...just won't go away, will it? From the excellent Lifenews.com:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.
Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor."
Scientists and educators about the abortion-breast cancer link point to a new study that shows a top NCI official may be re-thinking the refusal to acknowledge the link.
So... anyone on the "pro-choice" side, especially those who'd trumpeted the "official scientific denials" of an ABC link: what say you?
27 comments:
I think they got tired of wiping egg off their face when China came up with reliable statistical evidence of abortions and breast cancer.
Pro-"Choice" folk are anything but advocates for true choice. That's why they hide important information and lead women into all manner of danger through lies and misinformation. No woman can truly "choose" without all of the information! I'm all about Pro-Informed-Choice because if women were told *all* of the facts and details so many more women would choose NOT to have abortions or take chemical birth control or to sleep around with different men.
But hey, it's obvious that Feminists and, usually by default, "Pro-Choicers" are anything but pro-Woman. They don't give a flying wahooey about the safety and well-being of women. All they care about is spreading their dangerous ideology around the world no matter what the cost to living women. They only care about being right, about looking good, and thus about *themselves*.
Not only do they deny the physical danger of abortion and birth control and promiscuity, they also deny the emotional and mental damage done by these "choices"... they deny, deny, deny at the expense of the very women they claim to be protecting and advocating for!
I pray and hope that women will WAKE UP and start thinking for themselves, start questioning this "wonderful" lifestyle that is presented to them from little girlhood... dont women ever catch on that they end up so miserable in the end? Don't they ever wonder WHY?? Modern, and especially secular, women are so afraid. They are such wimps. They are so scared to stand up and question the status quo and think for themselves. And yet they are the first to claim we Catholics are brainwashed idiots...
There is no "Choice." Nor is there any "right to choose" in the "Pro-Choice" movement. It is enslavement to danger and debauchery and nothing more.
But hey, it's obvious that Feminists...are anything but pro-Woman.
I think you have your history wrong. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Staton, and many of the women who founded the Feminist movement were pro-life. They considered it infanticide, and a violence often perpetrated by men against women.
Feminism is simply the belief that women and men should be treated equally (e.g. voting rights, educational access, credit). It is a shame what has happened to the term. First co-opted by the pro-choice movement, then used as a pejorative caricature implying a aggression against men.
I dare say most pro-life people are feminists, they just don't know it. The initial plea for equal rights was based on the journey of the soul.
"Nothing strengthens the judgment and quickens the conscience like individual responsibility. Nothing adds such dignity to character as the recognition of one’s self-sovereignty; the right to an equal place, everywhere conceded—a place earned by personal merit, not an artificial attainment by inheritance, wealth, family and position. Conceding, then, that the responsibilities of life rest equally on man and woman, that their destiny is the same, they need the same preparation for time and eternity. The talk of sheltering woman from the fierce storms of life is the sheerest mockery, for they beat on her from every point of the compass, just as they do on man, and with more fatal results, for he has been trained to protect himself, to resist, and to conquer. Such are the facts in human experience, the responsibilities of individual sovereignty. Rich and poor, intelligent and ignorant, wise and foolish, virtuous and vicious, man and woman; it is ever the same, each soul must depend wholly on itself.
Whatever the theories may be of woman’s dependence on man, in the supreme moments of her life, he cannot bear her burdens. Alone she goes to the gates of death to give life to every man that is born into the world; no one can share her fears, no one can mitigate her pangs; and if her sorrow is greater than she can bear, alone she passes beyond the gates into the vast unknown.
...
So it ever must be in the conflicting scenes of life, in the long, weary march, each one walks alone. We may have many friends, love, kindness, sympathy and charity, to smooth our pathway in everyday life, but in the tragedies and triumphs of human experience, each mortal stands alone.
...
Such is individual life. Who, I ask you, can take, dare take on himself the rights, the duties, the responsibilities of another human soul?"
- Staton from "The Solitude of Self"
What makes this even more frustrating is that the study was published back in April 09.
