Monday, March 01, 2010

The product of an Ivy League law school

So on my friend "Mac"'s Facebook page, he posted a link to a book that he describes in the first comment. Then his friend, who eventually revealed herself as a law student at an Ivy League university, and who later revealed herself to be incapable of rational dialogue with those who disagree with her, and who around the same time evidenced a pretty unladylike vocabulary, began to "engage" him, and when I started asking HER some questions, well, you can see what happened.

Of note are the numerous complaints from our Potty-Mouth Law Student that *I* acted insultingly toward her, my numerous challenges to her to quote me saying sthg insulting, and her resulting silence.

Be warned, her language gets fairly coarse.

(Names changed to protect the innocent and guilty alike.)

Mac
: This is interesting because this Former abortionist tells of the false propaganda that was used to convince the Supreme Court and America that abortion on demand should be legal. All kinds of falsified polls and statistics, when in reality Most Americans were not in favor of it. How sick. All of you "pro-choice" people out there who aren't afraid of the truth take a gander at this.
February 15 at 10:32am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Please, more bias information..
February 15 at 10:48am

Mac
How is it biased? Did you check the facts or just assume that? I think this Dr. who performed thousands of abortions probably knows more about it than you do, don't ya think?
February 15 at 10:51am

Mac
Why don't you check out the history of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. If she had it her way you wouldn't be here because you are an inferior race.
February 15 at 10:51am

Mac
Did you read the article, the Dr. said that he isn't a religious man, he was convinced by the science of it, or did you not read it but just comment out of assumption?
February 15 at 10:53am

Mac
Are you trying to paint with a broad brush pro lifers becuase a few have taken justice (and it was justice) into their own hands rather than leaving room for vengeance to God? I am one to judge that murder is wrong, because everyone knows it is wrong and because it is a universal law of wrong, your conscience tells you that. You in the same way judge others who have murdered. If someone murdered your child or friend you would say "hey you murderer that was wrong" to which he would reply, "Hey, who are you to judge me?" Yes I refute your right to murder other human beings, we do not give anyone the right to kill already born humans, and we shouldn't give the right to anyone to kill pre-born humans either. Look at the evidence don't just hang on to some self centered humanistic view of life. Don't return to your tired argument of what murder is defined as by the "current" system of law, since the law is ever changing and at one time it would have been lawful for me to buy you and then kill you if I had wanted. You keep finding yourself at a dead end in this debate because you just argue in circles "here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush..."
February 15 at 2:19pm

Rhology
And here I always thought the definition of 'bias' was making conclusions based on prejudices about which you have no actual knowledge or information. Silly me!
February 15 at 8:18pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
right silly you, as I recall I was talking to Mac. Furthermore, i find his info to be bias as in one sided. I am quite familiar with the definition hence, this is a on going conversation between him and I so thanks.
February 15 at 11:22pm

Rhology
Wouldn't calling his info biased w/o reading it be biased on your part?
February 16 at 8:05am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Did I say I did not read it? Where did I publish that I had not read the material?
February 16 at 8:45am


Mac
PMLS how can the drs. Evidence be one sided since in fact he claims personal responsibility for 75000 abortions. He has been on both sides of the debate. He has been a big name on both sides and has come to the conclusion based upon objective evidence that abortion terminates the life of a human child. See his 4 or 5 part video on the silent scream. Please explain how he is one sided, if u can.
February 16 at 8:46am

Rhology
PMLS,
OK, did you read it?
If so, I'd expect a substantive critique rather than so far baseless complaints of "bias".
February 16 at 9:33am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Mac, sorry it took me so long to get back to you.. law school is kicking my butt.. anyway,

The good Dr. goes to write about the 3 tactics that have been employed to brainwash the population into being pro abortion. The first two tactics highlight the media and playing the catholic card. He gives opposing figures and statistics and highlighting one as false and one as true. That is terrific but can I get more information? How about the who what and where for each so I can decide for myself what is true. The final paragraph is the most interesting one. This is where the writer proves his theory with science. All I can see from him as a statement of fact in that entire paragraph is "Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy." Where is the scientific evidence and study that led him to draw his conclusion? And his reason for justification is that the Dr.'s are cashing in? That is laughable. OBGYN dr.'s are the one responsible for abortions and they do it for the $300 per pregnancy? If I were an OBGYN hell bent on raking in as much cash with moral obligations aside I would love to rake in all the cash from the pre and post natal care of the child as well as the hefty delivery charge of the baby. It just doesn't make sense.
February 16 at 10:08am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/abortion.html
February 16 at 10:17am

Rhology
From that article: "The perception of pain is a complex biological and psychological phenomenon that involves states of "consciousness" which can probably never be fully understood or known for certain stages of fetal development."

It is extremely horrible and telling that THEY DON'T KNOW but still think it's OK to go ahead and possibly err on the side of unnecessary murder. That's why it's rightly called a culture of death on the pro-baby-murder side.
February 16 at 10:35am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Rhology, who are "they" kind of ambiguous, dont know who "they" are, I try not to assume. Please elaborate.
February 16 at 10:44am

Rhology
The author(s) of the article and those who share the pro-baby-murder view.
February 16 at 10:48am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Do you mean the pro choice view?
February 16 at 11:15am

Rhology
No, the pro-baby-murder crowd leaves zero choice to the baby and not very much to the woman, as they generally refuse to fully educate her about the nature of the life within her. Whereas the pro-life gives her every reasonable choice - keep the baby, give the baby up for adoption with participation or w/o participation. It's pretty disingenuous to leave murder open as a reasonable option. I mean what I say, unlike the usual pro-baby-murder types.
February 16 at 11:19am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
All that link does is shoot holes in your propaganda video "silent scream". It refutes the possibility that a fetus feels pain. Notice how the link I provided has educational references at the bottom to research the information that is in the link. Do not post any more information that does not include references, I will assume it to be more banter and rhetoric. You are letting your passions consume you and cloud logical thought.
February 16 at 11:34am

Rhology
No, it doesn't refute it. Please read the sentence I cited above. It's an exercise in conscience-soothing hope, but they admit they don't know. I presume when they go hunting and hear a rustling in the bushes, they shoot first and ask questions later!
Anyway, as for logical thought, I haven't really seen any from you either. Let me ask you a direct question, then. Is it morally OK to dismember a live dog for any reason at all?
February 16 at 11:38am ·

Mac
Rhology and PMLS, glad you two could finally meet. I can't wait to get off work so I can join in the debate.
February 16 at 1:09pm

Potty-Mouth Law Student
I was wondering where u were! Bring it sucka !
February 16 at 3:44pm

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Rhology,
That is an ambiguous blanket statement that you stripped out of context. The quote says "certain stages of development". But your side loves to argue in ambiguities don't they? Other Drs go on to say that the brain's neurological development doesn't begin until approximately 3 months and doesn't make significant connections until approximately month 6 and finishing those connections well after birth. This argument bores me. I think I'd rather bash my head against the wall for an extended period of time. Go push your morals on someone else.
February 16 at 3:55pm

Rhology
1) Please prove that "significant connections" means "the capacity to experience pain". How have you *observed* that? Or is this more shooting blind in the dark?
2) Please prove that the incapacity to feel pain leads to the conclusion that the baby does not have the right not to be killed without provocation.
3) Please make an argument that being human depends on what someone can DO or their physical location rather than on their being, their ontology.
4) Please let me know whether it is morally OK to dismember a live dog for any reason at all.
Feel free to ask me questions as well, but as it is running away from penetrating questions doesn't speak well for your side, especially when you post an article that is at least 50% moralising masquerading as 'research', and makes unargued for inferences of inconsistency between abortion and capital punishment, among other intellectual offenses and laughable tidbits.
Oh, and isn't it pushing your morals on someone else to tell me my morals are wrong? Why even complain about it?
But if it bores you, by all means, see ya.
February 16 at 4:06pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
What is the extent of your expertise in medicine to refute what Neurologists are saying?
February 16 at 4:14pm

