No More Bin Laden

[Jester]

To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

This seems to be begging the question, no?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

... I feel life is precious, but unlike you, I think people deserve the right to live, not be forced into a lifestyle where they will grow up ignorant, resentful, and destined for a criminal life. Who knows, maybe they could be one of the lucky ones... maybe not. But I think abortion has its purpose in this world!

So... life is precious and the innocents should be killed to prevent them from being raised by bad parents? I'm not so sure that kids raised by drug dealers are doomed to a depraved life, like Stanley Armour Dunham (infamous drug user during the 70's on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki) who raised a pretty successful grandson. These kids sometimes grow up to become president of the US.

The scary reality described by Lavcat regarding Edwin Katzenellenbogen hits all too close to home here as well. My wife's family has a history of genetic eye problems (about a 20% chance per child). Two of my wife's relatives were sterilized as adolescents in Faribault at their mother's insistence. I have one son without issues, and one son with issues (his lens was removed at 6 months old, and he had a new one implanted last year when he was 7 years old).

[ShadowHM]

I just have to comment: I am thoroughly amused at how a thread on the death of bin Laden has morphed into a repetition of the Great Abortion Debate, with accompanying assertions about the value of life. Congrats to all involved.

[kandrathe]

I just have to comment: I am thoroughly amused at how a thread on the death of bin Laden has morphed into a repetition of the Great Abortion Debate, with accompanying assertions about the value of life. Congrats to all involved.

I had to look back to page two to see how we got here again. I blame eppie for tossing out the "traditionalist" gauntlet! But, it was I who chomped on his bait once again defending the generalization of perceived evils of traditionalists.

"Whosoever has spared the life of a soul, it is as though he has spared the life of all people. Whosoever has killed a soul, it is as though he has murdered all of mankind." -- Qur'an 5:32

[Alram]

To my mind, one of the sad effects of abortion issue is the way it has caused so many decent intelligent people to dehumanize the child in the womb.

This seems to be begging the question, no?

-Jester

Begging what question? We have been sold a bill of goods by the pro-abortionists, and otherwise compassionate and intelligent people have come to believe that this is a woman's issue, that the child in the womb is not really a child at all.

I just have to comment: I am thoroughly amused at how a thread on the death of bin Laden has morphed into a repetition of the Great Abortion Debate, with accompanying assertions about the value of life. Congrats to all involved.

Well, I googled both abortion and al Qaeda together as search terms, and this is what I came up with:

Abortion is worse than al-Qaeda,' says Duke of Kent's son Lord Nicholas Windsor
Lord Nicholas Windsor, the son of the Duke of Kent, claims that Islamic terrorism is not such a big threat to Europe as abortion.


The Duchess of Kent has withdrawn from public life to such an extent that she is often described as a recluse, but her son Lord Nicholas Windsor is determined to speak out over causes that he believes in.

Lord Nicholas, 40, who lost his place in the line of succession when he became a Roman Catholic, has written a controversial article in which he claims that abortion is a bigger threat to Europe than al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism.

He describes abortion as "the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life" and calls for a "new abolitionism for Europe" in which abortion, like the slave trade, can be abolished.

While the threat of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda calls for "robust and, where necessary, lethal response", he claims in the American religious journal First Things that "these are not threats that appear existential and have not as yet provoked a real sense of public crisis".

I couldn't find any connection though between Osama and abortion.

[Nystul]

I couldn't find any connection though between Osama and abortion.

Yet you put them together in one link, so in our gamifying education class you get a gold star.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Begging what question?
... that the child in the womb is not really a child at all.

First, to be clear: "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where one side asks the other to accept an assumption that is logically equivalent to the conclusion that the asking side is trying to prove. Although often used by ignorant people to mean "raising the question", it is not the same thing.

Second, calling a fetus a "child in the womb" is a perfect example of begging the question. The anti-abortion argument that it is wrong to kill a child is hard to dispute. By getting your pro-choice opponents to accept the premise that a fetus is a child, you win the argument by leaving aside the more complex issue of what a fetus is and whether aborting a fetus is justified and under what conditions.

It is similar to the "child pornography is evil because children need protection" crap that floats around. By defining neither 'child' nor 'pornography' until after the opponent has accepted the premise, you win an argument that is nonsense on the face of it. Is a 17 year old a child? Does he become an adult at the stroke of midnight on his 18th birthday? What if he lives near a time zone line. If he crosses that line at 11:00 PM his time and 'becomes' an adult by doing so; engages in a pornographic photo shoot; then crosses the line back at 11:30 PM his original time, are those photos child pornography? Is a picture of a naked baby pornography?

