Introduction
For those who have eyes to see, the most recent video released by CMP is striking, staggering, stupefying. One of the most remarkable things about this most recent episode is the fact that the pro-choice forces have officially abandoned argument, about which more below. Another is the fact that in the video, the people who are discussing the most appalling crimes with Mengelesque aplomb are overwhelmingly women. We have gotten to the point where we might as well form an association called Harpies for Abortion, and get Congress to fund it. If you oppose the violent dismemberment of a small child, in order that her parts may then be sold for a tidy sum, then you are probably a hater of some sort.
Shattered Chains
Cecile Richards goes out there and gives it her PR best, talking about “women’s health,” and “reproductive freedom,” but we have now been given a stark view of what she is actually talking about. And this makes sense of the larger picture—I find it telling that these people don’t want to say anything about reproductive freedom for Chinese women, say—nothing about forced abortions, or child limit policies, etc. “If you want three kids, have three kids.” That would be reproductive freedom. But if you take a close look at what feminism intends by shattering the chains of the patriarchy, you will find, courtesy of the hidden camera, what makes up those chains. Those chains are people — kids — and my, they do get shattered.
We are not up against a Mordor with an Eye of Doom, the kind of eye that can look at you and count all your bones. We are not talking about a black mountain at night, with lurid orange flowing down its sides. We are not talking about jagged lightning bolts throwing the rocky landscape into high relief, with shadows sharp enough to cut your hand. No cartoon villainy here. Rather, we are talking about Mordor with a PR Department. We are talking about Mordor with talking points and well-groomed lobbyists. We are talking about Mordor in pale pastels. People still die though.
In the preface to Screwtape, C.S. Lewis wrote presciently about this very thing:
“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin.’ The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
But of course at some point the vile things have to actually get done. Otherwise, what’s the point? If we don’t tear the legs off, how are we going to be able to invoice them?
Hypocrisy at Hillary Levels
Hillary Clinton just recently gave the commencement address at Wellesley, her alma mater, and because we have now officially reached the nadir of ironic lack of self-awareness, she set herself up as a preacher, and sanctimoniously told us all about truth and righteousness n’ stuff.
“But it also matters because our country, like this College, was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment—in particular, the belief that people, you and I, possess the capacity for reason and critical thinking, and that free and open debate is the lifeblood of a democracy.”
She said this, just hours after a California district judge ordered the suppression of the most damning video of Planned Parenthood yet. Not only was it suppressed, but if anyone is holding his breath waiting for Hillary’s denunciation of this interference with the free flow of information, he probably ought to rethink it. We all know, incidentally, that if David Daleiden had gotten equally damning video of the higher ups at Kentucky Fried Chicken, talking this very same way about their treatment of chickens—pulling legs off, eyeballs in laps, busted skulls, that sort of thing—he would already have received the Nobel Prize. And the Pulitzer. As it stands, we are all sitting around, our mouths full of teeth, waiting for somebody to do something appropriate. For a change.
Roll those Hillary words around on your tongue for a moment, if you can stand it. Try to do it without snorting—“reason and critical thinking,” “free and open debate,” har har har. I think it in the highest degree likely that after that speech an aide or two took her aside and told her she was sailing a little close to the wind.
David Daleiden, operating in the mainstream of American investigative reporting, has the goods on the abortion industry. Let me say it again. He has the stone cold goods on them. There is no argument. This is indefensible—at least by argument. But the abortion industry is Hillary’s precious. It must not be touched, and facts be damned. Reason and critical thinking be damned. Free and open debate be damned. But better serve up that boilerplate language to the cornpones anyhow. It might still work with some of them. By cornpones, incidentally, I mean the graduating class at Wellesley.
This is the same woman who blamed the Benghazi fiasco on some crappy internet video, and the chump who made it took the fall by spending a year in the slammer.
“Wither was slower to notice what was happening. He had never expected the speech to have any meaning as a whole, and for a long time the familiar catchwords rolled on in a manner which did not disturb the expectation of his ear. Then he thought: ‘Come! That’s going too far. Even they must see that you can’t talk about accepting the challenge of the past by throwing down the gauntlet of the future.’ He looked cautiously down the room. All was well. But it wouldn’t be if Jules didn’t sit down pretty soon. In that last sentence there were surely words he didn’t know. What the deuce did he mean by aholibate? He looked down the room again. They were attending too much, always a bad sign. Then came the sentence, ‘The surrogates esemplanted in a continual of porous variations.’”
And so Hillary kept on, just hours after a Lackey Leftist Judgmental decided that the American people must not learn what they are paying millions for, courtesy of the Democratic Party. Please tell us more, Hillary.
“As the history majors among you here today know all too well, when people in power invent their own facts, and attack those who question them, it can mark the beginning of the end of a free society. That is not hyperbole. It is what authoritarian regimes throughout history have done. They attempt to control reality—not just our laws and rights and our budgets, but our thoughts and beliefs.”
And so who has invented their own facts about the bloody work of Planned Parenthood? Who defends Planned Parenthood, hell or high water? Who actually attacks those who question them? Does David Daleiden have a court date? What is he doing in court? Why does he have to appear in court? Warn us some more about authoritarian regimes, Hillary. Tell us what they have done throughout history—that might be scary. I will tell you what they do. They lie.
I know. Maybe Daleiden has to appear in court because he did something really bad. Maybe he killed somebody, and chopped them up into pieces, and sold their organs. That would be really bad. Maybe he was so far into his “own reality” that he had rationalized his behavior, saying that he was doing something for “humankind” or something. See, if he did those things, then he would deserve to be in court, and we would not be an authoritarian regime. Oh, he didn’t do those things? He was actually exposing an organization that was doing those very things? Well, sorry then. My mistake. Carry on.
Hillary complains about our attempts to “control reality.” I see. What is a womb for? I might not be able to handle this one, living as I do among the science-deniers. A womb is to be a living space where a father and mother, bound in covenant for life, seek to show warm hospitality to any new arrivals. That is what a womb is for.
Although the video has been pulled from many places on the web, you may still view it here. Prepare yourself, not for gruesome footage, but for stark, behind-the-scenes honesty from active practitioners of the American holocaust. That you pay for.
Conclusion
The pro-abortion forces have certainly not abandoned their fight, but they have, equally certainly, abandoned the argument. They have officially conceded that they cannot hold the field when it comes to a plain recital of the facts. What happens in abortion, how is it done, what is the object of the abortionist’s attention, how much money is involved — all of it, off the table.
When the series of ghoulish videos first appeared last year, showing us the seamy side of Planned Parenthood—the thick side—there was an uproar, and demands to have Planned Parenthood defunded. There was an election, which went in a direction that few expected, leaving the pro-life party in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. And we still can’t get that thing defunded.
Like I said earlier, they haven’t given up the fight. They have only given up the appeals to reason and science. Now they are appealing to court orders, censorship, and cowardice.
And by cowardice, I am not referring to theirs.
Proud of my little rant, must share. Screwtape Delivers a Commencement Address Congratulations graduates! You have now proved that you can buckle down and assimilate the attitudes that mark you as members of the elite. You have learned to hate Western civilization and Christianity and to deplore the benighted rubes who cling to them. These are vital life skills that will serve you well in your future as media consumers and producers. You have learned that the thought and reason you apply is less important than flexibility. Like a good general you are prepared to occupy enemy positions and then… Read more »
Well said!!!
please fact-check: https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction
Elijah Cummings. Nice. Anything associated with him must be pure and unbiased.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/new-emails-could-send-democrat-cummings-to-prison-for-targeting-voter-rights-group/
“leaving the pro-life party in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. And we still can’t get that thing defunded.” This is simply because they are not the pro-life party. Republicans are the collect-money-from-the-pro-lifers party. If they actually did something about it, they would lose their money. When a real bill is written that criminalizes abortion, the Repubs go all weak in the knees. They all of a sudden are okay with some abortion, especially the female Repubs, who join the War on Women chants from the Left. The simple answer is that they are liars, too.… Read more »
But McCain will make damn sure that the military isn’t “shorted” $30B and that they get their “full” funding of over $600B.
