protestant was roughly the same.

      What are we even talking about here? People are being mean to Catholics? Yeah–when the Catholic church, which claims to be influenced by the Big Man himself, (1) rapes children and (2) covers it up, people will be outraged.

      I don’t see the problem. If you’re saying that there are other problems out there, uh, yeah, I kinda knew that. If you’re saying that people are being disproportionately mean to Catholics, that doesn’t do anything to eliminate the problem.

      Can we focus on the problem without you trying to change the subject? When the Catholic church has done something outrageously bad, be a man and agree.

      I was in the Catholic seminary for four years in 1967 where the number of homosexuals was still small.

      Why imagine that?

      All were thrown out of the priesthood for abusing boys.

      Oh, good. Problem solved. I thought it was a big problem, but I guess it’s all resolved now. Sorry for crying wolf.

      Many bishops who themselves were gay tried to cover up the scandal

      Huh? The only coverups were done by gay priests? How do you know?

    • Kodie

      The problem with priesthood is that the priests aren’t supposed to have sex. It doesn’t matter what their orientation is. They get horny and take it out on kids because kids are weaker than they are and can be threatened not to tell.

      I am not really following this catholic part. I think catholics are superstitious, I think the church covers up abuses, I think the pope is an asshole, and I think Mother Teresa should be considered notorious for her badness and not beloved or admired. I grew up in a place that I guess was full of catholics. I didn’t get the vibe, not too many had Mary in the garden or wore a cross around their neck. I used to be intrigued by catholicism, and if my grandfather hadn’t been an atheist, I probably would have been catholic. Well I don’t know. We get back to that unique spiral of makeup that you worship, Wlad, and I don’t think my dad would have married a catholic. Anyway, like most pagan fantasies of a late teen girl’s life, so catholicism held such a mystique. Incense, beads, costumes, charms, chants, rituals, symbols, and the most enchanting architecture like living in a jewelry box. I know now that was cosmetic and none of that really means anything, but you know if it wasn’t so pretty to look at, it’s one of the ugliest religions going. I considered myself a cultural catholic before I ever heard people using those words. I mean that I get a lot of my personality through the strict catholic upbringing of my grandfather. He eliminated the ghost stories from his life, but he was uptight I guess. He was as a father and made my mom be the authoritarian, insecure, guilt-ridden, authority-deferring, obedient and obedience-expecting parent she was. I was really surprised she was glad when he died.

      Anyway, so you’re a catholic. I don’t care.

    • Kodie

      Bob, OK, You want clergy, religious leaders, held to a higher standard.

      I’d like to think they hold themselves to a higher standard as they advertise.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    Difference between the Catholic Church and Kiwanis=is one supernatural and the other secular?
    This is not a definitive only argument, but here goes.
    The Catholic Church is 2012 years old. It’s moral doctrines are the same today as they were two thousand years ago-hence the charge ‘Bronze age morals.” The Church was able to keep the same morals for two thousand years because it possesses the supernatural gift of the infallibility of the pope. For instance, there was tremendous pressure to Pope Paul VI from people, bishops, and theologians to allow contraception (around 1968 I think). He formally declared that he could not change church doctrine. He said that if he allowed it, it would bring on the breakdown of marriage and abortion. The world was horrified and laughed.
    The Protestants obviously do not believe in the supernatural gift of infallibiilty of the pope. Luther a Catholic priest nailed his theses and left the church. Immediately Calvin and Zwingli challenged his views and started their own churches. And guess what? There are now at least 30,000 different Protestant denominations teaching different doctrine. Presbyterians, Baptists,
    Lutherans continue breaking up as they tackle issues like abortion and gay marriage. There is no infallible gift to prevent this from happening. There are no 30,000 Catholic denominations–just one.
    Why, if they are both human, the same thing should have happened to both.
    Napoleon at the height of his glory once said to an archbishop “you know I can destroy the church.”
    The archbishop smiled and said,”many bishops have tried through the centuries and failed,”

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      The Church was able to keep the same morals for two thousand years because it possesses the supernatural gift of the infallibility of the pope.

      Was the pope seen as infallible from Day 1? Nope–that’s an invention from 1870.

      He said that if he allowed it, it would bring on the breakdown of marriage and abortion.

      And yet the church’s idea of marriage is quite different from what Abraham or Moses or David would’ve thought sensible. It’s even different from that of Paul–the church celebrates it, but Paul made clear that it was very much a second-class situation.

      There are no 30,000 Catholic denominations–just one.

      Guess again!

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, I was wrong. There’s actually 41,000 denominations.
    List of Christian denominations – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
    … are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations, many of which cannot be … 5.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants; 5.2 Lutheranism; 5.3 Anglicanism …
    There are these Catholic rites in the Catholic Church:
    11.

    Western Church:

    Roman Rite
    Ordinary Form
    Extraordinary Form
    Anglican Use
    Mozarbic Rite
    Ambrosian Rite
    Bragan Rite
    Dominican Rite (used by the Dominican religious Order; Its use has been suppressed since Vatican II)
    Carmelite Rite (Used by the Carmelite Religious Order; Its use has been suppressed since Vatican II)
    Carthusian Rite (Used by the Carthusian Religious Order; Its use has been suppressed since Vatican II)

    Eastern Churches:

    Alexandrian Rite
    Antiochian Rite
    Armenian Rite
    Byzantine Rite
    Chaldean Rite

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Rites_are_there_in_the_Catholic_Church#ixzz2JbeNbcXb
    The rites have different ways of worshiping. Only two percent of Catholics belong to these rites. They are not called denominations, for that reason, but rites.
    They are ALL subject to the Pope, and have the same doctrine. Catholics by definition are those who recognize the authority of the pope. There are some groups that call themselves Catholic but since they rejected the authority of the pope, they have different doctrines. If somebody told you there is a church calling themselves Catholic, and they have women priests, YOU would reject them as Catholic and say they are not real Catholics. There is only one Catholic position.

    Yes, the pope was infallible from day one. The church defined doctrine only when it was seriously questioned. The doctrine of the trinity was defined around 300 AD, It was always taught from day one. Only when people started questioning the divinity of Jesus that the church felt compelled to clearly spell it out.
    The doctrine of infallibility of the pope was formally declared in 1870 after it was seriously questioned. The popes were always the ones the church turned to to resolve questions of doctrine.
    There were 266 popes–not one changed doctrine. There were many bad popes–the Borgias, with bastard children–but not one changed doctrine. Infallibility does not mean sinless. It means that the gift of protecting doctrine is supernatural, does not depend on human goodness or faithfulness.
    Otherwise, we could have to elect Mother Theresas, and even saints have at times been doctrinally incorrect, and don’t have that gift.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Bob, I was wrong. There’s actually 41,000 denominations.

      42,000, according to my source.

      There are these Catholic rites in the Catholic Church:

      Right. Catholicism has more sects than just the one.

      They are ALL subject to the Pope, and have the same doctrine.

      Eastern Orthodox Catholics recognize the supremacy of Rome? I don’t think so.

      Catholics by definition are those who recognize the authority of the pope.

      Uh … by your definition! :-D

      Yes, the pope was infallible from day one.

      Wrong

      The doctrine of the trinity was defined around 300 AD, It was always taught from day one.

      Oh? Show me in the gospels where Jesus clearly defines the Trinity.

      The doctrine of infallibility of the pope was formally declared in 1870 after it was seriously questioned.

      Yep. And it’s a pretty weird concept to imagine fallible men concluding that a man could be infallible. My logical brain doesn’t accept that such a conclusion is firmly grounded, but perhaps yours works a different way.

      There were many bad popes–the Borgias, with bastard children–but not one changed doctrine.

      The popes look simply like a long line of presidents in a very large and powerful men’s club. It has lots of nutty and embarrassing chapters, just like any other human institution. No clues here that there’s divine support for this institution instead of any other one.

      Otherwise, we could have to elect Mother Theresas

      I don’t think much of Mother Teresa.

  • Wladyslaw

    Eastern orthodox do not recognize the pope and are not catholic.
    Eastern RITE catholics do recognize the authority of the church and are catholics.
    NONE of the 41,ooo protestant denominations agree in doctrine.
    ALL of the catholic rites agree on doctrine and recognize the pope, they simply have their own special liturgies in different countries.
    ANY argument about doctrine with ANY catholic (See my definition of catholic below) in ANY rite in the world would turn out exactly the same.
    The reason there are 42,000 denominations is because they ALL DISAGREE on at least one issue.
    To compare denominations to catholic rites is dishonest and disengenuos.
    Catholics are those who agree on everything the church proclaims, and recognizes the authority the authority of the pope.
    Your definition of the Catholic Church is …
    Jesus never defined doctrine. He simply acted. He said “Thou art Peter, and this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. From day one to 2010, despite all the attacks on church doctrine failing, and frail 266 popes from Peter to Benedict infallibly protected the deposit of faith. Jesus never said:here is the doctrine of infallibility.
    The history of catholic doctrine has showed that only in the case of doctrine–nothing else–the pope has never erred. NEVER was a doctrine declared and the then the church said OOPS, that was a doctrinal mistake, erase that. And you are right. Man alone could never claim the gift of infallibility–it was a supernatural gift from Jesus bestowed on Peter and the 266 popes.
    2000 years of continuity. When Luther rejected the authority of the pope, he started his own church, and renounced papal infallibilty. In short order, Calvin and Zwingli disagreed, and 41,000 denominations later… Infallibility-one church. No infallibility–42,000 churches. It is hard to believe, but see what it means in practice.
    The doctrine of the trinity means God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are One God in three persons. Christians always believed this. When Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, God the Father in heaven said. This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased, and the spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove. Only when heretics–Arians–denied the divinity of Jesus did the church made it very clear what it taught, and it got the name trinity. No Jesus never defined

    c

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Eastern orthodox do not recognize the pope and are not catholic.

      And they say they are Catholic.

      NONE of the 41,ooo protestant denominations agree in doctrine.

      I’d like to imagine that it’s that chaotic, but I don’t think so.

      To compare denominations to catholic rites is dishonest and disengenuos.

      Prove it to me. Have them all come together and agree to use the same name.

      NEVER was a doctrine declared and the then the church said OOPS, that was a doctrinal mistake, erase that.

      That whole limbo thing looks like a retrenchment. You might say that it wasn’t doctrine or something. I don’t much care–the church changed their mind on a major piece of their theological worldview. Oops.

      Man alone could never claim the gift of infallibility

      And yet they do. Men declared the pope infallible.

      And you do realize that simply declaring infallibility is something anyone can do. It actually being true takes quite a bit of evidence–evidence I’ve never seen.

      The doctrine of the trinity means God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are One God in three persons. Christians always believed this.

      Oh? Show me that Paul or Jesus believed this. I think they’re rather important in the history of the church, so if they don’t show clearly that this guides their theology, I think the idea should be discarded.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, that was a mouthful .Let’s perhaps take one point.
    I gave you my definition of a catholic who recognizes the authority of the pope.
    You said: Uh … by your definition! :-D
    What is your definition of a Catholic?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      What is your definition of a Catholic?

      Don’t have one. All I’m saying is that “Catholics” have more than one.

  • Wladyslaw

    OK–just give me ONE other one. There isn’t any other. If there is , give me just one.
    Every definition of a Catholic would have to necessarily be two things: Accept every doctrine of the church, and accept the authority of the pope, and obviously nothing that would contradict either of these Try becoming a Catholic without agreeing to the above. . No one wanting to become a Catholic would be allowed to be initiated into the church without totally embracing the above. No one would be allowed to become a Catholic if they refused to disbelieve even ONE doctrine. There is NO other definition
    Leah Embresco a former atheist recently became a Catholic. She was a bi-sexual, but she embraced all the doctrines even the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality, and is now a Catholic and is now celibate, even if it was hard to do.
    The protestants, as far as I know, do not do this.
    Any one who accepts any other definition simply is not allowed to become a Catholic.
    Don’t give two or three or four. Just one other. Obviously you do not like the one I gave. Can’t be that hard.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      OK–just give me ONE other one. There isn’t any other.

      “Within Western Christianity, the churches of the Anglican Communion, Continuing Anglicanism, the Old Catholics, the Liberal Catholic Church, the Apostolic Catholic Church (ACC), the Aglipayans (Philippine Independent Church), the African Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church of America, and many Independent Catholic Churches, which emerged directly or indirectly from and have beliefs and practices largely similar to Latin Rite Catholicism, regard themselves as “Catholic” without full communion with the Bishop of Rome, whose claimed status and authority they generally reject.” (Wikipedia)

      Then there’s the Eastern Orthodox church and others.

      Every definition of a Catholic would have to necessarily be two things: Accept every doctrine of the church, and accept the authority of the pope, and obviously nothing that would contradict either of these

      All those other churches reject one or both of these and still call themselves Catholic. Weird.

      You do know that “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” aren’t identical, right?

  • Wladyslaw

    “largely similar”
    That’s exactly the point. Protestant denominations are largely similar. But not one denomination has EXACTLY the same beliefs as any other–otherwise no need for a denomination. ALL of the different RITES have EXACTLY the same beliefs. NONE of the groups you mentioned have EXACTLY the same beliefs as the Catholic Church and are not Catholic–even though they use that name. If I asked YOU or anyone what is THE position of the Catholic Church on women being priests, you would acknowledge the obvious–no women priests–it’s in the official catechism–but even if you have never read the Catechism, you and even most atheists would clearly know the belief of the church of “bronze age” morality on this issue. ” Catholic Women Priests” call themselves Catholic. You didn’t point to them as a Catholic Church, (which they claim to be) for THE official position of the Catholic Church on women priests. NO one would believe you if you did. Anyone can CALL themselves Catholic. You can. But unless you, like Leah Lambresco, embrace every doctrine of the Catholic Church, you would not be accepted into the Catholic Church. The Catholic Bishop recently asked the National Catholic Reporter to cease using Catholic in their title because of its support for women priests.You wouldn’t point to the Reporter for THE position of the church on women priests.

    Of, course I know the difference. 98% of Catholics are Roman Catholics, 2% ARE Catholic–the various rites, mostly eastern. All exactly the same beliefs.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      NONE of the groups you mentioned have EXACTLY the same beliefs as the Catholic Church and are not Catholic–even though they use that name.

      All the other Catholic churches go back to the same beginnings as your version. If they call themselves “Catholic,” by what right do you say that they’re not (besides that it offends you somehow, which isn’t much of a reason)?

      And is it just me or is this a boring conversation? Are you done with the abortion thing?

      Anyone can CALL themselves Catholic.

      Yes, and they do. Their flavor of Christianity has as much right to the name as you do. Or does simply being the largest mean that the Roman Catholic church gets to define terms?

      All exactly the same beliefs.

      And again I challenge you: tell me this after they’re all following the same Supreme Leader. Today, that’s not the case.

  • Wladyslaw

    Just one last comment on the Catholic Church and I will go on to abortion
    What was THE reason that made Luther a protestant– “I protest”–his refusal to submit to the pope. All those “Catholics” who refused to submit to the pope are just like Luther deciding to become protestant. They certainly can call themselves Catholic, but like Luther, are not Catholics, but Protestants. At least the other 41,000 didn’t call themselves Catholic when they rejected the authority of the pope.
    Enough on this topic. Back on to abortion.
    This is how NARAL decided to commemorate Roe vs Wade and the 55,000,000 abortions that followed.
    Weird NARAL video compares abortion to … – LifeSiteNews.com
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/…/weird-naral-video-compares-abortion-to-ch...
    3 days ago – The pro-abortion group NARAL has just launched a bizarre new video that places abortion on the same moral plane as getting a .
    What do you think?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      You can’t say “Whoops! I made a mistake”? You’re welcome to think that your Catholicism is the only true one, but guess what? All the people in those other flavors of Catholicism think that theirs is valid, too.

      If you post a URL with “…” in it, it’s not a valid URL. See what I mean by trying to click the link above.

      And I think your comment was cut off.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Compares abortion to chewing gum? OK–where’s the problem? At the beginning, it’s just a cell.

      And did you respond to my question about what you think of the spectrum argument?

  • Wladyslaw

    Weird NARAL Video Compares Abortion to … – LifeNews.com
    http://www.lifenews.com/…/weird-naral-video-compares-abortion-to-chewi...
    3 days ago – The pro-abortion group NARAL has just launched a bizarre new video.

    It is called Portrait of Choice. This is the picture NARAL wants you to have in mind when you think of choice–the choice that Roe allowed and resulted i n 55,000,000.
    After your response to the video I will go on to your spectrum argument.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Didn’t watch it. You can summarize it if you’d like.

      • Wladyslaw

        It shows a continuous display of a long series of very attractive women in very happy poses, and titled it Portrait of Choice. They were celebrating 4o years of choice. I see it as celebrating 40 years of 55,ooo,oo abortions. The pro-abortion movement seems to be on a track to make abortion be viewed not as a tragedy, but as a good thing.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          I see it as celebrating 40 years of 55,ooo,oo abortions.

          And I see it as 40 years of anti-choicers ignoring the real issue: unwanted pregnancies. Looks to me like they don’t much care about abortion. What’s the real agenda here? You can tell me; it’ll be just between us girls. Are you trying to control sexuality–is that it?

  • Wladyslaw

    OK, Your response to that video isn’t that important to me. Obviously you are happy that choice became possible. Correct me if I am wrong.
    As to your spectrum argument, first I suspect that you are probably OK with abortion at any stage for any reason–correct me if I am wrong and tell me what limitations you would admit, if I am wrong. All or most of the other pro-abortion people on this site seemed to have this position.
    In your spectrum argument you want to address two audiences, both pro-life and pro-abortion people. This kind of pro-abortion people argues obviously the clump of cells is obviously not a human being, but that at some time it is–viability, birth, or even after birth according to one of your commenters.
    Here is the problem:
    If you agree with this pro-abortion position, for the sake of the spectrum argument, you have a problem.
    You say:
    Consider a continuous spectrum from blue to green. Where’s the dividing line? Where does blue end and green begin? We can argue about this, but we agree that blue is not green. The two ends are very different.
    “We can argue about this.” That’s the problem. That line is scientifically unverifiable. So you and I would have to agree that among the 55,ooo,ooo abortions, many many many human beings were killed accidentally falling over the line from clump of cells to a human being. Not a very good argument to present to pro-lifers. Remember it is the pro-abortion people bringing up this argument–proposing a 24 week cutoff. Most of us pro-lifers refuse to draw any line. Pro-abort people pushing this argument would have to agree that “we are undoubtably, accidentally killing many babies.” or drop this line of justification.
    In reality, those pro-abortion people would say that if push came to shove, they would finally abandon that argument–and say, the humanity of the child, the life of the child, is not the issue.
    The issue is: the life of the child is trumped by the life of the mother. Sometimes it is OK to kill the baby–mother’s life prevails.
    Then why do pro-aborts keep bring up this issue, as you Bob did. “You are so oblivious, there is obviously a spectrum.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      As to your spectrum argument, first I suspect that you are probably OK with abortion at any stage for any reason–correct me if I am wrong and tell me what limitations you would admit, if I am wrong.

      Restrictions are certainly on the table, but that’s not what the spectrum argument is about.

      This kind of pro-abortion people argues obviously the clump of cells is obviously not a human being

      I’d prefer to say that it’s not a person. And I suspect that many anti-choice people would find that argument common sensical, even if they refuse to admit that publicly.

      “We can argue about this.” That’s the problem. That line is scientifically unverifiable.

      And I also said: “But we agree that blue is not green. The two ends are very different.”

      Society makes tough choices all the time–jail terms for crimes, for example. Locking someone away for even an extra month more than we should is a very, very big deal, and yet we draw the line in the best place that we can.

      Where’s the problem? I’ve never heard an anti-choicer having any difficulty with this concept … except when they choose to.

      Most of us pro-lifers refuse to draw any line.

      Then don’t! It’s when anti-choicers are arrogant enough to demand that they’ve got it all figured out and need to impose their opinions on the rest of society that we have a problem.

      The issue is: the life of the child is trumped by the life of the mother.

      It’s not a child! Dude–I’ve raised two children and I’m an expert. A clump of cells isn’t a child.

      Call it one for your own purposes, but don’t force that interpretation on everyone else. That’s the problem–demanding that your way should be imposed on everyone.

  • Wladyslaw

    “A clump of cells isn’t a child.”
    OK, expert. When did this clump of cells become your chlld. We live in the reality of time. I guess you would say when it was born, but I’ll let you tell me when the clump of cells became actual children. The obviously did.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      OK, expert. When did this clump of cells become your chlld.

      Stop trying to change the subject. A clump of cells isn’t a child. Do you agree?

  • Wladyslaw

    Just to be clear.
    The question is, when did the clump of cells become a baby, or a person? If they are not the same, please indicate different times for each. Obviously at some time they did become an actual baby or actual person.

    • Kodie

      You are just repeating yourself again.

  • Wladyslaw

    I think I asked you and Nate this question, and I think you both gave basically the same answer.
    When the fetus is out of the womb, and off any medical machines. I asked if the “fetus” was on a machine for several months, and the doctor finally decided it was time to remove the life support,
    did his physical action turn the fetus into a baby. No baby before, just fetus. Machine or necessary IV removed– human. Was it a miracle? or what? Neither you or Nate answered this question. And you and I know it is crucial, and you hesitate to answer it.

    BOB brought out the spectrum argument–a clump of cells is not a child, so different from 39 week old fetus. Bob absolutely cannot say: “It’s not a child! Dude–I’ve raised two children and I’m an expert. A clump of cells isn’t a child,” and refuse to answer, OK,when they do become a person or human baby. Don’t bring out the argument, not now a human, and then say, but I won’t tell you when. And let Bob answer for himself. He’s the one who said, ” a clump of cells is not a child.”
    MY obvious next question is. when?

    • Kodie

      You don’t like the answers you’re given. We’ve already spent hundreds of posts with you, what new thing do you think we’re going to say just because you repeat the question? That’s it. It’s over Wlad. Why do you think this is going some new place?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Don’t bring out the argument, not now a human, and then say, but I won’t tell you when.

      So when the topic gets too intense for you, too close to home, you just need to change the subject? Maybe that’s telling you something.

      We have two points: (1) a clump of cells is not a child. Seems obvious to me, but if you have an argument I haven’t heard of before, I’ll be interested to hear it.

      (2) When does it become a child? My answer: do the research yourself. The abortion laws vary by state. I believe I recently heard that Nebraska made it 20 weeks, for example. So one answer is: “20 weeks in Nebraska.” If you want other answers check with other states.

  • Wladyslaw

    Please!
    YOUR WORDS:
    “When does it become a CHILD–20 weeks in Nebraska”, and suggested it might a little different in other states.
    OK. When your wife, or girlfriend was 20 weeks pregnant–let’s say 24 to be safe, the fetuses in her womb became a child. Correct so far?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      In Nebraska. As for my opinion, I really don’t have one. I confess that I haven’t thought it through enough to be able to defend any one date.

  • Wladyslaw

    YOU DON”T HAVE ONE?
    Don’t you think it would be of UTMOST IMPORTANCE to know in ANY discussion on abortion. YOU asked me to do the research, suggesting possible reasonable answers. You certainly wouldn’t have offered 20 weeks as a possible answer if you thought it was an absolutely ridiculous answer. Immediately after your declaration of when a fetus becomes a child, you said the abortion laws vary from state. You weren’t sure of all the different laws of all the state. You were fairly certain it was 20 weeks.

    You said check the other states for other answers. I did, and the answers varied widely from state to state. Nebraska says 20 weeks. Others were much later. Here is the problem. Once the fetus in your wife’s womb became her child , you would do everything in your power to protect your child’s life. You would never allow any one to kill your child, No one, for any reason.
    So does your wife’s fetus becomes a child depending on what state she is in? If she traveled from Nebraska to a more liberal state, your wife’s fetus would become a child much later? When would you start defending your children? Wouldn’t it be absolutely important for everyone to know when to start defending the lives of their children? When your fetuses became children you now have, I think you probably would defend their lives with your own life.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Don’t you think it would be of UTMOST IMPORTANCE to know in ANY discussion on abortion.

      Uh … have you read the post? I think it’s pretty clear what the subject is. I never once bring up the question of where to draw the line. Doesn’t much interest me, since there are people far more expert than I who’ve wrestled with (and answered!) the question.

      Immediately after your declaration of when a fetus becomes a child

      I never declared when a fetus becomes a child. Off topic.

      So does your wife’s fetus becomes a child depending on what state she is in?

      Is this a trick question? The definition of when it’s OK to abort varies by state. Not a hard concept, right?

      Wouldn’t it be absolutely important for everyone to know when to start defending the lives of their children?

      Am I missing something? Is there an answer about which all of us can see its objective truth?

      Apparently not, because we’re still arguing about it. Which is why your arrogance in demanding that your view must be imposed on everyone else bothers me.