As soon as someone calls a 'fetus' a 'child', I realize that I'm dealing with an unthinking product of some form of indoctrination. At that point, I realize the game is not worth the candle -- the damage done to that brain is as insidious and as permanent as a lobotomy. Unless the person in question is no more than in his mid teens, there is no hope of him ever becoming a logical, rational individual. One cannot have a discussion with such an individual, because the very possibility of a position contrary to his which is not wrong is not a concept his damaged mind can contain or comprehend.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

As soon as someone calls a 'fetus' a 'child', I realize that I'm dealing with an unthinking product of some form of indoctrination. At that point, I realize the game is not worth the candle -- the damage done to that brain is as insidious and as permanent as a lobotomy. Unless the person in question is no more than in his mid teens, there is no hope of him ever becoming a logical, rational individual. One cannot have a discussion with such an individual, because the very possibility of a position contrary to his which is not wrong is not a concept his damaged mind can contain or comprehend.

Would that be opinion, or fact?

Technically a child is any offspring that is not yet an adult, then again circularly, is it offspring if is isn't yet born? But biologically, a child is post birth, but your splitting hairs argument applies. Is it child if it could be born, but for some reason the birth is delayed by a few days or weeks (post term)? The word embryo comes to mind to define the in uterus potential non-human stage.

[ShadowHM]

Hi,

Begging what question?
... that the child in the womb is not really a child at all.

First, to be clear: "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where one side asks the other to accept an assumption that is logically equivalent to the conclusion that the asking side is trying to prove. Although often used by ignorant people to mean "raising the question", it is not the same thing.

Second, calling a fetus a "child in the womb" is a perfect example of begging the question. The anti-abortion argument that it is wrong to kill a child is hard to dispute. By getting your pro-choice opponents to accept the premise that a fetus is a child, you win the argument by leaving aside the more complex issue of what a fetus is and whether aborting a fetus is justified and under what conditions.

It is similar to the "child pornography is evil because children need protection" crap that floats around. By defining neither 'child' nor 'pornography' until after the opponent has accepted the premise, you win an argument that is nonsense on the face of it. Is a 17 year old a child? Does he become an adult at the stroke of midnight on his 18th birthday? What if he lives near a time zone line. If he crosses that line at 11:00 PM his time and 'becomes' an adult by doing so; engages in a pornographic photo shoot; then crosses the line back at 11:30 PM his original time, are those photos child pornography? Is a picture of a naked baby pornography?

As soon as someone calls a 'fetus' a 'child', I realize that I'm dealing with an unthinking product of some form of indoctrination. At that point, I realize the game is not worth the candle -- the damage done to that brain is as insidious and as permanent as a lobotomy. Unless the person in question is no more than in his mid teens, there is no hope of him ever becoming a logical, rational individual. One cannot have a discussion with such an individual, because the very possibility of a position contrary to his which is not wrong is not a concept his damaged mind can contain or comprehend.

--Pete

Thanks, Pete! That was a much nicer response than I could muster.

I would cut to the "If you feel that strongly about abortion, don't have one. And keep your opinions about my decisions about my body to yourself, because they really are not relevant."

The only person who has a relevant opinion other than the woman who is pregnant is her partner, who has two alternatives: giving her moral support as she makes her decision or getting out of her life, because if he thinks he can control her body, he should be kicked out her life.

Yes, I am rather firm in that opinion. I think it is regrettable that there is a need for abortions at all. I really wish all pregnancies were wanted. But I also wish there was peace on earth and good will in all men too...

That is all I have to say on this matter. Luckily, where I live, I don't need to persuade anyone to see it my way. The status quo reflects that 'if you feel that way, don't have an abortion' attitude.

[Alram]

Apparently I have a damaged brain because I do not agree with Pete.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Apparently I have a damaged brain because I do not agree with Pete.

If you have a damaged brain, then it is not because you disagree with me but because you don't understand what I'm saying. If it can be fixed, it's called ignorance. If it can't, it's called stupidity.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Would that be opinion, or fact?

That would be a fact.

Technically a child is any offspring that is not yet an adult, then again circularly, is it offspring if is isn't yet born?

Nice definition. Now define "offspring" and "adult".

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

First, to be clear: "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where one side asks the other to accept an assumption that is logically equivalent to the conclusion that the asking side is trying to prove. Although often used by ignorant people to mean "raising the question", it is not the same thing.

I didn't know that. And I'm fairly certain I've made this mistake before.

If it can be fixed, it's called ignorance. If it can't, it's called stupidity.

Which only begs the question was I stupid? and raises the question was I ignorant?