The government worships death on both sides, and neither side opposes the other.
I stopped believing them over a decade ago and haven’t voted for an incumbent since 2006. All of my representatives are Republicans. In fact, I just emailed my Republican congressman today, because I found out that he was co-sponsoring a bill (Enlist Act, HR60) to give exceptions to certain illegal aliens. Coincidentally, the reason I left the Republican party over a decade ago was this very issue…illegal immigration. Given the actions of my congressman, it is clear that he still doesn’t “get it”. But, I’m sure he does get a lot of big campaign contributions from those who want the… Read more »
Amen to this.
No need for term limits. Put up a primary challenge.
Counterintuitively, term limits give more power to lobbyists and moneyed interests.
In many safe seats there are never any serious primary challengers because they know the incumbent has the money and the power.
If you get rid of the incumbent, then new blood is certain.
There is no guarantee they will be any better…I grant you that…but if nothing else, it prevents having career politicians and keeps the power from becoming concentrated in a few people. If for no other reason, that would be worth it in my book. Just my opinion.
We have term limits in my state and it has given us inexperienced, unknowledeable, and malleable politicians. They dont have connections at the capitol with other legislators, and they don’t know how to craft, shepherd, or sell legislation. What has happened is that almost all of our legislation is model legislation, lightly edited, coming from lobbyists and activist groups. I know several lobbyists (i work in a highly regulated industry) and they all report that term limits was the best thing that ever happened to the lobbyists, because the legislators don’t have a clue. Depending on their public spirit, they… Read more »
I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not convinced that what happens at the state level would necessarily be true at the federal level, and that is where I want to see the change made. The states may do as they wish regarding their own government. It seems that if the legislators don’t have a clue, then that is the fault of the legislator. If they let themselves be taken advantage of, then they have only themselves to blame. I think it speaks well of you that seem to be aware of this. Would it be that everyone was as… Read more »
“I think it speaks well of you that seem to be aware of this. Would it be that everyone was as informed, but I can’t help but think that some others must also be aware as well.” Thank you for the compliment. It is a well known, and contested (of course), phenomenon. search for term limits benefit lobbyists and you will find plenty of reading, much by “Term Limits for U.S.” and similar groups. I am not completely opposed to term limits, I just thing they should be long, and I think there should be some way of checking the… Read more »
Sick stuff like this is a reminder that the entire system we live under is rotten. We shouldn’t be trying to prop up a corpse by further investing in activism, but instead working to build a replacement that people can turn to on the day the whole thing comes apart. I am grateful for the faithful prophets we have such as Pastor Wilson, and we need more of them. Institutions like New St Andrews and Greyfriars Hall seem like an excellent start to training more of them. The question that occupies my mind is: how can we train up our… Read more »
We could start by believing in warriors and kings.
Well said.
I’m glad to see you are still posting here. I have noticed that several of the regulars have departed since I stepped away for awhile.
Some fell, some were pushed.
Does anyone know what happened to Kilgore? He was good value but I haven’t seen him around for a while.
Is Demo not here anymore? I haven’t been around much.
Demo departed, I am sorry to say.
I am glad to see my favorite Catholic is still posting.
I just wish we could pull you over here to the right team.
Demo specifically retired from Disqus and deleted all of his posts.
Ah. I always learned from his contributions. Is Barnabas gone too?
Not entirely. I think we exhausted his patience, though.
Poor thing.
I don’t know, but don’t be surprised to hear from his evil twin!
Demo = D
I think he still shows up, without a Disqus account, and posts as D
D’oh! ????
Yeah, I’m surprised more people didn’t figure that out. I was on to it in his first post…
You are correct, I am he commenter formerly known as Demo. I wasn’t trying to be sneaky, as the first few guest posts I made were as ” Demo.” But due to laziness I began just writing D. I assumed most regulars would see the continuity; though I may have become more cantankerous in recent months. I found that with my disqus account I spent much more time here, and for some reason, I had trouble refraining from responding to replies to my comments which really didn’t interest me. But I still enjoy the comment section. I was loath to… Read more »
The second coming!
Barnabas drops by every now and again. Though some may disagree, the comments would benefit with his coming back.
Wesley,
Barnabas was always my favorite commenter. He is an excellent writer and occasionally he would put together a comment that seemed to pull together and gel several strands of thought I had been struggling with (even if I was opposed to his stance). However, before he deleted his account he seemed to become more committed in his romance with the high cult of kek portion of the alt-right and abandoned discourse for an “I troll because I care” attitude.
I’m sorry you and Barnabas are off disqus – I liked checking on your accounts to see if anything interesting were going on! But I always did feel that Barnabas stuck to snark on principle if he thought we were unworthy, which prevented me from understanding him further. And I owe you big time for referring to Alastair Roberts.
Demo is probably the one person more than anyone who I did not want to see step away. :(
Douglas, thanks for your faithfulness in continuing to expose the high-handed hypocrisy.
I think our left leaning commentators are pretty solidly pro-life.
Maybe we can get Sharon Diehl to show back up and explain that it’s a blastocyst, not a baby. Argument over!
I’m not sure if we have any left leaning regulars, despite Jonathan’s positions he would probably be seen as a right wing fundy by most Americans. Matt is critical of Doug but seems to prefer something like a measured cerebral conservatism. Maybe I’m missing someone.
I guess they save their outrage for important people.
Reporter lives matter, and all that.
“I think our left leaning commentators are pretty solidly pro-life.” ~ jillybean
Which I suppose is why they vote to continue the holocaust and force the rest of us to fund it. Just ask Krychek_2.
in fairness, the moral issues of the Montana incident are up for debate among people on the same team. Baby body-part farming, not so much.
Webmaster, since your recent update/ outage, videos play automatically. On this page 3 videos from “Related Posts” play simultaneously on loading.
YES. MAKE IT STOP!
I happened to be quick enough to download it from youtube before it was pulled so I have the mp4. In fact, I have all of CMP’s youtube videos on mp4.
Read this thread for instructions on downloading from youtube
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/a_nine_pound_sledge_in_the_freezer/#comment-2327463827
Email it to the president
And, I would add, if he had used the EXACT SAME METHODS to obtain said footage.
Is PP or the abortion industry in general even using “clump of cells” type argument in public anymore? The video shows that, of course, they know exactly what’s going on, but what is their current PR spin? I’ve been hearing the Famous Violinist argument being thrown around and Hillary herself called them “unborn persons”.
“When people in power invent their own facts…” She is certifiable to make a statement like that, in light of everything she has done. So glad God spared us from this woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmp3Jndj_o
She must have thought she was Julius reincarnated in a pantsuit.
This particular left leaning commentator simply disagrees with your premise that a fetus is a child, so all of the rhetoric about dismembering children and selling human body parts is simply misplaced. And even if the fetus is a child, the sale of human body parts for profit is hardly new — human hair is sold to make wigs, people routinely sell their blood to blood and plasma centers, people allow their bodies to be used to test new drugs and medical procedures (and are compensated for it), fertility clinics compensate sperm donors. Legitimate, beneficial medical research is being done… Read more »
Are you arguing that because some people willingly choose to sell hair, blood and plasma, that a baby may therefore be dismembered without her consent, and sold in pieces, and that the killer ought to receive payment? Would you consider your kidneys up for grabs?
Did you miss my very first sentence in which I said that I don’t agree that it’s a baby? Of course babies can’t be dismembered and sold, but we’re talking about fetuses.
No, but I went on to read your 2nd sentence ” And even if the fetus is a child, the sale of human body parts for profit is hardly new”, etc, and the strange arguments you presented next.
I was making two separate arguments directed to two separate issues. The first was directed to the status of the fetus — it’s not a child — and the second to the objection to selling body parts for profit. Obviously no one has the right to sell someone else’s body parts, but before we even get there, I disagree that a fetus is a “someone else.”
You say “Obviously no one has the right to sell someone else’s body parts.” So are you now arguing that body parts sold subsequent to abortion belong to the abortionist? Or are you arguing that they are not body parts? Just trying to make sense of this perspective.
