Sunday, February 20, 2011

Prairie Dog Abortion

Over at LifeSite News, I was monitoring the developing convo to see how my friends the Abolitionists were faring (they fared quite well) in the combox reactions to the House's passage of the Pence amendment which seeks to remove Planned Parenthood's federal funding.
One Stephen Whitworth dropped by and told us that he had expressed himself rather rudely about this issue and invited anyone interested to interact at the combox there. To his credit, he has not deleted any comments to my knowledge, but the convo over there, while interesting, has not attracted a great deal of deep thinkers on the pro-baby-murder side of the aisle.  I reproduce here my comments.


3
Rhology - Feb. 18 - 8:41 pm

Hi! Linked over from Lifesite. You promised vulgarity and implied immaturity, and you didn’t disappoint!

You said:
–”Teabagging hordes that galloped to a U.S. Congressional majority”

1) Saying “Teabaggers” and suchlike reveals you to be a leftist, biased tool. Just FYI. Can you really not resist the temptation?
2) The Tea Party has no position on abortion. I unsuccessfully tried, for example, to have the Planned Parenthood vigil for victims added to my local Tea Party mailing list update.

You said:
–”Think abortion is wrong? Don’t have one! No problem! See? It’s easy to get along and respect each other’s different beliefs!”

Think kidnapping is wrong? Don’t kidnap people! No problem! See? It’s easy to get along and respect each other’s different beliefs!

You said:
–”don’t you dare push your bizarre, preindustrial superstitions”

Did you know that this is a logical fallacy, a derivative of the genetic fallacy, called the argument from modernity? Just b/c you come later in chronology doesn’t mean you’re right.
Does it bother you that you’ve used a logical fallacy in your argument?

You said:
–”babies and fetuses aren’t the same thing”

Tbh, I’d say that is THE central topic of the whole abortion debate. I’d like to ask you: When does a fetus become a baby? And how do you know?

You said:
–”You know when they became legal? After women were allowed to vote, work and choose their own destinies. ”

Yes, a lot later. Like 54 years later, in the USA. That’s a pretty large separation of time to prove correlation. Do you have an argument that would compel us to accept your reasoning here?

You said:
–”since nobody wants abortions”

Then why is Planned Parenthood requiring that all of its “clinics” PERFORM abortions by 2013, or else be cut off from PP funding?
This is obviously false.

You said:
–”Women want and need sex education, dependable birth control and doctors and health workers”

1) Defunding PP doesn’t mean that PP won’t get any money anymore. It just means the US gov’t won’t subsidise them. They’ll have to compete now.
2) What about all those ppl who like to remind us that PP is all about contraception and raising awareness? Wouldn’t PP have to constrict, tighten its belt, in order to continue to offer its most important services, while trimming the fat? Or is it that, contrary to what we keep hearing from the PP apologists, abortions really are their stock and trade and their favorite activity? What happened to safe, legal, and rare? As far as I can tell, they and their ilk are only interested in the “legal” part of that triumvirate. So, if they stopped funding contraception and all that stuff and focused on abortions, seems to me that the blame would rest squarely on their shoulders, not on the shoulders of those calling for reform.

You said:
–”South Dakota talked about making it sort of legal to murder abortion doctors. ”

Help me understand your reasoning here. It’s OK to kill fetuses b/c the law says so. It’s not OK to kill older fetuses b/c the law says it’s not OK. But what if the law were changed to allow killing of any and all fetuses? What’s your specific complaint?

Peace to you,
Rhology




8
Rhology - Feb. 18 - 9:11 pm

So, you folks are upset b/c we think that you shouldn’t be allowed to dismember a baby w/o provocation?
In 99% of cases (at least in N America), the pregnancy is due to consensual sex. Your parents DID teach you what happens when you have sex, right? Well, you don’t get to kill someone else just b/c you made a mistake.

Amy said:
–”So you want to force women to have babies, but you don’t think society should have any responsibility for caring for them once they come into a world where they are not wanted?”

