Anti Abortionists Struggle With When Life Begins.

I confess my use of the word “struggle” is a bit sarcastic.  Those who hate gays often say gays are “struggling with their sexuality” and atheists are “struggling with their faith.”

When people start with a ridiculous definition of when human life begins, there are bound to be ridiculous arguments.  That is happening at the moment.

A sperm cell swiming around in a woman’s body is not a “life” according to anti abortion politicans because it has no potential to become a human being.  Monty Python’s parody, “Every Sperm is Sacred”, made fun of one-cell humans.

It turns out when a sperm collides with the woman’s egg, this is not a potential human being either.  A fertilitized egg has potential for birth only when it attaches to the uterus of the woman.  This takes several days if it happens at all.  Usually it does not happen.

We need to know exactly when that cell or two is a human being.  Once a law is established as to when a human being is inside its mother, criminal law and law enforcement personel will be responsible for its safety.  We cannot have women aborting these humans and claiming miscarriages.  Law enforcement will have to sign off on all miscarriages of documented pregnancies.

Also, clear lines need to be drawn so we know which group must be called “murderers”.  After that, let the parades, pictures of fertilitzed eggs verses those attached to the mother and murder of doctors begin anew.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-usa-court-contraception-analysis-idUSBREA2A07720140311

85 Responses

  1. Michael Ross

    “We need to know exactly when that cell or two is a human being.”

    When do you say it is a “human being”? When it is socialized into humanistic, statist brainwashing? When “it” believes in Darwinian evolution? Keynesian economics, abortion rights and “gay marriage”?

    Either it is the moment of conception or it is completely arbitrary.

    1. Michael 12:31 “Either it is the moment of conception or it is completely arbitrary.”

      Is the “moment of conception” when the egg and sperm collide, or, after the collided cells latch onto the uterus wall?

      1. Michael Ross

        When egg (23 Chromosomes) and sperm (23 Chromosomes) unite. If it doesn’t attach it will not survive, obviously.

        “Some babies die by chance, no baby should die by “choice.”

          1. entech

            After an egg is released, it has about a day to find a sperm to fertilize it. Sperm survive several days before losing their ability to join with an egg. But the union of egg and sperm is merely the first step: if a fertilized egg does not burrow into the lining of the uterus, there is no pregnancy. In fact, in an estimated 50 percent to as many as 80 percent of conceptions the fertilized egg fails to implant.

            From the article the topic was based on. Do you ever read any of it or just close your eyes and ears and leap into the attack?

          2. entech

            PS. Not indicating a very good design for reproduction is it? Might as well have kept on making them one at a time from the river mud.

  2. dan

    Who hates gays? Liberals love to label those with opposing views as haters. They stole the idea from Marxism. Marxism also employs words such as racist, bigot…marxists are the real haters.

    1. entech

      The problem with people like Dan is that they get confused, they confuse,for instance, Marxist ideas with the aberration that Lenin and Stalin contrived as well as strangeness further east.
      The other confusion, and this one is very widespread, is to confuse the teachings of Yeshua the Rabbi with the teachings and actions of the people that describe themselves a Christians, based on the aberrations of Paul the Apostate.

      1. Michael Ross

        Jon and entec disagree with Christians. Do they hate Christians? Yes they do. By their definition of “hate” they do.

        1. entech

          I have been thinking about this business of Jon and I hating Christians, not true in any shape or form. But I would like to know what you consider our definition of hate might be and why you have put hate in little scary quotation marks.

          This comes up so often that it is boring as well as funny, seems to come as , “why do you hate God” and/or why do you hate Christians.
          The funny part is when the answer is given along with the question and is hard to follow, “why do you hate god? how can you hate something you don’t believe in”. Surely that is rhetorical you can not have any feeling at all about something that does not exist, or at least that you do not believe exists.
          I don’t hate Christians, probably only opposing religions do or even have any cause to. I think your scriptures are mostly wrong and simply try to point out where I think they are wrong.

          As always I need to be totally boring and say that I could be wrong and you could be right, but, not only can I not believe but I cannot understand how you can be so totally convinced, so absolutely certain of something for which I can see no reason for believing apart from it being something you need, the need to be a special part of a special creation.

          1. Fr. James

            Yet your posts express hatred. Perhaps you should try to discern what “hate” is and then decide whether you hate us?

          2. entech

            Perhaps it would be helpful if you define what you think of as hate and then tell me in what way I express it.

            You seem to have to special meaning for “hate”; judging by the quotation marks you used. I have already decided long ago that I don’t hate you (you as a plural representing all Christians, as you seem to intend).