Absent a contract to the contrary, any body parts left over from any surgical procedure belong to the patient. In practice, the patient usually doesn’t want them, so the facility disposes of them as it sees fit, but if you want to take your appendix home with you, you can. Just be sure to tell them before they do the surgery so it doesn’t get thrown out first. I have never seen a surgical consent form for an abortion but it would not surprise me if it contains a provision giving the facility unfettered discretion in disposing of any body… Read more »
There are plenty of abortion consent forms on the internet, and you are right. The ones I looked at require the woman to authorize the facility to dispose of “any removed tissue in accordance with state law.” I think consent forms should spell out whether the “removed tissue” will be sold by the facility as a profit-making venture.
See, this is part of the reason that pro-lifers and pro-abortioneers will never come to any kind of reasonable agreements on this subject.
The abortioneers will not admit that a human fetus is human, unless they have to in order to part them out and do the invoices correctly.
The pro-lifers must get the abortioneers to admit that human fetuses are human, because only then can productive discussion happen on whether they should be killed in the first place and under what circumstances.
You can’t debate someone who won’t even stipulate to the necessary definitions.
I tend to be more horrified by the people who say, “Sure it’s a human being but so what?”
Well, yes, but at that point you could at least start discussing the morality and legality of killing human beings, and under what circumstances it is permissible and not permissible.
We have frameworks and standards for those discussions.
In other words, the people who disagree with you should just admit that you’re right,
for those who believe we can win this with terminology, give this a listen. voddie ain’t no fool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StUZsxyKrlU
So, the fetus’s body parts belong to the woman, but they are not parts of the woman, because she is not missing any of her body parts afterwards.
Pretty sure that people are only allowed to made medical decisions for other people in the absence of a signed Medical Power of Attorney if the first person is the parent and the second person is a minor child.
But the fetus isn’t a person. You’re asking me to accept a premise that I don’t accept.
Why isn’t a human in the womb a person? Which humans get to decide which other humans are people and which humans are not people? Why those humans and not some other group of humans?
I guess the same people who get to decide which words are nouns and which words are verbs.
“I guess the same people who get to decide which words are nouns and which words are verbs.” ~ Krychek_2
A flippant answer to a serious question on a serious issue. Okay. Let’s try this again. In case you missed it, I asked three questions.
1. Why isn’t a human in the womb a person?
2. Which humans get to decide which other humans are people and which humans are not people?
3. Why those humans and not some other group of humans?
1. I’ve already responded to why it isn’t a person — it lacks the most fundamental aspects of humanity, which are consciousness and self-awareness. It’s a potential person in the same way that an acorn is a potential tree. 2. As with who gets to decide which words are nouns and which are verbs, the people who understand the philosophical underpinnings of *why* something is a noun, a verb, or a person. It’s not that someone arbitrarily gets to make up definitions; it’s that when the rationale is understood the individual applications fall into place. 3. See Response to No.… Read more »
1. “I’ve already responded to why it isn’t a person — it lacks the most fundamental aspects of humanity, which are consciousness and self-awareness. It’s a potential person in the same way that an acorn is a potential tree.” Earlier you stated that people who understand “child” to include the unborn do so “out of religious dogma rather than biology”. Does biology determine that “the most fundamental aspects of humanity… are consciousness and self-awareness”? Does biology define consciousness and self-awareness? 2. “As with who gets to decide which words are nouns and which are verbs…” I did not ask you… Read more »
Oh, but I did answer 2 and 3. Nobody “decides”. Rather, they discover the underlying principles and then apply them. If you don’t understand that concept, I can’t help you. Consciousness and self-awareness are not well understood, but what biology does is to draw distinctions: This is similar to that, but dissimilar to this other thing. And if you spend some time thinking through what exactly is the difference between a human and a different kind of living thing, what you will find is consciousness, self-awareness, the ability to think and reason. Biology does not yet know how all of… Read more »
Note that newborns, while being conscious, are not obviously self-aware.
And that people can be unconscious for periods of time (head injury, operations).
I haven’t seen an argument here that even remotely resembles science, and most of the people who do biology for a living happen to agree with me.
The noted bioethicist Peter Singer said the following: “pro-life
groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or
outside the womb cannot make such a crucial moral difference… The
solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a
human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution
is the very opposite: to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth.”
Does his argument make logical sense to you?
I’ve found Singer to be honest and logical in his discussions. The major difference between us is he works from a foundationally different perspective on what people are and Who created us. So we come to very different conclusions at times.
As a result of his honesty and command of logic, though, he’s quite a thorn in the side of secularists who try to make logically weak arguments in favor of abortion.
I thought his point was frighteningly logical. It is easier to deal with the illogic of the others.
It’s refreshing for me. He says it, explains how he got there, states his underlying assumptions, it’s all out there. Reminds me of certain church conversations and college discussions where we all argued about what we actually believed. Nowadays in most of my discussions, the disagreement comes from people with their own personal set of facts that fit whatever they want to believe, nonsensical logic that doesn’t actually get from point A to point B, and layers of obfuscation over their actual underlying assumptions. So it’s a bunch of uselessness. Best-case scenario is that I clear away some of the… Read more »
If by logical you mean internally consistent, yes, it is internally consistent, but I completely disagree with his premise. I think that birth is a bright line that qualitatively changes things, and I think that were Singer’s views to be adopted, there would be devastating unintended consequences he doesn’t appreciate.
I will also say that Peter Singer is to secularists what Westboro Baptist Church is to Christians: A huge embarassment whose views are so far out of synch with mainstream thought that he seems to serve little function except to provide fodder to the movement’s enemies.
Krychek_2 wrote: I think that birth is a bright line that qualitatively changes things … I see that Krychek_2 has returned to embarrass himself once again. He regurgitates his old criteria of “consciousness and self-awareness”, apparently forgetting that he was unable to provide a testable definition of either, last time around. He tried desperately to use pain response as a test of consciousness then, but notice how that utterly and completely destroys his latest, so-called “bright line” criteria of birth. Pain response exists in the womb, well before birth. Oops. This is what happens when people assert nonsense and try… Read more »
Your determination that only biological entities that exercise consciousness are entitled to rights is entirely philosophical rather than scientific, so I don’t know why our statements need to be purely scientific.
Science has to be able to name and classify things. “Is it a human being?” is a question for science; what are the implications is a question for philosophy.
That the determination should be based on consciousness rather than species identity cannot be made by any means found within the scientific method. That is purely a humanistic judgment.
Or am I wrong — is there some empirical process that tells us whether we should classify a biologically human organism as fully human based on some particular characteristic of some members of the species, or based on its species identity? If so, please explain it.
Your original paraphrase of me was that “only biological entities that exercise consciousness are entitled to rights . . .” I agree with you that questions of rights are outside the realm of science; that is a philosophical and legal discussion. However, if you agree with me that human beings have rights that other living things don’t, it is a scientific inquiry what is and is not a human being. (Not “human life” but “a human being” since, as I’ve pointed out, a tumor is both human and alive and therefore human life, but not a human being.) That question… Read more »
The proposition that consciousness and/or self-awareness draw the distinction between “human” and “human being” is simply not rooted in any aspect of science; in fact, the distinction between the two is not scientific, either. You are simply repeating yourself and avoiding the issue. The proposition and the underlying distinction are philosophical categories that suit a certain purpose; they are not demonstrable scientific realities.
Just so I’m understanding you correctly, are you saying that there is *no* distinction between a human tumor and a human baby? And if that’s not what you’re saying, then how would you distinguish them?
And taxonomy is a scientific endeavor, as well as a philosophical one. Often but not always there is an overlap.
“I’ve already responded to why it isn’t a person — it lacks the most
fundamental aspects of humanity, which are consciousness and
self-awareness.”
Why do the people who decided that the fundamental property of a human being is consciousness and self-awareness beat out the people who believe that the fundamental property of a human being is a biologically human identity as a distinct organism? Who decided between them and decided your side wins, not merely legally, but ontologically? And why does whoever decided that, have the authority to make that decision?
Because you would then have to explain why other forms of life with a biologically human identity — such as tumors, polyps, or individual organs — aren’t persons. They, too, have a biologically human identity.
