When the antiabortion movement meets the antivaccine movement...

Many are the lies and epic is the misinformation spread by the antivaccine movement. For instance, they claim that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), cancer, and a wide variety of other conditions and diseases when there is no credible evidence that they do and lots of evidence that they don't. One particularly pernicious myth, designed to appeal (if you can call it that) to religious fundamentalists, is the claim that vaccines are made using fetal parts. This particular claim reared its ugly head again in the context of a propaganda campaign against Planned Parenthood that hit the news last week.

Before I get to the "sting" operation against Planned Parenthood, bear with me a moment while I discuss a bit about the background here. It definitely has bearing on the attempt by David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress to "prove" that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal parts for profit. First, you need to realize that fear mongering about "fetal parts" in vaccines is, not surprisingly, a distortion of the real situation, which is that the human cell lines used to make some vaccines. Specifically, the WI-38 cell line is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962 in the US. Another cell line, MRC-5, was derived from lung fibroblasts of a 14 week old fetus in 1966 in the United Kingdom. These are currently the only fetal cell lines used to grow viruses for vaccines, with most other vaccines requiring cell lines using animal cell lines (which, of course, leads antivaccinationists to disparage them as "dirty" and using "monkey cells" and the like). In any case, the only commonly used vaccines in which these cell lines are utilized are:

  • Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
  • Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
  • Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
  • Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]

Although antiabortion antivaccine activists try to make it sound as though scientists are aborting babies left and right just to grind them up to make vaccines, in reality there are only two cell lines used this way, and they are so far removed from the original abortions that even the Catholic Church has said that it is morally acceptable to use such vaccines, although the statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life does urge scientists to develop vaccines that don't use these cell lines. Basically, the Church concluded that the extreme good of protecting children's lives far outweighed the distant evil (in the Church's view) that created the cell lines, concluding in a FAQ, “There would seem to be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious disease, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for the health of our children, public health, and the common good” and “It should be obvious that vaccine use in these cases does not contribute directly to the practice of abortion since the reasons for having an abortion are not related to vaccine preparation.”

A variant of this gambit is to claim that there is fetal DNA in vaccines and that this is the cause of every evil under the sun attributed to vaccines. Perhaps the foremost proponent of this brain dead claim is a woman who really should know better. I'm referring, of course, to Theresa Deisher, of whom I first became aware way back in 2009, when I first learned of her attempts to link fetal DNA in vaccines to autism. It was, as I referred to it at the time, thermonuclear stupid, similar to the claim of Helen Ratajczak that fetal DNA from vaccines somehow would get into brain cells and undergo recombination with the baby's native DNA to result in the production of altered proteins on the cell surface of the brain's cells, thus provoking an autoimmune reaction and—voilà!—autism.

It's an idea that's so implausible that it's worth explaining why again. To do what Dr. Ratajczak and Deisher claim, the minute amount of human DNA in a vaccine from the human fetal cell line used to grow up the virus would have to:

  • Find its way to the brain in significant quantities.
  • Make it into the neurons in the brain in significant quantities.
  • Make it into the nucleus of the neurons in significant quantities.
  • Undergo homologous recombination at a detectable level, resulting in either the alteration of a cell surface protein or the expression of a foreign cell surface protein that the immune system can recognize.
  • Undergo homologous recombination in many neurons in such a way that results in the neurons having cell surface protein(s) altered sufficiently to be recognized as foreign.

In other words, from a strictly scientific point of view, blaming the DNA from “fetal cells” used to make vaccine is pretty darned implausible. True, it’s not, as I’m wont to say, homeopathy-level implausible, but it wouldn’t take all that much to get there. The amazing thing is that Deisher is actually a scientist, with a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology. (Holy doctorate Batman, that's the same as mine! She even once worked for an evil pharmaceutical company, Amgen!) Given that, she really should know better, but she doesn't. She even founded Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, which is dedicated to combat embryonic stem cell research and "share the research that indicts the use of aborted fetal vaccines as a trigger for the autism epidemic." You get the idea.

I also like to point out that from a strictly physical standpoint this concept that fetal DNA can somehow recombine with infant DNA is pretty ridiculous. Vaccines are injected intramuscularly, and any tiny amount of contaminating DNA that might be present won't go very far. If it goes anywhere into the body, it'll be to the muscle cells nearby, which can take up DNA in a functional form. I like to point out as well that I know this from direct experimental experience. Back when I was a graduate student, one of our projects was to inject plasmid DNA into rat muscle and determine whether we could get reporter gene expression appropriately regulated by the promoter controlling the gene. It worked. Then there's also the not inconsequential matter of the blood-brain barrier, through which DNA doesn't pass easily. Unfortunately, Deisher just doesn't give up, publishing more recent (and equally bad) "studies" trying to "prove" that fetal DNA in vaccines is an evil cause of autism. They've been no better than her earlier studies; indeed, they've been embarrassingly bad.

So it turns out that the antiabortion movement and the antivaccine movement can make not-so-beautiful pseudoscience together, which brings us back to Planned Parenthood. Even though abortion services make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's activity, with the other 97% of services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services, Planned Parenthood remains a target of the antiabortion movement. So it was that David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress have released two heavily edited videos claiming to represent Planned Parenthood officials discussing the "sale" of fetal body parts from abortions. The first video has been deconstructed by many different media outlets and shown to have been deceptively edited to leave out the Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly telling the people doing the sting operation that its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research. Indeed, as these deconstructions of the distorted presentation of information rolled in, I couldn't help but think that the techniques used by Daleiden sure resembled the deceptive techniques used by the antivaccine movement, and I briefly thought of Deisher.

Then this story appeared over the weekend in The Daily Beast:

Anti-vaxxers couldn’t be happier about the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue donation programs. Many in the anti-vaccine movement have long maintained that fetal tissue in vaccines is behind increasing rates of autism, even though vaccines do not contain fetal tissue and rates of autism might not be rising after all.

But the anti-vaccine movement isn’t just piggybacking on David Daleiden’s undercover sting investigation into the women’s health provider. One of its icons tutored him.

Hmmm. One wonders who that icon might be, one does. Well, look no further:

But an interview with Daleiden in the National Catholic Register revealed this crucial detail: “Theresa Deisher helped to prepare [him] for his role as a biomedical representative, teaching him the ins and outs of the field.” Deisher, who did not respond to request for comment, is one of the chief proponents of the debunked theory that fetal DNA in vaccines is linked to autism.

For Daleiden, a man who, as The New York Times noted “only reluctantly talk[s] about himself,” the link to Deisher is one more clue about his background and the origins of his investigation. Daleiden has already been linked to a retinue of far-right activists—including the militant pro-life group Operation Rescue, which is partially funding the CMP—but his training under a noted vaccine skeptic has not yet been brought to light.

Until now. This is how Deisher is described in the National Catholic Register:

As her respect for the unborn grew, so did her intolerance for working in a field where experimenting on material from aborted babies is rampant. She is now the president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute and CEO of AVM Biotechnology; both companies have a mission to end the use of aborted babies in biomedical research.

In the same article, she claims that we're "taking a baby and chopping it up to make vaccines," which, as I described at the beginning of this article scientists most certainly do not do. Let's just put it this way. Deisher's "research" is so sloppy that even those who share her implacable opposition to abortion can't support it, pointing out, quite correctly:

However, deeply held beliefs do not make for rigorous scientific inquiry. And pro-life parents seeking to do the best by their children and by their culture deserve better than to have a plausible sounding lie masquerading as truth.

Of course, I can't help but point out that the lie here is only plausible sounding if you don't have a background in molecular biology. Even a freshman-level introduction to molecular biology provides more than enough knowledge to know why Theresa Deisher's idea of how fetal DNA in vaccines can cause autism (I won't even dignify it by calling it a hypothesis) is an enormous pile of wet, stinky BS. Even if you do believe abortion is a great evil, is it not also evil to misuse your scientific knowledge and credentials to spread a lie, such as the lie that fetal DNA in vaccines causes autism. Yet that lie is exactly the one that Deisher has been spreading for at least seven years. So willing is she to spread it that she got into bed with activists willing to represent themselves as being part of a fake company (Biomax Procurement Services) to try to induce Planned Parenthood into illegally selling fetal body parts.

The confluence of fundamentalist religion that believes abortion to be the same as murder with the antivaccine movement might surprise those who don't pay the intense attention to both of them that I and other skeptics do. It shouldn't. There has long been a wing of the antivaccine movement that uses the existence and use of the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines as reason to attack vaccination. Theresa Deisher is particularly dangerous because she used to be a real scientist until her embrace of an unholy union of antiabortion and antivaccine pseudoscience led her to produce a seemingly "scientific" rationale for not vaccinating that tapped into the opposition to abortion shared by Catholicism and various fundamentalist religions. Her willingness to coach a con man like David Daleiden shows just how far she will go in the service of her now anti-science agenda. She also serves as a useful reminder that antivaccine pseudoscience is the pseudoscience that knows no political boundaries. For every hippy dippy all "natural"-type antivaccine activist, there's a right-wing fundamentalist like David Daleiden, who could do real damage to the vaccine program when backed by someone like Theresa Deisher.

Categories

More like this

We already force people to live by our religious and moral beliefs. That is why murder, rape, theft, arson etc is wrong and punishable. If you kill someone, you go to jail. That is forcing religious/moral beliefs on someone.

Not necessarily. As a society we expect and hope its participants are house trained, but I don't see consequences as necessarily forcing anybody into doing something. I mean, we allow murderers and other criminals back into society once their prison sentences are done, we send soldiers into battle trained to kill and indeed, often call returning ones heroes. Cops are known to kill in the line of duty, and we don't think of them as murderers. Some doctors and nurses terminate a pregnancy, but that doesn't make them murderers, even if we individually or as a society regret any of the above situations.

And it's not like murder is hardwired into our instincts., so it's not like most of us have to be threatened with punishment not to kill, divine or secular. Humans are social animals after all.

If abortion is murder (a point where I am undecided) then it is absolutely right to try to force people to stop doing it.
And if it's not murder, there is absolutely no right to try to force* people to stop doing it, yes?

* I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinions on the issue, but forcing them is another matter.

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

Are you truly so lacking in insight that you are sincerely asking that question?

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

blockquote fail, starting from "And if it's not murder...

AH: "Chris, what proof would be good enough for you?"

Reading comprehension is not your strength. To repeat: "... you must at least give solid scientific evidence that this entity exists, and provide direct two-way communication between the US Congress that can be recorded now, and not unverified writings that date back almost two thousand years."

Just tell you deity to show itself in Congress, perform some supernatural feats, and explain how we are all to obey it.

AH and others argue that a woman does not have control over her own body during the time that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus depends on it.
When does she get that control back? Once a baby is born, is it legitimate for her to refuse to donate blood for a transfusion that the baby needs? How about donating a kidney, or a piece of liver, or a skin graft?
The only reasonable answer is that she always has personal autonomy- that no one can be forced to give of their own body to support someone else.
Unless, of course, one supports forced donations of blood and redundant organs. That would at least be consistent.

AH ironically asks, "Why should some people get to decide who lives and who dies? Who is valuable and who doesn’t count?"

Who decides this? People who decide that it's better a pregnant woman should die, or at least come close to death and lose her fertility, rather than allow an abortion. Who? Those people who say that removing a Fallopian tube that happens to contain a fetus, isn't really an abortion, so it's OK (the USCCB). Who? Those people have decided who lives and who dies and that the fetus is valuable, and the female acting as incubator doesn't count. Who? Those who put forth the "Let The Woman Die" bills because women are only allowed three acceptable positions in life:

Virgin Mother
Virgin Martyr
Mother Dying Nobly in Childbirth

I hope you are in the van of a movement to require cameras in every delivery room to capture that magical moment when a female child is born and instantly loses her "right to life."

Oh Chris is mad now. Ok Chris, God is infinite and creator of all. Nobody tells him what to do, or puts him in a lab to do experiments, "proving" his existence. You believe in a morality which says you can kill some human beings. I don't.

Adam, ???

It's not that hard, AH.

According to my religious beliefs and common sense, every single sperm cell is a baby, and any man who ejaculates is a murderer. Why do I have to follow your religion, but you don't have to follow mine?

Ellie, your views don't represent mine.

Well then Adam, I hope you don't masturbate

madder , so the child in the womb can die so women can have autonomy?

AH, I'll rephrase AdamG's question in terms that you might grasp...

...is contraception acceptable?
...is non-vaginal coitus acceptable?
...is having sex during 'safe days' acceptable?
(...and the list could go on)

Or do you think all of these cheat Odin of his little children?

@AH #512: Is that all there is to it, or should Adam attempt to ban masturbation? Are you satisfied with a hope that Adam doesn't engage in it, or will you join with him in his war against those who do?

When does a woman regain control over her own body, AH?

When do human beings have the right not to be killed, madder?

@DGR #481,
Nice article, that explains precisely how the pro-life movement has led to the suffering and death of tens of thousands of women, to millions of unwanted pregnancies and to millions of unsafe abortions. Rarely has a movement so well-intentioned led to such appalling suffering. If Heaven and Hell really exist I suspect some people are going to get a terrible surprise.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

When do human beings have the right not to be killed, madder?

If you start with a tire and start adding parts, at what point do you have a car, AH?

Well then Adam, I hope you don’t masturbate

I would never even think of such a thing, as I would be ostracized from my community as a mortal sinner.
I can't believe baby-killers like you are so fixated on abortion when the number of babies killed via masturbation dwarfs that number!

AH:

God is infinite and creator of all. Nobody tells him what to do, or puts him in a lab to do experiments, “proving” his existence.

You could just as easily say that about the Hindu concept of Brahmin, which has more followers and has been around for longer. How do you know that you're right?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Krebiozen: "Are you truly so lacking in insight that you are sincerely asking that question?"

Reading both Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi and The Violinist's Thumb: And Other Lost Tales of Love, War, and Genius, as Written by Our Genetic Code by Sam Kean taught me quite a bit about how fetuses develop. Plus how things can go quite wrong.

Chris,
This blog, and you particularly, add more books to my reading list than anywhere else! It's appreciated.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

@AH #516

Birth.

Now answer my question.

Madder? So if you wanted to kill someone else's fetus you could because they aren't born?

No, but for a different reason-- it's because doing so would violate the bodily autonomy of the woman.

And you are trying to make me complicit by having me accept it.

Personally, I could give a rat's ass about what you or anyone like you chooses to believe and/or accept.

Which is why I don't visit religious blogs, whether anti-abortion or not, on some delusional crusade to impose my particular opinions and beliefs on the denizens of those sites.

You chose to come here and voice your opinion, and that's all it is, and people have explained why your opinion is invalid in their eyes.

And yet you keep whining away.

Madder? So if you wanted to kill someone else’s fetus you could because they aren’t born?

And once again AH completely ignores the mother and her rights...

AH: "God is infinite and creator of all."

Prove it. Until then it is an invisible sky fairy and has no say in the public policy.

"Nobody tells him what to do,..."

Or more accurately: your particular deity does not exist.

"You believe in a morality which says you can kill some human beings. I don’t."

Actually when your rules are imposed on women more end up dying. When you restrict contraception and abortion you actually get both more abortions and infanticide. Which is why link provided above by DGR is a good read. Of course you will discard it because, even though it is well referenced, it was written by a woman. You have shown that you don't believe women can make decisions about their own body.

DGR you do practice a religion of your own making, your criteria, your version of morality. And you impose a death sentence on some human beings because of where you arbitrarily draw the line.

Krebiozen: "This blog, and you particularly, add more books to my reading list than anywhere else! "

:-)

This blog and others are where I get ideas for my reading list.

Having fallen into one trap surrounding AdamG's masturbation analogy, AH is loth to answer my question about when women regain autonomy under AH's personal moral calculus. Perhaps AH senses another trap.

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

Madder, Adam surely knows that sperm are not human beings. That's not a trap. That's nonsense

These aren't traps either, AH, I'm honestly curious.

…is contraception acceptable?
…is non-vaginal coitus acceptable?
…is having sex during ‘safe days’ acceptable?
(…and the list could go on)

Or do you think all of these cheat Odin of his little children?

You're free to replace Odin with your divinity of choice.

Adam surely knows that sperm are not human beings

So spermicidal contraceptives are a-ok?

But AH #534, you dismissed AdamG's sincerely-held religious beliefs out of hand, and stated quite directly that the appropriate solution for him is simply to not masturbate. Why is not-aborting not good enough for you? Keep in mind that sincerely-held religious beliefs aren't good enough ("nonsense," in your terminology), so you can't just rely on them.

You're so deep in the trap, you haven't even realized it yet-- kinda like the Millennium Falcon inside the asteroid creature.

AH: "And you impose a death sentence on some human beings because of where you arbitrarily draw the line."

The line is not arbitrary. You might want to learn a bit about how the chemical signals direct where the proteins go during fetal development. The book by Sam Kean is not overly technical as it is meant for a general audience. Even you could understand it if you are willing to open your mind and pull the shingles from your eyes.

What is arbitrary is basing laws on the beliefs of one religion for a deity that does not seem to exist.

It appears the religious restrictions are even more arbitrary...

@AH

Any comment on those Bible passages I provide?

Adam surely knows that sperm are not human beings. That’s not a trap. That’s nonsense

Why do you get to decide that my religion is nonsense?
And sperm is just as much a human being as a fetus. How are they different?

I was really embarrassed for AH. Obviously he doesn't understand the concept of autonomy. Of COURSE it's wrong for me to make another person terminate a pregnancy. That's why we don't drag women off to abortion clinics. However, if the woman, of her own free will decides she does not want the burden of the pregnancy to continue, for whatever reason, I would happily give her a ride. Because I don't see killing a lump of cells as murder.

On the other hand, AH appears to be perfectly happy to kill any number of sentient beings, because they have XX chromosomes, as long as the lump of cells survives.

By the way, AH/SN: How come in almost any society it was wrong to kill/steal/injure those who belonged to the group? Even without a super-sky-fairy, people developed moral codes to promote the ability to live in groups safely. Gee...you'd almost think it was inborn in us, rather than denoted in some musty, many-times-translated and cherry-picked-as-to-allowable-chapters book. (One of my favorite books talks about the Councils of Nicea and Trent and how they decided what was "in" the bible and what was "out".)

DGR you do practice a religion of your own making, your criteria, your version of morality. And you impose a death sentence on some human beings because of where you arbitrarily draw the line.

Once again, just your opinion.

If you have any integrity at all ... and nothing you've added to this thread thus far would cause me to believe you do ... rather than just constantly repeating your personal opinion, please answer the following:

1. Explain where anything in the article I reference in #481 is in your view wrong and why.

We already know your view re: "human being from moment of conception", so you don't need to repeat this for the umpteenth time.

2. Explain where anything in the article I reference in #488 is in your view wrong and why.

3. Explain where anything in the article I reference in #419 is in your view wrong and why.

And explain how the some 1.5 million or so "unwanted births" and hundreds of thousands of illegal abortion per year that would result from the imposition on society of your "no abortion, birth control or (non-religious based) family planning" religious views would benefit the U.S. or anyone, other than smug, addled anti-abortionists, living in it.

4. Explain why it makes more sense, in God or human eyes, to spend massive amounts of money on anti-abortion/anti-birth control campaigns than it does to spend those funds to improve outcomes for already living low income children, teens and their parents or to alleviate situations like the 21,000 people,who starve to death every day as discussed in the article linked to in #443.

Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings. Surely you know that.

You’re free to replace Odin with your divinity of choice.

Mmmm....divinity.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

AH: Repeating a statement does not make it true.

Now tell me something: Would you have rather let people suffer through more rubella epidemics rather than let the improved vaccine be developed from fetal tissue?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

AH, if you want to pass a Turing test you really ought to answer a question or two.

AH: "Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings."

Citation needed. Provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers who are not paid by any church or church related business. Don't just try to tell us about their unique DNA sequence, some which if you have read the last two books I referenced you would know can cause some serious effects.

And answer DGR's questions in #544.

Nobody has the right to set up arbitrary criteria about whose lives are valuable.

Ahem. Governments, risk management analysts, and insurance companies do it all the time.

If uniqueness is your criterion, then a molar pregnancy is deserving of protection too.

Presumably AH is referring to the fact that fetuses have unique DNA. But if that's what makes a person unique, then two identical twins are actually one person, and a chimera is two people. Which is obviously absurd, so genetic uniqueness is clearly not a useful way to define humanity.

And even if it did, it doesn't really answer the important questions of if they are alive enough to potentially be murdered, nor whether all killings constitute murder.

I would like to point out that longstanding Castle Doctrine laws allow a defense against murder if you kill an intruder in your house. So killing an adult isn't always murder, and is sometimes defensible. Why is killing an embryo never so? Why is it only black-and-white for the unborn?

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Gaist #501
I actually meant to say murder in the place of kill. But I agree with you, if abortion is not murder, then we should allow it to happen. If it is murder, then we should not allow it to happen. The trick is figuring out when killing becomes murder. For me I am convinced that after the brain is semi formed (somewhere from 15 weeks to 30 weeks), killing the baby is murder. Before then, I just don't know.

It is interesting this often turns into a religious argument when the bible only says, "do not murder." It does not speak to when a clump of cells becomes a human. I am a protestant, so I do not give a hoot what the catholic church says, only what is in the bible. The catholic church decided abortion was wrong, not because what was in the bible, but because of philosophical arguments. These arguments being proposed by men, are fallible. Whether abortion is murder is thus not a religious question or scientific but a philosophical one.

Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings.

What science? I'm a scientist, so I'd like to discuss the specific science you are referring to here, specifically how a fetus is unique but sperm are not.

Edmundo: "Whether abortion is murder is thus not a religious question or scientific but a philosophical one."

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religion to restrict abortion.

The philosophy bit is complicated. Sure it is fine to restrict abortion, but it gets into other territory when the "philosophy" decides to also restrict contraception. Then that gets into how women are perceived in a society.

I strongly suggest you read the links in Comments #481 and #488. It is, again, an economic argument to place a burden on all of those with a Y-chromosome.

OOps... I was typing too fast, it should read:
"I strongly suggest you read the links in Comments #481 and #488. It is, again, an economic argument to place a burden on all of those without a Y-chromosome."

The thrust of the argument in the link you provided is:

Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore the zygote has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete

Ok, so the argument is that a certain combination of components in a zygote is what allows one to decide whether it is a baby or not. Which specific cellular components are necessary to determine if a type of cells are babies or just cells?
The argument that follows in the link you provided turns to semantics, (i.e. defining 'organism' and 'cell') not science. Which specific cellular processes make a cell a baby?

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

By this reasoning, so are parasitic twins and cases of fetus in fetu.

A fetus is an allograft; you have just conceded the viability argument. Well played.

AH: "A unique human organism is formed at conception"

Not a PubMed indexed journal.

Also the author is associated with this group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute

Despite their lofty words on their "about" page, they actually are a religious group. From the wiki:

The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[8] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography[9] at Princeton University in December 2008.[10]

Now, again, but remember the criteria:

A PubMed indexed scientific journal

not affiliated with any religious group, or even one that is but trying to pretend they are not

And more about a group the author of that "study" is affiliated with, from https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/515-witherspoon-institute/ : "The Witherspoon Institute is a Princeton, New Jersey-based nonprofit organization with ties to the Family Research Council and Roman Catholic traditionalists."

Don't try to convince it is not a religious group. Just like the "The Westchester Institute", which no longer seems to exist. Yet if was also a Catholic group (the link to it on that article no longer works):
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_ethics_institute_sees_m…

Whether abortion is murder is thus not a religious question or scientific but a philosophical one.

I think of it as a legal question, which may be influenced by both science and philosophy or by neither.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

No. It is a discussion referencing scientific papers. But I gather you did not read it, so you would not know. Also, I'm sure you're not telling me you can not read the paper and its scientific sources because of your deep prejudices against Catholics? If I did that Id have to disqualify ever scientific paper or discussion written by athiests, agnostics etc. plus I don't happen to know the religious views of the people who wrote the scientific papers.

I gather you did not read it, so you would not know.

I did! Which specific cellular components are necessary to determine if a type of cells are babies or just cells? Which specific cellular processes make a cell a baby?

...did you read it?

AH: "No. It is a discussion referencing scientific papers."

... as filtered through a religious person working for a religious group. The criteria that it not be from someone paid by a religious group and that it be a PubMed indexed study is there for a reason. It does not matter if it is Catholic, the criteria would also pertain to Mormon, Baptist, Islam, Bahai, or any other religion.

It is not bigotry, it is about bias. I wanted you to support your claim with a scientific paper, not a religious one.

Again, AH, if you want to change public policy to prohibit the decision about the bodies of half of the population you need actual scientific data, not religious opinion.

To ann #474:

I’ll revise my question so that it’s clear you have not previously defended nor renounced the position.

OK...
How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?

Same question to the rest of you.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

To MI Dawn #478:

“AH and SN: can you please tell us why you feel you have the right to interfere with other people’s lives regarding a legal act? We understand your religious beliefs are against it. But why are you trying to force others to live by YOUR beliefs?”

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

Or maybe for the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I would not defend it.

If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?

On the basis that the criterion is known to be irrelevant to the ability of the child to eventually benefit from a college education.

Now, how does that relate to anything discussed so far?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

no Chris, the scientific papers can be from people of any religious background and so can the discussion.

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

Two points:
1. You are not a nation state, and nation states under international law have rights and abilities not allowed to their citizens/subjects.
2. Interfering with Nazi death camp administrators was not a primary goal of the Allied forces.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

To madder #505:

“AH and others argue that a woman does not have control over her own body during the time that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus depends on it.”

No. The woman should and does have control over her body during pregnancy.

“Once a baby is born, is it legitimate for her to refuse to donate blood for a transfusion that the baby needs? …The only reasonable answer is that she always has personal autonomy- that no one can be forced to give of their own body to support someone else. Unless, of course, one supports forced donations of blood…That would at least be consistent.”

I’m not sure I’ve heard that argument before, so I’ll give you points for creativity.
But the argument doesn’t work.

The mother is free not to donate her blood to her born baby. Her reasoning could be medical or just selfish, doesn’t matter.
The born baby’s life is not wholly dependent on getting his mother’s blood. He could be saved by the blood donated by others. The mother doesn’t kill her born baby by withholding her blood donation (and her blood type might not match her baby’s anyway).

However, in the womb, the baby is wholly dependent on his body’s connection to hers. Deliberately cutting that connection for the purpose of killing the baby is wrong.

Analogously, you’re fairly free to do want you want with your body’s hands. You’re not required by law to hold another’s hand. But if a drowning person was holding your hand as you dragged him from deep waters, and then you decided to let go, for no other reason than you decided you no longer wanted to save him, and so he drowned…. Well, let’s just say I wouldn’t be applauding you with MY hands.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

AH @511 That's true, my views do not represent yours. I don't embrace the philosophy of:

Virgin Mother
Virgin Martyr
Mother Dying Nobly in Childbirth

I look at women as people, not sperm receptacles and incubators. I hope I have passed that on to my daughter, granddaughters, and they can teach the great granddaughters that are just a wee bit too young now for that lesson. Fortunately the youngest was born healthy, not having been exposed to VPDs in utero.

To AdamG #510:

“According to my religious beliefs and common sense, every single sperm cell is a baby, and any man who ejaculates is a murderer. Why do I have to follow your religion, but you don’t have to follow mine?”

I’d tell that person he’s free to believe what he wants, and even call it “religious,
but also that he has no common sense and is pathetically ignorant of science.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

no Chris, the scientific papers can be from people of any religious background and so can the discussion.

You haven't participated in any discussion.

You've offer your personal opinions ... again and again ... and the opinions of others who support your own opinion.

However, you haven't responded to direct questions or shown any indication you've read any of the articles others have linked to, much less offered a rebuttal to any.

As this link points out, Condic's the "white paper" is ... rather than the "scientific paper" you claim ... actually only her personal opinion jazzed up with some science terms and apparently designed to baffle dumb as a post politicians and/or provide them with the answer some want to hear.

http://www.ipscell.com/2010/12/scientific-proof-for-the-dc-court-of-app…

I'd suggest she started with the conclusion then worked backwards to create a framework which a non-scientific true believer might mistakenly accept as support for her pre-determined conclusion.

As this article points out, some "prominent proponents of early fetal pain are willing to make intellectually dishonest arguments to advance their case."

http://inthesetimes.com/duly-noted/entry/15397/the_fetal_pain_argument

Condic is mentioned in this regard.

AH: "Also, I’m sure you’re not telling me you can not read the paper and its scientific sources because of your deep prejudices against Catholics?"

You do not get to complain about any perceived prejudice when you cite a paper from someone, who has noted by DGR above, gets the science wrong and is associated with the Witherspoon Institute.

It is a religious group that is homophobic, that it mucked up the data and analysis in a study:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute#Regnerus_study

Ellie I don't embrace the philosophy you describe if that's what you're implying.