            I do not believe that your Bible and other religious writings can be thought of as true in every respect, in fact, mostly wrong. As I have said I could be wrong about that and indeed destined for an eternity of pain as some have said. I write what I think is wrong in religious writing, my only hope is that people will consider that they could be wrong and notice that somethings are not compatible with others.

            The only thing Christians do that I object to is attempt to have the laws of the land reflect what they believe they should the way things are, this because I do not think they have a valid reason for trying to impose them.

            This question of hatred, lack of understanding based on lack of belief and similar is thrown out at any excuse, I do think, I do believe, that this is a last resort, that as you have no coherent response you have an emotional one and project that emotion onto others.

          3. Fr. James

            Often Christians are accused of being “haters” just because they disagree. I asked you to define hate, but apparently you will not.

            Every citizen has the right to work to have the law of the land reflect their deepest held beliefs. That is true for Christians. We have every right to be involved and get laws that we deem good to be passed. You can object to the laws, but NOT to our right to do what you yourself do. Which is to “impose” laws you think are valid and reasonable. We do have reasons for what we believe, if you care to look.

      2. Henry

        More confusion from atheist entech. Certainly, the Soviets operated under a system of collectivism, a product of Marxism.

        More confusion from entech on the NT teachings. Those with itching ears and no Helper will certainly agree with entech.

        1. entech

          The soviets paid lip service to Marx in a similar way that paedophile priests pay lip service to Christianity.

          When will you accept that if you do not accept the validity of the NT, it is not confusion it is disbelief. If you think I should believe offer some reason to do so, a futile gesture possibly because I have heard/read everything you have to say and it amounts to nothing, nothing that is likely to convince me that is.

          1. entech 12:58 “The Soviets paid lip service to Marx in a simila was the paedophile priests pay lip service to Christianity.”

            Anti abortionists pay lip service to “life at conception” in the same way. They realize the fetus is part of the mother’s body but go off on things like “DNA” because its just something to divert the argument away from the facts. The fact is nothing is “alive” in any sense of the word until the fetus attaches to the mother. From that moment on, it is part of the mother.

            Anti abortionists can bob and weave, but the truth just stands there in one place staring them down.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Facts—-the first cell division after sperm meets egg is about 8 hours. Implantation takes roughly 10 days later. From your own; “The fact is nothing is “alive” in any sense of the word until the fetus attaches to the mother”, indicates you believe there is life at that point. The anti life people would at that time be treading on dangerous ground. I won’t quibble on 10 days-8hours.

          3. Adam Heckathorn

            As of late I’ve been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins In the book he talks about an argument made originally by Bertrand Russel using The illustration of a celestial Teapot; In an article titled “Is There a God?” commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
            Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]
            In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:
            I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. Personally I find the Idea of agnosticism or spirituality a little annoying believing that the tiny Celestial Teapot might exist doesn’t make any more since to Me than believing it does exist. Going from being one of JW’s to an atheist seems crazy and extreme to some but I look at it this way. If I know there is a chance of botulism in My food the CDC strongly suggests throwing it out preferably with out opening it. If it is open put on rubber gloves don’t allow it to touch Your skin and clean the area with bleach. at the end of their article They say It is killed by boiling for at least ten minutes. and then add; However, foods known to be underprocessed according to the current standards and recommended methods should not be eaten and should be disposed of safely. Is there any good reason to be even a little superstitious?

          4. Henry

            Adam:“Going from being one of JW’s to an atheist seems crazy and extreme to some but I look at it this way.”

            Not in the least. I believe that experience would provide a gateway for the end result.

          5. josh

            John. I’d have to say todays letter to the editor says it all.
            In regard to “A women’s body should be hers to control” (Forum, March 12 ), I take issue with two of the statements.

            First, the author Jamie Freden wrote, “I am pro-choice, which does not mean pro-abortion.” To you and everyone who uses this logic, I say pro-choice, by definition, means you support legalized abortion; pro-abortion, by definition, means you support legalized abortion; therefore you are pro-abortion. Why sugarcoat it with the label “pro-choice”? If you’re OK with abortion, stand up and say so.

            Second, I have never understood the argument that a pregnant women’s body is solely her own and therefore abortion is her choice, her right. Thirty-eight states have fetal homicide laws that confer various penalties on someone willfully causing the death of an unborn child (except for legalized abortion). Science shows us that even the circulations of the mother and her unborn child never mix and their DNA, while similar, are each unique. I whole-heartedly agree that a woman should be able to do with her own body what she wants. However, a pregnant mother’s body is no longer solely her own. Now there are two bodies, two distinct human beings, two entangled but separate lives.