  • Wladyslaw

    Wouldn’t it be absolutely important for everyone to know when to start defending the lives of their children?

    Am I missing something? Is there an answer about which all of us can see its objective truth?

    “Apparently not, because we’re still arguing about it. Which is why your arrogance in demanding that your view must be imposed on everyone else bothers me.”

    Since you agree that there is no answer about which all of us can see its OBJECTIVE truth (the answer is necessarily subjective) abortion people are perfectly happy to allow the killing of probably millions of children who accidentally cross that SUBJECTIVE line. Of course we make a lot of prudential decisions on a lot of issues, but never made prudential decisions about human life–they were always absolute. The only time we made a prudential (not absolute) decision about life was when some states permitted the owning and killing of slaves (non humans), and we regard that fully legal judgement with horror. In no other decision in OUR history was the humanity of s group of people prudentially decided. Other less important issues=yes. About life–no. Lincoln made no subjective decision about the humanity of black life, it was absolute, and even forced those states to accept the humanity of black people. Can you point to any other subjective decision about life and humanity” The only other one that comes to mind was when Hitler felt he could decide on the humanity of certain humans. We certainly recoiled from that and knew with absolute certainty no government in the world has the power to declare anyone non=human.

    • Kodie

      You don’t like the answers. You’re obsessed with the second-by-second transformation. When people start defending the lives of their children depends on when it is first off, realized they are pregnant, and two, if they want to. It’s nothing but a projection and not a child. If they want to keep it, they will protect it. If not, then not.

      You’re so obsessed that the arbitrary line is at conception that you try to nail someone else to a different line that occurs at any other specific moment and we explained to you every time, that’s not going to happen. You refuse to comprehend this and keep asking the same half-wit question.

      We’ve already been through comparing embryos and fetuses to Jews in Nazi camps, and slavery in the US. It is not the same thing and you don’t like the answers.

      Why don’t you like the answers? Because they’re not the same as your answers. But if you’re trying to convince anyone to change their minds, you are not doing such a good job. You’re just “BUT, BUT, BUT….!!!!” Anecdotes that do not apply universally. Analogies that are not applicable at all. Incompetence on your side to grasp information gathering, reading comprehension, an inflated sense of how well you’re arguing. You may be passionate on a subject, know almost nothing about it, acknowledge nothing you hear if you don’t like it, and be very frustrating to talk to, like a child who thinks if they ask for dessert one more time, the answer is going to be “yes”.

      There is no moment. There is a difference between a 12-week embryo and a 22-week fetus. 10 weeks is a fat line of 10 weeks. If it makes you nervous, I would say get ‘er to the clinic before 12 weeks and don’t feel bad. We’ve discussed this. Acknowledge that is the best answer you’re going to get. Nobody is going to say 12 weeks and one day is the second that it becomes a person. If someone wanted a baby, they are going to protect it from the first moment as the wanted baby they can’t wait to meet, and if someone doesn’t want to have a baby, they are going to project that thing as a parasite and a lifelong drain on the resources they don’t wish to expend long before it becomes a baby also. There is nobody who doesn’t know what it will become if allowed to hang around.

      I’m not taking this merry-go-round again with you.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      abortion people are perfectly happy to allow the killing of probably millions of children who accidentally cross that SUBJECTIVE line.

      ?? Pro-choice people don’t think any “children” are killed.

      Of course we make a lot of prudential decisions on a lot of issues, but never made prudential decisions about human life–they were always absolute.

      Are you in favor of the death penalty?

      Do you think that every possible medical option should be taken for every single person, or are you OK letting people lose weeks, months, or even years of their lives?

      You OK with legislatures deciding on how long people should rot in jail based on what the crime is?

      Yeah, we make decisions about lives all the time. Come back to the real world.

      we regard that fully legal judgement with horror.

      I don’t know why it should bother you. God is cool with slavery.

  • Wladyslaw

    OK, Kodie.
    Bob, when I kept asking, ” when does it become a child”, you asked me to do research and said that one possible (reasonable, not ridiculous) answer was 20 weeks. And then later you said,
    “I never declared when a fetus becomes a child. Off topic.” OK, you suggested a reasonable answer–20 weeks–but said–”I confess that I haven’t thought it through enough to be able to defend any one date.”
    The absolutely FIRST thing, the absolutely first argument, their most important argument pro-abortion people bring when talking with a pro-lifer (often with great indignation) is “IT”S NOT YET A BABY!” We respond. OK, when? You respond, UH, Don’t know.
    How can you possibly bring up your first most powerful argument– It’s not YET a baby, and then say “don’t know when to stop the killing.” You absolutely would never kill ONE child (the horror of Newton) and yet you say, We don’t know when to stop the killing.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      The absolutely FIRST thing, the absolutely first argument, their most important argument pro-abortion people bring when talking with a pro-lifer (often with great indignation) is “IT”S NOT YET A BABY!”

      Oh, good. Go respond to them with that argument, then.

      With me, the topic is the spectrum. It’s a baby at the newborn end. At the other end, it’s just a cell. Just a cell.

      This handwringing you imagine is in your head only. Legislatures across the country make the tough decisions on abortion, death penalty, prison terms, and so on. Get a clue–decisions that affect lives in thousands of ways have already been made. Do all of these keep you up at night? If not, why pretend that just your pet issue is the most important one?

  • Wladyslaw

    OK, my parting comment.
    OK, from our discussion, I have concluded the following.
    Pro-abortionists start out the discussion by trying to humiliate their opponents by basically saying, “Stupid, the embryo is not yet a baby!” Bob just recently claimed that point in his spectrum argument–spectacular difference between embryo and end of pregnancy.
    When asked about when it does, they say the don’t know–somewhere between 20 weeks and all the way to birth–check the varying laws of the 50 states.
    When you ask the obvious question–so probably many babies get killed because nobody really knows 20 weeks to birth. They refuse to further discuss the argument.
    So they finally say, you know, it really isn’t the real issue anyway. It’s really the right of the woman to her body, doesn’ t really matter when the fetus becomes a baby. It obviously does at some point become a baby but it doesn’t really matter when. And so many pro abortion people now try to avoid the issue entirely by starting out with right of the woman to her body right off the bat.
    The pro-lifers also start at life of the baby. Where else can they possibly start? They are pro life.

    • Kodie

      No, they are pro-forced-birth. I say let the woman do what is comfortable for her, even if I do not feel that comfortable if it were myself. That is the difference. You don’t care about women’s circumstances. You only care about the DNA and forcing it to term from the very beginning. I would be perfectly comfortable getting it out of the way very early, and for you, you would not terminate at all. That’s your choice.

      When you start forcing other people to make the same choices you do about what I think with you is preserving the soul, then you have a lot of work to do to prove a soul. But you have freedom of religion to believe in the soul and preserve it in any choice you have to make. Comparing an embryo with no brain process to a person with human rights is wrong. Just as you would not compare a chicken to a person, a full-grown chicken. What does a chicken lack that an embryo does have? I think you would say it’s not a human, or without a soul, or it’s non-sentient. Which of those is your choice? You prefer a non-sentient “human” to any other creature living that could be sentient or non-sentient because the latter lack souls. You have to prove souls exist in order to force other people to agree with you and follow your instructions for the reasons you have given. Or you have to come up with rational beliefs and rational instructions that you communicate much better.

      You ask us over an over, when does life begin? WHEEEEEENNNNNN???? Then I ask you where in the body is the soul located and how do you know this? You don’t answer those questions, you do say that’s what you believe. That’s where the individual’s choice comes in. You’re allowed to make that choice for yourself, but you have to sell it to others in order for them to agree with you, and you have not, in hundreds of responses, made one iota of movement on answering hard questions for yourself. You can see a big difference before 12 weeks and after 22 weeks, and even differences between 12-22 weeks and up to 39 weeks. You can see the difference, but do you know the differences on the inside? If there is no lungs or heart, there is nothing to hook it up to a machine if born at that time. It is built from the mother herself. If it is not made yet, it is not a baby. I personally feel the larger and more development it has, then it becomes closer to a baby and I would less likely make my decision so late. But other women must, and you would rather they die.

      Basically because you called them whores, that’s pretty much your disgusting stand lacking compassion, and you accuse us of humiliating you?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      When you ask the obvious question–so probably many babies get killed because nobody really knows 20 weeks to birth.

      Wait–you’re telling me that this is important to you? Hardly. If this really were important to you, you’d be actually making a difference by working to minimize unwanted pregnancies. How much effort do you spend on this? That’s the metric of how much you care. Don’t pretend otherwise.

      It’s really the right of the woman to her body, doesn’ t really matter when the fetus becomes a baby.

      Weird. Do you choice haters have this same Big Brother/Nanny State invasive idea about how government should work when it comes to parenting? Should we install TV cameras in houses to make sure parents are doing an acceptable job? Should it be a one-strike-you’re-out thing where the parent only has to raise his voice once and CPS whisks the kid away?

      And if we are comfortable with parents’ instincts about child rearing (which, perhaps you’ll agree, is pretty important), why not a mother’s instincts about abortion?

  • Niemand

    Suppose we grant Wlad’s premise and say that the zygote is a person from the moment the sperm membrane meets secondary oocyte membrane. Does that change anything?

    For abortion, no. We don’t grant people the right to use other people’s bodies against their will, even if they would die without that use. The McFall vs Shimp precedent is obvious. There are also cases of conjoined twins who were separated because both could not survive joined but one-and only one-could survive if they were separated, despite the fact that the separation inevitably killed one. Nor do we let people take organs from a person who has died if that person said during his/her lifetime that s/he didn’t want donation to occur. We consider bodily integrity so important that we don’t take it from the dead to help the living. That’s about as strong a statement as can be made. Forced pregnancy and other forms of forced use of one person’s body by another are immoral in our current outlook.

    What should change, though, is how we look at pregnancy and miscarriage. Pregnant women should be considered two people legally and the zygote, embryo, or fetus legally recognized, i.e. the “conception date” should replace “birth date” as the legally important “beginning” date for the person. This may entail asking some awkward questions…Also, we need to greatly step up research into the causes and treatments of miscarriage. Right now, essentially no work is being done into failed implantation because it’s not considered a high priority for public health. But if every zygote is a baby then the majority of people in the world are dying before their second week of life. This is much more serious than cancer, heart disease, stroke, alzheimer’s, malaria, AIDS, etc. We need to work on it right away! Of course, we also need to treat pregnancy differently. For example, all women should be worked up for potentially reversible risks of miscarriage. Right now we wait for the second miscarriage before doing this workup, but if every zygote is a person, that’s immoral. We need to prevent the first one.

    So, Wlad. How much higher taxes are you willing to pay to support increased research into miscarriage and increased intensity of care to prevent currently known etiologies of miscarriage? It’s the “pr0-life” thing to do.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nimand,
    I would absolutely agree with your whole second paragraph.

    As to the first paragraph, several points: if you accept what you said in the second paragraph–
    “Pregnant women should be considered two people legally and the zygote, embryo, or fetus legally recognized,” you would never take either legal person’s life without its permission. A legal person in the womb cannot obviously give permission, you say? If a doctor had a dead person before him, and the person was unable to give his permission (he had no will that said so) he would never be allowed to continue to even take just an organ. Bodily integrity is that important.

    The only forced pregnancy I can think of is rape. Every other woman who wasn’t raped by definition entered into sex willingly and certainly knew she could become pregnant. As you said,
    the zygote, embryo should be declared legal persons (and I assume get equal protection.)
    When you say forced pregnancy, what you really mean is , no one can force me to carry the pregnancy on. no one has the right to tell me I can’t STOP the pregnancy (kill the legal life). She is ALREADY pregnant–no one forced her to become pregnant.
    I would definitely support higher taxes for the purposes you stated. And and lower defense spending.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      The only forced pregnancy I can think of is rape.

      And what do you call it when a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant but you demand (by force of law) that she remain pregnant? “Forced pregnancy” works for me.

      Every other woman who wasn’t raped by definition entered into sex willingly and certainly knew she could become pregnant.

      Yeah, and … ?

      When you have an accident with your car or gun, society takes care of you. How about the same consideration with accidents with sex?

      She is ALREADY pregnant–no one forced her to become pregnant.

      But you’re forcing her to remain pregnant.

  • Wladyslaw

    Go ahead. Laugh at me. You tried to push my arguments to a conclusion that I would find ridiculous.
    I do and continue to support research into causes of miscarriage–my wife had three of them. I support research into the causes of infertility. The difference in urgency in finding a cause for miscarriage is that it is not intentional, as is abortion. Your last solution, “every woman should be worked…”was obviously trying very hard to be ridiculous.

  • Wladyslaw

    ” She is ALREADY pregnant–no one forced her to become pregnant.

    But you’re forcing her to remain pregnant.”

    I am already alive. You are forcing me to remain alive.

    • Kodie

      No one ever forces men to get pregnant. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

      What you are misplacing your grief over dead babies because you don’t like women having sex like a man can. You want to punish them.

      Think about all that makes you a person. Is that in a fertilized egg, or an embryo? It is not. The cells are cells, they have instructions to grow into a person, but they have not missed out on life because they do not know what that is. Only the woman who does or doesn’t want it to grow inside her knows. IN SIDE HER. MADE OF HER. She has to make a baby or she can decide not to. It’s not a baby even if it’s wanted. That’s a projection of the parents who want a baby. If they want it, that’s still a ways off. If they do not want it, it is ok to have an abortion and get on with your life.

      If you do not agree, you have now to prove where the soul is in the body. Why it’s so precious to save that nobody shall tamper with god’s work.

      Your issue is you don’t like women tampering with the archaic system by having sex outside of wedLOCK. You don’t like women having control over their own lives and destinies. Just go back to that. You said it before and you dropped it. You think you’re pushing me to say something where you can trap anyone who gives women the choice. WLADYSLAW YOU”RE NOT THAT SMART.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Good p0int. Personhood is an emergent phenomenon. A single cell isn’t a person just like a single brain cell can’t think.

        Pro-lifers can celebrate that single cell all they want; it’s when they demand that the law compell everyone to see that cell the way they do that we have a problem.

  • Wladyslaw

    I have to go away for a few hours.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    In many, many of your posts you brought up the suffering of actual women and complained that I repeatedly ignored that suffering. OK, I’ll address it.
    We are never allowed to stop the suffering of one human being by killing another human being. An abused woman is never allowed to kill her abuser.
    We are absolutely right back to “Is the fetus in the womb another human being.” Which is why I choose not to go there.

    So can we agree not to discuss the suffering of the woman.

    And agree not to discuss the life of the child vs life of the mother because even if I agreed with you on the relatively few numbers where that is the case, you certainly would go back to the suffering of the mother in all the other cases.

    So your argument is…

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      We are absolutely right back to “Is the fetus in the womb another human being.” Which is why I choose not to go there.

      The issue isn’t that the fetus is a human being, it’s that the fetus is not a person. That’s the difference between the fetus and the woman carrying it, and that’s why pro-choice people say that the woman’s wishes should carry the day.

      And we’re back to your insisting that you’re right and you get to impose your will on the entire country.

      I wonder what that kind of confidence feels like. Weird.

    • Kodie

      The life of the mother can mean a lot of things and in the case of abortion does. It is her life, not just her life in mortal crisis, that is why women choose abortions. You keep arguing that the fetus is a human being so of course if they are both human beings, one is not allowed to kill the other. That is why we’re calling infanticide illegal. Born-alives at the fetus stage who are viable are protected from homicide under this law. This law does not apply to DNR requests or failure to keep a viable fetus alive by medical intervention, nor does it apply to legal abortions.

      How is that for fuzzy? It is up to the parent(s)! Because it’s not really a person. It is given consideration as one only in applying narrow homicide laws. The law affects the projection of one fetus (a wanted child eventually) and an unwanted fetus (may be aborted), or either (if born, allowed to perish).

      But you think it’s always ok to let those “human beings” off the hook for killing another person? If carrying a pregnancy will harm a woman’s health or kill her, you are fine with that. They are just unethical little babies. They didn’t know they were harming anyone, so can’t be held responsible and killed before they kill! In most cases, it’s hijacking the rest of a woman’s life. You want to hold her, not men, WOMEN ultimately responsible and keep their legs together. That’s your magical plan. You hate that women get their heavy periods sucked out through the vagina to save their own lives and determine where they can go from here. Your obsession with controlling the sexuality of women comes through loud and clear. You don’t like modern times, they upset you, and you find a scapegoat.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    “THE ISSUE is…the fetus is not a person.
    Peter Singer has an opinion on this issue.
    OK, let’s not discuss if the fetus is a human being.
    Let’s discuss if it a person.
    This is the issue.
    A fetus is a person when…

  • Wladyslaw

    And please don’t tell me you don’t know, don’t have a position, or haven’t really thought about.
    YOU told me that whether it is a person was the issue.

    • Kodie

      Where in the body is the soul located?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      I don’t know and don’t have a position. Are you a little slow? Haven’t we been over this?

      Do I have some sort of obligation to know everything?

  • Wladyslaw

    I see that a little earlier you said it was an emergent phenomenon. The emergent phenomenon finally stops being emergent and becomes a full person, no longer emerging. This does happen. Right?
    Then you will accord it equality with the grown woman.
    And please don’t tell me you don’t know, don’t have a position, or haven’t really thought about it, when I ask you when this emerging stops.

    • Kodie

      When it’s done gestating either inside a womb or artificially in an incubator.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      The emergent phenomenon finally stops being emergent and becomes a full person, no longer emerging. This does happen. Right?

      It’s a spectrum. A single brain cell doesn’t think slowly; it doesn’t think at all. At a million cells, I suppose it thinks, but certainly not like a person. When it becomes person-sized (many billions of cells, I believe), then it has the capability to think in a person-like manner.

      Similarly, personhood is a spectrum. Maybe in ten million years evolution will have produced a successor to humans that has a much bigger brain. Maybe you’d have to say that that has gone beyond personhood.

      A spectrum, see?

  • Bob Seidensticker

    Wlad:

    After a while of dodging questions because you can’t answer them or avoiding analogies and comparisons because you have no reasonable rebuttal, I’d think that you’d wonder if your position was so ironclad after all. But perhaps you don’t think like the rest of us.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, of course you said you don’t know and don’t have a position.
    Bob, you don’t have to know everything.
    But then why did you say–The issue is…the fetus not a person” According to you the issue was– not whether it was a human being, but whether it was a person. So obviously I asked you what is a person. You said you don’t know.
    Why did you say personhood was THE issue, and then say I don’t know what a person is.

    • Kodie

      What is a person to you Wlad and why? Where in the body is the soul located? You don’t like our answers what are your answers?

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        I think you know my position, but here goes.
        A new person, a new human being comes into this earth at a specific moment in time –conception, not a second before. Since you brought up the religious concept of the soul, it’s at this time it enters the body. The theological argument how this happens is long, and I think you really want to get into a theological argument.
        And this human being ceases life on earth at death, the soul leaves the body to go into eternity.
        During that entire time, it is an alive human being, and no one can kill it at any point in it’s life-=not in it’s primitive life, day before birth life, ten years old life, or 80 years old.. No killing at any time of it’s life.

        • Kodie

          I don’t really want to get into that, but that’s really the only reason driving your viewpoint. It’s irrational, or alternately, you have to prove all that is true, where the soul exists and of course how you know that it does. Should be simple if it’s true to explain it to me.

          You can’t really force anyone else to believe your theological ideas if you can’t prove them, nor follow the morals implied by believing them. If you can’t prove it, you can’t force anyone to agree with the limits on abortion due to it. Do you understand? I don’t have to share your delusions.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          A new person, a new human being comes into this earth at a specific moment in time –conception, not a second before.

          Granted. Now, let’s actually address the spectrum.

          What is the word that you’d like to use for what a newborn has and a just-conceived single cell doesn’t have? I call it “personhood,” but I guess you’d prefer something else. OK–suggest that term then. I’ll try to use it.

          Since you brought up the religious concept of the soul, it’s at this time it enters the body.

          Is the soul a mandatory part of your argument? That is, if there were no soul, would your argument vanish?

          If you need a soul, then I wonder by what right you impose your beliefs on the rest of the country.

          The pro-choice view allows everyone to do what she thinks best. The anti-choice view doesn’t–kind of a Nanny State thing that I’m surprised that you’d want to do.

  • Wladyslaw

    And Bob,
    OK,
    Obviously the personhood spectrum has a definite ending, not infinte. You say that the fetus is not yet a person and one can’t kill it for that reason. You are a full person right now, even if your progeny becomes smarter, and one can’t kill you. Your child is a person right now, and no one can kill it, even if future children might become smarter..You can’t kill your two year old for the same reason.It’s a full person right now. And the one year old. Pete Singer has the most radical idea–a human being becomes a person around when the child is two years old. No pro-abortion person I know has ever argued that position. A child 6 months old? Still can’t kill it. One day after your child was born, still can’t do it. The spectrum argument is not infinite. It stops at some point. I can’t kill your one day old child. It is now a person, and I think even you would agree (unlike Singer). C”mon, it happens at some point.And don’t say the person spectrum is emerging, infinite. For your child it stopped at childbirth. If I killed your unborn baby on the way to the hospital, I wouldn’t have killed a person?

    • Kodie

      You can’t see the difference between a 10-week old embryo and a 24-week fetus even? Come on!

      Even someone like you would have to say that a 10-week embryo is nowhere near to being a person.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Obviously the personhood spectrum has a definite ending, not infinte.

      A spectrum is a spectrum. Something can be very much a person, not at all a person, a little bit a person, and so on. You seem to imagine it like a date. If Senator Smith is sworn in to his first term at 1pm today, then before 1pm he was not a senator and after that time he was–a very definite line.

      Spectrums are not like that.

  • Wladyslaw

    KOdie,
    I didn’t say there is no difference between a 10=week embryo and a 24=week old. I just said that every moment of the human life, from conception, is absolutely vital in the life of a human being. Interrupt it at ANY time, at any moment, and a new human being disappears off the face of the earth. The Chinese didn’t abort 40 million “potential” lives. China has 4o million less ACTUAL people, not 40 million less potential people.
    A woman recently wrote an article saying “I wish my mother aborted me.” Me is an actual person.
    Ask her.

    • Kodie

      Why must it not be interrupted? If humans were created by some method other than how every single other mammal on earth procreates, then you might have some edge on magic being the case. Outside of that, we interrupt chickens’ lives all the time and you don’t see too many people worked up about it.

      We’re not even talking about that, we’re talking about a clump of cells, you’re saying we must not interrupt it, why? What is so special or unique about a wad of cells? For that matter, what is so special about me or you? Context has a lot to do with how special any of us are. You do not allow for the context that doesn’t want an embryo to get any further. The very thing that makes us human is not creating life but solving foreseeable problems with engineering. Defy that? What makes the Christian human life management system superior to someone else’s methods?

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        What is so special about me or you?
        I’m not so special. You might be. But I suspect you wouldn’t want me to kill you.

        • Wladyslaw

          Kodie,
          I’d like to add this to my answer above.
          Kodie, you are a unique, absolutely unrepeatable person. There never was a person like you in all of history, and there never will be. Sounds special to me.

        • Kodie

          I think you forget how ordinary and common people are. I already also pointed out that Christianity rewards conformity and judges people who are different – so I don’t know why the worship of the unique. It’s only because people delude themselves into a personal relationship with a deity who plots their lives that they imagine every unwanted baby gets a neat life story that will never be repeated. I could also say while I wouldn’t murder anyone, there are people I wouldn’t miss if they died or were never born. You can’t really miss imaginary people. There is not some gaping hole anywhere from all these people who don’t exist. So what is the value of being unique? Hardly anyone is unique enough to matter in the scheme of things, except in context to other people who know them now or to themselves. Fetuses don’t have any such awareness.

        • Kodie

          What is especially magical to you about never-before and never-again? We have discussed that there are other circumstances involved in building you from the seed up inside the womb. If the environment is hostile to you, you don’t belong there. There is nothing special about that egg or that sperm. They are common but unique, but discard-able. When the magical soul thing happens, which you still haven’t answered, what magically transforms a unique egg and a unique sperm to the status you regard as a person? I say you’re exaggerating!

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          Kodie, you are a unique, absolutely unrepeatable person.

          Yes, Kodie is a unique, unrepeatable person. And there’s a big difference between Kodie and a single cell.

          As a slight diversion, my wife and I had 2 kids. We didn’t have 20, just 2. What about those 18 that we might’ve had but didn’t? Should I feel guilty about those potential persons that I denied existence?

        • Kodie

          I don’t see what is magical about being unique. It’s a pretty common quality. You think because I exist now that I would have to be born just to see what my life story held! It’s been miserable. I don’t get what I’m supposed to feel positive about being unique.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Interrupt it at ANY time, at any moment, and a new human being disappears off the face of the earth.

      A potential new person. Not a person, a potential one. Your argument is unconvincing.