Also for Condic, this article discusses her being "bullied"by other scientists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/326844/when-scientis…

The author of the article, Wesley Smith, refers to her as a "friend".

This post discusses Smith.

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2013/01/365-wesley-j-smith.html

Condic comes across as the same type of "hired gun" crank scientist that anti-vaxers, AGW denialists and similar types adore.

@See Noevo:

You say that a woman should have control over her body during pregnancy, but then you omitted the "except for termination" part that means so much to you. Why?

Blood transfusions are one thing, but it's not unheard of for a parent to be the only potential organ donor found in the available time frame. If the parent is the only person who could donate, can they still say no?

Regarding the analogy to saving a drowning person, I am wondering if See Noevo knows just how incredibly difficult and dangerous it is to try to save a drowning person by swimming after them. It might not be quite the analogy he wants to make.

If you dive in after a drowning person, you are putting your life on the line. Most amateurs who attempt this fail; the lucky ones are the ones who do let go. The others die, drowning with the person they thought to save. This is why lifeguards really don't want you to save drowning people. All you'll likely do is give them a second victim to have to rescue or recover.

A drowning person will not be rational or polite. They will frantically grasp you and then attempt to climb up you. It's an instinctive response; don't hold it against them. Just be ready for it, because otherwise it will kill you, because as they climb up, you'll go down. Lifeguard training for when the swim-after-them approach is required mostly revolves around capturing them in a way that prevents them trying to do this. It's tricky and it's dangerous, and they can kill you.

Now, I did train as a lifeguard. I know how to do it. I do not advise anyone else to do it unless they also have been trained. It's too dangerous. Instead, memorize this:

REACH - THROW - ROW - GO

If you see someone drowning, first of course notify the lifeguard. If there isn't one, find something to reach out to them with, such as the hooks kept at every swimming pool. Keep a firm grip and brace with your legs in the pool's gutter if you can, because they may grab it very hard. Pull them back in and let them recover while holding to the wall. If you must use your arm, lie down flat on the deck so you are as stable as possible.

If there is nothing to reach with, throw a floatation device, preferably one on a rope like a life buoy -- that's what they're for. Stand on the float at the end of the rope so the buoy doesn't just fly out there and leave them still stranded. It may take a few tries -- be patient and don't panic and get it right. Then pull them in.

If that's not possible, or if they're too far out, look for a boat to go rescue them in. They can grab the side of the boat.

And then, only as a very last resort, may you consider going after them. If at all possible, bring a floatation device or rope or tree branch or something so they can grab that instead of you. At all costs, keep them from grabbing your body.

Here ends your public service announcement for today. ;-)

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

To Mephistopheles O’Brian #570:

Me: “How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?”

You: “I would not defend it.”

Me: “If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?”

You: “On the basis that the criterion is known to be irrelevant to the ability of the child to eventually benefit from a college education. Now, how does that relate to anything discussed so far?”

I want to make sure I understand you.
You’re saying
1)You would renounce the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now.
2)Because the first graders’ inability to handle a college curriculum NOW is irrelevant to the first graders’ ability to handle a college education in the future.
3)In other words, you should not punish a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older.

Is that correct?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Abortion is not punishing a young person for being unable to do things she/he will not be able to do when she/he is older. Please don't try to say it is.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

To Mephistopheles O’Brian #583:

Have I stated your position correctly in #582?
If I haven't, please show where.

P.S.
I think you have a typo in “Abortion is not punishing a young person for being unable to do things she/he will not be able to do when she/he is older.”

I think you meant to say “Abortion is not punishing a young person for being unable to do things she/he WILL be able to do when she/he is older.”

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?

I can't do either, because I don't understand the question. AFAIK, it's not possible to deny someone the opportunity to go to college twelve years in advance, for any reason. Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means?

How would it even be possible to do that?

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

Because they're Supreme Court Justices and the Constitution gives that power to them, not to you or to me or to anybody else.

“AH and SN: can you please tell us why you feel you have the right to interfere with other people’s lives regarding a legal act? We understand your religious beliefs are against it. But why are you trying to force others to live by YOUR beliefs?”

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

They didn't feel that they had that right. It was not their casus belli.

And it wouldn't apply to you even if it had been. You don't have the right to declare war on your fellow citizens for abiding by the law.

It's illegal, in fact.

Or maybe for the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.

There is no reason you can offer that would give you the right to unilaterally enforce your very own custom-made law on others. This is a democracy.

.

And the analogy will now magically morph from Allies/Nazis to Freedom Riders.

Because the first graders’ inability to handle a college curriculum NOW is irrelevant to the first graders’ ability to handle a college education in the future.

You keep robotically intoning this despite pointed requests for you to state what the fυck presumably dumbass shіt you're "invoking."

Quick, what are the three conditions for an action to be moral, S.N.?

Let me remind both See Noevo and AH that they have never shown, at any point in this discussion, any concern for the lives of anything but aborted fetuses. Not even the fetuses of those who would have come down with rubella had the vaccine not been developed.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

AH, I note that you have been silent in response to the rebuttal of your assertion that "[a] fetus has its own body, [therefore] it is a unique human being."

Now, your similarly gross cowardice in the face of rebuttals to your assertion that "[o]ver 90% of [Planned Parenthood's] 'pregnancy related services' end in abortion," combined with your failure to address the straightforward observation that you were deliberately conflating Thicke et al. with unsourced quotations and then resorted to simply making shіt up about a paper that you've never read, is sufficient to constitute a set of indicia of bad faith.

If you have any intention of demonstrating that you are something other than a pure passive-agressive attention whore who is long overdue for killfiling, you'd better start dealing with that backfile.

To ann #585:

Me: “How would you defend the position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now? If you can’t figure any way of defending the position, on what basis would you renounce it?”

You: “I can’t do either, because I don’t understand the question. AFAIK, it’s not possible to deny someone the opportunity to go to college twelve years in advance, for any reason. Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means? How would it even be possible to do that?”

Please consider my question as a hypothetical.
Hypotheticals can be useful, even though they might not deal with current realities. For example, in 1930 Germany, perhaps someone would have posed the question “How would you defend the German government rounding up millions of people and exterminating them in concentration camps?” It could be a useful exercise, even for the people who might respond “Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means? How would it even be possible to do that?”

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.

So, how would you defend the hypothetical position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

If you can’t figure any way of defending the hypothetical position, on what basis would you renounce it?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

They haven't even shown enough of a serious interest in winning the argument to acquaint themselves with what it is:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

If you want abortion to be recognized as murder, ^^that's the argument that you have to beat.

Likewise, if you want the state's compelling interest in protecting prenatal life to start at conception rather than viability, you have to win an argument with the precedential decisions that say otherwise.

And likewise, if you don't agree that "[i]f the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child,” you have to make an argument that no, the Founders actually intended for the government to make that call.

Otherwise, you're just pitching fits purely to make life more unpleasant, without any meaningful hope of gain.

^ Oh, right, almost forgot:

Was it morally wrong to remove Manar Maged's craniopagus parasiticus sister Islaam?

Please consider my question as a hypothetical.
Hypotheticals can be useful, even though they might not deal with current realities. For example, in 1930 Germany, perhaps someone would have posed the question “How would you defend the German government rounding up millions of people and exterminating them in concentration camps?” It could be a useful exercise, even for the people who might respond “Who is doing it, under what authority, and by what means? How would it even be possible to do that?”

Why would they respond that way when the question itself clearly states that the German government is doing it, which also answers the part about under what authority? The rounding-up and extermination parts don't require elaboration. They're obviously possible.

That stands in stark contrast to this:

So, how would you defend the hypothetical position of denying first graders now the opportunity to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I don't know how to consider that proposition any more than I would if you asked me how I would defend the hypothetical position of denying kittens the opportunity ever to spend the whole day napping in the future just because they're too frisky to do it now.

There's nothing there to consider. It can't be done.

Who is denying them, by what means, using what powers, under what authority?

"Them" being the first-graders, not the kittens.

If you can’t figure any way of defending the hypothetical position, on what basis would you renounce it?

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful

See, nothing you have to say is useful or interesting, though your obviously deranged mind believes otherwise.

Comment #38 summed you up nicely.

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.

It's not "hypothetical," you pathetic sack of shіt:

Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future. We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.

(And this saves parents’ a lot of work and worry over how to pay for those college tuitions. Whew! College-be-gone, worry-be-gone.

And baby-be-gone. Viability schmiability.

The proper thing for a 60-year-old male to do about a dribbling problem is to see a urologist, not pretend that the last really embarrassing episode didn't happen and that the increasingly frequent ones in the meantime are really just a fascinating ploy to get people to find the treasure map in your Depends.

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

One seldom encounters such a bald, poorly-disguised example of Petitio principii.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #595:

Since you trying so hard to justify not responding to my hypothetical, I’ll give you a rest and ask you a simpler question:

Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older?

If not, why not?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

In 2009, Planned Parenthood bestowed its Margaret Sanger Award upon now-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Here are some words from her, that is, from Margaret:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

“The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”

“Give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Way to go, Margie!
Hillary will be proud to pad her resume with that award in your honor.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

In 2009, Planned Parenthood bestowed its Margaret Sanger Award upon now-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What, precisely, would you say this comment has to do with the topic to hand?

Oh, wait.

See Noevo and AH:
I see that neither of you Fetus P eople have bothered to comment on the article I linked to regarding the promise that fetal stem cells may effectively treat one of the most horrifying diseases known - ALS. Obviously, you don't give a shzzt about anyone outside the uterus.
Well, that's your problem. Maybe you could explain to me, since I do not believe in your fairy-tale Sky Overlord, why I should pay any attention to your twisted moral values based on what I regard as delusions?

#600

Nice little dishonest slime job there - just look at the full, from which you ripped the money shot:

"Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members."

The language is a bit archaic, but the meaning is plain to anyone whose mind is poisoned by fanatical hatred: Sanger is attacking the hideous infant mortality rate experienced by large families of the time. Most late children died, they died young, and they died under the most cruel circumstances. In this sense, impersonal death was performing a mercy.

Only a tragically dishonest thug would try to pass this off as advocacy by Sanger for infanticide. And yet, that is exactly what you pulled: did you really think you could slip that past anyone?

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

line 1: look at the full quote,

line 10: mind is not poisoned

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo - like AH you're starting to look like a failed Turing test subject as well. So maybe just drop the mock 'hypothetical' 'clever' trick question you've been harboring and just come out with what you want to say.

And convince your running mate to answer some of our questions and we will gladly reciprocate.

No. The woman should and does have control over her body during pregnancy.

Up to and including alcohol, tobacco, strict vegan diet or fasting? How about participating in kick-boxing match? Taking a 'morning after' pill? AT what point short of abortion does that freedom and control end?

The mother doesn’t kill her born baby by withholding her blood donation

So you don't think Jehova's Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions from their offspring?

Maybe for the same reason the Allies felt they had a right to interfere with the legal acts of the Nazi death camp administrators.

They didn't have a 'right', according to the international law of the time, as well as respective military codes and civil laws, they had a duty.

This has nothing to do with abortions, however. And your other reason given was a perfect example of circular logic:
"I am trying to force others to live by MY beliefs because of the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren't forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs."

I for one remain unconviced.

I’d tell that person he’s free to believe what he wants, and even call it “religious,
but also that he has no common sense and is pathetically ignorant of science.

So your god didn't slay Onan for masturbation but disobedience? How is that consistent with free will?

Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older?

If you're inviting me to travel back in time to kill Hitler, I cordially refuse.

AH,

the scientific papers can be from people of any religious background and so can the discussion.

Sure, but not all papers by religious people are scientific. Your example wasn't, even if it used scientific terminology.

Ellie I don’t embrace the philosophy you describe if that’s what you’re implying.

Well, it's easy to make the 'mistake' when what you write fits with said philosophy, and every attempt to get you to actually define or detail your philosophy results in silence or 'nuh-uh, not me'.

Maybe answer a question or two instead of repeating 'human life begins at conception' because by now it should be obvious even to you that just repeating that won't convince anybody.

Maybe answer a question or two instead of repeating ‘human life begins at conception’

By example, by telling us your solution to make the actual numbers of abortion go down.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Seems like our two clowns are now the ones getting trolled by most people in this thread.
If I may, I'd like to attack the whole ''debate'' from another angle (so hopefully we might get something else besides the same two lines from them). To AH and See noevo, how would you even implement abortion into the current american law?
What would be the exceptions? Would you allow pregnant women that have a life threatening condition to abort? Would you allow an exception for rape? How would the law be enforced? Would there be a time limit (in weeks) to abortion, or would it be never?

I want a detailed report on my desk for tomorrow morning.

@Garou: don't wait for the report. Neither SH nor SN ever believe abortion is OK.

It's much better for the woman to die so they both die, rather than terminate the pregnancy. After all, the only worth an adult woman has in their eyes is as a baby carrier. CERTAINLY she's not a person with autonomy.

As for rape, or a fatal anomaly that will cause death ether in-utero or shortly after birth, or any other reason, the lazy s**t should should just grin and bear it. It's all HER fault, you know.

As for after birth - they definitely don't care now about mother OR child. She's the one who got pregnant, now she can find the money to raise her child. Help? No, only the fetus counts as important. Not a child.

Since SN is so keen on hypotheticals, here's an interesting one:

Supposed you have a house. Your neighbor has a grove of trees. A seed from one of their trees finds its way into your house, settles between the cracks in the floor and germinates. It sprouts and begins to grow. Do you have the right to rip up the plant? Or should you be forced to allow it to grow inside your house? Explain the reasoning behind your answer.

Since you trying so hard to justify not responding to my hypothetical, I’ll give you a rest and ask you a simpler question:

And since that suggests that you're unable to answer the questions I already asked you twice, I'll give you a rest and not repeat them.

Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older?

If not, why not?

I do not, on the grounds that since instituting such a practice would serve no conceivable purpose and further no conceivable end that was in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally, it would simply be adding to the sum total of senselessly punitive acts inflicted on young people for no reason whatsoever to do so.

The reason why we aren't answering your silly hypothetical question, See, is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #587:

Me: “Or maybe for the same reason that some feel they have the right to try to assure the voiceless babies aren’t forced to live (actually, die) by YOUR beliefs.”

You: “There is no reason you can offer that would give you the right to unilaterally enforce your very own custom-made law on others.
This is a democracy.”

Democracy, per Merriam-Webster:
•a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
•a country ruled by democracy
•an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

Yes, I know people under a certain age aren’t allowed a vote. But shouldn’t these people at least be treated equally in other ways? Shouldn’t even THEY have the right to life, which can enable liberty, which can then allow the pursuit of happiness?

I’ll fight for the voiceless, the vote-less.
So very sad that I should even have to.

P.S.
#599.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo: What about the voiceless who would have been stillborn from rubella had the vaccine not been developed? Would you have let them die?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Here are some words from her, that is, from Margaret:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

As Robert L. Bell has already noted, she's pointing to that as a tragedy, not advocating for it.

“The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”

As she immediately goes on to say:

By this I mean a selection based on the prospects for a successful and happy babyhood, childhood, and eventual citizenship. It would be an eminent gain for society if the number of births could vary in direct ratio to prospects for adequate care of children.

So she's just making the same point you already misrepresented.

“Give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

In context, that quote, which is from 1932, is:

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

This says nothing about her other than that she subscribed to the scientific consensus of the day and sought to accommodate its implications humanely and without exterminating anyone.

Happily, the consensus didn't last long. And by the time she founded Planned Parenthood, she had returned to her original (and always primary) cause, which was advocating for contraception.

Despite which, the use of contraception continued to be legally prohibited until 1965. Just incidentally.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

As above noted, her opposition to extermination was not universal. So she's saying she doesn't want what she's doing -- ie, promoting birth and population control --to be wrongly mistaken for an extermination campaign, not planning to secretly launch one.

Again, she shared the racial and eugenic views of her day.

“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

Please see above.

You could find quotes like that from hundreds of academics, social commentators and politicians all across the land in the 1930s. It was what people thought. Some never learned. I know of no evidence that Margaret Sanger was one of them. She wasn't an evil racial eugenicist. She was an advocate for birth-control who signed on with a misguided fad.

P.S.
#599.

PS:

#615.

PPS:

Two quotes taken out of context to suggest the opposite of what she really meant plus three -- all from the 1930s -- in which she uses the language and assumptions of then-current social and scientific consensus to promote the use of contraception do not constitute the knock-out punch you seem to think they do.

They're more a sign of credulousness and bias than anything else.

Marie Stopes, who was a heroine in family planning in the UK, had a similar flirtation with eugenics, as did many luminaries, such as George Bernard Shaw. Back then, they honestly believed that poor genes were to blame for poverty and deprivation, so it made sense that to reduce suffering you had to eliminate those genes. For some reason eugenics lost popularity shortly after that.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Democracy, per Merriam-Webster:
• a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
• a country ruled by democracy
• an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.

Right. That's why, as I said, There is no reason you can offer that would give you the right to unilaterally enforce your very own custom-made law on others. This is a democracy.

Incidentally, as a form of government, democracy is usually defined as participatory government by the people via elected representatives, plus a rule of law applied equally to each and all.

Yes, I know people under a certain age aren’t allowed a vote. But shouldn’t these people at least be treated equally in other ways?

All people in a democracy should be treated equally under the law. There's no mandate for universally equal treatment for all people in every regard. (Unisex rest rooms! A single set hourly wage for all workers! The same allocation of housing space to each citizen! Etc.)

In this democracy, what is or is not constitutionally unequal treatment under the law is decided by the Supreme Court.

And PS#519. So take it up with them. Because this is a democracy.

Shouldn’t even THEY have the right to life, which can enable liberty, which can then allow the pursuit of happiness?

The fifth and fourteenth amendments state that no person shall be deprived of the right to life, liberty and happiness without due process of law.

And what that means is that you can continually invoke them to mean whatever you want them to mean until you're blue in the face if you want to. But you'll just be mouthing empty syllables.

If you want to win the argument, you have to successfully argue that the right to liberty clause does not include a fundamental right to reproductive autonomy for women and that the word "person," as used in the fourteenth amendment, does include the unborn.

Because at the moment, the due process of law says otherwise.

And PS --

Neither of those arguments is a winner, on those terms, at least at the moment. What you need is a new body of law.

That's why the anti-abortion movement is still mostly focused on expanding regulatory restrictions at the state level.

SN is playing a rather dangerous game by trying to use out-of-context and era-specific language to try to smear others. Would SN be quite so cavalier if we were to pull out quote from religious leaders echoing similar eugenics sentiments?

Ann writes
“As above noted, [Margaret Sanger’s] opposition to extermination was not universal. So she’s saying she doesn’t want what she’s doing — ie, promoting birth and population control –to be wrongly mistaken for an extermination campaign, not planning to secretly launch one. Again, she shared the racial and eugenic views of her day... She wasn’t an evil racial eugenicist. She was an advocate for birth-control who signed on with a misguided fad.”

And wiki says “She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions… While she did accept abortion "as a last resort" she generally distanced herself from the practice as it was then performed.”

I would assume Margaret might feel differently about abortion these days, because it’s performed so much more safely these days. "Safe, legal, and rare", as Hillary and others say.

It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.
In some cities, more Black babies are aborted than are born. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-more-black-ba…

Would Margaret be horrified?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

I would assume Margaret might feel differently about abortion these days

You can assume, but that doesn't make it any truer.

It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.

Do you think blacks are branwashed into self-annihilation by eugenistic cult of planned parenthood, or is there another reason you're bringing up blacks alongside those Margaret Sanger-quotes?

Lower average level of education, lower income, higher unemployment and higher rate of divorce might conceivably all increase the rate of pregnancies terminated, without any nefarious plot to whiten America.

Planned Parenthood strategy is to put their clinics in medically-underserved communities. Sorry to puncture a perfectly good conspiracy theory.

And wiki says “She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions… While she did accept abortion “as a last resort” she generally distanced herself from the practice as it was then performed.”

I accept your gracious admission that (lacking a better or more honest argument) you were attempting to falsely smear Margaret Sanger as a eugenicist bent on race-based extermination via abortion, when she was, in reality, simply an advocate for birth control, exactly as I said.

Thanks for the retraction and correction.

I dunno, I consider myself pro-choice, but comments like this make me a little uneasy regardless of context:

“Yeah, and so if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this,” Farrell said. “I mean it’s all just a matter of line items.”

I also take notice when people call plant or animal parts or tissues "material". I place a special value on living things, not for any spiritual reason, but just because life has come at the end of a pretty wonderful and amazing process. I'm in awe of the living world, I suppose you could say.

A dead fetus may be "material", but I would rather those who work with them show a little more respect.

I would assume Margaret might feel differently about abortion these days, because it’s performed so much more safely these days. “Safe, legal, and rare”, as Hillary and others say.

Considering that you didn't know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry, I don't see how your lazy assumptions about what she'd think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.

It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.

First of all, strewing randomly capitalized words all over your text just makes it look like a 19th-century circular advertisement for patent medicine or something.

Second of all, black women are also considerably more likely to be both living below the poverty line than white women and to be living further below it. They're also likelier to lack health insurance and access to healthcare. Unsurprisingly, they also therefore have higher infant, fetal, and perinatal mortality rates.

They therefore are likelier to need clinics that provide access to affordable women's healthcare.

In short: Planned Parenthood is not part of an evil racial-eugenicist plot. And you'd have to be an idiot or too soulless to care what racist dog-whistle you were blowing in order to suggest otherwise.

BBBlue: "A dead fetus may be “material”, but I would rather those who work with them show a little more respect."

Please check out, make sure to read the news article that inspired the podcast:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/grays-donation/

It includes the voice of a researcher who very much respects where the very precious tissue came from, and explains why it is so important for future babies.

BBBlue, it's been my experience when working in decedent operations that, perhaps in self-protection, people tend to adopt an unemotional, business-like vocabulary and manner.

I imagine that handling fetal elicits the same reaction. It's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that this is perceived as disrespectful.

That should be "handling fetal remains."

Indeed, Chris. I have worked with quite a lot of donated human remains and tissues in my time. My current institution hosts an annual memorial service attended by many of the donors' families, students, and instructors. It's an extremely moving event, and I'm sure we're not the only ones who do this.

BBBlue, I'd humbly point out that yes, we do speak clinically in order to maintain both professionalism and sanity. Please don't read either callousness or lack of respect into comments taken out of a context the speaker believed to be clinical, by a person with ill intent.

I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.

Still waiting, btw.

Feel free to apply the full answer I gave to the rephrase to the first-graders/college-curriculum version, if that helps.

The irony of the whole eugenics-smear thing is, of course, that SN is the one who wants to empower the state to make reproductive decisions for its citizens.

Because naturally, there's simply no way that such a power could end up being exercised wrongly or unjustly or unequally in a way that disproportionately affected minorities and the poor. Just look at capital punishment.

@ Ann #634

You didn't really have to bring up the death penalty. It is probably yet another topic on which SN knows Catholic doctrine better than the Pope. And he will be happy to bore all of us with it.

Oh, dear. I see from the pingback above that the Rational Catholic is unhappy with skeptics criticizing Dave Daleiden and how Teresa Deisher helped him out. (#635). It's a rather amusing rant, actually, because it's so off base.

Orac: "I see from the pingback above that the Rational Catholic"

I see my comment that I posted on her blog on July 27th is still under moderation,. Yet A.H. has two comments.

Fortunately I can see my comment, and copy and paste here. Can someone please tell why it is offensive? Thank you:

I am not going to argue the veracity of those videos, but I would like to point you to a story I learned about via RadioLab (which I encourage you to listen to). It has to do with the science that is accomplished with some of the donations:
http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-30/news/60606995_1_cord-blood-liver-…

Key quote from the article:
“The way I see it,” Sarah Gray said, “our son got into Harvard, Duke, and Penn. He has a job. He is relevant to the world. I only hope my life can be as relevant.”

@ #637

Personally, I consider "rational catholic" to be an oxymoron.

The whiny little rant linked to at #635 does nothing to change that opinion.

I mean, an author who complains about a perceived "conglomeration of logical fallacies" from others and then, without any apparent self-awareness, proceeds to respond to these with arguments composed of their own "conglomeration of logical fallacies" is really quite hilarious.

Chris, I don't consider "rational Catholic" to be an oxymoron, but the writer of this particular article seems to equate "doesn't agree with the Church's teachings on abortion" with "close-minded, gullible chumps."

The whole point of the Planned Parenthood whoop-de-do is that PP is doing nothing illegal or immoral. It's a manufactroversy, just as the Acorn debacle was.

First of all, strewing randomly capitalized words all over your text just makes it look like a 19th-century circular advertisement for patent medicine or something.

Capitalizing "Black" and "White" was still AP style, last I checked.

Anyway, I suppose it's completely impossible that somebody might have looked at NYC's abortion rate well prior to the occurrence of S.N.'s barfed-up Bozell/Breitbart robo-"point," isn't it?

shay:

Chris, I don’t consider “rational Catholic” to be an oxymoron, but the writer of this particular article seems to equate “doesn’t agree with the Church’s teachings on abortion” with “close-minded, gullible chumps.”

Of course, I never said she was, you mixed me up with DGR.

What is interesting is that my link to a RadioLab episode was not worthy of approving. If she had listened to it she would have learned the parents consulted a priest. Due to the danger to the other twin, the baby was born and lived for six days.

As synchronicity would have it, Mike Adams proselytises today about abortion setting the US on the path to 'Biblical' destruction be it g-d's will, karma or new age hooey.
He is frothing.

AS I remarked previously,he must have traditional ideas about family, society and women's roles..

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Capitalizing “Black” and “White” was still AP style, last I checked.

Really?

I don't recall it's ever having been. But as of 2003, at least, it wasn't.

I don’t recall it’s ever having been.

I mean "its."

Glass houses.

To ann #624:

Sorry. No retraction or correction from me necessary.

Anyway, enough with the ancient history for now.
The facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,
which is that the organization she founded, now called Planned Parenthood, is today probably the largest single abortion mill in the world. PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. (But you can't get a mammogram there. Only referrals.)

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

300,000 abortions per year compared to over 443,000 people who die from smoking....but then again, facts aren't your strong suit, is it?

Sorry. No retraction or correction from me necessary.

Anyway, enough with the ancient history for now.

Your ignoble retreat is duly noted.

The facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,

Well, in the very last post you repeated your dishonorable attempt via deliberate misquotes and cherry picking to divert the discussion intentionally away from what you now regard as the main point was a valid recourse. Now you want to change the subject as "unworthy" venue, but only because it failed.

And that kind of dishonest and fallacious tactics are, at least to me, worthy of discussion as long as somebody tries to use them to win an argument.

Prey tell, what her being a 'promiscuous adulterer' has to do with your main point, ...
"...which is that the organization she founded, now called Planned Parenthood, is today probably the largest single abortion mill in the world. PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. " because if it's irrelevant you surely wouldn't have brought it up, right?

You don't get to decide what is worth discussing and what isn't, and every question you fail to answer, every evasion from discussion is answered by implication.

To ann #632:

Me: “I think my hypothetical question will be very useful, and you’ll see why, if you just answer it fully.”

You: “Still waiting, btw.”

Waiting for what? You never answered the hypothetical, other than to say it was silly.

But you answered the essence of the hypothetical, which I re-phrased as
“Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older? If not, why not?”

You responded “I do not, on the grounds that since instituting such a practice would serve no conceivable purpose and further no conceivable end that was in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally, it would simply be adding to the sum total of senselessly punitive acts inflicted on young people for no reason whatsoever to do so.”

So, you believe
-It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,
-Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

[Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person! Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

So inconsistent and illogical.
So horrific.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Of course, I never said she was, you mixed me up with DGR.

Oops.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, nor are - it seems - hypotheticals. Maybe it springs from years of taking allegories literally.

Abortions serve a purpose - they are not done to inflict senselessly punitive acts on the unborn for no reason whatsoever, but to - an for - the mother who desires it. You might not agree with the mother's reasoning, but pretending they don't exist fools only you.

Pretending legal aspects don't exist fools only you, and makes you and your position look the more foolish, a hissy fit when you've been sent away from the adult table.

See, should we send you to prison for the possibility that you might commit a crime in the future? Same logic you're using.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.</i.

Are you under the impression that everyone didn't see that coming for the last two days?

SN,

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain? (PDF)

Connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation. Most pain neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception; cortical activation correlates strongly with pain experience and an absence of cortical activity generally indicates an absence of pain experience. The lack of cortical connections before 24 weeks, therefore, implies that pain is not possible until after 24 weeks.

Remember that 99% of PP abortions take place before 21 weeks, so it seems impossible that any of the fetuses they abort are capable of feeling pain. Is it possible to punish a fetus with no cortical connections?

[Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person! Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

OH, I'll just stick with the science.

So inconsistent and illogical. So horrific.

I agree. Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid "punishing" a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

The facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,

See, if your opinions were "beside the main point", why mention them?

You truly are a babbling idiotic, and an apparently malevolent one at that.