1) Smokescreen. This is irrelevant.
2) No, not at all. My church is quite involved in helping such women. My wife volunteers at the Crisis Pregnancy Center. You should be ashamed of yourself for using this argument.

JB said:
–”3% of their services are abortion services”

1) Remember what I said about 2013?
2) Then if they stop offering abortions, it won’t be a big deal, right?

Peace,
Rhology


16
Rhology - Feb. 19 - 7:06 am

Stephen W,

Hopefully you’re bright enough to know there’s a diff between what most Tea Partiers hold to and what the Tea Party as a movement more-or-less officially stands for.

(Here I edit out a part where I mistook an anonymous commenter's intentions)

Amy,
–”Women should not have to subscribe to your religious beliefs in order to feed and clothe the children you have forced them to carry.”

I am sorry but this is ludicrous. I have never said anything of the sort. Rather, I don’t think ppl of any age or gender should be able to dismember other ppl w/o provocation.

Glenn,
–”Which were the major points? Let’s engage!”

Read my first comment. I brought up several. Read Abolitionist’s comments. He brought up several.
Let’s see how serious you are.

Peace,
Rhology


31
Rhology - Feb. 19 - 3:05 pm

@Stephen W #29,

I’d think you had a case to be made scientifically if you’d bothered to answer my question from before – when precisely, scientifically, does a fetus become a human, and how do you know?
We both know you have no consistent answer to that question, and that’s why Abolitionist_4 was so right – the pro-baby-murder side has no scientific case and also is woefully inept philosophically speaking.
Answer the question.

Finally, you threw out a disanalogous but sadly common bugaboo – “I value women more than fetuses”. This is disingenuous. Almost zero abortions are choices between the life of the mother and the life of the baby. What you should have said is that you’d prefer to dismember a baby instead of telling a woman she’ll have to be inconvenienced for 9 months, b/c the alternative is murder. In no way is it putting the child’s value over the mother’s. The anti-baby-murder position thinks they both have the same value. They’re humans and you don’t get to deprive them of life w/o due process of law.

Peace,
Rhology


35
Rhology - Feb. 19 - 7:58 pm

Stephen,

Oh, b/c you asserted it, we’re just supposed to believe it, eh? Pardon me for not accepting your authority.
WHY is it absurd to say a fetus is human, just like a grown woman is? Do you think that 80 year old women have a greater value than 3 year olds? If not, why not? They’re OLDER, and grown woman are older than fetuses. Apparently age is your deciding factor.

The other thing you said is that when a baby breathes, it’s a human? So when ppl are on ventilators, they’re no longer human? If not, why so inconsistent?
You refused to answer the question but then proceeded to tell us that “anything less than 12 weeks is indisputably not a person”. Why is it too much to ask that you explain your judgment call?
If you ask why we think life begins at conception, we’ll be happy to tell you. When will you, the baby murder proponent here, man up and answer the question?
Tell you what, let’s give you another chance, but only one. Make an argument, on pain of proving yourself just to be one more irrational proponent of dismembering babies for the hell of it.

Peace,
Rhology


40
Rhology - Feb. 20 - 7:35 am

prowomenwoman,

W/o an argument that would lead us to think that the fetus is not a human, ***IT IS NOT OK TO KILL HUMANS FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT THEY ARE INCONVENIENT***.
Let’s recast your comment in the light of 19th century slaver.

All this hooey about whether a slave is a “person” is pretty darn silly and inconsequential.
So what are we REALLY arguing about here? It’s pretty simple – we are arguing about the ability for slaveowners to make choices about their financial lives and property. It’s ironic that ppl here who are opposed to slavery are also opposed to full and comprehensive education and job placement services that would guarantee every black person a white coller, high paying job and a mansion in Long Island. I mean, higher power forbid we actually make freeing slaves accessible for ALL slaveowners and make lots and lots of money automatically available for ALL freed slaves.