Rhology
I don't think I've done much refuting; rather I've been asking questions designed to expose the presuppositions underlying these bad conclusions they've reached.
February 16 at 5:31pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student

A man made bible?
February 17 at 6:40am

Rhology
PMLS,
How do you know it was man-made?
February 17 at 7:26am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student

Rhology, can you prove otherwise?
February 17 at 10:44am

Rhology
Sure, through the use of arguments such as the impossibility of the contrary, fulfilled prophecies, etc. More fundamentally, the only worldview that is coherent and rational is the one that takes as its properly basic presuppositions that God is and speaks, and speaks in the Bible. No other worldview is coherent or rational.
However, if you have a preexisting commitment to an irrational system of presuppositions such as materialistic naturalism, you'll just dismiss out of hand any evidence I bring fwd, but you'll be doing so because you're wedded to irrationality.
That's how my argument for this generally proceeds (since you asked). I do notice that you were asked to back up your assertion, but you haven't yet tried. I would like to see you try, I have to admit.
February 17 at 10:51am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Our knowledge is constantly evolving, your points are not something all of us have not questioned. Until we can have definitive answers about abortion, my stance stands. The fact of the matter is we do not know if the embryos feel pain, who knows if we ever will. Per neurologists they ( the embryos) are incapable of feeling to due the lack of nervous system and circulatory system function. My stance is, women should have the choice to terminate pregnancy if they see fit. Can you image how many children would be orphans, live hard lives etc. Intern, if you are if you can not feel pain then you are incapable of thought.
February 17 at 10:59am

Rhology
PMLS says: "Until we can have definitive answers about abortion, my stance stands."

Translation: When the bushes rustle, I aim and fire without stopping to make sure it's not another person in there. I am 100% sure that it's better to kill a baby than to let the baby live as an orphan, b/c as we all know, no orphans ever have any good lives, never contribute to society, never help others, never go on to great things. Better just to kill 'em before they can live a life I think isn't worth living.
February 17 at 11:01am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Rhology you fool, what evidence have you brought forward? Where? How? Mac brought out the "silent scream" and a Dr. who changed his ways. No evidence anywhere in that. A preexisting commitment to an irrational system? But your system of belief is based on rationality? Is this the same system that is so "rational" that the christian faith attempted to wipe out Muslims and "heretics" and in some situations resulting to cannibalism to strike fear in any others that did not believe in the Christian faith? Watch where you put your foot, it seems to keep ending up in your mouth. This also coming from a religion that refuses to embrace scientific evidence refuting the age of this planet and much of the life that lived well before our time because the bible doesn't cover it?
February 17 at 11:10am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
You stated "Translation: When the bushes rustle, I aim and fire without stopping to make sure it's not another person in there. I am 100% sure that it's better to kill a baby than to let the baby live as an orphan, b/c as we all know, no orphans ever have any good lives, never contribute to society, never help others, never go on to great things. Better just to kill 'em before they can live a life I think isn't worth living."

Hey god botherer don't put words into my mouth. . Furthermore, it is my constitutional right to believe what I see fit. I can not argue with you, at least Mac has some intelligent thoughts and facts to back up his claims, your arguments are merely uneducated filter bullshit, lacking educated conclusions. Hey tool, how about you, not assume what I will think or react and provide me with some facts, or is my ivy league law school education above you? In reference to your response supra.
February 17 at 11:25am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Mac, where are you my friend, I need some intelligent debate!!
February 17 at 11:27am

Rhology
So, to you, my position is irrational b/c a PERVERSION of it did something you think is morally objectionable (which, BTW, you have irresponsibly overstated - the Crusades and Inquisition had no interest in "wiping out" Muslims and heretics)? Could you please elaborate on how that argument works? In which year did your Ivy League education teach you to kill irrelevant strawmen so proficiently?

Why would a rational person prefer circular, self-serving, and constantly changing 'data' from sources that rarely agree, are constantly getting things wrong, and often circle the wagons rather than accept reasonable criticism of their methods and assumptions when we could just ask the God Who was there how old the Earth is and how the vast complexity and variety of life on Earth came to be?

Of course it's your right...to be very wrong. But it is not your right to stand aside while people murder other people. You've provided no argument, just a crappy article that made dozens of bad assumptions. You've spoken in terms of probability, while lives are on the line, and so my analogy of shooting into rustling bushes is spot on. You've also left quite a few questions unanswered and attempted to "pull rank" by appealing to your Ivy League education. Why not just answer the questions, if your education is so superior?
February 17 at 11:58am ·

Rhology
And I've asked you numerous questions related to that, which you haven't even addressed. Care to start?
February 17 at 12:06pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Rhology my friend, lets talk.. ok ask me a question..
February 17 at 12:17pm

Rhology
OK, I'd like you to answer these questions, as posted earlier.

1) Please prove that "significant connections" means "the capacity to experience pain". How have you *observed* that? Or is this more shooting blind in the dark?
2) Please prove that the incapacity to feel pain leads to the conclusion that the baby does not have the right not to be killed without provocation.
3) Please make an argument that being human depends on what someone can DO or their physical location rather than on their being, their ontology.
4) Please let me know whether it is morally OK to dismember a live dog for any reason at all.

If you don't want to answer all of them, please choose one.
Thanks!
February 17 at 12:29pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Ok, yes I can do that.. I have one more class then I can debate.. Dont want you to think I am avoiding you.. Lets have some clean debating minus insults.. fair?
February 17 at 1:00pm

Rhology
Yes, quite fair. Please do not confuse, however, comments on the nature of one's worldview with insults directed at the person. It's a common confusion.
February 17 at 1:07pm ·

Mac
PMLS,
I have to agree with Rhology on the words he paraphrased out of your mouth. You may not consciously think or say that, but your logic brings one to that conclusion, and that is what Rhology is trying to say. If that is not accurate then please elaborate on why it isn't. If we can't be sure whether or not the baby feels pain when aborted, then we should not assume that is does not and violently dismember it. Again though, you and I have gone over this argument, and feeling pain does not determine humanness. As Rhology said it does not affect one's ontology. If I go in for surgery and am under anesthesia I am just as human as before I was sedated and for someone to think that because I could feel no pain it would be o.k. to kill me would be foolishness and murder. I asked you to quit recycling your arguments that I have already shot down over and over again. If I have read you right throughout our whole time debating this issue, now is the time that you will refer back to your previously refuted argument that "by law murder is defined as...yada, yada, yada..." to which I will kindly ask you to put as your post on fb that you believe that no slave was ever murdered pre-civil war and that no Jew was ever murdered in the holocaust, since neither of those things were illegal by law. Then you will offer no plausible response and will probably return to the pain argument again. Need I remind you that you love to argue in a circle? I bet your professors would not be happy with that. I'm gonna tell them.
February 17 at 8:02pm

Mac
PMLS, did you waive the white flag of surrender on this one?
February 19 at 8:17am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
No, in NY; dont have internet axcess available.. wil be back tomorrow mofos.. k.. its going to be on..Rhology, promise to answer all of your questions.
February 21 at 9:03am

Rhology
It would appear that PMLS has decided that it's better to spit out some drive-by posts with shoddy reasoning and 'research', groundlessly complain about insults and bias, then refuse to answer serious questions and take off in a huff. Typical liberal, typical baby-murder sympathiser. And that's what our 'elite' institutes of higher ed are producing, eh?
Fri at 10:03am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
I think Rhology needs to stop insinuating things and keep his fucking foot of of his mouth. You do not know me, unlike yourself I am in a very hard program with limited time to argue with some god botherer. I told you I would get back to you when I can. . Furthermore, this is a conversation that... See More... See More (sic) non of us will win, its a conversation that has been going on for many years. I wish I had the as much time on my hands as you do; however, not the case. I also speak to Mac on a regular, I would rather debate with someone with some educated answers as well as research. Is that how you are by insulting others, well buddy does not strengthen your argument.
Fri at 10:13am

Rhology
Well, actually you said you'd be back "tomorrow", and that was Feb 21. Also, I think that anyone can see that when what I said evokes such filthy language, it's more evidence of the sad state of your argumentative ability. When all else fails, proceed directly to obscene abuse, I guess. And best of all, pretend the OTHER GUY is the one who's "insulting others"! That's rich, and again, pretty typical from your side of the baby-murder aisle.