            Science is clear on this; 38 states legally acknowledge this; why can’t the “pro-choice” crowd understand this? Abortion doesn’t affect only the mother’s own body, it dramatically affects the body of her unborn child as well. Why then should abortion be her right, solely her choice?

          6. josh 12:42 “Why sugarcoat it with the label ‘pro choice’? If you’re OK with abortion, stand up and say so.”

            I’M OK WITH ABORTION!! (Are we good now?)

          7. josh 12:42 “…two entangled but separate lives.”

            That is a very clever, a way of taking two different positions at the same time and making it sound like one position. You should be in politics.

            It’s like saying my foot is separate from me, but my foot and I are “entangled”.

          8. josh

            Sure John. Nice way to twist the argument. Denying the fact that the baby and mother are two separate but entangled beings won’t change the fact that they are. Deal with it and deal with your intellectual denial.

          9. josh 1:49 “Deal with it and deal with your intellectual denial.”

            I understand you are strongly against abortion and I’m happy to have to state your views here.

            That being said, I think those of us who see it the opposite way have some obligation to explain our view as well. When you say the fetus and its mother are “entangled” I referred to my body and my foot being “entangled” in the same way. My foot could not suvive without the rest of my body and neither can a fetus. My foot has the same relationship with my body as the fetus has with the mother.

            What has changed is politics. Antiabortionists have been quite successful in promoting the view the fetus is separte from the mother’s body even when it it not. It makes me consider naming my feet. I think I’ll call one “Lefty” and the other “Righty”.

          10. Wolfy32

            Good arguement Jon, but the problem with using feet as an analogy is that most people aren’t seeking to have their feet cut off…

            I’ve heard of people that have a sense that they shouldn’t have their leg or foot and actually want it removed. Doctors won’t voluntarily just remove a foot if you ask them to.. Not unless there’s a medically necessary reason. Even if you paid out of pocket I doubt they’d remove a foot.

            So question, using feet as an analogy, my feet are part of my body.. Should I have the right to tell a doctor to remove my foot or both of my feet because it’s my body and I want them to?

            I should have a right to ask them to remove my arms, legs, feet, as long as nothing is too life threatening. Where do we draw the line at pro choice… The arguement is that “it’s a woman’s body and she can do what she wants with it.”

            Yet, there’s a lot she can’t do with her body. She can’t put others in danger with her body. e.g. stabbing someone. She can’t stab herself… That would be heavily frowned on. anything that harms oneself or someone else is considered an unacceptable behavior.

            Removing her own foot or leg would be considered self mutilation and harm, and earn her a place in the psyche ward. So, why is aborting a human fetus considered acceptable?

            I don’t quite get how we can’t harm ourselves, or other people, but it’s o.k. to kill the potential human baby within one’s belly?

  3. Trying to recall if I’ve ever heard a liberal called a hater . . . . . . ? Must be the warm and inclusive nature of conservatives. 🙂

    1. Fr. James

      Most conservatives are polite and avoid the use of “hater” because they know it is meant to silence debate rather then illuminate truth. I have experienced a great deal of hatred from various types of liberals. Usually they justify their hate by deciding we deserve it.

  4. But back to Jon’s post, it will be interesting to see if pro-birth groups begin to have some serious squabbles, especially if it comes to law enforcement investigating pregnancies that end in something other than a full term birth.

  5. Fr. James

    Pro-life Catholics have no problem with when life begins. The absurdity is your contention about miscarriages. Currently we murder in the womb millions of children. That’s a fact. Some of us oppose this horror and others don’t seem to care.

    I guess one could say “those who hate Christians say they struggle with when life begins” eh?

    1. Fr. James 3:15 “The absurdity if your contention about miscarriages.”

      I’m sorry to inform you my predicitions about miscarriages are not absurd. What is absurd is to pretend miscarriages will be treated the same by government after a life-begins-at-conception as they are now.

      After a life-begins-at-conception theory was put into place, every miscarriage would become a missing human body. The criminal justice part of our laws would kick in. Today, when a human body disappears, law enforcement has to sign off. There is a document called a death certificate.

      The entire motivation of the life-begins-at-conception theory is to bring in the criminal justice apparatus. How could anyone deny it would not be involved in miscarriages?

      If women are not judged responsible enough now to decide what they wish to do about their own bodies, why would this change after the life-begins-at-conception was in place? Women would be suspected of having abortions when they claimed miscarriage.