Here's some reading for you, See.

Rational Catholic Blog

I remember them from the great Tetanus Vaccine == STERILISATION fraud last year.
IIRC, the blogger conceded that there was no evidence of birth-control contamination of the vaccines, and that the whole story was a congeries of cynical fabrication, but she couldn't quite bring herself to condemn the Kenyan bishops who were driving it (because Catholics)... so it was all an Honest Mistake rather than theocratic mendacity (going on to blame the doctors for not explaining themselves clearly enough in the face of the fraud, and the Kenyan government for not giving the bishops the more central role in governance that they wanted).
She came across as smarter than most of her commenters.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

More from the Planned Parenthood Shopping Network…

Today’s hot items are “clumps of cells”! Yes, really!
“Clumps” may sound boring, but they actually come in many exciting and highly-desired styles. Like

“Central nervous system, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow…” (time 8:30),

And don’t forget the “lungs and trachea, intestines” (time 11:30),

And the always eye-catching “orbits (eyeballs)” (time 13:41).

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/250179-fifth-planned-parenthood-vi…

More sensational clumps after a word from our sponsors...

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

“Clumps” may sound boring, but they actually come in many exciting and highly-desired styles.

"Exciting"?

"Highly desired"?

See, I hope you aren't "touching" yourself while watching the "exciting" videos.

Oh my gosh...

So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,
– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

So, See Noevo has conceptualized the notion of punishing someone for thinking. Thinking is being compared to a crime.

How interesting. Could be just an extremely clumsy analogy, but it might also be a little peek into how he really feels.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

@#651

Your ignoble retreat is again duly noted. As is your bad faith and dishonesty.

BTW, you know how -- according to you -- Catholics who declare that abortion on demand is a legal activity aren't Catholics?

Well, say goodbye to Scalia:

The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.

If that's the furthest he's willing to go, you're never going to dial it back any further.

I don't know why I'm shocked by the brazen restatement of my words, which are sitting right there in #651 saying something completely different from the paraphrase that SN then proceeded to make up and reply to as he might just as easily have done without hounding me for a response first, since he was going to ignore it anyway.

But I am.

To gaist #653:

“Abortions serve a purpose – they are not done to inflict senselessly punitive acts on the unborn for no reason whatsoever, but to – an for – the mother who desires it. You might not agree with the mother’s reasoning, but pretending they don’t exist fools only you.”

I think you may be right.
As you say, abortions serve a purpose; they are done to inflict punitive acts on the unborn for a reason: the mother desires it.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

To Krebiozen #656:

“How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?

Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

“Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.”

Note to self: Send email to Merriam-Webster on required change to definition of “pregnancy”, to wit,
“Invariably puts adult women through horrible suffering and even death.”

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

To Krebiozen #656:

“How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?
Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

“Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.”

Note to self: Send email to Merriam-Webster on required change to definition of “pregnancy”, to wit,
“Almost invariably puts adult women through horrible suffering and even death.”

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Given that S.N. is plainly just desperate for frottage, it's time for the magic sound of...

*plonk*

To ann #663:

“Your ignoble retreat is again duly noted.”
How can a retreat be ignoble (or noble), if there is no retreat?

“As is your bad faith and dishonesty.”
Like, for instance, when you wrote of me: “Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…”
A complete falsehood.

“I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.”

So, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that, if Margaret Sanger were alive today, she would be pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood? That’s priceless.

“BTW, you know how — according to you — Catholics who declare that abortion on demand is a legal activity aren’t Catholics?”
I think you just fell back into bad faith/dishonesty mode, ann. Where did I ever say that? I certainly don’t believe it. I think a Catholic, or anyone, who declares that abortion is a legal activity is just being realistic, sane. Abortion’s evil, yes, but it’s also legal.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #664:

“I don’t know why I’m shocked by the brazen restatement of my words, which are sitting right there in #651 saying something completely different from the paraphrase that SN then proceeded to make up and reply to as he might just as easily have done without hounding me for a response first, since he was going to ignore it anyway. But I am.”

Maybe you’ll get over your shock by seeing it again, and seeing there’s nothing to be shocked about. Instant replay:

Me: “Do you believe in punishing a young person for not being able to do the things he will be able to do only when he’s older? If not, why not?”

You: “I do not, on the grounds that since instituting such a practice would serve no conceivable purpose and further no conceivable end that was in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally, it would simply be adding to the sum total of senselessly punitive acts inflicted on young people for no reason whatsoever to do so.”

Me: “So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,
– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.”

Actually, it IS shocking. It’s shocking to ME, that you think this way.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

There is always something morbidly curious when a commenter loses it completely and starts frothing at the mouth with glee and abandon.

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.

Since my definition of "not being viable" is not "feeling a bit weird today, but will be OK later", that's a bit of a strawman here.

Funny also how moral decisions are easier then one doesn't take into account half the people involved in it (i.e. the mother).

Still waiting for SN/AH solution to bring down the number of abortions.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

As you say, abortions serve a purpose; they are done to inflict punitive acts on the unborn for a reason: the mother desires it.

“So, you believe [...]

Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus”

I'm okay with you thinking pregnant women have abortions because they want to inflict punishment on the baby. I am, I really don't mind - some people just seem hellbent on seeing the world as a bad place for whatever their personal reason, but let's not pretend I said it, even if you do seem to have a habit of putting words into people's mouths.

How can a retreat be ignoble (or noble), if there is no retreat?

Then return to the 'ancient history' you yourself brought up, flogging it repeatedly, only to sudenly decide it was 'besides the point' and either defend your position on it or acknowledge that others make valid points - instead of abruptly changing the subject.

Or ignoring everything with 'nuh-uh didn't happen', like you've been doing.

Honestly, these are things people should have picked up in kindergarten.

I think you just fell back into bad faith/dishonesty mode, ann. Where did I ever say that?

Mirrors, See Noevo, mirrors everywhere.

[#651][Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person! Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

So inconsistent and illogical.

[#669]
Abortion’s evil, yes, but it’s also legal.

Inconsistent and illogical indeed. Horrfic, wouldn't go that far personally. Callous and misinformed and dishonest, yes, but that's often the case for people who invoke god instead of logic in a discussion.

Also, is what you claim ann said now 'the main point', worthy of discussion, or did you ignobly retreat flee had enough of PP probably being the largest an abortion mill?

If you made an actual point about your 'main point' before flailing away at another windmill, I must have missed it.

See Noevo,

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?
Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

I don't think those acts do punish those people, as punishment requires some kind of suffering*. As Merriam-Webster puts it, "punish: to make someone suffer for (a crime or bad behavior)". What you have done is taken away a natural born person's right to life, which is a crime.

Note to self: Send email to Merriam-Webster on required change to definition of “pregnancy”, to wit,
“Invariably puts adult women through horrible suffering and even death.”

Where did I write "invariably"? Oh, I didn't, you just made that up. I was referring to your apparent belief that a pregnancy cannot be terminated even if it is threatening a woman's life. Or did I misunderstand that?

* A murderer isn't punished by being killed randomly in their sleep, presumably because at least part of the punishment is them knowing they are about to lose their life.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 04 Aug 2015 #permalink

Let's look at See Noevo's 'main point' from another angle, merely because his weird and illogical hyperbole into people with their heads blown off.

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

"Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously" (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm)
That statistic means there is roughly equal amount of miscarriages and live births+abortions put together. If god exists and is omnipresent, and if human life begins at conception like you insist there are about 4.3 miscarriagesbabies murdered by god each second.

Therefore, your god, if it exists, murders more unborn human babies than anything else.
QED.

"Children are a gift from god", indeed. They're the ones lucky ones it let survive.

Now, to your newest attempt at "hypotheticals"...

How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain?

You wait for him to come round and tell them you're not giving them any dessert until they apologize? It would be helpful if we knew what the patient supposedly did to deserve punishment.

Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

It's nice that the adult died painlessly, I think, regardless of past misdeeds, but are you really so vindictive that you feel the need to punish a deceased person? One would think any action done would punish the surviving relations, rather than the person itself...

re: see noevo @ 329: I wasn't "still out there for a while (due to illness) but i'll try to respond to your posts later today.

If, that is,I find you've asked any substantive questions. I don''t really see the relevance of my personal views regarding an afterlife or lack thereof to any discussion regarding ethic abortion policies.

JGC -- something something abortion punishes babies something something.

Saved you some time.

DGR, fetuses are children.

By what rational argument must we consider a fetus at nine weeks gestation to share exact identity with a day-old, week-old, month -old, year-old etc. human child? Be as specific as possible

We already force people to live by our religious and moral beliefs. That is why murder, rape, theft, arson etc is wrong and punishable.

Murder, rape, etc. aren't considered wrong and punishable because of religious articles of faith condemning them or because religious strictures (such as the commandments found in Exodus) prohibit these acts, however, but are condemned instead because they demonstrably cause harm to other members of shared communities. As a result the normative values of all human societies, despite embacing a wide variety of different religious traditions, have proscribed such behavior.

If we really built our society around Biblical law, then we wouldn't have banks. At the very least, we'd have done something about the subprime lending industry: Exodus 22:25.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

DGR, all human beings are human beings.

And all staplers are staplers, and all cricket bats are cricket bats. Did you have a point?
If you’re trying to grope your way toward some argument that “At all stages of development a fetus is also a human being” you’ll have to offer something more than unsupported assertion this is the case.

A fetus has its own body, it is a unique human being.

By what rational argument must a fetus at 9 weeks gestation be considered to also represent a human being?

Science confirms that fetuses are unique human beings. Surely you know that.

No, I don’t know this at all: citations needed.

A unique human organism is formed at conception.

The paper notes that a zygote is formed at conception, but offers no evidence nor convincing argument which supports your claim that a zygote represents a human being.

the fact is taht the various religious traditions co-opted the normative values of the societies which authored them, rather than the other way around. Tha's why despite these traditions arising at different times in different societies they all have embraced a common core of morally proscribed behaviors, the normative values that promote the smooth function and continued existence of those societies: respect authority, don't steal, don't do violence without cause, etc. And of course by doing so realize the benefit of conferring a veneer of divine authority on those normative values...

God is infinite and creator of all. Nobody tells him what to do, or puts him in a lab to do experiments, “proving” his existence.

So you're stating explicitly that because of its very nature you cannot in fact offer any prove for the existence of the god who's supposed will you're inisting civil laws must be crafted to reflect?

Have I got that right?

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

Citation needed, see--and if you intend to argue that terminating a pregnancy is an instance of 'terminating a human life", you'll need to first demonstrate that at all stages of gestation following fertilzation a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human life rather than a human oocyte or human tissues.

Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.

You almost groped your way toward valid analogy there, See. But only almost--if you'd gone instead with "How can you punish someone who, as the result of a traumatic brain injury from an automobile or motorcycle accident, was already brain-dead" you'd have been on the right path.

JCG: I've tried pointing out to SN and AH that many societies did fine without the Judeo-Christian deities. SN has it firmly in mind that all societies other than J-C ones had no morals.

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

The DOD would beg to differ. Particularly the drone program.

DGR, fetuses are children.

Neither legally nor medically.

What about the embryos created by in vitro fertilization that either don't successfully come to term, are rejected due to apparent defects, or are never implanted?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

more critically, MOB< what about all the "human bengs" (i.e., embryos) who are victims of illegal detention and beong held in inhuman conditions (they're being held at temperatures as low as -130 degrees celsius!)?

Don't we need to liberate all these 'people', and find them all good homes?

Me: “So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older,

No. I believe that it's senselessly punitive to punish a young person for no purpose when to do so would not be in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally.

– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.”

And I never said that at all. Or anything remotely like it.

I do believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state can't unduly obstruct access to abortion prior to viability. And I've said so.

But it has. So it would really only be indicative of bias if I pretended otherwise.

think you just fell back into bad faith/dishonesty mode, ann. Where did I ever say that? I certainly don’t believe it. I think a Catholic, or anyone, who declares that abortion is a legal activity is just being realistic, sane. Abortion’s evil, yes, but it’s also legal.

It's legal at the state level because Scalia says so. If he said it violated the right to life, it wouldn't be -- or, at the very least, there would be an initial precedent for arguing that it wasn't. Others would be added to it. And eventually, it mightn't be. You have to start somewhere.

That's his job. He's not just observing an established fact. He's ensuring its continued legality.

JGC - zomg, I showed my bias by thinking those were the lucky ones!

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Like, for instance, when you wrote of me: “Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…”
A complete falsehood.

The rhetoric might be inaccurate. But it's manifestly, self-evidently true that you don't know what you're talking about.

“I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.”

So, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that, if Margaret Sanger were alive today, she would be pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood?

No, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that one's assumptions about a person one knew nothing about could be based on anything else.

That’s priceless.

Better that than worthless.

And I still don't see how my answering your hypothetical question was very useful.

All it did was lead to you to make the same logically vacant argument by analogy you'd already pointlessly made several times, except with even less justification.

That's not even useful to you.

– Yet you believe it’s OK to punish a “fetus” for something he can’t do now (e.g. make brain waves; be “viable”) but will be able to do when he’s older.”

I realize that you're probably more interested in telling me what I do believe on that score than you are in being told it.

But fwiw:

I believe that when it comes to questions that can't be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can't be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it's not the state's business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.

And I believe even more strongly that it's completely inimical to freedom for a particular faction of people who settle it the way they do primarily out of religious conviction to try to impose their preferences on others who don't share their beliefs, unless they can win the argument on the same terms that everybody else agrees to and abides by.

Speaking of which:

[Oh, and you can skip any blather about ‘But the fetus is not a person!

I also never said that or anything remotely like it.

Because five infallible justices on the Supreme Court told me so, and this is a democracy, and …blah blah blah.]

And I never said they were infallible. But just FYI:

If you're at such a disadvantage in a fair fight that the best you can do is sputter out "Blather! Stuff and nonsense!" before blathering on yourself, I'm not surprised that you don't like living in a democracy.

But you do. And that being the case:

Your personal religious convictions do not give you any special rights. And the personal religious conviction that you deserve them because you're not just speaking selfishly on your own behalf, but rather fighting for the rights of a voiceless, voteless population doesn't change that.

I mean, you can go around saying so if you feel like it. Since you're bound to be dealing with people who are more considerate and courteous than you are most of the time, the odds are good that they mostly won't call it blather. But you're not going to win any arguments.

You don't have the right to impose your personal beliefs on other people. Stamping your feet and bawling about it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Those are the rules. If you don't like it, move.

To Kerbiozen #675:

You: “How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

Me: “How can you punish a patient under anesthesia who has no way of feeling any pain? Or adult whose head is blown off, killing him instantly. And painlessly.”

You: “I don’t think those acts do punish those people, as punishment requires some kind of suffering.”

Then what was your point in asking “How can you punish a fetus that has no way of feeling any pain?”

Oh, wait. Now I remember.
Your point was you can kill it if it doesn’t now feel pain, because it’s not a human being if it doesn’t now feel pain.

“Putting adult women through horrible suffering and even death to avoid “punishing” a fetus that is physiologically incapable of suffering or any sort of self-awareness is horrific.”
“I was referring to your apparent belief that a pregnancy cannot be terminated even if it is threatening a woman’s life. Or did I misunderstand that?”

You misunderstood that. See #207.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #677:

Me: “Are you still out there? I’ll repeat my question:
What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?”

You: “I don”t really see the relevance of my personal views regarding an afterlife or lack thereof to any discussion regarding ethic abortion policies.”

It’s relevant because you felt free to ask questions relating to
the topic earlier in this thread, as I noted in #420.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #685:

Me: “[Planned Parenthood] exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.”

You: “Citation needed, see–
and if you intend to argue that terminating a pregnancy is an instance of ‘terminating a human life”, you’ll need to first demonstrate that at all stages of gestation following fertilzation a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human life rather than a human oocyte or human tissues.”

There are probably many possible citations. Here’s one, from a left-wing government funded outfit:
“Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.”
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/13/135354952/planned-parenthood-makes-aborti…

[Oh, wait. That says “nation”, not “planet”. Go ahead. Have some fun with that.]

And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Your citation does not prove that Planned Parenthood exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. What else do you have?

To ann #693:

Me: “So, you believe
– It’s wrong to punish a young person for something he can’t do now but will be able to do when he’s older.”

You: “No. I believe that it’s senselessly punitive to punish a young person for no purpose when to do so would not be in the interests of the young person, or anyone else, or society generally.”

OK.
So you believe it’s NOT OK to punish a “fetus” for no purpose when to do so would not be in the interests of the “fetus”, or anyone else, or society generally.

“I do believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state can’t unduly obstruct access to abortion prior to viability.”

So what? And I believe that the Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was pretty much OK (see Dred Scott).

Ann, why are you pro-abortion (also known, falsely, as “pro-choice”), or at least siding with the pro-aborts?

[What!?! See Noevo, how dare you make such a presumptive statement! I have never said I was pro-abortion, as you call it. The fact that virtually every one of my comments on this thread dissects and criticizes and impugns the pro-life side, or you or AH, and NEVER the pro-abortion side, as you call it, is just a fact and nothing more. You should read no bias or opinion into the slant of my posts.]

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #694:

“It’s legal at the state level because Scalia says so.”

No. I think it’s legal at the state level because FIVE OTHER Supremes said so.

“That’s his job. He’s not just observing an established fact. He’s ensuring its continued legality.”

As it would be a Supreme Court justice’s job after Dred Scott to ensure slavery’s continued legality, I guess.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #696:

You: “As is your bad faith and dishonesty.”

Me: “Like, for instance, when you wrote of me: “Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…” A complete falsehood.”

You: “The rhetoric might be inaccurate. But …”

Are you actually Josh Earnest, behind the “ann”?

Me: “So, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that, if Margaret Sanger were alive today, she would be pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood?”

You: “No, one would have to be lazy and biased to think that one’s assumptions about a person one knew nothing about could be based on anything else.”

“Assumptions” like that Margaret Sanger believed, even way back then, that abortion was sometimes justified and accepted it “as a last resort”?
I thought everyone in the know about Margie accepted that as a “fact”?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

You misunderstood that. See #207.

OK:

“II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?”

It CAN be, under certain circumstances. (In many cases the answer would be No. The threat to the mother is just that – a threat, a risk – not a certainty. Whereas, the end of abortion is a certainty. Abortion, as in the INTENDED destruction of the human life in the womb, is ALWAYS wrong.)

In other words,you not only can punish women with pre-eclampsia/eclampsia all the way to death, if that's what it takes, but as long as there's human life in the womb, you have to.

In certain cases that would be fatal to the mother (e.g. some ectopic pregnancies), the intended saving of the mother’s life may require UN-intended ending of the baby’s life. This “double effect” can be morally acceptable:

In other words, sometimes you can punish the woman by removing the fallopian tube she isn't able to use now even though she might be able to do so later -- which just happens to also remove the fetus -- but you can't punish the fetus by using methotrexate or just doing a salingostomy.

If that's correct, I don't think Krebiozen misunderstood you.

“Assumptions” like that Margaret Sanger believed, even way back then, that abortion was sometimes justified and accepted it “as a last resort”?

No, just the ones where you made an ass out of umpt, ion and yourself by prefacing your words with "I assume."

^^ "I would assume"

I've decided that in SN's mind, abortion is wrong because that way women aren't punished for having sex. And sex without procreation is wrong, so therefore anything that interferes with a woman's vagina becoming a clown car is wrong.

SN: there are many ways a pregnancy can kill a woman. So if it's only a small chance she'll die, you're OK with a sentient, intelligent person dying. But it's NOT OK for a non-sentient parasitic embryo to die to keep her alive. Got it.

To ann #698:

“I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.”

Then why do you think it’s the state’s business to not only allow but even protect the death penalty for the indisputable life growing in the woman’s womb, the life whose “human being-ness” can’t be definitively answered (according to pro-aborts) and on which no social or scientific consensus exists (although the consensus is unanimous that “It’s alive.)?

For the target in the womb, the questions and the debates are quite settled, for all practical purposes.
Makes one wonder about that old Hippocratic oath doesn’t it?

“And I believe even more strongly that it’s completely inimical to freedom for a particular faction of people who settle it the way they do primarily out of religious conviction to try to impose their preferences on others who don’t share their beliefs, unless they can win the argument on the same terms that everybody else agrees to and abides by.”

Oh, the pro-life can win, and HAS won, the argument on the same non-religious terms that everybody SHOULD agree to and abide by – terms of logic, common sense, caution.
But the pro-abortion side, as with virtually all Progressives, doesn’t play by those terms, those rules.

“If you don’t like it, move.”
I don’t like it, nor could any person who values life and liberty, logic and common sense and appropriate caution. But we’re not moving. We’re not going anywhere.
And we WILL overcome…someday.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

No. I think it’s legal at the state level because FIVE OTHER Supremes said so.

That would again be because you have no idea what you're talking about. It's always been permissible for abortion to be legal at the state level.

The only way Scalia -- or any other justice -- could change that would be to say it wasn't. Because it's his job to say what is and isn't permissible at the state level.

Then why do you think it’s the state’s business to not only allow but even protect the death penalty for the indisputable life growing in the woman’s womb, the life whose “human being-ness” can’t be definitively answered (according to pro-aborts) and on which no social or scientific consensus exists (although the consensus is unanimous that “It’s alive.)?

Are you really too dense to grasp that the question at issue -- the one about which no social or scientific consensus exists -- is "When does human life begin?"

Here. I'll help you out.

Whether you like it or not, if you're serious about your cause, this is the argument you have to beat:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.

Just repeating that it's indisputable doesn't help you. It's disputed.

Oh, the pro-life can win, and HAS won, the argument on the same non-religious terms that everybody SHOULD agree to and abide by – terms of logic, common sense, caution.

Then why can't you?

To ann #706:

“In other words,you not only can punish women with pre-eclampsia/eclampsia…
In other words, sometimes you can punish the woman by removing the fallopian tube…
... using methotrexate or just doing a salingostomy [sic].”

I strongly suspect your post is misguided, however, I’m not a gynecologist, nor a PhD in medical ethics, and I’m not now going to get into the details of these issues with you.

I would note, though, that according to the Preeclampsia Foundation, “Preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders of pregnancy impact 5-8% of all births in the United States” and that WebMD says only about 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic.
So, EVEN IF abortion was both blessed AND legalized in all pregnancies with those conditions, and only those conditions, we’d probably eliminate the vast majority of currently-legal abortions.

That would be progress, don’t you think?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #711:

Me: “No. I think it’s legal at the state level because FIVE OTHER Supremes said so.”

You: “That would again be because you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s always been permissible for abortion to be legal at the state level. The only way Scalia — or any other justice — could change that would be to say it wasn’t. Because it’s his job to say what is and isn’t permissible at the state level.”

Yes, if Roe vs. Wade were ever overturned, the permissibility of abortion would return to being solely a state-by-state issue. However, I THINK that maybe the decision by the five Supremes decision essentially told the states that the states’ permission of abortion had Constitutional protection. Or at least “penumbras, formed by emanations” did, as was opined in a somewhat related SCOTUS case.

It’s fascinating that even pro-abortion, liberal legal scholars such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and SCOTUS’s own Ruth Bader Ginsburg have stated that Roe Vs. Wade was poorly decided from a legal reasoning and Constitutional standpoint. Oh, they love the result, of course. They just admit that how they got the result was bogus. Pretty much consistent with Liberals’ philosophy of “The ends justify the means.”

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

And we WILL overcome…someday.

Yeah, well. When you don't even know that abortion would still be legal and permissible in every state that wanted it to be if all nine Supreme Court justices said Roe v. Wade was trash, I'd say it'll probably be a long time coming.

Some states would, no doubt, outlaw it completely if constitutionally allowed to do so. But many wouldn't. A lot of people would travel to them. At the end of the day, true believers would only have increased by the small number of women who couldn't travel or afford a safe local illegal abortion and weren't desperate enough to risk an unsafe one.

And the numbers would almost certainly be about the same as they are now, unless -- for instance -- you overturned Roe v. Wade and shut down Planned Parenthood, in which case there would be less access to contraception and the number of abortions would go up.

That's always going to be more or less the case, as long as the strategy is to cut off supply. If you want to save unborn lives, you have to decrease demand. But that would require you to accommodate the needs and interests of women and others who don't already agree with you for long enough to come up with an argument that means something to them, which you refuse to do.

And it would also require you to promote access to contraception, which, unlike your approach to abortion-reduction, actually works. But you probably refuse to do that, too.

Because you don't really want to save unborn lives. You just want to make abortion illegal. So you'll always be responsible for keeping abortion rates about where they are now. And at most, you'll someday succeed in punishing a small number of additional women. Maybe not even that. Way to go.

That would be progress, don’t you think?

For the reasons just stated, no. If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortion, you have to do more than outlaw it on grounds that aren't persuasive to people who don't already share your beliefs. Which is the vast majority of people.

And it's doubtful that you can even outlaw it nationally.

Nevertheless, I apologize for saying you didn't really want to save unborn lives.

I didn't really mean that as much as I did that what you're doing isn't going to achieve that result.

t’s fascinating that even pro-abortion, liberal legal scholars such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and SCOTUS’s own Ruth Bader Ginsburg have stated that Roe Vs. Wade was poorly decided from a legal reasoning and Constitutional standpoint. Oh, they love the result, of course. They just admit that how they got the result was bogus.

That's not my understanding of what she was saying. But maybe you could help me out. What part of her reasoning did you find the most fascinating?

Pretty much consistent with Liberals’ philosophy of “The ends justify the means.”

That's not a philosophy that's limited to liberals. On the Supreme Court (cough Clarence Thomas cough) or elsewhere.

I mean, just the other day, a veritable clown car full of GOP leaders who voted to lift the fetal-tissue research ban -- and then voted again not to ban fetal tissue from abortions from being used in it -- were out there clutching their pearls and acting shocked (shocked!) that such things occurr in this here great land of ours.

Nobody's got a monopoly on it.

However, I THINK that maybe the decision by the five Supremes decision essentially told the states that the states’ permission of abortion had Constitutional protection.

Not exactly. I mean, by definition, if the constitution doesn't prohibits states from permitting something, it protects their right to permit it. In theory, at least.

Properly speaking, what Roe v. Wade did was tell the states that prohibitions on abortion were unconstitutional.

To ann #712:

Me: “Then why do you think it’s the state’s business to not only allow but even protect the death penalty for the indisputable life growing in the woman’s womb, the life whose “human being-ness” can’t be definitively answered (according to pro-aborts) and on which no social or scientific consensus exists (although the consensus is unanimous that “It’s alive.)?”

You: “Are you really too dense to grasp that the question at issue — the one about which no social or scientific consensus exists — is “When does human life begin?””

Are you really too dense to grasp that common sense and modern science have already answered the question by saying human life DOES begin at conception?
Or do you think common sense and modern science are saying “It’s definitely alive, but I dunno, it might be eggplant or elephant life”?

Or do you think “OK, everyone knows it’s human life, but is it a human BEING?”

Well, gee. I guess if you’re not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, you best leave “it” the hell alone, maybe?

It’s almost like as someone else said, “I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.”

It’s like the state saying, “Gee, no one’s sure, or at least no one has indisputable proof that it’s NOT a human being, so if we’re going to err we best err on the side of caution, and protect “it”. Who knows? “It” might even become a “baby”? Stranger things have happened.”

It’s like a Type 1 error in logic: Incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis.
The Type 1 error would be horrific when, say, the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is a human being.” Because then, the Type 1 error can lead to killing an innocent human being.

The Type 2 error here would be mild in comparison (i.e. Incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis, where the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is NOT a human being.”). Because then, the Type 2 error just leads to the pregnancy going to term and out comes the indisputable body of a human being.

Why can’t you use common sense and logic and caution?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #715:

“Because you don’t really want to save unborn lives.”

More bad faith and dishonesty from you. A complete falsehood.

Way to go, Josh.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

I apologized.

To ann #716:

Me: “So, EVEN IF abortion was both blessed AND legalized in all pregnancies with those conditions, and only those conditions [preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders and ectopic pregnancy], we’d probably eliminate the vast majority of currently-legal abortions.
That would be progress, don’t you think?”

You: “For the reasons just stated, no. If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortion, you have to do more than outlaw it on grounds that aren’t persuasive to people who don’t already share your beliefs. Which is the vast majority of people.”

Vast majority as in 29% of people?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Are you really too dense to grasp that common sense and modern science have already answered the question by saying human life DOES begin at conception?
Or do you think common sense and modern science are saying “It’s definitely alive, but I dunno, it might be eggplant or elephant life”?

Or do you think “OK, everyone knows it’s human life, but is it a human BEING?”

Can you read? Everyone does not know that it's a human life, as opposed to a potential human life. That, precisely, is the issue on which there is no scientific or social consensus. Your views on the matter are based on religious convictions that not everybody shares.

Well, gee. I guess if you’re not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, you best leave “it” the hell alone, maybe?

Expanded to apply to everyone, including you, that's the general idea behind making it a matter of individual conscience. I realize you don't have any doubts. But that's faith- not reason-based.