The only plausible alternative that immediately comes to my mind is to attach personhood to the ability to live independent of a host. However, a fetus clearly would not qualify under that standard either.
You omitted four words from my definition in order to make your answer work. Put those four words back in, and it’s totally non-responsive.
Ah, but tumors, polyps and individual organs are distinct organisms. In the case of tumors and polyps they depend on a host for survival — as does a fetus — and in the case of an individual organ, it’s part of a larger organism, but distinct organisms they are.
They are distinct entities, but they are not self-contained organisms. They will never grow into a member of the human species. When the organism they are attached to dies, they will die. A fetus is already a member of the human species, and within nine months will become biologically independent, and probably outlive its mother.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/organism?
Tumors and polyps do not fit this definition.
Two observations
1. A baby in whomb relies on the mother sustainability, but a newborn does as well.
2. An acorn is an acorn until it is fertalized. Once fertilized, it’s a tree
(Psst … once it germinates.)
^^This. All the back-and-forth about definitions and such are periphery. This is the real issue.
The problem is that you have unilaterally decided that “personhood”, a subjective criterion that is historically, medically and philosophically unsupportable, is the basis for you to decide when the “fetus” can be removed and discarded. Furthermore, as analytical as such a term implies, neither you, nor any of your compatriots, are able to establish when this property is present. Based on nothing but your own perceptions and reasoning, a fetus before birth lacks the consciousness and self-awareness that you so highly prize. But the newborn baby possesses those. Or maybe it does after a few days. But you’ll get back… Read more »
Except that when we’re talking about constitutional rights, including the right to life, the Constitution speaks of persons. Persons have rights; other entities do not. So the first, most basic legal question is whether the fetus is a legal person.
I realize that for some here, what the Constitution says is irrelevant; they would simply replace the Constitution with Biblical law and consider the Bible’s teachings to settle the issue. Feel free to make that argument, but at this particular time and place it’s not a winning argument.
Krychek_2 wrote: I realize that for some here, what the Constitution says is irrelevant; they would simply replace the Constitution with Biblical law and consider the Bible’s teachings to settle the issue. Apparently Krychek_2 is unaware that the Constitution doesn’t actually define personhood when it establishes rights for persons. When we recall that our legislators, unfettered, have since taken upon themselves the burden of filling this vacuum by ascribing personhood to such non-living entities as corporations, then we begin to see the howling arbitrariness of Krychek_2’s appeal. Since biology and science have failed Krychek_2, he simply retreats and hides behind… Read more »
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I have found that when the discussion starts veering into philosophical points of order or the state of medical knowledge, abortion supporters almost immediately resort to SCOTUS said such-and-such or how they interpreted the Constitution thusly or decry some fundamentalist biblical influence. As you undoubtedly know, the Constitution didn’t spend too much ink on settling or ensconcing religious concepts or minutely defining words which, to the founders, appeared to need no explaining. Or they depended on a moral citizenry to decide rightly on how to effect self-government and personal liberty in it’s many forms.… Read more »
I actually agree with much of you what you write. As a preliminary matter, in any system of governance there has to be somebody who has the last word as to what the law is, and in our system it’s the Supreme Court. If it weren’t the Supreme Court, it would be somebody else, and then whomever disagreed with those decisions would then say, “Who are they to arbitrarily impose their definitions on the rest of us?” It’s the same dynamic as at the baseball game where people who disagree with calls respond by yelling, “Kill the umpire.” I don’t… Read more »
The decision by The SCOTUS in regards to Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford shows just how fallible men can be. For you to throw up your hands and pretend that their decision in regards to abortion is simply unassailable is a self-serving illusion. I contend that their decision was political in nature and totally bereft of any moral or medical justification besides some amorphous, penumbra-like “right to privacy” of the mother into which the government supposedly had no compelling interest. Roe v. Wade should be re-litigated based on new information…not defended as a tenet of the faith based entirely… Read more »
Waiting to board a plane so this will be short and sweet. First, as repulsive as Dred Scott was, the Dred Scott court did not have the benefit of the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments, and Dred Scott was an accurate statement of the law at the time. The problem was the law at the time, and not that the Court made an accurate statement of it. Second, there are multiple factors at work in why abortions go up or down, but when women who have had abortions are surveyed, lack of means is consistently at the top of the… Read more »
You think it’s a flippant answer, but it really isn’t.
The one who make the definitions has the power.
If it’s not a person, then it’s a pet, because it’s still a separate entity from the mother.
This is the logical fallacy of the false alternative: If it’s not Christmas, it must be the Fourth of July. There are other alternatives besides person and pet.
Really? What are they?
Really? You need me to list them for you?
OK. Maybe it’s a series of biochemical reactions. Maybe it’s a human in progress — you know, like cake batter in the oven, it’s not quite a cake just yet, and won’t be if someone turns off the oven before it’s done. Maybe it’s a parasite. Maybe it’s a non-human life form. The possibilities are endless. And if you don’t like those, I can come up with others.
Do go on. I especially like the “aliens” angle.
Personally I was thinking societal categories, i.e. Person, Pet, or Livestock.
Since, in this particular thread we are exploring the legal angle of the child’s existence.
Edited to add: I suppose “Vermin” is also a category we use for living creatures.
You’re obviously not thinking outside the narrow box of your own construction.
Obviously *with heavy irony*
Krychek_2 the Science Guy.
Indeed. Krychek_2 has often tried to dazzle us with science, but was never able to give any actual biological criteria from which to classify an unborn human baby as anything other than … wait for it … human.
Ah, so in the case of abortion the baby is considered a body part belonging to the woman, and then signed over to the abortionist. Seems anomolous to me. I would argue that a body part rightly belongs to the one whose DNA is encoded in its cells. Is there anything fundamentally wrong about someone taking possession of your kidneys?
Yes. I’ve been born, so I have the full panoply of human rights.
I agree that you do have the full set of human rights. Your position makes that a lucky happenstance of the present laws of our country, does it not? Until Woe v Blade results in a new understanding that old bodies are not really human, and your kidneys belong to a human who needs them in order to flourish?
“Having been born” strikes me as a fairly bright line that it would be tough to override. Even in the worst days of slavery and Jim Crow, the legal system never pretended blacks weren’t human; it just played fast and loose with what that got them. We have no tradition in this country of treating people who have been born as not-human, and I don’t see that changing, at least not without a sea change in the legal system first.
Yes, what you say about our legal system is exactly what I meant – a temporary situation that may “be tough to override” as you say, but not fundamentally ruled out. Clearly one cannot rely on “tradition in this country” to forestall absurd decisions of the courts. So if “having been born” is a bright line for human rights to begin, then “having reached 65 years” is an equally bright line that could be declared as when these rights end. Can you suggest anything more fundamental as a basis for human rights (such as being biologically human) ?
65 is an entirely arbitrary number; why not 60 or 70 or 102? It’s not like birth or consciousness or even conception where a meaningful event has at least occurred.
Precisely – 65 is arbitrary, as are trimesters, and birth is a matter of inches from pre-birth. Any of these arbitrary choices are unfortunate for those on the wrong side of the line. Conception and death are the clear boundaries of a human life; why would you not wish to see human rights sacrosanct within these lines?
In nature, and in law, there are a lot of seemingly arbitrary lines that are unfortunate for those who are close but on the wrong side. I wish life were fair but it’s not. Sorry.
And the qualitative difference that you are missing is that living human being/not living human being is a significantly larger chasm than 64/65.
I don’t believe I am missing this difference at all. That is why I would argue that conception is the “bright line” at which a living human being begins. As the linked video shows, birth can be thwarted by the unscrupulous. The same reasoning that allows this could support the arbitrary ending of life, or human rights, at any stage. So I think the chasm in understanding might be on your side. It isn’t a question that is answered by biology.
Krycheck_2 wrote:
Notice how quickly Krychek_2 abandons all scientific or biological criteria and whips out the magical birth argument. Krychek_2 doesn’t bother to tell us how an arbitrary change in the geographic location of his body bestowed upon him humanness, let alone a “panoply” of “rights”. History isn’t going to look kindly on this kind of arrogant pseudo-scientific nonsense.