      I wrote a blog about this a month or so ago. We had quite a discussion. No one was able to make the case, other than their own opinion, why criminal justice would not be involved in miscarriages. Be my guest to argue why this would not be the case.

      http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/27/the-theory-that-life-begins-at-conception/

      1. Fr. James

        Even when abortion was illegal no woman was prosecuted because of a miscarriage. So your contention is absurd and does not reflect what pro-life means. Instead it is a scare tactic that has no basis in reality. You then demand evidence that it would not happen. This is the best you can do?

        I would appreciate honesty. Just say that you support the killing of innocent children in the womb (and sometimes even after birth). That is exactly what you support and are arguing for.

        1. Fr. James 6:50 “So your contention is absurd and does not reflect what pro-life means. It is a scare tactic…”

          It is, indeed, scary. If you choose to ignore today’s political reality and live in the past, it is your right.

          “I would appreciate honesty.”

          As would I.

          1. Fr. James

            I am more interested in truth then “political reality.” As I mentioned even when abortion was illegal women were not prosecuted for miscarriages. In other words you are just using a facetious scare tactic that has no basis in truth or reality. It is far more likely that as time goes on pro-life people will be subject to arrest. Just today a liberal professor stated that those who deny global warming should be incarcerated. We are the ones who should be afraid.

        1. josh 12:49 “I agree with (Fr. James). You’re miscarriage pananoia is absurd.”

          You and Fr. James join several others who do not like me talking about law enforcement being involved in future miscarriages under a life-at-conception law. Instead of complaining, I’d enjoy hearing how the criminal justice system will handle missing bodies.

          I would agree there could be different ways of handling a miscarriage. If abortion is a state issue instead of a federal one, it may be handled in different ways depending on the politics of the state. It is a political issue after all.

          1. Fr. James

            So how do you answer the fact that this did not happen when abortion was illegal before 1973? What is the basis for your claim?

            It is not that I don’t like your claim. It is that the claim is false.

          2. Fr. James 10:11 “It is a claim that is false.”

            You are correct that women were not generally prosecuted between WWII and Roe. But, abortion is about politics. I believe politics has changed since post WWII.

            An example of how politics has changed is that there were very few prosecutions of people, doctor and others, who performed abortions prior to WWII. Like my 97 year old friend who said it was known what doctors in Fargo performed abortions during that period, there was doctors in most every community who did the same thing. Even though it was illegal, there were very few prosecutions. Abortions were performed regularly.

            After WWII, politician found they could win votes by demonizing those who performed abortions. So, prosecutions for performing abortions skyrocketed. This, as would be expected, caused a big problem for doctors who knew they should be doing them, but there was no safety valve.

            Have you noticed the number of conservative politicians who blow off women as important in the abortion decision. I think the time is ripe for the same kind of change that took place against abortion providers after WWII to take place against women. The table is set.

            http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/solinger-abortion.html

          3. Fr. James

            Politics has certainly changed. It is pro-life people who are subject to arrest and harassment. I see no possibility that pro-abortion people are subject to any legal penalties, even when the disobey the law. They would have to go very far for that. The doctor in Pennsylvania did, but the media covered it rarely.

            I am sure that in the past some got away with murder. That doesn’t make it right. Abortionists were always “demonized” because everyone understood that they killed children. Even today many doctors hold them in contempt and refuse to engage in such vile acts.

            In fact most conservatives actually care about women. The real war on women is the permissive liberals who defend pornography, contraception, and abortion. These dehumanize women and make them mere objects. PP cares about the money. They don’t have a home for unwed mothers in ND.

    2. Michael Ross

      Jon, entec, Realist, and the rest are intellectuals. The problem with many intellectuals is that the are not intellectually honest. One doesn’t need to be Catholic or Evangelical to know a baby in the womb is just as human as you and I. Or to know two men or two women are not a marriage. It just takes a little intellectual honesty. They like to make stuff up. Their only criteria is that it oppose what God has stated in His Word.

      1. Michael 4:17 “Jon, entec, Realist and the rest are intellectuals. The problem with many intellectuals is that they are not intellectually honest. One doesn’t need to be Catholic or Evangelical to know a baby in the womb is just as human as you or I.”

        That’s an interesting post, Michael, and is why I’m so glad to have you here. The way I see it is just the opposite. When a baby is born, there is no intellectual concept needed. It is right there in front of you. When it is not, when it is but a cell or two, dependent 100% on it mother, it is merely a theory that it is a human being. One might say it is like a god, an intellectual creation of the mind.