      Why not just have your view and allow other people to exercise their intelligence how they see best.

  • Wladyslaw

    I’m going to watch the super bowl for a while,

    • Wladyslaw

      Kodie,
      “We interrupt chickens’ lives all the time and you don’t see too many people worked up about it.”
      Kodie, you are absolutely right.
      One boy interrupted the lives of a few children in Newton, and the whole America erupted.

      • Kodie

        Can you tell the difference between chickens and children? Can you tell the difference between chickens and embryos? Can you tell the difference between children and embryos?

        Why don’t you answer questions without changing the subject?

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie, OK.
    Yes to the first question. I’m not sure why you asked it. To the second and third, the chicken and the child are both far older than the embryo.
    Kodie, once you were far younger than you are now. An and no one killed you.

    • Kodie

      Why do you think that’s an argument?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad: Seriously? Can you ever respond to the questions you’re asked?

      Here’s a tip: when you’re forced to ignore the questions that you’re asked, that’s a clue that your position is weak. Reexamine it. The facts are trying to tell you something.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    You only have one life. Interrupt your life (kill it) at any time, and you, Kodie, would be history.

    If I killed you now, you Kodie, the person you are now, would be history.
    You were once an embryo. If I killed you then, you Kodie, the person you are now, would be history. Doesn’t matter when.

    If I didn’t kill you now, Kodie, you Kodie, the person you are now, remained alive.
    If I didn’t kill you as an embryo, you, Kodie, the person you are now, remained alive.
    It doesn’t matter when.

    In the first case Kodie, the unrepeatable unique in all of history dies.
    In the second case, Kodie, the unrepeatable, unique in all history lives.
    In EVERY case, it’s all about you Kodie. Doesn’t matter when.

    • Kodie

      If at any time in my life, it was interrupted, I certainly would have little to care about afterward.

      Why do you persist in using this as an argument when you are avoiding the questions I asked you. Your worship of the uniqueness of each individual person is an exaggeration and avoiding the real answer to the real question – you don’t know where in the body the soul is, so you wave your hands.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, she asked three questions, I answered all three exactly as I absolutely believed. Show me which of the the questions I ignored.
    Kodie.
    “If at any time in my life, it was interrupted, I certainly would have little to care about afterward.
    That was my point, if at any time your life was interrupted, you Kodie, an ACTUAL person alive now, would never be alive now. One less actual human on the planet. Not one clump of cells less on the planet.

    • Kodie

      I asked you many times where in the body is the soul located and you repeat some other thing that’s irrelevant and not as amazing to me as you think it is.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      One less actual human on the planet. Not one clump of cells less on the planet.

      Oh, well then if a clump of cells isn’t what you’re talking about, then don’t put restrictions on the fetus when it’s just a clump of cells!

      Imagining what it’s gonna be isn’t meaningful. It’s what it is right now that matters.

  • Wladyslaw

    You were angry at me for bringing up my religion and theology and forcing my religious views on everybody else. I’m sure you do not believe in the soul. I do. I never brought it up for that reason. Do you want a religious discussion. If you do, fine. I’ll go there.

    • Kodie

      You don’t have any other reasons behind your opinion. Your opinion is not that when life starts because of the soul, it is because you want to punish women.

      You don’t know where the soul is or it would be your first argument. It is not something we can all agree on because there is no proof. You feel it is true but you do not know it is true. That’s why you can choose what you feel is right but you do not have the right to force everyone to see your views. If a theological argument was at all convincing, it wouldn’t take nearly 800 posts to drag it out of you. You know if you could have shown us where the soul is, that’s the first diagram you would have drawn.

      So don’t bother. It’s not your strongest argument, is it – it’s your weakest. You have not had any other strong arguments in almost 800 posts. You have weak anecdotes and pleading and repeating the same thing over and over as if it’s an argument and convinced nobody. Where do you think this goes with your weakest argument?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      That’s why you can choose what you feel is right but you do not have the right to force everyone to see your views.

      Wlad: This is the kind of thing that you get hit (here, by Kodie, but by others in the past) with but you don’t respond to. This is what’s annoying about debating with you–you just ignore the tough questions, the ones that’ll shake your argument, presumably because they’re uncomfortable.

      If they’re uncomfortable, you must consider them to make sure that you’re following the evidence where it leads, not simply blindly following a dogma.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie, Here is what Libby Ann,a a feminist atheist on Patheos, said about bringing up the soul issue in an argument on abortion.:
    But what this reality makes clear is that advocating the banning of abortion based on the ensoulment of the zygote really is about pushing specific religious beliefs on the general public in an area where there is disagreement even among religious believers. It points out dramatically why the argument from the soul is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state – it’s not just secular individuals verses religious individuals, but rather one group of religious individuals verses secular individuals and other groups of religious individuals. And it was, quite simply, why the founders enshrined separation of church and state – to keep one religious group’s beliefs from being pushed on every other religious group.
    Abortion, Heartbeats, and Souls
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/…/2012/…/abortion-heartbeats-and-souls.ht...
    You want a Catholic view? Here is a response from a Catholic ethicist here is the Catholic on the soul.
    Do Embryos Have Souls? – The National Catholic Bioethics Center
    http://www.ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=305
    Do Embryos Have Souls? … They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are …

    You keep on saying I hate women, I don’t care about the sufferings of women.
    I answered that one cannot kill one human being to alleviate the sufferings of another. You would not be OK with killing an woman abuser to alleviate her suffering, no matter how long he had been abusing her. It’s not because you don’t care about her suffering.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Work on your use of URLs. Note that the one with the ellipsis doesn’t work.

      I answered that one cannot kill one human being to alleviate the sufferings of another.

      And you know what the response will be: call it a human being if you want, but it isn’t a person. Push the conversation along as far as you can by yourself, OK? This constant repetition my work nicely for you, but it’s tedious for the rest of us.

      • Wladyslaw

        Bob,
        Sorry about the URL. I did exactly the same for both.

        “And you know what the response will be: call it a human being if you want, but it isn’t a person.”
        And you know what my response will be. OK, What is a person and when does this happen.
        You answer, A person is “emergent personhood.”
        Doesn’t answer the first question. Attempts to answer the second question when? But I see absolutely no difference in the answer “not emergent humanity but emergent personhood.
        We’re back to the same question. A person is…

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          And you know what my response will be. OK, What is a person and when does this happen.

          Yes, I know what your response will be. You will try to change the subject. My points are getting a little uncomfortable, so you want to put the burden on me.

          Hey–I don’t have opinions on lots of stuff. I don’t know many things. This line has been drawn many, many times, both by individuals (experts and lay people) and by legislatures. If you want answers to your question, go there. My own addition to this conversation would be a meaningless drop in the ocean.

          We’re back to the same question. A person is…

          Yes, you are indeed doing a lot of dodging! In particular, what you want to call the spectrum. You don’t like my saying that it’s a human being as a newborn but not as a single cell? Or a person as a newborn but not as a single cell? No problem–you tell me what property the newborn has that the single cell doesn’t have. Surely you will admit to the vast difference between them.

        • Wladyslaw

          Bob,
          “You don’t like my saying that it’s a human being as a newborn but not as a single cell? Or a person as a newborn but not as a single cell?”

          Bob, you have never once in all of our discussions ever said the above. Please cite it if you think you did.

          OK, I’ll accept you saying your position now–it’s a human being as a newborn, and a person as a newborn. YOUR position.

          So if someone killed your wife or girlfriend on the way to the hospital on the way to give birth, he would not have killed a human, a person?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          Bob, you have never once in all of our discussions ever said the above.

          Wrong. I encouraged you to offer a word that you’d prefer here, a week ago.

          OK, I’ll accept you saying your position now–it’s a human being as a newborn, and a person as a newborn. YOUR position.

          Sounds good. My position is that it’s a person as a newborn and not a person as a single cell. We’re still on the same page?

    • Kodie

      You want to say that she is killing a person when she doesn’t think she is. You want her to have necessary consequences for having sex. That’s punishment. You would rather she wait to have sex until she’s ready to meet those consequences, you want to control people’s sexuality. That’s hate. You hate when women have sex and do not consider that thing unique in a positive way. If you want to look at something the size of this letter J and call it a person when it has no self-awareness, just because it is unique without having anything else about it. It can be unique and not wanted. It doesn’t have to ruin someone’s life just because it is unique. And you don’t seem to care when I point out that Christianity rewards conformity. What is the big deal about being unique, that you are grasping onto a vague quality only to have it born and mashed into the shape of a Christian, to lose its uniqueness, to follow orders and stay within the lines. Doesn’t sound like uniqueness is all that popular so you must be using a code for something else. God that you worship recognizes each human quality but humans do not. Humans of your group hate when someone is different, does differently or thinks differently. Than what? An old book with outdated rules that reject humanity itself? The actual human nature is to solve problems, it is not to sit by and wait for instructions. Sexuality and birth is an old problem solved. You hate that because you worship an ancient way and hate modernity. You hate progress.

      You are grasping at very little that you’re able to communicate yourself. There may be better arguments but you don’t know them.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        Sex if for survival. Nature (evolution) made it very pleasurable so we would engage in it. Life would not exist if either was missing. They are intrinsically linked.

        Eating is for survival. Nature (evolution) made it very pleasurable so we would engage in it. Life would not exist if either was missing. They are intrinsically linked.

        What if we separate eating for pleasure, from eating for survival.
        Bulimics try to do this, try to have the pleasure of eating without it’s natural consequence.
        If they totally succeed in doing so, they will only die. And you and I would consider them very sick when they try to eat only for pleasure,.
        Recently someone invented a tube connected to the stomach by which they could remove what they ate. They could eat all the food they wanted. Just the pleasure of it. You and I would be sickened if the became the norm. Even if they said it was OK to separate eating from pleasure.

        • Wladyslaw

          Kodie,
          Just to be safe, I just read about the invention of the tube somewhere. I tried to find the source. but so far haven’t found it on google.

        • Kodie

          So try to tell people they shouldn’t eat anything until they get married.

          What humans have done is figure out what’s edible, what’s nutritious, and reformed our quest to eat something from hunting and gathering to subsistence farming to agriculture into the industrial age. Similarly, pregnancy need not be a hindrance in life. We figured it out, inside, outside, and what it entails and how to avoid it. Why are you afraid of the modern times, Wlad? What offends you about humanity so much that you form a paradox?

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    ‘ And you don’t seem to care when I point out that Christianity rewards conformity.”
    The United States says that “All men are created equal.”
    The US rewards conformity? It simply states the truth, and assumes that everyone recognizes that.

    ” Humans of your group hate when someone is different…
    All humans are capable of hate. I don’t hate you. I don’ think you hate me.
    Do members of your group—pro-abortion ( pro-gay I imagine) , hate us because we’re different, do do differently, think differently. No, you would simply would say you disagree with us and don’t hate us. Pro-abortion people don’t hate prolifers, they disagree with them.
    We expect the same courtesy.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Pro-abortion people don’t hate prolifers, they disagree with them.
      We expect the same courtesy.

      One typical courtesy is to call the opposition what it wants to be called. I could call your group “the anti-choice group,” but most in your group wouldn’t like that since that moves the focus from what they think is most important.

      You might want to extend the same courtesy.

      • Wladyslaw

        Bob,
        I certainly would feel comfortable with being called anti-choice– (obviously against the choice to kill the baby). But isn’t if funny, now that you mentioned it, you, and most pro-choice people–I’ll start referring to you a pro-choice–almost never call us pro-lifers which we prefer to be called because for us that moves the focus from what we think is most important.
        Please explain the difference.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          isn’t if funny, now that you mentioned it, you, and most pro-choice people–I’ll start referring to you a pro-choice–almost never call us pro-lifers which we prefer to be called because for us that moves the focus from what we think is most important.

          Except when provoked, I invariably call your group “pro-life” because, as far as I can tell, that’s what you want to be called.

        • Wladyslaw

          Bob,
          OK, let’s agree that most of the time neither side calls the other by what they want to be called for strategic reasons.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          OK, let’s agree that most of the time neither side calls the other by what they want to be called for strategic reasons.

          No, I very rarely see this. In almost all cases (in my experience), people call the other side what it prefers to be called.

        • Kodie

          I prefer to call them what they are, which is anti-choice. Pro-”life” ignores the life of the person and is not accurate. I prefer to be called pro-choice because when they say pro-abortion, they mean to imply that we are forcing women to get abortions. I’m in favor of legal abortion, so if you must call me pro-abortion for any reason, be accurate and say pro-legalized-abortion. I am actually not pro-illegal-abortion.

          What matters to me if someone corrects me and prefers to call themselves “pro-life” is that I will immediately ask them why they are not pro-mother’s-life. You’re lucky I don’t call you pro-making-shit-up.

    • Kodie

      Christianity differs in the sense that “equality” is afforded only for conforming to a strict set of rules and anyone who doesn’t follow them is not in the club. In the United States that equality means you are treated as an equal, you don’t have to be exactly the same as everyone else is or have the same opinions, or like the same things or follow self-imposed rules. You can be gay, you can be Christian, you can be a gay Christian. If you are gay and try to get married, you can’t most places because the Christians won’t hear of it. You’re wrong and you will be proven wrong nationwide, but that is not the case right now. Nobody is forcing you to get an abortion, but you want everyone to see things the way you do. Even if we’re not Christian, your truth has to be followed by everyone even if it’s not apparent or universally agreed upon.

      You don’t like “differences” in people. You reward containment to a certain strict set of traits and qualities. This uniqueness you uphold is a diversion, since we know you don’t believe in uniqueness, you try to squelch it in any human that is born and conform them one way, one belief, one system, one set of rules.

      The United States does not do that. Any past instruction made by a Christian church which is still law in the US will be abolished unless it is in the rare category of also sensible – like laws against murder. Laws that try to restrict women’s sexuality will not carry forth similarly. Laws that try to restrict gay people from marrying one another will not carry forth similarly. Deal with that, it’s your beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that it is true or meaningful or enforceable in the eyes of the law – the law of the land, which governs all of us even if we are different. Freedom means something outside of your religion and absolutely nothing inside of it.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, incidentally, even the pro-choice group is uncomfortable with that title.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      You’re a pretty smart guy if you can speak with authority on what the majority of the country feels on this issue.

  • Wladyslaw

    Back again.
    Bob, I don’ think I ever held that I spoke for the majority of the country. I do represent the views of a lot of anti-choicers.
    In your last paragraph of your last comment on abortion (not on what we call each other or hate each other), you said:
    “You don’t like my saying that it’s a human being as a newborn but not as a single cell? Or a person as a newborn but not as a single cell?” I never heard you express that view before–human as a newborn, person as a newborn.
    Are you saying both happen at birth and not before?
    .

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Bob, I don’ think I ever held that I spoke for the majority of the country.

      Then I guess I was confused by your “even the pro-choice group is uncomfortable with that title.”

      The majority of the country is pro-choice. You know them well enough to say that that group is uncomfortable with being called “pro-choice”? Perhaps you could explain where that comes from.

      Are you saying both happen at birth and not before?

      I’m saying that, IMO, a newborn is a person and a single cell is not.

      I’m also saying that if the word “person” doesn’t work for you in this way, that’s fine–you tell me what property a newborn has that a single cell doesn’t.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    Planned Parenthood Gives Up the “Pro-Choice” Label: What Does It …
    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/…/planned-parenthood-gives-up-“prochoice...

    I’m not saying a single cell has the same properties as a newborn.
    What they both have is the life of the same person, one is absolutely much younger than the other, growing from one cell to billions of cells, in one life.
    Let’s look at it this way.
    Right now China is missing at least 40,000,000 women since China began its abortion policy.
    40 million actual live Chinese men are missing 40 million actual live women to marry.
    Suppose the government killed 40 million actual , living 13 year girls.
    Forty million men could not marry 40 million actual, living, women.

    Suppose the Chinese people killed 40 million actual living infants.
    Forty million men could not marry actual, living, women.

    Suppose the Chinese killed 40 million actual, living, clumps of cells (or female embryos).
    Forty million men could not marry actual, living women.

    No matter when they stopped the life, 40 million actual living men have no actual living women to marry.
    The men don’t care when the women were killed. They aren’t missing 40 million clumps of cells.
    They’re missing 40 million actual women.
    Ask the Chinese men whether it makes any difference to them whether their prospective wives were killed when they were 13 years old, or only a clump of cells old.
    I don’t see the difference.
    Can you explain the difference to the Chinese men?

    • Kodie

      Sexism is a cultural problem only, not an abortion problem. It’s not the same thing as wanting to not be pregnant, it’s a restrictive cultural/governmental policy that restricts families to one child, and they choose a boy for other stupid reasons I do not agree with. I bet a lot of boy fetuses also have to be eliminated if they already have a child.

      In the US, nobody is forcing anyone to limit family size to keep population down, i.e. nobody is forced to have an abortion. You can’t see the difference?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Planned Parenthood Gives Up the “Pro-Choice” Label: What Does It …
      http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/…/planned-parenthood-gives-up-“prochoice...

      They don’t speak for all pro-choice people.

      And this URL, like the rest, doesn’t work. However you’re pasting them in isn’t working. Tip: if there’s the ellipsis, something went wrong.

      I’m not saying a single cell has the same properties as a newborn.

      Please respond to my previous question/challenge exactly. This doesn’t do it.

      40 million actual live Chinese men are missing 40 million actual live women to marry.

      As Kodie mentioned, this is an interesting problem that the US doesn’t have. Let’s figure out the US first and then worry about China.

      Suppose the Chinese killed 40 million actual, living, clumps of cells (or female embryos).
      Forty million men could not marry actual, living women.

      Your examples are irrelevant. Each of your examples requires time to pass.

      Yes, obviously I agree that things grow and change. A single cell might well be a Nobel Prize winner in 40 years (or, more likely, a murderer, but forget that for now). But it ain’t now. That’s the point.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Wlad:

        You gonna respond to this one? You’ve yet to respond to my question about the spectrum argument and the “person” attribute.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    You totally missed my point. I know the forced one child policy is different from the US policy.

    Whether forced or not, abortion was the cause of the missing women, not the missing clumps of cells.

    Say that these 40 million angry young men who now can’t have wives realize that this happened because of abortion, and confront the abortionists. “Look at what you have done! they scream, we now have no wives, 40 million women are missing.” The abortionists throw out their best defense, “Don’t blame us!” they argue. “We never stopped the lives of real human women. We only stopped the lives of clumps of cells.”

    Would the angry Chinese men buy that defense?

    I think they would say, “Excuse me. You did not JUST stop the life of 40 million clumps of cells. You also at the SAME time stopped the lives of 40 million actual women. We’re not missing 40 million clumps of cells. We’re missing actual live women. You stopped their lives of real women when they were only a few clumps of cells old. We do blame you.
    Would you say that they were wrong.

    • Kodie

      You missed all the points. You are not making a point, you are repeating yourself and you don’t like my answer.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      The abortionists throw out their best defense, “Don’t blame us!” they argue. “We never stopped the lives of real human women. We only stopped the lives of clumps of cells.”

      Suppose they said, “We never stopped the lives of real women; we only stopped people from conceiving.” Would that’ve been just as bad in your mind? It’s potential personhood in each case.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    “Your examples are irrelevant. Each of your examples requires time to pass.”

    That was EXACTLY my point. No MATTER the passage of time, in every single case above 40 million actual women were missing. It didn’t matter at one point their lives were stopped. So abortionists saying we only stopped the life of 40 million clumps of cells is totally inaccurate. You actually at the same time stopped the lives of 40 million women. Ask the Chinese. They aren’t missing 40 million clumps of cells. They’re missing 40 million actual women. You stopped their lives. When I used “you” I was referring to abortionists.
    Phantom women aren’t missing. Actual women are.
    I’m going to bed. What time zone are you in?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      That was EXACTLY my point. No MATTER the passage of time, in every single case above 40 million actual women were missing.

      And the twinkle in my eye that could’ve been a child … but isn’t–do you care about that? When my wife and I decide to not have any more kids, do you care about that?

      Yeah, the passage of time makes a big difference. A single cell ain’t a newborn. Big difference between what is and what might’ve been. We really don’t spend much effort worrying about that.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    “Big difference between what is and what might’ve been.”
    Big difference from one cell to your child. Absolutely.
    OK. Your actual children started their LIFE when they were conceived. Or did it happen at some other time? No, the life of your children started at conception. One cell, which multiplied and differrentiated, from one cell to billions. One complete process .Once your children were only one living cell. You can’t say that, no, my children were never just once one cell, not once a clump of cells. I suppose you could say, the life of my children never started their life that way. No one in the modern world would believe you. The life of your children didn’t start out as a single cell? Please explain.
    The life of your children WAS once a single cell.. Not a cell was once a cell. Not a clump of cells were once a clump of cells. Once your child’s life started, you did not interrupt the life of your child at any point. You never had an abortion.

    Your children’s life WAS at some point in their life a single cell, a clump of cells.
    I NEVER said a cell was a child. I said your actual child’s life was once a living cell. You did nothing to stop that child’s life (an abortion).
    Please show me how an abortion would not have prevented the life of your children. Their life was NEVER potentially alive. Their life was always alive.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      Their life was NEVER potentially alive. Their life was always alive.

      Yeah. So what?

      Mosquitoes are always alive and no one cares if I kill them.

      • Wladyslaw

        You would care if killed your alive children, at any point in their life.

        • Kodie

          That is a terrible argument you seem to think is moving anywhere, that you try and try to get somewhere. Presumably Bob wanted the children he has, and so projected them to be his children and wanted them and waited for them to become people and make their entrance to the world. He presumably would have advance warning, as anyone would, what they’d become and if unwanted, could have aborted the process of gestation and not had any particular child he didn’t want. Wlad, I’m so tired of you talking without listening.

    • Kodie

      It’s a projection. Some people want to have children so make a determination to care about what occurs between conception and birth. Some people do not want the outcome and can project it as a crisis instead of a bundle of joy. You want to force everyone to project this cell cluster as a bundle of joy even if they don’t really believe it to be so. Take your punishment, the WLADYSLAW says you have to project what you don’t want as something you have to have. Fascism pretty much. Forced pregnancy is fascism. There is nothing there to preserve or to requisitely encourage to grow. It is a hologram of a baby to you, and to people who invite the process of making a baby. The soul is imaginary, it’s your personal belief and opinion, and you may use that opinion to decide for yourself but you cannot perform fascism on every other person in the country based on what they are doing wrong in China. They are restricted to one child. Whatever stupid feelings people have in China about why they prefer a boy, bringing its own negative outcomes eventually, those men should blame their culture for preferring them. It has nothing to do with abortion, it has to do with stigma. You don’t have the intellect to apprehend nuance here or really anywhere.

      In the US you stigmatize women who have sex and count 55 million imaginary people. I am not touched or moved or whatever you keep repeating these numbers about. Those people are imaginary. No one has met them, no one knows who they are, no one knows their names, and they don’t exist. In your beliefs, they should have existed, but you cannot say to me that they did exist. There is a big difference between dead people and imaginary people that you do not get.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        “Those people are imaginary. No one has met them, no one knows who they are, no one knows their names, and they don’t exist.’
        Exactly, because they weren’t allowed to exist for their full life, their early life (clump of cells) was extinguished. I know your name, because you were allowed to exist for your full life, your early life was not extinguished.

        • Kodie

          So what? I am thinking of a person, her name is Jane. Jane works at the bank, and has a cat. Her address is in my brain.

  • Wladyslaw

    I think you would care if I killed your children at any point in their life. but you tell me.
    If I killed your child one hour after birth, I think you would care.
    If I killed your child one hour before birth, I think you would still care.
    If I killed your child a week before birth, I think you would still care.
    At what point would you stop caring when I stopped the life of your live child (not a mosquito).).

    • Kodie

      If you aborted a projection of a wanted child at any point, against the parents’ will, they would and should care. If a person gets an abortion, then no one should insist they care more than the person getting the abortion that it should become a child.

      HELLO? WLAD? Anyone home up there?

      • Wladyslaw

        If I killed your child at any time during a wanted pregnancy, would you accept my defense if I strongly asserted: Kodie, Kodie, you always claimed it never was a child, only a “potential child.”
        And I continued, “Kodie, you said it was only a clump of cells. Why get all worked up about a clump of cells.” I don’t think you would argue back “because I really wanted a clump of cells.”

        • Kodie

          You take away my choice? HELLO?

        • Wladyslaw

          No Kodie. You already MADE your choice. I said if it It was a wanted pregnancy.

          I didn’t take away your choice. I took away your baby.

          Anyway, according to you, what I took away was imaginary, not real.

        • Kodie

          Sorry Bob Wlad is an idiot.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I’m getting nothing from the Wlad conversation, so I think I’ll drop out.

