It's the irrational hatred of Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, indulged until the intellect is shattered and only emotion reigns.Why do the liberals hate Sarah Palin? Only one reason: abortion.
Liberals believe that abortion is an indispensable necessity, a right without which humanity itself is lost. Liberals believe that in certain circumstances, no sane person at liberty will forgo opting for an abortion.
And in two such circumstances this year, Sarah Palin did just that. She knowingly and willfully gave birth to, and claims to love, her son Trig, afflicted with Down Syndrome. I mean really; how is America to wipe out Down Syndrome without recourse to abortion?
And now her underage teenage daughter Bristol, we learn, is five months along, and Palin and her husband have the unmitigated gall to support her in her choice to keep her baby, and marry the father. Now, everyone knows that teenagers aren't old enough or mature enough to make the decision to raise their babies; they're only old enough to choose abortion; preferably without notifying their parents.
Liberals don't believe that conservatives are actually capable of loving their children. They don't believe that the parents of Down Syndrome babies really love them. To a liberal, the only two kinds of parents there are for Down Syndrome babies are those who abort their children, and those who wish they had.
To a liberal, the proper conservative response to an unintended teenage pregnancy is to disown the child, forcing her to either keep her baby in poverty-stricken squalor, or to abort the baby. (And the proper liberal response to that situation, as Barack Obama himself so cleanly articulated, is to simply abort the baby to avert the "punishment" that follows on the "mistake".) But the Palin family has chosen to embrace their daughter, and her baby, and the baby's father.
This makes liberals' heads explode. They hate Sarah Palin because she has made the choices that they believe no one should make: chosen life for a Down Syndrome baby and the unplanned child of an underage girl. Conservatives are supposed to be about hate, but Sarah and Todd Palin have reacted in both instances with love.
The cognitive dissonance is just too much for the already-weak liberal brain. It shatters their reason. Liberals know that they are the party of love, and they would have killed these children. Liberals know that conservatives are the party of hate, and yet Todd and Sarah Palin have chosen to love these babies.
The Palins fly in the face of everything that liberals know and believe. Of course they are deranged.
80 comments:
This is hilarrious. Thanks !
There's another reason. She's a very successful career woman. She could be on a poster for Feminism. She should have been Liberal - but she isn't, she is opposed to the current Feminist agenda. Obviously, a traitor to her group.
What many Liberals don't understand is that Feminism got redefined. It used to be about empowering women. That kind, Palin supports. I bet she has no problem with women having careers, running businesses, etc. I'm pretty sure most US conservatives support this version for Feminism these days.
But as some point Feminism degenerated into victimology and opposition to the traditional family structure. The victimology was an excuse to get the government to prop up women relative to men. The opposition to the traditional family structure was based on the mistaken belief that monogamy meant the man controlled the woman. This is the kind Palin rejects.
BTW, I suspect the same thing happened with anti-racism. In both cases there was a real problem, which people had to fight to fix. Since the problem was a real injustice (towards women or African-Americans), eventually they won. However, having won, many of them kept fighting.
Organizations don't disband simply because the reason they were incorporated goes away. They just look for other goals. People who make their living fighting for a cause can't afford to lose it, even when the original reason they entered the fight is gone.
Of course, the some career women, barely keeping up with two children, may also be a bit jealous of Palin for being able to be very successful while raising five.
All the attacks on Palin by the Feminazis just shows how sold out they are to the "culture of death". I put a post on my blog that applauded Palin's Pro-Life stands. I received a comment for that post attacking her choice to have a Down Syndrome child & Christianity. It left me absolutely livid but it shows how truly sold out to evil they are in the "culture of death".
Sadly, the attacks have only just begun.
You may have hit the nail on the head. It would explain a lot.
Well put Paul. She is the perfect candidate to show how little leftists care about women and families.
Yes, Palin is perilous to the Left, and they have to be super cautious in how they attack her. And still, the attacks will show that the pro-woman veneer on the Left is thin indeed.
Well written, Paul. I'm linking to this.
One question, though. Isn't her husband's name Todd, and not Doug?
Well put. I am also linking to it.
Thanks for the correction, Larry!
I am a Liberal. I am also glad that Sarah Palin elected not to have an abortion. I am also glad that Bristol Palin is keeping her baby. I (like Barack Obama) also think that Bristol's pregnancy is completely irrelevant to this election.
I know that Obama says that. I'm not so sure he means it.
But yet the Palin's don't consider the baby a punishment. But yeah what the **** does this have to do with the election? I don't approve of unmarried girls getting pregnant but what else is there to do in Alaska?
OT: I saw Ron Paul supporters on the way to the Target Center in Minneapolis. They were marching with old school patriotic flags and singing the National anthem.
VSO: I think the Palin family privacy should be respected. But, you can't have it both ways -- if you want to trumpet her decision, you will also have to accept a discussion regarding the fact that she's pregnant in the first place.
Paul: I reviewed the thread on redstate. I saw nothing in that thread that establishes any link to Obama. I guess you're operating under a guilty until proven innocent theory.
Well of course Obama says it's irrelevant! Obama would like nothing more than for Bristol Palin's pregnancy to be irrelevant to this campaign. Unfortunately for him, the way the Palin's are conducting themselves right now vs Obama's voting record and his "punished with a baby" comment really speaks to the priorities of the two sides in this election.
"the unacceptable versus the unsatisfactory."
Yep, that's it. I am growing to like the Sarah Palin, though.
you will also have to accept a discussion regarding the fact that she's pregnant in the first place.
No, you're the one who can't have it both ways. You can't claim piously with your nominee that candidates' children should be off limits, and then insist that we have to talk about Bristol Palin's pregnancy.
There is nothing more powerful than living what you believe when you believe what is true. A child is a life. The Palins living that truth. We love the sinner while loathing the sin. The Palins are living that truth.
I am sure that they are not perfect, but the power of their witness is tremendous. The forces set against that truth will attack - fiercely.
This is ridiculous. No woman wants to have a an abortion. The decision to have an obortion is a painful and horrific experience for most women,however, if that dicision must be made, that is a WOMAN'S right to decide. I am a woman and a liberal, and I will tell you that I 100% support and love Palin's decision to keep her child with Down Syndrome, as well as, her decision to support her daughter's pregnany.
I also hope that it is known that Sarah Palin supports pro-life, and that a woman should not have the right to abort even if they child is a result of incest or rape. Think about that one.
I am a liberal and for CHOICE, not forced abortions. The important fact here is a DECISION was allowed to be made- keep your baby- no liberal is saying "have an abortion".
Abstinence education really worked for Sarah Palin... her daughter is so happy to have walked away with only a baby, it might have been an STD as well.
I am Pro-life, I honor the lives of the people who have given theirs for an unjust war. No conservative has the true respect for life when they can send thousands of 18-23 yr olds to die in a war that has been privatized to line the pockets of republican cronies.
AND fyi... McCain (the guy who you reds have elected as your presidential nominee) has no executive experience either.
The decision to have an obortion is a painful and horrific experience for most women...
As well it should be; it's the decision to kill her own child.
I'm sure that the decision to rob a bank or hold up a liquor store would be an equally horrific and painful experience, too. If I lack sympathy for a woman who aborts her child while saying, "I don't want to do this," it's because I also lack sympathy for the bank robber who points a gun at a teller and says, "I don't want to do this."
Your argument doesn't change the fact that in an abortion, an innocent human life is voluntarily taken, and it can be done for any reason or no reason, and it is often done by the most cruel and painful means imaginable.
As for your incest and rape angle, do you also support executing the offspring of other types of criminal?
A woman can use her body for whatever she wants... to have a baby, or decide to not have a child when she is not ready to- her body, her choice. Pregnacy and child birth changes your body and life forever.
Keep religion out of the law- you guys do what you need to do, we'll do what we need to do.
Anonymous 10:42 (you guys could make this easier by signing your posts, even with a psuedonym) -
You string together a number of seemingly unrelated things here.
You're pro-choice. You believe that women have the right to choose to kill their own children, and that the fact that it happens two million times per year in this country doesn't bother you. Got it.
How you then call yourself pro-life is quite beyond me.
And McCain does have executive experience; he commanded a fighter squadron in the Air Force.
You obviously oppose the Iraq War, reasonable people may. How were you on Bill Clinton's war in the former Yugoslavia?