It’s almost like as someone else said, “I believe that when it comes to questions that can’t be definitively answered, on which no social or scientific consensus exists, and that can’t be answered either way without extremely serious, far-reaching consequences, it’s not the state’s business to settle what can only therefore be an open question and a matter of individual conscience.”

It’s like the state saying, “Gee, no one’s sure, or at least no one has indisputable proof that it’s NOT a human being, so if we’re going to err we best err on the side of caution, and protect “it”. Who knows? “It” might even become a “baby”? Stranger things have happened.”

As you know full well (if you can read), the issue that's disputed is not whether or not a human embryo that comes to term will become a human baby.

It's at what point it ceases to be a potential human life and becomes a person whose life the state is compelled to protect. However obvious it is to you that that point is at conception, there's no social or scientific consensus regarding it. Your views are based on religious conviction. Most people do not share them. They therefore don't share your certainty.

Vast majority as in 29% of people?

No, that's the percentage that want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. As I said, the vast majority don't share your beliefs.

The number that think abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances is more like 50% at it lowest. There's a 20% swing vote that only kicks in when there's a loss being threatened. So real support for abortion fluctuates between about 50% and 70%. And real opposition to it fluctuates between about 30% and 40%.

Or that's how it's been for as much of the post-Roe era as I can remember. Abortion is not popular. But when push comes to shove, people don't want to lose the right to it.

It’s like a Type 1 error in logic: Incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis.
The Type 1 error would be horrific when, say, the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is a human being.” Because then, the Type 1 error can lead to killing an innocent human being.

The Type 2 error here would be mild in comparison (i.e. Incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis, where the null hypothesis is “The human life in the womb is NOT a human being.”). Because then, the Type 2 error just leads to the pregnancy going to term and out comes the indisputable body of a human being.

You're leaving something out.

Why can’t you use common sense and logic and caution?

I can.

You’re leaving something out.

That's one way of putting it.

so See noevo is still there, fighting a mob of angry lions with his rusty dirk of a brain 500 comments later, and still hasn't clarified his position properly, and hasn't answered my question. I'll reiterate:

See noevo, how would you even implement anti-abortion into the current american law?
What would be the exceptions? Would you allow pregnant women that have a life threatening condition to abort? Would you allow an exception for rape? How would the law be enforced? Would there be a time limit (in weeks) to abortion, or would it be never?

If you can't answer that, how can you even hope to outlaw abortion one day? I ask the question because I know precisely that it can't possibly be done, so you're losing your times in endless debates that you cannot win, flailing your arms wildly against the wind.

See Noevo: Zef is very young, but he's being held captive in a sensory-deprivation chamber. Little Zef's eyes are glued shut; he has a mouth but he can't scream; his lungs are kept full of fluid. So are his ears. The sensory-deprivation chamber has soft walls, without even corners. It's also closing in on him: he has less and less room to stretch out each day.

Should Little Zef not be rescued? Like any hostage rescue situation, there's danger that Little Zef might not survive the rescue, but that's no excuse. Rescue Little Zef! Rescue Little Zef!

Six months of confinement under such horrid conditions is already too much. Little Zef must be rescued! Rescue Little Zef!

By Bill Price (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo: Little Zef is, by your reckoning, a Human Being, who should not be treated as heis being treated. Little Zef is kept in a bag, in his sensory-deprivation chamber. His waste goes into the bag, and no one is allowed to clean it up. Little Zef is not given anything to eat: he is force-fed through his navel!

Again, SN, Little Zef must not be treated with such disrespect. You must Free Little Zef!

By Bill Price (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #724:

“Can you read? Everyone does not know that it’s a human life, as opposed to a potential human life. That, precisely, is the issue on which there is no scientific or social consensus. Your views on the matter are based on religious convictions that not everybody shares.”

Can you think?
Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE. Now, what type of life is it? You don’t need CSI-Miami’s crew to help you out. What type of life is produced by a human male’s sperm fertilizing a human woman’s egg? Eggplant life?

And what type of life forms the central nervous system, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow, lungs, trachea, intestines, and “orbits” (eyeballs) that Planned Parenthood is so anxious to carve out and sell (see #660 for video)? Broccoli life?

“It’s at what point it ceases to be a potential human life and becomes a person whose life the state is compelled to protect. However obvious it is to you that that point is at conception, there’s no social or scientific consensus regarding it. Your views are based on religious conviction. Most people do not share them. They therefore don’t share your certainty.”

MY certainty? Forget about MY certainty.
How about YOURS?
You, ann, are CERTAIN that the embryo is NOT a human life but only a potential human life?
On what basis?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #725:

Me: “Vast majority as in 29% of people?”

You: “No, that’s the percentage that want to see Roe v. Wade overturned… The number that think abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances is more like 50% at it lowest.”

Really?
In the last five years, how about 37% (May 2011)?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #726:

Me: “It’s like a Type 1 error in logic: Incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis…”

You: “You’re leaving something out.”

Such as?

Me: “Why can’t you use common sense and logic and caution?”
You: “I can.”

Ooops. My mistake. Allow me to rephrase:

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Come on,

SN

, you have serious work to do. You don't have time to spend chatting up Ann, while Little Zef isbei ng punished–for something–something he's too young to have done.

It's well known that sensory deprivation is just about the most serious torture a human being can be subject to. Yet here you are, doing nothing about Little Zef's life of punishment.

Your christian duty is to save Little Zef, to rescue him from his torture. Get with it, SN, stop fooling around.

And when you get the one Little Zef taken care of, there are millions more, and millions of Little Zeflettes, too, in the same torturous situation. You must save them, since you are convinced they are Human Beings.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Planned Parenthood is all about women’s healthcare, we’re told.

It’s interesting, though, that a woman can’t get a mammogram at PP, but only a referral.

And that PP charges women up to $50 for a month’s worth of contraceptives, when you can get the same for $9 at a Walmart or Target.

That’s all small potatoes, anyway.

PP charges a woman up to $1,500 for a first trimester abortion.

And then, of course, the harvesting proceeds. (See below.)

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Meanwhile,
back to the Planned Parenthood Shopping Network (see #660)…

Welcome back, folks, and a big thank you to our sponsors.

Now while these clumps (of cells) sure are cute - with names like central nervous system, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow, lungs, trachea, intestines, and “orbits” (eyeballs!) –
and, yes, they’re absolutely TO DIE FOR on their own,
you MIGHT want to get them all tied together, so-to-speak,
in one whole (but still small) package.
Yes?
Well if you do, you’re in luck, because we have a brand new product, Item #666.
It’s the full fetus package! That’s the intact specimen!
Take a look at time 3:12…
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/250179-fifth-planned-parenthood-vi…

But we currently have only a limited supply. They’re working on increasing production, but for now, there’s only so many.

So, if you’re interested in getting all the goodies in one fell swoop with the full fetal, the intact specimen, don't delay.
Call us NOW!

This is so exciting! Ha ha!
But right now we have to take another break for a sponsors…

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

Or are you, SN, just one of those christianists that, like Mother Teresa, demands that everyone else suffer for the Good of their Immortal Soul (whatever that would be, if it existed).

You will never have to make a decision whether to abort your pregnancy, so it's easy for you to spout spurious arguments in favor of controlling other people. You don't care about your neighbor, like most xtians, as long as she's female and thus "requires" your control. You don't care about her ZEF, as long as you can use it as a means of control. You don't care about the baby that might result from the pregnancy (you'll send it off to a Just Christian™ war in a heartbeat), since you no longer have the leverage over the mother.

You're just another sorry example of the evil of the christianities. (Not all christians are necessarily evil, but SN certainly is.)

By Bill Price (not verified) on 05 Aug 2015 #permalink

@SN

So, EVEN IF abortion was both blessed AND legalized in all pregnancies with those conditions, and only those conditions, we’d probably eliminate the vast majority of currently-legal abortions.

If the prohibition period, the laws against gambling, and the current war on drugs are any indication, nope.
You may shave a bit off the current numbers*, but I am very doubtful you will eliminate the "vast majority".

Abortion, like any product/service between two groups of people, follows the rules of offer and demand. If there is one, there will be the other. Illegality just increases the prices.
That you should do is to reduce the demand.

With people thinking in black and white. the outlawing of abortion results in physicians being afraid of touching the fetus, even in conditions such as the ones you just talked about. I mentioned Savita Halappanavar already, but hers is not the only horror story floating around.
So I am very concerned that a law restricting abortion to just a few hard medical conditions wouldn't result in more harm than good - it may not save that many fetuses, and instead kill more women.
Especially since you seem yourself very hesitant in accepting abortions even in these cases (preeclampsia and related hypertensive disorders and ectopic pregnancy).

I’m not a gynecologist

Well, it's part of the issue. You romanticize the fetus and imagine that there is always hope for a pregnancy which has suffered some catastrophic event to magically right itself and still produce a beautiful healthy baby.
With a number of pregnancy failures, notably ectopic pregancies, that's not going to happen.

* well, assuming the outlawing of abortion is not also followed by the reduction of the availability of contraceptives. Pro-life platforms are not known for advocating for condoms or IUDs.
If there are more women becoming pregnant, there will be more women looking for abortion.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

MY certainty? Forget about MY certainty.

That's good advice. I'll take it.

Really?

Yes. Cherry-pick through the years as much as you want. No doubt you can find a number of transient anomalies. The basic reality is .

(Oops.)

...that it's about 50% at the low end, and higher when push comes to shove.

Pro-life platforms are not known for advocating for condoms or IUDs.

"Pro-life" platforms are not known for advocating for any post-ZEF life. Generally, the advocate against life in entirely too many circumstances.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Planned Parenthood is all about women’s healthcare, we’re told.

It’s interesting, though, that a woman can’t get a mammogram at PP, but only a referral.

Only if it's interesting that virtually all clinics and doctors' offices do that, because they don't have radiology departments.

I mean, have you ever been to the effing doctor? If you don't get your healthcare in a hospital, that kind of imaging is always done off-site. It's about as interesting as it would be if you were accusing them of not doing their own blood labs.

In fact, it's main point of interest is that it reveals that you care so little about women's healthcare that you haven't bothered to give what you're saying a moment's thought.

And that PP charges women up to $50 for a month’s worth of contraceptives, when you can get the same for $9 at a Walmart or Target.

Yeah, but you can never get an appointment with one of their doctors, for some reason.

And "up to"? The range is $0 to $50.

That’s all small potatoes, anyway.

As well as wholly irrelevant. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. That means they don't make money for private benefit.

They also generally charge the lowest rather than the highest possible prices, relative to costs.

PP charges a woman up to $1,500 for a first trimester abortion.

Or, as they put it:

Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less

You're not even trying to be honest.

And then, of course, the harvesting proceeds. (See below.)

Those would be the ones you made up and are now lying about, I guess.

So now See Noevo is claiming that a Gallup poll that found more than 60% of people are in generally in favor of first trimester abortions supports his view? Plus more attempts to elicit an emotional reaction by talking about bits of fetuses, while claiming to be arguing from a position of reason? Pathetic.

All this talk of fetal personhood doesn't explain why contraception is forbidden. Is there a rational explanation for that too?

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

* well, assuming the outlawing of abortion is not also followed by the reduction of the availability of contraceptives. Pro-life platforms are not known for advocating for condoms or IUDs.
If there are more women becoming pregnant, there will be more women looking for abortion.

That's where the ugly truth about SN's crusade reveals itself.

If the goal was really to reduce abortion numbers, that could be done:

1) Some of the countries of western Europe have the lowest abortion rate in the world, at 12 per 1000 women of childbearing age, according to the European Health for All database (HFA-DB).

2) By contrast, eastern countries (in this case: Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine) have the highest estimated abortion rates in the world. In 2003 there were more abortions than live births: 103 abortions per 100 births.

3) Nevertheless, eastern Europe has seen a dramatic decline in abortion incidence. It was estimated to be 90 per 1000 women of childbearing age in 1995 and 44 by 2004. The decrease coincided with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region.

4) The data in many countries are unreliable. According to HFA-DB, in 2006 the abortion ratio was 95 per 100 live births in the Russian Federation and 68 in Romania. At the lower end, Belgium’s rate was 14 and Switzerland 15 in 2005. Tajikistan reported less than 5 per 100 in 2006, and Poland less than 1. According to the most recent figures, the European Union average is 30 per 1000, and that of the newly independent states 54.

5) In a 2007 review, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia had the highest levels of abortion in the European Region. During their lifetimes, on average each woman has close to three abortions. The use of modern contraceptives is low in these countries.

When there's easy access to contraception; first-trimester abortions are available, reimbursable; and both are non-demonized, abortion rates drop.

They've actually been going down here since 1990. And that doesn't correlate with restrictions or lack of access at the state level. They're decreasing for the same reason that the teen pregnancy rate is declining: More access to contraception/information about it, more acceptance of its use,

IOW: Without Planned Parenthood, it would be much higher. They're not just saying that. It's the truth.

Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence; women seek desperate measures if they cannot obtain safe abortions. Data from Romania revealed that, when termination of pregnancy was banned by the Ceausescu regime, maternal mortality was more than 20 times higher than today.

^^If SN got his way -- ie, total abortion ban, no Planned Parenthood -- that would be what he'd accomplished. There's no gain for life. Abortion rates do not decline. It's all loss.

SN: answer me this: since it's known that free/inexpensive contraception - especially IUDs and implants - have a very good rate of preventing pregnancy (and thus decreasing the abortion rate) would you donate to a cause to promote contraceptive use?

If not, why?

@ann: you and I think alike... :)

But a draft paper from health economists at the University of Chicago, University of Southern California, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argue that these national numbers don’t tell the full story. While gap between infant mortality in the U.S. and in similar countries is “substantial,” they write, it’s also “poorly understood.”

The researchers compared data on infant health and mortality in the U.S.; Austria, whose rate of 3.8 is roughly average among European nations; and Finland, whose rate of 2.3 is one of the lowest in the world. One of the biggest differences, they found, was in the definition of what could be considered a live birth. “Extremely preterm births recorded in some places may be considered a miscarriage or still birth in other countries,” they wrote. Although the chance of survival for babies born before 23 weeks is low (the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that doctors don’t resuscitate babies born before that point), they’re recorded as live births in the U.S.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/why-american-babies-d…
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/5/e1400.full

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

You're the one who's vowing to fight relentlessly to win something that will only bring about more death without saving lives.

Your position is not based on logic, common sense or caution. Or even reality. It's based on blind religious conviction.

There are probably many possible citations. Here’s one, from a left-wing government funded outfit:
“Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.”

This source offers no evidence that PP ‘exterminates more human lives than anyone else on the planet’: it instead addresses the provision of medical abortions.

And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?

Because I’m not aware of any scientific evidence, nor any rational argument (from common sense or otherwise), which demonstrates that at all stages of development following conception a human zygote, embryo or fetus also represents a human life (i.e., a human person).
Care to actually try to make this case, rather than express surprise that I don’t accept an assertion you haven’t tried to support?

Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE.

Well, I don't, See. I know only that it's living, but to no greater extent than any other human cell or tissue could also be said to be living.

And I suspect you're actually using the term 'a life' as a synonym for 'a person' while steadfastly refusing to provide any rational argument demonstratig that equivalence is valid.

So let's make this as simple as possible, with two direct questions (which I suspect you'll refuse to answer.

Do you believe that immediately following fertilization a human zygote is also a human being?

If your answer to the above is Yes?", why? What properties does it possess that requires we consider it to share exact identity with a day-old, year-old, twenty-year-old male or female?

To ann and Krebiozen:

Ann: “The number that think abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances is more like 50% at it lowest.”

Me: “Really? In the last five years, how about 37% (May 2011)?”

Ann: “Yes. Cherry-pick through the years as much as you want. No doubt you can find a number of transient anomalies. The basic reality is …that it’s about 50% at the low end, and higher when push comes to shove.”

Krebiozen: “So now See Noevo is claiming that a Gallup poll that found more than 60% of people are in generally in favor of first trimester abortions supports his view?”

Well, I’m not sure what poll you two are reading but apparently it’s not the one I’ve been posting.
I’ll post it now for the third time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

It does require a little work, though. But if you page down to the fourth chart and are capable of adding two numbers, you’ll find:
Believe abortion should be
Year legal in all or most circumstances
2015 42%
2014 39%
2013 39%
2012 38%
2011 37%
2010 39%
2009 37%
2008 41%
2007 41%
2006 43%

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #745, #746:

Yes, the rates of abortion, or at least of surgical and suction abortion, appear to be declining. Of course, this doesn’t include the millions of lives lost from “contraceptives” that can act as abortifacients.

And who knows? Someday the world may even have more babies.
It better, because we appear to be going ever deeper into a demographic winter (i.e. More and more old people and fewer and fewer young people).
IF we ever come out of this winter, the spring time could be generations away.

As I recall, China has already abandoned its one-child policy and is now encouraging its women to have more children. Russia, Japan, Denmark, Singapore and other countries have begun incentivizing much higher fertility rates. They've seen the writing on the wall.

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon (time 4:45):

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

It better, because we appear to be going ever deeper into a demographic winter (i.e. More and more old people and fewer and fewer young people).

Who could have predicted that the aging of the baby boom would lead to that?

IF we ever come out of this winter, the spring time could be generations away.

There's no need for the drama. National populations wax and wane. We're not about to go extinct or cease being too large a segment of the marketplace for any commodity you care to name to grow irrelevant. Relax.

To Roger Kulp #749:

“Although the chance of survival for babies born before 23 weeks is low (the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that doctors don’t resuscitate babies born before that point), they’re recorded as live births in the U.S.”

That looks about right. From your second linked article:

“Noninitiation of resuscitation and discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment during or after resuscitation are ethically equivalent, and clinicians should not hesitate to withdraw support when functional survival is highly UNLIKELY. The following guidelines must be interpreted according to current regional outcomes:
•When gestation, birth weight, or congenital anomalies are associated with ALMOST CERTAIN early death and when UNACCEPTABLY high morbidity is LIKELY among the RARE survivors, resuscitation is not indicated. Examples include extreme prematurity (gestational age <23 weeks or birth weight <400 g)…”

Looks like if they THINK your odds are low, then they make them ZERO.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Of course, this doesn’t include the millions of lives lost from “contraceptives” that can act as abortifacients.

Name one.

And as for the bit about resuscitating those born extremely preterm and/or with serious congenital anomalies... you do realize that you're talking about restarting respiratory and cardiac function, so that the parents can go through the horror yet again?

There’s no need for the drama. National populations wax and wane.

One might note that S.N. has steadfastly refused to state whether he's married or has ever procreated. Or cite the Council of Trent, whatever.

The point of procreation in the RCC is the production of more Roman Catholics for the church to have sway over while everyone waits for the Second Coming, the certainty of which makes any sort of event that would render the planet inimicable to human life physically impossible.

@Narad: Of course, because at no point in the Bible has someone lost a battle despite superior numbers: Judge 7:22-25.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Yup. I was right. There are no contraceptives acceptable to SN because they are abortificants. (because any contraceptive - i.e. IUD - that prevents implantation is an abortificant. I bet SN is against tubal ligation and vasectomy, too.

And all premies should be resuscitated, even if they don't have functional lungs. And, though I can't see you.tube stuff at work, I'm willing to bet his video is of a Quiverful family. Conveniently white, of course.

But there’s at least one people that hasn’t had a shortage of babies. They actually appear to look at their fertility, in part, as a world-conquering weapon

These people?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/05/3688375/erick-erickson-die-out/

I'm not sure why people are humoring your insanity.

Your inane sophistry aside, this issue doesn't extend beyond each individual pregnant female and her individual circumstances and her decision based on those circumstances and her conscience.

The only person whose opinion matters in this is the pregnant female and the only circumstances that matter are her own.

Your opinion is irrelevant for any human beyond yourself..

And your feeble attempts to use science to buttress your irrelevant opinion is both hilarious and absurd given your refusal to accept scientific evidence which support truths that you oppose, e.g., evolution, AGW, or undercut your own, in my view, deluded beliefs.

Did you ever read the link I provided at #658 re: the universe could have been created out of nothing, i.e., no higher power required?

And all premies should be resuscitated, even if they don’t have functional lungs.

I don't recall ever getting a response to this question about Manar Maged.

Still waiting for your scientific evidence or argument demonstrating that at all stages of development following fertilization a human zygote, embryo, or fetus also represents a human being, rather than a human cell or human tissues, See.

Can I expect a substantive response anytime soon?

SN,

Well, I’m not sure what poll you two are reading but apparently it’s not the one I’ve been posting.
I’ll post it now for the third time.
It does require a little work, though. But if you page down to the fourth chart and are capable of adding two numbers, you’ll find:
Believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances

It requires a little work to avoid missing the 36% of people who think abortion should be legal in "only a few" circumstances. What those few circumstances would be is not specified. I don't know anyone who would support abortion in all circumstances, I certainly wouldn't. I might say that I think it should be legal in a few circumstances, such as when it is either before 15 weeks and the woman wants to terminate, or later in the pregnancy and there are medical reasons to abort. With such ambiguous language it is difficult to say what those really people believed.

I was looking at the less ambiguous numbers of people who support first trimester abortion, shown just over a third of the way down the page. which show more than 60% have supported it unconditionally since 1996, with a further few percent saying "it depends".

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Or even "what those people really believed".

BTW, I'm amazed we haven't seen any Islamophobia before. I would have though SN would love Muslims as their fundies have a similar fondness for Leviticus.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

I've reached my threshold for engaging with potential trolls. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and sometimes persist with it beyond most people's preference. I've seen commenters have epiphanies after some particularly headstrong argumentation. But now I'm convinced that like AH, See Noevo is not interested in reasoned evaluation of evidence. So now both get the plonk.

Did you ever read the link I provided at #658 re: the universe could have been created out of nothing, i.e., no higher power required?

Oh, G-d, let him save his cosmological embarrassments for elsewhere.

To ann #750:

Me: “Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?”

You: “You’re the one who’s vowing to fight relentlessly to win something that will only bring about more death without saving lives.”

Let’s take a specific, in-the-news example: Planned Parenthood.

PP performs over 300,000 abortions per year. Let’s say 10% of those abortions are supposedly to save the life of the mother (see #713).

1)Status quo – abortion legal: 30,000 mother lives saved minus 300,000 baby lives lost = 270,000 lives lost, net.

2)New world – abortion illegal in all but certain cases (see #713): 30,000 mother lives saved minus 30,000 baby lives lost plus 270,000 baby lives saved = 270,000 lives saved, net.

You say my way “will only bring about more death without saving lives.”

I THINK my way is just the opposite: It saves more lives and brings about less death. In this example, life comes out 270,000 per year ahead.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

See- Are you willing to help the mothers raise the children financially? If not, then you are not saving any lives.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #752:

Me: “There are probably many possible citations. Here’s one, from a left-wing government funded outfit: “Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.””

You: “This source offers no evidence that PP ‘exterminates more human lives than anyone else on the planet’: it instead addresses the provision of medical abortions.”

True. And it’s also true that numbers aren’t the be all and end all.
However, would you like to provide a citation showing another single organization on the planet today which exterminates more than 300,000 human lives annually?

Me: “And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?”

You: “Because I’m not aware of any scientific evidence, nor any rational argument (from common sense or otherwise), which demonstrates that at all stages of development following conception a human zygote, embryo or fetus also represents a human life (i.e., a human person).
Care to actually try to make this case, rather than express surprise that I don’t accept an assertion you haven’t tried to support?”

Care to tell me what is the universally accepted definition of “human person”?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #753:

Me: “Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE.”

You: “Well, I don’t, See. I know only that it’s living, but to no greater extent than any other human cell or tissue could also be said to be living.”

Well then, you are one remarkable observant Jew.
You not only don’t believe in an afterlife (or at least you appear not to, based on your refusal to answer my questions to you about it),
but you don’t even recognize life.

Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being?

“So let’s make this as simple as possible, with two direct questions (which I suspect you’ll refuse to answer.
Do you believe that immediately following fertilization a human zygote is also a human being?”

Yes.

“If your answer to the above is Yes?”, why? What properties does it possess that requires we consider it to share exact identity with a day-old, year-old, twenty-year-old male or female?”

The key property is that it is the product of reproduction of a human male and a human female. Human beings reproduce only other human beings, elephants reproduce only other elephants, etc.

The other key property, or observable fact, is that at conception the reproduction is complete; the rest is just gestation/development/growth. At conception you have NOT a POTENTIAL human being, you have an ACTUAL human being with the natural potential for GROWTH.

Now, two direct questions to you:
-What is the definition of “human person”?
-What properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #756:

“Relax.”

Tell that to Angela Merkel, et al.

“In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.

Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 fertility rate; a rate of 1.3, impossible to reverse…

As of 2007 the fertility rate in France was 1.8.
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1

Across the entire European Union of 31 countries, the fertility rate is a mere 1.38.

Historical research tells us these numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist…

Yet the population of Europe is not declining… of all population growth in Europe since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration.

France: 1.8 children per family, [including] Muslims 8.1 [per family]…
By 2027, 1 in 5 Frenchmen will be Muslim…

In the last 30 years, the Muslim population of Great Britain rose from 82,000 to 2.5 million…

In the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim. And in only 15 years, half of the population of the Netherlands will be Muslim…

The German government, the first to talk about this publicly, recently released a statement saying
“The fall in the [German] population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible…It will be a Muslim state by 2050.”

Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya said:
“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Closer to home, the numbers tell a similar story.
Right now, Canada’s fertility rate is 1.6…
In the United States, the current fertility rate of American citizens is 1.6. With the influx of the Latino nations, the rate increases to 2.11, the bare minimum required to sustain a culture…

“We must prepare ourselves for the reality that in 30 yearsthere will be 50 million Muslims living in America.” [Islamic Strategy Conference in Chicago]”

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

And...the creep in SN again crept out. It's not that babies aren't being born, it's that babies aren't being born to the right kind of people, according to him.

Why would the thought of being in the minority give him such a case of the heebie-jeebies?

See Noevo @770:

Magic math with magic numbers. Go back and read ann @ 745, MI Dawn thereabouts, and... oh, hell, just actually read the things people write to you.

I THINK my way is just the opposite: It saves more lives and brings about less death. In this example, life comes out 270,000 per year ahead.

That's because you live in a fantasy world. Outlawing abortion doesn't prevent it. The numbers stay the same or go up. Because they're a function of need, not access.

You'd just add deaths.

To shay #775:

“And…the creep in SN again crept out. It’s not that babies aren’t being born, it’s that babies aren’t being born to the right kind of people, according to him.”

False.

“Why would the thought of being in the minority give him such a case of the heebie-jeebies?”

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/03/05/dnt-damon-isis-gay-execution…

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #777:

Me: “I THINK my way is just the opposite: It saves more lives and brings about less death. In this example, life comes out 270,000 per year ahead.”

You: “That’s because you live in a fantasy world. Outlawing abortion doesn’t prevent it.”

And outlawing murder doesn’t prevent it, but you probably have fewer murders.

Ditto for rape, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

See: "What is the definition of “human person”?"

Me: "Not you"

See Noevo said:

The German government, the first to talk about this publicly, recently released a statement saying
“The fall in the [German] population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible…It will be a Muslim state by 2050.”

First of all, the "recently release statement" is from winter 2006. And I can only find the first part of the quote. That is the first sentence. The german population in 2050 will be smaller than it is now.
The part of the quote which says that it is a downwards spiral or that germany will be a muslim state by 2050 must be from a different source.

I bet SN is against tubal ligation and vasectomy, too.

Could be wrong, but I'm guessing those and barrier methods are the only not aborta-licious ones. (If you keep the spermses from meeting the eggses, life doesn't begin, etc.)

Why DON’T you use common sense and logic and caution?

I do. You live in a fantasy world if you think getting rid of Planned Parenthood would equal 270,000 fewer abortions

If Roe v. Wade were overturned and your views became the social norm tomorrow, you'd have about the same number of abortions as you do now or slightly more, plus more dead poor women in anti-choice states.

If you also restricted/discouraged the use of most birth control wherever you could, you'd have both many more abortions and many more dead women.

There's not another realistically possible outcome. Western civilization would have to collapse before you could dial sexual mores back to something repressive enough to make a difference. And it's doubtful that would work.

You'd just be adding deaths.

PS --

And outlawing murder doesn’t prevent it, but you probably have fewer murders.

Nah. You'd have to criminalize it, too.

Ditto for rape, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

Likewise.

The law is not your area.

Hey, See --

I have a question.

Is a man who (wittingly) has sex with a woman who's on the pill (or using an IUD, or some other "abortifacient" method) guilty of infanticide, as you see it?

@#773

By that logic, either monozygotic twins are a single actual human being or there's more to the process than you're letting on.

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

It had not occurred to me that you were gay -- however, if you were better at numbers you'd realize that 50 million Muslims out of a projected 2050 US population of 438 million does not constitute a Muslim country. You're safe.