        I would say the reason antiabortionists have not prevailed is their concept of human life is just too abstract for the average Joe.

        1. Wolfy32

          Jon, that’s slightly deceptive IMHO. I think I see where you’re coming from. But, we also know the reality. There’s a pretty good chance that what comes out isn’t going to be a giraffe, monkey, or pig. If you see those as viable possibilities, then…. there’s an issue. If it’s brought to term and there’s no issues, there’s a 99.999% chance that it will be a human baby and not a baby giraffe. Just saying…

          That said, the creature in the womb is almost alien… Reminds me a lot of people’s drawings of aliens. strange buggy eyes, a tail, small or no nose, small opening for a mouth, etc.

          It seems very alien! It’s definately not human… Yet, the most likely outcome is a human baby. So by destroying the in between creature, whatever it is, you are destroying the baby human it was to eventually become. What that means for terminating the life prior to being a human baby? I have no idea. It’s not solvable because we are unable to define it.

          Taking this a step further we have deemed human cloning as unethical and morally wrong… Playing God, yet, whenever we reproduce naturally, we are doing the same thing. Matching up a sperm with DNA to an egg with it’s own DNA. Every birth a human has is a human CLONE based on the parents genetics.

          What’s the difference between a clone from a slightly modified sperm and/or egg and two humans mating? merging genetic material together?

          For all intents and purposes human reproduction should be illegal since cloning is illegal!

          1. entech

            Wolfy, what are you saying here, have you been watching too much Ray Comfort and the crocoduck stupidity.
            I am usually a little reticent a little wishy washy about these things (I often hide it well) and even express a firm belief in terms of possibilities and probabilities. Even though I have very strong doubts about the God of Abraham as the creator of the universe I would still have to say there is a possibility, small but there, and that this creator actually turns out to have a spiritual and physical part (the trinity is so complicated I don’t know what to say without someone saying that is not it) is even less likely, but still possible.

            But I have to stick my neck out here and state that the 99.999% chance of the child of human parents being a human child is too low, barring some weird and extreme mutation it is 100% certain that the child be a combination of the two parents with any difference being so slight as to be not noticeable. It is totally 100% certain that it will NOT be any other species.
            What you are saying, and I know you know better, is one of the deliberate misunderstandings of anti-evolutionists. Any slight variation will take a long time to accumulate enough difference to be noticeable, humans have been humans for a very long time and even though differences have developed because of habitat and climate differences they are still viable, can still have viable offspring. There is no sudden change.

          2. Wolfy32

            Sorry guys, I probably drank the wrong koolaid yesterday, that said this is what I refer to:

            “When it is not, when it is but a cell or two, dependent 100% on it mother, it is merely a theory that it is a human being. One might say it is like a god, an intellectual creation of the mind. ”

            If it’s only theory that it’s a human being? Is there a chance it’s going to be a giraffe? The word theory implies doubt that it’s going to be human? What else are those cells going to turn into?

            Hence my confusion and since it’s only theoretical that it’s going to be human, umm what’s the chances it’s not going to be human?

            Kinda like the idea of umm…. Your baby Bobby, is umm a baby giraffe… It was only theoretical that you were going to have a baby boy.. It’s actually a baby giraffe…. Congratulations!

            🙂

        2. Michael Ross

          “I’m so glad to have you here.”

          Thanks Jon. Always nice to feel appreciated. The feeling is mutual.

          1. entech

            Me too, I am certain that we will never agree on so many things but I do appreciate the way you express yourself.

            But, there always has to be a but doesn’t there, I have to spend too much time chasing down your Biblical quotes and references.

        3. josh

          A theory John? Really? I guess we can dispel with that because the human existence has been proven. There’s nothing hypothetical about our existence. Michael Ross is right. You do engage in intellectual dishonesty, or is it intellectual denial?

        1. Wolfy32

          Trust me, I’m o.k. with not getting one.
          I respect a lot of people, my limit of respecting people is people that demonstrate abusive tendancies.

  6. Adam Heckathorn

    Josh 12:42 what if both parents of the fetus are Roma, or ones Roma and ones Norwegian, I hope You won’t get offended at My teasing. I received a phone call years ago from someone working for The Republican party asking Me to vote Republican because They new how I felt about abortion. I told Him “I am disturbed by abortion. Please don’t be offended but You sound like You might be An African American?” To which He answered “yes I am”. I went on to say “It seems to Me that The Republican Party is very concerned about Children right up until The day They are are born after which They don’t seem to care if They fall off a cliff. When I was a Child I attended Elementary School for a while at John Muir in Long Beach Ca. There were six White Kids (Myself and My three little Sisters) and the rest were African Americans. Years later I found Myself caring for Dairy Cattle in Northern MN when it occurred to Me We treat these Cattle better than We as a Society treated The African American Children I went to school with.” as I’m saying these things The phone solicitor is saying “That’s right! That’s true!” I have to agree with The Gal Who posted a few day’s ago and pointed out the realities of illegal abortion. It’s not realistic to sit in an ivory tower and make “always and never” statements of morality it’s more practical to be willing to get Your hands dirty so to speak and do the best We can to solve real world problems.