When one sympathises with the pro-baby-murder position, that is a liberal position, not a conservative one. But fair enough, you're not a liberal.

Sorry you've had hard things going on. You had enough time before to do the things I mentioned, and avoided my questions more than once. You even had time to type out a whole paragraph and then edit it afterwards (given the occurrence of "See More...See More" in your comment). I myself have two jobs, two small children, and a wife, teach Sunday School, and lead a church community group. Just sayin'...

Finally, I think if you'd actually put some thought into it, you'd realise that just b/c some ppl are stubborn about some position they hold, that is not a good reason not to engage ppl in debate about that issue. You apparently don't have any good arguments for the permissibility of the murder of babies, and it's quite a good thing to demonstrate that, in public, over and over, until y'all get over yourselves and STOP SAYING MURDERING BABIES IS OK.
Fri at 10:17am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
1) Our body is comprised of almost enumerable electrical connections. In the brain these electrical connections are responsible for thought. If the connections are not made than the different brain cells can not communicate with each other. Without a nervous system you can not feel pain. When an anesthesiologist provides general anesthesia to a patient he is severing (use this term loosely) the nerves connections from the brain resulting in no pain. I am a law student without significant background in medicine, I presume you don't either. I have not observed scientific study on nervous system development. I am merely referencing a professional's opinion in the field unlike you who just uses rhetoric, such as "MURDERING BABIES". Cry less, make sense more.

2) In order for something to be killed they must first be alive. Dr.'s have determined that a fetus is not yet alive until a specific point in development.

3) Being human is to belong to the Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species.

4) It is ok morally to dismember a dog for survival purposes when necessary. Example: Being stranded in a desolate area devoid of security needs of humans. It is ok to catch and kill a wild or domesticated dog for food which would require dismemberment. As much as I love animals.

If you can't take the insults man up and stop being a pussy. I share a liberal view it doesn't make me liberal. I am more conservative when it comes to economics.
Fri at 10:53am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
friend accept me and we can have this conversation on my page. verse on Mac's
Fri at 11:06am

Rhology
(Continued on PMLS' page.)
PMLS,

1) How have you *observed* that one cannot feel pain w/o a nervous system *as you know it*? Or are you just guessing b/c you *think* you know what constitutes the capacity to experience pain and don't want to make the inconvenient admission that you're assuming what you prefer not to think about?
Also, you're correct, I don't have a bkgrd in medicine. Just in asking serious questions, and I'm wondering if you realise the considerable temerity involved in guessing for the benefit of your convenience on issues of life and death of human beings, as in the case of abortion.

2) I think you have misspoken and for the sake of courtesy I'd like to give you the chance to restate. You think someone seriously thinks that the fetus is not even ALIVE? It's one thing to be alive, and quite another to be human. You said "alive", and my question dealt with life vs being killed. Please confirm that's what you meant, and if so, please let us know at what point the fetus becomes alive and how you know, how how you know it was decided, and by whom.

3) In what way does a human fetus, however young, NOT "belong to the Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species"? At what time does the product of human sexual intercourse and conception become a member of "Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species"?

4) In what % of cases is aborting the baby "for survival purposes when necessary"?
Or would you argue that a very young human baby is worthy of LESS legal protection from murder than a dog?

I invite anyone, also, to consider the level of language used by both myself and by PMLS in judging the outcome of this exchange. Count how many times I use terminology like "If you can't take the insults man up and stop being a pussy", especially when PMLS herself, on Mac's FB page, in the original thread, said, "Lets have some clean debating minus insults... fair?" and "Is that how you are by insulting others(?)". The apparently unintentional irony can get pretty funny.
Fri at 11:31am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
You sound like a spoiled momma's boy, you know the saying, if you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen. are tattling on me?
Fri at 11:35am

Rhology
Um, really? You who tout your elite-level academia creds are going to lower yourself to this kind of crap? You have your challenges - answer them or concede the point. I don't have time for 3rd-grade playground histrionics.
Fri at 11:37am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
"4) Please let me know whether it is morally OK to dismember a live dog for any reason at all."

I answered.

"4) It is ok morally to dismember a dog for survival purposes when necessary. Example: Being stranded in a desolate area devoid of security needs of humans. It is ok to catch and kill a wild or domesticated dog for food which would require dismemberment. As much as I love animals."

How are you rebutting my answer to your question when no where in the original question or answer had anything to do with killing a fetus for survival? You are dumb. You are a pussy. You may take these as insulting where as I take them primarily as statements of fact. Kick rocks. *deuces*
Fri at 11:40am

Potty-Mouth Law Student
That debate got no where.. ugh.. MAAAAACCCC
Fri at 11:41am

Rhology
My rebuttal to #4 is relevant b/c I want to know whether you think a fetus is entitled to more or less moral and legal protection than a dog. I think it's pretty obvious.

One can only hope your conduct here does not reflect the training you're receiving in law school.
Fri at 11:43am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
my conduct? So you can be a jerk and insulting; but I can not? Come on .. get some tougher skin..

so stop being a baby.. now lets her your side.. or do you not have anything to say?
Fri at 4:37pm

Rhology
Sure I have plenty to say, but without a response from you there is no need to say any more.
I've quoted you numerous times being insulting and childish. I would like to ask you to return the favor. Quote me insulting you. My guess is that we'll be waiting a while or that you'll just ignore this challenge like you've ignores the majority of the others I've made.
Fri at 7:47pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Rhology my friend, you have made insinuations, put words in my mouth, the list goes on. Now, I have answered your questions, as I recalled earlier u insinuated I was avoiding you and/or could not answer your questions. Now, my friend its your turn.. lets hear it.. scouts honor I will play fair.
Fri at 7:53pm

Mac
PMLS,
If the fetus isn't alive then what is it? It can only be alive or dead, not in between. If it is dead then it would never develop into a full grown child, yet many fetuses do grow into full grown children. So then if it isnt alive and it can't be dead, what is it?
Fri at 8:03pm

Mac
Rhology, PMLS does think dogs/animals have the same rights as people, that is the problem.
Fri at 8:04pm

Mac
PMLS, you said
"When an anesthesiologist provides general anesthesia to a patient he is severing (use this term loosely) the nerves connections from the brain resulting in no pain." So does this mean that it would be ok to kill the patient since he cant feel it? Does the patient become less human when pain cannot be felt? Does not having all your organs or systems in tact or functioning make one less human? If so, is your sister less of a human being because she had her gall bladder removed?
Fri at 8:07pm

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Mac, ok, perhaps I will give you that, the baby on a technicality is alive, however, not considered human until a certain age. I can not classify the embryo as being a human being. While I disagree with your position Mac, Rhology,I respect your stance; however, I do not agree with controlling one's rights. I feel in certain situations abortion is needed and necessary.
Fri at 8:12pm

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Mac how do you compare a 32 year old women, with a embryo that has a under developed circulatory system and neurological system?
Fri at 8:14pm

Mac
Which situations? WHat do you mean by a technicality? One is either alive or not alive, there are no "technicalities." What Dr. were you quoting when you stated that earlier that Dr's say that the fetus is not alive, or did you just say that? It doesnt matter what you classify an embryo, it matter what it is, and it is very much human, it will never become a chicken when born, or a goat, or an alien, only human because that is what it is. Why then do we control others rights to murder fully grown people or already born people. Sometimes my kids bug me and I wish I was alone, so why can't I kill them? What if a mother was raped but had her child. Later on the child reminded her of her rapist and caused her grief, why take the right away from her to kill the child then? Same with an incestuous child?
Fri at 8:18pm

Mac
Which age is "the baby" (your words above) considered human? Why does it all of a sudden from one second to the next go from being not human to being human? Does this matter of seconds differ from one embryo or fetus to the next or are all the exact same in their timing of development?
Fri at 8:20pm

Rhology
I pause to note that again you have not substantiated your assertions about my insulting you. Jesus said that he who is faithful in little things will be faithful in much - it's good advice. Tell the truth about who's said what, and when called upon to substantiate your assertions, DO IT, or withdraw them.