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

Given the typically empty-headed umbrage you've expressed over letting faggοts get married over at Jason's, perhaps you'd like to sketch out your personally favored "middle ground" here.

Yet the population of Europe is not declining… of all population growth in Europe since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration.

It's awfully white of you to concede that the Roman Catholic Church has not just lost its influence but utterly failed in the marketplace of religion. Are you going to flee to Peru, Africa, or the Philippines?

Oh, wait, you're just going sit around being an angry, sexually frustrated blowhard.

To ann #783:

Me: “And outlawing murder doesn’t prevent it, but you probably have fewer murders.”

You: “Nah. You’d have to criminalize it, too… The law is not your area.”

Well, I’m definitely not a lawyer.
And I’m still learning English. Sometimes I go to the dictionary and still can have difficulty.

Per Merriam-Webster…

Outlaw (verb): to make (something) illegal.

Criminalize (verb): to make (something) illegal.
………………
Outlaw (transitive verb): 1) a: to deprive of the benefit and protection of law: declare to be an outlaw. b : to make illegal . 2) to place under a ban or restriction. 3) to remove from legal jurisdiction or enforcement.

Criminalize (transitive verb): to make illegal; also : to turn into a criminal or treat as criminal.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

See: Quick question. If abortion were outlawed, would you accept the required tax increase to provide for the additional children born to poor families?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #784:

“Is a man who (wittingly) has sex with a woman who’s on the pill (or using an IUD, or some other “abortifacient” method) guilty of infanticide, as you see it?”

No, for at least two reasons:
1)Not every act of sex with a woman results in fertilization, so no one knows with certainty whether one such act created any life that could be killed.
2)EVEN IF the man could somehow know that the act DID result in fertilization, and the devices/pills did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide. And certainly not matricide or patricide, etc.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

No, for at least two reasons:
1) Not every act of sex with a woman results in fertilization, so no one knows with certainty whether one such act created any life that could be killed.

Indeed. None of them might, for all anyone knows. Sort of like how sometimes a threat to the life of a pregnant woman is just that -- a threat -- so taking the risk of killing her is not equivalent to, you know, killing her.

So then the use of such contraceptives must be okay. Right?

It's just a threat.

2) EVEN IF the man could somehow know that the act DID result in fertilization, and the devices/pills did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide. And certainly not matricide or patricide, etc.

(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?

(b) Why is zygote-icide different from infanticide, in your terms? You call it baby-killing when it's abortion. And you also told JGC that a zygote was an actual human being.

I'm confused.

Let's assume a long-term monogamous relationship in which a man wittingly has sex with a woman who's using an "abortifacient" method of birth control that they decided on together. Frequent, regular sex, for years.

Is there loss of life?

And if so, who's responsible for ending it? Him? Her? Neither? Both?

To Gray Falcon #791:

“See: Quick question. If abortion were outlawed, would you accept the required tax increase to provide for the additional children born to poor families?”

Current IRS regs say if you have another child or dependent you get you another exemption ($3,950 per), and I think that’s fine. But the poor, and actually about half of income earners, don’t pay any Federal Income tax, so the exemption probably isn’t relevant.

I think the $50 trillion “war on poverty”, begun 50 years ago, has largely been a disaster. Here’s a good summary of the wreckage: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556

Even some liberals will admit it hasn’t been great. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-war-on-povert…

I hope we can figure out a way to help the poor without dragging them down into a perpetual passive welfare mentality. If we have to spend even more money (but spend it much more wisely) in TRULY helping the poor, I’d be for it.

But "accept the required tax increase"? No.
No tax increase would be “required.”
What would be required is reducing government spending elsewhere. And there are limitless “elsewhere s”.

And I think that’s all I’m going to say about this off-topic topic.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo: Just so you know, by refusing to help those in need, you are consigning your soul to damnation.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #793:

Me: “Not every act of sex with a woman results in fertilization, so no one knows with certainty whether one such act created any life that could be killed.”

You: “Sort of like how sometimes a threat to the life of a pregnant woman is just that — a threat — so taking the risk of killing her is not equivalent to, you know, killing her.”

Well, sort of like No.
No one is trying to kill the mother. No one wants the death of the mother.
However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.

Me: “2) EVEN IF the man could somehow know that the act DID result in fertilization, and the devices/pills did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide. And certainly not matricide or patricide, etc.”

You: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

Of course.

“(b) Why is zygote-icide different from infanticide, in your terms? You call it baby-killing when it’s abortion. And you also told JGC that a zygote was an actual human being.”

Senior citizen = human being.
Middle-aged mom = human being.
Millenial unemployed person = human being.
Teenager Twitter addict = human being.
Child prodigy = human being.
Toddler trouble maker = human being.
Infant screamer/baby bawler = human being.
Pre-born puncher = human being.
Embryo easing into uterus = human being.
Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

You: “I’m confused.”

Yes, that certainly appears to be the case.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #794:

“Let’s assume a long-term monogamous relationship in which a man wittingly has sex with a woman who’s using an “abortifacient” method of birth control that they decided on together. Frequent, regular sex, for years. Is there loss of life?”

As we’ve already agreed (#793), probably no one on earth could ever know.
So why did you ask again?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

No one is trying to kill the mother.

In cases of infection, the nasty bacteria are trying to.
In some cases of pregnancies going awry, the embryo and the internal bleeding it provoked are trying to.

No one wants the death of the mother.

So if I walk by a body of water and witness two people drowning, and I can yell to call the attention of a nearby lifeguard, throw a floating lifering, or use the nifty hooked pole lying nearby to try to catch them, but I don't do anything, I'm morally OK?

By Helianthus (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Me: [...] he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide.

You: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

Of course.

Infant screamer/baby bawler = human being.
Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

So - according to you - infant and a zygote are the same thing, but getting rid of a zygote via birth control instead of abortion is not infanticide?

Methinks you're the confused one.

It's almost too bad that AH had the sense to run away. At least it was on-topic for a while.

My comment #788 resulted from having taken in a laptop from a friend who assures me that it's broken and offered one with a killfile as a loaner. Thus, I wound up actually seeing S.N.'s post-plonk activity rather than just the quoted "highlights."

I had an extended period – back in the good ol' days – of following numbers stations. There's no accounting for taste and all, but in retrospect it seems more information-rich than S.N. Hell, it seems more interactive if one includes the relevant skills.

Upon due consideration, I have to rate S.N. below APV, and both below effectively listening to a recorded voice channeling the output of a photomultiplier tube.

I imagine that winding up stuck inside of Disqustink with the nobody blues again would represent a little death distinct from (some sort of retrograde) la petite mort.*

Ah, well, carry on.

* There's always more physics disasters for to me to look forward to. Get this:

I am not against general research (i.e. research with no specified result or benefit foreseen), per se.

That reminds me of something:

Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.
Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Oh, wait, let's see how much one can hide behind "per se":

Too bad the entire field of epistemology, of which science is one off-shoot, is just so much mental masturbation when it is without Catholic philosophy.

Omega, gift-wrapped.

SN,

Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.

Because all Muslims are just like DAESH, just as all Catholics are fundamentalists who support the Inquisition and all Catholic priests are pedophiles, obviously. Is there no end to your bigotry?

Do you even know any Muslims? Have you visited a Muslim country? Been inside a mosque?

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Aug 2015 #permalink

Well, sort of like No.
No one is trying to kill the mother. No one wants the death of the mother.
However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.

You: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

Of course.

So they're either both guilty of killing a human being that exists only in your imagination.

Do you mean the one that you agree you don't know exists?

(Also: Zygote, actually.)

As we’ve already agreed (#793), probably no one on earth could ever know.
So why did you ask again?

Because you've already asserted (#755) that millions of lives are lost that way.

And I wonder how it is you know that when you don't know that.

Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

So if he could somehow know that the act did result in fertilization, and the devices did their destructive job, he'd be guilty of homicide.

But he can't know that, so he's not.

And nobody on earth can know that.

So nobody on earth who uses those devices is guilty of homicide.

Have I got that right?

^^I left out an "or neither is" in there.

The only other possibility I see is that it's not homicide if sexual intercourse only happens once.

But since that's because the man can't know that a single act of sexual intercourse will result in fertilization, which nobody ever can, that just begs the question.

I mean, every act of sexual intercourse only happens once.

So who, if anybody, is responsible for the (theoretical) "millions of lives lost from “contraceptives” that can act as abortifacients," and under what circumstances?

See, we just established that you are willing to force someone to give birth to a child that they can't afford to take care of, and will not lift a finger to help them. See Matthew 23 for Jesus's opinion of such people, even if we established you don't actually consider Him to be that important to your faith.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being?

No. Now a direct question: is your belief that a zygote represents a human being founded in an argument from potential--i.e., that if the pregnancy isn't terminated it will develop suffiicently that at a later time it will have 'grown into a humna being'?

I'd appreciate a yes or no answer on this. If it's no, please idnetify whatyour beleif is based upon.

If it's yes, note that what arguments from potential argue against the zygote being a human being: lgoically, at any time the statement "This will grow to become a human being' is found true the statement "This is already a human being" must be found false.

The key property is that it is the product of reproduction of a human male and a human female.

By what logical argument is this a sufficient condtion? Are all the frozen fertilized ova held in cold storage at fertility clinics human beigns fully vested with constitutional rights? Must we mount legal action to release them from what would clearly be unlawful confinement?

At conception you have NOT a POTENTIAL human being, you have an ACTUAL human being with the natural potential for GROWTH.

what physical properties makes it an all-caps ACTUAL human being? Following fertilization we're talking a single cell, without differentiated tissues or organs, no neural activit y (because-guess what?--no brain), insensate other than the same chemical/receptor interactions all other living cells exhibit.

It's almost as if you're claiming that it must be a human being because this single cell contains unique human DNA, but that can't be the defining charateristic.

Your questions:

Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.

re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: characterisitic human neruactivity (i.e., 'brainwaves') as their absence are, after all, is already accepted as evidence that what was once a human being no longer is a human being (and so may ethically be removed from life support) their first appearance would indicate what previously had not been a human being had become a human being. (These arise at about 24 weeks gestation).

See Noevo, because you have free will, you have the potential to become a criminal in the future. Should we treat you as one now?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

So, SN has shown more of his true colors. It's not REALLY the unborn baby he's worried about. He's much more worried about the fact that if those uppity white Christian women don't start having more babies, the other races and religions will start taking over.

And, again, he's shown that once the baby is born, he doesn't care a bit about its wellbeing. Can't have him doing the Christ-ordered thing of caring for women and children! Only men (and dollars to donuts, SN is white and men means white,True Christian [Christian here means what he wants it to mean to support his side. All those other Christians are Not True Christians])

However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.

Which means they want the death of someone who either doesn't exist or may never have existed, for all anybody knows.

So.

Intentionally using a device that you're certain will destroy any innocent life it interacts with when you can't be certain whether or not that will happen = wanting to kill an innocent person, even if the reason you're using it is that you want something else.

Ergo, bomber pilots want the deaths of innocent people in wartime.

(Also: Zygote, actually.)

Or blastocyst. It depends on at what stage the wanting occurs.

To Krebiozen #802:

Me: “Maybe when yours becomes a Muslim country, and they start throwing homosexuals off of buildings, you’ll get some “heebie-jeebies”.”

You: “Because all Muslims are just like DAESH, just as all Catholics are fundamentalists who support the Inquisition and all Catholic priests are pedophiles, obviously. Is there no end to your bigotry?”

Theocracies have existed throughout history. Some theocracies exist still, and are determined to spread. I don’t believe a church or religion should run a government or country.
But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Fortunately, I can remain here in the US, where the government is NOT based on religion, and I have the LEGAL RIGHT to live and believe as I wish.

Because I would not like to live as a worthless second level nothing under either regime. As a woman, Sharia law or Catholic Canon law, I'm still as of just little worth - I'm only fit for kinde, küche, kirche.

I'd rather remain an independent adult, thank you.

To ann #803:

“So they’re either both guilty of killing a human being that exists only in your imagination. Do you mean the one that you agree you don’t know exists? (Also: Zygote, actually.)”

Incomprehensible. You’ll need to rephrase and/or clarify if you want me to answer.

Me: “As we’ve already agreed (#793), probably no one on earth could ever know. So why did you ask again?”

You: “Because you’ve already asserted (#755) that millions of lives are lost that way.”

Do you think there’s a conflict? You shouldn’t.
My statement in #755 is thoroughly reasonable.
You believe, as I do, that millions of verified pregnancies have been, and will be, avoided by use of contraceptives, don’t you?
And you believe, as I do, that, for a given “contracepting” couple, no one knows with certainty whether one sex act created any life to be killed.
But we would agree, I hope, that, over the entire population of “contracepting” couples, millions of eggs were fertilized and flushed. Do we know with 100% certainty? Pretty close, I think.
[Do some math if you want. Something like 43 million x 99% x 12 months per year x … http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html)

“So if he could somehow know that the act did result in fertilization, and the devices did their destructive job, he’d be guilty of homicide. But he can’t know that, so he’s not. And nobody on earth can know that. So nobody on earth who uses those devices is guilty of homicide. Have I got that right?”

Here’s an analogy:
A firing squad of a thousand men takes a thousand rifles, only one of which has a live round, but no one knows WHICH one; all the others have realistic blanks. They all fire with the same recoils and the sentenced man drops dead. Is no one in the firing squad guilty of homicide (i.e. the act of killing another person)?

Yes, homicides are being committed in these cases. But determining exactly who “fired the killing shots” is above the pay-grade of human beings.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

One more question for you to ignore, See: Throughout the Bible, it's made abundantly clear that superior numbers will not prevail against the LORD. Knowing that, why do you feel we need to worry about an increasing number of Muslims? Is your faith in the LORD that weak?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

@SN: actually, given the legal definition of homicide, none of the soldiers committed homicide, just like the person pulling the switch for an electric chair, or the person doing the lethal injection are not guilty of homicide.

@Narad - keep me honest, here.

But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

Neither. I agree with Dawn @814.

To JGC #807:

Me: “Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being?”

You: “No. Now a direct question: is your belief that a zygote represents a human being founded in an argument from potential–i.e., that if the pregnancy isn’t terminated it will develop suffiicently that at a later time it will have ‘grown into a humna being’?”

No, it is not.
I think I wasn’t sufficiently clear or precise earlier, specifically, in my second use of *potential* in “At conception you have NOT a POTENTIAL human being, you have an ACTUAL human being with the natural *potential* for GROWTH.”

The zygote does not have a potential for growth. It IS GROWING, it already exercise its natural power of growth.
And such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms.

So, my belief that the zygote is a human being is based on a number of things: observation, common sense, science (i.e. one’s DNA the same at conception through old age), philosophy.

“If it’s yes, note that what arguments from potential argue against the zygote being a human being: lgoically, at any time the statement “This will grow to become a human being’ is found true the statement “This is already a human being” must be found false.”

The zygote is a human being and grows naturally to be recognizable as a toddler, teenager, oldster. Whereas a human nose hair is not a human being; that hair can grow all it wants but it will never be even recognizable as anything but a nose hair.

“Are all the frozen fertilized ova held in cold storage at fertility clinics human beigns fully vested with constitutional rights?”

Depends on who’s interpreting the Constitution.

“It’s almost as if you’re claiming that it must be a human being because this single cell contains unique human DNA, but that can’t be the defining charateristic.”

I’m not claiming the DNA is THE defining characteristic. Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA. Science just lends further support for that view.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

See, since you have the theoretical potential to become a mass murderer, should we treat you like one here and now?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #808:

“Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.”

So, one’s being a human being is not strictly dependent on one’s age or maturity. That’s good.

“re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: characterisitic human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’)...”

Apes have brainwaves, too. Are apes not human because they have ape brainwaves but not human brainwaves?
Would electroencephalography infallibly show the difference in a blind test?
What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink
But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

Neither. I agree with Dawn @814.

By serendipity, my boss just told me today about what happens in the little villages in a very Catholic country next to mine.
If you do the mistake of hanging your laundry on the clothe-lines outside your house on a Sunday, your neighbors call the cops and you get a fine.
Well, that's not stone-throwing. Yet.

And when I told my mom, she reminisced how, three or four generations ago, in our own very Catholic country, orphans and sick people were not allowed to do their laundry except on Thursday evenings. Or Friday evenings, not sure anymore. Something to do with their state being proof of god wanting to punish them. The old guy seems to be a bit of a Tsundere.

I think I prefer to live in a country where policemen have better things to do than making sure I respect the Sabbath.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

To Gray Falcon #809:

“See Noevo, because you have free will, you have the potential to become a criminal in the future. Should we treat you as one now?”

No.
But maybe it depends on whether I was in the womb.
These days those targets can get treated not only as criminal, but a criminal deserving of the death sentence.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

So in other words, just because a fetus has the potential to be human means that we don't have to treat it as human, right See?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

So, my belief that the zygote is a human being is based on a number of things: observation, common sense, science (i.e. one’s DNA the same at conception through old age), philosophy.

You've observed a zygote?

Here’s an analogy:
A firing squad of a thousand men takes a thousand rifles, only one of which has a live round, but no one knows WHICH one; all the others have realistic blanks. They all fire with the same recoils and the sentenced man drops dead. Is no one in the firing squad guilty of homicide (i.e. the act of killing another person)?

As MI Dawn points out, executing someone who's been sentenced to execution is not homicide.

But even if they were a thousand men who conspired to murder another by restraining and then firing a thousand rifles with one live round and 999 realistic blanks at him (in which case they would all be guilty), that wouldn't be analogous to either a single act of sexual intercourse using "abortifacient" contraception or to a thousand of them.

Because in the first instance, there's ascertainably a victim and causing his death is the sole and exclusive reason for the act, which would not occur if he wasn't there and they didn't both want and intend to kill him.

I mean, the contracepting couple is not having sex exclusively because they want and intend to prevent a blastocyst from becoming an embryo. That's not the reason for the act. It might not be the consequence of it. And they would probably prefer that it wasn't.

Your analogy isn't analogous to any of that. At all. It actually seems designed more for guilt-by-association purposes than anything else.

The truer one would be the pilot who drops a bomb on an area that innocent civilians sometimes traverse because doing so will definitely gain some strategically desirable end, even though it might (or might not) also entail the loss of innocent life.

Yes, homicides are being committed in these cases. But determining exactly who “fired the killing shots” is above the pay-grade of human beings.

So is determining every other particular of the act, such as when, why, and in conjunction with what mitigating or aggravating circumstances it occurred, if -- in fact -- it occurred at all.

And when that's the case, it's generally also above the human pay grade to prohibit the act.

I can't think of any exceptions. Can you?

To ann #811:

Me: “However, the users of devices whose very purpose is to prevent an embryo from implanting into the wall of the uterus, are trying to kill the embryo. They want the death of the embryo.”

You: “Which means they want the death of someone who either doesn’t exist or may never have existed, for all anybody knows.”

You failed to fill out the sentence. I’ll correct:
“Which means they want the death of someone who doesn’t exist or may never have existed *or who does exist*, for all anybody knows.”

Or you could even shorten the whole thing to
“They want death.”

“Intentionally using a device that you’re certain will destroy any innocent life it interacts with when you can’t be certain whether or not that will happen = wanting to kill an innocent person, even if the reason you’re using it is that you want something else. Ergo, bomber pilots want the deaths of innocent people in wartime.”

No ergo.
Unlike the “contraceptive” users, bombers don’t go out of their way, and take special measures, in the specific hope of killing any innocent people, and only innocent people, who may be around. If they were found doing so, they’d probably be court-martialed and then executed.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

But if you HAD to choose between living under a Muslim regime with Sharia law and a Catholic regime with Canon law (or law based on, say, the Catechism), which would you choose?

What's the difference? As regimes, they would be equally evil, though some irrelevant details might differ.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #827:

“I mean, the contracepting couple is not having sex exclusively because they want and intend to prevent a blastocyst from becoming an embryo. That’s not the reason for the act. It might not be the consequence of it. And they would probably prefer that it wasn’t.”

I mean, I know you must not mean it, because it doesn’t make any sense.
A couple having “un-contraceptive” sex may or may not be open to conception. (The “nots” may end up using the “backup contraception” (i.e. “abortion”.))
But a couple having “contraceptive” sex is definitely not open to conception. (And if the “contraception” fails, they may end up using the “backup contraception” (i.e. “abortion”.)) They are NOT just saying they want to have sex. They are saying they want to have sex AND, if any life should result, they want it dead.

Me: “Yes, homicides are being committed in these cases. But determining exactly who “fired the killing shots” is above the pay-grade of human beings.”

You: “So is determining every other particular of the act, such as when, why, and in conjunction with what mitigating or aggravating circumstances it occurred, if — in fact — it occurred at all.”

And the particulars always boil down to this: The man’s or woman’s or couple’s desires for their lives trump the continuation of the other life.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA.

What historical common sense, philosophy and observation told many (if not most) people about life in the womb long before DNA was discovered is not what it tells you now.

Judaism did not consider life in the womb to begin at conception during either the biblical or the talmudic period. Abortion was generally not a transgression prior to viability.

Per the Code of Hammurabi, ""If a man strikes a woman [with child] causing her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekalim for her loss of child. If the woman should die, he who struck the blow shall be put to death."

This was similar to the laws of Sumer, Assyria, and the Hittites.

(Link.)

Both Greeks and Romans predominantly practiced abortion "without scruple," at least prior to viability, as then defined (eg, "[W]hen couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun," -- Aristotle) and at most without limit.

They also practiced infanticide.

Early Christianity was generally anti-abortion, but not always on the grounds that it was murder -- eg, per Augustine, abortion could not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed."

This distinction remained in place from then straight through to the 19th century. For example, per the Venerable Bede, "[a] mother who kills her child before the fortieth day [of gestation] shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderer." Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX both believed abortion to be homicide only if the fetus was "formed."

Furthermore:

Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, book II, ch. 89, reflected the influence of Aristotle's views on human development: "The vegetative soul, which comes first, when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive, and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted, it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without [i.e., by God]." This "delayed hominization" view was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated by the Vatican. (Hurst 12; Rachels 68)

Debate began to arise in the late 16th century. (Pope Sixtus V thought life began at conception; Pope Gregory XVI thought where no animated or formed fetus existed, abortion was a civil offense; etc.) But it did not become officially the position of the Catholic Church that life began at conception until 1869.

Protestants prior to round-about then subscribed to the idea that life began at "quickening."

SHORTER VERSION: it's something that many (and, in fact, most) did not believe until approximately the Victorian era, unless they were Hindu. Hinduism has always held that life began at conception.

It was really only widely subscribed to for about a hundred years, quite recently.

(Link.

Unlike the “contraceptive” users, bombers don’t go out of their way, and take special measures, in the specific hope of killing any innocent people, and only innocent people, who may be around. If they were found doing so, they’d probably be court-martialed and then executed.

You're past the point of taking seriously.

Plus, what I said at #833 is (IIRC) the third or fourth time someone has brought it to your attention that history is not on your side on this or the other thread.

Doesn't make a dent.

As Narad said:

*plonk*

And the particulars always boil down to this

...your irrational belief that you have the moral authority to make a couple's decisions about reproduction for them.

DGR - ixnay on the izardlay eoplepay.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Hinduism has always held that life began at conception.

Nope.

@ DGR #829

What is said in this pdf document is pretty disgusting, and very telling of the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement. "put them out of business" and "befriend them" in the same paragraph lol.

To ann #833:

Thanks for the info, but my responses** to JGC’s questions stand. No change required.

** “So, my belief that the zygote is a human being is based on a number of things: observation, common sense, science (i.e. one’s DNA the same at conception through old age), philosophy…
I’m not claiming the DNA is THE defining characteristic. Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA. Science just lends further support for that view.”

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

@JP --

I believe you. That was per the link, as was most of the post. The parts I could vouch for looked good. But I only know survey-course stuff about eastern religions, if that much.

To ann #835:

“Plus, what I said at #833 is (IIRC) the third or fourth time someone has brought it to your attention that history is not on your side on this or the other thread.”

Yes. History apparently is not on my side.
So, history must be on the right side.
The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
-contraception,
-abortion,
-population decline,
-fornication,
-divorce,
-extended or perpetual singlehood,
-out-of-wedlock births,
-homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
-sexually-transmitted diseases,
-pornography,
-drug addiction,
-depression and dysphoria,
-social isolation/disintegration of community,
-socialistic government programs

One hell of an arc.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Correction to #842:

The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the *incidence and/or* approval of…

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

To shay #836:

"And the particulars always boil down to this…your irrational belief that you have the moral authority to make a couple’s decisions about reproduction for them.”

False.
Reproduction is over at the moment of conception, and only growth remains.
I believe I have the moral duty to try to protect the innocent and inarguably human life that grows after reproduction.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Unlike the “contraceptive” users, bombers don’t go out of their way, and take special measures, in the specific hope of killing any innocent people, and only innocent people, who may be around. If they were found doing so, they’d probably be court-martialed and then executed.

History of bomber runs is not on your side either.
One consistent use of bombers and artillery is to instill terror in the enemy civilian population, either by considering them as acceptable collateral damage or as primary target.
Just with WWII, we have Guernica, the French exode, London, and to some extent Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...

Your naiveté is touching.

The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
[...]
–socialistic government programs

Looking at the last item, I'm hesitating between:
- Newsflash, water is wet, and liberals support liberal programs
or
- Arson, murder, and jaywalking.

We are not saying that history is vindicating our ethics; we are just pointing out that your wishful thinking isn't working in real life. Including under a non-liberal government.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

I have to laugh. Although it’s a sad laugh.

This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens - all this talk about complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia) or the baby (e.g. rubella, “viability”).
Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line:
Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.

If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

Speaking of "complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment," the biggest one of them all would be this unicorn-like woman who allegedly gets a late term abortion on a lark and for no reason beyond sheer perversity.

Face the facts: she doesn't exist, except perhaps in your fevered imagination.

All of which makes it easy for me to agree with the traditional Christian position that abortion is none of your business and you should go bother someone else with your control freak obsessions.

When should abortion be forbidden? Never. In so far as it is a problem, it is a problem that solves itself without your interference.

Two simple predictions then follow: that horse will never walk again, and somebody is going to be really disappointed when he stands before his Creator in Judgment.

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment

Previous posts of SN (713, 770) acknowledged these "infrequent" events to be in the 7-10% window. And that's a minimum, with just ectopic and preeclampsia events.
Glad to see he is very concerned about avoiding the unnecessary loss of human life.

Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.

When facing people like you, yes, that's my line.
Because your way will just sweep the issue under the rug and we will be all pretending nothing is happening.

Still waiting for you to present a practical way to reduce abortion numbers.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 07 Aug 2015 #permalink

@ See Noevo
#842
"The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
– contraception,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– pornography,
– socialistic government programs

One hell of an arc."

Wait, are you saying that these items that I've repasted are supposed to be bad? In what alternate reality exactly? Care to explain? It's as though you are under the impression that sex is bad in and of itself or something.

See: You have no clue what real evil is. There are far worse sins than sexual sins. Why don't you actually read the Bible you worship? The book of Amos essentially states that a nation that refuses to care for the poor and engages in deceitful business practices doesn't even deserve to exist, yet those seem to be the current "conservative" agenda.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

@ Garou

Wait, are you saying that these items that I’ve repasted are supposed to be bad?

Careful, you also want to know how these items - and the others, especially the others - are liberal monopolies/tendencies. I'm notably thinking of "depression and dysphoria".

In France, state welfare was started by conservative governments in early 20th century. They were not completely stupid and realized that a healthy worker is a producing worker. The first state-backed health insurance was aimed at factory workers. More wealthy people didn't need it, they had the mean to pay a doctor's bill.

Cultural trivia, a commonplace deus ex machina in early 20th century French novels and theater pieces was the sudden return of the "Oncle d'Amérique" (American Uncle - no, not this one) and his hard-earned fortune. In the French version of the Monopoly game, it's one of the beneficial event.
I learned recently, this archetype may come from the way moderate-to-wealthy French families avoided splitting the familial assets between many potential heirs during the 19th century. The firstborn boy was deemed the heir and only him was allowed to marry. His sisters would be married off or expected to become caregivers of the parents. His younger brothers would be expected to go somewhere else, like the American continent, build a fortune, and bring the money back to the elder brother. And, obviously, never to marry, as to avoid succession and inheritance quarrels.
It may actually be an adaptation of the aristocratic model. Firstborn got the title, second-born got into clergy, third-born got to explore the world. Only first-born son's sons count for inheritance, except if he had none.
My point? At that time, the society was definitively on the conservative side, to the point of the Louis-Napoleon's Republic being called "the republic of bankers". And they favored an economical system based on the "extended or perpetual singlehood" of a good chunk of the population.

At the turn of the 20th century, two-third of French people died without a legal heir. That's two-third of a country's population which was on a "perpetual singlehood".