    1. josh

      Adam I don’t support abortion in any way shape or form. You’re tryingto make me out to be a racist. Which I am not. Color makes no difference to me. If you want to talk about culture discrimination then that’s another story. I think you know how I feel about the roma culture. You might be surprised how I feel about german culture. There’s some very troubling cultures out there.

      1. Adam Heckathorn

        Josh It is encouraging that You don’t consider Yourself a racist. I would agree that many cultures would be well served to keep positive aspects and drop, adjust more negative aspects of there culture. Some of My ancestors owned slaves and used the Bible to support that. Today among My sisters and parents most perhaps all support affirmative action. I would acknowledge some of the cultural problems among Roma and I have to make the assumption that the cause could largely be put at the foot of other cultures that treated these folks with prejudice and contempt. I think sometimes prejudice becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

        1. josh

          Adam you may be right, but in a country where there are so many cultures and one has options to break from the cultural norm that you may have grown up with, I see no excuse to continue clinging to the negative ways of your ancestors. These people have brains I assume. Perhaps they should use them.

          1. entech

            This is true, in a country like America colonised by Britain which has for a long time been a monstrous conglomerate of Norman French<Scandinavian, Celtic , Picts , Scots and you name it. After independence settled by people from all over the world. And yet here you are claiming to be a Christian Nation – which involves clinging, not to the negative ways of your ancestors, but the negative ways of someone else ancestors. Take line one of the ten c, how many of your ancestors have even been to Egypt let alone were rescued from slavery there.

          2. josh

            Entech, you base your argument upon an opinion that christianity is a negative way. I don’t see it that way.

        2. josh

          One more thing. I wouldn’t call my feelings towards those other cultures discriminating either. I would never refuse service or opportunity to anyone. My feelings are like those of many others that disagree with the obviously negative ways and values of those cultures. I dislike them. So if that makes me a discriminator then paint me that.

          1. entech

            I wouldn’t call you discriminatory either, biased and bigoted yes, intolerant and possibly stupid.
            My feelings are like those of many others that disagree with the obviously negative ways and values of those cultures. I dislike them.
            So perhaps not discriminatory but definitely the others. Just pause for a while and think that many cultures are older than your own and possibly have good cause to think exactly the same of you- I think it was Shaw that said America was the only civilisation to go from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of culture, I don’t agree with him, a nice play with words – but there are people like you that try to prove him correct.

          2. josh

            As you mentioned to Henry in past posts. “Where are the insults that you refer to?” or “Show me the hate.” If you can’t see it in your posts you have more problems than any physician can cure.
            As far as your claims that I am bigoted , biased, and intolerant. I don’t take those as insults. I’m just willing to step up and say yes I am those things and proud of it. At least I’m honest which is more than I can say for the rest of you. We all possess those qualities. Are you willing to tell me that you’re not intolerant of people that commit crimes, prey upon others and have no regard for civilized behavior? Are you willing to tell me that you’re not biased against those that refuse to educate themselves. Those that embrace living off the work of others and wear it like a badge of honor. Please tell me that you’re not bigoted against cultures that continue to behave in manners that are unproductive and take advantage of the system. Those that continue to practice uncivilized behaviors, i.e. female circumcision, forced marriages, not allowing their children to be educated, etc..
            If you aren’t then you need look in the mirror and think twice about who the stupid one is here.

          3. Adam Heckathorn

            Josh 12:48 “My feelings are like those of many others that disagree with the obviously negative ways and values of those cultures.” Josh this is why I remain more than happy to engage with You in discussion. I believe You actually do hold the views of a whole lot of people and although I disagree with You on some things I always appreciate a Man that will talk straight to what He really believes. When I was a child I remember discussions at various times among Men in My extended family usually over a beer or two not some trailer park drunk fest but on holidays there would be jokes which often involved African Americans, Jews, Wetbacks, or sometimes Catholics (although Kennedy was One of Us). But that was a long long time ago and over decades We (My extended family) has made incredible changes in attitude for the better. I lost My Maternal Grandfather when I was a senior in High school a Man I loved as deeply as I’ve loved anyone and in many ways in Your beliefs I think We could call You peas from the same pod. If You were to look up liberal feminist in the dictionary You’d find My Mother and Sisters smiling back at You. So I’m nothing but optimistic about the future.