  • Wladyslaw

    In any debate, when you can’t answer the argument of your opponent. , attack your opponent’s intellect (or background,or their company.
    We were having a discussion, back and forth.
    You gave “choice as an honest answer to a point I made. I simply reminded you that in my example you had a choice.
    YOU said that the 55,000,00 missing people (stopped from living in the womb) were imaginary. I don’t know if bringing up the word “imaginary. I simply quoted you.
    In all the arguments I was making in the discussion I always quoted you accurately. You have never challenged that.
    If I simply asserted “Kodie, “you’re and idiot” to any of your arguments, or when I came across a point a of yours difficult for me to address,
    you would correctly ask me to stop calling you names and answer your difficult point.
    That’s all I’m asking.

    • Kodie

      We aren’t having a back and forth discussion. You are repeating yourself and you do not like my answer so you say it again. You don’t know what else to say, therefore, you’re an idiot.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob, OK.
    I checked the last ten pages of your posts. Most averaged around 50 comments. Some were above 100 comments. One was over 200, and one was over 300. The next largest was this thread, over 800. I find it hard to believe that you were getting nothing from the WLAD conversation. It seems you found my points worth refuting, even if you didn’t agree . I found your points worth refuting, even though I agree. If you got nothing from the discussion, I think you and Kodie would have stopped a long, long time age if you thought my comments were sheer nonsense. I certainly learned how pro-choice people form their views and how they support them, and I’m thankful for that.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad:

      It’s like someone who says, “the sky is purple.” It’s hard not to respond. If you can’t disabuse this person of their silly beliefs, perhaps you can at least learn how your fellow citizens think.

      Yes, your views don’t make much sense. But millions of Americans have been mesmerized by them.

      What frustrates me is that you respond only to those things that you can respond to. Lots of little tangents didn’t seem to play to your strength, so you dropped them. This isn’t a particularly honest way to explore the issue.

      If you simply wanted a pulpit to preach your views (which I’m guessing is the case), I can understand your actions. But if you actually wanted to understand the issue and your being in error was legitimately on the table, I don’t think you’d act this way.

      You’re politer than some antagonists, and I appreciate this. However, your ultimate goal–to impose your will on the rest of the country by force of law–is pretty outrageous. That goal ridicules the politeness of your comments.

    • Phil

      My own personal opinion was that Wlad’s statement that “Roe v. Wade was based on a lie,” and then (basically) repeating the statement despite being shown otherwise, showed that he wasn’t going to be an honest participant in this debate.

      At that point, (IMHO), there was nothing to get from his conversation.

      (Although, Bob, I admire your tenacity/patience.)

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Yep, you called it right.

        These extended conversations usually do yield fruit. It helps me sharpen my own arguments and (in particular), I was able to pull a few gems out of other pro-choicers’ arguments. I’ll be that much stronger next time I post on this subject.

        Thanks, all!

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob.
    You might find it hard not to respond to “the sky is purple,” but I doubt you would spend a lot of time trying to convince someone that it’s not.
    Would you say that you really wanted to explore the issue? Did you ever DOUBT that your reasons for your position were ironclad and to disagree with them was like Kodie says, “idiotic.”
    You and Kodie often brought up several issues in each comment, as you did above. I tried to answer as many as I could especially when you pointed them out. There were several times when I asked you specific questions like personhood, and you finally, after many refusals to simply give an answer, you gave an answer–at birth. That did not seem to square with the all the rest of your arguments and I asked for a clarification. You refused. It came too close the an area you did not want to go. And whenever the case of personhood or humanity came up, you refused to go to the final step, because it came too close to the crux of the issue for anti-choicers like me.
    Making abortion legal is forcing me to face the absolute agony of knowing that the stopping of the lives of thousands of children is going around me, and there is little I can do, and if I even try, I could get arrested. There is a Planned Parenthood office a few blocks from me. There is nothing I can do.
    Yes, your views also do not make sense to me, and it does seem to mesmerize the majority of Americans.
    And I absolutely do not believe that abortions will stop because of overturning Roe. Limit, hopefully. Law will not stop abortion.

    • Nate Frein

      And I absolutely do not believe that abortions will stop because of overturning Roe. Limit, hopefully. Law will not stop abortion.

      *cough*

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wlad

      Did you ever DOUBT that your reasons for your position were ironclad

      I’m fallible.

      There were several times when I asked you specific questions like personhood, and you finally, after many refusals to simply give an answer, you gave an answer–at birth.

      (1) This is not what I said.

      (2) This question is a tangent. That I have no interesting opinion says nothing negative about the point that I am making, that there’s a spectrum of personhood.

      I asked for a clarification. You refused.

      Yeah. It was a tangent. It was a way to turn the conversation to a place where you felt you had a stronger argument. You simply didn’t want to face up to the questions I was asking.

      It came too close the an area you did not want to go.

      It was off topic and an area about which I have no strong opinion. (Did I mention that I’m not an obstetrician? I’m not even an MD. Nor do I have a degree in ethics. Not surprising that I might not have a strong opinion.)

      You delude yourself that you scared us away from the actual issue. It was you who blinked.

      Making abortion legal is forcing me to face the absolute agony of knowing that the stopping of the lives of thousands of children is going around me, and there is little I can do, and if I even try, I could get arrested.

      Agony? I see precious little evidence that you really care. This is an armchair exercise for you.

      You are actually in agony over this? Work on reducing unwanted pregnancies. You’ll find no one in your way. (Which is curiously different than the present argument–people don’t like you imposing your opinions by law. Weird, isn’t it?)

      Preserving life? Hardly.

      There is a Planned Parenthood office a few blocks from me. There is nothing I can do.

      Who cares? There’s probably a high school near you full of teens amped up on hormones. Go do something about that.

    • Wladyslaw

      Bob,
      Obstetricians do not define humanity, they do try to define viability, but it’s unclear and now a moving target. Biologists agree that the life of a human begins at conception, but do not define humanity. The differences between your side and our side is that we disagree on ‘Is it morally permissible for us to stop this life that began, and if alright, when. In our arguments I don’t think either of us cited “it’s the law” as our reason and argued for the reasons we really believed in. All we can do is continue what we are doing. Some people on our side have become pro-choice. Pro-choicers have come to our side and I believe that number is growing. We have saved babies at abortion clinics. I don’t know what the national numbers are, but they are growing.
      The issue is not trivial. Neither of us will stop fighting for what we believe in. I would like to see millions of these discussions–without name calling and derision. And may the truth of this issue prevail–both of us do believe there is a truth to it.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Yes, the numbers are growing, but not in the way that you seem to imagine.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob,
    Thanks for the graphic.
    I think that in the near future there will be probably some more legislative restrictions, and more oversight over the operation of abortion clinics. Our present court, and even if we get a more conservative court, which seems highly unlikely under Obama, will never in the near future simply overturn Roe v Wade. Or for a long time, if ever. Do you roundup thousands of abortionists and pack them off to jail? What do you do with women who still want abortions? Any significant change will take a long time and probably only after very serious demographical changes. China, Japan, Russia–just recently offered a national holiday for people to go home and try for a baby–Israel, most western European nations, which will become predominantly Moslem–all are rapidly losing their populations, and are realizing with rising concern what contraception and abortion has wrought. The attempts to now change attitudes toward having children–many Japanese women are perfectly happy without ever having any children–will take a long time, if ever. The social and economic upheavals that were never foreseen will absolutely change the face of the earth. I fear for my children who will suffer for what we have done, and allowed to happen.
    That won’t stop me from trying to correct the horrible mistakes of our time. And won’t stop all those who share my concerns. And that’s why I will continue to argue my cause.

    • Kodie

      You argue very poorly, so that’s fine.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        Never claimed to be one who argues very well. Come to think about it, I do claim that in my family.

    • Nate Frein

      So, wait…the answer to overpopulation is to make more babies?

      Am I understanding you correctly? Them brown folks are overpopulating so we need to overpopulate even more?

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        Let me think about how to respond. For tonight, I’m tired and going to bed.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Until now, no population group was able to voluntarily head toward extinction. The white nations of the world are heading in that direction-see Europe. Americans are holding steady because of Spanish immigration, but even the Spanish are buying into white America’s ways and their population rate is coming to resembles white America’s. The US cannot escape its future shrinking.
    Asiatic Japanese totally bought into it and are shrinking the fastest. The Chinese were forced to buy into it and are now nervously trying to address the question of labor shortage. Melinda Gates and western groups are trying to get the rest of the brown and black people to do the same.
    The only people on earth who will not buy into contraception and abortion are the Moslems. I’m sure individual moslems do so, but Moslem countries very easily control their populations–even their thoughts. Death for apostasy. We will see a majority moslem future.

    Would most Americans decide to have more children for the good of the country, if they personally didn’t want more? The Japanese are certainly refusing to do so. The Russians are certainly are refusing to do so. So are the Israelis and the white Europeans.Would you or your girlfriend or wife decide to have more children for the good of your country, if you personally didn’t want more? Would you?

    • Nate Frein

      Lets get something clear:

      We, as a people, need to shrink. At best we need to remain stable and stop growing. This is not “heading for extinction”. This is realizing that we have overpopulated the earth and that if we continue to grow at the rate we are growing, we will make this earth uninhabitable for the vast majority of humanity, if not humanity entirely.

      Lets get something clear: Life will not care if we die out. Life will adapt like it did after every extinction event. There’s simply no guarantee we’ll be around to see it.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      And I thought the other side of you was unsavory! Sorry to jump immediately onto Godwin’s Law, but I’m pretty sure Hitler had a “have babies for the Fatherland” attitude as well.

      • Nate Frein

        Have you noticed that he was happy to condemn allied actions from WWII but not any of the axis actions? Except when he can say that abortion is worse than the holocaust?

    • Kodie

      Many things: Racist xenophobia is your next best argument?
      So in order to help the country, the country should be more supportive, i.e. pay in full for all those babies to be born and not some skimpy programs letting families struggle.
      So in order to help the country, you would support premarital sex full financial support by the government to care for any of these mandatory offspring
      And you are ok with the enslavement of women, right? Enslavement to mandatory pregnancy?

      You do know you’ll be dead eventually (and not that long to go now, if you’re almost 70?) and what will stop you from worrying how the country is going down the tubes?

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    At best, we need to remain stable and stop growing.”
    The following corollary would be “At worst, we need to stop shrinking.”
    No population group has remained stable and stopped growing once they accepted contraception and abortion. Every population group that has accepted is shrinking. See my points in my last comment.
    And every black and brown and Asian population groups that are accepting or will accept in the future–Melinda Gate–contraception and abortion will inevitably follow our path. They aren’t different kinds of people from us. They will do the same as us.

    “Lets get something clear: Life will not care if we die out. Life will adapt like it did after every extinction event”.
    The problem is that every extinction of population groups happened outside their consent. They were all due to natural events. Never in history had a people able to shrink their numbers voluntarily except now. And so despite outside natural events, humanity survived.
    We now for the first time in history, can shrink our numbers voluntarily. And we are doing so with abandon–Russia, Japan, etc.
    And you personally now, and most white populations, and inevitably future black and brown populations, would certainly not carry any child now or in he future ” for the good of the nation.”
    You won’t do it now, and neither will future people. No one in the future is going to say, O my gosh, so many people gone. it’s bad. I’ve got to start having more children.” Japanese people are certainly not personally concerned about the future of Japan.
    So you do not personally care if what you are advocating will inevitably lead to extinction (or a moslem world). You do not care. All the other people on the planet advocating your position do not care about the future of humanity.
    You, and all of them are alive. I’m sure almost all of them are happy to be alive, happy that past generations didn’t have the options you have.
    You are alive. You don’t need to care.

    • Nate Frein

      Why are you so afraid of a “moslem” world?

      You’re right about one thing: I don’t particularly care about what color most of the people on earth are in a hundred years, or a thousand years, as long as there are people on the earth. I really don’t.

      Are you saying these people are inherently inferior?

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    “Why are you so afraid of a “moslem” world?

    Well, I guarantee not you, not ANY of your female friends , not ANY of your male friends (who drink), nor ANY of your gay friends would EVER chose to live in a moslem nation, unless absolutely forced to.
    Are you afraid of living in a moslen nation? Your gay friends may be afraid, but you and your girfriend may or may not be afraid. Let’s just say that both you have VERY strong reasons not EVER live in a Moslem nation. I think I would share all your reasons.

    I absolutely never said non-white people were inferior or said hat I cared what color the people on earth would be in a hundred years. I did say that after the black and brown people adopted the western white agenda, where whites are definitely shrinking , they too would face the inevitable
    shrinking . Right now blacks and browns are not yet buying our progressive white agenda.

    • Nate Frein

      Oh, the assumptions you make. It’s so adorable in a racist, homophobic way.

      I love how you assume I’m straight. I also love how you assume I’m in any danger of living to see this country become a “moslem nation”. Are you part of the “Obama is a kenyan muslim commie” crowd?

  • Wladyslaw

    I did assume you were straight. Not one of my arguments would have been different if I knew.

    Your refusal to live in a moslem country, whether gay or straight, is not a racist refusal.
    My refusal to live in a moslem country is a racist refusal.

    Please explain why my refusal is racist and yours is not.

    I assumed that you and I would agree that gay people, or almost all, would never voluntarily choose to go to live in a moslem country. Both you and I agree.. Correct me if I am wrong.

    How did that make me homophobic?

    No, I don’t expect you or I to either see America become Moslem or America’s shrinking to a dangerous level.
    You and all friends and all those who hold your position are alive now. You do not have to face it.

    Just yesterday I think at a prayer breakfast Obama said he believed in Jesus. I always took him at his word.
    Commie? My Dad fled Russia during WW 2. No, Obama is not a commie.
    Kenyan? I think so.

    • Nate Frein

      I did assume you were straight. Not one of my arguments would have been different if I knew.

      Doesn’t matter. Your assumption betrays your privilege. Your inability to see past your privilege (and read for comprehension, because I think a few of my posts made it pretty clear I wasn’t straight) is what makes your statements homophobic.

      Your refusal to live in a moslem country, whether gay or straight, is not a racist refusal.
      My refusal to live in a moslem country is a racist refusal.

      Please explain why my refusal is racist and yours is not.

      The fact that I ‘won” the genetic lottery and was born to a junior NCO in the USN doesn’t mean I “refuse” to live in a “moslem country”. I lack the means to move to one. The fact that I prefer living in America to living in any third world country isn’t racist in itself. But then, I never denied that I was racist. The difference is I can see past my privilege.

      What’s racist about your comment is how it betrays that you, right now, seem to be afraid that America is on track to be a “moslem nation”, which is patently absurd, just as absurd as the notion that Obama is Kenyan any more than I am German.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,

    Home • Ask FactCheck • Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship?
    Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship?
    Posted on August 29, 2008 , Corrected on September 3, 2009
    Bookmark and Share

    Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?

    A: No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 23rd birthday.

    I didn’t notice in your comments that your were gay. I”m not sure I read every one of your comments. I am not afraid of you. I would not be afraid of you if you were in front of me. Do I disagree with you. Yes.
    You are not afraid of me, I think. Do you disagree with me. Yes. Are you a pro-lifer-phobic or
    christian-phobic? Doy you hate us?

    All or most European countries will become moslem majority in not so long a future if they follow their progressive agenda.
    Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our …
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk › News › World News › Europe
    Aug 8, 2009 – Everyone is aware that certain neighbourhoods of certain cities in Europe are becoming more Muslim, and that the change is gathering pace.

    Please cite a source that says otherwise.

    Please tell me why you think that in time it won’t happen elsewhere where the same progressive agenda prevails. Ten years ago did you ever believe this was going to happen in Europe? It did happen.
    Thirty years ago nobody believed that and would be incredulous if you brought today’s European trajectory up as a possibility.

    C’mon Nate, don’t tell me money is the reason you would not move to a moslem country. Their determination to kill you or imprison you would not be an absolutely major concern if you had the money or opportunity to do so?

    • Nate Frein

      I certainly didn’t talk about having sex with men as a hypothetical.
      I damn well didn’t talk about being raped as hyperbole.

      Hate you? No. You’re an old man (if you’re honest) and it’s pretty obvious you’re afraid of brown people, afraid of loose women, and afraid of gay people. Most of all it’s obvious you’re afraid of losing your privilege You, yourself rate pity, not hate, or fear.

      But I do hate what you stand for.

      I hate what your people have done in the name of your god.

      I hate how you sleazily dismiss a massive history of pederasty within the Catholic church, which the Catholic church to this day has been doing everything in it’s power to avoid.

      I hate the fact that you can sit and talk about Wurzberg without a bare mention of blitzkrieg. That you can talk about Hiroshima with no mention of Bataan.

      I hate the fact that you would use your power to vote in an attempt to deny me the right to marry whom I choose.

      I hate the fact that you would use your power to vote to enslave women to their uteri.

      No, I have no desire to live in “moslem nations”. I have no desire to live in Ireland, for that matter. Or Spain. Canada? or France? Or Britain? Perhaps.

      I don’t care how future generations deal with their issues. That is beyond my control. What isn’t beyond my control is the world I leave them. And I’d rather die before I fall in with anyone who thinks that more overpopulation is the answer. We need a healthy population. Not a big population.

    • Kodie

      You’re just jealous because you don’t live in a Christian theocracy, since it would be about the same as a Muslim one.

      The things you talk about trying to force into law due to your religious beliefs only, no proof, are similar to Islam. What you find threatening about Islam that you turn around and fight for in America is IRONIC. I think that’s how you use the word ‘ironic’.

      You are afraid the Muslims will take over if we do not counter them with good old Christianity, in numbers. I could not believe you when you said that about all the brown people and we have to catch up or they will take over. What about Islam are you afraid of taking over? They will stop abortions, they will prohibit homosexuality, it would be your dream world to live there. What is the matter with you?

  • Wladyslaw

    I never read ANY comment that said you were raped or had sex with men. I suppose I could go through all the 800 plus comments to find it where you did, but I’ll trust your word.

    “Hate you? No, I hate what you stand for. Gay man.
    “Hate you, No, I “hate” what you stand for. Straight man

    When a straight man makes that argument, gays go ballistic.
    When gays make that argument, they want us to accept it.

    I actually do not hate what you stand for, which is why I put it in quotes. I absolutely disagree with your viewpoints and oppose your agenda.

    • Nate Frein
    • Nate Frein

      I actually do not hate what you stand for, which is why I put it in quotes. I absolutely disagree with your viewpoints and oppose your agenda.

      Funny thing is, I really don’t care what you say. Your actions in telling me what I can and cannot do speak to your hate far louder.

      The fact is, you cannot demonstrate how my actions hurt you, or any living, breathing, individual live person. I can, and have.

  • Nate Frein
  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    The behavior of 1% of Catholic priests that have been charged with sexual abuse is absolutely reprehensible, and has caused the faithful incredible consternation. Many have left the church.The world’s condemnation is deserved, and deserves to be held to a high standard.
    But did you know that the TOTAL number of cases of Catholic priest abuse between 1967 and the 1990′s is 11,000.
    But did you know that the number of children in public schools abused by their teachers in California ALONE is 220,000!
    Did you know that?
    Know why you didn’t?
    2000 articles in California about Catholic abuse. 4 articles in California about abuse in public schools.
    Was the concern about the sexual abuse of children the primary reason of the outcry, or was there an agenda.
    The 220,000 figure is for California alone. I don’t have the figures for the rest of the states.
    I certainly know the deafening outrage over the 11,000 cases of Catholic abuser, deserved.
    I certainly know the deafening silence over the 220,000 cases in public school abuse alone.

    The 220,000 figure was the lowest figure given by a rather liberal source–Slate magazine.
    Conservative sources were much higher. I will gladly give you the sources, but it will take some time.

    • Nate Frein

      I
      do
      not
      give
      one
      whit
      the difference in the amount of known cases. How many of those teachers were protected by their organization? Huh? Look at the controversy over cases like Sandusky. The Catholic church has never taken action remotely like that. This is another of your slimy dismissal of the point being made.

      Right now, just recently, the LA archdiocese fought for six bloody years to not have to release information on known offenders within their ranks and the known clergy who aided and protected those known offenders. Even now, when they release the information, it is incomplete and redacted, completely in disregard to what the judiciary ordered them to do

      What is disgusting is the way in which the Catholic church has protected and continues to protect these offenders, and promotes to their highest offices those who have aided those offenders. Point me to one damn principle who had molested a child as a teacher and was not fired but instead promoted in the ranks.

      Besides which, this whole post is an example of your attempts to divert and distract from the fact that you have failed to respond to the primary thrust of the post to which you are responding. You are dishonest, slimy, and unwilling to debate honestly.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        It’s bizarre that the leaders in the Catholic church need to be told by secular society the difference between right and wrong.

        You’d think that they’d be out front on this issue. But then you’d be thinking that they’re anything more than just another manmade institution.

        • Wladyslaw

          Bob,
          The Catholic Church never ever claimed that it was sinless– the Crusades, the Inquisition, attitudes toward Jews. There were several very sinful popes. It’s supernatural character does not guarantee that all its members would be protected from ever doing wrong. Its supernatural character does guarantee its protection from ever teaching wrong doctrine, or change doctrine. Attackers of the church want the church to change its doctrine. The Church never has (bronze age morality) changed its morality and never will, and in morals.
          But as we have seen from the figures from the public schools, the Catholic priest abuse is incredibly smaller.

        • Nate Frein

          No, Wladyslaw.

          We want the Catholic church to stop pretending it is morally superior and to stop trying to change secular law to fit Catholic dogma.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad:

          The Catholic Church never ever claimed that it was sinless

          I’m not asking for sinless, I’m simply asking for some clue that it’s above the moral level of the ordinary corporation.

          As Nate pointed out, the pederasty is bad enough, but the coverup is absolutely unforgiveable. A single abusive priest reflects on himself. I’m sure we agree that “Priest X did something bad so therefore the Catholic Church is evil” makes no sense. But when we have the Catholic Church leadership not doing what is obviously right … wow. And the profane society must force them to do the right thing.

          No one said that the California school system was based on divine revelation. Don’t bring it up again to dismiss the crimes of the Catholic Church.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,

    I did not bring up the topic of priestly abuse. You brought it up as an attack. You did.
    “I hate how you sleazily dismiss a massive history of pederasty within the Catholic church.”

    I responded to your attack. I did not bring it up to distract the argument.
    Nobody, and almost nobody knows the figures in public school.

    That’s the whole point. You do not care about sexual abuse. You care about Catholic sexual abuse.
    How many teachers were fired in California? Not protected? School administrators willingly investigated and fired tens of thousands of teachers and didn’t protect their own. Catholic Church paid out billions in reparations, and some dioceses have gone bankrupt. Where are the much higher billions paid out in reparation by public schools?
    I’m tired of gays and liberals focussing on the 11,000 over 30 yeaars, and ignoring the 220,000 in California.
    And that’s only the known cases in public schools.

    That’s why I addressed it after you brought it up. It was not a slimy attempt to distract. Please. Don’t bring up topics you don’t want addressed.

    • Nate Frein

      Wow. The Catholic church is totally coming clean.

      That’s why the LA archdiocese fought for six years to not release court ordered information? And when it did release information, it did not release everything asked for. And what it did release contained redactions. All of which was against the court order.

      Right?

      • Wladyslaw

        All the priests, bishops, and higher from the beginning to today who were involved in any way in sexual abuse were wrong, and will CONTINUE to be wrong. Will it ever stop absolutely. No, but the numbers have fallen considerably. How many new cases of priestly abuse have you heard recently.
        I think all of the allegations of the 11,ooo Catholic abuse cases have been investigated and are in some sort of judicial process.

        I don’t think all of the 220,000 in California public school have been investigated or in judicial process.

        The majority of sexual abuse in America will never be addressed, and I would imagine the numbers are not getting smaller.

        • Nate Frein

          You’re funny when you’re in denial :D

          Further, you are missing the point. The pope himself has acted to protect offenders. The LA Archdiocese is right now trying to avoid giving out information that it tried to fight for six years!.

          Add to that all the information just coming to light about the Magdalene laundries.

          And the real question

          The question you refuse to answer

          The question you always avoid

          is why should this organization dictate secular law

        • Wladyslaw

          Bob,
          “why should this organization dictate secular law.”

          This organization does not have the POWER. to dictate secular law. All us Catholics can do in America is lobby for what we think is right, and all you can do is lobby for what you think is right.

        • Nate Frein

          Lobbying is power. Dumping millions of dollars into supporting church backed law is power. Funny thing tho…the church can afford to dump millions of dollars into lobbying, but they need to run a fund-raiser to afford to pay for all those kiddy-fiddling priests.

          You have a vote. You have a responsibility to take into account that this is a secular nation and that many people do believe in your god. You cannot, and should not, use religion to dictate your vote.

        • Wladyslaw

          Bob, I’m tired.
          Last response for today.
          There are a lot of atheists who are pro-life and are actively working for pro-life legislation.
          Are they working to build up the church and push its views. Or are they working to lobby for their deeply held beliefs. If the atheists won, and I am assuming they want to, are they forcing their atheist views on you?

