Abby Johnson urges Texas to spare mentally ill death row inmate
Everything’s bigger in Texas… including, unfortunately, hypocrisy. In the past year, Texas has seen major progress in its laws protecting the lives of preborn children. But it has made no analogous progress on the death penalty, and as a result, the inconsistency in Texas’ treatment of the right to life has grown larger.
 |
| Scott Panetti |
We’ve written before about anti-abortion support for the death penalty. While I disagree with that position, I grant that the distinction they’re making—that abortion ends innocent lives—isn’t ridiculous.
But here’s what is ridiculous, and unconscionable: Texas is scheduled to execute Scott Panetti, a man who almost certainly should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The Dallas Morning News recently published an editorial on the subject by none other than Abby Johnson. Johnson, as you probably know, is a former Planned Parenthood abortion worker who famously quit her job and blew the whistle on a range of misdeeds, including Medicaid fraud and abortion quotas. Her memoir, Unplanned, is on many a pro-lifer’s bookshelf (including mine!). She now runs an organization dedicated to helping abortion workers leave the industry. And while I realize that what I’m about to say isn’t really measurable, I’m going to just go ahead and declare that Abby Johnson is the most famous pro-lifer in Texas.
And she’s using her powerful voice to speak out on Mr. Panetti’s behalf, calling for his death sentence to be commuted to life in prison:
Leading mental health experts have said that, if the execution of Panetti goes forward, it would be “a miserable spectacle.” I could not agree more. Panetti does not even understand why he is being executed. He believes that Satan, using the state of Texas as his agent, is trying to execute him for preaching the Gospel while in prison.
The execution of Panetti would be more than an embarrassment to our state. It would undermine our commitment to protecting life, especially the most vulnerable, by extinguishing the life of someone clearly suffering from mental illness.
The editorial is worth reading in its entirety. And while Johnson doesn’t name names, I will. Panetti’s fate is initially held in the hands of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, appointed by the governor. If the Board recommends commuting the sentence, Panetti’s fate will then be in the hands of the governor himself: presidential hopeful Rick Perry.
Gov. Perry, the pro-life community is watching.
Well, even if Abby Johnson is a horrific liar about Planned Parenthood, for goodness-knows-what motivation, at least she's on the right side about the death penalty.
No state should be empowered to kill people.
No one should be empowered to kill unborn children just because they are unwanted.
Oh wow, what incredible irony. You're lying about Abby Johnson being a liar, AND you claim the state shouldn't kill people. I guess that only applies to born people? What if Panetti's execution was referred to as a post-birth abortion – would that make it more palatable to you?
FTR, I don't think Panetti should be executed, and I hope Texas does the right thing.
Yeah, Abby Johnson is a liar…
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/flashback-abby-johnson’s-suspicious-conversion-anti-choice-movement
Her story has more holes in it than swiss cheese
The irony here is fantastic. I love this. Like all pro lifers, Abby has a choice. She may choose to save innocent born babies or she may choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. Her choice is to let innocent babies die.
She lets innocent babies die and children die, yet has time to save fetuses and convicts. What a nutcase.
Care to explain exactly what you're talking about?
There are 1.8 born babies, 1.4 unwanted fetuses and 10 wanted fetuses that die each second. All pro lifers have a choice, they can save life from any of those groups, but if the choose any life other than the born life, then the born life dies. Why, because there are more people dying than can be saved. If a pro lifer spends one second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born people die and 10 wanted fetuses. So pro lifers don't save life, they kill born life to force the birth of fetuses and to save convicts. —–
What about the babies, why not save the babies?
Don't worry, in Texas we fry to order. No need to be guilty if you make the right people happy by being executed.
Right now Texas has paid out millions to those wrongly executed or scheduled to be executed. Why not spend more money, execute more people and help get the right people elected, again.
Hold on one second, please. You are saying that because she wants to save the unborn, she is killing the already born instead. That has to be one of the most blatant logical fallacies I've seen lately. You have some pretty numbers, but how about some facts and statistics to back them up? And, while you are at it, some proof of how pro-life organizations are doing absolutely nothing to save the already born.
He equates voluntary abortion with involuntary miscarriage. The argument is asinine. Its like saying we should let people drink and drive because non alcohol related vehicular death happens all the time.
Just ignore.
Ad hominem fallacy.
"Hold on one second, please. You are saying that because she wants to save the unborn, she is killing the already born instead."
No, that is not what I am saying, that is what scientific laws show. There are more people dying than can be saved. If you spend one second saving a fetus nearly two babies will die.
"That has to be one of the most blatant logical fallacies I've seen lately. "
There is no logical fallacy on my part. The fact is that your claim, unsupported, is an ad hominem fallacy at best.
"You have some pretty numbers, but how about some facts and statistics to back them up? And, while you are at it, some proof of how pro-life organizations are doing absolutely nothing to save the already born."
Sure, read the about page here: http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com and then read the thousands of QA.
I don't say you do nothing to save babies. I say you murder billions of real live humans and save a couple. The pro life movement is responsible for more murders than any group in history. There are over 2 billion pro lifers all murdering babies, children and adults along with causing the death of 10 wanted fetuses each second.
After reading that article it would seem like if Abby Johnson were right then Planned Parenthood would have had to lie… And we all know it is inconceivable that PP could ever lie about its goings on in the clinics…. Never mind underage girls forced to abort by their rapist step fathers, never mind teenage girls given an abortion without parental consent, never mind Medicaid fraud….let's just overlook the law suits PP has against it, shall we? We'll all sleep better in ignorance
You've unblocked me to tell me again that you endorse enslaving and abusing girls and women, at no matter what cost to their health, wellbeing, or their very lives: and you justify it because you think forcing human beings to have unwanted children is "good".
News for you, dear; slavery is never good.
So you are suggesting that PP routinely falsifies documents – gestational ages etc, just for kicks, right? If a woman comes in and is at 6 weeks gestation PP just records it as 14 for shits and giggles!
*eye roll*
AND you claim the state shouldn't kill people.
Yes.
No imperfect state should ever be empowered to kill people. That's why the prolife ideology – that ideology that killed Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, that kills girls and women all over the world – is so profoundly wrong. You want the state to be empowered to kill girls and women.
For girls and woman to be able to decide for themselves to terminate or continue their pregnancy, is a basic human right.
American prolifers demonstrate that their movement is all about denying girls and women access to reproductive healthcare, with every word they say about Planned Parenthood.
I am one of those pro lifers who is against the death penalty although unlike abortion, i don't believe it is INTRINSICALLY bad. Firstly, nowadays prisons are secure enough that I don't see a need to kill an inmate in order to guarantee the safety of the general population. Secondly if a state has the death penalty then it should be fool proof; that is if there is any chance you are executing innocents (like has happened in the past), then you should chance it on anyone. Unfortunately I don't think a governor gets elected in TX if he is soft on this issue…
"eye roll" is right! It is amazing how one could say "have a nice day" to you and you would probably answer "so you are saying you are forcing me to have a nice day… you forced day enjoyer!" You deliberately misconstrue! Does PP lie routinely? I'll chance a no on this question although the opposite would not surprise me Has PP lied in the past? yes. Deal with it
and then a meme comes along that makes me spurt soda from my nose!!