“Ah, so in the case of abortion the baby is considered a body part belonging to the woman, and then signed over to the abortionist.”
Yes. But if she changes her mind, doesn’t sign the baby over, and she is attacked the next day, causing the baby to die, then then attacker can be charged with murder. The baby magically becomes human or not, dependent upon nothing in its own makeup, scientific or otherwise.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Would these be human body parts, or some other species? According to scientific biological classification, are these parts of the mother’s body, or of a genetically distinct body?
It’s always fun to watch Krychek_2 completely fall apart on the scientific merits.
The words “child” and “baby” can rightly refer to what Hillary calls “unborn persons”.
From m-w.com (that’s Merriam Webster):
baby: 1 a (1) :an extremely young child; especially :infant
child: 1 a :an unborn or recently born person
If you go to the US National Library of Medicine, these definitions are what it takes you to. — https://medlineplus.gov/mplusdictionary.html
Merriam Webster is being circular. If a baby is an extremely young child, and a child is an unborn person, then a baby is an unborn person? I don’t think so.
However, so as not to be distracted by that issue, I shall rephrase: I don’t think a fetus is a human being.
The dictionary is indeed circular because it uses words to define other words. That doesn’t make it wrong.
A=B, B=C => A=C, does it not? Would you call that circular? Would you say “I don’t think so”?
Was Hillary wrong to call them “unborn persons”?
I very much doubt that Hillary called them unborn persons with the same meaning that you would ascribe to that phrase, but what I think you’re doing is trying to win the argument by re-defining words. I also very much doubt that very many people would understand “child” to include the unborn, and the real test of a definition is how it is understood by the masses. The purpose of language is to communicate, and if you’re using a word differently than how most people understand it, I don’t care if you can find a dictionary to back you up.… Read more »
I also very much doubt that very many people would understand “child” to include the unborn, and the real test of a definition is how it is understood by the masses. I personally know a few hundred who would. But I also wonder, if the majority of people agreed, would you go along with the masses? What if the majority called the unborn child a human being? Would you agree then? If not, then what’s the point of your first paragraph? I very much doubt that Hillary called them unborn persons with the same meaning that you would ascribe to… Read more »
That few hundred does so out of religious dogma rather than biology, but be that as it may, if the understanding of the person in the street were that “child” includes fetuses, then I would say that we need a different word to describe only those children who have been born. And whichever word that turned out to be, would describe those who are biological human beings and legal persons.
Not whether, but which.
Legal persons – is it birth or consciousness?
I also disagree that every philosophy is religious — if so, why have a separate word for it? — and I think the biological answer is consciousness, the legal answer is birth.
The aspect of religion that you mentioned is equally appropriate in referencing a naturalistic worldview. It’s not because of supernaturalism or theism that causes Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists to speak and act in accordance with their beliefs about what is true. The exact same thing applies for the Naturalist, the Determinist, or the Materialist. And your Scientistic outlook would also apply.
But the problem is that if everything is religious, then nothing is religious. If “religion” is merely a catch-all term that applies to every world view, then it’s a meaningless concept. Religion only has meaning if you can distinguish religious world views from non-religious ones. So, can you give me an example of a non-religious world view? If you can’t, then the term means nothing.
Taking the common definition of religion as only encompassing supernatural worldviews, Scientism is a non-religious worldview. – “the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society” (from wikipedia, with citation).
So now you’ve lost me. I thought you said that naturalism is religious, but now you’re saying that science is a non-religious world view. Please clarify.
I thought you said that naturalism is religious, but now you’re saying that science is a non-religious world view. Please clarify. If you’re using “religion” to mean only supernaturalistic worldviews, then of course naturalism is non-religious. What I said was that the same “belief affects words and behavior” aspect of “religion” applies also to non-supernatural worldviews (like naturalism). The aspect of religion that you focus on is adherence to worldview, which shows up as words and actions in accordance with that worldview. But you ascribe this aspect of worldview adherance ONLY to supernatural or theistic worldviews. That’s the problem. And… Read more »
jigawatt wrote: If you’re using “religion” to mean only supernaturalistic worldviews, then of course naturalism is non-religious. This is actually incorrect. Adherents of naturalism must suspend nearly every law of nature as they approach an account of origins within their religion. The entire universe itself becomes positively magical, and becomes the very essence of what it means to be supernatural. Naturalism simply ascribes to nature all of the supernatural properties that we affirm in a personal God. They do it all with a straight face, while insisting that they are strict disciples of scientific methodology. If Krychek_2 wants an example… Read more »
That’s a good point. I was thinking of just naturalism itself, as some sort of Platonic ideal as it were. And I have encountered some folks who were pretty hard naturalists but were agnostic with regards to origins. But I agree, reducing down pretty much any worldview that is lived out (maybe Nihilism excepted?) would uncover some de facto super-natural element. Thankfully I have never encountered a consistent Nihilist.
Yes, beliefs do affect words and actions, but it’s only religious if the underlying belief is religious.
Yes, beliefs do affect words and actions, but it’s only religious if the underlying belief is religious. Finally getting back to the point here, I will observe that Krychek_2’s refusal to call the unborn child a child or even a human being is done out of adherance to his presupposed worldview. I’ll gladly admit that my worldview influences the way I think and talk about unborn children. They are precious, beautiful, vulnerable, amazing, little people that God is knitting together in their mothers’ wombs. Can Krychek_2 admit the influence his worldview has on the way he thinks and talks about… Read more »
Ironically, Krychek_2 continues to affirm the supernatural affects of birth, capable of bestowing instant humanness, personhood, consciousness, and Constitutional rights. All with only a small geographical displacement. Who says he doesn’t believe in miracles?
“Consciousness is the sine qua non by which we determine whether something has rights” is not a biological statement. It’s a chosen belief.
Actually, if the question is what rights does something have, that’s a legal inquiry.
Based on a philosophical idea. Law doesn’t tell people things about reality, people decide what the laws are.
Great point. Krychek_2’s appeal to the dictionary of the masses is just another example of his complete and devastating arbitrariness.
According to polls, the masses do draw distinctions between a fertilized egg and a late second or third trimester fetus. Do you also draw that distinction?
Yes. I think the bright line is when it acquires consciousness.
Do you think that applies equally to anyone already born who loses consciousness without a clear prospect of regaining it?
No. Once you’ve got it, you’ve got it.
Krychek_2 wrote:
…said the guy who was never able to present a test for consciousness the last go around. (He never learned the lesson of the Chinese Room Thought Experiment.)
So it seems Krychek_2 is just expressing a blind faith commitment regarding consciousness. Not sure why he thinks his faith should function as a bright line for us skeptics. As I recall, Krychek_2 rejects presuppositional approaches (internal worldview critiques), so I’m not sure what is left for him to use to persuade us.
Then someone had to define consciousness, and in such a way that it includes homo sapiens and excludes all other species… it would be simpler and more accurate to admit that human beings are human beings and go from there.
Embrace Occam’s Razor!
Please review Occam’s Razor. It does not mean “makes sense to me.”
Yes, human beings are human beings, but that doesn’t answer the question of what is a human being.
And when, exactly, does an unborn child “acquire consciousness”?
Usually around the time it has a functioning central nervous system.
So if it has a functioning nervous system, it counts as conscious.
Ind if that happens well before birth, what then? Does birth still remain your sine qua non of considering a child a human being?
As I told jigawatt, I would want to see more data.
Maybe. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but responding to stimuli does not necessarily imply consciousness. A houseplant responds to stimuli.
So that 16 week unborn child might have consciousness? If so, that would mean that it’s what exactly? A human being? A person?
I would want to see more data, but it might be both a person and a human being if it has full-blown consciousness and self-awareness.
“I’m pretty sure that’s a deer and not a person, but I might be wrong.”
“Go ahead and shoot, son. If it is a person, he’s trespassing on your property anyway. And here in the Republic of Texas it’s perfectly legal to shoot trespassers.”
jigawatt wrote:
Perfect.
So we reach the devastating end of Krychek_2’s nonsense. In regard to ethics, ignorance of the kind displayed by Krychek_2 would ordinarily require that he give the benefit of the doubt to the unborn, rather than error against a conscious, living, human person. But aside from all of the logical, biologic, and scientific failures, Krychek_2 also comes up short in basic ethics as well.