My position is that dogs give birth to dogs, cats to cats, humans to humans. It's wrong to murder humans. So why allow people to murder other people?
My questions to you are designed to demonstrate how incoherent your position is.
Fri at 8:47pm ·

Rhology
Did you delete my most recent comment, PMLS?
Sat at 4:24pm ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
It appears that Rhology is crying again everyone.. wow what a baby..Rhology, quit crying and work on your debate.
Sat at 9:52pm

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Hey Rhology, I answered your questions and all you can say is "Sure I have plenty to say, but without a response from you there is no need to say any more", wtf? what kind of debate is that, buddy?? Where are your rebuttals to what I posted? all you do is complain..
Sat at 9:59pm

Potty-Mouth Law Student
Rhology... WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT..????????
Sat at 10:02pm

Rhology
Sorry, I don't waste time with ppl who act like you do and then delete ppl's posts in which they make their arguments. Ta ta. We're done here.
Sunday at 7:41am ·

Potty-Mouth Law Student
you never made your argument my friend?? where is it??? I think someone is a fabricating what actually happened.
Sunday at 8:15am

-----------

Thus ends the exchange. Our friend PMLS certainly emerged with the upper hand in terms of profanity and gratuitously insulting comments. She also won the high score in the "questions left unanswered" category. It is difficult to imagine how a law student at such a high-level school could act like this. Is she lying about attending there? Is she a product of affirmative action? Does she simply self-destruct when it comes to discussing issues about which she is passionate, but otherwise produce competent work for her professors? Is she another in a long line of drones from snooty liberal schools who know only their abusive "women's rights" talking points and little else? I don't have any idea, but I do know that she merits zero respect in terms of intelligent exchange of ideas, since she has apparently gone even so far as to delete two substantive comments (one from me and one from Mac) (notice she never denied it but simply continued to call me names), she didn't do her side any good.

67 comments:

NAL said...

May I introduce you to the "jump break" which creates the "read more" option?

On the create post page, click on the "Settings" tab. Down at the bottom under "Global Settings" is the "Select post editor" option. Click on "Updated editor", and "Save Settings".

Then, under the "Compose" option for creating posts, you'll see a torn page icon all the way on the right. Just click this with the cursor in the desired position.

Rhology said...

Ah, to make that little twisty thing to shorten pages? Yeah, that's probably a good idea for long posts like this... Thanks for the idea. Lemme see if I can implement it.

DP said...

Chances are she's had an abortion - or several - which, as with any sin, severely plays with conscience and mind, leading to justification. And wounds certainly led to that, too. There's far more going on here than logic.

I hope and pray she has someone around her to tell her that Jesus wants to and will forgive her of that mess and renew her mind if she wants to live without the guilt and pain of it, and if she can submit to Jesus' authority as well as his grace.

marhaban said...

So you are against abortion, but what do YOU do about it?

I have a non-christian friend who is against abortion. She volunteers at a local clinic a few hours a week to help pregnant women know that there are other options and what resources are available for them.

My Christian friends who are against abortion tend to talk about abortion, they might shame people considering abortion, but I don't see any action on their part to help reduce the number of abortions.

How important is action in your Christian faith?

Rhology said...

I can't do sthg about everythg.
My wife has been a volunteer at a local crisis pregnancy center. I've given money to that center. I've distributed pro-abstinence lit at the local univ campus.
I will raise my children with full knowledge of the consequences of actions. I pray for the country and its churches.
I also blog here and expose the idiocy of the pro-baby-murder position, since hearts and minds are the most important.

Gamelot said...

Uhm... I think her arguments are incredibly logical. I read about 80% of them before getting tired with the wall of text, so that may not be true towards the bottom of the page, but she seemed to have sound reasoning and exposition.

Rhology said...

Gamelot,
You mean like
"Go push your morals on someone else."
"Can you image how many children would be orphans, live hard lives etc."
"Rhology you fool"
"the christian faith attempted to wipe out Muslims and "heretics" and in some situations resulting to cannibalism to strike fear in any others that did not believe in the Christian faith?"
"Hey god botherer"
"filter bullshit"
"Hey tool"
"I think Rhology needs to stop insinuating things and keep his fucking foot of of his mouth"
"Cry less, make sense more."
"If you can't take the insults man up and stop being a pussy"
"You sound like a spoiled momma's boy"
"are tattling on me?"
"You are dumb. You are a pussy. You may take these as insulting where as I take them primarily as statements of fact. Kick rocks. *deuces*"


Those?

So, if you think she has ANYthing, how about answering the questions I posed to her?

Rhology said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mistermind said...

What does that have to do with her sound argument? If anything you are the one not making any sense.

Anonymous said...

What did you gain from posting this? Kind of makes you appear to be whinny. Furthermore, what is your actual position? Where is your argument? Kind of a dumb blog that sounds like a bunch of children arguing.

Anonymous said...

This is his argument

pOTTY MOUTH HUSBAND:
"1)The medical community has created a threshold of existence that hinges on the development of the fertilized egg, most notably the nervous system. I have researched for myself and find it logical to side with the dominate medical community. Your threshold I believe is when the sperm successfully binds with the egg. I find it funny how you are now ... See Morebringing up philosophy in your arguments. Spectators take note this will happen routinely
2)See above...I find your questions redundant.
3) I reference pottymouth answer of survival"

Rhology

"1) And why should I accept what "the medical community" says, on a moral question?
Are you not aware that there is a great deal of assent within said community on this question? www.abort73.com
Why would it be wrong to bring up philosophy? You yourself said "find it logical" - that's a philosophical statement.

2) How do they know when the fetus becomes human? What is the marker? Why did they choose that marker? Is there some sort of "human essence" that the fetus achieves or is given or something at the time that the "medical community" decided the fetus becomes human? ... See More

3) In what % of cases is aborting the baby "for survival purposes when necessary"?
Or would you argue that a very young human baby is worthy of LESS legal protection from murder than a dog?"

Potty mouth husband "You are acting a fool and bringing the argument into fairy tale land...Could it be you are a fairy? You can argue morality for most anything. We are human and therefor emotional. There are questions of morality all around us with a good number being invented for indoctrination purpose but I digress. Alan I know I posted that I had much more free ... See Moretime than my wife but I believe you took that much to literally. I refuse to peel through pages of that website searching for something, please reference and I will research.

While logic does have deep rooted existence within philosophy it is not philosophy to deduce that 1 + 1 = 2. Please do not confuse scientific/mathematics logic with your philosophy.

Your response to question 3 is incredibly boneheaded. Your question was about dismembering a live dog how does this have any bearing on aborting a pregnancy that is not alive. Survival reasons? I believe I can see why resorted to name calling, there is a lot of titles that you have earned in our short time discussing this. If I am not to believe in science I suppose I should place my faith in you, all knowing Alan. While I am at that I will stick my head in a vice.
58 minutes ago"
Rhology

"1st paragraph - irrelevant whining.
2nd - Actually, "deduction" is philosophy - it's an exercise of logic. But this is irrelevant too.
3rd - You didn't answer the questions. Please answer the questions, Dave. If I'm such an idiot, this should be easy for you"
potty mouth husband

" Irefuse to comb the expanses of information to provide fruit for my beliefs, I have referenced plenty of logical information to which you can only rebut "how do you know?" Let me ask you the right question than Alan, how do you know there is a god?"

Potty mouth husband
"

Johana Pachacheo said...

Rhoblogy,

What was the reason for such a blog? I do not see anything wrong with her argument, its actually pretty sound. What were YOUR intentions here?

Sascha bear said...

What I see is Potty mouth law student answered your questions.I fail to see your argument, what a douche

marhaban said...

I can't do sthg about everythg.
My wife has been a volunteer at a local crisis pregnancy center. I've given money to that center. I've distributed pro-abstinence lit at the local univ campus.