I never did block you. Laws telling women they cannot kill their unborn child for any reason under the sun after viability aren't 'enslaving' anyone are they? No. They are about PROTECTING unborn children. We need more laws to protect unborn children.
More than likely a newborn would be wanted – by someone who would love and care for him or her. And no, adoption isn't about providing a couple with a child it's about giving a new human being a chance at a full and productive life.
Right, so if a pro lifer has been found to be dishonest, you can simply put your fingers in your ears and claim "well PP LIES"
The other rumour that I have heard here is that PP purposely sells inferior birth control so that they can make more money off abortions
Pro lifers have such vivid imaginations, and it is charming how most of you oppose sex education and free birth control.
Laws telling women they cannot kill their unborn child for any reason
under the sun after viability aren't 'enslaving' anyone are they?
Little logic, here.
If a law is made, and enforced, that bans the legal termination of pregnancy at the girl or the woman's choice, then fairly obviously, the girl or woman who wants to end her pregnancy and is unable to do so because courts and police enforce the law, is being forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
She is being forced to provide her labour – pregnancy is nine months hard labour – because of a law that requires her to provide it, unwilling. Yes, this is closely related to slavery: the white Christian slaveowners of the US South were the ideological and spiritual ancestors of the white Christian prolifers of the US South today.
We need more laws to protect unborn children.
Unfortunately, American prolifers show literally zero interest in having laws passed mandating free pre-natal and childbirth healthcare for all pregnant woman, despite the plain fact that this would be an extremely effective way of protecting unborn children. Prolifers instead prefer the dodgy private charity that leads pregnant low-income women to lose their babies to the adoption industry.
As indeed your final paragraph shows: the desire to force women to produce babies for the purpose of removing the babies to the profit of the adoption industry is never far away.
You base your claim that Abby Johnson lied on a pro choice article that quotes PP. I merely pointed out that PP does not have the cleanest record when it comes to telling the truth. you are the one bringing up the inferior birth control (I actually had not heard that one… Seems a little dodgy I'll give you that). Basically the only source you can quote that mentions Abby Johnson is lying is a pro choice site, so I am just calling you on it.
It isn't a pro choice site. Its a site that monitors the lies that come out of rightwing mouths and think tanks. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you, but the anti abortion lobby is quite popular amongst the religious right.
Secular pro life claims to be secular and liberal. Funny, they have no problem criticizing right wingers on other matters, but as soon as it comes to abortion and the evil birth control mandate, its liberals who are lying and rightwingers who are the bastion of truth.
Give me a break.
Hi myintx. You should tell Edinburgh here how you volunteer for the adoption mill White Rose CPC in Texas.
Whoops,
Hope I didn't make you ruin your keyboard 🙂
Well that's probably because we only have 2 main parties in the U.S. and most people will fall on one or the other side of the spectrum. In reality however just because you ascribe to the views of one party doesn't necessarily mean you agree with all views. For example I identify on most issues with the dem try, but one of my non negotiables is abortion. In good conscience I need to vote for a pro-life candidate snd most of the time that candidate will be republican, even if I agree with little else. See because of the bipartisan system, you necessarily have to choose. I like Democrats for Life of America.
Still doesn't disprove my point. Liberals are correct about many things that liberal pro lifers care about, then suddenly liberals are pathological liars when it comes to support for abortion.
Think of all the babies you are murdering when you sleep, eat, and use the can. I hope you're happy, baby murderer.
My comment was Ad hominem? Really? All I did was ask you to back up your claims. Not once did I attack you as an individual. I also made no statement in need of support or justification. The burden of proof falls on you, the one who is making the claims in question, claims such as this one: "So pro lifers don't save life, they kill born life to force the birth of fetuses and to save convicts." And based on the answers I've seen from you thus far, pro-choicers would be at fault for the deaths just as much as the pro-lifers are. So please, explain.
Wow for someone who think they're are open minded, you have certainly negatednegated and alienated a lot of peoplepeople simply because they don't share your "correct" opinions.
Please don't throw rocks from you glass house unless you can show me one politician or lobbiest who hashas never lied.
Better adoption mill than abortion mill.
No. Beecause:
1) women are not baby factories for infertile couples
2) babies are not commodities
3) there are over 100k children who will age out of the foster care system, because people want healthy white infants.
You miss my point, which is that pro life "liberals" choose to demonize and pretend that PP does nothing but lie if certain information happens to disprove their narrative.
Yes because:
Adoption mills do not have the buckets of bloody human body parts. And no, I am not talking about Gosnell. Google and read: " my year as an abortion doula".
It's a pro-abortion article so try not to accuse the woman of lying.
This is the story
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/09/my-year-as-an-abortion-doula.html
Clearly, abortion is not a walk in the park, and not something done on a whim as pro liars like to claim.
So tell me, many of these women are poor, disadvantaged in some way, or teenage or pre teen victims of rape. Do you view these disadvantaged women and girls as mere baby factories for rich infertile couples? How cold.
Telling, however, that the ONLY message that you got from the article was about body parts. Well, that's all that is present in an abortion – just a body, as embryos are incapable of any sort of cortical processing. The women that you erase, however, are.
Adoption mills do not have the buckets of bloody human body parts.
No: in "adoption mills" if we're talking of the prolife warehousing of unwanted infants, the surplus children often die of neglect. For evidence, see any orphanage where women have or had no access to safe legal abortion.
For some reason, prolifers think this is better, and of course prolifers have no concern for the trauma and heartbreak of women forced to give birth to lose their child to strangers.
If you actually read "My Year As an Abortion Doula" and can still cope with being prolife, well, I guess you have no human feeling towards girls and women at all….
Tough. People have the right to kill to defend their rights. Learn to live with the disappointment.
**More than likely a newborn would be wanted – by someone who would love and care for him or her.**
More than likely, a healthy white newborn would be wanted. Infants of other races or with health problems will spend the next 18 years in an institution.
There – fixed it for you.
I believe this question has already been settled by myintx. She specifically stated that a rapist who was having his brain controlled by a computer was EVIL and should be KILLED.
If having your brain controlled by a computer doesn't get you a pass for rape, I sure as hell don't see how a slightly disfunctional brain gets you a pass for murder.
"My comment was Ad hominem? Really?"
Yes, using a personal attack to avoid a question is an ad hominem fallacy. Your claim that there is a logical fallacy, without proof, is an ad hominem attack on my post.
"All I did was ask you to back up your claims."
No, you said it is a logical fallacy and did not offer any proof.
"Not once did I attack you as an individual. "
In an ad hominem fallacy one does not have to make a personal attack such as "you are an idiot", all one has to do is use a phrase such as "that is a logical fallacy" and not offer proof. By attacking the character of the argument without poof, rather than the substance, you are offering an ad hominem fallacy.