As to abstinence education, abstinence works every time it's used. Can you say as much for condoms?
Anonymous.
A woman does not have a right to choose an abortion.
In this country, a woman has license to commit an abortion.
A right is not something granted by the state, it is endemic to being a human being. A state can recognize that or not. But it cannot create rights.
Abortion is the elimination of a human being. It is the ending of a human life. No human has the right to intentionally destroy a human right.
As much as you wish, as much as it fits your politics, as much as you want it to - a government cannot make this a right. More specifically it is license (permission).
It is high time we start using the proper language.
You are correct that abortion is a painful and horrific experience. That is because the conscience of the woman is screaming no, and she does it anyway - she is murdering her very own child. Frequently she is pressured into it. But that does not change the fact that it is wrong and that it is not a right, merely legal.
Sarah Palin is the one who is consistent and acting according to conscience. Thank goodness for women (and men) like her. Perhaps they can transform this country and bring us back from this insanity, this evil culture of death that we as a nation have created through the legal murder of own children.
Keep religion out of the law- you guys do what you need to do, we'll do what we need to do.
To say that life begins at conception is not religion, also not politics, nor opinion. It's science. Deny it if you will, but don't come back here talking about global warming, embryonic stem cell research, and evolution.
Abortion takes an innocent human life. You support that; you approve of that. OK. Sleep well.
This is not about religion.
This is part of the natural law that Cicero (a pre-Christian philosopher) writes about. The natural law is written into the hearts of each person.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is not a right. I don't care how much you want it to be. There is no rationale that can justify murder.
This post is nothing but an insult to probably about half the parents of children with Down's syndrome. They can only be conservative? Liberals have children with disabilities too. The decision to give birth to such a child is a personal one, and one that people on both sides of the aisle make. And conversely, aborting one is a decision that's made by many, many people who are conservative. It's just a Republican lie to pretend that only libruls would do it.
And the same applies for teenage mothers.
The point isn't what their decision was, it's that they get to make that decision, rather than having people like you impose it on them.
M.
You just don't get it.
It isn't about respecting you or those on the left or those on the right. It is about respecting human rights. The right to life is more fundamental than your license to "choose" to murder. Sorry if it hurts your feelings - right and wrong are fundamental and not optional - no matter what party.
Liberals have children with disabilities too.
90% of pre-natal Downs Syndrome diagnoses are followed by the death sentence of abortion. Liberals support, enable, protect and approve of this fact.
And conversely, aborting one is a decision that's made by many, many people who are conservative. It's just a Republican lie to pretend that only libruls would do it.
Abortion is the epitome of liberalism. There may be people who call themselves conservative who have abortions, but no one who supports, or seeks, an abortion can be a conservative, a Catholic, or a Christian in my book.
I see the liberal commenters on this blog. You will never convince me with words that liberals care about life.
"I'm sure that the decision to rob a bank or hold up a liquor store would be an equally horrific and painful experience, too." Regarding this remark by Paul, I don't think you understand and that analogy is completely absurd.
Oh conservatives. Your are simply ignorant. Do you not realize the consequences of making abortions illegal. I am the same person that wrote the comment about abortions being horrific and painful, by the way. If a woman is not given the "license to commit" an abortion, what do you think many women will do to have one? For example, if a woman is raped by her father and becomes pregant and cannot have an abortion (considering Palin does not agree with allowing incest or rape vicitms to receive abortions...what do you think she may do instead? My educated guess, she may turn to potentially dangerous and/or fatal means to take care of it illegally. That is an extreme case, but it does happen. Think people. There are nearly a million women a year that get abortions, making it illegal will most likely bring about tremendous consequences that were not thought out before hand. You say liberals do not care for life, how dare you accuse us of that. We just happen to think more abstractly than you perhaps.
Now, you probably will comeback with something about giving the baby up for adoption. How would that go? We already have an overflow of babies and children in foster care. However, maybe if you conservatives weren't so against allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt, maybe they would have a chance in loving homes. Think people. Think. I am liberal...therefore, I think. Enough said.
"Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love.
He said don't worry about a thing baby doll I'm the man you've been dreamin' of.
But three months later he said he won't date her or return her call,
And she sweared god damn if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls.
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin' through the doors.
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose"
- Everlast "What it's like"
First, I don't think "hate" is the right word when describing that "liberals hate Sarah Palin", misunderstand would be a more accurate choice of words. And, for the record, liberals don't believe that the “only choice is abortion”. On the contrary, CHOICE is the bottom line. If anyone has issues with her stance on abortion, it is not that she didn't choose to abort her tiny son, nor that she didn't force her teenage daughter to terminate her pregnancy. As a point of fact, most liberals applaud her CHOICE. She is standing by her principals. But where liberals do question, is the fact that she wants to dictate her choice to other women. What is right for one is not for another. And I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but liberals don't believe that only those born perfectly have the right to live or to be loved. Unlike their conservative counterparts, most liberals’ ideas don't try to take away people's rights. In fact, the entire liberal stance is acceptance of others regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation or deformity. As for the teenage daughter, my only thoughts are that I hope that she had originally planned on marrying the father of her baby; and not just doing so now in order to avoid tarnishing her mother's political image. My final thoughts are those concerning Mrs. Palin's small son. Personally, I think a Down Syndrome child is a completely innocent soul. Down's children typically tend to be very loving and sweet. My only issue is with Mrs. Palin herself. Speaking as a woman and a nurse, women are told that after a certain age their chances of having a child with some sort of birth defect grow exponentially. I don't think that this is a blue or red issue it is a health issue. Although I applaud her for her CHOICE to have a large family, my question is how responsible was it to gamble with her own child's health?
Are you so naive or ignorant to actually believe that the "liberals" are the only ones whom share feelings of disrepect and concern about Palin getting into the white house? There are just as many republicans that share this concern, and hence will vote democrat despite their political standing.
Are you that ignorant that you really believe "abortion" per se would be the reason a democrat dislikes Palin? I am a democrat, had a baby at age 42 and chose to have NO tests done. Why would I have? I would never have aborted my child anyway so why have the invasive tests done. There goes your ignorant theory.
The reasons so many americans will not vote for the McCain/Palin duo is more than threefold. It boils down to lack of experience, lack of family values, and too contradictory beliefs.
We all know of Palin's lack of experience in terms of becoming VP of the US. But just because she has five children, the youngest one with downs syndrome does not mean she has family values. It is easy enough to bring children into the world. What is the real test and real judge is how much time parents spend with kids. Are they there everyday to pick them up at school at 3pm? Are they doing their homework with them everyday, dropping them off to school and sports, know who their friends are. (list goes on) Unless she has cloned herself this is not possible.
She says she is "pro-life" (hardly) This is just a made up term for people who are not pro-choice. If a 13 year old girl is told by doctors that she will die if she gives birth, Palin thinks she should never shoose to save her own life and abort the unborn child, even if the cahanced of the child surviving as well very slim. At the same time, she is pro-guns, pro-war, "proud" her oldest son is a trained terrorist (solider, same thing). This contradictory belief system leaves nothing to admire in her.
You ignoarant people are the ones that are pro-kill, not the democrats. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Read this Paul, this may help explain alot about you...
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs
Sep 9, 2007
PARIS (AFP) — The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.
Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realised when he said that man is by nature a political animal.
Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.
Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.
The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.
Intrigued by these correlations, New York University political scientist David Amodio and colleagues decided to find out if the brains of liberals and conservatives reacted differently to the same stimuli.
A group of 43 right-handed subjects were asked to perform a series of computer tests designed to evaluate their unrehearsed response to cues urging them to break a well-established routine.
"People often drive home from work on the same route, day after day, such that it becomes habitual and doesn't involve much thinking," Amodio explained by way of comparison in an e-mail.
"But occasionally there is road work, or perhaps an animal crosses the road, and you need to break out of your habitual response in order to deal with this new information."
Using electroencephalographs, which measure neuronal impulses, the researchers examined activity in a part of the brain -- the anterior cingulate cortex -- that is strongly linked with the self-regulatory process of conflict monitoring.
The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine.
Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed."
Whether that is good or bad, of course, depends on one's perspective: one could interpret the results to mean that liberals are nimble-minded and conservatives rigid and stubborn.
Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal.