The main stream media cares more about Planned Parenthood and their ilk than the women who read their papers and watch their news shows.
Hmmm....I read that a diet high in saturated fat increases my chances for a heart attack. I guess my "choice" to eat red meat should be eliminated by the religious right. Once again, those who wish to make this choice should not be denied the facts, but ultimately it is a woman's choice to control her body.
I guess Jake's in favour of withholding all possible sources of information about the saturated-fat/heart attack link from the public, hm?
Seriously, do you even *read* the articles that you troll? That's twice now, that you've gone so far from the point that you appear downright delusional.
Do you even read the comments I make....Try to keep up....I said those who wish to make this choice should NOT be denied the facts. Not quite sure what you thought I said. Still though, it's ultimately the woman's choice, as it is mine to enjoy meat lovers pizza.
(*sigh*) In defiance of Socrates' wisdom, I'll try to answer you again, Jake... but seriously, get some manners, and learn how not to be obnoxious, abrasive, sneering, and ever-ready on the flame-thrower trigger. Them's troll tools, friend.
You wrote, earlier: Hmmm....I read that a diet high in saturated fat increases my chances for a heart attack. I guess my "choice" to eat red meat should be eliminated by the religious right.
Given that the only point of the original post was to point out the hypocrisy and insanity of the irreligious left's intense desire to scour all reference to the Abortion/Breast Cancer link from the public square (and to discredit all references that resist scouring), I can only conclude that you mixed up your other abortion-tolerant thoughts (which weren't to the point) with this point.
Think this through: unless your comment was a complete out-of-the-blue non-sequitur (which is completely possible), it was an implication that "banning abortion on the basis of increased cancer risk is like banning meat-pizza-eating on the basis of increased heart disease risk". If that were our only objection to abortion, I could see your point. But surely you know that our main objections to abortion include the fact that (1) it murders an innocent and defenseless child for no just reason, and (2) it brutalizes--body, mind and soul--the mothers who succumb to it?
Certainly, the ABC link is important in that it's yet another (of a dizzying number) of reasons not to kill a child by abortion; but the topic of the main thread was to highlight the hypocrisy of the "irreligious left" for trying to hide the link, merely to safeguard the murderous practice of abortion and thwart interference.
Does that clarify?
Whoops... forgot to include this one, in the editor:
Still though, it's ultimately the woman's choice, as it is mine to enjoy meat lovers pizza.
Try a mental exercise, Jake: what, exactly, do you mean when you say "it's ultimately the woman's choice"? Do you mean to state an irrelevant fact (such as "It's ultimately letters and punctuation marks that make up the words in this sentence!"), or do you really mean to say that the woman is right to make whatever choice she pleases about killing her child through abortion? If the latter, then you'll have to prove your case; simply saying that "it's her choice" is a bumper-sticker, not a logical argument. It was Ghengis Khan's choice to boil some of his captives to death; by your reasoning, the mere fact that he made a "choice" makes his particular choice permissible to you, yes? Seriously, I don't think you even knew what you were saying, here.
Care to try for some clarity, this time? (And maybe a few question-marks at the ends of your questions?)
I did mean the latter, and I don't have to prove anything....as far as I can tell, the law allows a woman to make that choice. It allows a woman to have control over her body. It allows her to terminate a pregnancy and eliminate a fetus. See...your Ghengis Kahn example is irrelevant, because if someone in this country boiled anyone to death, they would be prosecuted. If a woman has an abortion, she will not be prosecuted. That means that she does indeed have a choice!!! She can CHOOSE to have an abortion, and not be prosecuted. Of course, the likes of you will say she will be judged, her soul or some such nonsense. Fortunately, that is a laughable argument and one I enjoy seeing you make.
Jake wrote:
I did mean the latter, and I don't have to prove anything....
Not unless you want to be taken seriously, no. If you're content to give every indication of being a mere troll who thoughtlessly seeks only to inflame those of differing opinion, then have at it.
as far as I can tell, the law allows a woman to make that choice.