"I also made no statement in need of support or justification. "
A claim of "logical fallacy" must be supported.
{{{The burden of proof falls on you, the one who is making the claims in question, claims such as this one: "So pro lifers don't save life, they kill born life to force the birth of fetuses and to save convicts."}}}
I have offered evidence to support my claim. I have made on error, you just are ignorant of my earlier postings. Go here and read the hundreds of posts on this site: http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com.
"And based on the answers I've seen from you thus far, pro-choicers would be at fault for the deaths just as much as the pro-lifers are. So please, explain."
No, pro choice people do not murder babies to save fetuses. We have no duty to save fetuses and we spend our time protecting our own lives and the lives of born humans.
Pro lifers commit "Murder by Omission", you might want to Google that.
And rather than claim I have not supported what I have said, why not read my postings on this site?
You are welcome to offer straw man arguments if you wish. You have no proof that a pro choice lifestyle murders anyone. Pro choice people do not claim to "save" babies, children or adults and have no duty to do so. Pro lifers claim to save babies but in fact murder them in an effort to save fetuses.
How so?
YES they DO view women and girls not as persons with lives, hopes and dreams, but as *things* to be used as public baby ovens for rich barren vultures. There, I said it.
Yeah. Pro lifers have sneered at me when I said that forced pregnancy can deny a women or girl her hopes and dreams. They will laugh and say "hopes and dreams, that is nothing compared to the life of the unborn baby"
Women and girls are not permitted, by pro life standards, to have hopes and dreams. Only men and zygotes are.
Great link. Thanks for posting it.
People die from lack of access to medical care. If the physicians you employ to murder unwanted "fetuses" instead spent their time treating illnesses in patients with no access to care, lives would be saved.
The fact is that before Roe there was a decrease of life under pro life rules. After abortion became legal there was an increase in life. So abortion has lead to more babies and pro life rules lead to less babies. Why, because with choice a woman cannot be forced to have an unwanted child and therefore can space out her children where she can afford more. So I am saving life as are the pro choice doctors that do abortions. If you think you can prove that abortion does not lead to more life, then now would be a good time to offer your proof.
So your idea is foolish, pro life ideas do not save life, they kill life. The kill born babies and the lead to fewer births. If you want to save life, just stop murdering born babies.
You're statistics don't mean anything because you don't consider an aborted fetus loss of human life.
Too which I would say kiss my arse.
You have a choice to consider born humans as life and you choose instead to kill born life. You murder babies and fantasize that fetuses are babies. You are a murderer and I save life.
Your holocaust puts Hitler's to shame.
You have a choice, just like Hitler. You can continue to murder innocent babies or you can stop your murders and save innocent babies instead. Your choice will be the same as Hitler's. You will remain a murderer of innocent babies, just as he did, until you are trapped and place a pistol in your mouth. Some day you will pay for what you have done.
Yet everyone here except you seems to think it's a valid point. And given that you are by your own admission a monster, who claims to have knowledge of brilliant, utterly compelling logical and ethical reasons why the embryo should not be protected, and are purposefully (according to you) not sharing those reasons with anyone else here, thereby causing the deaths of millions of embryos that deserve (if your claimed logical and ethical reasons actually exist) protection, I don't really see why anyone here should listen to what you have to say about MY comparisons being 'lame'.
**Adoption mills do not have the buckets of bloody human body parts**
I'd suggest you watch the movie 'Alive'. Absent a brain, 'human body parts' are meat. With or without a brain, no human, or human body parts have a right to occupy someone else's body. I might have sad feelies that Lady Black won't tolerate a mind controlled rapist, and you might have sad feelies that people won't tolerate an embryo. Learn to live with your sad feelies about that, the way I have to, because neither your sad feelies nor mine are going to create magical rights.
I am really trying to understand you here, Russell, and actually have been since I first saw you post this kind of stuff. Before I go any further, can I ask for a specific definition of what you consider murder? Also, you say that pro-lifers think fetuses are babies. When you say "babies", do you mean "infants"? I know that many people refer to fetuses as babies, but "baby" is not always synonymous with "infant".
If fetuses aren't fetuses, then what are they? Fetuses are human, so you're denying that they're human, too? Oopsies?
Ob/Gyns are generally the ones who perform abortions. Y'know, the ones who ALSO provide pregnancy, labour and delivery care? DARN, eh?
Abortion is not murder, since it IS illegal killing with malice aforethought. Abortion fulfills NONE of those requirements. Also, even when/where abortion was/is illegal, abortion was/is still not considered murder. Logic, antis lack MUCH of it, eh?
No, the ones who fight to prevent treatment to people with mental illnesses are YOUR ilk. Andrea Yates? The rape victim who was already suffering from a mental illness and got pregnant as a result of the rape, over whom you and the rest of you SICK anti-choicers salivated when she was forced to remain pregnant even AFTER an attempt at suicide AND whom you decried that she wasn't forced to remain pregnant LONGER? Finally, your ilk supports a right to life and mandatory health care for the fetus while complaining about being 'forced' to provide the same to living, BREATHING, walking, TALKING humans via the ACA. SICK hypocritical examples of humanity your ilk is, no?
Sorry, but Hitler was anti-choice, forced abortions for Jewish women and forced gestation for German women, NEITHER of which is PRO-choice.
Abortion is NOT a holocaust. Godwin's law, btw.
Women deserve the same rights as everyone else. The fact that you believe they don't exposes how you think of women as inferior, just like HITLER believed Jews were inferior AND how you think FETUSES are superior just like Hitler believed GERMANS were superior. Oops, again!
You don't read very well, do you?
Russell IS pointing out that more babies are born when compared to the number of pregnancies that are aborted. That's the way it happens to be, even now. MORE women choose to complete pregnancies than choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Finally, more babies being born at present vs fewer babies being being born in the past with both rates of abortion being about the same, proves even more how hilariously ignorant you are.
You murder babies.
You're an idiot. You can't use the "women have rights" argument with me because I believe abortion is akin to a woman killing her offspring. Has nothing to do with women being inferior in my eyes.
TLDR, sorry.
That is friggin hilarious!!
If every second spent saving a fetus allows two innocent babies to die, then every second spent killing a fetus allows two babies to die as well.
No, every second aborting a fetus saves the life of born babies and leads to more human life. http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=79
You are correct to admit that forcing the birth of a fetus allows two innocent babies to die. But abortion leads to an increase in babies and to the saving of born life.
"I am really trying to understand you here, Russell, and actually have been since I first saw you post this kind of stuff. Before I go any further, can I ask for a specific definition of what you consider murder?"
I use the legal definition of "Murder by Omission." A person with a duty to save life that does not save life can be found guilty of "Murder by Omission."