        • Nate Frein

          FFS I’m not Bob.

          First, I think that the niche of pro-life atheists are not thinking critically about what they are saying. I also think they use a lot of the same bad arguments that christians use.

          And yes, I think they are trying to force their definition of life on other people. I think they are trying to abrogate the rights of the mother in favor of the child.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          why should this organization dictate secular law

          Great question. We could see the priest predophilia scandal as a moral test. And the church leadership has failed completely. Why should this proven immoral organization dictate its beliefs on the rest of the country by law?

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate, How will making gay marriage legal affect me?
    Reagan helped pass the “no fault’ divorce law. He later said it was the greatest mistake of his life.
    Divorce rates doubled. One could now divorce and absolve a solemn vow before the state, and witnesses simply by saying irreconcilable differences. The importance placed on being faithful and together in a marriage collapsed. Marriage as we knew became a simple agreement that could be dissolved at will.
    Did Reagan and those passing the law foresee that? Yet marriage was irrevocably changed.
    And if “gay marriage” is ever widely accepted, marriage is irrevocably changed.

    • Nate Frein

      So what if marriage is “irrevocably changed”?

      Is your marriage irrevocably changed? Did the new divorce law mean that you, Wladyslaw need to go right out and get divorced?

      And why are the higher divorce rates necessarily bad? How is it healthy to force people to stay in unhappy relationships? People get married at 18 and I guarantee you that they will be completely different people at 25 because it’s not until mid twenties that people’s brains even finish developing. So until 25ish your personality is still fundamentally growing, so how is it hard to accept that people who were forced to marry young realize that their spouse became a person they really don’t want to live with.

      And honestly. Stop appealing to authority. I don’t care what Reagan felt about his choice to sign the law. That doesn’t change the fact that it was the right thing to do for many demonstrable reasons.

    • Nate Frein

      Seriously. Did you make the same arguments against miscegenation laws?

  • Nate Frein

    Once again, you are arguing dishonestly because when confronted with the fact that the Catholic church is still protecting it’s pederasts, you bring up unrelated statistics to distract from the fact that you have no answer for the church’s actions. People have problems with the Catholic church because the Catholic church has fought any attempt by victims of priestly rape to seek justice or redress. Name one case where reparations were made without a judicial order!
    You are arguing dishonestly because you deny reading statements by me to which you responded, and yet when those statements are brought to your attention you ignore them.
    You ignore any comment about axis actions v. allied actions. Why do you ignore these comments?

    You are a fundamentally dishonest man. I thought there was a commandment against that?

    • Wladyslaw

      I can’t possibly reply to all the points you and Bob bring up. I try to address at least one that you bring up.
      Axis vs Allies. OK you brought it up. The atrocities committed by our enemy never justifies our atrocities. Torture by our enemy never justifies our torture, Doing what the Taliban does to its enemies does not justify our doing it. War historians and military specialists to this day argue the morality of saturation bombing of German cities, of Tokyo, and even Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I fall on one side of the argument.

      • Nate Frein

        So those actions were just as bad as, say, the Bataan death march? Blitzkrieg? Bombing Britain was bad but bombing Germany was just as bad?

        So you don’t see any justification for attacking the industrial base of countries engaging in industrial war?

        Lets be honest. We didn’t have the technology then to effectively take out industry without taking out the city around it. Nowadays that’s different. We’re capable of far more surgical precision.

        Now, care to respond to the other points made in this very post to which you are responding?

        And yes. You can respond to every point we bring up. Anything else is dishonest.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          The Bataan death march and the prison camps were indeed terrible. But the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo (civilian targets, not industrial) weren’t especially cool on our part.

          You could justify them: hey–the other guys started it, so they can’t complain, or they thought (incorrectly) that it would hurt moral enough to affect the enemy’s combat effectiveness. In hindsight, however, not our best actions IMO.

          (I don’t have much heartburn over Hiroshima, however.)

        • Nate Frein

          True. I don’t claim they were our best moments. They are not, however, the first thing that should come to anyone’s minds when discussing the horrors of WWII.

          I will say of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that while they may have caused lots of destruction in a very short span of time, more people are alive today because of those bombs than would be alive if we hadn’t dropped them then.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate, I spent LL day today trying to respond to just some of the points you and Bob made. I don’t have more time in the day to try to answer more. Often I stop at 12;30 am.
    I would offer the idea that we just bring up one point at a time, and await a response. When we’re finished, we go on to the next. Note that even if we do that, I have to respond to two people, unlike you and Bob.
    So no, Nate, it is not dishonest. I absolutely cannot go faster than I have.
    I am tired tonight and am signing off for today. See you later.

    • Nate Frein

      Yes, it is dishonest.

      You could take your time, and craft a full response to all the rebuttals you see in a single post. I’m sure you’ve seen several points where Bob, Kodie, or I have broken your post into multiple different points and responded to all those points.

      What you do, instead, is answer one point of a post (usually evasively), and then conveniently forget all the other points made in that post when asked to respond to them later.

      That’s why it’s dishonest.

    • Kodie

      Instead of saying the same irrelevant thing again, you could say something else. Like today when you did with the rant about brown people and ignored all my posts.

  • Wladyslaw

    Bob and Nate,
    Both of you called Catholic priests pederasts. I wasn’t sure what it meant so last nite I checked Wikileaks, which saId:
    Pederasty – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
    Pederasty or paederasty is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male outside his immediate family. The word …
    Why do you and Bob, and many many other people I encountered, call Catholic priests pederasts?

    • Nate Frein

      Is this…a serious question?

      You have me speechless, Wladyslaw. Congratulations.

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        I thought it would be difficult to answer.
        Most gay people are absolutely vivid and incredibly angry when non-gay people bring up the argument of homoseuality as having anything to do with Catholic abuse.

        • Nate Frein

          No, Wladyslaw, it is not a hard question to answer. It is a disingenuous question to ask.

          “Pederasty” is also connotatively synonymous with pedophilia. Cultural usage supports using it to reference men who commit sex acts, not necessarily relationships, with underage boys.

          The whole comment is disingenuous and completely aside from any main points made by anyone here. It does nothing to answer the point about the Catholic church’s actions in covering up these crimes and protecting the perpetrators. It does nothing to answer for the Magdalene laundries, for which people are demonstrating right this very minute to try to seek redress for what amounts to crimes against humanity.

          You are either obtuse or you are blowing chaff. My vote is for the latter. You have once again demonstrated your fundamental dishonesty in how you try to “debate”.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate,
          We’re trying to find a way to stop deal with Catholic sexual abuse. Gay people go ballistic when we try to show what gay priests in the Catholic Church had to do with pedophilia.
          Obviously you are OK with Catholic priests being gay, except maybe you would like them to come out.
          Wiki leaks says:
          Evidence from several studies has shown that there are higher than average numbers of homosexual men (active and non-active) within the Catholic priesthood and higher orders; estimates presented in Donald B. Cozzens’ book The Changing Face of the Priesthood range from 23–58%.[20]
          I was in a catholic seminary in 1967 when homosexuals were allowed in the seminary as long as they did not act it out. There were homosexuals there , and I recently googled three of them. All three were thrown out of the priesthood for abusing boys. There were seminaries called Pink Palace, Notre Flame, and The Faggot Factory. I think in 2002 the Church decided to not allow self identified homosexuals into the priesthood.
          Gay activists would have us know that in the one percent of priests who were charged with abuse, that abuse had little or nothing to do with the 23-58% who were homosexuals and every thing to do with the 42-77% who were heterosexuals.

        • Nate Frein

          More chaff. Pedophilia in the Catholic church goes back centuries. Magdalene laundries goes back at least 70 years.

          There is a difference between saying that some Catholic priests are pedophiles or pederasts, and saying that child abuse is directly caused by gay men.

          But I think you understand that difference. To say you argue like a child is to insult children. I think you know full well what you are doing. I think you are a fundamentally dishonest man grasping for whatever way you can to blow chaff to try to distract us from the fact that you are ignoring our points. You are racist, homophobic and misogynistic. You have taken every opportunity we have provided you to demonstrate that.

          You are doing a very good job of demonstrating how irrelevant you are to this world in general and America in particular.

        • Wladyslaw

          Nate, I never said that gay men were the only ones who abused boys.
          Gay men say that the abuse had LITTLE OR NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
          If 50% of Catholic priests were homosexuals, unless you think the homosexuals were MORE virtuous than heterosexuals, the number of Catholic abuse cases would be 50% heterosexual, and 50% homosexual.
          The actual figures are 27-58%. I got those figures from Wikileaks, a liberal leaning source. Check their entry on gay marriage if you doubt their leanings.
          Little or nothing to do?
          No gay person snickering at Catholic abuse has EVER acknowledged that 27% to 58% of the abusers were homosexuals.

        • Nate Frein

          More chaff. You are a really disgusting person, you know?

        • Kodie

          Given if 27-58% of the abusers were homosexuals, that would mean 42-73% of the abusers were not homosexuals. Why do you think this is a relevant statistic? The church covered it up and protected the offenders, and a damn awful lot more of them appear to be straight. The church covered it up and protected the offenders, you worship this church and uphold it as a moral authority.

          The church covered it up and protected the offenders. Stop talking about gay priests, it’s irrelevant.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    In one of your last posts, besides the one about Moslems, you brought up:
    “And you are ok with the enslavement of women, right? Enslavement to mandatory pregnancy?” No, I”m never ok with the enslavement of women. Right now there are millions of women, Eastern European, and Asian, that are sex slaves, and I am absolutely against it.
    All women, except in case of rape, got pregnant voluntarily. No one mandated the pregnancy.

    • Kodie

      That’s totally irrelevant to that particular question. I already know how you feel about the dirty whores who have sex voluntarily.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie, it’s not irrelevant. You don’t want to deal with that because it inevitably comes down to the question of when is it OK to stop the life of a human being, and at that point you stop the argument. All your arguments inevitably leas to that argument.
        For instance,
        I asked you a question recently”
        If I killed your child at any time during a wanted pregnancy, would you accept my defense if I strongly asserted: Kodie, Kodie, you always claimed it never was a child, only a “potential child.”
        And I continued, “Kodie, you said it was only a clump of cells. Why get all worked up about a clump of cells.” I don’t think you would argue back “because I really wanted a clump of cells.”
        Your answer, which I suppose you thought was a good one, or you wouldn’t make it,was:
        You take away my choice? HELLO?
        I pointed out in the argument that in this case we were talking about a wanted child, that the free choice was already made.
        You stopped trying to answer.

        • Nate Frein

          This whole argument shows just how little you think of actual women.

          By what agency would you effect the killing of this fetus? In what way could you commit this act that would not fundamentally violate the rights to bodily autonomy of Kodie, or any other woman for that matter?

          You are blowing chaff, in an increasingly disgusting manner.

        • Kodie

          Holy crap Wlad. You are jumping around to a different post now. I asked you about enslaving women because you are afraid of the brown people taking over. That has nothing to do with this other post you are bringing up which you are too effing stupid to understand. You want to talk about two different things, they get two different answers. You want to bring that back up instead of address YOUR RACISM in an orderly fashion. Your mind does not seem to comprehend any nuance AT ALL. You live in a black and white world so you want more people to make white babies. Answer to that!

        • Wladyslaw

          Kodie,
          No I never said I want more people to make white babies.

          What I did say, is that if black and brown people followed what the white progressives were pushing, they too, like white people, would also inevitably shrink.

        • Kodie

          So you do not personally care if what you are advocating will inevitably lead to extinction (or a moslem world). You do not care. All the other people on the planet advocating your position do not care about the future of humanity.

          That is what you said. I also asked you what will stop you from worrying about this after you’re dead?

        • Kodie

          You would be taking away my choice. CHOICE. That was a couple days ago and you were too stupid then and you’re too stupid now. Then you come out with how bad Islam is even though it’s basically the same as Christianity. Why are you so afraid of them “taking over” you paranoid racist?

          Religious ass-backwardness is religiously ass-backwards. That’s for you, not to accuse me or Nate of not wanting Islam any more than you do. You would LOVE IT. It’s not because they’re brown but because they believe the same damaging and offensive things about women and gay people that you do. I would not want to live like that but YOU WOULD. You have said in hundreds of posts that their beliefs are your beliefs. Why are you afraid? Because they’re brown.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,

    In the example I asked you, I asked you what would you do AFTER you made a free choice–after you freely decided to have a child. You had freely made a choice. What would you do…

    • Kodie

      And you didn’t like my answer so you repeated yourself.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        No, I didn’t like your answer: Wladyslaw is an idiot.
        If i gave you that as an answer to a point you made, and i said Kodie, you are an idiot, you wouldn’t like it either.

        • Nate Frein

          No. She didn’t simply say you’re an idiot. She spelled out exactly how you were behaving like an idiot. There’s a big difference.

          Now, to be fair, I think she’s being charitable. I don’t think you’re an idiot. I think you’re a liar, and when you can’t keep your lies straight you stop answering that train of questions.

        • Nate Frein

          And, Wladyslaw, when people are telling you that you are acting like an idiot, the fastest way to stop them telling you that is to stop acting like an idiot.

        • Kodie

          Wlad, I said it was a choice and you insisted that I change my answer to “baby”.

          After that I called you an idiot.

          You still don’t like my answer again and you are repeating yourself again.

          How are you in any way not an idiot?

        • Wladyslaw

          No Kodie,
          If I killed your baby at any time in a wanted pregnancy, you would NEVER argue–”Officer, Wladyslaw took away my choice, the misogynist! Charge him for taking away my choice.”

        • Kodie

          You’re still an idiot because it’s not a baby.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,

    Roe vs Wade will never be reversed, no matter how hard we try. I asked what would you do NOW after freely making a decision to have a wanted baby.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate, In the issue of fairness, whenever you hear a gay person arguing about how gayness has little or nothing to do with the Catholic abuse, I would hope that in the interest of setting the record straight you would quote them the above figures. Liberal leaning figures, not from conservative ones.
    Chaff?
    You know you will never correct your fellow gay people, and I doubt if they would ever acknowledge them–figures offered by your side.
    You and they could never offer the little or nothing argument again. Chaff? It seems that gay people are livid when their argument–little or nothing to do– is challenged. I have encountered that kind of anger in no other arguments with gays.
    Chaff? Their whole argument would fail.
    Chaff.

    • Nate Frein

      Y’know, I haven’t found any cite for your statistics. I’m not doing your homework. Give me a cite I can verify. I’m not going to spend an hour on google to track down some article you’ve misread.

      Chaff. Best I’ve found is that 81% of the victims are male. Now, given that all the clergy is going to be male, I guess you could say that all of those were homosexual. But then, Sandusky is a prime example of a straight-identifying man targeting boys. Peer reviewed research is pretty clear that pedophilia and sexual orientation aren’t linked.

      Your argument is chaff, because it in no way addresses the point. It’s a dishonest attempt to distract. How about you address the point next time you respond instead of stomping your feet and blaming the gays? How, exactly, do you blame The Magdalene Laundries on the gays?

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        Here is the quote:
        Estimating the number of homosexual priests
        Main article: Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood

        Evidence from several studies has shown that there are higher than average numbers of homosexual men (active and non-active) within the Catholic priesthood and higher orders; estimates presented in Donald B. Cozzens’ book The Changing Face of the Priesthood range from 23–58%.[20]
        Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism – Wikipedia, the free …
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism
        Jump to Dissent from official Church position‎: A number of Catholics and Catholic groups oppose the position of the Church and seek to change it.

        I think they would find that estimate credible or they wouldn’t post it. So, somewhere around there.

        I have no idea what the number of straight vs number of gay abuse outside the church is.
        You and I are talking about the numbers in the church which we do know.

        It doesn’t address the point? If it was a minor issue why are gays more angry about this argument than ANY other? It simply makes it impossible to bring up the Catholic abuse
        situation, their almost first argument when encountering a Catholic.
        Check gay blogs–see how many times they bring up the Catholic abuse. Not one, not you, not one has ever acknowledged those figures ( or reasonably close figures) in their blogs or arguments. Can you imagine, “Look at the horrible Catholic priests abusing boys. By the way, 27-58% of them were homosexuals!”
        An attempt to distract?

        • Kodie

          Because the headline is “Look at the horrible Catholic Church covering up and protecting the sexual abusers!” Their sexual orientation does not matter, it’s your scapegoat.

        • Wladyslaw

          Kodie,
          If the sexual orientation doesn’t matter, why will gays ABSOLUTELY refuse to acknowledge that 27-58% of the abuse is homosexual.
          Did you ever hear that from a gay activist that 27-58% of Catholic abuse is homosexual? If that figure was commonly known, no gay activist would EVER bring up Catholic abuse.
          It simply destroys the ability of gays to argue one of their favorite points.

        • Nate Frein

          That’s a very dishonest reading of the wikipedia article, Wladyslaw. Par for the course, for you.

          The wikipedia article states that possibly 27-58% of priests have some form of homosexual leanings. Now, of those who actually responded as being fully homosexual, the numbers add up to 15% which is fully in line with estimations of homosexuality in mainstream populations. The only way to get to that high number is by including bisexual priests, thereby skewing the demographics.

          These are estimated demographics of clergy populations. These are not estimations of the demographics of the known abusers.

          But again I think you knew that.

          Because you’re blowing chaff.

          People don’t ignore that argument because it destroys their credibility. They ignore it because it has nothing to do with the abuse cases.

        • Kodie

          Doesn’t like my answer, repeats himself again. SCAPEGOAT. Your church is immoral.

        • Kodie

          It does not destroy any arguments. Gay and straight people can both be pedophiles, or can’t you subtract from 100 and figure out how many of your straights were pedophiles? They were ALL PROTECTED AND DEFENDED AND COVERED UP BY YOUR IMMORAL CHURCH. Seniors in your church should be setting an example for the public if they want to be taken seriously as a moral example. But they fail. You avoid consuming that fact every time it is put in front of you. You hate gay people, we know that. Gay does not equal pedophile. OR CAN’T YOU SUBTRACT FROM 100?

        • Nate Frein

          Chaff.

          Slimy, dishonest, chaff.

        • Kodie

          100% of the abusers were men. You have never acknowledged this!

          100% of the abusers were men of god. You have never acknowledged this!

          The Catholic Church doesn’t turn them over for the secular law to take care of. The Catholic Church doesn’t turn them out of church for breaking their vow of chastity, even. The Catholic Church doesn’t punish them or reform them or do anything but try to hide them and sweep it under the rug. 100% of the abusers were men. And you’re a man. I have never seen you take responsibility or acknowledge that!

          You’re CATHOLIC and I have never seen you take responsibility for the whole church abusing its power and never acknowledges itself for abusing its power. Hiding pedophiles and moving them around so they can continue to abuse is not the moral way of handling sexual abuse. Turning them over to the police and dismissing them from church would be one way of handling this – if the church says upon discovery of abuse, “we’re not having it in OUR church, then you might have a moral leg to stand on. They say the opposite, they say they did it their way, the demonstrably evil way. And you are one of them, you support them, and you love them. YOU ARE A PERVERT BY ASSOCIATION. Your whole church is the pervert. Stop scapegoating a percentage of priests who were also gay. Unless you can’t subtract from 100, let me tell you that half to 3/4 were straight. Men. Of god.

          Answer to that!

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate, I tried once again to get you a direct link.
    I’ll try again:
    Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism – Wikipedia, the free …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism

    • Nate Frein

      It’s chaff, Wladyslaw, and I think you know it. Any “subculture of homosexuality” will be unrelated to the existing subculture of abuse, which far predates your described emigration of homo priests in seminary.

      Try again. Lying is a sin, isn’t it?

      • Wladyslaw

        Nate,
        You’re right. The 27-58% homosexual figure is for the time now. I don’t know what the figures were in the 40′s 50′s 80′s or 90′s.
        I lied. Forgive me.

        • Kodie

          Your church is a pervert and you are a pervert by association. Stop scapegoating and answer to that.

        • Wladyslaw

          Kodie,
          I’m not sure all Protestants are perverts because they have a higher abuse rate than Catholics (you probably didn’t know that). I would think the Moslems have a higher abuse rate (I heard that, can’t give you any figures), and I certainly wouldn’t call all moslems perverts.

        • Nate Frein

          And more chaff.

          Have any protestants or muslims been in this comment thread claiming they had moral superiority?

        • Kodie

          The difficulty you are having is in taking responsibility for the immoral cover-up in your church by naming a group arbitrarily and saying those men in particular are responsible for the pedophilia scandals. You can’t subtract from 100 for one thing. Secondly, your church covered up and protected pedophiles rather than turning them in to the secular authorities. If we could take another group and label it pedophiles, you don’t like it. That’s not really the point at all. You keep mistaking not the point for the point.

          THE CHURCH YOU BELIEVE IS THE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ABORTION AND EVERYTHING IS COMPLICIT IN PEDOPHILIA. Your church does not find pedophilia abhorrent enough to rid itself of pedophiles. It harbors criminals. Has 0% to do with homosexuals.

        • Kodie

          You will not say Catholics are pedophiles, you will not say Protestants are pedophiles, you would not even say your hated Muslims are pedophiles, but you will keep hammering the irrelevant point that homosexuals are pedophiles. And you can’t subtract from 100. MORE STRAIGHTS ARE PEDOPHILES.

          But you have not even one time answered for the charge that your church, the moral authority you follow, by association, harbor pedophiles. This means you think pedophiles are a-ok. You are scapegoating gay men. You’re a Catholic, which means you accept pedophilia as moral, because your church does.

        • Nate Frein

          Cute. Very cute.

          And still chaff. You’re still representing an inflated count of the number of homosexual priests with abuse without actually posting any causal link.

          Again, if you look at the “purely homosexual” clergy, you’re looking at about 15% of the population. Which is (on the high end albeit) of the estimated number of “purely homosexual” people in any population. The other 12-43% relies on using clergy who identify as bisexual or bisexual leaning.

          So here you are committing a sin specifically prohibited by your “god”. And I’m supposed to think you’re moral? No. You’re playing the game badly. All you’re doing is showing your homophobia.

  • Kodie

    I am going to draw a causal link between Catholic men and pedophilia. 100% of the pedophiles were Catholics men. That seems like a winner of an argument, Wlad-style!

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    If I’m a pervert by association, are all Protestants and Moslems perverts? See my comment above Nate’s.
    “I am going to draw a causal link between Catholic men and pedophilia. 100% of the pedophiles were Catholics men.”
    Agreed. The next question is what percentages of all were gay and not. I already admitted I didn’t knew what the figures were in the past and was wrong in going there in the way I did, and would rather not go there again.
    Here’s a bad joke–100% of pedophiles were Catholic men. I sure hope the weren’t women.
    I know that’s not what you meant but I couldn’t resist.

    • Kodie

      You’re a pervert by association because you support your church. Your church covers up abuses and protects offenders from secular law.

      I think you are still an idiot. You are excusing Catholics, Protestants and Muslims from a causal relationship to pedophilia, but picking out homosexuals and finding a link that you keep pressing even though it’s not important at all.

      Answer to the fact that you support the pedophilia your church covers up and protects. You are the monster here.

      • Wladyslaw

        Kodie,
        I’m absolutely ready to not argue the gay issue anymore–I mentioned that several times just recently because I was wrong in how I argued.
        When did I ever support Catholic pedophilia? It was absolutely evil, and if I did support it I could never argue any moral issue with any one. I am a Catholic and do support the Church. The church has 1.8 billion Catholics and 412,00 Catholic priests. The accepted figure of Catholic priests charged was 1%. I have always condemned the abuse I don’t now or ever approve of a coverup.
        According to you, I’m a monster just because I’m a Catholic.

        Let’s assume that only 1% of gays in America committed sexual abuse. I think even you would accept that figure. Are you a monster just because you are gay, even if you strongly condemn the actions of the 1%.

        • Kodie

          When did I say I was gay?

          The difference is that in the US, we prosecute criminals. We define them as not allowed to be alone with children. They have to register so their neighbors know where they are, who they are, and how close to them they live.

          In the Catholic Church, which you support, pedophiles are systemically shuttled to another congregation rather than turned over to the authorities. This is something you support when you support the Catholic Church. You believe in these same leaders as your moral authorities. When it came down to calling you on this, you immediately retreat to this is the gays’ fault! I already said this – people can be pedophiles and gay people are people as much as straight people. You do not seem to find a causal link between heterosexuality and pedophilia as though subtracting from 100 was impossible. Pedophilia is a danger and a crime in all of society, and I already said how it’s dealt with out here in the secular world.

          When you say it’s gays!, what you really mean is that our “morality” is compromised since liberals support homosexuality, and homosexuals go diddle boys!