[eppie]

I had to look back to page two to see how we got here again. I blame eppie for tossing out the "traditionalist" gauntlet! But, it was I who chomped on his bait once again defending the generalization of perceived evils of traditionalists.

Paah,

I at least tried to steer the discussion back to Bin Laden (without any succes).

[eppie]

As But biologically, a child is post birth, but your splitting hairs argument applies. Is it child if it could be born, but for some reason the birth is delayed by a few days or weeks (post term)? The word embryo comes to mind to define the in uterus potential non-human stage.

Splitting hairs? I am not sure.
If you choose to take this discussion to 'when can you call and embryo a child' it doesn't become anymore scientific.
Does it mean that whenever doctors were able to save the life of a very prematurely born child and set a 'new record' of minimal time in the womb and still alive we have to change the laws here?
Also in Africa most children that are born only a little bit prematurely will die during or just after birth while here in the west survival rates are a lot higher. Does that mean the date untill when you can have an abortion should be different in Africa?
Shouldn't the extreme pro-lifers better move to Africa and save children there?


I think we all agree that often abortion is the best thing to do.
We all agree that abortion should not be done because the mother wants to continue partying.
I think that both in countries where abortion is legal and in countries where it is illegal personal drama's happen.
I as pro-choicer want to be sure that abortions because of gender will not happen (at least not in my country) and I also realise that this might be difficult to check. But just banning abortion will not be the right thing to do.
But most of all I think that it is the mother and fathers business. No government should tell a mother what to do with her body. And the most important thing to realize for both sides in this discussion is that having an abortion is a terrible thing for the mother and a choice that is not taken lightly. The exceptions on this should not be why we shape our law a certain way.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Which only begs the question was I stupid? and raises the question was I ignorant?

Clearly, you were ignorant.

I often have this image: I'm standing in the main aisle of a library. It extends away from me to a vanishing point. Every few feet there are side aisles lined with bookcases, each of those isles also extending past the reach of the eye. All those bookcases are filled with books, each of which contain at least one fact I do not know. Behind me is an alcove, holding maybe 5,000 books -- it represent everything I do know, including misconceptions.

We are all ignorant. The only difference being in what.

But how does it beg the question?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Splitting hairs? I am not sure. If you choose to take this discussion to 'when can you call and embryo a child' it doesn't become anymore scientific.

Yup, without tangible criteria for defining "living human", we get tangled in semantics. Is it alive? Does it contain human cells with the appropriate configurations of chromosomes? Is it corporeal rather than an appendage? Between 10 weeks (late embryonic stage) and 14 weeks (early fetal stage) the transformation occurs that makes the mass of tissue appear human, and its been this human-like appearance which has been the criteria for thousands of years. But, victims of horrible disfiguring disease or accidents often don't look human either. It's not clear to me when killing it is not a murder. Science is very good at telling what is and what is not, except for the bounds of our own ethics and morality. Maybe I'm weird, or different, but for me, I grieve for the needless deaths of all living things, including trees. Having studied a variety of world philosophies, I'm very attracted to Buddhist philosophies on life and living.

According to the teachings of Buddha, five conditions must be present to constitute an act of killing.

• the thing killed must be alive
  
• you, the killer, must know or be aware that it is alive
  
• you must have the intention to kill it
  
• there must be an effort to kill
  
• the life must be killed as the result

Does it mean that whenever doctors were able to save the life of a very prematurely born child and set a 'new record' of minimal time in the womb and still alive we have to change the laws here?

No, it just means that we need a clearer definition of when, and how you determine when a lump of dividing cells can be called a human being worthy of constitutional rights.

Also in Africa most children that are born only a little bit prematurely will die during or just after birth while here in the west survival rates are a lot higher. Does that mean the date until when you can have an abortion should be different in Africa? Shouldn't the extreme pro-lifers better move to Africa and save children there?

Children die from malnutrition, disease, neglect and are murdered by their parents all over the world. There is nothing notable about Africa, other than its renown for poverty.

I think we'd all be better off if we cleaned up the issues resulting in the need for abortions in our own families first. Socially, I'd be in favor of better prevention, better education, better family support, better parenting, better planning, and better access to pregnancy prevention methods and I feel it would make a very big dent into making abortions a non-issue.

I think we all agree that often abortion is the best thing to do.

Often? No, I wouldn't agree. It is an extreme procedure done after prevention was ignored, or after a crime has been committed and covered up. We'd reduce about 95% of abortion, just through ensuring that those engaging in sexual activities used multiple forms of pregnancy prevention when they didn't want a pregnancy. Culturally, we need to take the *shame* out of being attracted to the opposite sex, and then acting on and fulfilling that desire. If I had a daughter in this day and age, I would just plan on introducing her to pregnancy prevention at puberty. I intend to impress on my two boys (within a few years) with their responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well.