FAIK, similar systems were in use by land owners all around old Europe. And if British Victorian novels are any indication, perpetual singlehood was also a notable feature outside of my country.

In what alternate reality exactly?

I'm afraid SN hasn't done any reality check in the past 3 decades.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

Me: “This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens – all this talk about complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia) or the baby (e.g. rubella, “viability”).
Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line:
Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.

If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.”

So far, I’m 100% right. 2 for 2 (Robert L. Bell, Helianthus).

I hope to hear from some of the ladies’ soon.

P.S.
Ann, no need to issue one of your correctives for anything in #847?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

Clarification:

It was really only widely subscribed to for about a hundred years, quite recently.

^^Meaning "at the public level."

In reality, abortion in the United States was at least as widespread and widely accepted when it was criminal as it is today:

Some late-nineteenth-century doctors believed there were two million abortions a year.[8] In 1904, Dr. C. S. Bacon estimated that "six to ten thousand abortions are induced in Chicago every year." As one physician remarked in 1911, "Those who apply for abortions are from every walk of life, from the factory girl to the millionaire's daughter; from the laborer's wife to that of the banker, no class, no sect seems to be above . . . the destruction of the fetus."[9] As early-twentieth-century reformers investigated abortion, they produced and preserved knowledge of the business. Their reports, themselves evidence of the growing scrutiny of female sexual and reproductive behavior, show that a significant segment of the female population had abortions. A study of ten thousand working-class clients of Margaret Sanger's birth control clinics in the late 1920s found that 20 percent of all pregnancies had been intentionally aborted. Surveys of educated, middle-class women in the 1920s showed that 10 to 23 percent had had abortions.[10] Anecdotal information, patient histories collected at maternity and birth control clinics, and mortality data show that women of every racial and religious group had abortions.[11] A more comprehensive survey conducted by Regine K. Stix of almost one thousand women who went to the birth control clinic in the Bronx in 1931 and 1932 found that 35 percent of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish clients alike had had at least one illegal abortion.[12] By the 1930s, Dr. Frederick J. Taussig, a St. Louis obstetrician and nationally recognized authority on abortion, estimated that there were at least 681,000 abortions per year in the United States.[13]

But of course there's no way of counting or estimating the number of women who survived self-induced abortions at home without requiring emergency medical attention. So the true numbers were almost certainly higher.

The only significant difference was that thousands and thousands of women died early, avoidable, and unnecessary deaths:

At the end of the 1920s, abortion-related deaths accounted for 14 percent of maternal mortality. By the early 1960s, abortion-related deaths accounted for nearly half, or 42.1 percent, of the total maternal mortality in New York City. Furthermore, when skilled practitioners performed this procedure, the mortality rate was lower than that for childbirth.[62] Abortion deaths were almost completely preventable.

If the aim of outlawing abortion is to reduce incidence and prevalence, it's a completely ineffectual tactic.

If it's to protect and preserve life, it's indefensible. It does the reverse. There are no gains.

Or you could even shorten the whole thing to
“They want death.”

(Link.)

OK, SN, since you want one of the ladies to weigh in.

I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion at will up to 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, I believe that terminations should be done rarely, and after full discussion between a woman and her provider; most terminations at that point are of wanted pregnancies where a) the fetus is showing life-threatening issues, b) the mother has developed problems that will kill HER if the pregnancy continues.

Once the fetus has reached viability and there is no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy on either the maternal or fetal side, I believe the pregnancy should continue. (Note: medical reasons can include psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination - they are FULLY valid.)

So, I guess, to be honest, there are no stages where abortion should be "forbidden" when the life of the mother is at risk. (Please note, however, that induction of labor at 24 +weeks once the fetus is viable to attempt to have a live mother and child is NOT considered an abortion.)

However, that is just MY opinion, which happens to lie in the same lines as the laws for abortions. And, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather women had access to reliable contracepion - pill, IUD, implants - with low failure rates over using abortions for birth control. In my work, I saw many women over and over for terminations. A surgical procedure has risks (though the risk of an abortion is less than the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term for the mother), and frequent abortions just bothered ME.

I have had 5 pregnancies. 2 live births - both of which were induced early due to preeclampsia. 2 miscarriages. 1 tubal which had the potential to kill me thanks to the Catholic church.

Don't give me your handwaving about smokescreens. You are NOT a woman and YOUR life has not been put at risk fo a pregnancy.

@ann:

Part of it is that "Hinduism" is really a giant umbrella rather than a single religion; metaphysics, worship, spiritual practices, etc,. are all extremely diverse, although the various groups and sects do tend to have certain things in common, like a belief in reincarnation.

There have been debates about when life begins - at conception, at three months or so, at birth - within "Hinduism" broadly speaking for a very long time. The position that life begins at conception has become pretty popular with interpreters of the Vedic scriptures specifically since the 19th century or so - I wouldn't rule out colonial influence.

Nevertheless, abortion as a practice is de facto accepted, except among ISKCON and other more puritan sects.

This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens

No, it's been extended because some people continue to treat your inane comments as being deserving of more than ridicule.

You've been shown research that indicates criminalizing abortion does may reduce abortion rates and will only result in harm to women.

You've been shown that the most effective way to reduce abortion is by making birth control and female reproductive health literature free and easily accessible, but you're against that as well.

You deserve only mockery and contempt.

Here's some good news.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689330/planned-parenthood…

MI Dawn@854

Please note, however, that induction of labor at 24 +weeks once the fetus is viable to attempt to have a live mother and child is NOT considered an abortion.

Just wanted to throw out that the system I work in considers 20+ weeks viable. Personally, the earliest I've ever seen was 22 weeks (she actually did fine).

Also, although I'm not a women I agree with everything you said. That said, I believe it is not men's place to be deciding these issues; in my opinion, my opinion doesn't matter one bit.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

Are apes not human because they have ape brainwaves but not human brainwaves?

No, apes are not human because they aren't members of the species homo sapiens (c'mon, See, that should have been clear even to you.)

"Would electroencephalography infallibly show the difference in a blind test?"
A difference between apes and humans? I don't see the relevance, as the reason that apes cannot be considered to be human beings is that apesthey are not members of the species homo sapiens.

What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?

The latter case, wher someone who was born with a normal and functionng brain suffers an injury such that characteristic neural activity is no longer present, represents all the existing cases where victims of trauma are already recognized as having ceased to represent a human being (i.e., are 'brain dead') such that it is ethical to remove the still-living huan body from life support.

In the former case it would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain--I can't conceive of any rational argument, for example, that would support an anencephalic fetus being considered to be a human being.

There have been debates about when life begins – at conception, at three months or so, at birth – within “Hinduism” broadly speaking for a very long time. The position that life begins at conception has become pretty popular with interpreters of the Vedic scriptures specifically since the 19th century or so – I wouldn’t rule out colonial influence.

Nevertheless, abortion as a practice is de facto accepted, except among ISKCON and other more puritan sects.

That accords so much better with logic, common sense, and observation that the only explanation for my having unquestioningly accepted an assertion to the contrary is that I didn't bother availing myself of any of them.

And at the absolute best, it's kind of a passively orientalist mistake.

So thanks for the correction.

The liberal, “correct” arc of history increases the approval of
[…]
– socialistic government programs

Looking at the last item, I’m hesitating between:
– Newsflash, water is wet, and liberals support liberal programs
or
– Arson, murder, and jaywalking.

I find it more parsimonious to just stop at the first line and go straight to life imitates art.

To MI Dawn #854:

“Once the fetus has reached viability and there is no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy on either the maternal or fetal side, I believe the pregnancy should continue. (Note: medical reasons can include psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination – they are FULLY valid.)
So, I guess, to be honest, there are no stages where abortion should be “forbidden” when the life of the mother is at risk.”

And for “at risk”, I'll note your parenthetical above.
So, if all lights are green but the mother decides the pregnancy (or even caring for a born child) is making her red in the head, abortion should be allowed.

Thanks, MI Dawn.

I’m still 100%. Now 3 for 3.

Still waiting to hear from ann to make it officially 4 for 4.

But her continued silence will at least make it an unofficial 4 for 4.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

To DGR #856:

That IS good news.
The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo@862
That IS good news.
The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.
Huh, See Noevo is such a stereotypical right wing nutjob I almost wonder if he is just playing a character like Stephen Colbert.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

MI Dawn: “You are NOT a woman and YOUR life has not been put at risk fo a pregnancy.”

Capnkrunch: “… I believe it is not men’s place to be deciding these issues; in my opinion, my opinion doesn’t matter one bit.”

Do you two also believe that
1)The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?
2)Gay rights issues should be settled ONLY by gays?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #858:

Me: “Would electroencephalography infallibly show the difference in a blind test?”

You: “A difference between apes and humans? I don’t see the relevance, as the reason that apes cannot be considered to be human beings is that apesthey are not members of the species homo sapiens.”

I didn’t ask you if it was relevant (And you’ve probably asked and answered a number of times here on topics that weren’t relevant to the initial topic of antivaccines vis-à-vis antiabortion.).

What I asked you was if electroencephalography would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test.

Can you answer?

Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?

Me: “What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?”

You: “The latter case, wher someone who was born with a normal and functionng brain suffers an injury such that characteristic neural activity is no longer present, represents all the existing cases where victims of trauma are already recognized as having ceased to represent a human being (i.e., are ‘brain dead’) such that it is ethical to remove the still-living huan body from life support.”

Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”. Here’s one mild but recent and high-profile example: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-took-6-mon…

(Some might argue she still IS “brain dead”, but not in a medical sense.)

“In the former case it would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain–I can’t conceive of any rational argument, for example, that would support an anencephalic fetus being considered to be a human being.”

Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.

Exactly what “characteristic neural activity” defines a human being?
Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

"Do you two also believe that
1)The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?"

No, because the Constitution specifically gives the government authority over the military. Civics fail (along with your existing history, law, science and medicine fails).

“That accords so much better with logic, common sense, and observation that the only explanation for my having unquestioningly accepted an assertion to the contrary is that I didn’t bother availing myself of any of them.”

I hope everyone else is clear on that.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

To shay #866:

Me: “Do you two also believe that
1) The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?”

You: “No, because the Constitution specifically gives the government authority over the military. Civics fail (along with your existing history, law, science and medicine fails).”

So, IF the Constitution was amended to, say, define human personhood as beginning at conception (thus making abortion equivalent to homicide for all practical purposes), then you would believe the Constitution specifically gives the government authority over personhood (and by unavoidable implication, abortion)?

You didn’t answer #2:
Do you believe gay rights issues should be settled ONLY by gays?

If not, why not?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

Gay rights issues -- like all civil rights issues -- are settled in this country by the judicial branch.

Additional civics fail.

Your speculation on a Constitutional amendment to define personhood is another example of your complete blind spot when it comes to history and your idées fixes, Such an amendment will never exist, just as the woman in #861 doesn't exist, as Robert Bell has already pointed out.

You just can't accept that couples are intellectually and morally capable of considering a difficult and complex medical issue and with the help of their doctor making the decision that is right for themselves, their families and their circumstances.

@ #862

That IS good news.
The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.

But still, second to Planned Parenthood..

Moving right along, I have some questions about this.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholi…

If I recall correctly, you rambled on about "real Catholics" in your comments for a previous post.

Would you consider the 76% of U.S. Catholics who believe the church should change its stance on birth control to be "real Catholics?

How about the 54% who support gay marriage and the 53% of white Catholics who support abortion?

If my recollection is wrong, I apologize.

Also,

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

Would you consider the women who obtained an abortion and indicated a Catholic affiliation to be "real Catholics?

Did these women end up having abortions because they didn't heed the "keep your legs together" advice your kind tends to offer as birth control advice or is it more likely to be a result of lack of access to female reproductive health information and/or effective birth control?

To shay #870:

“You just can’t accept that couples are intellectually and morally capable of considering a difficult and complex medical issue and with the help of their doctor making the decision that is right for themselves, their families and their circumstances.”

No. I do.
I think individuals and couples have the *capability* to make right decisions about all kinds of things.
I also know from experience that they sometimes do NOT make right decisions (e.g. The guilty in prison).

But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.

Do you think the judicial branch should insert itself into their decision? Why or why not?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

To DGR #871:

Me: “That IS good news. The National Rifle Association came in a very close second out of 18.”
................

“If I recall correctly, you rambled on about “real Catholics” in your comments for a previous post.
Would you consider the 76% of U.S. Catholics who believe the church should change its stance on birth control to be “real Catholics?”

No, not if they preach and/or practice in ways contrary to the Church teaching.

“How about the 54% who support gay marriage and the 53% of white Catholics who support abortion?”

Ditto.

“Would you consider the women who obtained an abortion and indicated a Catholic affiliation to be “real Catholics?”

Ditto.

“Did these women end up having abortions because they didn’t heed the “keep your legs together” advice your kind tends to offer as birth control advice or is it more likely to be a result of lack of access to female reproductive health information and/or effective birth control?”

Neither.
..............
P.S.
There is a difference between what is “good” and what is “good news”.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

Do you think the judicial branch should insert itself into their decision? Why or why not??

That has already been decided.

I also know from experience that they sometimes do NOT make right decisions (e.g. The guilty in prison).</i?

That is not the situation under discussion -- doctors are constrained by their hospital ethics committees from advising parents to commit a crime. I have to assume that you have never been party to a DNR discussion.

@ #861

I already told you.

Do you think the judicial branch should insert itself into their decision?

It doesn't actually do that on its own initiative. Someone has to ask the mayor of Gotham City has to turn on the Klieg light with a robe emblem on it and point it at the night sky.

Why or why not?

It's just how they roll.

Borked the italics.

To shay #874, #875:

So then you DO think it’s OK for outside parties to have some say in a couple’s difficult and complex medical decision – outside parties which could include the judiciary, the hospital ethics committees.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

What part of #870 did you not grasp?

To ann #876:

Me: “Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line: Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.
If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.”

You: “I already told you.”

Well, IF you did, perhaps you’ll forgive me for not remembering it or being able to find it over the last hundreds of comments here. In my posts here I often repeat/requote earlier relevant passages for the benefit of other readers, including the benefit of the particular person I’m exchanging with.
Perhaps you’ll do me a similar courtesy.

Please list the specifics of when YOU, ann, think abortion should be forbidden.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

I'm not ann, admittedly. I'm not even female, so my view on your question, just like your view, has no weight.

I offer as an answer, by way of suggestion to any person who may be involved or interested in the question: the only time when abortion may ethically be forbidden is when one cannot be ethically performed, that is, when the woman is competent (and uncoerced) and does not consent to the procedure. If she is not competent, whoever is acting in her objective interest may substitute for her, as provided by law. If coercion is involved, the woman should be treated as if she were incompetent: a disinterested (e.g., non catholic) guardian should be appointed, as provided by law, to determine, in her best interest, whether to consent to the procedure.

Is there any other moral approach? I see none.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 08 Aug 2015 #permalink

To Bill Price #881:

No one here has been even discussing the ethics of forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will. Because it should go without saying that everyone here would be against that.

We’re talking elective (by the mother) abortion.

And I’ll chalk you up as a “Yes” (Abortion allowed in all cases.).

Looks like I’m still 100%, now 5 for 5.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

@SN: you say 5 for 5 like that's a BAD thing. I think it shows that most of the commenters here have respect for a woman's autonomy in making decisions that involve her own body.

And obviously, since Catholics who make decisions that don't agree with you are not True Catholics (I'll have to let my Catholic aunt, who used birth control for years know that), they are all going to hell. Along with the priest at her mixed marriage wedding (Catholic and Lutheran) who gave communion - in conjunction with the Lutheran minister - to all who approached the alter rail, not asking what their religious beliefs were.

But, meh. I don't believe in heaven or hell anyway.

And, as pointed out, you have obviously never been on a committee to discuss a DNR or the decision to remove life support. It is NEVER made lightly. Just like a woman does not wake up one morning and decide "I think I'll have an abortion today!" as she picks out her favorite clothing. It is always a decision made with thought. For you to characterize it as such shows the kind of person you are.

@ #880

You hav

F you did, perhaps you’ll forgive me for not remembering it or being able to find it over the last hundreds of comments here. In my posts here I often repeat/requote earlier relevant passages for the benefit of other readers, including the benefit of the particular person I’m exchanging with.
Perhaps you’ll do me a similar courtesy.

No.

There's a limit to how many times you can ignore everything people say to you before they stop bothering to repeat themselves. And you're past it.

I''ll list the specifics of when I think abortion should be forbidden: If the pregnant woman was mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent. She is free to try again once the symptoms clear, or - if mental confusion or incoherency persist, a suitable and unbiased guardian is assigned.

See Noevo, you also seem to mistake repeatedly banging the same gong as conversation. It's not. Insisting on an opinion won't make it fact, and adamantly refusing to acknowledge and consider another point of view only makes you blind, and exceedingly boring.

Do you think contraception that prevents conception altogether (e.g. condoms), rather than preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself for example is moral?

How serious a threat to the life of a pregnant woman would you accept as a reason for abortion? 50% chance of death? 99% chance of death?

If - hypothetically for we know how much you like those - the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God's will?

I didn’t ask you if it was relevant (And you’ve probably asked and answered a number of times here on topics that weren’t relevant to the initial topic of antivaccines vis-à-vis antiabortion.).

What I asked you was if electroencephalography would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test.

How is that relevant to the question of what properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person, which has been defined as "a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens"?

Apes don't meet the criteria, no matter what their EEGs look like.

Status update re: “This thread has been extended quite a bit with smokescreens – all this talk about complicated and largely infrequent cases of endangerment to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia) or the baby (e.g. rubella, “viability”). Smokescreens obscuring what appears to be your bottom line:
Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.
If I’m wrong, please list the specifics of when YOU think abortion should be forbidden.”

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.
Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

Thank you for your cooperation.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #887:

Me to JGC: “I didn’t ask you if it was relevant... What I asked you was if electroencephalography would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test.”

You: “How is that relevant to the question of what properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person, which has been defined as “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens“? Apes don’t meet the criteria, no matter what their EEGs look like.”

It’s relevant, unless you’re satisfied with circular arguments. Apparently you are.

See, I asked JGC in #773 “What properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person?”
JGC responded in #808 “re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: **characterisitic** human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’)”

When I asked him what is "characteristic" of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.
My further questions to him in #865 have gone unanswered.

And as to “THE” definition of human being – “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens,”
I responded: “So, one’s being a human being is not strictly dependent on one’s age or maturity. That’s good.”

Again, no response.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.
Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).

I gave you a specific situation when I would not permit an abortion. You obviously don't agree with it, or think it was too trivial to acknowledge, but I gave you a specific you asked for.

To equate that to ''should be allowed in all cases" is no different from you claiming I personally permit drunk driving because I did not specify people drunk now aren't allowed to drive cars once sober.

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.

It might be comfortable repeating that but your track record on this thread seems a little wanting.

Could you perhaps take a wee bit of time away from your busy schedule of copy-pasting the same block of text again and again and answer a question or two. I asked you three questions I in #886 think are relevant to the discussion at hand, for example.

When I asked him what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.

See Noevo, what is characteristic of human life? I'm asking because according to the good book animals can be slaughtered and eaten. What unambiguous test differentiates human life from all other animal lives? No 'circular' answers please. Urgent.

Here's an article about a woman who had a pregnancy outside the womb, and left untreated resulted in her not being able to have any other children.

See Noevo, should a woman in her circumstances be allowed to abort an ectopic pregnancy?

gaist made a good point, and I should have said it also. Abortion is wrong when it's coerced or the woman is not mentally competent to make the decision to have one. In case of mental incompetency, legal guardians who are unbiased should be appointed to make the decision based on sound medical reasoning.

If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?

There's a precedent for shifts in doctrinal interpretation, generally.

But as far as I know, there's no precedent for decreeing artificial means of birth control morally acceptable.

Condom use to prevent HIV transmission has been deemed potentially "a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants," in certain cases.

But the example given was that of an HIV-positive male prostitute, not (for example) an HIV-positive Catholic with an uninfected spouse.

So I don't think it can be taken to mean that the moral prohibition on intentionally, electively non-procreative sex of any kind isn't still absolute. I mean, it doesn't even explicitly concede that condom use to prevent STD transmission is morally justified.

I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.

And?

This is all just a little game played in your own little mind that I personally, and I doubt I'm alone with this, could care less about.

Moving along to more important issues, you indicated that the 76% of U.S. Catholics who believe the church should change its position on birth control are not, in your opinion, "real Catholics".

You obviously enjoy speculating about hypothetical situations, so here's one for you.

Re: this 76% of U.S. Catholics ... who presumably have used or condoned the use of other than Church approved birth control ... if you were elected Pope tomorrow, would you:

1: Change the Church's position, or

2. ignore these people, or

3. excommunicate this 76% of U.S. Catholics?

For this hypothetical situation, and in acknowledgment of your obvious love for false dilemmas, these are the only three options available to you.

So which is it?

See, are you familiar with the phrase "Do not bear false witness". Perhaps you should start reading your own holy texts, and I'm not talking about "Atlas Shrugged", either.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

It’s relevant, unless you’re satisfied with circular arguments. Apparently you are.

See, I asked JGC in #773 “What properties are required to make a human life a human being/human person?”

Yes. You asked a question about personhood that explicitly stipulated to human life as the condition from which it arose.

It's blindingly clear in every single exchange leading up to that point that the question is understood by both of you to be "At what point between fertilization and birth is a human zygote/embryo/fetus a human being/person?"

And it's equally clear that what you mean by "human life" is "unborn human life -- eg, you @ #701, "And how in the names of common sense and science could you think that terminating a pregnancy is NOT an instance of ‘terminating a human life”?"

So that's very straightforward. And there's no ambiguity about it.

JGC responded in #808 “re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: **characterisitic** human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’)”

True. But first he answered your other question, which was "What is the definition of a "human person" by saying:

Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.

Because you asked it first.

When I asked him what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.

No. What happened was that you immediately began acting like the answer he gave in #808 was a response to the question "What properties are required to differentiate Homo Sapiens from (for example) apes?" when you know perfectly well that it wasn't.

Human life was a given of the question that he was actually answering because you made it one. And it's obvious that both of you know that you're talking about human gestational development.

You're just conflating his answers in order to give yourself a transparently flimsy excuse for completely redefining the terms.

My further questions to him in #865 have gone unanswered.

Poor you.

And as to “THE” definition of human being – “a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens,”
I responded: “So, one’s being a human being is not strictly dependent on one’s age or maturity. That’s good.”

Again, no response.

I can't see that one is called for. You're not challenging the validity of what he said. You're just pretending that what he said is that a human fetus becomes a human being (and not an ape) when characteristic neural activity is present.

And he neither said nor suggested anything of the kind. He just took it for granted that you know that to be an individual member of a species does not mean to be an individual whose brain waves are uniquely characteristic of that species.

(Shorter version: He took it for granted that you know what "species" means.)

Let's play the "no response" game!

Me: So half of one third is 50%? Really?

No response from See Noevo, after over 850 comments.

You:Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

Me: I wouldn’t call them attacks, and once again – it’s not our side equating Planned Parenthood with paedophilia. Which I do call an attack.

No response from See Noevo, after over 500 comments.

You: No. The woman should and does have control over her body during pregnancy.

Me: Up to and including alcohol, tobacco, strict vegan diet or fasting? How about participating in kick-boxing match? Taking a ‘morning after’ pill? AT what point short of abortion does that freedom and control end?

Still no response from See Noevo.

You: The mother doesn’t kill her born baby by withholding her blood donation

Me: So you don’t think Jehova’s Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions from their offspring?

No response. I'm sensing a pattern here.

You: It’s interesting though, that Planned Parenthood clinics are not only well-represented in Black communities, but that Black women are about five times more likely than Whites to choose abortion.

Me: Do you think blacks are branwashed into self-annihilation by eugenistic cult of planned parenthood, or is there another reason you’re bringing up blacks alongside those Margaret Sanger-quotes?

Lower average level of education, lower income, higher unemployment and higher rate of divorce might conceivably all increase the rate of pregnancies terminated, without any nefarious plot to whiten America.

Again, no response.

You: the facts that Margaret Sanger appears to have been a racist, a eugenicist sympathetic to Hitler, and a promiscuous adulterer are beside the main point,

Me: Well, in the very last post you repeated your dishonorable attempt via deliberate misquotes and cherry picking to divert the discussion intentionally away from what you now regard as the main point was a valid recourse. Now you want to change the subject as “unworthy” venue, but only because it failed.

And that kind of dishonest and fallacious tactics are, at least to me, worthy of discussion as long as somebody tries to use them to win an argument.

Prey tell, what her being a ‘promiscuous adulterer’ has to do with your main point, …
“…which is that the organization she founded, now called Planned Parenthood, is today probably the largest single abortion mill in the world. PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet. ” because if it’s irrelevant you surely wouldn’t have brought it up, right?

No response yet again.

You:As you say, abortions serve a purpose; they are done to inflict punitive acts on the unborn for a reason: the mother desires it.

Me: I’m okay with you thinking pregnant women have abortions because they want to inflict punishment on the baby. I am, I really don’t mind – some people just seem hellbent on seeing the world as a bad place for whatever their personal reason, but let’s not pretend I said it, even if you do seem to have a habit of putting words into people’s mouths.

Again, no response, not even a denial of wrongdoing.

You: […] he’d be guilty of zygote-icide, not infanticide.

ann: “(a) How about the woman? Would she, too, be guilty merely of zygote-icide?”

You: Of course.

Infant screamer/baby bawler = human being.
Zygote (Z, end of the alphabet) = human being.

Me: So – according to you – infant and a zygote are the same thing, but getting rid of a zygote via birth control instead of abortion is not infanticide?
Again, no response.

Me: If the pregnant woman was mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent. She is free to try again once the symptoms clear, or – if mental confusion or incoherency persist, a suitable and unbiased guardian is assigned.

You: I haven’t been wrong, I’m 100% correct.
Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

No response as of yet. I'd really like to understand how "If condition X, Y or Z is met, no abortion is permitted" turns into "abortion allowed in all cases".

What now follows is a list of questions I'd prefer See Noevo to answer, but so far, you guessed it, no response! (Do I win something?)

Do you think contraception that prevents conception altogether (e.g. condoms), rather than preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself for example is moral?

How serious a threat to the life of a pregnant woman would you accept as a reason for abortion? 50% chance of death? 99% chance of death?

If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?

But I'm not holding my breath here. Probability is leaning towards: "no response." And this is just me, there are many more commenters in this thread trying to - and often enough - failing to elicit a meaningful (or not) response.

See Noevo@864

Do you two also believe that
1) The President and the members of Congress should be allowed to approve the use of military force ONLY if they are soldiers, or at least retired soldiers?
2) Gay rights issues should be settled ONLY by gays?

I was going to comment on your penchant for hypotheticals but DGR already nailed it in #895. Anyways RE: #1, it is terribly irrelevant. The skillsets for being a soldier are different than those needed to make political decisions like authorizing military force.

RE: #2, quite frankly I think the world qould be a better place if this were so. When groups want to play a role in deciding other groups' rights more often than not it is to restrict them not to guarentee them. In fact, your Catholic church has a long history of being anti-civil rights all the way up to the present with their continuing fight against gay rights.

I think overall this really demonstrates your rigid way of thinking. You see (heh) it is possible to disagree with something on a moral grounds and still accept that you can't legally force others to follow the same moral code as you. I'm with you in thinking that abortion as birth control is morally wrong. However, it is a woman's body and it is her choice. She is by no means obligated to adhere to the same morals I do.

The rigid, intolerant, "ours is the only way" attitude you have is they exact same as extremist Muslims. Sure you might not be as violent right now but your way of thinking is what justified similar violence and atrocities committed by Catholics in the past. Honestly, I think that the church still fundamentally has the capacity to be as brutal. I think the reason it isn't, is not due to institutional changes but rather that most Catholic's are rational enough not to blindly follow the church. Get enough See Noevo's in power and I could absolutely see a new inquisition with gays, Muslims, Jews, and atheists being tortured and killed.

See Noevo, your brand of strict fundamentalism isn't just stupid, it's dangerous. The moral superiority you display is merely a step removed from turning to violence to impose your will on others.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To gaist #890:

“I gave you a specific situation when I would not permit an abortion. You obviously don’t agree with it, or think it was too trivial to acknowledge, but I gave you a specific you asked for.
To equate that to ”should be allowed in all cases” is no different from you claiming I personally permit drunk driving because I did not specify people drunk now aren’t allowed to drive cars once sober.”

You’re referring to your “I”ll list the specifics of when I think abortion should be forbidden: If the pregnant woman was mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent. She is free to try again once the symptoms clear, or – if mental confusion or incoherency persist, a suitable and unbiased guardian is assigned.”

As so often happens in discussions here, I suppose I’ll have to go into legalese fineprint on what should have been a given.
When I say you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases”, I do NOT mean, for example:

1)“Abortion” against a mother’s will, for this is not abortion. Abortion is the willful (by the mother and the "medical" person) and intended destruction of the life in the womb.