{{{Also, you say that pro-lifers think fetuses are babies. When you say "babies", do you mean "infants"? I know that many people refer to fetuses as babies, but "baby" is not always synonymous with "infant".}}}
Pro lifers have a spectrum of belief of what a zygote, embryo or fetus is in a moral sense. Any belief that a zef is anything other that what it actually is would be a false belief. A fetus has specific structural and functional differences that distinguish it from a baby, infant, child or adult. Not only does it have different organs, those organs function differently from those of any life after birth.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Ad hominem fallacy. If you can make a cogent argument then you can laugh without having depended on a fallacy.
"Think of all the babies you are murdering when you sleep, eat, and use the can. I hope you're happy, baby murderer. "
When I sleep, eat and use the can, it is in preparation for saving life. When pro lifers sleep eat and use the can it is in preparation for murdering babies.
Each second they spend is a second that 1.8 babies die and each second I spend is a second when I am laying the groundwork for saving 1.8 babies per second.
So the more women have abortions, the more babies are saved? If that's the case, you shouldn't be pro-choice, you should be actively convincing women to have abortions.
So by allowing my three children to be born, I murdered other babies? By the way, my wife has had three pregnancies make it past nine weeks and all three have turned out to be human. You would've snuffed those out to save babies.
Russell says Mother Teresa has murdered more than Hitler.
"Pro choice people do not claim to "save" babies, children or adults and have no duty to do so."
You claim that.
"Pro choice people do not claim to "save" babies, children or adults and have no duty to do so."
"When I sleep, eat, and use the can it is in preparation for saving life."
Yet your whole argument of sa vining babies is a sophism……
You quote yourself as evidence? Really?
But lets go ahead with your line of reasoning, then. I work with children for a living as a teacher. Part of my many responsibilities as a teacher is to be on the lookout for signs of abuse in the children, whether that be physical, mental, emotional, or sexual. Would you say that since I choose to focus and attempt to prevent abuse from happening to the kids I work with, I am at fault for all the other children who are being sexually abused? Since I chose to "save" the kids I work with, in following with your logic, I am obviously at fault for the millions of others who are dealing with the same issues. Or, since I decided to report the abuse I witnessed, just last week in fact, I am now committing Rape by Omission to all the women who were abused halfway around the world. Your faulty cause and effect logic, as well as a mass generalization or two, does not hold up. And If I am to google "Murder by Omission," I'd ask you to Google "Abortion kills lives." If pro-life commit Murder by Omission, pro-choice commit Murder by Commission. Oh wait, that's a logical fallacy. Hmmmmmmm.
I'm not a monster. I don't support the killing of unborn children for any reason a woman wants. You're the one who supports killing unborn children
There is no such thing as Rape by Omission. There is Murder by omission when you do not do your duty and save babies you claim. You area murderer and your life will be better if you will just stop murdering babies.
And no, pro choice people are not committing any type of murder at all. Constructing a straw man fallacy will not get you off the hook for murdering innocent babies. You are guilty, it is proved with scientific laws and you need to address your murders instead of making up crimes like "Rape by Omission. Murder by Omission really does exist, you should Google it.
Making an unsupported accusation is worthless.
I choose to save babies and you have the choice to save life or to kill it and save a fetus, you choose to murder the babies. You are scientifically proved to be a murderer.
Don't lie about what I say. When women have a choice there are more babies.
"Scientifically proved….." C'mon man, please stop with the poor grammar. You can't go around the net to abortion sites spouting your 6 laws using 6th grade grammar.
"But abortion leads to an increase in babies and to the saving of born life."
Stop contradicting yourself.
Oh goodness. Let me see. You have committed, in all, about three logical fallacies since you have started talking with me and you have still yet to prove your point with posts that are not made by you. First, you said that Pro-life people kill the living by saving the unborn. That is a simple "if-then" logical fallacy, not too mention that it is a mass generalization because it doesn't take into consideration all of the pro-life individuals and organizations around the world who are actively saving lives, born and unborn. So that's two right there. The only proof you have linked is an article that you wrote yourself on another website simply stating how often people die. That is not proof that in helping keep the unborn safe is actively killing the living. And it is also plea to an authority, but the only authority is you. You can't quote yourself and then accuse me of committing logical fallacy. And murder by omission is crap. If I am committing it, you and everyone else in this world is guilty of it. I still don't see how the active dismemberment of the unborn saves lives. That makes no sense. Until you bring me proof, and no, "Google it" does not count, you have only proven to everyone in reading this that you have left all logic behind. Congratulations. Yes, I know that last part was Ad Hominem. You can keep that comment to yourself, even though it is your only response so far.
Are you drunk again? READ YOUR OWN POSTS. You specifically said that you had these great logical and ethical reasons why the zef should be protected, and that you were purposefully NOT telling what they were.
If that is the case, then zefs are being killed, when they probably shouldn't be. If, in fact, there are such reasons. By purposefully not telling these great reasons you claim to know, you are allowing other people, in their ignorance, to kill zefs. That makes you a monster, for not telling the reasons you claim to have.
Either that, or you're just lying again, and you don't actually have these great compelling logical and ethical arguments you claim to have.
**You're the one who supports killing unborn children**
Sorry, but that doesn't make me a monster. If the great moral and ethical reasons you claim to know of actually exist, I don't know what they are, so it makes ME ignorant, and makes YOU a monster. If they don't exist, it still doesn't make me a monster, but does make you a liar.
Which is it, myintx? Do you have these great reasons and aren't sharing them as you claim, or do these great reasons not really exist? Are you a monster or a liar? Your statement leaves no other possibilities.
"Proven", bro! "Proven"!!! It's getting to be embarrassing.
As if abortion isn't murder. But it is.
Russell is delusional. He stated the following in two separate responses to me:
"Pro choice people do not claim to "save" babies, children or adults and have no duty to do so."
And in another post…
"When I sleep, eat, and use the can it is in preparation for saving life."
He claims since Roe v Wade there are more births and less deaths than before. However, he fails to provide science to support a causal link. This is akin to me saying there has been more birth and less death since the invention of the atomic bomb, therefore the bomb has saved lives. Forget that penicillin was discovered around the same time..
Oh yeah, and his grammar is that of a 6th grader.
Nope. What Russel says makes a great deal of sense, if you take off the blinders and realize that a system based on force necessarily wastes a great deal of resources.
For instance, if you want to force people to pay taxes to support the 'poor', you have to collect enough money from them not only to help the 'poor' but to pay for a whole system of enforcement, including IRS auditors, police, jails, etc. Far more wealth is destroyed, and people made poor, than people helped.
If you use force to prevent women from having abortions, you are necessarily spending a huge amount of wealth on that force. That wealth COULD have been used to save the life of far many more real, born babies, but you would rather use it on a system of force in order to save a far fewer number of embryos.
Interesting. Why doesn't Russell explain that? He calls people baby murderers for posting their pro-life opinion. So I guess this theory would apply then to gun control too. Instead of using resources to restrict second amendment rights, those resources could be used to save the 1.8 babies that die each second, resulting in less lives lost.