Right. But surely you know that there's a deeper question: "Is that law a good law?" You appeal to it, but slave owners could appeal to the "right" to torture their black slaves to death--with the full blessing of the Supreme Court (Dred Scott v. Sanford). I suppose you'd think it was "right" of them to do that, simply because they had an undisputed "right" to do that under the law? Most people with a conscience are concerned with right and wrong, not with what they can legally get away with at the moment.
It allows a woman to have control over her body.
And if we could just get those pesky murder laws repealed, I could legally use "bodily control" to take a shotgun to anyone who annoyed me. Right?
It allows her to terminate a pregnancy and eliminate a fetus.
Exactly. The child--in fetal stage--is murdered with the full blessing of the state. That's a bad thing.
See...your Ghengis Kahn example is irrelevant, because if someone in this country boiled anyone to death, they would be prosecuted.
Ah! So if only we can mobilize enough idiotic and/or sadistic voters to get the laws changed, it'd be perfectly okay, morally, to boil someone?
If a woman has an abortion, she will not be prosecuted.
Right. And if a slave-owner in 1840 boiled a slave to death, he wouldn't be prosecuted, either. You seem quite okay with that, for some reason.
That means that she does indeed have a choice!!!
She always had a choice, even in times when abortion was illegal; she could choose to murder her child and be punished (or, probably more accurately, the slime-ridden abortionist who deceived her into letting him kill her child would be punished). It's no different today; any mother has the choice to slit her child's throat, and have one less mouth to feed... whatever legal consequences might follow.
She can CHOOSE to have an abortion, and not be prosecuted.
Right. But you really aren't thinking about what you're saying. You say, "if it's a law, it must be right", which is nonsense.
Try this as an experiment: would you support getting those laws CHANGED, so that abortion was criminalized?
Obviously I think the law which grants a woman a right to have an abortion is a just law. That is what I think....I can't state it any more clearly. I have thought about it, I think it is a just law. I feel like I have to repeat it a few times so you finally get it. This is where you and I differ. I think we both agree that you taking a shotgun and eliminating people (you know, actual people as opposed to a few cells) is wrong. I think you and I would agree that boiling people is wrong as well. In fact, I bet you and I agree on many laws (scary huh???) I hate to break it to you, but laws do come from the will of the people. I think the majority of people think that boiling someone is not a good thing. Unfortunately for you, not everyone thinks abortion is a bad thing. I, for one, find it perfectly acceptable. Here's another one, I think it is perfectly acceptable for two men to marry (oh the horrors). Many people disagree with me, which is why in all but a handful of states gay marriage is not recognized. Elected officials choose judges based on the ideology of the people who elect them. In some cases Judges make the law..(I know, the legislature likes to think they do). I will fight the likes of you to protect women's right to choose and make sure that our judges and elected officials keep this particular law in effect!!!
You're picking unripened cherries, Paladin.
Let me get this straight: to support the assertion that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, you cite a hack piece of journalism that cites... a scientific study that doesn't investigate the issue? Hmm. Nice.
Oh, the two Daling studies and trials from Turkey and China, you say. Fine, but 4 studies don't settle the issue. You're going to hate this, but check it out anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis. This piece accurately summarizes the conclusions of the studies it cites--if you have doubts, go to Pubmed to read the abstracts and pull the studies yourself. The fact is, a number of large, well-designed studies have found no link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. That you conveniently fail to mention.
Not acknowledging contrary evidence doesn't do your case any good, sir. It just sounds like you're trying to sell a bill of goods. This kind of thing should be beneath you.
Jake wrote:
Obviously I think the law which grants a woman a right to have an abortion is a just law.
Okay. I suspected that, but you hadn't said it plainly.
Next question: WHY do you think it's a just law? Is it merely your personal tastes (like someone's taste for anchovies), or do you have any actual reasoning to show that it's a morally right choice?
I think we both agree that you taking a shotgun and eliminating people (you know, actual people as opposed to a few cells) is wrong.