As to the more intriguing question of which comes first, the patterns in neuron activity or the political orientation, Amodio is reluctant to hazard a guess.
"The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood," and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage, he said.
"But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development," he added.
Obscuring causal links even more is the fact that the brain is malleable and neural functions can change as a result of new experiences.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5isgJ0r_9nH41VBhtXvN17pxlA31Q
Thank you! And they hate her because they envy her strength and *faith* to be and live pro-life. Faith in something bigger than herself. Something they can't quite look beyond themselves to grasp yet.
Don't bring faith and religion into politics.
It is not a dogma of religion, but a fact of science, that life begins at conception.
Anonymous, at 9/05/2008 11:19 AM, wrote:
Don't bring faith and religion into politics.
Just out of curiosity: why not?
Because it's true.
Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilly and other fanatical neo-nazis state that there are Republicans and there are "Godless" cut and run flip flopping progressives. Bill O'rielly one of the main features of Fox News disgustingly Spins the Stories in each and every talking point. PBS Frontline even did a documentary called "The Jesus Factor" showing how George Bush targetted evangelicals to win for the election of 2000. Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News and many other media outlets crusades to demonize the word "liberal" and "democrat" have festered the integration of Christianity with the republican party, and atheism with the Democrats. A well made documentary called OutFoxed was created to expose fox as being a 24 hour a day commercial for the GOP. Jon Stewart often times also exposes the nonsense. Many of the most violent countries in the middle east have only caused further chaos when they integrated politics and religion (jews and palestiniens).
The injection of religion into politics creates a general sense of conflict because politics is, at its basest level, a power struggle.Conflict is almost always unavoidable in politics. However, a religious group's internal politics will involve factions with different perspectives regarding policies, and when people of faith take an active interest in external politics, those who adhere to other faiths (or to no faith at all) often take offense at their actions. Political actions in the general population will often oppose the beliefs of various religions and will create conflict between the religion and society as a whole. And when a particular religion controls a government, anyone who does not agree with the tenets of the faith will have conflict not only with the religion but also with the government that it administers. Religion after all is a private matter.
Paul you amuse me.
Science dictates there is a distinction between human being and human person.
A fetus is innocent and biologically human, it is not a person with a right to life.
An unborn fetus that is PROVEN to be severely disabled and would only have a very short time on earth, deserves the mothers option of aborting her child. Knowing this unborn person would suffer before its death, and knowingly giving birth to him/her is more selfish than the act of abortion itself. This is a mother's choice for her unborn child, to save it from being born into pain and life support. As a man, Paul, you will never know the experience of carrying a child and having to make that ultimate decision. I guess you could consider yourself blessed.
I am a woman is this is my true story.
I'm delighted to amuse you. You sadden me.
The question of whether a human being is a person or not is not a scientific question, but a legal one. In our country, legal questions are decided by the representatives of the people.
You claim the right to decide that your own child is not a person. Others in history have also claimed the right to decide which human being were not people. They are not fondly remembered.
You claim the right to take human life. I hope you can live with that. 50 million innocents haven't been able to.
There is no scientific distinction between a human person and a human being. Such distinctions a philosophical not scientific. The concept comes from Roman days were a person was a citizen and a non-person was a slave - still human, but not a citizen. Children were also not persons, people could abort them or kill them (including the ones that survived to exit the womb. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.
As a woman, I am sorry that you have lost sight of how sacred life is. I am sorry you made the wrong choice. I am sorry you killed your own child. But murder even with "good" motives is wrong. "Mercy killings" are wrong. You cannot justify it by saying it was good for the other person. Period.
Hitler used the very argument of mercy killings to kill mentally retarded, sick, and disabled children. That was the beginning of the holocaust.
I am sorry you participated in this American holocaust. I am more sorry that you cannot recognize your participation for what it is. I am sorry your child did not have a mother with a heart big enough to suffer with him or her.
I pray you can recover that part of you that you lost when you said it was OK.
The liberals that have commented are actually providing strong arguments. I applaud them. I am a once upon a time republican. I have become enlightened, however, to the absurdity of the GOP. It is time for change and the democrats have the upper hand this time around. I do not agree with the decision to allow Palin to be a vice presidential canidate. It is not coincidence that a good looking, hockey mom, pro-lifer candidate has been choosen as McCain's running mate. This probably never would have occured if Hillary had not stood up first and was not entirely judged by her sex. This made the GOP more compfortable with allowing her to be choosen as a vice presidential candidate. They were cowards to begin with, but with the success of Clinton, they decided to follow the democrats lead. Cowards.
I sadden you? What for?
Did you not read my story? Do not be afraid to offend me. Please, for a moment, put yourself in my shoes. It's called empathy, for which you lack. What would you have done in that situation? Knowing your child would suffer and ultimately die shortly after birth, what would you do? Honestly, tell me and everyone else on this blog cite what you would do?
From the looks of your profile picture you seem extremely overweight(possibly from spending too much time on this blog cite perhaps). How would you feel if you were mandated to undergo a gastric bypass procedure because others believed that was the best thing for all overweight people. I admit this is not a good example, however, I wanted to use some facts about you without actually knowing you. Just so maybe, just maybe, you would start to see more clearly.
Regarding this comment by RobK:
"Hitler used the very argument of mercy killings to kill mentally retarded, sick, and disabled children. That was the beginning of the holocaust.
I am sorry you participated in this American holocaust. I am more sorry that you cannot recognize your participation for what it is. I am sorry your child did not have a mother with a heart big enough to suffer with him or her."
My child would have been born with a horrific and rare condition. As soon as she would be exposed to the air, all of her skin would necrotize (it would die and fall off, similar to a third degree burn). Her tiny body wouldn't have been able to handle the shock and she would die within hours of being born. If it was something more simple lets say, such as Down Syndrome, I would never had made that decision. I feel sorry for you RobK, that you do not have the wisdom and compassion to realize that death without pain was the better option for my child. What kind of mother are you to willingly allow your child to suffer?
From the looks of your profile picture you seem extremely overweight(possibly from spending too much time on this blog cite perhaps).
You don't know me (for which I should no doubt be grateful).
Yes, I am overweight, though no extremely so. Perhaps it is due in part to the fact that for several years now, I have made a 3-4 hour per day commute, and then worked up to 12-hour work days at a computer, in order to support my wife and four, soon to be five, children. It's called sacrifice, something you would not understand, because you are woman who killed your child.
I also do not believe your tale. You began by arguing that your child was not a person, then switched to arguing that you killed your child as an act of mercy. Why not just deliver the child, and then, if she's really as bad off as all that, kill her then?
I sometimes think personhood should be defined by whether a person has enough compassion to recognize their fellow human beings as people. Perhaps then those who cannot, or will not, could be subject to being "aborted" themselves. Nah.
Anonymous of 9/04/2008 10:34 AM wrote:
I also hope that it is known that Sarah Palin supports pro-life, and that a woman should not have the right to abort even if they child is a result of incest or rape. Think about that one.
It's known, at least by everyone to whom I've told it. Are you suggesting that her position is somehow *bad*?
Anonymous at 9/05/2008 2:51 PM wrote:
What kind of mother are you to willingly allow your child to suffer?
This is positively dizzying... but you *have* managed to capture the essence of the euthanasia movement, quite handily.
Question: who, exactly, gave you the right to kill someone else on the grounds that he/she was experiencing (or--more appallingly still--*potentially* going to experience) a level of pain that you found unacceptable?
I've long suspected that euthanasia was far less about empathy (though many euthanasia advocates may feel a misplaced pseudo-mercy), and more about the advocates' own fastidious distaste for witnessing the suffering of others; it's as if they see someone in agony, and react by flapping their hands frantically and screaming, "EWW! IT'S AWFUL... KILL IT, KILL IT NOW!!!"
May God have mercy on you. Don't you realize that, with your mostly Godless worldview, you've gutted suffering of any meaning whatsoever? Political liberals seem very prone to this twisted mentality which says: "I don't see how suffering can have any meaning, and I don't like it, so I'll destroy anyone--including myself--who's suffering more than my personal tastes can stand!"
Aren't you at least open to the possibility that you could be wrong?