I agree that noone can solve every problem in the world. I think we pick the ones that have the most relevancy to ourselves and submit our resources to working on them. But, I'm glad you do more than just talk about it, if you are passionate about that issue.

Ryan said...

"Translation: When the bushes rustle, I aim and fire without stopping to make sure it's not another person in there."

/debate

Soldier4Him said...

Since she did concede that the fetus was alive and never did answer why a fetus should not be considered part of homo-sapien.

Her argument for abortion only makes sense if you think a utilitarian worldview is correct, if not then her argument falls apart.

Rhology said...

Welcome trolls! You are fulfilling my every expectation of you, given that you no doubt came over when I tagged PMLS in the FB note. In fact, I'd've been disappointed had you not at least attempted to top PMLS' childish behavior in most respects. But fear not, you've made a lot of progress in a short time.
Also, isn't it funny that nobody has interacted with my actual arguments?


Anonymous and Johana Pachacheo said:
What did you gain from posting this?


Exposure of the foolishness of the pro-baby-murder position and of the scam of the myth of intellectual superiority just b/c you go to an "élite" law school.


Sascha bear said...
What I see is Potty mouth law student answered your questions.


Oh, OK. So what are your answers (or hers) to my subsequent questions that she ignored?


Ryan said...
/debate


Um, yup.

Marine4life said...

Rhology, your ignoramus "arguments" or slander are ridiculous. You need to get a life, you do not see what others see, get your head out of your ass. I feel like I lost brain cells after reading this.

marine4life said...

Your response to Gamelot is pricless, you do not have a leg to stand on. Your only beef with her is that she defeated you and you never had an argument in the first place. You only complain due to her hyperbole statements and not her argument.Perhaps she is a bit immature; however, sounds very intelligent.You are quite the contrary.

Rhology said...

Marine4life,
Thanks for the trolling!
What are your answers to the questions I asked PMLS? Do you need me to repaste them?

Marine4life said...

Rhology,

I repeat, you never presented an argument, merely posting questions to be answered does not constitute a argument. Do you not get it, you are only mad at her hyperbole statements; however, you have yet to state an actual argument. I do not need you to re-post your redundant questions, I responded by talking about your response to Gamelot. Your responded by showing insults she wrote verse her argument, that is flawed and does not help your argument.

THECURE said...

HAHAHA.. This chick is awesome!!

Anonymous said...

As one of "pottymouths" law student's friends, she is HIGHLY intelligent and great student,, who will make a great attorney one day! I am proud of her, she held her ground!!

Anonymous said...

you stated 'Exposure of the foolishness of the pro-baby-murder position and of the scam of the myth of intellectual superiority just b/c you go to an "élite" law school."

How have you "exposed" her? It makes her look quite intelligent. You're to funny. Jealous?

Tommy D said...

Blah, Blah, Blah..

Karen S said...

Ya, you sound real intelligent when you state affirmative action", why would bring that into your weak argument. Furthermore, she is not the only one playing dirty. Both of you are childish!

Carrie said...

I think she did a great job arguing.I agree with her.

Rhology said...

...and STILL no response to my arguments. This is getting actually pretty funny.
*Munches popcorn.*
*Waits.*
*Waits some more.*
*Yawns.*

carrie said...

what is your argument? How many people have to ask?

Rhology said...

carrie,

Oh, I get it. You don't read the post, but you're trolling to get PMLS' back. How intellectually honest is that? You embody the very essence of the word "troll". I'd be embarrassed to say what you just said.

Here are most of the arguments in this post. All I did was copy and paste them together, to help all of you élite law students. It's actually fairly pitiful.



My position is that dogs give birth to dogs, cats to cats, humans to humans. It's wrong to murder humans. So why allow people to murder other people?


1) Please prove that "significant connections" means "the capacity to experience pain". How have you *observed* that? Or is this more shooting blind in the dark?
2) Please prove that the incapacity to feel pain leads to the conclusion that the baby does not have the right not to be killed without provocation.
3) Please make an argument that being human depends on what someone can DO or their physical location rather than on their being, their ontology.
4) Please let me know whether it is morally OK to dismember a live dog for any reason at all.


Translation: When the bushes rustle, I aim and fire without stopping to make sure it's not another person in there. I am 100% sure that it's better to kill a baby than to let the baby live as an orphan, b/c as we all know, no orphans ever have any good lives, never contribute to society, never help others, never go on to great things. Better just to kill 'em before they can live a life I think isn't worth living.


1) How have you *observed* that one cannot feel pain w/o a nervous system *as you know it*? Or are you just guessing b/c you *think* you know what constitutes the capacity to experience pain and don't want to make the inconvenient admission that you're assuming what you prefer not to think about?
Also, you're correct, I don't have a bkgrd in medicine. Just in asking serious questions, and I'm wondering if you realise the considerable temerity involved in guessing for the benefit of your convenience on issues of life and death of human beings, as in the case of abortion.

2) I think you have misspoken and for the sake of courtesy I'd like to give you the chance to restate. You think someone seriously thinks that the fetus is not even ALIVE? It's one thing to be alive, and quite another to be human. You said "alive", and my question dealt with life vs being killed. Please confirm that's what you meant, and if so, please let us know at what point the fetus becomes alive and how you know, how how you know it was decided, and by whom.

3) In what way does a human fetus, however young, NOT "belong to the Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species"? At what time does the product of human sexual intercourse and conception become a member of "Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species"?

4) In what % of cases is aborting the baby "for survival purposes when necessary"?
Or would you argue that a very young human baby is worthy of LESS legal protection from murder than a dog?


There are your challenges. This is my last comment here until someone interacts with my points.

Carrie said...

You are so ignorant.. its quite amusing. Potty mouth law student, dont waste your time! I enjoyed reading your responses. What a loser for posting this blog.

marhaban said...

3) In what way does a human fetus, however young, NOT "belong to the Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species"? At what time does the product of human sexual intercourse and conception become a member of "Homo genus or more specifically to the homo sapien species"?

Jut curious, but I was wondering how you feel about fertility treatments and the quantities of fertilized eggs that will never be implanted into a womb. Are these humans or just human cells?

4) In what % of cases is aborting the baby "for survival purposes when necessary"?

About 12% are for medical reasons, according to a survey in 2004.

Most are because of financial difficulty. For example, a family already has 4 kids and they depend on her paycheck. She can't afford another child and the time off work and the healthcare.

My own opinion is that we need to look at why people are getting abortions and work to provide more of a choice before conception. Based on the surveys I've seen, the majority of people get abortions because of financial difficulty.

If they had access to quality birth control/healthcare, maybe they could prevent unwanted pregnancy before it occurred.

Rhology said...

marhaban,

They are humans and those kinds of treatments constitute no less an evil than abortion does. Same with embryonic stem cell research - it causes the destruction of human beings.
I strive for total consistency in my worldview.


About 12% are for medical reasons

1) Many of which are misdiagnoses and whose predicted complications fail to come to pass.
2) "Medical reasons" is not the same as survival purposes.
3) That still leaves 88% that are NOT. If I were a pro-baby-murder advocate, I wouldn't cite that kind of stat. It's bad for the position.


She can't afford another child and the time off work and the healthcare.

Right, so go ahead and just kill the child. It's the child's fault anyway.


we need to look at why people are getting abortions

Yes, but that does not change the fact that abortion is baby murder and should be outlawed. Both can be true.

Toby said...

i

Toby said...

Ok that last post was just a test to see if I signed up right. Marhaban, you said "If they had access to quality birth control/healthcare, maybe they could prevent unwanted pregnancy before it occurred."
How about if they stopped having sex with those they don't want kids with, maybe they should try having sex only with the one they are married to, ya think?

marhaban said...

That still leaves 88% that are NOT.

True.

Right, so go ahead and just kill the child. It's the child's fault anyway.