Okay, now try thinking critically about this: what makes a person "a person", instead of "a few cells"? How many "cells" are needed in order for your mind to go from viewing abortion as "permissible" to "murder"? You're made up entirely of cells (and various residue), unless you're non-human... so your "appeal to the gallery" label of "a few cells" is meaningless; it's your mere opinion, wrapped up as a pseudo-argument.
I think you and I would agree that boiling people is wrong as well.
I think you're right. But I don't think you have any clear idea *why* it's wrong, aside from the fact that you "feel" that way. WHY is it wrong, and WHY should someone who doesn't "feel" the same way that you do have to be prevented from boiling/shooting whomever he wishes?
I hate to break it to you, but laws do come from the will of the people.
True... including the laws in the early 1800's (and before) stating that slavery (and torture/killing of slaves) was a legally protected right. You've settled nothing, I'm afraid; or else how would you ever reject any unjust law that "came from the will of the people"?
I think the majority of people think that boiling someone is not a good thing.
Piffle. A few decades of conditioning and TV reality shows, and they'll change their minds! [/sarcasm]
Unfortunately for you, not everyone thinks abortion is a bad thing.
Unfortunately for the children who are murdered, the women who are violated and ravaged, and the society which crumbles, you mean...
I, for one, find it perfectly acceptable.
Right. You're going on personal taste, and you haven't given it one ounce of critical thought in your life.
Here's another one, I think it is perfectly acceptable for two men to marry (oh the horrors).
Hm. 100 years ago, "the will of the people" was that sodomy was a jailing offense. Do you think that was a just law back *then*? It *did* pass your "will of the people" criterion...
Many people disagree with me,
Hm. So it isn't the will of the people (and therefore not a just law), and you shouldn't try to change it?
which is why in all but a handful of states gay marriage is not recognized.
And it shouldn't be. Right?
Elected officials choose judges based on the ideology of the people who elect them.
In accord with the will of the people. Right?
I will fight the likes of you to protect women's right to choose and make sure that our judges and elected officials keep this particular law in effect!!!
I'm sure. But since you're going against the will of the people, you're obviously (by your own standards) acting immorally. What's up with that?
John! It's been a while since you've arrived to evoke the "Professor Paladin" part of my persona... :)
You wrote:
You're picking unripened cherries, Paladin.
Do tell?
you cite a hack piece of journalism
Lesson #1: when trying to critique someone else's logic, avoid fallacies. "John doesn't like LifeSiteNews.com; John thinks it isn't credible; John labels it a 'hack piece'". [Fallacy: ad hominem]
that cites... a scientific study that doesn't investigate the issue?
Lesson #2: when trying to discredit a source, read the original artice, and read any sources that IT references:
[from the article]
When it comes to the abortion link, the study did not produce any new results but it cited the Daling studies from 1994 and 1996 that showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.
"Because it references earlier studies, it's therefore worthless, and the fact that the same people who've previously rejected any ABC link are now citing the studies in their reversal paper, John considers irrelevant." [Fallacy: red herring, among others]
Oh, the two Daling studies and trials from Turkey and China, you say.
:) I hoped you'd come around, eventually.
Fine, but 4 studies don't settle the issue.
Who said they settled the issue? The main point of the original post was that one of the most authoritative (by pro-abortion lights) medical sources who'd once led the charge in "debunking" the ABC link has now unofficially reversed its stance, and given a severe body-blow to the "positive support" for the ABC-link deniers. I think the data is more than enough to show THAT... yes? One thing at a time!
You're going to hate this, but check it out anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis. [...] The fact is, a number of large, well-designed studies have found no link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. That you conveniently fail to mention.
That might be because: (1) I don't consider Wikipedia to be quite so authoritative as you do; (2) I was addressing a specific subset of the ABC issue (see above), rather than trying to refute every last jot and tittle of contrary assertions (there's time enough for that, later); and (3) you seem to have left out some studies of your own:
"Seventy-two epidemiological studies have been conducted since 1957; and 80% of these studies have shown that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently of the effect of delaying the birth of a first child." (links available on the site)
Not acknowledging contrary evidence doesn't do your case any good, sir.