          4. josh

            Adam, sorry to disappoint you but I don’t sit around telling jokes about anybody. I don’t find them humorous and i don’t even know any. I may be guilty of painting entire cultures with a broad brush but in imho i’m not far off with reality in my assessment of many. Call me arrogant if you want. My assessment has been gained through life experience.

          5. David

            There’s nothing wrong with discrimination per se. It’s gotten a bad rap. Once upon a time it was good to have discriminating tastes. Discrimination against cultures is simply applying what you see as good and applying your standards to that culture and making a judgment (another word that’s gotten a bad rap).

            I would refuse service to certain people. We discriminate on those who can’t pay. We discriminate against those who are hostile. We discriminate against a whole host of things. We all discriminate. It is a part of judgment.

          6. David

            Entech – your comments are intolerant and possibly stupid not to mention horribly impolite. Is it wrong to look at a middle eastern culture that treats women worse than dogs inferior to our culture? It’s a reasonable opinion. Certainly not stupid, and, if intolerant, intolerant only of subjugation of women.

            This notion that all cultures are equal is plain hogwash. Should we value Nazi culture? Soviet gulag culture? Western Civilization has been a beacon of hope, which incidentally was brought about by Christianity. Rail against Christianity all you want, but I will take the benefits we received from Christianity and the cultural advances we take for granted over cultures which inculcate deceit, power, subjugation.

          7. entech

            David 3:47. I must plead guilty to at least a lot of what you say. People like Josh do reduce my tolerance level to less than zero. He was not talking about middle eastern countries, if he decrying the way that they treat women there I would agree with him that it is intolerable, but I would not agree that every aspect of their culture is bad nor that Christianity has an unblemished record on treatment of women.

            I never said all cultures are equal, you mention Nazi and Soviet horrors were horrors but I would not be approving of a culture that burned people to death for having the wrong beliefs. I am not as anti Christian as you think or as I may appear to some, I just get a bit “intolerant” of all the self promotion, even self adulation, that comes out. I hate to mention it as Christianity is largely benign these days but it has had its periods in which it was normal to inculcate deceit, power, subjugation

          8. josh

            Entech, I would expect that you would have zero tolerance for someone like me because I challenge your beliefs and often prove them wrong. Hard pill to swallow isn’t it. In fact I was referring to Middle eastern culture also. Here in the US and the middle east. It’s a shame that you’re so limited in your scope of thought.

  7. David

    Well, send the volley back I suppose . . . when does the pro-abortion crowd suggest life begins? Viability? The arbitrary framework set up by Justice Blackmun? Birth? 30 days after birth as Peter Singer would have it?

    I think the pro-abortion crowd should give some serious thought to Peter Singer’s horrendous argument. All the arguments for late term abortions would neatly fit into Singer’s argument for infanticide. So if we are against infanticide it seems we would be against late term abortions. If we’re against late term abortions then how far back do we push the threshold? So when does life begin? There’s really no argument that life doesn’t begin at conception. A separate DNA structured individual is created. Any other argument it seems to me is arbitrary and has to do with ridiculous notions of “self actualization.” One could make a plausible argument that birth is the defining moment. It’s certainly less arbitrary, but one has a difficult time differentiating between a newborn and one that is about to leave the birth canal. Conception is a bright line, no matter how hard the pro-abortion crowd likes to try and fuzzy up the picture.

    So the best argument, in my opinion, for abortion is something akin to what was discussed in Roe v. Wade. While Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous piece of constitutional jurisprudence having no relation to the constitution, it does have a serious argument regarding abortion. Blackmun considered the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child. He reasoned that during the first trimester (pretty arbitrary if you ask me) a fetus’s right to live is outweighed by the mother’s right to abort. He used prettier language, but that’s the basic concept. The test gets tougher in the second and third trimester – sort of a sliding scale on the value of life. No where did he get into an argument as to when life begins. He simply punted on the issue saying – everyone disagrees. He did say that no where have we treated a fetus the same as a whole person.

    I think Blackmun’s reasoning was seriously misguided. If we don’t know when life begins then why take a chance at killing a life? If we are not certain when a fetus becomes a person shouldn’t we err on the side of caution? Well, that’s not convenient for women who want to rid themselves of having a baby. And it wasn’t convenient for doctors who wanted to assist. So Blackmun came to the opposite conclusion: a women’s right to rid herself of a fetus (not found in the constitution by the way) outweighs the interest of the state in protecting fetuses.