The funny thing about you conservatives, is how stubborn you are. I never hear anyone say to a liberal "You know, you have a point there". I have noticed that liberals tend to be more understanding and are willing to really listen to what others have to say. Many liberals, including myself, understand that a life begins at conception and that all unborns have the right to life. Making abortions illegal will never happen in America. Not because it is a losing battle, but because we live in a free country that allows its women to choose what to do with their bodies. Even if that is killing an innocent life, it is the private decision of that female. You are naive in thinking that making abortions illegal will be the answer. If you do not agree with abortion then leave God to judge that person NOT you. I have read through quite a bit of your blogs, and I am astonished by how cruel you are to others. That woman's blog about her abortion experience is heartbreaking. That woman was only asking Paul to share with everyone what he would do in that position..and from what I can tell, he never replied. Paul your excuse about having five children, a long commute, and a computer job does not justify you being over weight. I have two sets of twins and work with computers as well, and I find time to work out and keep myself healthy. Try not to get so defensive in your agruments. Anywho, the bottom line of this rant is that ONLY GOD HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS! You are being completely hypocritical. You lack a basic human compassion and understanding of others. You judge others and call yourselfs Christian, did you ever hear of the saying "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THY SELF". If a woman decides to have an abortion, that is her personal choice. You do not have to support her decision, however, do not interfere with her choice. The simple answer is, if you do not agree with abortion, simply do not have an abortion yourself.
That article above regarding the difference brain structures of liberals versus conservatives was very interesting. There does seem to be a correlation between a persons political views and their personalities. Conservatives tend to be stubborn because they are unwilling to think outside the box and use those minds that we have been blessed with as human beings. They are unwilling to change and evolve. I hope someday you change your closed minds. Bless you all.
""Question: who, exactly, gave you the right to kill someone else on the grounds that he/she was experiencing (or--more appallingly still--*potentially* going to experience) a level of pain that you found unacceptable?""
To answer your question paladin, the condition my daughter was diagnosed with was a genetic disorder. I had a brother John who was born with the same condition. He lived for 43 minutes. The moment he was born, as my mother recalls, he let out a cry that my mother cannot forget. Immediately after being born his skin became crimson red and soon after began to shed off. Do you think it is painless for people with third degree burns over 100% of their body? I had my fetus tested for the condition, and the results came back positive. My decision to have an abortion was between my husband and I. We were initially going to carry her full term and let her pass in my arms, until I was informed of the pain she would experience before dying. The only comfort they could have given her was a single dose of morphine that would have lasted until she passed away.
Thank you other anonymous reader for listening to my story and realizing that it was my decision and if you don't agree with it...then do not make the same decision I made. I sleep well and DO NOT regret my decision nor think I was wrong. God has since blessed me with two healthy beautiful daughters. Think what you will.
Even if that is killing an innocent life, it is the private decision of that female. You are naive in thinking that making abortions illegal will be the answer. If you do not agree with abortion then leave God to judge that person NOT you.
This logic could justify any sort of crime at all, from liquor store holdups, to slavery, bank robbery, carjacking, euthanasia, child abuse, infanticide, or any sort of murder.
Your words are a demand for raw power over life and death, even acknowledging the personhood of the unborn person being killed (which means that it's not just a question of "what a woman does with her body"), and for complete independence from the judgment of society. You claim to be answerable only to a God you don't believe in.
You don't want to base a "right" to abortion on the right to privacy. Yours is the logic of Dred Scott v. Sanford which held that slaveholding was a right that a negro had "no rights that a black man was bound to respect." You acknowledge that the fetus is a discrete human life, but insist that she has no rights that you are bound to respect.
You're quite happy with 50 million deaths. We've killed four times as many as Hitler, and you say the killing must and will continue. And you claim we pro-lifers lack compassion.
90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. 45% of all African American babies are aborted. More African Americans are killed by abortion every three days that were killed by lynching in all of American history. And you're content.
Abortions are done for any reason or no reason, at every stage of pregnancy, and by the cruelest means imaginable. And you celebrate it.
I know you have to keep telling yourself that you did the right thing, but I think that deep down, you know better. I hope you can sleep at night.
. I have noticed that liberals tend to be more understanding and are willing to really listen to what others have to say
Exactly how many times have conservatives stormed the convention hall to interrupt the Democrat nominee's acceptance speech? None. Whacko libs have done it twice in a row at the RNC.
I also remember attending a speech at Emory made by Ward Connerly where the oh so tolerant libs spent the entire time shouting him and refusing to listen to what he said.
But yeah, it's the left that's open minded.
If we don't concede your points it's because you don't make any that are valid. Maybe when you show an iota of intelligence, we'll both listening to what the pro-baby murder left has to say.
I must object to your use of the term "afflicted" when referring to Down Syndrome.
These kids are such a joy that many families of a kid with DS get put on a waiting list to adopt ANOTHER kid with DS. The typical wait is nearly TWO YEARS -- for babies nobody supposedly wants because they're so "afflicted".
DS is a collection of traits, some clearly troublesome (such as high risk for heart problems), some devalued in our society (lower academic potential), some valued but not nearly enough (a propensity to be very friendly, loving, and compassionate).
You might as well say that somebody is "afflicted" if they're six and a half feet tall. Well, yeah, there are problems that come with being so tall, but there are plusses as well.
We don't pathologize it when a child scores higher than average on standardized IQ tests. We treat it as just normal human variation. Somebody has to be at the edges of the bell curve. Why do we make it something pathological when another child scores lower than average?
And I can tell you from experience working in an institution for people with profound mental retardation: There are smarts that we haven't learned to measure yet, and a lot of those "retarded" folks have those smarts in spades. It's a humbling experience to be totally outfoxed by somebody with an IQ of 20. If you're smart at all, it teaches you something.
Again, DS isn't an "affliction". It's just a cluster of ways to be different -- while still being fundamentally the same.
anon, it's having walked in those shoes that make so many women so vehemently anti-abortion!
Either they (like me) almost bought into the rhetoric, and see in their living children what the rhetoric nearly cost them. Or they (like the Silent No More and Operation Outcry women) actually ended up on the abortion table and found out from bitter experience that it's only liberating and trauma free if you're some sort of psychopath who can kill without remorse.
NORMAL women want better than abortion. SMART, NORMAL women see that it's not necessary.
That's how one of them ended up as Governor of Alaska while mothering four kids.
"Exactly how many times have conservatives stormed the convention hall to interrupt the Democrat nominee's acceptance speech? None. Whacko libs have done it twice in a row at the RNC."
This could be a reult of that fact that most conservatives are very stringent with their thought processes. You seem to repeat yourselts way too often, which makes it easy to not listen to you, because we already know what you are going to say. You do not look at the abortion arguement from any other standpoint besides that it is a right to life. This is not true.
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" because you are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb..
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.
What is this right to life hoopla that you conservatives are so adamant on proclaiming? Life is a state of a cell or organism characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus is life, just as an embryo, a sperm, an ant, an acorn, and a tree, are all life. All these forms of life have no rights. The characteristic of life is necessary to possess rights, but it alone is insufficient.
Get your facts straight conservatives.
By the way, has Paul ever answered that woman's question?
How laughably ludicrous. The infant must ask permission. WOW!
Every human being has a right to life. No one has a right to end innocent life. That is basic. It is murder. In our country, the right to life is not fully recognized and a legal license is granted for murder.
What part of that logic is incorrect? That the fetus is not human? That the right to life is not basic? That the license to kill is not a right, but a license that does not supersede the most basic right to life?
Sorry pro-abort anons. This logic is sound and I have not heard anyone refute it.
And because you can't, you appeal to emotional arguments and derision of those who espouse this truth.
So, answer my questions - because this is what the debate is about. This is not a "woman's" issue. This is a human rights issue - the human rights of the child.
Btw, you go Granny Grumps!
"Every human being has a right to life. No one has a right to end innocent life. That is basic. It is murder. In our country, the right to life is not fully recognized and a legal license is granted for murder. What part of that logic is incorrect? That the fetus is not human? That the right to life is not basic? That the license to kill is not a right, but a license that does not supersede the most basic right to life?"
I laugh at you as well, because you refuse to understand these facts...
A fetus is indeed human, you are smart afterall, well done. A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right to remain in the womb"—and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.
Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship, and an adult does.
Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person. This is why making abortions will remain legal in this free country.
This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.