:) I'll remember to pull in some off-topic, non-relevant bits for you from time to time, if it makes you feel better.
It just sounds like you're trying to sell a bill of goods.
Ah. Well... that can be explained adequately by the fact that you're biased in that direction, I think.
This kind of thing should be beneath you.
It should. [Fallacy: jumping to a conclusion]
You know, John... had you only come in and asked polite questions, rather than take your usual modus operandi of "shoot first, ask critical questions later", we might have started with a civil and more productive chat. But if you troll, you get spanked. You should know that by now, for Heaven's sake!
Paladin,
Spanked? Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I mean, you're a nice guy and everything, but I'm in a committed relationship, and VERY vanilla, so whatever proclivities you might have aren't really welcomed...
Oh... maybe you spoke figuratively?
Spanked?
We've had an odd winter here in North Idaho, strangely warm and dry. Last year we got close to 200 inches of snow; this year I'm hiking in shorts and it's been... raining. The United States is still fighting the pesky Taliban in Afghanistan, there's been a horrible earthquake in Haiti, and Apple continues to surpass analysts' earning estimates.
But enough about life on Earth. How are things on YOUR planet, Paladin? (You must have SOME Internet connection!)
"Lesson #1: when trying to critique someone else's logic, avoid fallacies. "John doesn't like LifeSiteNews.com; John thinks it isn't credible; John labels it a 'hack piece'". [Fallacy: ad hominem]"
May I offer, Herr Paladin, an addendum to "Lesson #1"?
It goes like this: When attempting to reason deductively, make sure your premises are sound (and not based on presumption).
For example, in relationship to the above line of deductive reasoning, what evidence is there that said John "doesn't like LifeSiteNews.com"? What evidence is there that said John "thinks it isn't credible"? (Has he ever expressed an opinion on its credibility, you might ask. You might also ask yourself, are these premises based solely on presumption? [Remember, deductive reasoning in the hands of an amateur who relies on presumption is potentially very embarrassing, and invariably flawed.])
It's quite possible that said John knows nothing aboutLifeSiteNews.com, doesn't care, has never read it except for the one piece he comments upon, and will never let it intrude upon his life again. It's a certainty, further, that said John has never expressed an opinion on the credibility of said website.
It is true, however, that said John called the particular piece of work published in said website "hack journalism."
In short, presumption without empirical evidence when empirical evidence is attainable makes for unsound premises upon which to make sound deductive arguments. Making things upon out of thin air again, Paladin?
Where do you aspire to teach logic, Herr Professor, Kmart? ("Attention Kmart shoppers...")
Ad hominem? Funny coming from you, considering your entry is tagged "Liberal Liars." What's more ad hominem than that?
Upcoming lesson for you, Herr Paladin, as you so obviously need it: How to reliably identify hack journalism. Rely on the forthcoming tips and you'll be immune to the slings and arrows of journalistic stupidity.
John wrote:
Paladin,
Spanked? Sorry, I think you misunderstood. [snark deleted for space] Oh... maybe you spoke figuratively?
:) Cute. Yes, I do in fact speak with metaphor, figures of speech, and the like, from time to time.
For example, in relationship to the above line of deductive reasoning, what evidence is there that said John "doesn't like LifeSiteNews.com"? What evidence is there that said John "thinks it isn't credible"?
Hm. I suppose you're right: it is possible that you enjoy "hack pieces", and you find them eminently credible... though, in that case, you must have been employing some rare, idiomatic usage of the phrase "hack piece" of which I was previously unaware.
Are you serious??
(Has he ever expressed an opinion on its credibility, you might ask.
I might. Perhaps John might elucidate his private meaning of "hack piece", if it isn't a rejection of the piece's credibility?