Russel has explained his opinion, which is that the time and resources needed to save 1 unwanted fetus could be used to save 1.8 wanted born babies. However, the situation is actually more inequitable than he describes, because I believe he is counting only those resources needed to save fetuses, and NOT those resources that would also be needed to create an enforcement network of police, courts, jails, etc, to forcibly prevent abortion.
As for gun rights, the same principle would apply, the money wasted on trying to restrict gun rights COULD be used to save babies. And btw, guns save more lives than they take. When people have the right to own guns, crime, including murder, goes DOWN, not up.
"Oh goodness. Let me see. You have committed, in all, about three logical fallacies since you have started talking with me and you have still yet to prove your point with posts that are not made by you. "
You have proved no logical fallacies and my points are proved.
"First, you said that Pro-life people kill the living by saving the unborn."
That is a lie, I never said that.
"That is a simple "if-then" logical fallacy, not too mention that it is a mass generalization because it doesn't take into consideration all of the pro-life individuals and organizations around the world who are actively saving lives, born and unborn."
You are confused because I never said what you said I said. Your lie is your problem not me.
" So that's two right there. "
One lie on your part, two mistakes.
"The only proof you have linked is an article that you wrote yourself on another website simply stating how often people die. That is not proof that in helping keep the unborn safe is actively killing the living."
I never said that helping the unborn is actively killing the living. I said that the born and the unborn are dying and you must choose which to save. I also said you can't save both.
"And it is also plea to an authority, but the only authority is you."
Prove there is a plea to authority.
"You can't quote yourself and then accuse me of committing logical fallacy."
You are fooled by your own lies. I never said what you claim.
"And murder by omission is crap. If I am committing it, you and everyone else in this world is guilty of it. "
No, you are a proved murderer under the theory of "Murder by Omission." Sorry, it is a real crime and you are guilty.
"I still don't see how the active dismemberment of the unborn saves lives."
I never said it die. What matters is that there are born and unborn dying tragic deaths. Your choice is to save the unborn, therefore the born die. You are so blinded by your own lies, that you refuse to read what I say and instead make up more lies each time you reach a point where your old lie is insufficient.
"That makes no sense. Until you bring me proof, and no, "Google it" does not count, you have only proven to everyone in reading this that you have left all logic behind. Congratulations. Yes, I know that last part was Ad Hominem. You can keep that comment to yourself, even though it is your only response so far."
Lie and ad hominem fallacy.
see more
I posted the proof, read it. And stop lying about what I said.
Stop with the lies.
"But lets go ahead with your line of reasoning, then. I work with children for a living as a teacher. Part of my many responsibilities as a teacher is to be on the lookout for signs of abuse in the children, whether that be physical, mental, emotional, or sexual. Would you say that since I choose to focus and attempt to prevent abuse from happening to the kids I work with, I am at fault for all the other children who are being sexually abused?"
No.
" Since I chose to "save" the kids I work with, in following with your logic, I am obviously at fault for the millions of others who are dealing with the same issues."
Don't lie about my logic. That is not what I say. If all you can do is come up with lies, then perhaps you need to admit you have failed.
" Or, since I decided to report the abuse I witnessed, just last week in fact, I am now committing Rape by Omission to all the women who were abused halfway around the world. "
You are lying again. There is no such thing as "Rape by Omission."
"Your faulty cause and effect logic, as well as a mass generalization or two, does not hold up."
Your statement is based upon a lie you created.
"And If I am to google "Murder by Omission," I'd ask you to Google "Abortion kills lives." If pro-life commit Murder by Omission, pro-choice commit Murder by Commission. Oh wait, that's a logical fallacy. Hmmmmmmm."
Your lies really got you no where. You still have a choice, you may choose to save innocent born babies or you may murder them and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to murder innocent babies.
You support the murder of born babies, children and adults. In fact you are guilty of their murder. So yes, you are a monster.
By all means ignore what I say and continue to murder innocent babies. Why save babies just because I say you should.
I compare the intentional choice to have sex and cause miscarriage to intentionally choosing to have sex and then having an abortion. Both cause the death of a fetus, intentionally.
Your choice to have three children as a choice to abort 7+/- of what you claim are "children." That is a scientific fact.
You have a choice, you may choose to save innocent born babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. If your IQ were a little higher, you might understand what that means and have no need to post ad hominem fallacies.
That is a lie about what I am saying.
I say two types of life are dying, born life and unborn life. You have a choice of which to save. You may save either the born life or the unborn life. You cannot save both because of the "Law of Charity." The law of Charity states that more people are dying than can be saved.
Therefore a choice to save a fetus is a choice to let a born person die.
Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let innocent babies die. So did Mother Teresa (not her real name.)
Abortion has lead to an increase in life. Pro life ideas have lead to a decrease in life. Your choice is to murder born life and to follow the pro life path to fewer children.
{{{Russell is delusional. He stated the following in two separate responses to me:
"Pro choice people do not claim to "save" babies, children or adults and have no duty to do so."
And in another post…
"When I sleep, eat, and use the can it is in preparation for saving life."}}}
Taking words out of context is a type of lie. Your lies will get you nowhere.
"He claims since Roe v Wade there are more births and less deaths than before. However, he fails to provide science to support a causal link."
I don't need a causal link, I am stating a fact. If you think there is another reason, then make your claim.
"This is akin to me saying there has been more birth and less death since the invention of the atomic bomb, therefore the bomb has saved lives. Forget that penicillin was discovered around the same time.."
You are welcome to make any claim you want. I have laid out my reasoning and my evidence. You are welcome to counter it.
"Oh yeah, and his grammar is that of a 6th grader."
Ad hominem fallacy. If you can't debate the issue, just quit. So far all you have posted are lies and ad hominem fallacies. Do you have anything that is a valid argument?
No. You are lying again. What I say is pretty clear. If you have nothing but lies, well, you have nothing at all.
"Interesting. Why doesn't Russell explain that?"
The minute I start explaining what I am saying, you bring out lies and distortion about what is said. You are doing so either intentionally or because you have a comprehension problem. If it is the later then I can help, if it is the former, you will fail over time.
"He calls people baby murderers for posting their pro-life opinion."
That is because what you do is "Murder by Omission." If it were not murder, I would not tell you that you are a murderer.
"So I guess this theory would apply then to gun control too. Instead of using resources to restrict second amendment rights, those resources could be used to save the 1.8 babies that die each second, resulting in less lives lost. "
No because there is no scientific law that has been offered that controls that situation. In your case, there are more people dying than can be saved.
That does not apply to the gun issue. Scientific laws govern the issue of abortion.
If you want to stop lying at any point and try to understand what I am saying, just let me know.
You keep using that word scientific but I have yet to see you cite a study other than your own website. I'm not sure why that is. If people are going to "join you" you need to offer more substantial evidence. The 6 laws are neat but who came up with them? And don't just say "scientists". That doesn't cut it. And if murder by omission is what so many people are doing, I can come up with countless ways you murder by omission every second.