I will agree with you on one thing, however. Every human life, as well as, any life for that matter does deserve to be brought into this world. Thus, changes need to made to the existing system. Educating woman on prevention and ways to deal with unplanned pregnancies need to be made of upmost importance. This will allow abortion to not only decline, but to eventually become a rarity in American society. Since change is something most conservatives fear, this may take awhile folks. Sadly, you fail to realize the real issues and facts. God Bless.
Every human being has a right to life. No one has a right to end innocent life. That is basic. It is murder. In our country, the right to life is not fully recognized and a legal license is granted for murder.
With regards to this statement RobK, why do you believe humans hold an upmost superiority over other life forms? Do you know of any hunters that kill other "life" for pleasure? We kill to remain alive, yet we are indeed taking innocent "life", but pay no attention to that fact. We are mammals (with superior intelligence), if you have forgotten. It is called being a hypocrite, like you, a "pro-lifer".
Let’s see what the Word of God says on this matter: In the Old Testament, a law was stated clearly from the Children of Israel after they came out of Egypt:
If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Exodus 21:22-24, Jerusalem Bible)
In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus, the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman, death.
Abortion then, is not murder. These verses in Exodus, by the way, are backed up by four thousand years of Jewish law; abortion has never been considered murder in Jewish law. A fetus is only a "potential person".
"""""It is not a dogma of religion, but a fact of science, that life begins at conception."""""
Correction. Life begins before conception. The sperm is alive and the ovum is alive, long before they get together at the moment of fertilization. As Dr. John A. Henderson says, “Life does not begin at conception; it is only changed and now has the potential for a different form.” If terminating life is murder, then the you anti-abortion fanatics should be consistent and say that terminating the life of the egg or sperm is murder. Believe it or not, there is a crackpot group in California that is making this very accusation: they say that males who masturbate should be punished because they are guilty of wasting human life in the form of semen.
Hands down. The liberals have won this arguement. The use of facts to support there opinions on the issue completely outway the evidence used by the conservatives. You may try with all your might, but you will not win this debate. This is coming from a professor of political debate and rhetoric may I add.
If a humble commentator may make a heartfelt plea to the various liberal commentators: could you *please* choose a distinctive pseudonym (click the "Name/URL" radio button below the comment box--you needn't enter a URL), rather than "anonymous"? I hope it's self-evident that multiple "anonymous" posters, all with subtly different slants on this issue, might invite confusion...
Substantial comments to follow (probably tomorrow, when I have some free time). We Christians *do* have something known as the Lord's Day, for things like this... :)
Declaring that someone "won" without even presenting an argument is ludicrous.
There is no human life before conception. Sperm and egg are not human life - they each have half of the chromosomes necessary. That argument is entirely silly.
At the point of conception there is a new human life is fully alive with a genetic make-up that is distinct from both mother and father.
No one wants to punish men who masturbate for destroying human life. That is just silly.
Finally, the biology of a pre-historic people is not current biology. It was always wrong to commit abortion. Period. We know now through science that human life begins at conception.
Finally, do I hold human life as superior to all other forms of life - you bet. All of creation should be cared for, but human life is more important than any other form of life. Period. To compare a human to an animal is to debase human dignity.
Hunting and abortion are not even on the same level. It only shows how muddled some folks can be that they think so.
However, the true hypocrisy is defending "animals" and saying that abortion is fine.
By the way, no one has provided a logical rebuttal to my basic argument.
I see some nonsense that the capability to reason is what defines a human. That is nonsense. A new-born cannot reason. Is it OK to kill a newborn? How about someone in a comma? How about someone drunk and passed out? How about an elderly person? How about a retarded person? Are any of these not human if their reasoning faculties are taken away? Is someone with a higher IQ more human than one with a lower?
If my mother is incapacitated or bed ridden, do I have the right to kill her if I don't want her to have to care for her - because she is a burden? I am sorry, but a lifestyle, a career, is not the same as a human life.
****human life is more important than any other form of life.****
May God have mercy on you.
**There is no human life before conception. Sperm and egg are not human life - they each have half of the chromosomes necessary. That argument is entirely silly.**
Silly. Life is a state of a cell or organism characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Sperm and ovium are indeed life.
RobK, leave this arguement to intelligent debaters. What is your arguement by the way? I have not seen one posted, and chances are that is has already been answered, you are just to warped and upset to see it.
Anonymous at 9/06/2008 11:41 AM writes:
Hands down. The liberals have won this arguement. The use of facts to support there opinions on the issue completely outway the evidence used by the conservatives. You may try with all your might, but you will not win this debate. This is coming from a professor of political debate and rhetoric may I add.
With all due respect, professor, I hope you'll excuse us if we don't surrender our case simply on your say-so. I'd have expected a professor of political debate to be more respectful of logical principles than to make a fallacious appeal to his/her own authority, at any rate.
(On a much lesser note: you might want to double-check your spelling and grammar:
"arguement" ---> "argument"
"support there opinions" ---> "support their opinions"
"outway the evidence" ---> "outweigh the evidence"
comma needed after the word "rhetoric"
If you're going to make sweeping claims about the credibility of conservative commentators, you might do well to safeguard your own, even in these smaller details.)
So, the liberals have won, have they? :-)
To the liberals, I say:
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."
To those who understand why we need to be wary of the intelligentsia:
"Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously."
To those trying to talk sense into the liberals:
"If you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will have no answer except slanging or silence."
Gilbert Keith Chesterton has a quote for every occasion!
(*sigh*) Lord, give me strength...
Anonymous at 9/06/2008 1:12 PM writes, in reply to RobK:
RobK, leave this arguement to intelligent debaters.
Point #1: being snotty and arrogant is not intelligence; you've shown plenty of the first and second, and precious little of the third, in your comments. Above and beyond logic, get some manners, will you?
Point #2: ad hominem fallacies do not further your case, nor does it further the case of anyone but your opponent (who can point to them as reasons to dismiss you from serious consideration).
What is your arguement by the way? I have not seen one posted, and chances are that is has already been answered, you are just to warped and upset to see it.
Aside from this comment of yours being nothing more than a puerile, playground retort, you're quite incorrect; RobK wrote, at 9/04/2008 10:50 AM:
A woman does not have a right to choose an abortion.
In this country, a woman has license to commit an abortion.
A right is not something granted by the state, it is endemic to being a human being. A state can recognize that or not. But it cannot create rights.
Abortion is the elimination of a human being. It is the ending of a human life. No human has the right to intentionally destroy a human right.
As much as you wish, as much as it fits your politics, as much as you want it to - a government cannot make this a right. More specifically it is license (permission).
It is high time we start using the proper language.
You are correct that abortion is a painful and horrific experience. That is because the conscience of the woman is screaming no, and she does it anyway - she is murdering her very own child. Frequently she is pressured into it. But that does not change the fact that it is wrong and that it is not a right, merely legal.
Did you truly not see this? And RobK is quite right; I've seen no one refute the subtance of his argument (which is only one of many that can be advanced against the abortion-tolerant position).
Perhaps you can start over (with improved civility, perhaps), now that this has been made clear?
P.S. Catholic wife & mother: bravo! And not simply because GKC is my favourite author, either... :)
Anonymous (from the plethora of anonymous posters) wrote, on 9/06/2008 12:58 PM, in reply to RobK:
[Rob K.] ****human life is more important than any other form of life.****
[Anonymous]
May God have mercy on you.
Could you explain your reasoning behind this comment? On the face of it, you seem to appeal to the very God Who created man--male and female--in His own image (Genesis 1:27), which no other of His creation can claim. No offense meant, but your comment seems ironic, if not flat-out bizarre...
JMJ
38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Matt 5:38-40
(Footnote)
39 "Not to resist evil"... What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18., and Acts 23. from the douay
Also My Favorite GKC quote:
"To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything is a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."
One of the anonymous said:
A fetus is indeed human, you are smart afterall [sic], well done. A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right to remain in the womb"—and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.
Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person. This is why making abortions will remain legal in this free country.
Here is the crux of the argument for abortion. It boils down to two points.
1. There is no basic right to life for all human beings - there are classes of humans that do not possess this basic right and that class is those that are completely dependent for sustenance and protection.
2. There is a right to manipulate one’s body any way a person sees fit and the right to manipulate one’s body is the most basic right.
Your arguments, though made eloquently are false.