So, scenerio: a family with 4 kids already, a mom working 2 minimum wage jobs and dad is disabled. If the family is living at the poverty line and the added expense of a child plus the unpaid medical leave will cause them to lose their apartment or house, and to not be able to provide for the kids they already have. What is the "right" choice? I personally don't think they have a "right" choice. I don't think most women get abortions for fun.

Yes, but that does not change the fact that abortion is baby murder and should be outlawed. Both can be true.

I don't think they should be outlawed, but I am all for giving women better options.

How about if they stopped having sex with those they don't want kids with, maybe they should try having sex only with the one they are married to, ya think?

Toby, Married women who get pregnant are just as likely to have abortions as single women. The biggest factor statistically is lack of financial stability not marital status.

PChem said...

Wow Rho. You really chucked some rocks at a bee hive didn't you!

I made a quick scan of the comments and these are the three that stood out to me.

By PMLS in the OP:
In order for something to be killed they must first be alive. Dr.'s have determined that a fetus is not yet alive until a specific point in development.

By PMH in the comments section as posted by Anonymous (who I presume is PMH):
The medical community has created a threshold of existence that hinges on the development of the fertilized egg, most notably the nervous system.

By PMH via Anonymous (I assume):
Your question was about dismembering a live dog how does this have any bearing on aborting a pregnancy that is not alive.

There are at least two problems with this. First, defining life as requiring a functioning nervous system is simply ridiculous. By this definition, all unicellular organisms are not alive. Clearly this is mistaken. If one goes a step further and requires a functioning central nervous system, then that would relegate a much larger swath of organisms, such as plants and fungi, to the realm of the non-living. A much better definition of biological life can be found with a suitable dictionary. For instance, the Penguin Dictionary of Biology defines life as "complex physico-chemical systems whose two main peculiarities are (1) storage and replication of molecular information in the form of nucleic acid, and (2) the presence of (or in viruses perhaps merely the potential for) enzyme catalysis." This clearly places a fertilized egg as living. Further, by this definition, life began at fertilization, which is marked by the slow block to polyspermy. For this reason alone, it is silly to say that an unborn child is "not alive" until some later developmental stage. So, I emphatically disagree that the arguments presented are sound.

Second, the quotes argue that a point in development is the marker for life. Presumably, they intend to argue that rights, like the right to life, should conferred on those individuals after they reach that development stage. But, why should we accept that specific criterion? Some argue that other criteria must be satisfied before a right to life may be conferred. For example, the bioethicist Peter Singer has famously championed infanticide of disabled infants and non-voluntary euthansia of "people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved." In the very least, a strong argument for why a nervous system is the criteria must be provided. As of yet, one is lacking except that the majority of the medical community embraces it. However, this claim was challenged by Rhology. Furthermore, it is susceptible to the following problems.

Functional definitions of life, like the presence of a nervous system or the ability to respond to pain, are notoriously difficult to contain. Can the authors please explain why the following scenarios would not be morally acceptable?

1. Terminating the life a person who is under a powerful anesthetic or in a coma?
2. Killing a person who is a quadriplegic?
3. Relagating a person who has suffered a debilitating stroke and lost feeling in half of their body as a second-class citizen simply because they do not retain functionality of a complete nervous system?

A better approach is to confer rights based on the ontology of the person. An argument might go something like this:

1: Humans are unique because they are created in the image of God.

2: God has commanded us not to kill others specifically because they are created in the image of God.

3: If the image of God is imputed to people at fertilization then abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.

PChem said...

Toby,

Now that would just be too simple now wouldn't it? ;-)

PChem said...

Marhaban,

What is the "right" choice?

I agree with you that there are very difficult circumstances involved. I also agree that women do not choose abortion for fun. However, the baby truly is innocent in the matter. Why should (s)he have his/her life extinguished for financial reasons? It is certainly possible that situations that look bleak at one time often do not follow through. We all experience this in life, so why not expect it as a possibility here.

I think the argument that the quality of life for those invovled will be better if the baby is aborted is a poor morallity. First, there is strong evidence that the abortion will cause severe psychological harm to the mother and family. Second, it is simply mistaken to say that people who have been born into those situations do not live fulfilling lives. Third, the scenarios ignore the possibility of adoption or foster care.

Rhology said...

So, scenerio:

So you conclude that it's just better to kill the child.
Why choose the tiny one? Why not one of the larger ones? They eat more, cost more, etc. Don't dismiss this question - deal with it.


What is the "right" choice?

I'm sure you're aware that the right choice is rarely the easiest one. The right choice is, follow me here, not to murder people. It's really a pretty simple concept.


I don't think most women get abortions for fun.

But most get them for convenience' sake.


I am all for giving women better options.

Me too. Maybe our main difference is that for you, apparently murder is an open option. For me, it's not.
If I have a budget shortfall and need money for my own family, I don't consider mugging someone and slitting their throat. Not an option. Why is abortion an option, then?


PChem,
You really chucked some rocks at a bee hive didn't you!

Yeah, I've been unpleasantly surprised at the amount of idiocy that could pour out of one law school. Apparently even PMLS' professor is egging her on, and that's a sad commentary on the state of university edjamakayshunn.

PChem said...

That truly is sad. She hasn't dealt with the central issue of her ethical framework. Did I read correctly that her husband is a med student? If so, it is even more astounding that he would advance such an idiotic definition of life.

Rhology said...

You should go check out the thread of my convo with him on my FB page. It's every bit as bad as you can imagine, though he did a bit better than PMLS herself. The ratio of attempted argumentation to out-and-out namecalling and obscenities was slightly better.

PChem said...

Thanks Rhology. Is it still going? I might jump in.

Rhology said...

Nope, PMLS' husband left probably 10 unanswered questions on the table and pulled out last night.

Strangely enough, these trolls in this blog combox didn't have anything substantive to say. Weird, huh?

marhaban said...

PChem,

First, there is strong evidence that the abortion will cause severe psychological harm to the mother and family.

I don't disagree. But having a child also can cause severe psychological harm. All the more reason to support good healthcare and mental healthcare benefits for all people.

Second, it is simply mistaken to say that people who have been born into those situations do not live fulfilling lives.
True.

Third, the scenarios ignore the possibility of adoption or foster care.

As a parent who adopted my kids from the foster care system, I can tell you from experience that the system is a mess. This option may be great for healthy white babies, but not as great for minorities or kids with any issues such as HIV positive parents, drug or alcohol exposure, etc. I'm not saying that they won't end up succeeding in spite of this, just saying that I have seen how challenging it is to find loving parents for kids in these situations. The statistics of numbers of kids who grow up in foster care and become homeless or commit suicide or get incarcerated are depressing. I don't believe they are better off not being born, but I can see where this is not necessarily an easy choice for the parent. This doesn't even get into the stress and challenge of working with the US foster care system trying to place your kid in the first place.

Rhoblogy,


I conclude that it is better to educate people on family planning and provide affordable birth control so they can avoid the choice at all.

I don't claim that it is better to kill the child. I claim that it is a difficult choice to make. I'm glad I don't have to make it, but I won't pass judgment on those who do, and I don't think society will be any better off by taking the choice away from them.

In the words of Neytiri in Avatar, "This is sad, Very sad only"

But most get them for convenience' sake.

How will making abortion illegal help? Women were getting abortions long before they became legal. Rich people could get them easily enough. Poor people were stuck with unsanitary schmuck "doctors", but they still risked their lives to terminate the pregnancy.

If I have a budget shortfall and need money for my own family, I don't consider mugging someone and slitting their throat. Not an option. Why is abortion an option, then?

Abortion should stay an option, because the consequences of it not being an option also suck. When people stop needing abortion because they have the support they need to parent the kids, go the adoption route, or protect themselves from pregnancy in the first place, we still won't need to make it illegal, because most people won't use it.

Carrie said...

Marhaban,

Great points..

Marine4life said...

Rhology,

you are a douche, quit talking about people. You talk about name calling, why do you call people with opposing opinions "trolls"? what a idiot.

Rhology said...

marhaban,

But having a child also can cause severe psychological harm.