"What I said is pretty clear."
No it isn't. Go back and read your comments that you post all over each day. Then read the responses. No one understands your theories. Influential people throughout history are influential because they have a knack for helping others see their point of view. You are the opposite of that judging by your interactions online. That's why when you claim that you save lives, it's almost laughable. No one is "joining" you. So unless you are volunteering at a soup kitchen in between Internet posts, you are falsely claiming you save lives.
"I don't need a causal link."
Yes you do or you haven't proven that legalizing abortion directly causes an increase in life. A lot of things have led to longer life expectancy since the early seventies. I can say flossing your teeth saves lives. It's true that people who floss generally take better care of themselves generally and are less likely to die of heart disease, stroke, etc, so they do live longer. What if I told you that if you're not actively telling people to floss, you are a murderer?
Why do you emphasize that's not her real name? That has no bearing on what she did.
If you'll be so kind as to cite some studies proving that "scientific fact", that will help. Otherwise you are lying.
I'm done with your idiocy. It seems you don't know what logical fallacies are. I am not going to hold your hand and tell you exactly what parts of your argument are stupid because none of it holds any merit. Every second you have made posting has killed many babies. Think about that. If I am killing babies right now, so are you. You still haven't brought any proof on that point besides numbers that you haven't even referenced. And, btw, Murder by Omission doesn't apply here. You might want to read more into the definition of the law. Until I know that you are ready to talk about things instead of hiding behind "ad hominem" and your faulty causal relationship, I am finished here. Ur_the_bagee, he's all yours. Russel hasn't even answered any of my questions, just calls me a liar. I have no time for his ad hominem nonsense.
Wow, just so easy to dismiss anything out of hand by claiming that it was too long to read, if you don't want to have your ASSumptions challenged, right? Because, then you can turn around and say if someone DOES break it down into teeny tiny little bits so that even your small minded brains can comprehend that they're too jumbled and jarring and aren't connected point by point for you to easily understand. You know you've lost when you tone-police. TBSVFS.
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm
Because you didn't.
{{{"I don't need a causal link."
Yes you do or you haven't proven that legalizing abortion directly causes an increase in life.}}}
On its face it shows an increase in babies after Roe. So You are the one that needs to prove there is no causal link. If on their face a person has a smile and I claim they are smiling, then it is up to you to prove they are not.
" A lot of things have led to longer life expectancy since the early seventies. I can say flossing your teeth saves lives. "
I am talking births, not saving LIFE.
"It's true that people who floss generally take better care of themselves generally and are less likely to die of heart disease, stroke, etc, so they do live longer. What if I told you that if you're not actively telling people to floss, you are a murderer?"
You are lying again about what I say. If all you have are straw men, ad hominem fallacies and lies, you are wasting your time.
{{{"What I said is pretty clear."
No it isn't. Go back and read your comments that you post all over each day. Then read the responses. No one understands your theories.}}}
You have formed so very big lies about what I have said. If other people are confused, it is because of you. Your intent is to confuse and lie.
"Influential people throughout history are influential because they have a knack for helping others see their point of view. You are the opposite of that judging by your interactions online. "
Like Hitler, you couldn't be successful without the big lie. And you will win for a short period of time. But in the end I will win because I am honest.
"That's why when you claim that you save lives, it's almost laughable. No one is "joining" you. So unless you are volunteering at a soup kitchen in between Internet posts, you are falsely claiming you save lives. "
I feel OK with the 42 thousand likes on Facebook and thousands elsewhere.
Your ad hominem fallacies are really a waste of time. If you have a real argument, now might be a good time to make it.
Every comment where I said "that's a lie" would be a good place to start.
Your most frequent lie is to claim that I say that killing a fetus saves a baby. What I say is that there are two forms of life dying and you must choose to save one or the other because of the "Law of Charity." Saving a fetus causes the death of a baby because you didn't choose to save the baby that is already dying.
You said you read my page and the laws. The laws make it clear that you cannot save all life, you must choose between dying life forms. I said that two forms of life are dying, born and unborn. If you choose to save the unborn the born dies. Why, because more life is dying than can be saved.
If the sex was intentional the miscarriage was intentional. Intentional miscarriage and intentional abortion are one and the same. During the act of sex, neither woman wanted it to lead to abortion.
I have 400 links and citations. Specifically ask for information and it will be given. Every question you have asked so far, that requires a citation, has been answered. Your fishing trip requests do not require an answer.
"…….factoring in miscarriages but also failed implantations that usually pass without the mother ever missing a period. " This is the same to you as a 26 week abortion, correct?
What is the relevance of that to the topic?
You sure cry "ad hominem" a lot. Sorry I question your grammar, but then again you have called me a baby murderer about 20 times.
No, late term miscarriages are much more dangerous than late term abortions. Intentional sex leads to late term miscarriages that frequently leave the mother dismembered and dead along with a fetus that is dismembered and dead.
That you are hiding her deceit.
You believe in God, Russell?
Yes
"Intentional sex leads to late-term miscarriages."
Yeah, a whopping 1- 3% of pregnancies end in late term miscarriage. Good point. In addition, intentionally living in California leads to death by melanoma.
That's the way it works. What is your definition of saving someone? You throw that word around as the basis of your argument but you don't really save anyone ultimately. They all die. You have no way of measuring if you have saved someone. It's an asinine statement. And who are you to say one life is more important than another? Maybe a baby you "save" becomes Adolph Hitler and a fetus I save becomes Abraham Lincoln. Are you then a murderer because you saved a life that led to the genocide of millions?
Abortion is legal, dumbass. I'm not "saving" a baby because I happen to disagree with abortion being legal. All I did was express my views on abortion and you call me a baby murderer. It's not like I'm forcing a woman to have a baby. I can't do that because it's against the law. And I donate at least 10% of my income annually to help the less fortunate. There is no way that me having an opinion that abortion is murder allows others to die.
If they try and fail, it is still murder just not by omission?
Which one of your 400 links talks about Mother Teresa is a mass murderer?
Is Ann one of the people that disagree with you because of my lies about you? Oh wait, her comment was before I ever got to this thread. I guess she thinks you're an imbecile independent of me.
Oh look, another person that thinks you're stupid.
You believe he approves of abortion of a fetus?
Ad homing fallacy
Ad hominem fallacy
you are a murderer
it is not your opinion that makes you a murderer .
it is your choice .
So 150 thousand dead women or babies means nothing to you.
**Abortion and accidental miscarriage are not the same. But if you are going to use that logic, then letting someone die of cancer is the same as shooting them in the head.**
Which, if we accepted your line of reasoning, since we regard murder as a crime, but still grieve over people who die of cancer, because we regard them as people, would imply that people who claim abortion is a crime because the embryo is a 'real person' would normally be expected to be holding tampon funerals every month. Yet this is not the case. Since it is not the case, their actions are inconsistent with a real, true belief, that the embryo is a 'real person' and their actual goal is not to protect 'real people' but to punish others for having sex.