Krychek_2 wrote:
More data? He thinks this is a problem of quantity of data? Is Krychek_2 going to propose a solution to the Chinese Room? Good luck.
Anyway, Krychek_2’s so-called “bright line” seems to have just abandoned him in a fit of mocking laughter.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Um, didn’t Krychek_2 just try to tell us that the presence of consciousness was a “bright line”? What happened to his bright line? Where did it run off to now?
I’ve met people for whom it might be difficult to prove that happened at any point after birth.
Krychek_2 wrote: Yes. I think the bright line is when it acquires consciousness. But since Krychek_2 was previously unable to provide any test for consciousness, his bright line has become so dim as to be pseudo-scientific nonsense. Besides, from a purely logical standpoint, Krychek_2 has proposed both consciousness AND birth as his so-called “bright line”. But unless birth is somehow magically co-terminus with consciousness, they can’t both be bright lines. Do you have to cross both bright lines, or just one? If you only need to cross one, then clearly the other one wasn’t really a bright line after all.… Read more »
Yeah it was tough to not bring up Chalmers’ “Hard Problem of Consciousness” again. Well dang, there I went and did it.
This is why I almost never bother responding to Katecho; he’s not an honest opponent. I said birth was the legal line and consciousness was the biological line.
I blocked him altogether and never respond to him, for this exact reason. Not only did he lie about my positions almost constantly, but he seems to be unable to use the human skill of empathy to understand someone else’s position and consider whether it might be correct, and thus adjust his own position accordingly. It’s why other commenters on here have joked that he might be a computer script. I haven’t regretted blocking him since I did it. I think he posts less now too without me to fight with, so it’s probably better for his soul as well.… Read more »
Jonathan wrote:
There is no small amount of irony in watching Jonathan try to diagnose what is good for my soul, even as he continues to canvass the blog with his message that I’m a liar. Is it good for Jonathan’s soul to assume that I’ve been lying even without the benefit of actually reading what I’ve been writing? Is it good for Jonathan’s soul to be.declaring to others that I have no human empathy?
Krychek_2 wrote: I said birth was the legal line and consciousness was the biological line. Classic double-standard, but Krychek_2 still doesn’t seem to grasp the logical schizophrenia. So when biology recognizes the unborn as a child, but the law does not, apparently Krychek_2 abandons biology in favor of the current legal fiction. Brilliant. This is yet another example of Krychek_2’s retreat to “whatever is”. Having been betrayed by science and biology, he is simply hiding behind current arbitrary legalities that happen to be in his favor. Notice that Krychek_2 never explained how birth made any sudden biological difference in terms… Read more »
How I’ve missed you, Krychek_2!
Someone here actually missed me? Aw . . .
“I also very much doubt that very many people would understand “child” to include the unborn…”
I’ve heard the term “with child” to describe a pregnant woman’s condition. I’ve never heard that a woman was with fetus.
But anyway, hi. After all this time I didn’t think you were coming back.
Busy with other things. How’ve you been?
Fine, thanks. Been having fun here.
If you show a 2 year-old child a model of a 12 week old fetus, the 2 year-old will identify it as a baby. This is not because the 2 year-old is foolish or inexperienced, it is because the child can see the clear resemblance, and is unaware of the rubbish that proceeds from the tips of your fingers.
And if you show that same two year old how the sun is at different places in the sky during the day, that same two year old will say that the sun rotates around the earth. Not because he’s stupid, but because it’s an illusion; from our vantage point, it really does appear that the sun is moving around the earth. But that’s our vantage point and not objective reality.
Krychek_2 wrote: I very much doubt that Hillary called them unborn persons with the same meaning that you would ascribe to that phrase … Calling a fetus a child makes no more sense than calling an egg a chick or an acorn a tree. Krychek_2’s doubts aren’t relevant to what actually happened. In her interview with Chuck Todd, Hillary said: Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help… Read more »
And, lest we forget to emphasize, Hillary is a woman, a mother, AND a JD.
This is why I almost never bother responding to katecho; he’s not an honest opponent. In this case, he has ascribed a literal meaning to figurative language in one instance, and a literal meaning to an ironic statement in another.
I don’t like cats, but I live with someone who does, so I endure the presence of three of them. When I am being sarcastic I sometimes refer to them as my furry little friends. News flash: That’s not intended to be taken literally either.
Yes, he takes everything an “opponent” says as a potential tool for argument, rather than actually trying to figure out what they meant and trying to understand them.
I have never, ever seen him change a position or appear to learn something on this blog. I don’t really know what positive he gets out of it, or thinks anyone else gets from his games.
That’s why I blocked him and don’t reply at all.. Never regretted it.
Women are “with child” people say “the baby is moving, touch my belly, feel it move”. Your just wrong in the word zone. Comparing eggs, sperm, skin, hair, etc. is catagorically different than the entity who makes these things viable. I just can’t see your honesty.
A human fetus must, by definition be a human being, as it is, scientifically speaking, the merging of half the DNA from two other human beings.
If its parents are humans, then it’s certainly not a puppy
He’s using “human being” in strict legal terms. Human beings have rights, and since unborn children CANNOT! then they must not be human beings. And remember, I’m the one who’s redefining words.
“He’s using “human being” in strict legal terms.”
Riiiiight… because that makes any sense, divorced from the biological definitions. /sarc
I think at one point he called an unborn child “human life” but not “a human life”.
*sigh*
That’s the schizophrenia of our current law. Scott Peterson is on death row in California because he was convicted of killing two people: his wife and his unborn son. If he had just killed his wife, he would have not been given a death sentence. So the unborn child has legal human status when we want to go after any killer other than its mother.
See my response to jigawatt above.
You are making distinctions without differences.
When you can’t be persuasive on logical, biological, ethical, or scientific merits, resort to current legal statutes.
Ironically, Krychek_2 thinks he’s the embodiment of scientific rationalism here.
No, I’m using it in the biological sense. There is a difference between human life and being a human being. The cells that fall off your nose when you scratch it are human life — they are living cells and they are human — but they’re not a human being.
They are also genetically identical to you.
The fetus is not.
How is that relevant?
The cells you scratch off your nose are genetically identical to you, meaning they are your cells and parts of your body, to scratch off or not as you will. They may be alive when you scratch them off but they won’t be very shortly after that. The fetus is its own entity – a separate human being that is not you. A fetus will also die if you dismember it and scrape it out, but since it is not you, it is not yours to do with as you will. Which means that scraping it out is right out.… Read more »
Since no one is genetically identical to anyone else, what do you mean?
Semper fi
John Crawford: How clever of you to ask a question and then lock the thread so I couldn’t reply! Fortunately I know a secret (LOL) technique to follow your other threads and bust in so I could answer you despite your lockout. You can only chose a form of sexual attraction where you FEEL some form of sexual attraction. If you’re not sexually attracted to someone, you can CHOOSE all you want, but it isn’t going to get your penis erect. But if you honestly believe gay/straight is a choice, perhaps you could tell us about how you were attracted… Read more »
I didn’t lock the thread. I didn’t even know it could be done, and would not do so if I knew. I’m here to debate issues, not shout in an echo chamber. I was never attracted to men. But attraction is not action. I am a normal man, attracted to women, and have acted on that. Normal people may recognize the attractiveness of a person of like gender and not be interested in sex with them. Or were you confused about that?! Choice need not be made by heterosexuals, because they are normal. Homosexuals are not normal, because they choose… Read more »
Okay, we’re making progress. You were never attracted to men, being only attracted to women. Now all you have to do is make the conceptual step (and it’s not a big one) to understand that some men are never attracted to women, being only attracted to men. It really is that simple. And yes, there is a difference between recognizing someone is attractive, and being sexually attracted to them. I can recognize Halle Berry as being attractive without being attracted to her; I have a bit of a fetish for pale-skinned girls so Halle Berry leaves me rather cold when… Read more »
No, I need make no such conceptual leap. I can leave it to science. There is no genetic explanation for homosexuality. All are genetically coded for attraction to the other sex.