We'd reduce another 2-3% by making pregnancy prevention a standard and normal part of rape examinations. And incest... well, that's just messed up and I don't know how to fix it.

We all agree that abortion should not be done because the mother wants to continue partying. I think that both in countries where abortion is legal and in countries where it is illegal personal drama's happen. I as pro-choicer want to be sure that abortions because of gender will not happen (at least not in my country) and I also realize that this might be difficult to check. But just banning abortion will not be the right thing to do. But most of all I think that it is the mother and fathers business. No government should tell a mother what to do with her body. And the most important thing to realize for both sides in this discussion is that having an abortion is a terrible thing for the mother and a choice that is not taken lightly. The exceptions on this should not be why we shape our law a certain way.

The problem in the US is that abortion is very often used as a form of birth control, and is most often performed due to a deficiency of responsible pregnancy prevention. So... let me figure out what your saying; selectively aborting a girl fetus is reprehensible, but aborting an unwanted fetus is acceptable. You say that no government should tell a person what they can do with the fetus in their womb, but I expect you have an opinion that requires the government to also intervene to protect the child after it is born. What about crack babies? Should they be protected from their negligent mothers while in the womb?

Some traditionalists believe that the way we rise above the beasts is by controlling our animal instincts and impulsivity. I believe they are misguided in feeling the need to separate ourselves from our nature, and that we differentiate ourselves from beasts by using our brains to take the danger out of our impulsiveness. We have an etiquette with our other normal bodily functions, such as eating, passing gas, going to the bathroom, cleanliness, etc. With the emancipation of women in the 60's, our etiquette regarding sexual relations is changing. It can't be limited to embarrassed whispers and rumors between confidants anymore. We can no longer assume that people will just figure out how to have sex responsibly.

[Alram]

Well put, Kandrathe.


Another issue is that of failed abortions. No medical procedure is 100% effective, and abortion is no exception. Some children are born alive after a failed abortion. These children are often are killed, or left to die and not provided with any medical care. Precise statistics are difficult to come by because of the lack of accurate reporting in many jurisdictions. But here are some:

Of the 8,008 reported induced terminations of pregnancy among Wisconsin residents in 2008, 80 percent were surgical, 19 percent were chemically induced, and 0.4 percent were surgical procedures following a failed or incomplete chemically induced termination of pregnancy.

Wisconsin Dept of Health statistics

It is unclear, in view of the federal born alive act, how surgical procedures could be utilized on a child subsequent to a failed abortion.

South Australia (SA) - The number of aborted babies delivered alive and left to die were as follows: in 2000 - 7 babies; 2001 - 14; 2002 - 7; 2003 - 3; 2004 - 13; 2005 - 5; 2006 - 3; 2007 - 5.

South Australian health department statistics


I don't know what kind of intellectual gymnastics can be used to justify either the killing or the failure to provide medical care for children who survive attempted abortions.

[Jester]

I don't know what kind of intellectual gymnastics can be used to justify either the killing or the failure to provide medical care for children who survive attempted abortions.

In the extraordinary case that a viable baby is born as the result of a failed abortion, yes, it would be unethical to "leave them to die." But do we actually have evidence of this happening?

Your second source is clearly advocacy rather than science (http://abortsa.com/index.html - not exactly where I'd go for my medical data) but even they count less than 0.1% of all abortions, for the one region and year they have anything resembling good data. But even this is suspect at best - the South Australian Health Department, when phoned up, really said "Oh, yeah, we totally left those babies to die"? It seems obvious that this is editorializing, and we have no idea what is actually being described.

From your Wisconsin report, 0.4% does not even refer to "children who survive attempted abortions" but rather, to the number of abortions where chemically induced abortion was tried, and failed, thus requiring surgery. Is there some reason to suspect this refers to something else?

I'm not convinced. The overwhelming majority of abortions happen at a time in pregnancy where the chances of the baby being viable at all, let alone after an abortion, are vanishing. The chances of anti-abortion websites portraying abortion providers as heartless murderers, on the other hand, approaches unity.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The chances of anti-abortion websites portraying abortion providers as heartless murderers, on the other hand, approaches unity.

And the probability of anti-abortion advocates lying is approximately the same as the percentage of Planned Parenthood funding going to abortions. I.e., 90%.

The above is not meant as a factual statement.

Lying for god is not wrong. After all, if he didn't want us to lie, he'd not make the truth so inconvenient for supporting his position.

--Pete