          You are deflecting the responsibility of your own church that you believe is more moral. Pedophiles are criminals and should not be harbored by churches. I guess it’s that hard to find men who want to live a life of abstinence than it used to be, huh? You give money to this cause, I’m sure. You financially support the protection of pedophiles every time you offer to the collection plate, you are voting with your conscience that pedophilia is fine and should not be prosecuted.

          Do you see the difference? Since Nate has already explained a bunch of times there is no relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, and you can’t even subtract from 100, our morality is not up for discussion. You keep pressing that point, but you keep trying to avoid how complicit you are, how disgusting the morality you want to cram down our laws is, you give money to that church which means more than your heart, it means more than any other action. You want our laws to be Catholic because you think it’s a higher morality, and when it’s explicitly demonstrated how immoral it really is, you pass the blame onto gays. How awful of you.

  • Wladyslaw

    Nate,
    Yes, both Protestants and Moslems think that they are better than Catholics.

    • Kodie

      Scapegoating – YOU ARE A CATHOLIC. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? How can you use your Catholicism to pretend you are more moral than me or Nate or Bob or anyone else?

      This is not about what homosexuals, nor about other religions. Of course all religions think they are more moral than another religion! It’s not what they think of Catholics.

      What about your moral vision for the future can you possibly defend while you are a member of a club that protects pedophiles? You have been trying to argue that you are correct and that you think such-and-such is the more moral, and yet you keep slipping away from the point here, scapegoating, someone else is worse than you are, or someone else is to blame, not your church. Your affiliation with a particular church that behaves so disgustingly is the point you keep scapegoating. Stop running Wlad, you’re caught. You’re caught as a liar and and idiot. You change the subject you think we can’t read?

      Your church is obviously not the moral authority you want to believe it is, and cannot demonstrate. If it was your intention to uphold your beliefs in a church that tolerates and protects pedophiles as an example we should follow, as an example the whole country should follow, you obviously fail. It’s obvious. You can’t blame anyone else for what the Catholic Church did and does.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    “You will not say Catholics are pedophiles,”
    C’mon, when did I say that Catholics weren’t pedophiles. All the pedophiles in the Catholic church were Catholic.

    • Kodie

      The big difference is that you think it’s such a huge deal that some of them might have been also homosexuals. Not most of them, just some of them. You think it’s that big a deal that you have been using it as your only defense of the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal for the past 3 days or so. You are not equally aghast that the relationship here definitively involves the church’s reaction to finding sexual abuse within its ranks. You are missing the more important relationship here, and that is your church reacted wrong. You keep harping that it’s the gays! It’s the gays! It’s really just a gay problem! Why didn’t the church strip them of their posts and call the police? The church didn’t just give pedophiles a safe haven to practice pedophilia, it protects them from the law. They get to keep their jobs. They are forgiven, respected, and allowed to work with children.

      You really think that’s ok, since you are still blaming this whole problem on gays.

      You really want to use this church as your moral authority for other issues like my reproductive freedom? No thank you. You’re an idiot, a liar, and a pedophile sympathizer.

  • Wladyslaw

    Kodie,
    I guess I wasn’t clear enough when I said above several times that I really didn’t know what the numbers of gays were in the past, and so I was wrong in using the numbers of today’s gays to blame them for the abuse crises. I even said I lied, and asked not to discuss the matter anymore because there really was no way I could really prove it. I have NO evidence I can show to prove gays are the problem. I thought I did, but you showed me wrong. So let’s get off the issue.

    I already mentioned I was absolutely against any coverup yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Many times. Why are you saying I support it? Just because I’m a Catholic?

    In almost all of my arguments I have very carefully tried to avoid any religious argument for my views because you would simply say, that’s because you are Catholic. The discussion would have stopped around comment 39. We now have over 900. I never used the church as my moral authority for my arguments, and certainly don’t expect you to accept the moral authority of the church for any issue.

    You mentioned the Catholic Church abuse first. I was wrong to go there with my lack of facts, and don’t want to go there any more.

    Can we leave the Catholic Church out of our discussions?

    I have to go for a while.

  • Franz

    Where to begin. I hope you guys don’t mind me continuing this thread a bit longer, I think there is a lot of substance to it (900 comments…), and I would like to funnel it into something constructive. I will start by limiting my response. This thread developed in a relatively unorganized fashion, so I will respond to major points that I found throughout relating to abortion, as well as the original article itself. Also, I did not get through all the comments, so if you already discussed fully the topics I bring up, feel free to ignore them, or refer me to where they were resolved. I will also comment that all parties involved were involved in at least one of the following: lack of citing, personal attacks, twisting of words and ideas, incompetence, and avoidance. This contributed to a confusing twisting and largely non-constructive thread. I hope that we can curb those at this point.

    Firstly, I will narrow the discussion to abortion. I will not be getting into the gay-debate, defining Catholicism, defining marriage, pedophilia in the church, etc. These debates are rather irrelevant in deciphering the morality of abortions, and should not have been brought up in this thread.

    Secondly, in the category of abortion, let us first concentrate on the majority of abortions, at least 96% that do not involve rape, incest, or health issues (I think that number is conservative enough that I do not need to cite). This should largely cut down the rabbit trails and tangents in the thread, and allow for some real work to be done.

    My goal here is not necessarily to be conclusive, but to find the roots or fundamental differences in the beliefs of those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice. I will start with Bob’s original article.

    • Franz

      Just testing out a

      Blockquote

  • Franz

    What is a baby: Regardless of prior arguments, this does not matter. What defines the word baby has no affect on the morality of abortion. Murder is not the killing of a baby, but the killing of a human life, so that is the goal, to define human life, and thus, I will dismiss all arguments about the definition of a baby. The argument is really whether the being inside the womb has the same value outside the womb. For this purpose, let us use ‘baby’ for the being outside the womb, ‘fetus’ for the being inside the womb, and ‘person’ for where we believe the being gains human value equal to our own and should not be killed.

    Spectrum Argument: Alright I see what you are trying to say with this spectrum thing, but I don’t quite understand where you are taking it, or why it holds any weight. Yes, there is a difference between a single cell and a trillion celled newborn. But why stop there? Let’s explore the differences; The baby at birth is more intelligent, sustainable, and has a form that resembles a human, all things that the original cell does not. The question is, do we credit human life to any of those characteristics? We do not value human life differently based on intelligence, or at least intelligence is not involved when we decide whether a murder is murder. If a person is on life support, they can no longer sustain their own body, they cannot stay alive without support, but we do not consider them subhuman. If we formed a statue that looked very much like a human, it still would not be and vice versa, a strongly deformed human is still human. So all of these perceived differences that fluctuate through the spectrum don’t seem to have an effect on the distinction between human and non-human.

    Let me further question your spectrum idea. Is the child in the womb gaining more and more value as it develops, until it is born and reaches an equal value as other human begins? If so, is it more and more wrong to kill the child as time goes by, until birth, where it is equivalent to murder?
    Or does it have no value until birth? In which case, why does the spectrum matter? It seems the only distinction would be whether the being is in the womb, or out. And all the differences between the single celled human and one just before birth have no influence.

    Still trying to understand the significance of this idea. As a pro-lifer, I believe it is a human from the moment of conception. I think it is murder killing the child at any point after that. That being said, if I had to choose to kill a fetus in the first or third trimester, I would choose the first. The baby would experience less pain, it would be easier, healthier, and better on the mother. Even though there is this spectrum of development, it does not really seem to dictate how human the fetus is. In the same way, If I had to choose between killing an elderly man on life support and a young man with a family, there is a spectrum there, but both are human beings.

    (I believe this has been somewhat resolved). I think Wladyslaw first comment hit the nail on the head with the comment about repulsion. We cannot use conclusively what naturally strongly repulses us to dictate morality. That being said, I think many women are repulsed by the idea of abortion, not all, but there are few things that everyone agrees on. Like Wladyslaw said, I guarantee not every German soldier was repulsed by the idea of killing Jews, yet we consider that immoral. Many women have been desensitized to the idea of killing the thing growing inside of them. This does not dictate whether it is ok to do so. Let us dismiss this idea.

    This one just BOGGLES my mind. I have never understood the argument that ‘You can believe what you believe, but you cannot impose your views on others’. There are so many problems with this. If one believe in objective morality, morality is the same for everyone, a certain thing is not moral or immoral depending on your beliefs. For example, I believe pleasure-driven rape is wrong for every person in every circumstance, regardless of the actors beliefs. This means to change others, I must impose my beliefs so that others may also consider it wrong, and would subsequently not do it and aid its abolishment. I cannot just sit in my room and make sure that I do not rape. How would slavery have been abolished if those who felt differently about its morality did nothing about it? We wouldn’t want those people imposing their beliefs on others huh? No, when one believes they have a correct view on morality, it is perfectly understandable for them to want to impose that idea on others. How to distinguish a correct view is difficult, but that is the goal. It cannot be so easily dismissed by saying “to each his own”. Let us dismiss this idea.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Franz:

      Murder is not the killing of a baby, but the killing of a human life

      And I disagree, as the post makes clear. I would say that murder is the killing of a person, and personhood is a spectrum (and the single cell doesn’t have that property).

      (Unless you’re equating person with human, in which case I’d agree with you. But I think “person” is a bit more appropriate.)

      If a person is on life support, they can no longer sustain their own body, they cannot stay alive without support, but we do not consider them subhuman.

      Agreed. And the difference between Franz and Franz-on-life-support is trivial compared to the difference between a newborn and a single cell.

      Is the child in the womb …

      Huh? You said you were going to call it a fetus. You’ve begged the question by calling the being in question a “child.”

      … gaining more and more value as it develops, until it is born and reaches an equal value as other human begins? If so, is it more and more wrong to kill the child as time goes by, until birth, where it is equivalent to murder?

      Yes and yes.

      I believe it is a human from the moment of conception.

      And if we define “human” = “Homo sapiens” then I agree with you. I might be convinced to use your term for the spectrum. You tell me: what property is it that a newborn has that a single cell doesn’t have? Shouldn’t be too hard a question to answer. They’re very, very different.

      if I had to choose to kill a fetus in the first or third trimester, I would choose the first.

      Yep, we’re on the same page.

      We cannot use conclusively what naturally strongly repulses us to dictate morality.

      At first glance, I would disagree, so remind me of what the argument behind this is. It seems like “That’s disgusting!” often points to things that are considered immoral. I could be forgetting something here.

      I think many women are repulsed by the idea of abortion

      And I’m certain that no one enjoys the prospect–men or women. It’s the lesser of two evils.

      If one believe in objective morality

      I don’t. Do you? If so, show me some evidence. I’ve seen none.

      This means to change others, I must impose my beliefs so that others may also consider it wrong, and would subsequently not do it and aid its abolishment.

      For rape, I agree. Is there much disagreement on this point?

      • Franz

        Firstly, any time I used person or child or human not true to the definitions I stated, it was unintentional, and I did not intend to beg the question. So sure, murder is the killing of a human person.

        “Agreed. And the difference between Franz and Franz-on-life-support is trivial compared to the difference between a newborn and a single cell.”

        True, but try to focus on the point at hand, this statement was to merely state that life support could not be that which gives people personhood. Perhaps that is not in disagreement with you, but it is to Nate.

        “… gaining more and more value as it develops, until it is born and reaches an equal value as other human begins? If so, is it more and more wrong to kill the child as time goes by, until birth, where it is equivalent to murder?”

        “Yes and yes.”

        Well, we are getting somewhere now. So correct me if I’m wrong, but you say it IS wrong and immoral to kill the fetus at any point, but it would simply be more immoral to… infringe on the woman’s rights to her body, and therefore choosing the lesser of two evils would be allowing the woman to have the choice up until it is born where it gains enough value to surpass the mothers rights?

        “You tell me: what property is it that a newborn has that a single cell doesn’t have? Shouldn’t be too hard a question to answer.”

        This again isn’t saying a lot. A single cell has nothing that a newborn does not. Ok? What does a baby have that a two year old does not? I don’t see your point.

        “if I had to choose to kill a fetus in the first or third trimester, I would choose the first.”

        “Yep, we’re on the same page.”

        Right. It is a good thing those aren’t the only two options.

        At first glance, I would disagree, so remind me of what the argument behind this is. It seems like “That’s disgusting!” often points to things that are considered immoral. I could be forgetting something here.

        To put it simply “often” not “always”. The argument was that just because not all women seem to be repulsed by the idea of abortion does not mean that it is morally fine. The analogy was Nazi germany, where many German commanders were not repulsed by the idea of killing Jews, but that did not dictate the morality of their actions. This being said, you also agreed that “no one enjoys the prospect” so we are indeed repulsed at some level.

        “If one believe in objective morality”

        “I don’t. Do you? If so, show me some evidence. I’ve seen none.”

        It looks like we have found another root. This is.. probably the biggest question in philosophy and cannot be discussed quickly, but we can still define what each of us believes. I do believe in objective morality, that in this argument, one of us is correct. I assume that you either claim to be a subjectivist or a relativist, but regardless of what you believe you are most likely a relativist. So again, correct me in necessary, but you believe morality is dictated by social norms and majority rule?

        “This means to change others, I must impose my beliefs so that others may also consider it wrong, and would subsequently not do it and aid its abolishment.”

        “For rape, I agree. Is there much disagreement on this point?”

        And there is no difference. I believe rape is wrong. Someone else does not. I must impose my beliefs upon them. I believe abortion is wrong. Someone else does not. I must impose my belief on them.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          True, but try to focus on the point at hand, this statement was to merely state that life support could not be that which gives people personhood.

          Yeah, I think I’m pretty focused on the point. Life support is a red herring.

          So correct me if I’m wrong, but you say it IS wrong and immoral to kill the fetus at any point, but it would simply be more immoral to… infringe on the woman’s rights to her body, and therefore choosing the lesser of two evils would be allowing the woman to have the choice up until it is born where it gains enough value to surpass the mothers rights?

          You’re wrong. I say that the moral thing to do is to choose the lesser of two evils.

          A single cell has nothing that a newborn does not.

          Perhaps you’ve never seen a newborn. A newborn has arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and ears, a brain and nervous system, a stomach and digestive system, a heart and circulatory system, liver, pancreas, and on and on and on. A single cell (which you can only see with the help of a microscope), in stark contrast, has none of these.

          I do believe in objective morality, that in this argument, one of us is correct.

          Sure, but from what perspective? I think one thing, you think another, and we could find a smart judge who might weigh in on either of our sides or perhaps from yet another.

          If the existence of objective morality isn’t relevant to your point, then we can avoid this tangent. Otherwise, I’ll repeat that I’ve seen no evidence that objective morality exists and it is accessible by our fallible mortal brains. If you have evidence, I’d be interested to see it. So far, the arguments in favor of it that I’ve seen by well-known apologists have been laughable, but that could simply be because of my limited reading.

          I assume that you either claim to be a subjectivist or a relativist

          No. The typical definitions are caricatures. Best to say that I’m not an objectivist.

          you believe morality is dictated by social norms and majority rule?

          Morality comes from (1) moral instinct and (2) society.

          I believe rape is wrong. Someone else does not. I must impose my beliefs upon them. I believe abortion is wrong. Someone else does not. I must impose my belief on them.

          I understand your position, though I can’t imagine that you would impose your will (if given the opportunity to do so) on everyone who isn’t a clone of you. Someone might not parent their kids in the way that you think best (to take one example), but for things that aren’t sufficiently hurtful, are you going to lobby so that your views become law?

        • Franz

          You’re wrong. I say that the moral thing to do is to choose the lesser of two evils.

          Ok let me rephrase. You think it is more and more wrong to kill the fetus as it develops. It is an evil. But the moral thing to do is to choose the lesser evil, and allowing the woman to choose, correct?

          Perhaps you’ve never seen a newborn. A newborn has arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and ears, a brain and nervous system, a stomach and digestive system, a heart and circulatory system, liver, pancreas, and on and on and on. A single cell (which you can only see with the help of a microscope), in stark contrast, has none of these.

          Perhaps you misread what I wrote, but I also misread what you wrote. I said “A single cell has nothing that a newborn does not.” You read the opposite I believe. But you wanted what the newborn has and the single cell does not. The newborn has plenty more, like you said. Arms, legs, organs, eyes.

          Sure, but from what perspective? … If the existence of objective morality isn’t relevant to your point, then we can avoid this tangent.

          The existence of objective morality is completely relevant to my point, it is not a tangent. I may even take it so far as to say my belief in objective morality is the only reason I argue. Otherwise, why convince someone to change if they are doing what they think is moral. Because I believe in objective morality, the perspective would be truth. Not depending upon a person’s beliefs. I admit this is a difficult position to back up with evidence, philosophers have been trying to do it for millennia. Thus, I probably will not be able to give you a satisfying conclusive answer here, simply that it is my belief. There are substantial writings and coherent arguments for its proof, but I also am not well versed in it. You tend to use emotion to support your morality, so maybe it will satisfy you if I do the same. Forgive me for getting graphic, but as an example: I think torturing a child for pleasure has always been wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong. I do not think the person torturing the child has any say in whether the act is moral or not. I do not think I have any say. I simply believe that it is an ethical fact that torturing that child is wrong. I think that would be the case even if the majority of people thought differently. If the law allowed it, I would fight to have the law changed. I do not think the platform matters. This is my take on objective morality. Does this make sense to you?

          I can’t imagine that you would impose your will (if given the opportunity to do so) on everyone who isn’t a clone of you. Someone might not parent their kids in the way that you think best (to take one example), but for things that aren’t sufficiently hurtful, are you going to lobby so that your views become law?

          I impose my beliefs about rape to everyone who is not a clone of me. I do not understand why you support that, but somehow, that a belief about abortion different. I believe both are severe, and that both should be curbed by legislation. You continuously attempt to compare it to parenting, somehow thinking that it then escapes its parallel structure to rape. No, I would not lobby for legislation that controls parenting UNLESS it IS sufficiently harmful. In the case of abortion, I view that as the most harmful parenting possible. Do you understand my viewpoint?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          Franz:

          But the moral thing to do is to choose the lesser evil, and allowing the woman to choose, correct?

          Up to a point, yes.

          The newborn has plenty more, like you said. Arms, legs, organs, eyes.

          OK, thanks for the correction. I guess we agree then.

          I may even take it so far as to say my belief in objective morality is the only reason I argue.

          Fair enough. Then show me that objective morality exists.

          I admit this is a difficult position to back up with evidence

          So you just suspect or feel or infer that objective morality exists?

          Let me give you an alternative explanation that works quite well: instead of universal moral truth (your view), imagine universally held moral instincts (my view). I think this does a nice job of explaining the facts that we both accept.

          I think torturing a child for pleasure has always been wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong.

          Me, too. But is objective morality the only explanation? Certainly not, as I explained earlier.

          This is my take on objective morality. Does this make sense to you?

          Yes. But calling this a shared moral instinct (since we’re all the same species) does a much better job of explaining things and doesn’t need to rely on the supernatural.

          I impose my beliefs about rape to everyone who is not a clone of me.

          I want to impose my views on rape or murder through laws on the rest of the country (luckily, that’s already done), but I don’t want to impose my views of parenting on the rest of the country. See the difference?

          No, I would not lobby for legislation that controls parenting UNLESS it IS sufficiently harmful. In the case of abortion, I view that as the most harmful parenting possible. Do you understand my viewpoint?

          Dude–at one end of the spectrum, it’s just a frikkin’ cell. It’s invisible. You admit yourself that a first-term abortion is far preferable than a third-person abortion, so you understand the spectrum.

          How about a little humility? How about assuming that, up to a point, we can trust a mother to do the right thing? When more than half the country disagrees, you’re going to assume that they’ve all got it wrong and that a single cell must not, under penalty of law, be killed?

        • Franz

          So you just suspect or feel or infer that objective morality exists?

          Let me give you an alternative explanation that works quite well: instead of universal moral truth (your view), imagine universally held moral instincts (my view). I think this does a nice job of explaining the facts that we both accept.

          I think torturing a child for pleasure has always been wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong.

          Me, too. But is objective morality the only explanation? Certainly not, as I explained earlier.

          Not exactly, but that is part of it. Basically I look at all the possible explanations for morality, and I pick the one that resonates with me best, via reasoning and perhaps emotion. I do not quite understand your particular theory yet. Is ‘universal’ = ‘majority’? If you could briefly describe what you mean by Universal Shared Instinct, and how we are to determine morality by that. Or more specifically, what is left for individuals to decide and what is to be imposed on everyone?

          I want to impose my views on rape or murder through laws on the rest of the country (luckily, that’s already done), but I don’t want to impose my views of parenting on the rest of the country. See the difference?

          Yes but I don’t think you understand my point. I am simply arguing that – with the belief that a fetus is a person – it is ok to want to impose that view on the rest of the country. I understand that with the belief it is not a person, it is merely parenting (or not even) and should be left up to individuals.

          Dude–at one end of the spectrum, it’s just a frikkin’ cell. It’s invisible. You admit yourself that a first-term abortion is far preferable than a third-person abortion, so you understand the spectrum.
          How about a little humility? How about assuming that, up to a point, we can trust a mother to do the right thing? When more than half the country disagrees, you’re going to assume that they’ve all got it wrong and that a single cell must not, under penalty of law, be killed?

          Hmm your arguing style intrigues me, perhaps if you repeat your most basic belief to me a few more times I will start to accept your reasoning. I understand the spectrum to an extent. The fetus does develop and grow. It does accrue pain receptors and a beating heart, making it harder and harder to kill (emotionally and physically). My argument is simply that how much a person it is does not depend on how emotional we feel toward it, or how much it looks like a human, but rather, if it exists and will (if uninhibited) continue to grow and develop for the next several decades (into what you already consider to be a person).
          According to your theory of morality, I should just convince enough people that abortion is wrong. Once the majority accepts my argument, it will suddenly be right. With either morality, I couldn’t imagine how you would be upset with my goals.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          Basically I look at all the possible explanations for morality, and I pick the one that resonates with me best, via reasoning and perhaps emotion.

          And I look at the one that explains the observations the best. That is, I follow the evidence. No resonating, no emotion.

          I do not quite understand your particular theory yet. Is ‘universal’ = ‘majority’?

          We all pretty much share an instinctive appreciation for the golden rule. There are a few sociopath outliers, so I’m referring simply to an overwhelming majority, not everyone.

          The other part of morality is given by society–consider how honor (or, to take a more extreme example, etiquette) varies widely among societies, for example.

          Given our similar views toward morality (we’re all the same species, for example), making laws is difficult but not impossible. We’re pretty much on the same page about murder, rape, stealing, and so on.

          Yes but I don’t think you understand my point. I am simply arguing that – with the belief that a fetus is a person – it is ok to want to impose that view on the rest of the country. I understand that with the belief it is not a person, it is merely parenting (or not even) and should be left up to individuals.

          I understand what you’re saying, but we’re miles apart here. You’ve done nothing to show me why this bizarre belief of yours–that a single cell is a person–should be imposed on the entire country.

          It does accrue pain receptors and a beating heart, making it harder and harder to kill (emotionally and physically).

          How is this possible? Before the heart and pain receptors, it was a person. Afterwards, it’s a person. Person = person, so why is it more wrenching? You accept the spectrum and reject it in the same breath.

          how much a person it is does not depend on how emotional we feel toward it

          You want to get emotional about some stranger’s 100-cell blastocyst? Knock yourself out. But let’s let her decide what’s best.

          According to your theory of morality, I should just convince enough people that abortion is wrong. Once the majority accepts my argument, it will suddenly be right.

          I guess you don’t understand my theory of morality. Maybe if I repeat my most basic belief to you a few more times you’ll start to accept my reasoning.

        • Franz

          Given our similar views toward morality (we’re all the same species, for example), making laws is difficult but not impossible. We’re pretty much on the same page about murder, rape, stealing, and so on.

          Ok so a shared belief among the overwhelming majority, and these beliefs we are (almost) all biologically born with? A sort of Natural Law? Alright. And these are largely for severe things like rape, murder, stealing correct? And then smaller things are determined by society? Lastly, do you mind explaining how the abolition of slavery in the United States would be explained according to this theory?

          I understand what you’re saying, but we’re miles apart here. You’ve done nothing to show me why this bizarre belief of yours–that a single cell is a person–should be imposed on the entire country.

          Right, but that’s still not that point… I want you to accept that it is ok that I want a particular law imposed on the country because of a particular moral belief, just like you have for other things. Yes, this whole discussion is on the morality of abortion, but I simply want to dispel the argument that I should not be able to fight for a law based on my moral beliefs.

          It does accrue pain receptors and a beating heart, making it harder and harder to kill (emotionally and physically).

          How is this possible? Before the heart and pain receptors, it was a person. Afterwards, it’s a person. Person = person, so why is it more wrenching? You accept the spectrum and reject it in the same breath.

