One Wonders What Actually Occurs in the Pro-Abort Brain

One Wonders What Actually Occurs in the Pro-Abort Brain October 22, 2014

“I would have died for my aborted daughter’s right to choose”.

But instead she killed her and made sure she never got to exercise that right.

This is what postmoderns regard as “self-sacrifice” these days. Insane.

"It is great website, thanks for pointing it out."

Ignatius: A Brief Introduction to the ..."
"Ok, I misunderstood you. I apologise. You said that Catholics did not worship a God ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The references may be clear to you. My point, obvious, is that English-speaking readers are ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marthe Lépine

    Actually, this makes some kind of twisted sense. It does fit in a world where there are discussions about euthanizing the sick, where the elderly are about to be generally encouraged to let themselves be killed because they are no longer considered useful and where able-bodied people still capable of working are considered as little more than tools to be thrown away when no longer useful. Unfortunate, but true…

  • JJG

    To accept abortion is to deny scientific reality, unless of course you happen to think that murdering children is okay, so it is unsurprising to find equally muddled “thinking” to justify the practice. I recall “greeting” cards that post-abortive women were supposed to write to their aborted children which said: “I love you, but I couldn’t keep you”. (Because mother had you killed.)

    Modern feminist thought has even decide that we now need feminist programming languages, presumably because logic is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy (or something). I’m not making this up:

    http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages

    So there you go.

    • JJG

      In case anyone didn’t care to wade through the stark, raving nonsense of the link I posted above, the author boils it down to its essence in this excerpt from one of her comments:

      There exist logics that handle contradiction as part of the system, namely paraconsistent logic. I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction, that is a system where the following statement is not explosive: (p && ¬p) == 1.

      IOW, what is being proposed is a violation of the Aristotelian principle of the “law of non-contradiction”, later generalized as the “law of the excluded middle”. Orwell referred to the ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously as “doublethink”. But the implications for computer technology are even more stunning. Computers are essentially big boxes of switches, which are either off (0) or on (1). Third-wave feminists are proposing machines that can’t tell the difference, and therefore can’t function _at_ _all_, which demonstrates the destructiveness of these “ideas”, if one can even call them that.

      So it’s not terribly surprising that one would have to enter into an essentially dissociative state to justify abortion. Nor is it surprising that this inherent destructive tendency should ultimately be applied to human life.

      • JM1001

        Computers are essentially big boxes of switches, which are either off (0) or on (1).

        Well … not so fast.

        Digital Computers are essentially big boxes of switches, which are either off (0) or on (1).

        But a Quantum Computer would have no such limitation; its switches could be both off (0) and on (1) at the same time (which is pretty cool, when you think about it).

        And so we have the bizarre consequences of “quantum logic” in which the statement “p && -p” can indeed be true.

        What I find most stunning about the link is that the author seems completely unaware that non-Aristotelian logic has been discussed among computer scientists for years, especially with the prospect of quantum computers on the way. She seems to think non-Aristotelian logic is somehow new and inherently “feminist,” as opposed to classical Aristotelian logic. Truly strange.

        • Kristin

          Woah woah woah, is she suggesting that Aristotelian logic isn’t suitable for women? Uh, as a female programmer, I take offense to that.

        • JJG

          No, not really. Quantum mechanics assigns probabilities to the two states p and ~p, and that remains unresolved until an “observation” collapses the wave function. But once that happens, it’s either/or. One still can’t say they’re both “true” simultaneously before the act of “observation” – the result is indeterminate, – and no actual computation can take place beforehand.

          There is also “fuzzy” logic which deals with probabilities of states, but again, you never get true=false, which is what feminist logic asserts.

          If you’re interested in how q.m. really works, I suggest reading the classic text Max Jammer’s The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. I’m sorry, but popular accounts tend to paper over the details and end up giving misleading impressions.

          • JM1001

            …and no actual computation can take place beforehand.

            I’m sorry, but this is wrong.

            A quantum boolean value can be both false and true at the same time (superposition), and those two “paths” can be explored in parallel. As long as the quantum “black box” is closed to observers, computations can occur on superpositions of states.

            But yeah, ultimately, once observed, the value will be either true or false.