You might also ask yourself, are these premises based solely on presumption? [Remember, deductive reasoning in the hands of an amateur who relies on presumption is potentially very embarrassing, and invariably flawed.])
:) I daresay. Care to give your definition of "hack piece", now? Or do you think I should have assumed (out of thin air) your complete neutrality on the piece, despite your critical colloquialism? It would be rather embarrassing of me to use the flawed reasoning that assumed "hack piece" was a negatively critical term...
It's quite possible that said John knows nothing aboutLifeSiteNews.com, doesn't care, has never read it except for the one piece he comments upon, and will never let it intrude upon his life again.
Ah. So John is far more impulsive than I was led to believe, and he labels something a "hack piece" from pure prejudice or spite?
It's a certainty, further, that said John has never expressed an opinion on the credibility of said website.
Except for writing "hack pieces", right?
It is true, however, that said John called the particular piece of work published in said website "hack journalism."
Mm-hmm. I'm still waiting for your privatized definition of that term...
Ad hominem? Funny coming from you, considering your entry is tagged "Liberal Liars." What's more ad hominem than that?
Hm. I thought your memory was better than that. Short translation: you seem to be assuming (without warrant) that I'm labelling all liberals as liars; that is not so (though Paul, our esteemed host, has advanced some convincing arguments about pro-choice liberals). Lying is a real phenomenon; I'm not using the phrase for "insult value" (as you seem to imply). Those who have been busily covering up and denying the ABC link, for the purpose of defending their "right to choose to kill their children", can indeed be called liars.
Upcoming lesson for you, Herr Paladin, as you so obviously need it: How to reliably identify hack journalism. Rely on the forthcoming tips and you'll be immune to the slings and arrows of journalistic stupidity.
:) I can hardly wait. Though I think I can translate it in anticipation: "If John doesn't agree with it, and it outrages/annoys/etc. him, it's a hack piece."
Seriously: whatever troubles you about a report that says, "Previous deniers of the ABC link are now referencing and acknowledging the link in new reports?" Do you seriously deny that? That was their main point, after all... so unless you can disprove that it happened, you have some serious explaining to do (with or without the theatrics that you've showered liberally on us, here).
Whoops... sorry, John: your "memory-jogging hyperlink" didn't seem to agree with Google. Here it is:
http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/proud-liberal-liars.html?showComment=1220481960000#c7020634615373477177
Paladin writes
"Right. You're going on personal taste, and you haven't given it one ounce of critical thought in your life."
Talk about presumptuous. That is very interesting....why do presume I haven't given one ounce of critical thought about abortion in my life? Because I disagree with you? You were right about one thing, my argument above was flawed. Laws come from the will of the people and from the branches of government (not one or the other). I didn't make that point too clear. So in that vain, I hope the will of the people continue to support woman's right to choose. I hope the legislature and the courts continue to uphold that right. I will continue to fight for what I consider a just law, one that I have thought deeply about. I believe that no government should control the anyone's body. I don't believe that an unborn fetus is anyone's body. I believe that sometimes it is more just to eliminate a potential life than to bring it into a world that it will not be loved, or addicted to crack at birth, or thrown into many foster homes, or abused. It is more merciful (yes, we have discussed this before, which is why I am surprised you claim I have not thought about this issue critically). I also believe that a man should be able to suggest abortion as an alternative, but not have any authority to demand it. I believe that a woman does not need a man's approval to have an abortion. These are things that I believe are JUST. Sorry it doesn't jive with your line of thinking. Actually, no I am not sorry, I think you should apologize for making women feel any guilt for choosing to control her future.
Jake wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Right. You're going on personal taste, and you haven't given it one ounce of critical thought in your life.
[Jake]
Talk about presumptuous. That is very interesting....why do presume I haven't given one ounce of critical thought about abortion in my life? Because I disagree with you?
No... because you kept asserting your raw opinion, over and over, without a lick of critical reasoning to support it, and because your "reasons" all smack of raw emotion, rather than logic. See below.