          Yes person equals person. But why is how emotional it is determinant to if it’s a human? It would be much easier (emotionally) to end the life of a sickly elderly person than a young girl, but they are BOTH PEOPLE. Person = person. I accept that the fetus changes in size, form, and development, this is obvious. These changes change the emotions we have toward the fetus. THAT is NOT what determines personhood.

          I guess you don’t understand my theory of morality. Maybe if I repeat my most basic belief to you a few more times you’ll start to accept my reasoning.

          You seem to have responded wittily, but you are simply contradicting yourself. It seems you do not even understand what you consider your “most basic belief” If you are not contradicting yourself, explain why not. You responded to this question earlier:
          So then… If Franz convinces Bob of his opinion, it then becomes wrong for Bob?
          Obviously.
          So if :
          1: This works on an individual level
          2. Morality is determined by the overwhelming majority (through instinct and culture)
          THEN
          3. Convincing enough individuals would change the overwhelming majority CHANGING what is moral or immoral.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          Ok so a shared belief among the overwhelming majority, and these beliefs we are (almost) all biologically born with?

          It’s nature. There’s variation within a species.

          And these are largely for severe things like rape, murder, stealing correct?

          Imagine an instinctive Golden Rule.

          And then smaller things are determined by society?

          Honor, for example. It varies quite a bit between societies. “Don’t murder,” by contrast, is very much shared by societies.

          Lastly, do you mind explaining how the abolition of slavery in the United States would be explained according to this theory?

          Slavery was right in the Bible, but it’s wrong now. That’s tough for the Bible-believing, objective moralist to explain.

          Slavery is seen as a terrible injustice now, but it was seen as plainly correct less than 200 years ago in much of the US. 200 years from now, after World War III, perhaps slavery will again be commonplace.

          And you imagine that morality is objectively true and accessible by ordinary people? Give me an example. I’ve seen zero evidence of this.

          I want you to accept that it is ok that I want a particular law imposed on the country because of a particular moral belief, just like you have for other things.

          You can get hot under the collar about whatever you want. You can demand the death penalty for driving with your turn signal on when you’re not making a turn. But that just doesn’t fit into the bin of things like murder or treason.

          I admit that millions of Americans have worked themselves into a lather because of their outrage that single cells are being killed. A “modern Holocaust,” many of them call it. Seems to me to be very, very different from killing a trillion-cell newborn. But if you see them as being almost identical, I’m not sure where we go from here.

          From my perspective, it makes sense for you to demand laws because of a particular moral belief on something important. This doesn’t rise to that.

          But why is how emotional it is determinant to if it’s a human?

          Could you rephrase? Confusing.

          It would be much easier (emotionally) to end the life of a sickly elderly person than a young girl, but they are BOTH PEOPLE.

          Yes, and (I think I’ve said this before) the difference between the elderly person and the young girl is trivial compared to the difference between that girl and a single cell you can’t see without a microscope.

          These changes change the emotions we have toward the fetus. THAT is NOT what determines personhood.

          Then a newborn is an X, while a single cell is not an X. What is “X”? I’m not wedded to “person,” so you tell me.

          2. Morality is determined by the overwhelming majority (through instinct and culture)

          Wrong.

        • Franz

          Sorry for the delay.
          Bob:

          Slavery was right in the Bible, but it’s wrong now. That’s tough for the Bible-believing, objective moralist to explain.
          Slavery is seen as a terrible injustice now, but it was seen as plainly correct less than 200 years ago in much of the US. 200 years from now, after World War III, perhaps slavery will again be commonplace.
          And you imagine that morality is objectively true and accessible by ordinary people? Give me an example. I’ve seen zero evidence of this.

          You are jumping all over the place, and did not seem to answer my question. Maybe you meant the severity of slavery is equal to that of etiquette? So it can change from time to time? All you said was that it was arbitrary and changing, and could change back. So if it is not instinctual, it is merely social? Please, no skirting around. Just explain yourself.
          As far as objective morality, again I am not extremely well versed in arguing for its existence, something I plan on studying in the coming years. Something that obviously I will not be able to easily prove to you. That being said, I think objective morality can be logically deduced much like the “universal moral instinct”. It seems as if there could only be two types of morality, Objective, and Relative (or whatever you would like to call it). Because It seems that some things are wrong no matter what you believe, it also seems those things are objectively wrong, as they do not depend upon anyone’s beliefs.

          From my perspective, it makes sense for you to demand laws because of a particular moral belief on something important. This doesn’t rise to that.

          I see a possible-murder as very important. Traffic laws are one bin, agreed, and that has its own level of importance. But my moral beliefs are about the existence of a person, and the possibility of murder, something we both can agree is important. If that person was arguing that keeping a turn signal on without turning was killing millions every year, I would think he has every right to fight for his views.

          But why is how emotional it is determinant to if it’s a human?

          Could you rephrase? Confusing.

          What I’m saying is, Why are the emotions I feel at the time what determines whether it is a person or not? I went on to say I would feel less emotional about killing a sick elderly than a young girl, but they are both equally person. Physically they are different, but not the fact that they are people. Additionally, if someone does not feel anything when killing a person, it has no affect on whether we consider the victim a person or not. You responded with…

          Yes, and (I think I’ve said this before) the difference between the elderly person and the young girl is trivial compared to the difference between that girl and a single cell you can’t see without a microscope.

          Ok…? You keep jumping to the ends of the spectrum. What is more different, what is more trivial, the differences between elderly man and little girl, or a newborn and a fetus moments from birth?

          Wrong.

          Really? Point a finger and say wrong. Don’t correct me or anything, just say wrong, that way this conversation will go somewhere.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          You are jumping all over the place, and did not seem to answer my question. Maybe you meant the severity of slavery is equal to that of etiquette?

          Feelings about slavery and etiquette change with time. Slavery is worse than etiquette IMO.

          I’m not sure what’s confusing. There’s instinct (varies by person) and there’s a social component (varies with time and place).

          As far as objective morality, again I am not extremely well versed in arguing for its existence, something I plan on studying in the coming years. Something that obviously I will not be able to easily prove to you.

          OK, but hold open the possibility that it doesn’t exist.

          That being said, I think objective morality can be logically deduced much like the “universal moral instinct”.

          How? One’s supernatural and the other is natural. For one we have no precedents and for the other we have plenty.

          I think you’ll have a hard time when you try to find analogies. “Objective moral truth exists just like __” for example

          It seems as if there could only be two types of morality, Objective, and Relative (or whatever you would like to call it).

          “Moral relativism” as outlined by many apologists isn’t something that I hold to so, by their definition, there are more than 2. I’d call myself: not and objectivist.

          Because It seems that some things are wrong no matter what you believe, it also seems those things are objectively wrong, as they do not depend upon anyone’s beliefs.

          This falls apart, I suspect, when you try to come up with an example of something that is universally true and accessible to all. Try a modern moral conundrum (abortion, euthanasia, etc.), for example.

          You keep jumping to the ends of the spectrum.

          Obviously. Once we’re on the same page, I won’t need to mention it anymore. As far as I can tell, we aren’t.

          What is more different, what is more trivial, the differences between elderly man and little girl, or a newborn and a fetus moments from birth?

          The newborn and that baby 1 hour earlier are obviously more similar.

          Really? Point a finger and say wrong. Don’t correct me or anything, just say wrong, that way this conversation will go somewhere.

          It’d be nice if it went somewhere. Seems like you were plowing old ground, hence the abrupt response.

        • Franz

          I’m not sure what’s confusing. There’s instinct (varies by person) and there’s a social component (varies with time and place).

          So I will revisit my prior argument. Torturing children COULD eventually become socially acceptable, and legal (unlikely but possible). Because no moral opinion is more right than another, would you not then consider it morally acceptable? What I don’t understand is how you simultaneously believe that morality can vary completely, from time and place and person, but also that some things are always wrong, or universally wrong? Perhaps you do not believe anything is always wrong, but that is not what you had said earlier. And if it cannot vary completely, I do not understand your above statement.

          OK, but hold open the possibility that (objective morality) doesn’t exist.

          Will do

          How? One’s supernatural and the other is natural. For one we have no precedents and for the other we have plenty.

          I think you’ll have a hard time when you try to find analogies. “Objective moral truth exists just like __” for example

          Perhaps I was a bit aggressive to suggest that. I guess I meant that morality is accessible in the same way ‘shared instincts’ are accessible. I don’t think really that we don’t allow killing because of our instincts nor because it is socially unacceptable. Without using “Cause God said so” I could reason why murder, stealing, abuse, torture, and perhaps even things like suicide, or gluttony are wrong. Granted, I don’t claim there is clear reasoning for everything, but as humans, I do think we have the basic tools to decipher right from wrong.
          I want to make one think clear. There is more to morality then the decision itself. Beliefs, intent, circumstance, state of being, and dozens of other things affect the morality of a given decision. This being said, I still think the action itself can be good or bad.

          This falls apart, I suspect, when you try to come up with an example of something that is universally true and accessible to all. Try a modern moral conundrum (abortion, euthanasia, etc.), for example.

          If you merely want a single example of something universal, I feel as if I could come up with several examples and some that I have already shared. I think we could widely agree that pointless murder is wrong, and yeah I believe that humans have the capability to discover that, or in other words, access to that.

          The newborn and that baby 1 hour earlier are obviously more similar.

          Right. So the personhood does not depend on the differences of the two humans. If that didn’t seem to follow this is my reasoning: Girl and Old man are very different, but they are both people. Fetus before and after birth are hardly different, but one is a person and one is not.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          Because no moral opinion is more right than another

          In an absolute sense, yes, but this is insignificant. From my standpoint, no, and this is significant.

          but also that some things are always wrong, or universally wrong?

          ?? I don’t say this.

          Perhaps you do not believe anything is always wrong, but that is not what you had said earlier.

          Perhaps you confuse me with someone else. I have never seen evidence of objective morality.

          as humans, I do think we have the basic tools to decipher right from wrong.

          Of course, but not in an absolute/objective way.

          Morality exists, but objective morality? I’ve seen no evidence.

          I think we could widely agree that pointless murder is wrong

          And what explains this? Do we have no recourse but to imagine an objective, God-grounded morality? Or will a shared instinct fit the bill?

          That we still have moral conundrums (abortion, etc.) proves that either objective morality doesn’t exist or it’s not reliably accessible.

          So the personhood does not depend on the differences of the two humans.

          … because there are no meaningful differences between these two humans. Their personhood is identical. Not so for single cell and newborn.

          If that didn’t seem to follow this is my reasoning: Girl and Old man are very different, but they are both people. Fetus before and after birth are hardly different, but one is a person and one is not.

          Girl and old man are a little different, but they are both people. Fetus before and after birth are identical, and they are both people. Single cell and newborn are really, really, really, really, really, really different, and only the newborn is a person.

        • Franz

          ?? I don’t say this.

          I think torturing a child for pleasure has always been wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong.

          Me, too. But is objective morality the only explanation? Certainly not, as I explained earlier.

          Perhaps we have a different understanding of the words objective. You seem to treat it as if it is some impossible supernatural distant thing whereas I simply mean unchanging – not determined by the subject. e.g. even if we thought torturing a child was ok, it would still be wrong.
          You do admit (I believe) that some objectivity exists, in the fields of science, physics, and mathematics – that is – the material world. I simply am suggesting that morality is not impossible to access. We develop laws often based on morals, usually for protection, fairness, or innate rights.

          as humans, I do think we have the basic tools to decipher right from wrong.

          Of course, but not in an absolute/objective way.

          But that isn’t really the ability to decipher right from wrong, rather create right from wrong. If morality of an action is based primarily off a subjects belief, he is generating the truth, inventing morality, whether it is his individual instinct or conscious beliefs.

          That we still have moral conundrums (abortion, etc.) proves that either objective morality doesn’t exist or it’s not reliably accessible.

          We do indeed argue about topics in morality, I agree it is not perfectly accessible, but I think we could arrive at it through logic. If you ask me, I personally believe large conundrums and moral debates start with a desire, then an argument is created behind it to justify it. For example, the desire to escape the responsibility of a baby. “Maybe perhaps it is ok, maybe before the baby is born it is not really a person” I guess I would argue that in order to access it, we follow the logic with no bias and go where the reasoning takes you. Now these statements are extremely simplified, please do not flare up and accuse me of underestimating the conflict of abortion, simply understand what I believe is the entity driving the debate. I personally found this true in my own life, at times I find myself addicted to particular habits I believed immoral and the more I enjoyed them – the more I found ways to justify them. It is a natural human tendency to want to be right and to be happy.

          … because there are no meaningful differences between these two humans. Their personhood is identical. Not so for single cell and newborn.

          But again, is there a meaningful difference between a newborn and a few minutes earlier in the womb? Yet one is not yet a person and one is. I know I know it is a spectrum, but you still do accept that it does not yet have the value of a person until it is born. If there is any difference in the personhood of the human in those two time frames, then there should seemingly be a bigger difference in personhood between a newborn and 10 year old, as they differ more greatly then the fetus just before birth and baby after.

          Fetus before and after birth are identical, and they are both people.

          I guess I am confused. The spectrum ends before birth? It is conclusively a person before birth?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          You seem to treat it as if it is some impossible supernatural distant thing whereas I simply mean unchanging – not determined by the subject. e.g. even if we thought torturing a child was ok, it would still be wrong.

          And I disagree. What is this external-to-humans grounding that makes it wrong no matter what one human or all humans think?

          I’ve seen no evidence of such a grounding, and we can explain human morality quite nicely without that clumsy supposition.

          I simply am suggesting that morality is not impossible to access. We develop laws often based on morals, usually for protection, fairness, or innate rights.

          Yes, we have a shared sense of morality. Shared, because we’re all the same species. Yes, we develop laws, but we agree, I’m sure, that this is a clumsy compromise, not a simple opening of God’s book and looking up the correct law (metaphorically speaking).

          We do indeed argue about topics in morality, I agree it is not perfectly accessible, but I think we could arrive at it through logic.

          Huh? You’re saying that you could, with sufficient time, walk anyone through your rationale for your beliefs in any moral issue (abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.) and have them agree with you? I doubt that’s what you’re saying.

          For example, the desire to escape the responsibility of a baby.

          And if killing a single cell isn’t that big a deal, you can understand why someone would opt for that route to escape this massive responsibility.

          we follow the logic with no bias and go where the reasoning takes you.

          And you’re saying that it will take everyone to the same place? I see no evidence of that.

          But again, is there a meaningful difference between a newborn and a few minutes earlier in the womb?

          Again, no.

          Yet one is not yet a person and one is.

          I don’t argue this. I argue a spectrum, remember?

          you still do accept that it does not yet have the value of a person until it is born.

          Nope. If we say that a newborn is 100% a person, then perhaps the fetus 3 minutes earlier is 99.999% a human–same thing.

          there should seemingly be a bigger difference in personhood between a newborn and 10 year old, as they differ more greatly then the fetus just before birth and baby after.

          Been over this already. (Several times, I think?)

          The difference between the newborn and the 10yo is insignificant.

  • Franz

    Few comments on the comments… (there are 900 of them.. little awkward for me to come this late).

    Avalon says that these moral laws are based on emotions, when we emotionally believe a person is a person. This is not as strong. If we all started liking babies a lot at age 2, would that then change when it is fine to kill one? This changes the argument, a person is no longer a person at birth, but when we start to like them. I fundamentally do not believe that morality is dictated by our emotions. I do not become emotionally attached to a baby at conception, or at least that is not what directs my beliefs. I simply believe that it becomes human at that moment, and that there is no moment after that is significant enough to be the moment where human life is applied to what you call a clump of cells. Not when the heart beats, or when the baby becomes self-aware, or when it feels pain, or when it moves a foot from the womb into the outside air, or when the last IV is pulled out.

    While it is not seemingly convenient or likable, conception is a much more significant event than an iv removal. It starts the process of life, provides the unique DNA that makes up your person, it begins the process that will continue until death.

    Arbitrariness… that is a better argument! Yes the law is often arbitrary when it comes to age and time. But we do not have to be arbitrary when it comes to abortion. This question is not one merely of religion. The line is at conception for many arguable reasons, unique and separate from the idea of the soul. At conception, the unique DNA is formed, the cell is made, and the development process starts, a process that, if allowed, will continue for many years. This process will continue naturally unless halted by some exterior force. There is no point earlier than conception that could really be argued for, but like I stated above, some believe there is a moment, either in the womb or out, that the child gains human value. This cell will grow larger, and take human form. But at what point do you say, that thing looks human enough now, so now it is human. Is a beating heart life? Or breath? Or self awareness? Or pain awareness? A cut umbilical cord? The last IV removal? The age of reason? That is arbitrary. That problem with arbitrarity only exists when the decision is up to each individual. How do decide which one is right? That is the argument at hand. But they are not all right, according to whoever believes them.

    “Why aren’t prolife people doing anything about it if they believe it is horrific?” They are. The right to life march? Hundreds of thousands of people attend annually, but of course it is underpublicized. There have been cases of murdered doctors and destroyed clinics, but generally, pro-lifers are not advocates of violence and murder. Next, I agree to an extent, it should be much higher on many people’s priorities, for those who believe what they say. No, people are not doing enough, but that does not mean they should just comply and be what you call ‘tolerant’, and allow what they believe is murder to continue. Let us dismiss this point.

    Why don’t pro-lifers accept contraceptives? It would cut down on abortions. Some do. Also, that point is debatable, but that is not what I am getting into. Simply, if we went around shooting everyone we thought were murders because we thought it would reduce murders, that would not be a supported idea. Those who consider contraceptives wrong cannot justify their use because of their possible abortion reducing characteristics. But this is not the topic at hand, so let us dismiss this point.

    Contraceptives leading to increased abortion. I believe what Wladyslaw was getting at here was not that contraceptives somehow increase the chance of having a baby, or fail so often that unwanted babies are conceived accidentally, but is an issue of culture. If we as a society separate the consequence of sex, procreation, from sex (contraceptives) then we are moving toward a culture that accepts abortions, that disconnects responsibility from action. This is a very large argument, and we could get into it here, but it is not necessarily essential to determining the morality of abortion, so let us dismiss this point.

    Abolishing abortion is not really a practical response. We are not doing it to improve the economy, or to insure happy rich families. It is not beneficial to welfare programs or universal healthcare. It is merely the moral response. I think a good philosophy is to do what is morally right and then figure out how to deal with the consequences. We cannot consider how detrimental to the economy or welfare programs or GDP abolishing abortion would be when determining whether we consider abortion moral or not. Again using slavery as an analogy, abolishing slavery seemed and was detrimental to the economy and standard of living at the time, but it was the moral thing to do. Also, never use the argument that allowing an unwanted baby to be born would only subject them to terrible, unhappy lives. Go talk to some people who are the results of failed abortions. Ask how many of them wish they had never been born.

    Nate:
    Fetus’ are not innocent? Regardless of what the existence of the fetus does to the mother, it is not consciously deciding to do wrong, or harm. By that definition, cancer is innocent, simply because it is not capable of being guilty. I believe Wladyslaw was arguing that a fetus is an innocent human that should be allowed basic human rights, not that anything considered innocent should be spared (cancer). Sex is not an invitation to pregnancy? That simply is not the case. That is what sex is for. Our bodies reward us for reproducing, so sex feels good and is beneficial. You are taking those benefits, separating them from procreation, and stating that they have never been in any way connected. A bit ridiculous to me. Sex is the only invitation to pregnancy.

    There were about 150 comments talking about the pro-choice beliefs on when human becomes human. I think I can do some summary here. Wladyslaw’s point was simply that legally, when the fetus comes out of the womb, wanted or unwanted, able to survive without medical aid or not, it is legally considered human. He agreed that the mother had the choice to keep it alive through medical means or not, which I do not think you guys caught somehow. He was merely stating that legally to kill the human at that time would be considered murder of a human being. To Wladyslaw’s defense, it WAS difficult to pick out when you specifically thought the fetus became a human until it was clearly written out, and it was not stated clearly in the comment you linked to. I guess in response to your answer though, I would take it further. This may not be common, but suppose the infant was sick or weak or developed in a strange way that it never got off medical life support. Kind of a depressing, possibly painful life, but still, according to you, when this person reaches 25 years old with a fully developed brain, character, personality, it is still not human. This is a little more difficult for me to believe. Another situation, if the “fetus outside the womb” gained enough strength to survive without medical support for a week, but then recessed, and needed the support, it became human for a week? Or is it just a human life on life support? Is there a certain amount of time it has to be able to survive on its own?

    Pro-Life position on Women – alrighty…. I want to clarify some things. Pro-life people want to protect the life of the fetus. Thus, they must limit the freedom women have by not allowing them to choose to kill the fetus within them. How you take from this argument that we hate women, that we think they are lesser creatures, that we want them to be submissive is beyond me. No, you are right, men do not have that restriction because they do not have the ability to become pregnant. If they did, the restriction would apply to them as well. It is not a sexist law. A ‘Minor In Possession’ only applies to minors because it can only be applied to minors. It is still a fair law. I admit, this is one of the stronger arguments for pro-choice people. Still, if one believes that the fetus is a human life with the same value as a newborn baby, they cannot allow the mother to kill it at her own convenience, just as she does not have that decision after the baby is born.

    Feel free to respond. Sorry I kinda wrote a book here. I would be excited to be right, but more excited to be proven wrong, for that is another step toward truth.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Franz:

      If we all started liking babies a lot at age 2, would that then change when it is fine to kill one?

      Probably.

      I fundamentally do not believe that morality is dictated by our emotions.

      By what then?

      I do not become emotionally attached to a baby at conception, or at least that is not what directs my beliefs. I simply believe that it becomes human at that moment, and that there is no moment after that is significant enough to be the moment where human life is applied to what you call a clump of cells.

      And that human = person and that you want to impose this opinion on the rest of the country (and the world, if you could influence that as well). Right?

      My view, by contrast, is to treat the pregnant woman like we treat parents. We cede to parents much control. We give them the benefit of the doubt for religious training (or not), punishment, and so on.

      I suggest that we do the same for the pregnant woman. She’s on the front lines, and (like the parents) we know that she has decent instincts for doing the right thing.

      But we do not have to be arbitrary when it comes to abortion.

      And “personhood begins at conception” isn’t arbitrary? I disagree. Sounds as arbitrary (or not) as any other point on the spectrum.

      At conception, the unique DNA is formed, the cell is made, and the development process starts, a process that, if allowed, will continue for many years.

      “if allowed”? So the whole thing is potential to you.

      There is no point earlier than conception that could really be argued for

      How about the twinkle in my eye, the point that preceded conception? Is every woman immoral if she didn’t have as many children as possible? Is every woman’s period a cause for mourning because of unfulfilled potential?

      No, for some reason, you see these as meaningless arguments, just like me. But for some reason, at conception, we might as well be talking about a 6-month-old cooing adorably in my arms.

      But at what point do you say, that thing looks human enough now, so now it is human. Is a beating heart life? Or breath? Or self awareness? Or pain awareness? A cut umbilical cord? The last IV removal? The age of reason? That is arbitrary.

      Arbitrary? You mean like we throw darts at a calendar to figure this out?

      This may surprise you, but each state has wrestled with this issue and come to a conclusion for how abortion is allowed in their state. The answers aren’t the same, but they’re answers. I think you’re confusing “tough” or “contentious” with “arbitrary.”

      “Why aren’t prolife people doing anything about it if they believe it is horrific?” They are. The right to life march? Hundreds of thousands of people attend annually

      Ridiculous. This shows that they care? Nope. It shows that they care about posturing.

      If they actually cared, they’d be taking steps to stop unwanted pregnancy! That’s the cause of the problem.

      Consider the rate of pregnancy in the Netherlands vs. the U.S. and then tell me that we’re doing a reasonable job preventing unwanted pregnancies.

      that does not mean they should just comply and be what you call ‘tolerant’, and allow what they believe is murder to continue.

      Who ever argued this? Your equating abortion with murder is (again) begging the question.

      Those who consider contraceptives wrong cannot justify their use because of their possible abortion reducing characteristics.

      Then those people obviously don’t consider abortion a modern-day Holocaust, as many claim.

      If we as a society separate the consequence of sex, procreation, from sex (contraceptives) then we are moving toward a culture that accepts abortions

      Was this supposed to make sense? Doesn’t to me.

      that disconnects responsibility from action.

      Sex is fun. If it has no downsides, what’s the problem?

      I think a good philosophy is to do what is morally right and then figure out how to deal with the consequences.

      I don’t much agree (we’d probably have to consider examples), but here again, you beg the question again by assuming that abolishing abortion is the morally right thing to do.

      never use the argument that allowing an unwanted baby to be born would only subject them to terrible, unhappy lives. Go talk to some people who are the results of failed abortions. Ask how many of them wish they had never been born.

      Kind of mental masturbation, since we can’t go back and choose fork 2 in the road or even consider what it would’ve been like.

      But to respond directly, I’ll bet there are people in jail born into hideous environments who would say exactly that.