    Jon, you make this nonsensical argument about prosecuting mothers for miscarriages etc. This is just foolish. There is no history of this and probably for a good reason. In order to have a crime one must have a mens rea – intent. A miscarriage could be an abortion but the difference is intent. Proving intent is difficult. Moreover abortion crimes generally target abortionists and not women. The idea of liberalizing abortion was to protect doctors from prosecution and women from taking matters into their own hands.

    The abortion argument seems to be intractable problem. The terms for describing the two camps are indicative. If you are pro-choice the other side sees you as being pro-death. If you are pro-life the other side sees this as anti-choice. Few on either side would agree to that characterization which to me implicates a serious misunderstanding on both parts.

    1. David 8:50 “A miscarriage could be an abortion but the difference is intent. Proving intent is difficult. Moreover abortion crimes generally target abortonists and not women.”

      It seems like defenders of laws regulating women live in the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70;s, not in the 2014’s.

      Prior the WWII, there was lots of abortions but few prosecutions of any kind. After WWII, politican learned they could become popular by going after doctors and others who performed abortions. It was like the recent decades where politicans gain noteriety by going after drug dealers. Then politicans shifted to gay marriage with endless condemations, laws and what not. These two issues are not working like they did so it will be on to something else.

      In the period after WWII when politicans were going after abortion servers, it was popular to treat women as “victims”. This is really quite funny. Abortions happen because women want them. Women are determined to get them. They are not “victims”. It was popular to protray them as “victims” a few decades ago. But that out will not be available politically now for the simple reason women themselves do not see themselves as victims and will not be referred to in that way.

      In addition, there was not BIG money in chasing down and prosecuting women in the political industry back then. Now, we have smucks like Tony Perkins earning big money demonizing whomever makes him the biggest payday. Focus on Family would advocate going after women in a heartbeat if it raizsed lots of money and its politicians would follow like sheep.

      Suppose many people who know a woman realize she lost a fetus and suspect she had an abortion. Will she be allowed to not reveal who gave her the abortion. No one has, no one can, gauranteed having an abortion will not be a crime. If abortion is a crime, the doors open wide to miscarriage suspicions. Dream on if you think otherwise.

      1. David

        Jon, I just think this is fantasy. I know I have used the slippery slope argument myself, but I don’t think there is much of a slope here. Part of this, of course, deals with your perception of how prosecutors go after drug dealers. I seriously doubt we would have a “war on abortion” like we see a “war on drugs” if it ever became illegal in some states. I don’t recall hearing about prosecutions of homosexuals but I could be way off on that. Prosecutorial zeal is an issue. I think the Duke case as well as the Trayvon Martin case were particularly abusive situations. It’s hard to say how abortion cases in say the Deep South would be handled. Much fame to be got in this society for going after pet cases – today it is race crimes, tomorrow it may be mother miscarriages. I think it would be highly unlikely.

        With regard to women having to testify against themselves – unless we pass an amendment to the constitution I think their secrets would be safe.

        All of this circumvents the questions asked – “When does life begin?” “When should a life be protected?” and “How does the mother’s rights fit in with the rights, if any, of a fetus?” I think I know the answer to the first question. The second two questions is where the debate should be had regarding abortion.

        I do think there is a position somewhere that someone must hold:abortions are not good, but they should remain legal. If we came to a consensus on that position we could do a great deal of work to minimize the situations leading to abortion and assist mothers who do not wish to have a child. There will always be abortions. It would do well for society to reduce the necessity.

  8. Country Parson

    Jon, are you saying that a persons place of residence and method of receiving nutrition is a deciding factor in determining rather they are a human and deserving of life?

      1. Country Parson

        You seem to be saying that a fetus is not even a potential human until attached to the uterus , thus, it’s place of residence and method of receiving nutrition is a determining factor of its humanism

        1. Are you suggesting artificial incubators? A potential human being HAS to be attached to a uterus. Calling it a “place of residence” assumes another option.

        2. Adam Heckathorn

          If it doesn’t attach its not going to survive since this happens a lot if God exists can We not assume whether or not it survives is not a high priority to God?

          1. entech

            It attaches a lot in Africa and other places where they often survive for very short, hungry and miserable lives. Perhaps the priorities should be changed, more attachment in the rich middle class America and Europe limited attachment where they are going to die anyway.

Comments are closed.