You were right about one thing, my argument above was flawed. Laws come from the will of the people and from the branches of government (not one or the other). I didn't make that point too clear.
Well... I appreciate the clarification, but you've missed my point: the mere fact that laws were enacted at all has nothing, whatever, to do with the question of whether those laws are just (i.e. good) or not. Many governments (including ours) have enacted evil laws, often with the support of a majority of the public.
More to the point: the mere fact that our *current* government allows abortion, for example, doesn't mean that it always did; From 1910 until the mid 1960's, abortion was illegal in all 50 states (49 states had laws on the books making it a felony, and Kentucky's courts declared it illegal). That's why your idea of "laws representing the will of the people" simply didn't help with the idea of figuring out the morality (i.e. "goodness/badness") of the laws: since anti-abortion laws and pro-abortion laws were both enacted (at different times) "by the will of the people", and since they can't both be "just" at the same time (since they're opposites), you had one of two choices: admit that the "will of the people" test was useless for determining morality, or admit (illogically) that abortion was somehow "immoral in 1910" but "perfectly morally acceptable now".
So in that vain, I hope the will of the people continue to support woman's right to choose. I hope the legislature and the courts continue to uphold that right. I will continue to fight for what I consider a just law, one that I have thought deeply about.
You may have thought about it, Jake; you may even (in your words) have thought "deeply" about it--whatever that means. But given what you've written, you've shown no evidence of thinking critically (i.e. suspending your own biases, and looking at it methodically and afresh) about it... especially since, earlier, you said that you "don't have to prove anything". That's not the language a critical thinker uses.
I believe that no government should control the anyone's body.
That's a bumper-sticker, not an argument, and it's not even true; you *do* believe that a government should control someone's body, in many ways: stopping and imprisoning rapists, preventing people from burning down each others' houses, etc.
More in part II...
Jake wrote:
I don't believe that an unborn fetus is anyone's body.
Right. That's your raw opinion. Now, you'll need to demonstrate how your opinion would actually be true.
I believe that sometimes it is more just to eliminate a potential life than to bring it into a world that it will not be loved, or addicted to crack at birth, or thrown into many foster homes, or abused.
Now, think about this: is it "merciful" to go into orphanages, hospitals, foster homes, and abusive homes, and kill all the children (of whatever age) therein? All of them are suffering in the ways that you described. Would you approve of such a massacre? If not, then what makes the difference between that and abortion of such "unfortunates"?
I also believe that a man should be able to suggest abortion as an alternative, but not have any authority to demand it.
Well... do you believe a man should be able to suggest murdering one's own children, even if he has no authority to demand it?
I believe that a woman does not need a man's approval to have an abortion.
Gender has nothing to do with the issue; many abortionists are men, and many pro-life politicians are women. This isn't a "gender battle" at all.
These are things that I believe are JUST.
Right... but you haven't shown *why* you consider them just. That's what I'd like to hear (especially in reference to the "killing already-born children" example, above).
Sorry it doesn't jive with your line of thinking.
I can't tell whether your reasoning gibes with mine, if you don't give your reasoning.
Actually, no I am not sorry, I think you should apologize for making women feel any guilt for choosing to control her future.
No one should feel guilt for choosing to control one's future (though there are many ways in which that would be fooling, or impossible). But one should feel guilty for allowing the murder of one's own child, yes?
I honestly question your intelligence. Killing actual life is not the same as killing potential life. If you can't see the difference between scraping a few cells out of a uterus and killing an actual person, then I can't help you. I suppose you are against masturbation because a few sperm cells will not get the chance to make the great swim. Seriously, I don't need to "demonstrate anything" to quote you. It's a fact, removing a fetus that is not viable on its own is markedly different than killing an actual human being. Add to that giving woman the power to control their own bodies, and this is a no brainer as far as I am concerned. Your orphanage example above is laughable....the point being that those in an orphanage are, you know, alive and suffering, where as a few cells scraped out of a body and thrown away are not. Yeah, yeah, post your videos showing a beautiful fetus pulling away from the nasty forceps, recoiling from the nasty chemicals...it doesn't matter. Ultimately, a woman can choose that option. It is a beautiful thing really!!!