      Sex is not an invitation to pregnancy? That simply is not the case. That is what sex is for.

      … and for feeling good.

      • Franz

        Again, with these comments your beliefs are starting to surface. Morality is based on emotion of the general public, so if everyone feels bad about a specific thing at a specific time, it is wrong, and nothing else influences morality. With this belief, we will never come to the same conclusion on the morality of abortion, because I believe that one of us is right, regardless of what everyone else believes. You believe that what everyone believes is right because they believe it. I am not trying to bash your philosophy, simply separate the roots of our beliefs.

        “I suggest that we do the same for the pregnant woman. She’s on the front lines, and (like the parents) we know that she has decent instincts for doing the right thing.”

        If I accepted morality as relative, of course I would agree. Not that she would find out what is right and do it, but because if she did what she felt was right, she would be right. But we differ in our understanding of morality.

        “And “personhood begins at conception” isn’t arbitrary? I disagree. Sounds as arbitrary (or not) as any other point on the spectrum.”

        I do not think it is arbitrary. It is not merely a point on the spectrum, it is the first point on the spectrum. It is the beginning. Where the fetus comes into being. When you are born, you did not just appear out of nowhere, you have already existed for nine months, you have been growing and developing for nine months. That thing in the womb exists. I do not understand how it moving a foot from inside the woman to out gives it humanity. The physical body is no different from those two points in time, and if there is a difference, it must be spiritual, which is not, I believe, what you are arguing. I can at least understand the argument that it is human, but the mother’s rights are stronger, or paramount while the fetus is in the womb.

        At conception, the unique DNA is formed, the cell is made, and the development process starts, a process that, if allowed, will continue for many years.

        “if allowed”? So the whole thing is potential to you.

        No… That is simply not what I said. If no one stops you, you will continue to grow. If no one does anything to stop you from growing, you will grow. The process starts at conception, and does not end at birth.

        There is no point earlier than conception that could really be argued for

        How about the twinkle in my eye, the point that preceded conception? Is every woman immoral if she didn’t have as many children as possible? Is every woman’s period a cause for mourning because of unfulfilled potential?
        No, for some reason, you see these as meaningless arguments, just like me. But for some reason, at conception, we might as well be talking about a 6-month-old cooing adorably in my arms.

        …What? I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Let me know if you think someone could make a substantial argument that a twinkle in the fathers eye is a person. As for the rest of the comment… No, you do not have to have as many children is possible, and it is fine if sex does not result in a pregnancy. I don’t know where you got these ideas. There are many differences between the human at conception and at six months. I just don’t believe one of those differences are whether they are a person or not.

        Arbitrary? You mean like we throw darts at a calendar to figure this out?
        This may surprise you, but each state has wrestled with this issue and come to a conclusion for how abortion is allowed in their state. The answers aren’t the same, but they’re answers. I think you’re confusing “tough” or “contentious” with “arbitrary.”

        Ok, that is a fair point, perhaps I did not think through my word choice as well as I should have. What I meant that our laws vary but does the truth vary? Do you become human at a different time depending on the state you are in? Perhaps that is what you believe.

        If they actually cared, they’d be taking steps to stop unwanted pregnancy! That’s the cause of the problem. Consider the rate of pregnancy in the Netherlands vs. the U.S. and then tell me that we’re doing a reasonable job preventing unwanted pregnancies.

        We aren’t doing a good job, there is no need for disagreement on that. But both should be concentrated on, we should be moving toward a culture that understands sex and are responsible people as well as a culture that does not kill our young. (Try not to be upset with the term young…)

        “that does not mean they should just comply and be what you call ‘tolerant’, and allow what they believe is murder to continue.

        Who ever argued this? Your equating abortion with murder is (again) begging the question.

        This comment angers me, because you did not read the comment you are responding to. These people who believe abortion is murder should fight to abolish it BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT IS MURDER. This argument is not based on the fact that abortion is murder, and therefore it does not beg the question.

        Sex is fun. If it has no downsides, what’s the problem?

        The problem is that you are looking at children as downsides. This being said, it does. No matter how well we do at reducing unwanted pregnancies, I think it is a fantasy to believe we could eliminate them. So what is the downside? Having to kill the result. Or unwanted children.

        I don’t much agree (we’d probably have to consider examples), but here again, you beg the question again by assuming that abolishing abortion is the morally right thing to do.

        I see how you could see this as begging the question, but this was not to prove abortion immoral, but to simply eliminate the economic factors when considering whether abortion is immoral.

        But to respond directly, I’ll bet there are people in jail born into hideous environments who would say exactly that.

        Perhaps some do, but that does not allow us to decide their life is not worth it.

        Sex is not an invitation to pregnancy? That simply is not the case. That is what sex is for.

        … and for feeling good.

        No… Sex feels good. It does not exist so that we may have one more thing that rewards our brain, but so that we would be encouraged to reproduce.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          with these comments your beliefs are starting to surface.

          My blog has almost 300 posts. I’m not trying to be secretive here, detective.

          Morality is based on emotion of the general public, so if everyone feels bad about a specific thing at a specific time, it is wrong

          My view is that “X is wrong” always comes with a platform. That is just a shorthand for saying “X is wrong from the platform of Y.” For example: “Abortion is wrong from the platform of Franz.” But then: “Abortion is acceptable from the platform of Bob.”

          We have a difference of opinion. You’ve seen thousands of these in your life. Not surprising. One might convince the other, or not. This is how morality changes within society (how slavery went from acceptable to not, for example).

          Since this explains the facts nicely, I have no use for the incredible claim that there is an objective morality accessible by human minds.

          I believe that one of us is right, regardless of what everyone else believes.

          You just gonna point to objective morality, or are you going to show us that it actually exists and is accessible?

          You believe that what everyone believes is right because they believe it.

          Every moral statement comes with a platform (implied or explicit).

          If I accepted morality as relative, of course I would agree.

          Is correct parenting objective? If so, why not impose those views on the rest of us as well?

          It is not merely a point on the spectrum, it is the first point on the spectrum. It is the beginning. Where the fetus comes into being.

          You’re doing nothing to argue that your preferred point on the spectrum is different from any other. It’s a beginning, sure. Why not go back in time to the parents’ desire for sex as the beginning? Or their sexual maturity? Or go forward to the first heart beat or when the brain is advanced enough to feel pain?

          And, more bizarre, you’re so convinced of the rightness of your position, that you want to impose that on everyone else in the country by law. Wow.

          I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Let me know if you think someone could make a substantial argument that a twinkle in the fathers eye is a person.

          Then perhaps you can feel my incredulity–you actually say that a single, invisible cell is a person. Wow.

          I’ve seen persons, and something you need a microscope to see isn’t one.

          I don’t know where you got these ideas.

          I’m just goin’ where you’re pointin’.

          There are many differences between the human at conception and at six months. I just don’t believe one of those differences are whether they are a person or not.

          Then I’ll repeat my challenge: you tell me what property a newborn has that a single cell doesn’t. If it’s not personhood (and they both have that property), then what? Surely this vast spectrum can be named.

          What I meant that our laws vary but does the truth vary? Do you become human at a different time depending on the state you are in?

          You’re all over the map with these terms. If we say that human = Homo sapiens, then the fetus is a human from conception, and we’re on the same page. Pick a property that the newborn has that the cell doesn’t.

          We aren’t doing a good job, there is no need for disagreement on that.

          Good. Then focus your considerable energy for this subject where it can actually do some good: prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unlike the current pro-life movement, you’ll find no opposition. Wouldn’t that be a powerful reboot of the pro-life movement, to move to where they can go arm-in-arm with atheists, liberals, Democrats, whatever on this issue instead of being divisive?

          (And BTW, IMO the Right is using you. They benefit from the friction.)

          The problem is that you are looking at children as downsides.

          And you never do? Consider some of the abysmal conditions unwanted children are born into.

          I think it is a fantasy to believe we could eliminate [abortions].

          I’m not talking about eliminating them; I’m talking about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by a factor of 10. Impossible? That’s the situation in the Netherlands today.

        • Franz

          For example: “Abortion is wrong from the platform of Franz.” But then: “Abortion is acceptable from the platform of Bob.”… One might convince the other, or not. This is how morality changes within society (how slavery went from acceptable to not, for example).

          Right so as I understand it, Franz believes abortion is wrong, abortion is wrong for him. Bob believes abortion is right, abortion is right for him. So then… If Franz convinces Bob of his opinion, it then becomes wrong for Bob? Or does Franz believe it is wrong for everyone and Bob right for everybody?

          Is correct parenting objective? If so, why not impose those views on the rest of us as well?

          Parenting is not a choice, it is millions of decisions. If you picked a specific one, we could argue and debate and analyze in order to find a better or best choice, but that also depends on the goals, and your understanding of a well-rounded child. So if I found a choice that was harmful to the child that enough people were choosing, then yes I would like to impose my views. For example, if parents were giving their young children cigarettes, I would absolutely feel comfortable stepping in to impose my views.

          Why not go back in time to the parents’ desire for sex as the beginning? Or their sexual maturity? Or go forward to the first heart beat or when the brain is advanced enough to feel pain?

          Ah! We’ve finally reached a place to put the word “potential”. When my parents desired a child or desired sex, I guess you could consider me a potential child. But I in no way existed, except perhaps as an idea. When they engaged in sex, and conception took place, I begun to exist. The single cell grew larger and looked more and more like a human. Moving forward, the reason I don’t think we can pick one of those points further along the spectrum is that none of them by themselves suppose humanity. If a person does not physically feel pain, we do not consider them non-human. Ergo, active pain receptors do not determine humanity. If someone has a robotic heart that channels blood through the body, we would not consider them non-human. BUT if something did not exist, they would be non-human. The moment the cell is created through conception, we come into being. From that point on, existence is there, it does not pop in when a heart beats or the brain feels pain.

          Then I’ll repeat my challenge: you tell me what property a newborn has that a single cell doesn’t. If it’s not personhood (and they both have that property), then what? Surely this vast spectrum can be named.

          I feel like I have already answered this. Physical development.

          Good. Then focus your considerable energy for this subject where it can actually do some good: prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unlike the current pro-life movement, you’ll find no opposition. Wouldn’t that be a powerful reboot of the pro-life movement, to move to where they can go arm-in-arm with atheists, liberals, Democrats, whatever on this issue instead of being divisive?

          Finding a belief with no opposition is not the goal of moral progress. Again I emphasize that both are to be targeted. It could be more practical to spend 100% of our energy toward preventing unwanted pregnancies, but there are two problems with that. 1. Abortions will still happen. 2. Abortion being legal increases unwanted pregnancies. I’m not sure if you believe this or not but the logic is there. If there were no outs in responsibility for becoming pregnant, there would be a much stronger incentive to avoid it.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          So then… If Franz convinces Bob of his opinion, it then becomes wrong for Bob?

          Obviously.

          For example, if parents were giving their young children cigarettes, I would absolutely feel comfortable stepping in to impose my views.

          Me too. And if a mother wanted to kill her 6-month-old child I’d want to impose my views as well. Or possibly if she wanted to violate the abortion laws of her state.

          But then we have the more likely situation where a parent is maybe a little harsher than I would like (or maybe too negligent or tolerant of misbehavior or insensitive to the rest of us shoppers or anything else), and I’d let it go. Same for a more reasonable approach by the pregnant woman.

          When my parents desired a child or desired sex, I guess you could consider me a potential child. But I in no way existed, except perhaps as an idea.

          And guess what: as a single cell you didn’t much exist either. You were one trillionth the size you would be at birth, and far less than that in terms of development.

          Spectrum.

          The single cell grew larger and looked more and more like a human.

          Yep, spectrum.

          Moving forward, the reason I don’t think we can pick one of those points further along the spectrum is that none of them by themselves suppose humanity.

          If you want to quibble about this point or that point along the development spectrum, go ahead. I have neither interest nor expertise to get involved with that conversation. My only request is that you don’t conclude that your musings are so profound that you’re entitled to impose them on the rest of the country.

          I feel like I have already answered this. Physical development.

          Then I don’t understand your answer. A newborn has “physical development” and a single cell doesn’t? “Personhood” doesn’t do it for you?

          Finding a belief with no opposition is not the goal of moral progress.

          But getting results is. (Again, I contrast this with the politicization of the abortion issue, where Republicans have no interest in seeing this issue resolved. They benefit from the controversy. I have no interest in playing that game.)

          It could be more practical to spend 100% of our energy toward preventing unwanted pregnancies, but there are two problems with that. 1. Abortions will still happen. 2. Abortion being legal increases unwanted pregnancies.

          Yep, abortions will still happen. And 40 years of pro-life whining has done very little to give you want you (claim) you want. So let me suggest the radical idea that doing more of the same will get you the same (non-)results you’ve gotten already. But if you could mimic the results in the Netherlands, you could cut the abortion rate 90%. That you seem to have little interest in focusing on results makes me think that this abortion-as-Holocaust thinking is just a facade.

          If there were no outs in responsibility for becoming pregnant, there would be a much stronger incentive to avoid it.

          Abortion being illegal will mean no abortions? I’m afraid your view of reality is naïve.

        • Franz

          For example, if parents were giving their young children cigarettes, I would absolutely feel comfortable stepping in to impose my views.

          Me too. And if a mother wanted to kill her 6-month-old child I’d want to impose my views as well.

          Ok so here we can clarify some things. You believe those things are both severe enough to be legislated by law. How, HOW is it different when I think something is severe enough to be legislated by law? I hate the ‘imposing your view” argument. It is circular and hypocritical. You still have an argument without it, I would just drop it.
          I understand why you would not want this law imposed. But you still have to accept why I think it should be.

          And guess what: as a single cell you didn’t much exist either. You were one trillionth the size you would be at birth, and far less than that in terms of development.

          DIDN’T MUCH EXIST. I don’t think that makes sense as a phrase. Can something be partially in existence? Can an object partially exist? I under the impression that something existed or did not exist. The cell was there. Whether I was there or not is the argument. But nothing partially exists.

          If you want to quibble about this point or that point along the development spectrum, go ahead. I have neither interest nor expertise to get involved with that conversation. My only request is that you don’t conclude that your musings are so profound that you’re entitled to impose them on the rest of the country.

          Again I don’t think I picked a mere point on the spectrum. There are an infinite number of points on the spectrum, many of them containing relatively significant changes in the body. But why is the spectrum there, what is developing? Conception was not a mere change or development. It was the beginning, the coming into existence of that which would naturally become what you consider a human person.

          Then I don’t understand your answer. A newborn has “physical development” and a single cell doesn’t? “Personhood” doesn’t do it for you?

          A newborn is (more) physically developed. No personhood does not.

          But getting results is.

          We simply aren’t abandoning our cause because it seems difficult or improbable. That does not affect the morality of the act.

          Yep, abortions will still happen. And 40 years of pro-life whining has done very little to give you want you (claim) you want. So let me suggest the radical idea that doing more of the same will get you the same (non-)results you’ve gotten already. But if you could mimic the results in the Netherlands, you could cut the abortion rate 90%. That you seem to have little interest in focusing on results makes me think that this abortion-as-Holocaust thinking is just a facade.

          What I claim I want? What is it that I really want, if it is not the protection of the unborn? I apologize if I seem to little interest in those matters, for I can assure you I do not. But alas, this thread is discussing the morality of abortion, and the fact that we would both like to reduce them is a start.

          Abortion being illegal will mean no abortions?

          No. It would not eliminate them but it would greatly reduce them. Additionally, perhaps as a culture we would be moving toward a greater respect for procreation and life.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          I hate the ‘imposing your view” argument. It is circular and hypocritical.

          Why? It’s central to my argument. My argument is pro choice. You want to not abort your baby? That’s great. You want to abort it before the time legislated in your part of the world? Also great. It’s your choice.

          It’s when we have Franz imposing his views on strangers across the country that it gets weird very quickly.

          DIDN’T MUCH EXIST. I don’t think that makes sense as a phrase. Can something be partially in existence?

          Perhaps you haven’t heard of my spectrum argument? A single cell isn’t a person, a newborn is, and it’s a spectrum in between. (And if you’d prefer a different word for the property that a fetus partly has, suggest one.)

          A newborn is (more) physically developed. No personhood does not.

          Since I can’t make any sense out of “a newborn is a physically developed and a single cell isn’t,” I’ll just say instead “a newborn is a person and a single cell isn’t.” You’ll know what I mean.

          We simply aren’t abandoning our cause because it seems difficult or improbable. That does not affect the morality of the act.

          You say that you really want to get on the other side of the wall. You say that it’s a moral imperative. So you bang your head over and over again. You aren’t getting much results, but there are some tiny cracks, so you’re determined to stay the course. It’s hard, but it’s the moral thing to do.

          I’m simply pointing out that there’s a door just over here. And it’s unlocked. No one will stand in your way. Guys, don’t you want to try the door? Guys? Hello-o-o?

          What I claim I want? What is it that I really want, if it is not the protection of the unborn?

          I can’t imagine. Posturing. Being part of a group. Feeling sanctimonious. I honestly don’t know, so I don’t want to tell you.

          But since you’re avoiding the easy approach, all I can conclude is that you’re not serious about your goal. Or that you’re exaggerating how terrible abortion really is.

          Do I not get it? Then help me understand why you have little interest in the easy way.

          [Abortions being illegal] would not eliminate them but it would greatly reduce them.

          I doubt it. I’ve seen studies showing that illegal abortions would simply step in to fill the gap.

        • Franz

          Why? It’s central to my argument.

          No… your argument is that this particular law should not be imposed, not that people’s views cannot be imposed. You yourself want to impose some laws that you believe in on the country, e.g. rape murder etc. You don’t say, “Don’t like murder? Don’t do it. But don’t impose your beliefs on me.” Imposing is fine. You just don’t want this specific law.

          Since I can’t make any sense out of “a newborn is a physically developed and a single cell isn’t,”…

          I don’t know why you cant make sense of this. Would it help to add the word ‘more’? I think that difference between the first cell and a newborn is that the newborn is more physically developed.

          I’m simply pointing out that there’s a door just over here. And it’s unlocked. No one will stand in your way.

          I do understand what you are saying with this, and I partially agree, there are ways to decrease abortions that both pro-life and pro-choice people agree on, and those should be sought after and encouraged. Maybe in many pro-lifers, that side is under looked/ignored. Still, I do not think it is impossible to overturn the abortion law, so yes, I will continue to fight it.

          I can’t imagine. Posturing. Being part of a group… Do I not get it? Then help me understand why you have little interest in the easy way.

          I guess it’s possible that some do it to… feel accepted? I’m still not quite sure of what you mean, but I can assure you, I would like to protect the unborn. Also, just because there is no political opposition to fighting unwanted pregnancies does not make it easy. That being said, I am still for it, as I stated above.

          I doubt it. I’ve seen studies showing that illegal abortions would simply step in to fill the gap.

          This is a joke. You couldn’t possibly believe that, I feel as if you feel you have to argue every point I make, regardless of logic. You think millions of law abiding girls and women would find back-alley abortionists? That instituting law and the removal of clinics all over the country would have little to no affect? If you really believe that, we can keep discussing, but that severely makes me question several things, including your motives while debating.

        • Nate Frein

          This is a joke. You couldn’t possibly believe that, I feel as if you feel you have to argue every point I make, regardless of logic. You think millions of law abiding girls and women would find back-alley abortionists? That instituting law and the removal of clinics all over the country would have little to no affect? If you really believe that, we can keep discussing, but that severely makes me question several things, including your motives while debating.

          No, it’s not a joke, as you can see here. It is rather tragic, actually, because there is far less safety involved for the women.

          The thing is, the same opponents of abortion also work to restrict other means of family planning, which means that women who would have used an IUD or pill (or even condoms) are instead forced to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          Imposing is fine. You just don’t want this specific law.

          Yeah. We could argue about imposing don’t-murder laws on society, but I think we’re on the same page there.

          I don’t know why you cant make sense of this.

          Yes, the newborn is more developed than the single cell, but there’s no goal here. You can’t be 150% of a person–you reach “person,” and then you stop. Where’s the goal with “developed”? If something is developed to a level of 6, can it develop further to 7 or 10 or 100,000? I dunno–”developed” is just an abstract unit-less term. That’s why “developed” is useless here.

          I think that difference between the first cell and a newborn is that the newborn is more physically developed.

          That is true, but it’s meaningless. You do realize that we’re talking about abortion here, right? The question is where we draw the line. The line is binary–OK to kill in this side and not on that side.

          I do understand what you are saying with this

          Yes, that was a good restatement.

          Still, I do not think it is impossible to overturn the abortion law, so yes, I will continue to fight it.

          It’s not Roe v. Wade, it’s abortion laws in every state. And I continue to be baffled why you want to take the hard route. All I can conclude is that the “abortion is a modern-day Holocaust” stuff is a smoke screen. (I don’t know if you say it this way, but some do.) If it actually were important to you, you’d gravitate to the most efficacious route.

          just because there is no political opposition to fighting unwanted pregnancies does not make it easy.

          You’ve got enormous pushback to your frontal assault. Is that insignificant? God is just going to knock over your opponents or something, like the walls of Jericho? Everyone, by definition, is on the same page with you in wanting to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Doesn’t mean it’s easy, I’ll grant you, but that seems to be the way to go if you actually care about this issue.

          You think millions of law abiding girls and women would find back-alley abortionists?

          Just how bad do you think unwanted pregnancy is? You think it’s just a nuisance? Can you put yourself in the place of a 15-yo girl who is looking at her life changing completely, all the plans that she and her family put in place for her since her birth changed? Read up on it.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nate:

          No, it’s not a joke

          I think that Franz has a hard time imagining the magnitude of the problem. It doesn’t affect him, and putting himself in the shoes of someone with an unwanted pregnancy is difficult.

        • Franz

          Nate:
          (From the article)

          “Experts couldn’t say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.”

          ” Almost all unsafe abortions were in developing countries”

          Illegal abortions are unsafe… agreed… Nothing in that article showed evidence that abolishing abortion would have no or negative effects on abortion numbers. Do not assume I share all the beliefs of those that believe abortion is wrong. Also, I limited this conversation for a reason. contraceptives are not the topic. So everything else being the same, no, in the civilized first world country we live in, no I do not think there would be just as many illegal abortions.
          Bob:

          I dunno–”developed” is just an abstract unit-less term. That’s why “developed” is useless here.

          Goal? I was simply answering the question of what I believe the difference is between a single cell and a newborn. The newborn is further along in the process of development. It is larger, is formed more like an adult, has more cells. I could give you numbers of cells but I don’t think that would help. Other than physical development, I do not think there are… really any differences. My goal was to answer that question and I think I did, I don’t know a lot of other ways to phrase it. Also, yes, the body continues to develop. I believe the brain is the last to finish growing and changing around age 25.

          That is true, but it’s meaningless. You do realize that we’re talking about abortion here, right? The question is where we draw the line. The line is binary–OK to kill in this side and not on that side.

          You asked me the difference between those two entities. If you now are asking me where on the developmental scale it becomes a person, I would say nowhere. No line on that scale makes it a person. I think it’s a person when it begins to exist, at conception. Before then, it did not exist, and it will continue to exist until killed or death from natural causes.

          Doesn’t mean it’s easy, I’ll grant you, but that seems to be the way to go if you actually care about this issue.

          Even if I were to agree that I should spend more energy working against unwanted pregnancy, that does not change my beliefs about abortion. It is still wrong even if working toward its abolishment is not the most efficient way to lowering unwanted abortions. That is the argument at hand.

          Just how bad do you think unwanted pregnancy is? You think it’s just a nuisance? Can you put yourself in the place of a 15-yo girl who is looking at her life changing completely, all the plans that she and her family put in place for her since her birth changed? Read up on it.

          Absolutely, it is a horrible situation. But many women, who are already terrified of getting an abortion, or on the edge of the decision, or who do not want to break the law, they would not. Not every woman who gets an abortion is a 15 year old girl.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Franz:

          I was simply answering the question of what I believe the difference is between a single cell and a newborn.

          You don’t like “the newborn is a person and the single cell is not,” so we replace that with: the newborn is a developed and the single cell is not?

          You can perhaps see why this word doesn’t fit what I asked you for.

          Other than physical development, I do not think there are… really any differences.

          Right, and other than size, there really isn’t any difference between the rock in my hand and the Moon. And yet we have a name to describe the difference, the Moon is a moon and the rock isn’t.

          That’s what I’m looking for.

          Even if I were to agree that I should spend more energy working against unwanted pregnancy, that does not change my beliefs about abortion.

          Understood. I’m pointing out that the rationale grounding your position is suspect if you say you’re trying to prevent abortion but don’t work on the most efficacious approach.

          I doubt you’re doing this deliberately, but this is the kind of monkey business that politicians do–have a good story for why they’re doing something when they’re really doing it for some other reason.