Yep, they have the right, as Americans to be not normal. I have never disputed that. But when it becomes an in-your-face demand that I accept them, I reject that with all my heart. When it gets worse, and you go to courts to punish those who will not celebrate you, I hate you.
Semper fi
There’s no genetic explanation for psychopaths or people who are disco fans forty years after disco died either, but those people exist sure as the sunrise. But, if they have rights as you admit they do, they have the right to marry. They have the right to do business with any public business. These are the rights EVERYONE has, the rights I fought for, the rights you (theoretically) fought for, if your family is like mine the rights much of THEM fought for. If you have a problem serving everyone at your business, open a private club instead – the… Read more »
Genetic abnormalities exist for psychopath but not for dancers. ScyopTbks are often refused marriage, or other contact with normal people.
Semper fi
Genetic abnormalities exist for SOME psychopaths, not all. (The one common thread is childhood abuse.) Yes, we isolate dangerous people from the general population for the safety of all, even if they’re NOT crazy or have genetic abnormalities. GAYS present no danger to the general population, as they are no more violent or mentally ill than the average STRAIGHT person, UNLESS they have been abused as children at which point they have the same average incidence of violence or mental illness as abused STRAIGHT children. It may surprise you to find the APA has indeed researched this the past forty… Read more »
The APA was bullied into silence by the homosexual mafia and Democrat Party. Sorry, but you need to do your research.
Semper fi
Ah, yes, this BS again. It comes up every time I mention the APA in conjunction with gays.
And yet, NOT ONCE has anyone provide proof that didn’t come off an anti-gay conspiracy website.
So by all means, present YOUR version of ‘evidence’ for this. I’d be quite surprised if I haven’t seen it before and debunked it.
The evidence is there. But of course the “winners” write (and rewrite) the history books, and the SJW crowd are the winners for now.
Then present YOUR version of it, mkt, and we’ll see if it’s something new and rational or just another copy of the same-old same-old that John Crawford has and refused to post.
I think it’s important to note, however, that the original movement to have homosexuality classified as a mental disorder came from people who were largely sympathetic to gays. It was seen as a benevolent alternative to viewing homosexual conduct as a deliberate and morally evil criminal act punishable by a prison sentence. It was not until after the middle of the 20th century that it became clear that a diagnosis of mental disorder did nothing to reduce discrimination against gays. But, in my reading, I have not encountered any suggestion that altering the DSM was the result of action by… Read more »
Yes, if you’d bothered to research, you would see that may psychologists and psychiatrists left the APA over it’s bending to political will, rather than holding to principle.
Semper fi
Many people often seem to be under the impression that physicians are either mandated to be members of certain medical organizations, or feel that if a physician is a member, that it somehow gives them a greater degree of credibility. I can’t speak regarding the rules of every state, but at least in Tennessee, memberships in such organizations are voluntary. Physicians are not required to join, associate, or agree with any position which an organization may promote. Many physicians, may choose to follow or adopt guidelines which are developed by some organizations as being an appropriate and proper standard of… Read more »
Who’s bending to political will? The science showed that homosexuality held nothing in common with other mental illnesses. If anyone left the APA over it, it was because their religion told them homosexuality was wrong, which is not a professional scientific outlook.
Utter nonsense. Many mental illnesses have nothing in common with others. I think it’s time you tried critical thinking.
Semper fi
They have one major thing in common: Self-destructive behavior. YOU probably classify homosexuality as self-destructive ‘because the Bible says so’. Of course, that also makes eating a bacon cheeseburgers done rare self-destructive on three separate levels (the Bible proscribes consumption of pork, consuming any blood, and mixing meat and dairy together), which shows how ridiculous your claim is. The reality of homosexuality is that all negative impact on the person comes from EXTERNAL sources, not internal ones. Gays have the same rate of self-destructive behavior (outside of the one you consider to be self-destructive for religious reasons rather than scientific… Read more »
No, do some research. Not all mental illnesses include self-destructive behavior.
Homosexuals have a much higher rate of suicide. Where do you get this nonsense??
Semper fi
i heard an interview between a researcher and a gay gent recently who was taking PrEP, and the gay guy talked about how much flack he was getting in his own community for taking it. He was called things like a PrEP whore and other slanderous things and had to hide his trips to get resupplies and the necessary blood work. Why did he go to all that trouble? Because his two best friends’ boyfriends, while promising to be monogamous, had not been, and his friends had contracted AIDS. He didn’t want that to happen to him because he knew… Read more »
Two recent major studies (one British and one from the University of California) have found significantly reduced amounts of gray matter in the prefrontal cortex of incarcerated criminals who scored high on psychopathy scales. I would not be surprised if a genetic abnormality is located. This reduction has also been found in psychopaths who have not committed criminal acts. From what I have read, the threat of criminal conduct from those who have this reduction in gray matter (which links to inability to feel empathy and a sharply reduced ability to feel pain) can be reduced by a stable childhood… Read more »
Fair points as far as psychopathy goes. We lock up violent criminals even if they’re not psychopaths too.
Gays, on the other hand, do not commit violent acts at a rate higher than the straight average, so there’s no public safety justification for treating them differently THAN straights.
Yes, I agree. Has anybody been arguing to the contrary here?
Here? I don’t know. I followed John Crawford over here after he posted – in essence – that gays did not have the right to marry because they were morally wrong and mentally ill over in another thread that got locked.
Whether or not he’s the one who locked it us up for discussion, I suppose, but the end result is that since the discussion was FAR from over I came over here to continue it.
BTW, if you know how to lock a thread, please share that. I know that threads are locked for comments by moderators, and have frequently been chagrined when I found I could not post a comment on an interesting thread.
Semper fi
Would you mind staying at least as on topic an anyone else here?
Following people into completely different conversations on completely different threads (likely on completely different websites) is completely obnoxious.
I’m not the one who locked the other thread to appear to get the last word.
Can you provide a reference? When I google “human being” I see several definitions but none that exclude unborn children.
Your definition of “human life” seems to be basically “human tissue”. That sounds like a most unusual definition to me.
The lawyers and the biologists have a different focus so they’re never going to define things precisely the same way. But here’s the distinction I’m drawing: There is generic human life (individual human cells, cancerous tumors, individual human organs) but none of those things is considered A Human Life. When I lost my appendix a few years back, the surgeon who removed it was killing something that was human life, but not A Human Life. A Human Life requires significantly more than just being human and being alive. In order to be A Human Life, you need things like the… Read more »
Not any biologist with any sense of morality or common sense or education would even begin to think of a fetus as analogous to dead skin cells or an appendix. If you need to be able to “survive independently” to be considered “A Human Life” than there are millions of “skin cells” (or what some of us call “people”) in preschools, day-care centers, and nursing homes that could be easily disposed of using your logic. Even the Nazis had enough sense not to refer to their victims as “dead skin cells”.
“However, so as not to be distracted by that issue, I shall rephrase: I don’t think a fetus is a human being.” Which is a nonsensical thing to say. It it doesn’t belong to the species of homo sapiens, what is it? Fetus comes from Latin which means offspring. It is human, it is a life and abortion kills it. This whole business comes undone when you consider the federal law concerning the taking of a bald eagle egg. Why? Because it is illegal to kill bald eagles and those still in the egg are bald eagles too. If it… Read more »
It’s illegal to take eagle eggs because the purpose of the law is to protect the species. A fetus is human life — as are the cells I just scratched off my cheek — but not an individual person.
All of this talk about meaning in a “biological sense” and yet you’re pretending that shed skin cells are analogous to a complete organism. Because biology cannot distinguish between an organism and its tissues.
Where did I say that shed skin cells are analogous to a complete organism? I’ve said the opposite, in fact.
I don’t even know where to begin to respond to such stupidity. This is why our civilization is on the way out.
Well, that is easy to debunk, a fetus is an individual person, it has it’s own DNA, distinct from both the mother and father. The cells you just scratched off your cheek do not have DNA different than your own and are in no way similar to a fetus in this way. What you fail to articulate is when a fetus miraculously becomes an “individual person”. At what point during our development do we reach that stage?