Ur, here's a thought experiment. In very young embryos, a single cell has the potential, if it happens to split off the embryo for any reason, to develop into a twin. So, a few scenarios here:
1. I poke a needle into an embryo (inside a pregnant woman) and remove one single cell. This does not kill the rest of the embryo, which continues to develope normally. Since this single cell has the potential to develop into a twin, is it a person? If I don't let it develop into a twin and discard it instead, have I 'killed' the 'unborn child', and if so, why, since the rest of the embryo is still alive and becomes a baby.
2. Now, suppose instead of removing just one cell from the embryo, I remove half of the embryo, but the other half continues to turn into a baby. Am I killing a 'person' if I discard the other half? If so, why, since the first half still becomes a baby?
3. What if I remove ALL of the embryo EXCEPT for one cell, and let that one cell continue to become a baby. Have I 'killed' the embryo? If so, how, since the cell I left still becomes a baby?
It seems like I wouldn't have as much a problem with it if there were still the possibility of life taking place with the cells that remain. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense logically but I'm just being honest. I mean, there's a more emotionally driven side to me that isn't as logical but still helps me form my opinions about things. It's kinda like experimenting on lab rats vs. experimenting on Golden Retrievers. They are both mammals, both being subjected to pain and possible death but one bothers me more.
You are too.
if we want to talk strict logic, why is it OK to snuff out a fetus at 35 weeks but not OK to snuff out that same baby if it were born at 36 weeks?
**It seems like I wouldn't have as much a problem with it if there were still the possibility of life taking place with the cells that remain. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense logically but I'm just being honest.**
I know you are being honest, but here's the thing. By your own admission, you wouldn't have a problem with my removing and discarding almost all the cells in an early stage embryo, so long as I left one cell to carry on and grow into the baby.
Basically, what you are admitting, is that at the very least, very early stage embryo life is qualitatively different than that life which comes later (how much later is debatable), because I suspect that if I were to emulate Dr. Oliver Guest (from a sci-fi book of mine), kill a 14 year old girl, and clone a single cell from her body, you would probably have several problems with that.
But where and when would this scenario happen in real life? It doesn't. It's a nice academic exercise but taking out one cell from an embryo and leaving the rest to continue developing is not apples and apples with aborting a third trimester fetus.
**But where and when would this scenario happen in real life?** Well, it was in fact proposed at one time that it might be possible to remove one cell (stem cell) from an embryo at a certain stage while leaving it intact. And such a thing could be said to be occuring naturally if the embryo splits into twins, and one twin dies.
** It's a nice academic exercise but taking out one cell from an embryo and leaving the rest to continue developing is not apples and apples with aborting a third trimester fetus** No, it is not, which is much the point that is trying to be made here, a tiny embryo is NOT the same thing as a third trimester fetus, and there are valid reasons why they are treated differently, rather than falling for myintx's continuum fallacy.
I do appreciate the honest answer, but the thing is, much of life is figuring out the 80% (or whatever percentage it might be) of what you can have, out of what you want, without trying to go after that extra 20% that will get you into trouble, or piss people off, or contradict reality. Hint here, once you start talking in terms of what people 'should' do, you are contradicting reality.
One example of trouble caused by going for that extra 20% would be the particular manner in which David Carradine died. I'm not entirely certain how good autoerotic asphyxiation might feel, but I'm sure there are things which must feel almost as good, and be far less dangerous.
Here's the deal – you aren't going to get people to stop having sex for fun, so give up on that notion. It's contradictory to reality. You MAY be able to reduce the amount of abortion going on by promoting birth control, or get more abortions done earlier than later, but only if you deal with reality, rather than trying (as many pro-lifers do) to arrange things in a way where people end up with unwanted pregnancies, and abortions are made inconvenient and expensive – which is going to mean later rather than sooner.
You are always going to have some idiots in the world who are irresponsible or stupid and would not use birth control if you put it on a plate in front of them. As a wiser man than me once said, it's useless to get between a fool and their folly, and two or three fools more or less will not greatly change the matter. Sadly, you'll have to live with it.
No, I choose to save innocent babies that you are attempting to murder.
I believe God wants the greatest number of humans to live good lives. Your ideas cause the murder of babies to save fetuses. I don't think that God would approve.
Your choice is to save babies or to save fetuses. God has set up a system whereby the only way to force the birth of a fetus is by letting innocent babies die. I think that is proof of His intent.
One must assume that God made the laws of science for a reason. The "Law of Charity" makes it clear that not every life can be saved and that we therefore have a choice of which life to save. We may choose to save innocent born babies or let them die and save fetuses instead. Your choice is to save the fetuses and let the babies die.
Until you disprove the "Law of Charity" you are a proven murderer.
Ad hominem fallacy. If any person has proof I am stupid, then they should present it without lying.
Right now you have constructed an argument built on lies. Until you argue without the lies, what you say is meaningless.
I have no idea what "Ann" thinks or why she thinks it. If her beliefs are based on something she just made up or one of your lies, then her beliefs are meaningless. If she wants to disprove the "Laws" then she is "HIGHLY ENCOURAGED" to take that path. I need all her input and her ideas. But until she expresses the basis of her beliefs, her thoughts and unsubstantiated beliefs are meaningless.
I didn't save that link, but I am searching now and will get back with you. You might want to search "Mother Teresa" and "fraud" on Google. As best I can remember, she took in patients and refused them pain medication as they died. Her excuse was that the paid was "God's Will" or some such insane remark.
"That's the way it works. What is your definition of saving someone?"
My definition is to extend their life as closely to its greatest potential life span as possible. That is why I have adopted the use of International Triage as the method most likely to save the most life possible.
"You throw that word around as the basis of your argument but you don't really save anyone ultimately. They all die."
But everyone can benefit from efforts to extend their life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_potential_life_lost
You have no way of measuring if you have saved someone.
Of course I can measure the impact of efforts to save life. See the link above for YPLL.
" It's an asinine statement."
One reason you are so set on murdering born babies is because you are ignorant of the things that caring people know for certain. There is an impact when you choose to save a fetus and let a baby die. Your ignorance of the world around you makes you into a dangerous murderer.
"And who are you to say one life is more important than another? Maybe a baby you "save" becomes Adolph Hitler and a fetus I save becomes Abraham Lincoln."
I choose to save the born baby over the fetus. Why, because 70 percent of zefs die and will never become a baby. A choice to save "life at conception" is implied consent to let 70 percent of conceptions die and not use your efforts to save babies.
"Are you then a murderer because you saved a life that led to the genocide of millions?"
No
Readers that will find themselves here will find an unhappy old man who is so obsessed with killing the innocent unborn humans in the world that he had fabricated "Laws" that justify his killing in a feeble attempt to soothe his conscience. Further, this old lonely man's four children and their lives are trumped by their father's obsession will killing and blaming death on others. They'll see an old man who is all over the web saying the same things in every post and eliciting the same incredulous responses from users who are astonished that a person can fabricate such fallacies. On top of all that they'll see an unhappy old lonely man who spends his life in anonymous forums because he doesn't have any human love in his real life. Happy Thanksgiving, Russ. Don't spend all day on the net, OK?