I’d like to start with your second point because it is important to the first point. You claim that a person has a right to manipulate their own body however they see fit. This is patently false. Similarly, my right to swing my arm ends before it hits another’s nose (I presume you would agree with that). There is no right to take one’s own life - it is not even recognized as a license in most of the country. Even if you won’t grant that, I suspect that you might agree that a person does not have the right to load their body with explosives and detonate it in the middle of a crowded bus. That is definitely not a legitimate manipulation of a persons body. So clearly, I cannot do whatever I want with my body.
The line of what is permissible and what is not seems to lie along whether I intentionally do harm to another human being. Certainly, I cannot rightly manipulate my body so as to cause the destruction of others (as in packing myself with explosives) and in swinging my arms. So, the body argument just doesn’t work. It is not the ultimate right that all other’s rights must bow to. So the real crux of your argument lies in the infants right to life.
Your first point rests on the notion that an unborn child is a parasite, that is completely dependent on its mother for sustenance and protection. Because it is completely dependent, it has no rights. You argue that no other humans are completely dependent on another for sustenance and protection. That is not true. We can identify other human beings that are completely dependent on another person for sustenance and protection. These might include a newborn infant, or a small child, or an invalid parent, or someone who has experienced an accident, or is in a coma. Do these persons not have a right to life either? In essence you are arguing for a right to not be imposed upon by another and this right trumps all others - even the most basic human right.
Your argument is the best for your position, but it is usually presented as a person being forced to help another. There is a problem here to0. We can talk about a persons rights and what they are before a critical event and after a critical event. No one has a right to make a woman do anything that would cause her to conceive a child. Period. No one. To do so would be a violation of her basic rights as a human being at a most fundamental level. We need to do everything to keep anyone from forcing a woman to do what it takes to conceive another human being. Indeed, if she does not want to conceive she should not do what is required to conceive a child.
Whether a woman voluntarily does what is required to conceive or is forced to against her basic rights, if the conception occurs, another human being is created and that human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights, first and foremost is the right to life. These rights are not dependent on whether the individual is incapable of providing sustenance and protection for themselves. At this point, a woman cannot justly manipulate her body to deprive this human being of the most basic right in the same way that my right to swing my arm (or a knife) stops before it hits another person.
Thank you for actually trying to make an argument rather than just rant or claim victory. I would rather that you and the other anonymous abortion apologists refrained from personal attacks. I know it is hard to resist, because I want to provide them right back. Perhaps if you put an identity with your post, that might help. I know it is easier to act in a dehumanizing way when one remains anonymous. I certainly do not think you are unintelligent, just horribly mistaken about something that costs millions of human beings their lives.
*****RobK wrote, at 9/04/2008 10:50 AM:******
A woman does not have a right to choose an abortion.
In this country, a woman has license to commit an abortion.
A right is not something granted by the state, it is endemic to being a human being. A state can recognize that or not. But it cannot create rights.
Abortion is the elimination of a human being. It is the ending of a human life. No human has the right to intentionally destroy a human right.
As much as you wish, as much as it fits your politics, as much as you want it to - a government cannot make this a right. More specifically it is license (permission).
It is high time we start using the proper language.
You are correct that abortion is a painful and horrific experience. That is because the conscience of the woman is screaming no, and she does it anyway - she is murdering her very own child. Frequently she is pressured into it. But that does not change the fact that it is wrong and that it is not a right, merely legal.
*****Posted by Anonymous at 9/06/2008 9:49 AM:******
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" because you are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.
That looks like it was answered to me.
*****Posted by RobK at 9/o4/2008 10:54AM:*****
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is not a right. I don't care how much you want it to be. There is no rationale that can justify murder.
******I'll answer this one...******
To be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of "innocent" human life which is a person. As history shows, intentionally killing human life is not an ethical problem. We do it all the time, and usually congratulate ourselves on a deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment, and we do it in self-defense. English versions of the Old Testament may say, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" but the meaning really is: thou shalt not "murder," because killings-in war, in capital punishment, and in self-defense-were long ago recognized as ethically justifiable forms of killing.
The term "murder" was used to refer to forms of killing which were considered ethically unjustifiable. What is it about war, capital punishment, and self-defense which justifies killing? It is the fact that none of the deceased individuals was "innocent": all had become a "clear and present danger" to the lives and welfare of others, and as such, each had relinquished whatever "right to life" he or she had previously possessed.
A fetus is not a person. It's merely a potential person.
Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists, like you, claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.
A simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others.
Paul, you are pathetic. Do you really believe you are "making a sacrifice" for your family by finding excuses why you are overweight? " I commute 3-4 hours per day (your choice, find something closer to home), "I work 12 hour days". These are just excuses for not being motivated enough to take care of yourself. If you can't take care of yourself, you won't be around long to take care of those 5 kids and wife.
There are those of us whom even while working as VP of Marketing and Sales for start-ups some 80+ hours per week at times, still MADE the time to excercise every day. You need to learn to sacrifice somethiong less critical (such as an extra project at work just to make extra money) to make it happen. Full time parents are busier than you are......it's a 24x7 prop and can still make time to stay fit instead of fat. It's the best thing you could do for your family.
Okay... despite the childish and churlish insults interwoven with the arguments, it's only fair to address the main points of the anonymous abortion-tolerant posters.
(Brace yourselves for a mega-post! Eyeball guards strongly advised!)
Anonymous at 9/06/2008 (who might have posted afterward as a pseudonym--if so, thank you!) wrote, in reply to RobK:
> A fetus is indeed human, you are smart afterall, well done.
The sarcastic blather at the end aside, this is somewhat incorrect: a *human* fetus is human; other animal species have "feti", as well.
> A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity.
From this, may I assume that you're making the case for abortion on demand, up to the point of birth (at very least)? I'll address the false statement of "physically independent", below.
> A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive.
You do realize that, by bringing in words like "host" (and its logical partner, "parasite"), you're making an emotional appeal to the gallery (in order to cause revulsion in the audience toward the fetus [Lat. for "male offspring" or "small boy"], and thus "dehumanize" the child to the point that they'd find the killing of that child acceptable)? That's a fallacy, last time I checked...
But more to the point: are you aware that a newborn baby requires a "host" to survive, as well? I would challenge you to find any newborn that's capable of survival without another human to care for all of its manifold needs (food, shelter, clothing, nurturing touch, etc.). Do you truly wish to claim that infanticide is acceptable, as well? If not, then I'd very much like to hear why you distinguish between born and unborn children, given that both born and unborn children fit your ersatz definition of "parasite".
> A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right
> to remain in the womb"
This is simply false, on the face of it; the fetus/a ("small boy/girl") also has the right not to be attacked in the womb and *left* there (e.g. lethal injection), and he/she has the right to medical intervention to correct deformities, etc. (cf. neonatal surgery). Remaining in the womb is certainly part of it, but it's not at all the whole of the story.
> —and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the
> actual right of the pregnant woman to her body.
"Violation?" So you believe that even consensual pregnancy is a violation of a woman's rights? You're suggesting that all parenthood whatsoever (save, perhaps, for some futuristic artificial womb) should be banned as being a violation of human rights? If not, then I'll really need you to refine your case (and terms), here!
> In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not
> contradict the rights of anyone else.
Nor does the developing embryo. Your proposed "absolute right not to have anything grow in one's womb" is entirely a product of your imagination.
But I'd challenge your statement even on your own (incorrect) principles: what of my "right" not to be inconvenienced by being summoned out of bed to care for a screaming baby/toddler/child? What of my "right" to spend all my money on myself, rather than "wasting" some of it on food, clothing, shelter, and education of children? What of my "right" not to be harassed by rebellious teenagers? Would your principles not allow me to kill any or all of these children, regardless of age, so long as they continue to "impose" on my "rights"?
I hope you can see just how extreme your position is... and how absurd it is, frankly (moral reprehensibility aside, for the moment).
> The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature
> entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right.
Forgive me, but this is nonsense. First of all, you're using the word "violation" (laden with its horror-inducing connotations) to describe what might--in many cases--be a simple *clash* of rights. No baby can possibly "violate" the rights of a mother; the baby had no choice in the matter at all--correct? So if the baby finds itself in the womb through no fault of his/her own, you would kill him/her, on the grounds that he/she "violated" the mother's alleged "rights"? How do you justify the death penalty for someone who is provably innocent of all wrongdoing?