1) So let's just kill them!
2) If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, why choose to murder the child? You need to answer this.
3) Of course, one is natural (childbirth) and has been going on for quite some time. A few decades, at least, women have been giving birth to children.


All the more reason to support good healthcare and mental healthcare benefits for all people.

Fine! Yes! Stop acting like this is a good excuse to allow baby murder, please! Sheesh. That's not the topic, OK? Stop bringing it up, and focus on the issue. Stop. Breathe. Focus.


As a parent who adopted my kids from the foster care system, I can tell you from experience that the system is a mess.

So let's kill the babies we don't think will live "good" lives. Let's assume we can define "good" for someone else. Let's assume we know that NOT ONE CHILD that we murder will actually overcome obstacles and live a life that s/he finds to be good. Let's assume that EVERY CHILD, if s/he'd reached adulthood, would've preferred that s/he'd have been murdered in the womb.
Are you ready to make those assumptions for someone else, let alone millions of others? On whose authority?


This option may be great for healthy white babies, but not as great for minorities or kids with any issues such as HIV positive parents, drug or alcohol exposure, etc.

So let's just kill those ones, the ones with more obstacles in their way. They'll never overcome them anyway.


I'm not saying that they won't end up succeeding in spite of this,

Actually, if you're arguing for the permissibility of murdering the children in the womb and using these statements as excuses for it, you are absolutely doing just that.


I don't claim that it is better to kill the child. I claim that it is a difficult choice to make.

Why precisely is it a difficult choice? I don't have all the money I want, but it's not a difficult choice for me to decide NOT to mug the rich guy downtown tonight. Why? B/c murder is not an option. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?


I won't pass judgment on those who do

Do you pass judgment on Ted Bundy? Charles Manson? Adolf Hitler? Just curious how consistent you're willing to be. Please let me know.

Rhology said...

How will making abortion illegal help?

If I had my way, it would put every single abortician out of business, and if the abortician performed one more abortion after abortion was outlawed, he'd be summarily executed after a very swift trial. That's how it would help.


Rich people could get them easily enough.

1) Didn't you just finish tell me how hard off most people with unwanted pregnancies have it b/c they're NOT rich, and therefore seek abortions? Your consistency could use some work.
2) Let them get them, and their children's blood be on their own heads, but not in the US. I can't control what goes on outside my country's borders.
3) You know what? Let's just not outlaw grand larceny and fraud, and murder. I mean, the people with the means to commit those acts will just do them anyway. That's what your argument amounts to.


Poor people were stuck with unsanitary schmuck "doctors"

1) Do you have any idea how unsanitary most abortuaries are RIGHT NOW? You need to educate yourself.
2) Are you arguing that we should pander to those who'd prefer to murder children for the sake of their own circumstances?
3) If we imprison, try, and execute aborticians, shmuck or not, they won't be stuck with them at all. There won't be any.



Abortion should stay an option, because the consequences of it not being an option also suck.

Thus spake marhaban. Sorry, but you need to actually make an argument before you can just summarily pronounce judgment.

PChem said...

Marhaban,

I think the central issue here is that you do not think the unborn child possess the full set of rights that a newborn child has, otherwise you would not view abortion as an option. Certainly, you do not think that killing a newborn is an acceptable way of dealing with a difficult situation.

I have previously argued why I think unborn children possess these rights. Can you please present your position on this? Do you hold to the same criteria as PMLS and PMH? Peter Singer? If not, what is the criteria. I don't see how there can be much more dialog until you advance your position. Unless of course you concede and accept my position ;-)

Cheers

marhaban said...

Rhoblogy,

Fine! Yes! Stop acting like this is a good excuse to allow baby murder, please! Sheesh. That's not the topic, OK? Stop bringing it up, and focus on the issue. Stop. Breathe. Focus.

I think it is very relevent to the issue. If you are against abortion, aren't you for minimizing the reasons people get them?


1) Didn't you just finish tell me how hard off most people with unwanted pregnancies have it b/c they're NOT rich, and therefore seek abortions? Your consistency could use some work.

Yeah, but you forget that good birthcontrol is now readily available to people of privilege, but not as much for the poor. I don't think rich people stopped having sex even though they are much less likely to have abortions now.


I don't have all the money I want, but it's not a difficult choice for me to decide NOT to mug the rich guy downtown tonight.

Is this a strawman?

I think the central issue here is that you do not think the unborn child possess the full set of rights that a newborn child has, otherwise you would not view abortion as an option.

PChem, I agree.

Toby said...

Marhaban you said...

"Toby, Married women who get pregnant are just as likely to have abortions as single women. The biggest factor statistically is lack of financial stability not marital status."

Well abstaining from sex for those who are not married will take care of half the abortions. Financial instability is not a good reason to murder an in innocent child? Have you ever been financially unstable or do you know someone who is? Would ever consider murdering one of your children or suggesting to your poor friend that murdering their child might remedy their situation? If not then why would we suggest this is an option for the parents of less developed children?

PChem said...

Marhaban,

I know you agree. Can you please respond to the questions?

Can you please present your position on this? Do you hold to the same criteria as PMLS and PMH? Peter Singer? If not, what is the criteria. I don't see how there can be much more dialog until you advance your position. Unless of course you concede and accept my position ;-)

marhaban said...

PChem,

I am curious what is your take on a child born with a parasitic twin.

The kid is born with 4 legs and arms and multiple organs.

My take would be that one fetus became a fully developed child and one fetus did not. They had the potential to become two fully developed entities even if they were conjoined, but they didn't.

If doctors remove the extra legs and arms etc. are they killing the parasitic twin? It meets the criteria for being alive, but is it a human? Is this murder? Why or why not?

PChem said...

Marhaban,

Well, this certainly is a tragic set of circumstances. I particular noticed how the locals were hounding the parents through what is a difficult time in their life.

My take is that there were two fetus and they represent two people. So, yes I do believe they are killing the second person. However, in this case the killing seems justified. It falls under the same class as ectopic pregnancies where an abortion is justified simply because the alternative is the death of both mother and child. Here, it seems the alternative is death to both children. Perhaps in the future medical knowledge will advance to the point that these situations can be identified and corrected in utero. There have been amazing advances in fetal surgury.

On another note, how come you haven't put forward a set of criteria that defines when a human has developed to the point that rights should be granted to it?

marhaban said...

PChem,

Since you asked,

1. Human DNA
2. A head w/ a brain that is not dead
3. Able to live outside of the womb.

Thanks for answering my questions.

One more if you don't mind. When is killing another human is justified? Is it when it does more good than harm? Thanks.

Rhology said...

Able to live outside of the womb.

In other words, it depends on its ABILITY.
marhaban, you're not out of the woods yet. What do you mean "live outside the womb"? How much dependence on other ppl is necessary? And how do you know that? It seems like you're just pulling these moral judgments of life and death out of the air - why should anyone respect such arbitrary standards as these? What is the prescriptive power behind your statements? Why SHOULD I agree with you?

marhaban said...

Rhoblogy,

I kinda figured I'd be entering the woods if I answered the question.

?What do you mean "live outside the womb"? How much dependence on other ppl is necessary? And how do you know that?

I believe that if the child is developed enough to be saved outside the womb, then it has the right to live outside the womb, even if it is a super premie and dependant on doctors and technology.

the baby's location inside the mother IS insuperable for your Nazi/Jew question. It's a totally different situation. I can't get to the baby w/o dealing with the mother first. Can't teleport the baby out. If I could, that'd be great;

I pulled this off the other thread just 'cause you seem to agree that the baby's location inside the mother is significant. Am I misreading this? When it can live outside the mother, the mother's rights and the baby's rights can coexist.


It seems like you're just pulling these moral judgments of life and death out of the air - why should anyone respect such arbitrary standards as these? What is the prescriptive power behind your statements? Why SHOULD I agree with you?

1.because "dogs give birth to dogs, cats to cats, humans to humans"
2.because I don't consider anyone without a head with a live brain in it to really be a sentient being.
3.arbitrary, see above

This is the criteria that makes the most sense to me personally. I don't really expect you or PChem to agree with me, we seem to have really different worldviews.