That ‘s because you are lost. Please repent of your sin you poor creature. Turn to Christ Jesus and be saved from the blackness of your worldview. Christ rose from the dead and can save you from the coming wrath. Please read The epistle to the Romans and you see how you can be made righteous in Jesus before it’s too late for you. May God bless you with real freedom.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm
Science and government call a unborn child a baby at 5 weeks. The circle of people who define these words as Krychek_2 does is getting so small he’ll have to stand on one foot to stay inside.
“people allow their bodies to be used”. Fetuses don’t allow their bodies to be used, or dismembered.
We can test this, actually.
Just answer these questions:
How many of PETA’s slaughter house and battery farm videos were shot in California?
Of those videos, how many were praised in the press or their makers given awards for investigative journalism?
Of those videos, how many were the subject of judicial gag orders?
Please provide us some citations; my strong suspicion is that the answers won’t be what you think they are.
On the contrary, you are the one who has asserted that the only reason the videos are being suppressed is because of California’s consent-to-record statutes.
I have merely laid out the criteria for testing this assertion.
It’s your assertion to prove, however.
Where did I say that was the *only* reason? I said that was the reason given in the order. However, your “criteria for testing” are in the nature of affirmative defenses, which means you do have the burden of proving them. You’re essentially saying the order is a pretext, at which point the burden does shift to you.
Fair enough.
In Wilkins vs NBC a California appeals court found that NBC news did not violate the same law when they secretly recorded a lunch meeting, stating, “we conclude that Wilkins and Scott had no objective expectation of privacy in their business lunch meeting.”
It should be obvious to anyone who has seen the clips in question that the people being recorded were in the presence of any number of people who could have overheard them and would therefore also have no objective expectation of privacy.
This particular left leaning commentator simply disagrees with your premise that a fetus is a child,
Krychek_2,
What would it take for you to agree that a fetus is a human being? is there anything?
That goes to the nature of what does it mean to be a human being. What separates a human from a dog or a pig or an oak tree. And the answer to that is consciousness, self-awareness, the ability to put two thoughts together. Show me a first-trimester fetus who can do that and I’ll reconsider.
According to your description, it has to be levels of self-awareness or consciousness also, right?
My dog certainly possesses some level of consciousness. Whether she has any self-awareness is difficult to determine without a means of effective communication. Newborns probably do not have self-awareness. They have a rudimentary form of consciousness, but it is less developed than a dog’s I should think.
Does your understanding of abortion limit it to only while the fetus is in the mother’s body or are you okay with abortion after birth?
I find consciousness much too vague to be useful. Does a brain damaged baby have consciousness such that Krycheck would respect?
Jeremy Bentham said that the question (about whether beings have rights) is not whether they reason or talk, but whether they suffer.
I would have thought so. I saw my baby on ultrasound two days before she was born, and she looked pretty conscious to me! Touching her hair and so on.
I agree, Jilly. I’m just trying to understand his argument about self-awareness and consciousness. If an unborn child is conscious (the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings), we cannot know (right now anyway) to what extent s/he is truly aware and to what extent s/he is responding to stimuli. On this I agree with Krychek_2. However, the same can be said of a newborn. His arbitrary dividing line of before and after birth for killing a baby is at odds with his consciousness argument.
Thanks for the link!
I’m not sure what “abortion after birth” would be — just simple infanticide, I would think. But no, I would not be OK — neither would I support a law allowing — killing a baby after it has been born. Wherever that line is, after birth it is definitely in the rear view mirror.
I haven’t seen an argument here that even remotely resembles science, and the people who do biology for a living mostly agree with me. And unless someone is in a catatonic state, which is usually temporary, they have some level of consciousness.
Oh good, since you have an advanced degree in biology — I only have an undergraduate degree in it — you can confirm that most people who do biology for a living agree with me. No, a person doesn’t morph in and out of personhood depending on whether they are awake or asleep, or whether they are in a coma in the hospital, or because they are in a developmental state that leaves them less advanced than average. An apple tree is still an apple tree in the dead of winter when there are no apples anywhere on its branches.… Read more »
Thanks. If I’m understanding you correctly, your dividing line for whether an organism is human is some level of consciousness/self-awareness. Is it correct to say that you believe that point is reached sometime in utero?
Yes, although it’s not entirely clear when that happens. Probably around the time the central nervous system is in place.
Thank you. I appreciate your responses as it gave me an opportunity to study some things.
Apparently the CNS is developed around 16 weeks. At that time, the fetus exhibits a waking/sleeping brain pattern very similar to a newborn. I would think this is a good indication of consciousness.
Would you agree then that abortions performed after 16 weeks are performed on human beings?
Perhaps, although I would like more data. I will candidly acknowledge that it isn’t known precisely when consciousness sets in, though that isn’t relevant to the question of whether in the abstract consciousness is a legitimate bright line.
I will also note that most abortions are performed earlier than 16 weeks.
I will also note that most abortions are performed earlier than 16 weeks.
Thanks for the conversation, Krychek_2.
Perhaps, although I would like more data Krychek_2, you ask for more data a lot. What I think we all want to know is what will you do with it? Will you dismiss it outright? Will you bring up smoke screens and rabbit trails about the definitions of words? Will the content of the data determine how you treat it? And, most importantly, IF you were convinced that sufficient evidence existed for unborn children having consciousness at 16 weeks gestation, what would you then say about pre-16 week abortions? They are legal, for sure, but what would your moral response… Read more »
Yes, I like data. It’s harder than just making pronouncements based on presuppositions that aren’t testable, but you usually end up with better information. The real problem here is that the measuring stick — consciousness — is difficult to use because there is no real conclusive evidence for when a fetus crosses that line. But that is a separate question from whether that measurement — if we ever do get clear and unambiguous data — is the right question to ask. And I go back to what separates humans from other living things, and consciousness seems to be it. I… Read more »
Most of the time the fetus’s right to life will prevail because it now is a person, but I can think of situations in which it wouldn’t. Life is not always simple and easy. And does it bother you at all that our laws allow for the abortion of little children? This goes back to the deer scenario. Unless I know for sure it’s a deer and not a person, I MUST not shoot. there is evidence to suggest that a tendency toward criminality and sociopathy has a biological component; psychopaths may have a different brain structure than you do.… Read more »
Re your final paragraph, I disagree that a reasonable line can’t be drawn between a fetus and a five year old. The job of the law is to draw lines.
Would you care to make the case for why allowing 5 year old Bundy to grow up to be a mass murderer would be a good thing?
So you’re ok killing a human being 2 seconds before birth but not 2 seconds after.
I’m OK with not having false alternatives in which the only two choices are the extreme ends of the spectrum. As I told Sam Adams, there are two extremist wings. One thinks there should be no abortions at all, and the other thinks the woman can do as she pleases right up until the moment the head emerges from the birth canal. Neither of those extremist positions is helpful because life is complicated and messy and rarely black and white. Once Ted Bundy has been born, he has rights, and those have to be taken into account. So the line… Read more »
You write as though you either are or have/know an infinite reference point. Are you the infinite reference point? If not, who, or what, is he/she/it?
I know quite a few people who lack self-awareness and the ability to put two thoughts together. This strikes me as a dangerous set of criteria.
Krychek- You said ” And even if the fetus is a child, the sale of human body parts for profit is hardly new — human hair is sold to make wigs, people routinely sell their blood to blood and plasma centers, people allow their bodies to be used to test new drugs and medical procedures (and are compensated for it), fertility clinics compensate sperm donors. Legitimate, beneficial medical research is being done on these body parts that has the capacity to help people with real medical needs, and refusing to use them for that purpose accomplishes nothing except to deprive… Read more »
“Illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all parties”?
Someone should tell California about the NSA and its associated leakers!
????
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm
Science and government calls the unborn child “baby” at 5 weeks.
I think this thread is about done but I’d like to post this here for reference.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/landmark-harvard-essay-preborn-child-constitutional-person/
What is most appalling of all is that NOBODY CARES about any of this. If a koala stubs its toe on a stone, the whole twittersphere erupts. If millions of babies are slaughtered and their body parts bartered, silence. God is not mocked. We will pay a fearful and fatal price for this.