> There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the
> rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are
> objectively defined, are non-contradictory.
That's true, in a limited sense (remembering, above all, that you're using a flawed definition of "rights")--but, in this imperfect world, our *needs* can often collide with those of others. If there is a shortage of food, my need to be fed clashes with the needs of other people to be fed, yes? And yet, it would be rather strange for me to say that I have some sort of "absolute right to be fed", even at the cost of the deaths of all others in the situation! Wouldn't they have the same "right"? And if so, wouldn't that be a flat contradiction, since we can't both have adequate food (and thus satisfy our alleged "rights") at the same time? Please try to consider this reasonably!
> Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights.
I hope you understand that this is raw opinion.
> A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity.
True. I'd add that a fetus (i.e. unborn child) is a physically *distinct* entity, just like a newborn child.
> A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason,
Aside from your subjective term "actual", I wonder at your phrase, "capability [sic--did you mean "capacity"? Or perhaps "capability for reasoning"?] to reason". Are you suggesting that a baby born 5 minutes ago is capable of reasoning, but the same baby, 5 minutes and 30 seconds prior to that, did not? However do you come to that conclusion?
> and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult.
"...and thus?" This figure of speech implies a logical consequence, but you've used it to insert your own unproven opinion: that the capacity for reason gives one a right to life. This may suit your personal tastes, certainly, but you haven't come close to proving this in any objective way.
> However, the application of this right for a young child
> differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's
> conceptual faculty is not fully developed.
By "this right", I can only conclude that you're referring to the child's right to *life*--since that's the only right of the child that you've addressed, above.
> This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to
> choose to enter into a sexual relationship, and an adult does.
With all due respect: this is a bizarre non-sequitur! How does an "age-incremental right to life" translate into a "right to have sex, and to choose a sex partner"? Forgive me, but this simply makes you sound confused.
> Abortion is an inalienable right.
You've just stated your opinion. Now, it's your task to prove this to be objectively true, by means of valid and sound logical arguments. You've done nothing of the sort, yet.
> Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is
> no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside)
> of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the
> will of that person.
You're throwing several terms about, rather willy-nilly, here. First, you speak of "right", then of "freedom"; you are aware that these are distinct things, yes?
As for your claim: again, you've done nothing but state your own opinion, ever more colorfully and forcefully--but you've not done the one thing you set out to do: prove your claim, objectively.
> This is why making abortions will remain legal in this free country.
If this is meant as an objective claim (and not simply another unsubstantiated opinion), I'm afraid this statement will make you sound rather ignorant of civics (as well as ethics, philosophy, theology, and biology). The legality of any given thing, in our country, need not have anything especially to do with rightness or wrongness, objectively speaking. (I'll point out that RobK repeated this point to you, more than a few times!) That which is legal, is not necessarily a moral good; that which is illegal is not necessarily a moral evil. Otherwise, you would be in the absurd position of claiming that abortion was truly, objectively immoral in the 1950's (well before Roe v. Wade, etc.), but that it's somehow truly and objectively moral (i.e. morally licit), now!
> This principle applies to both fetuses and adults.
Not nearly to the same extent, apparently. (See above.)
> As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with
> (as her body is her property),
Again, I'd very much like to see your proof of the idea that the woman's body is "her property". Are you suggesting that her body appreciates and depreciates in financial value, over time? Or are you suggesting that she has a full and legal right to rent that body out for sexual "services" to whomever she wishes, regardless of whether she's currently legally married? (Or would you say that, in such a circumstance, her husband has "joint ownership of her body"? If so, then you'd find it difficult to believe in marital rape, since the husband would only be using his own legal property, yes?) I'm not being facetious, here; I'm genuinely curious about your answers to these.
> so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot
> remain inside her body (as her body is her property).
See the above paragraph; you're "banging into" a logical difficulty... namely, the fact that neither a woman nor a man "owns" his or her body, in the sense that you mean. Christians know the reason *why*:
"Do you not know that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
> As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of
> her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else
> to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain
> pregnant.
Here's one of the clearest examples of the main logical difficulty with your argument: you bring in some hypothetical "someone else" who's allegedly "forcing the mother to remain pregnant", which implies that "allowing her to STOP remaining pregnant" was the "natural" course of events, or that it was somehow "more right". That would be well and good--if you'd already proven the thesis of "abortion is a right", which you haven't done. It's not legitimate to assume your conclusion in order to try to prove it. (I.e. "I'll prove that abortion is a right! No mother should be forced into remaining pregnant!" This leaves the unspoken question, "And why not?" "Because that would violate her right to end her pregnancy (i.e. abortion), of course!")
> As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another,
You really need to work in a proof of that assertion, one of these times...
> whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape,
> or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the
> reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.
Well... you've succeeded in clarifying that you support "abortion on demand". You've offered nothing like a proof of your case, however... which was supposed to be the point of your post, yes?
> I will agree with you on one thing, however. Every human
> life, as well as, any life for that matter does deserve
> to be brought into this world.
(?!?)
Please tell me that, after you re-read this, you see the inconsistency in your post, especially in the above sentence! If nothing else, what are we to make of your claim that "rights are never contradictory"? I would see "there is no right for the fetus to live inside the womb" and "every human life deserves [which implies a right, yes?] to be brought into the world" as contradictory; don't you?
> Thus, changes need to made to the existing system. Educating
> woman on prevention
I assume you mean artificial contraception (e.g. condoms, birth control pills, IUD's, etc.)? I'm not sure you'd want to make this claim... since a majority of women who kill their children by abortion cite "contraceptive failure" as the #1 reason...
> and ways to deal with unplanned pregnancies need to be made
> of upmost importance.
Could you supply specifics, here?
> This will allow abortion to not only decline, but to
> eventually become a rarity in American society.
Question: If abortion is a right, why do you want it to decline? Do you want the incidence of "women voting" to decline, or the incidence of "18-year-olds driving an automobile" to decline? Specifically: what do *you* (personally) think is so wrong about abortion that a decline is desirable?
> Since change is something most conservatives fear, this may
> take awhile folks.
Hm. Liberals seem to fear any change to Roe v. Wade (and subsequent abortion on demand), any change in availability of contraceptives, any availability of "no fault divorce", and the like (from my experience with liberals, anyway). Are you suggesting that I'm mistaken on that point, and that you don't fear change in these areas? Or was this statement mere rhetoric, on your part?
> Sadly, you fail to realize the real issues and facts. God Bless.
The same God who established One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and indefectible Church on St. Peter (Matthew 16:18), whose teaching utterly condemns what you uphold as a right? Don't get me wrong: I'll never turn up my nose at anyone's prayer that God bless me; but He may have very different ideas about the definition of "blessing" than would you.
Giggity (thank you for using a distinct name, and not "Anonymous"!) wrote, in reply to RobK:
[RobK]
>>> In this country, a woman has license to commit an abortion. A right
>>> is not something granted by the state, it is endemic to being a human
>>> being. A state can recognize that or not. But it cannot create rights.
>>> [...]
[Anonymous, 9/06/2008 9:49 AM]
>> A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is
>> there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman
>> at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are
>> not rights. [...]
[Giggity]
> That looks like it was answered to me.
It was. The problem is that it was answered incorrectly (see my previous mega-post for some of the details). RobK asked for a *refutation*, which hasn't yet happened. Does that clarify?
[RobK]
>> Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is
>> not a right. I don't care how much you want it to be. There is no
>> rationale that can justify murder.
[Giggity]
> I'll answer this one...
>
> To be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of
> "innocent" human life which is a person.
True.
> As history shows, intentionally killing human life is not an ethical
> problem.
(?!?) Maybe you wanted to say, "Intentionally killing human life is not considered to be an ethical problem by many people"? As it stands now, you've said that murder is "not an ethical problem"; I beg to differ.
> We do it all the time, and usually congratulate ourselves on a
> deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment,
> and we do it in self-defense. English versions of the Old Testament
> may say, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" but the meaning really is: thou
> shalt not "murder," because killings-in war, in capital punishment,
> and in self-defense-were long ago recognized as ethically justifiable
> forms of killing.
Under the correct circumstances, and given the proper motives and intentions, that's mostly true... save for your use of "intentional killing", which needs qualification. See below.