Besides the fact that they are arbitrary, why don't they work?

Rhology said...

I believe that if the child is developed enough to be saved outside the womb, then it has the right to live outside the womb

So rights change based on the medical technology available? And the child's location? If a child is born in the Sudan a slight preemie, he doesn't have a right to life but a preemie who happens to be born in Johns Hopkins DOES have a right to life?
Why is this not totally arbitrary?
Further, what does "saved" mean? Are you not aware that babies depend on others for EVERYTHING? How much help does he merit? Food? Water? Warmth? If he can't provide for these himself, does he have human rights, the right not to be killed?


When it can live outside the mother, the mother's rights and the baby's rights can coexist.

I know that you can make naked assertions all day long, no problem. I want to know your SUBSTANTIATION for these statements. Who said? Why should anyone else believe this?


.because I don't consider anyone without a head with a live brain in it to really be a sentient being.

1) And let's say I do. Now, who's right and how can we know?
2) You've violated premise #1, and that leads me to believe that you really don't know what you're talking about. If humans give birth to humans...and a human gives birth to some organism...then isn't that organism human?...Yet you've here in premise 2 said that this particular product of human birth is in fact NOT human...so you need to rethink this.


Besides the fact that they are arbitrary, why don't they work?

1) Truth is not found in what you think "works". That is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
2) Apartheid in S Africa certainly "worked" out fine...for those who were in power! This is the exact same reasoning - you have power over the baby and by God you're going to exercise that power. You're gonna show that baby who's boss!
3) Do you arbitrarily decide to shoot at the rustling in the bushes w/o finding out who or what is in there? Same thing.

marhaban said...

Rhoblogy,

If he can't provide for these himself, does he have human rights, the right not to be killed?
yes. Because good Christian people like yourself can now adopt him and give a Godly upbringing.

1) And let's say I do. Now, who's right and how can we know?
2) You've violated premise #1, and that leads me to believe that you really don't know what you're talking about. If humans give birth to humans...and a human gives birth to some organism...then isn't that organism human?...Yet you've here in premise 2 said that this particular product of human birth is in fact NOT human...so you need to rethink this.


Now aren't you affirming the consequent? I don't think I violated premise 1. You can begat something that had the potential to be human even if they were not developed to the point to have human rights and you can begat humans that are fully developed. That wasn't an exclusive statement. And if someone used to be human, but their brain is eaten by a zombie, I don't consider them human anymore either.

But, what difference does it make? If I were to change my mind and believe that fertilized eggs were fully human and deserving of the same rights as children, how will that make a difference in the number of abortions per year?

I don't really think we are on opposite sides on this issue. We both support minimizing abortions. You just want to do it by convincing your congressmen to pass legislation that legalizes killing abortion providers and I want to do it by convincing them to provide free birth control to the poor. What makes your way more morally correct?

Rhology said...

marhaban,

You're fairly mixed up, and not answering the question.
Earlier comment:
I believe that if the child is developed enough to be saved outside the womb, then it has the right to live outside the womb

Now:
Me - If he can't provide for these himself, does he have human rights, the right not to be killed?
You - yes. Because good Christian people like yourself can now adopt him and give a Godly upbringing.

So, which is it? How much dependence is allowable before human rights are not granted? Be specific.


Now aren't you affirming the consequent?

If I were an naturalist, yes, but God has set into motion and told me the universal - that humans give birth to humans. I deduce from this universal that humans do indeed give birth to humans. So much the better that universal human experience bears that out.


You can begat something that had the potential to be human even if they were not developed to the point to have human rights and you can begat humans that are fully developed.

Now you're begging the very question at hand - we're arguing whether really really young humans get human rights or not. You might as well not have said anything.


And if someone used to be human, but their brain is eaten by a zombie, I don't consider them human anymore either.

1) Um, zombie? Really?
2) Why don't you consider them a dead human? Be specific.


If I were to change my mind and believe that fertilized eggs were fully human and deserving of the same rights as children, how will that make a difference in the number of abortions per year?

1) Do you really think the truth doesn't matter unless you can measure it?
2) You're a voter, aren't you? Why not DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Call your Congressman and Senator and tell them that their position, if pro-baby-murder, is idiotic, irrational, and evil, and urge them to vote pro-life. If they dispute it, defeat their arguments politely and urge them to reconsider. That's a good place to start.


You just want to do it by convincing your congressmen to pass legislation that legalizes killing abortion providers

1) EXECUTING aborticians. But I'd be very very happy if they were just imprisoned too.
2) And yes, I happen to think that it's a good idea for society to outlaw murder. Don't you?
Consider your statement in another context.
We both support minimizing rape. You just want to do it by convincing your congressmen to pass legislation that legalizes putting rapists in prison and I want to do it by convincing them to provide free counseling for men who are considering raping women.

marhaban said...

Rhoblogy,

Sorry for mixing this up, but I want to start at the end, because this seems the most significant to me.

Consider your statement in another context.
We both support minimizing rape. You just want to do it by convincing your congressmen to pass legislation that legalizes putting rapists in prison and I want to do it by convincing them to provide free counseling for men who are considering raping women.


This is a good point. I hadn't really thought about it this way before, and it helps me understand your perspective.

I don't think raping people is the same as abortion, but assuming therapy could have similar results to good contraceptives, and rapists were as receptive to using therapy as women are to using contraceptives...

If providing therapy reduced the number of rapes in this country by as much as 70%, wouldn't that be worthwhile?

Possibly even more worthwhile than pursueing steeper punishments for rapists, since this doesn't seem to reduce the number of crimes statistically?


Other questions:
Why don't you consider them a dead human? Be specific.
Because when you are dead, all that is left is a body, that's just meat, not a person anymore.

So, which is it? How much dependence is allowable before human rights are not granted?
Babies are completely dependant on others. I don't think it's really about dependance. Being able to live outside the womb is my criteria not because of dependance, but because this is the point when the mother's desires become completely irrelevant.

Rhology said...

I don't think raping people is the same as abortion

I guess that's one of the things I'm trying to help you see. ;-)
I'd consider it, actually, a shade worse than rape. Rape in isolation allows the victim to continue to live. Murder is the end of life.


If providing therapy reduced the number of rapes in this country by as much as 70%, wouldn't that be worthwhile?

Certainly! Pretty much anything to reduce the # of rapes! To reduce the risk to my beloved wife and daughter...


Possibly even more worthwhile than pursueing steeper punishments for rapists, since this doesn't seem to reduce the number of crimes statistically?

I doubt those statistics, if for no other reason than keeping rapists in jail for life means that there will never be a repeat offender.


Why don't you consider them a dead human? Be specific.
Because when you are dead, all that is left is a body, that's just meat, not a person anymore.


So, a former human?
I guess this has gotten a little off-topic anyway.


Babies are completely dependant on others.

Yep, and so are children up to, what, 10 years old?


because this is the point when the mother's desires become completely irrelevant.

Why does the mother's desires have any bearing on the rights of another? If I want your car, and my desire is to just make sure no one knows what happened to you, is it OK for me just to kill you and take your car? Why is the situation different for the mother and child? Are you claiming she has some kind of ownership over the child? How would that be different (and not age discriminatory) than 18th century Southern slavery?

marhaban said...

Rhoblogy,

keeping rapists in jail for life means that there will never be a repeat offender.

You mean they will never rape people outside of the prison system correct? If my son goes to jail, he might not be as lucky as your wife and daughter. Last I checked prison rape was not that uncommon. "statistics indicate that there are more men raped in U.S. prisons than non-incarcerated women similarly assaulted"

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Rhology said...

I'll have to confess that I care a lot less about what goes on inside a prison where rapists are incarcerated than what goes on outside where my wife and children spend time. If that's a crime, well...

marhaban said...

Are abortions ok inside prisons then?

I don't get why location/person changes the acceptability of the crime.

Rhology said...

Not at all. It's also wrong to rape a fellow prisoner. But I don't care as much, for the same reason that we place more importance on the lives of the innocent than the lives of mass murderers.