By the way, good for the justice system, today a terrible human was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars. RIP Dr. Tiller!!!
See, Jake... this is why I call you a troll: not to change the subject, and not to dodge any issues (I addressed all of yours), but because you are one. Every time I actually grit my teeth and try to have a civil discussion with you, and when I press these issues hard with you, you start foaming at the mouth. You rant, rave, refuse to "demonstrate anything" (probably because you can't--I see no other reasonable explanation), throw insults, and make outrageous, ridiculous and inflammatory statements. If your only goal is to scream and froth your raw opinions at me without any intention of discussing/proving them, whyever would I bother trying to discuss them with you? (I know them already, thanks.) If that's your goal, then go scream at the mirror, or something, will you?
When you learn how to discuss things rationally, Jake, drop me a line, and we'll talk. Until then, it seems to be a complete waste of time.
Haha...typical. NO response to my post, just resorting to calling me a troll. Yeah, its not like you aren't sarcastic or belittling in your responses. Get over yourself, or re-read your responses. I answered your questions, I showed you that cells do not equal a living person. Sure, a few cells could, in the right circumstances, continue to multiply and grow into a baby, but to call them equal is laughable. NO answer to that I see, so I must be a troll!!!!
One more thing, l noticed your response to John above, and its the same thing..."you got spanked, you are a troll, professor Paladin needs to come out." Three statements from you that reek of elitism and superiority. Once someone calls you out though, you retreat. What a joke. It seems that a troll in your mind is someone who disagrees with you. Stop trying to hide behind the old "I try to have a civil conversation" bull crap, because you may think you are civil, but you and everyone else can read your smug attitude. I enjoy giving it right back to you, but don't hide behind "you are troll" when the argument doesn't go your way...it's pathetic.
(*sigh*)
In the "hope springs eternal" spirit, I'll try one more time...
I answered your questions, I showed you that cells do not equal a living person.
You did? I must have missed it. I saw you state your opinion repeatedly (in-between your many insults), but I didn't see you "show" anybody anything. In fact, you flatly refused to "show" me (in the sense of "demonstrating" your point), remember? You came here to mock my point, not to discuss it. Do you seriously not see the difference between the two?
If you can't see the difference between scraping a few cells out of a uterus and killing an actual person, then I can't help you.
Mm-hmm. How, exactly, does this "show" me anything, other than the fact that this is your strongly-held opinion, and you're willing to insult anyone who challenges it? "An unborn child isn't a person, because Jake says so!" I could do that, too:
"Jake, if you can't see the difference between a pre-born baby that will (with proper nurturing) grow into an adult human, and a clump of random human cells that won't turn into anything but a larger tissue sample, then I don't know what to tell you."
...but I prefer to go step by step, and demonstrate my case with logic. You don't; you declare your opinion, then you insult anyone who disagrees with you, and you refuse to demonstrate why you believe as you do.
See my point? Trollism is a curable disease, Jake. Get cured, and then we'll talk. Honestly. It's the trollism that I hate, not you.
Maybe you're not aware of the actual defintion of a troll? I don't call you a troll because you're obnoxious (though you have been, here); some obnoxious people actually offer reasonable arguments. And I certainly don't call you a troll merely because you disagree with me (plenty of polite and reasonable people disagree with me strongly, and I've had some eminently enjoyable debates with them). I call you a troll because you do virtually nothing but throw "incendiary grenades" instead of arguments; rather than debate your opponents, you "flame" them and insult them, and state your raw opinion interminably.
As I say: when you want to stop flaming, behave in a civil fashion, and discuss things reasonably (which does include demonstrating your points with logic, I'm afraid), I'll be happy to upgrade you to "non-troll" status in my mind. Until then, go haunt a bridge, somewhere. You can even tell all your troll friends how you "socked it to that elitist Paladin guy."
Post a Comment