            • JJG

              Let Q be the wave function for a bit, and O the (Hermitian, i.e., self-adjoint) “observation” operator. Then Q can be expressed in terms of the two eigenstates of O, viz., |0> and |1>, which form an orthonormal basis for Q.

              Then Q = sqrt(P0) |0> + sqrt(P1) |1>

              where P0 is the probability of being in |0>, and P1 the probability of being in |1>. The total probability over all states must be unity, so P0 + P1 = 1 is a constraint on the system.

              Thus, Q is a vector with Euclidean norm sqrt(P0 + P1) = 1, but it’s angle fluctuates randomly in time over the range [0, π/2]. When the angle is 0, Q = |0> with no component along |1>, and when it is π/2, Q = |1> with no component along |0>. Therefore the law of non-contradiction is not violated, contrary to your assertion.

              What makes QM “odd” is not that a system is in two states at once, but that its state remains superposed until the observation occurs. And this has been shown to be not just a manner of speaking, i.e., that the system is really in one of the eigenstates and not the others but we just don’t know it, but that it really _does_ remain superposed until the observation occurs.

              While the multipath scenario you speak of is possible, (my mistake), it is in practice quite difficult to keep the system “unobserved”. See, for example:

              http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.321#references

    • MarylandBill

      I found the whole thing ironic since women played a key role in the development of computer programming starting with Ada Lovelace back in the 19th century.

  • Joseph

    So, if I murder my neighbor who is could potentially develop terminal cancer in their lifetime, am I doing it to preempt their choice to commit suicide… er… um… have a doctor assist them with euthanasia? Would that make me a champion of choice? Interesting… so I have an excuse.

  • Tom

    Have you seen the “Dear Little Thing” letter that was making the rounds a few days ago?

    • elle

      OK..I read the “Dear Little Thing” letter and two things struck me. 1) Poor girl thinks when she has all the right “stuff” parenting will be whatever she thinks it’s supposed to be. I’m hoping next time she knows better. And 2) I hadn’t realized reincarnation was a common assumption. The next time? No….this baby was this baby. That’s it. There are no do-overs.

  • JM1001

    For years the “pro-choice” crowd fought to change the subject whenever pro-lifers brought the debate back to the central question: are the unborn human? After all, you can’t just choose to kill a human, no matter how inconvenient he or she might be. As my friend Scott Klusendorf has argued in hundreds of debates, if babies are human before birth (as almost everyone agrees they are after birth), then choice is irrelevant. Their right to life trumps all other claims.

    That’s why, for almost forty years following Roe v. Wade, abortion defenders spilled buckets of ink to drown that question.

    Actually, the central question was never, “Are the unborn human?” because that question is scientifically absurd. Of course they are human — they belong to species homo sapiens, and DNA can prove that.

    Rather, the central question has always been, “Are unborn humans persons?” And in order to answer that question, one must define “person” or when “personhood” begins, which are metaphysical questions.

    And thus we get many pro-choice philosophers who concede the basic scientific fact that unborn humans are indeed human (they possess human DNA and are a unique human organism), but argue that they are not persons (under some definition of “person” that does not include fetuses). Or, to use a phrase popular among some bioethicists: Fetuses are “human non-persons.” This helps explain why pro-choice advocates kept using the phrases “blobs of tissue” or “clumps of cells” — we are all blobs of tissue and clumps of cells, but the argument was that unborn humans are only this, and nothing more. In other words, they lack the metaphysical status of persons.

    A much more extreme argument concedes that fetuses are both human and persons, but that abortion is morally permissible anyway (Judith Jarvis Thomson).

    But the current argument has shifted even beyond that extreme: Now they claim that even if fetuses are persons, not only is abortion morally permissible, it is morally praiseworthy; the unborn human can now be said to have died for me — a kind of noble self-sacrifice.

  • Alma Peregrina

    “I would have died for my aborted daughter’s right to choose”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvMRK3SjRCE

    • MarylandBill

      Actually she kind of proved that she wouldn’t die for her daughter’s right to choose since she ultimately took all choices away from her child by killing it before it was born.

  • Elmwood

    worst poetry ever…. never mind her horrible accent.