If the proof is in the pudding folks, if anti-slavery types want less slavery then maybe they start better start putting their money where their mouths are. Seems like a lot of them care about freeing the slave but not about what comes after. Slavery is not going away though. Ppl have been practicing slavery since the beginning of time and we aren’t gonna stop now until freeing all slaves brings an automatic 500% profit to every slaveowner. No abolitionist will ever change my mind. I’m keeping all my slaves and I don’t care what arguments you pathetic anti slavery types make.

IOW, this is a terrible set of arguments. It’s becoming quite clear none of you have any good ones. It’s sad that you keep holding to such evil practices w/o any care.
pww, you are just an ignorant fool to say that pro lifers ONLY care about the fetus. Why are you indulging in your ignorance?

Peace,
Rhology







45
Rhology - Feb. 20 - 6:50 pm

@JB #41,
Pregnancy is inconvenient when compared to having your skull crushed and your body dismembered by scissors. Think about it.

@Amy #42,
The question of humanity is THE MOST CENTRAL QUESTION HERE. If the fetus is a human being, it is murder to kill him.
I can’t believe you’ve never thought about it, but if not, please let today be the 1st in a long string of wrestling with that question. Stop avoiding it.
You complain about the slave question, but you didn’t give an argument. If I simply respond thusly:

I don’t think you can equate the right of a woman to not undergo the physical and emotional experience of growing another human being inside of her body with the finances and property concerns of a slave owner, especially since in the 19th century South there are no safety nets for owners who go bankrupt, and many of whom own many, many slaves. It’s not as if they’re providing for just one mouth to feed. Pregnant women have it easy. Slave ownership, keeping them in line with physical force (you know, much like forceps, a scalpel, and a suction tube) and maintaining a cotton plantation is much more than just an inconvenience for those who do not want to go bankrupt. But yeah, did you really just equate a slave owner to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?

…have we gotten anywhere? And since you didn’t engage the topic meaningfully, isn’t that your fault?

And no, I didn’t equate them per se. I was making an analogy between 19th century similar questions. I’m sorry if you’re not bright enough to catch it, but that’s typical – the pro-baby-murder side is built on emotion thru and thru.

You want to cast the question in a light that you think is more favorable to you, but that fails badly too, for you are not permitting the baby the same ability to have a say over his/her own body. You never even ask him, do you? You’d just rather kill him so he can’t speak against your brutality and laziness.

I’d like to ask all involved here – is it justifiable to kill a dog for any reason at all?

@Stephen W, #43,
Quoting PZ Myers is not a good way to get a leg up in a rational discussion, FYI. And the man is a teacher at a community college, not a “real actual working biologist”.

Nobody is claiming the embryo is an adult. PZ Myers is either a liar or a fool.
Nobody is claiming they have the same info. PZ Myers is either a liar or a fool.
Nobody is claiming that 46 chromosomes “define a person”. PZ Myers is either a liar or a fool.
PZ makes the naked assertion that the oocyte is not a human, but where’s the argument? How is this helpful to you, Stephen?
PZ asserts a moral statement that we don’t have to cherish all humans. OK, fine. What if I don’t cherish him? Does that mean it would be justifiable for me to lobby to change the law to make it OK for me to kill him? And if I don’t get the law passed, can I resort to back-alley PZ-abortions and have y’all defend my “choice”?
He asserts that value is in the organisation but doesn’t say why. Further, as a staunch Darwinian, he believes the design apparent in nature is merely an illusion foisted on us by our hyperactive agent-detecting instincts. PZ Myers is either a liar or a fool.

By now it should be obvious that Stephen W, while not demonstrably a liar, is demonstrably a fool. Following a fool into something that involves ending lives by the millions is not the best idea I’ve ever heard.

1 comment:

aztexan said...

To hell with the law of the land. Were God to amend His law to allow slaughtering vast numbers of these subhumans merely on the grounds they're stupid, irritating and generally detestable...well, I'd love to do my part to control the sleazebag population.

Put another way, reading this crap never fails to make achingly appealing to me the thought of brutally murdering lots and lots of "adult fetuses." But you won't see me demanding taxpayer subsidies to realize my sick fantasies.