2)“Abortion” with a mother’s mentally-incompetent/crazy OK, for this is not abortion, either. Abortion requires willfulness of the mother but such willfulness must come from a mentally-competent mind – NOT from a mentally confused, drunk, high or incoherent mind.

So, with my more precise definition of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

But speaking of the condition that would give you pause, namely, the mother’s “mental confusion”, that sounds like it’s getting close to the very condition which MI Dawn said can justify an abortion: “psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination – they are FULLY valid.” It seems as though the mother’s mental problems are an abortion red light for some, and a green light for others.

“Could you perhaps take a wee bit of time away from your busy schedule of copy-pasting the same block of text again and again and answer a question or two. I asked you three questions I in #886 think are relevant to the discussion at hand, for example…
“Do you think contraception that prevents conception altogether (e.g. condoms), rather than preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself for example is moral?”

We disagree over the nature of morality itself, over what is “moral”, so whether I say it’s moral or immoral is pretty much meaningless in our discussion.

I WILL give you one of my “bad” analogies, though, since you have such fun with them:
Eating is a necessary function for the continuation of the human race. Eating can also be pleasurable. In fact, our bodies are designed to provide pleasure from eating somethings. However, the pleasure is secondary to the essential of nutrition. In fact, a person could survive with impaired senses of taste and smell. Pleasure from food is good, but elevating the desire for the pleasure to the exclusion of the nutrition would not only be disordered, it could even be deadly.
Just a “bad” analogy.

“How serious a threat to the life of a pregnant woman would you accept as a reason for abortion? 50% chance of death? 99% chance of death?”

Smokescreen alert! Sorry. See #207.

“If – hypothetically for we know how much you like those – the next Pope degreed that contraception was acceptable (like ann demonstrated, there is precedent for that), would you as a dutiful Catholic start promoting contraceptions as God’s will?”

I would respond in the same way I would if hypothetically Jesus Christ himself came back to earth and declared murder is acceptable now and should be promoted.
I guess I’d start promoting murder.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

Where did I say that?

(Answer:

Nowhere. The reason you can't find my answer is that you're looking for the same foregone conclusion you always intended to reach from the get. If not before. And it's not there.

That's why I refused to go through the empty charade of repeating myself.)

So, with my more precise definition of abortion, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

No. (Why can't you just quote the actual words people use, rather than "reinterpreting" those words into what you think is the lowest common denominator).

I'll elaborate once you've answered this:
In what situation no woman is allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances?

A sharp viewer may now see what my objection will be, but I hope you'll answer regardless, or explain why you wont.

Smokescreen alert! Sorry. See #207.

I did, you were replying to me after all.

But while you acknowledge that "In certain cases that would be fatal to the mother (e.g. some ectopic pregnancies), the intended saving of the mother’s life may require UN-intended ending of the baby’s life. This “double effect” can be morally acceptable", that definition is meaningless without any way for real world application. How would a doctor know which ectopic pregnancies would be fatal and which (only)could be fatal, until the patient was dead, or it would be too late to save her. So in the case of life threatening pregnancies*, like with everything in life, there is some uncertainty.

* = Some not "only" threaten the mother but her ability to get pregnant in the future as well.

I personally believe that choice should be with the mother, as it is her life she is putting on the line. If she thinks the odds were too high she should have the option to have an abortion, for example.

the mother’s “mental confusion”, that sounds like it’s getting close to the very condition which MI Dawn said can justify an abortion: “psychological and/or psychiatric reasons for termination –

Mental confusion is not the same as those "mental problems" psychological and/or psychiatric reasons MI Dawn was speaking of.

We disagree over the nature of morality itself, over what is “moral”, so whether I say it’s moral or immoral is pretty much meaningless in our discussion.

[...]

I would respond in the same way I would if hypothetically Jesus Christ himself came back to earth and declared murder is acceptable now and should be promoted.
I guess I’d start promoting murder.

Our definition of moral does indeed differ, at least in this.

I’ll elaborate once you’ve answered this:
In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances? (Fixed the question a bit)

To gaist #891:

Me: “When I asked [JGC] what is “characteristic” of human neuroactivity, he hasn’t answered, other than to go circular: the characteristic of human neuroactivity is that it’s human.”

You: “See Noevo, what is characteristic of human life?”

Everything you “see” from human conception to human death.

“What unambiguous test differentiates human life from all other animal lives? No ‘circular’ answers please. Urgent.”

Urgent! Wow.
I hope you can hold on a wee bit longer, because characteristics and tests can be woefully inadequate in differentiating things, especially, many living things, and most especially in the sense of *defining* things.
You see, I think the full definition of a thing cannot be given by the thing itself. Because the thing did not make itself. Not even a mother and father can “define” their child. Although we might say the mom and dad “made” a baby, the baby and the reproductive systems that brought him about are about as mysterious as mom and dad are to themselves.
While it may seem silly and circular, there is truth in that old saying “It is what it is.”
I WILL say, however, that human beings produce only other human beings and human beings come only from other human beings (evolution science fiction notwithstanding).

I’m a little concerned about the “Urgent”, though.
Are you still there?
Are you still you?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

We disagree over the nature of morality itself, over what is “moral”, so whether I say it’s moral or immoral is pretty much meaningless in our discussion.

Speaking of smokescreens.

You've been saying whether things are moral or immoral -- ie, right/wrong; permissible/impermissible, OK/not OK -- for the whole of the thread. If that's not based on what you understand to be the nature of morality, what is it based on?

I WILL give you one of my “bad” analogies, though, since you have such fun with them:
Eating is a necessary function for the continuation of the human race.

No, it's (usually) a necessary function for the continuation of human life, which is a predicate of the continuation of the human race.

But people can propagate the human race without eating. Therefore eating is not necessary to its propagation.

Eating can also be pleasurable. In fact, our bodies are designed to provide pleasure from eating somethings.

Mmmm. Somethings.

However, the pleasure is secondary to the essential of nutrition. In fact, a person could survive with impaired senses of taste and smell.

And without eating -- eg, Terri Schiavo.

Pleasure from food is good, but elevating the desire for the pleasure to the exclusion of the nutrition would not only be disordered, it could even be deadly.

As in "sin, deadly -- gluttony."

Just a “bad” analogy.

Yep.

It's not really an analogy at all, except inasmuch as one deadly sin is loosely analogous to another, from a religious perspective. Apart from that, there's no inherent equivalency.

“See Noevo, what is characteristic of human life?”

Everything you “see” from human conception to human death.
That's the point I was making. You complain that JGC defined human neuroactivity as human, and dismissed this as circular reasoning.

You, when prompted to avoid circular reasoning, define human life as from human conception to death.

So to follow the quest for non-circular definition to this kind of concepts, what differentiates human conception or human death from any other conception or death? This time, I wonder if you can you do it without referring to the agent being human...

To DGR #895:

“You obviously enjoy speculating about hypothetical situations, so here’s one for you.
Re: this 76% of U.S. Catholics … who presumably have used or condoned the use of other than Church approved birth control … if you were elected Pope tomorrow, would you:

“1: Change the Church’s position”
Of course not. A Pope cannot declare OK what the Church has previously and dogmatically declared inherently evil.
It’s kind of like how our namesake said:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

“2. ignore these people”
Of course not. I’d tell them to come back, we want you to come back (in fact, we want everybody), but you’ll need to repent to be in line with Christ’s Church.

“3. excommunicate this 76% of U.S. Catholics?”
That would be impossible for all practical purposes. But maybe issue a proclamation reiterating the Church’s stand on what a Catholic must believe and seek to practice, with an emphasis that failing to do so puts one outside the Church. Maybe with some more words about honestly being what you say you are.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

My further questions to him in #865 have gone unanswered.

BTW, that might be because he's actually answered them already. You just ignored the answers. Whether that was willful or due to incomprehension, I couldn't say.

Speaking of which, I repeat:

Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.

Where did I say that?

To ann #898:

“You’re just pretending that what [JGC] said is that a human fetus becomes a human being (and not an ape) when
characteristic neural activity is present. And he neither said nor suggested anything of the kind.”

I don’t see how I’m pretending anything.
JGC said: “Human being: a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.
re: necessary and sufficient property to represent a human being: characterisitic human neruactivity (i.e., ‘brainwaves’) as their absence are, after all, is already accepted as evidence that what was once a human being no longer is a human being (and so may ethically be removed from life support) their first appearance would indicate what previously had not been a human being had become a human being.”

You: “[JGC] just took it for granted that you know that to be an individual member of a species does not mean to be an individual whose brain waves are uniquely characteristic of that species.”

I sure WISH that JGC had said that. But he didn’t. And that’s why I’m asking him questions that he still hasn’t answered.

“(Shorter version: He took it for granted that you know what “species” means.)”

And in #865 I took it for granted that JGC could easily answer these questions about “species”:
“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

But JGC never responded.

Poor me.

Poor JGC.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

That's right, you little weasel, now run along and tell all your buddies about the horrible things that Christians believe.

Then stand back and watch me not care.

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #902:

Me: “Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.”

You: “Where did I say that?”

Well, I guess, as you would say, “I already told you… You hav”

Anyway, 7 for 7 is not too bad.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

Tangential and off-topic, but...

“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?

As someone who doesn't believe in evolution, what do you think of dogs?
Did god create them just the way they are (now or then*), or are they man-made abominations and corruptions of pure god-made wolves?

* = If you believe god created dogs, at what time?

Feel free to replace dog and wolf with any creatures/plants humans have bred to equivalent extent.

o ann #902:

Me: “Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.”

You: “Where did I say that?”

Well, I guess, as you would say, “I already told you… You hav”

Anyway, 7 for 7 is not too bad.

You don't take no for an answer?

So far, out of your "7 out of 7", at least two people have directly challenged your version of their opinion, ann and me.

Not to mention changing the meaning of the words mid-poll (I see no mention of prerequisite of willfulness by would-be mother in your beloved and oft-quoted Merriam-Webster).
You thinking you are free to redefine the terms at whim renders the whole exercise relatively futile anyways.

But despite, I repeat my answer I thought even you would understand. No. I do not think abortion should be allowed in all cases.

If you want me to elaborate, you have to answer this first:
In what situation no woman should be allowed an abortion, without exception and regardless of other circumstances?

To ann #902:

Me: “Now 7 for 7 (Abortion should be allowed in all cases.).
The 7 in alphabetical order:
ann, Bill Price, DGR, gaist, Helianthus, MI Dawn, Robert L. Bell.”

You: “Where did I say that?”

Well, I guess, as you would say, “I already told you… You hav”

Also, just to make this clear.

You decided ann thought abortions should be allowed in all cases, and proudly promoted this, because you assumed she "must have said it somewhere"?

You didn't check?

To ann #906:

Me: “Eating is a necessary function for the continuation of the human race.”

You: “No, it’s (usually) a necessary function for the continuation of human life, which is a predicate of the continuation of the human race.”

I THINK “human race” = humankind, human beings in general. At least I thought that’s what the dictionaries say and what common understanding is.

“But people can propagate the human race without eating. Therefore eating is not necessary to its propagation.”

And approximately how many generations of non-eating but propagating humans would there be?
How long would the continuation of the human race last, without eating, I mean?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #906 (continued):

Me: “Pleasure from food is good, but elevating the desire for the pleasure to the exclusion of the nutrition would not only be disordered, it could even be deadly.”

You: “As in “sin, deadly — gluttony…[My analogy is] not really an analogy at all, except inasmuch as one deadly sin is loosely analogous to another, from a religious perspective. Apart from that, there’s no inherent equivalency.”

I see gluttony more as a sin of excess, and perhaps as an idolizing of food. A glutton is not necessarily separating the pleasure of food from the nutrition of food. He may be getting both, just too much of both.

My analogy was more about a sin of separation - separating food’s pleasure from its nutrition, and more specifically, about a willingness to deny nutrition completely for the sake of pleasure (e.g. Eating nothing but cotton candy.).

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

I sure WISH that JGC had said that. But he didn’t.

That it didn't go without saying is due to your failure to comprehend plain English at the elementary level of basic fluency, not JGC's failure to plainly say what he meant in easily comprehensible terms.

Therefore, it's either your responsibility to correct the misunderstanding, not his; or you're incapable of comprehending plain English at the elementary level of basic fluency, in which case nothing JGC can say will help you.

And that’s why I’m asking him questions that he still hasn’t answered.

Such as?

And in #865 I took it for granted that JGC could easily answer these questions about “species”:
“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

As I said, it's not his fault if you can't comprehend plain English well enough to answer those questions for yourself.

Anyway, 7 for 7 is not too bad.

When it comes to patently baseless bullsh*t, you're batting .1000.

When it comes to accurately assessing and stating the stated positions of other people wrt abortion, you're doing terribly.

See Noevo@902

So, with my definition of abortion pulled out my @ss, you believe “Abortion should be allowed in ALL cases.”

FTFY

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To gaist #907:

“You complain that JGC defined human neuroactivity as human, and dismissed this as circular reasoning.”

Actually, my initial complaint, or at least my initial question, was why JGC specified “*characteristic* human neuroactivity” instead of just saying “human neuroactivity.”

I was wondering if he would consider some types of neuroactivity, in what *looks* to be a human being, to be “not-up-to-standard” for a *true* human being.
I was wondering what he would think of the *characteristic* humanness of certain EEGs, whose source he was blind to.

For example, an EEG of Jessie (although, again, JGC would not know who or what the EEG was from). http://hemifoundation.homestead.com/jessiesstory.html
…………….

“So to follow the quest for non-circular definition to this kind of concepts, what differentiates human conception or human death from any other conception or death? This time, I wonder if you can you do it without referring to the agent being human…”

Nothing, or at least many mammals conceive and die just like us.

So, maybe you’re a mouse.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #918:

“When it comes to patently baseless bullsh*t, you’re batting .1000.
When it comes to accurately assessing and stating the stated positions of other people wrt abortion, you’re doing terribly.”

Wow. Assigning me only a 10% b.s. rate is quite a compliment, coming from you.

P.S.
It sure might be helpful if JGC spoke for himself, instead of you interpreting his words.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

Not long.

I just took "continuation of the human race" to mean what it usually does -- ie, the continuation of the species via reproduction.

Obviously, you have to eat in order to survive long enough to reproduce. But strictly speaking, eating is not functionally necessary to the reproductive act.

That's all I meant.

The answers to the two questions you cited from #865 are, respectively:

(1) Yes; and

(2) homo sapiens, but (as specified earlier) it's not a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species -- ie, a human being/person -- until characteristic human neural activity (the absence of which, post-birth, is already accepted as a sign that said individual no longer exists and can be ethically taken off life support) arises at approximately 24 weeks.

IOW: JGC reasons that the same criterion that represents the end of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species post-birth (when absent) also represents the beginning of such an individual pre-birth (when present).

What makes him or her an individual of that species rather than an ape is another question.

The answer to it is: His or her biological membership in the homo sapiens species, which he or she automatically gets by virtue of sharing its gene pool, the perpetuation of which via inheritance is functionally necessary to the continuation of the human race.

At least as I understand what JGC said.

Wow. Assigning me only a 10% b.s. rate is quite a compliment, coming from you.

Typo. I regret the error.

P.S.
It sure might be helpful if JGC spoke for himself, instead of you interpreting his words.

He did. And I'm not interpreting them. I'm just not failing to comprehend them.

I was wondering what he would think of the *characteristic* humanness of certain EEGs, whose source he was blind to.

For example, an EEG of Jessie (although, again, JGC would not know who or what the EEG was from)

Has she been born?

If the answer is "no," how do you define "born"?

And if the answer is "yes," is she manifestly, self-evidently not on life support and capable of cerebral functioning?

If the answer is still "yes," stop wondering! JGC does not think it would be ethical to remove her from the life support she's not on on the grounds that she doesn't have brain waves that she has.

Another way of getting the same result would be:

Is she a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species?

If the answer is "obviously, yes," then why are you once again pretending that the answer JGC gave to your question about when developing human life in the womb becomes a human being/person was actually the answer he gave to your question about how he defines a human being/person?

Is it willful? Or are you really that incapable of grasping a simple distinction that you yourself made?

And in #865 I took it for granted that JGC could easily answer these questions about “species”:
“Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?
If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

As I said, it’s not his fault if you can’t comprehend plain English well enough to answer those questions for yourself.

Do keep in mind that S.N. is a rank baraminologist, which immediately makes any discussion of taxonomy a waste of time.

Note the scare quotes around species. He's just chasing his tail at this point.

^ "any discussion of involving taxonomy"

Actually, my initial complaint, or at least my initial question, was why JGC specified “*characteristic* human neuroactivity” instead of just saying “human neuroactivity.”

Because he meant the neuroactivity that's characteristic of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species, in the sense that its absence means that's no longer what (the former) someone on life support is.

As he said.

Which is not to say that the absence of that activity means the absence of biological genetic membership in the species. It just means the absence of the formerly living individual whose body is on life support.

I hope this clears up any minor confusion you might have been having about that.

I hope this clears up any minor confusion you might have been having about that.

ann, internet propriety requires some indication from you to acknowledge that you understand how silly this hope truly is. Confusion, whether true or feigned, is SN's shtick: he cannot and/or will not allow it to be cleared up.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #922:

“The answers to the two questions you cited from #865 are, respectively:
(1) Yes; and
(2) homo sapiens, but (as specified earlier) it’s not a living adult or juvenile ….”

Whoa. Wait a second.
We agree it’s a member of homo sapiens.
We SHOULD also agree that it is a LIVING member of homo sapiens because one of the characteristics of living things is that they grow, and it is growing.
Would anyone say that this agreed to member of homo sapiens was dead, when they see it growing? Would you?

“…but (as specified earlier) it’s not a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species — ie, a human being/person — until characteristic human neural activity…”

Whoa! Whose specification, whose definition? JGC’s and possibly some majority of largely atheistic scientists? That’s not MY spec and def. Nor that of millions of citizens. Is it the Constitution’s spec and def? The Supreme Court’s?

This is a GROWING homo sapiens. In fact, it’s even in the process of growing a brain. The growing of the brain and everything else is proceeding according to plan, according to the blueprint in its DNA. [I think the brain begins sprouting around week 5.] But SOME specifiers/definers want to deny its ability to grow its brain. Just as they would deny college to the baby very slowing growing into a college student.

“IOW: JGC reasons that the same criterion that represents the end of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species post-birth (when absent) also represents the beginning of such an individual pre-birth (when present).”

Right. Except a dead body and brain doesn’t represent a growing body that’s growing its brain.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

@930.

Point taken.

Whoa! Whose specification, whose definition?

See if you can figure it out.

See Noevo@901

I would respond in the same way I would if hypothetically Jesus Christ himself came back to earth and declared murder is acceptable now and should be promoted.
I guess I’d start promoting murder.

Hahaha! Missed this one at first. See Noevo is a radical fundamentalist through and through. If you're going to blindly follow something might as well go all the way. OK See, better get out there and kill some gays, blasphemers, adulterers, nonbelievers, etc. The bible will it; get to it sheep.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #924:

Me: “I was wondering what he would think of the *characteristic* humanness of certain EEGs, whose source he was blind to. For example, an EEG of Jessie (although,
again, JGC would not know who or what the EEG was from)”

You: “Has she been born?”

JGC doesn’t know, remember?

“And if the answer is “yes,” is she manifestly, self-evidently not on life support and capable of cerebral functioning?”

JGC doesn’t know, remember?

All JGC knows is what the EEG shows. And I’m wondering if he would consider the EEG data to be “characteristic” human neural activity.

[If you read the very short linked article, you’d know that Jessie has only half a brain. The other half was successfully removed by now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.]

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #928:

Me: “Actually, my initial complaint, or at least my initial question, was why JGC specified “*characteristic* human neuroactivity” instead of just saying “human neuroactivity.””

You: “Because he meant the neuroactivity that’s characteristic of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species, in the sense that its absence means that’s no longer what (the former) someone on life support is.”

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

So many posts of failing to grow a backbone and acknowledge even a single one of the many mistakes you've made on this thread.

Still boasting "7 out of 7" or are you compiling your apology while you insist on yet another mistake being correct?

See Noevo, care to elaborate on the ''fiction of evolution''? Someone earlier in the thread asked what were your thought on dogs then? Dogs are fiction too?

[ann]:“IOW: JGC reasons that the same criterion that represents the end of a living adult or juvenile individual of the homo sapiens species post-birth (when absent) also represents the beginning of such an individual pre-birth (when present).”

[You:]Right. Except a dead body and brain doesn’t represent a growing body that’s growing its brain.

Nobody was talking about a dead body. Like ann patiently explained before, lack of brain-activity can be an acceptable reason to withhold life support, thereby ending that life.

I assume JGC meant that until there is brain activity, it could be argued that the same criteria applied.

And before you start harping on about human brain activities and scans, I want you to visualize a chimpanzee in drag entering a Planned Parenthood clinic, and the receptionist going: "Just wait a little, miss. We'll be with you shortly to run some tests".

If they need to verify the species via EEG they're doing it wrong.

About abortion,

It is legal and moral where the mother decide free of coercion.

In case of rape, the mother was submitted to an unethical coercion for an act she didn't want to be submitted to. In that case, choice, whether she was competent or not should be to abort or give the child to a foster family and all cost paid of by every organization against abortion, at is, whether she decide to abort or give the child.

In my case, I will always support the autonomy of the mother regardless of circumstance where she was under pregnancy.

If you have an opinion different to mine, in case of rape, then you and everyone harbouring the same opinion pay. Period.

Alain

Oh, and in the case of an abortion clinic getting bombed, I will not only approve the use of electronic medical records protected by a vault from an offsite location to help any clients of e clinic but also, all the cost of taking care of either the abortion or fostering should be borne by the organization which the bomber was member or else, if membership wasn't proven, all organization should be responsible.

Deal?

Alain

My principle: the society's choices over any individual and a measure of a society's goodwill is how they treat and handle the least favoured of their members, that is outside of public health and I'll uphold that for any victim of act implicating mental health consequences.

Alain

Garou, Québec, Canada, August 10, 2015:

See Noevo, care to elaborate on the ”fiction of evolution”?

Garou, SN announces, through his 'nym (short for See Noevolution), that he refuses to see reality, even when he's steeping in it. None so blind…

By Bill Price (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

Just out of curiosity, you little weasel, seeing as how you think abortion is a monstrous horror and tantamount to murder and blah blah blah: how may doctors have you, personally, killed in your efforts to end the slaughter? A lot of doctors have been shot down in cold blood, a lot hospitals and clinics have been bombed and torched: which ones were your handiwork?

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 09 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo, care to elaborate on the ”fiction of evolution”? Someone earlier in the thread asked what were your thought on dogs then? Dogs are fiction too?

Oh, dear L-rd. S.N. has already hijacked the comments (see the last two words of the title).* Don't invite it to rehash its dogs don't evolve into cats idiocy.

* Impressively, S.N. is so addlepated that he shot his foot plumb off at Ethan's while trying to effect the same routine using his hypothalamus (~04:00, if you're going to be that way) rather than his pineal gland.

Back on topic, See: Would you prefer that people have died from rubella than the vaccine never being developed?

Also, where in the Bible is a fetus defined as a living being that can be murdered? Because I provided you, way back in #45, definitive proof that it isn't.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

All JGC knows is what the EEG shows.

Because you're still pretending that what he said about when human fetal life becomes a human being/person justifies a blind test on a six-year-old whose cerebral and autonomic functioning is not in question.

Either that or you really are that stupid.

And I’m wondering if he would consider the EEG data to be “characteristic” human neural activity.

Yes.

[If you read the very short linked article, you’d know that Jessie has only half a brain. The other half was successfully removed by now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.]

And if you read JGC's posts or my explanation of them, you'd know that if she's got cerebral function and is not on life support, what JGC said about brain waves does not apply to her.

The rest of what you're saying is the argument from potential that you erroneously believe isn't one if you say it isn't.

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

Don't overtax yourself. You might get a headache. And anyway, it's just a hop, skip and a jump from there to "JGC believes that abortion should be allowed in ALL cases."

So why don't you save yourself some trouble and make that your starting point?

All JGC knows is what the EEG shows.

Because you're still pretending that what he said about when human fetal life becomes a human being/person justifies a blind test on a six-year-old whose cerebral and autonomic functioning is not in question.

Either that or you really are that stupid.

And I’m wondering if he would consider the EEG data to be “characteristic” human neural activity.

Yes.

[If you read the very short linked article, you’d know that Jessie has only half a brain. The other half was successfully removed by now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.]

And if you read JGC's posts or my explanation of them, you'd know that if she's got cerebral function and is not on life support, what JGC said about brain waves does not apply to her.

The rest of what you're saying is the argument from potential that you erroneously believe isn't one if you say it isn't.

And before you embarrass yourself again by saying, NO, it's not a human being because it WILL grow, but because it IS GROWING:

If that's the criterion, people who have stopped growing aren't human beings.

Oops. That was just supposed to be the last part.

@ Narad 946
Wait, is that Vessel guy from that post you've linked See Noevo? Or just someone as disconnected from reality? Judging by his unhinged rant he's probably connected directly from the Pinel institute wearing his straitjacket.

@Bill Price
Didn't catch that his name was ''No evo'' lol. Although I am curious of what he makes of the dinosaurs and Noah's ark.

You know, being a creationist, you'd think the simplest solution to get rid of the dinosaurs would be that they died with the flood, but according to Ken Ham's creation museum, they went extinct in medieval times?
So according to Ken Ham, Noah also took two of each dinosaurs and put them on his ark (lol).

Earlier I wrote that “characteristics and tests can be woefully inadequate in differentiating things, especially, many living things, and most especially in the sense of *defining* things… I think the *full definition* of a thing cannot be given by the thing itself. Because the thing did not make itself. Not even a mother and father can “define” their child. Although we might say the mom and dad “made” a baby, the baby and the reproductive systems that brought him about are about as mysterious as mom and dad are to themselves.
While it may seem silly and circular, there is truth in that old saying “It is what it is.”
I WILL say, however, that human beings produce only other human beings and human beings come only from other human beings (evolution science fiction notwithstanding).”

I think even Merriam-Webster may recognize this implicitly:

“Living: not dead : having life; currently active or being used; having the form of a person who is alive.”

“Homo sapiens: the species of human beings that exist today.”

“Human being: a person.”

“Person: a human being.”

I would think JGC, or rather his spokeswoman, ann, would be intent on straightening M-W out.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

See, if you knew full-grown adults were being killed at a specific place with no legal repercussions, how would you react?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

@#952 --

All your arguments for why a zygote is a human being have failed.

Let's review them:

(1) Because everyone KNOWS it is.

That's not an argument, and it's also not true.

(2) Because many/most people have always known that it is.

Unless liberals traveled back in time and altered the historical record, many/most people have always thought that life began at viability. The Catholic Church thought so until 1869.

So that's not true. It's also not an argument.

(3) Because it contains a genetic blueprint.

That's either an argument from potential, or you're saying that a single cell containing human DNA is a human being, in which case we're all a nation of them unto ourselves.

(4) Because it IS GROWING.

That's either an argument from potential, or it's growing into what will no longer be a human being when it stops.

(5) Because logic, common sense, observation.

Such as the above?

Leaping to unjustified conclusions about short simple pieces of text that you don't understand by applying magical thinking to them is not logical, sensible, or observant.

(6) Because Merriam-Webster defines words neutrally, and I read my personal religious convictions into them, then conclude that they're implicit.

That's not an argument. It's also the opposite of logic, common sense and observation.
__________________________

You're not entitled to tell other people how or what to think simply because you have a personal opinion that's based on faith.

I do not know if an electroencephalogram would infallibly show the difference between human brain waves and ape brain waves in a blind test. I could try to find the answer, but given 1) it isn’t relevant to a discussion of ethical abortion policies I don’t see the need to investigate further.

If you’re able to offer evidence that EEG’s could or could not detect this difference feel free to do so, as I'd be curious as to the answer and the qaulity of the evidence behind it, but again I don't see how it's relevant to a discussion of ethical abortion policies..

Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?

yes--for example, adult or juvenile organisms can be categorized by species (e.g. "This is a member of the species homo sapiens , this is a member of the species pan troglodytes" etc.), living tissues can be categorized as being from a species (e.g.., "These tissues are from a member of the species homo sapiens, these tissues are from a member of the species pan troglodytes"), oocyte's, embryo's, zygotes, etc., can be ategorized as being from a species (e.g., "This zygote is from the species homo sapiens, this zygote is from the species pan troglodytes"), etc.

If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

It isn’t a species , See—a cell, cells or tissues from a species.

Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”

Given that I haven’t claimed that all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”, I have to ask: did you have a point?

Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.

Given that I haven’t claimed that “all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly”, once again I have to ask: did you have a point?

Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity.

I’m sorry, See, but you’re the one insisting both science and common sense demonstrate a zygote/embryo/fetus represents a human being from the moment of fertilization you. It’s your responsibility to rationally make that case. I’ve indulged your attempts to shift the burden of proof to your opponents as far as I’m willing to.