> The term "murder" was used to refer to forms of killing which were
> considered ethically unjustifiable.
Also true; the full definition of murder is "the UNJUST killing of a human person".
> What is it about war, capital punishment, and self-defense which
> justifies killing? It is the fact that none of the deceased individuals
> was "innocent": all had become a "clear and present danger" to the
> lives and welfare of others, and as such, each had relinquished
> whatever "right to life" he or she had previously possessed.
Here's where you go astray, I'm afraid. The "intentional killing" [sic] of an unjust aggressor (such as in war, or while defending against a single attacker, etc.) is only morally licit if the act which resulted in death (e.g. firing the gun, etc.) was done with the intention of *doing good*, and *not* with the intention of killing the other person. Let me explain:
If a man attacks me, and I have a gun with which I can defend myself, I can do at least two things: (1) shoot him with the intention of ending his life, or (2) shoot him with the intention of stopping him from attacking me (whether he lives or dies). The second is justifiable, since I didn't INTEND his death (even though it was likely, or even practically inevitable); his death was an undesired and UNINTENDED side-effect. The first option, on the other hand, would find me guilty of murder--since I directly intended the death of the other man, and I'm never morally free to intend that.
This principle extends to all the cases you mention. Capital punishment (when it's justified--which is rare) seeks to protect society, etc.; it doesn't seek the end of the criminal's life as an "end unto itself". A just war seeks to defend against evil actions from a hostile opponent; it does not *seek* the deaths of the opposing soldiers, even though such deaths are almost certain to happen in the process. Self-defense is likewise (and discussed above).
> A fetus is not a person. It's merely a potential person.
At the risk of repeating myself: you do realize that this is raw opinion, and that you've proven none of it?
> Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or
> existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity."
Even if we grant your (implied) assumption that Webster's Dictionary (fine though it is!) should be the arbiter of human life or death, your case is still completely lacking foundation. A fetus (Latin: "offspring" or "small boy") is a distinct organism, biologically, and is a distinct person (i.e. unique unity of body and soul) ontologically.
> Anti-abortionists, like you, claim that eac new fertilized zygote
One detail: an OVUM is fertilized; a zygote is the result of a fertilized ovum (i.e. the union of ovum and sperm),
> is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than
> anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.
You've recognized only a part of that particular argument; the unique DNA is necessary, but not sufficient. The "unique DNA" argument is designed to refute the (nonsensical) claims that the unborn child is somehow a "part" of the mother--as would be a cyst, internal organ, or the like. The uniqueness of the DNA was not meant to carry the logical case alone.
> A simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote,
This is rather sloppy use of terms, I'm afraid; you're using what logicians call "equivocation"--playing off the ambiguity between multiple definitions of a word. For example, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Gaudium et Spes, from the Vatican II documents) that abortion is an "inhuman ['abominable'] crime", it doesn't mean that it was committed by a sheep or goat or frog, or that the mother somehow transmogrified into a banana before procuring the abortion! Rather, it means (metaphorically) that such an action is beneath the dignity of man. It's a metaphor.
That's the difficulty with your example: to say that a "simple hair follicle" (assumably from a human!) is somehow "just as human as a single-cell zygote" (assumably a *human* zygote!) is true only as a very sloppy shorthand for the sentence: "A simple human hair follicle's DNA is just as much human DNA as is the DNA from a single cell human zygote." But your statement, as it stands, simply won't do; it implies that the hair follicle has the full dignity (and potentiality) of a human PERSON--which is simply not true at all.
> and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are
> not one person.
Again, the "unique DNA" argument is a specific one (which makes little sense when lifted out of its proper context--as you've discovered), and it's designed to distinguish the child apart from the MOTHER'S BODY.
> The defining mark between something that is human and someone
> who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality
> of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others.
Paul (our host) addressed this already: your statement would suggest that the slaughter of innumerable humans would be acceptable, so long as they were not conscious at the time of death. I hope that isn't what you meant! But it shows the flaw in your statement, as it stands; consciousness cannot possibly be the "sine qua non" of personhood.
P.S. To the troll at "Anonymous, 9/07/2008 2:14 PM": go find another bridge to haunt, will you? Sheesh...
It's frightening how sick the minds of some of these libs are. I'd remain anonymous too!
A baby in the womb is amounts to no more than a squatter??!? The problem is, these people hate humanity, not just Sarah Palin. They don't see the human person as any more significant than an animal or a tree. I think that's the root of their logical errors. If you don't respect the inherent dignity of the human person, nothing else makes sense. Nothing is sacred.
And sorry if this was covered, but I wanted to touch on that "baby is a violation in the womb" thing. How is that any different from the responsibilities that a parent is required to take on behalf of a child after it is born? There are certain things that you "have" to do or not do, by law. A 6-month old is no more able to survive on it's own than a baby in the womb. Either way, you're legally (and morally, whether you recognize it or not) obligated to care for the child. But because you're afraid you'll get stretch marks, you should be able to kill the child in utero?? If your argument hinges on the inability of the child to support herself, do you then support the views of Peter Singer and advocate the killing of infants and toddlers? If no, why not?
(Note that I didn't say the beliefs of Singer. When put the test with his mother, he put his sick theories aside and cared for her. A good thing, which thankfully tanked the arguments he's made.)
I am not going to get involved in this debate right now. I just wanted to post that it seems to me ,save a few, that paladin and robk are the only ones with posts worth reading. The rest of you need to stop the name calling and the labeling of one another as libs or cons. I for one couldn't be identified as either and I am sure others feel the same as I do. Get passed the "my team" crap and lets talk.
P.S.
In response to "
Anonymous said...
RobK, leave this argument to intelligent debaters.
9/06/2008 1:12 PM"
A quick trip to check his "about me" I found that he has a PhD in Psychology. Generally not three letters given to morons.
1. I am PRO-CHOICE! please read on!!!
2. I believe every woman and man has the "right to choose"
3. at issue is WHEN the choice is made
4. the "choice" is made when the man and woman make a decision to engage in the one act that can result in the conception of a child
5. after making this decision, all that remains is RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of that decision
6. so the issue at that point is no longer "pro-choice" vs "pro-life"
7. the decision at this point is "pro-life" vs "pro-death"
8. ask any 5 year old; they will readily answer that the opposite of "life" is "death". in fact, 4 out of 5 dentists (or maybe teachers or parents) surveyed reported that NOT A SINGLE CHILD ever gave the answer that "choice" is the opposite of "life"
9. so now you are equipped to not only win an argument on this matter in 30 seconds or less, but also to immediately purge your brain of the garbage the media and NOW and other reprobates spout concerning the issue. they can't handle the truth, because truth brings light, and they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil (more BIBLE truth)
10. Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free!"
have a wonderful day!
rob in alaska
Man are you ever wrong if you belive this is how liberals think. Your argument smacks of "The Lottery".
On the issue of argument, rhetoric and debate, I tend to make the following distinction:
An argument seeks to establish the truth within some frame of discourse. It may take the form of a dialogue, but it reduces to a logical proof regardless of the number of speakers.
Argument, in my view, allows unlimited cross-examination and unlimited specification of definitions.
A debate is an exchange of views. The opponents attempt to address each other's points, but the exchange must fit the parameters of a public meeting, and so time constraints usually limit it to an opening, a rebuttal, and a closing from each of two sides. Cross-examination is profoundly limited in most debates, and profoundly limited specification of definitions.
Thus when a professor (who does not specify his name or the name of his institution) says that one side has "won" the debate, he is either speaking as a self-appointed moderator (like a judge in a courtroom) or as a self-appointed representative of the audience.
In my opinion, the abortion debate benefits from the use of context. E.g. one can start off by saying, "Abortion is legal in Italy and illegal in Poland," or something of the sort. The debate on this page seems to be centered on America, and the various commentators do not appear to have agreed on a common context and set of definitions. Thus I can't tell whether this many-sided exchange of views is meant to address the ethics of hatred (a nebulous sin) or the ethics of abortion (a more tangible event, which leaves physical evidence).
The original article seems to rely on Paul's contextual knowledge of what it is to "hate." This doesn't seem to be legally definable "hate" but rather a loose, rhetorical "hate" that is part of the American political mud-slinging vocabulary.
Post a Comment