"Readers that will find themselves here will find an unhappy old man who is so obsessed with killing the innocent unborn humans in the world that he had fabricated "Laws" that justify his killing in a feeble attempt to soothe his conscience."
Laws cannot be "fabricated" or invented or anything else. They exist or do not exist. So if you have some proof that the Laws are incorrect, then you should offer that proof up and end this discussion. I will apologize and shut down the site once I see proof the laws don't exist.
The laws are obvious as is your reason for complaining about scientific law. The laws prove that you have a choice to save babies or fetuses. And the "Law of Charity" states there are more people dying than can be saved. So you cannot save both born life and unborn life without causing the death of a born person.
It would seem to me that if you have something that disproves the law that you would share that proof. Either that or you are lying, again.
"Further, this old lonely man's four children and their lives are trumped by their father's obsession will killing and blaming death on others."
Ad hominem fallacy
"They'll see an old man who is all over the web saying the same things in every post and eliciting the same incredulous responses from users who are astonished that a person can fabricate such fallacies. "
Ad hominem fallacy.
If you have some proof of what you say, then post it. Accusations without proof are fallacy.
"On top of all that they'll see an unhappy old lonely man who spends his life in anonymous forums because he doesn't have any human love in his real life. Happy Thanksgiving, Russ. Don't spend all day on the net, OK?"
I have a blessed life. Your ad hominem fallacies. I am sorry scientific laws show you are a murderer.
Scientific laws show you have a choice to save innocent babies or murder them and that your choice is to murder babies. I know you are celebrating Thanksgiving by thanking the one you follow for the ability to ignore your murders.
**if we want to talk strict logic, why is it OK to snuff out a fetus at 35 weeks but not OK to snuff out that same baby if it were born at 36 weeks?**
First of all, I don't know of any places where it would be legal to have an elective (non medical) abortion at 35 weeks.
Secondly, I think you are trying for myintx's continuum fallacy. Here's the thing, the fact that we can't accurately draw a precise dividing line where what was once an egg becomes a 'baby' does not mean that there are not early points where it is definitely NOT a baby, and also not late points where it definitely IS a baby. We try to draw the dividing line as best as we can, given what we know about such things as viability and brain function, and probably there are always going to be some people who are unhappy with where the line is, especially if they have some other agenda that they aren't mentioning. And if you do want to go for the continuum fallacy and pretend it's a 'baby' all the way back to the egg, why can't it be done in reverse, and be claimed that it is nothing more than an egg, until it's completely out of the mother?
Thirdly, you're trying to handwave away the birth process. If an abortion is performed at 35 weeks (or some other late stage) it generally means that something is very wrong medically, either with the fetus, or with the mother. You can handwave away the birth process all you like, but the plain fact is, it's easier to get a fetus out through a very small hole in pieces, than intact, and if something is medically wrong, there's either no point in getting it out intact, or it would be dangerous to the mother to do so. The 36 week old premature baby is OUTSIDE the mother, and whatever might or might not be wrong with it at that point is not going to endanger the mother.
If you want to argue that we need better prenatal care, and that defects or medical problems in either the fetus or the mother should be identified earlier than they currently are being, then I would agree with that principle. Unfortunately, I disagree that other people should be taxed to pay for it. If you wish to donate your money for such medical care, or to develop new technologies to detect such problems earlier, I would commend you for doing so.
Ur – I personally very highly resent your rude comments about how someone has spent their Thanksgiving day doing something other than eating dinner with their relatives. This may come as a great shock to you, but some people have non-standard holiday schedules for various reasons. For instance, my family celebrated Thanksgiving on Weds, because that is when my sister had off work. *I* spend all day on Thursday – the actual Thanksgiving, in bed for about 15 hours, because immediately after our family Thanksgiving dinner on Weds, I had to go to work and work for about 14 straight hours because I work for a newspaper, and people wanted to have their big 3 inch thick paper full of Black Friday ads delivered to their homes by 8am Thursday morning.
An unborn child should be protected because he or she is a human being that has done nothing wrong. No human being should be killed because they have done nothing wrong. And, NO, an unborn child residing in his or her mothers womb is doing NOTHING WRONG. You can whine about leaching resources, but he or she is doing NOTHING WRONG.
Parent's should CARE for their offspring. That CARING should start when their offspring are created – at fertilization. It's a shame we live in a society where we need laws to tell people what they should know – that they need to CARE for their children – born or unborn.
A mind controlled man, raping you, is also doing nothing wrong.
**An unborn child should be protected because he or she is a human being that has done nothing wrong.**
So, what you're saying here is that if I stole some of your blood, took a shit in what blood you had left, injected you with mind altering substances, leached minerals from your bones, and finished up by causing you serious enough injury and pain to meet the legal definition of torture, I could argue to the judge that I wasn't doing anything wrong?
**Parent's should CARE for their offspring. That CARING should start when their offspring are created – at fertilization.**
Uh huh. In other words, you're not dealing with reality, you're dealing with a fairy tale 'should' world that isn't going to happen.
**You can whine about leaching resources, but he or she is doing NOTHING WRONG.**
Either it's wrong or it isn't. If it isn't wrong, then can I come steal some of your blood? If it's wrong for me, then it's wrong for the embryo. There is no special pleading for embryos.
**It's a shame we live in a society where we need laws to tell people what they should know – that they need to CARE for their children – born or unborn.**
You know, you keep repeating this cutesy little soundbite. But the problem here is, exactly HOW and WHY 'should' people in our society 'know' this. You have, as yet, despite repeated requests, not provided ANY reason why any 'human being' should have a 'right to life' or be valued higher than we value cattle or bacteria.
If there is no actual REASON for this, then all your little 'should' sobs are simply supportless assertions. There is no reasonable way to claim people 'should' know something with no evidence or reason for it (which you have thus far not given). I could just as well claim that people 'should' know that they ought not to kill cockroaches with Raid, or that pink fairies are dancing under the tulips in their garden; and with no support on your side or mine, my assertion is just as good as yours.
Add Night Porter to the list of wackos who is comparing an unborn child to a rapist.
That isn't a logical refutation, it is just an invalid ad hominem.
Grow up.
Nope… It's an invalid comparison.
Then explain how, in detail.
Parents have a responsibility to care for their offspring, they don't have a responsibility to care for a rapist.
Fallacy of special pleading.
Nope.
Yes it is, since you are saying that some life is more valuable than others,..
Also, by your statement, it is morally acceptable to let the wandering toddler die outside your house without offering aid, because it is not your son or daughter.
Guess you're committing the same fallacy. I never said it was OK to let a toddler die…
You too are saying it's morally acceptable to say that some life is more valuable than others.
You said that *only* parents have responsibility for the lives of their children. No one else does.