So let’s see some real evidence, or a coherent rational argument, in support of your position. Again: I suggest we start at the beginning:, the period between fertilization and the first round of cell division. What properties does the fertilized oocyte possess that requires we treat it as a de facto human being, rather than a human cell?

And by all means be ‘very specific’ in your response.

@872

But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.

See, you do realize that the situation you've describe is one where parents are attempting to withold necessary medical care from a child and is in anaologous to a parent's decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

What I I beleive is that the first appearance of characteristc brainwaves between 23 and 24 weeks gestation establishes the earliest point during gestation development where it cannot be said with confidence that a human zygote, embryo or fetus does not yet represnt a human being." That clear things up for you?

The examples at #954 cover every ostensibly logical, sensible argument you've made on the thread, eg: first-graders/college students (argument from potential); people who use IUDs want to destroy innocent life (inability to process information without reading your personal religious convictions into it, plus argument from potential treated as proven); etc.

You're really just saying that as a matter of strong religious conviction, you believe life begins at conception.

And if you were honest enough to say it that way, you'd probably get more respect. It's the blustering and bullying that are a problem. You have a right to your beliefs.

Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”

Given that I haven’t claimed that all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”, I have to ask: did you have a point?

Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.

Given that I haven’t claimed that “all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly”, once again I have to ask: did you have a point?

Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity.

I’m sorry, See, but you’re the one insisting both science and common sense demonstrate a zygote/embryo/fetus represents a human being from the moment of fertilization you. It’s your responsibility to rationally make that case. I’ve indulged your attempts to shift the burden of proof to your opponents as far as I’m willing to.

So let’s see some real evidence, or a coherent rational argument, in support of your position. Again: I suggest we start at the beginning:, the period between fertilization and the first round of cell division. What properties does the fertilized oocyte possess that requires we treat it as a de facto human being, rather than a human cell?

And by all means be ‘very specific’ in your response.

@872

But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.

See, you do realize that the situation you’ve describe is one where parents are attempting to withold necessary medical care from a child and is in no way analogous to a parent’s decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.

What I beleive is that the first appearance of characteristc brainwaves between 23 and 24 weeks gestation establishes the earliest point during gestation development where it cannot be said with confidence that a human zygote, embryo or fetus does not yet represnt a human being.” That clear things up for you?

Worth a read.

Carl Sagan’s 1990 Defense of Abortion Rights Remains Relevant

“A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg – despite the fact that it’s only potentially a baby – why isn’t it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

“Hundreds of millions of sperm cells (top speed with tails lashing: five inches per hour) are produced in an average human ejaculation. A healthy young man can produce in a week or two enough spermatozoa to double the human population of the earth. So is masturbation mass murder? How about nocturnal emissions or just plain sex?”

“Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas considered early-term abortion to be homicide (the latter on the grounds that the embryo doesn’t look human). This view was embraced by the Church in the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been repudiated. The Catholic Church’s first and long-standing collection of canon law…held that abortion was homicide only after the fetus was already “formed” – roughly, the end of the first trimester.”

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

It isn’t a species , See—a cell, cells or tissues from a species.

I'm not sure I misstated your opinion there, but if I did, I regret the error.

Same goes for anything else that I've overlooked.

My main aim was actually not to speak for you, but to prevent SN from repeatedly recurring to what you said about brain waves as if there were any way that it meant that you believed in killing people for not being brainy enough to suit you.

So according to Ken Ham, Noah also took two of each dinosaurs and put them on his ark (lol).

He had a shrink-ray? Or did he collect eggs, or hatchlings?

To ann #954:

“All your arguments for why a zygote is a human being have failed.
Let’s review them:
(1) Because everyone KNOWS it is.
That’s not an argument, and it’s also not true.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
See my #731: “Everyone KNOWS it’s a LIFE. Now, what type of life is it?”

“(2) Because many/most people have always known that it is…So that’s not true. It’s also not an argument.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
I’d hold to my argument regardless of how many agreed with me. I just noted that my argument is widely shared – “Observation, common sense, and philosophy told many, probably most, people that the life in the womb is a human being – long before the discovery of DNA. Science just lends further support for that view.”

“…many/most people have always thought that life began at viability. The Catholic Church thought so until 1869.”

And your support for this statement about the Catholic Church is what?

“(3) Because it contains a genetic blueprint. That’s either an argument from potential, or you’re saying that a single cell containing human DNA is a human being, in which case we’re all a nation of them unto ourselves.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
My argument included “Tell me, JGC, when have you ever seen or heard of, say, a human skin cell or a human nose hair, grow into a human being? … The zygote is a human being and grows naturally to be recognizable as a toddler, teenager, oldster. Whereas a human nose hair is not a human being; that hair can grow all it wants but it will never be even recognizable as anything but a nose hair.”

“(4) Because it IS GROWING. That’s either an argument from potential, or it’s growing into what will no longer be a human being when it stops.”

Except that wasn’t my argument.
My argument included “The zygote does NOT have a POTENTIAL for growth. It IS GROWING, it already exercise its natural power of growth. And such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms.”

“(5) Because logic, common sense, observation. Such as the above?”

Yes.

“(6) Because Merriam-Webster defines words neutrally, and I read my personal religious convictions into them, then conclude that they’re implicit.”

If you could, what changes would you recommend to Merriam-Webster for their definitions below?
“Living: not dead : having life; currently active or being used; having the form of a person who is alive.”
“Homo sapiens: the species of human beings that exist today.”
“Human being: a person.”
“Person: a human being.”

What would YOUR definitions be?

__________________________
“You’re not entitled to tell other people how or what to think simply because you have a personal opinion that’s based on faith.”

I think I AM so entitled, and I think YOU’RE entitled to tell other people how or what to think simply because you have a personal opinion that’s NOT based on faith.
And you've been exercising your entitlement here.

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.
…………
P.S.
Don’t forget my question above: And your support for this statement about the Catholic Church is what?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

You may realize it by now, but you will never get an honest answer from see noevo, nor will you see him answer in any way that is consistent other than with lies and denying he's said what he's said.

You seem to have understood my position, Ann. See, I believe, chooses his language carefully to reinforce the conclusion he's trying to assert such as where he chooses to use the phrase 'the life in the womb' rather than "the embryo" or "the fetus" in order to take advantage of our common tendency to use 'life' as a synonym for "human being" (e.g., in headlines like "Three alarm fire claims three lives") so I'm careful to be precise in my language--noting that what we're actually talking about is a zygote, or an embryo, etc., and not something vaguely idnetified as a 'life'--in response to this tendency.

Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.

WRT the Church, since you plainly can hardly control your anticipatory glee over the rare prospect of scoring a point about anything:

I left the sentence unfinished because I wasn't satisfied that it covered every iteration of official Catholic doctine, then forgot to get back to it.

But I was going to say "viability in its own terms -- ie, ensoulment or something equivalent to it."

My real point was that if your present belief -- ie, that life begins at conception -- is based on plain, simple logic, common sense and observation, the Catholic Church has been illogical, unobservant and lacking in common sense for approximately 1900 of the last 2000 years.
______________

That would make your self-estimated track record, what? 99,999,999 for 99,999, 999?

JGC@964

Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.

The church says so is all the reason See Noevo needs. Recall that in #901 he said he would promote murder if Jesus said to. He's as radicalized as any memeber of ISIS.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

As to the rest of your response:

(1) I'm not interested in humoring your unjustified belief that you're being semantically elusive rather than semantically evasive. Those are the arguments you've offered. All of them have failed.

(2) The definitions Merriam-Webster offers for those words all do the job of a dictionary definition well enough that I have no objections to them.

The world is full of bozos who think that refusing to acknowledge that word meaning is connotative and context-specific as well as denotative and dictionary-based means that they have achieved full and absolute semantic mastery of the language.

For example, there are probably some buffoons who see "having the form of a person who is alive" in the dictionary and think "I spy with my little eye empirical proof that a fetus is person who is alive!" And so on.

But that's not Merriam-Webster's fault.

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.

Like everything else you think and know to be true, that's utterly unsupported by anything other than your belief that it is -- ie, it's faith-based.

To JGC #955:

Me: “Do you believe living things can be categorized by species?”

You: “yes”

Me: “If so, what species is the life growing in the human female’s womb?”

You: “It isn’t a species , See—a cell, cells or tissues from a species.”

Which cells or tissues grow naturally to be commonly-recognizable as species homo sapiens? [You’ve already indicated that some never will (#807).]

...........
Me: “Not all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead””

You: “Given that I haven’t claimed that all born people suffering brain damage are “brain dead”, I have to ask: did you have a point?”

Just that when I asked you about people who after birth suffer brain damage (i.e. not necessarily brain-“deadness”), you immediately focused on brain-deadness.
From #865: “The latter case, wher someone who was born with a normal and functionng brain suffers an injury such that characteristic neural activity is no longer present, **represents all the existing cases where victims of trauma are already recognized as having ceased to represent a human being (i.e., are ‘brain dead’) such that it is ethical to remove the still-living huan body from life support.**”

.......
Me: “Not all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly.”

You: “Given that I haven’t claimed that “all babies who have brain damage suffer from anencephaly”, once again I have to ask: did you have a point?”

Just that, well, like directly above. See #865 again.
...........
Me: “Please be very specific as to the particular type(s) and the level/intensity [for “characteristic human neural activity”].”

You: “I’m sorry, See, …”

I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.
................

“What properties does the fertilized oocyte possess that requires we treat it as a de facto human being, rather than a human cell?”

Does it naturally grow to be what we commonly recognize as a human being?
Or is it like the cell from a human nose hair?

............
Me: “But regarding what you call a “difficult and complex medical issue”, let’s say a couple is deciding on the life or death of a third person in the family, say, a child of theirs on life support whose brain waves their doctor, let’s call him Dr. JGC, does NOT consider “characteristic neural activity.” The couple decides they want to “pull the plug” on their child.”

You: “See, you do realize that the situation you’ve describe is one where parents are attempting to withold necessary medical care from a child and is in anaologous to a parent’s decision to terminate a pregnancy?”

No, I don’t realize that.
But analogies are probably never a perfect mirror of what they’re trying to reflect.

.............
Me: “Looking back on the comments (#215), I guess then that JGC thinks the juvenile human being starts around 23 or 24 weeks gestation.”

You: “What I I beleive is that the first appearance of characteristc brainwaves between 23 and 24 weeks gestation establishes the earliest point during gestation development where it cannot be said with confidence that a human zygote, embryo or fetus does not yet represnt a human being.” That clear things up for you?”

Yes it does, I think.
So, even by YOUR standards, the life in a woman’s womb at 23 or 24 weeks gestation COULD “represent” a human being.

But your wording - “does not yet represnt a human being” - does that have essentially the same meaning for you as “IS not yet a human being”?

If not, why not?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

The church says so is all the reason See Noevo needs.

Which is of course why ethics trumps morals: if the definition of good is founded upon articles of subjective personal faith literally any act--even those that are demonstrably unethical--can be held to be moral.

I’m off to play some golf, like Barack Hussein Obama.

Maybe this will hit comment #1000 while I’m gone.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

“having the form of a person who is alive”

As in "So-and-so is living proof that..." etc.

I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.

The way JGC defines "human being" is this:

A living adult of juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens

You just prefer to insist otherwise, because you can't make a case for your position on the logical, sensible observed merits and so have no better option than to willfully misrepresent the positions of those who do.

Also: He said what characteristic neural activity he meant, what it was characteristic of, and why when he first used the phrase.

"I’m off to play some golf, like Barack Hussein Obama."

Nice bigoted comment. The difference, of course, is that he's helped the country immensely while you've never contributed anything of value.

Which cells or tissues grow naturally to be commonly-recognizable as species homo sapiens?”

Germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens have the potential to give rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens. I’ll note again that at any time the statement “this cell or tissues may grow naturally such that at a later time it will represent a member of the species homo sapiens” is found true the statement “this cell or tissues already represent a member of the species homo sapiens” must be found false.

Just that when I asked you about people who after birth suffer brain damage (i.e. not necessarily brain-“deadness”), you immediately focused on brain-deadness.

No, I immediately answered your question 9which was actually “What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?” by stating It would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain. Anencephaly was offered as an example of severe brain damage.

I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.

At minimum, neural activity would have to be both sustained and bilaterally synchronous, such as described in Anand et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987.

Does it naturally grow to be what we commonly recognize as a human being?

I didn’t ask what an oocyte would grow to become, See: I asked what properties a fertilized oocyte possesses which require we treat it as a de facto human being rather than a human cell. You really need to stop trying to hand-wave your way to an argument from potential, since that’s a non-starter: at any time something possesses the property to ‘grow to become a human being’ it cannot logically be found to have already grown to become a human being.

No, I don’t realize that.

Then clearly you fail to understand the human reproduction sufficiently well to discuss the ethics of abortion in any meaningful manner.

So, even by YOUR standards, the life in a woman’s womb at 23 or 24 weeks gestation COULD “represent” a human being.

That’s correct—it could.

But your wording – “does not yet represnt a human being” – does that have essentially the same meaning for you as “IS not yet a human being”?

Yes: prior to 23 to 25 weeks, before characteristic human brainwaves have first appeared, it would not yet be a human being.

See Noevo, I expect at least a formal recantation of your "7 out of 7", rather than silence when called a liar.

If you're not man enough to apologize, I'll let that slide.

A couple of questions, little weasel: which is the greater crime, providing a therapeutic abortion to Savita Halappanavar so that she would not die from the baby rotting in her belly or killing Dr David Gunn by shooting him three times in the back? Which is the greater sin, providing women with safe and effective methods of contraception so that abortion become very rare or setting fire to a health clinic?

If you find yourself in need of help when wrestling with these thorny moral questions, perhaps you could gets assistance from the Army of God. Your buddies there are a recognized underground terrorist organization active in the United States

By Robert L Bell (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo@962

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.

Even if that were true, it would only be by coincidence that your arguments line up with logic, common sense, and observation. You have said that what the church says is absolute for you. Clearly faith trumps all else for you.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

Part of the problem with See's position is that while he claims he's speaking out against murder, his reaction is closer to someone upset about a pool hall being built in town rather than the reaction someone would have to, say, the Hunger Games.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

I also think, in fact I know, that virtually every argument I’ve made here has been based on logic, common sense and observation, and NOT on faith.

Which statement aptly illustrates See’s problem is less what he doesn’t know but more all the things he thinks he knows for certain that simply aren’t so.

As far as I can tell, his 'logical' argument in support of human being from conception took the form

1) Nose hairs don't become people

2) Argle bargle argle bargle

therefore

3) Zygotes alreadyare people

As far as I can tell, his ‘logical’ argument in support of human being from conception took the form

1) Nose hairs don’t become people

2) Argle bargle argle bargle

therefore

3) Zygotes alreadyare people

You forgot:

4) The only other alternative leads inexorably to denying first-graders the opportunity to go to college by executing them for having had hemispherectomies, then having godless non-nutritive orgies instead of virtuously dropping bombs on the infidels who are on the brink of overrunning the country.

To be fair.

ann, JGC, and anyone else who might care: It appears that SN has led the conversation off into neverneverland by causing you to focus on the biological issue 'human being', rather than on the moral and legal issue, 'person'. You've mentioned 'person' (or 'people') en passant, but not directly.

The point is that 'person' is the word used in, for example, the 14th Amendment to identify the entity entitled to equal protection under the law, and in most other contexts of interest here, legal, moral, and ethical.

Throughout (most of, at least) history, a 'person' has been an individual of H. sap. that has survived its own birth for a culturally dependent time, from minutes to weeks. In the US culture, the duration trends toward the shorter; in other countries, the time currently runs about one week. Nothing has changed in technology nor culture to change that understanding, except for the religious attack in the 1800's, to redefine 'person' as something other than a postpartum entity.

I would suggest redirecting the focus back to where it belongs, on the person rather than the bare organism.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

Bill, as far as I’m concerned--and more critically as I’ve been using the terms in my posts--“human being” and “person” are synonymous.

And it is the ethical issue I’ve been focusing on: how biology can and must inform any rational understanding of ethical abortion policies.

Non nutritive orgies? I'm sorry, but I insist the orgies be catered!

“Living: not dead : having life; currently active or being used; having the form of a person who is alive.”

Other examples of the third-listed definition of the word "living" being used correctly in a sentence:

She's a living doll.
He's a living testament to the natural fascistic tendencies of humankind.
JGC is a living saint.

(Connotes "exemplifying or embodying another concept, quality, thing or person that may or may not itself be living")

The second-listed:

English is a living language.
Catholicism is a living faith.
Yoga is a living practice.

(Connotes: "Dynamic not fixed/static.")

The first:

JGC's definition of "human being" is a living adult or juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens.

^^In that case, it just means what the first-listed definition says.

I would think that your entire interest in the dictionary definitions of those words arose from your misguided belief that they offered you a way to run rings around JGC's statement logically.

But you left out the M-W definition of "species":

biology : a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus***

Oh, wait...

***Honestly, that's kind of a crappy dictionary, isn't it?

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

^^That's much clearer.

Wait, is that Vessel guy from that post you’ve linked See Noevo? Or just someone as disconnected from reality?

The latter. S.N. ran away a few days ago after trying to change the subject to abortion and making a fool of himself in the process.

JGC,

Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.

If that were the case, wouldn't we have a moral obligation to prevent women from miscarrying at any expense? Wouldn't we have to collect every sexually active woman's menstruum, baptise it and give it a Christian burial and funeral in case it contains a fully-fledged human being complete with human rights?

Some further idle thoughts. It may be of interest that in the UK there is a crime of infanticide, when a woman kills her own child aged under 12 months while the balance of her mind is disturbed after childbirth. I'm not sure if that reflects a recognition that a newborn baby is not a complete human being, or that a woman with post partum depression should not be held responsible for her actions.

During my studies of social (cultural) anthropology I was taught that different cultures have very different concepts of what constitutes a person/human being. In Hindu cultures, for example, a person is thought of in terms of what actions they have carried out, their achievements, in this or in previous lives (which links into the caste system, obviously). Humanity is not thought of as a quality emanating from our biology in general or our genetic code in particular.

My tutor was an expert in Balinese culture, and told me he asked the elders among his informants what they would do if they encountered a talking chicken which said it was a human being that had been turned into a chicken by a sorcerer. To his surprise, after some heated discussion they agreed that the correct course of action would be to take the talking chicken home, kill it and eat it. It could not be classed as a human being because it was unable to carry out any of the duties and responsibilities that defined a human.

Perhaps this explains the casual attitude to infanticide in some cultures (including Bali, though abortion is more common there IIRC) and to geronticide in others.

I'm not suggesting that we adopt these attitudes, but just pointing out that there is no universal agreement about what constitutes a human being. Is an anencephalic baby a human being? They are genetically human, but entirely lack a brain. What about chimeric animals, genetically engineered for medical research? They have some cells that are entirely human, so should they be treated as human? What about other higher primates? Some argue that they should have human rights too, which seems ridiculous to me, as with rights come responsibilities which other great apes are unable to fulfill.

Personally I prefer the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which makes it clear (though it took decades of arguments) that human personhood begins at birth.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

IMHO - the dividing line on "abortion" vs "murder" should be when the young'un can explain why e^(iπ)=-1.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

M O'B: "why e^(iπ)=-1."

:-)

To ann #956:

“You’re really just saying that as a matter of strong religious conviction, you believe life begins at conception.”

I can say, in all honesty, that is false.

“You have a right to your beliefs.”

Whew! What a relief. Thank you so much, ann!

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo@990

I can say, in all honesty, that is false.

See Noevo, your faith is blind and your devotion absolute. Your beliefs are the church's, you made that abundantly clear in #901. You can claim your beliefs are rooted in something other than faith but by your own admission that is untrue. Whether those align with logic or whatever else is merely incidental. Once you make a statement like the one in #901 then any appeal you make to logic loses all credibility.

You have surrendered your will to the church. I can see why. It lets you be a bigoted idiot without having to take responsibility for it. Guess what though? At the end of the day you're still bigoted and you're still an idiot, doesn't matter much how you got there.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

In #956, ann says of me:
“And if you were honest enough to say it that way, you’d probably get more respect. It’s the blustering and bullying that are a problem.”

If ann thinks my style is characterized by “blustering and bullying”, that’s too bad, for ann.
I'll keep on keepin' on, regardless.

But ann’s apparent umbrage at blustering and bullying got me thinking, so I went back through the comments here and found these pleasantries directed to yours truly:

#342: “Are you seriously that ineducable?”

#663: “Your ignoble retreat is again duly noted. As is your bad faith and dishonesty.”
“Considering that you didn’t know the first thing about her until a few minutes ago and learned all that you know now from a Wikipedia entry…”
“I don’t see how your lazy assumptions about what she’d think today could be based on anything more than bias and a self-sanctioned waiver of the obligation to work.”

#707: “No, just the ones where you made an ass out of umpt, ion and yourself by prefacing your words with “I assume.”

#711: “That would again be because you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

#712: “Are you really too dense to grasp that the question at issue …”

#715: “Because you don’t really want to save unborn lives.” [NB: ann later apologized for this statement!]

#724: “Can you read?”

#743: “In fact, it’s main point of interest is that it reveals that you care so little about women’s healthcare that you haven’t bothered to give what you’re saying a moment’s thought.”
“You’re not even trying to be honest.”
“Those would be the ones you made up and are now lying about, I guess.”

#750: “Your position is not based on logic, common sense or caution. Or even reality. It’s based on blind religious conviction.”

#777: “That’s because you live in a fantasy world.”

#834: “You’re past the point of taking seriously.”

#918: “That it didn’t go without saying is due to your failure to comprehend plain English at the elementary level of basic fluency…”
“When it comes to patently baseless bullsh*t, you’re batting .1000.
When it comes to accurately assessing and stating the stated positions of other people wrt abortion, you’re doing terribly."
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Remarkable retorts for an anti-bluster/bully babe.

Regardless, I’m not looking for an apology. I don’t need an apology.

Besides, even if one came, it wouldn’t be for anything of substance, but rather, would be for something like inappropriate *tone*.

Kind of like how a hero of y’all did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9BFHWevlzg

And from the horse’s mouth… time 1:09-1:21:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUjU4e4fUI

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC #964:

“Bottom line really is that See is insisting society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus shares exact ethical identity with a day-old, year-old,month-old etc. juvenile or adult human being but has been entirely unable to offer any credible reason why this is the case.”

Really?
I've been unable to offer “any” credible reason.
No credible reason in, for example, #820?

P.S.
Don’t you at least think society has a moral obligation to conclude that a human oocyte, sygote, embryo and/or fetus could NOT POSSIBLY be a human being BEFORE society allows them to be killed?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

To ann #965:

“I left the sentence unfinished because I wasn’t satisfied that it covered every iteration of official Catholic doctine, then forgot to get back to it.”

So, you weren’t satisfied it was a true statement when you made it, but then you forgot to get back to it.
Until I asked you about it.
Huh.
Maybe you forgot about worrying about the statement’s truth because you plainly could hardly control your anticipatory glee of the prospect of scoring a point about something you thought no one would question.

........
“But I was going to say “viability in its own terms — ie, ensoulment or something equivalent to it.”

And your support for THIS incomprehensible mishmash about the Catholic Church is what?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

Folks why are still feeding this misogynist troll?

AdamG, AdamG, next Tuesday on the 18th. Skeptics in the pizza place basement with someone of interest! Hurry up, sign up!

Also, will someone please stop the redirecting of this website to "Educational Gardens" and someone's Myspace page. Seriously, I don't care about them!

To ann #972:

“The way JGC defines “human being” is this:
A living adult of juvenile individual of the species homo sapiens”

I sure hope JGC doesn’t.
I never heard of an adult of juvenile individual.

And is the “living” adult like a “So-and-so is living proof that…” etc.?
………….
It’s like someone said, you can’t make a case for your position on the logical, sensible observed merits and so have no better option than to willfully misrepresent the positions of one who does.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

See Noevo,
Still waiting for an apology or a retraction for putting words in my (among others) mouth which I never said.

Also, See Noevo, as a side note...

...When you reply "I can say, in all honesty, that is false." to something like ann's “You’re really just saying that as a matter of strong religious conviction, you believe life begins at conception", you might want to either:
a) change the way you behave, because to me and I assume to most of us that is a rational assumption to make based on your posts, or
b) explain why the description isn't apt.

I did, when you mischaracterized my stance before, and I said I would do it again for your latest repeat-transgression if you answered a question in turn. But rather, you just quietly and ignobly tried to retreat from that line of what can I only think you deem an assault.

So, out of seven who answered, how many do you think support abortion in all cases?

To JGC #974:

Me: “Which cells or tissues grow naturally to be commonly-recognizable as species homo sapiens?”

You: “Germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens have the potential to give rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens.”

The “potential”? Well, as some say, ‘Anything’s possible.’
But, say, at any time in recorded history, have germ cells from a member of the species homo sapiens given rise to a new individual member of the species homo sapiens?
...................
“I’ll note again that at any time the statement “this cell or tissues may grow naturally such that at a later time it will represent a member of the species homo sapiens” is found true the statement “this cell or tissues already represent a member of the species homo sapiens” must be found false.”

I think I agree!
I think we just disagree over which of those two statements is true.
...........
Me: “Just that when I asked you about people who after birth suffer brain damage (i.e. not necessarily brain-“deadness”), you immediately focused on brain-deadness.”

You: “No, I immediately answered your question 9which was actually “What if a person is born with a damaged brain, or suffers brain damage after birth? Is that person non-human or less human?” by stating It would depend on the extent of the damage to the brain. Anencephaly was offered as an example of severe brain damage.”

No, you “immediately” went into brain deadness.
In the *next* paragraph, you mentioned extent of injury and anencephaly.
Others can check for themselves in #858.
............
Me: “I’m sorry, JGC, that you can’t specify and define the particular type(s) and the level/intensity of brainwaves that make them “characteristic human” brain waves, the “characteristic human neural activity” which defines “human being” for you.”

You: “At minimum, neural activity would have to be both sustained and bilaterally synchronous...”

By “bilaterally” synchronous, do you mean synchronous between the two sides of the brain?
...............
Me: “Does it naturally grow to be what we commonly recognize as a human being?”

You: “I didn’t ask what an oocyte would grow to become, See: I asked what properties a fertilized oocyte possesses which require we treat it as a de facto human being rather than a human cell.”

The fertilized oocyte possesses the property of naturally growing to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.

This property is not possessed by any other cells to my knowledge.
........
“You really need to stop trying to hand-wave your way to an argument from potential, since that’s a non-starter: at any time something possesses the property to ‘grow to become a human being’ it cannot logically be found to have already grown to become a human being.”

Mine is not an argument from potential.
I am NOT saying: “possesses the property to ‘grow to BECOME a human being’”.

I AM saying: possesses the property to grow to be what is commonly RECOGNIZED as a human being, a person. “Recognized”, as in acknowledged, in terms of APPEARANCE, by everyone, even by little children.

I must have said this at least once or twice already but I’ll say it again:
The product of conception does NOT have a POTENTIAL for growth;
It IS NOW GROWING, it is already exercising its natural POWER of growth;
Such growth leads naturally to changes in the organism which in no way alter the essence of the organism (e.g. “Steve” growing from 1-foot tall to 6-feet tall or becoming sexually mature is still “Steve”, before and after.) Such changes are merely “accidents”, in philosophic terms, “characteristics”, in more common parlance.
.........
Me: “So, even by YOUR standards, the life in a woman’s womb at 23 or 24 weeks gestation COULD “represent” a human being.”

You: “That’s correct—it could.”

So, even though you think it could, even though you’re not sure, you’re sure we can ethically kill it?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

To JGC:

Some here are protesting my claim that they believe abortion should be allowed in all cases.

They say I misunderstand or mangle or ignore some specifics they say they’ve given for when they think abortion SHOULD be forbidden.

Perhaps their protests are well-founded. But instead of trying to find out by rehashing what has, or may have, been said on the issue to this point, let’s start fresh.

Consider this case:
A perfectly normal pregnancy about 25 weeks along, no physical problems or abnormalities with mother or baby, no mental/psychological/psychiatric problems with the mother, according to the appropriate medical professionals. Everything about the pregnancy is proceeding normally.

But the mother wants an abortion, and does not want to be denied the abortion.

Hypothetically, assuming YOU had the power, would YOU forbid the abortion?

On what basis would you forbid or not forbid?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 10 Aug 2015 #permalink

“I’ll note again that at any time the statement “this cell or tissues may grow naturally such that at a later time it will represent a member of the species homo sapiens” is found true the statement “this cell or tissues already represent a member of the species homo sapiens” must be found false.”

I think I agree!
I think we just disagree over which of those two statements is true.

Except it doesn't work the other way around. The latter statement doesn't render the former statement false. It might just mean the "transition" has happened already.